Learn Hardcore Finnish: Myöhemmin hän sanoi olleensa iloisesti yllättynyt siitä, etten ollut luovuttanut. - Later she/he said that she/he had been pleasantly surprised that I had not given up.

Hän on iloisesti yllättynyt.
“He/She is pleasantly surprised.”
Hän oli iloisesti yllättynyt.
“He/She was pleasantly surprised.”
Hän sanoi olleensa iloisesti yllättynyt.
Literally: “He/She said (him/herself) having been pleasantly surprised.”

So olleensa is not a normal finite verb; it’s a past participle + possessive suffix used to show that the “being surprised” happened before the saying (reported speech with a perfect-like meaning: “had been surprised”).

Why do we need the possessive suffix -nsa in olleensa? What does it add?

The suffix -nsa (or -nsä) is the 3rd‑person possessive suffix: “his / her / their”.

With participles like this, it tells you whose state or action we are talking about, without repeating the pronoun:

Hän sanoi olleensa iloisesti yllättynyt.
“He/She said (that) he/she had been pleasantly surprised.”

If you change the person, the suffix changes:

Sanoin olleeni iloisesti yllättynyt.
“I said I had been pleasantly surprised.”
Sanoit olleesi iloisesti yllättynyt.
“You said you had been pleasantly surprised.”
He sanoivat olleensa iloisesti yllättynyitä.
“They said they had been pleasantly surprised.”

So -nsa in olleensa links the state “having been (surprised)” specifically to hän.

Could we say Hän sanoi, että hän oli iloisesti yllättynyt instead of Hän sanoi olleensa iloisesti yllättynyt? What’s the difference?

Yes, both are correct and common:

Hän sanoi, että hän oli iloisesti yllättynyt.
- Uses an että‑clause (“that‑clause”) with a normal finite verb oli.
- Very transparent structurally; often easier for learners.
Hän sanoi olleensa iloisesti yllättynyt.
- Uses a participle construction (olleensa) instead of että.
- A bit more compact and slightly more written/formal in tone.

Meaning-wise, they are essentially the same here: “He/She said (that) he/she had been pleasantly surprised.”

Why is it iloisesti yllättynyt and not just yllättynyt or iloinen?

yllättynyt = “surprised” (a participle)
iloisesti = adverb from iloinen (“happy”), so “happily”

Together:

iloisesti yllättynyt = “happily / pleasantly surprised”

So:

yllättynyt alone would simply mean “surprised”, without indicating the feeling is positive.
iloinen alone is just “happy”, not “surprised”.

By using iloisesti yllättynyt, Finnish mirrors English “pleasantly surprised” or “happily surprised.”

Why do we have siitä before etten ollut luovuttanut? What does siitä, että… mean?

The phrase siitä, että… is very common in Finnish and corresponds to:

“about the fact that…”
“at the fact that…”
often just English “that…” after certain adjectives and verbs.

Here’s what’s going on:

Base pronoun: se = “it / that”
Elative case: siitä = “from that / about that”
Conjunction: että = “that (introducing a clause)”

Some adjectives (like yllättynyt) and verbs typically take a case-marked pronoun + että‑clause instead of a bare että‑clause:

yllättynyt jostakin = “surprised at/about something”
yllättynyt siitä, että… = “surprised at the fact that…”

So:

…olleensa iloisesti yllättynyt siitä, etten ollut luovuttanut.
= “…had been pleasantly surprised at the fact that I hadn’t given up.”

Why is there a comma before etten: …siitä, etten ollut luovuttanut?

The comma is there because etten ollut luovuttanut is an että‑clause, even though että has merged with en into etten.

In written Finnish, you normally put a comma before että‑clauses:

Hän sanoi, että tulee myöhässä.
Olin iloinen siitä, että soitit.

When contracted:

…siitä, että en ollut luovuttanut.
→ contracted: …siitä, etten ollut luovuttanut.

The comma stays because the clause boundary is still there, just with a fused etten form.

What exactly is etten? Why not write että en?

Etten is the contracted form of että en:

että (that) + en (I don’t / I didn’t) → etten

Finnish often fuses että + personal pronoun + negation into one word:

että en → etten
että et → että et (no common contraction)
että ei → ettei
että emme → ettemme
että ette → ette (here the forms overlap)
että eivät → etteivät

In formal writing, both että en and etten are acceptable; etten is very common and stylistically normal:

…siitä, että en ollut luovuttanut.
…siitä, etten ollut luovuttanut. ✅ (the one in your sentence)

Meaning in both cases: “that I had not given up.”

Why is it etten ollut luovuttanut and not just etten luovuttanut?

Etten ollut luovuttanut is the past perfect (pluperfect) of a negative:

Olen luovuttanut. = I have given up. (present perfect)
Olin luovuttanut. = I had given up. (past perfect)
En ole luovuttanut. = I have not given up.
En ollut luovuttanut. = I had not given up.

In the sentence:

The main verb sanoi is in the past.
The “giving up” would have happened (or not happened) before that time.

So Finnish uses the past perfect to show “earlier past”:

…etten ollut luovuttanut.
= “…that I had not given up.”

If you said etten luovuttanut, that would be an ungrammatical fragment here; you would need a finite past tense:

…etten luovuttanut → would need something like …etten luovuttanut silloin only in a different construction, but as a subordinate että‑clause we normally use en luovuttanut (past) or en ollut luovuttanut (past perfect), not a bare participle.

How is luovuttanut formed, and what form is it?

Luovuttanut is the active past participle of the verb luovuttaa (“to give up; to surrender; to hand over”).

Formation:

luovuttaa → stem luovutta-
add -nut/-nyt participle ending → luovuttanut

In perfect tenses, Finnish uses:

auxiliary olla (to be) + this -nut/-nyt participle

Examples:

Olen luovuttanut. = I have given up.
Olin luovuttanut. = I had given up.
En ole luovuttanut. = I have not given up.
En ollut luovuttanut. = I had not given up.

So in etten ollut luovuttanut, ollut is the past form of olla (in the negative), and luovuttanut is the participle of luovuttaa. Together they form the past perfect.

What does Myöhemmin add here, and could the word order be Hän sanoi myöhemmin…?

Myöhemmin is an adverb meaning “later”.

Word order options:

Myöhemmin hän sanoi olleensa iloisesti yllättynyt…
Literally: “Later he/she said (he/she) had been pleasantly surprised…”
Hän sanoi myöhemmin olleensa iloisesti yllättynyt…
Literally: “He/She said later (that he/she) had been pleasantly surprised…”

Both are grammatically correct. The difference is mainly emphasis and flow:

Starting with Myöhemmin puts extra emphasis on when this was said (“Later, he/she said…”), and is a very natural Finnish order.
Hän sanoi myöhemmin… is also fine; it keeps the subject first, which may feel more “neutral” to an English speaker but slightly less typical in this kind of narrative Finnish.

In practice, both are used; the version you have is very natural storytelling style.

How do we know that the person who was surprised in olleensa iloisesti yllättynyt is the same hän who said it, and not someone else?

Two things point to the same person:

The possessive suffix -nsa in olleensa:
- As explained earlier, olleensa = “he/she having been (something)”.
- The suffix ties the state (“having been surprised”) to hän.
No other subject or person is introduced in that clause:
- If it were about someone else, Finnish would normally specify:
  - Hän sanoi minun olleen iloisesti yllättynyt.
    “He/She said that I had been pleasantly surprised.”
  - Hän sanoi sinun olleen iloisesti yllättynyt.
    “He/She said that you had been pleasantly surprised.”

Because we only have olleensa (3rd‑person) and the only 3rd‑person referent is hän, we interpret them as the same person.

Is there any difference in meaning or nuance between Myöhemmin hän sanoi olleensa iloisesti yllättynyt siitä, etten ollut luovuttanut and a more “direct speech” version?

You could also express this with direct speech:

Myöhemmin hän sanoi: “Olen iloisesti yllättynyt siitä, ettet ole luovuttanut.”
“Later he/she said: ‘I am pleasantly surprised that you haven’t given up.’”

Main differences:

Indirect speech (your original sentence):
- Tenses and persons are shifted relative to the narrator:
  - “I” becomes “he/she”
  - “have not given up” becomes “had not given up”
- Sounds more narrative, reported, indirect.
Direct speech with quotes:
- Keeps the original speaker’s perspective and tense.
- Feels more immediate and vivid, like you’re hearing the actual words.

Your sentence uses indirect speech, which is natural in summary/narrative writing.