Your doll is leaving for Japan. I will be away for a couple of months, and while I am there (as some of you may already know) I don’t speak English.
However I have prepared some video lessons in advance, and while I was thinking in terms of a few mini-lessons, actually we turn out to have some pretty substantial material lined up that you won’t want to miss.
As I probably won’t have either the time or the magic powder (I leave my English Language circuits at Tokyo Airport so even writing English takes a lot of magic powder) I probably won’t be putting the videos here on KawaJapa or sending out DollyGrams about them.
I will, however, still be responding to comments and questions on the video lessons on YouTube. So if you have any questions feel free to pop them there.
Normal service will be resumed some time in October. However I am happy to say that what we have while I am away in terms of video lessons is going to be really interesting valuable.
The textbooks tell you that the ga-particle can become no in subordinate clauses.
It’s true – kind of – but it is one of the most clumsy and unhelpful explanations in the long history of clumsy and unhelpful explanations that Western “Japanese grammar” has racked up.
This video lesson will explain what is really going on in these sentences and how it is much simpler and more intuitive than the standard explanation leads you to believe.
I am not saying that “Ga can become no in subordinate clauses” is untrue. I am saying that it is an unhelpful description for the following reasons:
1. It gives a very abstract and complicated appearance to what is essentially a very simple and intuitive phenomenon. If you don’t happen to know what a subordinate clause is already, it is useless. And it isn’t a good idea to learn what a subordinate clause is just for the purpose (as I am sure many people do) because…
2. If you do know what a subordinate clause is, it is still inadequate and confusing because the point really isn’t that the clause is subordinate. The point is that it is adjectival. Using the general term “subordinate” just serves to make it fuzzy.
3. (And this is the crux of the matter) It gives the impression that ga is suddenly replaced by the unrelated particle no for no very apparent reason (other than “it just is, so learn it”). It also gives the impression that there is perhaps “another no” that means something completely different from the usual no. Actually no is doing something not all that different from what it usually does. We are in fact using the possessive/attributive function of no to attribute an (already stated or assumed) action or state to an already known person or thing. So in terms of practical grammar it does tend to de-emphasize the adjectival clause (marking it as “old news” as it were and throwing the spotlight more firmly onto the thing it is describing).
4. It just adds one more little twist to the process of obscuring ga. Ga is the heart and foundation of Japanese grammar, and Western descriptions seem to be almost willfully throwing obstructions in the path of understanding the very key to the language. Of course there is nothing willful about it but it there might as well be. While this is nowhere near as damaging to the foundations of Japanese understanding as saying that koohii ga suki desu really means “I like coffee”, it just helps to muddy the waters of ga that little bit more. Maybe not such a quick note after all. ごめんなさい。
The Japanese Causative isn’t difficult but there are a few tricky aspects that the textbooks don’t explain very well.
Especially the problem of what particle to use where is presented as a set of “random facts” when it is all really very logical and understandable once you understand how these sentences are really structured.
The Japanese Mo particle is quite simple and limited in its functions. However there is a very important point about it that is simply not covered in the Western version of “Japanese grammar”.
It is an important point because it is central to how Japanese grammar works. It not only makes the mo particle easier to understand but it also clarifies where it stands in relation to the other major particles so that the whole structure of Japanese grammar becomes clearer.
The potential form of Japanese verbs is really not difficult.
However, some of the things that the textbooks teach about it actually undermine our understanding of Japanese.
So let’s watch this short video lesson to learn not only how the potential form works – but even more importantly, how it doesn’t work!
And as usual, when the Doll is around Japanese gets easier than you thought!
If you want more information, we always recommend looking at the comments section on YouTube because there are often discussions going into more detailed points.
For example, in this case AzwraithPL-san wrote:
Is the emphasis placed on the hearer even when the が(ga) subject is left out in「鳥を聞こえる」(tori wo kikoeru)? I know that including the subject would necessarily include emphasis as が(ga) directs focus to what it marks, but is the implication of a subject alone enough to direct that focus as well? If it does indeed emphasise the subject in the same fashion is it simply of a lesser degree than the inclusion?
And The Doll replied:
The simple answer is yes, even the implication of hearer-as-subject by the use of wo does direct attention to it.
The reasons that particular forms are used can vary and can be quite subtle so it is hard to make a rule about all cases, but the grammatical point is that
鳥が聞こえる tori ga kikoeru
does not necessarily imply a particular hearer. All we are really saying is that a bird is audible. Of course if we add (or the context implies)
私は watashi wa
specifying oneself (or anyone else) as a particular hearer, that changes it (though still does not carry a strong emphasis unless the wa is distinguishing the hearer from someone else).
But in this construction the ga-marked actor is the bird itself, and that is where the emphasis naturally lies (if you remember, in the advanced wa/ga lesson we said that ga throws the emphasis back onto the thing it marks – when we think about this construction we start to see that it is not just some “rule” but is built into the way the grammar works).
鳥が聞こえる tori ga kikoeru
could, for example, simply be describing a scene: “There were mountains and trees and a bird was audible” – i.e., anyone who had been there would have heard a bird, but we are not saying that anyone in particular was hearing it. Conversely,
鳥を聞こえる tori wo kikoeru
must imply a particular ga-marked hearer. A wo implies a corresponding ga.
To say
鳥を聞こえた tori wo kikoeta
is like saying “a bird was heard by” (or better “xx heard a bird” since it isn’t passive). We immediately have to ask who heard the bird? Who is the owner of the ga that corresponds to the wo? In the English equivalent you can’t leave that part unstated (which is why I had to use xx just to express it actively in English), but in Japanese you can – however, the assumption is that your hearer will know it and fill it in mentally. The reasons for using the less common
鳥を tori wo
formation can be various. Some Japanese people do not even accept it as correct Japanese. I have heard it said that it is especially used by younger people in the Tokyo area. In these cases it may be influenced by foreign usage and feel somewhat “trendy”. But those speakers aren’t the only ones who use it.
However, whatever the circumstance or motivation, a speaker who chooses 鳥を is purposely throwing grammatical weight onto the hearer as opposed to the bird.
The Japanese “passive” conjugation can be a real mind-bender.
The particles all seem to change places pretty much at random from what they usually do.
But the truth is that it isn’t complicated at all and it works just like every other Japanese sentence.
The particles are doing what they always do.
So what’s the problem?
The problem is the way the standard texts teach it. For a start they call it the passive conjugation.
It isn’t passive.
And it isn’t a conjugation.
Once you know what it really is, you can see that it is very simple and completely logical. There is nothing to “memorize”. If you know elementary Japanese grammar you already know how the passive works.
The books and sites just messed it up for you by describing it so confusingly.
Watch this seven-minute video to straighten out the “passive” in your mind forever.
For those interested in a more detailed analysis of how the grammar of the Japanese receptive form works, this note may be of interest and help you to grasp the unfamiliar – but very simple and logical – way the Japanese works:
In
水が犬に飲まれた mizu ga inu ni nomareta
Literally “The water drink-received from the dog”
(not “the water was drunk by the dog” – the meaning is the same but the structure is completely misleading).
The water does the action of the compound verb noma-reru. Reru/rareru essentially means “receive” so when we attach it to another verb (it can’t stand alone) the newly-formed compound means “receive the action of the original verb”.
So the water is the one doing the verb nomareru, which means drink-receive. And understanding this is what makes the whole thing fall into place.
It is tempting to say that reru/rareru modifies the verb it is attached to into meaning “receive the modified verb’s action”.
However, while this may clarify the matter, I would say that it is strictly incorrect because of the rule that in Japanese the modified always follows the modifier.
In other words, if we want to “deconstruct” nomareru into its two component verbs nomu and reru, then we have to say that it is nomu that modifies reru. The head-verb, the final action of the sentence, is reru – receive. Ultimately nomu is the modifier (shuushokugo) of reru, which is the actual jutsugo, or action, of the sentence.
So just as in
私はお店に行った watashi wa omise ni itta
“I went to the shops”
the “skeleton sentence” is:
私は行った
“watashi wa itta” = “I went”
and omise ni, “to the shops” is simply a modifier telling us something else about “went” (namely where I went)…
So in
水が飲まれた
mizu ga nomareta (let’s leave the dog out for clarity) the “skeleton sentence” is:
水がれた mizu ga reta”
“the water received”
the noma “drink” is simply telling us more about “received” (namely what it received).
Admittedly this is somewhat theoretical since reru/rareru is never actually used on its own in modern Japanese, but I believe this is how the sentence should be analyzed.
If it is easier to see “reru” as modifying “nomu“, I don’t think that does much harm. But in the end I think it may be easier to see “nomu” as modifying “reru“, which I think is actually the case.
Everyone knows that distinguishing the use of the Japanese WA and GA particles can be tricky. A lot of subtlety and implication can be packed into the choice.
However, understanding the principles will make this a lot easier. They aren’t secrets exactly, but no one seems to have noticed (or at least taken the trouble to teach) the fact that the various functions of these particles are not just random quirks of the language. They all flow naturally and logically from the basic functions of the particles, which we learned in the previous video lesson.
Here we go a bit deeper and cover some of what ought to be taught at intermediate level but mostly isn’t.
If you aren’t intermediate yet but understood the material of the last lesson, you should give this one a try. You’ll end up knowing things most of your senpai don’t know!
We also recommend that you subscribe to the channel so that you never miss a lesson in this ground-breaking course that tells you the things the textbooks never taught you!
We also recommend that you subscribe to the channel so that you never miss a lesson in this ground-breaking course that tells you the things the textbooks never taught you!
Your doll is leaving for Japan. I will be away for a couple of months, and while I am there (as some of you may already know) I don’t speak English.
The Japanese Causative isn’t difficult but there are a few tricky aspects that the textbooks don’t explain very well.
