Perfect and pluperfect

Use of olla to form perfect and pluperfect

The perfect tense and the pluperfect (past perfect) tense are formed using the verb olla and the past participle of the verb. The auxiliary verb olla is in present tense (olen, olet, on etc.) for the perfect and in the past tense (olin, olit, oli etc.) for the pluperfect. For example, olen puhunut (literally “I am one that spoke”) corresponds to “I have spoken”, and olin puhunut (literally “I was one that spoke”) corresponds to “I had spoken”.

In the 4th person, the auxiliary verb is in the 3rd person singular form, i.e. on or oli, and the main verb is in the passive participle form, e.g. on puhuttu. For example, asiasta on puhuttu paljon means “a lot has been spoken about the matter” (asia means “matter, subject”, paljon means “a lot”). However, in colloquial language, the auxiliary verb is often in the 4th person form, e.g ollaan puhuttu.

Normally the auxiliary verb appears immediately before the participle. However, simple general time adverbs such as usein (often), joskus (sometimes), and harvoin (rarely), often intervene, e.g. olen usein puhunut tästä (I have often spoken about this).

Summary of perfect tense forms

The following table summarizes the different person forms of the perfect tense. Pluperfect forms differ from them only in the form of the auxiliary verb,

Meanings of perfect and pluperfect

The perfect tense indicates a past action as relating to the present, possibly continuing at present, e.g. Olen puhunut jo kaksi tuntia (I have already spoken for two hours). When referring to a completed action, the past tense emphasizes the activity, whereas the perfect tense emphasizes the result and relates the action to its effects that are observable now. This is similar to the difference in English. For example, Kirjoitin asiasta ehdotuksen (I wrote a proposal on the matter) describes what I have done, possibly not relating it to the present situation. In contrast, Olen kirjoittanut asiasta ehdotuksen (I have written a proposal on the matter) emphasizes that there is a proposal written by me, suggesting some relevance to the present situation.

When describing past events, it is often possible to use either past tense or perfect tense. The perfect tense means that the past is looked at from the viewpoint of the present in some sense. For example, Yöllä satoi (It rained at night) just describes the past, and it would normally be used by someone who observed the rain or heard about it, whereas Yöllä on satanut says the same thing but implies a viewpoint of the present, such as having just observed that it is wet outside.

The perfect tense is also used for actions and processes that have started in the past and still continue, e.g. Olen odottanut jo kaksi tuntia (I have already waited for two hours) and Olen asunut täällä koko ikäni (I have lived here my whole life). This is natural, since a “viewpoint of the present” is involved: what is happening now is continuation of something that started in the past.

In some expressions, Finnish varies between tenses whereas English uses perfect tense only. An expression like “He was born in…” can be translated as Hän on syntynyt vuonna… if the person is still alive, but normally with Hän syntyi vuonna…, if he has died. When simply stating one’s year of birth, one says Olen syntynyt vuonna…, but when describing one’s life, it is also possible to say Synnyin vuonna… In an obituary, it would be normal to use the pluperfect: Hän oli syntynyt vuonna… (He had been born in…).

The pluperfect indicates a past action that relates to some later situation, used as a reference, e.g. Olin puhunut kaksi tuntia, kun valot sammuivat (I had spoken for two hours, when the lights took off).

Form of the participle

In perfect and pluperfect constructs, the participle is always in the nominative. It is in plural, with the neet suffix, if the subject is in plural, e.g. he ovat puhuneet and te olette puhuneet. In spoken language, however, singular forms are often used instead, as for verbs in general (e.g. te ootte puhunu).

When addressing an individual politely (teitittely), the auxiliary verb should in plural, olette or olitte, but the participle in singular. Such incongruent expressions, e.g. Te olette puhunut, are somewhat unnatural, and mistakes like Te olette puhuneet are common.

Perfect and pluperfect vs. a participle as a predicative

A combination of the verb olla and a past participle does not always constitute a perfect or pluperfect form. For example, the expression olen väsynyt can be interpreted as a perfect tense form of the verb väsyä (to get tired), i.e. as “I have become tired”, but also as the verb on followed by a predicative, namely a participle used as an adjective, i.e. “I am tired”, “I am in a state of tiredness”. The difference may sound small, but the first interpretation deals with some process or event, the second one a state.

It is not always clear whether a participle is used as part of a perfect or pluperfect form or as an adjective or even a noun. For example, the expression Hän on oppinut may mean may mean “He/she has learned” (without mentioning what was learned) but also “He/she is a learned person, a scholar”. Usually the sentence context resolves such an ambiguity.

In plural there is a marked difference, since the adjective or noun is in the partitive case due to the rules for a predicative, e.g. Me olemme väsyneitä (We are tired) versus Me olemme väsyneet (We have become tired) and He ovat oppineita (They are learned persons) versus He ovat oppineet (They have learned).

In most situations, we use perfect or pluperfect forms in such contexts only when some additional information about the process is given. A statement like Me olemme väsyneet as such would sound odd. When nothing else is said about the process, it would be normal to just mention the resulting state instead: Me olemme väsyneitä. But with additional information, perfect tense becomes normal, e.g. Me olemme väsyneet kuuntelemaan häntä (We are tired of listening to him/her).

Similar consideration apply to 4th person forms such as Talo on maalattu (The house has been painted). It can also be interpreted as containing a predicate and describing a state of having been painted, and this is the normal interpretation if the sentence is just that. This means that in plural we would say Talot ovat maalattuja. But when we refer to a process or act of painting, we say Talot on maalattu, usually with some added adverbial like punaiseksi (red). Sometimes added information is implied by the context. For example, when a company has contracted to paint some houses, it could send the message Talot on maalattu after completing the job. However, normally at least a word like nyt (now) would be added: Talot on nyt maalattu (The houses have now been painted).

Special role of past participle

In the 4th person perfect and pluperfect forms such as on sanottu (it has been said), the passive participle such as sanottu is just part of the construct. It does not have the same meaning as passive participles normally have. In particular, it can be used even if the verb is intransitive, i.e. cannot have an object, so that passive forms cannot be used in the normal sense.

For example, the verb herätä (to wake up) is clearly intransitive. Thus, the passive participle herätty cannot be used as an adjective or otherwise in other normal functions of a participle. But it can be be used to form the 4th person perfect and pluperfect: on herätty, oli herätty. An expression like on herätty can be translated as “one has woken up”, “people have woken up”, or some other way, depending on what the context implies.