Learn Hardcore Finnish: Kotini lähellä on rauhallinen kortteli, jossa on vain vähän autoja. - Near my home there is a quiet block where there are only a few cars.

You often use either the pronoun minun or the suffix -ni, not both.
Using just kotini is very natural and slightly more compact/formal than minun koti.

So:

Kotini lähellä ≈ (My home)’s near / Near my home
You could also say Minun kotini lähellä, but it’s a bit heavier; kotini lähellä is usually preferred here.

Why is lähellä used here, and what case is it?

Lähellä means near / close to and is in the adessive case (ending -lla / -llä).

Structurally:

lähellä behaves like a postposition:
[GENITIVE] + lähellä → near [something]

In this sentence:

kotini lähellä = near my home
Here kotini is in the genitive form (with a possessive suffix), and lähellä tells you the spatial relation “near, close to”.

So the basic pattern to remember is:

talon lähellä = near the house
koulun lähellä = near the school
kotini lähellä = near my home

Why is the word order Kotini lähellä on rauhallinen kortteli and not Rauhallinen kortteli on kotini lähellä?

Both sentences are grammatically correct, but they have different information structure and feel.

Kotini lähellä on rauhallinen kortteli.
- Typical existential sentence pattern in Finnish:
  - [place] + on + [something]
- Roughly: There is a quiet block near my home.
- You start with the location (kotini lähellä) and then introduce new information (rauhallinen kortteli).
Rauhallinen kortteli on kotini lähellä.
- More like The quiet block is near my home.
- Here rauhallinen kortteli feels like known/specific, and you’re saying where it is.

For introducing the existence of something in some place, Finnish usually prefers:

[Place] + on + [something] → Kotini lähellä on rauhallinen kortteli.

What exactly is a kortteli? Is it a “neighborhood”, a “block”, or something else?

Kortteli usually means a city block, especially in a grid-like urban layout:

The space between streets, like one “block” in American English.

It’s smaller than a whole neighborhood.

Contrast with:

naapurusto / asuinalue = neighborhood / residential area
kortteli = block (one or a few buildings surrounded by streets)

In actual translation you might choose “quiet block” or, if speaking more loosely, “quiet little area”, but the core meaning is a block.

Why is it rauhallinen kortteli (nominative) and not rauhallista korttelia (partitive)?

In Kotini lähellä on rauhallinen kortteli, the pattern is:

on + [a new, countable thing] → that thing is in the nominative.

So:

rauhallinen kortteli is the subject of this existential sentence,
It’s a whole, countable entity, so it’s in the nominative singular.

You would see rauhallista korttelia (partitive) if, for example:

The existence is incomplete, uncertain, or ongoing, or
You’re talking about only part of something.

Here we are simply stating that such a block exists near my home, as a whole thing → nominative rauhallinen kortteli.

What does jossa refer to, and why not joka?

Jossa is a relative pronoun and means in which / where.

joka is the base form (nominative) of the relative pronoun: who/which/that.
Like nouns, it declines into cases.

Some key forms:

joka – which, that (subject form)
jonka – whose / which …’s (genitive)
jota – which (partitive)
jossa – in which / where (inessive)

In the sentence:

rauhallinen kortteli, jossa on vain vähän autoja
= a quiet block, in which there are only a few cars
→ “in the block” = in that block → jossa

So jossa is used because the meaning is in the block, not just the block which….

What case is jossa, and why that case?

Jossa is the inessive case of joka:

Inessive endings: -ssa / -ssä → “in, inside”.

Here we are describing what happens in that block:

kortteli, jossa on vain vähän autoja
= a block, in which there are only a few cars
= a block where there are only a few cars

Because the cars are in the block, the relative pronoun takes inessive: jossa.

Why is it vain vähän autoja and not something like vain vähän autot or vain autoja?

Breakdown:

vähän = a little, a few (small quantity)
After vähän, Finnish normally uses the partitive case for the noun.
autoja is the partitive plural of auto (car).

So:

vähän autoja = a few cars / only a small number of cars

Why autoja (partitive plural)?

Quantifiers like paljon (a lot of), vähän (a little/few), monta (many) typically take a partitive noun:
- paljon autoja – many cars
- vähän autoja – few cars

Why not autot?

autot is nominative plural = the cars as a full, definite group.
Here we’re focusing on amount, not on “the cars” as a whole group, so we use partitive plural.

Why not vain autoja without vähän?

vain autoja would just mean only cars (as opposed to, say, buses), which is a different meaning.
vain vähän autoja = only a few cars (emphasising small number).

What exactly does vain do here, and where should it be placed?

Vain means only / just / merely.

In vain vähän autoja:

vähän autoja = a few cars
vain vähän autoja = only a few cars → it emphasizes that the amount is small.

Typical and natural placement:

on vain vähän autoja – there are only a few cars

If you move vain around, the focus changes and some options sound odd:

on vähän vain autoja – unnatural / confusing
on vähän autoja vain – possible in speech, but has a different rhythm and emphasis

So, for standard usage, keep:

vain directly before the phrase it limits → vain vähän autoja.

Why is autoja the plural partitive form here instead of autoa?

Auto declines like this (relevant forms):

singular partitive: autoa – one car (in partitive context)
plural partitive: autoja – cars (some amount of cars)

With a quantity word like vähän (a little/few), you normally describe how many items, so you use the plural:

vähän autoa – would suggest “a little of one car” (not logical)
vähän autoja – “a few (some number of) cars” → correct

So vähän autoja = a few cars, and adding vain → vain vähän autoja = only a few cars.

Why is on used again in jossa on vain vähän autoja? Is it the same “on” as “is/are” in English?

Yes, on is the 3rd person singular form of olla (to be), and Finnish uses it both for “is” and “are”.

In your sentence it appears twice:

Kotini lähellä on rauhallinen kortteli.
→ on = there is / is
…kortteli, jossa on vain vähän autoja.
→ on = there are

So English distinguishes is vs are, but Finnish uses on for both. The number (singular/plural) is indicated by the noun:

on kortteli – there is a block (singular)
on autoja – there are cars (plural, seen in the partitive)

Can I say lähellä kotiani instead of kotini lähellä? Is there a difference?

You can say lähellä kotiani, and it is grammatically correct:

lähellä kotiani = near my home
kotini lähellä = near my home

Subtle differences:

Structure:
- kotini lähellä: postposition-style → [my home] + lähellä
- lähellä kotiani: adverb + noun in a case → lähellä + [my home in partitive/genitive]
Feel / emphasis:
- kotini lähellä is stylistically very natural and maybe a bit smoother here.
- lähellä kotiani is also fine; it can sound slightly more formal/literary depending on context.

In everyday Finnish, kotini lähellä is perfectly idiomatic and probably the more common choice in this exact sentence.