[Zgarbas]

Ho boy.

Maybe you could try explaining your personal definition of "grammar" since it's obvious that each person has a different interpretation of it somehow?
AはBだ is grammar. 私は学生だ is the application of a grammatical rule, so when viewed from a learning perspective it still relates to grammar. Knowing how to place the sentence in a grammar tree, which is the DO and S and what not is no longer grammar, it's linguistics. However, function words are generally considered more important than content words, as it is easier to understand something when you don't get the content words than when you don't get the content words. And then there's aspects of the language which can count as both grammar and other groups (phrasal verbs). It's used pretty flexibly these days, of course.

And just a bit of input here... In us Romance language speaking countries we DO learn grammar in school... and no, it's not just for show, most of the kids have to learn it since they don't know it otherwise (regional language, more complicated tenses which a kid wouldn't use, correct conjugations for weird verbs, what not). It would be weird to learn how to conjugate 4 types of verbs in 22 different ways (8 moods, 18 tenses, each person gets a different conjugation, and each type of verb conjugates differently) on their own. So each language with its own.

Quote:Drawing arbitrary lines in the sand as to what constitutes more important aspect of what equates to a "language" is an unfortunate regress which will only lead you to turtles, turtles all the way down. Without balance and consistency, it doesn't really matter how you study.

Word.

We learn grammar in school in England too. People forget but in primary school we're taught how all the grammar parts work from the basics of past tense and irregular verbs like go/went to advanced subjects like assonance. By the age of 11 when we start secondary school we've already been taught all the grammar and English lessons turn into literary study and creative writing.

[Zgarbas]

I think the common argument for "that doesn't count" is that usually kids already know those things and simply learn to give them a name.

Whether the kids actually know those things or you're simply overestimating your ability at the time is questionable, however.

It is also questionable whether learning about grammatical concepts actually results in kids having better language ability. Maybe the actual driver is their age/experience and amount of time they spend reading and using language to learn about other subjects. People who go on to do PHDs probably also find their language ability improves further due to all the reading/writing this entails.

I honestly cannot remember ever learning grammar in school in Australia. We learned to spell in primary school and this involved writing out verbs in their different conjugations but not grammar per-say. I think we may have learned what verb, noun and adjective mean. But by the time people start learning second languages in high school they have generally already forgotten what these words mean. High school English pretty much consisted of reading literature and writing essays.

That's not to say there's no value in studying one's native grammar purely as an intellectual exercise.

Zgarbas Wrote:And just a bit of input here... In us Romance language speaking countries we DO learn grammar in school... and no, it's not just for show, most of the kids have to learn it since they don't know it otherwise (regional language, more complicated tenses which a kid wouldn't use, correct conjugations for weird verbs, what not). It would be weird to learn how to conjugate 4 types of verbs in 22 different ways (8 moods, 18 tenses, each person gets a different conjugation, and each type of verb conjugates differently) on their own. So each language with its own.

Why not just let the language evolve and over time become simpler? If the natives are not picking up on certain aspects of the grammar naturally, how crucial can they really be?

[Zgarbas]

Not everything in any language is intuitive, but I don't see people going around saying they eated an dinner.

Of the tenses some are used predominantly in writing, some exclusively in certain regions and old (50-100 years ago) literature, predominance in use varies from area to area, or are simply a bit more complex to form correctly. Irregular verbs exist in most languages and you just can't learn them intuitively. Romanian tenses are already simplified compared to classical Latin tenses, but this is about as simplified as it can get whilst maintaining balance in the language. Saying that we should just drop basic grammar because it's hard to master intuitively is a bit silly.

For example, dropping complex verb conjugation would mean abandoning subject/pronoun drops which would mess up the way the language works. It wouldn't be simplistic evolution so much as entirely rebuilding the language. There's a reason why these things exist in languages. Dropping irregular conjugations based on gender would change the usage the nouns with irregular conjugations would have in sentences, as in Romanian everything is in agreement with the other elements of the sentence.

(I could just throw in Chomsky's theory on how all languages are equally complex, but I hate throwing Chomsky at people, I get that enough in college
EDIT: Ah right, direct implication of Chomskyan linguistics, not Chomsky's personal theory. My bad. Still )

That's not really Chomsky's theory, it's a fundamental linguistic theory. Most linguistic research depends on the basic assumption that all languages are equally complex and that all natural languages have rules.

The grammar that people study in school is to learn the educated dialect or formal writing rules, and to study grammatical stuff just for general knowledge.

Quote:Why not just let the language evolve and over time become simpler? If the natives are not picking up on certain aspects of the grammar naturally, how crucial can they really be?

Primarily it's because of the very widespread misconception that the educated/standard dialect of a language is inherently superior to other dialects (sometimes people even believe that non-standard dialects have no rules or are just the result of stupid people trying to do the educated dialect but failing).

Of course there is the practical concern that in most societies, knowing the educated dialect is very important (in large part because of that misconception).

nadiatims Wrote:Does everyone at least agree that grammar is just a description, a tool, and does not actually equate to the language you are trying to learn?

And i think my training wheel analogy is apt. After a certain point you can stop using grammar. You can maintain your balance, or rather find or construct meaning on your own. Until you have that confidence, keeping some rules in mind can help you, in figuring out who's doing what in a sentence, or which particle to use and when you try to say something. But these rules are never 100% accurate or give particularly comprehensive coverage of the whole language. So at some point you have to start winging it anyway.

In a way languages are the way they are as a direct result of everyone just winging it. Languages form out of a kind of unspoken group consensus of native speakers. In english you place the object behind the verb, not because that's the rule, but just because that's what everyone else does. If speaking a language required one to learn grammar first then no one would speak languages. If asked about grammar, native speakers may be able to point out the most obvious handful of things, like past tense, present tense and perhaps something a teacher drilled into them at school. But beyond the basics, even natives have no idea why they say things the way they do. They just attempt to communicate by copying the conventions of the rest of society. I wouldn't even have been able to tell a person the difference between "I" and "me" before I came to Japan.

I doesn't agrees with you. If we does not uses grammar correctly, anything does not sound correct.

See my point. And that was just use incorrect verb forms.

Grammar is critical to any language. It's the foundation of a language and has to be mutually understandable to both parties. I think the reason native speakers can't explain grammar well is because we have been exposed to our language's grammar from the moment we could listen and speak, what's more, it's the foundation for our thoughts. Yes most people learn what nouns, adjectives and verbs are at school, but we don't learn the 9 verb tenses because we intrinsically understand what they mean. For example, all native English speakers could understand "In two months time I will have been going there for one year" without any difficulties, but we have been exposed to the intricacy of English grammar since we were born. Unless you have studied or taught English grammar you don't know that grammarians refer to that as the future perfect continuous, but it is. It is a set grammar structure that exists in English and when used ellicits a specific meaning.

nadiatims Wrote:Does everyone at least agree that grammar is just a description, a tool, and does not actually equate to the language you are trying to learn?

I don't think it necessarily applies to everyone but I remember once I decided that verb conjugations didn't exist it helped me immensely. When you are having a conversation there is just no time to sit there and convert plain form verbs to whatever tense you need. This is especially true of passives when you need to get your ga's an ni's correct or you're story will be reversed.

Also I much prefer a dozen example sentences of a grammar pattern as opposed to an explanation of it. That goes for verbs as well.

There's also the fact that natives tend to flat out ignore grammar at times. Clearly its much better to speak naturally and to be easily understood than it is to make sure you don't anger the author of ADo[...]JG right?

Wow this thread got more posts then I thought it would have.

Okay so if I conclude all this, Tae Kim will be a good decision.

Natives do learn grammar.
They learn it in school.
Even if they don't consciously parse the rules in their mind later on in life, it's still there.

I'm sorry, but I've heard too many native English speakers that skipped the grammar (and reading) lessons in elementary school. Their English sucks. To put it bluntly. If you think their English is fine, you're fooling yourself.

nadiatims Wrote:Why not just let the language evolve and over time become simpler? If the natives are not picking up on certain aspects of the grammar naturally, how crucial can they really be?

I wouldn’t say languages evolve over time linearly from more complex to less complex grammatically, either. For example, in classical Japanese, there use too have to be strong agreement between an adjective’s role in a sentence and its conjugation. 連体形 (noun-modifying form) of what we today call い-adjectives ended in -き and 終止形 (ending-form; what would go at the end of a sentence) would end in し. Thus, you’d say 白き雲 and 雲が白し. Today, we just use 白い for both. Also, an entire class of verbs, 二段, existed in classical Japanese, but got rolled into 一段 in modern Japanese.

That being said, there are aspects of the language that grew more complex. 連用形 form is now split in two for most verbs - we say 読みます and 読みたい, but say 読んだ, even though all of those auxiliary verbs attach the 連用形 of the main verb, which in classical Japanese used to just be the み row. And, of course, some of those classical elements stay in the language. You will see stuff like なき and なし still in use sometimes.

Also, I’d say there’s a difference between grammar, as presented to a foreign learner, which often tries to explain grammar with analogies to one’s native language, in order to build one's abilities from scratch, and learning grammar from native resources. For example, right now I'm reading through a Japanese grammar book aimed at native-speaking middle schoolers. I just got done reading a lesson naming and explaining parts of a sentence and the relationships between clauses in a sentence, with the application of being aware of these things more in order to reduce ambiguity in speech and writing. At that point, you're explaining concepts for refined usage, not building from scratch.

chamcham Wrote:I'm sorry, but I've heard too many native English speakers that skipped the grammar (and reading) lessons in elementary school. Their English sucks. To put it bluntly. If you think their English is fine, you're fooling yourself.

If they're a native English speaker, their English is fine although they may be speaking a non-standard dialect. Their "Standard English" may be bad, though.

nadiatims Wrote:Why not just let the language evolve and over time become simpler? If the natives are not picking up on certain aspects of the grammar naturally, how crucial can they really be?

That's valid to a certain extent. I think of it as being like kanji. If natives don't learn kanji naturally without having to study it, how important can it be? And true, it's not absolutely critical - the Japanese survived fine for thousands of years without it. But it does help.

I think it's important to remember, learning to speak doesn't require any grammar study. But grammar study can improve how you speak and write.

Kids make common mistakes all the time:
Can I go to the bathroom? vs May I go to the bathroom?

There is a bit of difference in the meaning, but your still going to understand the intent of what is being said. And even with these common small mistakes, these kids are more fluent then your average foreign language learner.

Here, fixed it for you.

Daichi Wrote:... but you're still going to understand the intent of what is being said.

Zgarbas Wrote:Not everything in any language is intuitive, but I don't see people going around saying they eated an dinner.

There is nothing inherently wrong with eated though. We just say ate because at some point that became the standard.

Zgarbas Wrote:Saying that we should just drop basic grammar because it's hard to master intuitively is a bit silly.

That's the thing though, 'basic' grammar is mastered intuitively by natives. Languages came about because people within certain regions/communities would use common vocabulary and apply the same handful of easily intuited rules. Beyond that we pretty much just go by what feels or sounds right (ie. what we're accustomed to hearing from the people around us). That's why beyond the basics there are a lot of differences and idiosyncrasies in the way people from different areas and generations speak. That's why languages change over time. Kids pick up the most obvious and useful core grammar patterns and apply those while remaining eternally ignorant of the less important ones, or pick them up much later after they already well and truly fluent. Children, just like non-native speakers wing it with an incomplete grammar model and in doing so they influence the development of that language. It is impossible to get a complete and entirely accurate model of grammar for a language, because the natives do not for the most part follow any one consistent model. Language is an act of creation, and as communities of people express new and original thoughts, new grammar patterns emerge.

[Zgarbas]

While vocabulary does change constantly, grammar tends to stay pretty much the same, though. Small changes occur, of course but... here. Random English example (sparknotes quotes section for the Canterbury Tales)
"Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halve cours yronne,
And smale fowles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open ye
(So priketh hem nature in hir corages),
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages. "

Notice how the grammar is completely unchanged from modern grammar, though the spelling and vocabulary have little in common (and you can still draw some meaning from it). It's thanks to the common grammar that we can understand Chaucer despite the mostly alien vocabulary, and it goes for all classics who use outdated vocab (or just a weird variant of it, like Burns) Grammar is the skeleton of a language, it just doesn't change so easily.

Of course if you go back to Old English it's virtually incomprehensible; the grammar was a lot different from ME.

Japanese is kind of the same; a lot of the basics are the same but the conjugation was different and there were a lot of patterns that aren't used anymore -- although in some ways I feel like Japanese is almost the opposite of English in that a lot of the vocabulary is still the same but the grammar is very different, despite the similar underlying concepts.

If you look at something like Taketori Monogatari:
今は昔竹取の翁といふものありけり。野山にまじりて、竹をとりつゝ、萬の事につかひけり。名をば讃岐造麿となんいひける。その竹の中に、本光る竹ひとすぢありけり。怪しがりて寄りて見るに、筒の中ひかりたり。それを見れば、三寸ばかりなる人いと美しうて居たり。

Almost all of the vocabulary in that is familiar in modern Japanese (and most of it isn't even rare or archaic in modern), but the grammar is very different with -keri, -tari, -tsutsu (different meaning), nan, -ni as "and", -ba as "when", etc.

(Unfortunately, since 古文 was used up until the late 19th century, most Japanese people can't read anything from before 1900 or so without it being translated into modern Japanese. But the spoken language was fairly close to today's Japanese.)

yudantaiteki Wrote:Of course if you go back to Old English it's virtually incomprehensible; the grammar was a lot different from ME.

Japanese is kind of the same; a lot of the basics are the same but the conjugation was different and there were a lot of patterns that aren't used anymore -- although in some ways I feel like Japanese is almost the opposite of English in that a lot of the vocabulary is still the same but the grammar is very different, despite the similar underlying concepts.

If you look at something like Taketori Monogatari:
今は昔竹取の翁といふものありけり。野山にまじりて、竹をとりつゝ、萬の事につかひけり。名をば讃岐造麿となんいひける。その竹の中に、本光る竹ひとすぢありけり。怪しがりて寄りて見るに、筒の中ひかりたり。それを見れば、三寸ばかりなる人いと美しうて居たり。

Almost all of the vocabulary in that is familiar in modern Japanese (and most of it isn't even rare or archaic in modern), but the grammar is very different with -keri, -tari, -tsutsu (different meaning), nan, -ni as "and", -ba as "when", etc.

(Unfortunately, since 古文 was used up until the late 19th century, most Japanese people can't read anything from before 1900 or so without it being translated into modern Japanese. But the spoken language was fairly close to today's Japanese.)

This is a really good example, and also touches on verb conjugation differences, with けり and たり as ラ行変格 category verbs, and なん acting as a bound particle, forcing -けり to change to the 連体形 form, ける. We don't really see stuff like that anymore in modern Japanese. Also, when you get into stuff like copula なり, and the 二段 class of verbs, which don't appear in this example, there's a whole lot of differences between classical and modern grammar. I suppose you could argue that the basic structure isn't too different, it's SOV, auxiliary verbs attach at the end, and we're still dealing with particles, some of them familiar, to show how words function in the sentence, but how those particles function and what auxiliary verbs are used are often so different, I think it's hard to argue the grammar hasn't undergone great changes.

tokyostyle Wrote:

Stansfield123 Wrote:No, definitely not. You should do Tae Kim Basic and the first lesson from Tae Kim essential. Then you should work on your vocab (i.e. 500 sentences from Core2K). Then you should do Tae Kim Essential, and work on your vocab some more. And then, finally, do the rest of Tae Kim.

You really should not be giving advice on what learning materials to use because you are not at all qualified to do so: You recently asked a question here that is covered in the first 3-4 chapters of every beginner textbook on the market. This advice of Tae Kim + Core is completely outdated and needs to finally be put to rest. Please don't take this personally at all, it's not like you are the first or only person to recommend this insanity, but definitely spend some time researching the many better methods and paths that are available.

There's a reason that both AJATT and JALUP recommend that you purchase textbooks aimed at beginners. The free materials that are available are not at all sufficient and buying beginner textbooks is a very small investment in your education. Also if your future plan is to steal everything anyway then why not at least start by stealing some good learning materials? Theft isn't just for games and movies.

Yes it's possible to spin your wheels and fumble through free resources like Tae Kim and Core X+1k but it's insanely boring when compared to cheap textbooks like Japanese the Manga Way. Furthermore you really want to start cherry-picking native materials as soon as possible and the order of the words you learn from a beginner textbook is a lot more conducive to being able to do that sooner.

There are so many great tools around that make the transition to native materials much more pleasant than it used it be. People need to be directed to those rather than this medieval torture of Tae Kim and Core. (RTK is torturous enough that there is no reason at all to invent more necessary evils.)

so you say that approach of core deck and tae kim sucks some major $$$. what would you say is superior to using the iKnow decks?

Inny Jan Wrote:Here, fixed it for you.

Daichi Wrote:... but you're still going to understand the intent of what is being said.

Yeah, this is a bad habit that has fossilized in my head... I really need to work on fixing this one.

errtu Wrote:so you say that approach of core deck and tae kim sucks some major $$$. what would you say is superior to using the iKnow decks?

It doesn't suck ass, but it is completely dry and boring. You get that with beginner text books as well, but you also get a larger volume of material. They contain dialogs, reading selections, cultural notes, and other random things. They also give you a complete structure that combines the grammar and vocabulary in a very organized and step-by-step way.

Tae Kim is very well organized and seems to completely cover the basics but lacks some of the depth you'll get from a textbook and so people pair it with the Core decks to make up for that. There's really very little to say about the Core decks except they are free and correct.

However, the good or bad, suck or swallow, superior or inferior of your boring source of grammar and vocabulary is not generally the issue. Although the title of this thread is called Grammar, the OP is very clearly "I've done RTK so what next?" The standard answer here is Tae Kim+Core but that is a very incomplete and obsolete answer. Although I personally believe the answer to this question has been well covered by AJATT and JALUP I'm going to regurgitate their advice in step-by-step form.

1) Find Japanese crap you enjoy. I did dramas so we'll start with that.
2) Watch タイヨウのうた Episode 1 with Japanese subs (cause you know all them kanjis!)
3) Read Genki Ch. 1 (Grammar points, vocab, dialog, passages)
4) Add sentences or clozes or MCDs to your SRS (from Genki Ch. 1)
5) Rip the drama audio and listen to it passively as much as possible. The goal here is to listen for the aisatsu you just learned from Genki Ch. 1
6) Rip apart those subtitles so you can slowly add some of them to your SRS (use tools like sub2srs)
7) You learned XはYです and using a handy Cmd-F you'll find this in the subs: 「それは本当。」Add card in your preferred format and get definitions from alc.co.jp. (*1)
8) Occasionally do one of those silly exercises in your textbook and add cards to cover grammar points or vocab you are week on
9) Roll 1d8 and do that step again but maybe with new material. (*2)

(*1) In reality you might want to get in a few chapters before seeking out specific examples from your native materials, but the point is that even the most basic grammar example is out there in really real Japanese.

(*2) Step 9 is important and not a joke. Grab some real physical dice and make you a little chart and roll those suckers. Don't do the exact same thing in the exact same order every day. Japanese is not your job; it's your hobby, entertainment, and fun. Also add some whacky stuff that you do occasionally both as a way to rest and break the monotony of your main tasks.

None of those steps should be a surprise to anyone because they are exactly what AJATT and JALUP say. If you absolutely must forgo a textbook then Tae Kim will cover all of the grammar you need, but there are so many better ways to improve your passive vocabulary than SRSing raw vocab flash cards.

In fact in general if you have to make the choice between actively learning something Japanese and doing your sentence or vocabulary reps then always chose the active learning. Never get behind on your kanji reviews, those are too important, but don't constantly replace active study with semi-passive reviewing. The active study is the only part that propels you forward.

tokyostyle Wrote:

errtu Wrote:so you say that approach of core deck and tae kim sucks some major $$$. what would you say is superior to using the iKnow decks?

It doesn't suck ass, but it is completely dry and boring. You get that with beginner text books as well, but you also get a larger volume of material. They contain dialogs, reading selections, cultural notes, and other random things. They also give you a complete structure that combines the grammar and vocabulary in a very organized and step-by-step way.

Tae Kim is very well organized and seems to completely cover the basics but lacks some of the depth you'll get from a textbook and so people pair it with the Core decks to make up for that. There's really very little to say about the Core decks except they are free and correct.

However, the good or bad, suck or swallow, superior or inferior of your boring source of grammar and vocabulary is not generally the issue. Although the title of this thread is called Grammar, the OP is very clearly "I've done RTK so what next?" The standard answer here is Tae Kim+Core but that is a very incomplete and obsolete answer. Although I personally believe the answer to this question has been well covered by AJATT and JALUP I'm going to regurgitate their advice in step-by-step form.

1) Find Japanese crap you enjoy. I did dramas so we'll start with that.
2) Watch タイヨウのうた Episode 1 with Japanese subs (cause you know all them kanjis!)
3) Read Genki Ch. 1 (Grammar points, vocab, dialog, passages)
4) Add sentences or clozes or MCDs to your SRS (from Genki Ch. 1)
5) Rip the drama audio and listen to it passively as much as possible. The goal here is to listen for the aisatsu you just learned from Genki Ch. 1
6) Rip apart those subtitles so you can slowly add some of them to your SRS (use tools like sub2srs)
7) You learned XはYです and using a handy Cmd-F you'll find this in the subs: 「それは本当。」Add card in your preferred format and get definitions from alc.co.jp. (*1)
8) Occasionally do one of those silly exercises in your textbook and add cards to cover grammar points or vocab you are week on
9) Roll 1d8 and do that step again but maybe with new material. (*2)

(*1) In reality you might want to get in a few chapters before seeking out specific examples from your native materials, but the point is that even the most basic grammar example is out there in really real Japanese.

(*2) Step 9 is important and not a joke. Grab some real physical dice and make you a little chart and roll those suckers. Don't do the exact same thing in the exact same order every day. Japanese is not your job; it's your hobby, entertainment, and fun. Also add some whacky stuff that you do occasionally both as a way to rest and break the monotony of your main tasks.

None of those steps should be a surprise to anyone because they are exactly what AJATT and JALUP say. If you absolutely must forgo a textbook then Tae Kim will cover all of the grammar you need, but there are so many better ways to improve your passive vocabulary than SRSing raw vocab flash cards.

In fact in general if you have to make the choice between actively learning something Japanese and doing your sentence or vocabulary reps then always chose the active learning. Never get behind on your kanji reviews, those are too important, but don't constantly replace active study with semi-passive reviewing. The active study is the only part that propels you forward.

kul man, solid advice. thank you very much. just what i needed

tokyostyle Wrote:In fact in general if you have to make the choice between actively learning something Japanese and doing your sentence or vocabulary reps then always chose the active learning. Never get behind on your kanji reviews, those are too important, but don't constantly replace active study with semi-passive reviewing. The active study is the only part that propels you forward.

It's great that there are options out there.

But what needs to be realized is that people find value in different things. Some people may enjoy watching a show while making it a part of their study time, or read a novel or a multitude of things. They enjoy creating their own path towards fluency in a language. They don't mind starting at an early stage where learning is more than immersing oneself in the language- when textbooks, SRS, dictionaries and discussion forums are an integral part of consuming the material, because said people simply can't understand the language without external aid.

That said some people are the opposite. They enjoy understanding. They enjoy effortless production and immersion. They enjoy the constant feedback that eyes can see- that they are learning something new. They find value in getting 90% of words right in Anki and then going out there to the wild and witness all that they have come to understand. They don't particularly enjoy the opposite- not understanding, not being able to produce the language. It is frustrating especially when practically everything they come across is that kind of material in the beginning.

Semi-passive reviewing propels you forward like the rest of methods. It is effortless, the material is right there to be consumed so there is no need to lift a finger. You always feel like you understand! Maybe it's just a word or a grammar point, but it feels good and real nonetheless. You just let the language come to you, and when the time comes, the native material is there to be enjoyed like it should: with as little effort as possible related to 'getting" the language in it. When I watch a show or read a comic book, I like to enjoy it without making it a (concious) part of my studies. There is nothing inferior about that.

I know there is a period of growing pains no matter what you do. No pain no gain. Eliminate most of it beforehand, though, and it's no big deal.