Learn Hardcore Finnish: Minun näkökulmastani kohtuullinen ruutuaika tarkoittaa kahta tuntia päivässä. - From my point of view moderate screen time means two hours per day.

näkökulma → näkökulmasta = from (the) point of view
näkökulmasta
- -ni → näkökulmastani = from my point of view
minun näkökulmastani repeats the my idea twice, which is grammatically fine and very common in spoken and written Finnish.

You could also say just näkökulmastani and leave minun out; it would still clearly mean from my point of view.

Why is the ending -sta used in näkökulmastani, and what case is that?

The ending -sta / -stä is the elative case, whose basic meaning is from inside / out of.

Here:

näkökulma = point of view
näkökulmasta = from (a/the) point of view
näkökulmastani = from my point of view

So you can think of it as:

from out of my viewpoint → from my point of view

Compare:

talossa = in the house (inessive, -ssa)
talosta = from the house (elative, -sta)

Exactly the same contrast is used metaphorically with näkökulma:

näkökulmasta = from a point of view (elative)

Why is there no comma after Minun näkökulmastani, like in English “From my point of view, ...”?

Finnish uses commas differently from English. A short adverbial at the beginning of the sentence normally does not take a comma if it’s closely integrated with the clause.

So:

Minun näkökulmastani kohtuullinen ruutuaika tarkoittaa…
→ perfectly normal without a comma.

A comma might appear if the opening element is long or clearly parenthetical, but for short “from my point of view / in my opinion” type phrases, Finnish usually just writes them straight into the sentence without a comma.

Why is it kohtuullinen ruutuaika and not kohtuullista ruutuaikaa?

Kohtuullinen ruutuaika is the subject of the sentence, so it appears in the nominative case:

kohtuullinen = reasonable (nominative singular)
ruutuaika = screen time (nominative singular)
together: kohtuullinen ruutuaika = reasonable screen time

You would use kohtuullista ruutuaikaa (partitive) mainly in:

existential sentences with on:
- Kohtuullista ruutuaikaa on vaikea määritellä.
  “It is hard to define reasonable screen time.”
or when talking about “some amount of” something in a more non‑specific way.

In this sentence, we are treating kohtuullinen ruutuaika as a clear, defined subject that means something specific, so nominative is used.

What exactly is ruutuaika, and why is it written as one word?

Ruutuaika is a compound noun:

ruutu = screen (literally “square / tile”, but in modern language often used for screens)
aika = time

Together: ruutuaika = screen time (time spent in front of screens: phones, computers, TVs, etc.).

Finnish normally writes such combinations as one word when they form a single concept:

kännykkä (käsin + nykiä originally) – mobile phone
kirjahylly (kirja + hylly) – bookshelf
ruutuaika (ruutu + aika) – screen time

Writing ruutu aika would look wrong; as one word ruutuaika signals “this is a fixed concept”.

Why is the verb tarkoittaa used here instead of on?

Tarkoittaa means to mean / to signify / to stand for.

So:

Kohtuullinen ruutuaika tarkoittaa kahta tuntia…
= “A reasonable amount of screen time means two hours…”

This is like saying:

“For me, the expression ‘reasonable screen time’ equals two hours per day.”

You could also phrase it with on (is):

Minun näkökulmastani kohtuullinen ruutuaika on kaksi tuntia päivässä.
“From my point of view, reasonable screen time is two hours per day.”

The version with tarkoittaa focuses more on the interpretation of the concept “reasonable screen time”; the version with on feels a bit more like a direct definition or statement of fact.

Why is it kahta and not kaksi?

Kahta is the partitive form of the numeral kaksi (two).

nominative: kaksi = two
partitive: kahta

Here, the whole phrase kahta tuntia is the object of tarkoittaa, and with this meaning (“to mean / signify”), tarkoittaa normally takes its object in the partitive:

Mitä se tarkoittaa? – “What does it mean?”
Se tarkoittaa kahta tuntia. – “It means two hours.”

Because the object must be in the partitive, the numeral also appears in partitive: kahta, not kaksi.

Why is it tuntia and not tunnit or tunteja?

Two things are going on:

Numerals + nouns
After numbers 2 and up, the counted noun is in partitive singular:
- kaksi tuntia – two hours
- kolme kirjaa – three books
- viisi minuuttia – five minutes
So with kaksi, the basic form is already kaksi tuntia.
Partitive object
Because tarkoittaa uses partitive for its object, the numeral phrase itself is put in the partitive, giving:
- kahta tuntia (partitive of kaksi tuntia)

So:

tunti (nominative singular) – “hour”
tuntia (partitive singular) – used after numerals and here as part of the object phrase
tunnit (nominative plural) – “the hours”
tunteja (partitive plural) – “some hours / hours (indefinite quantity)”

Here the correct form with “two hours” as the meaning of something is kahta tuntia.

What does päivässä mean exactly, and what case is it?

Päivässä is the inessive case of päivä (“day”):

päivä = day
päivässä = in a day / during a day

In many contexts, Finnish uses inessive to express “per (time unit)”, which in English is translated as per or a / an:

kaksi litraa päivässä = two liters per day
kerran viikossa = once a week
kolme kertaa tunnissa = three times per hour

So kahta tuntia päivässä = “two hours per day”.

Could the word order be different, for example putting Minun näkökulmastani later in the sentence?

Yes, Finnish word order is fairly flexible. You could say, for example:

Kohtuullinen ruutuaika tarkoittaa minun näkökulmastani kahta tuntia päivässä.
Kohtuullinen ruutuaika minun näkökulmastani tarkoittaa kahta tuntia päivässä.

All of these are grammatically correct. The differences are mainly in emphasis and flow:

Sentence-initial Minun näkökulmastani strongly frames the whole statement as personal opinion right away.
Placing it later (…tarkoittaa minun näkökulmastani…) can make it sound a bit more like an afterthought or a clarification of whose viewpoint this is.

But structurally, the meaning is the same.

What is the difference between Minun näkökulmastani, Minun mielestäni, and Minusta?

All three can introduce a personal opinion, but they have slightly different nuances:

Minun näkökulmastani = From my point of view / From my perspective
– Emphasises your perspective, angle, background, almost like “from where I’m standing, given my situation / experience…”.
Minun mielestäni = In my opinion / I think
– The most neutral, everyday way to say “in my opinion”.
Minusta (in this sense) = also in my opinion / I feel that
– Common and slightly more colloquial; can sound a bit more subjective, like “to me, it feels like…”.
- Example: Minusta tämä on hyvä idea. = “I think / I feel this is a good idea.”

In your sentence, you could also say:

Minun mielestäni kohtuullinen ruutuaika tarkoittaa kahta tuntia päivässä.
Minusta kohtuullinen ruutuaika tarkoittaa kahta tuntia päivässä.

The core meaning is the same: you’re stating your personal judgement.