How は vs が Will DESTROY Your Japanese 

IM SORRY BUT do you have a 2nd channel?? How do you have the gold playbutton? I was wondering why your videos were such good quality..

So it's wrong to to think about wa and ga as ga making the subject as the thing to the right of the sentence, and wa to the left?

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! 😄

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.

Yeah, I’ve been learning off and on for about a year and a half now and what seems to be emerging for me is that Japanese seems to be more often intent on directly communicating experience, rather than to ‘describe reality’ in some way. Does that make sense? Even with 思う, I’m picking up on a sense of mental images being experienced in the mind, rather than ‘me’ (as an agent more than a witness) doing this thing called thinking. It’s still pretty vague to me though, and I’m curious to find out whether a clearer understanding of the way life is conceptualised in Japanese language will unfold for me.

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).

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!

Yo también he notado eso. Pese a ser idiomas tan diferentes, el español y el japonés encuentran senderos muy similares para llegar al mismo destino. Me gusta tu ejemplo. Es más, se me ocurre una buena comparación. Si yo digo "りんごが食べたい", es más bien como decir "me apetece una manzana". Como podemos ver, en ambos casos es el sujeto la manzana. "Quiero comer una manzana" sí sería más bien "りんごを食べたい".

@@AristizabalixGrimm ¡Está bueno ese ejemplo!

Why

watch cure dolly, this video served as a great companion. he stated he’s not a teacher.

don't listen to him, it's flat out incorrect.

Simply you could take out what comes before は the sentence still means something.but maybe just not complete...however if you remove what comes before が the sentence wont mean anything at all.. grammatically imcomplete. and as for をyou can simply see it as an object. just a bit of my opinion if it helps😊

@@banzyyy7155 As a linguistics nut and someone who has been studying Japanese for 7+ years, this video does indeed make sense and as far as I can tell, is accurate. He does cram a lot in the video, however, and a lot of his examples are a bit wordy/awkward English, but overall it's a good video. A similar English equivalent to "0が" is the implied subject "you" in imperitive sentences. E.g. "Go make your bed" = "[You] go make your bed". But, of course, we don't say "You go make your bed", and it sounds very awkward to a native English speaker.

Thanks for that, really clears it up 👍

it is wrong, do not listen

You're very welcome! Glad this video was helpful! 😁

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.

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.

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! :)

Stealin that Dragon of Dojima look 😉

@@JouzuJuls LEAVE SOME WOMEN FOR THE REST OF US

@@JohnDoe-bp9jm 😂

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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--JuHi-yKGFc.html

@@JouzuJuls finally... A youtuber giving a perfect explanation, thank you

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!!

@@JouzuJuls I also want to thank you for the video, and ask a question ;) I picked up from somewhere that the 〜たい form renders a verb into an adjective, and so far in my Japanese learning this has been a helpful and seemingly correct idea. Now, to make syntactical sense of’クレープを食べたい’, I imagined the zeroが to be 私が, and ‘クレープをたべたい’ to collectively form an adjective (‘crepe-wanting-to-eat) that applies to the invisible subject 私が. (I am crepe-wanting-to-eat). Does this make sense? I thought I’d post this question here as it seems to be relevant to the question above. Thanks again!

…今は本当にクレープを食べたい人です！🤤😅

@@glenn7484 Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed the video! You have the right idea, but the difference is that たい does not render the verb as anything. たい is たい and the verb is a verb, it doesn't matter what you attach to the verb- it stays a verb. What changes is the "engine" of the sentence as it will now be たい (adjective). So you go from a "A does B" verb ending sentence to a "A is B" adj ending sentence, but the verb is still a verb. ^^

You're very welcome! 😊

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.

If you look [話せる] up in an actual Japanese dictionary (like a dictionary *from* Japan, for Japanese people), one of the definitions is [話し相手とするに足りる] (roughly, "to be sufficient enough to converse with someone") In Japanese you would interpret that sentence as "Will Chinese *suffice for conversation*? which makes "Chinese" the subject, doing the action of being sufficent for talking. *Lots* of Japanese verbs have less ego-centric definitions in Japanese dictionaries. Like [分かる] isn't just "to understand", it's "to become clear or understandable".

@@HowManyRobot Thanks for the reply. Also, in the creator’s conjugation cheat sheet video, he explains that the potential form (え-stem plus る) performs a kind of double duty and can represent both the ideas of “can do X” and “is X-able.” With this, the sentence could be analyzed as “Is Chinese speakable,” with Chinese being the grammatical subject. In fact, the exact word 話せる is used as an example in 8:09 of that video, showing both “can speak” and “is speakable” as semantic options.

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).

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!

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

は marks the topic of the sentence. The topic of a sentence tells us what the sentence is about. The は places emphasis on what comes after the 私. Therefore it essentially gives us the context or background for what follows the 私. For eg. 私はりんごが好き, here 私は is letting us know that the sentence is about me and what I find likeable and that’s why the video uses the translation “As for me…” However が marks the subject. The subject being who/what is performing the action in the sentence. So it’s an identifier and it puts emphasis on what comes before が. Using the same example 私はりんごが好き, if you think of すき as meaning “to be likeable or to be pleasing” then you will understand the sentence as “the apple is likeable or pleasing (to me)” Another example 明日は雨がふります(As for tomorrow, it will rain). This sentence let’s us know that we are talking about tomorrow (明日) which is the topic marked by は, but the main action being performed is ふります (falling) which will be performed by the rain (雨) marked by subject が This is the fundamental meaning of these two particles I tried to explain it based on how I understood it so…. I Hope this helps 😅

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.

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! 👍

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!

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!

Yes, not a good explanation.

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): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-U2q5GsB0swQ.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

So, the Japanese structure is not at all centered on the が particle, which is not more fundamental than other case particles likes に or と. But if we want to understand what the が particle really means, we have to go back in time, at the time of classical Japanese when the が particle was almost completely interchangeable with the の particle. Actually, both が and の particles in structures A が B or A の B have the same fundamental function: attributing to the element "B" the other element "A". "A" can be an object, someone, an action or a state. But after time passed, a separation was made between both particles and about on what kind of B it applies: - as for A の B, "B" is a thing (object, person...) - as for A が B, "B" is an action or a state. But even nowadays, there are still remnants of that age both particles were interchangeable: - in 我が structure, it has the same meaning as 私の in a formal language, e.g. 我が国 meaning "My country", or 鬼が島 (often spelled as 鬼ヶ島) meaning "The Oni's Island"; - in "attributive clauses that are not too long, we can use the の particle instead of the が particle. So, we can analyse a sentence like 日本人が父です as follows: 日本人 ("the Japanese") is being attributed to the fact of "being my father" (so, "It is the Japanese [here in this room] who is my father"). If I say 猫が好きです, the element 猫 is being attributed to the fact of being "likeable". If I say クレープが食べたい, the element クレープ is being attributed to the fact of "being in a state of giving wanting to eat". If I say 私が食べた, the element 私 is being attributed to the fact of "having eaten. We can interprete が particle is "marking the subject" in those example, as a possible consequence of the "attributive function". But if I replace now the が particle with the の particle and remove the core (verb or "noun + auxiliary"), it is not a "marking the subject" function anymore, but this is still an "attributive function" in attributive clauses. Thus: - 日本人の父 can be translated as "My Japanese father" or "My father, the Japanese", or "My father who is Japanese"; - 猫の好き means "the likeable cats"; - クレープの食べたい「人」 means "[the person being] in the state of wanting to eat crepes"; - 私の食べたクレープ can be translated as "The crepes I ate". The difference with the original sentences is that those new sentences are not "complete" anymore, so they need a new "core" to be complete. For example, 日本人の父に会いましょう which means "I will meet my Japanese father". In summary, there is no "invisible が particle", in the same way there is no "invisible の particle" when I say e.g. 猫です instead of 私の猫です (the second sentences emphasises more on the fact the cat is "mine", so it has not the same meaning than the first one). As for the rest of the video, just one more thing: A を 食べたい structure is not that uncommon, but I just wanted to say such a pattern was already used in classical Japanese in ancient times. But I agree with your analysis of both A を 食べたい and A が 食べたい structures.

Hi, thanks for your well thought out comment. Allow to elaborate on 10:14 and explain why this is not a contradiction. The "Emphasis" that は and が exudes is not real. It is a result of their function. For the same reason that when you say "As for X" in English, you put "emphasis" on X. It's not *Emphasis* like what I just did with the asterisks, or like if you said it with more stress- that's real emphasis when you're trying to put more weight on a certain word. The topic marker makes the thing a topic- and thus because we noted it as a topic, we are talking about it as opposed to anything else. パンは食べた implies that I ate bread, but not anything else. Do you see how "emphasis" is not real, but a result of the topic? This is the same for が and it's emphasis. When we say "I eat bread" in English, we are saying that "I" is the person eating the bread- 私がパンを食べた. In Japanese, this would be unnatural as the ego of the sentence is usually left unsaid- meaning パンを食べた is the natural way of saying it Japanese. In this case the subject is Ø. When we specifically say that 私 is the subject, that deviates from Ø and thus- puts emphasis on 私. It is not the case that blindly using は and が randomly assigns some "emphasis" onto words for no reason. Once we understand the reasoning behind "emphasis" and what it actually is, we can realize that 10:14 is not a contradiction. To explain it using your examples: 日本人だ is Øが 日本人だ Ø is a Japanese person. Where "Ø" is marked as the subject. Where does the emphasis go? It goes to Ø. Which means there is no emphasis here because it isn't mentioned. Emphasis is not a result of the particle, but the result of the function of the particle. 私は日本人だ is 私は　Øが　日本人だ As for me, Ø is a Japanese person. Where does the emphasis go? Right, we specifically stated that "As for me", not that we stressed it at all, but just because we mentioned it as opposed to anything else- there is now "emphasis" on it. As with before, Ø is the subject- which isn't mentioned. Which means we didn't add any "emphasis" on it simply by not mentioning it. Grammatically, a subject MUST exist in every sentence in every language however. 私が日本人だ I am a Japanese person. As opposed to the normal way of saying it (日本人だ), we have made the conscious decision to clearly state that *I* am a Japanese person. Because if you didn't want to say this, you would not have needed to include 私 as your clearly defined subject, if you have no need to clearly define it- you have no "emphasis" on it. There is no contradiction here because "emphasis" isn't real.

Going back in time does not help solve modern Japanese structure as the use of が to mean の is a fossil of the past. I understand what you're saying with the "subject function is a consequence of the attributive function", but modern Japanese has already moved on from this. You do not need to understand what the ら is うちら、こちら、and いくら are doing in order to understand those 3 terms. You also don't need to understand こんにちは as the original 今日＋は as it has completely changed. If you claim there is no Øが, it now falls incumbent on you to explain what the subject of every sentence is as every sentence must have a subject in every language. If there is no subject, there is no language. To have a language is to make comments about certain things- to make comments about certain things is to have a subject to talk about. When we have a model that can describe Japanese with a clear, consistent, and unchanging subject- I believe this to be the most useful model of Japanese. As for the commonality of を食べたい or が食べたい, "uncommon" is a subjective word. Google the 2 terms with quotation marks and see how many results show up using each one. I understand you want to say it's "not exactly rare", but my point is that it's simply uncommon, and the numbers don't lie.

@@JouzuJuls Thank you for your comment. I'll answer point by point. I think talking about "real emphasis" makes the thing more confusing, because it implies the learner have to pay attention to the difference between "real emphasis" and "unreal emphasis". In other words, I'm not convinced about the fact there would be no contradiction in what you explained about that. "パンは食べた implies that I ate bread, but not anything else." I disagree. In my opinion, it does not imply "I ate bread but not anything else", but rather "What I made particularly with that bread is eating it". Thus, supposing I'm right in what I'm stating, the emphasis would be after and not before. Let me change a little that situation. This time, someone is asking me what I ate the last time. Since it was some time ago, I a have to think about it because I am trying to remember. So, I could answer: あの、パンは食べた。えっと、チーズも食べた。でも、デサートは食べなかった。In this situation, you can see the first sentence does not imply I did not eat anything else than that bread, because after, we remember another thing we ate that time, using the も particle to add something else I ate. "When we say "I eat bread" in English, we are saying that "I" is the person eating the bread- 私がパンを食べた. In Japanese, this would be unnatural as the ego of the sentence is usually left unsaid- meaning パンを食べた is the natural way of saying it Japanese. " Agreed. "Where does the emphasis go? It goes to Ø. Which means there is no emphasis here because it isn't mentioned. " Agreed. But just after: "Emphasis is not a result of the particle, but the result of the function of the particle. " Does that not mean the same thing? I'm afraid I didn't really understand. "私は日本人だ is 私は　Øが　日本人だ As for me, Ø is a Japanese person. Where does the emphasis go? Right, we specifically stated that "As for me", not that we stressed it at all, but just because we mentioned it as opposed to anything else- there is now "emphasis" on it." I disagree for the same reason as your example with bread: in my opinion, this sentence means "One thing I am is a Japanese person". So I think the emphasis is on "being a Japanese person", not on "I". "私が日本人だ I am a Japanese person. As opposed to the normal way of saying it (日本人だ), we have made the conscious decision to clearly state that I am a Japanese person. Because if you didn't want to say this, you would not have needed to include 私 as your clearly defined subject, if you have no need to clearly define it- you have no "emphasis" on it." Agreed (if I understood well what you said), so I interpret the emphasis to be on "I".

@@JouzuJuls "Grammatically, a subject MUST exist in every sentence in every language however." I totally agree with that, but I do not with your interpretation using this concept of "zero particle", which I considerer being a cheap attempt to find an English grammar logic in a quite different language. My interpretation is as follows: the subject of a Japanese is always inside its core (or "predicate", that means a verb, adjective, or "noun + auxiliary"), and it is always "it" that is the subject of every Japanese sentence. It is a little like Latin. For example, there is this famous sentence from Julius Caesar saying "Veni, vidi, vici", which means "I came, I saw, I conquered". Where is the subject here? it is included inside the conjugated form of the verbs implying "I". There is no "zero whatever" in that sentence. And speaking about Latin, the concept of particles in Japanese reminds me a lot the concept of Latin declension. This is the same thing in Japanese, but in a much easier way because there is no conjugated form depending on the subject, which implies the subject is one and only one thing, the most "neutral" way of specifying a subject: "it" (or "this", "that", "what"). And a Japanese sentence does not need anything else than a core to be complete, without no need to imagine such a complicated concept as "invisible zero particle". This is the most fundamental concept to understand in Japanese. We add things in a sentence in order to add specification, emphasis, personal touch, etc. For example, we add a nound marked by a が particle in order to do nothing else but identifying what "it" represents. So, let's analyse again those sentences: パンは食べた : "A thing it did to the bread is eating it" 私がパンを食べた : "What ate bread is I" パンを食べた : "It ate bread" 私は日本人だ : "A thing I am is a Japanese person"

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.

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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-cGA6Tj9_lSg.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. ❤️

Yes, technically- however Japanese doesn't like to say exactly how someone else feels because you are not that person- and you cannot be 100% sure of how they feel. So if you were to say that cats are likable for someone else, you could say "(someone else)は猫が好きだそうだ。 The そうだ is like "seems like" or "I've heard". So instead of saying "cats are likable for this person" as a fact, you'll say "it seems like cats are likable for this person" Without the そうだ it's still grammatically correct and would convey exactly what you mean- but it's not as natural.

@@JouzuJuls thanks! Your explanations are brilliant.

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".

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.

⁠@@tohaasonCan you kindly explain to me the theory (but simplified) since I still can’t understand it no matter how hard I try.

@@NoSkill_fr A youtube comment is way too short to explain much, so I'll try just a little part of the whole thing. First, the video explained about は and が, the topic particle and the subject particle. Japanese sentences are nearly always about a topic, i.e. something to talk about, and commenting about it. The topic is stand-alone, it has no grammatical function. Sometimes the topic is clear from context, so there's no need to mention it. At other times you make it clear by mentioning it and tagging it with は. Then you start commenting on the topic. This is where a "grammatical sentence" has to be used. A grammatical sentence is a subject (typically is doing something), there may be an object (something which something is done to), and a verb (what is done to it). There are other variants and additions (e.g. an adjective ("big", "small"), or a destination (marked with its own particle). Now, the subject may or may not be included in the sentence. Very often it's not included, because it's again clear from context (like when someone asks in English: "Where is he?" and the answer is just "Arriving now!". There's an invisible "he" in the last sentence ("(he)(is) arriving now"). Note that there is *always* a subject in Japanese, it's just that a lot of the time you don't have to say it explicitly. English is a bit special in that you almost always have to include the subject, in many other languages you don't. In English you can *sometimes* see this, like in my "Arriving now" example above. But the thing is - in Japanese there's usually also a topic, sometimes unmentioned, but sometimes mentioned and tagged with "は", but that does *not* make it a subject. It's still the topic part of what you're saying: It's just an introduction to the sentence (the comment) you're about to say (after mentioning the topic). But sometimes you want to explicitly state the subject, and that may e.g. happen when emphasis is needed (or if the subject is definitely needed because it's not clear from context or from the topic). In that case you explicitly state the subject, and tag it with が。 But if the subject is clear from context you usually don't state it. And that's when the subject may happen to be identical to the topic. But that doesn't mean that the topic marker "は” is an alternative subject marker, it isn't. It's simply that the subject happens to be the same, and it's not necessary to emphasize it, so it's not said (if it were, it would be a repeat of the same noun, just with ”が" added). In English you *can* do this: "As for me, I don't like ramen". Here "me" is the topic, and "I" is the subject. In Japanese these pronouns have the same form for a sentence like this, but more importantly, the subject doesn't have to be said (and will not be said in a sentence like this). Pseudo-Engrish: "me-は I-が ramen don't like". In Japanese you don't need the subject: "As for me: don't like ramen". わたしは らめんすきじゃない。 If this was English it would be わたしは：わたしが’らめんすきじゃない”。 And then you have verbs. Cure Dolly's and Jay Rubin's model states that Japanese verbs don't really conjugate, for most cases, instead you use a stem of the verb with an additional form picked from the Hiragana table (and that's a bit too long for explaining here), plus helper adjectives or helper nouns. "ない” and "たい" are examples of helper adjectives. Understanding this means that you can mostly forget about the very long "conjugation" tables listed for every single verb in Japanese Verb textbooks (of which I own a couple.. shudder.)

he's wrong

No. Only some can be dropped. There’s some situations where dropping ga will sound bad

Yo! Sorry for the super delayed reply! RU-vid 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! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vk3aKqMQwhM.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!

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

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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7fv1V-BB9NI.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 RU-vid 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.

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.

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 RU-vidrs 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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-E6j5CphUJBc.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: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7fv1V-BB9NI.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!

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

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.

It depends on the context. If you are talking to someone without anyone else around you two, and that this person is asking you "What is your nationality?", you can just answer 日本人です。Indeed, the context is 100% clear about the fact you are talking about yourself. Using 私は would be unnatural in that context, unless for some reason you really want to emphasise the information on yourself about the fact you are Japanese. If someone is asking two persons what is their nationality, you can answer この人は中国人です。私は日本人です。In that case, the は particle has a "contrastive function" (more than just a "topic marker function"), because you and the person next to you have different nationalities, so at first, you "point on" the person next to two to emphasise the information you give about that person; then you point on yourself to emphasise the information you give about yourself. If there are many people inside a room and someone aks "Among you, who is the Japanese person?", you can answer 私が日本人です。This time, the already known information "being Japanese" is attributed to yourself (that is, in my opinion, the true meaning of the が particle: attribute some action or state to someone or something), so that the emphasised information is not the fact of being Japanese, but the fact it is YOU who are the Japanese person. So, this sentence roughly means "It is I who is the Japanese person."

@@Rudolphhhhhh Your answer is 100% correct and perfect. (Even in your comment thread with the video owner below) The video owner is just thinking of Japanese with an English brain and making things more complicated. He doesn't understand the difference of は and が, the explanation for たい doesn't make sense because he doesn't understand Japanese at the core level.

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! 😆

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.

@@joshuajeffrey4848 remember that "I" is not mentioned in any of them. クレープは食べたい As for the crepe, Ø is eat (desire). クレープが食べたい Crepe does eat (desire). クレープを食べたい Ø does eat crepe (desire) Notice how the function of が never changes and always points towards the subject.

@@JouzuJuls Yes, I was just using ‘I’ in relation to the English sentence counterparts. So then, クレープは(Ø(クレープ)が)食べたい As for the crepe, (it/Ø/the crepe) is desirable to eat (クレープは)クレープが食べたい The crepe is desirable to eat (クレープ／私は)(私が)クレープを食べたい As for me/the crepe, I desire to eat the crepe The brackets are the implied parts that I know aren’t stated in Japanese due to it being a pro-drop language. So then the topic and subject are both present even when neither are stated and can be two different things or denote the same thing depending on sentence in question though obviously serving different roles, would you agree with that conclusion?

@@joshuajeffrey4848 bingo