1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "Leo, mikä monumentti tuo on?"

"Leo, mikä monumentti tuo on?"

Translation:Leo, what monument is that?

July 7, 2020



"what is that monument" should be acceptable


"That monument" is totally appropriate in both British English and American English. We need a bit more leeway on translations.


I think "What is that monument?" would be translated with the word order Mikä on tuo monumentti?


The word order would rather be "Mikä tuo monumentti on?". I think that the verb "on" goes to the end of the sentence when something specific is asked, like the particular monument the speaker and Leo are looking at in this exercise.

When something general is asked the verb "on" comes right after the question word: "Mikä on monumentti?" i.e. "What is a monument?". One would use this question if he was wondering what are the general characteristics of any monument instead of asking information about just one monument.

The sentence in this exercise can be seen as an extension to the question "What is that?" / "Mikä tuo on?", in the sense that it is not just asking what is that thing we are looking at, but what monument it is. In other words, the question already tells to the listener that the speaker knows that is a monument, and would like to know some details about it.


I think you're right; Mikä tuo monumentti on? would be correct.


"Mikä tuo monumentti on?"


Do mikä and mitä both mean 'what'? What is the difference between the two?


They're both the same word but in different cases. "Mikä" is nominative case and "mitä" is partitive case.


So in practise "mikä" often asks what is the thing that is doing something, and "mitä" asks what is the thing somebody is doing something at. Let's consider the sentence "a cat is drinking milk", which is "kissa juo maitoa" in Finnish. Now we can ask these two questions (among others): Mikä juo maitoa? -Kissa. Mitä kissa juo? -Maitoa.


Um, exactly what is the fundamental difference between "Leo, what monument is that" and "Leo, what is that monument" such that the former is touted as correct while the latter is marked wrong? It also marked "Leo, what monument is that one" as wrong.


In my opinion the difference is subtle and probably insignificant in practise. However I can see a difference.

A reply to "What monument is that?" could be "It's the Statue of Liberty".

Instead a reply to "What is that monument?" could be "It's a liberty goddess holding a torch and a book." (or also the same as above).


Is there some grammatical reason why I can't say- what is that monument? Which is fine in English but is this a big no-no in Finnish?


I wouldn't say it's incorrect per se, but as the basic question there is "Mikä tuo on?" [What is that?] and it's already known that it is a monument, we ask "mikä monumentti" [what monument] to get further details about the monument rather than asking what a monument is.

There's a slight difference in emphasis on these:

"Mikä monumentti tuo on? (asking what it is about)

"Mikä tuo monumentti on? (asking what it is)


"What is that monument means the" same as "what museum is that" and should therefore be accepted, in my humble opinion.


So much correspondence with which I agree! 'Leo, what monument is that' should be acceptable


Can anyone give me a reason why "which" is not also accepted in place of "what"? Grammar noob here...


"what monument" is bad english (i guess its clear but it is wrong) - should be which

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