Learn Hardcore Finnish: Palaverihuoneessa tulostus ei toimi, joten tekniikkaa on tarkistettava ja etsimme toisen tulostimen. - In the meeting room the printing does not work, so the technology must be checked and we look for another printer.

tulostus ei toimi
- tulostus = printing (the process)
- Focuses on the activity/process: “Printing doesn’t work.”
tulostin ei toimi
- tulostin = (the) printer (device)
- Focuses on the device: “The printer doesn’t work.”

In many real situations, either could be said. This sentence chooses to highlight the function (printing) rather than the machine itself.

How does the negative ei toimi work grammatically? Why not ei toimia?

Finnish uses a special negative verb:

The negative verb for 3rd person singular is ei.
The main verb then appears in a “connegative” form (no personal ending).

For the verb toimia (to function / to work):

Positive: tulostus toimii = the printing works
- toimii = 3rd person singular
Negative: tulostus ei toimi = the printing does not work
- ei = negative verb
- toimi = connegative form (no personal ending)

So ei toimia is incorrect in standard Finnish; you must use ei toimi.

What does joten mean here, and how is it different from koska or siksi?

joten is a conjunction meaning “so / therefore / and so”, introducing the result of the first clause.

Palaverihuoneessa tulostus ei toimi, joten…
- “Printing doesn’t work in the meeting room, so…”

Comparison:

koska = because (introduces a reason)
- Etsimme toisen tulostimen, koska tulostus ei toimi.
  “We’re looking for another printer because printing doesn’t work.”
siksi = for that reason / therefore (an adverb)
- Tulostus ei toimi. Siksi etsimme toisen tulostimen.
  “Printing doesn’t work. For that reason we’re looking for another printer.”

So:

joten connects cause → result in one sentence.
koska introduces the cause.
siksi is an adverb meaning “for that reason”.

What does tekniikkaa mean here? Why the ending -a (partitive)?

tekniikkaa is the partitive singular of tekniikka.

tekniikka can mean:
- technology in general
- technical equipment / tech setup (in a context like offices, AV gear, printers, etc.)

In tekniikkaa on tarkistettava, the partitive tekniikkaa is used because:

it’s treated as an uncountable mass or vague amount (like “some of the technical stuff / the technical side”)
in constructions like on [verb]-ttava (“must be [checked/done]”), a mass-type object often appears in the partitive:
- kahvia on keitettävä = some coffee has to be made
- tekniikkaa on tarkistettava = the technical equipment/technology needs to be checked (at least in part)

So tekniikkaa here ≈ “the technical equipment / the technical side (in general)”.
The partitive makes it less definite/total than nominative tekniikka would.

What is the structure on tarkistettava? Is it like “must be checked”?

Yes. on tarkistettava is a necessive construction:

olla (to be) in 3rd person singular: on
- the -ttava / -tävä form of a verb (here: tarkistaa → tarkistettava)

Meaning: “must be checked / needs to be checked / has to be checked.”

So:

tekniikkaa on tarkistettava ≈
“The technical equipment needs to be checked.” / “We have to check the technical equipment.”

This structure:

is impersonal (doesn’t say who must do it explicitly)
is common in instructions, rules, and neutral statements of necessity

Could we add an explicit subject like meidän on tarkistettava tekniikka? How would that change the meaning?

Yes, that’s possible and common:

Meidän on tarkistettava tekniikka.
- Literally: “Of us is to-check the technology.”
- Natural English: “We must check the technology.”

Differences:

tekniikkaa on tarkistettava
- impersonal, no explicit “we/they/you”
- sounds more general, like a neutral requirement
meidän on tarkistettava tekniikka
- meidän = “we” in the genitive (showing whose obligation it is)
- clearly says we are the ones who must do it

So adding meidän makes the responsibility explicit.

Why is the verb etsimme in the present tense if it seems to refer to the future (“we will look for / we’ll find another printer”)?

Finnish usually uses the present tense where English would use:

present continuous (we are looking for)
or future (we will look for / we’re going to look for)

So:

etsimme toisen tulostimen
- literally: “we look for / we search for another printer”
- in context: “we’ll look for another printer” or “we’re going to look for another printer”

Finnish has no separate future tense; context and adverbs (like huomenna, pian) express futurity. Here, the logical next step after the problem is to start looking, so English naturally uses “will” or “are going to,” but Finnish just keeps the present.

Why is it toisen tulostimen and not just toinen tulostin?

This is about object case.

Basic forms:
- toinen tulostin = another printer (nominative)
In the sentence, toisen tulostimen functions as the object of etsimme.

For a total / specific object in this kind of sentence, Finnish uses the genitive (or “accusative”):

Etsimme toisen tulostimen.
- toisen = genitive of toinen
- tulostimen = genitive of tulostin
- “We (will) look for another printer (a specific whole unit as the goal).”

If you said etsimme toista tulostinta (partitive), it would sound more like:

“We’re (in the process of) looking for another printer,” with focus on the ongoing search rather than a clearly completed, one-off result.

Here, toisen tulostimen presents it as a definite, goal-oriented action: we intend to end up with one new printer.

Does toinen here mean “second” or “another / a different”? What’s the nuance of toinen tulostin?

toinen can mean:

second (ordinal number: first, second, third…)
another / the other / a different one

In toisen tulostimen in this context, it means:

“another printer, a different printer (from the one that doesn’t work)”

So:

toinen tulostin could be “the second printer” (in a numbered sequence)
but very often, in a context like this, it is understood as “another / different printer” rather than literally “second.”
Context decides, and here the “another / different” reading is the natural one.

Could the word order be Tulostus ei toimi palaverihuoneessa instead of Palaverihuoneessa tulostus ei toimi? Does it change the meaning?

Both word orders are grammatically correct. The difference is emphasis:

Palaverihuoneessa tulostus ei toimi…
- starts with Palaverihuoneessa (“in the meeting room”)
- emphasizes the location: In the meeting room, printing doesn’t work (but maybe elsewhere it does).
Tulostus ei toimi palaverihuoneessa…
- starts with Tulostus (“printing”)
- emphasizes what doesn’t work first, then where.

Finnish word order is fairly flexible; the first element is often the “topic” or focus of the sentence. Here, starting with Palaverihuoneessa highlights the meeting room as the key context.