Minusta kemia on vaikeaa.

In my opinion, chemistry is difficult.

Breakdown of Minusta kemia on vaikeaa.

• olla: to be
• vaikea: difficult
• minusta: I think
• kemia: the chemistry

Questions & Answers about Minusta kemia on vaikeaa.

What does minusta literally mean, and why is it used here?

Minusta is the elative case of minä (I). Literally it means “from me”.

In this sentence, minusta is an idiomatic way to express a personal opinion:

• Minusta kemia on vaikeaa.
  → From me / in my view, chemistry is difficult → I think chemistry is difficult.

So Finnish doesn’t use a verb like “think” here; instead it uses a case form of minä to mark whose opinion it is.

Why minusta and not minä or minun?

• Minä is the basic nominative form and would normally be a subject.
  But in this sentence, the subject is kemia (chemistry), not I.

• Minusta (elative, “from me”) marks the experiencer / source of opinion.
  This is a common pattern in Finnish: you put the “experiencer” into some case (here elative) rather than making it the subject.

Compare:

• Minusta kemia on vaikeaa. – In my opinion, chemistry is difficult.
• Minun mielestäni kemia on vaikeaa. – In my opinion, chemistry is difficult.
  Here minun is genitive because it’s part of the phrase minun mielestäni (in my opinion), which behaves like a noun phrase (“my opinion”).

So minusta alone is a fixed, very common way to say “I think / in my view”.

Is minusta the same as “I think” in English?

Functionally, yes, but the nuance is slightly different.

• Minusta kemia on vaikeaa.
  Most naturally translates as “I think chemistry is difficult” or “To me, chemistry is difficult.”

Nuance:

• It can feel a bit more subjective / personal than a neutral logical judgment:
  • English “I think” can sound intellectual or neutral.
  • Minusta often carries more of a personal viewpoint or feeling: in my eyes, for me.

In normal conversation, though, you can just treat minusta as “I think / I find / to me”.

What’s the difference between “Minusta kemia on vaikeaa” and “Minun mielestäni kemia on vaikeaa”?

They are very close in meaning, both = I think chemistry is difficult.

Subtle differences:

• Minusta kemia on vaikeaa.

  • Very common, short, and natural.
  • Slightly more personal / experiential: “I find chemistry difficult.”

• Minun mielestäni kemia on vaikeaa.

  • Literally: In my opinion, chemistry is difficult.
  • Sounds a bit more explicit and formal – like stressing that this is your opinion, not a fact.

In everyday speech you will also hear:

• Mun mielestä kemia on vaikeaa. (spoken form)
• Very colloquial: Must kemia on vaikeeta. (spoken contractions + colloquial vowel changes)

Why is kemia in the basic form (nominative) and not kemiaa?

Because kemia is the subject of the sentence.

In a simple X is Y sentence with olla (to be), the typical pattern is:

• Subject in nominative
• Predicative (the thing said about the subject) either in nominative or sometimes in partitive

Here:

• kemia = subject (nominative)
• on = verb is
• vaikeaa = predicative adjective (in partitive)

You would not say *kemiaa on vaikeaa here; that would be ungrammatical in this structure. If you wanted a partitive-like subject idea, you’d rephrase, for example:

• Kemian opiskelu on vaikeaa. – Studying chemistry is difficult.

Why is vaikeaa in the partitive and not vaikea?

This is an example of a partitive predicative (partitive form in the complement after olla).

Finnish often uses partitive here when:

• The quality is seen as somewhat vague, general, or not sharply delimited, or
• You’re describing an activity / field / abstract thing in a general sense.

Compare:

• Vesi on kylmä. – The (specific) water is cold.
• Vesi on kylmää. – Water is (cold-ish / generally) cold. (more “water as a substance”)

Similarly:

• Kemia on vaikea.
  More like “Chemistry (this particular course/exam/etc.) is a hard one.”
• Kemia on vaikeaa.
  More like “Chemistry (as a subject / in general) is difficult.”
  That’s what you say when you’re commenting on the subject overall.

So vaikeaa here emphasizes chemistry as a field in general, not one specific course instance.

Can I say “Minusta kemia on vaikea” instead? What changes?

Yes, you can say it, and it’s grammatical, but the nuance shifts:

• Minusta kemia on vaikea.
  Sounds more like you’re talking about a concrete, countable thing:
  e.g. this chemistry course is a hard one / chemistry (as one school subject) is hard.

• Minusta kemia on vaikeaa.
  Feels more like “chemistry is (kind of) difficult in general”, as a field or kind of study; less about one specific course.

In everyday speech, vaikeaa is more typical when talking about school subjects and areas of knowledge in a general way.

Is minusta the subject of the sentence?

No. Grammatically, the subject is:

• kemia (chemistry)

The structure is:

• Minusta – experiencer in elative case (“from me, according to me”)
• kemia – subject (what we are talking about)
• on vaikeaa – verb is
  • predicative adjective in partitive

So:

• Minusta answers “according to whom?”
• Kemia answers “what is difficult?” → subject

Can I change the word order, e.g. “Kemia on minusta vaikeaa”?

Yes. Finnish word order is flexible, and all of these are possible:

• Minusta kemia on vaikeaa.
• Kemia on minusta vaikeaa.
• Kemia on vaikeaa minusta.

They all mean roughly the same thing: I think chemistry is difficult.

Nuance:

• Putting minusta first (original sentence) emphasizes whose opinion it is.
• Putting kemia first emphasizes the topic “chemistry”.
• Kemia on minusta vaikeaa is very natural, especially when the topic “chemistry” is already in the conversation.

Does “Minusta kemia on vaikeaa” mean “I feel chemistry is hard” or “For me, chemistry is hard”? Is there a difference?

It can be understood in both ways, and they overlap:

• “I think chemistry is hard” – focuses on your opinion / judgment.
• “For me, chemistry is hard” – focuses on your personal experience and maybe difficulty level for you personally.

Minusta comfortably covers both: it indicates a subjective viewpoint, not an objective fact. Context decides whether it sounds more intellectual (“I think”) or more experiential (“for me / I find”).

Is minusta used only with opinions like this?

No, minusta appears in several common patterns, with different meanings depending on the verb:

1. Opinion / evaluation

   • Minusta kemia on vaikeaa.
     I think chemistry is difficult.

2. Becoming / change

   • Minusta tulee opettaja.
     I will become a teacher. (literally “from me will become a teacher”)

3. Emotional stance with some verbs

   • Tuntuu minusta, että tämä on vaikeaa.
     It feels to me that this is difficult.

Be careful not to confuse it with:

• Pidätkö minusta? – Do you like me?
  Here minusta is the object of pitää (minusta), not an opinion marker like in our original sentence. The form is the same (elative), but the function is different.

How would this sentence sound in natural spoken Finnish?

Common colloquial versions:

• Mun mielestä kemia on vaikeaa.
  (mun = spoken form of minun)

Very colloquial:

• Must kemia on vaikeeta.
  
  • must = reduction of mun mielestä / minusta in speech
  • vaikeeta = spoken variant of vaikeaa

In careful standard language, you’d use:

• Minusta kemia on vaikeaa.
• Minun mielestäni kemia on vaikeaa.