Questions about Finnish / Kysymyksiä suomen kielestä

[Naava]

So basically anything goes and there's no right or wrong way to do it. Thanks! That's good to know and your explanation was clear and helpful as always.

You're welcome!

I never called her anything but /ermi'one/ so I feel you. Then again, in my native tongue trying to recreate foreign phonemes too closely just comes across as super snobbish and pretentious

It tends to sound pretentious in Finnish too. It's less jarring if you're listing place names or words, but it gets awkward very quickly when you need to conjugate/declinate them... There are also some names that are always pronounced in as-if-it-was-Finnish way, like Arizona /'aritso(:)na/ and Alaska /'alaska/. It'd sound wrong if you tried to use the English pronunciation there.

And for the longest time I thought it was /hermion/ or /ermion/, too. (Basically close to what either one of you thought, except with a silent e.)

That name has tripped up everyone, I swear.

[sa wulfs]

I'm reading Kissani Jugoslavia by Pajtim Statovci and I was puzzled by this:

Lapsemme palasivat ruhjeilla kouluistaan, heidän päälleen syljeskeltiin ja heille naureskeltiin, koska heillä ei ollut talviurheilupäivinä luistimia ja suksia, sisäpelikenkiä tai tuulipukuja, koska meillä ei ollut antaa myyjäisiin mitään myytävää.

Is this construction olla (vähällä) + 1st infinitive, or is it something else in this context? I hadn't seen it before this book, so I'm still not sure how to use it or how to interpret this sentence. I'm quite thrown off by what I can only assume is an impersonal possessive construction meillä olla followed by what I'd have thought would normally be a normal, personal construction with olla antaa. Searching online, I've found sentences like "Minulla ei ole antaa sinulle rahaa", translated as "I don't have any money to give you", but I really don't know what's going on here, grammatically speaking, and it doesn't look like there's an implied vähällä there? I'm stumped.

My best guess is:
"Our children came back from school with contusions, people spat on them and laughed at them, because on winter sport days they didn't have skates and skis, shoes for indoor sports or winter coats, because we scarcely had anything to give to be sold at rummage markets (???)" (or, more elegantly, "we could scarcely give anything for rummage sales")

Does this make sense or am I completely off-base?

[Naava]

I'm reading Kissani Jugoslavia by Pajtim Statovci and I was puzzled by this:

Lapsemme palasivat ruhjeilla kouluistaan, heidän päälleen syljeskeltiin ja heille naureskeltiin, koska heillä ei ollut talviurheilupäivinä luistimia ja suksia, sisäpelikenkiä tai tuulipukuja, koska meillä ei ollut antaa myyjäisiin mitään myytävää.

Is this construction olla (vähällä) + 1st infinitive, or is it something else in this context?

No, it's just quite literally "we do not have X to give [to someone else/for something]". In this case, the family did not have anything they could've given to their kids' class to sell in rummage sale organised by the school. We do those to gather money for e.g. field trips.

meillä ei ole = we don't have
antaa = to give
X:ää = X
[jollekulle/johonkin] = [to someone/for something]

Was it the word order that confused you? You can change it, too: Meillä ei ollut antaa myyjäisiin mitään. Meillä ei ollut mitään antaa myyjäisiin. Mitään ei ollut meillä antaa myyjäisiin.

My best guess is:
"Our children came back from school with contusions, people spat on them and laughed at them, because on winter sport days they didn't have skates and skis, shoes for indoor sports or winter coats[1], because we scarcely had anything to give to be sold at rummage markets (???)" (or, more elegantly, "we could scarcely give anything for rummage sales"[2]

A few corrections:
[1] tuulipuku = windbreaker, like these pretty ones from the 80s/90s. The jacket is called tuulitakki and the trousers are tuulihousut. They are extremely common in Finland because they are windproof and water-repellent, which is just perfect for 3/4 of our seasons. Some people joke it's our modern day folk dress. They're worn by all genders and ages.

[2] because we didn't have anything to give to the [school's] rummage sales. You could add that "to be sold" if you wanted to, but IMO it sounds better in English without it.

I also think it's implied the people laughing and spitting on them were their classmates but that's up to your interpretation.

[sa wulfs]

Thanks! Yeah I think the word order threw me off, because that olla (vähällä) + inf construction had popped up a couple times and I was sorta on the lookout for it. But even so, I'm not sure I'd have recognized "meillä ei ollut mitään antaa" either. Is there a difference between that and "meillä ei ollut mitään annettavaa"? Or would the latter be avoided in this particular context because "mitään myytävää annettavaa" would be bad style?

[1] tuulipuku = windbreaker, like these pretty ones from the 80s/90s. The jacket is called tuulitakki and the trousers are tuulihousut. They are extremely common in Finland because they are windproof and water-repellent, which is just perfect for 3/4 of our seasons. Some people joke it's our modern day folk dress. They're worn by all genders and ages.

That's interesting, thanks! So I did an image search and all the top results are colourful and flashy 80s/early 90s tuulipukuja. Does that mean they're starting to be a bit old-fashioned now, or are retro tuulipukuja just in?

I also think it's implied the people laughing and spitting on them were their classmates but that's up to your interpretation.

Yeah you're completely right, I don't think it's the adults. I hope.

[Naava]

But even so, I'm not sure I'd have recognized "meillä ei ollut mitään antaa" either. Is there a difference between that and "meillä ei ollut mitään annettavaa"? Or would the latter be avoided in this particular context because "mitään myytävää annettavaa" would be bad style?

No, I don't think there is, really. They sound pretty identical to me. Your sentence "mitään myytävää annettavaa" does not work, though. Myytävä and annettava refer to the same thing (the item that can be given = the item that can be sold). You're now referring to the same thing twice, as if saying "we didn't have anything givable soldable" in English.

You could, however, say "meillä ei ollut mitään myytävää annettavaksi" or "meillä ei ollut mitään annettavaa myytäväksi". The first sentence means that we didn't have anything that could be sold to give them, and the second that we didn't have anything to give for selling. But IMO it's more common to use nouns in these phrases: e.g. meillä ei ollut rahaa annettavaksi, meillä ei ollut leluja myytäväksi.

I found some more examples for you with googling. Maybe these will help you to get used to the construction:

• Johtaja sanoi, että hän mielellään tahtoisi antaa Matulle jotakin, mutta ikävä kyllä hänellä ei ollut mitään antaa.
• Silloin tunsin jälleen köyhyyteni, sillä minulla ei ollut mitään antaa hänelle
• Annettiin me yksi oksa, vaikka virvottavalla ei ollut mitään antaa vastineeksi
• Mutta Pompeolla ei ollut antaa mitään todisteita asiasta
• Eikö hän toivottanut hyvää ystävänpäivää edes silloin, kun sinä ojensit lahjasi ja hänellä ei ollut antaa mitään?
• Renkien komeat nimet hymyilyttivät Zuleimaa, mutta kai se niin oli, että kun vanhemmilla ei ollut muutakaan antaa lapsilleen, niin nimiä sai ilmaiseksi.
• Annoin hänelle vastalahjaksi punaisen nenäliinani, kun ei ollut muutakaan antaa.
• Miehellä ei ollut antaa savukkeita
• Liikuttavaa yhteisvastuuta osoitti se, että mukaan lähti yksityishenkilöitä, joilla ei ollut antaa kuin muutama euro
• Hääpäivänäänkään hänellä ei ollut antaa mitään henkilökohtaista lahjaa vaimolleen
• Hänellä ei ollut antaa tilannetiedotusta kenellekään

You can also use the other tenses:

• Kaikkea halutaan, mutta mitään ei ole antaa.
• Kaiken tiedon kyllä kumoat, mutta mitään ei ole antaa tilalle.
• Ovet pysyvät kiinni, ja pankkineidit levittelevät käsiään todeten, että mitään ei ole antaa.
• -- potilaalla on todettu lääkärin hoidon tarve, mutta vastaanottoaikaa ei ole ollut antaa.
• Niemenmaalla ei ole ollut antaa varmaa vastausta vallitsevan tilanteen takia.

That's interesting, thanks! So I did an image search and all the top results are colourful and flashy 80s/early 90s tuulipukuja. Does that mean they're starting to be a bit old-fashioned now, or are retro tuulipukuja just in?

I'd say tuulipuku was like the symbol of the pre-millenium decades, which is probably why you find so many retro images. They are still worn but nowadays they look more like the tuulitakki and tuulihousut that I linked. The shops prefer to call them by the synonym ulkoilupuku but I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it anything but tuulipuku in speech.

I wouldn't say they're old-fashioned but they're not as popular as they were in the 80s. They're used as practical clothing, like wellies or raincoats.

[sa wulfs]

No, I don't think there is, really. They sound pretty identical to me. Your sentence "mitään myytävää annettavaa" does not work, though. Myytävä and annettava refer to the same thing (the item that can be given = the item that can be sold). You're now referring to the same thing twice, as if saying "we didn't have anything givable soldable" in English.

You could, however, say "meillä ei ollut mitään myytävää annettavaksi" or "meillä ei ollut mitään annettavaa myytäväksi". The first sentence means that we didn't have anything that could be sold to give them, and the second that we didn't have anything to give for selling. But IMO it's more common to use nouns in these phrases: e.g. meillä ei ollut rahaa annettavaksi, meillä ei ollut leluja myytäväksi.

Oh, I had completely forgotten about this use of the translative. Thanks for pointing it out and for the correction!

Thanks for the examples too. I had come to terms with jklla olla mitään antaa, and muutakaan antaa is not a big leap from there. And then "Miehellä ei ollut antaa savukkeita" and "Hänellä ei ollut antaa tilannetiedotusta kenellekään" kinda tripped me up again, but I guess there's no reason why you'd need some sort of indefinite pronoun in this construction.

I'd say tuulipuku was like the symbol of the pre-millenium decades, which is probably why you find so many retro images. They are still worn but nowadays they look more like the tuulitakki and tuulihousut that I linked. The shops prefer to call them by the synonym ulkoilupuku but I don't think I've ever heard anyone call it anything but tuulipuku in speech.

I wouldn't say they're old-fashioned but they're not as popular as they were in the 80s. They're used as practical clothing, like wellies or raincoats.

Ah yes, if I search for 'ulkoilupuku' I see way less flashy designs. They look very practical indeed.

[sa wulfs]

Bit of a random question, but does anyone know whether the -n ending of adjectives used adverbially (for example, "kamalan kylmä") is historically a genitive, or whether it is a remnant of the singular instructive? Or maybe an analogical extension of the instructive from adverbs like liian, paremmin, etc?

[Virankannos]

Bit of a random question, but does anyone know whether the -n ending of adjectives used adverbially (for example, "kamalan kylmä") is historically a genitive, or whether it is a remnant of the singular instructive? Or maybe an analogical extension of the instructive from adverbs like liian, paremmin, etc?

As far as I understand, instructive is historically the same as genitive: genitive also used to carry the function 'with the means of' but at some point the plural forms diverged and they were considered different case forms (I'm not actually sure in which order the process happened, but nonetheless). In modern grammaticography the -n in these so-called intensity words (see also VISK § 664) is analysed as genitive.

[sa wulfs]

Bit of a random question, but does anyone know whether the -n ending of adjectives used adverbially (for example, "kamalan kylmä") is historically a genitive, or whether it is a remnant of the singular instructive? Or maybe an analogical extension of the instructive from adverbs like liian, paremmin, etc?

As far as I understand, instructive is historically the same as genitive: genitive also used to carry the function 'with the means of' but at some point the plural forms diverged and they were considered different case forms (I'm not actually sure in which order the process happened, but nonetheless). In modern grammaticography the -n in these so-called intensity words (see also VISK § 664) is analysed as genitive.

Thanks! That's more interesting than what I was expecting

[sa wulfs]

What does the word lötsis mean?

It popped up in a very short sentence in the book Tuhatkuolevan kirous, so there's very little context:

Annoin näkymättömyystaian valahtaa yltäni kuin märän kylpytakin. Lötsis maahan.

Additional context: the character is bleeding profusely. That might be relevant because most of the stuff I found on the internet suggests that, in some cases at least, lötsis is used together with similar words (most notably lätsis) to signify splashy sounds I think? As in, the sound of walking on wet surfaces. At least that's what I gather from this paper, and that's clearly what it is in this random sentence I found on the internet:

Kerran putosin Merihotellin edessä veneestä ja lampsin litsis lötsis märissä kledjuissa himaan vaihtamaan.

And while those hypothetical splashy sounds might not have anything to do with the blood, the wet bathrobe simile that precedes the word lötsis might suggest that this is indeed the right interpretation even if it's metaphorical rather than literal.

But I think I've only found examples of lötsis referring to a sound when it's paired with other similar imitative words, and I've found a couple sentences where it's on its own and I cannot tell whether it still has anything to do with wetness. For example:

Pimeässä ajelu turruttaa kummasti, vähän lötsis olo

Ainoo must ehkä 6 ei oo ihan parhaiten suosiossa, ei siks etteikö sekin ois ihan okei mut usein mulle tulee siin vähän sellanen lötsis olo

Google Translate comes up with words like "sluggish" and "lazy" for these. They don't match the context as well as the other theory, but still, I might be missing something here.

[Naava]

What does the word lötsis mean?

I'd describe it as a heavy sound something wet, like a drenched towel, would make when it hits the ground. I haven't heard it used for how you feel, but those examples you gave made me think of how it'd feel if I was that wet towel: indeed sluggish and lazy and unwilling to do anything.

These kind of onomatopoetic words are often used creatively and they may even be nonce formations: you have a template of general structure, and then you just fill in the vowels (and consonants, sometimes) and people just interpret what you mean based on what the structure usually refers to and what vowels you've used. F.ex. L_TSIS describes different kinds of wet/splashing sounds: litsis, lätsis, lötsis...

[sa wulfs]

Thank you! That's really helpful.

In light of your explanation, lötsis olo kinda reminds me of Spanish plof (which I associate with the sound of something heavyish but soft hitting the ground), which can be used to say estoy un poco plof, "I feel a bit down/listless". Different meaning but similar mental image I would think

[awrui]

Bures,
I hope someone here can help me with some translation! I got this finnish knitting book, there are some instructions I don't understand:
-peukalokiila
-lisää uusi s kummallekin poulelle, kiilan reunoille
-puikon vahitumiskohta
-kämmekkään merkkiviiva
I can make sense of the rest of the chart, but not this

[Linguaphile]

Bures,
I hope someone here can help me with some translation! I got this finnish knitting book, there are some instructions I don't understand:
-peukalokiila
-lisää uusi s kummallekin poulelle, kiilan reunoille
-puikon vahitumiskohta
-kämmekkään merkkiviiva
I can make sense of the rest of the chart, but not this

I can help with one of them - peukalokiila is the bit of material on a the side of a mitten at the base of the thumb. "Thumb gusset" in English and in the chart below.

[Naava]

Bures,
I hope someone here can help me with some translation! I got this finnish knitting book, there are some instructions I don't understand:
-peukalokiila
-lisää uusi s kummallekin poulelle, kiilan reunoille
-puikon vahitumiskohta
-kämmekkään merkkiviiva
I can make sense of the rest of the chart, but not this

I can help with one of them - peukalokiila is the bit of material on a the side of a mitten at the base of the thumb. "Thumb gusset" in English and in the chart below.

You're right; it's also used to refer to one of the two thumb types you can find in mittens. Here's peukalokiila in a real mitten:

► Show Spoiler

The other type looks like this:

► Show Spoiler

-lisää uusi s kummallekin poulelle, kiilan reunoille

s = silmukka (stitch in English, if I can trust google)
kiila = wedge; in this case, it refers to the gusset

- lisää uusi silmukka kummallekin puolelle, kiilan reunoille = add a new stitch to both sides, at the edges of the gusset

-puikon vahitumiskohta

puikko = knitting needle
vaihtumis- = change
kohta = place

puikon vaihtumiskohta = where one needle ends and the next one begins

Here it would be that space between the pink and the wooden needle

-kämmekkään merkkiviiva

kämmekäs = half glove
merkki = sign, mark
viiva = line

merkkiviiva usually refers to a piece of yarn that is used to mark where you should do something special; like a special type of stitch, or where to open the space for a thumb when you're using the second thumb style:


I'm not sure what the mark is used for in your knit because I don't know what instructions you have, but I hope this helps you to figure it out!

[awrui]

Thank you two for your help! I think I understand the pattern now. I think merkkiviiva is where you switch to another pattern when you want to make finglerless mitts instead of mittens, there is some more pattern on the next page. The pattern is from this book. They are very pretty, but so challenging...

[sa wulfs]

I'm reading a book (Hävitys, by Iida Rauma) with a lot of puhekieli in it. To my surprise, I'm starting to get the hang of it, but there are things that still throw me off a bit. Like this:

Sit ne kolme kutsuttiin paikal ja ope käski niittenki kertoo mitä oikeen tapahtus ja ei ne tietty sanonu et ne yritti mut hukuttaa vaa syytti mua siit et mä olin ilma lupaa lukenu niide kirjevihkoi ja ope kysys et onkse totta, et oonks mä oikeesti tehny nii, ja mä sanoin et joo

I assume the verbs I bolded are imperfects, not conditionals? The characters are from Turku, where apparently -s(i) is used as the imperfect ending where standard Finnish would use -i. But this character also uses standard imperfect forms (like käski, syytti and sanoin in this very excerpt, or soitti a couple paragraphs before this). Is she simply mixing Turku-specific forms with "standard" puhekieli, or are these forms with -s also used elsewhere? If both -s(i) and -i are used in Turku for these verbs, are they more or less in free variation, or are there any restrictions? There's another, much older character who uses full-on Turku dialect, whereas the younger characters seem to speak mostly "standard" puhekieli, so it'd be interesting to have a better idea of how much overlap there is between the two.

[Naava]

I assume the verbs I bolded are imperfects, not conditionals?

Yes.

The characters are from Turku, where apparently -s(i) is used as the imperfect ending where standard Finnish would use -i. But this character also uses standard imperfect forms (like käski, syytti and sanoin in this very excerpt, or soitti a couple paragraphs before this). Is she simply mixing Turku-specific forms with "standard" puhekieli, or are these forms with -s also used elsewhere? If both -s(i) and -i are used in Turku for these verbs, are they more or less in free variation, or are there any restrictions?

Turku dialect uses -s for imperfect more frequently than standard Finnish (similar to Estonian; people in South Western Finland were in close contact with (Northern) Estonians, and it shows) but not exclusively. It's only used for certain words, but I don't speak this dialect and I've never studied it, so I can't tell you what restrictions there are.

There's another, much older character who uses full-on Turku dialect, whereas the younger characters seem to speak mostly "standard" puhekieli, so it'd be interesting to have a better idea of how much overlap there is between the two.

I'd count all the bolded parts as a sign that this person is from Turku:

Sit ne kolme kutsuttiin paikal ja ope käski niittenki kertoo mitä oikeen tapahtus ja ei ne tietty sanonu et ne yritti mut hukuttaa vaa syytti mua siit et mä olin ilma lupaa lukenu niide kirjevihkoi ja ope kysys et onkse totta, et oonks mä oikeesti tehny nii, ja mä sanoin et joo

You can hear paikal, siit, and dropping of final -n in other people's speech, too, but it's also a quite typical feature of Turku dialect. If I heard someone use these short forms and the -s imperfect, I'd be quite certain they were from South Western Finland.

If you're curious, here's how I would say the same thing in puhekieli:

Sitte ne kolme kutsuttiin paikallej-ja ope käski niittenkik-kertoo mitä oikeen tapahtuu ja ei ne tietty sanonu et ne yritti mun hukuttaa vaan syytti mua siitä et molin iliman lupaa lukenun-niitten kirjevvihkoja ja ope kysyy et onkse totta, et oonks mä oikeesti tehnyn-niin, ja mä sanoo-että joo.

The words where I've put a dash could be written as paikalle ja, niittenki kertoo, lukenu niitten or lukenut niitten since assimilating the final consonant is rather common in Finnish, but they don't really have that in Turku dialect so there would be a difference between how I and the character in that book would say these words.

[Linguaphile]

The characters are from Turku, where apparently -s(i) is used as the imperfect ending where standard Finnish would use -i. But this character also uses standard imperfect forms (like käski, syytti and sanoin in this very excerpt, or soitti a couple paragraphs before this). Is she simply mixing Turku-specific forms with "standard" puhekieli, or are these forms with -s also used elsewhere? If both -s(i) and -i are used in Turku for these verbs, are they more or less in free variation, or are there any restrictions?

Turku dialect uses -s for imperfect more frequently than standard Finnish (similar to Estonian; people in South Western Finland were in close contact with (Northern) Estonians, and it shows)

Can confirm
kysys = Estonian küsis (kysis if we used Finnish orthography here)
tapahtus = Estonian juhtus (so not a cognate, but same verb ending)
paikal = Estonian paigal
et mä olin ilma lupaa lukenu = Estonian et ma olin ilma loata lugenud (lugend / lugenu)*

*Standard lugenud is also colloquially lugend, but in colloquial dialects lugenu is also heard.
In some colloquial speech or northern dialects ilma loata becomes ilma lubata which is a bit closer to ilma lupaa.

[Naava]

Can confirm
kysys = Estonian küsis (kysis if we used Finnish orthography here)
tapahtus = Estonian juhtus (so not a cognate, but same verb ending)
paikal = Estonian paigal
et mä olin ilma lupaa lukenu = Estonian et ma olin ilma loata lugenud (lugend / lugenu)*

*Standard lugenud is also colloquially lugend, but in colloquial dialects lugenu is also heard.
In some colloquial speech or northern dialects ilma loata becomes ilma lubata which is a bit closer to ilma lupaa.

You might also enjoy this one:
https://youtu.be/s-AsTIq9BVM
In the dialect:
Ei tääl meil juur mittä ol. Mitä meil mittä! Jäätölöauton kääntöpaik, postinkantajan päivännousu, varesparvien kiitorata, sumuje syntymäkoto. Muutamasatahehtari siämenvilja tulon pääl. Yks seppä, ketä tako vaik kaks hirve, jos joku tila. Kahreksasorminen timpur, yht nopia ko ennenki. Koulu, mikä ei ol ollu koulu kymmene vuatte, toimi ain vaa. Yks piän poik, mikä tule raitil vasta ja parku. Hän täyttä ens viikol viis, muttei tahro täyttä. Ikäkriisi mene ohitte ko taskust löyty tikkari. Satavuatias viittilöitte torpa akkunast ohi vilistäväl sial: Otaks pullasiivu? Juhlist jäi ylitte! Taiteilia, ketä ei koska nuku, paitsi aamut kaik. Ja yäl hiljasuus niin kirkas, et sen näke. Tähtitaivas nii matalal, et sen kuule. Jäätölöauton kääntöpaik, postinkantajan päivännousu, varesparvien kiitorata, sumuje syntymäkoto. Mitä meil mittä.

In standard Finnish:
Ei täällä meillä juuri mitään ole. Mitä meillä mitään! Jäätelöauton kääntöpaikka, postinkantajan päivännousu, varisparvien kiitorata, sumujen syntymäkoto. Muutama sata hehtaara siemenviljaa tulon päällä. Yksi seppä, kuka takoo vaikka kaksi hirveä, jos joku tilaa. Kahdeksansorminen timpuri, yhtä nopea kuin ennenkin. Koulu, joka ei ole ollut koulu kymmeneen vuoteen, toimii aina vain. Yksi pieni poika, joka tulee raitilla vastaan ja parkuu. Hän täyttää ensi viikolla viisi, mutta ei tahdo täyttää. Ikäkriisi menee ohi, kun taskusta löytyy tikkukaramelli. Satavuotias viittoo torpan ikkunasta ohi vilistävälle sialle: Otatko pullansiivun? Juhlista jäi yli! Taitelija, joka ei koskaan nuku, paitsi aamut kaikki. Ja yöllä hiljaisuus niin kirkas, että sen näkee. Tähtitaivas niin matalalla, että sen kuulee. Jäätelöauton kääntöpaikka, postinkantajan päivännousu, varisparvien kiitorata, sumujen syntymäkoto. Mitä meillä mitään.

In English (a bit loose translation):
We don't have much here. What would we have! The turning point of an ice cream truck, the sunrise of a mailman, the runway of crow flocks, the birth home of mists. A few hundred hectares of seed grain to become. One smith who would forge even two elks if you only ordered so. A carpenter with eight fingers, as fast as always. A school that hasn't been a school for ten years, still in function. One small boy, who you meet at the street, crying. He's turning five next week, but he doesn't want to. The age crisis is forgotten when he finds a lollipop in his pocket. A 100-year-old waving at the window of a cottage to the pig passing by: Would you like a slice of pulla*? There's leftovers from a party! An artist who never sleeps, except all the mornings. And at night, a silence so bright you can see it. A starry sky so low you can hear it. The turning point of an ice cream truck, the sunrise of a mailman, the runway of crow flocks, the birth home of mists. What would we have here.

* Pulla (or in some dialects, nisu) is a Finnish pastry made of wheat flour, butter, milk, sugar, salt, cardamom, and raised with yeast. You can use the same dough to make a dozen of different kinds of pulla. In this poem, the old person at the window is talking about pullapitko, which is sliced before eating and looks like this:




This one might also give you some Estonian vibes:
https://youtu.be/tzgNYgLR1Uk

et mä olin ilma lupaa lukenu = Estonian et ma olin ilma loata lugenud (lugend / lugenu)*

*Standard lugenud is also colloquially lugend, but in colloquial dialects lugenu is also heard.
In some colloquial speech or northern dialects ilma loata becomes ilma lubata which is a bit closer to ilma lupaa.

"Lupaa" is common spoken language / standard Finnish. In Turku dialect, it would be "ilma luppa". But you might find it interesting that in some Finnish dialects (including my own), you can say "ilman luvatta"! (Although I think it's more common with verbs, like iliman syömätä, iliman juomata, iliman sanomata.) Also, Eastern dialects have the same form of verb as Estonian:

Ja sillo mie oli jo kansakoulus käynt mut mie muistin ko isä olj sanont, et jokkuu Sipilä ennustus o sellaine – kirja heä ol lukent – et, enne maailmaloppuu ihmiset ajjaat, päättömil hevosilla.

(Full text here.)