Should break up the lesson

The answer to Johnny's concern was not a good one; indeed, it seems quite insensitive to Johnny's underlying concern that the lesson itself includes too much information!  Just one Johnny voiced this concern, but there are likely many others out there who have the same thought.

Yeah, agree. I was going to write a complaint but I’ll just add to this one. 

Also, Dejar and Dejarse should be bunched up into 2 groups so we can just concentrate on seeing if there are any commonalities. Right now it’s a hodgepodge almost random and quite difficult to wrap one’s head around....

Yeah, agree. I was going to write a complaint but I’ll just add to this one. 

Also, Dejar and Dejarse should be bunched up into 2 groups so we can just concentrate on seeing if there are any commonalities. Right now it’s a hodgepodge almost random and quite difficult to wrap one’s head around....

As someone who has struggled with this sort of thing in the past, I'd like to suggest that the lesson is very well organized.  It actually gives us a template of how to learn any verb that has multiple meanings.

(1) Look for direct objects that change the meaning of the verb.  Does the verb change meaning if the direct object is a person or a thing?  Here it does, and the lesson has already divided this up for us.

(2) Are there standard uses of the reflexive?  Here we have the standard meaning of the reflexive in #2.

(3) Does the verb change meaning with an indirect object (person)?  Here it does, in #1.

(4) Does the verb changed meaning when used as an auxiliary?  Here it does, in #2, #3, and #6.

And so on.

If you get used to spotting these things it helps you to keep track.  It also helps to draw simple cartoons to show each usage.

But I do understand the frustration.  It took me a long time to learn this.