I was working through 'An Introduction to Japanese - Syntax, Grammar & Language' by Michiel Kamermans.

In the causative section it gives the example sentence

The mother made (her) children eat breakfast
お母さんが子供たちに朝ごはんを食べさせました

The book states that the person doing the causing is the verb actor and is marked with が
The person affected by the action is marked with に

But the final example is about permissive constructions.

社長にプロジェクトを受けさせました。
(The) CEO let me take on (the) project
The book says it can be translated in several different ways including 'The CEO made me accept the project' but the meaning is given by context

The CEO is marked with に but is the verb actor.

I would have said
社長が私にプロジェクトを受けました。
The CEO made me accept the project

My interpretation would be that the sentence is a permissive construction in that
私が社長にプロジェクトを受けました
could be translated as 'I caused the CEO to let me accept the project'

But the book doesn't address this.
Why is 社長 attached to に

gegenki Wrote:社長にプロジェクトを受けさせました。
(The) CEO let me take on (the) project
The book says it can be translated in several different ways including 'The CEO made me accept the project' but the meaning is given by context

You might want to double-check that sentence, because I think you're right that it doesn't seem right that way.

If it were 社長にプロジェクトを受けさせてもらいました。 then that would make sense.

I checked the pdf of that book online and the sentence is exactly as the OP posted it; that doesn't sound like the best book to use.

I recommend using Tae Kim's guide at http://www.guidetojapanese.org
I went past the section covering this a few weeks back and he made it really simple to grasp.

http://www.imabi.net/lesson63.htm

Here is my lesson about the causative.

One note, the 里 there in the Genji example is just "house" or "residence" (in the capital, outside of the palace), not hometown.

You are so right yudan. I'll change that now. Good catch. I should have been more careful.

I have looked at your guide on imabi.com and it seems to be very extensive and in depth, so well done!

However, although I know you're probably going to be biased, is it really worth learning grammar in this much detail? Almost every guide I have seen from people successful in obtaining fluency puts very little emphasis on grammar learning. Some people such as the creator of LingQ argue that you should learn absolutely no grammar and through learning set phrases you can figure out the grammar yourself (like how children learn L1 for instance). While I don't exactly think learning a language without learning grammar is the best method it is an interesting outlook as obviously I can speak English fluently, but I have very limited knowledge of the workings of English grammar. In fact through learning Japanese I have learned what volitional, causative, transitive and in-transitive verbs are and all sorts that I had never heard of before.

I don't mean to pick at you for creating the guide as like I said it is amazingly in depth, I just want to pick your brains on if you think it's worth spending the time to go as in depth on the grammar as that to obtain fluency.

For one, be sure to remember it's http://www.imabi.net, it's not a ".com" site. The answer to your question is actually no. There are a lot of things that are not necessary to get around in Japanese. There are two things in particularly in that lesson that aren't needed. The point for much of this site is to just be complete as possible.

There is reorganization going on to make the most important things first and foremost and other things secondary. This will take forever though.

Learning a different language will inevitably make you learn technical terms to some degree. The site does indeed employ these terms frequently for completion, but the use of them is down from what it was this time last year. I'm trying to not be so repetitive. Also, there is a link system--although screwed up a tad bit now--that can direct users to where things are first defined. And, many lessons, especially in beginners, have terms constantly defined, in more detail of course as the lesson numbers increase, until the actual topic is discussed.

There are many paths to fluency. The fluent speaker is going to still lack in areas. There's no doubt about that. However, there is no harm to go back and learn more about things once you feel that it is necessary. See like the last part of that lesson about extreme politeness with these endings is not necessary at all because it is archaic and applies to Classical Japanese. However, because it still can be seen, it is included. It is, though, at the end of the lesson for reasons that should be deemed obvious by now. In the future these instances will be fewer so that people like you can learn what you desperately need to. As far as the examples of the sections that do matter in that section, many of them have been made with the aid of my professor. Many such areas are popping around the site more and more.

If Japanese didn't make such a distinction between transitive and intransitive verb pairs, then the learner could easily go by without even understanding those terms, but because the language does distinguishes between the two and reinforces them with different particles, they are inevitable terms that the student has to learn. There are some that are not necessary, like the names of the bases of conjugation. Despite that this traditional method is not 100% fool proof, it does help extremely when going into nitty gritty details about grammar. So, I incorporate them. It does make understanding conjugation easier in my opinion. However, as you may notice, I have changed my mind over the last year to show conjugation charts anyways for those students that haven't gone through the process knowing those terms.

This is just a bit of what I think, but your question was definitely a good one.

I'm sorry for getting the url wrong! I assume everything is .com nowdays haha. Thank you for the response and good look with the website! I think I misunderstood the aims of your website and I agree it's great to have a complete in depth guide to grammar available for free.

No problem. I do want to revise the purpose of the site to a platform that can help a larger audience, but it's going to be a very long road.