Multiple suggestions from a new user

[Chellykins]

@PabloM

Yeah, I sometimes get the feeling that the example sentences are there for the writer to show off their obscure knowledge.

Studies have shown that we remember things better when we have an emotional connection to them. If we find a sentence funny, we are more likely to remember it. Or if it is gross, like the penny-boogers.

[DIO-Berry]

@PabloM

In the same vein, it would really help if there was some kind of practical exercise to practice vocabulary. Something like: “Translate this sentence into Japanese.” The idea of this would be to get used to practical usage and using various verb forms rather than just learning the “dictionary” form.
Even just a multiple choice “which would be the correct form to use here?” question might be good.

It sounds like you’re looking for Clozemaster or Bunpro. Basic Clozemaster has vocab like you want it (listening too iirc) and Clozemaster Pro has grammar testing options. It’s made with intermediate learners in mind. I enjoyed Pro for French, but I’m not at the right level to get much out of it with Japanese yet. Bunpro has the grammar lessons you’re looking for with no ability barrier aside from maybe kana knowledge.

[74nm41]

I would like to see better context sentences as well, I feel like the community deserves it and the original content creator slacked off when doing this. The current bizarre ones are cute but I don’t think they’re really helping anybody.

Your other points… idk man!
I think there’s a lot of challenges associated with doing these things, and some learning platforms attempt them (and might fail at it depending upon who you ask), and some things just nobody is doing yet. But either way you have to assemble your personal learning method around the tools at hand right?

Sometimes different users want wildly different experiences, and sometimes users don’t know what is best for them. This is a difficult topic Your opinion about these things may even change as you become more familiar with the language.

Thanks for voicing your opinion! I have a lot of respect for people who strive for more.

Hopefully WaniKani developers do make efforts to improve, or someone else makes something better that replaces it.

Happy studies,

[Chriss]

Understood - but my concern is more to do with how they’re labelled. If a verb is both transitive and intransitive, why only label it one or the other? That leads to confusion.

[Belthazar]

If you find any examples which are both that aren’t labelled as such, you should e-mail hello@wanikani.com and suggest a correction. Verbs that are both should be labelled - for example, 待つ.

[Leebo]

@Chriss

Understood - but my concern is more to do with how they’re labelled. If a verb is both transitive and intransitive, why only label it one or the other? That leads to confusion.

I think it’s only worth labeling them as both if they actually have unique usages and meanings dedicated to both. Like さす. The meaning of “to shine” for さす is 100% intransitive and can’t take a direct object. The meaning of “to hold up” or “to insert” for さす is transitive, but you could omit the object if it’s obvious.

If it’s just a matter of a transitive verb where the object has been omitted due to Japanese omitting things fairly regularly, that’s not worth labelling as intransitive in my opinion. That’s just omission of the object.

[Chriss]

I think you need to consider how much assumed knowledge is in your post, though, and remember that WaniKani is aimed at people entirely new to the language. That in itself is reason enough to ensure that the information is totally accurate, or that every attempt is made to be as accurate as possible.

Bearing that in mind, why would you want to omit information that’s easily inserted for the purpose of clarity?

[Leebo]

@Chriss

I think you need to consider how much assumed knowledge is in your post, though, and remember that WaniKani is aimed at people entirely new to the language.

It’s designed to primarily target people who are new to kanji, but it (kind of infamously?) doesn’t really take general knowledge into account beyond that. Many people start using WaniKani as intermediate or advanced Japanese learners who want to focus on kanji.

@Chriss

That in itself is reason enough to ensure that the information is totally accurate, or that every attempt is made to be as accurate as possible.

Bearing that in mind, why would you want to omit information that’s easily inserted for the purpose of clarity?

Wasn’t accuracy what I argued for?

I’m arguing that a transitive verb used without an object doesn’t become an intransitive verb, even though it might get translated as such in English. To me, saying it can be intransitive is actually making things less clear in the long term.

So that’s why I was saying to only apply both labels when there is actually a distinction to be made.

Otherwise you’d only have two options… “Intransitive verb” or “Intransitive and transitive verb.” There would be nothing listed as only transitive.

[Chriss]

@Leebo

It’s designed to primarily target people who are new to kanji, but it (kind of infamously?) doesn’t really take general knowledge into account beyond that. Many people start using WaniKani as intermediate or advanced Japanese learners who want to focus on kanji.

Being that one of the three sections is vocabulary, and in that section it includes whether a verb is transitive or intransitive, I’d suggest this is well within the scope of the knowledge the site is communicating.

It really doesn’t matter whether many people who use the site have intermediate or advanced knowledge. What matters is who the site is aimed at. If it’s aimed at an audience of intermediate or advanced Japanese speakers, then that needs to be made clear before beginners spend $200 on it.

Wasn’t accuracy what I argued for?

I’m arguing that a transitive verb used without an object doesn’t become an intransitive verb, even though it might get translated as such in English. To me, saying it can be intransitive is actually making things less clear in the long term.

So that’s why I was saying to only apply both labels when there is actually a distinction to be made.

Otherwise you’d only have two options… “Intransitive verb” or “Intransitive and transitive verb.” There would be nothing listed as only transitive.

Oh, I’m not really sure then. I thought you were disagreeing with my suggestion that if a verb is both it should be labelled as both rather than just being labelled as one or the other.

[Leebo]

@Chriss

Oh, I’m not really sure then. I thought you were disagreeing with my suggestion that if a verb is both it should be labelled as both rather than just being labelled as one or the other.

Maybe I assumed incorrectly, but since the number of things that are like さす, where there are distinct transitive and intransitive meanings, are in the minority, I assumed that it wasn’t about those kinds of verbs. Because I think not many people are actually aware of them.

So, I guess I would need to see some examples of where people want to add the tags to see if I agree on those words or not.

[Chriss]

I think I’d be happy, really, with applying the dictionary standard.

[Leebo]

@Chriss

I think I’d be happy, really, with applying the dictionary standard.

Like, just taking what something like Koujien says? I’m sure that would be fine, since it would be an authoritative source. Whether that corresponds to the tags people wanted above, I don’t know.

[Chriss]

I mean, yeah. I just want to know, grammatically, authoritatively, whether a verb is considered transitive, intransitive, or both. That’s all.

On the wider topic, the more we’ve conversed and I’ve read other posts in this thread, I think the vocab section could use a bit of a renovation. As you said earlier, the site is indeed aimed at learning kanji - but the vocab section is included to further that learning so I think they could have another look over it.