2266Re: No means no...?
- Dec 1, 2000When I was studying [modern] Japanese [language], it
was helpful to me to think of *no* as "'s." It sticks
onto a noun and implies its posession of something.
So *Tanaka-no hon* translates pretty slickly as
"Tanaka's book." (The word order can be different, but
the -no still sticks with the posessor: you could say
*Hon-wa, Tanaka-no des* - "About the book, it's
Tanaka's.") It breaks down a little for an English
brain when you start thinking of "Fukushima's Jiro,"
but you get the idea.
(Once you get your head around Jiro, we'll tell you
you also can use it with adjectives - IIRC, you can
answer an informal question like "which car" with
something like "blue's," to mean "the blue one.")
You may have noticed that Japanese plays a bit fast
and loose with articles and little qualifying words
compared to English. Words like *muyo* incorporate
concepts that take several words in English - it
doesn't need a "for" or a posession to modify Tenchi.
You really shouldn't read too much into the choice of
words in English, because "No Need for Tenchi" is
really just a translational smoothing of "Tenchi
Now if you want to get really confused, try to figure
out when you use *-tono* and when you use *-dono.*
(That's almost on topic, isn't it? ;)
(I really ought to find me a Japanese language list...natsukashii.)
- Next post in topic >>