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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.