Learn Hardcore Finnish: Sä oot joskus sanonut, että käytetty vaate voi olla mukavampi kuin ihan uusi. - You have sometimes said that a used piece of clothing can be more comfortable than a completely new one.

sinä olet – standard written Finnish, neutral and correct everywhere.
sä oot – common spoken Finnish, informal, used in everyday conversation.

In this sentence:

Sä oot joskus sanonut...
corresponds to written: Sinä olet joskus sanonut...

As a learner, it’s good to:

First learn sinä olet (standard),
Then get used to hearing/using sä oot in casual speech.

Why is it oot sanonut and not just sanoit?

This is a tense difference:

oot sanonut = olet sanonut → present perfect
Literally: you have said (at some point before now).
sanoit → simple past (imperfekti)
Literally: you said (once, at a specific time in the past).

Here, Sä oot joskus sanonut suggests:

At some unspecified time(s) in the past,
The result/relevance is still valid now (I remember you saying it).

Using sanoit joskus would sound more like:

“You once said (at some particular time)” – more like a one-off event.

What exactly does joskus mean here? “Sometimes” or “once”?

Joskus can mean both “sometimes” and “sometime / once / at some point”, depending on context:

Here, in Sä oot joskus sanonut, it’s most naturally:
- “You’ve sometimes said”
  or
- “You’ve at some point said (this)” (unspecified time).

The idea is: on at least one earlier occasion, maybe more; we’re not focusing on when, just that it happened before.

Why is there a comma before että in sanonut, että?

In Finnish, you normally put a comma before että when it starts a subordinate clause (a “that”-clause):

Sä oot joskus sanonut, että ...
= “You have sometimes said that ...”

Structure:

Main clause: Sä oot joskus sanonut
Subordinate clause: että käytetty vaate voi olla mukavampi kuin ihan uusi

So the comma is there for the same kind of reason as in English:

“You have sometimes said, that a used piece of clothing can be…”
(Modern English usually omits the comma, but Finnish keeps it.)

What is the function of että here? Is it like “that” in English?

Yes. Että is a subordinating conjunction, and in this sentence it works like English “that”:

Sä oot joskus sanonut, että ...
= “You’ve sometimes said that ...”

It introduces the content of what was said.
After verbs like sanoa (to say), luulla (to think), tietää (to know), uskoa (to believe), etc., you often get an että-clause:

Hän sanoi, että tulee myöhässä.
“He/She said (that) he/she will be late.”

What is käytetty in käytetty vaate? Is it a verb form or an adjective?

Käytetty is originally a past passive participle of the verb käyttää (“to use”), but here it functions as an adjective:

käyttää → “to use”
käytetty → “used” (as in “used car”, “used clothes”)

So:

käytetty vaate = “a used garment / used piece of clothing”

Even though it comes from a verb, in this sentence you can think of it simply as an adjective describing vaate.

Why is it käytetty vaate (singular) and not käytetyt vaatteet (plural)?

The sentence is talking about used clothing in general, not any specific item or set of items. Finnish often uses a singular noun to make a general statement:

Käytetty vaate voi olla mukavampi kuin ihan uusi.
Literally: “A used piece of clothing can be more comfortable than a brand new one.”
Meaning: Used clothes can be more comfortable than brand new clothes.

You could say:

Käytetyt vaatteet voivat olla mukavampia kuin ihan uudet.
(plural everywhere)

That’s also correct, just a bit heavier. The original sentence is simpler and very natural.

Why do we say voi olla and not just on: käytetty vaate voi olla mukavampi vs on mukavampi?

Voi olla is from voida (“can / may / to be able to”), and it adds possibility or generality:

käytetty vaate on mukavampi
= “A used piece of clothing is more comfortable”
(sounds more absolute, like a general rule or fact)
käytetty vaate voi olla mukavampi
= “A used piece of clothing can be more comfortable”
(sometimes / in some cases / not always)

Here voi olla softens the claim and makes it more like:

“It can happen that a used item is more comfortable than a brand new one.”

How is the comparative mukavampi formed from mukava?

Mukavampi is the comparative of mukava (“comfortable / nice”).

The general pattern for many adjectives ending in -va / -vä is:

mukava → mukavampi (more comfortable)
halpa → halvempi (cheaper) – note consonant changes here
kiva → kivempi (nicer)

In this sentence:

mukavampi kuin = “more comfortable than”

So:

mukava – comfortable
mukavampi – more comfortable
mukavin – most comfortable (superlative; not used here)

Is kuin always used for “than” in comparisons, like in mukavampi kuin ihan uusi?

Yes. In comparisons, kuin is the standard word for “than”:

mukavampi kuin – more comfortable than
parempi kuin – better than
suurempi kuin – bigger than

So:

mukavampi kuin ihan uusi
= “more comfortable than a completely new (one)”

Note that the noun vaate is dropped after uusi, because it’s understood:

Full form would be: mukavampi kuin ihan uusi vaate,
but repeating vaate is unnecessary.

What does ihan add to uusi? Why not just uusi?

Ihan is an intensifier. Its meaning depends on context, but here it’s close to:

“totally / completely / brand(-new)”

So:

uusi vaate – a new piece of clothing
ihan uusi vaate – a brand new piece of clothing

In this sentence:

... mukavampi kuin ihan uusi
suggests a contrast between something already worn and something that is totally unused, fresh-from-the-store.

Other uses of ihan:

ihan kiva – quite nice / pretty nice
ihan kamala – absolutely awful

Why is there no noun after ihan uusi? Shouldn’t it be ihan uusi vaate?

The noun vaate is understood from context and is dropped to avoid repetition. This is very natural in Finnish (and English does the same):

Full version: käytetty vaate voi olla mukavampi kuin ihan uusi vaate
Natural version: käytetty vaate voi olla mukavampi kuin ihan uusi

English does this too:

“A used shirt can be more comfortable than a brand new (shirt).”

Because uusi clearly refers back to vaate, you don’t need to say vaate again.

Is the word order käytetty vaate voi olla mukavampi fixed, or could it be changed?

Finnish word order is fairly flexible, but the given order is the most natural here:

Käytetty vaate voi olla mukavampi kuin ihan uusi.

You could technically move parts around, but many alternatives would sound either marked (emphatic) or awkward. Some possibilities:

Vaate, joka on käytetty, voi olla mukavampi kuin ihan uusi.
“A garment that is used can be more comfortable than a brand new one.” (more formal/explicit)
Käytetty vaate on joskus mukavampi kuin ihan uusi.
(adds joskus into the second clause; slightly different nuance)

But for the original meaning and natural spoken feel,
käytetty vaate voi olla mukavampi kuin ihan uusi is the best choice.