While working on the sentence method, I started noticing my weakness with transitive and intransitive verbs. I have not been mentally differentiating them while working through my reviews (one of my many problems associated with the passive learning style of the sentences method), and the usage of the two verbs would blend together. It seems to me that this is one of those subtle grammatical points which demands a bit of extra thought and work. Luckily, Jim Breen has put together a nice list of trans/intrans verb pairs here, and it is actually not too ambitious (>300) to pick up as vocab.

I put the list into 4 tab separated txt files in the form [trans verb] [intrans verb] [trans definition] [intrans definition]
here

Because of the regularity of the transitions going from transitive to intransitive, with only 4 fairly consistent categories, I decided that kanjitown method was applicable here.
spreadsheet for verb paris here

My idea is this: create production-style vocab cards for the verbs, while memorizing only the first few romanji letters of the verb and the kanji associated with it. Then, remembering (with a short mneumonic) the keyword in the context of the trans/intrans verb pair kanjitown, the verb pairings can be created from the romanji. However, the verb pairings are not always regular (but most are), and one will have to make a special note of that while creating mneumonics for these cases.

The problem with this, as is the problem with all vocab study, is that the unique usage of each of the verbs is not adequately conveyed through a single english definition. However, what I have come to realize about language study in general is that the critical first step is always to "reserve a spot" in the memory for these things, and only from there can the network of usage be built up.

Interesting. I'd always assumed that sentence-based learning would be better for picking up transitive/intransitive, because you get the verb in use and so are exposed to its particle usage.

I wonder what's the best way to test these pairs. Seems one method is

Q: この本をあなたに　「上」
A: 上げる：　この本をあなたに上げた

Q: 私たちは２階に　「上」
A: 上がる:　私たちは２階に上がった

Q: 濡れた服を　「乾」
A: 乾かす:　濡れた服を乾かした

Q:　夏は洗濯物が直ぐ「乾」
A:　乾く：　夏は洗濯物が直ぐ乾く

Q: 彼は友達の答えを「写」。
A: 写す：　彼は友達の答えを写した。

Q: このカメラはよく「写」よ。
A: 写る：　このカメラはよく写りますよ。

So for those that like to use Core 2k, it's a bit tedious, but just change up the sentences so you're forced to know the form of the word in order to pass. One fast way is to use the "Cloze Deletion" button, so it looks like this:

お坊さんが鐘を鳴[...]いますね。
お坊さんが鐘を鳴らしていますね。
おぼうさんがかねをならしていますね。

To be honest, I've been tempted to try something similar (mainly hiding the particle) but never actually bothered. Though it is a weakness in my ability. Having a useful spreadsheet with the pairs now makes it very tempting to do.

Personally, I recommend just sitting down with a list of pairs and analyzing it. You will quickly find that while there is no guaranteed rule, there are patterns which are common to pretty much every pair. Learn those patterns (I think there are 3-4 common ones and there are probably what you call the categories) and it all becomes really easy. One of the classic patterns is that meru becomes maru, such as
決める、決まる
閉める、閉まる
始める、始まる

I don't think any method is needed, it's just important to understand the patterns. When you run into a word, you apply the patterns and quickly find what it could be. It's not definite, but it's enough to make it really easy for the words you already know, and as with everything else in language, you can't know something until you know it.

The only one rule that 100% works is that all verbs ending in　す are transitive as they came about from verb＋する apparently.

返す、　返る

liosama Wrote:The only one rule that 100% works is that all verbs ending in　す are transitive as they came about from verb＋する apparently.

返す、　返る

Nope. 差す for example is intransitive. It is almost 100% though.

Anyone care to explain how these differ from each other:
助ける,輔ける,救ける,扶ける

Never encountered anything other than 助ける in the wild.

Evil_Dragon Wrote:Anyone care to explain how these differ from each other:
助ける,輔ける,救ける,扶ける

Never encountered anything other than 助ける in the wild.

Daijirin limits use of 「援ける」「輔ける」「左ける」など to one sub-sense.

On the other hand, if you've never seen the others in the wild, why worry?

pm215 Wrote:On the other hand, if you've never seen the others in the wild, why worry?

好奇心。

Hmm, just spent a little bit of time adding these types of cards. What I ended up doing was create a "Cloze" card set in my Vocab deck, add another element for the cloze sentence, then cloze deleted the verbs that were in the list that I also have already studied (so I'm not adding new words).

Just looking at it before reviewing, I can see already this will help grammar as useful side-effect. Just to pass the card, I need to know the dictionary form in addition to the ~て, ~ます or any other form that the sentence happens to use.

After I finish up the list that was posted here, I'll probably go through the entire Core List and change all the other verbs I'm studying the same way.

Nukemarine Wrote:Hmm, just spent a little bit of time adding these types of cards. What I ended up doing was create a "Cloze" card set in my Vocab deck, add another element for the cloze sentence, then cloze deleted the verbs that were in the list that I also have already studied (so I'm not adding new words).

Just looking at it before reviewing, I can see already this will help grammar as useful side-effect. Just to pass the card, I need to know the dictionary form in addition to the ~て, ~ます or any other form that the sentence happens to use.

After I finish up the list that was posted here, I'll probably go through the entire Core List and change all the other verbs I'm studying the same way.

I like your method for studying these pairs because it tests you on knowledge of the use of the transitive and intransitive forms separately. I was thinking about using something like that initially, but I found it to be counter productive because, when taking examples off wwwjdic, the actual sentences which used the verb were likely to have a couple extra words which I dont know. Also, im not quite sure if theres a way in anki to use the automatic readings generator from the japanese plugin on custom made decks. So I think the method that I am going to stick with is a production vocab style card which goes from definition->verbs. I happen to like vocab study, because of the whole factor of isolation of the information (minimalist cards). Also, even though these verbs will have many uses, I think that they do have a generalized meaning which can apply to all cases (though many times the verbs will be used in an idiomatic sense). It is just like the heisig keyword where, even though the kanji is used in many varied words, it does make some vague sort of sense most of the time. However, here instead of a keyword I will use a definition which I have created. The format will be:

front:
[self-made transitive definition (usually relying on a sense of the word obtained by looking at wwwjdic examples)]
[self-made intransitive definition]

back:
[kanjitown mneumonic created to remember trans->intrans]
[trans and intrans verbs with dictionary definition]

I would have liked to have just one definition and use that along with the general knowledge of the grammatical functions of transitive and intransitive verbs, but I think that might be a bit too artificial. I am hoping to have some knowledge of use, rather than just pronunciation, after I finish this.

Dude, never take example sentences from wwwjdic, those are from the tanaka corpus which is filled with bad unnatural translationese and sometimes even real grammatical errors.

Haych,

Let's step back a bit. Assume you learn vocabulary using some useful pre-made list like Core 2k or KO2001. In those lists will be the more common verbs. Now, assuming that verbs those lists that have を are transitive while が are intransitive (yes, there is another form that Magamo has pointed out in detail, but it's beyond me to explain here) then you don't really need a list to learn straight off of. The sample sentence itself pretty much tells you in addition to using it in a sentence. Just learn the verbs as they come up along with all the nouns and adjectives and other stuff.

So if you see が開..., を開..., が閉..., or を閉.... in the sample sentences you kind of have to know the verb whether it's intransitive or transitive.

On the other problem, users have now sorted Core 2k and KO2001 sentences. That means if you go in order, you get a nice i+1 effect. Just make sure to create an additional card to test verbs when new verbs come up.

I looked into KO2001 and core 2k just now, and I cant see that helping me here. I want to just conquer this list as vocab without having to wait for the words to come up. Its sort of an artificial way of learning but so is everything. Also, I am not taking examples directly from the tanaka corpus to study, I am just glancing over them to get a sense for the definition. However, if you have a better source for examples I would like to know.

Quote:I want to just conquer this list as vocab without having to wait for the words to come up.

Regardless of what you do, you're going to have to wait. You can't drill this sort of thing the same way you drill vocab. Sure you're know it on an intellectual level, but you develop a feel for it over time.

Also, I think you'd drill yourself insane trying to differentiate (in)transitive く verbs on an intellectual level.

Quote:However, if you have a better source for examples I would like to know.

Listen to Nukemarine.

I always wonder why so many learning materials introduce a pair of confusing words at the same time. Apparently some people find it easier that way, but this type of systematic learning material always confused me. When I learned the verb "lie" as in "I was lying in my bed" at school, the teacher taught us "lie-lay-lain-lying," "lay-laid-laid-laying," "lie-lied-lied-lying" and the noun "lie" at the same time. It was just confusing, and I couldn't memorize any of them. So I changed the strategy and focused on the "lie-lay-lain-lying" conjugation. I tried to memorize "lay-laid-laid-laying" as a transitive version of "lie" after "lie-lay-lain-lying" became so familiar I felt its meaning and conjugation pattern were obvious. And then I learned the noun "lie," and its verb version when I was able to see it like "Oh, it can be a verb? That's handy."

I also had a vocab book of the most important 1900 English word (such as "English") listed in alphabetical order, but it was very hard to use because words that looked similar lay next to each other. (Hmm. Did I use "lie" correctly?) If I know one of the similar looking words very well, the other word is easy to memorize probably because the familiar one works as a memory hook. But if I don't know either of them, they're just a confusing pair...

If you're one of those people who find it easier to memorize similar things in one shot, I think the list and Nukemarine's cloze test method would work well. But if you're like me who suck at it, it might be better to focus on transitive verbs (or intransitive verbs) and then memorize their counterparts as their "intransitive versions" (or transitive versions) using the familiar version as a memory hook.

Well, I kind of think my teacher taught us that way for no apparent reason other than they looked similar. To some people, "similar" means "confusing"...

Nukemarine Wrote:On the other problem, users have now sorted Core 2k and KO2001 sentences. That means if you go in order, you get a nice i+1 effect. Just make sure to create an additional card to test verbs when new verbs come up.

Is there an anki deck for KO2001 that's sorted out? I saw the post where you had uploaded it to smart.fm but when i used anki to import them in it kinda mixed up the order of the cards a little bit.

Magamo,

I think with English you almost have to treat each version of the verb as a unique word. There's virtually no universal rule to anything with English to allow exceptions. Thus, a student stuck depending on a dumb grammar book that list rules then dozens of variants, or they take the smarter route and listen to/read lots of English.

With Japanese having such a structured approach (at least with material introduced in structured manner) it would be overkill to introduce past, present, and various other forms individually　for every word. By the way, I'm not saying this to use rules to produce actively but to help understand what one reads/hears passively (which leads to productivity). Although I don't think I need a list for Japanese verbs, I do need to test my knowledge of the verbs especially for both intransitive, transitive and those ending in る. Luckily I can call upon Heisig knowledge so just showing the Kanji portion of the word in the sentence is enough to test the rest. Plus I'm only doing that for words I've already been testing normally. Really, even though I just started doing it today, it feels like something that would have been great 12 months ago when I started doing Core 2k with Anki.

It's just a way I can test Japanese verbs that just is not possible with English. Well, one can try it but you have to add very annoying markers to the cloze deletions: He [Run (past)] down road, He [Run (past, intransitive)] over by a car. On top of that, if your English grammar terms are not strong then you have to put Japanese explanations for the terms.

For my Japanese deck, I'm just deleting the hiragana. Seems so obvious, but I didn't do it before.

Ohh, I think I understand what the cloze quiz is doing! It doesn't make sense to do that in English because even if you ignore verb tense, the cards for "run" would look like

I [run, transitive] a race,
He [run, transitive] an errand,
They [run, transitive] a horse,
She was [run, intransitive] in the park,
He's [run, intransitive] for the presidency,
Cancer [run, intransitive] in family,
etc.

And later you should make cards for

"[run, intransitive] across him,"
"[get, transitive] the idea across,"
"[get, ???] across the basic idea,"
etc.

But deleting kana sounds like a good method to accurately check if you learned the grammar point correctly.

I don't know the difference between transitive or intransitive verbs in English or Japanese.

Am I missing something? :/

Grinkers,

Transitive means the subject has done something to the object. Usually this means use of an を to tell who/what it's being done to. チャールスは電気を点けた。 Charles turned on the light.

Intransitive means the subject is described by the verb. The lack of an を usually indicates this. 電気が点いている。 The light is turned on.

Regarding the patters of transitive-intransitive word pairs, I found this lying on the web:

http://ideogramme.ca/japan/article/40/tr...word-pairs

Here are some quotes:

----------------------------------------
"Thankfully, I’ve found this page on transitive and intransitive verbs at the sci.lang.japan FAQ website. It has tables showing all the kinds of pairing and what patterns apply. From the list, we can make a few general observations:

1. U-eru and Eru-u are the only patterns that mirror each other and can be confused, thankfully.

2. Any verb ending in “su” is always the transitive member of its pair. I think of this “su” as a stronger sound, representing stronger action directed at a target. Example: okosu (to make something happen) / okoru (to happen).

3. Verbs ending in “iru”, “aru”, “waru”, and “reru” are always intransitive.

There’s also a group of verb pairs that don’t really fit any pattern — 出す・出る, 入れる・入る, etc. — and have to be learned on their own."
--------------------------------------------------------
Also, there was this comment on the page:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Nice post! This is indeed a tricky topic.

I’m reconstructing this from memory, but you can kind of summarize the rules like this:

1. -(y)eru (OJ -yu, e.g. kikoeru)
2. -CVru (except -Ceru), -CVreru
3. -Ceru, -Cu
4. -CVsu, -CVseru

And say that for any word pair where both are on the list, the one with the higher number is transitive. This also covers a lot of the “irregular” ones like “deru” and “dasu”. Unfortunatey, you can’t apply it properly unless you know a bit about older forms of Japanese, (e.g. “owaru/oeru” was originally “oharu/oheru” and so it falls under -CVru (2) vs -Ceru (3); therefore “owaru” is intransitive)... and by the time you know that much, you’ve probably memorized the verbs anyway.

The other big problem then is deciding which is transitive in a -Ceru/-Cu pair, which have the same ranking. But this is not usually difficult. The basic rule is that the -Cu one is intransitive unless the action requires at least an implied direct object to make sense. So “uru” is transitive because you need a seller and a sold item, but “au” is intransitive because all you need is the subject.

Man, I bet I got something wrong."
-----------------------------------------

I haven't yet dabbled in detail with the transitive/intransitive verbs, but these patterns seem like a nice idea. Can anyone more experienced in these matters verify these claims?

Well, the guy who wrote that comment (Matt from No-Sword) is I think generally reliable, but I'm not sure how useful it is to have a set of rules that you can only apply if you know enough classical Japanese :-)

I suspect there's more value in working out a table of patterns yourself than in borrowing somebody else's (I did that at one point), but mostly I think what worked for me was making sure that I always had at least 'object wo vtrans' or 'subject ga vintr' on flashcards and so on, so when I was trying to remember them (in a test or whatever) I was more likely to remember the phrase and thus whether it was transitive or not.

PS: appendix 3 of the Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar has a classification of transitive-intransitive pairs, although I have a vague memory of being dissatisfied with the number of groups it split them into.

We've done the 'native speakers don't know grammar rules so why should second language learners?' argument in other threads, do we need it again? :-)

pm215 Wrote:We've done the 'native speakers don't know grammar rules so why should second language learners?' argument in other threads, do we need it again? :-)

You're right, I guess not!