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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 12 , Dec 1, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 12 , Dec 2, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 12 , Dec 2, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 12 , Dec 3, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 12 , Dec 3, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 12 , Dec 3, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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.