Learn Hardcore Finnish: Mökissä on takka, jossa poltamme puita iltaisin. - In the cottage there is a fireplace where we burn wood in the evenings.

Mökissä = in the cottage
- mökki = cottage
- -ssä (or -ssa) = in (inessive case)
on = is / there is
takka = fireplace
, = comma (before a relative clause)
jossa = in which / where
- from joka (which / that / who) + -ssa (in)
poltamme = we burn
- verb polttaa (to burn something)
- -mme = we (1st person plural ending)
puita = (some) wood / pieces of wood
- puu = tree / wood
- puita = partitive plural = some wood, some pieces of wood
iltaisin = in the evenings (repeated habitually)

So a very literal idea is: In-the-cottage is (a) fireplace, in-which we-burn (some) wood evenings‑wise.

Why is it Mökissä and not just Mökki?

Because Finnish uses cases instead of separate prepositions like in.

Mökki = cottage (basic form, nominative)
Mökissä = in the cottage (inessive case, -ssa / -ssä = in)

Whenever you want to say in X, inside X, you typically use the inessive:

talossa = in the house
kaupungissa = in the city
autossa = in the car

So Mökissä on takka means literally In the cottage is a fireplace.

Why is the word order Mökissä on takka instead of Takka on mökissä?

Both are grammatically correct but have different focus.

Mökissä on takka
- This is an existential sentence: There is a fireplace in the cottage.
- It presents the existence of a fireplace as new information.
- Typical pattern: [Place] + on + [new thing].
Takka on mökissä
- More like: The fireplace is in the cottage.
- This assumes the fireplace is already known and states where it is.

So with Mökissä on takka, you are introducing the fact that the cottage has a fireplace. With Takka on mökissä, you are telling where the (already known) fireplace is located.

What exactly is jossa, and how is it different from missä?

Jossa is a relative pronoun meaning in which or where, referring back to takka (the fireplace).

Basic relative pronoun: joka (who / which / that)
Add -ssa (in) → jossa = in which

So:

takka, jossa poltamme puita
= the fireplace in which we burn wood / the fireplace where we burn wood

Missä also means where / in what, but:

missä asks a question or stands alone:
- Missä sinä olet? = Where are you?
jossa connects a relative clause to a noun:
- takka, jossa poltamme puita = fireplace where we burn wood

In short:

missä? = where? (question)
jossa = in which / where (refers back to a specific noun)

Why is there a comma before jossa?

Finnish typically uses a comma before almost all subordinate clauses, including relative clauses that begin with joka / joka‑forms (jossa, josta, johon, etc.).

So in:

Mökissä on takka, jossa poltamme puita iltaisin.

the part jossa poltamme puita iltaisin is a relative clause describing takka (the fireplace). Finnish writing rules require a comma before that kind of clause, even when English would often omit it (the fireplace where we burn wood).

So the comma is there because jossa‑clause = subordinate clause.

Why is it poltamme and not polttamme, even though the basic verb is polttaa?

The dictionary form is:

polttaa = to burn (something)

To make the present tense we form:

Take the verb stem poltta-
Add the 1st person plural ending -mme
In this verb type, the double tt changes to a single t before the ending.

Result: poltamme (we burn).

This is the same pattern as:

ottaa → otamme (we take)
kattaa → katamme (we set [the table])

So poltamme is the regular present tense we form of polttaa.

Why is puita used instead of puut?

Puita is the partitive plural of puu (tree / wood), and it implies an indefinite amount or some wood.

puu = a tree / wood (material)
puut (nominative plural) = the trees / the pieces of wood (as a complete set)
puita (partitive plural) = some wood / some pieces of wood

Finnish uses the partitive to express:

An unspecified amount:
- juon vettä = I drink (some) water
- syön omenoita = I eat (some) apples
An action that is not about a whole, complete set.

When you burn wood in a fireplace, you usually mean some wood, not all the wood there is. So:

poltamme puita ≈ we burn (some) wood / pieces of wood

Using puut would sound like you mean very specific or all of the pieces of wood, which is less natural in this context.

How is puita formed from puu?

The noun puu forms its partitive plural like this:

Stem: puu‑
Add plural marker ‑i‑ → pui‑
Add partitive ending ‑ta → puita

So:

puu (one tree / wood)
puut (nominative plural: trees)
puita (partitive plural: some trees / some wood)

This ‑i + ta pattern is very common for partitive plural:

talo → taloja (houses)
puu → puita (trees / wood)

What does iltaisin mean exactly, and how is it different from illalla?

Both relate to evening, but they differ in nuance:

illalla = in the evening / this (or a specific) evening
- ilta (evening) + ‑lla (adessive, at/on)
- Example: Tulen illalla. = I will come in the evening (today).
iltaisin = in the evenings, evenings in general, usually in the evenings
- This is the distributive form, meaning something happens repeatedly / habitually at that time.

So:

poltamme puita illalla = we burn wood in the evening (a particular evening, or today)
poltamme puita iltaisin = we burn wood in the evenings (as a habit, regularly)

In the given sentence, iltaisin tells you it’s a regular routine, not a one‑time event.

Why is there no separate word for there in Mökissä on takka (even though the English translation is There is a fireplace in the cottage)?

Finnish existential sentences don’t use a word for there like English does. Instead, the structure:

[Location in a case] + on + [new thing]

already covers the meaning there is.

So:

Mökissä on takka.
literally: In the cottage is a fireplace.
natural English: There is a fireplace in the cottage.

Other examples:

Pihalla on auto. = There is a car in the yard.
Pöydällä on kirja. = There is a book on the table.

The location in a local case (mökissä, pihalla, pöydällä) plus on functions like English there is.

How do we know if takka means a fireplace or the fireplace, since there are no articles?

Finnish has no articles (a, an, the). Takka on its own can correspond to a fireplace or the fireplace, depending entirely on context.

Here, Mökissä on takka introduces this fireplace for the first time, so natural English uses a fireplace.
If you had already mentioned it, English might switch to the fireplace, but Finnish would still say takka.

Example:

Mökissä on takka. Jossa poltamme puita iltaisin.
- First sentence: There is a fireplace in the cottage.
- Second: In the fireplace we burn wood in the evenings.
- Finnish just repeats takka, but English often uses the fireplace the second time.

So Finnish relies on context and discourse, not articles, to convey definiteness.

Could I say Mökissä on takka, jossa me poltamme puita iltaisin? Is me necessary?

You can say it, but me is not necessary.

poltamme already contains the we meaning via the ending ‑mme.
Finnish is a pro‑drop language: the subject pronoun is often omitted when it’s clear from the verb ending.

So:

jossa poltamme puita iltaisin = in which we burn wood in the evenings
jossa me poltamme puita iltaisin = same meaning, but me adds a slight emphasis on we (as opposed to someone else).

In neutral everyday speech, the shorter poltamme without me is perfectly natural.

How would the meaning change if I said Mökissä on takka, jossa poltan puita iltaisin instead of poltamme?

Changing poltamme to poltan switches the subject from we to I:

poltamme = we burn
poltan = I burn

So:

Mökissä on takka, jossa poltamme puita iltaisin.
= There is a fireplace in the cottage, where we burn wood in the evenings.
Mökissä on takka, jossa poltan puita iltaisin.
= There is a fireplace in the cottage, where I burn wood in the evenings.

Structurally everything else is the same; only the subject changes.