Learn Hardcore Finnish: Työnhakijan ansioluettelon pitäisi olla lyhyt, mutta siinä pitää mainita tärkeimmät taidot. - The job seeker's CV should be short, but it must mention the most important skills.

The -n ending marks the genitive case, which is often used for possession. So työnhakijan ansioluettelo literally means the job applicant’s CV (the CV of the job applicant).

Why are both työnhakijan and ansioluettelon in the genitive: Työnhakijan ansioluettelon?

This is a chain of two genitives, which is common in Finnish.

työnhakijan = of the job applicant
ansioluettelon = of the CV / resume (genitive of ansioluettelo)

In this sentence, however, ansioluettelon is not just “of the CV” in the usual possessive sense. It is in genitive because of the verb pitäisi (see next question). So we have:

työnhakijan ansioluettelo = the job applicant’s CV (nominative phrase)
työnhakijan ansioluettelon pitäisi olla lyhyt = the job applicant’s CV should be short

Here:

työnhakijan is a genitive that modifies ansioluettelo (“the applicant’s CV”).
ansioluettelon becomes genitive because with pitää / pitäisi in the sense of “must / should”, the logical subject is put in the genitive case.

Why is ansioluettelon (not ansioluettelo) used with pitäisi olla?

With pitää / pitäisi in the meaning must / should, Finnish often uses a structure where the logical subject is in the genitive case.

Compare:

Ansioluettelo on lyhyt. = The CV is short.
- Subject ansioluettelo is in the nominative.
Ansioluettelon pitäisi olla lyhyt. = The CV should be short.
- Logical subject ansioluettelo moves to genitive (ansioluettelon) because of pitäisi.

This is the same pattern as:

Minä menen. = I go.
Minun pitää mennä. = I must go.
Minun pitäisi mennä. = I should go.

So ansioluettelon pitäisi olla lyhyt literally matches the pattern X:n pitäisi olla Y = X should be Y.

What is the difference between pitää and pitäisi here?

pitää (present) in this modal use means must / has to:
- Työnhakijan ansioluettelon pitää olla lyhyt.
  = The job applicant’s CV must be short.
pitäisi is the conditional form of pitää, so it softens the meaning to should / ought to:
- Työnhakijan ansioluettelon pitäisi olla lyhyt.
  = The job applicant’s CV should be short.

So pitäisi makes the statement less strict and more like a recommendation or guideline.

Why is lyhyt in this form? Why not something like lyhyttä or lyhyenä?

Lyhyt is in the nominative singular, functioning as a predicative adjective with olla (“to be”).

Pattern:

X:n pitäisi olla lyhyt. = X should be short.

In Finnish:

With olla, adjectives describing a noun typically appear in nominative:
- Ansioluettelo on lyhyt. = The CV is short.
- Ansioluettelo oli lyhyt. = The CV was short.
- Ansioluettelon pitäisi olla lyhyt. = The CV should be short.

Forms like:

lyhyttä (partitive) would occur in different structures (e.g. expressing incompleteness or quantity),
lyhyenä (essive) would mean “as short”, used in other expressions.

Here, plain nominative lyhyt is correct.

What does ansioluettelo mean, and is it the same as CV or résumé?

Ansioluettelo literally means record-of-merits list, but in practice it corresponds to:

CV (curriculum vitae) in European English, or
résumé in North American English.

In everyday Finnish:

ansioluettelo is the normal, neutral word.
People also use CV, especially in business or international contexts.

So työnhakijan ansioluettelo = a job applicant’s CV / résumé.

What does siinä refer to, and why is it in that form instead of, say, siihen?

Siinä is the inessive form of se (“it”), meaning in it.

In this sentence, siinä refers back to työnhakijan ansioluettelo (the CV):

Työnhakijan ansioluettelon pitäisi olla lyhyt, mutta siinä pitää mainita tärkeimmät taidot.
= The job applicant’s CV should be short, but in it the most important skills must be mentioned.

Case forms:

se = it (basic form)
siinä = in it (inessive: inside something)
siihen = into it (illative: movement into something)

We use siinä because we are talking about what is contained in the CV, not motion into it.

In siinä pitää mainita tärkeimmät taidot, who is the subject? Who is doing the mentioning?

This is an impersonal / general construction.

pitää mainita = must be mentioned / one must mention

There is no explicit personal subject like “someone” or “you”. Instead, Finnish uses an impersonal structure to express a general obligation:

Siinä pitää mainita tärkeimmät taidot.
Literally: “In it must mention the most important skills.”
Natural English: “The most important skills must be mentioned in it.” / “You should mention the most important skills in it.”

So:

tärkeimmät taidot is grammatically the thing that must be mentioned (we can think of it as the logical object).
The “doer” is generic/unspecified (“one”, “you”, “people in general”).

Why is the verb mainita in its basic form and not something like mainitse or mainitaan?

After pitää in the sense of must / have to, Finnish uses the basic infinitive (1st infinitive) of the verb:

pitää + [basic form of verb]

Examples:

Minun pitää mennä. = I must go.
Hänen pitää syödä. = He/She must eat.
Siinä pitää mainita tärkeimmät taidot. = In it, one must mention the most important skills.

So:

mainita = to mention (infinitive base form)
mainitse! = mention! (imperative)
mainitaan = is/are mentioned (passive present)

Here the correct form with pitää is the infinitive mainita.

What does tärkeimmät mean, and how is it formed?

Tärkeimmät is the plural nominative superlative of tärkeä (important).

Steps:

tärkeä = important (positive degree)
tärkeämpi = more important (comparative)
tärkein = most important (superlative, singular base form)
tärkeimmät = most important (superlative, plural nominative)

So tärkeimmät taidot literally means the most important skills.

Why are tärkeimmät taidot in the plural nominative? Could it be in another case?

Taidot is the nominative plural of taito (skill), and tärkeimmät agrees with it in number and case:

taito = skill
taidot = skills
tärkeimmät taidot = the most important skills

In the sentence:

Siinä pitää mainita tärkeimmät taidot.

tärkeimmät taidot behaves like the “object” of mainita, but in this impersonal pitää + infinitive structure, a total, definite object often appears in the nominative (especially in general/impersonal expressions like this).

You might see partitive objects in other types of sentences (e.g. when the action is incomplete or when talking about an indefinite amount), but here we are talking about mentioning all the most important skills as a clear, complete set, so nominative plural tärkeimmät taidot is natural and correct.