Learn Hardcore Finnish: Voisitteko Te varmistaa, että allekirjoitus näkyy kopiosta? - Could you polite make sure that the signature is visible on the copy?

Voisitteko = voisi- (conditional stem of voida, to be able/can) + -tte (2nd person plural ending) + -ko (yes/no question clitic). So it literally means something like could you (plural/formal), (question?).

What is the role of the conditional in voisitteko? Is it past tense?

No—Finnish conditional is not past tense here. The conditional (voisi-) is commonly used for politeness and softening requests, similar to English could you / would you rather than can you. So voisitteko is a polite request form.

Why is Te capitalized, and why is it included at all if the verb already shows the person?

Te means you (plural), but capitalized Te is also used as a polite/formal you to one person (like French vous). It’s included even though voisitteko already marks the person/number because it adds emphasis and formality. In many contexts you could omit it:

Voisitteko varmistaa, että… is still correct and polite.

Is Te always formal in modern Finnish?

Not always. Lowercase te is just normal plural you. Capitalized Te is a convention for polite address, but usage varies by context and by writer. Many people use lowercase even when addressing formally; others keep Te in formal letters/emails.

What does varmistaa mean grammatically here—does it take an object?

Yes. Varmistaa means to make sure / to confirm / to ensure and it normally takes an object. In this sentence, the “object” is the whole subordinate clause starting with että:

varmistaa, että allekirjoitus näkyy… = make sure that the signature is visible…

Why is there a comma before että?

In Finnish, a subordinate clause introduced by että (that) is typically separated with a comma from the main clause:

Voisitteko Te varmistaa, että …? This is standard punctuation.

What does että do, and can it be left out like English sometimes drops that?

Että introduces a content clause (a that-clause). Unlike English, Finnish usually keeps että in this structure. Dropping it is not typical in standard Finnish in a sentence like this.

Why is it allekirjoitus näkyy (signature is visible) and not something like “you see the signature”?

Finnish often expresses visibility with the intransitive verb näkyä = to be visible / to show (be seen). So allekirjoitus näkyy is literally the signature is visible / shows. It focuses on the signature’s visibility rather than on an observer.

Why is it kopiosta (from the copy) and not kopiossa (in the copy)?

Kopiosta is the elative case (-sta/-stä), literally out of/from. With näkyä, Finnish commonly uses elative to mean is visible from / can be seen on the basis of something:

näkyy kopiosta = is visible in the copy / can be seen in the copy (i.e., when you look at the copy)

Kopiossa (inessive, -ssa/-ssä) would emphasize location more literally: visible in the copy. In practice, both can occur, but kopiosta is very idiomatic with näkyä.

How formal/polite is this whole sentence, and what are less formal alternatives?

This is quite formal because of:

conditional request voisitteko
explicit formal pronoun Te
the overall wording

Less formal variants include:

Voisitko varmistaa, että allekirjoitus näkyy kopiosta? (singular you, polite but less formal)
Voitko varmistaa, että allekirjoitus näkyy kopiosta? (more direct: can you)