Learn Hardcore Finnish: Unohdin pipon kotiin, joten korviani paleltaa helposti. - I forgot the beanie at home, so my ears feel cold easily.

Pipon is the object of the verb unohdin (unohtaa = to forget), and in Finnish, a complete/total object in the past tense usually takes the accusative form.

For most singular nouns, the accusative form looks the same as the genitive: add -n to the stem.

nominative: pipo (a beanie, hat)
genitive/accusative: pipon (of the hat / the hat as whole object)

So Unohdin pipon kotiin = I forgot (left) the hat at home, with pipon marking “the whole hat” as the object of forgetting.

Could I say Unohdin pipo kotiin instead of Unohdin pipon kotiin?

No, not in standard Finnish. The object form is required here.

After unohtaa, a definite, countable object like pipo in a completed action normally appears in the accusative/genitive form:

✅ Unohdin pipon kotiin.
❌ Unohdin pipo kotiin.

Pipo (nominative) could appear as a subject (Pipo on kotona = The hat is at home), but as the object of unohdin, it should be pipon.

Why is it kotiin and not koti or kotona?

Kotiin is the illative case (the “into / to” case), and it’s used in this common idiom:

unohtaa jokin kotiin = to forget/leave something at home

Even though there is no literal movement in the sentence, Finnish treats it as if the item “ended up into home” (left there), so:

koti (basic form) = home (dictionary form)
kotona (inessive) = at home (location)
kotiin (illative) = to/into home (destination)

With unohtaa, the idiomatic pattern is:

Unohdin avaimet kotiin. = I left my keys at home.
Unohdin pipon kotiin. = I left my hat at home.

You would not normally say Unohdin pipon kotona.

Could I say Unohdin piponi kotiin instead of Unohdin pipon kotiin?

Yes, grammatically you can:

Unohdin piponi kotiin.

Here piponi = my hat (pipo + possessive suffix -ni).

Both are correct:

Unohdin pipon kotiin. – I forgot the hat at home.
Unohdin piponi kotiin. – I forgot my hat at home.

In context, pipon is usually understood as my hat anyway, so piponi can sound a bit more explicit or slightly more formal/bookish. In everyday speech, people often just use the plain object pipon and rely on context for the ownership.

What does joten do here, and could I use koska or siksi instead?

Joten is a coordinating conjunction meaning so / therefore. It connects two clauses where the second is a result of the first:

Unohdin pipon kotiin, joten korviani paleltaa helposti.
= I left my hat at home, so my ears get cold easily.

Alternatives:

koska = because (introduces the reason clause)
- Korviani paleltaa helposti, koska unohdin pipon kotiin.
  My ears get cold easily, because I left my hat at home.
siksi = for that reason / that’s why (an adverb, not a conjunction)
- Unohdin pipon kotiin, siksi korviani paleltaa helposti.
  I left my hat at home; for that reason my ears get cold easily.

So in the original word order, joten is the most natural choice.

Why is it korviani paleltaa instead of something like korvani paleltuvat?

Paleltaa is a special verb in Finnish: an impersonal “feeling cold” verb. It doesn’t behave like a normal verb with a clear subject.

Minua paleltaa. = I feel cold / I’m freezing.
(literally: “It freezes me.”)

In korviani paleltaa, korviani (“my ears”) is not a normal subject; it’s in the partitive and acts more like an affected body part:

korv-i-a-ni
- korv- = ear (stem)
- -i- = plural marker
- -a = partitive
- -ni = my

So literally: “It freezes my ears (at least to some extent).”

A sentence like Korvani paleltuvat would be grammatical but would sound more like “My ears freeze (over)” in a more physical/less idiomatic way. For “My ears get cold / feel cold easily”, Finns very naturally say korviani paleltaa.

Why is korviani in the partitive case?

Two main reasons:

With verbs of sensation/feeling, Finnish often uses the partitive for the affected person/body part:
- Minua väsyttää. = I’m tired.
- Päätäni särkee. = I have a headache.
- Korviani paleltaa. = My ears feel cold.
The partitive often suggests something partial, ongoing, or not fully affected. Here, it’s about the sensation affecting your ears, not that they are “completely frozen solid”.

So the pattern is:

partitive (person or body part) + impersonal verb (e.g. paleltaa, särkee, väsyttää)

What exactly does paleltaa mean, and how is it used compared to olla kylmä?

Paleltaa means to feel cold / to freeze (as a sensation) and is used in this impersonal way:

Minua paleltaa. = I feel cold.
Käsiäni paleltaa. = My hands feel cold.
Korviani paleltaa. = My ears feel cold.

Structure: [partitive experiencer/body part] + paleltaa (3rd person singular)

Compare with olla kylmä:

Minulla on kylmä. = I am cold.
Minulla on usein kylmä korvista. (less common/colloquial) = My ears are often cold.

Both describe the feeling of cold, but paleltaa is a very natural choice for “feeling cold” or “something is making me cold”, especially for specific body parts.

Why doesn’t the verb agree with korviani? Why not paleltavat?

In korviani paleltaa, paleltaa is used impersonally; it doesn’t agree with a grammatical subject.

Form: 3rd person singular (paleltaa) is used no matter who is cold.
The affected person or body part is in the partitive (here: korviani).

So:

Minua paleltaa.
Häntä paleltaa.
Jalkojani paleltaa.
Korviani paleltaa.

All use the same verb form paleltaa, because the structure is “It is freezing (me, my legs, my ears…)” rather than “My ears freeze” in a subject–verb agreement sense.

What exactly does korviani mean, and how is “my” shown here?

Korviani breaks down like this:

korv- = ear (stem)
-i- = plural marker (ears)
-a = partitive case ending
-ni = my (1st person singular possessive suffix)

So korviani = my ears in the partitive plural.

Finnish often shows possession via a possessive suffix instead of a separate pronoun:

korvani = my ear(s) (nominative or genitive)
korviani = my ears (partitive plural)
Compare: minun korvani = my ears (explicit minun), more emphatic or formal.

In everyday speech, korviani is completely natural here.

Could I say Minun korviani paleltaa helposti, and how does that sound?

Yes, that is grammatically fine:

Minun korviani paleltaa helposti.

It adds the explicit pronoun minun (“my”), making it more emphatic or explicit:

Korviani paleltaa helposti. = My ears get cold easily.
Minun korviani paleltaa helposti. = My ears get cold easily (as opposed to someone else’s, or stressing that it’s a problem for me).

Everyday spoken Finnish would often just use korviani paleltaa helposti without minun, because the possessive suffix -ni already indicates “my”.

Is the whole sentence more formal, neutral, or colloquial?

The sentence

Unohdin pipon kotiin, joten korviani paleltaa helposti.

is neutral standard Finnish. It’s perfectly fine in spoken and written contexts.

In very casual spoken Finnish, you might also hear variants like:

Unohdin pipon kotiin, niin korvia paleltaa helposti.
(using niin instead of joten, and often dropping the possessive suffix: korvia instead of korviani)

But the original sentence is clear, correct, and stylistically neutral.