Log inSign up

Sähköpostiosoite puuttuu tästä viestistä, joten en voi vastata.

Sähköpostiosoite puuttuu tästä viestistä, joten en voi vastata.
The email address is missing from this message, so I can’t reply.
Elon.io is an online learning platform
We have an entire course teaching Finnish grammar and vocabulary.

Start learning Finnish now

Questions & Answers about Sähköpostiosoite puuttuu tästä viestistä, joten en voi vastata.

Why is sähköpostiosoite (email address) in the basic form (nominative) and not in the partitive or genitive?

With the verb puuttua (to be missing / to be lacking), the “thing that is missing” is typically the grammatical subject, and it usually appears in the nominative:

  • Sähköpostiosoite puuttuu… = The email address is missing…

So sähköpostiosoite behaves like the subject of the sentence, not like an object.

What does puuttuu mean here, and how does it work grammatically?

Puuttuu is the 3rd person singular present of puuttua. It commonly means to be missing / to be absent / to be lacking.

A very typical pattern is:

  • X puuttuu jostakin = X is missing from something

So in the sentence:

  • Sähköpostiosoite puuttuu tästä viestistä = The email address is missing from this message
Why does Finnish say tästä viestistä (literally “from this message”)? Why “from”?

Finnish expresses “missing from” using the elative case (ending -sta/-stä), which often corresponds to from/out of in English.

  • viesti = message
  • viestistä = from the message / out of the message
  • tästä = from this (elative of tämä)

So tästä viestistä is a common Finnish way to say from this message.

Why are there two words in the elative: tästä and viestistä? Isn’t one enough?

Finnish often uses a demonstrative + noun together, and both inflect:

  • tästä = from this
  • viestistä = from message

Together: tästä viestistä = from this message

You can say only tästä if the noun is obvious from context:

  • Sähköpostiosoite puuttuu tästä. = The email address is missing from this (one).

But the full form is clearer and very normal.

Could the word order be changed (e.g., Tästä viestistä puuttuu sähköpostiosoite)?

Yes. Finnish word order is flexible, and both are natural:

  • Sähköpostiosoite puuttuu tästä viestistä. (focus on the missing item)
  • Tästä viestistä puuttuu sähköpostiosoite. (focus on “from this message”)

The choice mainly affects emphasis/topic, not basic meaning.

What is joten, and how is it different from niin or siksi?

Joten means so / therefore, introducing a conclusion:

  • …, joten en voi vastata. = …, so I can’t reply.

Related words:

  • siksi = therefore / for that reason (often used as an adverb: Siksi en voi vastata.)
  • niin can sometimes mean so in speech, but joten is a very standard “therefore” connector in writing.
Why is there a comma before joten?

In Finnish, it’s common to put a comma before connectors like joten when they join two clauses:

  • Sähköpostiosoite puuttuu tästä viestistä, joten en voi vastata.

This mirrors the idea that you have two parts: 1) the reason
2) the result

How does en voi vastata work? Why is voi not voin?

Finnish negation uses a special negative auxiliary (en/et/ei/emme/ette/eivät) and the main verb takes a special form called the connegative.

  • minä voin = I can (affirmative)
  • minä en voi = I cannot (negative)

So voi here is the connegative form used with en (not the normal voin).

Why is vastata in the infinitive form?

Because voida (can/to be able to) is a modal verb. After modal verbs, Finnish uses the basic infinitive:

  • voin vastata = I can reply
  • en voi vastata = I can’t reply
Reply to what? Shouldn’t there be an object like “to this message”?

It can be omitted if it’s obvious from context. En voi vastata can stand alone as I can’t reply / I can’t respond.

If you want to be explicit, Finnish often uses:

  • vastata tähän viestiin = reply to this message (illative: “into/to”)
  • vastata sinulle = reply to you (allative: “to”)

So you might also see:

  • …, joten en voi vastata tähän viestiin.