Learn Hardcore Finnish: Etätyöpäivänä pidämme palaverin pienessä kokoushuoneessa toimiston sijasta. - On a remote-work day we hold a meeting in a small meeting room instead of at the office.

maanantaina – on Monday
talvella vs talvena – talvella is adessive “in winter (during wintertime in general)”,
while talvena (essive) is more like “in (a particular) winter, during that winter”.

So etätyöpäivänä describes the occasion or state under which something happens: in the state of being a remote‑work day → on a remote‑work day.

Why is it etätyöpäivänä instead of etätyöpäivällä?

Both essive (-na/-nä) and adessive (-lla/-llä) can appear in time expressions, but they have different main uses:

Adessive -lla/-llä is primarily “on/at” a location, and secondarily used for time in some fixed phrases:
- pöydällä – on the table
- lomalla – on vacation
Essive -na/-nä in time expressions usually means “at the time when something is in a certain state / on that occasion”:
- syntymäpäivänäni – on my birthday
- jouluaamuna – on Christmas morning

Etätyöpäivä is not a physical surface or location; it’s an occasion / type of day, so essive is natural:

etätyöpäivänä – on a remote‑work day (when it’s a remote‑work day)

Etätyöpäivällä would sound odd; it would suggest being “on” some physical place called “remote‑work day”.

Why is there no me before pidämme? Is the subject just omitted?

Yes. Finnish normally omits personal pronouns when the subject is clear from the verb ending.

pidämme already encodes 1st person plural (we):
- minä pidän – I hold
- sinä pidät – you (sg) hold
- hän pitää – he/she holds
- me pidämme – we hold
- te pidätte – you (pl) hold
- he pitävät – they hold

Since the form pidämme unambiguously means we hold, saying me pidämme is only needed for emphasis or contrast, e.g.:

Me pidämme palaverin, emme he. – We hold the meeting, not they.

In a neutral sentence, Etätyöpäivänä pidämme palaverin…, leaving out me is the most natural choice.

Why is it palaverin and not palaveri or palaveria?

This is about object case in Finnish.

The verb pitää (palaveri) = “to hold (a meeting)”.
The meeting is the object of the verb.

In Finnish, the object appears in different forms depending on things like completeness / totality:

Total object → typically genitive singular or nominative
Used when the action is bounded/completed or refers to a whole, specific thing.
- Pidämme palaverin.
  → We will hold the whole meeting (a specific one, from start to finish).
  → palaverin here is genitive singular functioning as a total object.
Partial object → partitive (here: palaveria)
Used for incomplete, ongoing, or unbounded actions, or for “some/any (amount)”:
- Pidämme palaveria.
  → We are having a meeting (in progress), not viewed as a whole event.
  → Focus is on the ongoing activity rather than a complete, bounded meeting.

Palaveri in bare nominative as an object is not used here; with this verb and this meaning, you either pick palaverin (total) or palaveria (partial/ongoing).
Because the sentence is about holding a particular, whole meeting, palaverin is correct.

What is the difference between palaveri and kokous?

Both can be translated as meeting, but they differ in tone and typical context:

palaveri
- Often more informal or semi-formal.
- Common in workplace speech for internal meetings, quick discussions, planning sessions.
- Nuance a bit like meeting / huddle / session.
kokous
- More formal or official.
- Used for board meetings, official association meetings, shareholder meetings, etc.
- Has a more procedural feel.

In many office contexts, either could be used, but palaveri sounds lighter and more casual than kokous.

Why do both words change in pienessä kokoushuoneessa?

In Finnish, adjectives agree with the noun they modify in:

case (inessive, partitive, etc.)
number (singular/plural)

Here:

pieni – small
kokoushuone – meeting room
-ssa/-ssä – inessive “in”

So you get:

pienessä kokoushuoneessa
- pienessä = adjective pieni in inessive singular
- kokoushuoneessa = noun kokoushuone in inessive singular

Both must match:

in a small meeting room → pienessä (small‑in) kokoushuoneessa (meeting‑room‑in).

You can’t leave the adjective uninflected; pieni kokoushuoneessa would be incorrect.

Why is the ending -ssa/-ssä used in kokoushuoneessa?

The ending -ssa/-ssä is the inessive case, which usually means “in / inside”:

huoneessa – in the room
talossa – in the house
kokoushuoneessa – in the meeting room

So pienessä kokoushuoneessa literally means “in (a) small meeting room”, matching the English preposition in.

If you changed the ending, the meaning would change:

kokoushuoneeseen (illative) – into the meeting room (movement to inside)
kokoushuoneesta (elative) – out of / from the meeting room
kokoushuoneella (adessive) – at the meeting room / by the meeting room (rare with indoor rooms; usually for outdoor or surface locations)

Here it’s about location inside, so -ssa is the natural choice.

What does toimiston sijasta literally mean, and why is toimiston in the genitive?

Breakdown:

toimisto – office
sija – place, stead
sijasta – from the place (of) → idiomatically “instead of”
(sija + elative -sta/-stä = from the place/stead)
toimiston – genitive of toimisto

The structure is literally:

toimiston sijasta ≈ from the place/stead of the office → instead of the office.

The noun sija takes the thing it replaces in the genitive:

X:n sijasta – instead of X
- maidon sijasta – instead of milk
- bussin sijasta – instead of the bus
- toimiston sijasta – instead of the office

So toimiston is in genitive because it’s “the office’s place (sija)” that is being replaced.

Is there a difference between toimiston sijasta and toimiston sijaan?

Both X:n sijasta and X:n sijaan can mean “instead of X”, and in everyday language they are often interchangeable:

Käytän teetä kahvin sijasta / sijaan. – I use tea instead of coffee.
Menemme kotiin ravintolan sijasta / sijaan. – We’ll go home instead of to the restaurant.

Subtle points:

sijasta (elative) is extremely common and completely neutral.
sijaan (illative) can be slightly more bookish or stylistically marked in some contexts, and in some fixed expressions one or the other is more usual.

In your sentence, toimiston sijasta is the most natural and neutral choice. Toimiston sijaan would also be understood and is grammatically fine, but sijasta is more typical here.

Could I express “instead of the office” in some other way, like with sen sijaan että?

Yes, there are several alternatives, with slightly different structure:

Using sen sijaan että (“instead of (doing) that…”):
- Sen sijaan, että menemme toimistoon, pidämme palaverin pienessä kokoushuoneessa.
  → Instead of going to the office, we hold the meeting in a small meeting room.
Here you’re contrasting whole actions (“going to the office” vs “holding it in a meeting room”).
Using eikä toimistossa:
- …pienessä kokoushuoneessa, eikä toimistossa.
  → …in a small meeting room, and not in the office.
This is a more direct “and not in…” contrast.
Using toimiston sijasta (your original):
- Focuses on the alternative place: the meeting room is used in place of the office.

All are correct but slightly different in emphasis. Toimiston sijasta is compact and very idiomatic for “instead of the office” as a replacement location.

Can the word order be changed? For example, can I say Pidämme palaverin etätyöpäivänä pienessä kokoushuoneessa toimiston sijasta?

Yes, Finnish word order is flexible, and your alternative is grammatically correct.

Main points:

The original:
Etätyöpäivänä pidämme palaverin pienessä kokoushuoneessa toimiston sijasta.
- Starts with time (etätyöpäivänä), which is very typical and neutral.
- Then comes the verb and the object, then the place and contrast.
Your version:
Pidämme palaverin etätyöpäivänä pienessä kokoushuoneessa toimiston sijasta.
- Starts with the verb phrase “we hold the meeting”.
- Then you mention when and where.

Both are fine. Common, natural patterns in Finnish tend to be:

[Time] – [Verb + Object] – [Place] – [Other adverbials]
or [Verb + Object] – [Time] – [Place] – …

Putting etätyöpäivänä at the very end (e.g. …toimiston sijasta etätyöpäivänä) would still be grammatically okay, but can sound less natural unless you are stressing that part specifically.

What exactly does pitää palaveri mean, and are there similar expressions with pitää?

Pitää palaveri literally means “to hold a meeting”.

The verb pitää is very versatile. In this kind of construction it often means “to hold / run / give / conduct”. Common patterns:

pitää kokous – to hold a meeting
pitää tunti – to give/teach a lesson (as a teacher)
pitää kurssi – to run a course
pitää puhe – to give a speech
pitää luento – to give a lecture

So in pidämme palaverin, the nuance is that we actively organize and conduct the meeting, not just that it exists.

Compare with:

Meillä on palaveri. – We have a meeting. (A bit more neutral: a meeting is scheduled / takes place.)
Pidämme palaverin. – We’ll hold the meeting. (Focus on us conducting it.)