> Wow, there is a lot of negative gatekeeping on learning Japanese in this thread. I recommend people chill out.

Any discussion of Japanese here brings out a lot of extremely defensive nerds. I don't know why this happens more with Japanese, but it sure seems to. I don't have a strong opinion on the post, and I tend to think that if you find something that works for you, when it comes to languages, you should go with it. Far be it from me to tell you that you're wrong for learning how you learn. But that said -- and as others have noted -- the explanation here is misleading, and that's because of the dependence on romaji / transliteration. Japanese conjugation is extremely simple, and the author is missing some essential context that would make it all much clearer. For example:

> it's not entirely clear what nomu's stem is. is it nomu? but then, we define stem as the unchanging part — whereas the last vowel seems to alternate, like nomi or noma in some cases.

First, there is a clear stem (飲*), but you just don't know that yet, because you haven't learned kanji [1]. The conjugation is extremely regular, and there's no reason to memorize a bunch of granular rules like this:

> む (mu) changes to み (mi) when adding ます(masu)

To wit: a godan verb [2] shifts from the "u" sound(う・く・す・つ・ぬ・む・る・ぶ・ぐ / u, ku, su, tsu, nu, mu, ru, bu, gu)to the "i" sound in the same column of the kana table(い・き・し・ち・に・み・り・び・ぎ) when conjugating to the formal (aka "teineigo" / aka "masu")conjugation.

It's one rule. Then, for casual negative conjugations, you shift to the "a" sound in the same column (わ・か・さ・た・な・ま・ら・ば・が). Two rules. Formal past tense, and a bunch of other tenses derive trivially from these (e.g. わかるー>わからないー>わからなかった / "I understand", "I don't understand", "I didn't understand")

That covers the conjugations the author cites in the piece, and a few others that he hasn't. However, for past tense or て form, the author's system will actually confuse you (IMO), because the you really do need to have an intuition for kana to know how the conjugations are going to play out. Namely the following rules:

る・う・つ becomes って or った (continual or past tense, respectively)

く becomes いて or いた

す becomes して or した

ぐ becomes いで or いだ

ぬ・む・ぶ becomes んで or んだ

For these, it's really, really, really helpful to just know kana, and how the sounds roll off the tongue. Because if you do, you quickly see that there's really no other way for the first three endings to work out, and require little/no memorization at all. The last rows are the exceptions that you have to learn. But again, it's what...7 rules in total? In the grand scheme of language learning, this is nothing -- and boy, let me tell you, if memorizing seven semi-arbitrary things is a burden for you, Japanese is not your language.

Anyway, the point is, I strongly encourage you to learn kana as quickly as possible, and then onto kanji forthwith. The sooner you do this, the sooner all will be made clear!

[1] I am using the royal "you" here. I don't know if the author knows kanji and don't care; I'm saying that if a regular person is at this stage of learning Japanese, they will not know many, if any, kanji.

[2] Just doing godan verbs here, because ichidan verbs are much simpler. The tricky part of ichidan verbs is knowing which ones they are, which, alas, you mainly just have to memorize. You can sorta-kinda infer that a verb with an "iru" or "eru" ending is ichidan -- it's always true that ichidan verbs end like that! -- but it's a necessary-not-sufficient condition, which, again, requires that you know the kanji to distinguish "without memorization."

>the explanation here is misleading

Misleading means it leads to a wrong conclusion somewhere. Please demonstrate which wrong conclusion my article is leading to.

>and that's because of the dependence on romaji / transliteration

There is no "dependence" on transliteration per se. I use it as a visual shortcut for moving along the kana row, as I show in the middle of the post using the table. For all the examples we're looking at, the relationship between the mora and the corresponding romaji version is bijective — so there is literally no difference except the notation. I wanted the article to be accessible to someone who's not fluent in kana (and in fact to someone with zero knowledge of Japanese), hence the choice of notation.

>First, there is a clear stem (飲*), but you just don't know that yet, because you haven't learned kanji

What could kanji possibly have to do with this? We're discussing a thing rooted in phonetics. The verb stem often includes kana in addition to kanji (e.g. 食べ). There's nothing special here about kanji at all.

>To wit: a godan verb [2] shifts from the "u" sound [...] to the "i" sound in the same column of the kana table [...] Then, for casual negative conjugations, you shift to the "a" sound in the same column

Sure, and that's exactly what I'm describing in the article. Why do you need to pretend I'm describing something different? There's even a place in the article where we use the kana table for that. However, since I assume the reader might not want to constantly look at the kana table, I focus on the phonetic intuition. And the phonetic intuition is trivially explained with romaji, which is why I use them.

> But that said -- and as others have noted -- the explanation here is misleading, and that's because of the dependence on romaji / transliteration. Japanese conjugation is extremely simple, and the author is missing some essential context that would make it all much clearer. For example:

Doesn't going straight to kana actually kind of obscure the relationship between nomu and nomi that they both begin nom-?

> Doesn't going straight to kana actually kind of obscure the relationship between nomu and nomi that they both begin nom-?

No, because nom- is not a sound that exists in Japanese phonetics.

nomu/nomi share the initial の, and む/み are in the same column of the kana table (五十音/gojuuon).

Sure it is. It's just bound to a vowel.

>I don't know why this happens more with Japanese

Because Japanese learners have been burned more often by snake oil, because it's both harder for most people trying to learn it than other languages and there are more people.

Despite my previous comment I don't recommend learning the written language first at all. The script is entirely too simple a model of language to even be useful. The first thing you are taught is that each character has one sounds, but that physically can't be true, there are millions of sounds and none of them sounds like an English speaking beginners' first guess. If Japanese was a formal system this might be desirable, but it's not. It's a physical means of communication and this "noise" is the error gradient that rewires your auditory cortex.