Learn Hardcore Finnish: Minusta tuntuu, että historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka. - I feel that history is more interesting than math.

With verbs like tuntua (to feel, seem), vaikuttaa (to seem), kuulostaa (to sound), Finnish typically puts the “experiencer” in the elative:

Minusta tuntuu… = It feels (to me)…
Sinusta tuntuu… = It feels (to you)…
Meistä tuntuu… = It feels (to us)…

So the structure minusta tuntuu is normal and grammatical; minä tuntuu would be incorrect.

Why is the verb tuntuu in 3rd person singular when the English subject is “I”?

In Finnish, tuntua is often used impersonally in this construction.

English: I feel that… (subject = I)
Finnish: Minusta tuntuu, että… (literally: From me it feels that…)

The logical subject is the situation or clause that follows (että historia on…), so the verb is in 3rd person singular:

(Se) tuntuu = (It) feels
Minusta tuntuu, että… = From me (it) feels that…

Your “I” is expressed by the case-marked pronoun minusta, not by making the verb first person.

What’s the difference between minusta tuntuu, että… and minun mielestäni…?

Both express a personal opinion, but slightly differently:

Minusta tuntuu, että historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka.
= I feel / I have the impression that history is more interesting than mathematics.
– more about feeling, intuition, subjective impression.
Minun mielestäni historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka.
= In my opinion, history is more interesting than mathematics.
– more explicitly opinion-based, like “in my opinion / in my view”.

They overlap a lot, and both are common. Many times you can use either without a big change in meaning.

Why do we need että here? Could I just say Minusta historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka?

You can say both, but they are slightly different structures.

With että (subordinate clause):
- Minusta tuntuu, että historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka.
  Here että historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka is a full clause acting as the “thing that feels” to you.
Without että (simple statement):
- Minusta historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka.
  This is more like In my view, history is more interesting than mathematics.
  Here minusta modifies the whole statement directly (similar to minun mielestäni).

So että is not obligatory in all sentences with minusta, but adding tuntuu, että… explicitly gives the sense “it feels that…”.

Why is there a comma before että in Finnish?

In standard written Finnish, you normally put a comma before the conjunction että when it introduces a subordinate clause:

Minusta tuntuu, että historia on kiinnostavampi…
Hän sanoi, että hän tulee. = He said that he is coming.

This is a general punctuation rule in Finnish: most subordinate clauses are separated with a comma from the main clause, even if they are short. So the comma here is normal and required in formal writing.

Why is historia in this basic form and not something like historian?

Historia is the subject of the verb on (is), so it appears in the nominative case, which is the basic dictionary form:

Historia on kiinnostavampi… = History is more interesting…

You would use other cases (like historian, genitive) only if the grammar of the sentence required it, e.g.:

historian kirja = the book of history / a history book
pidän historiasta = I like history (partitive)

Here, we just have a simple subject + verb + predicate:
historia (subject) + on (verb) + kiinnostavampi (predicate adjective)
→ all in nominative.

How is kiinnostavampi formed, and why not something like enemmän kiinnostava?

Kiinnostavampi is the comparative form of the adjective kiinnostava (interesting).

Formation pattern (very regular):

kiinnostava (interesting) → kiinnostavampi (more interesting)
add the suffix -mpi to the adjective stem.

Other examples:

kaunis → kauniimpi (beautiful → more beautiful)
nopea → nopeampi (fast → faster)

You can say enemmän kiinnostava, but it sounds awkward and unidiomatic here. For normal comparisons of adjectives, Finnish strongly prefers the own comparative form with -mpi:

kiinnostavampi kuin… (more interesting than…) is the standard pattern.

What does kuin mean, and is it always needed in this kind of comparison?

Kuin means than in comparative constructions:

kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka = more interesting than mathematics
suurempi kuin talo = bigger than a house

In ordinary comparisons, kuin is essentially required:

Historia on kiinnostavampi matematiikka. ❌ (incorrect)
Historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka. ✅

In colloquial speech, people may shorten kuin in pronunciation (sounds like kui), but in writing you should use kuin.

Why is it kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka and not something like kiinnostavampi matematiikkaa?

After a comparative adjective, Finnish normally uses kuin + same case on both sides of the comparison.

Here, historia is the subject in nominative, so matematiikka also stays nominative after kuin:

historia (nominative)
kuin matematiikka (nominative as well)

You don’t normally use partitive (like matematiikkaa) for the “than” part of a simple comparison. So:

kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka = correct, natural
kiinnostavampi matematiikkaa = wrong in this meaning.

Can I leave out minusta and just say Tuntuu, että historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka?

Yes, you can.

Tuntuu, että historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka.
= It feels like history is more interesting than mathematics.

Here the experiencer (to whom it feels) is not explicitly stated. It could be understood from context (often “I” or “we”).

Including minusta makes it explicit:

Minusta tuntuu, että… = To me it feels that…

Does Finnish really have no words like English “a / an / the” in this sentence?

Correct: Finnish has no articles like English a / an / the.

So:

Historia on kiinnostavampi kuin matematiikka.
can mean both:
- History is more interesting than mathematics.
- History is the more interesting (subject) compared to mathematics.

You rely on context to know whether it feels more like “the” or just general/abstract. The bare noun historia covers all of these English article nuances.