Learn Hardcore Japanese: kinou ha ame datta node, ie no mae no konbini ni sika ikimasen desita. - Because it rained yesterday, I only went to the convenience store in front of my house.

雨だった sounds more like describing the day’s overall weather (“it was a rainy day”) rather than focusing on the action of rain falling at a particular moment.

What is the role of は after 昨日? Could we use に instead?

昨日は is using は as a topic marker, not as a time marker.

昨日は – “As for yesterday,” / “Yesterday, (speaking about that time) …”

If you use に:

昨日に – “on yesterday” (grammatically possible but sounds odd in normal speech; に is usually used with more specific times like 3時に, 月曜日に, etc.)

Common patterns:

昨日は雨だった。 – “As for yesterday, it was rainy.” (topic)
昨日雨だった。 – “Yesterday it was rainy.” (no explicit topic; still fine)

Time expressions are often followed by は to set the frame of the sentence:

今日は忙しいです。 – “Today, (I’m) busy.”
明日は休みです。 – “Tomorrow, (I) have a day off.”

So 昨日は is simply setting “yesterday” as the topic/context for what follows.

What does ので mean here, and how is it different from から?

ので means “because / since / as” and introduces a reason or cause.

雨だったので – “because it was rainy” / “since it was rainy”

Difference from から:

Tone / nuance
- ので sounds softer, more polite, and more objective.
- から is more plain, direct, and can sound slightly more personal or blunt, especially in requests or excuses.
Usage
In this sentence, you could also say:
- 昨日は雨だったから、家の前のコンビニにしか行きませんでした。
- 昨日は雨だったので、家の前のコンビニにしか行きませんでした。
Both are correct. ので feels a bit more formal/polite or explanatory.

Very roughly:

ので – “since / as” (softer, explanatory)
から – “because” (more straightforward, causal)

Why is it 雨だったので (plain) but 行きませんでした (polite)? Is mixing styles like that okay?

Yes, this is very common and natural.

The clause before ので is usually in plain form:
- 雨だったので (plain past)
- 行かなかったので (plain negative past)
The main clause can be polite:
- …行きませんでした。
- …行きました。

So:
昨日は雨だったので、家の前のコンビニにしか行きませんでした。
→ perfectly normal.

If you want everything to sound more uniformly polite/formal, you can also say:

昨日は雨でしたので、家の前のコンビニにしか行きませんでした。

Here 雨でしたので uses the polite でした, which is common in very polite speech (e.g. announcements, formal writing).

So:

雨だったので、… – neutral/natural everyday style.
雨でしたので、… – more polite/formal.

Both are fine; this “mixing” at clause boundaries is not considered a mistake.

How does 家の前のコンビニ work grammatically? Why are there two の particles?

家の前のコンビニ is a chain of noun modifiers. Break it down:

家 – house / home
家の前 – “the front of the house” (前 is being modified by 家)
- 家 + の + 前 = “front of the house”
家の前のコンビニ – “the convenience store in front of the house”
- 家の前 + の + コンビニ = “convenience store (that is) in front of the house”

General pattern:
[Noun A] の [Noun B] = “B of A” / “B belonging to/related to A”

You can stack them:

駅の前のレストラン – “the restaurant in front of the station”
友だちの家の近くの公園 – “the park near my friend’s house”

So the two の are just connecting nouns in a chain of modifiers: 家 → 家の前 → 家の前のコンビニ.

Why is the particle に used after コンビニ? Could we use へ or something else?

Here に marks the destination of movement:

コンビニに行きました。 – “(I) went to the convenience store.”

に is the standard particle for:

location you go to / arrive at: 学校に行く, 日本に行く
location where something exists: 学校に学生がいる
time point: 3時に, 月曜日に

You could also use へ:

コンビニへ行きました。

Difference:

に – focuses more on arrival at the destination.
へ – focuses on direction toward the destination, a bit more literary/spoken style; still very common.

You cannot use を here; を marks direct objects or, in some special cases, paths of movement (e.g. 川を渡る “cross the river”), but not a simple destination like this.

So コンビニに行きませんでした is the normal, default phrasing.

What does しか mean, and why is the verb negative if the sentence means “I only went to the convenience store”?

しか is a particle that means “only” / “nothing but”, but it must be used with a negative form of the verb.

Pattern:

Xしか～ない / ～ません → “There is nothing/no one/no place except X” → “only X”

In the sentence:

家の前のコンビニにしか行きませんでした。

Breakdown:

家の前のコンビニに – “to the convenience store in front of my house”
しか – limiting particle “only / nothing but”
行きませんでした – did not go

Literal meaning:

“I did not go anywhere except to the convenience store in front of my house.”

Natural English:

“I only went to the convenience store in front of my house.”

So the negative verb is required by しか.
Think of it as:

“I went to no other place but the convenience store in front of my house.”

That double “restriction + negative” is how Japanese expresses “only” in this pattern.

Can I use だけ instead of しか? What is the difference between しか～ない and だけ?

You can use だけ, but be careful with the grammar and nuance.

しか pattern (must be negative):

家の前のコンビニにしか行きませんでした。
→ “I didn’t go anywhere except the convenience store in front of my house.”
→ “I only went to the convenience store in front of my house.”

だけ pattern (usually with affirmative):

家の前のコンビニにだけ行きました。
→ “I went only to the convenience store in front of my house.”

Key points:

You cannot say:
✗ コンビニにしか行きました。 – ungrammatical
Because しか requires a negative.
しか～ない is often stronger, with a nuance of limitation / “that’s all there was”, sometimes with a feeling of dissatisfaction or regret:
- これしかない。 – “There’s nothing but this (That’s all we’ve got).”
だけ is more neutral: just “only,” without that extra emotional nuance.

In your sentence, both:

家の前のコンビニにしか行きませんでした。
家の前のコンビニにだけ行きました。

are correct, with a very similar basic meaning.
The version with しか subtly emphasizes that you didn’t go anywhere else.

Where is the subject “I” in this sentence? How do we know it means “I only went…”?

In Japanese, the subject (and even the topic) is often omitted when it’s clear from context.

The sentence:

昨日は雨だったので、家の前のコンビニにしか行きませんでした。

literally doesn’t say “I” anywhere. It simply says:

“Because it was rainy yesterday, (someone) only went to the convenience store in front of the house.”

In real conversation or text, the listener/reader usually knows:

who is talking,
what was happening,
whose actions are being described.

So “I” is understood and added in translation:

“Because it rained yesterday, I only went to the convenience store in front of my house.”

Depending on context, it could also be translated as:

“we,” “she,” “he,” etc.

Japanese relies heavily on context instead of repeating pronouns like English does.

Why is the verb 行きませんでした at the very end? Can I move it earlier in the sentence like in English?

Japanese basic word order is S–O–V (Subject–Object–Verb), with the verb (predicate) at the end of the clause.

In your sentence:

昨日は雨だったので、 – subordinate clause: “because it was rainy yesterday,”
家の前のコンビニにしか – destination phrase, with しか
行きませんでした。 – main verb, at the end

You can reorder the phrases before the verb, but the verb itself must stay at the end of the main clause:

雨だったので、昨日は家の前のコンビニにしか行きませんでした。
昨日は、家の前のコンビニにしか行きませんでした。雨だったので。 (two sentences)

But you cannot place 行きませんでした in the middle like:

✗ 昨日は行きませんでした雨だったので… (wrong)
✗ 昨日は行きませんでした家の前のコンビニにしか… (wrong)

Think of the conjugated verb (here 行きませんでした) as something that must close the clause in standard Japanese sentence structure.

Is 行きませんでした “double past” or “double negative”? How is it formed?

行きませんでした is the polite past negative of 行く (“to go”). It is not “double” anything; it’s just how polite past negatives are made.

Conjugation steps for 行く:

Plain present: 行く – “go”
Polite present: 行きます – “go (polite)”
Polite present negative: 行きません – “do not go (polite)”
Polite past negative: 行きませんでした – “did not go (polite)”

So structurally:

行きません – negative
でした – past of です, used as a polite past auxiliary here

Together: 行きませんでした = “did not go.”

Plain (non-polite) equivalents:

行く – go
行かない – do not go
行かなかった – did not go

So your sentence:

行きませんでした = “did not go”
combined with しか: “did not go (anywhere) except …”
→ “only went to the convenience store in front of my house.”