Learn Hardcore Finnish: Kurssin lopussa olin tyytyväinen, että olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa. - At the end of the course I was satisfied that I had considered this profession in time.

In Kurssin lopussa, why is kurssin in the genitive and lopussa in the inessive? Which word really carries the meaning “at the end of the course”?

The time expression is built from two parts working together:

kurssin = genitive singular of kurssi (course) → “of the course”
lopussa = inessive singular of loppu (end) → “in/at the end”

So literally you have: “in the end of the course”, which is understood as “at the end of the course”.

Grammatically:

The location / time meaning (“at the end”) is expressed by lopussa with the inessive ending -ssa.
Kurssin in the genitive just tells us whose end it is (the course’s end).

This structure is very common in Finnish for time expressions:

tunnin alussa = at the beginning of the lesson
vuoden lopussa = at the end of the year
elokuvan aikana = during the film

So: the “at” sense is in lopussa; kurssin just specifies which end.

Could you also say kurssin lopuksi or kun kurssi loppui instead of kurssin lopussa? What is the difference?

They are all related in meaning but not identical in nuance:

kurssin lopussa
- Literally: “in/at the end of the course”
- Focuses on that final phase of the course as a time period.
- Neutral way to say “at the end of the course”.
kurssin lopuksi
- The ending -ksi (translative) often means “as / for / as a final thing”.
- Kurssin lopuksi oli koe. = As the final thing in the course, there was an exam.
- Emphasises something that happens as the last item or for the end.
- If you say Kurssin lopuksi olin tyytyväinen, it sounds more like “As the final outcome of the course, I was satisfied” – slightly more result‑oriented or rhetorical.
kun kurssi loppui
- Means “when the course ended”, describing the moment of ending.
- Kun kurssi loppui, olin tyytyväinen… = When the course ended, I was satisfied…
- More event‑focused, less like a time phrase and more like a full clause.
A closely related alternative is kurssin loputtua
- Literally “after the course had ended / when the course had ended”.
- Also quite natural: Kurssin loputtua olin tyytyväinen…

So your original kurssin lopussa is a neutral, very common way to say “at the end of the course”, focusing on the time period around the ending, not just the exact moment.

Why is there a comma before että in olin tyytyväinen, että olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa? In English we usually don’t put a comma before that.

In Finnish, the comma rule is different from English:

Finnish normally puts a comma between the main clause and any subordinate clause, including että‑clauses.
So:
- Olin tyytyväinen, että olin harkinnut…
- Tiesin, että se oli tärkeää.

In English, you usually write: “I was happy that I had considered…” without a comma.
In Finnish, the comma is required here in standard writing.

If you reverse the order, you still use a comma:

Että olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa, olin tyytyväinen.

So: the comma is there because että olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa is a subordinate clause, and Finnish punctuation separates it from the main clause.

Is että mandatory here? Can you ever drop it like English sometimes drops that?

In standard written Finnish, että is basically mandatory in this kind of sentence:

Olin tyytyväinen, että olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa. ✅
*Olin tyytyväinen, olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa. ❌ (ungrammatical)

English can say “I was happy (that) I had considered this career in time” and drop that. Finnish cannot usually drop että.

Some notes:

In colloquial spoken Finnish, people might sometimes omit että in fast speech, but that is not standard and is often confusing in writing.
You could add siitä for clarity or style:
- Olin tyytyväinen siitä, että olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa.
  = I was happy about the fact that I had considered this profession in time.

So for learners: treat että as required in this structure.

Why do we use olin harkinnut (pluperfect) instead of simple past harkitsin?

Olin harkinnut is the past perfect / pluperfect in Finnish:

olin = past of olla (I was)
harkinnut = active past participle of harkita

Together they mean: “I had considered”.

We use this because of the time relationship between the two actions:

The course ended → kurssin lopussa olin tyytyväinen (past moment)
The consideration of the profession happened before that moment → olin harkinnut (earlier past)

So we need a “past of the past” form, just like in English:

At the end of the course I was happy that I *had considered this career in time.*

If you said Kurssin lopussa olin tyytyväinen, että harkitsin tätä ammattia ajoissa, it would sound like:

At the end of the course I was happy that I *considered this profession in time (right then).*

That breaks the intended timeline. The pluperfect olin harkinnut correctly signals that the considering was already completed by the time the course ended.

What exactly does harkita mean, and how is it different from ajatella, miettiä, or pohtia?

Basic meanings:

harkita = to consider, deliberate, weigh options before deciding.
miettiä = to think about, mull over something (neutral “think”).
ajatella = to think (have thoughts / opinions / think of).
pohtia = to ponder, reflect deeply, analyse.

In this sentence:

olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa
implies you seriously considered this profession as an option, probably comparing it with other possibilities before choosing.

If you said:

olin miettinyt tätä ammattia ajoissa
→ more like “I had thought about this profession in time”, a bit less decision‑focused.
olin ajatellut tätä ammattia ajoissa
→ could mean “I had thought about this profession in time” but is more generic, not specifically about weighing pros and cons.
olin pohtinut tätä ammattia ajoissa
→ “I had pondered this profession in time”, sounds more analytical or philosophical.

So harkita is a very good choice when you mean “to consider something as a real option before making a decision.”

Why is tätä ammattia in the partitive case instead of something like tämän ammatin?

Tätä ammattia is partitive singular of tämä ammatti:

tämä ammatti (this profession) →
- genitive: tämän ammatin
- partitive: tätä ammattia

The key point:

The verb harkita regularly takes its object in the partitive case.

The usual pattern is:

harkita jotakin = to consider / deliberate something

Examples:

Harkitsen uran vaihtamista. (partitive vaihtamista)
Hän harkitsee tätä tarjousta. (partitive tarjousta)

So in your sentence:

olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa
literally: “I had considered this profession in time”, with tätä ammattia as the standard partitive object of harkita.

Using tämän ammatin as a direct object of harkita is not standard and would sound odd or wrong to native speakers. For learners, it’s best simply to memorise:

harkita + partitive object (jotakin)

How does tyytyväinen work grammatically with olla? Does it agree with the subject?

Tyytyväinen is an adjective meaning “satisfied, pleased”, used as a predicative after olla (to be):

Olen tyytyväinen. = I am satisfied.
Olin tyytyväinen. = I was satisfied.

About agreement:

With a singular subject (minä, hän), you use tyytyväinen (basic singular form):
- Olin tyytyväinen.
With a plural subject, you most often see the plural partitive:
- Olimme tyytyväisiä. = We were satisfied.

(Plural nominative tyytyväiset also exists but is less common in this kind of “state” sentence; tyytyväisiä is the usual choice.)

Typical complements:

olla tyytyväinen johonkin
- Olin tyytyväinen kurssiin. = I was happy with the course.
olla tyytyväinen siitä, että…
- Olin tyytyväinen siitä, että olin harkinnut… = I was happy about the fact that I had considered…

In your sentence, olin tyytyväinen, että…, the että‑clause itself functions as the content of what you are satisfied about, so no extra siitä is strictly necessary.

What does ajoissa mean here, and how is it different from aikaisin or ajallaan?

Ajoissa means roughly “in time, early enough (before it’s too late)”.

In the sentence:

olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa
→ “I had considered this profession in time / early enough.”
You started thinking about this profession early enough to benefit from it (e.g. to choose the right studies).

Comparison:

ajoissa
- Focus: not too late, before a deadline or critical point.
- Tulin ajoissa tunnille. = I came to class in time (not late; maybe early).
aikaisin
- Focus: early in the day / earlier than usual, not about a deadline.
- Heräsin aikaisin. = I woke up early.
ajallaan
- Focus: on time, at the scheduled time (neither early nor late).
- Bussi tuli ajallaan. = The bus came on time.

So ajoissa here means you didn’t start thinking about the profession too late; you did it early enough to matter.

Can the word order be changed? For example, can you say Olin kurssin lopussa tyytyväinen, että olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa, or move ajoissa earlier in the clause?

Yes, Finnish word order is fairly flexible, and several variants are grammatically fine. The differences are mostly about emphasis and flow.

Some natural options:

Kurssin lopussa olin tyytyväinen, että olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa.
- Very natural, time expression first (common in Finnish).
Olin kurssin lopussa tyytyväinen, että olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa.
- Also fine. Slightly stronger emphasis on olin / your state.
About ajoissa, you can move it inside the subordinate clause:
- …että olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa. (original)
- …että olin ajoissa harkinnut tätä ammattia.
- …että olin harkinnut ajoissa tätä ammattia.
All three are grammatically correct. The nuance:
- olin harkinnut tätä ammattia ajoissa – neutral; ajoissa comments on the whole action.
- olin ajoissa harkinnut – highlights ajoissa a bit more (I had, importantly, done it in time).
- olin harkinnut ajoissa tätä ammattia – very similar to the first; just a slight rhythmic change.

What would sound unnatural is splitting things in a way that breaks the main–subordinate structure, e.g.:

*Olin tyytyväinen kurssin lopussa, että olin harkinnut… (this ordering around the comma is odd)

So: you can move kurssin lopussa and ajoissa around within their own clauses for style and emphasis, but you should keep the main clause and the että‑clause clearly separated by the comma.