Learn Hardcore Finnish: Jos palvelu olisi hitaampi, peruisin tilauksen. - If the service were slower, I would cancel the order.

Both olisin (“I would be”) and peruisin (“I would cancel”) are in the Finnish conditional mood. The conditional is used for hypothetical or “would”-type statements. You form it by taking the verb stem, adding the conditional marker -isi-, and then appending personal endings. For example:

olla (to be) → ole- (stem) + -isi- + -n → olisin
perua (to cancel) → peruu- (stem) + -isi- + -n → peruisin

Why is hitaampi used instead of an adverb like hitaammin?

Hitaampi is a comparative adjective (“slower”) modifying the noun palvelu (“service”). If you used hitaammin, you’d be describing how something is done (“more slowly”), not the inherent property of the service itself. Since we’re comparing the service’s speed, we need the comparative adjective.

Why is tilauksen in this form rather than tilausta?

Tilauksen is the accusative singular of tilaus (“order”). In Finnish, definite direct objects take the accusative form (which for many nouns looks like the genitive). Using tilausta (the partitive) would imply an indefinite or incomplete action (“I would cancel some of the order”), whereas tilauksen makes it a complete, definite cancellation.

Can we switch the clause order: Peruisin tilauksen, jos palvelu olisi hitaampi? What changes?

Yes, you can place the main clause first. The meaning stays the same. Finnish allows flexible word order, so both versions are equally correct. The conditional link is clear without needing niin (“then”), although you could optionally add niin for emphasis.

Why is there no word equivalent to English “then” after the if-clause?

In English you often say “If X, then Y.” In Finnish the niin (“then”) is optional and often dropped, especially in spoken or neutral style. The sentence is perfectly natural without it.

How would I talk about a past hypothetical situation instead?

You’d use the perfect conditional by combining the conditional of olla in the perfect participle form. For example:
“Jos palvelu olisi ollut hitaampi, olisin perunut tilauksen.”
Here olisi ollut is the perfect conditional (“would have been”) and olisin perunut is “I would have canceled.”

Is jos always used for “if”? Are there other options?

Jos is the most common conjunction for “if.” For more formal or literary styles you might see ell(e)i or jollen in negative clauses, but jos will cover almost all everyday “if”-situations.

What does the sentence’s overall structure tell me about Finnish conditionals?

It shows that Finnish places the conditional marker on both verbs: one in the protasis (the “if”-clause) and one in the apodosis (the result clause). Neither part needs a separate tense change—the -isi- marker alone carries the “would” meaning.