Pretty self explanatory question but for someone who has just finished RTK1 and is a complete beginner otherwise it's a term I see quite a bit. I most often see it in the context of "As long as you're ok at basic grammar book 'X' should be ok for sentence mining". I know the answer will be different for every person but I just wanted to get a general idea. For instance would it be generally agreed upon that if you've worked through Tae Kim's site and have a decent grasp of all the concepts presented there that you're at a good basic level?

My personal idea of "basic grammar" is all you learn in Minna no Nihongo 1 and 2. That is, all the grammar used in JLPT3. I'm pretty sure Tae Kim doesn't cover everything, but he does cover most of it.

All verb conjugations, all forms of adjectives, all the particles, ukemi, jidoushi and tadoushi, introduction to keigo... the stuff you need to know to function in a conversation. I consider all the grammar you need for JLPT2 intermediate and the grammar needed for JLPT1 advanced/intermediate.

I'd certainly define everything on Tae Kim as basic, and possibly the Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar as well.

は
が
を
に
と
も
ね
の
で


These were all I knew before hitting the sentences. If I can do it, anyone can.... okay maybe not "anyone" but you get what I'm saying.

You can look up unknown grammar. That Tae Kim is where I go sometimes.


Edit: Oh wait... those are just particles. What is grammar again?

You can do sentence without knowing any particles too, the main point is probably that if you don't know basic grammar, there's a high risk of mixing things up. Maybe you think something is a new word, when it's an old verb conjugated in a new way etc, quite a few mixups like that can happen. Also, if you're not sure how tadoushi and jidoushi work, you'll have BIG problems understanding how が and を works.

That said, I don't think one needs to know all the basic grammar to mine sentences... but I do think that if you don't know basic grammar, stick to mining from textbooks.

Some of us, tought, ignored any grammar instruction and went to real japanese sources as soon as possible and our success is quite compeling.

My opinion: Study grammar after you have grasped it by its usage, using a japanese grammar book in japanese, like the 庭三郎日本語文法概説.

There was a time I missed grammar instruction and went trought a book called all about particles, but in the end I don't think it was that useful.

Tae Kim covers all the grammar basics in writing, but I think it is even more important to get these basics firmly drilled into your active listening/spoken understanding. For example, it is one thing to be able to properly conjugate a verb on paper, but it is quite another to be able to intuitively understand or speak the same conjugation with little or no effort in an instant.

In this sense, it is not good enough to just be able to understand or replicate the Tae Kim examples if you have to reflect in your mind even a little. To have mastery of the basics, you should know how to construct your own verbal sentences almost as instantly as you can figure out how to use proper grammar in English. Audio supplements that re-enforce grammar points along with out-loud speech "shadowing" in addition to Tae Kim should aid in this process.

To make the long answer short, yes, completion of Tae Kim represents mastery of the grammar basics once you know the concepts like the back of your hand. In my opinion, you should try to turn your "decent grasp" of grammar into a near-perfect grasp of grammar. If I could go back in my learning, it is a major change I would make. I rushed too early into sentences.

I use "The Kodansha Dictionary of Japanese Verbs", which is just a grammar/verb conjugation book. I wasn't getting as much out of it as I should have before, but now that I am hitting it again, actually doing the exercise on paper, it helps. I try to focus a lot on conjugation out loud, too, and reviewing what I've learned.

I'll use Anki for this now, too, and also sentences I learn from more natural audio.

mentat_kgs Wrote:Some of us, tought, ignored any grammar instruction and went to real japanese sources as soon as possible and our success is quite compeling.

My opinion: Study grammar after you have grasped it by its usage, using a japanese grammar book in japanese, like the 庭三郎日本語文法概説.

There was a time I missed grammar instruction and went trought a book called all about particles, but in the end I don't think it was that useful.

As usual, I stand confused as to how you found sentences you could understand if you didn't know any grammar. As Khazu says, one should ONLY enter sentences into their SRS if they FULLY understand them. If you don't know the words nor the grammar, how can you possibly fully understand the sentences?

Mining from a textbook is one thing, you get a translation and the sentences are simple.. but real Japanese sources? Makes no sense to me. Seems like a lot of guesswork and approximations.

FULL understanding might be overstressing it a bit.
But I'd say, in the beginning, use simple sentences.

In this phase I was doing pimsleur, it gave me the basic understanding without recurring to grammar explanations.

But I can imagine many ways to do it without pimsleur.
One way is to use Tae Kim's guide. Maybe I'd just ignore the explanations and enjoy the great example sentences that he provides.

And BTW, I said "as soon as possible". Maybe it can be done from the very beginning but I have not done it that way.

Mentat, lots of beginners have trouble with basic grammar even after completing the full Pimsleur series. How are you supposed to learn new verbs without a proper understanding of what constitutes the dictionary form as opposed to the various conjugated forms and multitude of base changes? For example, how does a beginner with weak or no grammar knowledge know that when he sees a new word that he doesn't recognize like nomisugimashita, he needs to look up "nomu" instead in the dictionary? Similarly, it's hard to use Tae Kim as a supplement if you don't know where to look on his site based on the specific sentence that is confusing. Many Japanese words, especially those that have undergone such transformations, are incredibly hard to fully understand through mere exposure or even occasional usage. A strong grammar base is fundamental.

As an example, I didn't force the grammar rules as much as I should have at the beginning. Now even after 7000 sentences, I still sometimes get confused over little things like proper use of transitive/intransitive verbs.

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that learning grammar through just exposure is possible, but not a good way to do it. Learning it properly is faster and more fool-proof. Not to say exposure isn't the absolute best way to get GOOD at the grammar structures later though.

i consider basic grammar as enough grammar to read and fully comprehend the example sentences on iKnow... they really aren't that terribly difficult...

Well, I can give my example.

I have done it and it was not such a big toil to figure out the dictionary form thing.
If you look it from another perspective, it might be harder for someone who depended on grammar explanation to figure that out.

For the dictionary, in the beggining, I used edict. I was not even aware that there were better dictionaries. But try putting "nomisugimasita" in edict. It shows nomisugi and nomisugiru. So, there is no need to search for "nomu". But really, it is not something hard to figure out by yourself if you already have this skill developed from the start.

About searching for explanations in a grammar, in this case Tae Kim, I believe it is not something really useful. I just posted I did not enjoyed it in the post right above yours.

You are underestimating the learner.

I agree that a strong grammar base is fundamental. But I dont like to "build" it the way you suggest to do it. I rate much better to acquire it from exposure instead of remembering a set of artificial rules.

Tobberoth Wrote:Learning it properly is faster and more fool-proof.

It might look faster, but knowing the rule doesnt imply you really use it.

About fool proof, I'm not an authority for japanese, but for portuguese I can cite various example sentences that doesn't "fit" on grammar and are accepted vastly as valid.

Grammars are simply too shallow to describe the language.

mentat_kgs Wrote:

Tobberoth Wrote:Learning it properly is faster and more fool-proof.

It might look faster, but knowing the rule doesnt imply you really use it.

About fool proof, I'm not an authority for japanese, but for portuguese I can cite various example sentences that doesn't "fit" on grammar and are accepted vastly as valid.

Grammars are simply too shallow to describe the language.

Really using it isn't important when you're a beginner. Really understanding it is. Reading a rule, I can learn to understand a grammar rule in just a few seconds. Exposure takes ages, depending heavily on how advanced the grammar is and how many example sentences you need.

Learn the grammar by rules so you understand them so you can understand the sources for the exposure which will teach you proper usage in all situations.

I guess your grammar knowledge for portugese isn't very deep, and it shouldn't be if you're a native speaker. Knowing some quick rules isn't grammar, knowing grammar is to know the rules as well as the exceptions. If grammar isn't properly describing the language, the grammar isn't correct. The grammar I learn from 日本語文法辞典上級 is absolute since they list all the exceptions, all the synonyms etc, you won't ever get surprised if you learned grammar from it.

mentat_kgs Wrote:Some of us, tought, ignored any grammar instruction and went to real japanese sources as soon as possible and our success is quite compeling.

My opinion: Study grammar after you have grasped it by its usage, using a japanese grammar book in japanese, like the 庭三郎日本語文法概説.

There was a time I missed grammar instruction and went trought a book called all about particles, but in the end I don't think it was that useful.

Quite true, quite true. If you stick to textbooks or grammar rules to "teach" you the language, you're going to end up sucking at the language. There are so many people who try and learn a language this way and end up crap, very few people actually make it far by sticking to grammar rules. They give a false sense of security that doesn't transfer to real life.

Native children, on the other hand, have a 100% success rate at learning the language fluently (except for mental illness or birth defects).

Tobberoth Wrote:Really using it isn't important when you're a beginner. Really understanding it is. Reading a rule, I can learn to understand a grammar rule in just a few seconds. Exposure takes ages, depending heavily on how advanced the grammar is and how many example sentences you need.

So, if exposure takes longer and is more important, why not start from it?

Tobberoth Wrote:I guess your grammar knowledge for portugese isn't very deep, and it shouldn't be if you're a native speaker.

I guess you are not in position to judge my knowledge of the grammar of my native language.

The thin is that actualy it is very deep. Deep enought not to fool myself and think that there is really a consistent absolute grammar that covers every situation, every exception and every situation from real life.

And you are wrong. My knowledge of portuguese grammar is deep exactly because _I am a native speaker_. Being a native speaker and knowing the language _before_ studying the grammar gave me power to reason about it and read between its lines. I.e., I'm not a puppet from the grammar, I'm the puppeteer.

Mentat, I disagree that grammar rules are artificial just because there are exceptions. The rules are generalities but they often serve a helpful purpose. For example, the English spelling mnemonic, "i" before "e" except after "c" was a huge help to me in spelling when I was a kid despite the occasional exception. (I realize that spelling is not the same as grammar but it's the best example I could think up.)

I had very rarely used Edict so I see now more clearly how emphasizing the dictionary form becomes less important to you. However, I don't believe that I am underestimating the average learner, especially since I am drawing from my own experience. However, it could be that I am just an exceptionally bad language learner. :p For me, it takes lots and lots of exposure to grammar points before they begin to sink in. I have had to re-learn some verb suffixes at least half a dozen times already even with a fair amount of exposure.

It could be that your mind is better trained to assimilate new language data since Japanese is your 3rd (or higher) language. Just out of curiousity, at what age did you become fluent in English?

alyks Wrote:If you stick to textbooks or grammar rules to "teach" you the language, you're going to end up sucking at the language.

Yeah, the reason grammar dictionaries and grammar study has existed for so long is because it doesn't work. Only people who use AJATT ever learn Japanese, everyone else sucks.

Wait, you're completely utterly wrong. Foreigners have been fluent in Japanese for ages, many and probably the majority of them learned the language in a more traditional sense than you did. For all you know, you will never get any better than them. Your statement reeks of arrogance and overconfidence.

mentat_kgs Wrote:So, if exposure takes longer and is more important, why not start from it?

Because it's too slow. Most people who study a language want to use it. If they need months of exposure first, they are going to lose motivation. Learning by rules might not be perfect, but it's fast. Learning from exposure becomes quicker as well since you already know the basics.

mentat_kgs Wrote:I guess you are not in position to judge my knowledge of the grammar of my native language.

The thin is that actualy it is very deep. Deep enought not to fool myself and think that there is really a consistent absolute grammar that covers every situation, every exception and every situation from real life.

And you are wrong. My knowledge of portuguese grammar is deep exactly because _I am a native speaker_. Being a native speaker and knowing the language _before_ studying the grammar gave me power to reason about it and read between its lines. I.e., I'm not a puppet from the grammar, I'm the puppeteer.

Odd. My knowledge of Japanese grammar has never failed me. I know how to conjugate any verb. I know all the exceptions. Good knowledge of grammar includes information like how 行く is conjugated differently from 書く.

Grammar doesn't have to be consistent, just true. If there are exceptions, it should be noted. If a grammar book claims all verbs ending in く are conjugated the same way, it's a fault of the book, not grammar.

You learning the grammar of your native language is very different from a foreign person learning the grammar. Grammar was made to teach people a language, not to dictate it. You can change stuff around, make up your own phrases which are grammatically incorrect, but correct to you since you're native. Foreigners can not.

Tobberoth Wrote:Your statement reeks of arrogance and overconfidence.

Yeah, this sums it up. Alyks, think before you speak/type.

Alyks, nobody is saying to learn exclusively from grammar books. In language study, it seems that you can do damage by relying too heavily on any singular aspect. I fail to see from your post how starting out with a strong grammar foundation before branching out will cause you to "suck."

I can even give a definite example of when learning grammar "properly" is superior to exposure. Not because I personally feel exposure is a bad way to learn grammar, I think it's fundamental. But just a part of the whole, like Dragg said.

So let's say Dude A is learning grammar the traditional way. Dude B is learning it through nothing but exposure.

Dude A reads a short text on conjugation of verbs, in particular how to conjugate verbs which end in previously mentioned -く, that is, k-godan verbs. Dude B finds 100 sentences where various k-godan verbs are conjugated into all conjugated forms.

At a test the next week, they are asked to conjugate 行く. Dude A does it correctly without a hitch, his grammar text clearly stated 行く is an exception. Dude B is not so lucky, unfortunately none of his example sentences included 行く. (I realize this is highly unlikely, bear with me for the sake of the example at hand). Thus, he uses his "nativelike" knowledge of the grammar and bends 行く to -te form... 行いて.

An extreme example you say? Agreed, but not an impossible one. One could say "well, his exposure wasn't enough, just 100 sentences for ALL conjugations of a verb form?" and I agree, 100 probably isn't enough... but learning 100 sentences takes way longer than reading a short text on conjugations, I think we can all agree there.

alyks Wrote:There are so many people who try and learn a language this way and end up crap

The reason some people end up crap is because they never study, have no motivation, and eventually give up - not because how they study is fundamentally flawed.

The case for immersion/exposure is overrated. Immersion works well in conjunction with study, not by itself (just like study doesn't work without application). Ex-pats who have lived in Japan for 14 whatever years and don't know a word of Japanese make a good example. If it was any other way most anime fans would be able to say more than just "sugoi, kawaii", considering how much exposure they get.

As for what I consider to be "basic" grammar: everything on JLPT 4, 3, and most of 2.