Learn Hardcore Finnish: En allekirjoita sopimusta vielä, koska yksi ehto on epäselvä. - I won’t sign the contract yet, because one condition is unclear.

In Finnish negation, you conjugate the negative verb (en/et/ei...), and the main verb goes into a special form called the connegative (it looks like the stem without the personal ending).

Affirmative: (Minä) allekirjoitan = I sign
Negative: (Minä) en allekirjoita = I don’t sign

So allekirjoita is the connegative form used after en.

What does allekirjoittaa mean literally, and how is it formed?

Allekirjoittaa means to sign (a document/contract). Literally it comes from:

alle = under
kirjoittaa = to write So the idea is to write under (i.e., put your signature under a text).

Why is the object sopimusta (partitive) and not sopimuksen?

Sopimusta is the partitive singular of sopimus (contract). Finnish often uses the partitive with negation:

Negative sentences commonly take a partitive object. So En allekirjoita sopimusta is the normal way to say I’m not signing the contract.

If you used sopimuksen, it would usually suggest a more “completed/whole” viewpoint in a positive context (and object case choices are different in affirmative sentences). In negative clauses, partitive is typically expected.

Does sopimusta mean “some contract” or “the contract”?

It can still mean the contract in context. The partitive here is mainly triggered by negation, not necessarily by indefiniteness.

Context can make it definite: the contract we’ve been discussing
Grammatically it’s partitive because of en … allekirjoita

What is vielä doing here, and where can it go in the sentence?

Vielä means yet / still / (for) now depending on context. Here it means yet: you are not signing at this point. Placement is flexible, but it affects focus a bit:

En allekirjoita sopimusta vielä = I’m not signing the contract yet
En vielä allekirjoita sopimusta = I’m not yet signing the contract (focus on the timing)

Why is there a comma before koska?

Finnish uses a comma to separate a main clause from a subordinate clause, including koska (because) clauses:

En allekirjoita sopimusta vielä, koska … This is standard punctuation in Finnish.

How does the koska clause work grammatically?

Koska introduces a subordinate clause giving the reason:

koska yksi ehto on epäselvä = because one condition is unclear The structure is straightforward:
yksi ehto = subject (one condition)
on = verb (is)
epäselvä = predicate adjective (unclear)

Why is it yksi ehto and not something like yhden ehdon?

Because yksi ehto is the subject of the clause, so it’s in the nominative:

yksi (one) + ehto (condition) = one condition (subject)

yhden ehdon would be genitive and would fit other roles (like of one condition), not the subject of on epäselvä.

Why is the adjective epäselvä in that form?

Epäselvä is a predicate adjective describing ehto. Predicate adjectives agree with the subject in number (singular/plural) and are typically in the nominative:

ehto on epäselvä = the condition is unclear (singular) If plural: ehdot ovat epäselviä = the conditions are unclear (plural, different form)

What’s the basic word order here, and could it be changed?

The neutral order is:

Main clause: En allekirjoita sopimusta vielä (Neg + Verb + Object + Adverb)
Subordinate clause: koska yksi ehto on epäselvä (Because + Subject + Verb + Complement)

You can change word order for emphasis, but the given version is natural and neutral. For example:

Sopimusta en allekirjoita vielä, koska… emphasizes the contract (as opposed to something else).

How would this sound in spoken Finnish—any pronunciation tips?

A few common points:

En is short: like en in ten (but Finnish vowels are “cleaner”).
allekirjoita breaks roughly as al-le-kir-joi-ta.
sopimusta: stress on the first syllable (SO-), and -sta is a clear st sound.
epäselvä: e-pä-sel-vä, with ä like the vowel in cat (but more fronted).