Learn Hardcore Finnish: Katson usein videota, jossa valmentaja selittää jalkapallon taktiikkaa. - I often watch a video in which a coach explains football tactics.

Katson videota
= I watch (some of) the video / I am watching the video / I watch the video in general (habit).
- The partitive object often implies:
  - an ongoing or incomplete activity, or
  - an unspecified amount / not the whole thing, or
  - a habitual action.
Katson videon
= I will watch / I watch the whole video (from start to finish).
- This is a total object, implying completion/wholeness.

Because the sentence is about a habitual action (“often watch”), partitive videota sounds more natural: it focuses on the activity of watching, not on finishing the video each time.

Is videota “a video” or “the video”? Why is there no word for “a/the”?

Finnish has no articles like “a, an, the.”

videota by itself can mean:
- “a video” (unspecified)
- “the video” (if context makes it specific)

Definiteness is expressed by:

context (you both know which video),
sometimes by word order,
or by using demonstratives like tämä (this), se (that):
- Katson usein sitä videota = I often watch that video.

In this sentence, videota simply refers to some (known or typical) video, and English naturally chooses “a video” or “the video” depending on context. The Finnish form itself does not mark that difference.

How does usein work here, and can it move to other positions in the sentence?

Usein means “often.” In Katson usein videota, it modifies the verb katson:

Katson usein videota = I often watch a video.

You can move usein without changing the basic meaning; you only change the emphasis slightly:

Usein katson videota
- Slight emphasis on how often: Often, I watch the video.
Katson videota usein
- A bit more neutral; still “I watch the video often.”

All three are grammatically correct. The usual neutral places are after the verb or at the very beginning of the sentence.

What exactly does jossa mean, and why not joka?

Joka is the basic relative pronoun: “who / which / that.”

Finnish relative pronouns decline in cases, just like nouns.
Here, the idea is “in which (video)”, so you need the inessive case (“in”).

Noun: video → videossa = in the video
Relative pronoun: joka → jossa = in which

So:

videossa = in the video
jossa = in which (in that which)

The clause:

videota, jossa valmentaja selittää…
literally: a video, in which the coach explains…

You do not use bare joka here, because you need the meaning “in which”, not just “which.” The -ssa ending (inessive) is required.

Why is there a comma before jossa?

The comma marks the start of a relative clause describing videota:

Main clause: Katson usein videota
Relative clause: jossa valmentaja selittää jalkapallon taktiikkaa

In Finnish, non-restrictive relative clauses (adding extra information) are usually separated by a comma, much like in English:

I often watch a video, in which the coach explains football tactics.

Even if the clause is restrictive in meaning, written Finnish tends to keep that comma before joka/jossa-clauses quite consistently.

Why is valmentaja in the basic form (nominative) and not something like valmentajan?

Valmentaja means “coach.”

In the relative clause jossa valmentaja selittää jalkapallon taktiikkaa:

valmentaja is the subject of the verb selittää (explains).

Subjects in Finnish are typically in the nominative (basic) form:

valmentaja selittää = the coach explains

You would use valmentajan (genitive) if it were, for example, a possessor:

valmentajan selitys = the coach’s explanation
valmentajan video = the coach’s video

But here the coach is doing the action of explaining, so nominative valmentaja is correct.

What form is selittää, and what does it tell us?

Selittää means “to explain.”

In the sentence valmentaja selittää, selittää is:

3rd person singular, present tense of selittää (to explain)

Conjugation pattern (present):

minä selitän – I explain
sinä selität – you explain
hän selittää – he/she explains

So:

valmentaja selittää = the coach explains / is explaining

Because Finnish often doesn’t mark continuous vs simple (no separate “is explaining” form), context covers both meanings.

What does jalkapallon taktiikkaa mean structurally? Why jalkapallon and taktiikkaa?

Breakdown:

jalkapallo = football, soccer
jalkapallon = genitive: of football
taktiikka = tactic / tactics
taktiikkaa = partitive singular of taktiikka

So jalkapallon taktiikkaa literally = “(some) football’s tactic(s)”, i.e.:

football tactics
tactical aspects of football

Why these forms?

jalkapallon (genitive)
- Shows possession or “of”–relation:
  - jalkapallon taktiikka = the tactics of football
taktiikkaa (partitive)
- Here it works like a mass/indefinite object of selittää:
  - selittää taktiikkaa = to explain (some) tactics / to explain tactics in general
- It does not focus on a single, clearly delimited tactic.

Compare:

selittää jalkapallon taktiikan
- more like explain the tactic (or whole tactical system) of football – more bounded/specific.
selittää jalkapallon taktiikkaa
- explain tactics of football (in general / some aspects) – more open/ongoing/partial.

In most natural contexts talking about tactics as a topic, the partitive taktiikkaa is preferred.

Could you also say jalkapallotaktiikkaa instead of jalkapallon taktiikkaa?

Yes, jalkapallotaktiikka is a compound noun:

jalkapallo (football) + taktiikka (tactic)
→ jalkapallotaktiikka = football tactics (as one concept)

Then:

jalkapallotaktiikkaa (partitive) = some football tactics / football tactics in general

Nuance:

jalkapallon taktiikkaa
- Literally “the tactics of football”; slightly more analytical/possessive.
jalkapallotaktiikkaa
- A tight, compound concept “football tactics” (common in sports talk).

Both are grammatically fine; choice depends on style and preference. In everyday language, jalkapallotaktiikkaa might sound a bit more compact and technical; jalkapallon taktiikkaa is very clear and natural too.

Why is taktiikkaa in the partitive case? Is it because of selittää?

Yes, largely.

Finnish often uses the partitive object when:

the action is not inherently complete/bounded, or
you’re talking about an indefinite amount or a topic in general.

Here:

selittää jalkapallon taktiikkaa
= explain (some) football tactics / explain football tactics in general

You’re not necessarily explaining one fully defined thing with clear limits; you’re dealing with a topic.

If you say:

selittää jalkapallon taktiikan,
it suggests explaining the (whole) tactic(s) of football, like a specific, complete system. That’s possible, but subtly more total/complete/specific.

So yes, with abstract “topic” nouns like taktiikka, partitive is very natural when the verb is selittää and you mean explaining the subject area rather than one discrete “tactic.”