Talk:Japanese grammar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Japanese grammar has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Archive
Archives
  1. Until November 2005
  2. November 2005 – July 2006

Contents

[edit] Push to FA

Let's get this article to featured article status. One year ago, after the previous failed FA nomination, I thought this article was 50% there. Not much seems to have changed from how I left it last year. What remains to be done? Many of the objections from the previous nomination don't seem irrelevant now. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri @ 09:29, July 9, 2006

[edit] Sorry

Shouldn't 生きる (ikiru, live) be iku? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.105.16 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Where and why? The modern verb ikiru derives from the Classical iku but what relevance does that have here? Could you bee more specific? --RJCraig 22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I have a question to ask...

Why is は romanized as "wa" in this article, shouldn't it be "ha"? I got confused as I read the article. Samusfan80 19:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read Hepburn romanization#Particles. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh I see, I guess I dont read romaji sentences often cause I think it's hard to understand romaji without any characters written beside it. Samusfan80 15:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -kuru

Towards the end of this thread on a Sailormoon fandom board, there's discussion about the auxiliary verb "kuru". Can someone confirm this, please? Danny Lilithborne 07:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The table is not "wrong", but it is incomplete: the auxiliary kuru can have inceptive, perfective and conclusive uses. Compare:
戦争のために多くの人間が死んできた。
sensō no tame ni ōku no ningen ga shinde kita
Due to the war a lot of people have died (perfective)
雨が降ってきた。
ame ga futte kita
It started to rain. (inceptive)
時代が異なってきた。
jidai ga kotonatte kita
The times changed. (conclusive, i.e., the "come to V" sense mentioned in that thread)
It may be that the various senses of the auxliary depend on the kind of verb (punctual or continual) they are attached to, but I'm not sure. Will search for clues in Martin or Shibatani when I get a chance. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
On further reflection, what I termed "inceptive" above might more accurately be called the preterite tense. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Mistake?

In this article, 連体詞 (prenomials) are listed under 付属詞 (ancillary words), whereas they are listed under 自体詞 (independent words) in the dictionaries 広辞苑　(koujien) and 大辞林 (daijirin), the encyclopedia 百科事典マイペディア (hyakkajiten maipedia), not to mention the Japanese version of Wikipedia. Anyone mind if I change this, or is there something I've missed? chunkyasparagus 11:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with your suggested change. Be bold in updating pages. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is also a minor error: "Additionally, by convention, the terminal form ありえる arieru is not used; it is always ありうる ariuru." This ignores colloquial usage, where arieru is fairly common. Even googling for the odd written form 有りえる gives 27 thousand hits (ありえる gives over a million, but there are many Ariels in that). It is true that it is by convention considered incorrect, but the unconventional usage is quite common nevertheless. I imagine this would be difficult to find a good citation for, as colloquial Japanese tends to be poorly documented. One survey about it seems to have been made, though, with the result of ありえる being slightly more common reading for あり得る than ありうる among Japanese 16 years or older at the beginning of 2004. [1] -- 130.233.24.129 07:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kosoado

First, apologies for having "corrected" mesial to medial. I infer from googling that the former is used in linguistic as well as dental and anatomical contexts. However, I still don't have a full understanding of what it means -- perhaps because the version I have of Crystal's dictionary is greatly out of date, I don't have the Cambridge textbook on Person at hand now, and I don't know where to look.

A second reading of what the article says about kosoado gives me a better impression than the one I got yesterday, when I encountered the article for the first time and was happy with it until I reached that point. Anyway, the best description I found of this matter when I needed to investigate it a couple of years back was:

Hoji, Hajime, Satoshi Kinsui, Yukinori Takubo, and Ayumi Ueyama (2003) The demon­strat­ives in modern Japanese. In A. Li and A. Simpson, eds., Functional struc­ture(s), form and interpretation: perspectives from east Asian languages. London: Routledge. In PDF form, previously here (link now dead); now here.

It's not easy reading. (It's particularly difficult for me now, as it seems I don't have a suitable font installed in my newly and incompletely set up Kubuntu system: display is hideous and barely decipherable.) And the paper is most interesting about so, and the primary author writes here that The treatment of the deictic so-NPs in the paper is clearly not satisfactory, and I am currently working on it, based on the presentations at ATR and Nanzan at the end of 2000.

Perhaps there is now something better. -- Hoary 07:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry but the page is too complicated

Please make it more simple.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.134.168.217 (talk • contribs) .

Japanese grammar is complicated. Do you have any particular area which you think should be improved? Mlewan 08:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what anon is objecting to, but I have proposed in the past that this article be moved to wikibooks and only a brief summary left in wikipedia. Currently it reads like a pedantic grammar textbook than an approachable encyclopedia article. In fact, it doesn't give anything resembling a historical perspective on the subject of "Japanese grammar". Fixing this has long been on my list of things to do when I can find a bit of free time. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 09:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the reason he/she is confused is because the article uses terminology that the average person doesn't understand (Diplithongs? Auxillary verbs? Even I can't make heads or tails of this). Maybe we should try bringing the Simple English version of this article up to speed so people who only have a basic vocabulary can grasp the concepts presented within. We could also try cleaning up all those confising words by replacing them with terms that the average person can understand. How about it? --Toastr 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume that was mostly sarcasm. But the article could use some major reorganization to conform it to the style of articles for other languages. My biggest problem with it is that it relies too heavily on the traditional Japanese 国語 analysis. (For example, are there any other language articles where the information is organized according to a conjugable/non-conjugable distinction? Why not include this sort of information under a traditional grammar article?) There is a lot of repetition across pages that could be removed, and most of the "conjugation" information should be moved to Japanese verb conjugations and other articles, with only a few representative examples here. Just my two-yen's worth. --RJCraig 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, these comments frighten me. The Japanese grammar article is one of the best and most exhaustive language articles we currently have at Wikipedia. If you try to "simplify" it and make it "understandable" there is a very high risk that you a) remove vital information, b) make it incomprehensible to people with basic knowledge of the language.
You cannot describe Japanese grammar in a sensible way using a European grammar template. They have past tense of adjectives. They have no future verb forms. They have no definite articles. They have no subjunctive. They do not conjugate verbs according to person (I am, you are, he is...). They have loads of particles and politeness forms. They have special verb and adjective forms to express negation and ability. They have no grammatical gender. Their grammar is different from European languages, and it is not beneficial to describe it as a European language.
Besides, there already is a summary grammar at Japanese language, which can be read by people with no previous knowledge.
Of course this article can be improved and made clearer, just like any other article. However, the big hurdle is not the structure of the article but that complexity of the Japanese language. Mlewan 09:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, not only is this one of the best grammar articles on Wikipedia, it is also probably the clearest Japanese grammar I have managed to find anywhere - both in paper form and on the net. Mlewan 09:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. As I am to blame for the current article's organisation and nearly all of its current text (though, of course, with zillions of corrections from everyone else), I am glad you think so highly of it. Realistically, however, I continue to think that this article is nigh useless for a layperson—the intended audience for an encyclopedia—because it requires at least a passing familiarity with the language. In addition, the topic selection and concentration is esoteric and haphazard. Many elements of the page (reflexive pronouns, conjugation forms, the wa/ga issue, auxilliary verbs, onbin) are far too detailed, and other necessary elements (predicate formation, aspect and mood, register, elision, aizuchi) are not covered at all. Now, rewriting this page in the mold of, for eg., French grammar, would be a travesty, and not just because Japanese isn't an Indo-European language— I do take it as a matter of pride that Japanese grammar was probably the first and certainly is the most detailed grammar-related article on Wikiedia. I think we should start by taking another look at the comments in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index/July 2004#Japanese grammar, particularly the last one by ww. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure we're clear on the issues: As I hope was indicated by my mention of sarcasm above, I'm against any dumbing down of the grammatical terminology. Surely no one would suggest that we discuss nuclear physics and not use the proper vocabularly! :)
I'm also not saying that Japanese grammar is not complex, or suggesting that we try to make it fit perfectly into a "European template". But I do believe that using the traditional analysis as a basis for structuring the article makes the language seem more exotic than is called for. Yes, Japanese adjectives "conjugate" like the verbs, and the verbs do not show agreement with their subjects in the same way as European languages, etc. I fail, however, to see the benefit in emphasizing the differences at the expense of the similarities.
The traditional grammatical analysis also makes distinctions which do not exist. There is no point in distinguishing the terminal and attributive forms in Modern Japanese, nor in separating the vowel-stem (ichidan) verbs into two classes—there is no difference in the endings. Dividing the consonant-stem verbs according to the orthography (tuka.wa, ka.ka) obscures the regularity that can be seen in the forms. The continuative form of adjectives is really an adverb: the -ku suffix is a derivational morpheme akin to—but more productive than—English -ly. Etc etc. Don't get me wrong, the traditional analysis is brilliant as far as it goes. I just don't think it's the best way to present the structure of the language. (Btw, this isn't some sort of rejection of modern linguistic analysis as a form of Western imperialism sort of thing, is it?) --RJCraig 12:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as kokugo bias is concerned, I really don't see it. Explaining conjugation using the conjugation forms from kokugu is a perfect, almost mechanical fit. (In fact, Japanese conjugation is easily fully mechanizable.) As far as your latter point is concerned, there certainly are differences between shuushikei and rentaikei for adjectives. The division in the conjugation uses a period at the end of the stem form, which, far from obscuring the regularity, illuminates it. The notion of "adverb" is Western imperialism trying to impose itself on Japanese grammar; a traditionalist would say that the ren'youkei has an adverbial role, but it is still the ren'youkei of an adjective. Who is "right"? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 12:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well...there's certainly no point in arguing with that, is there? --RJCraig 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-sentence

Could someone please check out Pro-sentence? It is a grammar article. In the same way that pronouns like "it" can replace nouns like "the cat", pro-sentences, such as "no" can replace/rebut a sentence. I just mentioned the Japanese tendency there where the answer "Yes" to "Aren't you hungry" means, "Yes, I am not hungry". As I am not proficient in Japanese, I was wondering if someone could please touch up my edit. Thanks samwaltz 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glosses for Mathias egs under "Pronouns"

Shouldn't the parts in parentheses refer to kare no and kare (ni) rather than his and him?

Just wondering if this might not confuse someone...?? --RJCraig 08:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nouns and other deictics section: non-inflecting

Maybe this is just niggling, but the way this

Japanese nouns are non-inflecting: they have neither gender nor number.

is currently phrased seems a bit confused to me. Grammatical gender plays no role in Japanese grammar. Japanese nouns do not change form to indicate grammatical role, gender, etc. The two concepts interact, but they're basically independent. That is not at all clear from the above.

Also..."article-free"? Are articles suddenly a bad thing now? --RJCraig 08:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Preferable? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 09:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
In that it seems less likely to mislead the uninformed (or make it appear that the editors here are confused), yes, I think the new is preferable to the earlier version. It was a small point, but thanks for changing it. --RJCraig 09:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question: Shouldn't some mention be made here of animacy and its role in verb selection? E.g., hon ga aru vs. hito ga iru. --RJCraig 16:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that animacy is either irrelevant or very weakly relevant in Japanese. Aru/oru is the only pair that comes to mind. Google searching reveals nothing, and Shibatani and Kuno (the first two places I check for anything regarding Japanese linguistics) are silent about it. There are some recent papers on animacy in Japanese, but the strongest conclusion any of them seem to draw is that animacy may have a role in passivization. If you have a reference for animacy in Japanese, I would be curious to read it. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
More worryingly, sci.lang.japan is silent about it, though I'll gladly volunteer to pose the question there. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 16:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The distinction between aru/iru(oru) (when used as main verbs, not auxiliaries) is precisely what I was thinking of, as should be evident from the examples I used. If something which affects every noun in the language (and which is mentioned in every elementary textbook for non-native learners) is irrelevant, then there is no need to mention it here. 人生は色々。人の考えも。 --RJCraig 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
There is, however, a difference between calling it grammatical animacy and simply pointing out the usage pattern for aru/oru. Recall, in fact, that aru was classically allowed to be used for humans also, and this usage survives at least idiomatically. Animacy is generally used to mean something much deeper; for instance, in English it manifests as a choice of pronouns: "that is the person who" vs. "that is the object that". In any case, I would first like to read a source that claims that Japanese nouns mark animacy before I would agree that it belongs in the article. Offline references are fine: I have access to a fairly large number of journals, or I can just ask the author of the papers. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 19:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. If you don't want to admit animacy as a feature of Japanese nouns, how then do you account for the difference in the usage of aru/iru? Or the marked ("not generally accepted as standard") nature of the use of the "collectivizing suffixes" with inanimates? Semantic restrictions? If so, how is that not relevant in an article on grammar? It has an effect on the form of acceptable sentences in the language, even if there is no overt marking on the nouns per se.
  2. Could you explain how the English who/which/that distinction is "deeper" than the aru/iru one?
  3. Finally, do you make a distinction between synchronic and diachronic analyses? Previous stages of a language are interesting and tell us how the current one came to be, but you can't automatically assume that aspects of those past stages are still relevant. Classical ari made no distinction as to animacy but modern aru does. I fail to see the point. (Also, could you provide an example of this surviving idiomatic use of aru you mention? Because I'm drawing a blank at the moment and none of the native speakers I have asked can come up with anything either.) --RJCraig 03:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, it's not a matter of whether I admit something or not. If you want to add something to Wikipedia, you have to source it to some published work. We have had lots of problems with people trying to add their pet theories about Japanese to this article in the past, but original viewpoints should not be published in Wikipedia. So, once again, give me a published reference or two that supports your claims. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, but I didn't need a reminder of WP policy at this juncture. I haven't added any of this to the main article but instead am asking why a particular fact has been omitted. Discussing the content, in accordance with proper procedure. And I do believe that there is a question of what you are willing to admit here, since to me the article currently reads simply as a re-presentation in English of the 国語学・学校文法 framework which—while brilliant in its own terms—has some serious flaws when considered from the POV of modern linguistic analysis. But we've already disagreed on 「青い目で見た日本文法」so I'll just let it go. (You might consider renaming the page "Traditional Japanese grammar" or something similar, though.)
I also suspect that you will not be satisfied by anything less than a reference that clearly states "animacy is a feature of Japanese nouns". I don't have such a reference at the moment. But I will point out this, from the article bibliography:
  • Martin (1975), the beginning of "Ch. 3 Expansion constraints; noun subcategorization", where he establishes "classes of nouns...on the basis of a kind of 'pronominal' substitution" (in other words, grammatical factors); specifically, classes (2) HUMAN nouns, (3a) NONHUMAN ANIMATE nouns, and (3b) SELF-PROPELLING nonhuman nouns. (In connection with the last and noun classifier selection, note this from an abstract here.
Next, we discuss on some recent examples which come between animate/inanimate categories, such as "robot dogs" (AIBOTM)". Robot dogs, first marketed in June 1999, have been used with various types of classifiers. In the first stage, they were counted with "-dai", which is for classifying mechanic objects. Then gradually, some articles started adopting animate classifiers "-hiki" and "-tou" to emphasize the high degree of animacy of robot dogs. In the latest stage, they are counted with the classifier "-ko", one of the most unmarked classifiers for counting objects.
  • And this, from the cooccurrence relation entry in 『新言語学辞典』(研究社): 統語論に例をとるならば、(1)｢そこに彼がいる」は正常な文であるが、(2)＊「そこに学校がいる」は正常な文ではない。したがって、「彼」と「いる」は共起関係をもつが、「学校」と「いる」は共起関係をもたない。この現象は、動詞「いる」は有生(animate)名詞を主語にとることができるが、非有生(inanimate)名詞を主語にとろことができないという一般的原則によるものである。そこで、この観点から、上の共起関係を動詞「いる」のもつ主語選択上の制限として捕えることができる。
The above in addition to the fact that googling "Japanese nouns animacy" results in just under 23,000 hits suggest that I'm not alone in seeing a relationship here. When I find something I believe will satisfy you, I'll let you know. --RJCraig 13:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my volume of Martin was too bulky to carry to Europe, or I would have looked there also. I learn new things every time I open that book. As far as modern grammars go, however, Martin's grammar tends to be rather eccentric, don't you think? There certainly doesn't appear to be any mention of animacy in Shibatani's work, which I consider to be a tour de force of constructive grammar in the grand MIT tradition. I did do a bunch of googling and was not convinced that that the claim that Japanese marks grammatical animacy for nouns was supported. There is, of course, nothing surprising about being able to classify nouns into animate and inanimate classes: the question is whether this is reified in the grammar. I'll try and track down Iida's paper -- thanks for the reference. I would have no objection to---in fact would encourage---a proper treatment of counters in this article, including the above features. You might note that the article already mentions some aspects of this feature, such as the general impossibility of attaching -tachi to inanimates. My understanding of grammatical animacy is that it affects all verbs. But I'm not a professional linguist. How does Crystal define animacy? (Another book that I didn't bring with me, unfortunately.)
Do you have a concrete proposal for updating this section? Why not just update it, and we can continue here if I don't like it? — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 14:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Martin is a bit of a hawg, ain't it? :) (I shipped mine when it became apparent I was here for the long haul.) I agree about the "eccentricity" as well. I also agree that this is not as clear-cut an example of grammatical animacy as can be found in some other languages; in Japanese it surfaces as a cooccurrence restriction on lexical selection, not in some overt change in word order (as in the Navajo example under animacy).
Let me think about how I would incorporate mention and get back to you. --RJCraig 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
With "general impossibility of attaching -tachi to inanimates", I guess you mean this part of the article: "Tachi is sometimes applied to inanimate objects, 車 (kuruma, car) and 車達 (kuruma-tachi, cars), for example, but this usage is not generally accepted as standard." As there are hundreds of thousands of hits on Japanese pages for 車たち/車達 (of which all are not read くるまたち, but are close enough anyway), it might be useful to replace "not generally accepted as standard" with something more specific. お星さま and 星たち are hardly rare either (Google is of little use with 星たち because of metaphors though), and 広末涼子's song 「真冬の星座たちに守られて」 would also be an example of this use of たち. Does "not standard" try to convey something beyond the usage being colloquial? Something about anthropomorphization, childlikeness and rarity of combination with most words? I think that there are many Japanese words with one or more of these characteristics, would they also be non-standard? As a reader who is not familiar with たち would probably take "non-standard" to imply rarity, maybe it would be an improvement to state that it is common for some words? -- 130.233.24.129 05:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a commercial for one of those vibrating weight-loss belts that's been playing lately in which a young woman trying one out exclaims「柔らかいお肉たちが震えてる！」It's cute, it's colloquial, it no doubt involves both anthropomorphization and spur-of-the-moment linguistic creativity. But it's not "standard" in any sense of the word. It could of course become popular if enough people see the commercial and, like me, find it amusing enough to repeat and use themselves. Maybe a note about some common exceptions? (Still thinking about the other, btw.) --RJCraig 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
広辞苑 says that いる/ある is differentiated in modern Japanese by using いる for things that one conceives of as moving and ある for those one does not. As was mentioned, いる can be used of "self-propelling nonhuman nouns" (such as trains). Additionally, ある is sometimes used of people, one case of which is often given in elementary Japanese courses[2][3], e.g. 妻子ある人. Googling "人もある" (368 thousand hits) gives many examples of a more common usage, and there's also an Asahi article with the title 「寄席をヨリセキって読む人、あるのかね」[4]. Similarly for "人はない". There's also the proverb「渡る世間に鬼はない」. -- 130.233.24.129 09:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sure perceptions figure into the usage, but I remain dubious that it is as simple as perceptions of moving. I have never encountered iru used with kuruma, hikouki, uchuusen, etc. I don't think I have seen iru used with densha either, come to think of it. Far be it from me to question the venerable Koujien, though. Thanks for that last sentenced; it triggered a dormant memory of dozens of places where I have seen [ANIMATE] wa nai, such as in kami wa nai (13K ghits). I am almost tempted to guess here that aru is more flexible than iru, the latter being limited to mostly animates (though, of course, the continuative -te iru can be used of inanimates also). — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 09:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think we have to be careful to distinguish fixed expressions (as in set phrases and proverbs) and conscious imitation of older forms, which will naturally reflect the non-animate/inanimate-sensitive usage of old ari. 「人もある」may get 368K Ghits, but 「人もいる」gets ~4.5 times as many (1,660K). Interesting—language change in action? Maybe we're seeing the beginning of the loss of the distinction?—but not yet something citable that can be added to the article. --RJCraig 10:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topic-Prominent or Non-Topic-Prominent?

Japanese language is said to be a topic-prominent language in the articles Japanese language and Topic-prominent language, but this is not the case in this article Japanese grammar, in which "Japanese is neither topic-prominent, nor subject-prominent..." is stated. Could someone please try to accord the contradictive statements in the different articles?--Bellenion 14:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellaneous thoughts

Disparate thoughts written when I should have already gone to bed:

  • 日本語文法 written at the top may be pretty but it doesn't explain anything.
  • Phrases have a single meaning-bearing word, followed by a string of suffixes, auxiliary verbs and particles to modify its meaning and designate its grammatical role. Aren't 大きなたんす and 高い鼻 examples of noun phrases? Each has a noun preceded by something akin to an adjective.
    • bunsetsu ja:文節 and ku (phrase / ja:句) are different thing so using "phrase" as a translation of "bunsetsu" causes confusion. "大きなたんす" is a noun phrase 名詞句, which is constructed from two bunsetsu, "大きな" and "たんす". --Kusunose 07:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The discussion of the wa/ga difference assumes that it's the matrix clause that's being discussed. For a subordinate clause, wa won't work.
  • This further differentiates daimeishi from pronouns, which cannot change their person. Actually they can. In English, for example, "we" has a second-person use. ("Got a bit of a sore throat, have we?") And hasn't there been a change in Spanish?
  • The ko- (proximal) series refers to things closer to the speaker than the hearer, the so- (mesial) series for things closer to the hearer, and the a- (distal) series for things distant to both the speaker and the hearer. Right on the first and third, wrong on the second. Or do this article's editors' native (L1J) informants confirm that so- is "closer to the hearer"? Does any recent linguistics book (not L2 Japanese teaching book) confirm it? To me, it looks like a recycling of myths dating back to the 19th century.
  • Adverbs in Japanese are not as tightly integrated into the morphology as in many other languages. Does this perhaps mean "Adverbs in Japanese are not as morphologically distinctive as they are in many other languages"?
  • Topic, theme, and subject: は (wa) and が (ga): This section again doesn't seem to distinguish between matrix and subordinate clauses.
  • The discussion of particles doesn't seem to distinguish between case-markers and other postpositions. (Hint: which of them can be combined? では, yes; but はで? がは? Er, no.)

Er, that's enough for now. -- Hoary 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)