Learn Hardcore Finnish: Esimies oli jo lähettänyt uuden työsopimuksen, kun tulin palaverihuoneeseen. - The supervisor had already sent the new work contract when I came into the meeting room.

Esimies oli jo lähettänyt uuden työsopimuksen = The boss had already sent the new employment contract
kun tulin palaverihuoneeseen = when I came into the meeting room

So the sending happened earlier in the past than the coming into the room.
If you said:

Esimies lähetti uuden työsopimuksen, kun tulin palaverihuoneeseen,

it would sound more like both actions are on the same time line, or that the boss sent it as/when you came in, not clearly before. The past perfect oli lähettänyt makes the time relationship explicit.

What exactly is the structure of oli jo lähettänyt? What form is lähettänyt?

Oli jo lähettänyt is composed of:

oli = past tense of olla (“to be”), 3rd person singular
jo = “already” (adverb)
lähettänyt = the past participle of lähettää (“to send”)

This is the normal way to build the past perfect in Finnish:

olla (in the past tense) + past participle

Examples:

Hän oli lähtenyt = He/she had left
Olin lukenut kirjan = I had read the book

So Esimies oli lähettänyt = “The boss had sent.”

Why is it uuden työsopimuksen and not uusi työsopimus?

Uuden työsopimuksen is in the genitive/accusative form, used here as a total object.

uusi työsopimus (nominative) = “a new employment contract” (as a subject, or in dictionary form)
uuden työsopimuksen (genitive/accusative singular) = “the / a whole new employment contract” as a completed object of the verb

In Finnish, a total object (something fully affected or a completed event) often appears in the genitive singular:

Luimme kirjan. = We read the (whole) book.
Ostin auton. = I bought a (specific) car.

Here, lähettää uuden työsopimuksen expresses a completed action: the entire contract was sent. So uuden työsopimuksen is the correct object form.

Why does uuden change form together with työsopimuksen?

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

case
number
(and for some adjectives) grade and comparison

Here:

Noun: työsopimuksen (genitive/accusative singular)
Adjective: uuden must match it → also genitive/accusative singular

So you get:

uusi työsopimus (nominative)
uuden työsopimuksen (genitive/accusative)
uudessa työsopimuksessa (inessive: “in the new contract”)
uuteen työsopimukseen (illative: “into the new contract”)

This agreement is mandatory; *uusi työsopimuksen would be ungrammatical.

What is the role of jo and why is it placed there?

Jo means “already” and emphasizes that the action was completed before some reference point.

Without jo: Esimies oli lähettänyt uuden työsopimuksen = The boss had sent the new contract.
With jo: Esimies oli jo lähettänyt uuden työsopimuksen = The boss had already sent the new contract (earlier than expected, or earlier than some other event).

The normal place for jo is right after the auxiliary verb:

oli jo lähettänyt
on jo tehnyt (has already done)
oli jo mennyt (had already gone)

Other positions are possible for emphasis, but the given sentence uses the most neutral, natural word order.

How is kun used here? Does it always mean “when”?

In this sentence, kun is a subordinating conjunction meaning “when” in a temporal sense:

…kun tulin palaverihuoneeseen. = “…when I came into the meeting room.”

Common uses of kun:

Temporal “when” (at the time that)
- Kun tulin kotiin, söin. = When I came home, I ate.
Causal “since/because” (in colloquial or informal language)
- Kun en tiennyt, en sanonut mitään. = Since I didn’t know, I didn’t say anything.

Here, it’s clearly temporal: it introduces the past event (you coming in) which serves as the reference time for the earlier action (the boss had already sent the contract).

Why is it palaverihuoneeseen and not palaverihuoneessa?

The difference is the case ending:

palaverihuoneessa = in the meeting room (inessive, “inside, in”)
palaverihuoneeseen = into the meeting room (illative, “into, to the inside of”)

The verb tulla (“to come”) typically combines with a directional case to indicate movement to somewhere:

tulin kotiin = I came (to) home
tulin Suomeen = I came to Finland
tulin palaverihuoneeseen = I came into the meeting room

If you used palaverihuoneessa, it would mean “when I was in the meeting room,” not “when I came into the meeting room.”

What exactly does palaverihuoneeseen mean? Is it a compound word?

Yes, palaverihuoneeseen is a compound word plus a case ending:

palaveri = a meeting, discussion (often a bit informal, business meeting)
huone = room
palaverihuone = meeting room
-een (illative ending) → palaverihuoneeseen = into the meeting room

So kun tulin palaverihuoneeseen = “when I came into the meeting room.”

Could you say kokoushuoneeseen instead of palaverihuoneeseen? Is there a difference?

Yes, you could say kokoushuoneeseen, and it would be understood as “into the meeting/conference room.”

Nuance:

palaveri: often used for work-related discussions, planning meetings, sometimes a bit more informal or internal.
kokous: typically a more formal meeting, sometimes with an agenda, minutes, etc. (e.g., board meeting, official meeting).

So:

palaverihuoneeseen = into the (work) meeting room (informal-business tone)
kokoushuoneeseen = into the (formal) meeting room / conference room

In everyday office language, both are possible; choice depends on the style and the nature of the meeting.

Why isn’t there a separate pronoun for “I” in tulin?

Finnish conjugates verbs for person and number, so the subject pronoun is usually optional when it’s clear from the verb form.

tulin = I came
- stem: tule- (to come)
- ending: -n = 1st person singular

You could say:

Minä tulin palaverihuoneeseen, but the minä (“I”) is usually dropped unless you need to emphasize it (e.g., I came, not someone else).

By contrast, English needs the pronoun:

“I came into the meeting room.”

For 3rd person, you need a noun or pronoun:

Esimies oli lähettänyt… = The boss had sent…
You cannot drop esimies unless it’s been very clearly established and you change it to hän (“he/she”).

Could the word order be Kun tulin palaverihuoneeseen, esimies oli jo lähettänyt uuden työsopimuksen?

Yes, that is perfectly grammatical and quite natural:

Kun tulin palaverihuoneeseen, esimies oli jo lähettänyt uuden työsopimuksen.

Word order in Finnish is relatively flexible. Placing the kun-clause first:

emphasizes the time frame or background situation (“When I came into the meeting room…”)
then informs what had already happened (“the boss had already sent the new contract”).

The original order:

Esimies oli jo lähettänyt uuden työsopimuksen, kun tulin palaverihuoneeseen.

starts from what the boss had done and only then mentions when you came in. Both are correct; the choice is about focus and style, not grammar.

Is Esimies lähetti jo uuden työsopimuksen, kun tulin palaverihuoneeseen also possible? What changes in meaning?

You can say:

Esimies lähetti jo uuden työsopimuksen, kun tulin palaverihuoneeseen.

But the nuance is different:

oli jo lähettänyt (past perfect): clearly puts the sending before the moment you came in.
lähetti jo …, kun tulin (simple past): suggests the sending happened around the same general time as your arrival, possibly even as you came in. The time relationship is less clearly “earlier than” and more like “by then / at that point.”

In careful narrative Finnish, if you want to emphasize that the sending was already completed before you came in, oli jo lähettänyt (the original sentence) is the most precise and natural choice.