Learn Hardcore Finnish: Se oli ilta, jolloin joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa. - It was the evening when the team won its first match.

Se is the grammatical subject: “It was (an/the) evening when…”
It often points back to something already known in the story or context (for example: a day already being talked about).

In English, you’d normally translate it as:

“It was the evening when the team won its first match.”

You could also emphasize it a bit more in Finnish by saying Se oli se ilta, jolloin… = “It was that evening when…”, but the original is already natural and clear without the second se.

Why is there a comma before jolloin?

In Finnish, you usually put a comma before a subordinate clause, including relative clauses that start with words like joka, että, koska, kun, jolloin etc.

Here:

Se oli ilta, → main clause
jolloin joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa. → relative clause describing that ilta (evening)

So the comma marks the boundary between the main clause (Se oli ilta) and the relative clause (jolloin…). This comma would almost always be written in standard Finnish.

What is jolloin exactly, and how does it work?

Jolloin is a relative adverb meaning roughly “when” in the sense of “at which time”.

It:

Refers back to a time expression (here ilta, “evening”).
Introduces a relative clause that describes that time.

So structurally:

ilta, jolloin…
= “the evening when (lit. at which time) …”

You can compare it to:

silloin = “then, at that time”
milloin = “when (in questions)”
jolloin = “when, at which time (relative, referring back to a specific time just mentioned)”

What’s the difference between jolloin and kun in this kind of sentence?

Both can often be translated as “when”, but they behave differently:

Kun introduces a subordinate clause of time, not necessarily tied to a specific noun before it.
- Kun joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa, oli ilta.
  “When the team won its first match, it was evening.”
Jolloin is relative: it directly refers to a time expression just before it.
- Se oli ilta, jolloin joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa.
  “It was the evening when the team won its first match.”

So:

Use kun more like a conjunction: “when X happened, Y happened”.
Use jolloin when you have a clear time noun (ilta, päivä, vuosi, hetki, aika…) that the “when” refers back to.

Why is it ilta and not something like illalla or iltana?

Ilta is in the nominative here because it is a predicative after the verb olla (“to be”).

Se oli ilta
literally: “It was (an) evening.”

In Finnish, when you say “X is Y” in the basic sense “X is a Y”, the word after olla is usually in the nominative:

Se on talo. – It is a house.
Hän on opettaja. – He/She is a teacher.
Se oli ilta. – It was evening / It was an evening.

Forms like:

illalla (“in the evening”, adessive)
iltana (“on the evening / as an evening”, essive)

would be used if they functioned as adverbials rather than as a predicative noun. For example:

Silloin oli ilta. – It was evening then.
He tapasivat illalla. – They met in the evening.

Here, though, the structure is “It was an evening [when …]”, so ilta stays nominative.

Could you also say Oli ilta, jolloin joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa without se?

Yes, you can.

Oli ilta, jolloin joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa.

This is very natural Finnish, especially in storytelling. It feels like narrative style: “It was evening, (the evening) when the team won its first match.”

Difference in nuance:

Se oli ilta, jolloin…
Slightly more explicit “It was (that) evening when…”; the se points to some situation already in focus.
Oli ilta, jolloin…
More like opening a scene: “(It) was evening, when the team…”, often used at the start of a paragraph or story.

Both are grammatically fine; choice is mostly about style and context.

What role does joukkue play in the sentence, and why is it in the nominative?

Joukkue (“team”) is the subject of the verb voitti (“won”) in the relative clause:

jolloin joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa
“when the team won its first match”

As a subject, joukkue is in the nominative singular (base form). Finnish subjects are normally nominative when they’re singular and in a normal affirmative clause:

Joukkue voitti. – The team won.
Joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa. – The team won its first match.

Why is ensimmäisen in that form? What case is it?

Ensimmäisen is the genitive singular form of ensimmäinen (“first”).

It has to agree in case and number with the noun it modifies, which is ottelunsa:

ottelu – match (nominative)
ottelun – match (genitive)
ensimmäinen ottelu – first match (nominative)
ensimmäisen ottelun – first match (genitive)

In the sentence, the full object is ensimmäisen ottelunsa (“its/their first match”), and that object is in the genitive because it’s a total object of a completed action (see below). So the adjective ensimmäinen must also be in the genitive: ensimmäisen.

What does the ending -nsa in ottelunsa mean?

The ending -nsa / -nsä is a 3rd‑person possessive suffix, meaning roughly “his/her/its/their” depending on context.

ottelu – match
ottelun – match (genitive)
ottelunsa – his/her/its/their match

In ensimmäisen ottelunsa, the possessive suffix refers back to joukkue:

joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa
= “the team won its first match”

Finnish does not mark number or gender in this suffix, so -nsa covers his/her/its/their. Context (here: joukkue) tells you “its” is the natural translation.

Could you say ensimmäisen ottelun instead of ensimmäisen ottelunsa?

Yes, grammatically you can say:

jolloin joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelun

This would mean:

“when the team won the first match”

However, the nuance changes slightly:

ensimmäisen ottelunsa
→ clearly “the team’s first match” (the first match belonging to that team).
ensimmäisen ottelun
→ more neutral “the first match”, without explicitly saying whose first match it is (though context may imply the team).

In many real situations, ensimmäisen ottelunsa is more precise when you want to highlight that it is the first match in that team’s history or season.

Why is it ensimmäisen ottelunsa (genitive object) and not ensimmäistä otteluaan (partitive object)?

This is about the Finnish object case system.

Voitti describes a completed, total action: the team fully won the match. In a normal positive sentence with a completed event:

The object is usually total → genitive (or nominative)

So:

Joukkue voitti ottelunsa. – The team won its match. (genitive total object)
Joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa. – The team won its first match. (genitive total object)

Partitive (ensimmäistä otteluaan) would suggest an ongoing, incomplete, or repeated action, which doesn’t fit the context of a single match being fully won.

So:

ensimmäisen ottelunsa – correct and natural for a single, completed victory.

Is Se oli ilta, jolloin joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa the only possible word order, or can I move things around?

The core structure is quite fixed, but some variation is possible:

Se oli ilta, jolloin joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa.
Se oli ilta, jolloin joukkue ensimmäisen ottelunsa voitti. (more marked/emphatic, focusing on first match)

However, you cannot move jolloin away from ilta:

✗ Se oli ilta, joukkue jolloin voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa. – incorrect

The pattern needs to stay:

[time word], jolloin [clause]
“the time when …”

How would the meaning change if I said Se oli se ilta, jolloin joukkue voitti ensimmäisen ottelunsa?

Adding the second se makes it more emphatic and specific:

Se oli ilta, jolloin…
≈ “It was (an) evening when…”, context still identifies which evening.
Se oli se ilta, jolloin…
≈ “It was that evening when…”, strongly pointing to a particular evening the listener is expected to recognize (e.g., “You remember that evening? It was that evening when the team won its first match.”).

So Se oli se ilta… adds a nuance of “that very evening”, similar to stressing “that” in English.