Learn Hardcore Finnish: Onpa kamalaa, jos joku kommentoi ulkonäköä netissä niin, että toisen hermot menevät. - How awful it is if someone comments on appearance online so that the other person's nerves go to pieces.

The extra ‑pa on Onpa is a clitic that adds emphasis, often with a tone of surprise, emotion, or strong reaction. Here it makes it sound like:

Onpa kamalaa ≈ “How awful that is” / “That really is awful.”

Other examples:

Onpa kallista! – “Wow, that’s expensive!”
Onpa kiva kuulla. – “That’s really nice to hear.”

So Onpa doesn’t change the basic meaning of “is,” but it makes the sentence more expressive, often like an exclamation in English.

Why is it kamalaa and not kamala?

Kamala is the basic dictionary (nominative) form of the adjective “awful.”

Here it appears as kamalaa, which is the partitive singular form. In sentences like this, where you give a general evaluation of a situation with olla and there’s no concrete subject, Finnish very often uses the partitive:

On kamalaa, jos… – “It is awful if…”
On ihanaa, että tulit. – “It’s wonderful that you came.”
On tylsää olla yksin. – “It’s boring to be alone.”

You can think of this pattern as “It is [emotion/quality]” about some indefinite or abstract situation, and in Finnish that predicate is commonly in the partitive.

Why is there no word for “it” in Onpa kamalaa? In English we say “It is awful.”

Finnish usually does not use a dummy subject like English “it” in weather or general statements.

English:

“It is awful if…”
“It is raining.”
“It is nice to see you.”

Finnish:

On kamalaa, jos… (literally “Is awful, if…”)
Sataa. – “(It) is raining.”
On kiva nähdä sinua. – “(It) is nice to see you.”

So the subject is simply left out. The verb on plus an adjective (often in partitive, as here) is enough to express the idea “it is X” in a general, impersonal way.

What does jos do here, and why is kommentoi in the normal present instead of a conditional like kommentoisi?

Jos is the conjunction “if.” It introduces a conditional clause.

In Finnish, a general condition (“if/whenever this happens, that happens”) is very often expressed with the normal present tense, not with a conditional form:

On kamalaa, jos joku kommentoi…
“It is awful if (whenever) someone comments…”

This is like the English “zero conditional”:

“If someone comments on your looks online, you get upset.”

The conditional mood (kommentoisi, menisivät, etc.) is used more for hypothetical/imagined situations:

Olisi kamalaa, jos joku kommentoisi ulkonäköäsi netissä.
“It would be awful if someone commented on your appearance online.”

Here the speaker is talking about this as a general real‑world situation, so present tense (kommentoi, menevät) fits best.

Why is ulkonäköä in that form? Why not ulkonäkö or ulkonäön?

Ulkonäkö = “appearance, looks.”

In the sentence it appears as ulkonäköä, which is the partitive singular. It’s the object of kommentoi (“comments on”).

With kommentoida, the object is very commonly partitive, especially when you mean “comment on something” in a general/descriptive way:

kommentoida ulkonäköä – “to comment on (someone’s) appearance”
kommentoida esitystä – “to comment on the presentation”

Using the partitive here feels natural because:

you’re not “using up” or completing the object,
you’re just saying something about it.

In some contexts you might also see a total object (kommentoi esityksen), but kommentoida + partitive is the default for “comment on X”.

What does netissä literally mean, and is it the normal way to say “on the internet”?

Netissä is the inessive form of netti (“the net, the internet”):

netti – “the internet”
netissä – “in/on the internet,” i.e. “online”

So netissä literally “in the net,” but idiomatically it means “online / on the internet.” This is very common, everyday Finnish.

Other options:

internetissä – also “on the internet,” a bit more formal/technical.
verkossa – “in the web / in the network,” also commonly used for “online.”

What is the role of niin, että here? Could you just say että toisen hermot menevät?

Niin, että is a fixed pattern that means “so … that / in such a way that.”

… kommentoi ulkonäköä netissä niin, että toisen hermot menevät.
≈ “comments on someone’s appearance online in such a way that the other person loses their nerve.”

Structure:

niin (“so, to such a degree / in such a way”)
että introduces the result clause (“that the other person’s nerves go”).

You could say just:

… kommentoi ulkonäköä netissä, että toisen hermot menevät.

but niin, että is the most natural and clear way to express a cause–result or degree–result relationship here. It matches English “so [X] that [Y].”

Who is toisen referring to? Why is it just toisen and not toisen ihmisen or jonkun toisen?

Toisen is the genitive of toinen = “other, another, the second.”

In this sentence we have two people:

joku – “someone” who comments.
toinen – “the other (person)” who is affected.

So toisen (hermot) = “the other person’s (nerves).” Finnish can leave ihminen (“person”) out, because it’s clear from context.

More explicit versions would be:

… niin, että toisen ihmisen hermot menevät.
… niin, että jonkun toisen hermot menevät.

But they’re not necessary; the short toisen is idiomatic and understood as “the other (person’s).”

Can you explain toisen hermot menevät? Why plural hermot and why menevät?

Literally:

hermot = “nerves” (plural)
mennä = “to go”
hermot menevät = “the nerves go”

Idiomatically, jonkun hermot menevät means:

“someone loses their nerve”
“someone snaps / loses control / freaks out / loses their patience.”

So:

toisen hermot menevät = “the other (person) loses their nerve / freaks out.”

Grammar:

toisen (genitive) marks the possessor: “the other person’s.”
hermot is the plural subject (“nerves”).
the verb agrees: menevät (3rd person plural present) because hermot is plural.

Compare:

Hänen hermonsa menivät. – “He/She snapped” (literally “his/her nerves went”).
Mun hermot menee. (colloquial) – “I’m losing it / I’m about to snap.”

Is hermot menevät the same as just “gets angry”?

Close, but not exactly. Hermot menevät focuses more on losing self‑control or composure, which can include anger but also stress, panic, frustration, etc.

hermot menevät – “to lose one’s nerve / lose one’s patience / freak out”
suuttua – “to get angry”
hermostua – “to get nervous / agitated”

So if toisen hermot menevät, the person is strongly upset and no longer calm. They may be angry, but the core idea is snapping / not being able to take it anymore, not just mild irritation.

Why is there a comma before jos in Onpa kamalaa, jos joku kommentoi…?

In Finnish, subordinate clauses introduced by words like jos, että, koska, kun, vaikka etc. are normally separated by a comma from the main clause.

Onpa kamalaa, jos joku kommentoi…
Main clause: Onpa kamalaa
Subordinate (if) clause: jos joku kommentoi…

Even if English would sometimes omit the comma (“It is awful if someone comments…”), Finnish punctuation rules are stricter: you do put a comma before jos when it starts a subordinate clause following a main clause.

Is the word order jos joku kommentoi ulkonäköä netissä fixed, or could you say jos joku netissä kommentoi ulkonäköä?

The given order is the most neutral:

jos joku kommentoi ulkonäköä netissä
“if someone comments on appearance online”

Other orders are possible, with slight shifts in emphasis:

jos joku netissä kommentoi ulkonäköä
puts a bit more focus on netissä (that it happens online rather than in person).
jos netissä joku kommentoi ulkonäköä
highlights the location first (“if online someone comments on appearance…”).

Finnish word order is relatively flexible, but:

jos normally comes first in the clause,
the basic SVO order (joku kommentoi ulkonäköä) is the default,
adverbials like netissä can move around for emphasis, but the meaning stays essentially the same.