Learn Hardcore Finnish: Kynttilänjalassa palaa valkoinen kynttilä, ja koristeet kiiltävät kauniisti. - In the candle holder a white candle is burning, and the decorations shine beautifully.

kynttilä = candle
kynttilän = kynttilä in genitive case: of the candle
jalka = foot, leg
kynttilänjalka = literally the candle’s foot → candlestick / candleholder
kynttilänjalassa = kynttilänjalka
- -ssa (inessive case) → in/on the candlestick

So kynttilänjalassa literally means in the candlestick (or on the candlestick, depending on the exact object).

What case is the ending -ssa in kynttilänjalassa, and what does it express?

The ending -ssa / -ssä is the inessive case.

It usually corresponds to in, inside, in the, sometimes on, at in English.
Here, kynttilänjalassa = in the candlestick → it tells you the location of the candle.

Finnish uses locative cases (inessive, elative, illative, etc.) instead of separate prepositions like in, from, into in many situations.

Why does the verb come before the subject in Kynttilänjalassa palaa valkoinen kynttilä?

This is a very typical existential sentence structure in Finnish:

(Location) + (verb) + (subject)

It often corresponds to English “There is/are …”:

Kynttilänjalassa palaa valkoinen kynttilä.
Literally: In the candlestick burns a white candle.
Natural English: There is a white candle burning in the candlestick.

The focus is on what exists / is present in that location.
So:

Kynttilänjalassa = location
palaa = verb
valkoinen kynttilä = new information, the thing that exists there

This word order is completely normal and very common in Finnish.

Could you also say Valkoinen kynttilä palaa kynttilänjalassa? Does it change the meaning?

Yes, that sentence is grammatically correct:

Valkoinen kynttilä palaa kynttilänjalassa.
= The white candle is burning in the candlestick.

The difference is mostly in emphasis:

Kynttilänjalassa palaa valkoinen kynttilä.
– “In the candlestick there (happens to) be a white candle burning.”
– Focus on what is in the candlestick. More existential / descriptive.
Valkoinen kynttilä palaa kynttilänjalassa.
– “The white candle (that we’re talking about) is burning in the candlestick.”
– Focus on the candle itself as a known topic.

Both are correct; the original sentence sounds more like a neutral scene description.

Why is valkoinen kynttilä in nominative case, not in partitive like valkoista kynttilää?

valkoinen kynttilä is in nominative singular, the normal subject form:

valkoinen kynttilä = (a/the) white candle (as a whole, countable object)

In existential sentences, Finnish sometimes uses partitive for the subject, especially when:

the quantity is indefinite or partial, or
the situation is seen as an ongoing process without clear limits.

For example:

Pihalla juoksee lapsia. = There are (some) children running in the yard. (indefinite plural)
Pöydällä on kukkia. = There are some flowers on the table.

Here we have one whole candle, and the speaker simply describes its presence.
So valkoinen kynttilä (nominative) is natural and standard.

A sentence like:

Kynttilänjalassa palaa valkoista kynttilää.

would sound unusual or at least very marked, as if talking about some amount of white candle substance burning, not about a single candle as an object.

What is the verb palaa, and how is it different from polttaa?

Both relate to burning, but:

palaa = to burn (intransitive; something burns by itself)
- Kynttilä palaa. = The candle is burning.
- Talo palaa. = The house is on fire.
polttaa = to burn (something) (transitive; someone burns something)
- Poltan kynttilää. = I burn a candle. / I am burning a candle.
- Hän poltti kirjeen. = He/She burned the letter.

In the sentence, palaa is used because the candle itself is burning, not because someone is actively burning it.

Why is koristeet plural, and why does the verb become kiiltävät, not kiiltää?

koristeet is the plural nominative of koriste (decoration):

koriste → koristeet = decorations

The verb kiiltää (to shine, to gleam) must agree with the plural subject:

3rd person singular: kiiltää
3rd person plural: kiiltävät

So:

Koriste kiiltää. = The decoration shines.
Koristeet kiiltävät. = The decorations shine.

In koristeet kiiltävät kauniisti, the subject is plural, so the verb is kiiltävät.

In spoken Finnish, could people say koristeet kiiltää instead of koristeet kiiltävät?

Yes, in colloquial spoken Finnish it is very common to use the 3rd person singular form with plural subjects:

koristeet kiiltää (spoken)
vs.
koristeet kiiltävät (standard written Finnish)

So you will often hear:

Ne koristeet kiiltää kauniisti.

But in standard written language, koristeet kiiltävät is the correct form.

What does kauniisti mean exactly, and what form is it?

kauniisti means beautifully.

It is an adverb formed from the adjective kaunis (beautiful):

kaunis (beautiful) → kauniisti (beautifully)

The common pattern is:

adjective + -sti → adverb
- nopea → nopeasti (quick → quickly)
- hiljainen → hiljaa (quiet → quietly; this one uses a different pattern)
- varma → varmasti (sure → surely / certainly)

So in the sentence, kauniisti tells us how the decorations shine:
koristeet kiiltävät kauniisti = the decorations shine beautifully.

Why is there a comma before ja in …, ja koristeet kiiltävät kauniisti?

We have two clauses, each with its own subject and verb:

Kynttilänjalassa palaa valkoinen kynttilä.
Koristeet kiiltävät kauniisti.

They are joined by ja (and).
In standard Finnish punctuation:

You may use a comma between two independent clauses, especially if they have different subjects.
So
Kynttilänjalassa palaa valkoinen kynttilä, ja koristeet kiiltävät kauniisti.
is perfectly correct.

You will also see the same sentence without a comma:

Kynttilänjalassa palaa valkoinen kynttilä ja koristeet kiiltävät kauniisti.

That is also acceptable in modern usage. The comma here is more a stylistic choice than a strict requirement.

What is the difference between kiiltää and other Finnish verbs like loistaa or hohtaa?

All can relate to light, but with slightly different nuances:

kiiltää = to shine, to gleam, to be shiny
- often about reflected light from a surface (metal, glass, polished objects)
- koristeet kiiltävät = the decorations are shiny / gleam
loistaa = to shine, to radiate light strongly
- often about something that emits light (the sun, a lamp, stars)
- Aurinko loistaa. = The sun shines.
hohtaa = to glow, to shine softly
- suggests a soft, glowing or radiant light
- Lumi hohtaa. = The snow glows / gleams (often with a soft light).

In this sentence, kiiltävät kauniisti gives the idea that the decorations have shiny surfaces reflecting light beautifully, which fits well.

Does koristeet mean “the decorations” or just “decorations”? How do you know definiteness in Finnish here?

Finnish does not have articles like a or the, so koristeet can mean:

decorations
the decorations
some decorations

The exact nuance depends on context, not on any special form in the word itself.

In a neutral scene description like this, English often chooses “the decorations”:

A white candle is burning in the candlestick, and the decorations are shining beautifully.

But grammatically, koristeet is just “decorations (plural)”, without built-in definiteness.