ame no hi ha, tikadou wo tooru to eki kara suizokukan made nurezu ni ikemasu.

の links 雨 and 日 and makes 雨の日 mean a rainy day / days when it rains.

A useful way to think about it is:

• 雨 = rain
• 日 = day
• 雨の日 = rain's day → a rainy day

Japanese often uses Noun 1 + の + Noun 2 where English might use:

• of
• apostrophe-s
• an adjective-like noun modifier

Similar examples:

• 日本の文化 = Japanese culture
• 夏の日 = a summer day
• 休みの日 = a day off

So 雨の日 is a very natural fixed expression.

The は marks 雨の日 as the topic: as for rainy days or on rainy days.

So the sentence is setting up a condition or context:

• 雨の日は、… = On rainy days, ... / As for rainy days, ...

It does not mean the day is the grammatical subject in the same way English would use one. It is more like:

• When it’s a rainy day, ...
• As for rainy days, ...

This is extremely common in Japanese when introducing a general situation.

The comma helps separate the topic/setup from the rest of the sentence.

So the structure is roughly:

• 雨の日は、 = on rainy days,
• 地下道を通ると = if you go through the underpass,
• 駅から水族館までぬれずに行けます = you can get from the station to the aquarium without getting wet

The comma is not absolutely required every time in Japanese, but it is very common and makes the sentence easier to read.

Great question. In Japanese, を does mark a direct object very often, but it can also mark the route or space that someone moves through.

So in:

• 地下道を通る

the 地下道 is not exactly an object being acted on. It is the path you pass through:

• go through the underpass

This same pattern appears in sentences like:

• 道を歩く = walk along the road
• 橋を渡る = cross the bridge
• 空を飛ぶ = fly through the sky

So here を is best understood as a path marker.

Here, と is a conditional marker meaning something like:

• if
• when
• whenever

So:

• 地下道を通ると = if you go through the underpass / when you go through the underpass

In this sentence, it gives a general result:

• If you go through the underpass, you can get from the station to the aquarium without getting wet.

This と is often used when the result is:

• natural
• automatic
• habitual
• generally true

So it fits well here, because the sentence is describing a practical route and its predictable result.

Yes, but the nuance would change a little.

• 通ると sounds like a general fact or dependable result.
• 通れば also works and sounds like if you go through the underpass.
• 通ったら can work too, but it may feel a bit more like a specific case or situation.

Compare:

• 地下道を通ると、ぬれずに行けます。
  = If you go through the underpass, you can get there without getting wet.
  (general rule / dependable result)

• 地下道を通れば、ぬれずに行けます。
  = If you go through the underpass, you can get there without getting wet.
  (also fine; more straightforward conditional)

• 地下道を通ったら、ぬれずに行けます。
  = If you go through the underpass, you can get there without getting wet.
  (possible, but a bit less like a general instruction/fact)

So と is a very natural choice here.

It means from the station to the aquarium.

Breakdown:

• 駅 = station
• から = from
• 水族館 = aquarium
• まで = to / as far as

So:

• 駅から水族館まで = from the station to the aquarium

This phrase marks the starting point and endpoint of the movement.

ぬれずに is a grammar pattern meaning without getting wet.

It comes from:

• ぬれる = to get wet
• ぬれずに = without getting wet

The pattern is:

• verb ない-form equivalent + ずに = without doing ...

Examples:

• 食べずに行く = go without eating
• 言わずに帰る = go home without saying anything
• 見ずに買う = buy without seeing

So here:

• ぬれずに行けます = can go without getting wet

This is a somewhat more formal or written-feeling alternative to ないで.

Yes. ぬれないで would also be understandable and natural in many situations.

Compare:

• ぬれずに行けます
  = slightly more formal or written-sounding
• ぬれないで行けます
  = more everyday conversational feeling

Both mean:

• can go without getting wet

So the choice here is mostly about style and tone, not a big difference in meaning.

行けます is the potential form of 行く, meaning:

• can go
• are able to go

That matters here because the sentence is talking about possibility/ability:

• If you use the underpass, you can get from the station to the aquarium without getting wet.

If it said:

• ぬれずに行きます

that would mean something more like:

• (someone) goes without getting wet

That sounds more like an actual action, not a statement about what is possible.

So 行けます is the right choice for:

• explaining a route
• giving useful information
• saying something is possible

The subject is omitted, which is very normal in Japanese.

Depending on context, it could mean:

• you can go
• one can go
• people can go
• we can go

In English, we usually need to choose a subject. In Japanese, if the meaning is clear enough from context, it is often left unstated.

In a sentence like this, the natural interpretation is something like:

• you can get from the station to the aquarium without getting wet or
• one can get from the station to the aquarium without getting wet

So yes, you is a good English interpretation, but Japanese does not explicitly say it.

All three can work in English depending on style.

Literally, 通る means:

• to pass through
• to go through

So:

• 地下道を通る = go through the underpass

In more natural English for directions, people might say:

• take the underpass

That is not a literal translation, but it often sounds more natural.

So:

• literal: go through the underpass
• natural directions-style English: take the underpass

Both are good ways to understand the Japanese.

Because ぬれずに describes how you can go: without getting wet.

Japanese often puts this kind of information before the main verb.

So the structure is:

• 駅から水族館まで = from the station to the aquarium
• ぬれずに = without getting wet
• 行けます = can go

Together:

• 駅から水族館までぬれずに行けます
  = you can go from the station to the aquarium without getting wet

This word order is very normal in Japanese:

• place/destination information
• manner/condition
• main verb at the end

Both are correct.

• 濡れずに uses kanji
• ぬれずに uses hiragana

Japanese often writes some verbs in hiragana, especially when:

• the kanji is less common for the learner
• the text wants to be easier to read
• the style is simpler or softer

So there is no meaning difference here. It is just a writing choice.