Learn Hardcore Finnish: Tämä kohta on tärkeä asia. - This point is an important matter.

tämä = this (near the speaker)
tuo = that (farther away from both speaker and listener, or “over there”)
se = it / that (already known from context, not focusing on physical distance)

In your sentence, Tämä kohta… focuses on this particular point/section right here, for example one paragraph in a text you are discussing.

You could say:

Tuo kohta on tärkeä asia. – That point over there is an important thing/issue.
Se kohta on tärkeä asia. – That point (we mentioned earlier) is an important thing/issue.

But tämä is the most natural if you’re literally pointing at, highlighting, or just now introducing this specific spot in the text or topic.

What is the grammatical role and case of “Tämä kohta”?

Tämä kohta is the subject of the sentence.

Grammatically:

tämä – demonstrative pronoun “this” in nominative singular
kohta – noun “point/section/spot” in nominative singular

Together, tämä kohta = “this point/section” as the subject.

Finnish usually puts the subject first, so Tämä kohta naturally comes at the beginning. The base form (nominative) is what you normally see for a subject when nothing special (like an object role or movement towards something) is being expressed.

What does kohta mean here, and why doesn’t it mean “soon”?

Kohta has several meanings in Finnish. Two common ones are:

Noun: “point, section, spot, place”
- Tämä kohta – this point / this section (in a text, discussion, road, etc.)
- Arka kohta – a sensitive point / sore spot
Adverb: “soon”
- Lähden kohta. – I’ll leave soon.

In your sentence, tämä kohta is clearly a noun phrase, because it has a demonstrative tämä in front and functions as the subject. You can’t say “this soon” in that way in Finnish.

So here it definitely means something like “this point/section/part (of something)”, not “soon”.

Why does the sentence use both tärkeä and asia instead of just saying “Tämä kohta on tärkeä”?

Both are possible, but they say slightly different things.

Tämä kohta on tärkeä.
- Literally: “This point is important.”
- Focus is on how the point is: it is important.
Tämä kohta on tärkeä asia.
- Literally: “This point is an important thing/issue.”
- You are calling this point itself an important issue/matter, almost classifying it as a “thing” that deserves attention.

Asia means “thing / matter / issue”. Adding asia:

makes the statement a bit more formal or weighty
can sound more like “This is an important matter”, not just “This is important.”

So tärkeä asia = “an important thing/issue”, not just “important”.

Why are tärkeä and asia both in the base form (nominative)? Shouldn’t one of them change?

In tärkeä asia, tärkeä is an adjective modifying the noun asia.

tärkeä – adjective “important” (nominative singular)
asia – noun “thing/issue” (nominative singular)

In Finnish, adjectives normally agree with the noun in case and number. Because asia is in the nominative singular, tärkeä is also in the nominative singular.

The whole phrase tärkeä asia is a predicative (a complement of “to be”). In a basic “X is Y” sentence describing what something is, both the subject and the main noun of the predicative are typically in the nominative:

Tämä kohta (subject, nominative)
on (3rd person singular of olla, “to be”)
tärkeä asia (predicative, nominative)

So it’s correct that both words stay in the base form here.

Could this sentence use the partitive, like tärkeää asiaa or just tärkeää?

No, tärkeää asiaa would be wrong here, and tärkeää alone would change the meaning and structure.

tärkeää asiaa
- Using partitive (tärkeää asiaa) would signal an indefinite or “some of” quantity, which doesn’t fit with tämä kohta (a clearly defined, singular thing).
- Predicative partitive is used e.g. with:
  - indefinite or partial mass: Vesi on kylmää. – “(The) water is cold.”
  - open-ended amounts: Hän on rahaa vailla. – “He is lacking (some) money.”
With a specific countable subject like tämä kohta, we normally use nominative in the predicative: tärkeä asia, not tärkeää asiaa.
Tämä kohta on tärkeää.
- This is possible, but it’s less natural and more abstract. It would sound like:
  - “This point is (something) important (in some sense).”
- You’re not calling it an “important thing” as a category; instead, you’re saying that this point has the quality of being important in some more general or vague way.

For learner purposes, in this kind of clear “X is an important thing” sentence with a specific countable subject, stick to nominative: tärkeä asia.

Could I change the word order, for example to “Tärkeä asia on tämä kohta”?

Yes, you can change the word order, but the emphasis changes.

Tämä kohta on tärkeä asia.
- Neutral: “This point is an important thing/issue.”
- You’re presenting “this point” and describing it.
Tärkeä asia on tämä kohta.
- More like: “The important thing/issue is this point.”
- You might say this if you already know there is some important issue, and you’re now clarifying which thing is the important one: it is this point.

So both are grammatically fine, but:

Subject-like topic or “starting point” usually goes first.
Moving tärkeä asia to the front makes the importance / the issue itself more in focus.

Why doesn’t Finnish have a word for “a” or “the” here, like “this point is an important thing” or “the important thing”?

Finnish has no articles (“a/an” or “the”). The distinction is usually clear from context, word order, and other cues, not from dedicated words.

In English you must choose:

“an important thing”
“the important thing”

In Finnish, tärkeä asia can mean either, depending on context:

Tämä kohta on tärkeä asia.
- This can be translated both as:
  - “This point is an important thing/issue.”
  - “This point is a key issue.”
- Or in some contexts even like:
  - “This point is the important thing (here).”

So if you don’t see any article-like word, that’s normal; Finnish simply doesn’t mark that distinction with a separate little word.

How would I say this in the plural, like “These points are important things”?

To make it plural, both the subject and the predicative need to be plural:

Nämä kohdat ovat tärkeitä asioita.
- Nämä – “these” (plural of tämä)
- kohdat – plural of kohta (base kohta → plural nominative kohdat)
- ovat – 3rd person plural of olla (“to be”)
- tärkeitä asioita – plural partitive of tärkeä asia

Why tärkeitä asioita (partitive plural) and not nominative plural?

With plural “X is Y”-type sentences, when classifying or talking about a type, Finns very frequently use partitive plural for the predicative:
- He ovat mukavia ihmisiä. – “They are nice people.”
- Ne kirjat ovat hyviä tarinoita. – “Those books are good stories.”

So the natural plural equivalent is:

Nämä kohdat ovat tärkeitä asioita. – “These points are important things/issues.”

What is the difference between “Tämä kohta on tärkeä asia” and “Tämä on tärkeä kohta”?

Both are correct but they focus on different things.

Tämä kohta on tärkeä asia.
- Literally: “This point is an important thing/issue.”
- You’re saying that this specific point (kohta) is an important matter/issue.
- The word asia puts more weight on it being a matter / issue, almost like something abstract to think about.
Tämä on tärkeä kohta.
- Literally: “This is an important point.”
- Here, tämä (this) is the subject, and tärkeä kohta is the predicative.
- You’re focusing more on “this is an important point”, without calling it an asia (“thing/issue”).

Nuance:

…tärkeä kohta = focusing that it is an important point (e.g., in a list, in a text).
…tärkeä asia = focusing that it is an important issue/matter more generally.

In practice, both might be translated as “This point is important”, but the flavor is slightly different.

Can the verb on be omitted, like in some English headlines (“This point important issue”)?

In normal, full sentences like this, you cannot omit on.

Correct: Tämä kohta on tärkeä asia.
Incorrect: Tämä kohta tärkeä asia. (sounds like broken Finnish)

The verb olla (“to be”) is needed to link the subject and the predicative.

Where you might see on omitted:

very informal speech: Tää tärkeä juttu. (slangy, incomplete)
headlines or notes: Ilmastonmuutos vakava ongelma – “Climate change (is a) serious problem” (headline style)
poetry, slogans, etc.

But as a learner, for grammatically correct Finnish, keep on in sentences like this.

How should I pronounce Tämä kohta on tärkeä asia? Any tricky sounds?

Key points for pronunciation:

Stress
- Main stress is always on the first syllable of each word:
  - TÄ-mä KOH-ta on TÄR-ke-ä A-si-a
Vowels: ä vs a
- ä is a front vowel, like the a in British “cat”.
  - tämä, tärkeä, asia all contain ä or a; keep ä and a distinct.
- a is back, like the a in Italian “pasta” (not like English “cake”).
Long vs short sounds
- All letters here are short, single-length. Don’t lengthen them (no double vowels or double consonants in this sentence).
- Keep rhythm even: each syllable roughly the same length, with a slight stress on first syllables of words.
h and r
- h in kohta is clearly pronounced, not silent.
- r in tärkeä, asia is rolled or tapped, not like English “r”.

Putting it together slowly:

TÄ-mä KOH-ta on TÄR-ke-ä A-si-a

Saying it clearly and evenly will already sound quite natural.