Minusta tuntui kuin savi olisi liikkunut.

Minusta is the elative form of minä, but in this kind of sentence it does not literally mean out of me. It is part of a common Finnish pattern:

• minusta tuntuu / tuntui = it seems / seemed to me, I feel / felt that...

So in this sentence, minusta marks the person to whom the feeling or impression came.

Compare:

• Minusta tuntuu hyvältä. = It feels good to me.
• Minusta tuntuu, että... = I feel / it seems to me that...

This is just how Finnish expresses this idea idiomatically.

Because tuntua and tuntea are different verbs.

• tuntua = to seem, to feel, to give an impression
• tuntea = to feel something directly, to know someone, to be familiar with

In this sentence, the speaker is describing an impression or seeming, not a direct action of feeling something with the senses. So tuntui is the natural choice.

For example:

• Minusta tuntui kuin... = It felt to me as if...
• Tunsin kylmyyttä. = I felt coldness.

So tuntui fits because the sentence is about how something seemed.

Here kuin means as if.

It introduces a comparison between reality and the speaker’s impression:

• Minusta tuntui kuin... = It felt to me as if...

This is a very common structure in Finnish. You can think of it as:

• main clause: Minusta tuntui
• subordinate clause: kuin savi olisi liikkunut

So kuin is not just simple like here; it introduces an unreal / uncertain / impression-based clause.

Because after kuin in this kind of as if clause, Finnish often uses the conditional perfect to show that something only seemed to have happened.

• liikkui = moved
• oli liikkunut = had moved
• olisi liikkunut = would have moved / as if it had moved

In this sentence, the speaker is not confidently stating that the clay actually moved. They are saying it felt as if it had moved. That uncertainty or non-assertion is why olisi liikkunut is used.

This is very typical after kuin when the meaning is as if.

It is the conditional perfect.

It has two parts:

• olisi = conditional form of olla
• liikkunut = past participle of liikkua

So:

• olla → olisi
• liikkua → liikkunut
• together: olisi liikkunut

This structure is used to express something imagined, uncertain, or only apparently true in the past.

Because savi is the subject of the subordinate clause savi olisi liikkunut.

In Finnish, the subject is often in the nominative, which is the basic dictionary form. Here:

• savi = the clay
• olisi liikkunut = had apparently moved / would have moved

So savi has no special ending because it is simply the subject of that clause.

Formally, yes, that is the closest word-for-word match:

• olisi liikkunut = would have moved

But in this sentence, the real function is not exactly the same as ordinary English would have moved. In Finnish, after kuin, this form often signals as if it had moved, not a normal conditional meaning.

So the grammar looks like English would have moved, but the actual use here is closer to:

• as if the clay had moved

Yes. Ikään kuin also means as if, and it can often replace kuin in this kind of sentence.

For example:

• Minusta tuntui ikään kuin savi olisi liikkunut.

This sounds a little more explicit or slightly more formal/literary to many speakers, but it is perfectly natural.

Very roughly:

• kuin = as if
• ikään kuin = as if, as though

That is the normal neutral word order for this clause:

• savi = subject
• olisi = auxiliary
• liikkunut = main verb participle

Finnish word order is flexible, but this is the most straightforward order in standard language.

You might sometimes see other orders for emphasis, but savi olisi liikkunut is the neutral and expected version.

It is normal and correct standard Finnish, but it may sound a little more written or careful than everyday casual speech.

In spoken Finnish, people might say something like:

• Musta tuntu kuin savi ois liikkunu.

That is the colloquial spoken version of the same structure.

Also, in everyday speech people sometimes avoid the more delicate as if structure and say something simpler, depending on context. But the original sentence is completely natural standard Finnish.

Not without changing the nuance.

Compare the two:

• Minusta tuntui kuin savi olisi liikkunut.
  = It felt as if the clay had moved.
  This is an impression, not a firm statement.

• Minusta tuntui, että savi oli liikkunut.
  = I felt / thought that the clay had moved.
  This sounds more like the speaker believed it had actually happened.

So kuin + conditional perfect is more cautious and impression-based, while että makes the content sound more like a real proposition or belief.

Tuntui is the imperfect (simple past) of tuntua.

• tuntuu = feels / seems
• tuntui = felt / seemed

It is in the past because the speaker is describing a past impression:

• at that moment, it felt as if the clay had moved

So the sentence contains:

• a past main verb: tuntui
• a conditional perfect in the subordinate clause: olisi liikkunut

That combination is very natural for describing a past impression about something that seemed to have happened.

It is active.

The verb liikkua means to move, and it is an intransitive verb, so it does not take a direct object. Here the subject itself is the thing moving:

• savi liikkui = the clay moved
• savi olisi liikkunut = the clay would have moved / as if the clay had moved

So liikkunut is the active past participle form used in the conditional perfect construction.