I recently found out about Japanese verb conjugations, and came across a helpful video. Can anyone tell me if this is legit, and can be used for any verb, or if I may have trouble if I use it as my only verb-conjugation reference. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g2ddWhJWmU

  • 3
    Welcome to the Japanese Language Stack Exchange. One of the goals of this site is to create a collection of questions and answers that stand on their own indefinitely. As such, it would help to describe the method you are asking about within the question. That way, if this YouTube video is ever deleted or inaccessible for some reason, this question will still be useful to other users.
    – Leebo
    Aug 3, 2021 at 11:12

1 Answer 1


While in my opinion this video did a good job at explaining it in an easy to understand way, there are a few things I would like to point out.

If a verb looks like a Type 1 verb (also called Godan verb), it is always a Type 1 verb (except for the Type 3 verbs). But, if a verb looks like a Type 2 verb (also called Ichidan verb), it isn't neccessarily a Type 2 verb. The video also mentions that there are exceptions like 帰る (かえる), which is a Type 1 verb, but for some reason it shows 走る (はしる) as an example for Type 2 verbs even though it's Type 1. Here is a list of all these exceptions (https://www.sljfaq.org/afaq/which-godan.html) but I recommend to just always look up whether a new verb you learn is Type 1 or Type 2 instead of learning a whole list.

Then the video mentions that する and 来る are exceptions, which is correct, but I would also add 行く as a little exception, which will get relevant if you want to form the past tense and -te form but I guess he will mention that in Module 5.

At last I would also add that for making the "capable" form (potential form) of a Type 2 verb, you can actually not only add れる but also られる, which is a bit longer and less common in speech.

So yes I would say this video is usable but there are still some things missing which makes the video unfavorable for being your only reference. There are still things missing like passive form, causative form, imperative form and so on.

You must log in to answer this question.

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