How は vs が Will DESTROY Your Japanese
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 พ.ค. 2024
- This video shows you how the が particle actually destroys your Japanese as it is the most important Japanese Particle yet is so heavily mistaught. By introducing you to the concept of the Øが, you will truly understand what the が particle does and will never have to ask "は vs が" or "が vs を" ever again.
The first and most important thing we need to know about Japanese is that there is NO sentence without a が, even if we can't see it. が can be removed grammatically, but it cannot be removed LOGICALLY.
The reason for this is because the が ga-particle in Japanese ALWAYS marks the Subject. Nothing else in Japanese marks the Subject other than が, and が cannot mark anything other than the Subject.
Øが (pronounced "zero ga") is a concept that makes sense of Japanese for English speakers.
The Øが concept is not known by Japanese natives as they have no need to understand the language through English eyes.
Since English has a very egocentric view on the world, the Øが assists English speakers by re-introducing the ego back where it should logically be. The important thing is that- whether Japanese natives are aware of the Øが or not, it IS logically there.
There is not a single language in the world without a subject because you simply cannot do that. Japanese is not a subjectless language, it is a normal language.
By first understanding that が MUST logically exist in every Japanese sentence, we will be on our way to actually seeing the world through Japanese eyes.
By revealing to you where the Øが is supposed to be at all times, English speakers learning Japanese will be able to comprehend Japanese content that's far above their level.
Credits to Cure Dolly Sensei (RIP):
/ @organicjapanesewithcu...
🎬 Timestamps:
00:00 Intro & Credits
01:04 DISCLAIMER !!
01:22 What the が particle does
03:00 Introducing the は and を particles
03:42 Why do people get confused?
04:14 Example 1: 猫が好きだ does NOT mean "I like cats"
05:07 Example 2: Introducing the Øが
06:08 Example 3: The textbooks are correct!
07:04 Example 4: は vs が is no longer a problem
07:33 Example 5: Tae Kim is WRONG
09:02 Example 6: Natural English is NOT Natural Japanese
10:14 は vs が vs を
11:53 Example 7: Cure Dolly is wrong: Subject vs Actor
Get 1 Month of Migaku for FREE with this affiliate link:
migaku.com/signup?code=Juls&l...
👨👧👦 Our Public Discord Server:
/ discord
🏆 Leave a like and comment! It really helps grow our channel!
🔔 Subscribe NOW and hit that bell icon for notifications for new uploads every week!
💰 Support the channel on Patreon so we can keep making content!
/ teamwnj
🎵 Music Credits (links to Google Docs):
bit.ly/JulsMusic
🔔 FEATURED PLAYLIST:
How I learned Japanese:
• How I learned Japanese
🎥 Here's a list of all the gear I use to make my videos:
Lenovo Legion Y520 Laptop: amzn.to/2nLH3qx
Logitech G502 Mouse: amzn.to/2onCrXJ
Dell SE2419H 24" Monitor: amzn.to/2n1XLSr
Razer BlackWidow Chroma Keyboard: amzn.to/2mXCdGo
Logitech Webcam C925E: amzn.to/2ooeyiL
Blue Snowball iCE USB Microphone: amzn.to/2mYjs5O
Neewer Mic Stand + Pop Filter: amzn.to/2mODsbb
Godox LED Panels: amzn.to/2nKyPyU
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Swiss Stage DAY 3 // FPX vs GEN | G2 vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9lFnPhYhBIg/mqdefault.jpg)
This made SO much sense! Ive been struggling with the logic behind the particles for years and only thing my teachers/professors say is "just read a lot and it will come naturally" Thank you so much for this!
Finally the real Japanese's structure is starting to be taught aside from the Cure Dolly sensei course let's go
I'm only helping to spread the message. Until schools and textbooks actually start to adopt this approach, it's still (for some reason) a secret sauce.
@@JouzuJuls Yeah it's pretty tragic because the way they teach Japanese structure is really flawed I hope some day the real model become the standard
@@Suzukixd89 I don't think "real" is the right word. It's just that her model is the best fit for English speakers. The reason it's hard to say it's "real" is because this model would not be needed for native Japanese people. So technically the "real" model is to do exactly what Natives do and go without a guide- let your brain figure it out itself.
@@JouzuJuls what you just said really got me thinking lmao but anyway this model still working best than the model Eihongo textbooks teach
@@Suzukixd89 Precisely that. Doesn't matter that it isn't the "real" approach. It's the method that works best for English speakers (or any other language where the subject must be visible).
Amazing job explaining this, it blows my mind how just one person can clarify months of lazy studying on my own part and not clearly taught textbook Japanese. Huge thanks, glad I subbed to this channel!
I'm glad I was able to clarify the が particle to you, and thanks for watching! If you have anything else you're confused about please feel free to bring it up on our Discord so we can all talk about it and maybe find a solution together! 😄
I have watched several videos regarding the difference between が & は, including those taught by Japanese people. This one gives the simplest and clearest explanation, and it makes perfect sense logically. どうもありがとうございました！😊
I had to rewatch this video multiple times as I'm new to Japanese grammar. I couldn't fully grasp everything you were saying until I explored cure dolly sensei's videos, saw many example sentences, and tried to remember what the particles were doing with each sentence. Yes this does mean I had to fully grasp most of the particles in order to understand this video.
This video is super important so if you were to do a series on this, try to gear it toward beginners. Beginning with short easy to understand sentences and then with longer more complex sentences. I would also refrain from assuming we understand anything such as 辛いもの, I personally did not understand that mono turned this into things which made it hard to grasp the sentence (7:05). It's obvious to me now but before almost every word in the video was new to me so I couldn't focus on the particle itself.
Maybe this video wasn't meant to teach at all levels and had a different goal but when you said updated model of cure dolly sensei, my first thought was to learn from you, student to student. Thanks Juls you're one of the best at showing us how to study, you just need a different approach when it comes to teaching Japanese itself.
Just saw the comment, sorry for the late reply.
First of all thank you for watching the video and leave such thoughtful feedback!
Yea I think I'll do more videos talking about this exact same topic but framed differently. This video was aimed more towards people who already knew SOME Japanese grammar hence the format of "This sentence does NOT mean this, it instead means THIS".
Your feedback is very valuable and I totally understand what you mean! Hopefully I'll nail a way to present this to beginners in the future!
"It" isn't a perfect translation for the zero-ga. The point of it being a "zero" is that it can be literally anything, but in English, "it" can only be third person, inanimate, and singular
This is so helpfull! I alreasy grasped the を particle, but couldn't know when to use は or が. the ０が is very nice, thank you.
thank you for the video kiryu-san :)
You are the first person I literally see explaining what this kind of sentences LITERALLY means. I'm a Japanese Language teacher in my country, and I also explain this to my students. However, being a native Spanish speaker is an advantage not only for me but also for my students because our language, despite being quite different from Japanese, actually has some aspects quite similar.
(私（に）は) 猫が好きだ is translated in Spanish as "(A mí) me gustan los gatos." or depending on context "(A mí) me gusta el gato." While "gustar" is still a verb like "to like" and not and な adjective like "好き", in Spanish the subject here is... ¡"los gatos"! or "el gato". "Gustar" is what we call in Spanish an "affective verb", a verb in which the subject make the indirect object to feel something. The "(A mí) me" is the indirect object in the sentence, meaning "to me". Interestingly enough, although we don't have a theme particle like "は" (we can indicate something as the theme of the sentence in a similar way as in English), it makes complete sense in Japanese because you can say 私 *に* は猫が好きだ. That 私に means exactly "A mí", like in Spanish!
I also have explained the difference between が and を when using たい, but your explanation and other from a grammar dictionary I have make sense with the one I found first years ago and it's the one I use: りんごが食べたい makes emphasis that is the apple the thing you want to eat (your explanation), the desire to eat one is strong (dictionary's explanation), and you don't have an apple in front of you (the explanation I found and I use). Meanwhile りんごを食べたい does not make that emphasis, since the subject is probably 私が (your explanation), the desire of eating an apple is not so strong (dictionary's explanation) and I have THIS apple in front of mine, so I want to eat THIS one given that's at my reach (the explanation I found and I use). Thinking about it, neither explanation contradict one another :o
Great video!
Thank you for this huge help. 🙏🏼
You're very welcome! Glad this video was helpful! 😁
truly genius, short yet detailed explanation, really impressive
kon'nichiwa, Jouzu-san! Great video. Arigatou!
great video please be consistent btw love ur channel
Thanks for watching and commenting! It's very difficult to be consistent when I run 2 channels and have 3 jobs, so I'll try my best to at least get this 3 part series out consistently. Maybe 1 a week! :)
Wow, this is the first time i've seen that concept, where did you first read about it?
Once heard about the "invisible は" but honestly this is kind of a game changer, thanks for the vid
Cure Dolly sensei is the one who taught me this concept, I believe she learned it from a Dr. Jay Rubin.
.
Most of the information about the Ø Pronoun in Japanese is hidden behind Academic and Phd papers. Not sure why they don't teach this most commonly! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The visible ha is nothing new - it is usually taught as: what is not necessary to understand the sentence will be left out. And often the topic of a sentence is clear from the context, hence there is no ha needed.
thanks for the video
You're very welcome! 😊
Great insight, thank you !!
I am close to the N2 level, but I never thought of it that way (and no teacher ever told me so !)
Also thank you for explaining in the comments the two possible meanings of「食べたい」、because this seemed unclear to me in the video.
By the way, do you also have this kind of insight for particules に and で ?
Despite from what the textbook told me, and the instinct I developped with experience, it still seems pretty random to me... but maybe you have an insight that would make it make more sense ? 😊
For a moment I thought that you're talking about the God Particle (as particle physicists call the Higgs bozon) and I was like "what is happening here?…" :D
Thank you for giving the credit to Cure Dolly sensei. I missed her...😢
Also, the part where you mention the food doesn't need to be sentient in order to make me want to eat it, that's correct. But remember that Japan has Shintoism culture where all things have souls. So to Japanese (at least ancient people who created the language), the food is actively doing something doesn't sounds weird to them. We see this more clearly in ukemi (受身) form on the last part of your video. 水が犬に飲まれた can be translated as "The water receive drink action on the dog". This will be consistent with water still be the subject and it receive, that's why it's called 受身, literally means "receive form"
It's the same for Spanish:
Me gusta el vino - I like wine (literally wine is likable to me). And the thing is that you can write it as "El vino me gusta", so it becomes even more obvious that "el vino" is the subject. Same structure as in "El hombre me odia" (the man hates me).
Yet, check this: Amo el vino - I love wine. Instead of "Me ama el vino" (wine loves me), even though it would be written as "El vino me ama" to make it sound natural.
So gustar is something the object does, while amar is something the person does.
In fact there are other contexts where the difference is obvious:
Cómo gustar a la gente - How to be liked by people.
Cómo amar a la gente - How to love people.
Wish I'd seen this when I started learning (3 years ago) lol - this all makes way more sense now
First of all, good job on the video, howveer, I have question.
So.... given the rules you established in this video, I understand クレープは食べたい to mean "As for the crepe, I am wanting to eat it" and クレープを食べたい as "want to eat the crepe." However, I now no longer understand クレープが食べたい, I used to understand it as "I want to eat the crepe," but now I don't know, becuase according to your rules, the crepe, being the subject, wants to eat. Of course, however, that's not what it actually means, in reality, it means "i want to eat the crepe," at least according to online translators. I guess what I am trying to say is, how is it that 私が食べたい means "I want to eat," but クレープが食べたい means "The crepe is making me want to eat it" or more simply "I want to eat the crepe" and not "The crepe wants to eat" ? あらかじめにありがとう
I really love this question because it shows who's paying attention and who's not. Your comment proves that you are indeed paying attention and this is a very real and very valid question.
Please allow me to use my copy pasted answer from other people who have asked the same thing:
You know how in math, √2 is ±2, but most people write "2" and forget about "-2" ?
This is very similar. 私が食べたい actually simultaneously means both "I am eat want" and "I am eat wanting"; and similarly, クレープが食べたい simultaneously means "crepe is eat want" and "crepe is eat wanting".
How do Japanese people make the choice to know which is which? It's something called "the rule of absurdity", which is a phenomenon seen in English too.
The rule of absurdity states that our brain leans towards the most normal, logical, and reasonable interpretation of something when it has multiple interpretations.
An example in English is "I saw a man on the hill with a telescope".
Your two immediate interpretations are either that I used a telescope to see a man on a hill- or that I saw a man on a hill with my naked eyes and that the man had a telescope.
What you've automatically excluded is the possibility that I 🪚 a man on a hill using a 🔭-- because this is absurd.
Further, the rule of absurdity states that if the speaker DOES want to say something absurd- it falls incumbent on the speaker to make that clear.
Hope this clears things up!
@@JouzuJuls Ah, thank you I wasn't quite sure but you've confirmed things for me!!
The Pimsleur Japanese course often hints at this. Usually when the は particle is used they'll translate it as "as for X..."
Sorry to comment so late, but I’ve always wondered. What’s the distinction between “spicy food is likable to him” vs “he likes spicy food”? I can maybe see it in some convoluted sense like, this person may thing something is likable, but he may not like it himself. If I’m wrong, do let me know. But to me, they both pretty much convey the same meaning to me. It’s like saying “ I went to the store today” vs “the store is the place that which I went today”. Once again, I could be wrong, but that’s how I view it.
Also I know you get this a lot, but I absolutely LOVE your channel. I’ve been practicing for years, still struggle, but you have made a bunch of stuff clearer for me and I’ve watch multiple of your videos at least 5 times. I can almost recite your conjugation video. I’m super impressed with your speaking skills and pronunciation. I wish I could sound that good, but I get too embarrassed when I speak. Anyway thanks and much love brother
Edit: also one more question. What’s the difference between the subject and topic? I mean, I get it in certain examples, but is it not subjective sometimes? I could be talking about how I got hit by a ball in gym class, and I assume I would be the subject here and ball is the topic. But what if I wanna make the focus on me rather than the ball, wouldn’t I perceive myself as the topic and the ball is just there, or can the sentence stay the same and the subject/topic change?
Hi there! Lemme try to help you out.
The difference between "he likes spicy things" and "spicy things are likable" is the subject of the sentence.
Yes, ultimately- meaning wise, both mean the same thing and you're just writing it differently. But this difference between what is "normally written" in English and Japanese highlights the different ways these languages view the world.
In the normal English "he likes spicy food", English likes to comment on the person who feels something about something else. "Spicy food is likeable" sounds weird because of the preference to out the "ego" as the subject in English.
Conversely, 辛いものが好き shows Japanese's preference to NOT show the "ego" and talk about the thing that is exerting the feeling of being likable. 彼が辛いものを好き is not grammatically wrong- but it's just weird because highlighting the Ego like this is just not what Japanese people do.
When you hear people saying that languages shape the way you see the world, this is what they mean!
Oh, your other question! "topic" is a concept foreign to native English speakers for sure.
To put it simply, the subject is whatever must exist in the sentence (visible or not) in order for the sentence to convey what you mean with additional context to support you.
For example, this sentence is often used to confused Japanese natives about their own grammar: 象は鼻が長い (as for the elephant, nose is long)
You can remove each element here to see whether the sentence stays intact- or flip the particles. For example, if you remove "as for the elephant", the sentence stays in tact as long as you have the context of talking about elephants.
However, if you remove "nose", you get left with "as for elephants, it is long". That doesn't make sense even with the context.
Or if you flip it to be like "as for noses, elephant is long", don't think I need to say it but that clearly isn't the same meaning.
Hence with this example, we can prove that が always marks the subject no matter what, and that the subject is omnipresent everywhere. While は helps clarify what we're talking about.
If the question is- I have a thing that can be either the subject or topic- how do I know which to mark it with.
Then it's a matter of getting enough comprehensible input to figure out what's the most natural on a case by case basis.
@@JouzuJuls ooh I see this actually makes a lot of sense, thank you so much.
I’ve heard this point before, and that’s why Japanese doesn’t use “I” so often while talking, because it’s perceived as arrogant or selfish. I never extended that idea past that and into the sentences though. That’s really cool and thank you for explaining it so well.
@@JouzuJuls ah I get it. That’s actually really simple. At least if I’m understanding it properly. は is used to just state the thing we’re talking about, and が is what’s used to talk about said thing?
So if I wanted to say something like 「僕は仕事がめちゃ面倒だ」would this be a correct sentence? I’m sure I got something wrong here, but would I be the topic and my work be the subject? Or did I flip the two and I should be the subject?
@@Adonisrose7493 Remember that every sentence must have an A car and B engine (see the next video in the series to learn more).
A car is what is marked が, and the B engine is the comment that modifies the A car. It is "logical" as it effects the logic of the sentence. は is "non-logical", it doesn't influence the sentence grammatically as much as it sets up the expectation in the listeners mind.
Remember that the subject is necessary is every sentence, so to test if your sentence is right, we can simply test whether what you marked as が was the thing you wanted to comment about.
The way you said it with 僕は implies that YOUR work is annoying. Everybody else's work? Dunno anything about that- but YOUR work only is annoying.
If you dropped 僕は, that would be the most natural way of expressing this. "Work is very annoying".
If you dropped 仕事が and left it as "it"- you would get "as for me, it is very annoying." Not it.
If you flipped it to "as for work, I am very annoying", that doesn't make sense and you just called yourself annoying.
If you marked 仕事 with は instead, then left が as it- this is also possible and also the most natural depending on context.
As in 仕事はめちゃ面倒だ. "As for work, it is very annoying." This would be a comment on not anybody's work in particular- but the fact that humans have to work in general- THAT'S annoying.
This reminds me a lot of a philosphy class I took
Having now binged on a fair number of your videos, in my opinion, they would be hugely improved were you to slow dow. A lot.
Is the にparticle marking the actor (dog) in the sentence also considered an indirect object marker? Or is that a different function of the particle に？
It's a different function. There IS a way to explain に as the target particle doing what it's normally doing, but it's harder to explain and understand. I'll make a dedicated video for it eventually, but for now- for receptive sentences, you can just treat the に as having the ability to mark the actor of the sub-action ✌️
@@JouzuJuls Tysm!
8:00 i learned the たい form as just someone wanting to do something, which i guess would be the simplified version of "making someone want something". however i don't quite understand it the way you defined the たい form, so i'd be glad if you could tell me where you learned it like that, so i cant look it up and understand the たい form further than what i know.
Yo! Sorry for the super delayed reply! TH-cam flagged this comment as spam so I didn't get to see it!
.
I think the problem starts with you thinking たい is a "form", it is not a "form". たい is just a helper adjective.
.
I can link you to the resource that my teacher made for you to look into it yourself! th-cam.com/video/vk3aKqMQwhM/w-d-xo.html
@@JouzuJuls thank you very much! i will look into it!
@@rina-ht4cc No worries! It might seem pretty complex at first but I promise that once you understand it, Japanese will make complete & total sense!
頑張って！😁
@@JouzuJuls oh yeah, it made perfect sense to me when the teacher explained it. it aligned perfectly with my own perception of the phenomenon too.
however my nice feeling of accomplishment was soon gone when i heard what happened to the teacher. I've never heard of her before but she seemed a very dedicated and lovely person, i feel very sorry.
well, that gives all the more reason to communicate my appreciation to the lovely people in our learning community that are still around.
thank you for being around helping people learn better and contributing to this community!
i wish you the very best, take care!
@@rina-ht4cc Glad her explaination was able to clear everything up!
.
Yea, she was a VERY nice person and dedicated herself to helping people even at her last moments.
.
I remember when I had questions about Japanese without knowing her situation and she would still be apologizing for slow replies and stuff. Keep in mind I was a complete nooby at that time too.
.
If only we knew what she was going through back then...
.
Oh well, at least I can try my best now to continue her legacy!
您講得很清楚，真是有見識呢
can with wa (as for topic) also kind of be translated to (topic 'says') with 'says' being broadly defined?
You can translate it whatever way you want. As long as you understand what it's actually doing. I translate は as "Speaking of ..." because that's what a topic is. "Says" is a bit strange when you have something like 「あの部屋には」, if you used "says" it'd be like "The 'in' of that room says". As opposed to "Speaking of the 'in' of that room", which kinda flows a bit better imo.
But again, the translation doesn't really matter, what matters is understanding the underlying principle.
@@JouzuJuls ‘Speaking of’ does actually make more sense, ありがとうございます。
Having watched a lot of cure dolly’s series and having immersed a lot now, I finally understand what you mean now.
Thanks for having introduiced me to this concept
can we take a second to talk about how dripped out this guy is?
Stealin that Dragon of Dojima look 😉
@@JouzuJuls LEAVE SOME WOMEN FOR THE REST OF US
@@JohnDoe-bp9jm 😂
I've seen so many different explanation for が and は imma just speak with whatever comes to mind until i get a feeling for what's appropriate.
This mindset is unfortunately the result years of が and は being completely mistaught as this mysterious and hard to understand creature.
It is not.
が is very simple to understand and MUST be understood to develop a proper grasp of Japanese.
I would advise ditching literally everything you've been told about が and watching this video with a blank canvas.
The only reason people say "just go by intuition" is because they fail to explain what can very easily be explained without exception. Yet they still refuse to revise this way of teaching.
Not only does traditional Eihongo grammar fail to explain fundamental grammar points, it also reinforces DESTRUCTIVE ideas like this.
@@JouzuJuls well, I watched a video by another dude who said that は puts emphasis on what comes after it and が puts emphasis on what comes before it, the dude is tokini Andy I think.
I understand both explanations, but it is still kind of confusing, are they mutually acceptable or not, I am very confused rn. But I'll force my 2 brain cells to work and figure it out.
@@sweetdurt2143 Yes, I also said this at 10:14 (read the slides).
If Tokini Andy said only that and left it, then he only explained WHAT it does without going into detail about WHY it does it. To actually develop a solid understanding of Japanese, you must actually take a look at the structure instead of the surface level. Traditional textbooks (Like Genki that Tokini Andy uses) don't do this. They come up with some nonsense that confuses learners who don't know better and brush all their holes and mistakes off as "just develop intuition".
Japanese structure is the most flawless way of looking at Japanese grammar (and thus the most useful). The most fundamental concept clashes with traditional Eihongo textbooks as well as Tae Kim, as both of those have clear flaws that get exposed by Japanese Structure.
Tokini Andy seems to also have realized this and 7 months ago made a video quoting Dr.Jay Rubin and teaching the Øが as well.
This video by Cure Dolly explains why mixing the nonsense of Eihongo with Japanese Structure does not work by taking a detailed look at why Tae Kim is fundamentally flawed: th-cam.com/video/-JuHi-yKGFc/w-d-xo.html
@@JouzuJuls finally... A youtuber giving a perfect explanation, thank you
Finally someone is picking up on where Curedolly left off. RIP Dolly. I remember discovering her stuff early in my journey and it really helped. Unfortunately, even many japanese people will frequently say stuff like "And here we have WA, that marks the subject." If only the topic and the subject werent so often referring to the same thing but they often are and that causes that confusion.
Btw. try to slow down the talking speed just a tad bit. We dont mind a longer video 😂
Yes, unfortunately even native Japanese teachers (_some_ of them - not all) will try to shoehorn Japanese into the Euro/English-focused grammatical model, and come up with confusing things like the word with は being the subject, and that が sometimes is the subject and sometimes is the object (the latter is typically explained with "if it's about a *feeling* then が is used to mark objects instead of を". Which is completely incorrect, as explained in this video. Of course native Japanese speakers will never get confused by は／が／を and are therefore unable to see the issue here. As for Japanese language structure in general I like Kaname Naito's channel. Here he explains the basic concept of "choose a topic, then comment on it" (paraphrased): th-cam.com/video/U2q5GsB0swQ/w-d-xo.html
@@tohaason oh yes Kaname‐Sama is the man for this stuff. He's on my list already 💪
There is lots of evidence she is not dead and is part of a bizzare cult
I think the key in order to understand this is to realise that Japanese has fundamentally different views of the world. For Westerners, the person is the most important thing in the world, more so than crepes, trees or cars. Therefore we are the center of all action. But in Japanese this is not the case. Eating is not something "I" do, rather, it is something that happens between the crepe and I. It sounds weird and ridiculous, but that´s exactly why these particles are hard to tell apart.
Amazing explanation.
Yes! That's exactly what it is. Once we can grasp that the whole world view is different, it truly does change our comprehension of the language and affects what we're saying.
Great video! I watched Cure Dolly's videos on this, but your way of looking at it seemed to hit home for me a bit more. Question: isn't "たい" an auxiliary adjective? Meaning, it could be translated as "the action is desired/ wanted/ desirable" just like 猫が好きだ is "Cats are likeable." So, クレープが食べたい could be read as "Crepes are desirable to eat." Whereas, クレープを食べたい could be read as "[It's] desirable to eat crepes." (?), and クレープは食べたい "Crepes, [they're] desirable to eat." And the nuances could be read as: (が) Crepes are good, I want to eat one; (を) I'd like to eat a crepe. (は) I want to eat, I'll have crepes / I'd like to try crepes. If there's a better way to look at it, please share. Thanks!
Thank you very much! Glad you enjoyed the video, and good question. Yes, たい is an aux adj, but few people can define the word "auxiliary", hence the decision to use the word "helper" instead.
Don't get so hung up on translating it to English as ultimately there's no perfect way to translate the idea of たい; you're free to interpret it in whatever way works for you as long as it is consistent and gets the meaning across.
That said I do like your interpretations quite a lot and think they fit quite well! Good job! 👍
This video is great, but now I am confused about why は exists if you need が more? Why is が built into every sentence? Wouldn’t は be the one built into all sentences because it marks what is being talked about?
Thank you for the comment and question!
To clarify, it's not that が has to be in every sentence, it's that the subject must be in every sentence. This is true of not just Japanese, but of every language in the world. It just so happens that in Japanese, the subject is always marked with が.
Remember that は does not mark what you are talking about, it marks the topic. What "you are talking about" would be the subject, and that is marked が.
Please refer to 5:00 where I used the example sentence 私は日本人だ. In this sentence, we are not talking about 私, we are talking about "it". The topic simply clarifies and fills in the gap of what "it" is.
If you really wanted to say "I am Japanese" you would need to say 私が日本人だ as that keeps "I" as the subject.
During the video i notice that it hasen't any new concepts that i didn't knew, i learned all of this in portuguese classes (my native language). I just never tried to apply it, now just seems too easy that i look dumb. Lol
Yesss, precisely that! The whole concept is NOT unique to Japanese, languages like Spanish have it too! Stuff like "me gusta el tequila" does NOT mean "I like tequila", it instead means "Tequila pleases me". All the confusion only comes up because English REALLY wants to put "I" as the subject of the sentence even when "I" is NOT the subject!
@@JouzuJuls the way that english subjects works still confuses me even that i use english as much as my native language. Feels natural but when i stop to think things like "it" and that it's so common to overuse subjects in english.
I started learning japanese this week and memorised most of the hiragana and katakana now. My problem I just noticed on the thumbnail that は is wa but the website I learned it from told that its ha and わ is wa
は when used as just part of a word is pronounced "ha"- but when it is used as a particle (助詞) it is pronounced "wa".
In こんにちは は marks the topic, so it is 'wa'. In Kanji it's easier to see 今日は
@@liam3284 the は in こんにちは is no longer acting as a particle. This is because こんにちは is a fossil from old Japanese, meaning it doesn't play by modern day Japanese rules.
こんにちは should be seen as a single entity instead.
@@liam3284 「こにちは」is not written in 漢字 because what you wrote is not 「こにちは」it is 「今日」which is not a greeting, but rather the word for "today" / "this day". When you wrote 「今日は」you are just saying that the topic of discussion is today.
「は」と「が」はおそらく日本語を学ぶ際に一番初めにと言ってもいいくらいの初期段階で出てくる項目だと思われます。日本語の中で言うとそれくらい初歩的なものなのですが外国人には相当難しいものだと思われます。JLPTの1級を取得した人でもこの「は」と「が」の使い方を間違って使っている場面を見ることが少なくありません。ところが日本人だと「は」と「が」は絶対と言っていいくらい間違いません。何故なら両者は全く違うものなので、極端に言うと「は」と「が」を入れ違うだけで全く違う意味の文章となるので間違えようがないのです。ところが外国人学習者の場合はJLPTの1級を取得していたり、いわゆるペラペラに日本語を話せる人でも間違っているのをよく目にするので、外国人にとっては相当難しい概念なのだろうと推測します。
動画を見てくれて、そしてコメントを残してありがとうございます！
この動画の内容（特に「Øが」の存在）は多分日本人にはわかりにくい概念と思います、なぜならこの概念は英語の "it" と同じ、日本語の場合に "it"はほとんど表さないですね。従って、日本人が日本語を教えている時、こんなアイデアを考えることさえできませんね。
それからは多くの日本語学習者が「は」と「が」の区別をわからない原因になったと思います。
「は」と「が」という概念が特に難しいとは言えなくて、普通に教え方が悪いともいます。「Øが」を表したら、すごくわかりやすい概念になれるともいえますよ。たいていの先生がこんなに簡単な概念を理解していないことが一番残念なことです。
そしてJLPTの１級を突破した学習者がまだ日本語を喋れないということが本当にいますね… でもこれは学習者のせいじゃなくて、JLPTの方式が普通にばかばかしいと思います。
この世に「話す」ことを一切試してない言語能力試験は本当にJLPTしかないらしい。他人とこんな試験があるなんて言ったら、絶対に冗談だと思われるでしょうね。
@@JouzuJuls sadly, because JLPT helps make JP immigration process easier for certain visas, it is too important to not do, if that is the end goal
If 私はクレープが食べたい and 私がクレープは食べたい basically mean I want to eat crepe in one way or another. How would I say the crepe wants to eat me? Would this be a case where using を makes sense and could be accepted? So would it be クレープが私を食べたい then?
Bingo. On that note, this following question also shows up :
If 私が食べたい means "I am eat want", why doesn't クレープが食べたい mean "the crepe is eat want"?
And if you had this question then good job, as that's a very valid question that proves you understand what's going on.
Allow me to explain this too.
You know how in math, √2 is ±2, but most people write "2" and forget about "-2" ?
This is very similar. 私が食べたい actually simultaneously means both "I am eat want" and "I am eat wanting"; and similarly, クレープが食べたい simultaneously means "crepe is eat want" and "crepe is eat wanting".
How do Japanese people make the choice to know which is which? It's something called "the rule of absurdity", which is a phenomenon seen in English too.
The rule of absurdity states that our brain leans towards the most normal, logical, and reasonable interpretation of something when it has multiple interpretations.
An example in English is "I saw a man on the hill with a telescope".
Your two immediate interpretations are either that I used a telescope to see a man on a hill- or that I saw a man on a hill with my naked eyes and that the man had a telescope.
What you've automatically excluded is the possibility that I 🪚 a man on a hill using a 🔭-- because this is absurd.
Further, the rule of absurdity states that if the speaker DOES want to say something absurd- it falls incumbent on the speaker to make that clear.
So in your situation of the crepe wanting to eat you- yes, specifying 私を is extremely important. It may even be beneficial to specify that the crepe is sentient too, just to remove all doubts!
@@JouzuJuls Got it. Thanks. This video opened like a third eye for me.
I think you misrepresented what Dolly-sensei was saying in your examples.
First of all, Dolly does NOT use "subject" and "actor" interchangeably. If you listen carefully to her lessons, you find that she OCCASIONALLY refers to what が marks as the "actor", but that's only to help illustrate her point that が always marks the main do-er of a sentence, i.e. the subject.
Second, she never once referred to the dog as the "actor" in her lesson about the receptive れる/られる form and, in fact, said the exact opposite ―― that the dog *isn't* the actor since it's not the one doing the receiving. That would be the water.
The part where you showed Dolly referring to the dog as the "actor" is from a completely different lesson unrelated to this concept. That lesson was about the causative せる/させる form, where she clearly explains that those types of sentences always have at least two actors (one for せる/させる and one for the verb it attaches to). This is completely consistent with her が lessons, because she never once said or implied that the が-marked subject/actor is the ONLY actor that can ever be in a sentence. Yes, が always marks the subject, and the subject is always an actor; but an actor isn't always the subject, so actors don't always get marked by が.
She gave the example sentence "Øが 犬に 肉を 食べさせた", where "Ø" (the one who compelled the dog to eat) is the main actor and the subject, thus getting が, while "dog" (the one who ate) is another actor, but is also functioning as a target, which gets it に instead of が. This makes "dog" an actor, but not the subject.
Nothing Dolly said about this was confusing or contradictory in any way.
First of all, thank you for posting this comment!
.
To respond, could I summarize your comment as the following points?
1. Dolly does not use "subject" and "actor" interchangeably except when she does
2. Dolly does not refer to the dog as the "actor" in one lesson, but does in another
3. Our definition of what an "actor" is, is not aligned
4. She never said that the が-marked subject/actor is the ONLY actor
5. The "actor" marked に is the actor because it is also functioning as a "target"
.
I will be responding to these 5 points so please let me know if I have misunderstood you in some way.
.
1. This comment already is a confusing statement and is an example of what Dolly fights against, exceptions. My video is trying to point out that there is no need to ever call the "subject" an "actor" because it is already understood what a subject does. Calling it an "actor" adds unnecessary confusion (such as the situation of having "2 actors" which we will see later).
.
2. This shows inconsistency. You can't say "she never once referred to the dog as the actor" when she DOES because she refers to the EXACT same sentence in 2 lessons. It doesn't matter that it wasn't "in her lesson about れる/られる", it's still the same sentence.
.
I can't say "猫が好き" means "I like cats" in one lesson, then in another lesson, re-use 猫が好き and say that "the cat is the subject". These 2 statements contradict and are inconsistent.
.
Secondly, YOU contradicted yourself in your own comment. In your 5th paragraph, YOU referred to the dog as the "second ACTOR". So if you say that Dolly has NEVER referred to the dog as an actor, either Dolly is wrong or you are.
.
Furthermore, the reason you even needed to bring this up in the first place is a perfect example of why point no.1 needs to be clarified. Had she NEVER referred to the subject as the "actor" EVER (because doing so is unneeded), this point would not even be listed.
.
3. I am unsure what your definition of the "actor" is as you've contradicted yourself in your comment. So allow me to define "actor" and let's see whether we're on the same page. An "actor" is anything that does something. Just because a lot of the time the actor HAPPENS to be the subject, doesn't mean there's any relationship that Actor = Subject or vice versa.
.
By this definition, in the sentence Øが 犬に 肉を 食べさせた, you CAN INDEED say that there are "2 actors": The Ø and the 犬. This means that Dolly is indeed right about calling the 犬 an actor, and she has indeed done so.
.
HOWEVER, this goes back to point no.1 again. WHY is there a need to call the が anything else BUT the subject? Why do we need to say that there are "2 actors" when we can very easily say "there is the subject marked が as it does 100% of the time, and there is the actor marked に".
.
What advantage does calling the が an "actor" give? What's wrong with the word "subject"?
.
4. I never said that either.
.
5. You are correct. I plan to emphasize this point a bit more in a dedicated video about the に particle, but I found it unnecessary to include in this video. Worry not, I will not be like point no.1 and contradict myself in that video.
@@JouzuJuls Yes, you indeed misunderstood me. My actual points were as follows:
1. Dolly does not use "subject" and "actor" interchangeably *at all.* She calls the subject an actor in the same way that you can call a square a rectangle or a cat an animal. All A is B, but not all B is A. This is basic logic. I don't understand how you see the two as "interchangeable".
2. Dolly refers to the dog as the "actor" *in a completely different sentence in an unrelated lesson* which has nothing to do with what you explained in the video.
3. She never said that the が-marked subject/actor is the ONLY actor (again, just like how squares aren't the only rectangles)
4. The "actor" marked に (again, in a completely unrelated sentence and lesson) is marked as such because both a) it's also a target, and b) が is already marking the other (primary) actor of the sentence, the subject, like it always does. If either of those weren't true, then it wouldn't be marked with に.
- "You can't say 'she never once referred to the dog as the actor' when she DOES because she refers to the EXACT same sentence in 2 lessons."
Ok, now you're just being deliberately obtuse. We both know damn well that they were NOT the exact same sentence. One sentence was "水が犬に飲まれた" and the other was "犬に肉を食べさせた".
- "YOU contradicted yourself in your own comment. In your 5th paragraph, YOU referred to the dog as the 'second ACTOR'. So if you say that Dolly has NEVER referred to the dog as an actor, either Dolly is wrong or you are."
Again, you're being deliberately obtuse. Re-read my 3rd paragraph sentence. I clearly said she never referred to the dog as an actor IN HER OTHER LESSON, which again, was in a completely different sentence about a completely different topic.
- "The reason you even needed to bring this up in the first place is a perfect example of why point no.1 needs to be clarified"
Please explain what needs to be clarified here. Is it the concept that an "A" can be a "B" but not always the other way around? Because that's basic logic, my guy. Dolly even explain this point as well in her first lesson about だ.
- "I am unsure what your definition of the 'actor' is as you've contradicted yourself in your comment.
It's actually very simple. An "actor" is whatever is doing a verb. A subject is always doing a verb, so a subject is always an actor. But as we see in せる/させる sentences, sometimes there are multiple verbs, so there must also be multiple actors in those cases. "水が犬に飲まれた" has 1 verb, so there is 1 actor. "犬に肉を食べさせた" has 2 verbs, so there are 2 actors. WHERE IS THE CONTRADICTION HERE??
At this point, this seems less like misunderstanding and more like intellectual dishonesty. Dude, if you're so dead set on calling Dolly wrong that you have to deliberately misquote her, act like 2 different sentences/concepts are the same just to call her out on making 2 different comments about them, pretend like you don't understand basic logic, and then proceed to project YOUR apparent confusion of it onto other people, calling it "contradicting" or "confusing" or whatnot, just because YOU aren't making any sense of it, then why bother giving her props or including her in your videos in the first place? If anything, this just feels like a middle finger to all the hard work Dolly put into those videos to make it easier for us to understand this language.
@@jpnpod8277 I'm not sure why youre coming at me so hard and I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. As I said in the beginning of this video, I may have made some mistakes and I may make a video saying that the stuff in this video is wrong in the future. Unsure why you think I'm "dead set" on something when I'm asking you to clarify your point so I can better understand where you think I'm wrong.
.
So from your reply here's what I can see:
.
You say that the subject is always the actor. I agreed to this. I simply asked why this must be said? Why not leave it unsaid and just call the subject the subject?
.
To put it into your anology, if there were 2 shapes on a table, a square and a rectangle. What paints a clearer picture:
"There are 2 rectangles on the table" or "There is a square and a rectangle on the table". Neither is wrong, one is just more clear. No reason we need to call a square a rectangle even if it is- the word square exists.
.
You seem to not understand that れる/られる are also verbs just like せる/させる.
.
If "犬に肉を食べさせた" has 2 verbs and therefore 2 actors, so does "水が犬に飲まれた". That's your contradiction.
@@JouzuJuls Ok, NOW I see what you mean with your contradiction claim and I wish you had worded it that way earlier. I actually did already know that れる/られる are verbs too, but I forgot to take that into consideration when I was forming my argument. I responded the way I did because I thought you were being intellectually disingenuous and ignoring details for the sake of your argument, like when you said the two sentences were exactly the same. They weren't, but now I see that the logic they both use are the same, which is probably what you actually meant. I apologize for that and I take back everything I said regarding it. If we take the same logic for both sentences, then yes, you are 100% correct that Dolly contradicted herself by calling the dog an "actor" in one case but not the other.
But as for you question about the terms "subject" and "actor", let me ask you something: In all situations, would you deny or ignore the fact that squares have 4 sides and 4 right-angles just because it's called a square? Are we suppose to just magically know what a square even is in the first place without ever being told?
We're not talking about two random things on a table getting labelled, we're talking about how we describe and represent concepts with words. Not only does calling the subject an actor help to illustrate what it actually does in a sentence, but it also makes it easier to say various things in certain contexts, like explaining grammar points. What's easier to say, "せる/させる sentences must have at least 2 actors" or "せる/させる sentences must have at least 1 actor and a subject"? One is redundant, takes more words just to get the same point across, and includes unnecessary information (the properties specific to a subject are not relevant here, only the fact that it's an actor).
By your logic, we should just drop the word "animal" from our vocabulary altogether simply because they each have their own specific name anyway, as that apparently "paints a clearer picture". Instead of Animal Planet, we should call it "Lion/tiger/bear/panther/gorilla/wolf/giraffe/etc...." Planet, with the names of every single one in the title. The same can be said for every other umbrella term there is, like "vehicle", "song", "genre", etc.
@@jpnpod8277 Thank you for correcting my choice of words, I should have been more specific, you are right.
.
The rest of your argument seems to revolve around the assumption that without ever calling the Subject an "actor", the only other way we could possibly know what the subject does is "to just magically know".
.
As if it is literally impossible to understand what a square is without ever being told it's a rectangle.
.
So if someone were able to explain what a subject does without ever calling it an actor, would you consider that magic?
.
Is this whole video magic...? Cuz if it is I might just advertise it as the "magic solution" 😂
.
Btw you also said that having 2 seperate words here is "redundant" and that the "properties specific to a subject are not relevant here".
.
So putting aside that this whole video is a video about subjects in Japanese...
.
Let's remember that Dolly's system of breaking down Japanese requires you to identify the subject, and that the subject is in every sentence. And I don't just mean "this one particular sentence" which could be implied when you said the word "here", I mean a universally applicable breakdown of all Japanese sentences.
.
So to better illustrate my point about why calling the subject an actor is redundant, let's give the words a few labels.
.
Subject = A
Predicate = B
Actor = C
Sub-clause action = D
.
And we establish 2 facts:
- The sentence we are working with is an A does B sentence with C does D as a sub clause
- A is C
.
You are saying that having "A" is redundant and therefore we should say "C does D within C does B".
.
Now in order to follow the system and break down this sentence, you must find A. But there are 2 C's, so which is A?
.
But here's the gotcha part. That's not a hard question to answer because A is the one doing B. The point is that you had to ask the question of "what is A" in the first place.
.
That's not a question you have to ask if you just wrote A does B. Redundancy!
6:26 then you drop the を and the resulting sentence still works.
I dont understand where do I place the 0"ga"?
Every single Japanese sentence is composed of 2 essential parts that cannot change. The A car (subject marked が) and the B engine (sentence ender, check the next video in this series). The A car MUST come before the B engine.
.
For example:
1) 猫がいる。
The A car here is 猫が, therefore we can already see the が. The CAT is the subject. いる is the verb sentence ender (B engine). This sentence is "A does B", "The cat does the act of existing".
2) 猫だ。
As you can see, there is no visible が. 猫だ is simply the noun sentence ender (B Engine). The sentence right now translates to "is cat", but WHAT is cat? The answer is simple- "IT" is cat, because "IT" can only be understood via context. To represent "IT" in Japanese, we use Øが.
Øが猫だ。Would be showing what's ACTUALLY happening. Øが is the A car, the subject is Ø, in other words- "IT". The full sentence becomes "IT is cat".
Would it be simpler just to describe 食べたい as an adjective version of 食べる. What I mean by this is that 食べたい would just be an adjective that describes something that is desirable to eat or desires to eat. This would also explain why the conjugations of 食べたい work very similarly to a normal い-adjective. かわいい かわいくない 食べたい 食べたくない. I think this was what you were explaining in the video but you don't think you used the word "adjective". Also translating 「クレープが食べたい」into "Crepe is making me wanting to eat it" Is in my opinion a little too far of a stretch. Maybe a better translation would be "Crepe is desirable to eat (for me)" or "Crepe is eat-desirable (for me)" or something lol. Aight anyways good video keep up the good work!
Hey! Thanks for the comment!
It may seem simpler to describe 食べたい as a single adjective, but we know this is not what's happening and this causes problems later down the line.
First of all, please watch this video on verb conjugations to learn more about the way conjugations really work: th-cam.com/video/cGA6Tj9_lSg/w-d-xo.html
To explain the problem this would cause, we have to look at the sentence "クレープを食べたい". Remember that the を particle marks the direct object of a verb. If you were to see 食べたい as a single adjective, there would be no verb in this sentence and the を particle would be grammatically incorrect. However, this is not the case. The use of を here IS grammatically correct (just not as common as が), and the reason it works is because the 食べ is the conjugated form of the verb (and remains a verb) while たい is the adjective. The を is able to attach to 食べ, not たい.
The conjugations you have identified for 食べたい does not apply to 食べたい, but instead just the たい. This is because たい (and ない) is a 補助形容詞 (helper adjective) which is part of the 形容詞 (adjective) family that かわいい belongs to. This is why they all work the same way- they're all 形容詞.
Secondly, do not obsess too much about the way you translate it into English. Japanese is not English and ultimately, you can translate it in whatever way that works as long as you understand the core of what the Japanese sentence is saying. I do like your translation more than mine tho!
Thanks for the comment and support!
@@JouzuJuls Ohh that makes sense! Thanks for the clarification. ❤️
What is the difference between topic and subject??
subject is the thing that is doing the verb in the sentence (ie it's a purely grammatical distinction) whereas the topic is just what you're talking about basically
I‘m not sure if I misunderstood something but from the way you explained it, if が indicates the subject, why wouldn’t クレープが食べたい mean “the crepe wants to eat” ?
Awesome! This question is very valid and proves you understand what's going on.
Allow me to explain how this works.
You know how in math, √2 is ±2, but most people write "2" and forget about "-2" ?
This is very similar. 私が食べたい actually simultaneously means both "I am eat want" and "I am eat wanting"; and similarly, クレープが食べたい simultaneously means "crepe is eat want" and "crepe is eat wanting".
This is not because a single sentence has "2 meanings", more that we can't accurate describe/translate たい into English without it having 2 interpretations. (Hence the weird "eat-wanting"/"eat-want-enducing" term that was used).
How do Japanese people make the choice to know which is which? It's something called "the rule of absurdity", which is a phenomenon seen in English too.
The rule of absurdity states that our brain leans towards the most normal, logical, and reasonable interpretation of something when it has multiple interpretations.
An example in English is "I saw a man on the hill with a telescope".
Your two immediate interpretations are either that I used a telescope to see a man on a hill- or that I saw a man on a hill with my naked eyes and that the man had a telescope.
What you've automatically excluded is the possibility that I 🪚 a man on a hill using a 🔭-- because this is absurd.
Further, the rule of absurdity states that if the speaker DOES want to say something absurd- it falls incumbent on the speaker to make that clear.
This info will go in a future video, but so far not many people have raised this question (which is very weird because I intentionally left this hole here for people to ask about it).
Thank you for asking and good job on identifying this! Hope this answers your question!
Ohh, so its more of a contextual thing. Thank you!
@@Icy1258 It's not really a contextual thing - the reason is not contextual, it's simply that the helper adjective たい changes how the verb is to be understood. Cure Dolly used the word "inducing", for lack of a better term (it's hard to use English to explain a concept which doesn't really exist in English).
Great video
These kind of videos are certainly helpful if you want to have a deeper understanding of the language, especially for more complicated sentences.
But it's not necessarily true that the rules of grammar follow the rules of logic.
I'll give you two examples in my native language, which is Italian.
To say "A likes B", we say "B likes to A". According to Italian grammar, B is the grammatical subject, but A is the logical subject. At the end of the day, the meaning of the phrase is the same as in English although grammatically very different.
Another example is gendered nouns: a chair is feminine but a table is masculine. There's no reason for it, it's just the way it is.
Most of the times you try to understand the deeper meaning behind language features, you end up down the rabbit hole.
Your example may be true of Italian, but not for Japanese. I can give you concrete logical explanations to almost everything in Japanese grammar and give you a systematic way to approach it without confusion or exceptions. This is because not every language is the same.
Some languages are complex and riddled with exceptions, some are simple and logical. Japanese is very, very, simple.
Concerning it's ONLY function: Just が also used as "or"?
ive been learning japanese for almost 3 years now and thinking of things in terms of Øが seems like a very bad idea to me. its better to learn japanese grammer as it is than try to make it more similar to how english works, it will impede your ability to understand native speakers in the long run. Øが seems better for translating japanese into english. that being said i think this video is incredibly helpful in understanding the difference between は and が
I'm afraid you may be misunderstanding how languages work. Highlighting the Øが does not make it similar to English, as English is not a null subject language. Japanese is a null subject language, meaning the subject (something that is necessary in ALL languages) is left as a null.
Highlighting Øが and calling it Øが is simply taking advantage of the fact that Japanese has a consistent subject marker- and the fact that it works proves this is how Japanese works in Japanese terms. English doesn't have a subject marker (nor does it usually use null subjects)- so Øが is quite literally the opposite of English.
Øが doesn't make Japanese easier because it's similar to English - it makes it easier because this is how languages work.
OK, there is 2 things I don't get about it:
10:50 If は in the sentence makes so we are assuming the listener already knows about it, why is then defined generally as a particle that introduces a subject/topic to the conversation when the listener doesn't know about it? That's what makes me crazy with these japanese particle, it seems they simply didn't decide what function each particle would have, so they just mixed everything up and there's that.
12:50 If the actor is not necessarily the subject, then we need to redefine what subject means. Subject is the one who os characterized or the one who make the action of a verb. If that's not true to japanese, then we need to redefine it and ideally not call it subject but something else.
Thanks for watching and leaving your questions here!
.
Let me try to help. You'll come to learn and agree that Japanese is actually a very easy and very logical language- much more so than English, but the biggest problem is that it is mistaught to beginners who are unable to separate right from wrong yet.
.
To respond to your first point about the は particle being "defined generally as a particle that inteoduces a subject", the answer is simple because it is generally defined wrong. There is no middle ground, no compromise to make the two make sense. You've been taught misinformation. That is the sole reason Japanese particles seem confusing to you and the sole reason they seem to have not made up their mind on what does what. Matter of fact, it is the sole reason は vs が even exists in the first place. This is why Japanese people and people who follow stricty Cure Dolly's system NEVER have to question は vs が.
.
To answer your second question, you're probably right on the English definition of a linguisitc "subject", however, we don't have to redefine anything at all. Remember that we are dealing with Japanese and the thing that is marked by が is the 主語(しゅご [lit. Main Speech]), so if you think the word "subject" is too confusing, simply stop using it and use 主語 instead. Whatever you've read about a linguistic subject does not neccesarily apply to 主語 because Japanese is not English. Do not treat Japanese as if it were English and stop playing by English grammar rules. Treat Japanese as Japanese. The function of the Japanese 主語 should be very easy to understand because it only ever marks the thing doing/being the ENGINE of a complete logical clause. Please watch the next video in the series if you are unfamiliar with sentence ending engines: th-cam.com/video/7fv1V-BB9NI/w-d-xo.html
.
Hope this was able to clear things up for you! If you have any more questions or want some stuff to be cleared up, please let me know! 😁
@JouzuJuls
Interesting. Never heard it explained like this. Closest woukd be other teachers here on TH-cam telling us you can omit a lot of stuff.
Doesn't help that I've seen many different terms for 'subject' and 'topic' and worse some who use those interchangeably (some being Japanese people themselves).
I'll look through Cure Dolly's stuff again but I will say I found her explanations confusing and some a bit overcomplicated and I found better understanding elsewhere. One I saw a user asking for clarification and she replied in a way I could understand to that comment which made me wonder why she didn't lead with that. But then again everyone's different.
Hey Juls, I understand that は is closest to "as for" which is in your slides but you also say it marks the topic. 5:28 is when you introduce "0 が" saying "it" becomes the subject. So I'm confused on how "watashi/me" is not a subject as well. From my understanding, your sentence is: 'as for Chad, he is Japanese'. Chad and he are both subjects I thought. But you are saying "Chad" is a topic and "he" is the subject.
I do not think you ever mentioned what the difference between a topic and subject is in the video. I'm a native english speaker and I would say most people use them interchangeably but you might have a different definition which I believe is why I'm not understanding the concepts.
If I'm wrong about anything correct me please c: and thanks for the video
Oh damn I JUST saw this comment! Sorry for the super late response!
.
The simple answer is to not treat Japanese as English. Throw everything you know about English grammar away, throw your expectations about what "Subjects" and "Objects" are supposed to be in English- because English is not Japanese.
.
I know this is a pretty "nothing" answer but the difference between the topic and subject is that the topic is marked by は and the subject is marked by が. I doesn't really matter what they are past this!
damn im taking the jlpt n1 exam next month and im still confused by this.
The December batch eh? Good luck with that. Try breaking down other sentences that you're already familiar with by identifying what they REALLY mean (reveal the Øが).
.
The only reason this is confusing is because you were likely taught some heavily flawed system of Japanese grammar in the past.
.
If you ever found yourself questioning は vs が, you're a victim of Eihongo Grammar. People who have been taught the Øが from the beginning have never asked this question and don't even understand WHY it's a question.
.
I would suggest throwing everything you think you know out the window and starting from day 1 with this.
I just learned a forbidden knowledge
Interesting... Until you realize that most native speakers in casual conversations drop all these particles (>.
the whole japanese has a different outlook on life than english makes so much sense when i think about it in terms of my second language (spanish). In spanish if you want to ask someone their name you would say "como te llamas" literally "how are you called" or if you want to say "welcome" you would say "bienvenidos" which translate to something like "good comings" lol
Yea, it's really crazy how much I didn't realize this until I actually started learning Japanese. Like everybody always says "oh different languages changes your outlook on life" but you don't really TRULY understand that until you start breaking it down like this.
Languages are interesting! 😆
I am more confused after this
I see が as a little and more specifc は if that makes sense
No, that's incorrect. は is a topic marker, 私は is best translated as "as for me," for example. Think of Japanese as "first we have a topic. It may be said or unsaid, and in speech you don't even need to add は a lot of the time. Then we make comments about that topic. Depending on the comment, which is after all commenting about the topic, the topic itself may or may not be the subject of the sentence." 私はうなぎです does not mean "I am an eel", because 私 is not the subject - it is the topic. And the context defines the rest. So, it's "As for me, it's eel" (in other words, "I choose eel" (from the menu)).
However, the subject is often left unsaid in Japanese. But it's always there, just in zero-が version. You include it if you want to *emphasize* something, and in some other cases. "Julsーさんが did it". Not me, not the guy over there.
I’m more confused now
おれがボールを投げた for 6:09 right? Know the subject is hidden is one thing, and it helps understand how duolingo translations are interpretations and not literal, but know that there's a ga hidden... Duolingo works but gotta be careful to not take things literal there.
All this courses focus on showing an english friendly waty to write the sentence instead of something that would sound weird.
Stay away from Duolingo at all costs, particularly when it comes to Japanese. It's worse than a waste of time.
@@tohaason I don't use only duolingo tho.
The Kana are probably a block for many of your viewers; I would prefer you present the Romaji (Latin alphabet) as well, please. #FeedTheAlgorithm
That's not a good idea. Romaji has so many issues, one is that with Romaji it's impossible to see the logic in the verb system. Be that as it may, the first thing any beginner should do is learning Hiragana and Katakana - learn them both at the same time (as you would learn Aa Bb Cc Dd Ee.. at the same time), not separately as I did (that was a mistake).
It does not take long to learn. Young people learn this in a few days, I took a month (but then I'm not young), which is in any case a blink of an eye when it comes to the time it takes to learn the language.
Hey, cool video. But there is one thing I would disagree on (not with you, but in general).
I think it is very problematic to try and analyze language (any langauge) in terms of some simple rules and make some "exceptions" where your system falls apart and call it a day. At least the kinds of grammars that I am famillir with are all flawed in that they all try to orginize the monster that is a language into a small neat system that would somehow cover all the possible language related nuances. As a result, we have a system that is highly superficial and not true to the nature of the phenomenon of human language.
Can such a system help us with learning the lagnauge? Yes, in some sense. We can use the grammars in order to make an approximation of what a specific use may be limited to, but that is pretty much it. The beginner learners can make use of such systems just to get the feel of the language, and can even try to produce an utterance themselves and can even be understood in some cases to some extent. Bravo! But in many (most?) cases it just creates the wrong perception of the langauge, as also demonstrated in your video. If the goal is reaching high levels of proficiency in a language - it is many many hours of natural input that will get one there.
As a simple example, lets take a look at 好き. Many beginner learners are taught it as a verb "to like". We know that that is not true. You said that 好き is like an adjective "likeable". But then again there are cases where を好き may be used. That is quite a problem, as according to THE rules such a use would be incorrect. The conclusion? Perhaps either the division into parts of speech or the assignment of functions in a sentence does not work in this particular case. Wonder why, definitely not because the system is flawed, right?
There sure are some patterns that can be generalized and organized to some extent, but in the end they are what they are - patterns. They may apply or may not apply. The only way to know is, well, to know; to have a feel for what is wrong and what is not. And this is only achievable through exposure to the natural language and nothing else. Hope you get my point.
長文失礼しました。
Yo! Thanks for the long comment, please allow me to respond. It'll also be a big block of text as there's a bit to cover here, please bare with me 🙏
.
I agree that it is very problematic to analyze any language and just fit exceptions in where there is a hole. Which is exactly why I am making this video to counter the traditional textbook method of explaining grammar in a way that is filled with exceptions by showcasing a method with 0 exceptions.
.
Yes, this system (as far as what this video is concerned) indeed contains 0 exceptions because the rule is very simple:
- Every logical clause must logically contain a が even if you can't see it
.
You can try to find anything to claim it as an exception but it can always be explained logically and fit within the rules of this system. In fact, by using this system, you can understand way deeper into the language than otherwise, simply because you would be able to truly grasp what Japanese is really doing.
.
You say that "the types of grammar that you are familiar with are flawed", yes, this will most likely be true especially when it comes to Japanese and the way it is explained by textbooks. But as far as this particular rule is concerned, you will not be able to find a flaw with it.
.
There is a huge mistake in your next paragraph where you claim that "many hours of natural input" is what is needed to get one to high levels of proficiency. This is a trap that many TH-camrs fall into and preach as it is based on a misinterpretation of Dr.Stephen Krashen's input hypothesis. You can learn more about why this is a mistake in this video here: th-cam.com/video/E6j5CphUJBc/w-d-xo.html
.
To respond to your example of を好き and how "by the rules", this would be a mistake. First of all, 好き is an adjectival noun (treated as a normal noun), not an adjective (because adjectives are treated differently). "Likeable" may not be a noun in English, but it is in Japanese. Remember, English is not Japanese. Please watch this video to learn more: th-cam.com/video/7fv1V-BB9NI/w-d-xo.html
.
Secondly, this would be- and IS incorrect. The reason you see a MINORITY of Japanese people (typically younger generations) create sentences like AがBを好き。is most likely because of the influence of other languages like English (Source: ameblo.jp/stravaganza-no2/entry-11928029379.html) but it doesn't make it any more correct. Similarly, just because some English speaker incorrectly uses the word "literally" or write "could of", it doesn't make it any more correct. By Japanese grammar, AがBを好き。is incorrect.
.
Your final paragraph is exactly what I am sharing, the ability to understand Japanese grammar at a deeper level to understand what is TRULY happening. This video does not show you all you need to know to speak Japanese like a natural speaker, it DOES give you the ability to understand WHAT Japanese is doing. For example, in the 3 sentences I gave at 10:16; this video allows you to explain what each version is saying, knowing which is the most natural is up to, not "natural input" as you said, but COMPREHENSIBLE input.
.
I would say that having the ability to explain WHY AがBを好き。is incorrect but still used by some (and understanding how it's different to Bが好き) gives you a far deeper understanding of Japanese and what it's actually saying than simply not having any explanation as to how AがBを好き and Bが好き are different.
.
To summarize, the point of grammar is to not allow you to directly acquire the language- it is to turn incomprehensible input comprehensible in a deeper way than naturally otherwise. COMPREHENSIBLE input, according to Dr.Stephen Krashen, is the ONLY way we acquire languages. Meaning that anything that helps make input comprehensible, helps acquisition.
Again thank you for the long and well thought out comment, it really means something when people purposely take the time out of their day to comment on my videos!
Hey, thanks for your detailed reply! If you do not mind I will make a few shorts comments so as to not take much of your time.
I am quite familiar with Krashen's hypotheses and I see why so many people misinterpret them. This may be a long discussion, but to get my point across, I will say that I am not completely against conscious study (given that it aids comprehension), I am rather more concerned with the limitations it presents as far as high levels of proficiency are concerned.
The article about 好き was interesting to read, and I think it actually proves my point that division into parts of speech here does not work (I like how in the end they just stated that たい-form with を is to be treated as one big chunk lol. It sounds right, but in terms of grammar it just sounds clumsy). Also, I am a descriptivist, and a claim that a form is incorrect despite the fact that it is widely used by the natives sounds wrong to me. AがBを好き does indeed sound a little off, but Aを好きなB sounds perfectly fine to me.
Again, thank you for your detalied reply. I have watched some of your other videos, and I fully support what you do. Moreover, I think that our approaches to learning (and acquisition if we are at it) are actually somewhat similar.
PS. Some of the content we consume (talking about some not-that-big Vtubers) also overlaps, and I wonder if we have actually come across each other in the wild before (I am mostly ROMing, but still).
Have a nice day and a nice journey!
this video my brain making hurt
For real though, not sure how to take this video seriously, when i hear you saying (@4:37) that 好き means "likeable". Because so far everyone else have been saying that it means "to like". "Likeable" should be 好きような
And no, when you say "Wow, this cat is so likeable" in English, that does not imply that the speaker likes the cat (they may or may not)... I would understand that as "Wow, it's so easy for this cat to be liked by everyone"
Also... at first you're saying the ∅が means "it" but then in the next example it means "it/I"? So which one is it? Because if i understand correctly, Japanese people would automatically infer that the speaker would be talking about themselves. Which would translate 私は日本人だ to "As for me, I am a Japanese person". Which any English speaking person would comprehend as "I consider myself Japanese"
Thanks for the comment, allow me to explain what's going on here.
It sounds to me like you're suffering from the symptoms of the irreparable damage that textbooks and other Eihongo sources inflict upon learners. The only solution to this is to entirely let go of what you've learned and start from scratch.
First of all, 好き simply means whatever you want it to mean as long as it lines up with it's Japanese definition and the fact that it is a noun. "To like" is not a noun, something that is "likable" is a noun. Just because everybody says it means "to like" doesn't give it any merit when it functionally falls apart in every way.
You are right that in English "wow this cat is so likable" that there are multiple interpretations. The same exists for Japanese. Øが is simply "it" and "it" can be whatever the context is. However, Japanese is not English (and this is the quote you must remember). You may be inclined to lean towards the interpretation of "this cat is likable for many people" in English, but in Japanese, the inclination leans towards the speaker unless there is some reason to think otherwise.
Øが simply means "it", but since in so many cases, "it" is referring to the speaker, the default inclination is "I" unless there is some reason to think otherwise. Remember, "it" just means whatever the context needs it to mean- you don't have to choose between "it" or "I"- "it" IS "I" (in this context).
Ultimately, it doesn't matter how English speakers choose to translate the Japanese as long as they understand the core of what the Japanese sentence is trying to say. Remember, Japanese isn't English. What seems natural in English is not necessarily natural in Japanese and vice versa.
Hope this clears things up!
@@JouzuJuls You may be right... I'm already growing suspicious when i see different Japanese "teachers" online translating the same thing in different ways. Hence why i stuck on to the "likeable" part, because that's the only thing i thought i knew for sure.
But from what i understand now, it would be practically impossible to learn it the way Japanese people think, right? Since everyone teaching it, translates it by approximating the meaning, to make sense in English?
@@impylse The only real way to get it is to learn a minimum (and learn early on that what's adjectives in English aren't always adjectives in Japanese - they are often nouns. And other things. Be wary of translations.)
Then go on to listen to comprehensible compelling input, which means that it has to be curated - someone will have to create it specifically for whatever level you're at. And no translation involved whenever you can possibly avoid it. The "N+1" approach - you'll always consume material which is at or just above what you can understand intuitively. With enough of that the patterns engrave themselves in your brain.
Easier said than done, of course, but it works. And it takes time. But not more time than any other method, if done correctly, and the results are way better.
That's how, by the way, I learned English.
tokini andy just straight up stole your vid lol
And I stole it from Dolly Sensei, who got it from Jay Rubin.
Doesn't matter who takes and repackages the material as long as we give credit back to who we learned it from.
At the end of the day it's about sharing the knowledge with others!
@@JouzuJuls yeah youre right but the thumbnail is the exact same lmao
@@whatsbehindu Then the thumbnail was just a good idea! 😁
C R E P E
it's decided then. 日本語やめます
Your theory just make things more complicated.
I feel you are going the wrong path here.
It's not "his" theory, it's based on an excellent model made by Jay Rubin (look him up), further expanded upon by the late Cure Dolly and others. It's most certainly not making anything more complicated. On the contrary, this, and the rest of the model, makes everything very very simple and 100% logical, no conjugation tables to memorize, etc. etc.
While models made by trying to shoehorn Japanese into an English-centric grammar system are just creating an undefined mess with exceptions left and right.
In "neko ga suki", the topic of the sentence is "I": Watashi ha neko ga suki - but because it is clear from the context, it is not verbalized. Japanese is a very pragmatic and lazy language, what is not necessary for conveying the message, will be left out.
Btw: your English pronounciation of crepe is wrong, like fundamentally wrong.
I have fully realized all of these as I learned Japanese