En ole varma, valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut juhlaan.

I am not sure whether I will choose black trousers or grey jeans for the party.

Breakdown of En ole varma, valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut juhlaan.

• minä: I
• olla: to be
• ei: not
• vai: or
• valita: to choose
• -an: to
• varma: sure
• musta: black
• housut: the trousers
• harmaa: grey
• farkut: the jeans
• -ko: whether
• juhla: the party

Questions & Answers about En ole varma, valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut juhlaan.

Why is valitsenko used instead of just valitsen?

Valitsenko is valitsen (I choose / I will choose) plus the -ko/-kö question clitic.

In a direct yes/no question, you’d say:

• Valitsenko mustat housut? – Shall I choose the black trousers?

In this sentence, it’s an indirect question embedded inside another clause:

• En ole varma, valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut…
  – I’m not sure whether I’ll choose the black trousers or the grey jeans…

Finnish uses the same -ko/-kö form for:

• direct yes/no questions
• indirect yes/no questions (whether…) after verbs like en ole varma, en tiedä, muistan, etc.

So valitsenko here corresponds to English “whether I will choose”, not just “I choose”.

Why is the conjunction vai used instead of tai?

Both vai and tai translate to something like “or”, but they are used in different situations:

• vai is used in questions, where you are asking or wondering between mutually exclusive options:

  • Valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut?
    – Will I choose the black trousers or the grey jeans?

• tai is used:

  • in statements:
    
    • Voin käyttää mustia housuja tai harmaita farkkuja.
      – I can wear black trousers or grey jeans.
  • in non-exclusive choices or more general “or” situations.

In this sentence the speaker is unsure which one they will choose, so vai is correct.

Why are housut and farkut in the plural?

Some clothing items in Finnish are inherently plural nouns, even when you mean just one item. Two very common ones:

• housut – trousers/pants
• farkut – jeans

There is no singular form like *housu or *farkku for one pair of trousers/jeans in normal modern usage. You always say:

• uudet housut – (a) new pair of trousers
• siniset farkut – (a) pair of blue jeans

So in this sentence:

• mustat housut – black trousers
• harmaat farkut – grey jeans

are grammatically plural, even though each refers to one pair of trousers/jeans.

Why are the adjectives mustat and harmaat also in the plural?

In Finnish, adjectives agree with the noun in:

• number (singular/plural)
• case
• sometimes in other features

Since housut and farkut are plural nominative, the adjectives must also be plural nominative:

• mustat housut
  
  • mustat = plural nominative of musta (black)
• harmaat farkut
  
  • harmaat = plural nominative of harmaa (grey)

If you changed the case or number of the noun, the adjective would change too:

• mustia housuja (partitive plural)
• harmaita farkkuja (partitive plural)

Why is it juhlaan and not just juhla or something like juhlassa?

Juhlaan is the illative case, roughly “into / to / for the party”.

• juhla – a party (basic form, nominative)
• juhlassa – in the party (inessive: location inside)
• juhlaan – to the party / for the party (illative: movement or destination)

Here, juhlaan expresses the purpose or destination: the clothes are being chosen for a specific event. So:

• …mustat housut vai harmaat farkut juhlaan
  ≈ …the black trousers or the grey jeans for the party.

Using juhlassa would mean “in the party”, as in a location where something happens, which doesn’t fit the meaning here.

What is the structure of the whole sentence? Which part is the main clause?

The sentence has:

1. Main clause:

   • En ole varma – I am not sure.

2. Embedded yes/no clause (indirect question):

   • valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut juhlaan
     – whether I’ll choose the black trousers or the grey jeans for the party.

So in English-like structure:

• [En ole varma], [valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut juhlaan].
  [I am not sure] [whether I will choose the black trousers or the grey jeans for the party].

The -ko in valitsenko marks the second part as a question-like clause embedded inside the statement.

Why does the negative part look like en ole varma and not just something like *olen ei varma?

Finnish has a special negative verb that conjugates for person. For “to be”, you combine:

• the negative verb
  • the base form of “to be” (olla).

For minä (I):

• olen varma – I am sure
• en ole varma – I am not sure

Patterns:

• olen – I am
• et ole – you (sg) are not
• ei ole – he/she/it is not
• emme ole – we are not
• ette ole – you (pl) are not
• eivät ole – they are not

So en is the 1st-person singular negative, and ole is the unchanged form of olla used with negation. You cannot say *olen ei varma; the negation always comes before the main verb as a separate word (the negative verb).

Could the subject minä be included? Would that change the meaning?

Yes, you can include minä explicitly:

• Minä en ole varma, valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut juhlaan.

This doesn’t change the meaning; it just makes the subject more explicit. In normal, neutral Finnish:

• En ole varma…
  is perfectly natural because the person is already marked in the verb (en = I do not).

You typically add minä:

• for emphasis (e.g. Minä en ole varma, I’m not sure), or
• in very clear or formal speech (for learners, beginners, or written emphasis).

Is the comma before valitsenko necessary?

Yes, in standard written Finnish a comma is used to separate the main clause from this type of subordinate clause.

• En ole varma, valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut juhlaan.

The part starting with valitsenko is an embedded question clause (epäsuora kysymyslause). Finnish punctuation rules normally require a comma before such clauses, similar to English:

• I’m not sure, whether I will choose… (in English you might omit it, but in Finnish you normally keep it).

So the comma here is not random; it marks the clause boundary.

Why is it valitsenko (present) and not valitsinko (past)?

The choice of tense is about time reference:

• valitsenko – present tense: whether I will choose / whether I am going to choose
  → The decision is future or not yet made.

• valitsinko – past tense: whether I chose
  → The decision is in the past, but the speaker is unsure what happened.

So:

• En ole varma, valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut juhlaan.
  – I’m not sure whether I’ll choose the black trousers or the grey jeans for the party. (future choice)

• En ollut varma, valitsinko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut juhliin.
  – I wasn’t sure whether I chose the black trousers or the grey jeans for the party. (past situation)

Could you use että here, like En ole varma, että valitsen mustat housut? What would that mean?

You could say:

• En ole varma, että valitsen mustat housut.

But the meaning is different:

• En ole varma, valitsenko mustat housut vai harmaat farkut…
  – You are unsure which option you will choose (A or B).

• En ole varma, että valitsen mustat housut.
  – Roughly: I’m not sure that I’ll choose the black trousers.
  This expresses doubt about the truth of the statement “I will choose the black trousers”, but it doesn’t explicitly set up an A/B choice with vai.

For a “whether A or B” meaning, Finnish normally uses:

• a -ko/-kö clause (valitsenko)
• the conjunction vai between options.