1. Forum
  2. >
  3. Topic: Finnish
  4. >
  5. "Suo on täällä, joten joki on…

"Suo on täällä, joten joki on tuolla."

Translation:The bog is over here, so the river is over there.

July 13, 2020



How important is it to distinguish between "here" and "over here"? I think "The bog is here..." should also be accepted.

[deactivated user]

    I am not sure it differs in English, and you may be right on that count. However, in order to clarify the meaning of the Finnish word it distinguishes between 'tuo' meaning 'that' and tuolla meaning 'over there' (as the suffix '-lla' is a locative. While doing duolingo in the English translate I look for clarification of the Finnish, rather than eloquent English.


    I agree with your general principle, but here I think the question was about the first "here", which is indeed completely superfluous.


    Finnish has three distances (as do Japanese, Ukrainian etc.), which go through all pronouns and adverbs that express, eh, distances.

    • tämä : this one, by me

    • tuo : that one, by you

    • se : that one over there, neither by me nor by you


    • tässä, täällä : here, close to me

    • tuossa, tuolla : there, close to you (a short distance from me)

    • siinä, siellä : over there, neither close to me nor you


    • näin : this way, my way

    • noin : that way, your way

    • niin : that way, neither my nor your way

    How to map these three distances into a language with just two (like English, Swedish, German…) can be puzzling. I learnt from the elementary school to use for instance for the second group of three above "here", "there" and "over there". Later I learnt that you can use "over" to emphasise, "over here". This gives me headache: does "over there" mean siellä or is an emphasised tuolla?


    Well, there is archaic yonder/yon, which I imagine is cognate with German jener, and which corresponds to your "third person" locations. People would object if you required them to use yonder (and they will object if you don't, because people object), but pointing out the similarity might make things clear.


    Super explanation! Thanks juha.


    I would be tempted to translate 'joten' as 'hence' or 'thus' to be more specific?... or even to say 'and so'


    Hence and therefore are already accepted. Edit: We also added thus.


    Why is the translation there is a bog over here, so the river is over there wrong? We were forced to translate with the extra there until now... So this should be correct as well!


    Nope, that's a different sentence.

    Suo on tällä = The bog is over here. (It is a bog we know about.)

    Täällä on suo = There is a bog over here. (It is a bog we are only now hearing about.)

    The word order does make a difference in Finnish, despite persistent rumours to the contrary.


    Exactly, you put the topic in the beginning and after that what you want to say about it.


    What I wonder, is whether 'Täällä on suo' could be translated as 'Over here is a bog'? This construct 'there is.... over here/there' seems unnecessary, when you can just start with 'over here/there'. As long as you use 'a' rather than 'the', the meaning of whether it is a know or assumed object remains clear, no?


    Sure, you can use just "Over here is a bog" for sentences starting with "Täällä on suo". I believe most of the sentences in the course that have that structure also allow for that, report them if they don't.

    "There is a bog over here" is, however, also a valid way of expressing this in English.


    "The swamp is over here, thus the river is over there" is accepted ^^ I like trying out these alternative solutions just to see if they work, and if not why not (not correct or just oversights), even if they take longer to check if correct :D

    Edit: Wrote the wrong sentence lol


    Not sure why "The bog is over here which is why the river is over there" isn't correct? The hints gave "which is why" for "joten".


    Probably that alternative has not been keyed in, so report it.

    A longer answer with advanced content warning…

    Joten is an adverb used to denote a subclause that shows a consequence of the main clause.

    • Kelloni on jäljessä, joten myöhästyn. : My watch is running slow, so I will be late.

    Mistä syystä, "for what/that reason" can be used as an interrogative

    • Mistä syystä et soittanut minulle? : For what reason did yot not call me?

    or in a subclause

    • Israel ja Hamas sotivat jälleen, mistä syystä rauha on taas kaukana. : (lit.) Israel and Hamas warred again, for which reason the peace is again far.

    At least one difference between joten and mistä syystä is that the latter requires that the whole preceeding sentence is the cause, while the former is more vague in that regard. The latter is more used in writing than in speech. Here in this exercise mistä syystä would not be gramatically wrong but a tad too heavy and literal-sounding.

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