Minäkin lähetin oman anteeksipyyntöni ja ehdotin, että teemme sovinnon kahvilassa.

Minäkin literally means “I too / I also / I as well.”

The clitic -kin usually means also, too, even. It attaches to the word it’s emphasizing:

• Minäkin lähetin... = I also sent... (others sent; I did too)
• Minä lähetinkin... = often a slightly surprising / corrective “actually did send”
• Minä lähetin oman anteeksipyyntöni myös = also correct, but myös is a separate word instead of a clitic

In this sentence, Minäkin emphasizes that I, too did the same action as someone else.

Yes.

Finnish verb forms already show the person, so the subject pronoun is often unnecessary:

• Minä lähetin = I sent
• Lähetin = also I sent (the -in ending marks 1st person singular)

You would usually include minä for emphasis or contrast, for example:

• Minäkin lähetin... (I also / I, for my part, sent...)
• En minä lähettänyt, vaan sinä. (Not I sent it, but you.)

Without special emphasis, Lähetin oman anteeksipyyntöni ja ehdotin... is perfectly natural.

Lähetin is:

• verb: lähettää – to send
• tense: past (simple past / imperfect)
• person/number: 1st person singular (“I”)

Formation (type 1 verb):

• infinitive: lähettää
• past stem: lähetti- → + personal ending
• 1st person singular: lähetti
  • n = lähetin

So Minä lähetin = I sent.

Grammatically, both mark possession, but they play slightly different roles:

• anteeksipyyntöni = my apology (-ni = my)
• oma (here oman in the genitive) adds emphasis: “my own apology”

So:

• Lähetin anteeksipyyntöni. = I sent my apology. (neutral)
• Lähetin oman anteeksipyyntöni. = I sent my *own apology*
  – implies a contrast (not someone else’s), or gives a bit more weight to the fact that it was your personal apology.

You could absolutely say Lähetin anteeksipyyntöni and be correct. Oman just adds nuance/emphasis.

Anteeksipyyntö is a compound of:

• anteeksi = excuse me / sorry / forgiveness
• pyyntö = request

So literally, anteeksipyyntö is a “forgiveness-request”, i.e. “an apology”.

Finnish often expresses what English does with abstract nouns or phrases by creating compounds like this.

Finnish does not have articles (a, an, the).

Definiteness/indefiniteness is usually clear from context, word order, and possession:

• anteeksipyyntö = an apology / the apology
• anteeksipyyntöni = my apology
• oma anteeksipyyntöni = my own apology

So Lähetin oman anteeksipyyntöni is understood as “I sent my (own) apology” without needing any article.

Yes.

• ehdottaa = to propose, suggest
• ehdotin = I suggested / I proposed
• että = a conjunction similar to “that” in English

So:

• Ehdotin, että teemme sovinnon kahvilassa.
  = I suggested that we make peace in a café.

Here the että-clause (että teemme sovinnon kahvilassa) is the content of the suggestion, just like an English “that”-clause.

In Finnish, after verbs like ehdottaa, toivoa, luvata, the verb in the että-clause is usually in the normal indicative, and you choose the tense according to the time of the action itself, not the tense of the main verb.

• Ehdotin, että teemme sovinnon kahvilassa.
  = I suggested that we make peace (now / in the near future).
• Ehdotin, että teimme sovinnon silloin.
  = I suggested that we made peace at that time (referring to a specific past occasion).

For a more hypothetical or polite proposal, you can use conditional:

• Ehdotin, että tekisimme sovinnon.
  = I suggested that we should make / could make peace.

In your sentence, teemme is present indicative because it’s about what you will now do as a result of the suggestion.

Sovinnon is the genitive singular of sovinto (“reconciliation, peace [between people]”).

The verb phrase is tehdä sovinto = to make peace / reconcile.
When the action is seen as complete, the object often appears as a genitive “total object”:

• tehdä hyvän päätöksen = to make a good decision (complete)
• tehdä virheen = to make a mistake (a whole, countable event)
• tehdä sovinnon = to make (a) peace / to reconcile

Using the partitive sovintoa would sound like an ongoing or incomplete process (some peace-making), which doesn’t fit this idiomatic expression.

So teemme sovinnon is the normal way to say “we make peace / we reconcile.”

All three exist, but they mean different things:

• kahvila = café
• kahvilassa (inessive) = in the café (inside)
• kahvilaan (illative) = to the café (movement into)
• kahvilalla (adessive) = at the café (more like “at the place / at the café’s premises”, less inside-focused)

Your sentence:

• teemme sovinnon kahvilassa = we will make peace *in a café (inside)*.

If you wanted to stress the movement, you might say:

• Ehdotin, että menemme kahvilaan ja teemme sovinnon.
  = I suggested that we go to a café and make peace.

But as given, the focus is on the location where the reconciliation happens, so kahvilassa is natural.

You can say että me teemme, and it’s grammatically correct, but the subject pronoun is usually dropped when it’s not emphasized:

• neutral: että teemme sovinnon...
• emphasized/contrasted: että me teemme sovinnon... (e.g. we do it, not someone else)

Since the verb ending -mme already shows that the subject is we, the plain että teemme sovinnon kahvilassa is the most natural version in neutral context.

Word order in Finnish is flexible, but it affects emphasis.

• että teemme sovinnon kahvilassa – neutral:
  
  • subject (implicit me) → verb → object → place
• että kahvilassa teemme sovinnon – emphasizes kahvilassa (“it is in the café that we make peace”).

So you can say että kahvilassa teemme sovinnon, but it sounds more contrastive or focused on the location.
For a neutral statement of what you suggested, the original order is more typical.