Learn Hardcore Finnish: Yövymme teltassa, vaikka mökissä olisi tilaa. - We spend the night in a tent, even though there would be room in the cottage.

right now: Yövymme teltassa nyt. – We are staying overnight in the tent now.
the near or planned future: Yövymme teltassa huomenna. – We will stay overnight in the tent tomorrow.

In this sentence, context (e.g. when it is said, or other time expressions) tells you it’s about the future, even though the verb form is present indicative yövymme.

If you really want to stress the futurity, you can say:
Tulemme yöpymään teltassa. – We are going to stay overnight in the tent.
But the simple present yövymme is completely normal for future plans.

Where is the word “we” in the Finnish sentence? Why is there no separate me?

The subject “we” is built into the verb ending:

yövy- – verb stem (from yöpyä, to stay overnight)
-mme – personal ending for “we” (1st person plural)

So yövymme literally means “we stay overnight / we will stay overnight”.

Finnish usually omits subject pronouns, because the verb ending already shows who is doing the action. You can add me for emphasis:

Me yövymme teltassa… – We (as opposed to someone else) will stay in the tent…

What does yövymme come from, and why does the stem look like yövy- and not yöpy-?

The dictionary form is yöpyä – to stay overnight. When conjugated, it undergoes consonant gradation, a common sound change in Finnish.

Basic pattern here:

infinitive: yöpyä
1st sg: yövyn
1st pl: yövymme

The consonant p weakens to v in many forms (like when a syllable closes), so yöpy- → yövy- before the personal endings. Then you add the -mme ending for “we”:

yöpyä → stem yövy- → yövymme (“we stay overnight” / “we will stay overnight”)

Why is it teltassa and not just teltta or telttaan?

Teltassa is the inessive case, which shows location inside something.

teltta – tent (basic form)
teltassa – in the tent (inside the tent)
telttaan – into the tent (movement into the tent; illative case)

In this sentence yövymme teltassa means “we will stay overnight *in the tent”, so the inessive *-ssa ending is required to express “in”.

Both teltassa and mökissä have -ssa/ssä. What case is this and what does it mean?

That ending is the inessive singular, which usually translates as “in”:

teltta → teltassa – in the tent
mökki → mökissä – in the cottage

The choice between -ssa and -ssä follows vowel harmony:

back vowels (a, o, u) → -ssa
front vowels (ä, ö, y) → -ssä

Since teltta has a, you get teltassa.
Since mökki has ö, you get mökissä.

Why is it mökissä and not something like mökkissä?

This is again consonant gradation. The basic noun is:

mökki – cottage

When you add the inessive ending, the double kk weakens to a single k:

mökki → mökissä (in the cottage)

So the steps are roughly: mökki → mökki-ssa → gradation kk → k → mökissä.

What exactly does vaikka mean here? Is it “even though” or “even if”?

Vaikka can mean both, depending on context and the verb form:

with indicative (e.g. on): usually “although / even though”, about a real fact
- Yövymme teltassa, vaikka mökissä on tilaa.
  We’ll stay in the tent, even though there is room in the cottage.
with conditional (e.g. olisi): often “even if”, about a hypothetical or downplayed situation
- Yövymme teltassa, vaikka mökissä olisi tilaa.
  We’ll stay in the tent, even if there were (some) room in the cottage.

In practice, people sometimes still translate the conditional version as “even though”, but grammatically it leans toward “even if / even though there might be / even if there were”.

Why is it olisi instead of on? What does olisi express?

Olisi is the conditional mood of olla (to be).

on – is (present indicative)
olisi – would be (present conditional)

Using olisi after vaikka makes the situation more hypothetical or less “real”:

vaikka mökissä on tilaa – even though there is room (and that is a fact)
vaikka mökissä olisi tilaa – even if there were room / even though there might be room (but we don’t care, or it’s not central)

So vaikka mökissä olisi tilaa softens it to a kind of concessive “even if there happened to be space in the cottage”.

Why is it tilaa and not tila? What case is tilaa?

Tilaa is the partitive singular of tila (space, room).

tila – nominative (basic form)
tilaa – partitive (some space / (any) room)

In Finnish, when you say something like “there is (some) space”, you typically use an existential construction with a partitive noun:

Mökissä on tilaa. – There is (some) room in the cottage.
Mökissä olisi tilaa. – There would be (some) room in the cottage.

The partitive tilaa suggests an indefinite, unspecified amount of space, just like English “some room” or simply “room” (uncountable).

Can I change the word order to “Vaikka mökissä olisi tilaa, yövymme teltassa”?

Yes. Both orders are correct, and the meaning stays the same:

Yövymme teltassa, vaikka mökissä olisi tilaa.
Vaikka mökissä olisi tilaa, yövymme teltassa.

Placing the vaikka-clause first slightly emphasizes the contrast:

Even if there were room in the cottage, we’ll stay in the tent.

But this is a nuance of focus; grammatically both are fine.

Why is there a comma before vaikka in Finnish?

Finnish punctuation rules require a comma before most subordinate clauses, including those introduced by vaikka:

[Main clause], vaikka [subordinate clause].

So:

Yövymme teltassa, vaikka mökissä olisi tilaa.

In English, you might or might not use a comma before even though / even if in the same position, but in Finnish that comma is standard.

Can I say “Me yövymme teltassa” instead of just “Yövymme teltassa”?

Yes. Both are correct:

Yövymme teltassa… – neutral
Me yövymme teltassa… – emphasizes we in contrast to others

You add me (we) when you want to stress who is doing the action, for example:

Me yövymme teltassa, mutta lapset nukkuvat mökissä.
We will stay in the tent, but the children will sleep in the cottage.