"I will buy a ticket later."
51 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
I wouldn't hold my breath. To quote founder of Duolingo:
"My dream in life is to be able to teach you a language without you needing to read textbooks about indirect objects. In fact, I consider the use of grammar to be discriminatory against those who unfortunately didn't have a very good education in their own native language (which is the majority of the world's population). I think slapping 30 pages of grammar before every lesson is the easy way out -- instead we should strive for something that everybody can consume."
I agree. I tried his method of not reading about grammar my first time going through the Spanish course and became so horribly confused that I quit near the end.
The inequality in teaching proper grammar is a societal problem, not a problem with the concept of grammar - grammar is very useful in a learner's understanding of a language. It seems to me that "the easy way out" would be to act like an understanding of grammar isn't useful in the comprehension of a language. Producing a method that allows the user to understand the grammar of another language in relation to their primary one while perhaps improving one's understanding of one's primary language - that's the challenge.
Well said. Ive been seeking out further resources to aid in my understanding of japanese grammar and it really has exposed to me how limited my understanding of my native english grammar really is. While its been an unaticipated brake on the learning process for me, ultimately its still been the most effective way for me to learn more and i find it quitre rewarding to increase my comprehension of native grammar along the way as well.
I'm not sure you really mean your understanding of the English grammar is limited. Being a native speaker of a language just about by definition means you're an expert at understanding (and using) the grammar of the language. Maybe what you mean is that you're limited in speaking about the grammar, that is, explaining why you say certain things a certain way.
Kids learn without grammar but have language immersion and very flexible brains. Adults have more established brain patterns but can understand grammar concepts. Both methods work. Learning without formal grammar as an adult? I for one I'm glad that you people put the effort to teach us here in the comments. Thank you.
The tips frequently are truncated down to the point of being a third of what you need to know in the lesson. Often I have the tips up on another page, look at the meaning of the words by scrolling over them, and still mess up. Duolingo shouldn't force people to use trial and error if it wants to be a full language course. However, it seems Duolingo is purposefully holding back grammar to make it completely palpable to the smallest children.
Wow. I could not disagree more with this concept. This is like an artist refusing to learn how to draw before they paint. You end up with abstract art that way, which is fine, but you won't be able to make any sense of it. Grammar is the foundation on which language stands.
I agree thay grammar has its use, and I learn from it often, but I think this claim is a stretch. Grammar is not the foundation of a language; grammar is the study of an already existing foundation created by centuries of people mimicking the language patterns of each other. Its the same with many formal academic disciplines. The study of physics does not govern the universe; physics is just is the model we have created to explain and talk about the actual rules governing the universe. Gravity existed long before we called it gravity. Language patterns existed long before we parsed them into nouns and verbs. Duolingo attempts to teach the patterns by immitation and example rather than formal study. Both have their merits and no one is stopping you from having a grammar resource by your side when you use Duolingo. To each their own.
You probably know
は is to bring about a discussion on a topic.
を is to indicate the target object of an action.
Sometimes をis referred to as the particle after the object of a transitive verb. Well, it is helpful to understand this way at the beginning, but the bad thing is it also limits your understanding by the rules English grammar.
Think about using the particle as you need it for your intention, whether you want to bring up an object as a topic (hence putting the emphasis on it) or simply want to mention it as the target object of an action (less emphasis). Using either は or を can both be perfectly correct, and which is more suitable depends on the context.
This movie seems interesting.
Let's go to buy the tickets.
チケートは 後で 買います。いま帰りたいだけです。
About the tickets, I will buy them later. Now I only want to go home.
I think its different ways of saying the same thing. チケットをかいます Is more direct, while the answer here is a bit softer. Like "a ticket will be bought" (implying by you). Its like 明日は買い物します！is lit. "Tomorrow is shopping" but it's implied you are doing it. Bith ways are fine. I hipe that what Ive said is correct and helps a bit!
It's because the speaker is telling you about "ticket." If he used "wo" he would be telling you about himself. The information is the same but the focus is different. Ques: Do you have TICKETS?
Ans: Chiketto wa, ato de kaimasu.
Ques: What are YOU going to do after this?
Ans: Ato de chiketto wo kaimasu.
Depending on what you want to emphasize you would use one sentence or the other.
you are saying/emphasizing what YOU will be (buy)ing (later). (I is implied but the topic of the conversation can be 田中さん.)
you are saying/emphasizing WHAT it is that you will be (buy)ing (later).
There's a good explanation a bit further up (it's a good idea to skim the existing comments first):
The short of it is that the topic makes the rest of the sentence about it; thus “ticket” is the topic and what you're saying about it is “I'll buy later”. This would be most natural if we were talking about going to the park.
With を, you're conveying the same information but more as a plain fact. Maybe you're just telling your plans for the day.
I don't see why your answer is wrong, given that there is no context given. Your answer tells what the speaker plans to do. Duo's answer focuses on what is going to be done about getting a ticket. The "wa" makes the ticket the topic, or focus, of the sentence. (It would answer the question "What about the ticket?) Why, or how, we are supposed to get this from the English is beyond me.