just looking for a basic yet semi interesting thing to read. preferably, i'd like to download instead of have a physical copy

Yotsubato! is always a good starting point I think. You can check out mangahelpers.com and read the raws online.

Thanks for the mangahelpers.com suggestion, going to start jumping into manga from here.

I would recommend ドラえもん and in physical form. Get away from a computer! It is a good break from studying (anki/revtk/etc) and doesn't feel like too much work. I am in Japan currently and picked up volumes 2-10 for 200 yen each used.

とらぶる: http://mangahelpers.com/m/to-love-ru

Simple, and .. uh interesting.

Yotsubato is the easiest manga I've found, as well as being one of the more interesting. Recently I started reading School Rumble and Tora Dora which are a bit harder, but still easy.

Yotsubato is not actually that easy. I remember I had a hard time trying to break up Yotsuba's highly irregular kanji-less sentences, then realizing they didn't make much sense (because half the jokes are non sequitur). And when adults talked, their sentences were just as hard as in any other "everyday-life" manga.

I recommend reading something you're already familiar with. For example, the original version of a manga you've already read translated, or the manga version of some anime you've already watched subbed.

I think one of the reasons Yotsuba&! gets recommendations is that it's an everyday-life kind of manga with fairly wide appeal, so it's a fairly safe rec. for people whose tastes you don't know. Also because it doesn't have much ongoing plot, it doesn't matter if you have to skip bits.

A lot of shoujo manga also satisfies the everyday-life part of that, if shoujo happens to be your cup of tea. (Mint na bokura was one of the first manga I read raw... looking back at it it's a lot easier now than it was when I was struggling through it five or six years ago :-))

The 'something familiar' idea is good too, or if there's an author you've read and liked in English try something else by them (if there's stuff by them that hasn't been translated there's some added motivation in that Japanese is the only way to read it, although I guess in these days of copious scanlations that doesn't apply to many manga any more...)

Might want to try:

http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...8#pid61818
http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...4#pid77244
http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?tid=2095

Also: http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?tid=4005

If you're at the level where you want "easier" stuff, native materials are all dauntingly difficult language-wise and can sap your motivation pretty quickly. Pick stuff you're addicted to. That's the easiest one regardless of language level. Easier stuff is what gets you more. Get addicted.

Also, what you find simple and basic depends all on what you like. If you like textbooks and whatnot and have been learning Japanese through them, probably you think colloquial speech is "advanced." But people who learned a language from native material would think that it's the basics and that proper language is much more difficult.

Seriously, you can't fail to choose basic materials. Anything and everything you really like is basic with respect to grammar/vocabulary/whatever.

Confused? Well, when you cram vocab words, you follow the common sense "more frequent = basic" and "rarer = advanced," right? The same goes for grammar rules. If a certain thing is always said in a certain way by native speakers you like to talk with, it's a basic rule. But if that phrase is usually said in a different way in textbooks/graded readers/whatever and if your Japanese friends only say it that way in rare situations, they should be considered "advanced."

That's why native speakers say, "Wow. You guys learn really advanced stuff!" when they open learners' textbooks and why those advanced learners get tripped up by basic stuff in real life.

So you can't fail to choose basic manga unless you deliberately try to read what you don't want to. Since it's the books you're into that motivate you most, they're also easier; they're the easier-to-keep-reading stuff.

I often read complaints like "Native speakers use advanced grammar very frequently." But if you think about it, it doesn't make any sense, does it? Since "basic things" means things that appear frequently in what you want to read/listen to, whatever you choose is full of basic words/phrases/grammar rules as long as it's what you're into.

It's a good idea to try what others "love" and see if you also like them. Whether they use the so-called advanced grammar doesn't matter much. Those rules are called advanced because they're difficult for teachers to teach in a class. It has nothing to do with frequency in stuff students like. If you get addicted to a manga, that's the basic one.

Actually, quite a few English learners on 2ch also ask a very similar question: "Would you recommend to me easier translated manga/anime? No boring stuff like books for toddlers, please." And the consensus among English-speaking otaku 2chers is "苺ましまろ. You can't find easier real manga that adults can enjoy." But most of the allegedly "advanced" English learners who got very high scores on standardized tests can't understand the dialogue in the manga at all.

It's a slice-of-life comedy manga/anime like Yotsubato, everyone's favorite "cute kids do cute things in cute ways" genre. Almost all characters are 11-12 years old, so when a difficult word pops up, it's a "Haha. Where did you pick it up?" moment. The dialogue can't be any simpler unless you choose toddler's stuff. Most of the time lines are super short and have no obscure, formal words. The fist lines in the first volume in the official translation are like:

I'm just your average, everyday high school freshman. ...Oh poo. Now I have to get up and go buy some. Do I have any money?
(The sister of the protagonist is introducing herself to the reader and realizes she runs out of cigarettes.)

and a few pages later:

A: Thank you so much.
B: Huh? Hey, forget it. When ya gotta have pudding... There's gotta be someone around here who'll give me a cigarette...
(She found her little sister's friend crying because her pudding had been eaten by her dad, so she ponied up her last money for pudding instead of cigarettes.)

You can't expect simpler dialogue from at least remotely interesting manga, can you? But your average "advanced" English learner in Japan would be like:

"What? She's MY average?? And what kind of school is 'everyday high school???' Oh, and 'poo'? What's that? I've never heard that word in my English class. Why do I run into a new word on the very fist page in an allegedly super easy manga??!! Well, no need to sweat over one obscure word. It must be a really difficult word I'd never come across again in my life. Hmm. But 'get up and go buy some'??? Too many verbs!! Is it a typo? I think it should read 'go and buy'!! Also, buy some what?! Shouldn't it be 'buy some cigarettes'?? This manga is UNGRAMMATICAL!!!!!! Well, this might be a casual version or something. But what does 'Do I have any money' mean?? (Note: Its literal translation sounds very odd and strange in Japanese.)

...

Oh, 'Thank you so much.' Finally I found a line I can easily understand! But what's the next word? No one taught me what 'Huh?' means!! And why is she saying, 'Forget it.'? Who memorized what? Am I missing something? The other person only said, 'Thank you'... Maybe my understanding of 'thank you' is also wrong... Ugh! Hey, the next line is something beyond incomprehensible. 'When ya gotta have pudding...'??????? What's 'ya'? What's 'gotta'? And why is she using 'when'??????? Ok. I looked in my slang dictionary. 'Ya' is 'you,' and 'gotta' is 'have got to' or something like that. If my textbook is right, the line should mean something along the line of 'The time you have reached eating pudding...' It doesn't make any sense!!!!!!!!!!"

And the advanced English leaner gives up when he runs into this very simple dialogue between them:

B: Today was a real hoot. I had a blast!
A: Me too.
B: Catch ya later!

So he goes to 2ch and complains, "Who said 苺ましまろ was basic! It was effin' difficult!" And an English speaking 2cher says in English, "You know what? It's the basic English. You can't find easier stuff. Well, some of the lines you quoted are said by the 16 year old, so actually they're less easy ones in the manga. But they're not particularly difficult." And the advanced English learner asks in Japanese, "Sorry. Your English is also too difficult for me. What does 'You know what?' mean?? Can you translate it into Japanese? I think the kids in the manga said it too. I've been learning English for 30 odd years but had never heard it before... It must be an uber-advanced phrase."

So, if you want basic stuff, choose stuff that contains what is basic to you. If you want easier stuff, read/watch what you really want to. They're the easier-to-finish materials.

If you're learning a language from what you want to read, listen to, and talk like, you can't fail to choose easy and basic materials.

magamo Wrote:If you're at the level where you want "easier" stuff, native materials are all dauntingly difficult language-wise and can sap your motivation pretty quickly. Pick stuff you're addicted to. That's the easiest one regardless of language level. Easier stuff is what gets you more. Get addicted.
[...]
If you're learning a language from what you want to read, listen to, and talk like, you can't fail to choose easy and basic materials.

Magamo, you're awesome. Just thought I'd let you know, just in case no one else has told you that yet today.

Also, 苺ましまろ (Ichigo Mashimaro) was going to be my recommendation for easy reading/watching material as well. In fact, whenever I'm playing a video game (Modern Warfare 2, usually) but still want to listen to something in Japanese, I'll play the entire series from beginning to end and listen to it. I've done that a few times, and it's very enjoyable.

As far as grammar goes, native speakers have no concept of "advanced" vs. "basic" grammar as it relates to a second language learner, unless they are trained in teaching their language. Even a 6 year old kid just starting to read hiragana knows "advanced" grammar like causatives and verbs of giving/receiving.

That's why native sources (even children's books) are extremely difficult for foreign learners to being with, because they have so much slang, contractions, and grammar that the learner doesn't learn until later. Most textbooks are oriented towards teaching what the writers think will be most useful to the broadest section of their user base, and what can be introduced in a way such that it can be immediately useful to the learner. So that's why they start with -masu forms, greetings, asking about what you like, etc.

yudantaiteki Wrote:That's why native sources (even children's books) are extremely difficult for foreign learners to being with, because they have so much slang, contractions, and grammar that the learner doesn't learn until later.

If you expect to formally learn all grammar/vocab from a textbook before you allow yourself to see it, native materials will be very difficult for a long, long time. On the other hand, if you can follow the barest outline of a story and enjoy it, it's amazing how much the difficulty is covered by the fact you're really enjoying something in another language. You're doing the impossible, and not even caring that you're doing the impossibly because the story is so good.

Magamo has hit the nail on the head again: you and your interests determine what is basic and what is advanced for you. Language imposes some constraints on learning order, but it's not like there's one true progression that fits every student.

Like Khatz said recently:

Quote:Actively learn the simplest, most basic things, but passively expose yourself to the language in its full native glory.

Amen. I don't let the fact that I'm only 2-3 thousand words and Tae Kim into the language keep me from listening to 宮沢賢治 stories and following along in print and sucking all the enjoyment I can out of them.

ZuMash, I recommend trying a physical copy. Most scans weren't made with language learners in mind, so you have to deal with the double problem that you haven't yet mastered the language and the letters are fuzzy--you won't be able to read the 振りがな and it will be very difficult to look up 漢字. Do yourself a favor and get clearly printed versions.

If you have a clear idea of what you like, try that. If not, well, just take a risk: look over the first chapter or two and buy what looks interesting across a half-dozen series or so.

yudantaiteki Wrote:As far as grammar goes, native speakers have no concept of "advanced" vs. "basic" grammar as it relates to a second language learner, unless they are trained in teaching their language. Even a 6 year old kid just starting to read hiragana knows "advanced" grammar like causatives and verbs of giving/receiving.

I think native speakers also have their own advanced vs. basic feel. At least the Japanese find Japanese honorifics very advanced because even educated adults can get tripped up by them. I think the general rule is "The rarer a rule is, the more advanced it is." So, honorifics, formal registers and the like are more advanced than colloquial grammar. Ask 6 year old Americans which they think is more advanced:

I am most grateful to you for this kind offer and look forward to learning a great deal in your class. I was wondering if you could tell me how to get in touch with the assistant tutor. Would it be possible for you to let me know his email address? You can reach me by email at XXXX@YYY. Thank you again for all your kindness.

Thanks! I really wanted to study Japanese in your class! Oh, do you know the assistant tutor's email? Shoot me an email at XXXX@YYY. Cheers!

Which do you think is more advanced to a 6 year old: "None but the brave deserve the fair." (Rule: None is plural when followed by "but") or "Only brave people can get beautiful girls." (Its simpler version.)

I'm a non-native speaker, so I don't know which would be more advanced to native speakers. But I'm kind of think the former examples contain more advanced grammar.

yudantaiteki Wrote:That's why native sources (even children's books) are extremely difficult for foreign learners to being with, because they have so much slang, contractions, and grammar that the learner doesn't learn until later.

Native sources are difficult only when they have a lot of things you don't know. If you know them well, you don't think they're very difficult. So,

yudantaiteki Wrote:Most textbooks are oriented towards teaching what the writers think will be most useful to the broadest section of their user base, and what can be introduced in a way such that it can be immediately useful to the learner. So that's why they start with -masu forms, greetings, asking about what you like, etc.

the problem lies here. If textbook writers and teachers teach you things you usually come across first, you're lucky and don't find what you're reading difficult. But quite a few people think they don't teach in that order partly because different students learn a language for different purposes and partly because writers don't teach what the writers think will be most useful. If anything, I think they often teach what they think is easy to teach first and sidestep difficult things. I have read tons of comments by Japanese teachers in Japan like "I always sidestep that and teach this dumbed down fake rule because it's a whole lot easier to teach them." Google for difficult but very important grammar points that only serious academic papers deal with (Of course you use Japanese to search because it doesn't seem English speaking teachers often talk about that in the first place.).

As an example, why do you think they don't teach 自発 before the non-animated passive voice? It's the most important thing and pretty much everyone needs to know it regardless of their purpose of learning as long as they want to understand the Japanese language well. If I remember correctly, you worked as a tutor in Japanese classes. Do you have a reason not to teach it first other than because it's difficult for teachers to teach by using English? How are they supposed to learn the true meaning and nuance of passive voice in Japanese without knowing 自発?

Shinchan is awesome. Short sentences, so no extreme knowledge of grammar required. The language used varies but it's pretty colloquial. Very good if you want to learn Japanese you might run into living in Japan.

magamo Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:As far as grammar goes, native speakers have no concept of "advanced" vs. "basic" grammar as it relates to a second language learner, unless they are trained in teaching their language. Even a 6 year old kid just starting to read hiragana knows "advanced" grammar like causatives and verbs of giving/receiving.

I think native speakers also have their own advanced vs. basic feel. At least the Japanese find Japanese honorifics very advanced because even educated adults can get tripped up by them. I think the general rule is "The rarer a rule is, the more advanced it is." So, honorifics, formal registers and the like are more advanced than colloquial grammar.

Yeah. I actually meant to write something along those lines as well.

Quote:As an example, why do you think they don't teach 自発 before the non-animated passive voice? It's the most important thing and pretty much everyone needs to know it regardless of their purpose of learning as long as they want to understand the Japanese language well. If I remember correctly, you worked as a tutor in Japanese classes.

I'm currently in my 5th year of being a teaching assistant in a college-level language program.

Quote:Do you have a reason not to teach it first other than because it's difficult for teachers to teach by using English? How are they supposed to learn the true meaning and nuance of passive voice in Japanese without knowing 自発?

I'm not entirely sure of the terminology here, but the book we use (Japanese: The Spoken Language), teaches all the uses of the passive at the same time.

wildweathel Wrote:If you expect to formally learn all grammar/vocab from a textbook before you allow yourself to see it, native materials will be very difficult for a long, long time.

Agreed. I think you should incorporate native materials into your study as soon as possible, but I remember trying to use manga when it took me literally 20 minutes for one sentence at about 75% comprehension. That's not worth the time. I don't think people should avoid even trying native materials if they want to, but if they feel like they're not getting as much out of it as they want, I think it's OK to put them aside for a while and go back to the textbooks.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

Quote:Do you have a reason not to teach it first other than because it's difficult for teachers to teach by using English? How are they supposed to learn the true meaning and nuance of passive voice in Japanese without knowing 自発?

I'm not entirely sure of the terminology here, but the book we use (Japanese: The Spoken Language), teaches all the uses of the passive at the same time.

How do you explain the れる/られる grammar in these sentences?

彼の行動が不思議に思われます。
子供の頃の情景が思いだされる。

As I explained in another thread, 思われます and 思い出される here are not passive or potential.

But yeah, it seems "Japanese: The Spoken Language" is one of the best textbooks out there. As you said somewhere before, it is the only bilingual textbook that teaches the three types of Japanese sentences (i.e., 名詞文 etc.). But the problem I'm talking about is the fact that good textbooks like this is extremely rare. You already said it's very minor compared with other popular textbooks like Genki etc. Don't you think, as a teacher, this is a huge problem?

What I'm talking about is that many learners are being fooled by lazy or ignorant teachers and authors so they end up thinking the above sentences are also passive or potential when they're not.

Speaking of passive, it doesn't seem that most learners learn the distinction between the traditional direct passive like 先生に怒られた and irregular passive like 会議が開かれた. Advanced learners know there is such a thing as indirect passive in Japanese, but they usually don't know there are two types of indirect passives.

Also, I doubt you teach your students the difference between unergative and unaccusative verbs. If you don't teach the difference between the two types of intransitive verbs, you can't explain when you can use indirect passive and when you can't. Can you explain the grammar? If your textbooks explain all kinds of passive voice, explain when you can and can't use indirect passive voice here.

Well, I'm kind of interested in how "Japanese: The Spoken Language" explains the two example Japanese sentences in this post. Can you let me know how you'd teach your students the grammar point?

I think focusing on this is taking grammar a bit far (in this context). If you study linguistics you learn completely different things than people learning languages, and that's probably for a good reason.

While important for linguistics, it isn't important for a learner of Japanese to know what an unergative and unaccusative verb is. While 思われる is technically an intransitive verb and not a passive form of 思う, you can get the same effect by thinking of 思われる as an idiomatic usage of the passive form of 思う. It's not technically correct (at least not, in linguistics. As for history, who knows), but it doesn't matter if you want to learn to talk, write and read Japanese, not discuss it in academia.

Tobberoth Wrote:I think focusing on this is taking grammar a bit far (in this context). If you study linguistics you learn completely different things than people learning languages, and that's probably for a good reason.

While important for linguistics, it isn't important for a learner of Japanese to know what an unergative and unaccusative verb is. While 思われる is technically an intransitive verb and not a passive form of 思う, you can get the same effect by thinking of 思われる as an idiomatic usage of the passive form of 思う. It's not technically correct (at least not, in linguistics. As for history, who knows), but it doesn't matter if you want to learn to talk, write and read Japanese, not discuss it in academia.

No. 思われる here is 未然形 (or reru/rareru-form) of 思う. There are four categories when it comes to this form: potential (可能), passive (受身), polite (尊敬), and 自発. They don't teach 自発, so you end up confusing 思われる and other 自発動詞 (a special kind of intransitive verb) such as 建つ and 掛ける.

This thing is very fundamental in the Japanese grammar because potential (可能), passive (受身) and polite (尊敬) are all derived from 自発. The 自発動詞 and similar grammar rules are also very closely related to this. I know this is very difficult to explain through translation, but I'm against giving a fake rule to sidestep the difficult part when it's necessary to understand important things. At least teachers should be honest and tell students that they don't teach one of the most important usages of れる/られる. They should tell that the simplified rules they give are useless when it comes to production. You can't speak proper Japanese if you only know incomplete rules and put off exposure to native material.

I agree that unergative and unaccusative verbs are too advanced. But teachers shouldn't do exercises like "Write your own sentence using indirect passive form!" At least they should limit production within the "not your own sentence" range. You can't produce your own sentence because you can't tell when it's ok to use indirect passive without knowing the difference between the two kinds of intransitive verb. You can't produce your own sentences if they don't teach when to use and how.

If you skip a grammar point, then you should tell your students not to rely on grammar when speaking because it's impossible; you didn't teach when to use which. I do believe production exercises using your own words are the silliest thing you can force your students to do when you don't teach how to speak properly. If you don't teach how to speak, you should be honest and tell your students so. Don't fool them. They have a right to know that what they are being taught can't improve their output skills directly.

こちら側にビルに建たれた is ungrammatical while こちら側にビルを建てられた is a good example of indirect passive. This is because the former is using an unaccusative verb and latter is using an unergative verb. If students are left ignorant, how do they know one of them is ungrammatical? How ca they speak properly relying on fake, incomplete grammar? Shouldn't teachers tell that students can't directly learn to "speak" from their classes/textbooks?

The your-own-word kind of production homework is stupid because you're asking the impossible.

Tobberoth Wrote:I think focusing on this is taking grammar a bit far (in this context). If you study linguistics you learn completely different things than people learning languages, and that's probably for a good reason.

The second you start explaining language rather than just doing it, you have entered the realm of linguistics. Yes, it's complex--not because linguists hate you, but because an accurate description of language requires that complexity. When you simplify it, you introduce errors in understanding that the student has to correct, either through natural acquisition or further linguistic study.

That's just harsh, cruel reality.

Teachers don't ignore to teach things like this because they are lazy, nor because they lack understanding. It's a calculated balance. If you have to study years to become a linguist before you can even start learning a language, fact is no one would do it. I speak fluent English and I had no idea what unergative and unaccusative were when I entered this topic. In fact, Chrome agrees, both words are considered spelling mistakes. THAT'S how arbitrary and technical it is.

Teachers aren't expecting you to go to class, learn the language and speak it fluently. The mistakes are accepted because it's impossible to learn something without ever making a mistake anyway. Regardless of how much you study 自発, you can still learn Japanese without ever studying it. Grammar helps us explain and understand languages, the problem is when the correctness takes overhand and takes the fun out of learning. This is why Khazu goes so far as to say that we shouldn't even study it, at all.

So summary: Yes, it's true that teachers don't teach everything and that some exercises make little sense without a 100% understanding. However, a 100% understanding isn't reasonable, not even for experts in the linguistic area. Saying "You can't make a sentence like this because you don't understand the rule completely" makes no sense, we are all contradicting that every day of our lives. The grammatical rules were made after the fact. They are terms decided by people based on their analysis of a language, the grammar doesn't even have to be "correct" since there's no such thing. How Japanese grammar is viewed by natives is in fact quite different from how it's viewed by western linguists. Which is right or wrong is more a matter of taste than factuality. Is が a subject marker? Maybe. Maybe not. As long as it helps you discuss and understand the language, it's of little relevance.

Regardless of that, I would love some more information on 自発. From reading around, especially on Japanese Wikipedia, if I understood correctly, 自発 means that something is spontaneous and not enacted by someone or something with an intention or will. If it was enacted by someone, it would be a passive. (Should be noted, I find the explanations convoluted. I might have misunderstood this premise.)

If so, how come this is an example of 自発?

（私には）あの日の情景が思いだされる

Yeah, the subject is the sight or scene, but why can't you say 思い出される is a passive enacted by 私? What is the actual defining point which says the above is 自発 and not passive? To me, from my limited understanding of the Japanese explanation, it seems that it's pretty much up in the air. It seems that the only thing making it 自発 instead of passive is that 私 has no intention of 思い出すing anything, but is that really a difference which needs a whole term in itself? It seems like it's just a different kind of passive with basically the same meaning, just in a different context.

I mean... isn't it the same as in English:
I was killed by someone.
I was depressed by the gloomy weather.

In the upper one, there's intention and will. In the second one, there isn't. So would that mean that only killed is passive, depressed isn't? From what I know, no real distinction is made in English.

magamo Wrote:"I always sidestep that and teach this dumbed down fake rule because it's a whole lot easier to teach them."

We call that lies to children.

Tobberoth Wrote:This is why Khazu goes so far as to say that we shouldn't even study it, at all.

He didn't say such a thing:

AJATT Wrote:I also recommend using beginner-oriented books. Even (in the beginning) books with English translations in them — books designed to help Japanese people learn English are especially cool. But always keep your audio real; listening to slowed-down audio of boring conversations is not doing you any good.

Also, I don't think you can't speak if you don't understand the rule completely.

Toberroth Wrote:Yeah, the subject is the sight or scene, but why can't you say 思い出される is a passive enacted by 私? What is the actual defining point which says the above is 自発 and not passive? To me, from my limited understanding of the Japanese explanation, it seems that it's pretty much up in the air. It seems that the only thing making it 自発 instead of passive is that 私 has no intention of 思い出すing anything, but is that really a difference which needs a whole term in itself? It seems like it's just a different kind of passive with basically the same meaning, just in a different context.

If you take 思い出される as direct passive with a non-animated patient, it'd be:

（私によって）あの日の情景が思いだされる or（私に）あの日の情景が思いだされる.

Since this is the irregular grammar brought by foreign languages, it's not the transitional passive either. Some people might think it's grammatical, but others don't. Either way, it's different from （私には）あの日の情景が思いだされる. Well, I kind of think taking it as passive is not accepted by the majority of native speakers, so it's no use to make sense of the hypothetical passive version. If I try, the passive version sounds like someone tried to say it with 自発's nuance but ends up being in passive voice because he tried too hard to add formality.

By the way, 自発 is not advanced at all. Every Japanese kid learns it at elementary school. It's as surprising as teaching "I am doing this," "I can do this," and "I was done by this," but not "I do this." It's that absurd. As IceCream said, it's like teaching the future tense without telling what the future means.

You feel it's kind of related to passive, right? Yes. As I said in the other thread, sometimes it's ambiguous whether a sentence is in passive or 自発. But it doesn't change the fact that 自発 is the most basic form of れる/られる. It's the kernel of the れる/られる grammar. If you think passive and potential should be taught as different things, then I think you should teach 自発 too because they're different.

Ryajinor Wrote:We call that lies to children.

Yeah. I think it's useful especially when you try to get the hang of complicated things. But when it comes to language learning, putting off exposure and forcing output is equal to teaching only "lies to children" and forcing them to follow it rigorously. You can take advantage of grammar in various ways, but I don't think it should be the main tool to produce your own sentence. Besides, I think skipping 自発 is something beyond lies to children in the first place.

Never heard of this jihatsu thingamajig. Is there a clear explanation for it someplace? Want to make sure it's not something I missed/haven't already internalized.

I think what I've read about '自発' sounds kind of like the explanations for 見える &c. that I read in DOBJG: "Mieru is different from the regular potential form of miru, i.e., mirareru, in that mieru indicates that s.t. or s.o. is passively visible regardless of the volition of the speaker; mirareru, on the other hand, indicates that the speaker or the subject of the sentence can see s.t. or s.o. actively rather than passively. " (Likewise with 聞こえる.)

This seems to have a definition I can understand as a basic aspect/array of uses that I'm already familiar with and appreciative of in Japanese that I don't usually bother labeling. Good enough?

BTW That 'Making Sense of Japanese' book seems pretty good, I have a copy because it looked worthwhile, but haven't gone through it yet.