Learn Hardcore Finnish: Meidän kaupungissamme kulkee kirjastoauto, joka tuo kirjoja pienille kaduille. - In our city there is a mobile library that brings books to small streets.

kaupunki – city (dictionary form)
stem: kaupung- (the k weakens to g in many cases: kaupunki → kaupungissa, kaupungissa etc.)
-ssa – inessive case, meaning in (inside something)
-mme – possessive suffix for our

So kaupungissamme literally means in our city, with in and our expressed by endings rather than separate words:

kaupunki + ssa + mme → kaupungissamme = in our city

Why do we also have meidän if kaupungissamme already has -mme meaning “our”? Isn’t that double?

You’re right that both mark possession:

meidän = our (independent pronoun, genitive)
-mme = our (possessive suffix)

All of these are grammatically possible:

kaupungissamme – in our city
meidän kaupungissamme – in our city (slightly more explicit/emphatic)
meidän kaupungissa – in our city (no suffix, only pronoun)

Using both meidän + -mme is very common and perfectly normal Finnish, especially in spoken and neutral written language. It can:

add a bit of emphasis or clarity (our city, not someone else’s)
sound more natural in everyday style than using only the suffix.

So it’s not wrong redundancy; it’s a normal pattern.

Why is there no separate word for “in” before kaupungissamme?

Finnish typically uses case endings instead of prepositions like in, on, to, from.

Here:

kaupunki = city
kaupungissa = in the city (inessive case -ssa)
kaupungissamme = in our city (-ssa
- -mme)

So what English expresses with a preposition (in the city) Finnish expresses with a case ending on the noun (kaupungissa). No extra word is needed.

Why does the sentence start with Meidän kaupungissamme instead of kirjastoauto?

Finnish word order is quite flexible. The beginning of the sentence usually contains known information / setting, and new or important information comes later.

Here, the speaker first sets the location:

Meidän kaupungissamme – In our city… (this is the “scene”)

Then comes what exists or happens there:

kulkee kirjastoauto – there runs a library bus / a mobile library

So starting with Meidän kaupungissamme answers the question “Where?” first, then tells what is there. This is a very typical pattern in Finnish existential sentences (sentences of the type “There is/are…”).

Why does kulkee come before kirjastoauto instead of kirjastoauto kulkee?

Both orders are possible, but they are used in different situations.

Meidän kaupungissamme kulkee kirjastoauto
– typical existential structure: In our city there runs a library bus.
The bus is new information being introduced.
Meidän kaupungissamme kirjastoauto kulkee
– sounds more like we are talking about the bus already known, and saying what it does; it can be used with a contrastive or emphatic tone.

In existential sentences, Finnish very often has:

[Place in a local case] + [verb] + [new subject]
e.g. Pihalla juoksee lapsia – There are children running in the yard.

Our sentence follows this pattern.

What exactly does kulkee mean here, and how is it different from on, menee, or ajaa?

Kulkea is a general verb meaning to go, travel, move, run (a route). With vehicles or public services it often means:

to run / operate (on a route or schedule)

So:

kaupungissamme kulkee kirjastoauto
≈ In our city a mobile library runs / operates.

Compared to other verbs:

on (is): kaupungissamme on kirjastoauto = there exists a mobile library (focus on existence, not motion/routing).
menee (goes): kirjastoauto menee kadulle = the bus goes to the street (single motion/event).
ajaa (drives): kirjastoauto ajaa kaduilla = the bus drives on the streets (describing the driving action).

Kulkee highlights that the library bus regularly travels a route, not just a single movement.

Is kirjastoauto always one word? Can I write kirjasto auto?

It should be written as one word: kirjastoauto.

kirjasto = library
auto = car, vehicle

Finnish normally combines two nouns into one compound word to express “X-type Y”:

linja-auto → linja-auto (bus)
kirja + kauppa → kirjakauppa (bookshop)
kirjasto + auto → kirjastoauto (library bus / bookmobile)

Writing kirjasto auto as two words is considered incorrect in standard Finnish (except in very special stylistic or technical contexts). Learners should always treat it as a single noun.

How does joka work in this sentence?

Joka is a relative pronoun, like English who / which / that. It introduces a relative clause and refers back to a noun.

In the sentence:

kirjastoauto, joka tuo kirjoja pienille kaduille
joka refers to kirjastoauto (the library bus which…)

Inside its own clause, joka acts as the subject of tuo (brings), so it is in the nominative form joka.

If joka had a different grammatical role in that clause, it would change form:

joka tuo – who/which brings (subject, nominative)
jota tuon – which I bring (object, partitive)
jossa kulkee – in which … runs (inessive)

Here, you just need to know: joka = which / that and it links kirjastoauto to the clause joka tuo kirjoja pienille kaduille.

Why is there a comma before joka?

In Finnish punctuation, a comma is normally used before a subordinate clause, including relative clauses introduced by joka.

So the pattern is:

[main clause], joka [relative clause]

Here:

Meidän kaupungissamme kulkee kirjastoauto, joka tuo kirjoja pienille kaduille.

The comma separates:

main clause: Meidän kaupungissamme kulkee kirjastoauto
relative clause: joka tuo kirjoja pienille kaduille

Even though English might or might not use a comma (“a library bus that brings…” vs “a library bus, which brings…”), standard Finnish puts a comma here.

Why is kirjoja in the partitive plural instead of kirjat?

Kirjoja is the partitive plural of kirja (book):

kirja – a book
kirjat – the books (nominative plural)
kirjoja – (some) books (partitive plural)

The partitive object is used here because:

The amount is indefinite / not limited – the bus brings books in general, not all the books or some specific, fully delimited set.
It fits the idea of a habitual, ongoing activity: the bus regularly brings books.

Compare:

tuo kirjoja – brings books (some, books in general)
tuo kirjat – brings the books (some specific, known books, all of a certain set)

In the given sentence, kirjoja is the natural choice.

What case is pienille kaduille, and what does it express?

Both words are in the allative plural:

pieni → pienille (allative plural)
katu → kaduille (allative plural)

Allative (-lle) expresses movement to / onto a surface or place:

singular: kadulle – to/onto the street
plural: kaduille – to/onto the streets

So pienille kaduille means to the small streets.

Note that the adjective pienille agrees with the noun kaduille in number (plural) and case (allative), which is obligatory in Finnish.

Could we say pienillä kaduilla instead? What would change?

Yes, pienillä kaduilla is grammatically correct, but it uses a different case and expresses a different idea.

pienille kaduille – allative (movement to the small streets)
pienillä kaduilla – adessive (location on the small streets)

So:

… joka tuo kirjoja pienille kaduille
– … which brings books *to the small streets* (destination)
… joka tuo kirjoja pienillä kaduilla
– more like: … which brings books *on the small streets / while it is on small streets* (describing where the activity takes place)

In the original sentence, the focus is on the destination – the bus brings books to those streets – so the allative -lle is the natural choice.

Is the pronoun se (it) missing before joka? Could we say kirjastoauto, se joka tuo…?

The pronoun se is not needed here. The usual and neutral structure is:

kirjastoauto, joka tuo… – the mobile library that brings…

If you say:

kirjastoauto, se joka tuo…

this is also possible, but it changes the feel:

se joka = the one that / the one which
It adds emphasis or contrast, for example when distinguishing it from another bus:
- Ei se tavallinen bussi, vaan kirjastoauto, se joka tuo kirjoja…
  Not the regular bus, but the library bus, the one that brings books…

So for a simple descriptive sentence, kirjastoauto, joka tuo… is the standard form.

Can the word order inside the relative clause be changed, for example joka pienille kaduille tuo kirjoja?

Yes, Finnish allows quite flexible word order, even inside the relative clause.

Neutral, most typical order here is:

joka tuo kirjoja pienille kaduille
(verb – object – destination)

You can say:

joka pienille kaduille tuo kirjoja
joka kirjoja tuo pienille kaduille

These are grammatically correct but sound more marked and can shift emphasis:

joka pienille kaduille tuo kirjoja – slight emphasis on pienille kaduille (to those streets in particular)
joka kirjoja tuo pienille kaduille – emphasis on kirjoja (books as opposed to something else)

For learners, it’s best to stick with the neutral order:

joka tuo kirjoja pienille kaduille