Learn Hardcore Finnish: Minulla on sininen takki ja mustat housut.

Minulla on literally means “on me is” or “there is on me”.
Minä olen means “I am” and is used for saying what you are (I am a teacher, I am tired), not what you have.

So:

Minulla on sininen takki. – There is a blue coat on me → I have a blue coat.
Minä olen opettaja. – I am a teacher.

To say I have, use [adessive form of the person] + on → minulla on, sinulla on, hänellä on, etc.

What does minulla mean, and why is it not just minä?

Minulla is minä in the adessive case. The adessive often means “on” or “at”.

minä = I (basic form)
minulla = on me / at me

In possession sentences, Finnish uses the adessive case:

Minulla on takki. – I have a coat. (Lit. On me is a coat.)
Sinulla on kirja. – You have a book. (Lit. On you is a book.)
Hänellä on auto. – He/She has a car. (Lit. On him/her is a car.)

So minulla is required by this “have”-structure; minä alone would be ungrammatical here.

Why is the verb on used even though there are two items? Shouldn’t it be something like ovat for are?

In Finnish “have”-sentences like this, the structure is:

[adessive owner] + on + [thing(s) had]

The verb on (3rd person singular of olla, to be) is used regardless of whether the thing is singular or plural.

Minulla on takki. – I have a coat.
Minulla on housut. – I have trousers.
Minulla on sininen takki ja mustat housut. – I have a blue coat and black trousers.

You would use ovat (are) in a different structure, where the things are the subject:

Housut ovat mustat. – The trousers are black.
Takki ja housut ovat uudet. – The coat and trousers are new.

But in Minulla on ..., on stays singular.

Why is it sininen takki but mustat housut? Why do the adjectives look different?

Adjectives in Finnish agree with the noun in number and case.

takki is singular, nominative → its adjective is sininen (nominative singular).
housut is plural, nominative → its adjective is mustat (nominative plural).

So:

sininen takki – a blue coat (both singular)
siniset takit – blue coats (both plural)
mustat housut – black trousers (both plural)
musta housu – a black trouser (singular, but this is unusual in meaning; see next question)

Structure:

sininen (sg) + takki (sg)
mustat (pl) + housut (pl)

The difference in the adjective endings -nen → -set/-sia/-sta etc. and -t marks number and case. Here you have nominative singular (sininen) and nominative plural (mustat).

Why is takki singular but housut plural? Is that just vocabulary?

Yes, it’s mainly a vocabulary difference and how each language sees the clothing item.

takki (coat/jacket) is grammatically singular, just like English coat or jacket.
housut (trousers/pants) is grammatically plural in Finnish, just like trousers is plural in English.

You normally say:

Nämä housut – these trousers
Uudet housut – new trousers

A singular housu does exist but is rare and usually refers to one leg of the trousers, not a normal pair you wear. So in normal speech you always use the plural housut.

Why are takki and housut in the basic (nominative) form and not in some other case?

In the Minulla on ... possession structure, the thing you have is usually in the nominative case when you talk about:

a whole, countable item
a specific number of items
something presented as a complete object

Examples:

Minulla on auto. – I have a (whole) car.
Minulla on kaksi takkia. – I have two coats.
Minulla on sininen takki ja mustat housut. – I have a blue coat and black trousers.

You use the partitive instead when the thing is:

uncountable or mass
an undefined amount
not seen as a complete whole

For example:

Minulla on rahaa. – I have (some) money. (mass/undefined)
Minulla on vettä. – I have water.
Minulla on vähän ruokaa. – I have a little food.

A coat and trousers are countable, whole items, so nominative takki, housut are used.

Does Minulla on sininen takki ja mustat housut mean I own them or I am wearing them?

In Finnish, Minulla on + vaate (clothing) very often means I am wearing in everyday contexts, not just I own.

So Minulla on sininen takki ja mustat housut can mean:

I own a blue coat and black trousers.
I am wearing a blue coat and black trousers.

The exact interpretation depends on context. If people are talking about what someone is wearing right now (for example: What is he wearing?), this sentence naturally means is wearing.

To be very explicit about wearing, Finnish can also say:

Minulla on sininen takki ja mustat housut päällä. – I have a blue coat and black trousers on (me).

But often the simple Minulla on ... is enough and understood as “I am wearing ...”.

Why are there no words like a or the in the Finnish sentence?

Finnish does not have articles like English a/an or the. The sentence:

Minulla on sininen takki ja mustat housut.

can mean:

I have a blue coat and (some) black trousers.
I have the blue coat and the black trousers.

Whether it’s understood as a or the depends on context and what is already known in the conversation. Finnish expresses definiteness using context, word order, and sometimes other words, not with a separate article.

Why is the conjunction ja used, and can I change the order of the two items?

Ja means and and works very much like English and:

Minulla on sininen takki ja mustat housut. – I have a blue coat and black trousers.

You can freely change the order for normal speech:

Minulla on mustat housut ja sininen takki.

Both are correct. The order can influence emphasis slightly:

First-mentioned item may feel a bit more “important” or topical.
But in most everyday uses, the difference is minimal.

Why do the color adjectives come before the nouns, not after them?

In Finnish, adjectives normally come before the noun they describe:

sininen takki – blue coat
mustat housut – black trousers
iso talo – big house
vanha mies – old man

Putting them after the noun is usually wrong or sounds poetic/marked. So you say:

sininen takki, not takki sininen (in normal prose).

There are some special structures where adjectives can appear after the noun, but for ordinary descriptions like this sentence, Adjective + Noun is the standard pattern.

Is there a difference between takki meaning coat and jacket?

Yes, takki is somewhat general and can mean coat or jacket, depending on context:

talvitakki – winter coat
nahkatakki – leather jacket
sadetakki – raincoat

Often, Finns don’t worry about the fine distinction between coat and jacket the way English sometimes does; takki covers a range of outer garments worn on the upper body. Context and additional words (talvi-, nahka-, sade-, etc.) clarify the kind of takki.

How would I say You have a blue coat and black trousers or He/She has ... using the same pattern?

You keep the same structure, only change the owner in adessive:

Minulla on sininen takki ja mustat housut. – I have ...
Sinulla on sininen takki ja mustat housut. – You (sg) have ...
Hänellä on sininen takki ja mustat housut. – He/She has ...
Meillä on sininen takki ja mustat housut. – We have ...
Teillä on sininen takki ja mustat housut. – You (pl) have ...
Heillä on sininen takki ja mustat housut. – They have ...

Pattern:
[pronoun in adessive] + on + sininen takki ja mustat housut.