1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "Au! Kengässä on kivi."

"Au! Kengässä on kivi."

Translation:Ouch! There is a rock in the shoe.

July 11, 2020



How about: There is a stone in the shoe. Or, better still, there is a stone in my shoe


Yep. :)

Kengässäni on kivi. - There's a stone on my shoe.


Hups, IN my shoe. :P

If the stone/rock were ON your shoe, you'd say either "Kengälläni on kivi" or "Kenkäni päällä on kivi".


"In my shoe" would require stacking case endings, which they've wisely avoided doing too early.

Also flag it if stone is not accepted but rock sounds perfectly normal in my English.


It’s simply very unnatural English to say “in the shoe”. Regardless of whether “my” is present in the Finnish sentence, “... in my shoe” is a better translation.

I agree with you about “rock”. I very rarely say “stone”. It’s more common in some dialects than others.


Rock is -kallio-.


But, I regret, maybe not in snyone else's.

Rock is what you climb, have falling on your head, or maybe 3rd from the sun, or what used to be music. Ie. Generally BIG.

Stones tend to be what you have in a ring or a shoe, hence are comparatively small.

So either its a big shoe, or you have kicked it (rather than stepped on it) when trying to put the shoe on.


If there´s a rock in the shoe what size is the shoe?


stone, not rock, a rock is much bigger, and would not fit into a normal shoe!


Should be my shoe as the speaker has said Ouch.


In America, you'd probably be more likely to hear "rock" instead of "stone" for this purpose, so the answer is to be expected for an American company. ;-)

My issue is with "in the shoe" instead of "in my shoe." The speaker said "ouch" but assuming they were complaining about said rock in said shoe, they would have said "my shoe" instead of "the shoe".


A rock is usually much bigger than a shoe.


I have only ever heard: There is a rock in my shoe. Stone in my shoe sounds weird to me...


I suppose this is the nature of the english language, it is spoken by so many diverse communities in different parts of the world. We should all probably stick to saying what our version of english includes (this is a mistake I have definitely been making in these forums, to say "not that", so I don't mean to be judgey, except of myself) rather than saying "oh that's something we would never say". Because where I come from, rock sounds weird, and where you come from, stone sounds weird. So I guess the best thing to conclude is that both are acceptable.


To a speaker of British English, "There is a rock in my shoe" sounds very strange. The norm is "There's a stone in my shoe".


I flagged also but just adding to the chorus of "rock is too big for a shoe"


I made a mistake here in saying "not rock": stone is right for me, rock is right for others, let's have both.


Pronunciation is bad, you do not say the G in kengässä


Yeah just to add to the "a rock sounds weird it should be a stone" chorus. Ans my shoe would sound more like a real thing someone would say, but I get that might complicate the Finnish.


All a bit weird in English. The translation might be right but what we would actually say is "ouch, there's a stone in my shoe" (NB rocks are big and wouldn't fit in a shoe!)


I think we have to confine ourselves to noting what is used in our language rather than what is not. To you and I (I am a native British English speaker) rock sounds stupid but it’s clear from comments here and elsewhere that for American English speakers, rock is the word that they use and stone sounds stupid.


Being the "shopping" section, I'm imagining a shoe-store scenario where the person saying "au!" goes to try on a shoe they haven't bought, only to discover there's something in it, hence they use "the shoe" and not "my shoe" =p

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