1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "uusi kantele ja vanha kantel…

"uusi kantele ja vanha kantele"

Translation:a new kantele and an old kantele

June 30, 2020



I wrote "new kantele and old kantele" and was marked wrong. Is the indefinite article really needed?


No, you could also use definite articles.


Is it correct to use no articles at all? It works in English but not sure if Finnish requires it


Finnish obviously does not require any articles because it doesn't have any articles, but English does require an article in this case. In other cases, some other form of determiner can remove the need for an article, but that is not a possibility for this translation.


Given that this is not a complete sentence the English should not require articles either


I don't see the connection between that premise and the conclusion. Only mass nouns and plural nouns can do without a determiner, except when it comes to some idioms and fixed phrases.


Thinking about it, I couldn't come up with an English sentence where saying it makes sense without an article of some type. Swap out kantele for shoe. When would you ever say "new shoe and old shoe?"


Anyone coming into this course with no knowledge of Finnish but a prior acquaintance with Hungarian will have half an eye looking out for anything remotely resembling that language- given the long-distant shared roots.

My Hungarian and Finnish friends were disappointed to find that they were unable to communicate and could find little in common as far as words went. The two words I've noticed that seem closest so far are No- meaning well, which is Na in Hungarian, and uusi- new, which is uj - pronounced ooy in Hungarian- an easy guess. Whether they have really come from the same root or elsewhere, I don't know.

Don't worry, I'm not expecting to see anything the same- but, as a native English speaker, I'm pleasantly surprised to find that the first parts of the course seem to come so easily. The words seem to stick and the grammar to make sense- so far. Maybe that's the exposure to Hungarian, and that I've had a little bit more experience of trying to learn languages, now. I think the course seems a good one so far- and the audio recording is clear and in a friendly, refreshing voice, which makes a big difference. Thank you to the team! :)


I am a native hungarian and I see a lot of similarities between the two languages.

Finnish and Hungarian "was seperated" more than 6000 years ago so expecting these languagea to be as similar as finnish and estonian is not the right way to look at it.

The way the words are built are very similar to the hungarian way. So is the gramar.

There are about 200 ish similar words from the "common" past, but there are many almost matching english and latin words due to random luck.

To me speaking finnish feels natural and it is very pleasing to my ears. Except when it comes to ä and e. Individually they are the same sound to me, but when they are in the same word I can hear the difference. Although, there are some words where two ä-s sound completly different to me.

Fun fact:there is one part of hungary where people still use e and ä. These people can sound perfect in Finnish after 1 to 3 minutes of practice (you just have to explain to them that y=ü, ä=e, e=? I can't hear the difference...)


If you're native Hungarian speaker, I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference because Hungarian doesn't have the [æ] sound that is symbolised by the letter Ä in Finnish. Since your English seems decent, perhaps it will help knowing it's a sound that is present in English. In many common dialects, it's the vowel sound in words like "cat", "mat", "sat", "rat", "hat", and "pat". If you pronounce the vowel in "pat" as [ɛ] instead of [æ], then you'll actually say "pet", which means something else. It's pretty important to get their distinction right in English as well. You don't want to talk about celery when you meant to talk about salary. The [ɛ] sound is the vowel sound in the Hungarian word "ez". Its place of articulation is pretty close to the place of articulation of the [æ] sound, which makes it pretty tricky to distinguish when you're a native speaker of language that has one of those sounds but not the other. It's more open than the [ɛ] sound, which means that the tongue is further away from the roof of the mouth when it's pronounced. But it's less open than the [a] sound, which is the vowel sound in the Hungarian word "vár". So the way you're supposed to pronounce Ä is like a mix of the "e" in "ez" and the "á" in "vár". This may help you further with telling the difference: https://www.ipachart.com/


Ah i hate "a" and "the"


Does vanha apply as an opposite to nuori as well as to uusi?

Is Mummo on vanha correct, or is there an other-than-inanimate-objects version of vanha?


Yes to the first question and the second question, and no to the third one.



The hän / se, he / ne, human / nonhuman dual approach has me questioning such matters.


"Se" and "ne" can be (and in speech usually is) used to refer to both non-human and human entities.


I tried mixing up and wrote the new kantele and an old kantele, it was marked wrong

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