Tilisiirto on jo tehty, joten lasku on maksettu.

Breakdown of Tilisiirto on jo tehty, joten lasku on maksettu.

olla
to be
joten
so
tehdä
to make
maksaa
to pay
jo
already
tilisiirto
bank transfer
lasku
bill
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Tilisiirto on jo tehty, joten lasku on maksettu.

Why does the sentence use on ... tehty and on ... maksettu instead of a simple past tense like tehtiin / maksettiin?

on tehty and on maksettu are the perfect tense in Finnish: olla (on) + past participle. It focuses on a completed action with a relevant result now (the transfer is done; the invoice is in the “paid” state).

  • Tilisiirto tehtiin = “The transfer was made” (simple past narration, more like telling what happened).
  • Tilisiirto on tehty = “The transfer has been made / is done (now).”

What exactly are tehty and maksettu grammatically?

They are past participles.

  • tehty = past participle of tehdä (“to do/make”), in the form used in this construction.
  • maksettu = past participle of maksaa (“to pay”), with the common passive-style participle ending -ttu/-ty.

In this kind of sentence, Finnish very often uses the participle form that corresponds to “has been done/paid” in English.


Is this passive voice? Who made the transfer / who paid?

Yes, the phrasing is effectively agentless (passive-like): it states that the actions are done, without saying who did them. That’s common in Finnish when the doer is unknown, irrelevant, or intentionally not mentioned.

If you want to specify the doer, you’d typically use an active sentence, e.g.

  • Olen jo tehnyt tilisiirron, joten olen maksanut laskun. = “I’ve already made the transfer, so I’ve paid the invoice.” Or:
  • Teimme jo tilisiirron, joten maksoimme laskun. = “We already made the transfer, so we paid the invoice.”

Why is tilisiirto in the basic form (nominative) and not something like tilisiirron?

Because tilisiirto is the subject of the clause Tilisiirto on jo tehty (“The bank transfer has been made”). In Finnish, the subject is normally nominative.

If you switch to an active sentence, the transfer becomes an object and then you’d use the accusative/genitive-looking form:

  • Olen tehnyt tilisiirron. (object: tilisiirron)

So the case changes depending on the sentence structure.


Same question for lasku: why is it lasku and not laskun?

For the same reason: lasku is the subject of lasku on maksettu (“The invoice has been paid”). In an active version, it would be an object:

  • Olen maksanut laskun. (object: laskun)

What does jo mean here, and where can it go in the sentence?

jo means “already.” It usually goes near the verb phrase it modifies:

  • Tilisiirto on jo tehty = “The transfer has already been made.”

Other placements are possible for emphasis, but this is the most neutral:

  • Tilisiirto on tehty jo can sound a bit more emphatic (“It’s done already”), depending on context.

What does joten mean, and how is it different from koska?

joten means “so / therefore,” introducing a consequence:

  • “Transfer is done, so the invoice is paid.”

koska means “because,” introducing a reason:

  • Lasku on maksettu, koska tilisiirto on jo tehty. = “The invoice is paid because the transfer has already been made.”

So:

  • joten = result/conclusion
  • koska = cause/explanation

Why is there a comma before joten?

In Finnish, you normally put a comma between two independent clauses (each could stand as a sentence), and especially before connectors like joten.

  • Tilisiirto on jo tehty, joten lasku on maksettu.

Each part is a complete clause:

  • Tilisiirto on jo tehty.
  • Lasku on maksettu.

Does on maksettu mean “has been paid” or “is paid”? Which is more accurate?

It can function as either in English, depending on context:

  • Result-focused: “The invoice has been paid.”
  • State-focused: “The invoice is paid.”

Finnish on + participle often strongly implies the resulting state (it’s now in the “paid” condition), while still being grammatically perfect.


Is Tilisiirto on jo tehty more natural than Tilisiirto on tehty jo?

Yes. on jo tehty is the more neutral, common ordering because jo typically sits right before the participle/verb part it modifies.

  • Neutral: on jo tehty
  • More emphatic/marked: on tehty jo (“done already!”)

Could you replace tilisiirto with another word like pankkisiirto?

Often, yes, depending on what kind of payment you mean.

  • tilisiirto is a very standard term for a bank transfer / account transfer (common in invoices and payment contexts).
  • pankkisiirto can also mean “bank transfer,” but tilisiirto is especially common in everyday Finnish banking/payment language.

If this was talking about an earlier point in the past (not “now”), what would change?

You’d typically use the pluperfect (past perfect): oli + participle.

  • Tilisiirto oli jo tehty, joten lasku oli maksettu. = “The transfer had already been made, so the invoice had been paid.”

That shifts the reference point from “now” to “then.”