Learn Hardcore Finnish: Virkailija selitti asian lyhyesti, joten en ollut enää epävarma. - The clerk explained the matter briefly, so I was no longer unsure.

Virkailija means a clerk / official / office worker, typically someone working in a public office or service point (e.g., a government office, bank, customer service desk). It’s a fairly neutral term for “an employee handling customers and paperwork.”

Why is selitti in that form? What tense is it?

Selitti is the verb selittää (to explain) in the simple past (Finnish: imperfekti), 3rd person singular: (he/she/it) explained.
Present would be selittää → selittää (3rd person: selittää): Virkailija selittää… = “The clerk explains…”

Why is the object asian (not asia or asiaa)?

Asia = “matter/thing/issue.” In this sentence it’s the object of selitti (“explained”).
Asian is the total object form (often called the accusative in Finnish grammar; it looks like the genitive singular -n).

selitti asian ≈ “explained the matter (completely / as a whole)”
selitti asiaa (partitive) would suggest “was explaining the matter” or “explained some of it / in an ongoing or incomplete way”

Because the sentence presents the explaining as a completed event with a bounded object, asian is natural.

Is asian genitive or accusative?

Form-wise, asian looks like the genitive singular of asia. Function-wise in this sentence, it’s used as the total object (often taught as “accusative”).
Finnish commonly uses the -n form for total objects in the singular (except with certain pronouns and some special cases).

What does lyhyesti do here, and what form is it?

Lyhyesti means briefly / shortly. It’s an adverb formed from the adjective lyhyt (“short”) using an adverbial ending.
It modifies the verb phrase: selitti … lyhyesti = “explained … briefly.”

Could the word order be different, like Virkailija selitti lyhyesti asian?

Yes. Finnish word order is fairly flexible:

Virkailija selitti asian lyhyesti (object before adverb)
Virkailija selitti lyhyesti asian (adverb before object)

Both are grammatical; the choice can slightly affect emphasis and rhythm. The given order is very natural.

What does joten mean, and why is there a comma before it?

Joten means so / therefore, introducing a result or consequence.
A comma is typically used before joten because it links two clauses:

Cause: Virkailija selitti asian lyhyesti
Result: joten en ollut enää epävarma

Why is it en ollut and not olin en or just en?

Finnish negation uses a separate negative verb:

en = “I do not” (1st person singular negative verb) The main verb then appears in a special form.

For the past tense of olla (“to be”), you use:

en ollut = “I was not”

You can’t say olin en. And en alone would mean “I don’t,” but you still need the main verb form to complete the meaning.

What tense is en ollut?

It’s past tense negative (imperfect negative) of olla:

olin = “I was”
en ollut = “I was not”

So the whole sentence is framed in the past: the clerk explained, and as a result the speaker was no longer unsure.

What does enää mean, and where does it usually go in the sentence?

Enää means anymore / any longer. It often appears near the verb or just before what it modifies:

en ollut enää epävarma = “I was not unsure anymore”

You could also see:

enää en ollut epävarma (more emphasis on “anymore”)
en ollut epävarma enää (also possible, often a bit more spoken-style)

Why is it epävarma (nominative) and not some case ending?

Because epävarma (“uncertain/unsure”) is a predicate adjective after olla (“to be”). Predicate adjectives normally agree with the subject in number and case, and here the subject is I (singular), so you use the basic form:

(minä) olin epävarma = “I was unsure”
(minä) en ollut epävarma = “I was not unsure”

If the meaning changed to something like “I didn’t consider it uncertain” (different structure), then other cases might appear, but not in this simple “be + adjective” pattern.

Is epävarma “not sure” literally? How is the word built?

Yes, it’s very close to “not sure/uncertain.” It’s built from:

varma = “sure/certain”
prefix epä- = roughly “un-, im-, in-” (negating prefix)

So epävarma = “uncertain / unsure.”

Is the subject minä missing in the second clause? Is that normal?

Yes, it’s normal. Finnish often omits personal pronouns because the verb form shows the person:

en ollut already signals I. So (minä) en ollut enää epävarma is complete without explicitly saying minä.