1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "I can hear that the bears ar…

"I can hear that the bears are near."

Translation:Minä kuulen, että karhut ovat lähellä.

July 12, 2020



Should: kuulen että karhut ovat lähellä, be accepted, too?

[deactivated user]


    I also think it should be accepted


    Absolutely. The 1st & 2nd person pronouns arent obligatory in Finnish 99% of the time.


    Still insisting on minä. 2012-11-20


    I think the use of "can" here is misrepresentative and redundant.


    Yes, I agree. When the infinitive was required as an answer to a question, I submitted "to (be able) to hear", as iI could not figure out how to put can in the infinitive. It was rejected.


    And saying "can hear" means something different in english. I think they're confusing listen and hear, and trying to make a distinction.


    2nd vote for "kuulen, että karhut ovat lähellä" being acceptable.


    The word "can" threw me here. Shouldn't the English be "I hear that the bears are near"?


    I agree with you. Otherwise the translation in Finnish should be minä voin kuulla että...


    Or even without "that".

    [deactivated user]

      It's annoying that they sporadically accept Minä sometimes. Also can here is osan kuulla or voin kuulla


      I think the English sentence is just badly written, as many people already mentioned. Voin yes osAAN... That sounds a bit weird. For starters you would need the other A (osata --- osAAN, 4th verb group), but also that is... really weird. I would translate to something like... I have an ability to hear. We all have. Unless you are a superhero that has some amazing hearing and you can hear the bears from 5 miles (that would be impressive though!)


      Can is confusing!


      There's a lot of confusion about the word "can," and I imagine once there is a "tips" page for the lesson where kuulla is introduced, it'll be explained, but here's my take.

      To "hear" is a complicated verb in English, when the object of the hearing is a subordinate clause, with "that."

      If you said, in English, "I hear that the bears are near," you could be saying that you hear growling and rustling sounds and have concluded that the bears are near. But, the same sentence could also mean that someone told you that the bears are near, similar to "I hear that you're married now," for example. You probably didn't hear the sounds of the marriage happening.

      By using "can," it sounds to me like the course is trying to narrow in on the specific meaning of "to hear" as "to hear sounds" specifically.

      So, Finnish speakers: Is "kuulla" specifically about hearing sounds, or can it also be used like my marriage example above?


      Kuulin, että menit naimisiin is definitely the idiomatic way to express the idea that someone told me that you got married.

      While at it, if I were in a forest and hear some sounds that I make a conclusion that some bears must be nearby, I would not use the verb kuulla. I would turn to that other person and say Kuuntele! Karhuja on (varmaan) lähellä, Listen! There must be (some) bears nearby. So in essence the Finnish sentence has mixed kuulla and kuunnella as the user graidan pointed out.

      • 218

      also "voin kuulla".

      • 218

      Perhaps the best Finnish would be "Kuulen karhujen olevan lähellä".


      Yes, that would be idiomatic, but it contains a participial phrase in form of a VA-participle which is not part of the course. So you had to turn it to a subclause, Kuulen, että karhut ovat lähellä, which is the sentence here – with all its issues.


      Kuulen without minä still not accepted


      It still doesn't accept the answer without minä


      How do I know when to use the personal pronoun and when to only use the correct conjugation of the verb? The answer I gave was "Kuulen, että karhut ovat lähellä" Why was it marked wrong?


      You are okay. See the comments above; the answer without minä should also be accepted.


      You should ONLY need a pronoun when it's third person (he, she, it, they). Any other time, it's an error and you should report it


      I was marked wrong for not saying "minä."


      That is super frustrating, especially because it's so random. I just finished a lesson where for one sentence i didn't use the pronoun (minä), so it was wrong, and then the very next, i made sure to use the pronoun (sinä) and it was wrong again!


      Minä ossan kuula, että karhut ovat lähellä.

      Why is a literal translation (with I can hear) WRONG when literal translations are required elsewhere in this lesson?


      Literal translation is Minä voin kuulla..

      "Can" is '"osata" or "voida" in Finnish, and in this case "voida" is what we use.


      Is Osaan kuulla wrong here?


      I think osaan is more like "know how to". I think you'd want 'voin'. THat seems to be the case from one o fthe comments above, anyway.


      Minä osaan - I can ... and the answer is maked incorrect and the mouse over even states OSAAN !!??

      will report


      This sentence is indeed a tricky one, mostly because of how the two languages express matters – and the Finnish sentence has mixed the verbs kuulla and kuunnella (see the discussion here).

      The English "can" is a very ambiquous word, its meaning can vary from "to be capable" to "to be allowed" and possibly several more.

      However Duolingo goes out from the assumption that the language to be taught is always the original one. So let us see what we have there. In Finnish there are verbs like kyetä, pystyä, voida and osata with different meanings – and all translatable to "can". (See my comment in another discussion for their differences.) But here we have none of those and correct so, since a native speaker would hardly use any in this situation. In the unlikely event a native speaker would use one of those, it most definitely would not be osata.

      • 218

      I think you might well say "(minä) voin kuulla...", but absolutely better is "kuulen...".

      Also in English you can throw the word "can" away: "I hear the bears are near". (I think it´s better so.)


      Why is 'ovat' needed here?


      In the sentence Minä kuulen, että karhut ovat lähellä there are two clauses:

      • the main clause Minä kuulen
      • the subclause että karhut ovat lähellä

      A main clause and a subclause are always separated with a comma. In order to be a full clause (such as a main clause or a subclause) a clause must have a predicate or a verb that is conjugated somehow, like kuulen and ovat here.

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