Learn Hardcore Finnish: Opettaja jakoi linkin, mutta olin jo nähnyt saman videon viime kuussa. - The teacher shared the link, but I had already seen the same video last month.

In Finnish, a completed action affecting the whole object usually takes the total object, whose singular form for a noun is often identical to the genitive:

Opettaja jakoi linkin.
→ The teacher shared the (whole) link. (completed, definite act)

Using linkki here would be ungrammatical; the object of jakaa in this sense should not be in the nominative.

Why is the conjunction mutta used here instead of vaan? Aren’t they both “but”?

Both mutta and vaan can translate as “but”, but they are used in different contexts.

Mutta = general “but, however”, used to contrast two statements.
Vaan = “but rather / but instead”, usually after a negative clause, to correct or replace what was just said.

Examples:

En nähnyt uutta videota, vaan saman vanhan.
I didn’t see the new video, but rather the same old one.

In the sentence:

Opettaja jakoi linkin, mutta olin jo nähnyt saman videon viime kuussa.
The first part is not negative, so mutta is the normal choice.

Using vaan here would sound wrong to native speakers.

How is olin jo nähnyt formed, and what tense is it?

Olin jo nähnyt is the past perfect (in Finnish: pluskvamperfekti).

Structure:

Auxiliary verb olla in the imperfect (past)
→ olin = I was / I had
Main verb nähdä in its active past participle
→ nähnyt

So:

olin nähnyt = “I had seen”
olin jo nähnyt = “I had already seen”

This tense is used for an action that happened before another past event.
Here:

Past event A: Teacher shared the link
Earlier past event B: I had already seen the video

Why do we use the past perfect (olin jo nähnyt) instead of a simple past like näin saman videon viime kuussa?

Both are grammatically correct, but they emphasize different things.

Olin jo nähnyt saman videon viime kuussa.
→ Past perfect: you’re clearly placing “seeing the video” earlier than another past event (the teacher sharing the link). It answers: By the time the teacher shared it, what was already true?
Näin saman videon viime kuussa.
→ Simple past: “I saw the same video last month,” without explicitly tying it to the teacher’s action.

In this sentence, olin jo nähnyt links more tightly to jakoi and highlights the “already, before that” relationship.

What does nähnyt mean, and how is it related to nähdä?

Nähnyt is the active past participle of the verb nähdä (“to see”).

Infinitive: nähdä = to see
Past participle: nähnyt = (having) seen

It’s used:

With olla to form the past perfect:
olin nähnyt = I had seen
olemme nähneet = we have seen
Sometimes as an adjective-like form, though less common with this verb.

So olin jo nähnyt literally is “I was already seen” → idiomatically “I had already seen”.

Why is it saman videon, not sama video?

Saman videon is the object phrase, and sama must agree with video in case.

Base forms: sama video = the same video (nominative)
In this sentence, videon is a total object in genitive/accusative form.
Therefore sama also changes to its genitive form: saman.

Agreement:

Nominative: sama video
Genitive/accusative: saman videon

So:

olin nähnyt saman videon = I had seen the same video
(both words in the same case; this is required in Finnish)

Why is it videon and not videota?

Videon is a total object, again showing a completed action involving the whole video.

Videon (genitive/accusative) → total object
→ I had seen the whole video (or that specific video).
Videota (partitive) → would suggest partial or ongoing viewing, or an indefinite quantity:
- Katsoin videota. = I was (in the process of) watching a video / I watched some of the video.

In the sentence, the idea is that you had already seen that whole specific video, so videon is correct.

What does viime kuussa literally mean, and why does kuussa end with -ssa?

Viime kuussa means “last month”.

viime = last
kuu = moon / month (in this context: month)
kuussa = “in the month”, inessive case (-ssa / -ssä) → “in”

Finnish often uses -ssa/-ssä for time expressions meaning “in [a period]”:

tammikuussa = in January
yöllä vs yössä are different, but -ssa is common in time phrases with months.

So viime kuussa is literally “in the last month”, which corresponds to English “last month”.

Could we say Opettaja jakoi linkin, mutta olin nähnyt jo saman videon viime kuussa? Does the position of jo matter?

Yes, Opettaja jakoi linkin, mutta olin nähnyt jo saman videon viime kuussa is also correct.

Word order with jo:

olin jo nähnyt (more common, neutral)
olin nähnyt jo (also correct)

Both mean “I had already seen”. The difference is only a slight nuance of emphasis:

olin jo nähnyt slightly emphasizes that the state of already having seen existed.
olin nähnyt jo can lightly emphasize the timing (“by then, I had seen it already”).

In everyday speech, both are fine; olin jo nähnyt is probably the most natural here.

Could we reorder the second clause as Jo olin nähnyt saman videon viime kuussa?

That word order is technically possible, but it sounds unusual and marked in modern Finnish.

Jo olin nähnyt… puts jo at the very beginning for strong emphasis, similar to saying “Already I had seen…” in English.
This might appear in poetic, archaic, or very expressive language, but not in neutral everyday speech.

For normal spoken or written Finnish, prefer:

Olin jo nähnyt saman videon viime kuussa.

Why is there no minä before olin? How do we know it means “I had seen”?

Finnish usually doesn’t need subject pronouns because the verb ending shows the person.

olin = 1st person singular, “I was / I had”
olit = you were / you had
oli = he/she/it was / had
olimme = we were / we had, etc.

So:

Olin jo nähnyt saman videon
→ The -n ending on olin tells us the subject is “I”, even without minä.

You can add minä for emphasis:

Minä olin jo nähnyt saman videon viime kuussa.
→ “I had already seen the same video last month (as opposed to someone else).”

But it isn’t necessary in the neutral sentence.