Learn Hardcore Finnish: Minun kanavallani on vasta muutama seuraaja, mutta olen silti ylpeä heistä. - My channel has only a few followers so far, but I am still proud of them.

kanava = channel
-lla = adessive case (on / at something) → kanavalla = on (the) channel
-ni = possessive suffix my → kanavallani = on my channel

So -lla tells where (on the channel) and -ni tells whose (my). They express different things, so both are needed here.

If -ni already means my, why do we also have minun? Isn’t that redundant?

In standard Finnish, you can express possession in three ways:

Just the suffix:
- Kanavallani on vasta muutama seuraaja.
  = My channel has only a few followers.
Just the pronoun:
- Minun kanavalla on vasta muutama seuraaja. (more informal / spoken)
Both pronoun + suffix:
- Minun kanavallani on vasta muutama seuraaja.

Using both minun and -ni is very common in written and neutral speech. It can slightly emphasize the owner (my channel, not someone else’s), but most of the time it’s just the normal “full” form.

So yes, there is some redundancy, but it’s standard Finnish redundancy.

Why is it minun kanavallani on… and not something like minulla on kanava, which I learned for “I have a channel”?

There are two different structures here:

Minulla on kanava.
- Literally: At me is a channel → I have a channel.
Minun kanavallani on muutama seuraaja.
- Literally: On my channel is a few followers → My channel has a few followers.

The second type is an existential sentence focusing on what exists in a certain place:

Pöydällä on kirja. = There is a book on the table.
Kanavallani on seuraajia. = There are followers on my channel.

So here we are not saying I have followers, but on my channel there are a few followers – the location (kanavallani) is the main starting point of the sentence.

What exactly does vasta mean here, and how is it different from vain?

Both vasta and vain can translate as only, but:

vasta = only so far / only at this point (in time)
- Implies “I might expect more later; it’s still early.”
- Minun kanavallani on vasta muutama seuraaja.
  = So far, my channel has only a few followers (but I expect more in the future).
vain = only, merely, just (neutral, not about time)
- Minun kanavallani on vain muutama seuraaja.
  = My channel has only a few followers (and that’s all).

Using vasta adds a “yet / so far” nuance and can sound a bit more optimistic or process-oriented than vain.

Why is it muutama seuraaja (singular) and not muutamat seuraajat or muutama seuraajia?

The word muutama (“a few, several”) behaves like a special kind of numeral:

It is singular, and
It is followed by a singular noun, usually in the nominative:

Examples:

muutama ystävä = a few friends
muutama talo = a few houses
muutama seuraaja = a few followers

So the phrase muutama seuraaja is grammatically singular, even though its meaning is plural.

Other forms exist but mean something slightly different:

muutamat seuraajat = certain particular followers (specific group)
muutamia seuraajia = some followers (more indefinite, partitive plural)

In your sentence, the neutral and most common choice is muutama seuraaja.

Why is seuraaja in the singular nominative and not seuraajia in the partitive?

Two things are going on:

Because of “muutama”
As above, muutama is followed by a singular noun, usually nominative:
- muutama seuraaja, muutama ystävä, etc.
Existential sentence rules
In sentences like X:llä on Y, the thing that “exists” is often in:
- nominative when it is seen as a countable, delimited group
- partitive when it’s more like an indefinite amount / mass

Compare:

Kanavallani on muutama seuraaja.
= There are a few (countable) followers on my channel.
Kanavallani on seuraajia.
= There are (some) followers on my channel. (no number, more indefinite)

Since we have muutama, the pattern requires seuraaja in singular nominative.

If there are several followers, why is the verb on (singular) and not ovat?

The grammatical subject here is the whole phrase muutama seuraaja, and muutama is singular. So the verb agrees with muutama, not with the real-world number of followers:

Muutama ihminen tuli. = A few people came. (verb singular)
Muutama kirja on pöydällä. = A few books are on the table. (verb singular)
Minun kanavallani on muutama seuraaja. = My channel has a few followers. (verb singular: on)

So: meaning is plural, but grammar is singular.

Why is it ylpeä heistä? Why the ending -sta and not heitä or heihin?

The adjective ylpeä (“proud”) in Finnish normally takes the elative case (-sta/-stä):

ylpeä jostakusta = proud of someone
ylpeä lapsestaan = proud of his/her child
ylpeä heistä = proud of them

So the pattern is:

ylpeä + (something)‑sta

That’s why you get:

heistä = from them / of them (3rd person plural, elative)

Using:

heitä (partitive) or
heihin (illative, into them)

would be grammatically wrong with ylpeä in this meaning.

Why use heistä and not repeat seuraajista?

Both are possible:

…mutta olen silti ylpeä heistä.
…mutta olen silti ylpeä seuraajistani.

The difference:

heistä
- Pronoun: of them
- Refers back to muutama seuraaja.
- Avoids repetition, sounds natural and light.
seuraajistani
- seuraaja
  - -i- (plural) + -sta (elative) + -ni (my)
- Literally: of my followers
- Repeats the noun, adds my again.

In context, heistä is perfectly clear (we know who they are) and a bit smoother stylistically.

Why is it heistä (people pronoun) and not niistä?

Finnish distinguishes between:

he / heitä / heistä… → used for people (personal 3rd person plural)
ne / niitä / niistä… → used for things, animals, etc. (in colloquial language often used for people too, but in standard language “he” is preferred for humans)

Since seuraajat are people, standard written Finnish naturally uses heistä:

Olen ylpeä heistä. = I am proud of them (people).

In casual spoken Finnish you might hear niistä, but in a neutral/written sentence like this, heistä is the standard form.

What is the nuance of silti here? Could we use edelleen, yhä, or kuitenkin instead?

All of these can translate as still or however, but they’re not interchangeable:

silti = nevertheless, even so
- Contrasts with what was just said.
- On vasta muutama seuraaja, mutta olen silti ylpeä heistä.
  = There are only a few followers, but I’m still / nevertheless proud of them.
kuitenkin = also however, nevertheless
- In this sentence, silti and kuitenkin are close; you could say:
  …mutta olen kuitenkin ylpeä heistä.
edelleen / yhä = still (continuously, as before)
- These are about continuing state, not contrast.
- Olen yhä / edelleen ylpeä heistä.
  = I am still proud of them (I was proud before, and I still am).

So here, silti is chosen because it contrasts “only a few followers” with “still proud”.

Can we change the word order, for example to Vasta muutama seuraaja on minun kanavallani? Does that change the meaning?

Yes, you can change the word order, and Finnish uses word order to show focus/emphasis:

Minun kanavallani on vasta muutama seuraaja.
- Neutral: starting from the place (my channel).
- On my channel there are only a few followers so far.
Vasta muutama seuraaja on minun kanavallani.
- Emphasis on vasta muutama seuraaja = only a few followers
- Feels more contrastive: It’s only a few followers that my channel has (not more).

Both are grammatical. The original version is the most natural neutral wording; the alternative sounds more focused on the small number itself.