Can I trust textbooks?

So, maybe too much of an open ended question, not sure. But this has been on my mind since yesterday and I need to ask.

So yesterday in one of the translation subreddits I saw “Yet another Japanese Tattoo Post”^(TM). In this particular post what was interesting was that the Japanese in question was said to be “technically right”, and “textbook Japanese” but that these very things made it “mechanical” and “obviously a google translation” that would “never be said”. The sentence was “私は神の子です。” which, even without the Katana, would be a cringe tattoo even in English but, I was more hung up on it being “wrong”.

If textbook Japanese is wrong and mechanical, should I trust textbooks? Why learn it this way if it is “never used”. Is it too formal? too rigidly structured?

I think I understand some of the problem with the sentence, to a degree. I think one suggestion was that you would most likely just put “神の子” to convey the same message (it’s tattooed on you so, context). But the whole conversation about it just seems to open up a whole pitfall to me. If I’m learning how to speak like Google translate with slightly better grammatical order… how do I bridge the gap to get to “actual” Japanese?

3 comments
  1. The textbook is still crucial to learn grammar and practice. You learn the basics like how we learn English in children’s books but no one talks like that in real life. It’s helpful to know how the formal grammar would be but not everyday conversations. I think it’s still an important first step then you start having convos with real people and learn more through practice. Getting a basic sentence tattooed on you is cringe especially if you’re using the formal way with desu and all that. Just look at how all the language apps teach you sentences and then how anime sounds. It’s similar but not the same

  2. Take textbook English and ask whether or not someone speaking like a textbook would sound normal. “Hi, I’m fine, and youuu?”

    The problem is, even if it’s grammatically correct, that doesn’t mean it’s natural.

    Take for example “Yesterday, we had strong rain.” Perfectly grammatically correct, but it sounds off because we arbitrarily call a strong downpour “hard rain”, not strong. Conversely, it would be correct to say “strong winds”, but yet not “hard winds”, and as I just wrote, “strong downpour” is also normal.

    People speak in phrases, so it’s important to not try to reinvent the wheel with speech. There is likely a set phrase for any given idea, so you have to wait until you know the phrase to say the idea.

    Furthermore, if you keep saying 「私は、それは、あなたは、キチンは」You’re gonna sound funny, which you’ll note the phrase in question had a 私は in it, and the suggestion was to remove this.

    This is because the textbooks often teach the は particle first, and have example sentences that do this, but generally people only say は periodically.

    Imagine in English, someone said “As for me, as for that, as for you, as for the kitchen”, before every sentence. It’d be strange!

    So how do you find out what sounds normal and not robotic??・Listen to native people talk, and read native literature!

    A textbook can show you how a language works in a vacuum, but only flesh and blood humans communicating can show you how it works in practice.

    Watch some shows/videos and read some books, and after many, many hours you’ll catch on to what is normal, and why “textbook Japanese” sounds funny.

  3. You can trust textbooks to give you a basic, polite version of what you are trying to say.

    But imagine there is a genie. A textbook understanding would give the former, and the latter would not be in a textbook.

    “Nice to meet you, human. May I have your wish, please?”

    “Greetings, mortal. What is thy wish?”

    Overall, a textbook is good for language to use in most situations. But 私 and です don’t sound right for the chid of a god. I’m definitely not an expert, but われ might be a better pronoun, and である or something else might work instead of です. You would not want to talk like this yourself, though, just like you would not use “thy” seriously in speech in real life.

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like