# kun



## Gavril

I think that _kun _can mean "because" in contexts such as the following:

_Talven voi odottaa olevan oikein kylmä, Rovaniemessä kun ollaan._

How can you tell when _kun _means "when" and when it means "because"?

Also, would the following sentences be correct? :

_Hänellä on paljon apulaisia, aateli_(_/rikas_)_ kun on.

Vain tihkua kun sataa, emme tarvitse sateenvarjoa.


_Kiitoksia paljon ajastanne


----------



## Hakro

Hi Gavril,

This "kun" is a real problem in Finnish, as even many Finns make mistakes with it. In many cases it should be translated "as" (but note that my English is far from perfect).



> _Talven voi odottaa olevan oikein kylmä, Rovaniemell__ä kun ollaan._
> - ... as we are in Rovaniemi.
> _Hänellä on paljon apulaisia, __rikas__ kun on.
> _- ... because/as he's rich._
> Vain tihkua kun sataa, emme tarvitse sateenvarjoa.
> _- As/when it's only spotting with rain, we don't need an umbrella.


I hope this helps a little. Please wait for GOM and Sakvaka to explain this better.


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

I don't think I can improve on Hakro's explanation. _Kun_ has two basic uses. It indicates time (when) and reason (because), and common sense must be applied to determine which meaning is intended. Note that the same thing is true about _since_ and _as_ in English!

"_Vain tihkua *kun* sataa, emme tarvitse sateenvarjoa."

_When _kun_ is not at the beginning of a clause, it rarely indicates time except in poetry. Another reason that points to a causal meaning of _kun_ in the above sentence is _vain_ at the beginning.

_Kun sataa tihkua, emme tarvitse sateenvarjoa._ (My preference: _Kun on tihkusade, emme tarvitse sateenvarjoa._)

To my mind, this sentence is ambiguous, but without context I would take it to mean: 

_When it drizzles, we don't need an umbrella._

"_Hänellä on paljon apulaisia, aateli_(_/rikas_)_ kun on."

_I'd just like to point out that _aateli kun on_ is ungrammatical. _Aateli*a* kun on_ and _aatelinen kun on_ are correct.


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> I don't think I can improve on Hakro's explanation. _Kun_ has two basic uses. It indicates time (when) and reason (because), and common sense must be applied to determine which meaning is intended. Note that the same thing is true about _since_ and _as_ in English!
> 
> "_Vain tihkua *kun* sataa, emme tarvitse sateenvarjoa."
> 
> _When _kun_ is not at the beginning of a clause, it rarely indicates time except in poetry. Another reason that points to a causal meaning of _kun_ in the above sentence is _vain_ at the beginning.



What about _Tihkua vain kun sataa ..._? Would that (normally) mean something else, or would it be ungrammatical?



> "_Hänellä on paljon apulaisia, aateli_(_/rikas_)_ kun on."
> 
> _I'd just like to point out that _aateli kun on_ is ungrammatical. _Aateli*a* kun on_ and _aatelinen kun on_ are correct.



Would the phrase _Hän on aateli_ also be ungrammatical? What about _Kuningas(ta) kun on_ ("Since he's a king/the king")?

KVK


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

"What about _Tihkua vain kun sataa ..._? Would that (normally) mean something else, or would it be ungrammatical?"

It would be fine grammatically. No change in meaning. It sounds a little poetic to my ear, though. (Other ears may hear differently, of course...)

"Would the phrase _Hän on aateli_ also be ungrammatical? What about _Kuningas(ta) kun on_ ("Since he's a king/the king")?"

That's the very point. We don't have those people around any more in our society. _Hän on aateli  _is ungrammatical. You could say: _Hän on aatelistoa/aatelinen.  _You need the partitive case if you want a noun. _Hän on kuningas  _is fine. _Aatelisto  _is a kind of collective noun and I suppose that's why the partitive case is needed. Hakro probably knows Finnish grammar better than I and can explain that better.


----------



## Gavril

Grumpy Old Man said:


> "What about _Tihkua vain kun sataa ..._? Would that (normally) mean something else, or would it be ungrammatical?"
> 
> It would be fine grammatically. No change in meaning. It sounds a little poetic to my ear, though. (Other ears may hear differently, of course...)
> 
> "Would the phrase _Hän on aateli_ also be ungrammatical? What about _Kuningas(ta) kun on_ ("Since he's a king/the king")?"
> 
> That's the very point. We don't have those people around any more in our society. _Hän on aateli  _is ungrammatical. You could say: _Hän on aatelistoa/aatelinen.  _You need the partitive case if you want a noun. _Hän on kuningas  _is fine. _Aatelisto  _is a kind of collective noun and I suppose that's why the partitive case is needed. Hakro probably knows Finnish grammar better than I and can explain that better.



En ole varma ymmärtäväni. Anteeksi, että jatkuvat kysymykset:

Even if there were still nobles and kings in Finland, would it be correct to say 

_Hän on kuningas / Kuningas kun on

_but incorrect to say

_Hän on aateli_ / _Aateli kun on

_?


----------



## Grumpy Old Man

"En ole varma ymmärtäväni. Anteeksi, että jatkuvat kysymykset:

Even if there were still nobles and kings in Finland, would it be correct to say 

_Hän on kuningas / Kuningas kun on

_but incorrect to say

_Hän on aateli_ / _Aateli kun on"

_Exactly. I should not have mentioned the fact that we have no _aatelisto_ in Finland. It's beside the point and only confused you. My apologies for that.

As I said in my previous post, I would prefer: _Hän on aatelinen_ or _hän on aatelistoa._ (_Hän on aateli_ is and has always been wrong.)

PS: "En ole varma ymmärränkö [oikein]. Anteeksi, että kysymykset/kysymykseni jatkuvat."


----------



## sakvaka

Actually, _kun_ can have 3 different basic meanings - temporal, causal and conditional:

_Sano, kun olet valmis_. Say ["I'm ready"] when you're ready.
_Hän lähti, kun minä puhuin puhelimessa. _She left as I was speaking on the phone.
_Tulin jo nyt, kun ajattelin kirjoittaa tekstin loppuun vielä tänään. _I came early because I intended to finish the text even today.
_Kun ei älyä vaatia, ei saakaan mitään._ If you don't realise to demand, you surely get nothing.

As Gavril and Grumpy Old Man have already pointed out, you can't tell which meaning is intended when. "Äiti on vihainen, kun tulet kotiin myöhässä" can mean both _Mum will be mad, when you come home late_, _Mum is mad, because you are coming home late_ or _Mum is mad if you come home late_.

However, to avoid confusion you can use the conjuction _koska_ in causal dependent sentences. It is also more grammatical.

Grumpy Old Man is right about _aateli(sto)_. It is a collective noun, and a partial predicative is therefore used.


----------

