>It may help to think of 「で」 as meaning "by way of". This way, the same meaning will kind of translate into what the sentence means. The examples will then read: "Saw by way of movie theater", "Go home by way of bus", and "Ate lunch by way of restaurant."
This only makes it harder for people to understand で.
>The 「から」 here meaning "because" is different from the 「から」 we just learned and will be covered later in the compound sentence section. Basically the point is that the two sentences, while written the same way, are read differently and mean completely different things.
The first sentence here is completely unrelated to everything after it, which is about なにで vs なんで. Also, he doesn't just side-note that から as in "from" attaches to things and から as in "because" attaches to statements, which would eliminate the confusion. He also could have found an example that doesn't use から.
>When direct object is the topic
He finally explains that は can be used for things that are nothing like a subject.
>In Japanese, sometimes there are two types of the same verb often referred to as transitive and intransitive verbs.
This is the first sentence of a nine-line paragraph that would be more helpful and more accurate if it were boiled down into "Intransitive and transitive verbs use different particles. Intransitive verbs don't accept a direct object with を. English does the same thing, you can't use a direct object with "die". Some things in Japanese have two verbs where English has one, like 落ちる and 落とす vs just "drop". It's important to know that Japanese has different vocabulary than English." which would be three lines plus a couple words.
>The important thing to remember is that intransitive verbs cannot have a direct object because there is no direct acting agent.
This is not because intransitive verbs have no agent. It is because they are "not transitive". Transitive verbs can express agentive actions, just not ones that also take a direct object as an argument. This is even worse because he follows it up with intransitive verbs of motion like 出る, some of which can obviously have a direct acting agent.
>Have you noticed how, many forms of verbs and the state-of-being conjugate in a similar manner to i-adjectives? Well, that is because, in a sense, they are adjectives.
He finally implies that ない is an i-adjective, but he does so in the context of using verbs "like adjectives" to make relative clauses. What the fuck.
>You can, however, have a string of nouns placed together when they're not meant to modify each other. For example, in a phrase such as "International Education Center" you can see that it is just a string of nouns without any grammatical modifications between them. It's not an "Education Center that is International" or a "Center for International Education", etc., it's just "International Education Center". In Japanese, you can express this as simply 「国際教育センタ」 (or 「センター」).
They are exactly modifying each other from left to right. This is just how compound words work. People learn this in Elementary school. You don't have to invent a "cool teacher" non-linguistic explanation for it. All it does is make it take longer to explain.
>Now that we've learned the concept of relative clauses and how they are used as building blocks to make sentences, I can go over how Japanese sentence ordering works. There's this myth that keeps floating around about Japanese sentence order that continues to plague many hapless beginners to Japanese. Here's how it goes.
Opening of an incorrect three paragraph tirade about Japanese not being an SOV language despite the fact that it absolutely is and Tae Kim just doesn't understand what that means or how to explain what implications it has.
>The 「と」 particle is similar to the 「も」 particle in that it contains a meaning of inclusion. It can combine two or more nouns together to mean "and".
>Another similar use of the 「と」 particle is to show an action that was done together with someone or something else.
He introduces と as an "inclusion" particle, and mentions that it can also include doing an action with someone or something else. He says that this is "another similar use" and doesn't tell the reader at all that it's semantically unrelated to the listing function that he covers right above and below.
>「とか」 also has the same meaning as 「や」 but is a slightly more colloquial expression.
とか doesn't actually have the same meaning as や.
>The 「の」 particle has many uses and it is a very powerful particle. It is introduced here because like the 「と」 and 「や」 particle, it can be used to connect one or more nouns.
These are completely unrelated forms of "connection" and when you compare them as similar things all you're doing is confusing people.