Learn Hardcore Finnish: Minulla on vain vähän käteistä, loput rahat ovat pankkikortilla. - I have only a little cash; the rest of the money is on my bank card.

Here minulla is the adessive case of minä (“I”), and on is the 3rd person singular of olla (“to be”).
Literally: Minulla on vain vähän käteistä ≈ “On me there is only a little cash.”

What exactly does minulla mean, and why is it in that form?

Minulla is the word minä (“I”) in the adessive case.

The adessive (ending -lla / -llä) often means:

“on (top of)”
“at / by”
“with”

In the Minulla on structure, it marks the possessor: the thing is “located at” the person. So:

minä → minulla
sinä → sinulla
me → meillä, etc.

You don’t say “Minä on rahat” in Finnish. You must say Minulla on rahat “I have money.”

Why is it vain vähän and not vähän vain? Does word order matter?

Both vain vähän and vähän vain are possible, but vain vähän is the most neutral order.

vain = “only, just”
vähän = “a little, a small amount”

In practice:

Minulla on vain vähän käteistä.
– Very normal, default word order.
Minulla on vähän vain käteistä.
– Grammatically possible, but sounds odd and marked; you rarely see this.

If you want to emphasize how little it is, you could move vain:

Minulla on vähän vain käteistä – “I have just a little cash” (spoken, emphatic; still not very natural).

Stick to vain vähän as the standard.

Why is käteistä in that form and not käteinen?

The basic word is käteinen (“cash”), but in this sentence it appears as:

käteistä = partitive singular of käteinen

Reasons:

Unspecified / small amount
An indefinite amount of a mass-like noun (money, water, etc.) is usually in the partitive:
- vähän käteistä = “a bit of cash”
- paljon rahaa = “a lot of money”
After quantity words
Words like vähän (“a little”), paljon (“a lot”) usually require the partitive:
- vähän käteistä
- paljon käteistä

You could see käteinen in e.g.:

Onko sinulla käteinen mukana? – “Do you have cash with you?”
Here it’s more like a countable “some cash / a cash amount.”

Why is it vähän käteistä and not vähän rahaa? Is there a difference?

Both are possible, but they’re slightly different in nuance:

vähän käteistä = “a little cash (banknotes/coins)”
vähän rahaa = “a little money (in general)”

In the full sentence:

Minulla on vain vähän käteistä, loput rahat ovat pankkikortilla.
This contrasts cash vs money on the card, so käteistä is natural.

You could say Minulla on vain vähän rahaa if you mean you don’t have much money in general, regardless of where it is.

What does loput rahat literally mean, and why isn’t it loput rahoista?

loput = “the rest (of something), the remaining ones”
rahat = plural of raha (“money”)

Loput rahat literally: “the rest of the money (the remaining money)”.

You might also see loput rahoista, which is more literally “the rest of the money (out of the money)” with a partitive plural:

loput rahat – the rest of the money (more direct, very common)
loput rahoista – the rest of the money (explicit “of”-structure)

In everyday speech, loput rahat is perfectly natural and a bit simpler.

Why is rahat plural if it just means “money”?

Finnish often uses the plural to talk about “money” as a general concept:

raha (singular) = a unit of money or the abstract idea of money
rahat (plural) = “my money / your money / the money” in a practical sense

Examples:

Missä minun rahani ovat? – “Where is my money?”
Kaikki rahat menivät vuokraan. – “All the money went to rent.”

In loput rahat, it means “the rest of (my) money,” and plural feels more natural than singular here.

Why is it rahat ovat and not rahat on?

Standard written Finnish uses plural agreement:

rahat ovat – “the money (plural) are”

Spoken Finnish commonly uses a singular verb with a plural subject:

rahat on pankkikortilla – very common in speech
rahat ovat pankkikortilla – correct, neutral in writing and careful speech

So in everyday conversation you’ll hear rahat on, but in formal or textbook Finnish you’ll see rahat ovat.

What does pankkikortilla literally mean? Why the -lla ending?

The word is:

pankkikortti = “bank card”
pankkikortilla = adessive case of pankkikortti

The -lla / -llä ending (adessive) usually means:

“on, at, by”
“on top of”
sometimes “with”

So pankkikortilla is literally “on the bank card.”

In this sentence, rahat ovat pankkikortilla ≈ “the money is on (my) bank card,” i.e., accessible via the card or stored on the account associated with the card. Finnish often uses the adessive here.

Could you say pankkikortissa instead of pankkikortilla?

Not in this meaning.

pankkikortilla (adessive) – “on the bank card / associated with the card”
→ used for money “being on the card.”
pankkikortissa (inessive) – “in the bank card”
→ would sound like the money is physically inside the card (nonsensical in this context).

So rahat ovat pankkikortilla is the correct and idiomatic form.

What’s the difference between saying pankkikortilla and tilillä or pankissa?

pankkikortilla – “on the bank card,” focusing on how you access the money (via a card).
tilillä (from tili, “account”) – “in/on the (bank) account,” focusing on the account itself.
pankissa (from pankki, “bank”) – “in the bank,” very literal, sounds like the money is at the bank institution.

So:

Rahat ovat pankkikortilla.
→ “My money is on my card” (accessible by card).
Rahat ovat tililläni.
→ “My money is in my (bank) account.”
Rahat ovat pankissa.
→ “The money is in the bank” (more general or literal).

In casual speech, pankkikortilla is very natural when contrasting with käteinen.

Could I say Minulla on vain vähän käteistä rahaa instead?

Yes, but it’s a bit redundant.

käteinen raha = “cash money”
käteistä rahaa = partitive form, “some cash money”

Minulla on vain vähän käteistä rahaa is understandable and grammatical, but usually:

käteistä alone already implies “cash”
rahaa alone already implies “money”

So vähän käteistä or vähän rahaa are more natural and concise.

Is there any special reason for this word order:
Minulla on vain vähän käteistä, loput rahat ovat pankkikortilla?

The order is very normal for Finnish:

Minulla on – possessor + verb “to be”
vain vähän – degree/quantity phrase
käteistä – the thing possessed
loput rahat – new subject of the second clause
ovat – verb
pankkikortilla – location/adessive phrase

You could move things around for emphasis, but it changes the feel:

Vain vähän käteistä minulla on, loput rahat ovat pankkikortilla.
→ Emphasizes how little cash you have; more dramatic.

For a learner, the given order is the best to copy as a natural default.

I’ve seen vain and vaan. Are they the same as in vain vähän käteistä?

They are different words, though they sound very similar in speech.

vain = “only, merely, just”
→ This is the one in the sentence: vain vähän käteistä (“only a little cash”).
vaan = usually “but (rather)”
→ Used to contrast or correct:
- Ei käteistä, vaan pankkikortti. – “Not cash, but (rather) a bank card.”

In colloquial speech, people may pronounce both as something like “vaan”, but in writing you should keep the distinction:

vain for “only”
vaan for “but (rather)”