mada jouzu ja arimasen
Collin McCulley
I was trolling through some early Pimsleur phrases
and ran across this one:
anata ha nihongo ga jouzu desu, ne.
If someone said this, I would
instantly understand it, but looking at it I can't
quite grok the grammar logic. Can you particle
gurus help me out on this?
I don't see how "nihongo" functions as a subject
here. If it were:
nihongo ha jouzu desu, ne.
That would get me closer to "as for Japanese, (you)
are skilled", but reading this sentence something
in my intuition tells me this would mean that
"_Japanese_ is skilled." and thus not make any
sense.
"jouzu" is a na-adjective, so maybe that
figures into the explanation?
If that's the case, would that shed some light
on the previous discussion about the differences
between nouns and na-adjectives? I don't think
it's possible to get a like meaning out of
Noun1 ga Noun2 desu.
Is that even gramatically possible?
Also, can you tell me if this is the correct
kanji for "yoku" as in "yoku wakarimasu":
良く
Thanks,
--Collin
Bart Mathias
CM> I was trolling through some early Pimsleur phrases and ran across
CM> this one:
CM>
CM> anata ha nihongo ga jouzu desu, ne.
CM>
CM> I don't see how "nihongo" functions as a subject here.
What do you want to bet that the book Sho is reading will say it's
not the subject, but a stative object marked with the stative object
marker "-ga"? Such a view prevails in certain high linguistic
circles.
What everyone can agree on is that being "joozu" cannot be a quality
of Japanese itself. So "Nihongo-wa joozu-da" as a complete sentence
with no relationship to any possible context would make no more sense
than "Japanese is skilled (that's what it is)." (Of course, Japanese
sentences never have to be taken as complete, and the example would
be understood immediately as "(The person we are talking about) is
good at Japanese, but not so hot at (certain?) other languages," with
"-wa" taken as contrastive.
So "joozu-da" requires two arguments: one naming something (normally
a human) that might be good at something in particular, and one
naming the something that person is good at. Both of these may be
marked with a "-ga." Kuno argues that you can't have two subjects
for the same predicate, therefore one of these must be an object.
Unless you're answering the (spoken or imagined) question "dare-ga
joozu-ka," you'll most often be talking *about* someone, and use
"-wa" on what Kuno et. al. consider the true subject.
There are many such adjectives, and a couple such verbs.
dare-ga okane-ga aru/iru = "who has/needs money?" (verbs)
dare-ga ryuu-ga kowai = "who is ascared of dragons?" (i
adjective) hanako-wa dare-ga suki? = (ambiguous, but most likely
"who does Hanako like?" hanako-ga taroo-ga suki-da has to be
"Hanako likes Taro." (another na adjective)
CM> ... I don't think
CM> it's possible to get a like meaning out of
CM>
CM> Noun1 ga Noun2 desu.
Nandatte? Try "boku-ga baato-desu."
CM> Is that even gramatically possible?
Looks like!
CM> Also, can you tell me if this is the correct kanji for "yoku" as
CM> in "yoku wakarimasu": BNI$/B
A stickler would probably give what I can't write in this newsreader:
The character for the "noo" in "kanoona" = "possible."
I personally would stick to kana.
Bart
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted with Amiga NewsRog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J. Bryant
> I was trolling through some early Pimsleur phrases
> and ran across this one:
>
> anata ha nihongo ga jouzu desu, ne.
>
> If someone said this, I would
> instantly understand it, but looking at it I can't
> quite grok the grammar logic. Can you particle
> gurus help me out on this?
>
The "wa" marks the subject. "As for you".
The "ga" is standard pattern following a "wa" subject"
"Kare WA rekishi GA suki desu" = "As for him, he likes history."
Note: only first year students will translate this way. We usually just
say "he likes history" or "you are good at Japanese."
>
> I don't see how "nihongo" functions as a subject
> here. If it were:
>
It *doesn't*. "Anata" is the subject. I think we could consider Nihongo
the object. Perhaps.
>
> nihongo ha jouzu desu, ne.
"Japanese is skilled"?
I guess that colloquially that's possible, but invariably I hear "ga".
>
> That would get me closer to "as for Japanese, (you)
> are skilled", but reading this sentence something
> in my intuition tells me this would mean that
> "_Japanese_ is skilled." and thus not make any
> sense.
>
Your intuition is right; it gets you FARTHER from your target sentence.
>
> "jouzu" is a na-adjective, so maybe that
> figures into the explanation?
>
No. It's a "Noun1 wa Noun2 ga predicate" pattern.
>
> If that's the case, would that shed some light
> on the previous discussion about the differences
> between nouns and na-adjectives? I don't think
> it's possible to get a like meaning out of
>
> Noun1 ga Noun2 desu.
>
> Is that even gramatically possible?
>
Yes, but it means "It's NOUN1 that is Noun2", placing emphasis on Noun1.
"Sake ga nomimono desu" = "It's SAKE that is the drink." with a "wa"
it's "Sake is something to drink."
>
> Also, can you tell me if this is the correct
> kanji for "yoku" as in "yoku wakarimasu":
> 良く
Yes. But it's usually written in kana.
Tony
Todd Williamson
"Collin McCulley" <cmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:kNO66.127684$yR4.3...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
> anata ha nihongo ga jouzu desu, ne.
>
> If someone said this, I would
> instantly understand it, but looking at it I can't
> quite grok the grammar logic. Can you particle
> gurus help me out on this?
>
> I don't see how "nihongo" functions as a subject
> here. If it were:
>
> nihongo ha jouzu desu, ne.
>
> That would get me closer to "as for Japanese, (you)
> are skilled", but reading this sentence something
> in my intuition tells me this would mean that
> "_Japanese_ is skilled." and thus not make any
> sense.
I think the problem here is translating "jouzu" as "skilled". As with so
many other adjectives in Japanese, "jouzu" can mean both "skilled" and
"skillful". Many Japanese speakers have trouble with these sorts of
distinctions in English for just this reason. Other examples:
- "tsumaranai" can mean both "bored" and "boring". "Watashi wa tsumaranai"
can have either meaning depending on context.
- "kowai" can be either "scary" or "scared"
Thus, if I were to translate "nihongo ga jouzu desu" into English in the
most literal fashion, I would say:
(Your) Japanese is skillful
Actually, I imagine it is more natural to say "anata no nihongo wa (or ga)
jouzu desu nee" than "anata ga nihongo ha jouzu desu nee". Any NSOJ care to
comment?
-Todd.
Sho
as a JSL teacher. I'm just as badly in the muddle as most of the people
around here, when it comes to figuring out what's going on with this kind of
thing. I can't explain anything, but let me just concentrate on nitpicking.
Todd Williamson <to...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:t5v022h...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Collin McCulley" <cmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:kNO66.127684$yR4.3...@news1.rdc1.tx.home.com...
[...]
> > nihongo ha jouzu desu, ne.
One thing I've failed to mention so far. This is said without a pause before
"ne" and with a falling intonation. Even if it were used as something like
an equivalent of a tag-question with a rising intonation, there usually is
not a conceivable pause there. I'm wondering why people like to put a comma
there.
> > That would get me closer to "as for Japanese, (you)
> > are skilled", but reading this sentence something
> > in my intuition tells me this would mean that
> > "_Japanese_ is skilled." and thus not make any
> > sense.
>
> I think the problem here is translating "jouzu" as "skilled". As with so
> many other adjectives in Japanese, "jouzu" can mean both "skilled" and
> "skillful". Many Japanese speakers have trouble with these sorts of
> distinctions in English for just this reason. Other examples:
> - "tsumaranai" can mean both "bored" and "boring". "Watashi wa
tsumaranai"
> can have either meaning depending on context.
> - "kowai" can be either "scary" or "scared"
I'm sure everyone has heard about the topical and contrastive functions of
"wa". I don't think it can very well serve as a proof of syntactic argument
in this connection.
"Watashi wa tsumaranai" usually means "I'm bored," all right, but there is a
marginal chance of it being understood as "I'm boring". I know this will get
controversial among native speakers as well. I'm pushing it to its limits.
Everyone will agree, though, that "Watashi wa tsumaranai ningen da," and
"Aitsu wa tsumaranai" [are/can be] good in the "boring" sense.
"Watashi ga tsumaranai" can mean both: "I'm the one who is bored." and "I'm
the one who is boring.
> Thus, if I were to translate "nihongo ga jouzu desu" into English in the
> most literal fashion, I would say:
>
> (Your) Japanese is skillful
>
> Actually, I imagine it is more natural to say "anata no nihongo wa (or ga)
> jouzu desu nee" than "anata ga nihongo ha jouzu desu nee". Any NSOJ care
to
> comment?
As far as the two examples above are concerned, I can mostly agree with you
(except that it's pretty difficult to have a "ga" for the "wa" in the first
sentence). But that's because it is even more, in fact _extremely_ difficult
to think of a situation where the second sentence is possible. I'm inclined
to say it's "out".
I know I can't explain all this. Let me tentatively take off the "nails"
that are sticking out and compare between the following two.
"anata no nihongo wa jouzu desu nee."
"anata wa nihongo ga jouzu desu nee."
These two are both commonly heard, but if I were forced to pick one, I would
choose the second as the slightly more natural. The first one focuses on the
language skills and sounds more or less like an observation, while the
other, by focusing on the person himself, seems to work better as words of
social interaction. Sometimes, though, the first one can be better as a
compliment because the speaker can slip in his objective stance in the
expression.
I personally feel that this is a bit like the contrast in English between
"I looked at her eyes." vs. "I looked her in the eye." How do you feel?
Sho
Bart Mathias
S> > > nihongo ha jouzu desu, ne.
S>
S> One thing I've failed to mention so far. This is said without a
S> pause before "ne" and with a falling intonation. Even if it were
S> used as something like an equivalent of a tag-question with a
S> rising intonation, there usually is not a conceivable pause there.
S> I'm wondering why people like to put a comma there.
Interesting question. I believe I've seen tooten (which word I made
"tokuten" a few days ago!) there (i.e. in Japanese) as well.
It seems to me that the phrase particles (I'm making a new term, to
keep these distinct from case particles, adverbial particles (=
kakarijoshi), clause particles, and sentence particles) "-ne(e)" and
"-sa(a)" (and "-yo"?) are different from the others in that they
don't join with the preceding word and form an accent group. That
is, they have their own accent.
I have wondered at my own reluctance to write "-ne(e)," as in
"soo-desu-nee." It's probably because of the HLLLLHL contour, with
two "HL" in the same (apparent) word. Perhaps that also explains the
commas.
Bart
--
�sigも化けるか
Ryuuta Hirayama
> Noun1 ga Noun2 desu.
>
> Is that even gramatically possible?
Yes, it is.
Example ビールはアサヒ。
That makes mistake when we Japanese speak English we often say wrong "Beer is Asahi"
> Also, can you tell me if this is the correct
> kanji for "yoku" as in "yoku wakarimasu":
> 良く
Right!!
良く分かります。 Correct!!
--
from ryuu
Sho
Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message
news:I1.q0.hB2c8R...@hawaii.edu...
> "S" == "Sho" writes:
[ne]
> S> I'm wondering why people like to put a comma there.
>
> Interesting question. I believe I've seen tooten (which word I made
> "tokuten" a few days ago!) there (i.e. in Japanese) as well.
I've been wondering about the "tokuten". :-) The touten before a "ne" seems
to suggest a clear case of the presence of a pause and strictly reserved for
questions, I think.
> It seems to me that the phrase particles (I'm making a new term, to
> keep these distinct from case particles, adverbial particles (=
> kakarijoshi), clause particles, and sentence particles) "-ne(e)" and
> "-sa(a)" (and "-yo"?) are different from the others in that they
> don't join with the preceding word and form an accent group. That
> is, they have their own accent.
Naruhodo.
> I have wondered at my own reluctance to write "-ne(e)," as in
> "soo-desu-nee." It's probably because of the HLLLLHL contour, with
> two "HL" in the same (apparent) word. Perhaps that also explains the
> commas.
Well, despite your belief, you still usually isolate particles from the
nouns they are attached to in transcription, don't you? "Apparently", NOUN +
particle are two words to me. Or is this still a matter of an accent group?
I guess I don't have the basic idea of what constraints there are about
possible pitch patterns. Could you briefly go over them?
Sho
> �sigも化けるか
化けて出るのは、まだ早い？ :-)
Todd Williamson
"Sho" <ym...@tky2.3web.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:93os32$8ev$2...@news.osk.3web.ne.jp...
> > > nihongo ha jouzu desu, ne.
> > I think the problem here is translating "jouzu" as "skilled". As with
so
> > many other adjectives in Japanese, "jouzu" can mean both "skilled" and
> > "skillful". Many Japanese speakers have trouble with these sorts of
> > distinctions in English for just this reason. Other examples:
> > - "tsumaranai" can mean both "bored" and "boring". "Watashi wa
> tsumaranai"
> > can have either meaning depending on context.
> > - "kowai" can be either "scary" or "scared"
> "Watashi wa tsumaranai" usually means "I'm bored," all right, but there is
a
> marginal chance of it being understood as "I'm boring". I know this will
get
> controversial among native speakers as well. I'm pushing it to its limits.
> Everyone will agree, though, that "Watashi wa tsumaranai ningen da," and
> "Aitsu wa tsumaranai" [are/can be] good in the "boring" sense.
>
> "Watashi ga tsumaranai" can mean both: "I'm the one who is bored." and
"I'm
> the one who is boring.
Is it really hard to imagine a situation where (from context) "watashi wa
tsumaranai" has the "boring" meaning? What about in response to someone
else claiming that *they're* boring? Perhaps "watashi wa motto tsumaranai
yo" could have both meanings?
> > Thus, if I were to translate "nihongo ga jouzu desu" into English in the
> > most literal fashion, I would say:
> >
> > (Your) Japanese is skillful
> >
> > Actually, I imagine it is more natural to say "anata no nihongo wa (or
ga)
> > jouzu desu nee" than "anata ga nihongo ha jouzu desu nee". Any NSOJ
care
> to
> > comment?
>
> As far as the two examples above are concerned, I can mostly agree with
you
> (except that it's pretty difficult to have a "ga" for the "wa" in the
first
> sentence). But that's because it is even more, in fact _extremely_
difficult
> to think of a situation where the second sentence is possible. I'm
inclined
> to say it's "out".
>
I guess I should have been more careful with "wa" and "ga", but I was trying
to stick to "wa" because it's what the original example used. Especially
with the sentence "anata ga nihongo wa jouzu desu nee". Although this
sounded horribly unnatural to me, I stuck with it because I needed to
include the normally implied "anata ga" in the original example somehow.
Why is "ga" difficult to imagine in the first sentence? I assumed that in
any situation where you could say "nihongo ga jouzu desu nee" you could
replace "nihongo" with "anata no nihongo".
> I know I can't explain all this. Let me tentatively take off the "nails"
> that are sticking out and compare between the following two.
>
> "anata no nihongo wa jouzu desu nee."
> "anata wa nihongo ga jouzu desu nee."
>
> These two are both commonly heard, but if I were forced to pick one, I
would
> choose the second as the slightly more natural. The first one focuses on
the
> language skills and sounds more or less like an observation, while the
> other, by focusing on the person himself, seems to work better as words of
> social interaction. Sometimes, though, the first one can be better as a
> compliment because the speaker can slip in his objective stance in the
> expression.
>
> I personally feel that this is a bit like the contrast in English between
> "I looked at her eyes." vs. "I looked her in the eye." How do you feel?
Does this have to do with the implied contrast in the second sentence
(something like "you, as compared to other people, are good at Japanese").
I think maybe your English example isn't a very good one, because "looked
her in the eye" implies mutual eye contact (the other person is looking
back), whereas "looked at her eyes" could be in any context (including
watching someone give a speech, for instance).
-Todd.
Sho
thread...
Todd Williamson <to...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:t5v022h...@corp.supernews.com...
[...]
> I think the problem here is translating "jouzu" as "skilled". As with so
> many other adjectives in Japanese, "jouzu" can mean both "skilled" and
> "skillful". Many Japanese speakers have trouble with these sorts of
> distinctions in English for just this reason.
Well, I'm certainly one. I'm pretty confused about the contrast between the
above, while I see your points with the following two examples far more
clearly. I assume what you are implying is that, while you can't say, "Your
Japanese is skilled" in English, "Your Japanese is skillful" is marginally
acceptable," in the sense of something like "You manifest a skillful
performance in Japanese."?
I have a question in this regard. Are any of the following collocations
posssible? "skilled labor (in the sense of work, not workforce) /
profession / manner / care / craft" If so, can you say something like, "Your
skilled manners in dealing with us sometimes suck."?
I think I know the differences in meaning between "skilled" and "skillful,"
but I presume that, basically, both presuppose animate entities as their
grammatical subjects. They can, as an extended use of such, also apply to
their, knowledge, performance, behaviors, etc., traits characteristic of
them. Couldn't the cases of "jouzu-da" be better exemplified by the
contrast between "skilled/skillful" and something like "excellently
workable," or perhaps as the cases of "You are good at Japanese", as opposed
to "Your Japanese is good"?
Other examples:
> - "tsumaranai" can mean both "bored" and "boring". "Watashi wa
tsumaranai"
> can have either meaning depending on context.
> - "kowai" can be either "scary" or "scared"
I can't help but feel that the basic meaning of "tsumaranai" is 'boring' and
"kowai", 'scary", but that's probably nothing more than my arbitrary take of
it. In any case, I have some difficulty understanding the Y of "Watashi-ha
X-ga tsumaranai/kowai (boring/scary)" as the "subject" of the sentence. I
know some people would scoff at the idea, but I don't think that's because
I'm heavily under the influence of English grammar.
> Thus, if I were to translate "nihongo ga jouzu desu" into English in the
> most literal fashion, I would say:
>
> (Your) Japanese is skillful
Would anyone lecture me on how good this English is and whether or not there
is not a chance for "Your Japanese is skilled" to be seen as acceptable?
Sho
James Beard
Collin,
You have stumbled across a classic example of why studying Japanese
grammar as taught by most language teachers and textbooks in the
U.S. of A. is counterproductive to learning the language. Buy
thyself a Japanese grammer (junior high level would likely be about
right) and learn to take analyses of Japanese by foreigners with a
grain of Epsom salts.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 01:20:16 GMT, "Collin McCulley" wrote:
>I was trolling through some early Pimsleur phrases
>and ran across this one:
>
>anata ha nihongo ga jouzu desu, ne.
>
>If someone said this, I would
>instantly understand it, but looking at it I can't
>quite grok the grammar logic. Can you particle
>gurus help me out on this?
This is not really a particle problem, but a sentence constituent
problem. Ha (wa) and ga in context such as this neatly break the
sentence into easily recognized constituents.
The ha in the first position usually marks the preceding as the
principal thing being discussed in the sentence. Note that if what
is being discussed is clear from context or obvious, this
constituent may be omitted as superfluous. English demands a
subject to go with the verb before the construction will be
recognized as a "complete" sentence, but Japanese recognizes no such
limitation. In conversation, the most common subject is "you" (the
other party), yourself (the speaker), or a third party or thing
(obviously known to both), and any of these may be omitted entirely
and the sentence remains grammatical.
In fact, inclusion of "anata wa" in the above is a painfully obvious
indication that the speaker recognizes the hearer's native language
is not Japanese and is trying to adapt Japanese to resemble
something the hearer is familiar with, as normally it would be
omitted altogether.
>I don't see how "nihongo" functions as a subject
>here. If it were:
>
>nihongo ha jouzu desu, ne.
>
>That would get me closer to "as for Japanese, (you)
>are skilled", but reading this sentence something
>in my intuition tells me this would mean that
>"_Japanese_ is skilled." and thus not make any
>sense.
The ga is not a marker for a subject, in the sense of the subject of
a "subject-verb" pair. It is a marker for something that is being
discussed. This something may be a individual singled out from a
group (Dare ga pen ga arimasu ka? Tim ga pen ga arimasu.), or it
may be the object marker for a predicate not containing a verb that
may be preceded with the direct-object-marker o (wo). It may be
the marker for a thing the following modifier modifies. It _may_ in
some context mark a subject that indeed is paired to the main verb
in the sentence's predicate, but this is in no way required.
Once you have chopped up the above into constituent parts, you have
you Japanese skillful/fluent plus a tag-on for
politeness desu and another tag-on for emphasis ne,
both of which could be omitted without changing the basic meaning
of the sentence but are included to express the speaker's attitude.
(This last bit may be very important, when addressing Japanese in
Japanese. And ain't it funny how the things that may be omitted as
understood differ, between Japanese and English. Almost like they
were two different languages, and not just the same words,
rearranged, with different pronunciations and spellings.<grin>)
Now, taking the general focus as moving from the
left/preceding/identifying and more general to the
right/following/expositional and more detailed (usually), you easily
arrive at the logical meaning intended.
>"jouzu" is a na-adjective, so maybe that
>figures into the explanation?
Not really.
>If that's the case, would that shed some light
>on the previous discussion about the differences
>between nouns and na-adjectives? I don't think
>it's possible to get a like meaning out of
>
>Noun1 ga Noun2 desu.
To the contrary, English-language sentences of the form "X is the B"
where X is selected from a larger group and B is the distinguishing
feature (and both X and B are nouns) are rendered in precisely the
"Noun1 ga Noun2 desu" form.
>Also, can you tell me if this is the correct
>kanji for "yoku" as in "yoku wakarimasu":
>良く
Assuming you mean, "well understood." Frequently understood is
another matter, and probably best left to kana (and context) should
you ever need this meaning linked to wakarimasu. There are a few
other characters that could be used for yoku, that non-NS probably
should avoid.
Cheers!
-----------------
j...@blckhrse.clark.net
UNIX is not user-unfriendly. It merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.
Sho
[...]
> > "Watashi wa tsumaranai" usually means "I'm bored," all right, but there
> > is a marginal chance of it being understood as "I'm boring". I know
> > this will get controversial among native speakers as well. I'm pushing
> > it to its limits. Everyone will agree, though, that "Watashi wa
> > tsumaranai ningen da," and "Aitsu wa tsumaranai" [are/can be] good in
> > the "boring" sense.
[...]
> Is it really hard to imagine a situation where (from context) "watashi wa
> tsumaranai" has the "boring" meaning? What about in response to someone
> else claiming that *they're* boring? Perhaps "watashi wa motto tsumaranai
> yo" could have both meanings?
I meant "by itself" or "without context". Even adding a single key-word or
two, as I did in my previous post, would make it quite clear. There's no
room for ambiguity in the context you provide.
> > > Actually, I imagine it is more natural to say "anata no nihongo wa (or
> > > ga) jouzu desu nee" than "anata ga nihongo ha jouzu desu nee". Any
NSOJ
> > I'm inclined to say it's "out".
>
> I guess I should have been more careful with "wa" and "ga", but I was
trying
> to stick to "wa" because it's what the original example used. Especially
> with the sentence "anata ga nihongo wa jouzu desu nee". Although this
> sounded horribly unnatural to me, I stuck with it because I needed to
> include the normally implied "anata ga" in the original example somehow.
>
> Why is "ga" difficult to imagine in the first sentence? I assumed that in
> any situation where you could say "nihongo ga jouzu desu nee" you could
> replace "nihongo" with "anata no nihongo".
I suggested, first off, that I wouldn't be able to give any explanation
responsibly. There are a few experts on this group about "wa" and "ga", but
for the time being, here's what I think.
In "Nihongo ga jouzu desu nee", "nihongo" is picked up in from among all the
characteristics of the person you are talking to. In "Anata no nihongo ga
jouzu desu nee," what gets the focus of attention seems to shift from the
"nihongo" to "anata". It would be fit for a situation where a job interview
is being conducted in a group, and you, the interviewer, don't mind being
rude to the rest of the interviewees about the praising comment you are
making on the command of the language demonstrated by just one of them.
> > "anata no nihongo wa jouzu desu nee."
> > "anata wa nihongo ga jouzu desu nee."
> >
> > These two are both commonly heard, but if I were forced to pick one, I
> > would choose the second as the slightly more natural. The first one
> > focuses on the
> > language skills and sounds more or less like an observation, while the
> > other, by focusing on the person himself, seems to work better as words
of
> > social interaction. Sometimes, though, the first one can be better as a
> > compliment because the speaker can slip in his objective stance in the
> > expression.
> >
> > I personally feel that this is a bit like the contrast in English
between
> > "I looked at her eyes." vs. "I looked her in the eye." How do you feel?
>
> Does this have to do with the implied contrast in the second sentence
> (something like "you, as compared to other people, are good at Japanese").
Er... probably not. I meant it to be a contrast between the description of a
simple "physical" action, as opposed to the expression referring to the
human relations, emotions, or interactions that may be involved in the
latter. Another factor could have been that in Japanese, anything covering a
larger area must be said before their constituent parts are introduced. In
writing in English, I always have to fight my own impulse to start my
sentence with what in Japanese involves the case marker "-wa". That tends to
be the largest range of the elements I'll be talking about in that
particular sentence. In the second example I gave, "her", the whole person,
comes before "eye" a part of her.
> I think maybe your English example isn't a very good one, because "looked
> her in the eye" implies mutual eye contact (the other person is looking
> back), whereas "looked at her eyes" could be in any context (including
> watching someone give a speech, for instance).
There is something here that I was not really aware of. Thanks for the
clarification. Please refer to my other post directly before this for my
"good" for "jouzu" translation part.
Sho
Anthony J. Bryant
>
> > Noun1 ga Noun2 desu.
> >
> > Is that even gramatically possible?
>
> Yes, it is.
> Example ビールはアサヒ。
> That makes mistake when we Japanese speak English we often say wrong "Beer is Asahi"
>
Sho, ビール＊は＊アサヒ and ビール＊が＊サヒ not the same thing. He asked if "Noun1 *GA* Noun2 desu" is
possible.
Tony
Sho
Anthony J. Bryant <ajbr...@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:3A614A8C...@indiana.edu...
> Ryuuta Hirayama wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, it is.
> > Example ビールはアサヒ。
> > That makes mistake when we Japanese speak English we often say wrong
"Beer is Asahi"
> >
>
> Sho, ビール＊は＊アサヒ and ビール＊が＊サヒ not the same thing. He
> asked if "Noun1 *GA* Noun2 desu" is possible.
Tony, I thought you were able to read Japanese names at least in roomaji.
;-)
Sho
Todd Williamson
> A couple of things I wanted to mention but didn't in my last post to this
> thread...
>
> Todd Williamson <to...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote in message
> news:t5v022h...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> [...]
>
> > I think the problem here is translating "jouzu" as "skilled". As with
so
> > many other adjectives in Japanese, "jouzu" can mean both "skilled" and
> > "skillful". Many Japanese speakers have trouble with these sorts of
> > distinctions in English for just this reason.
>
> Well, I'm certainly one. I'm pretty confused about the contrast between
the
> above, while I see your points with the following two examples far more
> clearly. I assume what you are implying is that, while you can't say,
"Your
> Japanese is skilled" in English, "Your Japanese is skillful" is marginally
> acceptable," in the sense of something like "You manifest a skillful
> performance in Japanese."?
Okay, you've got me there. The difference between "skilled" and "skillful"
is not as clear as the difference between "bored" and "boring".
At least to my ear (there may be some regional variation in this), "skilled"
is most often used to refer to an animate object (person, animal) that has a
skill. It is sometimes used to describe inanimate objects, but almost
always it is of the form "a skilled X" (e.g. "a skilled painting"), and not
of the form "X is skilled". In order for me to make sense of "your Japanese
is skilled", I have to think of "Japanese" as an animate object that has
learned a skill.
On the other hand, "skillful" can refer to the animate object, or to its
actions, or (less often) the results of its actions. This is why I think of
"your Japanese is skillful" as a better translation.
> I have a question in this regard. Are any of the following collocations
> posssible? "skilled labor (in the sense of work, not workforce) /
> profession / manner / care / craft" If so, can you say something like,
"Your
> skilled manners in dealing with us sometimes suck."?
- "skilled labor" would refer to people for me unless it was explained in
context.
- "skilled profession" (in the sense of a profession that requires a skill)
seems okay, but "profession is skillled" is marginal. "That profession is a
skilled one" is better
- "skilled manners" doesn't work for me, but "skilled manner" (in the sense
of "way, method") would be okay. "Your skilled manner of dealing with us
sometimes sucks" is a sentence that I can understand, but it would require a
specific context (I have to think of a situtation where it is bad that
something is skilled).
- "skilled care" seems okay
- "skilled craft" also seems okay
I think the problem with "manners" is that it isn't really something we
associate with skill. Either you have them or you don't.
> I think I know the differences in meaning between "skilled" and
"skillful,"
> but I presume that, basically, both presuppose animate entities as their
> grammatical subjects. They can, as an extended use of such, also apply to
> their, knowledge, performance, behaviors, etc., traits characteristic of
> them. Couldn't the cases of "jouzu-da" be better exemplified by the
> contrast between "skilled/skillful" and something like "excellently
> workable," or perhaps as the cases of "You are good at Japanese", as
opposed
> to "Your Japanese is good"?
I think everyone would agree that either of "Your Japanese is good" and "You
are good at Japanese" seems more natural than "your Japanese is skillful".
Unfortunately, while "jouzu" can probably always be translated into English
using "good", the reverse is not true. Which means the textbook needs to
use some other word, hence "skilled/skillful". It would be better if they
also had examples where they translate it using "good".
> I can't help but feel that the basic meaning of "tsumaranai" is 'boring'
and
> "kowai", 'scary", but that's probably nothing more than my arbitrary take
of
> it. In any case, I have some difficulty understanding the Y of "Watashi-ha
> X-ga tsumaranai/kowai (boring/scary)" as the "subject" of the sentence. I
> know some people would scoff at the idea, but I don't think that's because
> I'm heavily under the influence of English grammar.
I see what you're getting at. I'm not personally convinced that the concept
of a "subject of a sentence" (or object, for that matter) in Japanese is
particularly useful. One could argue that we have two different words for
these ideas in English simply because our grammar requires it.
> > Thus, if I were to translate "nihongo ga jouzu desu" into English in the
> > most literal fashion, I would say:
> >
> > (Your) Japanese is skillful
>
> Would anyone lecture me on how good this English is and whether or not
there
> is not a chance for "Your Japanese is skilled" to be seen as acceptable?
I'll leave this to other native speakers to comment. I did say that this
was a literal translation. I don't particularly think it's a good sentence,
but it's easier to understand than "your Japanese is skilled", which
requires me to anthropomorphize "Japanese" to make sense out of it.
-Todd.
Anthony J. Bryant
Oops. No, I'm weak at roomaji. <G>
Sorry!!
Tony
Bart Mathias
S>
S> Todd Williamson <to...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote
S> > > > Actually, I imagine it is more natural to say "anata no
S> > > > nihongo wa (or ga) jouzu desu nee" than "anata ga nihongo ha
S> > > > jouzu desu nee". Any
S> NSOJ
S>
S> > > I'm inclined to say it's "out".
Would this not be one of the special cases where you can't switch
word order even if it doesn't seem to mess up a modifier-modifiee
relationship? I.e., am I wrong in my absolute certainty that
"nihongo-wa anata-ga joozu-desu-nee" is just fine?
S> > > "anata no nihongo wa jouzu desu nee." "anata wa nihongo ga
S> > > jouzu desu nee."
A linguistically interesting difference here is that whereas one
thinks of "joozu-da" as being basically a two-place verbal, of
"[person]-ga [activity]-ga ..." type (with "nihongo" as a kind of
metanym for "nihongo-o tsukau-no/koto"), a different pattern is
required for "anata-no nihongo-ga joozu," a one-place predication
where the activity noun is the only (and thus, true?) subject.
I don't remember Kuno addressing this.
Bart
Bart Mathias
S>
S> Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote
S> > Interesting question. I believe I've seen tooten (which word I
S> > made "tokuten" a few days ago!) there (i.e. in Japanese) as
S> > well.
S>
S> I've been wondering about the "tokuten". :-)
Another seniority problem. I remembered that it was "to..." instead
of "do..." but not the other anomaly of the yomi (once again, no pun
intended).
S> > I have wondered at my own reluctance to write "-ne(e)," as in
S> > "soo-desu-nee." It's probably because of the HLLLLHL contour,
S> > with two "HL" in the same (apparent) word. Perhaps that also
S> > explains the commas.
S>
S> Well, despite your belief, you still usually isolate particles
S> from the nouns they are attached to in transcription, don't you?
I almost always hyphenate them. The rare occasions I don't, I run
them together.
Someone (a "Nicky" somebody, I think--musician?) once sent me a batch
of samples of inter-NS e-mail correspondence from back in the last
century when few had Japanese character capabilities so they wrote
roomaji. I intended to analyze it, but so far have only noticed even
with an individual writer, separation and non-separation of word and
particle tended to vary considerably, though they are preponderantly
separated. Except no one seems to separate "te" or "ba"! Does this
mean that western grammarians of Japanese, who do not consider "-te"
and "-ba" to be particles are more in tune with NS intuition than the
Japanese grammarians of Japanese who consider them "joshi"?
Particle sequences (" toha ," e.g.) tend in that data to be written
together, but spaced off from the words they end.
No non-linguist is likely to use hyphens to mark off joshi or
jodooshi, of course, and none of these samples do, although there are
hyphens in words like "Nihon-go." Some jodooshi are always written
attached ("masu," "tai," etc.), some mostly separated ("desu" being
prominant). I notice I am inconsistent myself, writing "ikimasu" on
the one hand, "hon-desu" on the other.
Kokubunpoo has a lot of sloppy corners, but the recognition of the
bunsetsu seems very clear to me, and to be the closest to a good
definition of "word" that I have ever seen.
S>"Apparently", NOUN +
S> particle are two words to me. Or is this still a matter of an
S> accent group? I guess I don't have the basic idea of what
S> constraints there are about possible pitch patterns. Could you
S> briefly go over them?
Phonetically, when phrase and sentence intonation are added in, all
kinds of things are possible, but on the phonemic,
word-differentiation level, it's basically as I put it above. Only
one HL allowed per word (bunsetsu). So far, I have been able to
handle apparent exceptions to my own satisfaction.
Bart
It seems I *can* include JIS in my .sig, although I haven't figured
any way to do it in the body of my posts yet. May I'll have to start
posting .sigs only...
--
�sigも化けるか
Bart Mathias
TW> At least to my ear (there may be some regional variation in
TW> this), "skilled" is most often used to refer to an animate object
TW> (person, animal) that has a skill. It is sometimes used to
TW> describe inanimate objects, but almost always it is of the form
TW> "a skilled X" (e.g. "a skilled painting"), and not of the form "X
TW> is skilled". In order for me to make sense of "your Japanese is
TW> skilled", I have to think of "Japanese" as an animate object that
TW> has learned a skill.
TW>
TW> On the other hand, "skillful" can refer to the animate object, or
TW> to its actions, or (less often) the results of its actions. This
TW> is why I think of "your Japanese is skillful" as a better
TW> translation.
[Moved from a later position:]
TW> Sho> Would anyone lecture me on how good this English is and
TW> Sho> whether or not there is not a chance for "Your Japanese is
TW> Sho> skilled" to be seen as acceptable?
TW> I'll leave this to other native speakers to comment. I did say
TW> that this was a literal translation. I don't particularly think
TW> it's a good sentence, but it's easier to understand than "your
TW> Japanese is skilled", which requires me to anthropomorphize
TW> "Japanese" to make sense out of it.
Mostly my ear is the same as Todd's, but I balk a bit at "a skilled
painting." If we can say that, as in "This is a skilled painting,"
than why can't we say "This painting is skilled" and "Your Japanese
is skilled"? I would reject all three sentences.
TW> I think everyone would agree that either of "Your Japanese is
TW> good" and "You are good at Japanese" seems more natural than
TW> "your Japanese is skillful". Unfortunately, while "jouzu" can
TW> probably always be translated into English using "good", the
TW> reverse is not true. Which means the textbook needs to use some
TW> other word, hence "skilled/skillful". It would be better if they
TW> also had examples where they translate it using "good".
Perhaps my bias is making it hard for me to think of cases where
"joozu" can't be either "good" or (more often) "good at [s.t.]."
Bart
Todd Williamson
> "TW" == "Todd Williamson" writes:
> Mostly my ear is the same as Todd's, but I balk a bit at "a skilled
> painting." If we can say that, as in "This is a skilled painting,"
> than why can't we say "This painting is skilled" and "Your Japanese
> is skilled"? I would reject all three sentences.
Being a logical sort of person, I would like for both ways to be the same.
Nevertheless, "This is a skilled painting" strikes me as okay but marginal,
whereas "This painting is skilled" doesn't. Sho's examples of "skilled
profession", etc. are probably even clearer. Whereas I often hear the
phrase "skilled profession", "the profession is skilled" doesn't work as
well for me.
> TW> I think everyone would agree that either of "Your Japanese is
> TW> good" and "You are good at Japanese" seems more natural than
> TW> "your Japanese is skillful". Unfortunately, while "jouzu" can
> TW> probably always be translated into English using "good", the
> TW> reverse is not true. Which means the textbook needs to use some
> TW> other word, hence "skilled/skillful". It would be better if they
> TW> also had examples where they translate it using "good".
>
> Perhaps my bias is making it hard for me to think of cases where
> "joozu" can't be either "good" or (more often) "good at [s.t.]."
I was trying to say that "jouzu" and "good" are not completely equivalent,
because "good" can mean other things.
I'm guessing that "X ga jouzu" and "good at X" are pretty close to
equivalent, though. I imagine the textbook authors are trying to make
things easier to remember, though. "Good" has a lot of different meanings,
and they probably don't want to confuse the issue.
-Todd.
Sean Holland
at maxom...@aol.com wrote on 1/15/01 10:34 PM:
> I just looked at the word "skill", and it's starting to seem strange to me.
> Uh
> oh. I need to go sleep lest this happen to other words.
>
Those Viking words can start to look like something out of Tolkien if you
squint your eyes.
Sho
> "S" == "Sho" writes:
>
> S>
> S> Todd Williamson <to...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote
> S> > > > Actually, I imagine it is more natural to say "anata no
> S> > > > nihongo wa (or ga) jouzu desu nee" than "anata ga nihongo ha
> S> > > > jouzu desu nee". Any
> S> NSOJ
> S>
> S> > > I'm inclined to say it's "out".
>
> Would this not be one of the special cases where you can't switch
> word order even if it doesn't seem to mess up a modifier-modifiee
> relationship? I.e., am I wrong in my absolute certainty that
> "nihongo-wa anata-ga joozu-desu-nee" is just fine?
I didn't even think of switching around the words. And if you excuse me for
the complete amateur talk, suddenly the nihongo sounds far more "general"
and "widely encompassing" than "anata". This doesn't mean that "wa" has to
always precede "ga," does it? Comparing the lengths of different parts of an
elephant with those of a giraffe, "Zou ga hana wa nagai" sounds pretty good,
though of course "Hana wa zou ga nagai" would be more natural. Is the clear
part-whole relationship relevant here perhaps? Hmmm.... I'd better take back
what I previously said about
> S> > > "anata no nihongo wa jouzu desu nee." "anata wa nihongo ga
> S> > > jouzu desu nee."
> A linguistically interesting difference here is that whereas one
> thinks of "joozu-da" as being basically a two-place verbal, of
> "[person]-ga [activity]-ga ..." type (with "nihongo" as a kind of
> metanym for "nihongo-o tsukau-no/koto"), a different pattern is
> required for "anata-no nihongo-ga joozu," a one-place predication
> where the activity noun is the only (and thus, true?) subject.
Two subjects to a single predicate... so, the meaning of the predicate
itself is in two ways? "He is skilled" and "His linguistic performance is
skillful"? It now appears Todd had a very accurate grasp of this in the
first place.
Sho
Louis Patterson
I've had that problem with all branches of the vocab. I think it's more
like looking at the sun; if you do it too often, you go blind...
Louis
--
Louis Patterson l.patt...@ugrad.unimelb.edu.au
Sean Holland
Pine.OSF.4.10.101011...@cassius.its.unimelb.edu.au, Louis
Patterson at lou...@student.unimelb.edu.au wrote on 1/18/01 3:59 PM:
(snip)
>if you do it too often, you go blind...
>
Well, you'd better try to control yourself then!
Bart Mathias
S> Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote
S> > "S" == "Sho" writes:
S> > S> Todd Williamson <to...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote
S> > S> > > > Actually, I imagine it is more natural to say "anata no
S> > S> > > > nihongo wa (or ga) jouzu desu nee" than "anata ga
S> > S> > > > nihongo ha jouzu desu nee".
S> > S> > > I'm inclined to say it's "out".
S> >
S> > Would this not be one of the special cases where you can't
S> > switch word order even if it doesn't seem to mess up a
S> > modifier-modifiee relationship? I.e., am I wrong in my absolute
S> > certainty that "nihongo-wa anata-ga joozu-desu-nee" is just
S> > fine?
S>
S> I didn't even think of switching around the words. And if you
S> excuse me for the complete amateur talk, suddenly the nihongo
S> sounds far more "general" and "widely encompassing" than "anata".
S> This doesn't mean that "wa" has to always precede "ga," does it?
S> Comparing the lengths of different parts of an elephant with those
S> of a giraffe, "Zou ga hana wa nagai" sounds pretty good, though of
S> course "Hana wa zou ga nagai" would be more natural. Is the clear
S> part-whole relationship relevant here perhaps? Hmmm.... I'd better
S> take back what I previously said about
Unfortunately, my Japanese has not yet reached the stage where
"zoo-ga hana-wa nagai" sounds any better to me than "anata-ga
nihongo-wa joozu-da." As soon as I force myself to interpret one,
the other becomes equally plausible. But in both cases my impression
is that the speaker forgot to say the "...-wa" part and then injects
it in the wrong place (it should be at the end: "zoo-ga nagai,
hana-wa; anata-ga joozu-da, nihongo-wa."
You mentioned that you have a Kuno book. May I ask which? Or,
specifically, any chance it's the Japanese version of _The structure
of the Japanese language"?
In that 1973 English book, Kuno spent a lot of time on this and
related matters. I think I gave my copy away when I retired, so I'll
rely on memory rather than search for it, but one of the claims
(which seems true to my non-native intuition) is that what he calls
"stative transitives"--verbs like "aru" = "have," "iru" = "need,"
"joozu-da" = "good at," "suki-da" = "like," "kowai" = "scared of,"
etc., have a set order for the subject and "object" when both are
marked with "-ga." So that
hanako-ga taroo-ga suki-da
can mean only "Hanako (is the one who) likes Taro," never "Taro (...)
likes Hanako."
I hope, however, that this only applied to double "-ga" marking,
because to me
hanako-wa taroo-ga suki-da
is quite ambiguous (I'm almost certain Kuno says the same).
But another claim Kuno makes that I have never accepted is that these
stative transitives with one subject and one object marked "-ga" are
intrinsically different from verbals such as "nagai" in genuine
two-subject sentences such as "zoo-ga hana-ga nagai" (even though the
English translation of these may also use a transitive verb as the
stative transitives do). IFF the difference you perceive in the
acceptability of "zoo-ga hana-wa nagai" versus "anata-ga nihongo-wa
joozu-da" is true, I suppose this might be a piece of evidence for
Kuno.
S> > A linguistically interesting difference ... is that whereas one
S> > thinks of "joozu-da" as being basically a two-place verbal, of
S> > "[person]-ga [activity]-ga ..." type (with "nihongo" as a kind
S> > of metanym for "nihongo-o tsukau-no/koto"), a different pattern
S> > is required for "anata-no nihongo-ga joozu," a one-place
S> > predication where the activity noun is the only (and thus,
S> > true?) subject.
S>
S> Two subjects to a single predicate... so, the meaning of the
S> predicate itself is in two ways? "He is skilled" and "His
S> linguistic performance is skillful"? ...
I am more-or-less with Kuno on this one. He argues against those who
have explained "sushi-ga suki-da" as "(As for me), sushi is liked" on
the grounds that the notion of having two subjects for a single
verbal is ridiculous. I don't recall exactly what he says about the
multiple-subject constructions he recognizes as such, but I don't
think it is "two or more subjects to a single predicate."
I am satisfied to see both of the putative two types as sentences
with subjects and predicates where the predicates are in turn made of
"subject" and predicate.
Consider that neither "hana-ga nagai" nor "hana-wa nagai" are
complete, comprehensible, sentences out of context. They have to
refer to something, and "nani-ga" or "dare-ga" would always be a fair
question if the reference isn't clear from context. Even though they
seem to have built-in subjects, such phrases are themselves
subject-requiring predicates.
Bart
Sho
[...]
> Unfortunately, my Japanese has not yet reached the stage where
> "zoo-ga hana-wa nagai" sounds any better to me than "anata-ga
> nihongo-wa joozu-da." As soon as I force myself to interpret one,
> the other becomes equally plausible. But in both cases my impression
> is that the speaker forgot to say the "...-wa" part and then injects
> it in the wrong place (it should be at the end: "zoo-ga nagai,
> hana-wa; anata-ga joozu-da, nihongo-wa."
So if we had a more commonly shared punctuation system after the fashion
most people in the English speaking world follow, it would make sense if the
latter, for example, were rendered as "anata-ga, nihongo-wa, joozu-da."?
I didn't really mean that the zoo-ga example was conspicuously better than
the nihongo one. Actually, once you accept one example of the same type, all
the rest of the examples would look much the same, and "anata-ga nihongo-wa
joozu-da" did not look as bad as before when I posted the messaged directly
before this.
> You mentioned that you have a Kuno book. May I ask which? Or,
> specifically, any chance it's the Japanese version of _The structure
> of the Japanese language"?
It's the English version, Third printing, 1978.
> In that 1973 English book, Kuno spent a lot of time on this and
> related matters. I think I gave my copy away when I retired, so I'll
> rely on memory rather than search for it, but one of the claims
> (which seems true to my non-native intuition) is that what he calls
> "stative transitives"--verbs like "aru" = "have," "iru" = "need,"
> "joozu-da" = "good at," "suki-da" = "like," "kowai" = "scared of,"
> etc., have a set order for the subject and "object" when both are
> marked with "-ga." So that
>
> hanako-ga taroo-ga suki-da
>
> can mean only "Hanako (is the one who) likes Taro," never "Taro (...)
> likes Hanako."
>
> I hope, however, that this only applied to double "-ga" marking,
> because to me
>
> hanako-wa taroo-ga suki-da
>
> is quite ambiguous (I'm almost certain Kuno says the same).
I'm sure any native speaker would agree that these examples are valid, but I
can't quite locate the place where he specifically talks about these in this
order. Obviously, I don't have the total idea of how he sees these things.
In one of the chapters where he discusses "wa and ga," he states that "'Ga'
is used for marking the object of stative verbals, that is, a handful of
transitive verbs (dekiru, wakaru, iru(need)), all transitive adjectives
(hosii, tabetai), all transitive nominal adjectives (suki, nigate)."
He then goes on to cite a couple of sentences including "John ga Mary ga
suki desu," saying that the exhaustive listing (X and only X) reading works
only with John and not Mary. This does not appear to match with the point
that you are making above.
> But another claim Kuno makes that I have never accepted is that these
> stative transitives with one subject and one object marked "-ga" are
> intrinsically different from verbals such as "nagai" in genuine
> two-subject sentences such as "zoo-ga hana-ga nagai" (even though the
> English translation of these may also use a transitive verb as the
> stative transitives do). IFF the difference you perceive in the
> acceptability of "zoo-ga hana-wa nagai" versus "anata-ga nihongo-wa
> joozu-da" is true, I suppose this might be a piece of evidence for
> Kuno.
My judgement sways this way and that. I'm constantly in disagreement with
Kuno over the specific examples he gives, and to my great dismay, with my
own judgements a few seconds ago.
> B> > A linguistically interesting difference ... is that whereas one
> B> > thinks of "joozu-da" as being basically a two-place verbal, of
> B> > "[person]-ga [activity]-ga ..." type (with "nihongo" as a kind
> B> > of metanym for "nihongo-o tsukau-no/koto"), a different pattern
> B> > is required for "anata-no nihongo-ga joozu," a one-place
> B> > predication where the activity noun is the only (and thus,
> B> > true?) subject.
> S> Two subjects to a single predicate... so, the meaning of the
> S> predicate itself is in two ways? "He is skilled" and "His
> S> linguistic performance is skillful"? ...
>
> I am more-or-less with Kuno on this one. He argues against those who
> have explained "sushi-ga suki-da" as "(As for me), sushi is liked" on
> the grounds that the notion of having two subjects for a single
> verbal is ridiculous. I don't recall exactly what he says about the
> multiple-subject constructions he recognizes as such, but I don't
> think it is "two or more subjects to a single predicate."
The typical example of double subjects he cites is
"Bunmeikoku ga dansei no heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
He seems to say that this is so because (1)"we obtain a nonelliptical
seentence even without the first subject.
"Dansei no heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
(As you point out below, something like "watashi wa" is missing from the
suki da structure.)
and because (2) there is a corresponding single-subject sentence:
"Bunmeikoku no dansei no heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai." On the other hand,
("*watakusi no susi ga suki da," wouldn't make sense as a paraphrase.)
> I am satisfied to see both of the putative two types as sentences
> with subjects and predicates where the predicates are in turn made of
> "subject" and predicate.
In effect, you don't have a problem assuming an underlying structure as
something like,
"watashi ga/wa [sushi wa/ga suki da] da."?
Kuno says, "The distinction between the thematic wa and the descriptive ga a
dn the exhaustive-listing ga becomes neutralized in subordinate clauses. All
three are realized as ga, ..." This seems to explain why we can't have a
"wa" as part of the second NP.
Sho
Bart Mathias
S> Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote
S> > You mentioned that you have a Kuno book. May I ask which? Or,
S> > specifically, any chance it's the Japanese version of _The
S> > structure of the Japanese language[_]?
S>
S> It's the English version, Third printing, 1978.
Moa betta. Now if it turns out I gave mine away too soon after all,
I know who to ask. :-)
This book is, incidentally, the second book I was asked to review for
a journal. It was also my second review with a major Japanese
blooper. :-(
S> > hanako-ga taroo-ga suki-da
S> >
S> > can mean only "Hanako (is the one who) likes Taro," never "Taro
S> > (...) likes Hanako."
S> >
S> > I hope, however, that this only applied to double "-ga" marking,
S> > because to me
S> >
S> > hanako-wa taroo-ga suki-da
S> >
S> > is quite ambiguous (I'm almost certain Kuno says the same).
S>
S> I'm sure any native speaker would agree that these examples are
S> valid, but I can't quite locate the place where he specifically
S> talks about these in this order. Obviously, I don't have the total
S> idea of how he sees these things. In one of the chapters where he
S> discusses "wa and ga," he states that "'Ga' is used for marking
S> the object of stative verbals, that is, a handful of transitive
S> verbs (dekiru, wakaru, iru(need)), all transitive adjectives
S> (hosii, tabetai), all transitive nominal adjectives (suki,
S> nigate)."
S>
S> He then goes on to cite a couple of sentences including "John ga
S> Mary ga suki desu," saying that the exhaustive listing (X and only
S> X) reading works only with John and not Mary. This does not appear
S> to match with the point that you are making above.
Well, in a way it does. Kuno allows ga-marked subjects only for
exhaustive listing and for neutral description. The John and Mary
sentence doesn't match the criterion for neutral description that it
be a suddenly noticed temporary condition. Therefore the subject
must be exhaustive listing, only John-ga has the exhaustive listing
reading, and the only thing that distinguishes John-ga in the
sentence is that it comes before Mary-ga. Therefore X-ga Y-ga Verbal
sentences are unambiguous, with no possibility of a "Y is the one
that <verbals> X" reading.
This would be most important only where the X and Y both fit the
semantic requirements of the verbal for both arguments. If told
"sushi-ga taroo-ga suki-da" there is no chance that someone
would interpret it as "Sushi (and only sushi) likes Taro," because we
can't believe that sushi is a potential liker. Nonetheless, the
sentence is, I believe, ba-a-ad, a word-order violator.
I believe this "E.L. subject first, other ga-marked argument second,
verbal" order also fails to distinguish what Kuno regards as true
double-subject sentences as well as to his putative stative
transitive sentences: *hana-ga zoo-ga nagai.
S> My judgement sways this way and that. I'm constantly in
S> disagreement with Kuno over the specific examples he gives, and to
S> my great dismay, with my own judgements a few seconds ago.
That's the trouble with humans and their languages. As the famous
philosopher said, "shikata-ga nee-ya."
S> > B> > ... whereas ... "joozu-da" ... a two-place verbal, ...
S> > B> > "anata-no nihongo-ga joozu" [is] a one-placepredication
S>
S> > S> Two subjects to a single predicate... so, the meaning of the
S> > S> predicate itself is in two ways? "He is skilled" and "His
S> > S> linguistic performance is skillful"? ...
That was the basis of my wondering, to someone else earlier in the
thread, why "joozu" couldn't always be either "good at" or "good."
S> The typical example of double subjects [Kuno] cites is
S>
S> "Bunmeikoku ga dansei no heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai." He seems to
S> say that this is so because (1)"we obtain a nonelliptical
S> seentence even without the first subject.
At least in the 1973 edition, he (also) gives "Bunmeikoku ga dansei
ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
S> and because (2) there is a corresponding single-subject sentence:
S> "Bunmeikoku no dansei no heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai." On the other
S> hand, ("*watakusi no susi ga suki da," wouldn't make sense as a
S> paraphrase.)
Verily, this is as far as I know the only way to distinguish
"multiple-subject sentences" from "stative-transitive sentences."
If the "wa" or "ga" can be replaced by a "no" (giving a non-
elliptical sentence), then it's a multiple-subject construction;
if not, it's a double-ga transitive.
It is impossible to interpret "kare-wa okane-ga iru" as "kare-no
okane-ga iru" (ditto if you go back and change each "i" to "a" in
those sentences), where "okane-ga" is claimed to be the object, while
it is easy to understand "zoo-wa hana-ga nagai" as being somewhat
("cognitively" was the term I learned from the Chomsky bunch)
synonymous with "zoo-no hana-ga nagai."
But I question what that has to do with the notion of transitivity.
And I don't remember how "joozu" survives as "transitive" in Kuno's
view in spite of sentences like "kare-no nihongo-wa/ga joozu-da."
S> In effect, you don't have a problem assuming an underlying
S> structure as something like,
S>
S> "watashi ga/wa [sushi wa/ga suki da] da."?
That is how I see it, aside from that extra "da" on the end. I'd
make it more like "[watashi ga/wa [sushi wa/ga suki da]]"
(But my grammar rules would not allow "watashi-ga" and "sushi-wa"
in that order.)
S> Kuno says, "The distinction between the thematic wa and the
S> descriptive ga a dn the exhaustive-listing ga becomes neutralized
S> in subordinate clauses. All three are realized as ga, ..." This
S> seems to explain why we can't have a "wa" as part of the second
S> NP.
I don't think Kuno regards the second NP of the sentences under
consideration as being in subordinate clauses. Isn't he talking
about things like "bunmeekoku-ga dansee-ga heekinjumyoo-ga
mijikai-no-wa ..."? I don't necessarily agree, though, that
exhaustive listing is impossible for those NP-ga. Couldn't you force
it by inserting "ichiban" in various locations? Perhaps intonation
might work as well, allowing (even without "ichiban") these different
interpretations:
"Civilized countries (and only civilized countries) being where
male's average lifespans are short ..."
"Male's average lifespans (and only ...) being what's short in
civilized countries ..."
"Lifespans (and only lifespans) being the short things males in
civilized countries have ..."
(For "ichiban" drop all "(...)," add "est" to "short.")
さあ （実魁��
逮鶯
Sho
> "S" == "Sho" writes:
>
> S> Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote
> S> > You mentioned that you have a Kuno book. May I ask which? Or,
> S> > specifically, any chance it's the Japanese version of _The
> S> > structure of the Japanese language[_]?
> S>
> S> It's the English version, Third printing, 1978.
>
> Moa betta. Now if it turns out I gave mine away too soon after all,
> I know who to ask. :-)
Moa betaa, as Komori Kazuko, film commentator, said it.
> This book is, incidentally, the second book I was asked to review for
> a journal.
No wonder why you don't have to even look at it to correct my misreadings.
Again, I can't locate this form anywhere around, but I have no problem
accepting the above as grammatical.
Bareta ka. I was putting different parts together. He gives,
a) Anata wa John ga nihongo ga/*wa dekiru koto o sitte imasu ka.
b) John ga/*wa suki na ko wa Mary desu.
Incidentally, I noticed a typo in one of his examples. Directly below this,
he acknowledges that while the above two do not have the exhaustive listing
interpretation, the contrastive "wa" can appear in subordiante clauses.
(44) a. Anata wa, kinoo no party ni John wa *kitta* (ga Mary wa konakatta)
koto o sitte imasu ka.
Anyway, what you have in mind seems to boil down to,
"[watashi ga/wa [sushi ga suki da]]".
When I laid it out as
"[watashi ga/wa [sushi wa/ga suki da] da]".
I guess I was going into a process of applying rudimentary "transformational
rules" consisting of the obligatory "ga selection in a subordinate clause"
and the duplicated "da-deletion" rules. Not that I know hardly anything
about the basics of what the Chomskeyan school of thought was or is up to.
> I don't necessarily agree, though, that
> exhaustive listing is impossible for those NP-ga. Couldn't you force
> it by inserting "ichiban" in various locations? Perhaps intonation
> might work as well, allowing (even without "ichiban") these different
> interpretations:
"Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
1. "Bunmeikoku ga (ichiban) dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
If we know for sure that there is only one bunmeikoku involved in the
conversation.
2. "Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga (ichiban) heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
Only if we admit the existence of a third sex.
3. *"Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga (ichiban) mizikai."
This doesn't seem to work at all.
4. "Bunmeikoku no dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga (ichiban) mizikai."
This works very well because it is easy to think of at least four choices.
5. "Bunmeikoku ga dansei no heikin-zyumyoo ga (ichiban) mizikai."
This is a lot like 1 for me.
>
> "Civilized countries (and only civilized countries) being where
> male's average lifespans are short ..."
>
> "Male's average lifespans (and only ...) being what's short in
> civilized countries ..."
>
> "Lifespans (and only lifespans) being the short things males in
> civilized countries have ..."
>
> (For "ichiban" drop all "(...)," add "est" to "short.")
>
> さあ （実魁・・w)w)逮鶯
Bart Mathias
S> Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote
S> >
S> > Moa betta. Now if it turns out I gave mine away too soon after
S> > all, I know who to ask. :-)
S>
S> Moa betaa, as Komori Kazuko, film commentator, said it.
But Komori was undoubtedly speaking eego, and I was speaking Pidgin.
S> > This book is, incidentally, the second book I was asked to
S> > review for a journal.
S>
S> No wonder why you don't have to even look at it to correct my
S> misreadings.
But that was over 25 years ago. Granted, I've used it a lot since.
Even as a textbook a few times. (Until my students started
complaining, "If he doesn't agree with the textbook, why doesn't he
just write his own?")
You weren't curious about my Japanese blooper, but it was using the
word "sukiiba" for "sukiijoo." (I don't think Kuno mentioned it in
his comments on my review--someone else pointed out my mistake.)
S> Incidentally, I noticed a typo in one of [Kuno's] examples.
S> Directly below this, he acknowledges that while the above two do
S> not have the exhaustive listing interpretation, the contrastive
S> "wa" can appear in subordiante clauses.
S>
S> (44) a. Anata wa, kinoo no party ni John wa *kitta* (ga Mary wa
S> konakatta) koto o sitte imasu ka.
How precocious of him! sci.lang.japan hadn't even been invented yet.
S> I guess I was going into a process of applying rudimentary
S> "transformational rules" consisting of the obligatory "ga
S> selection in a subordinate clause" and the duplicated
S> "da-deletion" rules. Not that I know hardly anything about the
S> basics of what the Chomskeyan school of thought was or is up to.
Join the club!*
S> "Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
S> 1. "Bunmeikoku ga (ichiban) dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
S> If we know for sure that there is only one bunmeikoku involved in
S> the conversation.
Wow, I sure don't understand that! I would have thought it meant
"among bunmeekoku, hibunmeekoku, hanbunmeekoku, it's bunmeekoku ..."
S> 2. "Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga (ichiban) heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
S> Only if we admit the existence of a third sex.
So there have two be three or more items under comparison before we
can say "ichiban"? English "-est" is also supposed to work that way,
but it tends not to in real life.
S> 3. *"Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga (ichiban) mizikai."
S> This doesn't seem to work at all.
Right. Moving the "ichiban" shouldn't have any effect other than to
invalidate the syntax.
I noticed long ago that only the first NP-ga can be "exhaustive
listing"; any that follow must be neutral description. Then once you
tie it all up with "-no"s, there's no way of knowing which element in
the package is being "superlated."
On top of that, 3. was semantically bad, but that wasn't an accident.
S> > B$5$"!!!J<B3!!&!&Bw)w)B
Now unreadable, but the above showed me that I can insert Japanese
characters by sneakiing in the back door and re-editing posts already
in the post queue. I won't be doing that a heck of a lot!
Bart
----
*Just in case "join the club" is new to you, it is synonymous with
"Don't feel like the Lone Ranger."
Sho
> But that was over 25 years ago. Granted, I've used it a lot since.
> Even as a textbook a few times. (Until my students started
> complaining, "If he doesn't agree with the textbook, why doesn't he
> just write his own?")
Why didn't you? Maybe you did? At least you must have huge volumes of
lecture notes in mimeographed copies or something. If you scan them all and
put them together as one on the web, it'll instantly make a complete
official s.l.j. FAQ, won't it? What a great idea!
> You weren't curious about my Japanese blooper, but it was using the
> word "sukiiba" for "sukiijoo." (I don't think Kuno mentioned it in
> his comments on my review--someone else pointed out my mistake.)
Well, I'm typically Japanese in the sense that I never try to put anyone in
shame. I don't know how popular scuba diving was over here around that time,
but the way it is pronounced is a lot like how you did with "skiing resort".
> Join the club!*
>
> S> "Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
> S> 1. "Bunmeikoku ga (ichiban) dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
> S> If we know for sure that there is only one bunmeikoku involved in
> S> the conversation.
>
> Wow, I sure don't understand that! I would have thought it meant
> "among bunmeekoku, hibunmeekoku, hanbunmeekoku, it's bunmeekoku ..."
I see. I had only two categories in my mind, ie., "among bunmeekoku and
hibunmeekoku". But isn't that the ordinary way of understanding it?
> S> 2. "Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga (ichiban) heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
> S> Only if we admit the existence of a third sex.
>
> So there have two be three or more items under comparison before we
> can say "ichiban"? English "-est" is also supposed to work that way,
> but it tends not to in real life.
I have to wonder how serious you are, especially with what seems like a
"twypo" that might be taken as intentionally made. I know you never mistype.
> ----
> *Just in case "join the club" is new to you, it is synonymous with
> "Don't feel like the Lone Ranger."
I was more familiar with "join the club" than with "the Lone Ranger," but
appreciate your extra considerations all the same.
Sho
Bart Mathias
S> Bart Mathias <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote in message
S> news:q1.y0.pB2fDq...@hawaii.edu...
S>
S>
S> > But that was over 25 years ago. Granted, I've used it a lot
S> > since. Even as a textbook a few times. (Until my students
S> > started complaining, "If he doesn't agree with the textbook, why
S> > doesn't he just write his own?")
S>
S> Why didn't you? Maybe you did? At least you must have huge volumes
S> of lecture notes in mimeographed copies or something.
Sort of. Still dream of finishing the book some day. But it's
distinctly my own view of things (of course, that didn't stop Martin,
but), and wouldn't be recommended for people looking for more
standard explanations, although I never apologized to teaching to
students when that particular course wasn't supposed to lead to
higher linguistic courses (because my view was right, of course).
S> > S> "Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
S> > S> 1. "Bunmeikoku ga (ichiban) dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga
S> > S> mizikai." If we know for sure that there is only one
S> > S> bunmeikoku involved in the conversation.
S> >
S> > Wow, I sure don't understand that! I would have thought it
S> > meant "among bunmeekoku, hibunmeekoku, hanbunmeekoku, it's
S> > bunmeekoku ..."
S>
S> I see. I had only two categories in my mind, ie., "among
S> bunmeekoku and hibunmeekoku". But isn't that the ordinary way of
S> understanding it?
Well, yes, and it is what I meant until your "third sex" remark.
But I still fail to understand how "If we know for sure that there is
only one bunmeikoku involved in the conversation" matches with "I had
only two categories in my mind, ie., 'among bunmeekoku and
hibunmeekoku.'" My interpretation of the sentence (and Kuno's, as I
recall) was that in general, bunmeekoku have shorter lifespans for
males than any other kind of "koku."
S> > So there have two be three or more items under comparison before
S> > we can say "ichiban"? English "-est" is also supposed to work
S> > that way, but it tends not to in real life.
S>
S> I have to wonder how serious you are, especially with what seems
S> like a "twypo" that might be taken as intentionally made. I know
S> you never mistype.
*You* knoww that and *I* know that, but my keyboard doesn't know
that. Curiously, I seem to do "two" for "to" almost as often as I do
"to" for "too." But I usually catch the "two"s before I post.
S> I was more familiar with "join the club" than with "the Lone
S> Ranger," but appreciate your extra considerations all the same.
Doo itashimashite.
Bart
Sho
> "S" == "Sho" writes:
>
> S> Why didn't you? Maybe you did? At least you must have huge volumes
> S> of lecture notes in mimeographed copies or something.
>
> Sort of. Still dream of finishing the book some day.
I'm sure many people are looking forward to the day when it comes out.
> S> > S> "Bunmeikoku ga dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
> S> > S> 1. "Bunmeikoku ga (ichiban) dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga
> S> > S> mizikai." If we know for sure that there is only one
> S> > S> bunmeikoku involved in the conversation.
> S> >
> S> > Wow, I sure don't understand that! I would have thought it
> S> > meant "among bunmeekoku, hibunmeekoku, hanbunmeekoku, it's
> S> > bunmeekoku ..."
> S>
> S> I see. I had only two categories in my mind, ie., "among
> S> bunmeekoku and hibunmeekoku". But isn't that the ordinary way of
> S> understanding it?
>
> Well, yes, and it is what I meant until your "third sex" remark.
>
> But I still fail to understand how "If we know for sure that there is
> only one bunmeikoku involved in the conversation" matches with "I had
> only two categories in my mind, ie., 'among bunmeekoku and
> hibunmeekoku.'" My interpretation of the sentence (and Kuno's, as I
> recall) was that in general, bunmeekoku have shorter lifespans for
> males than any other kind of "koku."
But weren't we talking about if and how the meaning gets changed when we
throw "ichiban" in the sentence? I do feel that you need at least three
items to choose from if you are to use "ichiban". The use of "ichiban" only
results in fortifying the assumption that the preceding noun phrase allows
exclusively the "exhaustive listing" interpretation?
Sho
muchan
It took a day to come back to Europe, but when I came to my office,
there wasn't my computer! (..snip and omit the story about it...)
and it took more than a week to come back to <s.l.j>...
I missed all the post before 15 Jan... I read the post till today in rush...
I'd avoid dangerous zone of debate, ;) especially between Bart and Sho, ;)
but just a small comment;
Bart wrote:
> At least in the 1973 edition, he (also) gives "Bunmeikoku ga dansei
> ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
>
I think this phrase is possible, when it's a part of noun clause.
like "-to iu jijitsu", "-to iu kasetsu", etc., and -ga here are
functioning like old time "-ga", or today's "-no", than Subject
marker.
And still, if I use this with "-to iu jijitsu", I'd change second "-ga"
to "-no", that is
"bunmeikoku-ga dansei-no heikin-jumyoo-ga mijikai-to iu jijitsu",
then I feel is enough natural.
muchan
Bart Mathias
m> It took a day to come back to Europe, but when I came to my
m> office, there wasn't my computer! (..snip and omit the story about
m> it...) and it took more than a week to come back to <s.l.j>...
Well, we'uns done missed you too for ten long days! Welcome back.
m> Bart wrote:
m> > At least in the 1973 edition, he (also) gives "Bunmeikoku ga
m> > dansei ga heikin-zyumyoo ga mizikai."
m>
m> I think this phrase is possible, when it's a part of noun clause.
m> like "-to iu jijitsu", "-to iu kasetsu", etc., and -ga here are
m> functioning like old time "-ga", or today's "-no", than Subject
m> marker.
m>
m> And still, if I use this with "-to iu jijitsu", I'd change second
m> "-ga" to "-no", that is "bunmeikoku-ga dansei-no heikin-jumyoo-ga
m> mijikai-to iu jijitsu", then I feel is enough natural.
Sho doesn't find the triple-ga in his later edition of Kuno, so maybe
Kumo himself started to feel the same way by that time. I'm certain
that the 1973 edition had the sentence as I give it; Kuno was kind of
pushing the idea of "multiple-subject" sentences.
I just checked my "book-winners" list to see if I really gave away my
copy of the '73 edition. Sure enough, John Haig won it. As the
editor-in-chief of _The New Nelson Japanese-English Character
Dictionary_ you'd'a' thought he'd'a' already owned a copy, but no
matter--if I put it on the give-away list, someone was going to want
that one.
So I'm stuck with my memory. (Oh, oh!)
Back-country Bart