Learn Hardcore Finnish: En löydä silmälasejani, vaikka tiedän, että ne ovat jossain kotona. - I can’t find my glasses, even though I know they are somewhere at home.

Finnish usually leaves out subject pronouns, because the person and number are already marked on the verb (or, in negative sentences, on the negative verb).

En löydä already tells us:
- en = I don’t
- löydä = find (verb in a special “negative” form)

So Minä en löydä silmälasejani is grammatically correct, but minä is only added for emphasis or contrast, e.g.:

Minä en löydä silmälasejani, mutta sinä löydät omasi.
I can’t find my glasses, but you find yours.

Why is it En löydä and not En löydän?

Finnish forms negation with a special negative verb plus a connegative main verb:

Negative verb (en, et, ei, emme, ette, eivät) carries the person and number.
The main verb goes into a “bare” form without a personal ending (connegative form).

For löytää (to find):

Affirmative: löydän = I find
Negative: en löydä = I don’t find / can’t find

So:

löydän has the personal ending -n (1st person singular).
löydä in en löydä has no personal ending; the “I” is in en.

How is silmälasejani built, and what does it mean literally?

silmälasejani literally means “my (pair of) glasses” as an object in a negative sentence.

Morphology step by step:

silmä = eye
lasi = glass
silmälasit = glasses (a pair of glasses; inherently plural)
silmälaseja = glasses (partitive plural form)
silmälaseja + ni = silmälasejani
- -ni = my

So:

silmälas- = glasses (stem)
-eja = partitive plural ending
-ni = my

Altogether: silmälasejani = my glasses (in partitive plural, because of negation).

Why is silmälasejani in the partitive case, not in the basic form silmälasit?

In Finnish, direct objects in negative sentences are typically in the partitive case.

Compare:

Löydän silmälasini. – I find my glasses.
(Completeness; positive → total object, often accusative/nominative form.)
En löydä silmälasejani. – I can’t find my glasses.
(Negative → object goes into the partitive: silmälaseja-
- ni.)

The logic: negation often implies that the action does not reach a complete result, and Finnish marks that with the partitive case on the object.

Could I say En löydä minun silmälasejani or En löydä silmälasini instead? What’s the difference?

En löydä minun silmälasejani.
- Grammatically OK.
- Uses the independent pronoun minun instead of a possessive suffix.
- Sounds more emphatic: I can’t find *my glasses (not someone else’s).*
- Everyday default is without minun, unless you need emphasis.
En löydä silmälasini.
- This uses silmälasini (nominative/accusative “my glasses”) instead of the partitive.
- In a negative sentence, the object should normally be partitive (silmälasejani), so En löydä silmälasini sounds ungrammatical/incorrect in standard Finnish.

Natural options are therefore:

En löydä silmälasejani. (neutral, most common)
En löydä minun silmälasejani. (adds emphasis on my)

Why are “glasses” plural in Finnish too? Is there a singular like “one glass”?

Yes, Finnish treats glasses like English in this respect:

silmälasit is inherently plural, just like glasses in English.
- Literally: “eye-glasses” (plural).
If you say silmälasi, it would mean an eyeglass (a single lens/glass), which is unusual in everyday speech unless you’re being very technical.

So:

silmälasit = a (pair of) glasses
silmälasejani = my glasses (as object, partitive plural, in a negative sentence)

What exactly does vaikka mean here, and how is it different from koska or että?

In this sentence, vaikka means “although / even though”:

..., vaikka tiedän, että ne ovat jossain kotona.
= ..., even though I know that they are somewhere at home.

Differences:

vaikka = although, even though (or even if in other contexts)
- Introduces a contrast: X happens even though Y is true.
koska = because
- Introduces a reason: X happens because Y is true.
että = that (subordinate conjunction introducing a clause)
- After verbs like tietää (to know), luulla (to think), sanoa (to say), etc.

So you can’t replace vaikka with koska or että here without changing the meaning:

… koska tiedän, että… = because I know that…
… vaikka tiedän, että… = although/even though I know that…

Why are there commas before vaikka and että? Are they required?

Yes, in standard Finnish they are required here.

Finnish normally uses a comma between a main clause and a subordinate clause, especially when the subordinate clause starts with a conjunction like vaikka, että, koska, jos, kun, etc.

In your sentence:

En löydä silmälasejani, → main clause
vaikka tiedän, → subordinate clause 1
että ne ovat jossain kotona. → subordinate clause 2 inside the first one

So we get:

En löydä silmälasejani,
vaikka tiedän,
että ne ovat jossain kotona.

Each new finite subordinate clause after a conjunction typically gets a comma before it.

Why do we need että after tiedän? Could I just say vaikka tiedän, ne ovat jossain kotona?

After verbs like tietää (to know), ajatella (to think), luulla (to believe), Finnish normally uses että (“that”) to introduce a whole clause.

Tiedän, että ne ovat jossain kotona.
= I know that they are somewhere at home.

Without että, it sounds unnatural or incomplete in standard Finnish.

So:

✔ vaikka tiedän, että ne ovat jossain kotona (correct)
✖ vaikka tiedän, ne ovat jossain kotona (incorrect/awkward in standard language)

Why is it ne and not neitä, and why is it ne rather than just leaving the pronoun out?

Here, ne is the subject of the verb ovat (“are”):

ne = they (non-human/plural things)
ovat = are

So:

ne ovat = they are

Because ne is the subject, it must be in the nominative form ne, not the partitive neitä (which would be used for an object or after certain verbs/quantities).

As for leaving the pronoun out:

In Finnish, 1st and 2nd person pronouns (minä, sinä, me, te) are very often dropped.
Third-person pronouns (hän, he, se, ne) are less often dropped, especially when they are the only subject in the clause.

Here, että ne ovat jossain kotona normally keeps the ne, so the listener knows clearly that “they (the glasses)” are somewhere at home.

What does jossain mean exactly, and how is it related to jossakin or jokin?

jossain means “somewhere (in some place)”.

It comes from the indefinite pronoun jokin (“some, some thing”) in the inessive case:

jokin = some (thing)
Inessive (in something): jossakin → “in some place, somewhere”
jossain is a shortened, very common variant of jossakin.

So:

jossakin kotona and jossain kotona both mean “somewhere at home”.
jossain is a bit more colloquial/neutral; jossakin can sound slightly more formal or careful, but both are standard.

Why is it kotona and not kotiin or kodissa? What’s the difference?

These are all related to koti (“home”) but express different spatial relations:

kotona = at home / in (my) home
- Inessive case (static location).
- Used for being at home:
  - Olen kotona. = I am at home.
kotiin = (to) home
- Illative case (movement to a place).
- Used for going home:
  - Menen kotiin. = I’m going home.
kodissa = in the home / in the house
- Also an inessive form, but from the stem koti → kod-.
- Usually refers more literally to inside the house/building, and not necessarily “my home”.

In your sentence, we’re talking about location (“are somewhere at home”), so kotona is the natural choice:

ne ovat jossain kotona
= they are somewhere at home (in my/our home, as a general place).

Is there any difference between saying jossain kotona and kotona jossain?

Both are grammatically possible, but the default and most natural order here is:

jossain kotona = somewhere at home

Word order in Finnish is fairly flexible, but it affects emphasis:

jossain kotona
- Neutral focus: somewhere (unspecified) at home.
kotona jossain
- Puts a bit more emphasis on kotona first, then adds that it’s “somewhere” there.
- Could sound slightly marked or poetic in this context.

For an everyday sentence like this, learners should stick to jossain kotona.