Learn Hardcore Finnish: Jos en voi asioida verkossa, joudun asioimaan virastossa. - If I can’t take care of things online, I have to deal with it at the office.

Jos means if and introduces a conditional clause. It very commonly starts its own clause, like Jos en voi asioida verkossa, ....
You can put the jos-clause later too, but then you usually keep the comma: Joudun asioimaan virastossa, jos en voi asioida verkossa.

Why is there a comma in the middle of the sentence?

Finnish normally uses a comma between a subordinate clause (like a jos-clause) and the main clause:
Jos en voi asioida verkossa, joudun ...
This is more consistent in Finnish than in English, where commas with if-clauses are more optional.

How does the negative verb en work in en voi?

Finnish forms negation with a separate negative verb that agrees with the subject:

en = I do not
et = you (sing.) do not
ei = he/she/it does not
emme / ette / eivät = we / you (pl.) / they do not

So en voi literally means I do not can → I can’t / I am not able to. The main verb voida appears in a special form (often called the connegative), here voi.

Why is it voi and not voin after en?

With the negative verb, the main verb does not take the normal personal ending. Compare:

Positive: voin = I can
Negative: en voi = I can’t

So voi is the form used with negation (the connegative form).

What exactly does asioida mean, and why is it used twice?

Asioida means to take care of official/business matters, deal with an office/service, or run an errand (in an administrative sense). It’s commonly used with government services, banks, offices, etc.

It appears twice because the sentence contrasts where/how you handle the same type of matter:

asioida verkossa = handle matters online
asioida virastossa = handle matters at the office

What case is verkossa, and why that case?

Verkossa is in the inessive case (-ssa/-ssä), meaning in something.
Here it means online / on the internet (literally in the network). Finnish treats the internet metaphorically as a “place” you can be in.

Similarly, virastossa is also inessive: in/at the office (building).

Why does the second clause say joudun asioimaan instead of joudun asioida?

The verb joutua typically requires the next verb in the -maan/-mään form (often called the illative of the 3rd infinitive, or just MA-infinitive illative), which expresses “ending up having to go and do” something:

joudun asioimaan = I end up having to do business / I’m forced to go handle things

So it’s a common pattern: joutua + VERB-maAn (e.g., joudun odottamaan = I end up having to wait).

Does joutua mean must, have to, or something stronger?

Joutua often implies being forced by circumstances or ending up in an unpleasant necessity, not just a neutral obligation. It can be translated as:

I end up having to...
I’m forced to...
I have to (unfortunately)...

In this sentence, it suggests: if online service isn’t possible, then you’re compelled to go to the office.

Why is it virastossa and not something like virastoon?

Virastossa (inessive) means at/in the office—it focuses on the location where you conduct the business.
Virastoon (illative) would mean into/to the office, focusing on movement/direction.

Here the idea is: you’ll be dealing with the matter at the office, so virastossa fits well. If you wanted to emphasize going there, you could say something like joudun menemään virastoon asioimaan (I end up having to go to the office to handle it).

Is the word order fixed? Could it be Jos en voi asioida verkossa, asioin virastossa?

Word order is fairly flexible, but it changes nuance:

Jos en voi asioida verkossa, joudun asioimaan virastossa. = I’m forced to.
Jos en voi asioida verkossa, asioin virastossa. = Then I’ll do it at the office (more neutral, like a plan/decision).

So yes, you can change it, but joudun adds the sense of “having to (unwillingly)”.