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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.