Learn Hardcore Finnish: Äitini kaipasi hiljattain mummoa, joka ei ollut voinut tulla kylään. - My mother recently missed grandma, who had not been able to come for a visit.

The verb kaivata (to miss, to long for) normally takes its object in the partitive, especially when talking about emotions, desires, or incomplete/ongoing states.

So:

kaivata + partitive
- kaipaan mummoa = I miss grandma
- kaipaan sinua = I miss you
- kaipasin kotiin (adverbial) / kaipasin kotia (I longed for home)

Using nominative (mummo) here would be ungrammatical with kaivata. You should always learn kaivata + partitive object as a fixed pattern.

What exactly does kaipasi mean, and how is it different from other verbs like ikävöi?

Kaipasi is the past tense (imperfect) of kaivata.

kaivata = to miss, to long for, to yearn for
äiti + kaivata + mummoa → äitini kaipasi mummoa
= My mother missed / was longing for grandma.

Difference from similar verbs:

ikävä + olla:
- Äidilläni oli ikävä mummoa.
  = My mother missed grandma. (literally “My mother had longing/nostalgia for grandma.”)
ikävöidä:
- Äitini ikävöi mummoa.
  = My mother misses grandma.
  This is a bit more literary/poetic or emotional, and less common in everyday speech than kaivata.

All three can express missing someone, but kaivata is very common and natural in everyday Finnish, and it often takes the partitive object.

What does hiljattain mean exactly, and how is it different from words like äskettäin or juuri?

Hiljattain means recently, a short while ago.

Nuance compared to similar words:

hiljattain = recently, not long ago
- Neutral, common in both speech and writing.
äskettäin = (also) recently
- Very close in meaning to hiljattain; in many contexts they are interchangeable.
- Some speakers feel äskettäin is a touch more formal or written, but both are fine.
juuri = just (a moment ago), exactly
- Äitini kaipasi juuri mummoa. can mean:
  - “My mother was just now missing grandma.” (time) or
  - “It was exactly grandma my mother missed.” (focus), depending on context.

In your sentence, hiljattain simply places the action in the recent past:
Äitini kaipasi hiljattain mummoa = My mother recently missed/longed for grandma.

Why is it äitini kaipasi and not äitini on kaivannut?

Both are grammatically correct, but they differ in aspect and nuance:

Äitini kaipasi hiljattain mummoa.
- Imperfect (simple past) → views the action as a finished event in the past.
- Neutral narrative past, like English “My mother (recently) missed / was missing grandma.”
Äitini on kaivannut mummoa.
- Perfect → connects the past to the present, or emphasizes the result/state now.
- Closer to: “My mother has been missing grandma.” / “has missed” (and probably still does).

In your sentence, the focus is on a past situation explained by the relative clause; the simple past (kaipasi) is the natural default.

Why is the relative pronoun joka used, and not mikä?

Joka is the normal relative pronoun used for referring back to a specific noun like mummoa.

mummoa, joka ei ollut voinut tulla...
= grandma, who had not been able to come...

Basic rule of thumb:

Use joka to refer back to a concrete noun:
- Talo, joka on punainen = The house that is red
Use mikä more often to refer to:
- a whole preceding clause: Hän myöhästyi, mikä harmitti minua.
  = He was late, which annoyed me.
- pronouns like se or kaikki: Se, mikä minua ärsyttää... = That which annoys me...

Here joka clearly refers to mummoa (grandma), so mikä would be wrong.

What tense is ei ollut voinut and how does it differ from ei voinut tulla?

Ei ollut voinut is the negative past perfect (pluperfect):

olla voinut = had been able
ei ollut voinut = had not been able

So:

mummo, joka ei ollut voinut tulla kylään
= grandma, who had not been able to come (over to visit).

Nuance compared to ei voinut tulla:

ei ollut voinut tulla (past perfect)
- Action (or inability) happened before another past reference point (here: the time when the mother missed her).
- Like English: had not been able to come.
ei voinut tulla (simple past)
- Inability in the past, but not clearly located as before some other past event.
- Like: was not able to come / couldn’t come.

Using ei ollut voinut makes the timeline:
First: Grandma was unable to come.
Later (or as a consequence): Mother missed her.

What does tulla kylään literally mean, and is there a difference from tulla vierailemaan or tulla käymään?

Tulla kylään is an idiomatic phrase meaning to come over (to someone’s place) for a visit.

Literally:
- tulla = to come
- kylään (illative) = “to the (host) village / to a visit”
  Historically from kylä = village, but idiomatically: to someone’s home.

Other options:

tulla käymään
- Very common, neutral: to come by / to drop by / to visit.
tulla vierailemaan
- More formal or literal: to come to visit (as a visitor).

In everyday speech, tulla kylään and tulla käymään are both very natural for visiting someone’s home.
Tulla vierailemaan is fine but can sound a bit more formal or context-specific (e.g. museum, school, official visit).

Why is it kylään with -än, and what case is that?

Kylään is the illative case of kylä (“village”, but in this expression “home/place for a visit”).

kylä (basic form)
kylään = into/to the village → idiomatically to someone’s place for a visit.

Illative typically answers “mihin?” = to where?:

koti → kotiin (to home)
kaupunki → kaupunkiin (to the city)
Suomi → Suomeen (to Finland)
kylä → kylään (to the village / to someone’s place)

In tulla kylään, think of kylään as a fixed form that just means “over (to visit)”.

Could I say Äitini hiljattain kaipasi mummoa, or would that be wrong?

It’s not strictly wrong, but it sounds less natural.

In Finnish, time adverbs like hiljattain most often appear:

at the beginning of the sentence:
- Hiljattain äitini kaipasi mummoa.
or right after the verb as in your original:
- Äitini kaipasi hiljattain mummoa.

Äitini hiljattain kaipasi mummoa is understandable, but the adverb between the subject and the verb can sound slightly marked or stylistically awkward in neutral prose. The original word order is much more natural.

Why is it äitini and not minun äitini? Are both correct?

Both äitini and minun äitini are grammatically correct, but the normal, neutral form is simply:

Äitini kaipasi hiljattain mummoa.

Explanation:

The possessive suffix -ni means “my”:
- äiti = mother
- äitini = my mother
Adding minun is usually redundant, because the suffix already carries the meaning:
- minun äitini = my my mother (literally) → can be used for emphasis or contrast.

So you’d say minun äitini if you want to stress my as opposed to someone else’s:

Minun äitini kaipasi mummoa, ei sinun.
= It was my mother who missed grandma, not yours.

Without such contrast, äitini alone is more natural.

Does mummoa refer to “my grandma”, “her grandma”, or just “grandma” in general?

By itself, mummoa is just “(a/the) grandma” in the partitive; it doesn’t specify whose grandma.

In real usage, context fills in the meaning:

In Äitini kaipasi hiljattain mummoa, the natural interpretation is:
- My mother recently missed *her (our) grandma.
  Typically, this means the speaker’s and mother’s shared grandmother (i.e. the speaker’s *grandma from mother’s side).

If you want to be explicit:

Äitini kaipasi hiljattain omaa äitiään.
= My mother recently missed her own mother.
Kaipasin hiljattain omaa mummoani.
= I recently missed my own grandma.
Äitini kaipasi hiljattain meidän mummoa.
= My mother recently missed our grandma.

But in many everyday contexts, mummo alone is understood from who is speaking and what’s being talked about, just like English “Grandma” in a family context.

Why is there a comma before joka, and what exactly is the role of that clause?

The comma before joka marks the beginning of a relative clause (a clause that describes or provides extra information about a noun).

Main clause: Äitini kaipasi hiljattain mummoa
= My mother recently missed grandma
Relative clause: joka ei ollut voinut tulla kylään
= who had not been able to come over

Together:
Äitini kaipasi hiljattain mummoa, joka ei ollut voinut tulla kylään.
= My mother recently missed grandma, who had not been able to come over for a visit.

The comma is mandatory in standard written Finnish before joka when it starts a relative clause like this.

Is there a difference in register or tone between mummo and isoäiti?

Yes, there is a difference in style and tone:

mummo
- Informal, warm, family-style word.
- Like English “grandma / granny / nan”.
- Very common in spoken Finnish.
isoäiti
- More neutral or formal; literally “big/maternal mother” → grandmother.
- Common in official contexts, writing, or when you speak more formally.

So:

Äitini kaipasi hiljattain mummoa
= My mother recently missed (her) grandma. (informal, warm)
Äitini kaipasi hiljattain isoäitiä
= My mother recently missed (her) grandmother. (more neutral/formal)

Both are correct; the choice depends on the tone you want.