Learn Hardcore Finnish: Maalla elämä on rauhallista verrattuna kaupunkiin. - In the countryside, life is peaceful compared to the city.

maa → maalla = on the land / in the countryside
In this sentence it idiomatically means “in the countryside”, as opposed to kaupunki “the city”.

So Maalla elämä on rauhallista… = In the countryside, life is peaceful…

Why is it maalla (with -lla) and not maassa (with -ssa) if the English is “in the countryside”?

Both -lla and -ssa are common location endings:

-ssa / -ssä (inessive) = in, inside
-lla / -llä (adessive) = on, at, by; at someone’s place; in some areas also “in”

With maa, there is a set idiom:

asua maalla = to live in the countryside
olla maalla = to be out in the country (often at a summer cottage)

By contrast:

asua maassa = to live in a (nation-)state (“in this country”)
maassa on paljon kiviä = there are many stones on the ground / in the soil

So maalla is used because Finnish treats “the countryside” with the adessive in this fixed way; it’s not a literal “on the countryside”.

Could I also say Maaseudulla elämä on rauhallista instead of Maalla elämä on rauhallista?

Yes, that is correct and natural:

maaseutu = countryside, rural area
maaseudulla = in the countryside / in rural areas

Nuance:

maalla is very common, slightly more colloquial and “everyday”; it often evokes the idea of being out of the city, possibly at a cottage.
maaseudulla sounds a bit more neutral or descriptive, pointing to the rural region as a social/geographical area.

Meaning-wise, for most contexts they both just mean “in the countryside”.

What form is rauhallista, and why isn’t it just rauhallinen?

The base adjective is rauhallinen = peaceful, calm.

Its partitive singular form is rauhallista (ending -a / -ä, here -sta because of the word type).

In sentences with olla (“to be”), the describing word (the predicate) can be:

Nominative: Elämä maalla on rauhallinen.
Partitive: Elämä maalla on rauhallista.

Here the partitive is used because the sentence talks about life as an ongoing, general, non‑countable thing and describes its typical quality. With such general, abstract or “mass” subjects, Finnish very often uses partitive for the quality:

Elämä on vaikeaa. – Life is hard.
Ruoka on hyvää. – The food / food (in general) is good.
Vesi on kylmää. – The water is cold.

Similarly, Elämä maalla on rauhallista means roughly “Life in the country tends to be peaceful / is (characteristically) peaceful.”

Would Maalla elämä on rauhallinen be wrong, and if not, what’s the difference?

It’s not strictly wrong, but it is:

much less idiomatic in this general, “life in general” sense, and
tends to sound more specific or categorical, as if you were talking about a particular kind of life and labeling it “peaceful” as a whole.

Compare:

Elämä maalla on rauhallista.
– Life in the countryside is peaceful (as an experience / in general).
Elämä maalla on rauhallinen.
– The (particular) life in the countryside is peaceful. (More like a description of a known lifestyle.)

Most native speakers would naturally choose the partitive here: rauhallista.

What exactly is verrattuna – is it a verb, an adverb, or something else?

Verrattuna is a participial form of the verb verrata (“to compare”):

infinitive: verrata
past passive participle: verrattu = compared
essive case of that participle: verrattuna = as compared / when compared

Grammatically: “past passive participle in the essive”.
Functionally: it behaves like an adverb or postposition meaning “compared to”.

It doesn’t change for person or tense. You can think of:

kaupunkiin verrattuna ≈ “(when) compared to the city”
Suomeen verrattuna ≈ “compared to Finland”

What case is kaupunkiin, and why is that case used with verrattuna?

Kaupunki = city, town
Kaupunkiin is the illative singular (ending -iin), which often means “into the city” in literal spatial use.

With verrattuna, the thing you compare to is put in the illative:

verrattuna mihin? – compared to what? → kaupunkiin
Kaupunkiin verrattuna maalla elämä on rauhallista.
– Compared to the city, life in the countryside is peaceful.

So here the illative does not literally mean movement into the city; it’s just the required case in the construction X:iin verrattuna / verrattuna X:iin.

Does kaupunkiin here mean “to a city” or “to the city” – how do we know, since Finnish has no articles?

Finnish does not mark definiteness (a / the) with separate words. The bare singular form can be:

indefinite: “a city”
definite: “the city”
or generic: “(life in) the city / cities in general”

In this sentence, kaupunkiin is best understood as generic:

compared to (life in) the city / city life in general,

not to one specifically named city – unless earlier context has already introduced a particular city. Context decides whether it’s “a”, “the”, or “(in) cities in general” in English.

Can I move maalla somewhere else, like Elämä maalla on rauhallista verrattuna kaupunkiin? Does the meaning change?

Yes, you can change the word order:

Maalla elämä on rauhallista verrattuna kaupunkiin.
Elämä maalla on rauhallista verrattuna kaupunkiin.
Elämä on maalla rauhallista verrattuna kaupunkiin.

All are grammatically fine and convey essentially the same basic meaning.

Nuance:

Putting Maalla first sets the location as the frame/topic:
“In the countryside, life is peaceful…” (strong focus on the place).
Elämä maalla first focuses more on “life in the countryside” as a single phrase.

Finnish word order is fairly flexible; the first slot mostly affects emphasis and information structure, not who is doing what.

Can verrattuna kaupunkiin go at different places in the sentence, like at the beginning?

Yes, it’s quite mobile. All of these are possible:

Maalla elämä on rauhallista verrattuna kaupunkiin.
Maalla elämä on, verrattuna kaupunkiin, rauhallista. (with commas, more written style)
Kaupunkiin verrattuna maalla elämä on rauhallista.
Verrattuna kaupunkiin maalla elämä on rauhallista.

The meaning is the same: “compared to the city.”
Moving (kaupunkiin) verrattuna to the start (especially Kaupunkiin verrattuna…) just makes the comparison itself the main starting point of the sentence.

Could I drop elämä and just say Maalla on rauhallista verrattuna kaupunkiin?

Yes, that’s fully natural:

Maalla on rauhallista verrattuna kaupunkiin.
– In the countryside it is peaceful compared to the city.

Difference:

Maalla elämä on rauhallista… explicitly talks about “life” in the countryside.
Maalla on rauhallista… talks more about the general atmosphere / conditions there.

Both are idiomatic; the version without elämä is actually very common in everyday speech.

How could I express the same idea using the usual comparative with kuin instead of verrattuna?

A very natural alternative would be:

Maalla on rauhallisempaa kuin kaupungissa.

Here:

rauhallisempi = more peaceful → rauhallisempaa (partitive singular)
kuin = than
kaupungissa = inessive of kaupunki → in the city

So the structure is:

Maalla on [rauhallisempaa] kuin [kaupungissa].
In the countryside it is more peaceful than in the city.

Compared to verrattuna kaupunkiin:

verrattuna kaupunkiin uses the base adjective (rauhallista) and explicitly says “when compared to the city”.
rauhallisempaa kuin kaupungissa directly encodes “more … than …” and is very common, especially in spoken language.