Learn Hardcore Finnish: Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo, mutta yliopistossa olin jo oppinut puhumaan ryhmälle. - I used to be very shy, but at university I had already learned to speak to a group.

First clause: Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo – describes a past state (“I used to be very shy earlier”).
Second clause: mutta yliopistossa olin jo oppinut puhumaan ryhmälle – says that by some later point during or after university, the learning had already happened.

If you said:

… mutta yliopistossa opin puhumaan ryhmälle, it would be a simple past event: “at university I learned to speak to a group” (a single event in that past time).
… mutta yliopistossa olin jo oppinut puhumaan ryhmälle emphasizes the resulting state: by a certain time at university you had already acquired that skill.

Is it necessary to repeat olin in the second part, or could you omit it?

In standard, natural Finnish you normally keep the verb:

Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo, mutta yliopistossa olin jo oppinut puhumaan ryhmälle.

You can sometimes drop a repeated verb in very short or elliptical sentences, but here omitting olin would sound unnatural or at least very marked:

✗ Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo, mutta yliopistossa jo oppinut puhumaan ryhmälle.

That feels incomplete, almost like a note-style fragment. For normal prose or speech, you should repeat olin.

What is the structure oppinut puhumaan? Why puhumaan and not puhua?

This is the common pattern:

oppia + 3rd infinitive illative (-maan/-mään)

Meaning roughly “to learn to do something.”

oppia puhumaan = to learn to speak
oppia kirjoittamaan = to learn to write
oppia ajamaan autoa = to learn to drive a car

So the form after oppia is usually the ‑maan / ‑mään form (3rd infinitive illative):

puhua → puhumaan
kirjoittaa → kirjoittamaan

Using just the basic infinitive puhua after oppia (oppia puhua) is possible but much less common and often sounds more bookish or slightly old‑fashioned. In everyday Finnish, oppia puhumaan is the default.

Why is ryhmälle used, and what case is it in? Why not ryhmässä or ryhmää?

Ryhmälle is the allative case (ending ‑lle), which often means “to someone/something” or “onto”.

The verb puhua (“to speak”) normally takes:

allative + puhua = speak to someone
- puhua opettajalle = speak to the teacher
- puhua yleisölle = speak to the audience
- puhua ryhmälle = speak to the group

So puhua ryhmälle = “to speak to a group.”

Other cases would change the meaning:

ryhmässä (inessive “in the group”) would be “in/inside a group”, focusing on location or membership.
ryhmää (partitive) would sound like you are somehow affecting the group itself (puhua ryhmää is not idiomatic here).

For “speak to X”, use puhua + allative → puhua ryhmälle.

What exactly does aiemmin mean, and how is it different from ennen?

Aiemmin is an adverb meaning “earlier, previously, before (that)”.

Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo.
= I used to be very shy earlier / I had previously been very shy.

Difference from ennen:

ennen is often used:
- with a noun: ennen yliopistoa = before university
- in the structure ennen kuin
  - clause: ennen kuin aloitin yliopiston = before I started university
aiemmin stands alone as an adverb, referring back to some earlier time without naming it.

You could say:

Olin ennen hyvin ujo. (OK, colloquial)
but aiemmin sounds a bit more neutral/standard and nicely fits “previously / earlier (in my life)”.

Why is hyvin used to mean “very”? Isn’t hyvin usually “well”?

Hyvin has two main uses:

As an adverb of manner: “well”
- Hän puhuu hyvin suomea. = She speaks Finnish well.
As an adverb of degree: “very / quite / really” (especially with adjectives and some adverbs)
- Olen hyvin väsynyt. = I am very tired.
- Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo. = I used to be very shy.

Here, hyvin ujo clearly means “very shy”.

Other common intensifiers:

tosi ujo = really/very shy (more colloquial)
erittäin ujo = extremely/very shy (a bit more formal)

Why is there a comma before mutta?

In Finnish, a comma is usually placed before coordinating conjunctions like:

mutta (but)
ja (and)
tai (or), etc.

when they join two independent clauses (each with its own verb).

Here we have:

Clause 1: Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo (verb = olin)
Clause 2: mutta yliopistossa olin jo oppinut puhumaan ryhmälle (verb = olin)

Since both are full clauses, Finnish punctuation rules call for a comma:

Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo, mutta yliopistossa olin jo oppinut puhumaan ryhmälle.

What does the form yliopistossa express, and how would it differ from yliopistolla?

Yliopistossa is the inessive case (‑ssa / ‑ssä), which often means “in, inside, within.”

Here, yliopistossa means “at university / while at university” in the sense of being in that institution / phase of life, not just physically on the campus.

Rough nuance:

yliopistossa = in the university as an institution, during your studies (“during my university years”)
yliopistolla (adessive) = at the university (on/at the place, e.g. the campus, the premises)

So:

Opiskelin yliopistossa. = I studied at a university (as a student there).
Tapasin hänet yliopistolla. = I met him/her at the university (on the campus).

Can the word order in Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo be changed? For example to Aiemmin olin hyvin ujo or Olin hyvin ujo aiemmin?

Yes, Finnish word order is relatively flexible, and all of these are grammatically correct:

Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo.
Aiemmin olin hyvin ujo.
Olin hyvin ujo aiemmin.

Differences are mostly about focus and style:

Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo.
Neutral; “earlier” is given, background information.
Aiemmin olin hyvin ujo.
Slightly more emphasis on “earlier” – contrast with “now”.
Olin hyvin ujo aiemmin.
Also possible; “aiemmin” at the end can feel a little more afterthought-like or conversational.

The original version is very natural and neutral.

Could we say Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo, mutta yliopistossa opin puhumaan ryhmälle instead? How would that change the meaning?

Yes, that sentence is perfectly correct:

Olin aiemmin hyvin ujo, mutta yliopistossa opin puhumaan ryhmälle.

Difference in nuance:

opin (simple past) focuses on the event of learning at some time during university:
“I used to be very shy before, but (at some point) at university I learned to speak to a group.”
olin jo oppinut (past perfect) highlights the resulting state by a certain time:
“I used to be very shy before, but at university I had already learned to speak to a group (by then).”

Both are natural; the original puts just a bit more weight on the idea that by some later point in the past, the learning was already an established fact.

Why is jo placed between olin and oppinut? Could we say olin oppinut jo puhumaan ryhmälle?

Both placements are grammatically correct:

olin jo oppinut puhumaan ryhmälle
olin oppinut jo puhumaan ryhmälle

Jo means “already”, and Finnish allows it in several positions. The most usual and neutral is before the participle/verb it modifies:

olin jo oppinut sounds very natural and slightly emphasizes that by that time the learning was already completed.

Olin oppinut jo puhumaan ryhmälle is also possible; here jo feels a bit closer to puhumaan ryhmälle, but in practice the meaning difference is tiny. The sentence as given uses the most typical rhythm and emphasis.