And knowing only grammar will let you know that there’s a topic, there’s a target, an object, and a verb in past tense. So talking about something, something did something with something to something
But that means you only have to look up words, which are much easier than looking up grammar. If you have a profound understanding of grammar, you’re confident enough to understand any sentence, because the rest are just blanks to fill.
It’s not as easy to do in live speech, or when you’re listening to something
1 Like
Chasing this hypothetical is a little silly honestly, but I think you’re evaluating it on the level of a grammar point vs a word a little too much. Quickly looking up and understanding a grammar point takes more effort than a word, certainly. But taken collectively does learning most of the grammar you’ll need really take more effort than learning most of the words you’ll need? I mean, by time, I’m pretty sure I’ve done the former and I sure haven’t done much more than scratch the surface of the latter.
3 Likes
at the beginning i’d recommend prioritizing vocab. Trying to tackle any grammar beyond the basics without any vocab is suffering because you can’t understand any examples easily. Vocab is the puzzle pieces, grammar is the parts that connect those pieces.
as for the poll, my vote is vocab. There’s alot more vocab than grammar, and grammar at least at the level im at, feels a lot easier to get a grasp on. Admitedly i’m probably going to change my mind as i get to the harder stuff, but… thems the brakes i guess.
1 Like
I totally do agree with that. I mean, it’s literally the exact same point I mentioned above:
3 Likes
You’re right, sorry. It’s a little easy to lose track of exactly who said which thing as these conversations develop, and where they actually started. I think you and I are in total agreement.
2 Likes
In all seriousness, you really can’t do one without the other, so I have to admit to being somewhat confused by the staunchness on either side that one is more important than the other.
Most “grammar points” are just vocabulary being used in a certain way. Maybe that way is an archaic way, and wouldn’t be immediately obvious to someone studying modern Japanese, but it’s still going to basically be “I chained these words together to create this meaning.”
Oftentimes, it’s intuitive; sometimes, it’s become so baked into the language, you’re pulling out your digging tools to figure out how it could possibly mean that.
From that perspective, more vocabulary might set you up for success in learning grammar. However, I still lean in favor of, early on, prioritizing grammar.
Why? Because once I got the gist of basic grammar, I found it much easier to learn vocab, personally. I’m not great at just memorizing from a list. I learn best by seeing things used in context. They just feel stickier in my brain that way. If I come across a word used at least 2 times in context, odds are good I’ll know it well enough to recognize it later. If I see a word 2 times in an SRS program, it’s a coin-flip if I can remember it that well.
But, the biggest thing is figuring out what works for you. Folks tend to fall all over each other offering what is the “best” way to do something, not realizing that sometimes, that just means it worked for them, and that maybe what was best for them isn’t the best for somebody else.
My recommendation (which I’m happy to see lines up with quite few others’):
Get the gists of at least basic-intermediate grammar (the stuff you’ll see used regularly), use that to go out and start reading/listening/watching things, and accumulating vocabulary that way (while also utilizing SRS systems, if they work for you!). This will also help you cement the grammar study as well. It’s what worked for me.
But if you find that looking up words all the time in the middle of doing something just doesn’t jive with you, see if whatever you want to engage with has some pre-built vocabulary list, study that and learn it, then dive in to engaging with it.
I really don’t see this as an either-or, honestly. Some words I learn in context really well, some I don’t. Some grammar is easy to pick up in context, other times the nuance could get lost without properly studying it. Striking a balance is what worked out the best for me.
Though, I agree that if it’s a hypothetical world, where you are being told that you can master one instantly, I would side with vocab purely because there is so much of it. But practically speaking, learning in the real world, most common grammar first, then trial and error your way into finding what level of prioritization works best for you.
13 Likes
In both cases, whether you know only vocabulary or only grammar, you’ll probably need a translator to completely figure the sentence out. One thing I will admit - and I assume that is your point - at least knowing vocabulary gives you a chance of understanding the sentence, whereas only knowing grammar, you’ll definitely need a translator to complement your knowledge.
The reason why, from a practical standpoint, I’d still pick grammar, is because grammar gives you a feel for the language, a confidence that will allow you to understand any sentence you encounter. Yes, in both cases you’ll need a translator, but I feel like as vocabulary-only, having to simply resort to pasting the sentence into deepl for a chance of a correct translation is kind of cheating and it literally gives you the vocabulary you already know, so what good did it do for you in the end? On the other hand looking up words separately and filling in the blanks yourself seems more like you managed to understand the sentence yourself thanks to your knowledge of how the language works.
4 Likes
You can communicate quite a bit with a large vocabulary and a minimal grasp of grammar. I don’t think you can say the same with a small vocabulary and large grasp of grammar.
Both are very important and should be learned in tandem, regardless.
4 Likes
Vocab even though it’s a non-stop fight with any SRS. Grammar in general is fairly minimal even in books and if you don’t understand that one word key to the sentence, high level of grammar won’t help.
1 Like
Right. I teach Spanish, and I see this all the time: people who can understand every word in a sentence but can’t for the life of them figure out what is happening, or misunderstand—and I don’t mean only for the occasional sentence, either.
My solution as a teacher is to isolate the vital parts of Spanish grammar. How does it differ, at its heart, from English grammar? What do my students struggle with that will make communication difficult? Then I focus on those concepts in teaching. I find three major points to teach, three major ways accessible to beginners that Spanish and English are fundamentally different which severely affect understanding. (Ironically, the things I spend the most time on are often grammar points that most textbooks treat as side points, but they’re fundamental to Spanish sentences. And some of them the textbooks never address at all!)
Simultaneously, I look for common vocabulary. Not food and weather and clothing and the typical “first year” stuff, but really basic words like say, know, because, after, as well as basic nouns. And I do whatever I can to get those words into their heads.
As soon as I can manage it, I get them reading and listening to “real” Spanish (with limited vocabulary and, to a lesser extent, limited grammar, but still retaining all the flavor of Spanish). This helps them firm up both the grammar and the vocabulary.
Once students have those two things under their belt, the language is open to them. There is still lots to learn, but there are almost no real obstacles to their progress.
A teacher who had a similar philosophy in Japanese was Cure Dolly (whose videos you can find on YouTube). She and I corresponded about this a few years ago. Her approach to grammar is similar to what I do for Spanish, though obviously the specifics are quite different!
8 Likes
Let’s take these sentences.
“At top in my study there is replete with a surfeit of faux bijoux”
“There is a lot of jewelry on top of my desk”
Who do you think sounds like the more proficient speaker? As someone who loves learning new and interesting words, grammar 100% is the more important of the two. You can always work around an unknown word to get your point across, nobody is gonna care. Bad grammar is much less forgivable.
2 Likes
If you don’t know many words you will not be able to talk around complex topics. You surely don’t need to know 紺 if you know 青, but if you don’t know 青 you can’t talk around not knowing the word for something blue by referring to it as 青の. This is a bit of a contrived example, but the same is true for more complex words. So I agree that at a certain point using increasingly obscure words doesn’t add much, but you do need a strong foundation to be able to talk around words you don’t know.
The same is true for grammar. You need foundational and (I’d say) even intermediate level grammar. But just as “you can always work around an unknown word to get your point across” is (more or less) true if you have a strong foundation, the same can also be said about grammar. Many high level grammar points are just more nuanced ways of saying something you can already say with simpler grammar. So you can talk around not knowing unknown grammar as well, as long as (same as vocab) you have a solid foundation.
7 Likes
Yeah; my rule of thumb is that the basic grammar in the two volumes of Minna no Nihongo is enough tools to be able to get your point across, especially with a willing listener. After that grammar is largely ways to say more compactly and nuancedly what you could communicate with basic-grammar paraphrasing.
Anyway, congratulations to the OP for managing to start such a long thread on a silly hypothetical 
8 Likes
Leave it to us to ruin a fun hypothetical by giving serious advice!
9 Likes
Sure you can. You can say 空の色, 海っぽい, 空らしい. But there’s no substitute for bad grammar. Even if you can get your point across it comes off much more grating than a small vocabulary.
2 Likes
Your estimate is pretty spot-on. I studied with the Minna no Nihongo textbooks, and after every one of them I made an attempt to challenge my understanding of native Japanese material. After the first book, it was a disaster. After the second book however, things began to look very different. I felt like I could realistically make the jump to pure immersion after the second book and somehow manage to fight myself through.
In the end, I still completed all four books, though. Sitting through the fourth book made for an incredibly smooth jump, very good comprehension and picking up a lot of new vocabulary with very little effort. But I also had to study a good 500+ hours to get to that point, and I doubt many people have that sort of patience to where they can go 500+ hours learning a language without doing anything interesting with it. But due to personal circumstances, I didn’t have a choice of learning Japanese the most painfree way. It was all about learning as much in as little time as possible.
But in most cases, the estimate you gave completing just the first two books is really good. Based on my own experience explained above, I’d add: Learn as much as your patience permits, but at the very least, finish the first two books.
5 Likes
I actually really like Cure Dolly! She makes things I thought were complex sound really clear and consice!
1 Like
I really like this answer
2 Likes