As has been explained, the negative in Finnish only exists in combination with the personal pronouns as a negative verb, and there is no word corresponding to no or not. This peculiarity naturally makes the structure of negative sentences different from that of other languages.

(1) The answer ‘no’ to a question must be rendered by the proper person of the negative verb, with or without the root of the verb negative. To the question Tuletteko? are you coming? the negative answer is en tule or en, if one person is referred to, but emme tule or emme, if more than one. Similarly, to tulevatko lapset? are the children coming? the negative reply must be eivÄt tule or eivÄt.

(2) If a sentence contains such words as never, no one, nothing, nowhere, etc., they are expressed by using the proper person of the negative verb, with the proper case of the interrogative pronoun or the interrogative adverb, which receive the termination kaan or kÄÄn, sometimes shortened into aan or ÄÄn. Emme ole nÄhneet ketÄkÄÄn or ketÄÄn, we have seen no one. MissÄ olette kÄyneet? En missÄkÄÄn, where have you been? Nowhere. Onko hÄn koska ollut HelsingissÄ? Ei koskaan (or Ei milloinkaan) has he ever been to Helsingfors? No, never.

(3) It is clear that as the negative is always joined to a personal pronoun, sentences where it qualifies an infinitive in most languages (for instance, it would be better not to go) cannot by any means be rendered literally in Finnish. Such sentences are turned quite differently, the chief device being to use the abessive of inf. III; for instance, I advise you not to go, minÄ kehoitan teitÄ, ÄlkÄÄ menkÖ, or olemaan menemÄttÄ. Olisi parempi olla kirjoittamatta, it would be better not to write. The house is not sold, talo on myÖmÄttÄ (but ei ole myÖty is also possible). The present is not given, lahja on antamatta (or ei ole annettu). You need not go, ei sinun pidÄ mennÄ (where ei negatives pidÄ not mennÄ), or sinun pitÄÄ olla menemÄttÄ. You will have to go away and not see your sister, teidÄn pitÄÄ matkustaa pois sisartanne nÄkemÄttÄ.

Sentences are occasionally found where ei apparently negatives an infinitive. E.g. S. John vii. 34, TeidÄn pitÄÄ minua etsimÄn ja ei lÖytÄmÄn, ye shall seek me and not find me. But this construction is really elliptical for ja ei pidÄ lÖytÄmÄn.

Nevertheless this use of the negative verb with an infinitive or participle is occasionally found, even in the Kalevala; e.g. xxviii. 262, Sie vanno valat ikuiset ... ei sotia kÄyÄksesi, swear eternal oaths ... that thou willst not go to war. And immediately afterwards, Vannon mie valat vakaiset En kesÄnÄ ensimmÄisnÄ ... Saa’a suurihin sotihin, I swear firm oaths that in the first summer ... I will not go to war. Here kÄyÄksesi and saa’a (for kÄydÄksesi and saada) are infinitives constructed with ei and en. In the first passage et would have seemed more natural. So again in xliii. 237, Sanoit et kÄyvÄsi sotoa, thou saidst thou wouldst not go to war. As these constructions do not seem capable of being explained by the principles of Finnish syntax, they are probably due to the influence of foreign languages.