She had such a brilliant mind, we lost someone truly special. I’m coming back for another try at learning Japanese and I’ll miss her responses to my questions. R.I.P. 先生
Note for myself! ある：be - mother of all self-move words する：do - father of all other-move words *BASIC LAWS OF MOVE-WORD PAIR* 1. Ends in -す/せる = other-move（負けるー負かす、落ちるー落とす） 2. Ends in あ-stem + る = self-move（上げるー上がる、包むー包まる) [*exists (ある) in that state] 3. え-stem + る（=える) ：flips self-move to other-move and vice versa (売る->売れる、従う->従える) 4. む->める/ ぶ->べる/ つ->てる = always other-move Dolly-sensei’s lesson really is one of a kind, i feel both humbled and empowered after watching 😭😭 genuinely so mind-blowing how she can clear up all my confusion in the most logical and comprehensible way… i could never remember what the heck transitive and intransitive are, calling them self-move and other-move is so much easier to understand and actually makes so much sense! Thank you for the helpful lessons, these videos boost my motivation in studying Japanese a lot 🙇♂️
I'm going to have to revisit this one multiple times before it all sinks in, but this is extremely helpful. I was forever getting the two versions of the words mixed up!
I hope you all like this lesson. Some people might consider it a slightly "advanced" topic for this stage, but it makes a number of words fall into place that most people by this stage already know (like 出る/出す) and makes explanations of pairs like 上がる/あげる* (which I introduced last week) make much more sense. It also acts as a "peg" to hang new words on. Once you know how to recognize transitivity pairs, it is easier to remember both words, and not to get confused about what each word is saying. * When あげる means "give (upward)" the kanji is most often not used, so I wrote it that way here.
Sensei, I recently encountered a word 放つ which apparently is a 他 word. Maybe I understood your video wrongly. You stressed in the video that the honorary is む as 自and める as 他. Does it mean that sometimes the other honorary that are ぶ and つ can be wild cards too sometimes?
Hi! I would like to know, are there grammar books where I can find more information about Japanese grammar the way you teach it. I am interested in knowing things like do Japanese have a word for "self/other mover"? Thanks!
@@s1llysushi I recognize this is an old question, and the answer may have already been found. I still want to leave this here for future watchers/readers. The video creator can correct me if I'm wrong, of course. :) It seems this honorary rule should only be applied if pairs of verbs exist. From what I can tell, 放つ isn't part of a pair, so this "rule" wouldn't apply.
This woman was a Treasure. These lessons need to be archived for future Japanese learners. Her program should be adopted everywhere. Rest in Peace dear Cure Dolly, You were surely a wonderful woman to know.
I am once again speechless with that explanation. This is gonna boost my vocabulary a lot and help me to get an understanding on yet another topic. It's like the fog clearing from the language.
Actually if it is す ending and has a pair then it will be other-move regardless of anything else. E.g. 落ちる ・落とす. Same with あ-row+る endings. If they have a pair they will always be the self-move member.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Sorry for that, I left a comment when I watched like 4 minutes of the video, and then thought "wait what if all this will get explained later" and redacted it so it wouldn't be dumb from me.
I really like your calm voice dolly When im watching someone else lesson, i usually tend to panic alot And end up learning nothing But in your lesson i don't need to worry about that so ほんとに ありがとう
Thank you so much! I am very happy that I am able to help you. Some people don't like my voice and approach - but that may be because I am not jumping around trying to be exciting (I can't jump around really - I'm not one of those Boston Dynamics units).
I totally agree with you with this one. They don't have anything to do with the concept of transitivity, as it only refers to the feature of a verb where it can be used with a direct object. The japanese system actually kind of resembles the "pasiva refleja" system of romance languages and has semantically an active vs passive meaning. I will totally support you if you want to remove the terms "transitive / intransitive" only from this process.
Thank you! Yes indeed - only from this process. I certainly do not contest the fact that transitivity and intransitivity _exist_ in Japanese or that they can on occasion be useful terms to employ. Nor do I deny that they very largely _overlap_ with 自動詞 and 他動詞. But they are not the same concept and it is helpful to realize this, and if possible start looking at it as it actually is in Japanese from the beginning. It doesn't necessarily matter all that much in the early stages, but it's like getting the correct grip on a tennis racket from the start.
Revisiting these lessons, I just realized the reason why Cure Dolly's way of teaching works so much better than others is because she teaches it with higher order thinking. Instead of just telling us to memorize this, memorize that(lower order thinking), she actually shows the relationships and logic behind it(higher order thinking). In 3:41 the reason why this doesn't work that well(if at all) is because standard textbooks are teaching it in isolation. It just gives you a list of words to memorize instead of the underlying logic. On the other hand, Cure Dolly shows us that it's actually just the same word, and that it has a self-move and other-move form. Thank you Cure Dolly for teaching with higher order thinking!
Dolly-sensei, I can’t thank you enough for how much your videos and blog posts have helped me 🙇♀️ Certain concepts just didn’t sink in, I had to know how something really worked/its origins to understand… You’ve always explained things in a way that just made it so much clearer to me! Thank you ❤️
この授業もどもありがとう。The more I take your lessons to heart the more they make sense, together in a unified way. I'm so glad I accidentally found you, late but not too late for me.
This was a god-send! I've been doing my Anki cards and keep getting confused by the self-move and other-move version of the verbs. One of them happen to be the deru/dasu pair that you used as an example. This will definitely be useful moving forward as I learn new words. Rest in peace Dolly-sensei.
Wow. This is something I've struggled with for a long time, and utterly failed to memorize the transitivity pairs presented in textbooks. And you made it so much clearer in one video.
00:00 A very good introduction on why it is not accurate to say "transitivity". A surface explanation of 動詞 and how they work 04:23 ある & する: The fathers of all 動詞 pairs. OMG the drawings are so 可愛い it's illegal. 05:30 The first rule: する family, す and せる endings are Other move verbs 06:50 ある family rule: あ-stem + る endings are self move 08:09 Switch rule: え-stem + る flip Self-move Other-move either way. 10:25 Honorary rules
Thank you so much for contributing this timeline. There was an important pinned comment on this one, so I put it in the information section instead. Again, many thanks for your kind contribution.
I don’t really get the switch rule, can you explain it, is it basically how to switch a verb between self move or other move? Can I get an example maybe? Thanks sorry!
Once again - thank you soooo much! I’ve been studying, trying to study, for two years now. Why has no one ever made this clear to me before? You’re the best, Cure Dolly
I usually skip the very ending in video's of other TH-camrs, but here I can't. It would be very disrespectful to her graceful bowing. I must bow back. No, I WANT TO bow back. She deserves it.
Thanks dolly, your videos always help a lot. You dare to seek deeper patterns in a language where others refuse. Patterns like these dont just happen without structure in a language, they are either the result of an archaic grammar structure or the result of peoples innate tendency to regularize words.
Yes. These patterns are not "accidental" or something I made up. They are really there as we can confirm by seeing how regularly they recur. Japanese is particularly useful like this in that it seems to have a stronger tendency to regularity than, say, European languages.
This was enlightening. I am very familiar with transitivity and intransitivity, as it's very basic grammar that is studied in school, but I always felt that these definitions didn't exactly work for Japanese, now I finally understand why. Thank you very much!!
I wrote this article some time back learnjapaneseonline.info/2016/12/27/mastering-transitivity-pairs-remembering-japanese-transitive-and-intransitive-verbs-the-easy-way/ However, since this video is really an updated version of the article, the examples are mostly the same. I'll pop in a few examples here for you - you will probably have seen most of them at some point: 開く open (something) 開ける be open 立つ stand (up) 立てる stand (something up) とどく reach, arrive とどける send, deliver ならぶ be in a line ならべる line (things) up
Learning vocabulary I noticed that verb have different forms with some different meaning, and it was always "e" involving, I was trying to search in the net, maybe it's some rule or verb so called conjugations. But now you finally gave all the info about this issue in such clear and structured way!
Thank you. I am surprised that no one else explains this - though part of it I had to compute for myself so I suppose it isn't completely known to others yet.
Great explanation! The concepts you introduce are so helpful to learners. Self move and other move to describe verbs is so much easier to get than transitive and intransitive. While I refer to other materials for my grammar, your marerials are what I consider to be irreplaceable because you provide content that is uniquely your own and you provide a different point of view which has helped me grasp concepts which I havent been able to until now. Thank you and please keep it up!
Excellent as always Cure Dolly sensei. Until now I had no idea the difference between 出る and 出す. I always knew it had something to do with "exiting" or "going out". Thank you so much, once again. This week I'll become a Red Kokeshi patron, because you deserve it. Considering the ratio between dollar and BRL it's not cheap for me, but I think it's fair to help you with your maintenance and upgrades. Because you produce great content for us for free, so it's a proof that you have your heart in the right place =)
Another great video! I kind of came up with a similar explanation for myself noting that 自動詞 contains 自(myself) and 他動詞 contains 他(other), and this video shows I was actually quite close. And you give the keys for identifying the 自 and 他 versions of the verbs! Thanks a lot!
Yes - the terms I use are more or less a literal translation since 他=other 動=move 詞=word but of course 動詞 means "verb" (and "verb" is a move-word as opposed to a name-word). So we could read it as self-verb/other-verb. But the literal "self-move-word" and "other-move-word" seems to get at the root of the matter.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 I just fell into a trap. Assuming する was the mother of all other-move I applied it to 結婚する assuming it will be an other-move verb, which turned out incorrect. Is there any clue if a ~する verb will be "self" or "other"? I suppose the "move" character of する somehow gets absorbed by the noun that makes up the 〜する verb, as it often is of the form 〜をする, that is to say the する "moves" it's associated noun, is this correct?
@@androbi4550 「With する-verbs, we have to consider that a huge range of Japanese verbs come from Chinese and all of them come as nouns, and quite regardless of whether they are self-move or other-move there is only one way to "re-verbalize" them. Dropping the を (between the verb and the する) does technically change its "move-status". 勉強をする is an other-move construction, while 勉強する is self-move. Obviously the meaning is near-identical (very, very slight shift of nuance). However dropping the を turns the word into a "true suru-verb" and also allows it to be used as other-move in itself - as in (何々を)発明する. If we ask why is 勉強する etc are self-move when we established that する is inherently other-move (you have to be する-ing something) the answer is of course that any する verb is technically other-move - that is the mechanism by which it was re-verbalized is that we "do" the noun. However this is only technical because these are a wide range of naturalized verbs and can be either self-move or other-move in themselves.」とDolly先生が書きました。。
This is a good lesson to revisit. I've been adding words to my Anki after reading some manga and playing some video games in Japanese, and I recently noticed I have both 倒れる (to fall) and 倒す (to knock down) in there, and I'd been mixing them up. Now that I've revisited this lesson, it should be easy to remember. The す version can't mean falling, because it must be other-move.
Thank you so much for your lessons! It has been an incredible journey so far. This video was the first one that did not immediately “click” with me, but after some deliberation, I came up with the following. The self-/other-move and intransitive/transitive do in fact always match. Self-move verbs are always intransitive and other-move verbs are always transitive. Let us use the example from the video - 従う. 従うdoes not take a direct object - it always calls for the indirect object particle に and is never used together with を, which makes it intransitive by definition. Yes, the verb “to obey” _is_ transitive in English (it does take a direct object), but the verb 従うis clearly intransitive in Japanese. This is not an example of 自動詞 being incorrectly translated to “intransitive”, but rather an example of a transitive verb in English being an intransitive verb in Japanese. Having said that, I do find your explanation of 従う/従える very insightful because it shines a light on how Japanese “decides” whether a verb is transitive or intransitive. Transitivity/intransitivity is just a grammatical property of a verb that normally, in case of verbs like 従う, you would just have to memorize. However, the concept of 自動詞 and 他動詞 does not simply tell us if a verb is transitive or intransitive - it also provides the logic behind _why_ a certain verb is transitive or intransitive in Japanese. 従う affects/moves the one “obeying” and for that reason it is 自動詞, which tells us that it is intransitive and takes the particle に, as opposed to を. Because of that, I do agree with your preference towards the terms self-move and other-move, since they provide very useful additional information that the terms transitive/intransitive do not. Now, I am by no means an expert in Japanese, but merely a beginner student, so please feel free to correct any flaws in my reasoning. My goal is simply to make these concepts clear in my mind, which at this point the above explanation seems to achieve.
I think your explanation is good. I often say that grammar/structure does not really deal with "truths". It is simply a way of trying to describe _ex post facto_ a structure that already exists. There are descriptions that cover all (or at least as many as we need) of the actual operation of the language, and those that don't (like the textbook explanations). Of those that do, no one is "the truth". For example the zero pronoun is completely unnecessary to a native Japanese person. It is simply a description that works well for a speaker of a pronoun-dependent language like English, and covers more of the actual structure in a more understandable way than any other I know. And I admit that I sometimes cut corners and speak more "absolutely" than is strictly correct. That is because I am trying to lay out the best description and the best strategy for grasping structure with as little complexity (that does not directly conduce to that end) as possible. So yes, I was aware of the fact that 従う can be regarded as intransitive. I wasn't over-concerned because I really believe that moving away from the transitivity/intransitivity description of 自動詞 and 他動詞 is the best way to understand them. One problem that sometimes arises (as in your case) is that I approach the subject on the assumption that most learners are not intimately familiar with Western grammatical terminology beyond the most basic and _they shouldn't be learning it for the sake of Japanese_ because much of the time it is a very imperfect fit anyway. I agree though that transitivity/intransitivity are a reality in Japanese. But not one the learner actually needs to concern herself with. In your case, coming at it with clearly some facility in Western grammar, this level of extra explanation is helpful. For me it is always a trade-off between explaining these things in greater detail and keeping to the basics that the average learner actually needs. You'd be surprised what ends up on the digital cutting-room floor!
Thank you for your prompt response. Of course, at no point was I implying that the knowledge of “transitivity” is necessary or that there is a certain “correct” way to label these concepts. We are just trying to develop a framework in attempt to rationalize concepts of a more abstract nature that are intuitive to a native speaker. The zero pronoun is just a “crutch” (admittedly, a very clever one) to aid us on our way to that intuitive understanding and mastery. I concur, for a person not familiar with transitivity it may be perfectly clear right away, but in case if you are in fact aware of it some of the things stated in the video appear to be a little contradictory, which starts to raise questions about what is really going on in there. This is probably why I got slightly confused on my way to that “Aha!” moment, not because extra explanation was required. Coincidentally, my native language is not a European language and the concept of “transitivity” does not work in it the same way it does in English as well. Perhaps that is the explanation behind my reasoning in the previous comment - 従う being the way it is in Japanese is not as inconceivable to me as it may be to a native English speaker. And the terminology of transitivity just seemed like the most intuitive means to express it in an English speaking environment. In any case, it is finally clear to me now, which feels like an important step considering how confusing or contradictory some of the resources on this topic are (自撮し being mapped to things like passive expressions in English and so on). Once again, thank you for your time. You have been a great help.
Thank you again for your kind words and I hope I can continue to be of service to you. I did not at all mean to imply that you were saying those things - I just wanted to make my own position clear. It isn't a position that the average user particularly needs to know or would find useful (some would probably find my statements that we are not talking in terms of "fact" or "truth" but of "useful and non-useful descriptions" confusing and troubling). I also think your reasoning is sound and creates a useful path for you. To what extent Japanese "transitivity" does or does not correspond to European transitivity is a complex question and not one that we need to answer for our practical purposes. But you did need some steps toward a description of the two and that is absolutely fine. The model you create is not at variance with the facts (unlike many from sources that should know better) and therefore can operate as a useful tool. That is what matters. Please remember that I am always here to help in any way I can.
So 分かる means "sort things out within oneself" and 分ける mean "sort things out (outside oneself)." That makes so much more sense than "to understand" and "to separate/sort!"
I remember watching this 6 months ago and being so lost, but now i realize that this is definitely on the top 5 of most important videos of the channel
whoever's struggling with this here are clues to help you identify them: Particles Are a Clue Self-Move Verbs: The thing moving or changing is marked with が. Other-Move Verbs: The thing being acted upon is marked with を, and the person performing the action is the implicit or explicit subject. Does the verb need a direct object? If yes → It’s an other-move verb. Example: 開ける (to open something). You need something to open (e.g., a door). If no → It’s a self-move verb. Example: 開く (to open). It doesn’t need an object because the subject (e.g., the door) is doing the opening on its own.
Hello! Thank you for teaching us how to tackle our problems with japanese through a very different point of view from what is immediately available on the internet. I wanted to ask two questions here, two questions to which I can’t seen to find a satisfing answer online. I found the following sentence online: 多肉植物そっくりのケーキが食べるのをためらう美しさ (For context, it’s about some cakes so pretty, that you don’t feel like eating them. ) I do understand the translation of this sentence, what I really am having trouble with, is in how to correctly apply the logic that you have taught us in your videos. So here is one question. If I strip this sentence down to its most basic elements, it becomes the following: ケーキがためらう Is that correct? If so, does “ためらう”work like “分かる” in the sentence “本が分かる”? In the sense that, if “本が分かる” means the book is understandable to the unknown topic Then does ケーキがためらう means the cake is hesitance inducing to the unknown topic? That is one question. My second and final question is about the use of the particle "を" with the verb "ためらう". I’ve seen the "を" particle with intransitive, or self-moving verbs before, such as "渡る" and "通る" and I can understand the use of the “を” in those cases. But not so much here. If my understandment is right, the verb “ためらう” is NOT acting on “ケーキが食べるの” but instead, just like in the sentence “戦いを挑む”, the particle を is specifying through which means the action manifests itself? To explain myself better: 戦いを挑む” doesn’t mean “to challenge a fight” but, to challenge someone by the means of/through a fight Is that correct? If so, does “を”in “食べるのをためらう”means to induce hesitance through the act/idea of eating the cake? Does the “を” particle, when used with a Self-moving verb, always have this function of showing through which means a action was performed? Or is this way of looking at it all wrong? I guess that became four questions in the end. Anyhow, to whoever is reading this, be it Cure Dolly sensei or anyone else, thank you for your time!
The を here needs to be understood in the light of the fact that Japanese words do not necessarily work exactly like their supposed English "equivalents". In English we say "Hesitate _to_ eat". Japanese doesn't even have prepositions like "to". So we have a word that is applied directly. Literally 食べるのをためらう means "hesitate the eat-thing" (=the thing of eating). "Hesitate" in English doesn't work this way. It can't be applied directly. ためらう can. We have to learn to see Japanese _as_ Japanese rather than something that is supposed to use exactly the same expression strategies as English. Now for the rest of the sentence, the overall subject is not ケーキが it is ∅が. How do we know this? Well I suggest working through this lesson and then see if you can tell me: th-cam.com/video/uot49Z85wNs/w-d-xo.html
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Oh wow, thank you for answering so fast! So... I’ve watched the video, and I’ve been pondering about it. To be completely honest. I’m not even too sure if your question to me was “who is ∅が” or “why it is ∅が. So... 多肉植物そっくりのケーキが食べるのをためらう美しさ I believe that the ∅が is “美しさ” Or perharps,if that is incorrect, it is a ommited “あなた”(the one looking at the cake) if there is a ommited “あなた"... My insecurity, I believe comes from me not being completely able to grasp how ためらう works . Thank you for your explanation on that btw! It was very helpfull. It’s just that, looking at “本が分かる” as “the book is understandable” instead of “I understand the book” is very new to me, and I’m not really sure how to interpret other verbs. For example, should I look at it like: as for someone, they hesitate the eat-thing? Or maybe: As for someone, the beauty hesitates the eat-thing? Perharps I’m once again looking at japanese through english lenses? I’m sorry if that’s the case. To finish it off, I am now very unsure as to what the “が” in “ケーキが” is binding to... Is it “食べる”? thought that“ケーキが食べる”could only ever translate to “the cake eats” but maybe that’s just me yet again treating it like english. Thank you for everything! Edit: I've been thinking about this throughout the day, and I think the 2 sentences here are: ケーキが多肉植物そっくりです and 美しさが食べるのをためらう but I really cant understand what that “が” is doing in the middle of the sentence.
How does the duality of self-move/other-move relate to active/passive voice (of Western grammar)? I imagine there may be many cases where there is overlap (self-move ~ active || other-move ~ passive), but other cases that don't correlate. (Not that I'm going to ponder this all that much - I certainly agree that there's no need to twist Western grammar concepts to force them into Japanese.)
This is an interesting question. It is well known that there is a strong tendency for English speakers to have difficulty in telling the function of self-move verbs from that of the receptive and I believe that we can mostly eradicate that problem by recognizing the receptive for what it is. They are really getting confused because they believe that the receptive is passive (in the English sense) and there _is_ as you suggest more possibility of confusing self-move verbs with (real) passive expressions. This isn't the focus of my work so I am just musing here, but one thing that comes to mind immediately is that because English has nothing exactly like self-move words dictionaries are more or less forced to describe them in ways that are ambiguous. For example, in this video I cited 包まる as meaning "be wrapped" which is exactly how most E-J dictionaries define it. That _sounds_ like a passive expression or at least can sound like one. But it doesn't mean "be wrapped" in the sense of "it was wrapped (=someone wrapped it)", but of "it was wrapped in tissue paper (=it existed in a state of being wrapped in tissue paper)". I had to put a note on the screen display to disambiguate this point because English doesn't have a very easy vocabulary for states of this kind at least not for expressing them as verbs. But this is very much what I mean when I say that self-move verbs are ある-like. They very often describe states of being, but describe them with verbs. In the end this possibly has its roots in a rather different perception of the concepts of "being" and "doing". Not only does Japanese express many subjective human conditions as actions of the thing causing them rather than of the person experiencing them, but it also tends to express as "actions" things that English prefers to express as states-of-being. Self move words of course run the gamut from very active (running or jumping) to very "static" (being wrapped, being piled up etc., meaning existing in those states). At its more static end of the scale we could say that self-move verbs are _more_ passive than the English passive (using the term in a generally descriptive rather than a strictly grammatical sense). I also get the feeling (I don't argue for this because it wouldn't serve much purpose) that Japanese has a tendency to regard existential states and self-movement as primary. Obviously some actions (like selling in my example) are the primary meaning of a word - but there is somehow a sense that things are and therefore do, rather than do and therefore are. Although I represented ある and する as Eve and Adam for a western audience, I tend to think of them more as Amaterasu Omikami and Susanoo no Mikoto. But I am probably becoming far too fanciful now!
A quote from a Western philosopher, Descartes, is "I think, therefore I am." ... Perhaps a more existential philosopher might propose "I am, therefore I think."
This gets back to the idea that "Coffee is likeable." sounds a little awkward to an English speaker. If one were asked to make a sentence with the adjective 'likeable' instead of the verb 'like', an English speaker might actually say "I think coffee is likeable." or perhaps "I find coffee to be likeable." because the tendency to have a person or ego as the subject is so ingrained in the English language.
That is very true isn't it? In fact I think a possible reason that English likes the "transitive/intransitive" definition is that it is something that happens comfortably in English. This applies best to the more "active" end of the scale where 自動詞 (self-move words) look most like ordinary English transitive verbs: running, jumping laughing, entering, exiting etc. At the more "static" end, English has no real equivalents to things like 包まる or 重なる so it has to use workaround phrasal definitions like "be wrapped" or "be piled up" when what they actually are is verbs meaning "exist in wrapped/piled up state". This is not to say that English is missing the concept - it can express pretty much the same thing in its own way - but it is a rather different way and shows the same tendency to remove (or avoid) "agency" from non-sentient subjects as your examples of "likeable".
This makes so much sense for a lot of the verbs out there, but the only problem I see is that sometimes a lot of the "honorary other verbs" for example 持つ and 持てる are not applicable to this rule, along with a lot of others Every other rule is perfect, but this is the only one that there seems to be a lot of exceptions for
so helpful! from your video, I guess くる and くれる are similar pairs. I would have never thought of that because the concepts aren't really linked in English!
The first two laws are super useful, but I don't see what we gain from the flip-switch law. The -eru form of the verb flips the verb either to a self-move or other-move verb. But to know which one it flips to we need to know whether the u-form is a self-move or an other-move verb. That's at least what the 売る --> 売れる example in the video showed me. Let's suppose the u-form is the self-move version of this pair. Don't we then already know - without the use of the seemingly redundant third rule - that the other side of the pair has to be the other-move version?
14:00 Here, you describe how "to obey" is transitive in English, but that's not the case in Japanese. In Japanese, 従う takes the に particle, so by definition, it is *intransitive* not transitive. The に particle points to who you're obeying, but you're not doing anything to them so they're not the direct object.
This is the entire reason she made a point to differentiate between the words transitive and intransitive and the Japanese 他動詞 and 自動詞. 従う is self move, but the English word is transitive. The English definition for transitivity doesn't exactly match the definitions for self move and other move in Japanese. The point of my comment is that your comment is agreeing with the video so i didn't want anyone reading this to get confused about what was said in the video.
One of her related replies up on the comments (from CD) : "I often say that grammar/structure does not really deal with "truths". It is simply a way of trying to describe ex post facto a structure that already exists. There are descriptions that cover all (or at least as many as we need) of the actual operation of the language, and those that don't (like the textbook explanations). Of those that do, no one is "the truth". For example the zero pronoun is completely unnecessary to a native Japanese person. It is simply a description that works well for a speaker of a pronoun-dependent language like English, and covers more of the actual structure in a more understandable way than any other I know. And I admit that I sometimes cut corners and speak more "absolutely" than is strictly correct. That is because I am trying to lay out the best description and the best strategy for grasping structure with as little complexity (that does not directly conduce to that end) as possible. So yes, I was aware of the fact that 従う can be regarded as intransitive. I wasn't over-concerned because I really believe that moving away from the transitivity/intransitivity description of 自動詞 and 他動詞 is the best way to understand them. One problem that sometimes arises (as in your case) is that I approach the subject on the assumption that most learners are not intimately familiar with Western grammatical terminology beyond the most basic and they shouldn't be learning it for the sake of Japanese because much of the time it is a very imperfect fit anyway. I agree though that transitivity/intransitivity are a reality in Japanese. But not one the learner actually needs to concern herself with. In your case, coming at it with clearly some facility in Western grammar, this level of extra explanation is helpful. For me it is always a trade-off between explaining these things in greater detail and keeping to the basics that the average learner actually needs. You'd be surprised what ends up on the digital cutting-room floor!"
車が動きます。 (Hint: What is moving on its own?) Translation: "The car moves." Verb: 動きます (うごきます) - Self-Move. Analysis: The car (車) is moving on its own (marked with が). There is no actor mentioned because the focus is on the natural movement of the car. This is a self-move verb because the action happens naturally.
Is there a structural difference bewteeen うれる as in thr receptive form of うる. "ほんはうれる," whuch, if i did it right is "the book is sold (by someone)" And うれる as in the intransitive version or うる. "ほんはうれる" or "the book is selling (itself)".
Question about your example of self-move vs intransitive in Japanese: I looked up 従う and found that all of the example sentences used the に particle. I might have a low sample size here but if that is the usual case doesn’t that mean that it’s as correct to call it intransitive as it is to call it a self move verb? I see the benefit of thinking in self-move/other-move, of course; you might fall into a trap of thinking too “englishly” when you know one of the definitions but have to intuit the other of the transitivity pair. What worries me though is particles getting complicated if you take the transitivity marker for granted since you might be tempted to use the を particle to mark the leader or rules when they’re actually an indirect object (or prepositional object?).
SORRY THIS COMMENT IS UNFINISHED, AS I REALISED MY (FRENCH) DEFINITION OF TRANSITIVTY MIGHT DIFFER FROM WHAT IS USED, I'M A BIT CONFUSED AND THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE MIGHT NOT MAKE SENSE, SO ANYWAY. Transitivity/Intransitivity matches with other-move/self-move most of the time. But as said, there are cases when it doesn't just as with "follow". As to whether use を or に, the transitivity concept is basically the same as in english, so it often works the same way whether to use を/に. (This is a sidenote, I don't think it's useful to read it, it's about the different ways of talking about transitivity, which I think are diffrent in french and english. They call 従う intransitive and that's incoherent as it does uses I think my definition of 'transitivity' differs from what I'm seeing in english : (As for what I learned in french class: * Transitive verbs : -directly transitive (object, equivalent to using を) {put, eat} -indirectly transitive (need a preposition, equivalent to using に) { * Intransitive verbs : - just do not take anything {sleep, rain, go, come...} And so when it's said "intransitive" it's the same as my "transitive direct" which might confuse me. But I think thinking about things the way I explained makes a bit more sense as a whole... But if we're just here to say "Transitive = able to take OBJECTS and therefore intransitive = can't take objects it's coherent as well (although some verbs take no objects, but don't even take anything else anyway : you can can neither talk [sth] or sleep [sth], but you can talk [to sb] and yet can't sleep [to ...], so these are not exactly the same type of verb, and yet are joined together in the "Intransitive" group. Anyway, but I guess the system I described gets to be more efficient, and made it easier for me to understand を/に as it's basically the same as "COD" and "COI" in french.
You are totally correct. 従う is indeed intransitive and I don't think that author of video is correct is this case. Maybe she is correct in general case, but practically speaking, it's doesn't help a lot. In my native language, russian, we have this thing called reflexiveness of verb (as well as transitivity). So I naturally match "self-verbs" to reflexive ones, but even in that case I cannot find video helpfull.
Thank you so much for the informative video. I just have one question. Maybe I’m not understanding the flip-switch formation rules correctly, but it seems like you can form the “switched” form of those verbs by changing to the -e stem and adding -ru. Isn’t this the same method for forming the potential form for godan verbs. So in your example 売れる could mean both “can sell” (as an other-move verb) and “sell” (as a self-move verb). Is that right?
That is absolutely correct. In fact the kanji for yang and and yin - 陽 and 陰 - represent the sunny side of a hill and the shadowed side of a hill respectively which seem to be the primal symbols. I did it the way I did (admittedly playing a little fast and loose with the symbolism) because on a white ground the dark colors look "stronger".
PS - I realize that the idea that yang is "stronger" than yin is questionable given their balance and equivalence - but my purpose in the video was mnemonic rather than metaphysical.
I make thumby-uppy for the android :) Ok, no joke, yesterday, I was wondering what "transitive", and "intransitive" verbs really meant. I was planning on asking you about it, and...this video shows up. I know that the most common question raised is "Do androids dream of electric sheep?", but do they read minds too? ;)
It's weird the way I've never seen anyone point out the limits of the "transitive/intransitive" analogy. I am sure lots of people learn about English transitivity just to get a (mis)understanding of Japanese. How curious that you were planning to ask me that very question. No I don't read minds. Mareep mareep.
This has been my exact intention from the start, but I have to confess that I have made almost not progress with the book version. I did mean to write the book along with the lessons, but I haven't had enough time and the backlog is getting big! Also I am wondering about formats. Unfortunately it is still prohibitively expensive to do books in color and I use color a lot to help clarify things - so I would either have to work out ways to reduce all the display elements to black and white or else do the book digital-only - and I know a lot of people find a "real book" more convenient. Either way all the visuals would have to be completely re-designed for book form. So it's a big job - but I'm still planning on it!
mmmmh, this is a very useful lesson (I finally know why two different verbs can share the same kanji). However, there is something I didn't quite understand in this lesson, and that's the difference between the use of these two kind of verbs. What's the concrete difference in grammar or construction of the sentence of these verbs?
Hi cure dolly, thanks for the great lesson. I wasnt able to focus about the transitive and intransitive topic in english during my school days so its really hard to grasp this lesson. one question first came to mind is that are all japanese verbs have other-move and self-move? Like, the verb slap in English can mean I slap someone or I slapped myself. Does Japanese have that where it's not either? 2nd, is about the concept of other move and self-move. Self move is about me as a subject making others do, correct? If I lose, I will use the word makeru. If I defeat someone, I'll use the word makasu. But does the causitive form have the same concept and meaning? If so, then makesaseru as the causitive form of makeru would be like.. . . I have let him defeat me? And I can't use makasaseru to imply that I will defeat him? Or can it still be implied that way? Lol, I think I'm confusing myself with this. I still can't quite grasph the concept of this other move and self move. I might need more examples. Sorry again for the confusing question. Thanks again for the reply in advance
Hey Cure Dolley, I mostly understood the difference between self move and other move verbs. But i struggle quite a lot with nouns that can be turned into a verb by adding する. To me there does not seem to be any consistency in what the meaning becomes, once you add する to a noun. For example when i learned the word 失望, I thought that the meaning of 失望する is "to disappoint". But when looking up sentences with this word i found sentences like: 家族を失望させる Which made believe that 失望する means: "to be disappointed". To me 失望する seems to be a self move verb even tough する should be a other move verb. But a word like 新築する seems to be a other move verb since i found sentences like: 家を新築する The meaning of 新築する seems to be "to build(something new)" instead of "to be newly built" Am i missing something or do you have to learn what the meaning of every word becomes, once you add する to it?
Let's take three points here: 1. There is only one way to turn a noun into a verb and that is with そる - there is no way of doing it with ある. 2. The reason for this is that any verb is further along the ある←→する scale toward する than a noun which can only "exist" before it "does" anything. Therefore: 3. A する-verb (verb formed from a する-noun + する) can be either self-move or other-move, but if it can be self-move in a natural and easy way (and self-move is natural in a wider range in Japanese than in English) it is more likely to be, because the other-move form will take the causative sister of する, which is させる. So if you wanted to say "cause someone to be disappointed" you would say 失望させる not 失望する。 4. Verbs that indicate states of being that are actually untranslatable into English are common and natural in Japanese. In English we can only translate them quasi-passively or quasi-adjectivally in ways like "be disappointed". This is not structurally what they mean in Japanese. We are saying "do disappointed". There are lots of straightforward (non-する) verbs that do this and it is natural for する verbs to do it too. This is so odd to the English mind that I made a video on it called "Untranslatable Japanese". I think it will help here: th-cam.com/video/wLrK_YxdPoM/w-d-xo.html You may also want to look at this post (it is open to the public) on the ある←→する scale: www.patreon.com/posts/37971040
PS - it helps in all this to realize that Japanese tends to regard the ある end of the scale as "primary" while English tends to regard the する end as primary. In this Japanese is more logical as being necessarily precedes doing.
PPS: 新築する on the other hand is going to be other-move because buildings don't build themselves. If we want to say that the building "got built" (by someone) we need the receptive helper th-cam.com/video/cvV6d-RETs8/w-d-xo.html, not a self-move verb.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Thanks for the answers, my main question was if you could somehow tell whether a する verb is self move or other move. But guessing from your answers there seems to be no easy answer. If I understood you correctly, the best thing I can do is assume する verbs to be self move, unless it would not make sense or I find sentences where it is used as a other move verb, like in the 新築する example.
@@dolfos7571 I think the real answer is that one needs to become familiar with the way Japanese "thinks" rather than trying to translate back and forth from English, which "thinks" quite differently. This is why I say that structure only takes us so far. It is a support for immersion, not a substitute for immersion. There is nothing random about the cases you cite - they all make sense so long as you are thinking Japanese-ly.
Hello!! Thanks for your videos they really help! I was having some issues with understanding the differences between passive/active forms and transitivity and intransitivity. After studying for a few hours I think I finally got it, but I wanted to ask if these rough definitions in English are accurate for all the below sentences! - Present TR ドアを開ける Open the door - Present INTR ドアが開く The door opens - Past TR ドアを開けた Opened the door - Past INTR ドアが開いた The door opened - Past Passive TR ドアは、私に開けられた As for the door, it got opened by me - Past Passive INTR 私にドアが開かれた The door was opened for me - Past Causative TR 先生が私にドアを開けさせた （先生は) Teacher caused (made) me to open the door - Past Causative INTR 先生はドアが開かせた Teacher caused/made the door to open - Past Causative-Passive TR (shortened) 先生は「私が」私の友達にドアを開けされた Teacher forced/made me open the door for my friend - Past Causative - Passive INTR (shortened) 先生は、私にドアが開かされた Teacher forced/made the door to open for me
Mostly right (beyond perpetuating the old fallacy of misnaming the receptive as "passive"). However: 先生はドアが開かせた → 先生がドアを開かせた The door didn't do せる (the head-verb), the teacher did and so gets が. Out of interest you "fudged" the teacher with non-logical は, - what logical particle were you thinking she took (none is possible, though not correct)? 先生は「私が」私の友達にドアを開けされた again the one doing される isn't you, it's the teacher. You have to be marked by に as the receiver of される (and therefore the doer of 開ける). I think this is enough to get you started. The main problem is that you are still a little mesmerized by the "conjugation" myth and not realizing that receptive and causative sentences have _two_ verbs done by two separate individuals (causative-receptive sentences have _three_ verbs two of which are done by the same person and one of which isn't. Also, mistaking the receptive for passive is not trivial because it conceals the fact that someone is doing the receiving (れる・らりる). I recommend going back over the course to the receptive (yes, I call it passive in the title because of the common error) and causative videos and getting firmly in your mind how they actually work. After that you could try again. If you do I recommend using logical particles only as slipping in non-logical は just fudges the issue. If you don't understand the difference between logical and non logical particles, please watch lesson 8b The playlist is here: th-cam.com/play/PLg9uYxuZf8x_A-vcqqyOFZu06WlhnypWj.html
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Its funny I've watched most of your videos and I should have changed the English descriptions to be "correct" as per your classes. But these sentences were written for classes via my school where obviously, the traditional teaching terms are used. If it weren't for your lessons which I started using over a year ago, I would still think は and が were mystical creatures that could be used in for all sorts of reasons! Ive been sharing your videos with anyone I know studying for that reason! `Thanks for the reply and the corrections!
And yes, I think when working out how to say something I need to think more about who's doing the action before considering everything else. Marking them with ga.
@@matthewdessner Yes - and also what is the head-verb which determines the overall logic of the sentence. When this is a helper it is still the head-verb because it comes last. The action represented by the verb it is attached to is subsidiary. It is failing to explain this that makes things so confusing.
I've had a hard time keeping these pairs straight, as to which is the self move verb and which is the other move verb. They are so similar. The one tactic I've been using is learning them with the を or が particles. For example を開けるand が開く. This tactic is like what I have to employ in French to remember the noun gender. Learn the noun with the un or une. So far it works for me, but since I'm a novice at Japanese. I don't know if this is a good method to stick with? Your tactics are going in my arsenal for learning these.
The fortunate thing is that the majority of pairs are governed by the three (and a half) laws and after a time す endings just _feel_ transitive, for example. The minority that could flip either way we do just have to learn. You could learn them with が and を. My only caveat here is that it is very important structurally to be aware that logical particles belong to the nouns they attach to, _not_ to verbs. This isn't just a quibble - it is a very important fact that standard grammar usually ignores. However if you keep fully aware of this point there is no harm in attaching the particle to the verb for mnemonic purposes only.
Dolly Sensei, It seems that 生む and 生まれる are presented as an other-move/self-move pair. But given how umareru sentences are constructed, could 生まれる actually be 生む in receptive helper form? Like in 山田さんに女の子が生まれた , it seems (生ま)れた is a pair of verbs, rather like those in your video on the passive myth. Is this possible, or am I just seeing things? And if this is possible, is this a helpful way to see 生まれる?
I think this makes perfect sense. In fact one could postulate that the standard J-E definition of 生まれる as "to be born" - is another example of trying to twist Japanese into English (which admittedly is hard for J-E dictionaries not to do as they are trying to give concise definitions for English speakers). Really it could be seen as receiving the action of giving birth.
Hi Dolly sensei, I'm back again with another question. Since する is the father of other move verbs. I was wondering if +する (to make a verb) can fall into this system of identification too? If not, are there any other ways to do so?
One can make any noun that can reasonably represent an action into a verb by adding を plus する. There is a particular class of nouns (suru-nouns) that have the super-power of being allowed to drop the を when attaching suru - th-cam.com/video/8AXyP5GeJFg/w-d-xo.html - the point is that even when they are allowed to drop を, it is still logically there. The noun is the object of the verb する - this means that every suru-verb (suru-noun+する) has an object and therefore is technically other-move. So yes, it comes under the "father" domain.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Thank you always for replying!!! I fully get it now! You've been a constant reminder and help to me on my journey to learning japanese. ❤️ i'll make sure to watch every vids up to the latest ones.
When adding words to my Anki deck, is it better to keep word pairs (or larger groups, like with the 開 verbs) completely separate and make a card for each word; to have one card that has both words on the card somewhere (i.e. have both 出す and 出る on the front, or perhaps have 出る on the front and 出す noted as the other version on the back); or to have two separate cards, but also note the other version on the back? I am wary of inflating my deck with similar cards, but I could not tell you why other than a gut feeling. Maybe it seems like more work, but I'd rather do what's best in the long term.
You can do whatever works for you and seems most efficient. If you find that you _aren't_ remembering certain word in practice then you may need to split combined cards etc. This is the dynamic card strategy:th-cam.com/video/pFdyn27a09Y/w-d-xo.html
I wish you had used the more correct terms as subject and object instead of 'self' and 'other' as that might confuse a lot of listeners thinking that self means only "Me" and not some other person as a self. For eg. その犬はその音を聞いて耳をピンと立てた (Here dog is 'self'/'subject' and his ears are the 'other'/'object' ) This e.g. can other wise also be said in using intransitive as 犬はその音を聞いてピンと立った。 (Here the 'dog' is the 'self'/'subject' and stands himself and not his ears. hence, 立つ). Otherwise, great explaination as always. Thanks a lot.
The reason she uses 'self-move verb' and 'other-move verb' is because those are the literal-translations of the corresponding native-Japanese categories of the two verb types: 自動詞 (じどうし, lit. 'self-move word'), and 他動詞(たどうし, lit. 'other-move word'). Subject and object are general grammatical/semantic concepts, whereas self-move and other-move are much more specifically two particular types of Japanese verbs.
Would 割る [waru]/割れる[wareru] be an exception to the 2nd law? Waru is the Other-move version, while wareru is the self-move version. Is this the only exception to the rule, or is it a situation when the 3rd rule takes priority over the 2nd rule? Another example is: - 張る[haru]/腫れる[hareru] (similar meanings/related etymology, but different kanji)
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 So the rule basically has only 1 exception. Neat! These rules in your video aren't taught in conventional textbooks. Did you find these rules yourself? (This video was very helpful, btw)
There isn't because it wouldn't really serve any purpose. We can attach the receptive helper for "receive being read" or the potential helper verb for "be (literally do) readable" but reading isn't actually a state or self-move action that a piece of written material can do.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Sorry to reply already again but I wanted to ask about your worksheets, and the contact page on your site/blog seems to be broken. I could only find two worksheets when I looked a few weeks ago, and now I can't find any. Are the worksheets I found still "current"? And is there any provision for checking answers, or answer sheets, etc? Thanks
Hello Cure Dolly sensei! The lesson is very clear, and I like the logic in this other move / self move concept. In terms of concept, I'd like to ask you about verbs like nomu or taberu. If I say ビールお飲む is it self-move or other-move? The verb moves myself as I am drinking, so it should be self-move? But at the same time, there is an impact on the beer so I am confused... If other-move verbs express moving something else, then when I drink a beer am I not moving it? am I seeing too much into this? Would you have an example for nomeru used as an other-move verb? Also, I can't help but notice the similarity of form with the potential form that we studied before (nomu ->nomeru I can drink). According to this lesson, nomu would be self-move and nomeru is other-move. Is there a relation between this other-move nomeru form and the potential nomeru form? And most importantly, is there a risk that I get confused between the two forms or should the context be enough to understand which one is being used? Thank you!
Anything with を in it is other-move, since を marks the direct object and only other-move verbs have direct objects. 飲む like many words is both self-move and other-move (you can drink beer or you can just drink). But where there is an を you know it is functioning as other-move.
Taking the "difficult" ones (that don't come under the む→める or ぶ→べる rule) we have ones like 入る go in 入れる put in, 開く be open or open by oneself (the door opens) 開ける open something (I open the door), 売る sell (as in sell hot cakes) 売れる (sell as in sell _like_ hot cakes) 育つ grow up 育てる raise. I would say that Japanese gives a certain precedence to self-move, so that if a thing can very naturally be self-move (like opening, entering, growing up) then the un-flipped version will usually (not always) be self move. Whereas in a case like 売る obviously selling is something we do to something and the thing itself "selling" (well or poorly) is secondary. So in this case the self-move is the flipped version. With this in mind plus the other rules most cases are covered but a minority we just have to get used to.
I came here from your lesson on 開く vs 開ける. This video was very helpful on its own, but after watching it I can't understand how the rules in this video apply to the two words I was initialy confused about: Rule (1) あく / あける - There is no する in this pair, so which word is the other-move word? Rule (2) あく / あける - There is no ある in this pair, so which word is the self-move word? Do these words just not obey these rules?
As Dolly cannot answer you anymore, I will try to be of some help. No, the rules 1 and 2 are not applicable to the 開く/開ける case as neither of the two words has あ-stem or さ/せ kana ending. The 3rd rule works here, though it doesn't tell us, which of the two is the self-move and which is the other-move. So in the end this kind of information needs to be incorporated into the process of learning these words. Such cases are discussed starting from 11:00 in the video.
Maybe it’s my misunderstanding of Japanese, but isn’t 従う still an intransitive? In English, it’s definitely transitive, but in Japanese, when you say who or what you are 従う-ing you use に after it, and a Japanese verb is only transitive if the object being acted upon (or being obeyed in this case) is followed by を.
Well let's take the example of 預かる vs 預ける which is perhaps a better example and makes the problem clearer. This is a classic self-move/other move pair working by the Second Law. But both are clearly transitive. One means "care for/look after" and the other means "leave in someone else's care". The point here is not that one is transitive and the other intransitive, but that 預ける is further toward the する end of the ある・する scale than 預かる.
Okay but I saw this sentence: 「 暑くなり始めた。」translated as 「It began to get hot」. Why is 始める used here? And not 始まる? The weather change supposedly happened on its own, why are we using the する form here?
Thanks for your lessons, I've been learning a lot from them. A question: How does 出す in this lesson relates with 出す in lesson 12? Here, you said that it means to take/bring something out, but in lesson 12, you said that it can give some "intensity" to a verb, like in なきだした (Burst out crying). Does taking something out have a relation to a "erupted" action or it's just two different meanings to one word?
It is the same word. Like many basic Japanese words it can be used on its own as a stand-alone verb or can be attached as a helper to another verb (to the い-stem or the て-form). This forms a kind of compound verb. So なきだす literally means something like put out or throw out crying (not really translatable into English). PS - it's a bit advanced for this level, but the い-stem of a verb is actually a noun, so なき is grammatically a "thing" that can be put out - th-cam.com/video/_qj9ZkAC2tE/w-d-xo.html (ignore this if you aren't curious because it is a lot further along in the course).
The only one that comes to my mind is 開く (self open) vs 開ける (other open). there's actually a lesson on this very word pair th-cam.com/video/QEInorgR6Rs/w-d-xo.html After much searching, I have found a む -> める pair - 緩む (become loose) and 緩める (loosen something)
What about 間違う and 間違える? I suppose that 間違う would be the other-move(as deduced from your 従う& 従える example) whilst 間違える would be the self-move verb. But I don't think I understand them in action quite yet. Could you please elaborate on this a bit?
Strictly speaking 間違う is self move and therefore cannot take a を=marked direct object. However this rule is so often broken these days (in this particular case) that in practice there is no real difference. Rather the way almost no one knows the difference between "who" and "whom" any more in English (honestly if anyone on the internet ever goes so far as to use "whom" at all they get it wrong more often than not).
@@vanessameow1902 Oh I should say that I am not saying that people _ought_ to know how to use "whom". English has lost nearly all its case-markers so it is not surprising that one of the last remaining ones is on its way out. While I deprecate the idea that every widespread mistake is a part of linguistic "evolution" (most aren't), this is clearly part of a long-term historical pattern. I/me we/us he/him she/her all seem safe, but since they now only duplicate a task performed by word-order (needed for everything else) they no longer serve any real function.
@@vanessameow1902 Oh and I ought to add that while 間違う is often used where 間違える ought to be it does not work the other way around. When you are saying that something is in a wrong state you can't use 違える.
Here’s an interesting “pair” 暖かい 温める Different kanji while both have basically the same meaning, but one’s an adjective and one’s a verb. Warm and warm something else up. 温める is of course the other-move verb, but does it have a self-move variant? Or is 暖かい the only real partner, despite being an adjective?
It is not too unusual for the same word-base to form both adjectives and verbs. We have 悲しい 悲しむ for example and each one makes its own noun-form in the regular way 悲しさ 悲しみ Which seem to be duplicates but one is formed from the adjective (using the regular さ nominalizer) and the other from the noun (using the regular い-stem nominalizer). There is a self-move variant of 温める and very predictably (under the Second Law) it is 温まる
In many cases a potential helper does not make sense with the particular verb but in some cases there is ambiguity which is dealt with as ambiguity always is: th-cam.com/video/gcbbSW-KuTQ/w-d-xo.html
I'm getting a little confused here. The え-stem plus る means the potential form right? So when I see it here, I get confused. For example, 読む means read, but 読める means "able to read" (i.e. readable). So does that make 読める the "other move" verb in a self/other move pair or is it simply the potential form of the word. I think using the "stem" terminology here makes things more confusing. If you had just said words that end in "eru" and "aru" it wouldn't be so confusing.
You are right here. These are not stems in the technical sense - I was using the term by way of trying to help people to understand the form of the words but maybe I shouldn't have done that because obviously we are not talking about the stem-system here (the stems are formed by the final kana - in this case る - as always)> I think a lot of people have found this to be an easy way of talking about it but I can see that it can cause confusion with the more technical meaning of "stem". I will adjust this in the book.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Cool thanks for the clarification. I had thought the stem system was strictly for verbs so when I saw "stems" here it definitely threw me for a loop.
It took some time to sink in, but once I realized it's *exactly* the same in Hebrew I had no more problem understanding it. Here's an explanation, if there are some Hebrew speakers, it will make this subject understood in seconds: טרנזיטיב אלה פעלים בעברית שמקבלים מושא ישיר, אינטרנזיטיב אלה פעלים שלא מקבלים מושא. איך אנחנו יודעים אם פועל מקבל מושא ישיר או לא? אנחנו פשוט מנסים להגיד שם עצם אחרי הפועל. לדוגמא - לאכול תפוח, אכלתי פיצה, אמרתי שלום, זרקתי כדור. כל הפעלים האלו מקבלים מושא ישיר, וככה גם ביפנית - りんごを食べる、ボールを投げた (האחד של להגיד שלום קצת שונה למרות ש言う דווקא *כן* מקבל מושא ישיר עם を, הוא פשוט יכול לקבל גם と ואפילו יש משפטים, ולא מעט מהם, ש言う מקבל גם と וגם を). אוקיי, אז בואו ניקח את הפעלים לטוס ולהטיס, וננסה להצמיד להם מושא ישיר - לטוס מטוס. נשמע רע, נכון? כי אי אפשר לטוס מטוס. אפשר לטוס בתוך מטוס, אבל אי אפשר לטוס מטוס, כי זאת פעולה שאנחנו עושים בעצמנו ולא מבצעים על אובייקט אחר. כמו שדולי הסבירה, זה החלק של הある verbs. לעומת זאת, להטיס מטוס נשמע טוב וזה עובד. כי להטיס אנחנו עושים לאובייקטים אחרים. זה החלק של הする verbs. אז מה שהסברתי עכשיו - אחד לאחד ביפנית. ממה שאני שמתי לב ביפנית יש הרבה יותר פעלים שהם ある, ושבעברית יותר נפוץ להשתמש בתארים, אבל זה כן עובד באותה צורה. עוד זוגות פעלים לדוגמה - לשעמם/להשתעמם, להרדים/להירדם. עכשיו אם אנחנו כבר פה ויש לכם כח - עוד משהו. שימו לב שגרסה סבילה לפעלים יש (בצורה הגיונית מאוד) רק לפעלים שמקבלים מושא ישיר. רק ככה אפשר להפוך בין התפקידים, שכן בפעלים שלא מקבלים מושא ישיר אי אפשר להחליף בין מושא לנושא, שכן יש רק נושא. לדוגמה, אני מטיס מטוס, המטוס הוטס על ידי. אני טס במטוס... אין לו פועל שני, כי רק אני מבצע פעולה פה, ולא על שום אובייקט. אני נרדם, אני הרדמתי את חברה שלי משעמום, חברה שלי נרדמה על ידי משעמום. אז שימו לב ששוב, ביפנית זה אותו דבר - פעלים שיקבלו פאסיב הם פעלים מסוג する, שמקבלים מושא ישיר. זהו! מקווה שהבנתם וזה עזר לכם להתגבר על מכשול בדרך שאני בטוח שמתסכל מלא דוברי אנגלית (כי באנגלית אין להם את זה בכלל בכלל, פשוט פועל אחד להכל).
Please explain to me "to stand" 立つ If tsu eding verbs are aways other move, how come tatsu means to stand? 立てる means to stand something up.. (other move) 立つ shouldn't be self move? Im confuse..
Hi, this is an incredible video that seems like it will really help my understanding of many verbs, and when to use certain particles, or not. I'm a bit confused by the honorary 4th law though. At first I thought it meant all む ending verbs should be self-move, but then I remembered 噛む, which my dictionary says is transitive (other move). Same with 飲む... actually, can you give an example of what you mean please? Thanks
No - like the other laws, this _only applies_ to self-move/other-move pairs. So when a word has a む-ending and a める-ending version which form a pair the む version is the self-move and the める version other-move. There are few if any exceptions to this.
This is an interesting question. The way Japanese handles subjective things like feelings and perceptions is a little different from the way English does. Generally speaking if something _causes_ a subjective state (including ability) we attribute that state to the non-human cause. We say 日本語ができる which literally means "Japanese does be-possible (in relation to me)". The same with desires, as in クレープが食べたい - literally "crepes are eat-want-making (in relation to me). You can add the "in relation to" part explicitly with は but often we don't. In any case we are not talking about an objective condition of the thing, but its relation to our subjective condition. However it is grammatically described as an action or state of the thing. And it is intransitive because the thing isn't "targeting" me, it is just that way in relation to me. An adjective (like たい can't be transitive anyway. If this sounds convoluted, it actually isn't. It is no more strange than the English way of looking at it - it just isn't the way we are used to. I talked extensively about this in lesson 9 th-cam.com/video/vk3aKqMQwhM/w-d-xo.html and more in lesson 10. So, 分かる is one of those many actions that is usually attributed to what English would regard as the "object" so in English it is transitive, but in Japanese it is self-move. We say 本が分かる ="book exists in state of being understandable" so this is a self-move word (and an ある-like verb describing a state of existence). But we say 事実を知る "(I) know the fact" so this works exactly like English "know", with the knower as the subject and the fact as the grammatical object. Now there is a subtler point here, which I think you may have grasped. And that is that although the action has a grammatical object (marked by を) and so is transitive, how is the knower "moving" the book? And the answer to this, I believe lies in what we have said about the way Japanese regards subjective states. First let us recall that "move" is a broad term because which includes anything a verb can do, including "existing-in-a-state" (I even proposed - half seriously - the term self-stand verb for "static" self-move verbs in the notes to this video on KawaJapa) learnjapaneseonline.info/2018/06/24/3-facts-make-japanese-transitive-and-intransitive-verbs-easy/ Then let us recall that in a wide range of cases of subjectivity. including emotional reaction and knowledge, the subjective condition is attributed to the thing (outside the person) that causes it. So we see that the act of knowing a thing becomes a part of the quality of that thing and so "moves" it (incidentally while this may be considered to be rooted a pre-scientific "animist" way of seeing things, quantum theory suggests that the outside world may actually work that way). And this is precisely why the association between self move/other move with intransitive/transitive has been possible at all. Generally if a sentence uses を (there is an object), the verb will be other-move. So perception-verbs are both other-move and transitive - とりを見る, とりを聞く. But interestingly the _ability_ to perceive them is usually intransitive and self-move とりが見える, とりが聞こえる. So something quite subtle is happening here. Many "subjective" verbs are treated as actions of what English regards as the object. Those that aren't are treated as English treats them, as actions of the perceiver, but still as having some effect on the state of the object and thus other-move.
Some of the other-move verbs are like the る helper verb versions of their self-move counterparts. This is interesting, so I'm wondering if there's a reason for it, or if it is simply a coincidence.
I don't think there is a direct reason. While for explanatory convenience I say that え-stem +る flips transitivity we shouldn't look at the "flipping" as an operation done to a word. The two variants of the word exist in their own right as independent related words. The fact that the え-stem +る variant resembles its partner with the potential helper seems to be a kind of "coincidence". Sometimes the two meanings exist at the same time, and they are not the same thing. An example is 脱げる which is the self-move sister of 脱ぐ - "take off (clothes etc.)" meaning "come off/fall off (clothes etc.)". This is not the same as the identical-looking 脱げる which is 脱ぐ's え-stem + the helper verb る and means "can-be-removed (clothes etc)". Context usually clarifies what is intended or we have to apply the ambiguity rules: th-cam.com/video/gcbbSW-KuTQ/w-d-xo.html
"Why" is perhaps a difficult question - why does 犬 mean "dog" but 猫 mean "cat" come to that. But it does follow a clear and memorable pattern 捕まる is the only one that is self-move therefore it has the self-move meaning. It is also the only one that has the archetypal self-move ending あ-row+る.
I always disliked the English dictionary translations of these verbs and found them extremely confusing, especially when they contradict themselves. From the beginning I rephrased them as: to [verb] X + X [verb]s (on its own) in my flashcards, where X is an unspecified entity or group. For your examples with selling, standing, exiting and obeying: - to sell X + X sells (on its own) - to stand X + X stands - to exit X + X exits - to obey X + X obeys I wonder what the reason is for the dictionaries to do this so weirdly?
I think your X + X notation is essentially saying "self-move" isn't it? And yes this makes much more sense. I think dictionaries do it weirdly because they are looking for English equivalents, which have the advantage of being quick and readily understandable (if you know English grammar terms) but the disadvantage of being only partially accurate.
What about 助ける/助かる? I see it often used by someone who was helped; I get that if someone helps me and I say 「助かった」 I didn't make them move, but I didn't move myself either, and with 「助ける」 I move myself to help other.
This is one of the inadequacies of translation. As I explained in another video, there are many verbs in Japanese that can only be translated into English as passive or pseudo-passive but are not passive in Japanese. 助かる as "be helped, be saved" but in fact it is something more like "do helped" just as "分かる" is "do understandable"., Both are self-move. 助ける is other-move - helping someone else. For more on this "untranslatable Japanese" that forces English pseudo-passivity, see this video: th-cam.com/video/wLrK_YxdPoM/w-d-xo.html
I just found an exception, must be a rare くverb flipper, つく to be attached and つける to attach. I guess being attached is the most basic form, the original as a lot of things are naturally attached to each other.
This is the regular u/eru (う-row to え-stem + る). flip pattern of the Third Law 8:10. As you say, the state of being attached appears to be the base form.
Lots of other-move words end in る. I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the three laws. They only relate to _move pairs_ that is, words that have both a self-move and an other move version. When that is the case the one ending in あ-stem +る, if there is one, will be the self-move member (because it is related to ある). It doesn't say anything about る when it isn't on the あ-stem. It certainly doesn't say that a verb ending in る can't be other-move. In fact the "honorary 4th law" is that in む・める pairs, the one ending in める is _always_ the other-move word. In any case 用いる isn't part of a move-pair. Don't worry it can take a little time to get used to. It might be a good idea to watch the video again. It's quite a lot of information to take in in one pass.
Ah, I see, cheers for the explanation. I didn't realise it was just for pairs, or just the a stem. I'll watch it again. I have found the rules help me learn some pairs already that I used to mix up.
I'm so glad it is helping. When I say it is only for pairs I am keeping on the safe side! Most す-ending verbs are other-move but there are a (very) few exceptions, like 話す, and most あ-stem + る verbs are self-move. So you can actually use that as a rule of thumb, but be aware that there are a few exceptions. But when it comes to pairs there are no exceptions that I can think of.
I have one question about 売れる, as you said, this can mean that something sells itself but it can also be the potential form of 売る (which means something like sell-able). If I see 売れる in a sentence, how can I tell which one is it? Is it just about context? Or is there not much of a difference between the two? 本が売れる can mean "The book sells (itself)" or "The book is sell-able / The book can be sold"
Interesting question. In many cases there is no structural way of knowing so it is a matter of context. In many cases the two are not that different so it isn't too important anyway (and I would say that in most of these cases it is most likely to be the self-move verb - when we are talking about a book or other article's sales "performance" - however if there is any ambiguity the difference is only a subtle shade). When a person is directly involved as in さくらは本が売れる we clearly mean the potential - in English this would be "Sakura can sell books" but in Japanese the literal meaning is something like "re Sakura: books are sellable". In these cases as I have explained here th-cam.com/video/qcOhHmU0znI/w-d-xo.html the potential is not expressing abstract possibility - 可能性 - of a thing but its possibility in relation to an individual's ability. Since the self-move verb _is_ self-move it would make no sense to invoke a person. Where a person is not involved we could be talking about a book's saleablity rather than its actual performance but that would normally be clear from context.
Hi Dolly Sensei, Is it ever possible for a noun to take を before a self-move verb ? I read that 泳ぐ is classified as self-move, i.e. 私が泳ぐ. So if I want to say I swam 30 kilometres, can I use 私が三十キロ 'を' 泳いだ? '30 kilometres' sounds to me like a direct object, no? Incidentally, the example where I read this leaves out the を altogether i.e. 私が三十キロ 泳いだ, thus making 三十キロ seem like some sort of modifier, like counter-nouns.
First of all I would advise taking "transitivity" information in dictionaries with a big grain of salt. They will tell you that things like 読む and 食べる are "transitive" for example - they can in fact work both as self-move or other move (we can eat yakisoba or we can just eat). Probably intransitive is a little truer here as swimming 30 kilometers is not actually doing anything _to_ the 30 kilometers. Even though it is structured that way in English and also in Japanese if we use を. Using it as a modifier probably makes slightly more sense, though both forms are used. Generally the "object" of a verb of movement is the place of movement (as opposed to the destination, marked by に or the direction marked by へ) so 公園を歩く is "walk the park".
Hi Dolly Sensei, So if I want to say ‘selling like hot cakes’, I’d say 飛ぶように売れている yes? But if I want to say a product ‘got sold’ like hot cakes, should I bring in the receptive helper verb? ie 飛ぶように売られた
That is correct. 売れる is essentially the self-move version of 売る. The action performed by the sold thing itself. Using the receptive makes no material difference to this and is not idiomatic, so why use it? Learning Japanese isn't only about what we _can_ say, but what we _do_ say if we are using natural Japanese (and we learn this from immersion, not lessons). If we want to say "got sold" in a more normal context though "where's that car?" "It got sold." then 売られた is correct. More about how to use natural (not just technically possible) Japanese here: th-cam.com/video/1FdhiQH8TS8/w-d-xo.html
I'm still a bit confused when it comes to that flip-switch law. When looking at む - める for example, do you mean that when there is a pair of verbs where one ends in む and the other in める, that the latter is the other-move one? And that the same applies to pairs that end in ぶ - べる and つ - てる, where the ones that end in an える sound are the other-move verbs?
先生, just a minor correction: "To obey" is a transitive AND intransitive verb both in English, German and Portuguese, it all depends on the object of the action which could either exist (e.g. The soldier obeyed his orders) or not (e.g. The soldier obeyed). Clearly there's no such concept in Japanese but I just thought it would be wise to add this addendum to your statement at the 14:05 minute mark.
People sometimes complain that I do violence to English grammar and occasionally I do. It can be difficult to avoid without going into a lot of unnecessary detail on a language I am not teaching. Incidentally even speaking of "to obey" does violence to English since it is based on the notion that the dictionary form of English verbs is the infinitive as it is in French or German, but it isn't. It is the non-past just like Japanese. If I were trying to represent English accurately I would never say things like 歩く means "to walk" (it doesn't. It means "walk"). Since representing English accurately is not my aim I let the common misuse stand.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 I completely understand. By the way, thank you for the great lesson, even though I'm not a beginner per se, I found myself learning a lot of new and interesting information. I even thought I had found a blind spot on the rules with 止める and 止まる but surprisingly they don't stray very far at all.
I'm very happy to be of help. 止まる・止める follow the standard "あ-row+る (aru-ending) is the self-move verb rule with the "める-ending verbs are usually other-move" tendency thrown in as a bonus (this usually applies to む→める flips, of course but is also a general tendency for める-ending verbs to be other-move.
@@chicoti3 I was hoping you would address what she says at 14:00. It seems to me that 従う is actually intransitive in Japanese, since it uses に and doesn't take a direct object. English verbs commonly are both transitive and intransitive, but I think she was specifically making a point with the transitive usage, so I didn't really see an issue there. I wonder if you agree
@@DANGJOS Transitivity is related to the verb having an object or not, not to if that object is direct or indirect. Moreover, I wouldn't really say the distinction between direct and indirect objects exist in Japanese since there are no prepositions, the elements that define indirect objects. But even though we can call 従う transitive, I don't think we should use that nomenclature since that doesn't really say much about a Japanese verb seeing as most verbs can be used with and without an object. Ex: 命令に従いなさい！ さっさと従いなさい！ I believe making the distinction between 自動詞 and 他動詞 is much more pertinent given the nature of Japanese.
I'm keeping reasoning on those rules, which are indeed quite useful; to better remember them I was looking for examples, and I got a doubt: are those rules universal, or just for transitive/intransitive verb pairs? I'm thinking about verbs like 「引っ越す」, which sounds quite intransitive and it's marked as that on dictionaries ("I moved last week", I'm not moving anything else or anyone else): is that because it isn't a pair, or there is again something lost in translation?
The rules only apply to self-move/other-move pairs. There is quite a strong tendency for す-ending verbs in particular to be other-move, but it certainly isn't universal. 話す is a common mostly self-move example as is 引っ越す as you say. I would comment out of interest that 引っ越す is really a compound of 引く and 越す and that 越すis in fact mostly other-move but this is still only an example of a tendency. The rule is not really applicable outside of pairs.
Thank you again, Cure Dolly-sensei, for this amazing lecture. I have a question- when a verb is "transitive", does it at least mean I can use を with it? So, does it makes sense to use an accusative with it?
She had such a brilliant mind, we lost someone truly special. I’m coming back for another try at learning Japanese and I’ll miss her responses to my questions. R.I.P. 先生
Still haven't succeeded, huh?
Note for myself!
ある：be - mother of all self-move words
する：do - father of all other-move words
*BASIC LAWS OF MOVE-WORD PAIR*
1. Ends in -す/せる = other-move（負けるー負かす、落ちるー落とす）
2. Ends in あ-stem + る = self-move（上げるー上がる、包むー包まる) [*exists (ある) in that state]
3. え-stem + る（=える) ：flips self-move to other-move and vice versa (売る->売れる、従う->従える)
4. む->める/ ぶ->べる/ つ->てる = always other-move
Dolly-sensei’s lesson really is one of a kind, i feel both humbled and empowered after watching 😭😭 genuinely so mind-blowing how she can clear up all my confusion in the most logical and comprehensible way… i could never remember what the heck transitive and intransitive are, calling them self-move and other-move is so much easier to understand and actually makes so much sense! Thank you for the helpful lessons, these videos boost my motivation in studying Japanese a lot 🙇♂️
Thanks this helped me a lot
Dolly Sensei is a huge reason behind my motivation to continue to learn this language. RIP and i hope to make her proud one day with my japanese
I'm going to have to revisit this one multiple times before it all sinks in, but this is extremely helpful. I was forever getting the two versions of the words mixed up!
Yes, it's worth going over it a few times. Very helpful for learning.
I hope you all like this lesson. Some people might consider it a slightly "advanced" topic for this stage, but it makes a number of words fall into place that most people by this stage already know (like 出る/出す) and makes explanations of pairs like 上がる/あげる* (which I introduced last week) make much more sense. It also acts as a "peg" to hang new words on. Once you know how to recognize transitivity pairs, it is easier to remember both words, and not to get confused about what each word is saying.
* When あげる means "give (upward)" the kanji is most often not used, so I wrote it that way here.
Sensei, I recently encountered a word 放つ which apparently is a 他 word. Maybe I understood your video wrongly. You stressed in the video that the honorary is む as 自and める as 他. Does it mean that sometimes the other honorary that are ぶ and つ can be wild cards too sometimes?
Hi! I would like to know, are there grammar books where I can find more information about Japanese grammar the way you teach it. I am interested in knowing things like do Japanese have a word for "self/other mover"? Thanks!
@@s1llysushi I recognize this is an old question, and the answer may have already been found. I still want to leave this here for future watchers/readers. The video creator can correct me if I'm wrong, of course. :)
It seems this honorary rule should only be applied if pairs of verbs exist.
From what I can tell, 放つ isn't part of a pair, so this "rule" wouldn't apply.
This woman was a Treasure. These lessons need to be archived for future Japanese learners. Her program should be adopted everywhere. Rest in Peace dear Cure Dolly, You were surely a wonderful woman to know.
I am currently transcribing all of dolly lessons into a cliff notes type book. When I am done I will post a link to dload it on these videos.
Did you ever finish it?
OMG. Once again, I'm left a bit speechless. Months of battles ended in 15min.
Wow! I’ve been developing my own sense of this rule for half a year and I’ve struggled a lot but this video have just sorted everything out.
I am once again speechless with that explanation. This is gonna boost my vocabulary a lot and help me to get an understanding on yet another topic. It's like the fog clearing from the language.
Actually if it is す ending and has a pair then it will be other-move regardless of anything else. E.g. 落ちる ・落とす. Same with あ-row+る endings. If they have a pair they will always be the self-move member.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Sorry for that, I left a comment when I watched like 4 minutes of the video, and then thought "wait what if all this will get explained later" and redacted it so it wouldn't be dumb from me.
I really like your calm voice dolly
When im watching someone else lesson, i usually tend to panic alot
And end up learning nothing
But in your lesson i don't need to worry about that so ほんとに ありがとう
Thank you so much! I am very happy that I am able to help you. Some people don't like my voice and approach - but that may be because I am not jumping around trying to be exciting (I can't jump around really - I'm not one of those Boston Dynamics units).
kek
I totally agree with you with this one. They don't have anything to do with the concept of transitivity, as it only refers to the feature of a verb where it can be used with a direct object. The japanese system actually kind of resembles the "pasiva refleja" system of romance languages and has semantically an active vs passive meaning. I will totally support you if you want to remove the terms "transitive / intransitive" only from this process.
Thank you! Yes indeed - only from this process. I certainly do not contest the fact that transitivity and intransitivity _exist_ in Japanese or that they can on occasion be useful terms to employ. Nor do I deny that they very largely _overlap_ with 自動詞 and 他動詞. But they are not the same concept and it is helpful to realize this, and if possible start looking at it as it actually is in Japanese from the beginning. It doesn't necessarily matter all that much in the early stages, but it's like getting the correct grip on a tennis racket from the start.
Revisiting these lessons, I just realized the reason why Cure Dolly's way of teaching works so much better than others is because she teaches it with higher order thinking. Instead of just telling us to memorize this, memorize that(lower order thinking), she actually shows the relationships and logic behind it(higher order thinking).
In 3:41 the reason why this doesn't work that well(if at all) is because standard textbooks are teaching it in isolation. It just gives you a list of words to memorize instead of the underlying logic. On the other hand, Cure Dolly shows us that it's actually just the same word, and that it has a self-move and other-move form.
Thank you Cure Dolly for teaching with higher order thinking!
Dolly-sensei, I can’t thank you enough for how much your videos and blog posts have helped me 🙇♀️ Certain concepts just didn’t sink in, I had to know how something really worked/its origins to understand… You’ve always explained things in a way that just made it so much clearer to me! Thank you ❤️
この授業もどもありがとう。The more I take your lessons to heart the more they make sense, together in a unified way. I'm so glad I accidentally found you, late but not too late for me.
This was a god-send! I've been doing my Anki cards and keep getting confused by the self-move and other-move version of the verbs. One of them happen to be the deru/dasu pair that you used as an example. This will definitely be useful moving forward as I learn new words.
Rest in peace Dolly-sensei.
R.I.P. キュアドリー先生..
(Just wondering, what decks do you use?)
@@Blobmob I'm using Core 2k/6k Optimized Japanese Vocabulary.
@@milesparker557 oh ok thx so much!
Wow. This is something I've struggled with for a long time, and utterly failed to memorize the transitivity pairs presented in textbooks. And you made it so much clearer in one video.
00:00 A very good introduction on why it is not accurate to say "transitivity". A surface explanation of 動詞 and how they work
04:23 ある & する: The fathers of all 動詞 pairs. OMG the drawings are so 可愛い it's illegal.
05:30 The first rule: する family, す and せる endings are Other move verbs
06:50 ある family rule: あ-stem + る endings are self move
08:09 Switch rule: え-stem + る flip Self-move Other-move either way.
10:25 Honorary rules
Thank you so much for contributing this timeline. There was an important pinned comment on this one, so I put it in the information section instead. Again, many thanks for your kind contribution.
I don’t really get the switch rule, can you explain it, is it basically how to switch a verb between self move or other move? Can I get an example maybe? Thanks sorry!
I really enjoy your lessons. They are both informative and funny. I can't wait to get to the end!
Once again - thank you soooo much! I’ve been studying, trying to study, for two years now. Why has no one ever made this clear to me before?
You’re the best, Cure Dolly
I usually skip the very ending in video's of other TH-camrs, but here I can't. It would be very disrespectful to her graceful bowing. I must bow back. No, I WANT TO bow back. She deserves it.
I simply can not close the tab until class is dismissed.
Calm down
@@HowManyRobot same
you have no idea how much you've helped me in this video , thank you so much!! I'm so grateful to you!
Thank you for commenting. I am very happy to help.
Thanks dolly, your videos always help a lot.
You dare to seek deeper patterns in a language where others refuse.
Patterns like these dont just happen without structure in a language, they are either the result of an archaic grammar structure or the result of peoples innate tendency to regularize words.
Yes. These patterns are not "accidental" or something I made up. They are really there as we can confirm by seeing how regularly they recur. Japanese is particularly useful like this in that it seems to have a stronger tendency to regularity than, say, European languages.
This clears up a lot! Thanks so much.
I am happy to be able to help. Thank you for your kind appreciation.
This was enlightening. I am very familiar with transitivity and intransitivity, as it's very basic grammar that is studied in school, but I always felt that these definitions didn't exactly work for Japanese, now I finally understand why. Thank you very much!!
Thank you! I am glad I could help.
What a truly fantastic explanation.
the uru and ureru example helped me a lot, I knew what they meant but now I know the reason behind it and I have a more clear structure in my mind.
Very helpful. I'm not very clear on the える flipping - though I understood your example. Do you have an accompanying article with a few more examples?
I wrote this article some time back
learnjapaneseonline.info/2016/12/27/mastering-transitivity-pairs-remembering-japanese-transitive-and-intransitive-verbs-the-easy-way/
However, since this video is really an updated version of the article, the examples are mostly the same.
I'll pop in a few examples here for you - you will probably have seen most of them at some point:
開く open (something) 開ける be open
立つ stand (up) 立てる stand (something up)
とどく reach, arrive とどける send, deliver
ならぶ be in a line ならべる line (things) up
Learning vocabulary I noticed that verb have different forms with some different meaning, and it was always "e" involving, I was trying to search in the net, maybe it's some rule or verb so called conjugations. But now you finally gave all the info about this issue in such clear and structured way!
Thank you. I am surprised that no one else explains this - though part of it I had to compute for myself so I suppose it isn't completely known to others yet.
Wow, I think the first two laws alone are really useful. The idea that these ending come from する and ある never crossed my mind, but this really helps.
Yes the first two laws alone cover a large proportion of all self-move/other-move pairs.
Great explanation! The concepts you introduce are so helpful to learners. Self move and other move to describe verbs is so much easier to get than transitive and intransitive. While I refer to other materials for my grammar, your marerials are what I consider to be irreplaceable because you provide content that is uniquely your own and you provide a different point of view which has helped me grasp concepts which I havent been able to until now. Thank you and please keep it up!
I will. Your words inspire me to keep going.
Excellent as always Cure Dolly sensei. Until now I had no idea the difference between 出る and 出す. I always knew it had something to do with "exiting" or "going out". Thank you so much, once again. This week I'll become a Red Kokeshi patron, because you deserve it. Considering the ratio between dollar and BRL it's not cheap for me, but I think it's fair to help you with your maintenance and upgrades. Because you produce great content for us for free, so it's a proof that you have your heart in the right place =)
Thank you so much! I am very happy that my work is helpful to you. I love helping people in their Japanese adventure!
Another great video! I kind of came up with a similar explanation for myself noting that 自動詞 contains 自(myself) and 他動詞 contains 他(other), and this video shows I was actually quite close. And you give the keys for identifying the 自 and 他 versions of the verbs! Thanks a lot!
Yes - the terms I use are more or less a literal translation since 他=other 動=move 詞=word but of course 動詞 means "verb" (and "verb" is a move-word as opposed to a name-word). So we could read it as self-verb/other-verb. But the literal "self-move-word" and "other-move-word" seems to get at the root of the matter.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 I just fell into a trap. Assuming する was the mother of all other-move I applied it to 結婚する assuming it will be an other-move verb, which turned out incorrect. Is there any clue if a ~する verb will be "self" or "other"? I suppose the "move" character of する somehow gets absorbed by the noun that makes up the 〜する verb, as it often is of the form 〜をする, that is to say the する "moves" it's associated noun, is this correct?
@@androbi4550
「With する-verbs, we have to consider that a huge range of Japanese verbs come from Chinese and all of them come as nouns, and quite regardless of whether they are self-move or other-move there is only one way to "re-verbalize" them. Dropping the を (between the verb and the する) does technically change its "move-status". 勉強をする is an other-move construction, while 勉強する is self-move. Obviously the meaning is near-identical (very, very slight shift of nuance). However dropping the を turns the word into a "true suru-verb" and also allows it to be used as other-move in itself - as in (何々を)発明する.
If we ask why is 勉強する etc are self-move when we established that する is inherently other-move (you have to be する-ing something) the answer is of course that any する verb is technically other-move - that is the mechanism by which it was re-verbalized is that we "do" the noun. However this is only technical because these are a wide range of naturalized verbs and can be either self-move or other-move in themselves.」とDolly先生が書きました。。
This is a good lesson to revisit. I've been adding words to my Anki after reading some manga and playing some video games in Japanese, and I recently noticed I have both 倒れる (to fall) and 倒す (to knock down) in there, and I'd been mixing them up. Now that I've revisited this lesson, it should be easy to remember. The す version can't mean falling, because it must be other-move.
Thank you so much for your lessons! It has been an incredible journey so far.
This video was the first one that did not immediately “click” with me, but after some deliberation, I came up with the following.
The self-/other-move and intransitive/transitive do in fact always match. Self-move verbs are always intransitive and other-move verbs are always transitive. Let us use the example from the video - 従う. 従うdoes not take a direct object - it always calls for the indirect object particle に and is never used together with を, which makes it intransitive by definition. Yes, the verb “to obey” _is_ transitive in English (it does take a direct object), but the verb 従うis clearly intransitive in Japanese. This is not an example of 自動詞 being incorrectly translated to “intransitive”, but rather an example of a transitive verb in English being an intransitive verb in Japanese.
Having said that, I do find your explanation of 従う/従える very insightful because it shines a light on how Japanese “decides” whether a verb is transitive or intransitive. Transitivity/intransitivity is just a grammatical property of a verb that normally, in case of verbs like 従う, you would just have to memorize. However, the concept of 自動詞 and 他動詞 does not simply tell us if a verb is transitive or intransitive - it also provides the logic behind _why_ a certain verb is transitive or intransitive in Japanese. 従う affects/moves the one “obeying” and for that reason it is 自動詞, which tells us that it is intransitive and takes the particle に, as opposed to を.
Because of that, I do agree with your preference towards the terms self-move and other-move, since they provide very useful additional information that the terms transitive/intransitive do not.
Now, I am by no means an expert in Japanese, but merely a beginner student, so please feel free to correct any flaws in my reasoning. My goal is simply to make these concepts clear in my mind, which at this point the above explanation seems to achieve.
I think your explanation is good. I often say that grammar/structure does not really deal with "truths". It is simply a way of trying to describe _ex post facto_ a structure that already exists. There are descriptions that cover all (or at least as many as we need) of the actual operation of the language, and those that don't (like the textbook explanations). Of those that do, no one is "the truth".
For example the zero pronoun is completely unnecessary to a native Japanese person. It is simply a description that works well for a speaker of a pronoun-dependent language like English, and covers more of the actual structure in a more understandable way than any other I know.
And I admit that I sometimes cut corners and speak more "absolutely" than is strictly correct. That is because I am trying to lay out the best description and the best strategy for grasping structure with as little complexity (that does not directly conduce to that end) as possible.
So yes, I was aware of the fact that 従う can be regarded as intransitive. I wasn't over-concerned because I really believe that moving away from the transitivity/intransitivity description of 自動詞 and 他動詞 is the best way to understand them.
One problem that sometimes arises (as in your case) is that I approach the subject on the assumption that most learners are not intimately familiar with Western grammatical terminology beyond the most basic and _they shouldn't be learning it for the sake of Japanese_ because much of the time it is a very imperfect fit anyway. I agree though that transitivity/intransitivity are a reality in Japanese. But not one the learner actually needs to concern herself with.
In your case, coming at it with clearly some facility in Western grammar, this level of extra explanation is helpful. For me it is always a trade-off between explaining these things in greater detail and keeping to the basics that the average learner actually needs. You'd be surprised what ends up on the digital cutting-room floor!
Thank you for your prompt response.
Of course, at no point was I implying that the knowledge of “transitivity” is necessary or that there is a certain “correct” way to label these concepts. We are just trying to develop a framework in attempt to rationalize concepts of a more abstract nature that are intuitive to a native speaker. The zero pronoun is just a “crutch” (admittedly, a very clever one) to aid us on our way to that intuitive understanding and mastery.
I concur, for a person not familiar with transitivity it may be perfectly clear right away, but in case if you are in fact aware of it some of the things stated in the video appear to be a little contradictory, which starts to raise questions about what is really going on in there. This is probably why I got slightly confused on my way to that “Aha!” moment, not because extra explanation was required.
Coincidentally, my native language is not a European language and the concept of “transitivity” does not work in it the same way it does in English as well. Perhaps that is the explanation behind my reasoning in the previous comment - 従う being the way it is in Japanese is not as inconceivable to me as it may be to a native English speaker. And the terminology of transitivity just seemed like the most intuitive means to express it in an English speaking environment.
In any case, it is finally clear to me now, which feels like an important step considering how confusing or contradictory some of the resources on this topic are (自撮し being mapped to things like passive expressions in English and so on).
Once again, thank you for your time. You have been a great help.
Thank you again for your kind words and I hope I can continue to be of service to you. I did not at all mean to imply that you were saying those things - I just wanted to make my own position clear. It isn't a position that the average user particularly needs to know or would find useful (some would probably find my statements that we are not talking in terms of "fact" or "truth" but of "useful and non-useful descriptions" confusing and troubling).
I also think your reasoning is sound and creates a useful path for you. To what extent Japanese "transitivity" does or does not correspond to European transitivity is a complex question and not one that we need to answer for our practical purposes. But you did need some steps toward a description of the two and that is absolutely fine. The model you create is not at variance with the facts (unlike many from sources that should know better) and therefore can operate as a useful tool.
That is what matters. Please remember that I am always here to help in any way I can.
So 分かる means "sort things out within oneself" and 分ける mean "sort things out (outside oneself)." That makes so much more sense than "to understand" and "to separate/sort!"
Gosh I really love this!! You are the best dolly, really love your way of thinking!! Keep the spirit, keep producing videos, おねがいします🙇😍
ありがとうございます。Thank you so much for your kind words. ドリーはがんばりまーす。
I remember watching this 6 months ago and being so lost, but now i realize that this is definitely on the top 5 of most important videos of the channel
I thought 売れる was just the potential form of 売る. In the sense of saying "it can sell"
Great video, helped a lot! Thanks
whoever's struggling with this here are clues to help you identify them:
Particles Are a Clue
Self-Move Verbs: The thing moving or changing is marked with が.
Other-Move Verbs: The thing being acted upon is marked with を, and the person performing the action is the implicit or explicit subject.
Does the verb need a direct object?
If yes → It’s an other-move verb.
Example: 開ける (to open something). You need something to open (e.g., a door).
If no → It’s a self-move verb.
Example: 開く (to open). It doesn’t need an object because the subject (e.g., the door) is doing the opening on its own.
One year later and I finally understand (a bit lol). Very valuable video.
Thank you! It's a big key to a lot of what goes on in Japanese.
Hello! Thank you for teaching us how to tackle our problems with japanese through a very different point of view from what is immediately available on the internet.
I wanted to ask two questions here, two questions to which I can’t seen to find a satisfing answer online.
I found the following sentence online:
多肉植物そっくりのケーキが食べるのをためらう美しさ
(For context, it’s about some cakes so pretty, that you don’t feel like eating them.
)
I do understand the translation of this sentence, what I really am having trouble with, is in how to correctly apply the logic that you have taught us in your videos.
So here is one question. If I strip this sentence down to its most basic elements, it becomes the following:
ケーキがためらう
Is that correct?
If so, does “ためらう”work like “分かる” in the sentence “本が分かる”?
In the sense that, if “本が分かる” means the book is understandable to the unknown topic
Then does ケーキがためらう means the cake is hesitance inducing to the unknown topic?
That is one question. My second and final question is about the use of the particle "を" with the verb "ためらう".
I’ve seen the "を" particle with intransitive, or self-moving verbs before, such as "渡る" and "通る"
and I can understand the use of the “を” in those cases. But not so much here.
If my understandment is right, the verb “ためらう” is NOT acting on “ケーキが食べるの” but instead, just like in the sentence “戦いを挑む”, the particle を is specifying through which means the action manifests itself?
To explain myself better:
戦いを挑む” doesn’t mean “to challenge a fight” but, to challenge someone by the means of/through a fight
Is that correct? If so, does “を”in “食べるのをためらう”means to induce hesitance through the act/idea of eating the cake?
Does the “を” particle, when used with a Self-moving verb, always have this function of showing through which means a action was performed? Or is this way of looking at it all wrong?
I guess that became four questions in the end. Anyhow, to whoever is reading this, be it Cure Dolly sensei or anyone else, thank you for your time!
The を here needs to be understood in the light of the fact that Japanese words do not necessarily work exactly like their supposed English "equivalents". In English we say "Hesitate _to_ eat". Japanese doesn't even have prepositions like "to". So we have a word that is applied directly. Literally 食べるのをためらう means "hesitate the eat-thing" (=the thing of eating). "Hesitate" in English doesn't work this way. It can't be applied directly. ためらう can. We have to learn to see Japanese _as_ Japanese rather than something that is supposed to use exactly the same expression strategies as English.
Now for the rest of the sentence, the overall subject is not ケーキが it is ∅が. How do we know this? Well I suggest working through this lesson and then see if you can tell me: th-cam.com/video/uot49Z85wNs/w-d-xo.html
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49
Oh wow, thank you for answering so fast!
So... I’ve watched the video, and I’ve been pondering about it.
To be completely honest. I’m not even too sure if your question to me was “who is ∅が” or “why it is ∅が.
So...
多肉植物そっくりのケーキが食べるのをためらう美しさ
I believe that the ∅が is “美しさ”
Or perharps,if that is incorrect, it is a ommited “あなた”(the one looking at the cake) if there is a ommited “あなた"...
My insecurity, I believe comes from me not being completely able to grasp how ためらう works
.
Thank you for your explanation on that btw! It was very helpfull.
It’s just that, looking at “本が分かる” as “the book is understandable” instead of “I understand the book” is very new to me, and I’m not really sure how to interpret other verbs.
For example, should I look at it like:
as for someone, they hesitate the eat-thing?
Or maybe:
As for someone, the beauty hesitates the eat-thing?
Perharps I’m once again looking at japanese through english lenses? I’m sorry if that’s the case.
To finish it off, I am now very unsure as to what the “が” in “ケーキが” is binding to... Is it “食べる”?
thought that“ケーキが食べる”could only ever translate to “the cake eats” but maybe that’s just me yet again treating it like english.
Thank you for everything!
Edit: I've been thinking about this throughout the day, and I think the 2 sentences here are:
ケーキが多肉植物そっくりです
and
美しさが食べるのをためらう
but I really cant understand what that “が” is doing in the middle of the sentence.
How does the duality of self-move/other-move relate to active/passive voice (of Western grammar)? I imagine there may be many cases where there is overlap (self-move ~ active || other-move ~ passive), but other cases that don't correlate.
(Not that I'm going to ponder this all that much - I certainly agree that there's no need to twist Western grammar concepts to force them into Japanese.)
This is an interesting question. It is well known that there is a strong tendency for English speakers to have difficulty in telling the function of self-move verbs from that of the receptive and I believe that we can mostly eradicate that problem by recognizing the receptive for what it is. They are really getting confused because they believe that the receptive is passive (in the English sense) and there _is_ as you suggest more possibility of confusing self-move verbs with (real) passive expressions.
This isn't the focus of my work so I am just musing here, but one thing that comes to mind immediately is that because English has nothing exactly like self-move words dictionaries are more or less forced to describe them in ways that are ambiguous. For example, in this video I cited 包まる as meaning "be wrapped" which is exactly how most E-J dictionaries define it. That _sounds_ like a passive expression or at least can sound like one. But it doesn't mean "be wrapped" in the sense of "it was wrapped (=someone wrapped it)", but of "it was wrapped in tissue paper (=it existed in a state of being wrapped in tissue paper)". I had to put a note on the screen display to disambiguate this point because English doesn't have a very easy vocabulary for states of this kind at least not for expressing them as verbs. But this is very much what I mean when I say that self-move verbs are ある-like. They very often describe states of being, but describe them with verbs.
In the end this possibly has its roots in a rather different perception of the concepts of "being" and "doing". Not only does Japanese express many subjective human conditions as actions of the thing causing them rather than of the person experiencing them, but it also tends to express as "actions" things that English prefers to express as states-of-being. Self move words of course run the gamut from very active (running or jumping) to very "static" (being wrapped, being piled up etc., meaning existing in those states). At its more static end of the scale we could say that self-move verbs are _more_ passive than the English passive (using the term in a generally descriptive rather than a strictly grammatical sense).
I also get the feeling (I don't argue for this because it wouldn't serve much purpose) that Japanese has a tendency to regard existential states and self-movement as primary. Obviously some actions (like selling in my example) are the primary meaning of a word - but there is somehow a sense that things are and therefore do, rather than do and therefore are. Although I represented ある and する as Eve and Adam for a western audience, I tend to think of them more as Amaterasu Omikami and Susanoo no Mikoto. But I am probably becoming far too fanciful now!
A quote from a Western philosopher, Descartes, is "I think, therefore I am." ... Perhaps a more existential philosopher might propose "I am, therefore I think."
This gets back to the idea that "Coffee is likeable." sounds a little awkward to an English speaker. If one were asked to make a sentence with the adjective 'likeable' instead of the verb 'like', an English speaker might actually say "I think coffee is likeable." or perhaps "I find coffee to be likeable." because the tendency to have a person or ego as the subject is so ingrained in the English language.
That is very true isn't it? In fact I think a possible reason that English likes the "transitive/intransitive" definition is that it is something that happens comfortably in English. This applies best to the more "active" end of the scale where 自動詞 (self-move words) look most like ordinary English transitive verbs: running, jumping laughing, entering, exiting etc. At the more "static" end, English has no real equivalents to things like 包まる or 重なる so it has to use workaround phrasal definitions like "be wrapped" or "be piled up" when what they actually are is verbs meaning "exist in wrapped/piled up state". This is not to say that English is missing the concept - it can express pretty much the same thing in its own way - but it is a rather different way and shows the same tendency to remove (or avoid) "agency" from non-sentient subjects as your examples of "likeable".
It's such a shame that I cannot tell her how much these videos help me learn Japanese. If only I had been here, when she was still around.
This makes so much sense for a lot of the verbs out there, but the only problem I see is that sometimes a lot of the "honorary other verbs" for example 持つ and 持てる are not applicable to this rule, along with a lot of others
Every other rule is perfect, but this is the only one that there seems to be a lot of exceptions for
持てる is the potential form of 持つ, it's not actually a different paired verb
so helpful! from your video, I guess くる and くれる are similar pairs. I would have never thought of that because the concepts aren't really linked in English!
The first two laws are super useful, but I don't see what we gain from the flip-switch law.
The -eru form of the verb flips the verb either to a self-move or other-move verb. But to know which one it flips to we need to know whether the u-form is a self-move or an other-move verb. That's at least what the 売る --> 売れる example in the video showed me.
Let's suppose the u-form is the self-move version of this pair. Don't we then already know - without the use of the seemingly redundant third rule - that the other side of the pair has to be the other-move version?
It isn't as useful but it's important to know that it exists.
14:00 Here, you describe how "to obey" is transitive in English, but that's not the case in Japanese. In Japanese, 従う takes the に particle, so by definition, it is *intransitive* not transitive. The に particle points to who you're obeying, but you're not doing anything to them so they're not the direct object.
This is the entire reason she made a point to differentiate between the words transitive and intransitive and the Japanese 他動詞 and 自動詞. 従う is self move, but the English word is transitive. The English definition for transitivity doesn't exactly match the definitions for self move and other move in Japanese. The point of my comment is that your comment is agreeing with the video so i didn't want anyone reading this to get confused about what was said in the video.
One of her related replies up on the comments (from CD) : "I often say that grammar/structure does not really deal with "truths". It is simply a way of trying to describe ex post facto a structure that already exists. There are descriptions that cover all (or at least as many as we need) of the actual operation of the language, and those that don't (like the textbook explanations). Of those that do, no one is "the truth".
For example the zero pronoun is completely unnecessary to a native Japanese person. It is simply a description that works well for a speaker of a pronoun-dependent language like English, and covers more of the actual structure in a more understandable way than any other I know.
And I admit that I sometimes cut corners and speak more "absolutely" than is strictly correct. That is because I am trying to lay out the best description and the best strategy for grasping structure with as little complexity (that does not directly conduce to that end) as possible.
So yes, I was aware of the fact that 従う can be regarded as intransitive. I wasn't over-concerned because I really believe that moving away from the transitivity/intransitivity description of 自動詞 and 他動詞 is the best way to understand them.
One problem that sometimes arises (as in your case) is that I approach the subject on the assumption that most learners are not intimately familiar with Western grammatical terminology beyond the most basic and they shouldn't be learning it for the sake of Japanese because much of the time it is a very imperfect fit anyway. I agree though that transitivity/intransitivity are a reality in Japanese. But not one the learner actually needs to concern herself with.
In your case, coming at it with clearly some facility in Western grammar, this level of extra explanation is helpful. For me it is always a trade-off between explaining these things in greater detail and keeping to the basics that the average learner actually needs. You'd be surprised what ends up on the digital cutting-room floor!"
車が動きます。
(Hint: What is moving on its own?)
Translation: "The car moves."
Verb: 動きます (うごきます) - Self-Move.
Analysis:
The car (車) is moving on its own (marked with が).
There is no actor mentioned because the focus is on the natural movement of the car.
This is a self-move verb because the action happens naturally.
Is there a structural difference bewteeen うれる as in thr receptive form of うる.
"ほんはうれる," whuch, if i did it right is "the book is sold (by someone)"
And うれる as in the intransitive version or うる.
"ほんはうれる" or "the book is selling (itself)".
うる + receptive helper is うられる
Question about your example of self-move vs intransitive in Japanese: I looked up 従う and found that all of the example sentences used the に particle. I might have a low sample size here but if that is the usual case doesn’t that mean that it’s as correct to call it intransitive as it is to call it a self move verb?
I see the benefit of thinking in self-move/other-move, of course; you might fall into a trap of thinking too “englishly” when you know one of the definitions but have to intuit the other of the transitivity pair. What worries me though is particles getting complicated if you take the transitivity marker for granted since you might be tempted to use the を particle to mark the leader or rules when they’re actually an indirect object (or prepositional object?).
SORRY THIS COMMENT IS UNFINISHED, AS I REALISED MY (FRENCH) DEFINITION OF TRANSITIVTY MIGHT DIFFER FROM WHAT IS USED, I'M A BIT CONFUSED AND THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE MIGHT NOT MAKE SENSE, SO ANYWAY.
Transitivity/Intransitivity matches with other-move/self-move most of the time.
But as said, there are cases when it doesn't just as with "follow".
As to whether use を or に, the transitivity concept is basically the same as in english, so it often works the same way whether to use を/に.
(This is a sidenote, I don't think it's useful to read it, it's about the different ways of talking about transitivity, which I think are diffrent in french and english.
They call 従う intransitive and that's incoherent as it does uses
I think my definition of 'transitivity' differs from what I'm seeing in english :
(As for what I learned in french class:
* Transitive verbs : -directly transitive (object, equivalent to using を) {put, eat}
-indirectly transitive (need a preposition, equivalent to using に) {
* Intransitive verbs : - just do not take anything {sleep, rain, go, come...}
And so when it's said "intransitive" it's the same as my "transitive direct" which might confuse me. But I think thinking about things the way I explained makes a bit more sense as a whole... But if we're just here to say "Transitive = able to take OBJECTS and therefore intransitive = can't take objects it's coherent as well (although some verbs take no objects, but don't even take anything else anyway : you can can neither talk [sth] or sleep [sth], but you can talk [to sb] and yet can't sleep [to ...], so these are not exactly the same type of verb, and yet are joined together in the "Intransitive" group.
Anyway, but I guess the system I described gets to be more efficient, and made it easier for me to understand を/に as it's basically the same as "COD" and "COI" in french.
You are totally correct. 従う is indeed intransitive and I don't think that author of video is correct is this case. Maybe she is correct in general case, but practically speaking, it's doesn't help a lot.
In my native language, russian, we have this thing called reflexiveness of verb (as well as transitivity). So I naturally match "self-verbs" to reflexive ones, but even in that case I cannot find video helpfull.
Thank you so much for the informative video. I just have one question. Maybe I’m not understanding the flip-switch formation rules correctly, but it seems like you can form the “switched” form of those verbs by changing to the -e stem and adding -ru. Isn’t this the same method for forming the potential form for godan verbs. So in your example 売れる could mean both “can sell” (as an other-move verb) and “sell” (as a self-move verb). Is that right?
Yes that is right. In practice there are very few occasions when this causes any ambiguity.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 thank you for clearing this up! This was starting to confuse me towards the end of the video :)
i love the video! however, as far as is know, the light side would actually be the masculine yang and the dark side would be the feminine yin (4:45)
That is absolutely correct. In fact the kanji for yang and and yin - 陽 and 陰 - represent the sunny side of a hill and the shadowed side of a hill respectively which seem to be the primal symbols. I did it the way I did (admittedly playing a little fast and loose with the symbolism) because on a white ground the dark colors look "stronger".
PS - I realize that the idea that yang is "stronger" than yin is questionable given their balance and equivalence - but my purpose in the video was mnemonic rather than metaphysical.
I make thumby-uppy for the android :)
Ok, no joke, yesterday, I was wondering what "transitive", and "intransitive" verbs really meant. I was planning on asking you about it, and...this video shows up.
I know that the most common question raised is "Do androids dream of electric sheep?", but do they read minds too? ;)
It's weird the way I've never seen anyone point out the limits of the "transitive/intransitive" analogy. I am sure lots of people learn about English transitivity just to get a (mis)understanding of Japanese. How curious that you were planning to ask me that very question. No I don't read minds. Mareep mareep.
KawaJapa CureDolly Please tell me that somday this will all be in a printed book with these illustrations, charts, and some practice worksheets.
This has been my exact intention from the start, but I have to confess that I have made almost not progress with the book version. I did mean to write the book along with the lessons, but I haven't had enough time and the backlog is getting big! Also I am wondering about formats. Unfortunately it is still prohibitively expensive to do books in color and I use color a lot to help clarify things - so I would either have to work out ways to reduce all the display elements to black and white or else do the book digital-only - and I know a lot of people find a "real book" more convenient. Either way all the visuals would have to be completely re-designed for book form. So it's a big job - but I'm still planning on it!
mmmmh, this is a very useful lesson (I finally know why two different verbs can share the same kanji). However, there is something I didn't quite understand in this lesson, and that's the difference between the use of these two kind of verbs. What's the concrete difference in grammar or construction of the sentence of these verbs?
Hi cure dolly, thanks for the great lesson.
I wasnt able to focus about the transitive and intransitive topic in english during my school days so its really hard to grasp this lesson.
one question first came to mind is that are all japanese verbs have other-move and self-move? Like, the verb slap in English can mean I slap someone or I slapped myself. Does Japanese have that where it's not either?
2nd, is about the concept of other move and self-move.
Self move is about me as a subject making others do, correct? If I lose, I will use the word makeru. If I defeat someone, I'll use the word makasu.
But does the causitive form have the same concept and meaning? If so, then makesaseru as the causitive form of makeru would be like.. . . I have let him defeat me? And I can't use makasaseru to imply that I will defeat him? Or can it still be implied that way?
Lol, I think I'm confusing myself with this. I still can't quite grasph the concept of this other move and self move. I might need more examples.
Sorry again for the confusing question.
Thanks again for the reply in advance
Hey Cure Dolley,
I mostly understood the difference between self move and other move verbs.
But i struggle quite a lot with nouns that can be turned into a verb by adding する.
To me there does not seem to be any consistency in what the meaning becomes, once you add する to a noun.
For example when i learned the word 失望, I thought that the meaning of 失望する is "to disappoint".
But when looking up sentences with this word i found sentences like: 家族を失望させる
Which made believe that 失望する means: "to be disappointed".
To me 失望する seems to be a self move verb even tough する should be a other move verb.
But a word like 新築する seems to be a other move verb since i found sentences like: 家を新築する
The meaning of 新築する seems to be "to build(something new)" instead of "to be newly built"
Am i missing something or do you have to learn what the meaning of every word becomes, once you add する to it?
Let's take three points here:
1. There is only one way to turn a noun into a verb and that is with そる - there is no way of doing it with ある.
2. The reason for this is that any verb is further along the ある←→する scale toward する than a noun which can only "exist" before it "does" anything. Therefore:
3. A する-verb (verb formed from a する-noun + する) can be either self-move or other-move, but if it can be self-move in a natural and easy way (and self-move is natural in a wider range in Japanese than in English) it is more likely to be, because the other-move form will take the causative sister of する, which is させる.
So if you wanted to say "cause someone to be disappointed" you would say 失望させる not 失望する。
4. Verbs that indicate states of being that are actually untranslatable into English are common and natural in Japanese. In English we can only translate them quasi-passively or quasi-adjectivally in ways like "be disappointed". This is not structurally what they mean in Japanese. We are saying "do disappointed". There are lots of straightforward (non-する) verbs that do this and it is natural for する verbs to do it too.
This is so odd to the English mind that I made a video on it called "Untranslatable Japanese". I think it will help here: th-cam.com/video/wLrK_YxdPoM/w-d-xo.html
You may also want to look at this post (it is open to the public) on the ある←→する scale: www.patreon.com/posts/37971040
PS - it helps in all this to realize that Japanese tends to regard the ある end of the scale as "primary" while English tends to regard the する end as primary. In this Japanese is more logical as being necessarily precedes doing.
PPS: 新築する on the other hand is going to be other-move because buildings don't build themselves. If we want to say that the building "got built" (by someone) we need the receptive helper th-cam.com/video/cvV6d-RETs8/w-d-xo.html, not a self-move verb.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Thanks for the answers, my main question was if you could somehow tell whether a する verb is self move or other move.
But guessing from your answers there seems to be no easy answer.
If I understood you correctly, the best thing I can do is assume する verbs to be self move,
unless it would not make sense or I find sentences where it is used as a other move verb, like in the 新築する example.
@@dolfos7571 I think the real answer is that one needs to become familiar with the way Japanese "thinks" rather than trying to translate back and forth from English, which "thinks" quite differently. This is why I say that structure only takes us so far. It is a support for immersion, not a substitute for immersion. There is nothing random about the cases you cite - they all make sense so long as you are thinking Japanese-ly.
I LOVE YOU SO MUCH!!!!!
Hello!! Thanks for your videos they really help! I was having some issues with understanding the differences between passive/active forms and transitivity and intransitivity. After studying for a few hours I think I finally got it, but I wanted to ask if these rough definitions in English are accurate for all the below sentences!
- Present TR
ドアを開ける
Open the door
- Present INTR
ドアが開く
The door opens
- Past TR
ドアを開けた
Opened the door
- Past INTR
ドアが開いた
The door opened
- Past Passive TR
ドアは、私に開けられた
As for the door, it got opened by me
- Past Passive INTR
私にドアが開かれた
The door was opened for me
- Past Causative TR
先生が私にドアを開けさせた
（先生は)
Teacher caused (made) me to open the door
- Past Causative INTR
先生はドアが開かせた
Teacher caused/made the door to open
- Past Causative-Passive TR (shortened)
先生は「私が」私の友達にドアを開けされた
Teacher forced/made me open the door for my friend
- Past Causative - Passive INTR (shortened)
先生は、私にドアが開かされた
Teacher forced/made the door to open for me
Mostly right (beyond perpetuating the old fallacy of misnaming the receptive as "passive"). However:
先生はドアが開かせた → 先生がドアを開かせた
The door didn't do せる (the head-verb), the teacher did and so gets が. Out of interest you "fudged" the teacher with non-logical は, - what logical particle were you thinking she took (none is possible, though not correct)?
先生は「私が」私の友達にドアを開けされた again the one doing される isn't you, it's the teacher. You have to be marked by に as the receiver of される (and therefore the doer of 開ける).
I think this is enough to get you started. The main problem is that you are still a little mesmerized by the "conjugation" myth and not realizing that receptive and causative sentences have _two_ verbs done by two separate individuals (causative-receptive sentences have _three_ verbs two of which are done by the same person and one of which isn't.
Also, mistaking the receptive for passive is not trivial because it conceals the fact that someone is doing the receiving (れる・らりる).
I recommend going back over the course to the receptive (yes, I call it passive in the title because of the common error) and causative videos and getting firmly in your mind how they actually work. After that you could try again. If you do I recommend using logical particles only as slipping in non-logical は just fudges the issue. If you don't understand the difference between logical and non logical particles, please watch lesson 8b
The playlist is here: th-cam.com/play/PLg9uYxuZf8x_A-vcqqyOFZu06WlhnypWj.html
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Its funny I've watched most of your videos and I should have changed the English descriptions to be "correct" as per your classes. But these sentences were written for classes via my school where obviously, the traditional teaching terms are used. If it weren't for your lessons which I started using over a year ago, I would still think は and が were mystical creatures that could be used in for all sorts of reasons!
Ive been sharing your videos with anyone I know studying for that reason! `Thanks for the reply and the corrections!
And yes, I think when working out how to say something I need to think more about who's doing the action before considering everything else. Marking them with ga.
@@matthewdessner Yes - and also what is the head-verb which determines the overall logic of the sentence. When this is a helper it is still the head-verb because it comes last. The action represented by the verb it is attached to is subsidiary. It is failing to explain this that makes things so confusing.
I've had a hard time keeping these pairs straight, as to which is the self move verb and which is the other move verb. They are so similar. The one tactic I've been using is learning them with the を or が particles. For example を開けるand が開く. This tactic is like what I have to employ in French to remember the noun gender. Learn the noun with the un or une. So far it works for me, but since I'm a novice at Japanese. I don't know if this is a good method to stick with? Your tactics are going in my arsenal for learning these.
The fortunate thing is that the majority of pairs are governed by the three (and a half) laws and after a time す endings just _feel_ transitive, for example. The minority that could flip either way we do just have to learn. You could learn them with が and を. My only caveat here is that it is very important structurally to be aware that logical particles belong to the nouns they attach to, _not_ to verbs. This isn't just a quibble - it is a very important fact that standard grammar usually ignores. However if you keep fully aware of this point there is no harm in attaching the particle to the verb for mnemonic purposes only.
Dolly Sensei,
It seems that 生む and 生まれる are presented as an other-move/self-move pair.
But given how umareru sentences are constructed, could 生まれる actually be 生む in receptive helper form?
Like in 山田さんに女の子が生まれた , it seems (生ま)れた is a pair of verbs, rather like those in your video on the passive myth.
Is this possible, or am I just seeing things? And if this is possible, is this a helpful way to see 生まれる?
I think this makes perfect sense. In fact one could postulate that the standard J-E definition of 生まれる as "to be born" - is another example of trying to twist Japanese into English (which admittedly is hard for J-E dictionaries not to do as they are trying to give concise definitions for English speakers). Really it could be seen as receiving the action of giving birth.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49
Thank you for this confirmation.
You've done so much for my understanding of Japanese.
@@osuosuosaka2590 I am so happy to help.
Hi Dolly sensei, I'm back again with another question.
Since する is the father of other move verbs. I was wondering if +する (to make a verb) can fall into this system of identification too? If not, are there any other ways to do so?
One can make any noun that can reasonably represent an action into a verb by adding を plus する. There is a particular class of nouns (suru-nouns) that have the super-power of being allowed to drop the を when attaching suru - th-cam.com/video/8AXyP5GeJFg/w-d-xo.html - the point is that even when they are allowed to drop を, it is still logically there. The noun is the object of the verb する - this means that every suru-verb (suru-noun+する) has an object and therefore is technically other-move. So yes, it comes under the "father" domain.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Thank you always for replying!!! I fully get it now! You've been a constant reminder and help to me on my journey to learning japanese. ❤️ i'll make sure to watch every vids up to the latest ones.
When adding words to my Anki deck, is it better to keep word pairs (or larger groups, like with the 開 verbs) completely separate and make a card for each word; to have one card that has both words on the card somewhere (i.e. have both 出す and 出る on the front, or perhaps have 出る on the front and 出す noted as the other version on the back); or to have two separate cards, but also note the other version on the back? I am wary of inflating my deck with similar cards, but I could not tell you why other than a gut feeling. Maybe it seems like more work, but I'd rather do what's best in the long term.
You can do whatever works for you and seems most efficient. If you find that you _aren't_ remembering certain word in practice then you may need to split combined cards etc. This is the dynamic card strategy:th-cam.com/video/pFdyn27a09Y/w-d-xo.html
I wish you had used the more correct terms as subject and object instead of 'self' and 'other' as that might confuse a lot of listeners thinking that self means only "Me" and not some other person as a self.
For eg. その犬はその音を聞いて耳をピンと立てた (Here dog is 'self'/'subject' and his ears are the 'other'/'object' )
This e.g. can other wise also be said in using intransitive as 犬はその音を聞いてピンと立った。 (Here the 'dog' is the 'self'/'subject' and stands himself and not his ears. hence, 立つ).
Otherwise, great explaination as always. Thanks a lot.
The reason she uses 'self-move verb' and 'other-move verb' is because those are the literal-translations of the corresponding native-Japanese categories of the two verb types: 自動詞 (じどうし, lit. 'self-move word'), and 他動詞(たどうし, lit. 'other-move word'). Subject and object are general grammatical/semantic concepts, whereas self-move and other-move are much more specifically two particular types of Japanese verbs.
Would 割る [waru]/割れる[wareru] be an exception to the 2nd law?
Waru is the Other-move version, while wareru is the self-move version. Is this the only exception to the rule, or is it a situation when the 3rd rule takes priority over the 2nd rule?
Another example is:
- 張る[haru]/腫れる[hareru] (similar meanings/related etymology, but different kanji)
割る・割れる does seem to be an exception. 張る・晴れる aren't really a pair even though the meaning overlaps a bit.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 So the rule basically has only 1 exception. Neat!
These rules in your video aren't taught in conventional textbooks. Did you find these rules yourself? (This video was very helpful, btw)
@@-yuyuko5297 Yes. Most of the things you don't find elsewhere I research/analyze for myself.
So is there a self-move version of 読む...? ie:"to be read"?
本が読まる perhaps...?
🤷♂️
There isn't because it wouldn't really serve any purpose. We can attach the receptive helper for "receive being read" or the potential helper verb for "be (literally do) readable" but reading isn't actually a state or self-move action that a piece of written material can do.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49
Sorry to reply already again but I wanted to ask about your worksheets, and the contact page on your site/blog seems to be broken. I could only find two worksheets when I looked a few weeks ago, and now I can't find any.
Are the worksheets I found still "current"?
And is there any provision for checking answers, or answer sheets, etc?
Thanks
Hello Cure Dolly sensei!
The lesson is very clear, and I like the logic in this other move / self move concept.
In terms of concept, I'd like to ask you about verbs like nomu or taberu. If I say ビールお飲む is it self-move or other-move? The verb moves myself as I am drinking, so it should be self-move? But at the same time, there is an impact on the beer so I am confused... If other-move verbs express moving something else, then when I drink a beer am I not moving it? am I seeing too much into this? Would you have an example for nomeru used as an other-move verb?
Also, I can't help but notice the similarity of form with the potential form that we studied before (nomu ->nomeru I can drink). According to this lesson, nomu would be self-move and nomeru is other-move. Is there a relation between this other-move nomeru form and the potential nomeru form? And most importantly, is there a risk that I get confused between the two forms or should the context be enough to understand which one is being used?
Thank you!
Anything with を in it is other-move, since を marks the direct object and only other-move verbs have direct objects. 飲む like many words is both self-move and other-move (you can drink beer or you can just drink). But where there is an を you know it is functioning as other-move.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Makes sense, thank you for the clarification!
Can you please give more examples of the flip rule.
Taking the "difficult" ones (that don't come under the む→める or ぶ→べる rule) we have ones like 入る go in 入れる put in, 開く be open or open by oneself (the door opens) 開ける open something (I open the door), 売る sell (as in sell hot cakes) 売れる (sell as in sell _like_ hot cakes) 育つ grow up 育てる raise. I would say that Japanese gives a certain precedence to self-move, so that if a thing can very naturally be self-move (like opening, entering, growing up) then the un-flipped version will usually (not always) be self move. Whereas in a case like 売る obviously selling is something we do to something and the thing itself "selling" (well or poorly) is secondary. So in this case the self-move is the flipped version. With this in mind plus the other rules most cases are covered but a minority we just have to get used to.
I came here from your lesson on 開く vs 開ける. This video was very helpful on its own, but after watching it I can't understand how the rules in this video apply to the two words I was initialy confused about:
Rule (1) あく / あける - There is no する in this pair, so which word is the other-move word?
Rule (2) あく / あける - There is no ある in this pair, so which word is the self-move word?
Do these words just not obey these rules?
As Dolly cannot answer you anymore, I will try to be of some help.
No, the rules 1 and 2 are not applicable to the 開く/開ける case as neither of the two words has あ-stem or さ/せ kana ending.
The 3rd rule works here, though it doesn't tell us, which of the two is the self-move and which is the other-move. So in the end this kind of information needs to be incorporated into the process of learning these words. Such cases are discussed starting from 11:00 in the video.
@@Eltaurus Thanks for the reply. I realised the timing of my question was very bad, so I'm glad someone else was able to answer.
@@rogerthebannister4553 I don't think there is such thing as bad time for question. But still the last news saddens me beyond mesure.
Kiku... Other move and Kikoeru Self move?
Yes.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Gracias 😊
Maybe it’s my misunderstanding of Japanese, but isn’t 従う still an intransitive? In English, it’s definitely transitive, but in Japanese, when you say who or what you are 従う-ing you use に after it, and a Japanese verb is only transitive if the object being acted upon (or being obeyed in this case) is followed by を.
Well let's take the example of 預かる vs 預ける which is perhaps a better example and makes the problem clearer. This is a classic self-move/other move pair working by the Second Law. But both are clearly transitive. One means "care for/look after" and the other means "leave in someone else's care". The point here is not that one is transitive and the other intransitive, but that 預ける is further toward the する end of the ある・する scale than 預かる.
Okay but I saw this sentence:
「 暑くなり始めた。」translated as 「It began to get hot」. Why is 始める used here? And not 始まる? The weather change supposedly happened on its own, why are we using the する form here?
This does seem to be a tendency with い-stem combination verbs. Perhaps as if the second verb is "enacting" the first. Similarly さくらは泣きだす, not 泣きでる.
Thanks for your lessons, I've been learning a lot from them. A question: How does 出す in this lesson relates with 出す in lesson 12? Here, you said that it means to take/bring something out, but in lesson 12, you said that it can give some "intensity" to a verb, like in なきだした (Burst out crying). Does taking something out have a relation to a "erupted" action or it's just two different meanings to one word?
It is the same word. Like many basic Japanese words it can be used on its own as a stand-alone verb or can be attached as a helper to another verb (to the い-stem or the て-form). This forms a kind of compound verb. So なきだす literally means something like put out or throw out crying (not really translatable into English).
PS - it's a bit advanced for this level, but the い-stem of a verb is actually a noun, so なき is grammatically a "thing" that can be put out - th-cam.com/video/_qj9ZkAC2tE/w-d-xo.html (ignore this if you aren't curious because it is a lot further along in the course).
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 I get it now. Thanks for the quick response!
I would love some examples of the flip rule
The only one that comes to my mind is 開く (self open) vs 開ける (other open). there's actually a lesson on this very word pair th-cam.com/video/QEInorgR6Rs/w-d-xo.html
After much searching, I have found a む -> める pair - 緩む (become loose) and 緩める (loosen something)
立つ / 立てる
届く / 届ける
並ぶ / 並べる
温まる / 温める
使う / 使える
入る / 入れる
開く / 開ける
育つ / 育てる
What about 間違う and 間違える? I suppose that 間違う would be the other-move(as deduced from your 従う& 従える example) whilst 間違える would be the self-move verb. But I don't think I understand them in action quite yet. Could you please elaborate on this a bit?
Strictly speaking 間違う is self move and therefore cannot take a を=marked direct object. However this rule is so often broken these days (in this particular case) that in practice there is no real difference. Rather the way almost no one knows the difference between "who" and "whom" any more in English (honestly if anyone on the internet ever goes so far as to use "whom" at all they get it wrong more often than not).
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 なるほど。ありがとうございまーす~
@@vanessameow1902 Oh I should say that I am not saying that people _ought_ to know how to use "whom". English has lost nearly all its case-markers so it is not surprising that one of the last remaining ones is on its way out. While I deprecate the idea that every widespread mistake is a part of linguistic "evolution" (most aren't), this is clearly part of a long-term historical pattern. I/me we/us he/him she/her all seem safe, but since they now only duplicate a task performed by word-order (needed for everything else) they no longer serve any real function.
@@vanessameow1902 Oh and I ought to add that while 間違う is often used where 間違える ought to be it does not work the other way around. When you are saying that something is in a wrong state you can't use 違える.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Oh right! That clears things up a lot. Thank you 先生♡
Here’s an interesting “pair”
暖かい
温める
Different kanji while both have basically the same meaning, but one’s an adjective and one’s a verb. Warm and warm something else up. 温める is of course the other-move verb, but does it have a self-move variant? Or is 暖かい the only real partner, despite being an adjective?
It is not too unusual for the same word-base to form both adjectives and verbs. We have
悲しい
悲しむ
for example and each one makes its own noun-form in the regular way
悲しさ
悲しみ
Which seem to be duplicates but one is formed from the adjective (using the regular さ nominalizer) and the other from the noun (using the regular い-stem nominalizer).
There is a self-move variant of
温める
and very predictably (under the Second Law) it is
温まる
Organic Japanese with Cure Dolly Makes sense! Thanks as always.
When we use the flip switch law, how do we differentiate whether they are potential form or the flip law
In many cases a potential helper does not make sense with the particular verb but in some cases there is ambiguity which is dealt with as ambiguity always is: th-cam.com/video/gcbbSW-KuTQ/w-d-xo.html
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Thxx ,will watch it
Oh! So THAT'S the difference between 始める and 始まる.
I'm getting a little confused here. The え-stem plus る means the potential form right? So when I see it here, I get confused. For example, 読む means read, but 読める means "able to read" (i.e. readable). So does that make 読める the "other move" verb in a self/other move pair or is it simply the potential form of the word.
I think using the "stem" terminology here makes things more confusing. If you had just said words that end in "eru" and "aru" it wouldn't be so confusing.
You are right here. These are not stems in the technical sense - I was using the term by way of trying to help people to understand the form of the words but maybe I shouldn't have done that because obviously we are not talking about the stem-system here (the stems are formed by the final kana - in this case る - as always)> I think a lot of people have found this to be an easy way of talking about it but I can see that it can cause confusion with the more technical meaning of "stem". I will adjust this in the book.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 Cool thanks for the clarification. I had thought the stem system was strictly for verbs so when I saw "stems" here it definitely threw me for a loop.
It took some time to sink in, but once I realized it's *exactly* the same in Hebrew I had no more problem understanding it. Here's an explanation, if there are some Hebrew speakers, it will make this subject understood in seconds:
טרנזיטיב אלה פעלים בעברית שמקבלים מושא ישיר, אינטרנזיטיב אלה פעלים שלא מקבלים מושא. איך אנחנו יודעים אם פועל מקבל מושא ישיר או לא? אנחנו פשוט מנסים להגיד שם עצם אחרי הפועל. לדוגמא - לאכול תפוח, אכלתי פיצה, אמרתי שלום, זרקתי כדור. כל הפעלים האלו מקבלים מושא ישיר, וככה גם ביפנית - りんごを食べる、ボールを投げた (האחד של להגיד שלום קצת שונה למרות ש言う דווקא *כן* מקבל מושא ישיר עם を, הוא פשוט יכול לקבל גם と ואפילו יש משפטים, ולא מעט מהם, ש言う מקבל גם と וגם を).
אוקיי, אז בואו ניקח את הפעלים לטוס ולהטיס, וננסה להצמיד להם מושא ישיר - לטוס מטוס. נשמע רע, נכון? כי אי אפשר לטוס מטוס. אפשר לטוס בתוך מטוס, אבל אי אפשר לטוס מטוס, כי זאת פעולה שאנחנו עושים בעצמנו ולא מבצעים על אובייקט אחר. כמו שדולי הסבירה, זה החלק של הある verbs. לעומת זאת, להטיס מטוס נשמע טוב וזה עובד. כי להטיס אנחנו עושים לאובייקטים אחרים. זה החלק של הする verbs.
אז מה שהסברתי עכשיו - אחד לאחד ביפנית.
ממה שאני שמתי לב ביפנית יש הרבה יותר פעלים שהם ある, ושבעברית יותר נפוץ להשתמש בתארים, אבל זה כן עובד באותה צורה.
עוד זוגות פעלים לדוגמה - לשעמם/להשתעמם, להרדים/להירדם.
עכשיו אם אנחנו כבר פה ויש לכם כח - עוד משהו. שימו לב שגרסה סבילה לפעלים יש (בצורה הגיונית מאוד) רק לפעלים שמקבלים מושא ישיר. רק ככה אפשר להפוך בין התפקידים, שכן בפעלים שלא מקבלים מושא ישיר אי אפשר להחליף בין מושא לנושא, שכן יש רק נושא. לדוגמה, אני מטיס מטוס, המטוס הוטס על ידי. אני טס במטוס... אין לו פועל שני, כי רק אני מבצע פעולה פה, ולא על שום אובייקט.
אני נרדם, אני הרדמתי את חברה שלי משעמום, חברה שלי נרדמה על ידי משעמום.
אז שימו לב ששוב, ביפנית זה אותו דבר - פעלים שיקבלו פאסיב הם פעלים מסוג する, שמקבלים מושא ישיר.
זהו! מקווה שהבנתם וזה עזר לכם להתגבר על מכשול בדרך שאני בטוח שמתסכל מלא דוברי אנגלית (כי באנגלית אין להם את זה בכלל בכלל, פשוט פועל אחד להכל).
Хорошее замечание. Я обдумывал примерно ту же мысль касательно связи 自動詞/他動詞 с возможностью принимать пассивную или принудительную формы.
What about 割る and 割れる? As far as I know 割る is other-moving despite ending in ある.
Yes that one is an exception. There aren't many. It's possible that 割れる was originally a contraction of the receptive 割られる.
Please explain to me "to stand" 立つ
If tsu eding verbs are aways other move, how come tatsu means to stand?
立てる means to stand something up.. (other move)
立つ shouldn't be self move?
Im confuse..
You are thinking in romaji here. つ is not す even though it ends in su in Hepburn (western-style) romaji.
Hi, this is an incredible video that seems like it will really help my understanding of many verbs, and when to use certain particles, or not.
I'm a bit confused by the honorary 4th law though. At first I thought it meant all む ending verbs should be self-move, but then I remembered 噛む, which my dictionary says is transitive (other move).
Same with 飲む... actually, can you give an example of what you mean please?
Thanks
No - like the other laws, this _only applies_ to self-move/other-move pairs. So when a word has a む-ending and a める-ending version which form a pair the む version is the self-move and the める version other-move. There are few if any exceptions to this.
質問があります! So 分かる is a self-move verb. No doubt about there. But why 知る is considered as other-move by Japanese?
This is an interesting question. The way Japanese handles subjective things like feelings and perceptions is a little different from the way English does. Generally speaking if something _causes_ a subjective state (including ability) we attribute that state to the non-human cause. We say 日本語ができる which literally means "Japanese does be-possible (in relation to me)".
The same with desires, as in クレープが食べたい - literally "crepes are eat-want-making (in relation to me). You can add the "in relation to" part explicitly with は but often we don't. In any case we are not talking about an objective condition of the thing, but its relation to our subjective condition. However it is grammatically described as an action or state of the thing. And it is intransitive because the thing isn't "targeting" me, it is just that way in relation to me. An adjective (like たい can't be transitive anyway.
If this sounds convoluted, it actually isn't. It is no more strange than the English way of looking at it - it just isn't the way we are used to.
I talked extensively about this in lesson 9 th-cam.com/video/vk3aKqMQwhM/w-d-xo.html and more in lesson 10.
So, 分かる is one of those many actions that is usually attributed to what English would regard as the "object" so in English it is transitive, but in Japanese it is self-move. We say 本が分かる ="book exists in state of being understandable" so this is a self-move word (and an ある-like verb describing a state of existence).
But we say 事実を知る "(I) know the fact" so this works exactly like English "know", with the knower as the subject and the fact as the grammatical object.
Now there is a subtler point here, which I think you may have grasped. And that is that although the action has a grammatical object (marked by を) and so is transitive, how is the knower "moving" the book? And the answer to this, I believe lies in what we have said about the way Japanese regards subjective states.
First let us recall that "move" is a broad term because which includes anything a verb can do, including "existing-in-a-state" (I even proposed - half seriously - the term self-stand verb for "static" self-move verbs in the notes to this video on KawaJapa) learnjapaneseonline.info/2018/06/24/3-facts-make-japanese-transitive-and-intransitive-verbs-easy/
Then let us recall that in a wide range of cases of subjectivity. including emotional reaction and knowledge, the subjective condition is attributed to the thing (outside the person) that causes it. So we see that the act of knowing a thing becomes a part of the quality of that thing and so "moves" it (incidentally while this may be considered to be rooted a pre-scientific "animist" way of seeing things, quantum theory suggests that the outside world may actually work that way).
And this is precisely why the association between self move/other move with intransitive/transitive has been possible at all. Generally if a sentence uses を (there is an object), the verb will be other-move.
So perception-verbs are both other-move and transitive - とりを見る, とりを聞く. But interestingly the _ability_ to perceive them is usually intransitive and self-move とりが見える, とりが聞こえる.
So something quite subtle is happening here. Many "subjective" verbs are treated as actions of what English regards as the object. Those that aren't are treated as English treats them, as actions of the perceiver, but still as having some effect on the state of the object and thus other-move.
KawaJapa CureDolly ごめんなさい🙇お返事が遅くなりました。解き明かしてくれてありがとうございます。ところで、「を分かっている」を使える日本人と見ました。先生、どう思いますか?
いいえ、返事してくれてありがとうございます。そうですね。両方が使われますね。Googleで検索したら「○○が分かる」の頻度は「○○を分かる」の７０倍ぐらいです。その後者が正しくないという人もいます。その一方で、現在の日本語では「○○を分かる」が微妙なニュアンスを表すから正しいという人もいます。私は別段意見がありません。でも外国人にとっての大事なことは助詞の働きを正しく理解することなのです。
KawaJapa CureDolly まさにそのとおりです。利用法をめぐって、日本人でも時々両方いいです。皆はあくまで自分の思いどおりにしようとしますね。では、次のビデオをとても楽しみにしています! 心から感謝します☺
本当にありがとうございます。次の動画は明日ですから、頑張りま〜す。
Some of the other-move verbs are like the る helper verb versions of their self-move counterparts. This is interesting, so I'm wondering if there's a reason for it, or if it is simply a coincidence.
I don't think there is a direct reason. While for explanatory convenience I say that え-stem +る flips transitivity we shouldn't look at the "flipping" as an operation done to a word. The two variants of the word exist in their own right as independent related words. The fact that the え-stem +る variant resembles its partner with the potential helper seems to be a kind of "coincidence".
Sometimes the two meanings exist at the same time, and they are not the same thing.
An example is 脱げる which is the self-move sister of 脱ぐ - "take off (clothes etc.)" meaning "come off/fall off (clothes etc.)".
This is not the same as the identical-looking 脱げる which is 脱ぐ's え-stem + the helper verb る and means "can-be-removed (clothes etc)".
Context usually clarifies what is intended or we have to apply the ambiguity rules: th-cam.com/video/gcbbSW-KuTQ/w-d-xo.html
Thank you.
what about 見える and 見る ? they are another exception right?
very good video but there is something that I don't understand: why does 捕まる mean "be catched" but 捕る, 捕らえる and 捕まえる all mean "catch"?
"Why" is perhaps a difficult question - why does 犬 mean "dog" but 猫 mean "cat" come to that. But it does follow a clear and memorable pattern 捕まる is the only one that is self-move therefore it has the self-move meaning. It is also the only one that has the archetypal self-move ending あ-row+る.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 thanks, I was confused because I tought that 捕まる/捕まえる and 捕る/捕らえる were self-move/other move pairs
@@hernan1993 While る・える can signify a self-move/other-move pair (and very often does) it isn't a rule that it _has_ to be doing that.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 ありがとう先生!!!
I always disliked the English dictionary translations of these verbs and found them extremely confusing, especially when they contradict themselves.
From the beginning I rephrased them as: to [verb] X + X [verb]s (on its own) in my flashcards, where X is an unspecified entity or group.
For your examples with selling, standing, exiting and obeying:
- to sell X + X sells (on its own)
- to stand X + X stands
- to exit X + X exits
- to obey X + X obeys
I wonder what the reason is for the dictionaries to do this so weirdly?
I think your X + X notation is essentially saying "self-move" isn't it? And yes this makes much more sense. I think dictionaries do it weirdly because they are looking for English equivalents, which have the advantage of being quick and readily understandable (if you know English grammar terms) but the disadvantage of being only partially accurate.
14:48 this blew my mind holy
What about 助ける/助かる? I see it often used by someone who was helped; I get that if someone helps me and I say 「助かった」 I didn't make them move, but I didn't move myself either, and with 「助ける」 I move myself to help other.
This is one of the inadequacies of translation. As I explained in another video, there are many verbs in Japanese that can only be translated into English as passive or pseudo-passive but are not passive in Japanese. 助かる as "be helped, be saved" but in fact it is something more like "do helped" just as "分かる" is "do understandable"., Both are self-move. 助ける is other-move - helping someone else. For more on this "untranslatable Japanese" that forces English pseudo-passivity, see this video: th-cam.com/video/wLrK_YxdPoM/w-d-xo.html
I just found an exception, must be a rare くverb flipper, つく to be attached and つける to attach. I guess being attached is the most basic form, the original as a lot of things are naturally attached to each other.
This is the regular u/eru (う-row to え-stem + る). flip pattern of the Third Law 8:10. As you say, the state of being attached appears to be the base form.
Another one threw me today, 用いる, how does that fit in, as it's an other move but ends in ru. Is it just an exception?
Lots of other-move words end in る. I think you are perhaps misunderstanding the three laws. They only relate to _move pairs_ that is, words that have both a self-move and an other move version. When that is the case the one ending in あ-stem +る, if there is one, will be the self-move member (because it is related to ある). It doesn't say anything about る when it isn't on the あ-stem. It certainly doesn't say that a verb ending in る can't be other-move. In fact the "honorary 4th law" is that in む・める pairs, the one ending in める is _always_ the other-move word.
In any case 用いる isn't part of a move-pair. Don't worry it can take a little time to get used to. It might be a good idea to watch the video again. It's quite a lot of information to take in in one pass.
Ah, I see, cheers for the explanation. I didn't realise it was just for pairs, or just the a stem. I'll watch it again. I have found the rules help me learn some pairs already that I used to mix up.
I'm so glad it is helping. When I say it is only for pairs I am keeping on the safe side! Most す-ending verbs are other-move but there are a (very) few exceptions, like 話す, and most あ-stem + る verbs are self-move. So you can actually use that as a rule of thumb, but be aware that there are a few exceptions. But when it comes to pairs there are no exceptions that I can think of.
I have one question about 売れる, as you said, this can mean that something sells itself but it can also be the potential form of 売る (which means something like sell-able). If I see 売れる in a sentence, how can I tell which one is it? Is it just about context? Or is there not much of a difference between the two?
本が売れる can mean "The book sells (itself)" or "The book is sell-able / The book can be sold"
Interesting question. In many cases there is no structural way of knowing so it is a matter of context. In many cases the two are not that different so it isn't too important anyway (and I would say that in most of these cases it is most likely to be the self-move verb - when we are talking about a book or other article's sales "performance" - however if there is any ambiguity the difference is only a subtle shade).
When a person is directly involved as in さくらは本が売れる we clearly mean the potential - in English this would be "Sakura can sell books" but in Japanese the literal meaning is something like "re Sakura: books are sellable". In these cases as I have explained here th-cam.com/video/qcOhHmU0znI/w-d-xo.html the potential is not expressing abstract possibility - 可能性 - of a thing but its possibility in relation to an individual's ability. Since the self-move verb _is_ self-move it would make no sense to invoke a person. Where a person is not involved we could be talking about a book's saleablity rather than its actual performance but that would normally be clear from context.
Hi Dolly Sensei,
Is it ever possible for a noun to take を before a self-move verb ?
I read that 泳ぐ is classified as self-move, i.e. 私が泳ぐ.
So if I want to say I swam 30 kilometres, can I use 私が三十キロ 'を' 泳いだ? '30 kilometres' sounds to me like a direct object, no?
Incidentally, the example where I read this leaves out the を altogether i.e. 私が三十キロ 泳いだ, thus making 三十キロ seem like some sort of modifier, like counter-nouns.
First of all I would advise taking "transitivity" information in dictionaries with a big grain of salt. They will tell you that things like 読む and 食べる are "transitive" for example - they can in fact work both as self-move or other move (we can eat yakisoba or we can just eat). Probably intransitive is a little truer here as swimming 30 kilometers is not actually doing anything _to_ the 30 kilometers. Even though it is structured that way in English and also in Japanese if we use を. Using it as a modifier probably makes slightly more sense, though both forms are used. Generally the "object" of a verb of movement is the place of movement (as opposed to the destination, marked by に or the direction marked by へ) so 公園を歩く is "walk the park".
Hi Dolly Sensei,
So if I want to say ‘selling like hot cakes’,
I’d say 飛ぶように売れている yes?
But if I want to say a product ‘got sold’ like hot cakes, should I bring in the receptive helper verb? ie
飛ぶように売られた
That is correct. 売れる is essentially the self-move version of 売る. The action performed by the sold thing itself. Using the receptive makes no material difference to this and is not idiomatic, so why use it? Learning Japanese isn't only about what we _can_ say, but what we _do_ say if we are using natural Japanese (and we learn this from immersion, not lessons).
If we want to say "got sold" in a more normal context though
"where's that car?"
"It got sold."
then 売られた is correct.
More about how to use natural (not just technically possible) Japanese here: th-cam.com/video/1FdhiQH8TS8/w-d-xo.html
I'm still a bit confused when it comes to that flip-switch law. When looking at む - める for example, do you mean that when there is a pair of verbs where one ends in む and the other in める, that the latter is the other-move one? And that the same applies to pairs that end in ぶ - べる and つ - てる, where the ones that end in an える sound are the other-move verbs?
Yes, but む・める is especially consistent here.
Okay, thank you 先生!
先生, just a minor correction: "To obey" is a transitive AND intransitive verb both in English, German and Portuguese, it all depends on the object of the action which could either exist (e.g. The soldier obeyed his orders) or not (e.g. The soldier obeyed). Clearly there's no such concept in Japanese but I just thought it would be wise to add this addendum to your statement at the 14:05 minute mark.
People sometimes complain that I do violence to English grammar and occasionally I do. It can be difficult to avoid without going into a lot of unnecessary detail on a language I am not teaching. Incidentally even speaking of "to obey" does violence to English since it is based on the notion that the dictionary form of English verbs is the infinitive as it is in French or German, but it isn't. It is the non-past just like Japanese. If I were trying to represent English accurately I would never say things like 歩く means "to walk" (it doesn't. It means "walk"). Since representing English accurately is not my aim I let the common misuse stand.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 I completely understand. By the way, thank you for the great lesson, even though I'm not a beginner per se, I found myself learning a lot of new and interesting information. I even thought I had found a blind spot on the rules with 止める and 止まる but surprisingly they don't stray very far at all.
I'm very happy to be of help. 止まる・止める follow the standard "あ-row+る (aru-ending) is the self-move verb rule with the "める-ending verbs are usually other-move" tendency thrown in as a bonus (this usually applies to む→める flips, of course but is also a general tendency for める-ending verbs to be other-move.
@@chicoti3 I was hoping you would address what she says at 14:00. It seems to me that 従う is actually intransitive in Japanese, since it uses に and doesn't take a direct object. English verbs commonly are both transitive and intransitive, but I think she was specifically making a point with the transitive usage, so I didn't really see an issue there. I wonder if you agree
@@DANGJOS Transitivity is related to the verb having an object or not, not to if that object is direct or indirect. Moreover, I wouldn't really say the distinction between direct and indirect objects exist in Japanese since there are no prepositions, the elements that define indirect objects.
But even though we can call 従う transitive, I don't think we should use that nomenclature since that doesn't really say much about a Japanese verb seeing as most verbs can be used with and without an object.
Ex: 命令に従いなさい！
さっさと従いなさい！
I believe making the distinction between 自動詞 and 他動詞 is much more pertinent given the nature of Japanese.
Your pace when you speak is sublime. Very calm and peaceful. But why the robotic voice? It sounds very nasal.
It's my voice. I'm glad you like the pace.
I'm keeping reasoning on those rules, which are indeed quite useful; to better remember them I was looking for examples, and I got a doubt: are those rules universal, or just for transitive/intransitive verb pairs? I'm thinking about verbs like 「引っ越す」, which sounds quite intransitive and it's marked as that on dictionaries ("I moved last week", I'm not moving anything else or anyone else): is that because it isn't a pair, or there is again something lost in translation?
The rules only apply to self-move/other-move pairs. There is quite a strong tendency for す-ending verbs in particular to be other-move, but it certainly isn't universal. 話す is a common mostly self-move example as is 引っ越す as you say. I would comment out of interest that 引っ越す is really a compound of 引く and 越す and that 越すis in fact mostly other-move but this is still only an example of a tendency. The rule is not really applicable outside of pairs.
Thank you again, Cure Dolly-sensei, for this amazing lecture. I have a question- when a verb is "transitive", does it at least mean I can use を with it? So, does it makes sense to use an accusative with it?
Transitive verbs can always be marked with を. Other-move verbs are usually transitive, but not always. So in most cases you can mark them with を.
@@organicjapanesewithcuredol49 thank you!
ありがとうございました
どういたしまして