I know they all indicate consequence. kara implies an opinion, while nanode is objective, but what is the exact difference between all three words?

Edit: Update with example:

Example 1: da to

I think there should be more choice
motto sentakushi ga aru beki dato omoimasu.

Example 2: na no de

   Watching children's show is a good way to learn Japanese as the dialogue is simple.
    Kaiwa ga tanjun nanode, kodomo muke no bangumi wo miru nowa ii nihonngo gakushuu houhou desu.

Example 3: kara

….Therefore, this was my first thanksgiving.
...Desu kara korewa watashi no saisho no kanshasai deshita.
  • 2
    Da to is two words, and na no de is three words. Each begins with a form of the copula (da and na), but the copula is missing from da kara in your list, so they can't be directly compared.
    – user1478
    Dec 10, 2016 at 22:02

1 Answer 1


kara and node's meanings are same. dato doesn't mean because.

kara is used when a speaker says a speaker's own idea, and a speaker wants to tell that reasons to listeners briefly.

node is used when a speaker wants to explain existing, or exited situations. It is impact on listeners is weak.
So speakers commonly used when asking for permission, and tell a little gently apology.

Their usage obscured. So your examples are ORIGINALLY wrong, but now, sometimes used the usage like that.

UPDATE: I wrote about dato.

Related: http://komachi.yomiuri.co.jp/t/2009/1206/280340.htm

  • What you are saying makes sense, but it doesn't match up with the examples I have seen. I have updated my post with the examples. In Example 1, da to is being used, even though it is the speaker's idea (which is what you say kara should be used for). In example 2, na no de is used even though again it is the speaker's idea. I am not saying that you are wrong, I am just a little confused on how to apply it. I am sure that I am just missing something obvious. Thanks for any help you can offer!
    – big_smile
    Dec 11, 2016 at 11:17
  • 1
    @big_smile Their usage obscured. So your examples are ORIGINALLY wrong, but now, sometimes used the usage like that.
    – ra1ned
    Dec 11, 2016 at 13:50
  • so does that mean the words are mostly interchangeable?
    – big_smile
    Dec 11, 2016 at 19:22
  • 1
    Grammatically, the words aren't interchangeable, but recently, sometimes be used to replace.
    – ra1ned
    Dec 11, 2016 at 21:59
  • 1
    So it can be replaced, but it should not be replaced.
    – ra1ned
    Dec 12, 2016 at 9:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .