> I don’t know what you mean by “so much effort”.
This is a pretty long blog post covering really not very much.
> The te/ta-form is genuinely a separate system linguistically with its own heritage. So it makes sense to look at it separately. I don’t consider it more “interesting” and I’d argue getting the details right with other forms is much more useful coverage-wise.
It's not just te/ta, you don't mention anything other than the basic polite/casual, positive/negative, and desiderative. At the very end you point to conditional and causative but say you haven't studied them, and no mention at all of passive, imperative, causative passive, or volitional.
> I agree you need to put time to practice and all that. But if there’s a genuinely simple system underneath, I always prefer to see it.
And how's that working out for you?
> There’s literally thousands of resources that teach it your preferred way, so I don’t understand the impulse to complain about someone teaching it differently for a change.
I find it very presumptive to propose to "teach" what you haven't really learnt. How many people have successfully become remotely close to fluent following this approach? It's 0, right? What makes you think you're "teaching" rather than leading people astray?
>This is a pretty long blog post covering really not very much.
Fine, it's too verbose for you. I like this pacing and level of verbosity for my own learning. I wrote it for people like me.
>At the very end you point to conditional and causative but say you haven't studied them, and no mention at all of passive, imperative, causative passive, or volitional.
I haven't studied them (as in "what they mean") but I've gone through all tables of "how they attach" as part of researching the article. Let's catalogue them:
- Conditional and casuative: Fully covered by the article's last section.
- Volitional: Same pattern. In article's notation, it's -[y]ou.
- Passive: Same pattern. In article's notation, it's -[r]areru.
- Causative passive: Same pattern. In article's notation, -[s]aserareru. (I guess there's a special case there for when it contracts.)
- Imperative: Genuinely two cases that IMO are easier to teach separately.
If something's actually wrong, please correct it! I think the article gives a genuinely good scaffolding. By the time you get to these advanced cases, you're comfortable enough with the base model to split them up.
>And how's that working out for you?
Can you stop with your condescending sneering? It's working out well for me.
>I find it very presumptive to propose to "teach" what you haven't really learnt.
I think the article is rigorous in the scope it tackles. If it's not, you would have pointed out the mistakes by now. I also think a beginner has full license to teach if they stay rigorous. It's just a market of approaches.