Learn Hardcore Finnish: Suosikkini on suomalainen runoilija, jonka tekstit ovat lyhyitä mutta vahvoja. - My favourite is a Finnish poet whose texts are short but powerful.

Using just the possessive suffix without minun is very normal and quite typical in written Finnish. Using both is also correct, but if the possessor is obvious, many Finns leave out minun and keep only -ni.

Why is the word order Suosikkini on suomalainen runoilija and not Suomalainen runoilija on suosikkini? Are both correct?

Both sentences are grammatically correct, but the focus is slightly different.

Suosikkini on suomalainen runoilija
– Starts with my favorite, then tells what that favorite is.
– Feels like you’re answering “What is your favorite (poet/writer/artist)?”
Suomalainen runoilija on suosikkini
– Starts with a Finnish poet, then tells that this kind of person is your favorite.
– In many contexts this word order can sound a bit less natural or more contrastive, like you’re comparing with other types (e.g. “Not a Swedish poet, a Finnish poet is my favorite.”)

In everyday use, the original order Suosikkini on suomalainen runoilija is the most neutral and typical here.

What is suomalainen here? Is it an adjective or part of a compound like “Finn-poet”?

Suomalainen is an adjective meaning Finnish (from Suomi + suffix -lainen).
In this sentence it modifies runoilija (poet):

suomalainen runoilija = a Finnish poet

It’s not a fixed compound word; it’s just the normal adjective + noun pattern. You could replace it with other adjectives the same way:

nuori runoilija – a young poet
kuuluisa runoilija – a famous poet

Why is there a comma before jonka? In English we often don’t put a comma before “whose”.

Finnish comma rules are different from English ones.

Here, we have:

Main clause: Suosikkini on suomalainen runoilija
Relative clause: jonka tekstit ovat lyhyitä mutta vahvoja

In Finnish, you normally put a comma between a main clause and a following relative clause introduced by joka / mikä / kuka and their forms (such as jonka). So:

… runoilija, jonka tekstit ovat …

Even if in English you might write “a Finnish poet whose texts are …” without a comma, in Finnish the comma is standard and expected.

Why is it jonka and not joka in jonka tekstit ovat lyhyitä mutta vahvoja?

Joka is the basic relative pronoun (who / which / that).
Jonka is its genitive form and usually means whose.

Think of the underlying structure:

Hän on runoilija. – He/She is a poet.
Hänen tekstinsä ovat lyhyitä mutta vahvoja. – His/Her texts are short but strong.

To join these into one sentence, we replace hän / hänen with the appropriate relative pronoun form:

runoilija, jonka tekstit ovat lyhyitä mutta vahvoja
= the poet whose texts are short but strong

So we need the genitive form jonka because it corresponds to hänen (whose), not to plain hän.

Why is tekstit plural? Could we say jonka teksti on lyhyt mutta vahva instead?

Tekstit is the plural of teksti (text, writing, piece of writing).
Using the plural here talks about the poet’s works in general:

jonka tekstit ovat lyhyitä mutta vahvoja
= whose texts / writings are short but strong (overall, across many pieces)

You could say something like:

jonka teksti on lyhyttä mutta vahvaa

Here, teksti is singular and lyhyttä / vahvaa are in partitive singular. That would describe the person’s writing style or text as a general mass, more like:

whose writing is short but strong (as a general style)

So:

tekstit ovat lyhyitä – focusing on individual works as separate pieces
teksti on lyhyttä – focusing on text/writing as an uncountable mass or general style

In the original sentence, the idea is about many texts/poems, so the plural tekstit is very natural.

Why are lyhyitä and vahvoja in the partitive plural and not nominative plural lyhyet and vahvat?

The subject is plural nominative tekstit, and the adjectives are predicate adjectives after olla:

tekstit ovat lyhyitä mutta vahvoja

With plural subjects, Finnish allows two options for predicate adjectives:

Nominative plural: Tekstit ovat lyhyet / vahvat.
Partitive plural: Tekstit ovat lyhyitä / vahvoja.

Both are grammatically correct, but the nuance differs:

Nominative plural (lyhyet, vahvat)
– more definite, almost classifying: “The texts are the short, strong ones.”
– often used when you’re talking about a specific, clearly delimited set.
Partitive plural (lyhyitä, vahvoja)
– more descriptive and qualitative: the texts tend to be / are generally short and strong.
– very natural when describing the character or typical quality of someone’s work.

Here, we’re describing the poet’s general style, so using partitive plural (lyhyitä mutta vahvoja) sounds very natural and idiomatic.

Could we say jonka tekstit ovat lyhyet mutta vahvat instead? Would that change the meaning a lot?

You can say:

jonka tekstit ovat lyhyet mutta vahvat

It’s correct Finnish. The meaning is broadly the same, but:

lyhyet / vahvat (nominative plural)
– feels more like you’re talking about a specific set of texts that are clearly defined and seen as whole items.
lyhyitä / vahvoja (partitive plural)
– feels more like you’re talking about the general quality or typical style of the person’s writings.

In a literary or descriptive context, the partitive version (lyhyitä mutta vahvoja) usually sounds more natural.

Why is it mutta and not vaan between lyhyitä and vahvoja? Aren’t they both but?

Both mutta and vaan can often be translated as but, but they’re used differently.

mutta = but, general contrast
vaan = but rather / but instead, and it usually follows a negative clause

Examples:

En ole opiskelija, vaan opettaja.
= I am not a student, but rather a teacher.

In the given sentence there is no negation; we’re not correcting something. We’re simply joining two contrasting qualities:

lyhyitä mutta vahvoja – short but strong

So mutta is the correct choice here.

Why is the verb ovat plural in tekstit ovat lyhyitä? Could it ever be on?

Ovat is the 3rd person plural form of olla (to be):

hän on – he/she is
he ovat – they are

The subject here is tekstit (plural), so the verb must agree:

Tekstit ovat lyhyitä – The texts are short.

In standard Finnish, when the subject is plural and explicitly present, the verb is normally plural (ovat). Using singular on with an explicit plural subject, like tekstit on lyhyitä, is common in some colloquial/regional spoken Finnish, but it’s not standard written language.

Is suomalainen runoilija just any Finnish poet, or does this sentence imply that the listener knows who it is?

Grammatically, suomalainen runoilija just means a Finnish poet—it doesn’t by itself say whether the listener knows who that is.

Context decides:

If you’re answering a question like Kuka on suosikkisi? (Who is your favorite?), people will expect you to name a specific person afterward, e.g. Suosikkini on suomalainen runoilija, jonka tekstit… Hän on Aino X.
If no name follows, it can sound like you’re describing the type of person who is your favorite, rather than identifying a particular famous poet.

So the sentence is grammatically fine on its own, but in natural conversation you’d often add the actual name of the poet afterwards.