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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.