It's my feeling that the way you are going about learning Japanese that eventually there will be simply many aspects of the language for which you may have a familarity yet no actual ability to put to actual use, and at the very worst, if put to use it may be outright incorrect...
Thus why my vocabulary is almost always small when i use this method. But i find that, for the most part, if you restrict yourself to very closely related things. I also like to skim over the referance materials and look for the so-called "warnings" and "exceptions." For instance, "する." If I am looking for a random verb to use, i know that if it ends in する it's actually "to do" with a noun. And because it is irregular, i'm not going to use that verb. Based on that, i can come up with simple things like "グラウキはテレビをかいます。" Simple? The intent is to say, "Gurauki is going to buy a T.V." Am I right? lol
It's not a good idea to try to learn Japanese from anime, and probably less a good idea to learn it from a video game as this isn't going to be typical Japanese in how it is spoken, or what is actually said--- but it is good for listening comprehension.
Indeed, but it's the only half lagimate resources i have. I have already questioned the fact that in the game, everyone is speaking informally to each other. I would imagin it would be the reverse if it was a real situation, not that i beleive animals are going to be hoppin' in space ships anytime soon.
Let me hopefully be the first person to tell you that you probably can't learn Japanese the same way that you learn a fictional language that has admited limitations in both vocabulary and grammar... I don't know anything specific about the fictional language you speak of, other than that it is limited as I have said in both a full grammar & vocabulary because, and it's important to note this, it is fictional...
Oh, but of course. I consider it more of a fictional, and intresting intro to languages in general. Probably a better one than french or spanish, because they have, for the most part, a rather close system to english, which makes it difficult to learn other languages once you have a mindset that everything is close to your own language. With Klingon, on the other hand, things are a little more like languages all over, rather than a european language. In turn, learning languages like japanese would be easier to undertake since you're not restricted to thinking that everything has a direct or almost direct translation. For instance, in klingon, verbs are also adjatives and can be converted to nouns without changing the end of it like you would in a european language. EX:
A muS B = B hates A
A muS = The hated A
muSwI' = The hater
Now, this is a really simple intro, but it is a little more easier to adapt to japanese or something after learning this than a european language, since you are introduced to new parts of speech and concepts.
Not to start any sort of flame-war, but its I don't think even as well-designed a fictional language as some of those developed by JRR Tolkien, which probably have fewer devotees than klingon, but have more expressive grammars...
Grammatically, you're right. But it's heavily context based, meaning you can get away with it, but it's not very flexable so it would seem awkward.
That said they are all fictional languages... so you can't compare your success in learning them with your success in learning Japanese. You couldn't even comapre your success in learning say something like Spanish or German to learning Japanese because the languages opperate differently...
Not a specific comparison, but a general vague comparison. And i really stress "vague" and "general."
If you have a system for learning vocabulary, or a system of memorization, these things can be used accross languages but it's not use your techniques in tackling a relatively small fictional language system with specific quircks made to make it seem more "alien" (thanks wiki), and apply that to learning Japanese.
That's why i don't use quirks. They're only specific to that language which you are learning, and it would only be pure coincidence if they worked for another. Plus, hands on is a much easier way of learning the language, and you do that through a collection of referance materials.
Your method isn't difficult for me to understand, I just think that it's wrong. You are ignoring years and years of coursework and teaching methods in order to try to teach yourself something the same way you may have partially-learned something else only casually related.
Everything takes years to "master," but my objective is to get to the point that i can make basic sentances and read basic sentances. Slang is for later, and that's what i would imagin you spend the most time working on after the first year or so. But, that is just an observation.
You don't learn words very well by taking a dictionary and reading it page by page--- rather, we start with simple books, then gradually read more difficult books, and at the top of the list are books that are subject-specific which contain jargon, etcetera... you have to remember the phrase, you've got to crawl before you walk.
That is, indeed, true, but if you crawl too much, you start to think it supports all your needs. You then become dependent on crawling to suit all your needs, which won't do too well at an intersection. Which i don't like about language courses, because they're not always complete (which i don't beleive my book is, it does seem a bit small for such a complex language) and then you don't know what you don't know till you need to know it and don't. Then you waste alot of time and money learning from a whole new course (which may not contain all the basics) and bore yourself and it becomes more of a chore than anything. This is a major problem with C++, though it isn't a foreign language.
I do hope that maybe you'll take my advice--- If the number of questions that you ask about very basic things is any indication, your method might not be the best way of learning a real language. The problem is what you say about basic and advanced particles, it's really academic--- In most cases, I think the basic particles & words are prefered in coloquial Japanese... You can get quite far in speaking Japanese just by learning the particles I mentioned above, wa, ga, o, de, ni, mo, to, no, e... after that, you could probably learn ten other particles and still have a very rich and functional Japanese... But it's academic to grasp all particles or I'd call them more obscure over more complex ones... Your Japanese won't sound natural at all if you use a system that you design yourself.
Well, what i'm trying to do is get a list of all the ones i *NEED* to convey any idea i want. Kinda like when learning prepositions, you don't just learn "to" but you need to learn "from" and others. All i want right now is what i *NEED* to express any idea i want. I like what buntaro did, but i need a little more than what he used...
Get a coursework, follow it, practice the kana by writing them, listen to Japanese music, watch Japanese movies etcetera, watch streaming content available on the internet... use google... These are all great resources for learning Japanese. good luck.
Google is crap. It's a pain to sort good material from bad material. It's alot easier (and safer) for both parties to just speak directly, rather than skimming over a site and only checking a few things then taking it all for fact.
Kara is definately a particle. That wasn't Tommy you were trying to study from again was it ?
I didn't take much of what he said for fact, but i do listen to a few things he says... He handed me a small list, that wasn't all that great, but i didn't want to say anything not to offend him. His list was pretty decent but dosn't include everything needed.
And what would it mean if you still didn't agree ? That you wouldn't have to bother learning it ?
And that's the problem... Things that are disputed are harder to get documentation on. It's alot easier to get documentation on how to spell in the kanas, rather than how to spell in romaji. Same with particles... That's why i want a complete list... I may not be able to get it anywhere else...
Case by case to a small extent, still the general rules and meanings far outweigh any "natural conventions" or exceptions which simply need to be memorized.
Indeed.
Sounding awkward is inevitable in a language you're unacquainted with -- everyone is in the same situation since whatever our method none of us are going to internalize the structure & vocab without asking for real-world feedback. Use 'basic,' or required, particles in basic, simple sentences (the only kind I'm assuming you're familar with) and you'll be fine.
Easier said than done... Especially when ka, wa, wo, and ga are the only ones you are familiar with, and even then that's only in noun situations...
Particles are postpositions (as opposed to English prepositions) which contextualize the the elements which precede them.
Not all particles are... There are some particals (like ka) that come at the end, but are not prepositions.
I think the dificulty you are encountering with particles is self-created from trying to look at all of the particles as one system, rather than as I & Elizabeth had stated using the basic (or common) particles first without worrying about the less comon ones.
Perhaps. I look at them as one big part of speech with subcats. Really... I want something i can use for general speech. Not quite going around and using big words like i use in english. That's for experienced people. I want to be able to say any 1 clause sentance and some simple 2 clause sentances. I want to be able to talk like a japanese teenager at this point, rather than a japanese professor. I already talk too much like a professor in english, even though i'm not.
Here are some other links which you might find informative: Particles vs. Patterns, & How to understand a Japanese sentence, both by Ken Butler.
I'll check them out as soon as i can.
I second that motion. I don't think any book will explain particles better.
Only experience can explain...
So far... I have contrasting examples of ni, e, de, o, and kara... A more detailed analasys of what i'm looking at here points out that adjative particles would be explained in my adjative sections of my exturnal adj resource. sentance ending particles are more conversational, so i will learn them from reading conversational media, such as japanese forums... Therefor i don't need them. Noun particles, on the other hand, are scattered all about my course book and i don't have an exturnal source for nouns (and they shouldn't be complicated so naturally you won't find much resource on them) so that means it's the prepositional particles (and a few others) i'm concerned with at the moment. The particle section of my course book (which has horrible examples of things throughout apparently) mentions the following:
ga marks an emphatic grammatical subject (see mo, below).
wa marks a sentance topic that may be either the subject or object of the sentence, or a modifier. Some of the modifiers in b above can be used with wa also.
no links a noun to another noun. It is most frequently used for the posessive ("of").
ni links a noun or noun equivalent (such as the premasu form of a verb) to a verb, adjective, or copula.
o marks the thing acted on (see mo, below).
mo can be used instead of ga or o (see above) but carries the additional meaning of "that thing/person also."
e links a noun to a verb and marks the direction toward which an action is performed.
to does one of two things: (i) it links nouns together in a complete list (see ya, below) or (ii) it marks the partner with whom the action is being performed.
ya links nouns together in an incomplete list (see to, above)
yori marks a noun or noun equivalent as the standard against whcih a comparison is made
kara marks a starting point in time or space.
made marks the ending point in time or space.
de marks the means, way, place, or manner in which an action is performed.
bakari has one of two functions: (i) it can be used in place of (or sometimes together with) ga or o to cary the additional meaning of "nothing else," or (ii) if it follows a number, it signifies that a number is only approximate.
dake can be used in place of or together with ga or o to carry the additional meaning of "that was the limit."
hodo can be used (i) to mark a thing against whcih a comparison is made and which is about the same in degree or extend as the thing compared, or (ii) to mark a number that is only approximate.
kurai (or gurai) makrs the approximate quantity, quality, or degree, and can often be used interchangeably with hodo (see above).
ka (i) shows that a statement is a question, or (ii) has the meaning of "either...or."
So, assume that the above is the only thing i've read about these particles...
I understand wa, ga, no, wo, the first meaning of to, ya, and the first meaning of ka. The others are either confusing to me (such as why some are specifically marked interchangeably with another and others are not) or if it's not explained as specifically.
Basically, i all i want, now, is an example of that i don't understand...
If (using the examples above) "かわまでおよぐ" means "swim to a river" (with the including meaning that the point is or will be reached) rather than e (へ)which means swim towards a river then i might understand that one. The question would be then dosn't that mean ni means to actually enter the river while made means to stop at the entrance to the river?
(whew...)