Is it just me that gets unreasonably irritated at incorrect usage of language?? Some examples include, but are not limited to: saying, "to who" instead of, "to whom", saying, "poisonous" when you're talking about venom (poison is when you ingest, inhale, or through other actions on your part, bring the toxin into your body, whereas venom is injected through fangs, stingers, etc. such as with spiders, snakes, bees, ants, stonefish, platypi, etc.), the phrase, "I can care less" (implies a little bit of caring, no matter how small), calling any soda a coke (coke is a specific drink and flavor and many sodas are totally unlike coke whatsoever), saying, "whenever" when you mean, "when" (example: "whenever I went to grab a drink from the store, I tripped and fell", which is saying that you went to grab a drink from the store multiple times, and you tripped and fell each time), saying, "[person name] and me/me and [person name] (it's supposed to be," [person name] and I")", using, "literally" as an emphasis, using, "you're/your or they're/there/their, or it's/its interchangeably, saying things like, "don't hardly", using"macaron" and, "macaroon" interchangeably (entirely different cookies) among other language mistakes. Super annoying to me, because the compulsion to correct people is very strong often, but it's seen as condescending and whatever to tell people they're wrong, sometimes I just want to snap at people and say, "if you don't want to be corrected, don't be wrong." And yeah, I get that I can be seen as in the wrong for that, it's still something that gets on my nerves, ugh they irritate me.
When you first encounter the grammar form ～ている (-te iru), the standard textbook explanation is simple: it works just like the Present Continuous tense (the "-ing" form) in English. That explanation holds up for a while—until you start seeing it in sentences that clearly aren't describing something happening right now.
If you ask a Japanese native speaker to explain why this happens, they tend to sigh, say that it's tough and leave it at that. Fair enough! But it doesn't have to be an impenetrable mystery.
Let's break down how this grammar functions practically, moving from a simple mental framework to everyday usage and real-world (mostly anime) examples.
"Line" verbs vs. "dot" verbs
In English, we typically classify verbs as either action or stative (like run vs. know). In Japanese, however, the most critical distinction is between duration and instantaneous change.
To keep this simple, think of Japanese verbs as either lines or dots.
“Line” verbs (continuous actions)
These are actions that take time to perform. They have an inherent duration, meaning you can stop doing them at any point without a sudden shift in reality; the action simply stops without producing a permanent result state.
Examples: To read (読む), to walk (歩く), to eat (食べる).
The Formula: “Line” verb + ている = Action in progress.
Note: This functions exactly like the English "-ing" form. For instance, 読む (to read) becomes 読んでいる (reading right now).
“Dot” verbs (instant change)
These actions happen in a flash. They flip a switch, moving something instantly from State A to State B. Once the action occurs, it is over, but the world is permanently altered and a lasting result is produced.
Examples: To die (死ぬ), to sit down (座る), to turn on (つける), to appear/exit (出る).
The Formula: “Dot” verb + ている = Resultative state.
Note: Here, the action is already finished, but you are living in the aftermath of that change. For example, 知る means to find out, so 知っている means I found out, and as a result, I know.
How do you know if a verb is a line or a dot? In your native language, you just know it through intuition. While many basic "line" verbs overlap cleanly between English and Japanese, relying purely on gut feelings will eventually lead to mistakes. By looking at how these verbs are classified, you can consciously choose the right form for your context instead of guessing.
Tricky categories you need to know
Depending on the specific category of the verb, ～ている can alter the sentence's meaning entirely, sometimes translating to English as an adjective or a completely different tense.
Habits and repetition: ～る vs. ～ている
Both forms can express habitual actions, but they carry completely different nuances.
～る (dictionary form): Expresses an established, ongoing habit with no implied timeframe—it is a permanent, solid part of your lifestyle.
コーヒーを飲む
→ I drink coffee.
～ている: Expresses a temporary habit with a sense of "these days." It implies a change from your past routine and might not last.
コーヒーを飲んでいる
→ I’ve been drinking coffee lately.
Note: ～ている cannot be used for future habits; the standard ～る form handles those.
Motion verbs
Motion verbs split cleanly based on our line vs. dot rule:
Manner of Movement (Lines): 走る (run), 歩く (walk), 泳ぐ (swim) — focusing on how you move, with no defined endpoint.
Movement Toward a Goal (Dots): 行く (go), 来る (come), 入る (enter) — where the endpoint is built right into the verb's definition.
Because 行く (to go) is a "dot" verb, using 行っている expresses a resultative state (he went there and is there now). This creates a massive trap for learners:
✗ 太郎は今大阪に行っている。今頃は新幹線の中だと思う。
(This is unnatural because you cannot use 行っている if he is still en route).
✅ 太郎は今、大阪に向かっている。今頃は新幹線の中だと思う。
(Taro is heading for Osaka. I think he’s on the Shinkansen now). Because 向かう (to head toward) acts as a "line" verb here, its ～ている form correctly expresses an action in progress.
Transitive vs. intransitive verbs
Transitivity heavily influences how ～ている translates.
Intransitive + ている: Often translates as an adjective in English, because the resulting state matters much more than the action itself.
これを作った彼は死んでいる = The man who made this is dead (Adjective-like state).
Transitive + ている: Often translates as a continuous verb, keeping the focus on the active execution of the action.
彼はリンゴを食べている = He is eating an apple (Action in progress).
Stative verbs
Some verbs describe states rather than actions from the very beginning—they don't "move" and don't produce a dynamic result. Common examples include 思う (to think/believe), 知る (to know), 似る (to resemble), and 持つ (to possess).
When you apply ～ている to a stative verb like 思う, it marks a stative use meaning the belief is currently held, not an action in progress. This explains why the past form 思っていた means "that was my understanding at the time" rather than "I was in the middle of thinking".
Examples from Kaiju no. 8
解放戦力はスーツの力をどれだけ引き出しているかの指標。
→ The liberation power is an index of how much of the suit's power has been drawn out. (ep. 3, 11:46)
引き出す (ひきだす) = to draw out; to pull out [transitive]
引き出す is a telic (change) verb—pulling something out produces a visible result. It also happens quickly; the action itself doesn't last long. ている here expresses the resultative state: how much has been drawn out and is now in effect. The Present Perfect in the translation ("has been drawn out") reflects this correctly.
君のバイタルに異常が出ている。
→ Your vitals are showing abnormalities. (ep. 3, 20:36)
出る (でる) = here: to show; to appear [intransitive]
出る has many meanings. In this context it means "to appear" or "to show up." It's an atelic (non-change) verb—the showing has no defined endpoint or result. ている = action in progress. The Present Continuous in the translation is the natural fit here.
Putting it together: the 3-step test
When you encounter ～ている in the wild, don't guess. Run the sentence through this simple 3-step mental test:
Is this a stative verb? (知る, 思う, 似る, 持つ)
→ ～ている = An ongoing state or currently held opinion.
Is this a dot / change verb?
→ ～ている = A resultative state. (Translates best to the English Present Perfect or an Adjective).
Is this a line / non-change verb?
→ ～ている = An action in progress. (Translates cleanly to the English Continuous "-ing").
Bonus section: for the linguistic nerds
If you want to know the deeper scientific reason behind how this functions, the true answer lies in a concept called verbal aspect.
Aspect: Japanese vs. English vs. Polish
Grammar systems have to convey two distinct things: when something happened (Tense) and how it unfolded in time (Aspect).
English has four aspects: simple, progressive, perfect, and perfect progressive. The structural layout of English grammar forces you to explicitly specify the exact nature of the action.
Japanese has only two aspects: Perfective (the action is completed; we look at its final endpoint) and Imperfective (the action is ongoing, habitual, or viewed completely without reference to its endpoint).
～ている is strictly an imperfective marker. Because the Japanese imperfective aspect is broad, a single grammar form handles meanings that English splits across multiple tenses.
Interestingly, Polish works almost identically to Japanese in this regard. Consider this phrase:
Ja mieszkam w Polsce = I live in Poland (Simple aspect)
Ja mieszkam w Polsce teraz = I’m living in Poland now (Progressive aspect)
Ja mieszkam w Polsce od pięciu lat = I have lived / been living in Poland for five years (Perfect / Perfect Progressive aspect)
The Polish verb mieszkam does not change; instead, adverbial phrases (teraz, od pięciu lat) or external context carry the precise temporal distinction. Japanese works the exact same way. The grammar doesn’t hand you structural precision; the inherent semantics of the verb and the surrounding context do.
Academic terms explained
Telic (Change Verbs): Verbs with an inherent terminal point. Reaching it creates a transformation (e.g., to sit down, to die). Perfective telic verbs cannot appear in the present tense because a completed action cannot be actively completing at the exact moment of speaking.
Atelic (Non-Change Verbs): Verbs without a defined endpoint. They can stop at any point without producing a definitive result state (e.g., to read, to play).
The "time-marker" diagnostic test
A practical linguistic test to determine if a verb is atelic (non-change) or telic (change) is to insert a time marker before it:
If 一時間 (for an hour, without the particle で) sounds natural → It is an atelic / line verb.
If you must use 一時間で (in an hour) → It is a telic / dot verb.
Iori's charts
How to read and interpret Isao Iori’s charts
To conclude our masterclass on ～ている, let us dissect the actual mechanics of Professor Isao Iori’s research charts. If you have ever been frustrated by a textbook or an instructor telling you that a certain grammar point "just depends on the context" or that you "need to build an intuition for it," Iori’s work is your antidote.
His research provides a precise, predictable roadmap by establishing two fundamental truths:
The grammar wrapper never changes—the verb dictates the rules. The suffix ～ている is always a fixed marker of the imperfective aspect. Whether it translates to an English continuous action (-ing) or a resultative state (Present Perfect) is determined entirely by the semantic category of the verb it is attached to.
English-style "static vs. dynamic" classifications fail in Japanese. Forcing English grammatical categories onto Japanese syntax creates immediate errors. Instead, Japanese operates on a strict axis of State vs. Non-State, and Change (Telic) vs. Non-Change (Atelic).
Here is exactly how to read his data to master the system.
Decoding figure 1: the verbal decision tree
State Verbs (e.g., ある, いる): These verbs describe an inherent state natively. As the chart shows with the dotted line, the ている form does not exist or apply to them in basic present-tense usage. Why? Because the standard dictionary form (～る) is already doing the work of expressing a state.
Non-Change Verbs (Atelic / Lines): Actions that naturally endure over time (e.g., to read, to eat). Following the branch, ている here always expresses the progressive aspect (an action actively in progress).
Change verbs (telic / dots): Instantaneous, point-in-time transitions (e.g., to die, to sit down). Following this branch, ている always expresses the resultative aspect (you are living in the aftermath of a completed change).
Decoding table 2 vs. table 6
This comparison illustrates how differently both languages handle temporal and aspectual precision.
Look closely at Table 6 (English). Notice the structural volatility. To shift from a progressive action to a resultative state, English completely dismantles its grammatical architecture:
For Present Progressive, it requires: is + Present Participle (is reading).
For Present Resultative, it shifts to: is + Past Participle (is dead).
For the future, it introduces entirely new auxiliary strings (will be + PsPrt vs. will be + PstPrt).
Now, look at Table 2 (Japanese). Iori demonstrates that Japanese grammar is remarkably minimalist:
Look at the Present Tense row: Under the Progressive column (Non-change verbs), the form is ている. Under the Resultative column (Change/Motion verbs), the form is exactly the same: ている.
Look at the Past Tense row: Both columns collapse uniformly into teita.
Look at the Future Tense row: Both columns collapse uniformly into teiru darou.
In this short post, we will take a look at volitional and non-volitional verbs — a distinction that comes up a lot in grammar explanations but is rarely explained on its own. Understanding it will make structures like ように vs ために, たい, or てしまう much easier to grasp.
The basic idea
Volitional verbs describe actions that are done on purpose — consciously, deliberately, by choice. The subject decides to do something and does it.
Non-volitional verbs describe things that happen to you or come about on their own — states, results, involuntary reactions. The subject doesn't choose for them to occur.
In English, this distinction exists too, but it's rarely named. Compare:
I looked at the painting. — deliberate, you chose to look
I saw the painting. — it just happened, it entered your field of vision
Same logic applies in Japanese.
Common volitional verbs
These are actions you choose to do:
食べる（たべる）= to eat
飲む（のむ）= to drink
勉強する（べんきょうする）= to study
書く（かく）= to write
走る（はしる）= to run
話す（はなす）= to speak
見る（みる）= to look at; to watch
Common non-volitional verbs
These are things that happen, states that come about, or involuntary reactions:
できる = to be able to; to become possible
わかる = to understand
なる = to become
見える（みえる）= to be visible; to be able to see
聞こえる（きこえる）= to be audible; to be able to hear
要る（いる）= to need
ある = to exist; to have
Notice the pairs: 見る vs 見える, 聞く vs 聞こえる. This is a classic example of the distinction:
窓から山が見える。
→ I can see the mountains from the window. (they are visible, it just happens)
窓から山を見る。
→ I look at the mountains from the window. (deliberate action, I choose to look)
Why does this matter for grammar?
Several grammar structures in Japanese are restricted to one type or the other. The most common examples:
ために vs ように
ために requires a volitional verb in the purpose clause — you're actively working toward a goal.
ように is used with non-volitional verbs or negatives — you're hoping for a state to come about.
日本語が話せるようになるために毎日練習する。
→ I practice every day in order to become able to speak Japanese.
たい (want to do) only attaches to volitional verbs. You can't "want to understand" in Japanese using たい the same way — understanding isn't something you do on purpose.
日本語を話したい。 ✅
→ I want to speak Japanese.
日本語がわかりたい。 ⚠️
→ grammatically unusual; わかる is non-volitional
てしまう
With volitional verbs, てしまう often expresses regret about something you did on purpose but wish you hadn't. With non-volitional verbs, it expresses that something happened beyond your control.
食べてしまった。
→ I went and ate it. (I did it, and now I regret it)
財布をなくしてしまった。
→ I lost my wallet. (it happened, it was beyond my control)
A note on context
Some verbs can be both volitional and non-volitional depending on context. 笑う (to laugh) is a good example — you can laugh on purpose, or you can burst out laughing involuntarily. Japanese speakers are generally aware of this distinction even if they never explicitly name it, and grammar structures will reflect whichever meaning is intended.
The more exposure you get, the more naturally you'll start to feel which verbs "take decisions" and which ones just "happen." It's one of those things that clicks over time.
"That" is a remarkably useful word—it helps us connect clauses and express a wide range of concepts. It's also one of those words that's genuinely tricky to translate. Looking for a 1:1 equivalent isn't the best approach here, since English and Japanese syntax differ quite a lot, and trying to map one onto the other tends to lock you into thinking about Japanese through an English filter.
That said, if you enjoy overthinking grammar points, this post is for you.
English definition of "that"
"That" can be used (Macmillan Dictionary):
as a determiner (followed by a noun): Give me that hammer.
as a demonstrative pronoun (without a following noun): Who gave you that?
as a conjunction (connecting two clauses): I didn't know that she was married.
as a relative pronoun (forming the subject, object, or complement of a relative clause): It's a song that my mother taught me.
as an adverb (before an adjective or adverb): Three years? I can't wait that long.
"That" as a determiner, demonstrative pronoun, and adverb
These translate to the こ・そ・あ group of words.
この・その・あの = determiners
そのハンマーをよこせ。
→ Give me that hammer.
これ・それ・あれ = demonstrative pronouns
誰にそれをもらったの？
→ Who gave you that?
そんな・こんな・あんな = adverbs
そんなに待てません。
→ I can't wait that long.
"That" as a relative pronoun
Relative clauses describe nouns—they give us extra information about the noun we're talking about. In English, the relative pronoun changes depending on the noun. Japanese has no relative pronouns at all, so in this case, "that" disappears entirely.
It's a song that my mother taught me.
→ 母が教えてくれた歌です。
Japanese people who/that went to Poland.
→ ポーランドに行った日本人。
We simply attach the clause directly to the noun—no relative pronoun needed.
"That" as a conjunction
This is the trickiest use of "that." Depending on the context, it can translate to many different structures in Japanese. A little trick that helps me figure out which structure to use is asking: "what?" or "why?" — but treat this as a soft rule, not a rigid formula. The more Japanese you consume, the more naturally these choices will come.
I didn't know that she was married.
I didn't know what? → (That) she was married → 結婚をしている + の
When what follows "that" answers "what?", you usually need to nominalize it. In Japanese, we nominalize verbs or verb phrases by adding の or こと. The difference between the two is worth knowing separately—some verbs only work with こと, some only with の, and some are fine with either.
結婚をしているのを知らなかったよ。
→ I didn't know that she was married.
結婚をしている uses ～ている because we're talking about a state—at the moment of speaking, she's still married. を marks the object.
I promise that he will do the job.
Promise what? → (That) he will do the job.
彼が仕事をしてくれることを約束します。
→ I promise that he will do the job.
When talking about yourself (I promise that I will…), ～と約束します is the more common form.
With verbs such as to hear, to say/tell, to think, and to feel, we mostly use と (sometimes という). Go with whatever sounds most natural.
More examples:
試験に合格しないことを意味する。
試験に合格しないということです。
→ It means that you won't pass the exam.
という introduces definitions or outcomes—you didn't study, so the outcome is: you'll fail.
Adjective + "that" in Japanese
I'm happy that…; I'm afraid that…; I'm sure that…
Things get even trickier when adjectives are involved. Each of these structures translates differently, and there's no single template that works every time.
I'm happy (that) you came.
I'm happy — but why? You could use から / ので, or simply use a comma to separate the two clauses. The most common structures for expressing positive feelings are ～てよかった and 嬉しい:
来てくれてうれしいです。
→ I'm happy (that) you came.
I'm sure that you will pass!
きっと合格しますよ！
→ I'm sure that you will pass!
きっと is an adverb meaning "surely" — so this is essentially: "Surely, you will pass!"
I'm afraid he won't come. ("I'm afraid that" expresses an assumption tinged with doubt.)
彼は来ないのではないかと思う。
→ I'm afraid he won't come.
I bet that it will be fun. ("I bet" = a strong assumption.)
楽しいだろう。
→ I bet that it will be fun.
It is certain that he will succeed. ("It is certain that" = a very strong assumption.)
彼は成功するに決まっている。
→ It is certain that he will succeed.
While "that" does most of the heavy lifting in English on its own, in Japanese you need to think carefully about what comes before it and what the clause is actually conveying. An assumption? A fact? Is the assumption strong or weak? Is it full of doubt?
You might never have given "that" a second thought in English—but I like to overthink grammar, and I occasionally get stuck hunting for equivalents that simply don't exist.
Anyone out there criticizing this generation’s grammar and lamenting the loss of good language can go to bed.
Apart from the fact that language is continuously evolving and the fact that I bet you disappointed your own grandparents by doing away with “thee” and “thou” (honestly though, shout out to the older Lancastrians still using them, bless them), here’s something I want you to consider.
I can best approximate today’s well-used phrase “it do be like that” to being a slight variant/corruption of the subjunctive form, and I don’t think half of you got far enough in grammar to comment on that.
do u ever feel like “he or she” is literally only a phrase because people defaulted to masculine-as-neutral-pronouns for so long? it’s so awkward and clunky and having a singular gender-neutral pronoun makes like, 800% more sense
When people start sentences with "I honestly.." Or "I literally..." Or "Wait stop..." I just turn off my brain. Honestly? Unless you're about to unload a big load of heavy information or some tough truth, you should already be speaking honestly without the need to state it. Did you literally feel that way? Or you literally walked over there? Is it needed? NO. When you mix it into nearly all of your sentences you sound dumb, end of story. It's especially bad when the person saying it is really smart. Wait, stop what. I usually see this in reference to something cute, which I just don't understand. It's not a legit way to begin a sentence? To me, all of these things lessen the value of what you're trying to communicate TO BE HONEST.
I know it's the most petty thing but when people have proper grammar for everything else yet they constantly leave off the punctuation at the end of their statement, it really drives me fucking nuts.
Not enough to actually yell at them.
But I'm sitting here like: are you just such a lazy motherfucker that you can't take the 0.2222 seconds to hit the .? Seriously?
