Talk:Japanese verb conjugations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Romanji? 2 Proposed merge 3 Change of direction 4 Other minor conjugations? 5 "i form" (ren'youkei) section 6 mistake in ichidan potential conjugaion table?

[edit] Romanji?

What's up with all the romanji? I demand kana! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.153.157 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why? Addition of kana would increase the size of the page and slow load time, possibly throw off the table balance. No essential information would be added, just eye candy. If you're familiar with the language, you can make the switch easily enough in your own mind.

Replacing the Romaji with kana would defeat the purpose here by obscuring the content for anyone who cannot read kana. RJCraig 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Japanese articles should all have kana, because Romaji, while good for typing Japanese on a keyboard, is in all other cases a hindrance to learning the language. I say it should all be written in kana with rollovers in Romaji. That way the Romaji is still there, but people can associate it with the actual Japanese. If I won't be overwritten by some Romaji-only extremist, I'll go ahead and put all of the kana in.Mewish

I'm by no means a "Romaji-only extremist" and otherwise would not have any objection to your proposal but would like to make the following observations:

(1) This is the English version of Wikipedia; while inclusion of information in native orthographies is always preferrable, entries should be geared towards English readers.

(2) Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia, not a language learning resource (although it can certainly be used as such). There are plenty of textbooks and other sites on the web for learners.

(3) Are the rollovers you are planning on using compatible with all browsers?

(4) Finally, use of the native orthography in this case obscures much of what is really going on in the conjugations. Use of Romaji is preferrable in these tables.

Please wait for feedback from others before beginning your changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJCraig (talk • contribs) 08:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

This article should either be merged with Japanese grammar, or the material on conjugation in that article removed. No sense in duplication. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Readers should note that this was discussed on the Japanese grammar talk page. Please refer to that. --DannyWilde 05:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Change of direction

What this article ought to be discussing are the different conjugation paradigms of Japanese, not the different combinations of verbs and particles. Look at the Latin conjugation article, for example. Perhaps we should start an article in that format at Japanese conjugation. I have started a /Rewrite along those lines. The particles would need a separate article though...

Besides the structural issue, I take issue with the use of JSL-oriented terminology. - 振霖_T 14:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What do you take issue with, specifically? In many cases the JSL perspective is more in accord with modern linguistic analysis than the traditional "multiple stem" one (which is basically a product of the obscuring of the underlying forms by the orthography). I feel there is a place for presentation of the traditional system (it's interesting and familiarity with it is essential when discussing grammar with native speakers who have been indoctrinated into it), but also believe that it is largely irrelevant to an understanding of the real structure of the language. RJCraig 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What? Whether you analyse the godan mizenkei as -<consonant>a or -a, it's still a mizenkei which corresponds kami-ichidan -i, shimo-ichidan -e (ichidan -Ø), ka-hen ko, sa-hen se (with an anomaly for shinai), keiyōshi -kara.

There is ample evidence for continued usage of bare mizenkei for conditionals - nara and tara. The only form which is not used bare in modern Japanese is the kateikei (except when considering the etymologically mizenkei nara as a kateikei of da), but in classical Japanese, the equivalent izenkei was used bare in kakari-musubi: mizu-koso nagarure, tuki-koso kiyokere. The fact that all 6 forms can be used bare, and that the 6 forms vary from paradigm to paradigm is proof enough for me that the 6 forms exist, and are not a product of euphony.

Admittedly there are some holes in traditional analysis - the passive and causative do not quite fit in with the other uses of mizenkei - but the ka-hen and sa-hen forms muddle up a purely euphonic theory as well. - 振霖_T 05:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying; I now understand better where you are coming from, although I am still curious about your investment in the traditional system. Please remember the distinction between synchronic and diachronic analysis. While we see a continuity from classical to modern which we label Japanese, no such entity actually exists, and the language is born anew as it is acquired by each speaker. In this process of rebirth, reanalysis often occurs, giving rise to the changes we see across history. RJCraig 07:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The reanalysis has not been so great. The same holes which existed in applying traditional analysis to classical Japanese still apply in modern, and most of the reasoning still applies. However, sound change has caused some forms to multiply in realisation - mizenkei now has two realisations in godan due to u-induced-mutation (-a + u > -ō), renyōkei now has a distinct realisation when used with -te (i-mutation, geminate-mutation, nasal-mutation) . On the other hand, shūshikei and rentaikei have merged in most paradigms. The only major reanalysis that I can think of that has happened between classical and modern is the recovery of the secondary stem in the subjunctive form of non-godan verbs: se + u > (u-induced-mutation) shō > shiyō; mi + u > myō [for some reason, not myū] > miyō; uke + u > ukyō > ukeyō. Well, aside from the ichidan-ification of nidan verbs, where all forms with -u- are changed to the secondary stem vowel... but that's less reanalysis and more analogy fairy - 振霖_T 14:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously we differ in the scales by which we measure; I consider the shift from a four-major-plus-four-irregular conjugational system to a two-major-plus-three irregular system to be a massive change. The development of stem allomorphy in the godan verbs is also not insignificant. Neither is the reanalysis by which stem formative morphemes became associated with endings. When analyzing the modern verbal system, only the actual forms which occur are important. The traditional analysis and orthography are irrelevant. (By the way, in what paradigm is the rentaikei not equivalent to the shūshikei? While somewhat meaningful in discussing Classical Japanese, these terms represent a confusion of form and function when dealing with the modern language.) RJCraig 16:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

keiyōdōshi / da have distinct shūshikei and rentaikei. (Whether or not they should be considered verbs is another debate.) But ultimately: the JSL analysis and the traditional analysis differ little except in the terminology. Irrealis stem, (pre)-nai form, mizenkei - they all refer to the same thing. My preference is to call it irrealis or mizenkei. This is how I analyse Japanese morphology: User:Zhen Lin/Japanese morphology chart. - 振霖_T 12:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't considering adjectives or the "copula" earlier, only modern verbs.

I salute your diligence in creating those (very nice looking) charts. However, I see only a few points that differ from the traditional orthography-based line; hence I would hesitate to call yours a thorough morphological analysis. True, both the traditional and modern morphological analyses refer to the same forms, but to imply that their differences reduce to simple terminological variation is a serious misrepresentation. RJCraig 19:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well then, show me something where modern and traditional analyses differ significantly. - 振霖_T 00:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

??? I am coming to the conclusion that we are talking past each other and that attempting to "show" you anything is an exercise in futility. Nevertheless...consider, for example, the ichidan verbs in your chart, subdivided into kami and shimo. First off, using these traditional labels conceals that these are verbs whose stems end in a vowel, either -i or -e. These verbs have an invariant stem to which endings are added. For them, the various -kei distinctions are irrelevant. The godan (consonant-stem) verbs do not have stems with six forms, they have two (or, at most, three): 書く for example has a stem with two allomorphs, kak- and kai-; the second is used before the "past tense" ending -ta/-da (itself having two allomorphs), etc. A form such as 書かない is not kak+a+nai but kak+anai, with the negative ending having two allomorphs, -nai used with V-stems and -anai used with C-stems. As another example, the continued analysis of the "volitional/hortative" as a mizenkei form results in the disparate analyses kak+o+u and tabe+yō for the C- and V-stems, respectively. Realizing that the ending is actually -(y)ō simplifies the analysis immensely: kak+ō and tabe+yō.

Rather than go on at length with further examples here, I will follow your example and create a user page (or two); since I fear I lack your facility in creating wiki-tables, this may take a day or two. Finally, if you want to dismiss the modern analysis as a simple JSL construct, I fear there is no point in further discussion. RJCraig 01:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Consider Latin declension. No paradigm has unique forms for the six major cases, yet no one disputes that those six cases exist. Same here. No (modern) verbal paradigm has unique realised forms for all six forms [only mizenkei and ren'yōkei can really be called stems; kateikei is marginal now with only -ba and meireikei even more so with only -ro] [indeed, no regular paradigm distinguishes shūshikei from rentaikei]. I can see how kak-o-u/tab-e-yō/m-i-yō is less simple than kak-ō/tabe-yō/mi-yō -- but in both cases, allomorphy exists - admittedly the former has two morphemes with two allomorphs each whereas the latter has one. I recognise that kaku has a stem kak- (kai- is marginal) and that modern taberu has a stem tabe-, but I don't see how kak-a-nai/tab-e-nai/m-i-nai is any simpler than kak-anai/tabe-nai/mi-nai - in both cases, allomorphy exists -- in the former, in the realisation of the mizenkei, in the latter, the realisation of the negative auxilliary. For kak-e-ba/tab-ere-ba/m-ire-ba vs. kak-eba/tabe-reba/mi-reba I could see the case, if a consonant cluster reduction is assumed -- but vowel cluster reduction cannot explain -(a)nai -- i-a should collapse to e (as in ki-ari > k-eri) and e-a should collapse to a (as in -te-ari > -tari). Otherwise I don't see why allomorphy in the suffixes is any more a desirable analysis than allomorphy in stem forms. Nearly a dozen common allomorphous suffixes [-(a)nai, -(a)zu, -(y)ō, -(i)masu, -(i)tai, -*te/-*de, -(r)u, -(r)eba, -e/-ro, -(s)aseru, -(r)areru, -(rar)eru] vs. five allomorphous suffixes [-(y)ō, -*te/-*de, -(s)aseru, -(r)areru, -(rar)eru] and five allomorphous forms [-a/-ø; -i/-ø; -u/-ru; -e/-re; -e/-ro] - neither seems obviously better to me. - 振霖_T 15:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps my use of the parentheses notation has been a source of confusion; if so, my apologies. When I write -(a)nai I do not mean one morpheme which is added to the stem and then acted upon by phonological rules (euphony); it is simply shorthand for the two allomorphs which occur in complementary distribution: -nai/-anai. (In the same way, I would use -(ə)z to express the English 3rd person singular present verb ending morpheme.) So mention of consonant and vowel cluster reduction is unwarranted as I am not assuming any. In connection with this, however, I am concerned by your conflating (throughout) of the classical and modern languages: they are not the same thing. The i-a > e and e-a > a reductions across morpheme boundaries are surely no longer operant. Finally, could you explain the reasoning behind your analysis of mireba and tabereba into m-ire-ba and tab-ere-ba? (Does the hyphen imply a boundary, or is this just your notation for...what?) RJCraig 04:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly happy with the current structure of the article and don't see the need for the suggested changes. The "rewrite" seems careless to me; much of the information in the current page, such as the details of irregular verbs, has been lost, and the sentences are confusing because they are not illustrated with any examples. That's not good at all. In general the writing style is sloppy and the level of unexplained "decorative" jargon is fairly confusing. What's more the tables are much too large for my browser screen. The whole thing seems to be more an argument about terminology than anything else. Why not merely add notes on terminology to the current article? One of the many problems with the current Japanese grammar article is the direction of the article seems to have been to jam as much linguistic jargon into the page as possible, and there is very little actual insight into the way the language is used. I've read the entire page but I didn't find it enlightening. Also, having looked at the page Latin conjugation, frankly this Japanese page seems clearer and much more readable in its current state than the latin one. --DannyWilde 01:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a language learning resource. - 振霖_T 00:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

So it's OK to be careless, have bad presentation, and lack insight? --DannyWilde 00:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about that. - 振霖_T 13:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Not in so many words, no. But to insist on a presentation that obscures the actual structure of the modern language for some reason (that I can't imagine) basically boils down to the same thing, no? (This isn't some sort of "Japanese is so unique that it is immune to modern [=Western?] methods of linguistic analysis" thing, is it?) The traditional analysis is a cultural artifact, one which is interesting in its own right and deserving of inclusion in an encyclopedia; however applicable it may have been to earlier forms of the language, its use now serves only to conceal the inherent simplicity of the system. RJCraig 01:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the current page needs a rewrite. Argue as you will about the terminology for different forms. Being as wikipedia is not a language learning resource, I don't think that's overly significant for the aims of the page. However, the current layout is painfully repetitious and obscures some of the basic underlying patterns of the forms. No matter how you classify things there will be irregularities from things like oku -> oita, oite, but there are overwhelming patterns in how the different verbs and adjectives inflect, patterns which are wholly ignored in the current presentation. Presenting those patterns must necessarily mean subscribing to a specific morphological analysis, even if it needn't be rigorous to the standards of linguistics publications. Which, for all the failings of the JSL system and terminology, that sort of approach gives a much more accurate portrayal of modern japanese than the classical analyses do. ~ Winterkoninkje 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other minor conjugations?

What about other conjugations that are mostly just variations of the main types? Like -tai (want), or -masenka (invitation), -mashou (suggestion), etc. It would be nice to have a reference for all of these various types, as I can't seem to find any good references elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.75.88.119 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement, this list claims to be comprehensive, but it is by no means so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.163.125 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "i form" (ren'youkei) section

I added two more uses of this form and have some questions about some of the statements in this section:

1. Under yagaru the text says: (The te form can be substituted for the i form.) koroshite yagaru?! Could this be a mistake for koroshite yaru?
2. For some verbs, the i form also forms part of related words in ways that are not governed by any general rules. Basically conjunctive in nature, the "i form" for most verbs combines with a wide variety of nouns and other verbs.
3. The i form of kakeru (to bet) is a word on its own: kake, which means "a bet". Use of this form as a nominal is common for many verbs. Hanashi, anyone?
4. In kirihanasu, hanasu is suffixed to kiri...odd usage of "prefix" which I am going to fix now. --RJCraig 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mistake in ichidan potential conjugaion table?

It seems that there is a mistake there, I don't know about "kigaeru", but definitely "miru" -> "mieru", "mienai" etc. However I have no reliable reference on hand to check. 213.186.192.40 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)