I am sure many questions on particles have been posted here before. What I am asking is the particle that comes just before a noun. I am mainly talking about simple present transitive verbs like 思う、会う、食べる。 Which particle goes with which verb.

The confusion is this, I realised that 会う takes particle に、 since the other person is 'indirect object', whatever that means. And is recieving the effect of the action. Thus を　is not used. But I don't get it, the action of meeting is done ON the person we are meeting right, so why is this not a direct object than?

Thus my question is that how do I know what particle goes with which verb, do I have to check the dictionary for that? The particles that can go with the verbs are を、に、と. Even though I think the meaning will still make sense even if I used the wrong particle like 友達を会う。 And を　is not used with 会う。

Than there are the other verbs that take が even though they seem to be transitive. This mainly applies to the 'Word'+する verbs. This really is a big mess isn't it?

The more exposure you get and the deeper you get into learning, the better you'll get at recognising and feeling out which particle goes with what.

DevvaR Wrote:The more exposure you get and the deeper you get into learning, the better you'll get at recognising and feeling out which particle goes with what.

I *doubt* that. Why? -- I tried.

I think your best bet is to look up what particle a verb uses with an example sentence, e.g. from core/smart.fm, and then memorise that together vvith the verb.

Learn sentences which use the verbs, and how to break sentences into words. Also, don't think of it of verbs with particles, but words with particles.

i.e. "sakanawo taberu" not "sakana wo taberu" or "sakana wotaberu"

There are a couple rules of thumb that you will learn as you go along, for how things differ from English. One of the big ones is that in Japanese you would say 道を走る, 道路を歩く, 空を飛ぶ whereas in English you would say run down the road, fly through the sky. There is probably a grammatical explanation for why Japanese treats these as direct objects and English treats them as prepositional phrases, but I don't know it, and you don't have to know it. You just need to know that it does.

This is how I would explain に会う -- if Barack Obama meets Doraemon, you can equally say that Doraemon meets Barack Obama. Doraemon and Barack Obama met. This isn't usually the way it works with direct objects; to say that Doraemon punched Barack Obama does not imply that Barack Obama punched Doraemon. But I think it's easier to just learn and accept that things don't work the way you're used to than to try and make logical sense of everything that doesn't work the way you're used to.

Quote:I am mainly talking about simple present transitive verbs like 思う、会う、食べる。

会う isn't a transitive verb, though, that's the reason that it cannot take を。
In English it can be either - 'I met with John' or 'I met John' - but in Japanese it is intransitive.

I see, it is quite like I expected but now I am sure. I really do have to remember what particle a verb uses after all. But than there are these suru verbs which seem to be transitive (as expected) but also intransitive even when they end with する。 Also there are other する verbs that can become both transitive or intransitive depending on the rest of the sentence.
So the simplest thing to do is just memorize the particles rather than dig deeper? This is what I have learnt from this thread. Thanks.

Tori-kun Wrote:

DevvaR Wrote:The more exposure you get and the deeper you get into learning, the better you'll get at recognising and feeling out which particle goes with what.

I *doubt* that. Why? -- I tried.

I think they mean can you really write a comprehensive list of rules as to when to use "at", "in", "to" and "with" in english? English is my native language, but i'm sure if you do ESL they make some attempt to teach the rules. Even so, those rules surely have exceptions that must be rote learned.

Eventually the rules fade and the wrong particle just sounds wrong.

The single best thing to do is to buy the book "All About Particles".
It is the best book on particles.

For each particle, it lists all the possible uses.
Whenever, I'm confused about particles, I reference the book.

An easy exercise is to take any particle and them match it
with one of the usages mentioned in the book.

Do this for every sentence where you are confused about particles.
That's it.

Tori-kun Wrote:

DevvaR Wrote:The more exposure you get and the deeper you get into learning, the better you'll get at recognising and feeling out which particle goes with what.

I *doubt* that. Why? -- I tried.

No offence, I know you work hard Tori-kun, but I truly believe that exposure to Japanese (especially extensive reading) helps a lot when it comes to particles. They're tricky, and I still struggle with them from time to time, but a LOT of the particle usage can be learned together with words. You just imitate what people say / write.
Let's take the verb 会う. People will most likely write something like 友達に会った (or と会った). To remember this you don't need a rule on why you use に here. You just need to remember that you use に with 会う. Don't think about "Well, this is the location particle, so therefore we use..." No. Just think 会う+に= <3
Same with 勤める and 留学する. You would in most cases hear people say なになに会社に勤めている and なになに大学に留学している. If you were to look at rules, this に usage would be different than 友達に会う (well, at least I think so!), but don't think about that stuff. Just think of the word + the particle.
勤める+に
留学する+に

Well, that's how I approach them. "All about particles" is really good in the beginning though, then go on to the word + particle(s) approach.

Zorlee Wrote:Well, that's how I approach them. "All about particles" is really good in the beginning though, then go on to the word + particle(s) approach.

Yes, this is the approach I'd suggest: use a reasonable grammar text to get a general framework of "this is how things usually work", then cement it (and pick up the special cases) by exposure. And don't expect things to necessarily follow the rules that English prepositions do...

I think it's better to think in terms of patterns rather than particles. Something like "に goes with 会う" can be misleading, what you want to do instead is remember whole patterns like:

[Noun X]に会う = Meet up with X
[Sentence X]と思う = Think X

You can also have general patterns, like:

[Location noun X]で[verb Y] = Do verb Y at location X

At the same time, remember that while the particle always has to be attached directly to what comes before it, other things can come in between the particle and the verb. So you can have 友達に駅で会う, or おいしいと私は思う.

If you couple this with a general understanding of what the particles do (i.e. に shows static location or target of movement, etc.) you should be able to remember them a lot better.

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:会う isn't a transitive verb, though, that's the reason that it cannot take を。

Haha, this is circular, it's not a real reason. A transative verb in Japanese is defined as one that takes を. So a verb that is not transative does not take を. So you're saying "会う doesn't take を, that's the reason it doesn't take を."

Well, as may be, I was answering the original question that was saying 'Why does a transitive verb take に instead of を?' ... and the answer to -that- is that it isn't transitive.
(Edit: Also, I don't think that's quite the definition of a transitive verb in Japanese. 言う and other quote-taking verbs are also transitive and the direct object is the quote, generally marked with と)

I think I also answered briefly why it isn't transitive, but I didn't have time before work to go into any detail.

We can compare to English where 'meet' can be used either transitively or intransitively, and clearly see there's nothing inherent to meeting that makes it transitive. If having intransitive meetings (I met with John ; John and I met ; probably other phrasings that I'm not thinking of) in English isn't enough, then let me suggest that meeting isn't something you do -to- someone. Meeting is an action that you do with someone in a mutual sort of way. (Of course, someone can be the cause of the meeting, but both languages have ways of expressing that additional information if it matters. The verbs 'to meet' and 会う are neutral on that point.)

I don't actually know the history of 'to meet', but I suspect English allows the transitive use simply because it's easy to drop words and still be understood. I wouldn't be surprised if it was once an error - yesterday's slang is today's grammar, in many cases.

As to why it's に and not some other particle for 会う - に is the particle for bumping 'into' something, turning your face 'to' something, etc. と is also sometimes used as the particle for doing something 'with' someone.

Now, there are cases where "that's just how it is" is the best possible answer - although you can usually work it out if you're determined enough, you may have to look into the etymology of the word and how it preserved some bit of grammar that seems odd in contemporary use. However, I don't think that 会う is one of those special cases, but rather a perfectly good example of how に is generally used.

Now, any phrase starting with 気 I've simply given up on understanding how that verb and that particle possibly go together and get that meaning, and just memorize the pattern as if it were a vocabulary word!

I wouldn't think of it as which particle "goes" with which verb because there are almost no sets where this verb ONLY uses this particle.

Take the verb 食べる for example, you can say:　（and please correct me if I've made any mistakes)

私は魚を食べる
I eat fish

誰が食べた？
彼が食べた。
Who ate it?
He did.

鶏肉は食べるけど牛肉は食べない
I eat chicken but I don't eat beef

夜ご飯どうしよう？
外で食べよう
What do you want to do for dinner?
Let's eat out.

フォンデュは食べたことある？
はい、フランスに食べた
Have you ever had fondu?
Yes, I ate some in France.

In each sentence the particle before the verb is different.

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:(Edit: Also, I don't think that's quite the definition of a transitive verb in Japanese. 言う and other quote-taking verbs are also transitive and the direct object is the quote, generally marked with と)

This is a bad example of an exception--it's not one. I said that a transative verb is a verb which takes を, and 言う does indeed take を, just not all that time.

「彼女は言いたいことを言った」 is a perfectly natural Japanese sentence.

regarding 会う, it may be easier to see it as intransitive once you understand it's essentially the same word as 合う、遭う、逢う、遇う just written with a different かんじ to convey it's sense. 合う meaning: (from rikaichan) (v5u,vi,suf) to come together; to merge; to unite; to meet; to fit; to match; to suit; to agree with; to be correct; to be profitable; to be equitable; (after the -masu stem of a verb) to do ... to each other; (P)

(the "vi" in brackets indicates intransitive verb btw)
It just so happens that when translating to natural sounding English we tend to use "meet" in it's transitive sense (eg I met John), but perhaps a more grammatically accurate definition is something like "come together". Anyway a lot of things that seem like weird particle exceptions really aren't, it's just that verb characteristics of the Japanese word and its usual English translation don't quite match up.

regarding と. I think the quoting と that people may consider an exception to the を object rule also isn't an exception either. I see the quoting と as no different from the adverbial と that describes the manner in which actions take place.
eg
ダイナマイトがドカンと爆発した。the dynamite exploded with a bang.
translating it as with also closely relates it with its other meaning "and" (eg. 犬と猫)

Tzadeck Wrote:

SomeCallMeChris Wrote:and the direct object is the quote, generally marked with と

This is a bad example of an exception--it's not one. I said that a transative verb is a verb which takes を, and 言う does indeed take を, just not all that time.

「彼女は言いたいことを言った」 is a perfectly natural Japanese sentence.

As may be, I don't think that taking を in some cases is what makes it transitive. I think in quoting, e.g., 「彼女は『ああ』と言った」it is still being used transitively and with a special kind of direct object marked with special post-position particle.
This is, however, I think, a hair-splitting point of the sort where it's best to think of it in whichever way that helps you understand the language best so if anyone prefers to think of it your way, more power to you and them. I'm going to keep thinking of it my way because it works for me.

I agree that you could think of it either way if you wanted to, and in that sense it's hairsplitting.

But, saying so makes your initial comment seem even weirder (and, I think, still circular).
"会う isn't a transitive verb, though, that's the reason that it cannot take を."

言う can mark a quote with a と, and check it out, we can think of the quote as the object and it's just marked by と rather than を. But, with 会う we mark who were are meeting with a に. But the people we are meeting are not the object... even though the quote marked with と is...
But why?

See, your initial comment doesn't actually have content. You're really just saying, "会う doesn't take the particular を. Get used to it," but this underlying message is hidden behind the phrase 'transitive verb.'

Not that I mind or anything, I was just pointing it out because I thought it was funny. Everyone makes circular arguments by mistake sometimes.

Tzadeck Wrote:But, saying so makes your initial comment seem even weirder (and, I think, still circular).
"会う isn't a transitive verb, though, that's the reason that it cannot take を."

My initial comment was to point out that the poster was saying 'This verb is is transitive. Why doesn't it take を?' ... In the context of pointing out that misapprehension, I don't really see what was odd about the comment, especially as I don't presume that everyone has 'transitive verb = verb that takes を' as the definition of a transitive verb. In my mind, it's a slightly redundant statement rather than a circular one, because I think of taking を as a -property- of transitive verbs, rather than a definition of them.

for those of you who learned which particles are used through exposure, was this something that got easier for you the better you got at reading? i can understand most stuff i read but my japanese isnt that great so when i do read my mind tends to gloss over the particles in most cases, its like i don't even notice them because i dont really need to in order to get the broad understanding (which is all i can do) of a sentence (especially in manga with pictures). verb particles give me a lot of trouble so this is one area i really want to work on but maybe my japanese isnt ready for learning about them through exposure yet?

I think what exposure is good for is getting used to the patterns that don't map well onto English sentence patterns, things like 人に会う　or 空を飛ぶ. That's where "You don't learn it, you get used to it" comes in. But you can't get used to something that you don't understand in the first place. I think, especially as you get into reading prose, you're going to find more and more places where you do need to fundamentally understand the particles in order to get even a broad understanding. -- Like, 彼女に書いてもらった, or 財布を盗まれた.

I also find, when I'm reading sentences that are hard to parse, I have to rely upon the signposts that the particles offer. What's the subject, what's the object?

It's been my experience that intermediate students -- whether they do traditional classroom studying or something more like AJATT -- tend to get stuck and get lost when they gloss over the particles and try to get a basic idea of the sentence based on the vocabulary in it and context, so... if there's places you don't understand what particles are being used and why, then look it up in a book or ask somebody. It's the kind of thing that's going to come back and bite you later.