Learn Hardcore Finnish: Jos vaali tuntuu epäreilulta, ihmiset keskustelevat politiikasta vielä enemmän. - If an election feels unfair, people talk about politics even more.

Jos vaali tuntuu epäreilulta = If the election feels unfair
The main clause follows: ihmiset keskustelevat politiikasta vielä enemmän = people talk about politics even more.

Key points:

Finnish normally puts a comma between the jos‑clause and the main clause.
There is no separate word for then (like English then); it is just understood from the structure:
- Jos X, Y. = If X, (then) Y.
Jos is used both for realistic conditions and hypothetical ones; the verb forms decide how “real” it sounds (see also the question on conditionals below).

Why is it vaali and not vaalit, when Finnish usually says vaalit for “elections”?

Both exist, but they are used differently.

vaalit (plural) is much more common in everyday language when talking about an election:
- presidentinvaalit = the presidential election(s)
- Eduskuntavaalit ovat ensi vuonna. = The parliamentary elections are next year.
vaali (singular) is used:
- in more abstract or general statements, or
- in compounds and certain fixed expressions,
- or when focusing on one election as a concept or process.

In your sentence, Jos vaali tuntuu epäreilulta…, you can understand vaali as “the election process / the election as an event” in a general way. In many everyday contexts, people would also naturally say:

Jos vaalit tuntuvat epäreiluilta, …
(If the elections feel unfair, …)

Both are grammatically correct; vaalit would sound a bit more colloquial and concrete, vaali a bit more abstract or stylistic.

Why is it tuntuu and not on (as in “the election is unfair”)?

Finnish distinguishes between being something and feeling / seeming something:

on epäreilu = is unfair (a direct statement of fact)
tuntuu epäreilulta = feels unfair / seems unfair (based on someone’s perception)

tuntuu is the 3rd person singular present of tuntua (to feel, to seem):

vaali tuntuu epäreilulta = the election feels unfair

So the sentence is not claiming as an objective fact that the election is unfair; it describes how it feels to people.

What form is epäreilulta, and why does it end in -lta?

epäreilulta is the adjective epäreilu (“unfair”) in the ablative case.

Basic form: epäreilu (unfair)
Ablative form: epäreilulta

The ablative singular ending is:

-lta after back vowels (a, o, u) → epäreilu → epäreilulta
-ltä after front vowels (ä, ö, y)

With the verb tuntua, Finnish typically uses the ablative:

Se tuntuu hyvältä. = It feels good.
Päätös tuntuu väärältä. = The decision feels wrong.
Vaali tuntuu epäreilulta. = The election feels unfair.

So the pattern is:

[subject in nominative] + tuntuu + [adjective in ablative (-lta/ltä)]

Why is there a comma before ihmiset?

Finnish punctuation normally separates a dependent clause from the main clause with a comma.

Jos vaali tuntuu epäreilulta, → subordinate clause (the “if” part)
ihmiset keskustelevat politiikasta vielä enemmän. → main clause

Rule of thumb:

Subordinate clause first:
Jos X, Y. → comma before the main clause.
Main clause first:
Y, jos X. → also normally has a comma.

So: Jos vaali tuntuu epäreilulta, ihmiset keskustelevat… follows the standard rule.

Why is ihmiset used, and what is its form?

ihmiset is the plural form of ihminen (person, human being):

ihminen = a person
ihmiset = people

In the sentence, ihmiset is:

Nominative plural
The subject of keskustelevat

So:

ihmiset keskustelevat = people discuss / people talk

Because the verb is 3rd person plural (keskustelevat), the subject must also be plural (ihmiset).

Why is it keskustelevat and not keskustelee?

keskustella means to discuss / to talk (with each other).

It is conjugated in the present tense:

minä keskustelen
sinä keskustelet
hän keskustelee
me keskustelemme
te keskustelette
he keskustelevat

In the sentence, the subject is ihmiset (they), so we need the 3rd person plural form:

ihmiset keskustelevat = people talk / discuss

If the subject were singular, you would change the verb accordingly:

ihminen keskustelee = a person talks
hän keskustelee = he/she talks

Why is politiikasta in the -sta form?

politiikasta is politiikka (politics) in the elative case (ending -sta / -stä meaning “from, about, out of”).

Base word:

politiikka = politics

Elative singular:

politiikasta (politiikka → politiikasta)

Many verbs of speaking and thinking use the elative to indicate what you are talking or thinking about:

puhua jostakin = to talk about something
keskustella jostakin = to discuss something
haaveilla jostakin = to dream about something

So:

keskustella politiikasta = to discuss politics / to talk about politics

That’s why politiikasta, not politiikkaa or politiikkaan, is used here.

What does vielä enemmän mean, and how is it different from just enemmän or lisää?

enemmän is the comparative of paljon (“a lot, much”):

enemmän = more

vielä often means still or yet, but combined with a comparative it often means even:

vielä parempi = even better
vielä enemmän = even more

So:

ihmiset keskustelevat… enemmän = people talk more
ihmiset keskustelevat… vielä enemmän = people talk even more (more than they already do)

lisää also means more (in the sense of an additional amount), but vielä enemmän emphasizes an increase relative to an existing level, which matches the English even more very well here.

Can the word order be changed, for example putting vielä enemmän earlier in the clause?

Finnish word order is relatively flexible, but the neutral, most natural order here is:

ihmiset keskustelevat politiikasta vielä enemmän.
(Subject – Verb – Object/Complement – Adverb)

You can move parts for emphasis or style:

Ihmiset keskustelevat vielä enemmän politiikasta.
(Slight emphasis on vielä enemmän)
Vielä enemmän ihmiset keskustelevat politiikasta, jos…
(Strong stylistic emphasis; sounds more rhetorical or poetic.)

All of these are grammatically possible, but the original is the most neutral and typical everyday word order.

Why are there no articles like “the” or “a” in this sentence?

Finnish has no articles (no equivalents of a/an or the). Definiteness or indefiniteness is usually understood from context, word order, and case endings.

So:

vaali can mean an election or the election, depending on the context.
ihmiset means people (understood as general, “people in general” here).
politiikasta means (about) politics, again with no article.

When translating to English, we add articles to make it natural:

If the election feels unfair, people talk about politics even more.

Why is the verb after jos in the normal present tense (tuntuu) and not in a special “if” form?

Finnish uses the same present tense in both parts of a general “if…then…” statement:

Jos vaali tuntuu epäreilulta, ihmiset keskustelevat…
= If the election feels unfair, people talk…

This corresponds to English “zero conditional” (present–present for general truths).

Finnish also has a conditional mood (ending -isi-) that is often used with jos to express hypothetical or less real conditions:

Jos vaali tuntuisi epäreilulta, ihmiset keskustelisivat politiikasta vielä enemmän.
= If the election felt unfair, people would talk about politics even more.

So:

present + present → real/general condition (as in your sentence)
conditional + conditional → hypothetical / less certain / more “would” type condition