Utsukushii mono VS. Utsukushiki mono

[aesthete8]

Is the difference between those expressions?:

- Beautiful thing VS. Thing of beauty

[Fatman]

(2012/05/23 16:49), aesthete8 wrote:
> Is the difference between those expressions?:

There is no difference between them.
"Utsukushii" is modern Japanese and "Utsukushiki" is old Japanese.
But "utsukushiki" is sometimes used in modern Japanese,in affected saying.

For example,these are same.
furuki,furui
atarashiki,atarashii
takaki,takai
hikuki,hikui
yoki,yoi
etc.

[Fatman]

(2012/05/25 5:28), Fatman wrote:
> (2012/05/23 16:49), aesthete8 wrote:
>> Is the difference between those expressions?:
>
> There is no difference between them.
> "Utsukushii" is modern Japanese and "Utsukushiki" is old Japanese.
> But "utsukushiki" is sometimes used in modern Japanese,in affected saying.

This kind of affected saying is sometimes used in such as movie titles.
For example,Japanese title of Edward Dmytryk's movie film "The Young
Lions"(1958) is "Wakaki Shishi-tachi".
In this case "Wakai Shishi-tachi" is modern Japanese,but for a movie
title,"Wakaki" gives stronger impression for audience than "Wakai".
So the word "Wakaki" is used.

[Ben Bullock]

On May 25, 10:08 am, Fatman <easyfat...@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:

> This kind of affected saying is sometimes used in such as movie titles.
> For example,Japanese title of Edward Dmytryk's movie film "The Young
> Lions"(1958) is "Wakaki Shishi-tachi".
> In this case "Wakai Shishi-tachi" is modern Japanese,but for a movie
> title,"Wakaki" gives stronger impression for audience than "Wakai".
> So the word "Wakaki" is used.

Furuki yoki jidai (instead of furui yoi jidai) for "good old days" is
another common example.

[chance]

"aesthete8" <art...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:22699a5a-b33f-40ce...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

> Is the difference between those expressions?:
>
> - Beautiful thing VS. Thing of beauty

If anything, the difference is 'utsukushii' is an adjective
while 'utsukushiki' is a nominal. Utsukushiki mono
is a bit strong expression due to the juxtaposition
of two nouns.

Thanks
CK

[Noel Hunt]

On Monday, June 4, 2012 5:38:07 AM UTC+10, chance wrote:
> If anything, the difference is 'utsukushii' is an adjective
> while 'utsukushiki' is a nominal. Utsukushiki mono
> is a bit strong expression due to the juxtaposition
> of two nouns.

'utsukushiki' is the 'rentaikei' (連体形) of the adjective
'utsukushi'; this is the form used when an adjective modifies
a noun. You may be confusing the 連用形 'utsukushiku' with this,
as the renyoukei has nominal-like properties.

[Bart Mathias]

Bungo rentaikei functioned as nominals. "utukusiki-ha kore-nari."
"hana-no saku-wo utukusi-to ihikeri." Terribly clumsly examples --
too long since I've read any bungo -- but grammatical I'm sure.

I've never quite made up my mind whether rentaikei has two separate
functions, or if its adjectival use is noun modifying noun. That's
not entirely unknown in Japanese although the result tends to sound
like compound noun; I couldn't have written the first sentence above
in Japanese without sticking a "-no" on the end of "Bungo."
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[Noel Hunt]

Thanks for pointing that out, Bart, but your final remark
hints at the question of whether one should treat such
examples as having a null pronoun in the position in which
modern Japanese would insert a 'no'. This applies equally
well to 'rentai-dome' which again looks to be very much like
a sentence nominalized to 'no desu' in modern Japanese.

[Bart Mathias]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 23:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Noel Hunt <noel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 24, 2012 12:11:50 PM UTC+10, Bart Mathias wrote:

> > [...]

> Thanks for pointing that out, Bart, but your final remark
> hints at the question of whether one should treat such
> examples as having a null pronoun in the position in which
> modern Japanese would insert a 'no'. This applies equally
> well to 'rentai-dome' which again looks to be very much like
> a sentence nominalized to 'no desu' in modern Japanese.

I could have used that fact as another example. I don't know how one
would disprove a "null pronoun" hypothesis, so I guess the choice
between double function and single function plus something invisible
comes down to one's personal aesthetic sense.
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[chance]

"Noel Hunt" <noel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:861eb364-700c-42d3...@googlegroups.com...

What in the world 'rentaikei' and 連用形 are?
Are they anything to do with actual Japanese?
Do you need them to read Natsume Souseki stories?

Thanks
CK

PS: Bart has had his own version of English counterparts
of those terms universally recognizable.

[Noel Hunt]

I am not sure that there are any 'universally recognized'
English counterparts of rentaikei; different writers use
different nomenclature. Samuel Martin in his grammar glosses
it as 'attributive (adnominal)', while Henderson, in his
'Handbook of Japanese Grammar' has 'attributive, adjectival,
substantival, "form joined to substantives"'. 'Attributive'
would perhaps be the most common translation, but it is simpler
to use the Japanese term, as do many writers, e.g., Ikeda,
Classical Japanese Grammar; Vovin, A Reference Grammar
of Japanese Prose; Wixted, A Handbook To Classical Japanese.

Reading Souseki as literature, and grammatical analysis, are
rather disparate and mostly unrelated pursuits, but given
that Soseki must have had a thorough background in kanbun,
I would be surprised if he didn't use the occasional,
classical, rentaikei.

[chance]

"Noel Hunt" <noel...@gmail.com> wrote I am not sure that there are any

'universally recognized'
English counterparts of rentaikei; different writers use
different nomenclature. Samuel Martin in his grammar glosses
it as 'attributive (adnominal)', while Henderson, in his
'Handbook of Japanese Grammar' has 'attributive, adjectival,
substantival, "form joined to substantives"'. 'Attributive'
would perhaps be the most common translation, but it is simpler
to use the Japanese term, as do many writers, e.g., Ikeda,
Classical Japanese Grammar; Vovin, A Reference Grammar
of Japanese Prose; Wixted, A Handbook To Classical Japanese.

Reading Souseki as literature, and grammatical analysis, are
rather disparate and mostly unrelated pursuits, but given
that Soseki must have had a thorough background in kanbun,
I would be surprised if he didn't use the occasional,
classical, rentaikei.

一目に言いますと連体形はadnominal,連用形はadverbialとして
済ませることができるのではないでしょうか。すくなくともわたくしに
とっては日本語を話せるのに連体形とかなんとかめったに
知らないでも結構だとおもいます。一体いわゆる活用法は
何の役にも立たない物だと思っておりますが。

Thanks
CK　

[Noel Hunt]

> 一目に言いますと連体形はadnominal,連用形はadverbialとして
> 済ませることができるのではないでしょうか。

しかし、そこには問題があります。形容詞の場合は連用形を
adverbial と名付けても差支えはありませんが、動詞の
場合は連用形は adverbial というような働きがなく、その
呼称は不適切でしょう。

>・・・すくなくともわたくしに
> とっては日本語を話せるのに連体形とかなんとかめったに
> 知らないでも結構だとおもいます。一体いわゆる活用法は
> 何の役にも立たない物だと思っておりますが。

古文や擬古文などを読まなければ、いわゆる活用法などを勉
強するには及ばないでしょう。

[Bart Mathias]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
Noel Hunt <noel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 一目に言いますと連体形はadnominal,連用形はadverbialとして
> > 済ませることができるのではないでしょうか。
>
> しかし、そこには問題があります。形容詞の場合は連用形を
> adverbial と名付けても差支えはありませんが、動詞の
> 場合は連用形は adverbial というような働きがなく、その
> 呼称は不適切でしょう。

I'm pretty sure, though not positive, that I used to call them
so without embarrassment, taking "ad-" "-verbial" literally.
So understood, it's accurate, and means quite what 連用形 does.

--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>

[chance]

"Noel Hunt" <noel...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f81a7f65-df98-4e08...@googlegroups.com...

万葉集をよむために活用法がいる。そうだったら活用法は
いらなくてもいいですよ。

[chance]

"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:20120627221859....@hawaii.edu...

Tell me about it.
Somebody is going to postulate a newfangled theory.
　

[Noel Hunt]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:21:14 PM UTC+10, chance wrote:
>
> Tell me about it.
> Somebody is going to postulate a newfangled theory.

There is no 'new-fangled' theory. I believe Bart is just
being thoroughly pedantic (in the spirit of contrary humour,
no doubt; いたずらっぽいと思えてならないが); since the　renyoukei can
be 'added (prefixed)' to another verb to form　compounds
(and Bart may also consider　the adjunction of 'jodoushi'
助動詞 to the renyoukei to be　another verb-verb compounding
process), it can be very　literally said to be an 'adverb'
and thus equate to 連用形 in　meaning.

There are sadly other functions of the renyoukei (used as a
noun, non-final clause-ending form) which are totally
different, not 'adverbial' in this extremely literal (rare)
sense. To cover all these different uses, Henderson in his
Handbook of Japanese Grammar lists these 'names' for the
renyoukei: conjunctive, continuative, connective, adverbial,
verbal.

'Aesthetically' speaking, recalling Bart's earlier comment,
wouldn't one term, 'renyoukei', be preferable to five?

[Bart Mathias]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:42:10 -0700 (PDT)
Noel Hunt <noel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:21:14 PM UTC+10, chance wrote:
> >
> > Tell me about it.
> > Somebody is going to postulate a newfangled theory.
>
> There is no 'new-fangled' theory. I believe Bart is just
> being thoroughly pedantic (in the spirit of contrary humour,
> no doubt; いたずらっぽいと思えてならないが); since the　renyoukei can
> be 'added (prefixed)' to another verb to form　compounds
> (and Bart may also consider　the adjunction of 'jodoushi'
> 助動詞 to the renyoukei to be　another verb-verb compounding
> process), it can be very　literally said to be an 'adverb'
> and thus equate to 連用形 in　meaning.

I don't mean anything like that. I would take those as arguments
against "adverbial." The cases of "prefix" are pretty restricted,
I think; after several minutes of thinking I haven't been able to
come up with a solid example. But I probably never anglicized
kokubunpou enough to call those ren'youkei, or the ones that form
the primary roots of compound verbs, or the ones that take such
suffixes (joshi and jodoushi) as -te, -ta-i, -mas-u, etc. (-ite,
ita-i, -imas-u, etc. in "my book") "adverbial." I'd be inclined
to use that term when the form as an "-ing, [comma] and connotation," as in "pari-e ik-i, huransugo-o mono-ni si-ta."
(Another example I wouldn't actually feel comfortable saying, preferring the "adverbial" "it-te," but it should identify the
kind of genuine occurrence I allude to.)

> There are sadly other functions of the renyoukei (used as a
> noun, non-final clause-ending form) which are totally
> different, not 'adverbial' in this extremely literal (rare)
> sense. To cover all these different uses, Henderson in his
> Handbook of Japanese Grammar lists these 'names' for the
> renyoukei: conjunctive, continuative, connective, adverbial,
> verbal.

As you may have noticed, it is exactly that "non-final
clause-ending form" that tells you another verbal is coming up
if the sentence gets completed that I would call "adverbial."

Are you sure the ren'youkei ever functions as a noun? There are
cases of homophony, but also cases like "hanashi" "talk, story"
vs. "hanashi" "talking, talk(ed) and" where they are pronounced
differently.

> 'Aesthetically' speaking, recalling Bart's earlier comment,
> wouldn't one term, 'renyoukei', be preferable to five?

I can easily do without the first three. But adverbial verbals
comprise adverbial verbs and adverbial adjectives.
--
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu>