First off I just want to say for the most part the guide is great but...

I`ve noticed some example issues that have conjugation errors in them, which for a grammar guide just should not happen. I`m just wondering if anyone has noticed this?

Also, something that has been grinding my gears is that he`ll mention a shorthand for a conjugation, which is great because no one in Japan speaks properly, and then suggests sticking with the regular, proper conjugation for the time being till you`re used to it. Then in the next section he`ll use the short hand. Grammar is confusing enough as it is but when there`s this sort of haphazard, all-at-once, approach to it, it can be very daunting.

I think Tae Kim is a great after thought to grammar points, reinforcing and adding to what you already know as opposed to being a primary source for grammar.

Just wondering what people think?

If this is a duplicate of any kind, I`m sorry, I tried a search and got nada.

You could e-mail him to point out these errors and suggestions and he might listen to you, or he might not.

I once contacted him to politely point out that "gobi" was a completely wrong way to refer to sentence particles, and he basically said that he liked calling them "gobi" and was going to go on doing it.

So is this kind of thing common with that guide? If that's the case then I might stop recommending it to people. That page on "gobi" is really insanely confusing considering the fact that "gobi" is the name of a completely different grammatical thing in the language.

What`s most common with the guide is that he`ll explain whatever method you go through to form certain types of grammar, mention the casual form as an after though and henceforth only contain the casual forms in his examples.

This might be grand for other languages but with Japanese, when casual and formal forms can be extremely important, it seems somewhat irresponsible for a grammar guide. One day soon I will sit down and go through it with a fine tooth-comb for any errors in grammar that I think I find and post them up here for review.

I just feel it`s been praised as the be all and end all for grammar needs when I think it`s far from it. A lot of it reads as "Hey, look how much Japanese I know."

A lot of information in the guide is incomplete and/or wrong. "A Dictionary of Basic/Intermediate/Advanced Japanese Grammar" doesn't order things as nicely, but it has much better information...

I used Tae Kim starting out for grammar... It seemed fine to me. I don't remember seeing any egregious errors.

[Zgarbas]

JimmySeal Wrote:You could e-mail him to point out these errors and suggestions and he might listen to you, or he might not.

I once contacted him to politely point out that "gobi" was a completely wrong way to refer to sentence particles, and he basically said that he liked calling them "gobi" and was going to go on doing it.

I had some Japanese people on lang8 refer to them as gobi too, though.

callmedodge Wrote:I just feel it`s been praised as the be all and end all for grammar needs

It's praised because it's free.

What conjugation errors did you find?

Zgarbas Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:You could e-mail him to point out these errors and suggestions and he might listen to you, or he might not.

I once contacted him to politely point out that "gobi" was a completely wrong way to refer to sentence particles, and he basically said that he liked calling them "gobi" and was going to go on doing it.

I had some Japanese people on lang8 refer to them as gobi too, though.

In what sense? There's no doubt that anytime they're used, they are gobi, because they're always at the end of a sentence, but gobi isn't the name for that type of particle. Gobi refers to anything that's at the end of an utterance, such as the しむ in ハイキングを楽しむ。

It's as arbitrary as trying to restrict the word "adjective" to refer only to colors and nothing else.

Incidentally, the actual Japanese word for "sentence particle" is 終助詞.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

callmedodge Wrote:I just feel it`s been praised as the be all and end all for grammar needs

It's praised because it's free.

What conjugation errors did you find?

This is the big thing. Many of the lists touted on the forums deal with resources everyone can access. As such, the resources have to be a combination of free and good. With ADOJG, it's accepted as great with both it's large number of example sentences (currently available to anyone with Anki as a shared download) and easy to grasp explanations. However, it's still not free so we tread carefully referring to it and do not directly post links.

[Zgarbas]

JimmySeal Wrote:

Zgarbas Wrote:

JimmySeal Wrote:You could e-mail him to point out these errors and suggestions and he might listen to you, or he might not.

I once contacted him to politely point out that "gobi" was a completely wrong way to refer to sentence particles, and he basically said that he liked calling them "gobi" and was going to go on doing it.

I had some Japanese people on lang8 refer to them as gobi too, though.

In what sense? There's no doubt that anytime they're used, they are gobi, because they're always at the end of a sentence, but gobi isn't the name for that type of particle. Gobi refers to anything that's at the end of an utterance, such as the しむ in ハイキングを楽しむ。

It's as arbitrary as trying to restrict the word "adjective" to refer only to colors and nothing else.

Incidentally, the actual Japanese word for "sentence particle" is 終助詞.

Aaah, I see. Learned something new, thank you .

I was supposed to reply to this thread but I forgot.

callmedodge Wrote:I`ve noticed some example issues that have conjugation errors in them, which for a grammar guide just should not happen. I`m just wondering if anyone has noticed this?

callmedodge Wrote:One day soon I will sit down and go through it with a fine tooth-comb for any errors in grammar that I think I find and post them up here for review.

callmedodge Wrote:I just feel it`s been praised as the be all and end all for grammar needs when I think it`s far from it. A lot of it reads as "Hey, look how much Japanese I know."

Apart from the guide's haphazard (or not, depending on one's perspective) way of using casual/formal styles of speech in example sentences, could you give us some more examples of what you found wrong with the guide? If you haven't already done so, you don't have to use a fine tooth-comb; a wide broom would be more than adequate.

blackhack Wrote:A lot of information in the guide is incomplete and/or wrong.

I'd be interested in what you think is incomplete and/or wrong about Tae Kim's guide too. I'll let you borrow my broom too.

blackhack Wrote:"A Dictionary of Basic/Intermediate/Advanced Japanese Grammar" doesn't order things as nicely, but it has much better information...

I'm glad you recognize that Tae Kim's guide has things ordered nicely, it definitely helps the grammar learning process in the same way Heisig has his Kanji ordered nicely.

And as Tae Kim said in his guide, his Grammar guide isn't a dictionary, it's a guide. He does not intend to explain everything in 100% complete excruciating detail. That's what a dictionary is for, which he even tells you to use one where necessary.

The last thing I'd like to say is that reading a dictionary is boring for most people, while reading Tae Kim's grammar guide is not, because it's not a dictionary. And yes, I've read the Basic and Intermediate dictionaries from start to finish and I can confirm it is boring, and I'm in the minority for having done so.

callmedodge Wrote:I think Tae Kim is a great after thought to grammar points, reinforcing and adding to what you already know as opposed to being a primary source for grammar.

Just wondering what people think?

As a person who has read every word in Tae Kim's guide from start to finish several times, as far as Japanese grammar goes, I believe his guide is the best thing I ever read and should be one of the first things any new Japanese language learner should read.

"You get what you pay for": Tae Kim's grammar guide is free, yet leaps and bounds better than any paid publication that I've read. It explains grammar better, more efficiently, and more logically ordered. It's just better.

So you can understand why I'd be very interested to know what's wrong with it.

JimmySeal Wrote:I once contacted him to politely point out that "gobi" was a completely wrong way to refer to sentence particles, and he basically said that he liked calling them "gobi" and was going to go on doing it.

If that's the case (IE. 語尾 does not mean particles that are attached to the end of a sentence), then that's disappointing. It doesn't really make a difference but if 語尾 does not refer to things like yo, ne, or zo, then they shouldn't be called 語尾.

Nukemarine Wrote:This is the big thing. Many of the lists touted on the forums deal with resources everyone can access. As such, the resources have to be a combination of free and good. With ADOJG, it's accepted as great with both it's large number of example sentences (currently available to anyone with Anki as a shared download) and easy to grasp explanations. However, it's still not free so we tread carefully referring to it and do not directly post links.

I agree with your sentiments although I wouldn't exactly say the Basic/Intermediate/Advanced grammar explanations are objectively 'easy to grasp'. The explanations are good/accurate but also very dry and very matter-of-fact, almost like reading a law document.

Anyway, the reason I make this post is because my argument is that not only is Tae Kim's guide good and free, it is best and free, and it is to my surprise that people found something wrong with it. I would like to confirm whether that's the case or not.

I really like Tae-kim's guide, and its the one I never fail to revisit when it comes to looking up grammar but, as an only source it is at least for me lacking. There's a lot of grammar points I haven't understood by reading his guide, and only understood after cross-checking other resources, and there is honestly a few I still don't understand after checking countless of sources. (Mono, youninaru, younisuru)

Its good enough for a basic understanding, but if I didn't discover the grammar dictionaries I'd be incredibly frustrated with certain aspects which I didn't understand before I checking it in the dictionaries. (for instance tokoro, bakari, difference of using no and koto as nominalizers...etc)

We like it - because we can't speak Japanese. Japanese speakers pointed out mistakes to me in TK, and since then I have not looked at it.

Are they mistakes? Or over-generalizations?

mizunooto Wrote:We like it - because we can't speak Japanese. Japanese speakers pointed out mistakes to me in TK, and since then I have not looked at it.

What mistakes? Did you contact Tae Kim?

mizunooto Wrote:We like it - because we can't speak Japanese. Japanese speakers pointed out mistakes to me in TK, and since then I have not looked at it.

Could you give some examples of these mistakes that influenced you into abandoning the Tae Kim's guide?

Could you also give me some examples of things that you think are wrong in th-

Oh wait, you're not blackhack from earlier in this thread, haha.

Quote:Anyway, the reason I make this post is because my argument is that not only is Tae Kim's guide good and free, it is best and free, and it is to my surprise that people found something wrong with it. I would like to confirm whether that's the case or not.

If you're curious about errors, inadequacies and confusing explanations, you might want to take a look any of the following: (excuse the bullets - a forum faux pas?)

* The Tae Kim forum has about 5 years of user submitted comments and error corrections. This includes some feedback from native speakers correcting some sentences. (I take from this that Tae Kim is not always able to gauge natural use, but there are native speakers helping when potentially incorrect sentences are brought up on the forum.) Many comments relate to English corrections: from minor errors to confusing language which mangles the explanations. A few comments take issue with the treatment of specific grammar topics or the general approach.

* The comments in the guide itself also provide some indication of the level of confusion/inadequacy of particular lessons. "This is the best resource ever!!... but I'm having trouble understanding your explanation" type stuff. haha (I find it puzzling that a couple of fairly obvious problems were pointed out, but not changed.) Some reports of "Japanese friends" finding some bits unnatural and discrepancies with their school textbooks, etc.

* There have been responses in this forum to questions about particular Tae Kim sentences and explanations. Overall, I'd say a handful of people here with considerable exposure to different theories of grammar and methods of teaching have expressed the opinion that many of Tae Kim's explanations are overly simplistic even for beginners and the presentation/categorization is sometimes muddled (merging different concepts/uses, for eg.) A Japanese member here was a few times reluctant to endorse certain Tae Kim explanations. His assessments were along the lines of, "Well... I guess it's okay as a very basic rule of thumb if one discards it almost immediately."

* It might be interesting for you to read through (what I assume is) an earlier version of the guide (called "Let's Learn Japanese!" ?) It's readily apparent how much the site has improved and offers some clues to the source of current weak areas. (It also serves as a reminder that it is a blog of a fellow Japanese learner and probably not something to rely on exclusively for content or approach.)

* The guide itself: You mentioned that you're one of the few to have read the Dictionaries of Basic/Inter Japanese Grammar from start to finish. You've also read Tae Kim's guide several times as well as other textbooks. I reckon you're probably well positioned to notice some of the deficiencies if you care to take another look at it.


I'd be interested to know which commercially available resources you reviewed before concluding that Tae Kim's guide is better than all of them. It's certainly commendable that an individual has put so much effort into make a free grammar guide available, but I think we should avoid exaggerated descriptions of its quality. A few misconceptions about grammar that keep popping up online can be traced to Tae Kim's popular site.

I used Tae Kim and never felt his explanations were confusing. Also could you possibly list some of the more egregious oversimplifications and/or errors, like specific explanations. Id like to know if Im misunderstanding something to this day.