1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "Nuori venäläinen mies on lah…

"Nuori venäläinen mies on lahjakas tanssija."

Translation:The young, Russian man is a talented dancer.

June 28, 2020



Lahjakas can be "gifted." it's even part of the finnish word's root!


"gifted" should be accepted


Note that the absence or presence of a comma makes a difference in Finnish:

  • Nuori venäläinen mies on lahjakas tanssija. : there are at least two Russian men of which the young one is a talented dancer
  • Nuori, venäläinen mies on lahjakas tanssija. : there is a single Russian man who is young and a talented dancer

In other words without a comma the attributes pile up. In the first sentence nuori describes venäläinen. With a comma the attributes are equal-valued, i.e. you could say Nuori mies, joka on venäläinen, on lahjakas tanssija.

I do not know if the comma in English works in the same way.


It does. The red, old car is appropriate where you are referring to a car which is both red and old. There may be no other cars, but this particular car is both red and old. The red old car is appropriate where you are referring to a car which, among the old cars, is the red one.


In the fast version it's "lahjakas", but in the slowed down version it sounds "plahjakas". Am I the only one who hears this?


"The Russian young man" not acceptable?


yeah, "young" has to go before "Russian"


Maybe I'm missing something, but I am not sure why "lahjakas" has an 's' on the end. Is it just part of the word that must be learnt, or is it a case ending we haven't gotten to yet? It feels like the latter, but there's no hints or anything listing the word and/or explaining it.


I'm not sure why you think it shouldn't be there. "Lahjaka" is not a Finnish word. "Lahjakas" consists of two morphemes: "lahja" and "kas". The former means "gift" and the latter is a suffix that derives adjectives from some nouns. The semantically closest English equivalent is pretty much totally equivalent, because it's "gifted" and its structure can be broken down and analysed the exact same way.


I didn't say it shouldn't be there, just that I didn't understand why it was. So it is part of an affix, even if not a case ending. It just seemed like there was more than one component there. Maybe I'm gaining a tiny bit of feel for the language? :) At any rate, thanks for the explanation!


Finnish has lots of these kinds of suffixes (generally suffixes are preferred over prefixes) like -kas or -nen, -la, -sto, -mo, etc. that are used to form e.g. diminutives (-nen) or new words for collective nouns for a bunch of stuff (kirjasto "library", where kirja is "book") or places where a certain thing is done (korjaamo "repair shop" from korjaa "fix" (3rd person singular/singular imperative)), and so on. But it's worth noting they are not considered inflection in the same way as e.g. noun cases, but are part of a system of how Finnish forms new words out of old ones.

P.S. Finnish does have adjectives ending in -s, for example, that aren't formed by any suffix like this, or from regular inflection. So your original assumption was probably mostly a lucky guess, which is also shown by the fact that you didn't guess correctly where the root-suffix split was.

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