Learn Hardcore Finnish: Minusta tämä puuro on ihan hyvää. - In my opinion, this porridge is quite good.

Minusta is the elative case of minä (I), literally “from me.” Finnish uses the elative with opinion, evaluation, and perception verbs/clauses to mean “in my view/opinion.” So Minusta tämä puuro on ihan hyvää = “In my opinion, this porridge is pretty good.”

You’ll also see this with verbs like tuntua (to feel/seem): Minusta tuntuu, että… = “It feels to me that…”
Other persons: sinusta (from you), hänestä (from him/her), meistä, teistä, heistä.

Are there other common ways to say “in my opinion” besides Minusta?

Yes, and they vary by register:

Standard/neutral: mielestäni (short for minun mielestäni)
Also common (informal speech): minun mielestä
Strongly colloquial: musta (= minusta in spoken Finnish). Note: musta also means “black,” so rely on context.
More formal/explicit: minun näkemykseni mukaan, oma mielestäni (rarer in everyday talk)

Why is hyvää in the partitive instead of hyvä?

Because the subject is a mass/uncountable noun (puuro, porridge). With copula sentences (X on Y), predicative adjectives often appear in the partitive when describing an indefinite, unbounded quantity or quality. So you get:

Puuro on hyvää. (Porridge is good/tastes good.)
Kahvi on kuumaa. (Coffee is hot.) The partitive can suggest “somewhat/characteristically X” rather than a crisp classification.

Could I say hyvä here instead of hyvää? What’s the difference?

You can hear both, but the nuance changes:

…puuro on hyvää: default with mass/taste; describes the quality/taste of the portion. Natural and common.
…puuro on hyvä: treats it more as a specific dish/product that you rate as “good” as a whole (a bit more categorical). For example, you might say this when reviewing the recipe or the dish overall, not just how a spoonful tastes. Both are correct; hyvää is the safer everyday choice for food taste.

Why is it tämä puuro (nominative) and not tätä puuroa?

Because tämä puuro is the subject of the clause and it’s a specific, identified thing (“this porridge”), so nominative is used. The partitive puuroa would appear in different structures:

Existential/presentational: Pöydällä on puuroa. (There is porridge on the table.)
With quantities: Hieman puuroa, lisää puuroa. Here, we are talking about a particular porridge that’s already known/deictically pointed out, so nominative subject tämä puuro is right.

What does ihan do here?

Ihan is a degree adverb. With positive adjectives like hyvä, it usually means “quite, rather, pretty.” So ihan hyvää ≈ “pretty good.” Notes:

With some words it can mean “completely/entirely” (e.g., ihan sama = “it’s all the same”).
Close alternatives: aika, melko (rather), stronger ones: tosi, todella, oikein (very/really).

Can I change the word order, like putting Minusta later?

Yes. Common variants:

Minusta tämä puuro on ihan hyvää. (emphasizes it’s your opinion)
Tämä puuro on minusta ihan hyvää. Both are natural. Finnish word order is flexible; moving minusta mainly changes emphasis. More marked orders like Minusta ihan hyvää on tämä puuro sound unnatural in everyday speech unless you’re creating special rhetorical emphasis.

Does the adjective have to agree with the subject? Why doesn’t hyvää match puuro?

Predicative adjectives in Finnish can be nominative or partitive. They don’t always “agree” in case with the subject:

With countable subjects/classification: Tämä auto on hyvä.
With mass/indefinite quality: Tämä kahvi on kuumaa. So in your sentence, the partitive hyvää is chosen because we’re evaluating the quality of a mass noun (porridge) rather than classifying a discrete item.

How do I negate this? Does negation change the case?

Say: Minusta tämä puuro ei ole ihan hyvää.

Negation itself doesn’t force partitive for predicatives across the board. The case choice follows the same semantic rules as in the affirmative.
- Mass/taste context: (Ei ole) hyvää.
- Classification context: Hän ei ole suomalainen. (nominative) So here we keep hyvää because we’re still talking about the taste/quality of a mass noun.

Any pronunciation tips for this sentence?

Primary stress is on the first syllable of each word: MI-nus-ta TÄ-mä PUU-ro on I-han HY-vää.
Double vowels are long: puuro [puːro], hyvää [hyvæː].
y is a front rounded vowel (like French u or German ü).
ä is an open front vowel (as in cat, but longer in ää).
Trill the r in puuro.

Why tämä and not se? And what about tää?

tämä = “this,” often for something present/near or being pointed at. Standard register.
se = “that,” but very often used in discourse for something already known/mentioned, even if physically near.
tää = colloquial for tämä. All of these can be possible depending on context and register: Minusta tämä/se puuro on…, Mun mielestä tää puuro on… (colloquial).

Does ihan hyvää sound lukewarm?

Usually yes—it’s a mild positive: “pretty good,” not amazing. Depending on tone, it can even feel a bit noncommittal.

Stronger praise: tosi/todella/oikein hyvää (“really/very good”).
Slight hedge: aika/melko hyvää (“rather/quite good”).
Neutral-positive set phrase: ihan ok, ihan jees (colloquial).

How do I say the same pattern with other people’s opinions?

Use the elative of the relevant pronoun:

sinusta (you): Sinusta tämä puuro on ihan hyvää.
hänestä (he/she): Hänestä tämä puuro on ihan hyvää.
meistä, teistä, heistä work the same way.

Should there be a comma after Minusta?

No. Finnish normally doesn’t insert a comma after a short initial adverbial like Minusta. You’d only use a comma if you had a longer parenthetical or needed to avoid ambiguity.