/lang/ - Language Learning & Translations

For those who're yearnin' for a learnin'

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (568.14 KB 1200x1500 Japanese_9ecf17_6853237.jpg)
文字通り誰も日本語を学べない Student 09/18/2019 (Wed) 20:11:39 ID: 8018bf No.33
Thread dedicated to the Japanese language

>Resources
Empty at the moment, will be updated
>What we need
Sites and resources to help newcomers learn the language

Also, I do apologize for the lack of stuff, I'm trying to make the board more colorful but just bear with me for a while longer.
大日本帝國万歳!尊皇攘夷!
As someone who is learning it, I don't really recommend it.
Most of the time it looks like they realized midway through a converstation that their grammar couldn't build a sentence to express a certain concept, so they improvised something on the spot and stuck with it for generations.
>>68
It really feels like it, doesn't it?
Take the no-adjective redpill. No-adjectives aren't just "nouns in the genitive case that happen to be translated as adjectives in English" like bluepilled cucks say; they're a full blown class of nominal adjectives on par with na-adjectives. Evidence? >の is a fully fledged attributive form of the copula, same as な, not just a genitive particle (these are two different のs, one a particle and one a verb). >If the adjective meaning came just from the noun being in the attributive case, then the adjective meaning would be limited to when it just followed by の (as a genitive case marker), but instead, you can replace the の with any (other) inflection of the copula (except な) without changing the meaning, like with な adjectives, and can use them anywhere you would use a な adjective.
Japanese.io is a good resource for reading Japanese webpages. It's a browser extension that parses all the text on a page and defines it like Tangoristo did, but it works on any webpage.
>>377 The book that post mentioned is available in its entirety for free online from the Internet Archive. Here's the PDF. It's a bit old, but it looks like a great resource for relatively advanced grammar. Haven't had time to look to closely into it though. Here's the link. https://archive.org/details/AReferentinCs/mode/2up The pdf is too large to post, but you can download it there.
>>262 >>の is a fully fledged attributive form of the copula, same as な, not just a genitive particle (these are two different のs, one a particle and one a verb). Can you elaborate on that one? And the funny thing is Japs call na adjectives "adjectival verbs" 形容動詞and refuse to recognize them as anything but 動詞 because な = 動詞.
>>384 >Can you elaborate on that one? I guess, but I don't know what more there is to say. Really, uses of know can be divided into three main categories: genitive particle, form of the copula, and verb nominalizer, but the third one isn't easily confused like the other two are because it's used in different environments. The other two are more confusing because they both occur between two nouns or nominals, and have similar functions in that they both cause the first noun to modify the other in some way. However, they are distinct in exactly the meanings they convey and the syntax they allow. The genitive particle is used when the first noun is used to express an attribute of the noun or a possessor of it. In English, this corresponds to the constructions [noun] + [noun] (attributive noun), [noun]'s [noun] (possessive construction), or [noun] of [noun]). As a case particle, the genitive particle, like other noun particles, is attached only to the head noun of a single noun phrase, i.e. the syntax is always [[NPの]NP], one NP marked by の that is an adjunct to a parent NP. On the other hand, there is the の that is an attributive form of the copula (だ). To start, it must be acknowledged that な already exists and is usually acknowledged as "the" attributive form of the copula. In fact, の and な are allomorphs, i.e. they serve the same function and are in complementary distribution. The rules for when to use them are: >before the nominalizer の, and any of it's phonetic reductions, only な is used for all cases. This is most often seen in the のだ construction, where both nouns and な-adjectives (and also の-adjectives) use the form な. >otherwise, な is only used for the attributive form of な-adjectives >in all cases besides before the の nominalizer, nouns (and の-adjectives) use the form の as the attributive form of the copula. This can be made clear by both the syntax and the meaning of certain clauses that end with の. For example, I took the following sentence and translation from ejje.weblio: >私が子供の時、母がその本をくれた。 <When I was a child, my mother gave me that book First of all, look at the syntax. 私が appears to be a subject within the 時 clause. We may try to say that this is actually the subject of the overall sentence being forwarded to before the 時 clause, but the subject of くれた is 母が, therefore it is unambiguous that the clause 私が子供の時 has a subject and that subject is 私が. However, the presence of a subject requires the presence of a verb(al predicate). We could say that the subject is an omitted だ, but then it makes no sense for a の to come between (an omitted) だ, which is a verb, and a noun like 時, so の must be the verb itself. This is supported by the meaning of the sentence. The translation is "When I was a child", or more literally "(at) the time that I was a child", which contains "I" as the subject of "was" (a copula) within a relative clause (which are the most direct equivalent to Japanese attributive clauses).
never forget about https://animelon.com/ as well
>>262 >>389 The real redpill when it comes to grammar is that learning grammar is different than acquiring it. Acquisition happens subconsciously through exposure to comprehensible input. We're able to use grammar intuitively even if we don't learn the technicalities of it. Learning about copulas, genitive particles and verb nominalization is separate from acquisition of grammar. You're just learning how to describe the usage of の using complex English terminology. But even kindergartners understand how の is used even though they don't know what a copula is.
">>452 "acquisition" is just practicing applying things you've learned until you can apply them reflexively. If you don't study grammar you're just making the base that you work from worse. Also, adults don't learn like children.
>>453 >"acquisition" is just practicing applying things you've learned until you can apply them reflexively. Sure, if by "practice" you mean getting immersive exposure to i+1 input, and not reading English-language grammar guides about Japanese. >Also, adults don't learn like children. You can definitely build an intuitive sense that the the の in 子供の時 is equivalent to 子供[である/だった]時 just be seeing の us
>>454 just by seeing の used a lot until you "get" it*
>>454 Trying to learn by the input meme is just picking the absolute slowest and least accurate way to learn things. You are still going through the steps of learning > understanding > practicing > reflex, you have just chosen to do it in the way that makes the first two steps as slow as possible and the most likely to develop bad habits. Studying > targeted exercises > targeted practice > general practice is entirely superior.
>>456 >Trying to learn by the input meme is just picking the absolute slowest and least accurate way to learn things. If you actually spend any time engaging with the language learning community, it's clear that the reality is the total opposite. Input/immersion-based learners clearly reach higher levels of fluency in a shorter amount of time than people who try to learn using textbooks and classrooms. In fact, the slowest and least accurate way to learn any language is through the traditional classroom/textbook method. That's why people still suck at Japanese even after 4 years of university study, while you have people actually becoming fluent in 4 years using MIA/AJATT. Real exposure to Japanese will always be a superior route to acquisition above reading paragraphs of English text with little bits and pieces of Japanese peppered in.
>>457 >4 years People who learn by input put in way more work hours to get the same results that traditional methods do. It seems faster when you look at the calandar time elapsed because your putting in several work-hours per day into input or you aren't doing it at all. Everytime I've seen people try input with the same amount of work-time per week as input, they do worse in the same amount of calandar time. When I bring these cases up to input shitters, the response is always "you they didn't do enough input", but that means that input is slower in terms of work-time than the traditional method.
>>458 >People who learn by input put in way more work hours to get the same results that traditional methods do No, inputters have an easier time getting to the point where they can speak fluently and naturally because they're skipping the steps involved with unlearning bad habits that early outputters and classroom-based learners inevitably have to go through. Developing bad habits happens through early output and making mistakes, which traditional language learners are encouraged to do. Input based learners end up sounding more native and natural because they hold off on outputting until they've built up an intuitive internal language model which allows them to pick up on the noobish mistakes they would have made otherwise. Since they don't make the same noob mistakes traditional learners do when they first start outputting, they don't form bad habits in the first place. Early outputters burn incorrect Japanese into their muscle memory by making mistakes repeatedly. And if they're a classroom learner, then they're constantly being exposed to awful, incorrect gaijin Japanese as well. It corrupts their intuition for the language. They speak and listen to so much broken Japanese that the broken-ness of it starts to sound natural and normal to them. They then have to put in a ton of extra effort to unlearn their bad outputting habits. Input learners just repeat what they've heard natives say a thousand times before, which leads to a more natural result than trying to algorithmically synthesize output based on grammar rules.
>>459 In the amount of work it takes to learn one thing correctly by input you could have learned two things completely incorrectly any other way and corrected. And you won't actually be learning many things incorrectly if you have good sources. Also, the sub-type of input-meme approaches that specifically say you should never practice speech and writing just make you worse at speech and writing for longer, and make the overall effort less useful to anybody using the language for anything other than watching anime.
>>460 >In the amount of work it takes to learn one thing correctly by input you could have learned two things completely incorrectly any other way and corrected. What textbookfags don't understand is that you learn a lot by inputting that you won't learn anywhere else. Early outputters make a lot more mistakes than they realize - not just grammatically, but in their overall intonation, cadence, pronunciation, filler usage, and slightly awkward ways of phrasing things that are technically grammatically correct but still don't sound like how a native would say it. When inputters eventually start practicing output, they do a better job of picking up on these little subtleties which make them sound more native, stuff that textbookfags don't even know about. It's always obvious whether or not somebody has put in the time to immerse just by listening to them speak Japanese.
>>461 It's not like people who study don't practice. If there are things that you can only learn from exposure, then people who use the normal method will still learn it, and for everything else they will also learn it better. Only inputters deliberately deny themselves tools. Even if inputters are better at output when they start then other people are when they start, they wait so long to start that everyone else makes progress faster. Again, the input method takes so many hours of work and delays learning normal skills that you could learn everything twice with the same amount of work-time. And you don't even have to do that because you're greatly overstating the amount that bad habits pop-up and effect people.
>>462 One misconception that you seem to have is that you think inputters start off doing nothing but immersion from day one. Almost nobody does that. Most of us start off reading Tae Kim, taking classes, doing Genki textbook exercises, learning about copula and genetives and listening to Japanesepod101 podcasts, and all that good old noob stuff. Then, at some point or another, we discover Antimoon and AJATT and MIA, try out the input-based approach, and realize that immersion and i+1 sentence mining lead to much faster progress than continuing to do textbook shit after overcoming the beginner level. >Even if inputters are better at output when they start then other people are when they start, they wait so long to start that everyone else makes progress faster. Again, the input method takes so many hours of work and delays learning normal skills that you could learn everything twice with the same amount of work-time. Getting massive amounts of input is required for learning a language to fluency. You might be able to speed the process up a little bit by doing exercises, but getting thousands of hours of input is still a hard requirement. There's no shortcut here. There's no magical textbook or Duolingo exercise that you can do to go from zero to fluency without putting in shitloads of time actually exposing yourself to the reality of a language. These aren't programming languages; they're human languages, highly specific and abitrary in tens of thousands of little ways. No textbook could possibly hold all the information you need to get good.>>462
>>262 >>389 When it comes to the copular の, I think it's obvious (and not even controversial) that の can act as a stand-in the copula in certain situations, i.e. those where it would make sense to replace it with だった or である. So 子供の時 -> 子供だった時 works and is an example of the copular の, while 海の写真 -> 海だった写真 doesn't work so it isn't a copular の. 普通の人 -> 普通である人 works, so it's also copular の. Does that mean that の is actually a verb? No, I think that's just overcomplicating things. And the Japanese generally don't regard it as being a verb either, so I'd rather not go out of my way to think of の in different terms than actual native speakers of the language do. Also, it can be argued that the non-copular usages of の also act as a stand-in for other verbs besides the copula, e.g., 海の写真 -> 海[が写っている]写真. In both the copular and the genitive case, の acts as a stand-in for "hidden" verbs which relate the two nouns together. の is a particle that connects nouns together just because it can be replaced with verbs and still make sense doesn't mean that it's a verb in and of itself. It can't be used to end sentences like verbs can either which is another reason not to categorize it that way. I also think it's normal for people to stop consciously relating の to words like "copula" and "genitive" as time goes on, since you can just rely on your fluency in the language to understand things instead of parsing everything through the lens of English-based grammatical descriptions which are meant to apply to very broad concepts across all the languages in the world, and don't come close to capturing the specifics of the Japanese language. At some point, it's better to stop thinking of Japanese in English terms and start thinking of it in terms of itself. (Also, の definitely has more than 3 use categories, beyond the copula, nominalization, and genetive case. For instance, it also acts as a stand in for が sometimes, as in 興味のない話 and 日本語の不自由な外人さん. I also think that the use of の as a sentence-ending particle to express curiosity or add emphasis should be regarded as a use separate from the usual nominalization case, since it carries an emotional connotation whereas the other uses are emotionally neutral.)
>>466 It's not just that it alternates with other forms of the copula, it's that の can take a subject and therefore must be a verb(al predicate). It also is in allomorphic distribution with な. There are a whole host of historical reasons that it should be considered a form of the copula, i.e. it has been around in this function for longer than な and it was probably a form of the copula first before the genitive particle arose.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?