Learn Hardcore Finnish: Opin kielioppia korjaamalla omia virheitäni opettajan palautteen avulla. - I learn grammar by correcting my own mistakes with the help of the teacher’s feedback.

The verb oppia (“to learn”) very often takes the partitive when you talk about learning some amount of a subject, especially something broad or uncountable:

Opin kielioppia. = I learned (some) grammar / I was learning grammar.
Opin suomea. = I learned (some) Finnish / I was learning Finnish.

The partitive kielioppia suggests an ongoing, partial, or open‑ended process: you are developing your knowledge of grammar, not “completing” it.

If you said Opin kieliopin, it would sound more like you learned the grammar completely or mastered a particular defined system (e.g. “I learned the grammar of this constructed language”). That’s possible but a bit unusual in the general “I’m improving my grammar” sense.

So here kielioppia is partitive because grammar is treated as something you learn gradually and never fully “finish.”

What exactly does opin mean here? Is it just “I learned”?

Yes, opin is the past tense (simple past) of oppia for the 1st person singular:

stem: oppi-
past tense marker: -i-
1st person ending: -n
→ opin = “I learned” / “I came to learn”.

Depending on context, oppia can mean:

To learn (a subject / information):
- Opin kielioppia. – I learned grammar / I was learning grammar.
To learn to do something when followed by the 3rd infinitive in -maan/-mään:
- Opin korjaamaan virheitäni. – I learned to correct my mistakes.

In your sentence we have the first use: you learned grammar, and the korjaamalla… phrase tells how you learned it.

What form is korjaamalla, and what does it literally mean?

Korjaamalla is the 3rd infinitive in the adessive case. It’s built like this:

verb: korjata (“to correct”)
3rd infinitive stem: korjaama-
adessive ending: -lla
→ korjaamalla = “by correcting”.

This -ma/-mä + lla/llä form often corresponds to English “by doing X” or “through doing X”:

Opin kielioppia korjaamalla omia virheitäni.
→ I learned grammar by correcting my own mistakes.

Other examples:

Opin lisää sanastoa lukemalla kirjoja. – I learned more vocabulary by reading books.
Paransin ääntämistäni kuuntelemalla native‑puhujia. – I improved my pronunciation by listening to native speakers.

So korjaamalla describes the method / manner of learning.

Why is it omia virheitäni and not just virheitäni? Doesn’t -ni already mean “my”?

Good observation: virheitäni already has the possessive suffix -ni (“my”).
So why add omia (“own”)?

Two things are going on:

Agreement:
Oma is an adjective meaning “own”, and in Finnish adjectives must generally agree with the noun in number and case:
- singular nominative: oma virhe – one own mistake
- plural partitive: omia virheitä – (some) own mistakes
In the sentence, the noun is virheitäni (partitive plural), so the adjective must also be partitive plural: omia.
Emphasis on “my own (not someone else’s)”:
- virheitäni = my mistakes
- omia virheitäni = my own mistakes (as opposed to other people’s mistakes)

So virheitäni alone would be grammatically fine and mean “my mistakes.”
Omia virheitäni adds emphasis, roughly like English “my own mistakes.”

Why is virheitäni in the partitive plural and not virheeni?

Virheitäni is:

stem: virhe- (“mistake”)
plural marker: -i-
partitive ending: -tä
possessive suffix: -ni (“my”)
→ virhe-i-tä-ni = “(some) of my mistakes”.

It’s partitive plural for these reasons:

Indefinite / not all of them:
Partitive often expresses an open, unbounded amount.
- korjata virheitäni → correct some of my mistakes / my mistakes in general
- korjata virheeni → correct all my mistakes (or a clearly defined set of them)
Ongoing, habitual process:
“By correcting my mistakes” here describes a repeated, typical activity, not one single event where you cleaned up a fixed list. Partitive fits this “some, many, over time” feeling.

So virheitäni matches the idea of repeatedly correcting various mistakes as they occur, which is how you learned grammar.

What does opettajan palautteen avulla literally mean, and what cases are used there?

Opettajan palautteen avulla breaks down like this:

opettaja = teacher
opettajan = genitive: “teacher’s”
palaute = feedback
palautteen = genitive: “of the feedback”
avulla = “with the help of” (from apu, “help”, in adessive)

Structure:

X:n avulla = “with the help of X”

Here, X is opettajan palaute (“the teacher’s feedback”), so in full:

opettajan palautteen avulla
= with the help of the teacher’s feedback.

So both opettajan and palautteen are in the genitive, because:

opettajan palaute = the teacher’s feedback
palautteen avulla = with the help of the feedback

Put together: “I learned grammar by correcting my own mistakes with the help of the teacher’s feedback.”

Why is it palautteen avulla and not palautteella?

Both are possible in Finnish, but they have slightly different nuances:

palautteen avulla = with the help of the feedback
- focuses on the idea that the feedback helps you.
- formula: X:n avulla = with the help of X.
palautteella = with / using the feedback
- treats feedback more as an instrument or tool you use.
- adessive of palaute: “by means of feedback”.

In practice:

Opin kielioppia opettajan palautteen avulla.
– I learned grammar with the help of the teacher’s feedback.
(emphasis: the feedback supported/assisted your learning)
Opin kielioppia opettajan palautteella.
– I learned grammar using the teacher’s feedback.
(emphasis: feedback was the means or instrument)

Your sentence chooses palautteen avulla to highlight feedback as a form of help.

Could I change the word order, for example: Opin kielioppia opettajan palautteen avulla korjaamalla omia virheitäni?

Yes. Finnish word order is relatively flexible, and both are grammatically fine:

Opin kielioppia korjaamalla omia virheitäni opettajan palautteen avulla.
Opin kielioppia opettajan palautteen avulla korjaamalla omia virheitäni.

The default is that the main elements (verb + main object) come first, and modifiers of manner/instrument (like korjaamalla…, palautteen avulla) can be shifted around for rhythm or emphasis.

Subtle differences:

Original version flows as:
I learned grammar (how?) by correcting my mistakes (with what help?) with the teacher’s feedback.
Swapped version might slightly highlight the feedback first as the key factor, and korjaamalla… as an additional detail.

But in everyday usage, neither sounds strange. Context and intonation decide what feels most natural.

Could I express the same idea with a “when” or “because” clause instead of korjaamalla?

Yes. The -malla form is one way to express “by doing X”. You could also use a finite clause with kun (“when”) or koska (“because”), though the nuance shifts a bit:

Opin kielioppia, kun korjasin omia virheitäni opettajan palautteen avulla.
– I learned grammar when I corrected my own mistakes with the teacher’s feedback.
(describes a time when you were learning)
Opin kielioppia, koska korjasin omia virheitäni opettajan palautteen avulla.
– I learned grammar because I corrected my own mistakes with the teacher’s feedback.
(explicit causal relationship)
Opin kielioppia korjaamalla omia virheitäni opettajan palautteen avulla.
– I learned grammar by correcting my own mistakes with the teacher’s feedback.
(focus on method / means)

So korjaamalla is the most compact and “method‑focused” way of saying it, closest to English “by correcting”.

Why isn’t minä (“I”) written? How do we know the subject is “I”?

In Finnish, subject pronouns are often dropped because the person ending on the verb already shows who the subject is.

The verb opin ends in -n, which marks 1st person singular:

opin – I learned
opit – you (sg) learned
oppi – he / she learned
opimme – we learned
opitte – you (pl) learned
oppivat – they learned

So Opin kielioppia… clearly means “I learned grammar…”, even without minä.

You could say Minä opin kielioppia…, and it’s correct, but usually you only add minä if you want special emphasis (e.g. contrast: “I learned it, but he didn’t”).