1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "Onko teillä jotain kylmää ju…

"Onko teillä jotain kylmää juotavaa?"

Translation:Do you have something cold to drink?

June 24, 2020



Or: "...anything..."


"Anything" would be "mitään"


I don't agree, the standard way to ask a question in English is using "any", "anything", "anyone" etc. Using "something" instead expects a positive response, and I don't believe "jotain" does that - or are you sure they DO have cold drinks when asking that question?

I know Google translate isn't an authority (and it sucks at Finnish), but I tried putting it there and it agrees with me: It translates "Onko teillä jotain kylmää juotavaa?" as "Do you have anything cold to drink?"


"Do you have something cold to drink" and "Do you have anything cold to drink" should be considered synonyms. Using "something" doesn't strongly imply a positive response - you're just less desperately thirsty than the person asking for anything, anything at all! This shade of meaning is tiny, though, and both answers should be accepted.


Juoda vs juotava - where's and what's the difference? Both translate to 'to drink'.


That's only how English expresses it.

Juoda is the infinitive "to drink". It makes no sense in this sentence.

Juotava literally means "drinkable". Hence literally "Do you have something drinkable?" - which then English expresses with "to drink" instead.

  • juotava vesi (juotavaa vettä in partivitve) = drinkable water, i.e. some water that can be drunk, or "some water to drink"
  • juoda vettä = to drink water (infinitive), e.g. Haluan juoda vettä.


This is an awesome explanation, @AgnusOinas. Kiitos!


It seems that if I can replace the word with 'sweet' or 'soda', I'd use juotava.

Minä haluan jotain juotavaa (I want something 'to drink').... which I can say (I want something sweet).

Where as if I want to say Minä haluan juoda mehua (I want to drink juice) .... Juoda comesa after haluan (I want TO DRINK).

I hope this helps.


I understand juotavaa means drinkable but why is that used here instead of juoda? Do you have something cold drinkable? Wouldnt it be "do you have something cold that is drinkable"?


You should stop expecting other languages to behave like English.

"Do you have something cold?" and "Do you have something drinkable?" are both correct sentences, aren't they? For some funky reason, you can't combine those two in English into "...something cold drinkable", but you most certainly can do that in languages like Finnish - it's also very logical and straight forward.

On the other hand, "Onko teillä jotain juoda?" sounds completely broken in Finnish. Using an infinitive like that sounds broken in lots of other languages as well: "Haben Sie etwas trinken?", "Máte něco pít?", "Avez-vous quelque chose boire?" - all these are horribly mangled sentences (well, except for the Czech one, only it means "Are you supposed to drink something?" instead of "Do you have something to drink?).

Even though "to drink" can be an infinitive in English, I believe this specific "to drink" in "Do you have something to drink?" is not an infinitive - the "to" functions like a preposition here. Finnish has no such preposition and the easiest and most natural way to link "to drink" to the rest of the sentence is by using "juotava" (literally drinkable) and putting it in partitive (juotavaa) to match "jotain".


In the English sentence, "Do you have something cold to drink?", "to drink" is a passive infinitive. It can be roughly expanded to "Do you have something cold to be drunk?" The "something cold" is being drunk, it isn't doing the drinking.

Juoda is an active infinitive. An active infinitive could theoretically be used in a sentence like Haluan hänen juoda, "I want him to drink". He isn't being drunk; he's doing the drinking.

Finnish doesn't have passive infinitives. Instead, it has passive participles. Juotava means "being drunk", or "which is drunk". So a more grammatically literal translation of Onko teillä jotain kylmää juotavaa? would be "Do you have something cold which is drunk?"


'Have you' should be an acceptable alternative to 'Do you have'.


I was expecting "teillä on", why can we skip it in this case?


What do you mean? "teillä on" is included in the answer and cannot be skipped. "Onko teillä jotain kylmää juotavaa?"


Oh that's where it was. I was naively expecting it to be after "teillä" instead of being in first position and suffixed by -ko. Thanks for the clarification!


Well, that's how you form questions in Finnish.

  • Minä olen poika. -> Olenko minä poika?
  • Se on kahvia. -> Onko se kahvia?
  • Tytöt ovat tuolla. -> Ovatko tytöt tuolla?
  • Hanellä on aikaa. -> Onko hänellä aikaa?


have you got something cold to drink? :´(


I wish you Duo would catch a misread on the instruction. Countless times I don't catch that I should type what I here and not translate. It should be pretty obvious that when the entire response is correctly translated to English, that I misread the instruction. When the answer is in English and the instruction is to type what you here, why not flag it and say "Duo is looking to type what you here"? instead of just marking it wrong. It's very frustrating.

Learn Finnish in just 5 minutes a day. For free.