Learn Hardcore Finnish: Sanakoe meni huonosti, vaikka olin harjoitellut paljon. - The vocabulary test went badly, even though I had practiced a lot.

Finnish very often combines two nouns into a single compound word instead of using something like “test of words” or “word test” as two separate words. Some similar examples:

kuulustelu (hearing, interrogation) from kuulla (to hear) + -stelu (a nominalizing suffix)
ajokoe (driving test) from ajo (driving) + koe (test)

You’ll see this pattern constantly in Finnish: NOUN + NOUN → one compound noun.

Why is it meni huonosti and not something like oli huono?

In Finnish, mennä (to go) is commonly used with an adverb to talk about how something turned out or went:

Koe meni hyvin. – The exam went well.
Esitys meni pieleen. – The performance went wrong / was a disaster.
Haastattelu meni ihan ok. – The interview went quite okay.

So Sanakoe meni huonosti literally means “The vocabulary test went badly”, which is a natural way in Finnish to express “I did badly in the vocabulary test” or “The result of that test was bad”.

You could say Sanakoe oli huono, but that would mean “The test itself was bad/poor (as a test)”, e.g. the questions were unfair, badly written, etc. That’s a different meaning.

So:

meni huonosti = the result / performance was bad
oli huono = the test itself was of poor quality

Why is huonosti used and not huono?

Huono is an adjective = bad
Huonosti is an adverb = badly

In Finnish, you normally use:

adjectives with nouns
- huono koe – a bad test
adverbs with verbs
- koe meni huonosti – the test went badly

Here, the word describes the verb (meni, “went”), not the test itself. So Finnish needs the adverb form huonosti.

Adverbs are often formed from adjectives by adding -sti:

hyvä → hyvin (well) – irregular
nopea → nopeasti (quickly)
selkeä → selkeästi (clearly)
huono → huonosti (badly)

So huonosti is simply “the adverb form of huono”.

What tense is olin harjoitellut, and why is that used here instead of just a plain past tense?

Olin harjoitellut is the past perfect (also called pluperfect) in Finnish.

Structure:

olin = past tense of olla (1st person singular: I was / had)
harjoitellut = past participle of harjoitella (to practice)

Together: olin harjoitellut = I had practiced.

Finnish uses the past perfect when:

The action is in the past, and
It happened before another past event.

In this sentence:

Past event A: olin harjoitellut paljon – I practiced a lot (earlier)
Past event B: sanakoe meni huonosti – the test went badly (later)

So we have a clear “before another past event” situation, which is exactly when Finnish prefers past perfect:

Sanakoe meni huonosti, vaikka olin harjoitellut paljon.
→ The vocab test went badly, even though I had practiced a lot.

If you said … vaikka harjoittelin paljon, it would sound more like both things were happening in the same general past time frame, and you’d usually use that for a repeated or habitual situation (e.g. “even though I practiced a lot (in general)”). Here we want a clear sense of “first I practiced, then later the test went badly”, so past perfect is natural.

Why isn’t minä written in the clause (minä) olin harjoitellut paljon?

In Finnish, subject pronouns (minä, sinä, etc.) are often dropped when they are clear from the verb ending.

olin already tells you the subject is first person singular (I).
So minä olin harjoitellut paljon and olin harjoitellut paljon both mean exactly the same thing.

You normally include the pronoun minä when you want emphasis, contrast, or clarity:

Minä olin harjoitellut paljon, mutta hän ei ollut.
→ I had practiced a lot, but he/she hadn’t.

In a neutral sentence like this, it’s completely normal and very natural to omit the pronoun.

What exactly does vaikka mean here? Is it “even though”, “although”, or “even if”?

In this sentence, vaikka is a subordinating conjunction that introduces a contrast:

Sanakoe meni huonosti, vaikka olin harjoitellut paljon.

Natural English translations:

The vocabulary test went badly, *even though I had practiced a lot.*
The vocabulary test went badly, *although I had practiced a lot.*

So here vaikka ≈ although / even though.

More generally, vaikka can mean:

“Although / even though” (a real, known fact – like in this sentence)
- Vaikka satoi, menimme ulos.
  → Although it rained, we went outside.
“Even if” (a hypothetical situation)
- Tulisin, vaikka sataisi.
  → I would come, even if it rained.

Context and verb forms tell you if it’s factual (although/even though) or hypothetical (even if).
In your sentence, it’s about something that actually happened (you really did practice), so the meaning is although / even though.

Why is there a comma before vaikka in this sentence?

Finnish comma rules are different from English ones in some ways, but here they actually line up quite nicely.

Vaikka olin harjoitellut paljon is a subordinate clause (a dependent clause) that explains a contrast with the main clause Sanakoe meni huonosti.

In Finnish, you normally put a comma between:

a main clause and
a following subordinate clause introduced by words like että, koska, vaikka, kun, jos, etc.

So:

Sanakoe meni huonosti, vaikka olin harjoitellut paljon.

You can also invert the order:

Vaikka olin harjoitellut paljon, sanakoe meni huonosti.

There is still a comma between the clauses. The rule is: main clause + vaikka-clause or vaikka-clause + main clause → put a comma between them.

Can the word order be changed? For example, can we say Vaikka olin harjoitellut paljon, sanakoe meni huonosti or move paljon?

Yes, Finnish allows quite flexible word order, and several variants are natural here, with slightly different emphasis:

Sanakoe meni huonosti, vaikka olin harjoitellut paljon.
– neutral, starting with “the vocab test”
Vaikka olin harjoitellut paljon, sanakoe meni huonosti.
– puts more emphasis on the contrast: Even though I had practiced a lot, (still) the test went badly.
Moving paljon:
- … vaikka olin paljon harjoitellut.
  This is grammatical, but sounds a bit more literary / emphatic. It highlights the amount of practicing more strongly.
- … vaikka olin harjoitellut todella paljon. (really a lot)
  Very natural spoken/written Finnish, just adding emphasis.

Word order in Finnish mainly affects emphasis and information structure, not basic grammatical correctness. The original order is the most neutral, but the alternatives above are all valid.

What is the difference between harjoitella and opiskella?

Both can be translated as “to study / to practice”, but they are used in different ways:

harjoitella = to practice, especially repeating/doing an activity to get better
- harjoitella sanoja – to practice words
- harjoitella pianoa – to practice piano
- harjoitella juoksemista – to practice running
opiskella = to study (a subject/course), more about learning/reading/studying systematically
- opiskella suomea – to study Finnish
- opiskella lääketiedettä – to study medicine
- opiskella yliopistossa – to study at university

In the sentence, olin harjoitellut paljon emphasizes practicing, e.g. doing exercises, repeating vocabulary, drilling. If you said:

Olin opiskellut paljon.

it would mean “I had studied a lot” in a broader sense (reading, revising, learning), not necessarily the repetitive kind of practicing that harjoitella suggests.

What exactly does paljon do here, and can it be used differently?

Paljon means “a lot / much” and functions here as an adverbial of quantity, modifying harjoitellut:

olin harjoitellut paljon → I had practiced a lot.

Some points:

Position
- Most neutral: olin harjoitellut paljon
- Also possible: olin paljon harjoitellut (more emphasis, a bit more literary or stylistic)
- Spoken Finnish often adds intensifiers:
  - olin harjoitellut tosi paljon – I had practiced really a lot
  - olin harjoitellut aika paljon – I had practiced quite a lot
With a negative, paljon typically becomes paljoa and tends to go with a partitive object:
- En ollut harjoitellut paljoa. – I hadn’t practiced much.

Here, with a positive sentence, paljon alone is fine and straightforward.

So in this sentence, paljon simply tells you the extent / amount of practicing: the speaker invested a lot of effort, which contrasts with the bad result of the test.