1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "I am thirsty. Where is the w…

"I am thirsty. Where is the water?"

Translation:Minulla on jano. Missä vesi on?

June 26, 2020



"jano" sounds more like "jaano" here. the "a" sound should be shorter


Yup, we've disabled the listening exercises for this word because the TTS gets it wrong. Unfortunately, we can't disable the sound altogether.


I'm now returning to this lesson to "restore" it, having learned a bit more since I was first here. Do I understand correctly that it is not vesia, partitive, because vesi is the subject?


No, it's not about it being the subject. If you asked "Where is there (some amount of) water?", it'd be the partitive vettä, because water is a mass noun.

It's the nominative because it is a defined amount of the mass noun, and therefore countable.


Thank you for the reply. I don't mean to be dense, but doesn't this particular exercise run counter to later exercises where people seem rather emphatic that a mass noun must be partitive in this general situation? In short, I'm now rather confused. If mehu isn't countable, and maito isn't countable, how is vesi countable? Or is it just that in this instance, vesi happens to be countable (single servings of bottled water?) where the other exercises were so emphatically partitive only because they were there to teach us to use partitive?

Again, thank you for your patience.


More than happy to help!

Hmm, I am looking at the sentences with "maitoa" in them... And I think they are always either sentences where it is an object (Haluatko maitoa? Do you want [some] milk?), or it would be translate as "of milk" in English (lasi maitoa, litra maitoa) so it's "an amount of a larger, mass amount ", or there's some other general idea of "an amount of a larger, mass amount" such as Onko tämä maitoa?.

The partitive is very hard to tease out into rules for a Finnish speaker, because it's not something that is hard for us. (Of course, we make other mistakes in our own language.)

When I'm thinking of this sentence: Missä vesi on? / Where is the water?, it would indeed be the partitive Missä on vettä? i the English were Where is there some water? The English "the" and the Finnish nominative show that it is some specific water that is referred to, that is known to both parties of the conversation. The English is of course awkward, you'd be more like to as whether there is water: Is there any water here?, or something like that, in which case you'd also have the partitive in the Finnish: Onko täällä vettä?

I'm sorry if I'm making this even more confusing :-D You can write in this thread if you want to ask about another sentence which you think doesn't fit this explanation.


Re: Maitoa --yes, exactly; it's always a mass amount. That's what confused me here.

As for this particular sentence, missä vesi on?, I'm glad you agree that it feels more appropriate that it should be partitive, missä on vettä? That makes me hopeful I might be getting a feel for what seems to be a very intuitive element of the language.

The English variant, "where is the water?" is probably exactly the phrase that would be used at, say, a party, where a clearly defined source of water would be made available to those attending the party. So in essence, the question is, "Where is the approved source for obtaining (some) water?"

So much of language is intuitive; the rules seem to come along later and do their best to keep up. I'm a professional writer, a native (American) English speaker, and the language can still catch me out.

Again, thank you for your explanation. I'll return here if I get lost again.


Do you have to say "minulla" on jano. Or can you just say "on jano"


Well, in spoken language "on jano" is acceptable if you refer to yourself, since that's what people would then assume you meant. You can also hear people say just "jano" or "kauhea jano" (kauhea - horrible/terrible), usually combined with some sort or exclamation (Ääh, kauhea jano!). The same goes for "nälkä" (hunger).

"Minulla on nälkä." (I'm hungry)

"On nälkä." (I'm hungry)

"Nälkä!" (I'm hungry!)


Hey! Is Finnish ur first language?


You do indeed have to say who's thirsty. Minulla on jano, ja sinullakin (you too) on jano.


why is "Olen Jano, missa..." worng?


"Olen Jano" would be "I am Thirst". :)

"Jano" is a noun, as opposed to "thirsty", which is an adjective.

"Minulla on jano" - I have (a) thirst"

If you wanted to use an adjective (thirsty), that'd be "janoinen".

(Minä) olen janoinen - I am thirsty


In a book I saw: Minun on jano and Minun on nälkä. Here I see Minulla on nälkä and Minulla on jano. What is the difference ?


The "minun on" construction is very old fashioned and poetic. As in "a translation of the words Jesus said on the cross" old fashioned. For jano, I only see religious references online, for nälkä maybe a few other examples, too (but in blog posts and the like, not in edited texts).

So I wouldn't use these outside in everyday communication. If you are a non native speaker, it's more likely that it would just be understood as a mistake rather than a stylistic choice.


So in finnish you "have a thirst" instead of being thirsty?


'Minulla on jano' is indeed 'I have a thirst'. I believe 'Minä olen janoinen' would be 'I am thirsty'. And I think 'Minä janoan' would be 'I thirst'.

I suspect, but don't know, that 'Minulla on jano' is used more frequently than the other two constructions.


,Missä on vesi , myös oikein

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