Minulla on oikeus ilmaista mielipiteeni rauhallisesti, kunhan en riko lakia.

I have the right to express my opinion calmly, as long as I do not break the law.

Breakdown of Minulla on oikeus ilmaista mielipiteeni rauhallisesti, kunhan en riko lakia.

• minä: I
• minun: my
• ei: not
• mielipide: the opinion
• rauhallisesti: calmly
• rikkoa: to break
• oikeus: the right
• ilmaista: to express
• kunhan: as long as
• laki: the law

Questions & Answers about Minulla on oikeus ilmaista mielipiteeni rauhallisesti, kunhan en riko lakia.

Why is it Minulla on oikeus and not Minä olen oikeus?

Finnish usually expresses possession with the structure [adessive case] + olla:

• Minulla on = I have (literally “on/at me is”)
• Sinulla on = you have
• Hänellä on = he/she has, etc.

So Minulla on oikeus literally means There is a right at me → I have the right.

If you said Minä olen oikeus, it would mean I am justice / I am a right, which is grammatically correct but completely different in meaning and usually nonsense in this context.

What exactly does on oikeus ilmaista mean as a structure?

The pattern olla oikeus + infinitive is a very common way to say “to have the right to do something”:

• Minulla on oikeus ilmaista mielipiteeni.
  I have the right to express my opinion.
• Sinulla ei ole oikeutta päättää.
  You don’t have the right to decide.

So:

• on = is / have (from olla)
• oikeus = right (a noun)
• ilmaista = to express (verb in infinitive form)

Together, on oikeus ilmaista = have the right to express.

What form is ilmaista, and why is it used here?

Ilmaista is the basic infinitive form of the verb ilmaista (to express). In grammar terms this is often called the A-infinitive.

We use the infinitive after oikeus in the pattern:

• olla oikeus + infinitive → on oikeus ilmaista, on oikeus puhua, on oikeus äänestää, etc.

So ilmaista is not conjugated for person or tense here; it simply expresses the action linked to the right that someone has.

Why is it mielipiteeni and not minun mielipide?

Mielipiteeni means my opinion. It combines:

• mielipide (opinion)
• genitive stem mielipiteen-
• possessive suffix -ni (my)

So mielipiteeni literally is “opinion-of-me”, i.e. my opinion.

You could also say:

• minun mielipiteeni = my opinion (with both pronoun minun and suffix -ni)
• minun mielipiteeni ilmaista is a bit redundant in neutral style, but not incorrect.
• minun mielipide alone is ungrammatical in this context; you need either the genitive (mielipiteen) + possessive suffix or another structure.

In this sentence, mielipiteeni is the direct object of ilmaista, which is why the noun is in the genitive form (see next question).

Why is mielipide in the form mielipiteeni and not something like mielipideni?

The base word is mielipide (opinion). Its genitive singular is mielipiteen (not mielipideen or mielipiden). This is just how the word is historically formed; you have to memorize it.

Then you add the possessive suffix -ni (my) to the genitive stem:

• mielipide → genitive mielipiteen → with -ni → mielipiteeni

So mielipiteeni = my opinion in a form that functions as the object of ilmaista.

Why is mielipiteeni in the genitive case (ending in -n) here?

In Finnish, when you have olla oikeus + infinitive, the object of that infinitive is usually in the genitive to show a complete, definite object:

• Minulla on oikeus ilmaista mielipiteeni.
  I have the right to express my (whole, specific) opinion.
• Minulla on oikeus lukea kirjan.
  I have the right to read the book (the whole of it).

So mielipiteeni is the genitive form of mielipide with a possessive suffix, functioning as the total object of ilmaista.

What is the difference between rauhallisesti and words like rauhallinen or rauhassa?

• rauhallinen = peaceful (adjective)

  • rauhallinen ihminen = a peaceful person

• rauhallisesti = peacefully (adverb: in a peaceful way)

  • ilmaista mielipiteensä rauhallisesti = to express one’s opinion peacefully

• rauha = peace (noun)

  • elää rauhassa = to live in peace

In the sentence, we need an adverb to modify the verb ilmaista, so rauhallisesti (peacefully) is the natural choice:

• ilmaista mielipiteeni rauhallisesti
  = to express my opinion in a peaceful manner

What does kunhan mean here, and how is it different from kun?

Kunhan here means as long as / provided that / so long as. It introduces a condition:

• …kunhan en riko lakia.
  = …as long as I do not break the law.

Compare:

• kun = when / as / since / (sometimes) if
• kunhan = as long as / provided that / if only (often minimal requirement)

Examples:

• Saat tulla, kun olet valmis.
  You may come when you are ready.
• Saat tulla, kunhan olet valmis.
  You may come, as long as you are ready / provided that you are ready.

So kunhan emphasizes the condition more strongly than kun would.

How does kunhan compare to jos?

Both can introduce a condition, but the nuance is different:

• jos = neutral if

  • Voit jäädä, jos haluat. = You can stay if you want.

• kunhan = as long as / provided that / if only (often sounds like a minimum condition)

  • Voit jäädä, kunhan et melua. = You can stay, as long as you don’t make noise.

In kunhan en riko lakia, the speaker is saying: I have this right, on the condition that I don’t break the law. It sounds like a basic rule that must be respected.

Why is it en riko and not rikon in the second clause?

Finnish negation uses a special negative verb (en, et, ei, emme, ette, eivät) plus a special verb form called the connegative (no personal ending):

• Affirmative: minä rikon = I break
• Negative: minä en riko = I do not break

So:

• rikon = 1st person singular present (affirmative)
• riko here is the connegative form used with en

Other persons:

• en riko = I don’t break
• et riko = you don’t break
• ei riko = he/she doesn’t break
• emme riko = we don’t break, etc.

So en riko is the correct negative form needed in kunhan en riko lakia.

Why is it lakia and not laki or lain?

The base word is laki (law). The forms:

• laki = nominative (dictionary form)
• lain = genitive
• lakia = partitive

In Finnish, a direct object under negation is usually in the partitive:

• Rikon lain. = I break the law. (affirmative → lain, total object)
• En riko lakia. = I do not break the law. (negative → lakia, partitive object)

So lakia is required because the verb is negated (en riko). It expresses that the action “breaking the law” does not happen at all.

Can the word order of rauhallisesti be changed, and would that affect the meaning?

Finnish word order is relatively flexible, so some variations are possible:

• Minulla on oikeus ilmaista mielipiteeni rauhallisesti, kunhan en riko lakia. (normal)
• Minulla on oikeus rauhallisesti ilmaista mielipiteeni, kunhan en riko lakia. (focus slightly more on doing it peacefully)

Both mean essentially the same: the peacefully clearly belongs to ilmaista (express).

However, if you moved rauhallisesti into the second clause, it could sound like it modifies riko, which would be odd:

• ?Minulla on oikeus ilmaista mielipiteeni, kunhan en riko lakia rauhallisesti.

This would sound like “as long as I don’t break the law peacefully”, which doesn’t make sense. So its current position is natural and unambiguous.

Could the sentence be rewritten with minun instead of the possessive suffix, and how would that sound?

Yes, you could say:

• Minulla on oikeus ilmaista minun mielipiteeni rauhallisesti, kunhan en riko lakia.

This is grammatically correct but stylistically heavier. In standard written Finnish:

• You usually use either the possessive suffix -ni
  
  • mielipiteeni
• or the pronoun minun plus a noun
  
  • minun mielipide (but here you’d still need the correct case: minun mielipiteeni)

Using both minun and -ni together is possible, often to add emphasis: my own opinion (not someone else’s). In a neutral sentence like this, mielipiteeni alone is the most natural choice.