Learn Hardcore Finnish: Oppilas yliviivasi kokeessa kaikki sanat, jotka hän oli kirjoittanut väärin. - The pupil crossed out in the exam all the words that she had written incorrectly.

Yliviivasi is the 3rd person singular past tense of the verb yliviivata, which means to cross out, to strike through (literally “to line over”).

Breakdown:

yliviivata = to cross out
- yli = over
- viiva = line
- -ta = verb ending
yliviivasi
- stem: yliviiva-
- past tense marker: -si-
- 3rd person singular ending: (zero ending) → yliviivasi = he/she crossed out

It’s a single verb; yli is not a separable prefix like in German—it stays attached.

Why is oppilas translated as the student or the pupil even though there is no word for the?

Finnish has no articles (no a/an or the). The noun oppilas simply means pupil / student in a general sense. Whether English needs a or the is inferred from context:

Oppilas yliviivasi…
In a realistic context (a story, a report about an exam) this almost always refers to a specific student, so we translate it as The student crossed out…

If the context clearly introduced an indefinite new student, English might use a student, but Finnish would still just say oppilas.

Why is it kokeessa and not kokeen or just koe?

Kokeessa is the inessive case of koe (test, exam) and means in the test / during the test.

koe = test (basic form)
kokeessa = in the test (koe + -ssa “in”)

If you said:

kokeen = genitive: of the test (e.g. kokeen tehtävät = the tasks of the test)
bare koe wouldn’t express in the test at all.

So kokeessa correctly shows the location/time context: this happened in/while taking the exam.

Why is it kaikki sanat and not kaikkia sanoja?

This is about the object case (total vs partial object).

kaikki sanat = all the words (total object, complete quantity)
kaikkia sanoja = (some) words, all (of) the words (partitively) – suggests an incomplete or non-total view

In the sentence:

Oppilas yliviivasi kokeessa kaikki sanat…
The idea is that the student crossed out every single word that fit the description. The action is complete with respect to those words, so Finnish uses a total object: kaikki sanat (nominative plural).

If the crossing out were partial, open‑ended, or not completed, you might see a partitive form (kaikkia sanoja), but that would change the meaning.

Why is there a comma before jotka?

Jotka hän oli kirjoittanut väärin is a relative clause (a subclause describing sanat).

In standard written Finnish:

A comma is normally placed before a relative clause, especially when it starts with joka/joka-forms (joka, joka, jonka, jota, jotka, joissa, etc.)

So:

…kaikki sanat, jotka hän oli kirjoittanut väärin.

The comma marks the start of the extra descriptive clause: all the words, which he had written incorrectly. In English we might or might not put the comma depending on nuance, but in Finnish it is standard here.

Why is it jotka and not joka or joita?

Jotka is the relative pronoun referring back to sanat (words).

Agreement and case:

sanat = words (plural, nominative)
In the relative clause, these words are the subject of oli kirjoittanut (they are what was written).
So the relative pronoun must be:
- plural
- nominative (subject form)

That gives us jotka.

Comparisons:

joka = singular nominative (would refer to a single word: sana, joka…)
joita = plural partitive (used when the relative pronoun would be in partitive case, often as an object or with certain verbs)

Here, the structure is essentially “words which were written incorrectly”, so jotka is correct.

Why is it hän oli kirjoittanut and not just hän kirjoitti?

Hän oli kirjoittanut is the past perfect (pluperfect):

oli = past of olla (to be / auxiliary “have”)
kirjoittanut = past participle of kirjoittaa (to write)
Together: hän oli kirjoittanut = he/she had written

Reason for past perfect:
The writing happened before the crossing out. The timeline:

First: the student wrote the words.
Later: the student crossed out those words.

So Finnish uses:

main clause: yliviivasi (simple past)
relative clause: oli kirjoittanut (past perfect) = had written

You could say jotka hän kirjoitti väärin, and it would still be understandable, but it weakens the clear “earlier-than” relationship and is less natural in this context.

What is the role of väärin, and why isn’t it väärät?

Väärin is an adverb, meaning incorrectly, wrongly. It modifies the verb kirjoittanut (had written):

hän oli kirjoittanut väärin = he/she had written (them) incorrectly

Väärät is an adjective in plural nominative, meaning wrong (ones) and would describe plural nouns:

väärät sanat = the wrong words

But in this sentence, we’re not calling the words intrinsically “wrong”; we’re saying he/she wrote the words in the wrong way. So Finnish uses the adverb väärin with the verb.

Why isn’t there a separate object word like ne in the clause jotka hän oli kirjoittanut väärin?

In English we might say:

the words that he had written wrong
(no separate “them” either)

In Finnish, jotka already stands for “the words which…”. It functions as the link and simultaneously as the subject of the subclause.

If you added ne:

✗ …jotka hän oli kirjoittanut ne väärin

you would be redundantly saying “which he had written them wrong”, which is ungrammatical in Finnish.

So:

jotka = those words (as subject in the subclause)
hän oli kirjoittanut väärin = he had written (them) incorrectly
(the object is understood from jotka, so it’s not repeated)

Why is it kaikki sanat and not kaikki sanansa, even though they are his words?

Finnish has optional possessive suffixes like -ni, -si, -nsa/-nsä (my, your, his/her etc.), but they are not always required when the possessor is obvious from context.

kaikki sanansa = all his/her words
kaikki sanat = all the words

In this sentence, the relative clause jotka hän oli kirjoittanut already makes it crystal clear whose words they are. Adding -nsa would be more emphatic or stylistic, but not necessary:

Oppilas yliviivasi kokeessa kaikki sanat, jotka hän oli kirjoittanut väärin.
is perfectly natural and already means all the words he had written incorrectly.

Can the word order be changed, for example Oppilas kokeessa yliviivasi kaikki sanat…?

Finnish word order is more flexible than English, but not completely free. Different orders are possible, but they change emphasis and naturalness.

Original:

Oppilas yliviivasi kokeessa kaikki sanat, jotka…
Neutral focus: what the student did in the exam.

Variants:

Oppilas kokeessa yliviivasi kaikki sanat, jotka…
Grammatically fine, but puts a bit more stress on kokeessa (in the exam). Sounds slightly marked.
Kokeessa oppilas yliviivasi kaikki sanat, jotka…
More emphasis on the setting: In the exam, the student crossed out…
Kaikki sanat, jotka hän oli kirjoittanut väärin, oppilas yliviivasi kokeessa.
Fronts kaikki sanat for strong emphasis: All the words that he had written wrong, the student crossed out in the exam.

So yes, you can move elements around, but the original order is the most neutral and common.

What is the difference between oppilas and opiskelija?

Both can be translated as student, but they are used in different contexts:

oppilas
- typically a pupil in basic education: elementary school, middle school, sometimes high school
- often younger learners
opiskelija
- usually a student in higher education: university, college, vocational school
- also used more broadly for someone formally studying a subject

In this sentence, oppilas suggests a school pupil doing a test, rather than a university student.