Learn Hardcore Finnish: Ennen tätä kurssia olin opiskellut vain englantia yliopistossa. - Before this course, I had studied only English at university.

nominative: tämä kurssi – this course
partitive: tätä kurssia – of this course / this course (as object/complement)
inessive: tässä kurssissa – in this course

In the sentence, both tätä and kurssia are partitive singular, so they match correctly.

Why is olin opiskellut used instead of simple past opiskelin?

Olin opiskellut is the pluperfect (past perfect) tense in Finnish. It corresponds to English “had studied”.

You use the pluperfect when:

the action happened before another point in the past.

Here, the reference point is “this course”. The sentence means:

Before this course (later past event), I had already studied only English at university (earlier past situation).

If you said:

Ennen tätä kurssia opiskelin vain englantia yliopistossa.

it would be more like:

Back then / earlier, I studied only English at university.

It’s still understandable, but it doesn’t highlight the “earlier than that course” relationship as clearly as the pluperfect does.

How is the form olin opiskellut built grammatically?

The Finnish pluperfect is formed with:

imperfect of olla (to be) + past active participle of the main verb

So here:

olin = I was (imperfect of olla, 1st person singular)
opiskellut = past active participle of opiskella (to study)

Together:

olin opiskellut = I had studied

Other persons:

olin opiskellut – I had studied
olit opiskellut – you had studied
oli opiskellut – he/she had studied
olimme opiskelleet – we had studied
olitte opiskelleet – you (pl.) had studied
olivat opiskelleet – they had studied

Why is englantia in the partitive instead of englanti or englannin?

Englantia is the partitive singular of englanti (English, the language).

Many verbs of studying, speaking, feeling, etc. take a partitive object, especially when the activity is ongoing, unbounded, or “some amount of” rather than a completed whole. Opiskella is one of these verbs.

Typical patterns:

opiskella englantia – to study English
opiskella suomea – to study Finnish
opiskella historiaa – to study history

Using a non‑partitive object (nominative/genitive) would suggest a bounded, completed whole, which usually doesn’t fit for “studying a language”:

opiskelin englannin sounds like “I did (and finished) ‘English’ as a complete thing” – it’s odd unless you mean a very specific, finite course.

So englantia is the natural, idiomatic form here.

Why isn’t englantia capitalised like “English” in English?

In Finnish, names of languages are not capitalised.

englanti – English (language)
suomi – Finnish (language)
ruotsi – Swedish (language)

However, country names are capitalised:

Englanti – England (the country)
Suomi – Finland
Ruotsi – Sweden

So:

opiskella englantia – to study English (language)
mennä Englantiin – to go to England

In your sentence, englantia clearly refers to the language, so it’s correctly lowercase.

Why is there no word for “I” (minä) in the sentence?

Finnish is a “pro-drop” language: subject pronouns are often omitted because the verb ending already shows the person.

olin = I was (1st person singular)
olit = you were
oli = he/she was

So:

Minä olin opiskellut vain englantia...
Olin opiskellut vain englantia...

mean the same thing: I had studied only English...

You normally add minä only when you want to:

emphasise contrast: Minä olin opiskellut, mutta hän ei ollut. – I had studied, but he/she hadn’t.
make things especially clear in tricky contexts.

Why is it yliopistossa and not yliopistolla?

Both are possible Finnish case forms, but they have different typical uses:

yliopistossa = in/at (the) university
- inessive case (-ssa / -ssä) – literally “inside”
- Used for being part of the institution:
  opiskella yliopistossa – to study at a university
  työskennellä yliopistossa – to work at a university
yliopistolla = at the university (premises)
- adessive case (-lla / -llä) – literally “on, at”
- Often emphasizes the physical location / campus:
  Olen yliopistolla. – I’m at the university (on campus).

In this sentence, opiskellut ... yliopistossa describes being a university student, so -ssa is the natural choice.

Can the word order be different, for example putting ennen tätä kurssia at the end?

Yes. Finnish word order is fairly flexible, and you can move parts to change emphasis rather than grammatical function.

Your original:

Ennen tätä kurssia olin opiskellut vain englantia yliopistossa.
→ First gives the time frame (“before this course”), then the situation.

Other possible orders:

Olin opiskellut vain englantia yliopistossa ennen tätä kurssia.
→ More neutral; the time phrase feels like an afterthought.
Vain englantia olin opiskellut yliopistossa ennen tätä kurssia.
→ Strongly emphasizes “only English”.

All are grammatical; what changes is which information feels most prominent or contrastive. Starting with Ennen tätä kurssia makes the “before this course” setting especially clear.

Where can vain go in the sentence, and how does its position change the meaning?

In Finnish, vain usually comes right before the word or phrase it limits. Different positions change what “only” applies to:

Olin opiskellut vain englantia yliopistossa.
→ I had studied only English at university
- “Only” limits englantia: you didn’t study other subjects there.
Olin vain opiskellut englantia yliopistossa.
→ I had only studied English at university (and not, for example, worked there / done research / studied elsewhere, etc.).
- “Only” limits the whole activity of studying.
Olin opiskellut englantia vain yliopistossa.
→ I had studied English only at university (not in high school, language courses, etc.).
- “Only” limits yliopistossa (the place).

So the position of vain is important for being precise about what is “only.”

Why are there no articles like “a” or “the” in tätä kurssia and yliopistossa?

Finnish has no articles (no equivalents of a/an or the). Definiteness and specificity are expressed by:

demonstratives: tämä, tuo, se (this, that)
word order
context

In this sentence:

tätä kurssia with tämä already signals a specific course → this course.
yliopistossa can mean “at university” in general or “at the university”, depending on context.

So Finnish doesn’t need extra words like “a” / “the”; the information is carried by other means.

Could I say the same thing using a simpler past tense, and how would it change the nuance?

Yes. A simpler version is:

Ennen tätä kurssia opiskelin vain englantia yliopistossa.

This uses opiskelin (simple past/imperfect) instead of olin opiskellut (pluperfect).

Difference in nuance:

Olin opiskellut = I had studied
- Highlights that the studying was already completed before the time of “this course.”
Opiskelin = I studied / I used to study
- Describes what you did in a previous time period, without stressing its relationship to another past event.

Both are understandable, but the original pluperfect form fits especially well when you’re contrasting your past background with what happens in this specific course.