Learn Hardcore Finnish: Lapsi haluaa halata mummoa, kun he tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla. - The child wants to hug grandma when they meet in the daycare yard.

In this sentence, mummoa is the object of the verb halata (to hug). Many verbs that involve emotions, physical contact, or incomplete/ongoing actions often take the object in the partitive:

Halata mummoa = to hug grandma
Rakastan mummoa = I love grandma
Suudella mummoa = to kiss grandma

So mummoa tells us who is being hugged.
You could in theory see a total object form like mummon in some contexts, but with halata the partitive (mummoa) is by far the normal and natural choice. For learners, you can treat halata + partitive as the standard pattern.

Why is the pronoun he used instead of hän, when we’re talking about one child?

In this sentence, he does not refer only to the child. It refers to both the child and the grandma together: lapsi + mummo = he (they).

hän = he/she (singular)
he = they (plural)

So kun he tapaavat literally means “when they meet”, i.e. when the child and the grandma meet each other.

Finnish pronouns do not mark gender, so hän can mean he or she, and he can mean they (all girls / all boys / mixed).

Why is the verb tapaavat in the plural instead of the singular tapaa?

The verb must agree with its subject in number.

The subject of tapaavat is he (they), which is plural, so the verb must also be plural:

hän tapaa = he/she meets
he tapaavat = they meet

Even though the sentence starts with Lapsi (the child), the subject of the verb tapaavat is the pronoun he, which stands for lapsi + mummo. That’s why it’s plural.

What is going on with haluaa halata – why are there two similar verbs in a row?

The first verb, haluaa, comes from haluta = to want.
The second verb, halata, means to hug.

Finnish uses the pattern:

haluta + 1st infinitive (the basic dictionary form of the second verb)

So:

Lapsi haluaa halata mummoa
= The child wants to hug grandma.

Other examples of the same structure:

Haluan syödä. = I want to eat.
He aikovat matkustaa. = They intend to travel.

So the repetition in sound (haluaa halata) is just a coincidence: they are two different verbs in a normal want + verb structure.

What exactly does kun mean here, and how is it different from koska and milloin?

In this sentence, kun is a conjunction meaning “when” in the time sense:

kun he tapaavat = when they meet

Differences:

kun
- Used to introduce a subordinate clause: when/whenever/as
- Kun he tapaavat, lapsi haluaa halata mummoa.
koska
- Usually means because in modern standard Finnish
- As a question word: Koska tulet? = When are you coming?
milloin
- Question word meaning when (at what time)
- Milloin he tapaavat? = When do they meet?

So here kun links two clauses and tells us at what time something happens, not why it happens.

Why is there a comma before kun he tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla?

In standard Finnish punctuation, you normally put a comma before a subordinate clause, including clauses introduced by kun.

The structure is:

Main clause: Lapsi haluaa halata mummoa
Subordinate clause (time clause): kun he tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla

So you write:

Lapsi haluaa halata mummoa, kun he tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla.

You could also reverse the order:

Kun he tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla, lapsi haluaa halata mummoa.

In both orders, a comma separates the main clause from the kun-clause.

What does päiväkodin pihalla literally mean, and what cases are being used?

Päiväkodin pihalla literally breaks down as:

päiväkoti = daycare (literally day home)
päiväkodin = genitive singular of päiväkoti
- “of the daycare”
piha = yard
pihalla = adessive singular of piha
- “in the yard / on the yard area”

So päiväkodin pihalla is “in the yard of the daycare” or more naturally “in the daycare yard”.

Grammatically:

päiväkodin is a genitive attribute modifying piha: the yard *of the daycare*
pihalla uses the adessive case to express being in/at an open area like a yard.

Why is it pihalla and not pihassa or pihalle?

Finnish uses different local cases to show location or direction:

pihalla (adessive) = in/on/at the yard (area)
pihassa (inessive) = inside the yard (emphasising an enclosed space)
pihalle (allative) = (onto) to the yard (movement toward)

For open areas like yards, squares, fields, etc., Finnish very often uses the adessive to mean in the area of:

pihalla = in the yard
torilla = in the marketplace square
kadulla = on the street

Here we’re talking about where they meet (static location), so pihalla is appropriate.
If the sentence were about going to the yard, you might see pihalle instead.

How would the sentence change if we said Lapsi halaa mummoa instead of Lapsi haluaa halata mummoa?

Lapsi haluaa halata mummoa = The child *wants to hug grandma.
Focus on the *desire/intention
.
Lapsi halaa mummoa = The child *is hugging / hugs grandma.
Focus on the *action actually happening
.

So dropping haluaa and just using halaa changes the meaning from “wants to hug” to “is hugging / hugs”. The original sentence describes what the child wants to do when they meet, not what is definitely happening right now.

Why do we say he tapaavat instead of repeating the nouns as lapsi ja mummo tapaavat?

Both are grammatically correct:

Lapsi ja mummo tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla.
He tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla.

In the full sentence, lapsi and mummo have already been mentioned, so Finnish normally prefers to use a pronoun (he) instead of repeating the nouns:

Lapsi haluaa halata mummoa, kun he tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla.

This sounds more natural and avoids clumsy repetition. It works just like English preferring “when they meet” instead of “when the child and grandma meet” once it’s clear who they refers to.

Where did the v go from tavata when we get tapaavat?

The dictionary form is tavata = to meet.
But in the present tense, the v disappears in most forms:

minä tapaan
sinä tapaat
hän tapaa
me tapaamme
te tapaatte
he tapaavat

This is a regular pattern for this verb type: the stem used in conjugation is tapa-, not tava-.

So:

infinitive: tavata
present 3rd plural: he tapaavat (they meet)

Can the kun-clause come first, and does that change the meaning?

Yes, you can put the kun-clause first:

Kun he tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla, lapsi haluaa halata mummoa.

This is perfectly correct and very natural.
The meaning does not change; you only change the information order:

Version 1: Lapsi haluaa halata mummoa, kun he tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla.
- First: what the child wants.
- Then: when it happens.
Version 2: Kun he tapaavat päiväkodin pihalla, lapsi haluaa halata mummoa.
- First: the situation/time.
- Then: what happens in that situation.

In both orders, a comma separates the kun-clause from the main clause.