Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [SCA-JML] Re: No means no...?

Expand Messages
  • Anthony J. Bryant
    ... Heck, that s an *easy* one. You *call* someone (if and only if he s your lord) tono. In all other cases, you append -dono to the person s official title or
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
      Erin Kelly wrote:

      >
      > 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? ;)

      Heck, that's an *easy* one.

      You *call* someone (if and only if he's your lord) tono.

      In all other cases, you append -dono to the person's official title or
      name.

      Effingham
    • Joshua Badgley
      ... It seems to follow the general linguistic trend of most Japanese compounds; the first sound of the second word/character is usually voiced. So you have
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
        On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Anthony J. Bryant wrote:

        > Heck, that's an *easy* one.
        >
        > You *call* someone (if and only if he's your lord) tono.
        >
        > In all other cases, you append -dono to the person's official title or
        > name.

        It seems to follow the general linguistic trend of most Japanese
        compounds; the first sound of the second word/character is usually
        voiced. So you have words like:

        kami : paper

        te-gami : letter; the second kanji is the same as the 'kami' for paper
        above.

        That seems to be the general rule, anyway. There are exceptions, but if
        you don't know better the voicing rule seems to apply.

        Not sure if '-dono' is applied the same, but that's what appears to be
        happening here, ne?

        -Godric Logan
        aka
        Ii Saburou ....
      • Barbara Nostrand
        Noble Cousin! ... I doubt that it does. Basically, you should understand that a lot of Japanese name forms were originally titular. It makes perfect sense to
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
          Noble Cousin!

          >Tanaka's.") It breaks down a little for an English
          >brain when you start thinking of "Fukushima's Jiro,"
          >but you get the idea.

          I doubt that it does. Basically, you should understand
          that a lot of Japanese name forms were originally titular.
          It makes perfect sense to say things like the leutenant (sp)
          governor of Hirano or something like that. Or even the
          2nd heir of such and such a place.

          >(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.")

          There is actually more going on than that. Adjectives
          are inflected in Japanese. So you can make an adjective
          act like a noun. The meaning does shift.

          >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
          >extraneous."

          Ahh. Don't you mean muko (over there) instead of muyo
          (useless)? Maybe I should pull out Daijirin. I am
          thinking that perchance you are using a word I have
          never learned or have forgotten.

          >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? ;)

          Not that difficult really. That is pretty much a regular
          sound shift due to co-articulation.

          Your Humble Servant
          Solveig Throndardottir
          Amateur Scholar
          --
          +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
          | Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM |
          | deMoivre Institute | Carolingia Statis Mentis Est |
          | mailto:nostrand@... | mailto:bnostran@... |
          +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
          | Ignored domains: bestbiz.net, pop.net, hotmail.com, aibusiness.com |
          | vdi.net, usa.net, tpnet.pl, myremarq.com |
          | netscape.net, excite.com, bigfoot.com, public.com |
          | com.tw, eranet.net, yahoo.com, success.net |
          | mailcity.com, net.tw, twac.com, netcenter.com |
          | techie.com, msn.com |
          +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
        • Anthony J. Bryant
          ... In a way, that s pretty much it. Effingham
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
            Joshua Badgley wrote:

            > On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Anthony J. Bryant wrote:
            >
            > > Heck, that's an *easy* one.
            > >
            > > You *call* someone (if and only if he's your lord) tono.
            > >
            > > In all other cases, you append -dono to the person's official title or
            > > name.
            >
            > It seems to follow the general linguistic trend of most Japanese
            > compounds; the first sound of the second word/character is usually
            > voiced. So you have words like:
            >
            > kami : paper
            >
            > te-gami : letter; the second kanji is the same as the 'kami' for paper
            > above.
            >
            > That seems to be the general rule, anyway. There are exceptions, but if
            > you don't know better the voicing rule seems to apply.
            >
            > Not sure if '-dono' is applied the same, but that's what appears to be
            > happening here, ne?

            In a way, that's pretty much it.


            Effingham
          • Joshua Badgley
            ... I was wondering about this... is there an historical, linquistical link between no and na (what about no and ga , especially as ga is
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
              On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Barbara Nostrand wrote:

              > There is actually more going on than that. Adjectives
              > are inflected in Japanese. So you can make an adjective
              > act like a noun. The meaning does shift.

              I was wondering about this... is there an historical, linquistical link
              between 'no' and 'na' (what about 'no' and 'ga', especially as 'ga' is
              occassionally pronounced 'nga')? There seems to be something there, but
              it could just be two things that evolved separately in the language and
              now have grown similar in meaning and sound, but...

              > >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
              > >extraneous."
              >
              > Ahh. Don't you mean muko (over there) instead of muyo
              > (useless)? Maybe I should pull out Daijirin. I am
              > thinking that perchance you are using a word I have
              > never learned or have forgotten.

              "Tenchi Muyou" is the name of a manga/anime series where the main
              character ('Tenchi': Heaven and Earth, IIRMKC) is an 'average' human boy
              (or so you think) who suddenly has a bunch of extremely powerful women
              from various corners of the galaxy drop in on him. The Mu-you is
              literally 'No use', I believe; thus, "No Need for Tenchi".


              Not exactly related to anything having to do with history (except for that
              time/dimensional travel episode, but ... )

              -Godric Logan
              aka
              Ii Saburou
            • Anthony J. Bryant
              ... No, it s Muyo (無用). It s an extremely (although I can t figure out why) famous anime series. It s rare (and kinda nice) to run into a
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
                Barbara Nostrand wrote:

                >
                > >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
                > >extraneous."
                >
                > Ahh. Don't you mean muko (over there) instead of muyo
                > (useless)? Maybe I should pull out Daijirin. I am
                > thinking that perchance you are using a word I have
                > never learned or have forgotten.
                >

                No, it's Muyo. It's an extremely (although I can't figure out
                why) famous anime series.

                It's rare (and kinda nice) to run into a Japanophile who *doesn't* follow
                manga and anime.
                { g }


                Effingham
              • Anthony J. Bryant
                ... Nah. I mean No. Sorry. { g } ... The pronunciation is a dialect/pronunciation issue, it has nothing to do with orthography or origins, I m afraid. ...
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 2, 2000
                  Joshua Badgley wrote:

                  >
                  > I was wondering about this... is there an historical, linquistical link
                  > between 'no' and 'na'

                  Nah. I mean No. Sorry. { g }

                  > (what about 'no' and 'ga', especially as 'ga' is
                  > occassionally pronounced 'nga')?

                  The pronunciation is a dialect/pronunciation issue, it has nothing to do with
                  orthography or origins, I'm afraid.

                  > There seems to be something there, but
                  > it could just be two things that evolved separately in the language and
                  > now have grown similar in meaning and sound, but...

                  Frankly, they don't seem similar to me at all...

                  Effingham
                • Joshua Badgley
                  ... Well, my line of thinking ran mainly to the way that the adjectives are split up: one of my professors in Japan liked to categorize them into verb-type
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 2, 2000
                    On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Anthony J. Bryant wrote:

                    > > There seems to be something there, but
                    > > it could just be two things that evolved separately in the language and
                    > > now have grown similar in meaning and sound, but...
                    >
                    > Frankly, they don't seem similar to me at all...

                    Well, my line of thinking ran mainly to the way that the adjectives are
                    split up: one of my professors in Japan liked to categorize them into
                    verb-type adjectives and noun-type adjectives. Noun-type adjectives use
                    'na' to modify something which has that quality, and nouns use 'no' to
                    modify something as being possessed of that noun. The connection as a
                    part of a 'set' seems to fit for both.

                    Still, maybe that was just myself.

                    -Godric
                  • Barbara Nostrand
                    Baron Edward! Sorry. But, I am guilty of following some Anime and Manga. I followed: Ge ge ge Kitarou, Ninja Hatori Kun, Dr. Slump Arale Chan, and a couple of
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 3, 2000
                      Baron Edward!

                      Sorry. But, I am guilty of following some Anime and Manga.
                      I followed: Ge ge ge Kitarou, Ninja Hatori Kun, Dr. Slump
                      Arale Chan, and a couple of others. After the demise of
                      Dr. Slump, I followed Dragon Ball until it became super
                      repetitive somewhere around #12 in the compilations. Also,
                      I own a copy of Ginka Tetsudou no Yoru and did see Hi no
                      Tori in the theatre. I also saw Momotarou Joins the Army
                      on late night television, and for sheer oddity value, I
                      have Twilight of the Cockroaches on video tape. But, no
                      I do not in general follow the same manga and anime as
                      most folks on this side of the Pacific. Incidentally, do
                      you know where I can get a copy of My Neighbor Totoro
                      (or whatever it is called) on DVD? I saw part (but not
                      all of it) at International House at Washington State
                      University. (Incidentally, I did not follow Doraemon. I
                      always got asked about that when folks found out that I
                      was familiar with Ninja Hatori Kun. Yes. I looked at
                      Doraemon at least once, but I could never really get into
                      that one. ) I am also guilty of having a Manga introductions
                      to Noh-Kyougen, and a bunch of other stuff.

                      Your Humble Servant
                      Solveig Throndardottir
                      Amateur Scholar
                      --
                      +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                      | Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM |
                      | deMoivre Institute | Carolingia Statis Mentis Est |
                      | mailto:nostrand@... | mailto:bnostran@... |
                      +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                      | Ignored domains: bestbiz.net, pop.net, hotmail.com, aibusiness.com |
                      | vdi.net, usa.net, tpnet.pl, myremarq.com |
                      | netscape.net, excite.com, bigfoot.com, public.com |
                      | com.tw, eranet.net, yahoo.com, success.net |
                      | mailcity.com, net.tw, twac.com, netcenter.com |
                      | techie.com, msn.com |
                      +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                    • Barbara Nostrand
                      Lord Godric. The -na form is something else entirely. It marks uninflected words with adjectival meanings. If I recall correctly, a lot of these are Chinese.
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 3, 2000
                        Lord Godric.

                        The -na form is something else entirely. It marks uninflected
                        words with adjectival meanings. If I recall correctly, a lot
                        of these are Chinese. Apparently, (and I am going to duck as
                        Baron Edward is currently in graduate school and learning all
                        of this stuff while all I am doing is forgetting) -na in this
                        case is an inflection of -da which you will recall is an
                        existential auxiliary verb. The inflection appears to be
                        rentaikei which puts the verb into an adjectival form. This
                        allows for Chinese adjectives which lack proper inflection to
                        be used in Japanese. -no on the other hand is a joshi which is
                        used to mark a noun as "possessive" or otherwise modifying.

                        Note. A joshi is usually called a "particle" in English texts
                        on Japanese grammar. Rentaikei is one of several possible
                        inflections for inflected words. We always used Japanese terms
                        in grammar discussions in courses I have taken, so I do not
                        know an English term for it.

                        Your Humble Servant
                        Solveig Throndardottir
                        Amateur Scholar
                        --
                        +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                        | Barbara Nostrand, Ph.D. | Solveig Throndardottir, CoM |
                        | deMoivre Institute | Carolingia Statis Mentis Est |
                        | mailto:nostrand@... | mailto:bnostran@... |
                        +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                        | Ignored domains: bestbiz.net, pop.net, hotmail.com, aibusiness.com |
                        | vdi.net, usa.net, tpnet.pl, myremarq.com |
                        | netscape.net, excite.com, bigfoot.com, public.com |
                        | com.tw, eranet.net, yahoo.com, success.net |
                        | mailcity.com, net.tw, twac.com, netcenter.com |
                        | techie.com, msn.com |
                        +---------------------------------------------------------------------+
                      • Anthony J. Bryant
                        ... Well, that s not far off, although more correctly it would be verbal adjectives and true adjectives There is a historical formation for what are now
                        Message 11 of 12 , Dec 3, 2000
                          Joshua Badgley wrote:

                          >
                          > Well, my line of thinking ran mainly to the way that the adjectives are
                          > split up: one of my professors in Japan liked to categorize them into
                          > verb-type adjectives and noun-type adjectives.

                          Well, that's not far off, although more correctly it would be "verbal
                          adjectives" and "true adjectives"

                          There is a historical formation for what are now "na-type adjectives" (i.e.,
                          adjectives that require a "-na" before the noun they qualify, like "shizuka"
                          [quiet] or "teinei" [polite] , becoming "shizuka-na hito" [quiet person] or
                          "teinei-na hito" [polite person] ). These are called "keiyou doushi" (verbal
                          adjectives). Historically, they all required the dantei doushi ("copula")
                          following them. The copular ending, in shuushikei (sentence ending) form was
                          "-nari." "Kono heya wa shizuka nari" Means "This room is quiet." To say "a
                          quiet room" one said (in old Japanese) "shizuka-naru heiya." That naru is the
                          copular "nari" in the rentaikei ("attributive") form.

                          Since modern Japanese doesn't bother with many of those endings, and "nari"
                          (itself a contraction of "ni ari") has long since been replaced with "da/de
                          aru" as the copula, that rentaikei "naru" has become "na".

                          True adjectives (keiyoushi) in Japanese didn't require copular ending (though
                          some might tack a copula to the end of the sentence in a more polite/formal
                          setting). The modern "utsukushii hito" (a pretty person) and "Kono hito wa
                          utsukushii" (this person is pretty) uses the same form of the adjective and no
                          copula. In classical Japanese, the rentaikei and shuushikei were different;
                          "utsukushiki hito" is rentaikei while the shuushikei is "ka no hito wa
                          utsukushi." Note the single "i" instead of the modern double.


                          > Noun-type adjectives use
                          > 'na' to modify something which has that quality, and nouns use 'no' to
                          > modify something as being possessed of that noun.

                          Well, I can understand trying to come up with a simple way to describe it, but
                          I'm having trouble seeing what one has to do with the other. All adjectives in
                          the appositive describe their quality to the noun they precede, regardless of
                          whether the adjective uses "na."

                          How is "takai tatemono" (tall building) syntactically or grammatically
                          different from "burei na yatsu" (rude jerk)? They are both an adjective in
                          appostition to a noun, "modifying" that noun.

                          In fact, there is no difference between na and non-na adjectives in usage.

                          It has to do with the historical form of the adjective. And in fact, that
                          division just doesn't hold water. In fact, there is a class that can be either
                          na-type OR normal, and has the exact same function/meaning; it's just a
                          syntactical choice as to which the speaker/writer uses. "wakana bouzu" means
                          "young kid" and so does "wakai/wakaki bouzu." Which one is "quality" and which
                          is "possession"?

                          Effingham
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.