Tämän kahvinkeitimen takuu on vielä voimassa.

The warranty for this coffee maker is still valid.

Breakdown of Tämän kahvinkeitimen takuu on vielä voimassa.

• olla: to be
• tämä: this
• vielä: still
• kahvinkeitin: coffee maker
• takuu: warranty
• voimassa: valid; in force

Questions & Answers about Tämän kahvinkeitimen takuu on vielä voimassa.

What is the subject in this sentence, and why is takuu in the basic form?

The subject is takuu (warranty). In a basic equational clause with olla (to be), the subject is typically in the nominative (dictionary form), so takuu stays nominative. The rest of the sentence adds information about that subject: on vielä voimassa = is still valid/in force.

Why are both tämän and kahvinkeitimen in the genitive?

Because they form a genitive noun phrase meaning of this coffee maker:

• tämä (this) → genitive tämän
• kahvinkeitin (coffee maker) → genitive kahvinkeitimen

In Finnish, demonstratives and adjectives agree in case and number with the noun they modify, so tämän matches kahvinkeitimen. The whole genitive phrase tämän kahvinkeitimen then modifies takuu: the warranty of this coffee maker.

How do I know that tämän kahvinkeitimen modifies takuu and not something else?

Finnish often stacks modifiers before the head noun. Here, the structure is:

• [tämän kahvinkeitimen] takuu = the warranty [of this coffee maker] Then the verb phrase:
• on vielä voimassa = is still valid

So the natural grouping is tämän kahvinkeitimen takuu as one noun phrase.

What is the dictionary form of kahvinkeitimen, and why does it change to -imen?

The dictionary form is kahvinkeitin. Its genitive singular is kahvinkeitimen.

This is a regular declension pattern for many -in nouns:

• nominative: kahvinkeitin
• genitive: kahvinkeitimen
• partitive: kahvinkeitintä

So -in → -imen in the genitive is just how this noun type inflects.

Why is it written as one word: kahvinkeitin? And why does it contain kahvin?

It is a compound noun, and Finnish compounds are usually written as one word. It’s built from:

• kahvin = genitive of kahvi (coffee)
• keitin = device for brewing/boiling (a brewer/maker)

So kahvinkeitin literally means coffee-brewer/maker, i.e. coffee maker. Using the genitive kahvin- as the first part is very common in Finnish compounds.

What exactly is voimassa here, and what case is it?

voimassa is the inessive form (-ssa/-ssä) of voima (strength/power). Literally it’s something like in force/within force, but in modern Finnish olla voimassa is a fixed expression meaning to be valid / to be in effect (used for warranties, laws, contracts, tickets, etc.).

Is voimassa an adjective? Why isn’t it something like an adjective meaning valid?

In this expression, voimassa functions like an adverbial/state phrase, not a typical adjective. Finnish often expresses states with case forms like this:

• on voimassa = is valid/in effect There are adjectives related to validity (like voimassa oleva = currently valid, literally being in force), but for warranties the idiomatic everyday choice is on voimassa.

What does vielä contribute, and where can it go in the sentence?

vielä means still: the warranty has not expired yet.

It’s flexible, but these are common:

• Takuu on vielä voimassa.
• Takuu on voimassa vielä. (often with contrast/emphasis: it’s valid still, at least for now)

Close alternatives:

• yhä / edelleen = also still, slightly more formal/neutral than vielä in some contexts.

How would I make this sentence negative?

Common negatives are:

• Tämän kahvinkeitimen takuu ei ole enää voimassa. = The warranty is no longer valid.
• Tämän kahvinkeitimen takuu ei ole vielä voimassa. = The warranty is not valid yet. (different meaning)

Notice:

• on → ei ole
• vielä (still/yet) vs enää (anymore) changes the meaning.

How do I turn it into a yes/no question?

Invert the verb to the front and add -ko/-kö:

• Onko tämän kahvinkeitimen takuu vielä voimassa? = Is the warranty for this coffee maker still valid?