Learn Hardcore Finnish: Joskus syömme iltapalan nuotion ääressä pesemättä astioita heti. - Sometimes we eat an evening snack by the campfire without washing the dishes right away.

This puts a bit of emphasis on time/frequency (“Sometimes, we eat...”). Moving joskus later sounds a little more marked or contrastive, but is still fine.

Why is it syömme and not me syömme?

In Finnish, the personal ending on the verb already shows the subject:

syö-mme = “we eat” (1st person plural marker -mme)

Because of that, the pronoun me (“we”) is usually optional in simple declarative sentences:

(Me) syömme iltapalan. – “We eat the evening snack.”

You add me when you want to emphasize it, for contrast or clarity:

Me syömme, emmekä he. – We eat, not they.

In your sentence, syömme without me is perfectly natural and neutral.

Why is iltapalan in the genitive form instead of iltapala or iltapalaa?

Iltapalan is the genitive singular of iltapala (“evening snack”). Here it is functioning as the object of syömme (“we eat”).

In Finnish, the object of a verb can be:

Genitive/accusative: when the action is complete / total
- Syömme iltapalan. – We eat the whole evening snack.
Partitive: when the action is incomplete, ongoing, or “some amount”
- Syömme iltapalaa. – We eat (some) evening snack / we are eating evening snack.

So:

Syömme iltapalan suggests a full, bounded meal/snack, a complete portion.
Syömme iltapalaa would sound more like “we are (in the process of) eating some evening snack,” without focusing on completion.

Here, iltapalan fits well because you are talking about the whole evening snack as a normal, completed event.

What exactly is iltapala? Is it just “dinner”?

Iltapala literally means “evening snack”:

ilta = evening
pala = piece, bite, (small) portion

Culturally, in Finland, iltapala is often a light meal or snack eaten later in the evening, separate from päivällinen / illallinen (dinner/supper). It can be something like bread, porridge, yogurt, or similar light foods.

So the sentence is not about a main dinner, but about a lighter, more informal evening snack.

What does nuotion ääressä literally mean, and what case is being used?

Nuotion ääressä literally means:

nuotion – genitive of nuotio (“campfire”)
ääressä – inessive form of ääri (“edge, border, side”), used as a postposition meaning “by, at, beside”

So nuotion ääressä is literally “at the edge/side of the campfire,” idiomatically “by the campfire” or “around the campfire.”

The case marking is:

nuotion – genitive (whose edge?)
ääressä – inessive (-ssä), functioning like a postposition (“at/by”)

Why is it nuotion ääressä (genitive) and not just nuotio ääressä?

With this kind of structure, ääressä behaves like a postposition that takes its “owner” in the genitive:

pöydän ääressä – at the table
takan ääressä – by the fireplace
järven ääressä – by the lake
nuotion ääressä – by the campfire

So the pattern is:

[thing in genitive] + ääressä = by/at the [thing]

Using nuotio ääressä without genitive would be ungrammatical in standard Finnish.

Could we say nuotiolla instead of nuotion ääressä? Is there a difference?

Yes, you could say:

Syömme iltapalan nuotiolla.

Nuotiolla (adessive) means “at the campfire, on/at the fire site,” and is also natural in this context.

The nuance:

nuotion ääressä – more literally “by the campfire,” somewhat descriptive of being around the fire.
nuotiolla – “at the campfire area,” more compact, maybe slightly more colloquial-sounding.

In everyday use, either can be fine; nuotion ääressä may feel a bit more “picturesque” or literary.

What form is pesemättä, and what does it mean?

Pesemättä is the abessive form of the third infinitive of the verb pestä (“to wash”).

Verb: pestä (to wash)
3rd infinitive base: pesemä-
Abessive ending: -ttä (or -tta)

→ pesemättä = “without washing”

It functions like an adverbial phrase expressing lack of an action:

Lähdin pesemättä käsiä. – I left without washing my hands.
He menivät nukkumaan syömättä. – They went to sleep without eating.

In your sentence pesemättä astioita heti literally means “without washing dishes immediately.”

Could we say ilman että pesemme astiat heti instead of pesemättä astioita heti? What’s the difference?

Yes, that is possible:

Joskus syömme iltapalan nuotion ääressä ilman että pesemme astiat heti.

Differences:

Structure
- pesemättä astioita heti – non-finite, compact, very typical Finnish structure.
- ilman että pesemme astiat heti – has a full finite clause after että; feels more explicit, a bit more “spoken-like” or explanatory.
Object case & nuance
- pesemättä astioita (partitive plural) is slightly more general/indefinite: “without washing dishes (any dishes / the dishes in general).”
- pesemme astiat (accusative/genitive) – more clearly “we (don’t) wash the dishes (all of them).”

The version with pesemättä is more concise and very idiomatic in written Finnish. The ilman että version is grammatically fine but a bit heavier in style.

Why is astioita in the partitive plural, not astiat?

Astioita is the partitive plural of astia (“dish, vessel, plate, etc.”).

In the structure with pesemättä, the “would-be object” of the missing action is typically in the partitive because the action is:

not actually carried out (we don’t wash them),
and the quantity/completeness is not strongly delimited.

So:

pesemättä astioita – “without washing (the) dishes,” expressed in an indefinite, non-completed way.
If you tried pesemättä astiat, it would sound wrong; the infinitive-like pesemättä does not take a total/accusative object in that form.

Partitive plural here signals something like “any/all dishes that would normally be washed,” without strongly specifying the set.

What role does heti play here, and can it be moved to another place in the sentence?

Heti means “immediately / right away.” Here it modifies the time of the (omitted) washing action:

pesemättä astioita heti – without washing the dishes right away.

You can move heti somewhat:

pesemättä heti astioita – without immediately washing dishes
heti pesemättä astioita – sounds odd in this sentence and is usually avoided.

Most natural are:

pesemättä astioita heti (very normal)
or possibly pesemättä heti astioita (a slight emphasis shift, still okay)

Putting heti elsewhere in the main clause (e.g., heti syömme) would change the meaning (“we immediately eat...”), so its current placement clearly ties the adverb to washing, not to eating.

How flexible is the word order in the whole sentence? Could we rearrange it significantly?

Finnish allows quite a bit of word order variation, as long as relationships are clear. Some possible variants:

Joskus syömme iltapalan nuotion ääressä pesemättä astioita heti. (original)
Joskus syömme nuotion ääressä iltapalan pesemättä astioita heti.
Iltapalan syömme joskus nuotion ääressä pesemättä astioita heti. (emphasis on iltapalan)
Nuotion ääressä syömme joskus iltapalan pesemättä astioita heti. (emphasis on by the campfire)

They’re all grammatically correct, but the default, neutral version is close to your original: time adverb (joskus), then verb + object, then place, then manner/extra phrase.

As you move elements to the front, you tend to emphasize them. For example:

Nuotion ääressä syömme joskus iltapalan… emphasizes the campfire place.
Iltapalan syömme… emphasizes that it’s specifically the evening snack (as opposed to some other meal).