Learn Hardcore Finnish: Kirpputorilla löysin takin, joka oli halvempi kuin uusi takki alennusmyynnissä ja parempi kuin moni muu käytetty vaate. - At the flea market I found a coat that was cheaper than a new coat on sale and better than many other used clothes.

kirpputori = a flea market (basic form, no location)
kirpputorilla = at the flea market (adessive -lla/-llä, “at/on a place”)
kirpputorilta = from the flea market (ablative -lta/-ltä, “from a place”)

In this sentence you want to say at the flea market, i.e. the place where you found the coat, so kirpputorilla is the natural choice.

If you said kirpputorilta löysin takin, you would emphasize more strongly that the coat came from there (source), not just that you were there when you found it. Both can be possible in context, but kirpputorilla is the neutral “I was at a flea market and there I found a coat.”

Why is löysin used without minä?

Finnish is a “pro‑drop” language: the personal ending on the verb already tells you the subject, so subject pronouns are often omitted.

löysin = I found (1st person singular past of löytää)
minä löysin = I found but with extra emphasis on I

Both löysin takin and minä löysin takin are grammatically correct. The version without minä is more neutral and typical in normal narration. You only add minä if you want to stress contrast, e.g. Minä löysin takin, enkä sinä.

Why is it takin and not takki?

takin is the object form here. In the past tense, with a completed action and a single countable object, Finnish normally uses the “total object,” which in the singular looks like the genitive:

nominative: takki (coat)
genitive / total object singular: takin

Compare:

Löysin takin. – I found a/the coat. (completed event, one coat)
Etsin takkia. – I’m looking for a coat. (ongoing/indefinite: partitive takkia)
Löysin takkeja. – I found some coats. (partitive plural, several, not fully specified)

So takin tells you this is a single, fully affected object found in a completed event.

How does the relative pronoun joka work here, and why not mikä?

joka is a relative pronoun that refers back to a specific noun, here takin. It functions as the subject of the relative clause:

takin, joka oli halvempi… = the coat which/that was cheaper…

Because joka is the subject of oli, it is in the nominative form joka. Other cases would appear if it played a different role, for example:

takki, jonka ostin – the coat that I bought (jonka = object of ostin)
takki, josta pidän – the coat that I like (josta = “from which / about which”)

mikä is used mainly when referring back to:

an entire previous clause: Hän osti takin, mikä yllätti minut. – …which surprised me.
pronouns like se, kaikki, jotain, etc.

Here we are clearly referring back to takin (a concrete noun), so joka is the natural choice.

Why is the form joka oli halvempi kuin… ja parempi kuin… with only one joka and one oli?

The structure is:

takki, joka oli [halvempi kuin…] ja [parempi kuin…]

So there is one relative clause (joka oli …) that contains two predicate adjectives: halvempi and parempi. The verb oli (was) is understood with both:

that was cheaper than X and (was) better than Y.

In Finnish you could, in theory, repeat oli or even joka, e.g. joka oli halvempi… ja oli parempi…, but that sounds heavy and unnecessary in normal style. One joka and one oli are enough to cover both comparisons.

How is the comparative halvempi formed, and why not something like enemmän halpa?

Finnish usually forms comparatives with the suffix -mpi (or -empi/-ampi/-ompi, depending on the stem), not with more + adjective like English.

halpa (cheap) → stem halva- → halvempi (cheaper)
- the p weakens to v (gradual consonant change: halpa / halvan)
- the -a changes and the comparative ending -empi is added

Other examples:

kiva → kivempi (nicer)
pitkä → pidempi (longer)
tärkeä → tärkeämpi (more important)

You don’t normally say enemmän halpa in standard Finnish. You use halvempi for cheaper. (enemmän + adjective appears in some special cases, but -mpi is the regular comparative.)

What exactly does kuin do in this sentence, and how is it different from kun?

kuin introduces the thing you compare to, roughly “than” or “as” in English. In the sentence it appears twice:

halvempi kuin uusi takki alennusmyynnissä – cheaper than a new coat on sale
parempi kuin moni muu käytetty vaate – better than many other used garments

So the pattern is: comparative adjective + kuin + comparison target.

kun, on the other hand, is mainly a conjunction meaning when or because:

Kun tulin kotiin, söin. – When I came home, I ate.
Olin väsynyt, kun olin valvonut myöhään. – I was tired because/when I had stayed up late.

They are not interchangeable: kuin = comparison; kun = time / cause.

Why is it uusi takki alennusmyynnissä (nominative) after kuin, not uutta takkia?

In comparisons with kuin, the compared items typically appear in the same case. Here, implicitly, we have:

(Tämä) takki oli halvempi kuin (se) uusi takki alennusmyynnissä.

Both “this coat” and “the new coat on sale” are predicate complements of oli, so they are in the nominative: takki / uusi takki.

Using uutta takkia (partitive) would sound odd here, because the meaning is clearly about a specific “new coat on sale,” not some indefinite amount of “new coat‑stuff.” With clear, countable things in a simple comparative like this, nominative is the normal form after kuin.

What does alennusmyynnissä literally mean, and could you also say alennuksessa?

alennusmyynti is a compound:

alennus = discount, reduction
myynti = sale, selling

In the inessive case:

alennusmyynnissä = in a discount sale / during a sale → idiomatically on sale, in a clearance sale

You can also say alennuksessa (inessive of alennus):

uusi takki alennuksessa ≈ a new coat on discount / on sale

Both alennusmyynnissä and alennuksessa are natural here. alennusmyynnissä often suggests a “sale event” (like seasonal sales), whereas alennuksessa can be any discounted price, but in everyday speech they overlap a lot.

Why does moni muu käytetty vaate look singular if the meaning is “many other used clothes”?

The word moni is a bit special. Grammatically it behaves like “many a …” in English: it takes a singular noun, but semantically refers to many individuals.

moni muu käytetty vaate
- moni = many a / many
- muu = other
- käytetty vaate = used garment

So literally: better than many another used garment, which in natural English becomes better than many other used clothes/garments.

If you want an explicitly plural form, you can use:

monet muut käytetyt vaatteet = many other used clothes (all words plural)

Both are correct, but moni + singular is very common in written Finnish and can sound a bit more “literary” or general.

Why are the words ordered as moni muu käytetty vaate and not, for example, käytetty moni muu vaate?

Finnish tends to place modifiers in a fairly fixed order when there are several of them:

quantity words: moni (many)
“other / same / such” type words: muu (other), tämä, sellainen, etc.
descriptive adjectives: käytetty (used, second‑hand)
the noun: vaate (garment)

So: moni (1) + muu (2) + käytetty (3) + vaate (4).

You could rearrange for special emphasis in some contexts, but käytetty moni muu vaate would sound very unnatural here; it scrambles the usual hierarchy and would confuse readers. The given order follows the standard pattern.

Why is moni muu käytetty vaate in the nominative after kuin? Could it be in some other case?

Again, kuin usually keeps the same case for the compared elements. In this part:

(tämä takki) oli parempi kuin moni muu käytetty vaate

Both sides of the comparison (“this coat” and “many other used garments”) act as predicate complements of oli → nominative is expected:

parempi kuin (moni muu käytetty vaate)

If, for example, you were comparing objects in a different role, the case after kuin would change accordingly:

Ostin halvemman takin kuin paidan. – I bought a cheaper coat than shirt. (both takin and paidan in object form)
Pidän enemmän tästä takista kuin tuosta paidasta. – both takista / paidasta are elative.

So nominative moni muu käytetty vaate is correct because it matches the function this phrase has in the clause.

Could the beginning be Löysin takin kirpputorilta or Löysin takin kirpputorilta, joka oli halvempi…?

You can definitely change the basic clause order:

Kirpputorilla löysin takin… – “At the flea market, I found a coat…” (place in focus)
Löysin kirpputorilta takin… – “I found a coat from the flea market…” (emphasizes where the coat came from)

Both are good Finnish, though kirpputorilta slightly shifts the nuance to “from there.”

However, you should not say:

Löysin takin kirpputorilta, joka oli halvempi…

because then joka would grammatically refer to kirpputorilta (the place), not takin (the coat). It would read like “I found a coat from the flea market, which was cheaper…”, where the flea market is being described as cheaper, which is not what you want.

To keep joka clearly referring to takin, place takin right before the relative clause:

Löysin kirpputorilta takin, joka oli halvempi…
Kirpputorilla löysin takin, joka oli halvempi…

Both of these are correct and natural.