Learn Hardcore Finnish: Peitän paistinpannun kannella, jotta sipuli ei pala. - I cover the frying pan with a lid so that the onion does not burn.

Verb type: Type 1 (ending in -a/ä).
Consonant gradation: peittää has strong grade tt, but in personal forms like 1st singular, it weakens to a single t: peitän.
Present in Finnish covers present, near future, and habitual: Peitän... can be “I cover,” “I’m covering,” or “I’ll cover (now).”

Why is it paistinpannun and not paistinpannu?

Paistinpannun is the genitive singular form used as the “total object.” Finnish marks completed or result-reaching actions with a total object (genitive/accusative form for nouns).

Peitän paistinpannun implies a complete covering (putting the lid on so the pan ends up covered).
Using the bare nominative paistinpannu would be ungrammatical as a direct object here; Finnish requires case marking on objects in such contexts.

Could I ever say peitän paistinpannua?

Yes, but it changes the meaning. The partitive object paistinpannua suggests an ongoing, incomplete, or indeterminate action, or it appears under negation.

Ongoing/incomplete: Peitän paistinpannua ≈ “I’m (in the process of) covering the frying pan (not necessarily done).”
Under negation: En peitä paistinpannua = “I’m not covering the frying pan.”
The sentence you have expresses a goal/result, so the total object paistinpannun is the natural choice.

What does kannella mean here, and why the ending -lla?

Kannella is the adessive singular of kansi (lid). The adessive -lla/-llä often marks an instrument: “with a lid.”

Pattern: kansi → weak grade stem kannen → adessive kannella (note the consonant gradation: ns → nn).
With peittää, the default way to say “cover with X” is to put X in the adessive: peittää jollakin.

Why not use kanssa (with), as in kannen kanssa?

Kanssa primarily means “together with (a person/companion)” or “in the company of,” not a tool/instrument. For instruments, Finnish prefers the adessive -lla/-llä.

Natural: peitän (sen) kannella = “I cover it with a lid.”
Less natural/odd for instruments: kannen kanssa in this context.

Why not say peitän paistinpannun kannen?

That would make kannen (the lid) the object of peittää, yielding “I cover the lid of the frying pan,” which is not what you want. You want to cover the pan using the lid.

Correct instrument use: peitän paistinpannun kannella.
Alternative phrasing: Laitan kannen paistinpannun päälle (“I put the lid on the frying pan”).

Can I change the word order to Peitän kannella paistinpannun?

Yes, but it shifts the focus. The neutral order puts the object before the instrument: Peitän paistinpannun kannella. Fronting kannella emphasizes the tool: “With a lid I cover the frying pan.”

Both are grammatical.
Choose based on what you want to highlight (object vs. instrument).

Is the comma before jotta required?

Yes. In standard Finnish, a subordinate clause introduced by jotta is preceded by a comma:

Peitän ..., jotta ...

How does jotta work? Should the verb after it be in the conditional?

Jotta means “so that / in order that” and introduces a purpose clause.

In formal/standard style, it’s common for the verb in a jotta-clause to be in the conditional to mark desired outcome:
- Positive: ... jotta sipuli ei palaisi (so that the onion wouldn’t burn).
- Negative often uses ettei (“so that … not”): ... ettei sipuli pala/palaisi.
Your sentence jotta sipuli ei pala (indicative) is widely used and perfectly understandable, especially in everyday style.
Summary of common options (all acceptable in the right register):
- Purpose, neutral: jotta sipuli ei pala (colloquial/neutral)
- Purpose, formal-ish: jotta sipuli ei palaisi
- Negative purpose with että: ettei sipuli pala (very idiomatic)
- Colloquial contraction: jottei sipuli pala/palaisi

Why is it ei pala and not ei palaa?

Two reasons converge:

1) Connegative form: In the negative present, type 1 verbs (like palaa “burns”) use a connegative form without the personal ending: ei pala.

2) Ambiguity avoidance: Ei palaa is the negative of palata (“to return”) in 3rd person.

ei pala = “doesn’t burn” (from palaa, to burn)
ei palaa = “doesn’t return” (from palata, to return)

Shouldn’t sipuli be in the partitive because the clause is negative?

No. Sipuli here is the subject of the subordinate clause, and subjects are in the nominative in ordinary clauses regardless of negation. The “partitive object under negation” rule applies to objects, not to regular subjects.

Partitive subjects do exist in Finnish, but typically in existential/presentational sentences (e.g., Pannulla ei ole sipulia = “There is no onion on the pan”), which is a different construction.

Why singular sipuli? Would sipulit or sipulia also work?

sipuli (singular nominative) can refer to “the onion” as an ingredient in a generic sense (like English “onion burns easily”). It’s natural here.
sipulit (plural) would emphasize multiple distinct onions/pieces: jotta sipulit eivät pala.
sipulia (partitive) can be used in presentational contexts (e.g., Pannulla palaa sipulia = “There’s (some) onion burning in the pan”), but that’s a different sentence structure.

Are there good synonyms for this sentence?

Yes, a few natural alternatives:

Laitan kannen paistinpannun päälle, jotta sipuli ei pala. (I put the lid on the frying pan…)
Peitän pannun kannella, ettei sipuli pala. (Shorter “pan” and ettei)
Avoid: kattaa here (it often means “to set/lay the table”) and sulkea (to close), which don’t fit covering a pan with a lid as naturally as peittää.

Any pronunciation or spelling pitfalls?

peitän: diphthong ei; ä is a front vowel (not like English “a”).
paistinpannun: double nn, and the compound is spelled as one word; genitive ending -n gives -n at the very end: paistinpannu + n → paistinpannun.
kannella: double nn due to gradation (kansi → kannella).
jotta: double tt.
Distinguish ei pala (doesn’t burn) from ei palaa (doesn’t return).