1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "Me nousemme nopeasti ylös, k…

"Me nousemme nopeasti ylös, koska karhut ovat lähellä."

Translation:We get up quickly, because the bears are near.

June 29, 2020



What's wrong with translation, " We are getting up fast because the bears are close"


Added! It may take a week or two for the system to adopt it. Please use the flag to report anything odd. :)


It sounds wrong. Sounds better to remove the second THE... We get up quickly, because bears are nearby.


That would be Me nousemme nopeasti ylös, koska lähellä on karhuja.. :)


If it's an already established grouo of bears that have been hunting you down then adding the THE would be fine


Can anyone explain why nopeasti comes between nousemme and ylös?


The adverb comes (usually) after the verb.

Nousemme nopeasti ylös || 'nousemme' is the verb, nopeasti is the adverb and 'ylös' is a word that is added when talking about getting up. Ylös = up


But you can also say 'nousemme ylös nopeasti'. It doesn't have that much difference, so use what seems good for you


What I'm having a hard time understanding isn't even mentioned yet ... i.e. "nousta" is the verb "to get up" and "ylös" translates as "up". So this sentence begins with "We get up quickly up ..." ???


While with the verb "nousta" the direction is always up, adding "ylös" restricts its meaning a little. With "ylös" the verb is likely to be concrete - "I get up from the the chair", "I get out of bed" etc. If you leave the "ylös" out you can also use the verb "nousta" for more abstract things like "A storm is rising." "The sun rises." "She rose to power." "The question arose in the meeting." "I rise to second this motion."

I wish I could say "nousta ylös" = "to get up" and "nousta" = "to rise" but it's not quite that simple. Often you can either add of leave out "ylös" and the context will still make clear what you mean. "Nousen tuolilta." and "Nousen ylös tuolilta." mean the same. If unsure, I'd leave it out because with some of the abstract meanings you can't use it.

Some examples:

"Nouse ylös!" = "Get up!" "Nouse!" = The same, except dramatic, or Jesus telling a dead person to rise and walk.

"Nouse vuorelle."/"Nouse ylös vuorelle." = "Go up the mountain/Go to the top of the mountain." Since the meaning is concrete anyway, there is little change.

"Hän nousi portaat ylös eduskuntataloon." = "She went up the stairs to the parliament building."

"Hän nousi eduskuntaan." = "She rose to/was elected to the parliament (for the first time or after a break)."


After submitting a correct answer the hint claimed I had a typo, however "closeby" is not a word, it's two words "close by."


That seems to have been fixed now.


Wiktionary claims 'closeby' is an alternate form of 'close by', but is less common.


A normal day in Finland. :)


I think with the brown bear (which we have here in Finland), you are supposed to get up slowly and retreat while keeping an eye on it but not staring at it. You should also talk calmly, to show that everything is cool and that you are not a threat, but not make loud or sudden noises. It may get up on its hind legs, but that's not an attack, that's just getting a better view. If you have an item you can leave behind, such as a hat or a bucket (since you're probably in the forest picking berries...), it will start sniffing it and you can get away. Only if it actually charges at you, are you supposed to lie down and protect your head...


Interesting. Brown bears here in North America you want to try and look big and intimidating, yell and make a racket, and they bolt (done it often, myself; they come into the yard when the apple trees start dropping fruit). Grizzlies... back away slowly without making eye contact. And hope they aren't hungry, or that there's a cub nearby. I've heard praying is good, too, if you believe in that sort of thing.


You mean like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7_pVrIshxA

I have the impression that the same is true for brown bears in Finland. According to public records, only one person has been killed by a bear in Finland. That was of course a mama bear being protective of her cub. As long as no little ones are nearby, they'll try to avoid you more than you try to avoid them.


Yes, pretty much exactly like that. I believe I've even used similar language.

If cubs are involved --ENTIRELY different situation. Much more dangerous. Likewise, if the bear has nowhere to run: sometimes they'll break into a house while the owner is out, to look for food, then the owner returns, the bear feels trapped in the house, and the outcome isn't so amusing.

Grizzlies are an entirely different matter, though. Very, very dangerous critters.

A bear-country joke: You should wear little bells, when hiking in bear country, to make sure you don't accidentally sneak up on a bear and incite an attack, and you should carry a can of pepper-spray, in case the bear gets aggressive. You should also learn to identify what sort of bears are in the area by observing their scat: Brown bear scat contains the remains of roots and berries and the occasional rodent, while grizzly scat contains little bells and smells of pepper-spray.


Never heard of anyone carrying pepper-spray though.

Probably because it's illegal to carry and difficult to acquire unless you work in security or law enforcement, which is pretty silly since self-defense without it is likely to result in injuries and/or be ineffective.


People who like picking berries and mushrooms sometimes wear bands of bells around their ankles or wrists in the eastern parts of Finland. Never heard of anyone carrying pepper-spray though. It's so useless that I haven’t even heard jokes about it. :)


Well it isn't like it's very effective. At least not against grizzlys.

Karhut haluavat pepperspray; se on mauste!


Karhut haluavat pippurisumutetta. Niille se on mauste.


Although if I ever do meet one in the wild, I will probably freeze from fear and fascination and get eaten... :-D

I should practice staying cool with the ones in the zoo in Helsinki, from across the glass window, obviously.


Would it be fair to translate this sentence as "We get up quickly because there are bears nearby?"

My thinking is that karhut could mean either "the bears" or "bears," and "because bears are nearby" doesn't feel as correct in English.


No, that's a different sentence in Finnish: Me nousemme nopeasti ylös, koska lähellä on karhuja.

Karhut kan mean either "the bears" or "bears" if there is no context on whether we know the particular bears exist or are just talking about bears in general (for example "Karhut nukkuvat talviunta = Bears hibernate or The bears hibernate"). But here, we know it's a (very!) particular situation, and thefore that the karhut are specific when using this construction in Finnish.


Like @Emery__ I tried translating it as "We get up quickly because bears are near." (Just for giggles; I am fascinated by the lack of articles in Finnish.) It was pronounced wrong, despite being a gramatically correct sentence in English --because, as you describe, it's not a correct translation.

So does that –ja ending on karhuja provide a partitive-style indefinite implication all on its own, or is the entire phrase taken as a whole, ...koska lähellä on karhuja, with its adjective-before-noun structure necessary to remove the implication of a definite article?

In other words, would ...koska karhuja on lähellä work just as well to warn that bears (in general, no definite article) are near?


The partitive karhuja in itself doesn't directly implicate them being indefinite. It's all about the role of the word in the sentence. There are many different uses for the partitive, and for example the sentence Silitän karhuja can mean either "I am petting the bears" or "I am petting bears". (Or I am ironing either...).

...koska karhuja on lähellä doesn't sound natural in Finnish. But the "indefiniteness" of the bears is indeed clear from it.


Kiitos. There's a tickle in my brain that assures me ...koska lähellä on karhuja makes intuitive sense, but I don't yet know the language well enough to describe why, or replicate the effect reliably in another context.

I have a feeling I will come to enjoy partitive as a versatile tool. Until then, I'll try not to let it baffle me too badly.


Your instincts serve you well. :) Word order in Finnish is often important when you think about whether the English translation should have definite or indefinite bears, owls, wizards, or Jedis. The earlier something appears in the Finnish sentence, the more likely it is definite in the English sentence. If a sentence has no object, but it does have a word that gives a location, the location goes first whenever the subject not that well-known or defined.

  • Karhut kävelevät metsässä. The bears are walking in the/a forest.
  • Metsässä kävelee karhuja. There are (some) bears walking in the/a forest.
  • Tuolla kävelee velhoja! There are (some) wizards walking over there!


Okay; I can see that. Put the better-known factor first.

The bear situation has been explored and undestood, for quantity or type? "(The) Bears are in the forest."

Not so sure about the bears? "In the forest are (some) bears."

Kiitos. I like to imagine I'll understand it eventually.


Isn't this a correct translation? "We rise up quickly, because bears are near."


Nope, please read the answers to the very similar questions above. These are specific bears, the "the" is needed. Otherwise it'd be lähellä on karhuja.


I must say, I hate this new display format where all the anwers and replies to replies to replies get squished to one side, but I'm glad the answers I wanted were hiding in there.


Why did i get a mistake with: We get up quickly, because bears are near?


See above. You missed out a "the".


We get quickly up - should also be accepted, "quickly up" and "up quickly" are the same - reported

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