My practice sentences...

[zxuiji]

That table certainly made things a bit clearer but just to make sure should I take it that whenever I want to use one of these う verbs in a question or statement (besides negative forms etc) I just use the appropriate variant of います? Like 言います?

 

[Mike Cash]

Well at least I'm trying, I'm sure you've come across plenty of others who simply gave up right?

You're still aimlessly spinning your wheels, though.

You have as much chance of successfully figuring this out the way you insist on going about it as the proverbial million monkeys with a million typewriters pounding away for a million years do turning out the works of Shakespeare.

This isn't just a matter of looking up words in a dictionary and then shuffling them around a dozen times until somebody tells you that you got them all in the right order.

It isn't a jigsaw puzzle, and even if it were you don't have the right pieces sorted together to begin with. Hell, did you not notice that Toritoribe-san already gave you the sentence as you asked for it ? You blew right by that several posts ago and apparently paid it no mind whatsoever. Even though you think that picking it apart is how you're going to learn Japanese.

Look here....you're a fellow who has never learned another language and who is staggering about blindly in your attempt to learn Japanese, grasping nothing and getting nowhere. And there are several people who have had some success learning Japanese who have been pounding their heads against the wall trying to get you to understand that what you're doing is doomed to fail and who have tried desperately to point you in more productive directions. Your ideas about how adults learn a second language are just as naive and uninformed and wrong as they could possibly be. And even if they weren't, English and Japanese are so profoundly and utterly unrelated to and different from each other that attempting to figure it out from scratch by reverse engineering it would be a maddening challenge even for a professional linguist. For a guy with no such background, just an average guy...it ain't happening.

You won't listen to advice. Nobody can tell you anything. I'm sure you think Toritoribe-san has been helping you get your first sentence rearranged in a sincere effort to help you use your method to learn Japanese. What is really going on is that he is humoring you in your folly, patiently waiting for you to finally figure out for yourself that what you are doing will not work. Sadly, nothing else will do but to let you run yourself ragged on this, as you have proven yourself too stubborn to listen to kind and sincere advice.

You are going to have to spend a lot of time and effort studying the basics of Japanese from proper materials. You getting this sentence right the way you're going about it with apps would be a miracle that eclipsed the Second Coming of Christ.

Drop the apps. Drop the memrise decks. Drop all the crap you're farting about with wasting your time and ours. Have you even so much as gone and looked at the Tae Kim Grammar Guide that has been suggested to you?

We're here to help and we want to see you get on track and have the kind of success you would like to have, but trying to help you in the face of your obstinance is more than a little exasperating.

 

[Toritoribe]

That table certainly made things a bit clearer but just to make sure should I take it that whenever I want to use one of these う verbs in a question or statement (besides negative forms etc) I just use the appropriate variant of います? Like 言います?

As for the sentence you are making now, yes 言います is the form you should use. So, what is your final translation?

 

[zxuiji]

Firstly to mike have you ever heard of the phrase "Success is born from Failure"? Secondly since mike mentioned something about you toritoribe already providing the sentence I'll go find that, compare it to my own lot to see what errors I've been making, as for my final attempt with the sentence before I go look for toritoribe's version here it is:
これは日木語でどう(should I have used お here?)言いますか

Edit: Couldn't find the sentence so I'll continue trying to get the sentence correct until either mike or とりとりべ point out the post or just re-post the sentence. On another note I actually find とりとりべ easier to read funnally (never tried to spell that before) enough

Just realised I made an error with the kanji for japanese, should've used 本 instead of 木

Edit: Only realised because I popped my sentence into google translate to see what it showed and it came out with the intended sentence after correcting the kanji. Assuming this is what you were expecting me to eventually reach then I will try the next sentence using the grammar lessons learned from this one, if I'm lucky I'll get the words correct too (You'll forgive me if I focus on grammar before politeness first right?)

Kind of amusing to see what my failures translated as, for anyone wanting to see here's all of them in order (with にほんご switched for 日本語)
これは言うで日本語がどうですか
言うはこれで日本語がどう
どうはこれ日本語で言う
これは日本語で言うがどうか
これは日本語でどう言いますか

 

[Toritoribe]

1)The particle "wo/o" is を, not お, 2)を is the object marker, while どう is not the object (the object is これ, but を disappears behind the topic maker は).

You finally got the correct one これは日本語でどう言いますか, but now you would agree that your previous comment such like "using single is not a problem" was totally wrong after all. You can see that you actually didn't(or it should be "don't"?) understand very basic Japanese grammar yet, and couldn't/can't even make a simple sentence yourself. Actually, "you think you can do it" is often not the same as "you can really do it." You might feel boring to make textbook-like sentences such like "There is a book on the table", "He bought this pencil in a department store yesterday" or "Tomorrow, I will send her a letter in the post office", but you can never compose more complicated sentences you might really use in real conversations without knowing these basic grammar. Decent textbooks teach you these things in appropriate ways and orders. That's why we repeatedly recommend using it. Hope you can understand our intention.

 

[zxuiji]

That was not single, that slung 3 grammars together plus multiple words, when I say single I truly mean single as in slinging 2 words, a single grammar and perhaps a politness bit together.

Edit: Forgot to mention I wasn't on about the を paricle I was on about the extended o sound, I wasn't sure which was correct

 

[Mike Cash]

That was not single, that slung 3 grammars together plus multiple words, when I say single I truly mean single as in slinging 2 words, a single grammar and perhaps a politness bit together.

How are you counting "3 grammars" there?

I think part of the problem is that you don't know what "grammar" means and we have been talking past each other.

Grammar - Wikipedia

 

[Toritoribe]

That was not single, that slung 3 grammars together plus multiple words, when I say single I truly mean single as in slinging 2 words, a single grammar and perhaps a politness bit together.

Edit: Forgot to mention I wasn't on about the を paricle I was on about the extended o sound, I wasn't sure which was correct

So, you mean a sentence such like "this is a pen" is single? (Wait, this sentence includes four words. Seems like too complicated...)

EDIT:
Mike-san's post gave me a hint! You are confusing sentence elements such like subject, object or verb with grammar. Now I wonder you really understand these grammatical terms I used in this or another thread correctly...

 

[zxuiji]

これ
は (This still counts as grammar)
pen (haven't learned the japanese version yet)
です

 

[Toritoribe]

That's not "grammar" as I wrote in the edited version. Did you read the wiki page Mike-san provided?

これ (subject/topic) は (particle/topic marker) ペン (complement) です (copula)

 

[zxuiji]

There are various forms of grammar and ones that pull words together are still grammar even if only on bottom tier, another words I'm trying to learn 2nd tier grammar before I move onto the 3rd tier which you apparently thought I was trying to.

Edit: I think my avatar quite suite my personality don't you think? I got it via a game on gog.com, "written book of chronicles" I think it was called

Edit 2: Forgot to respond to it earlier but you asked if it should be don't instead of didn't, don't would have been more correct since it applies to the present tense instead of past tense, basically did/didn't=past, do/don't= present, will/won't=future

 

[Toritoribe]

I already finished saying what I wanted to convey. I don't want to hear excuse or something. Use decent textbooks. That's my final advice. Good luck.

EDIT

Edit 2: Forgot to respond to it earlier but you asked if it should be don't instead of didn't, don't would have been more correct since it applies to the present tense instead of past tense, basically did/didn't=past, do/don't= present, will/won't=future

Do you really think I don't know it??? Sigh...

 

[zxuiji]

Only just noticed the link, I'll look it up after work, gotta go now you see. またね

 

[Toritoribe]

In case you can't get it correctly, I think there will never be また again...

 

[Mike Cash]

How many English grammars is "How do you say this in Japanese?" ?

 

[zxuiji]

Everything I ever learned of english is now used at a subconscious level so now I have to guess, assuming my thoughts are correct then there is at most 3 spoken ones and obviously the 1 unspoken "?"

Edit: Just visiting that link that was pointed out earlier, I have poor attention to detail when reading so for future reference it would be best to mention it in your comment before or after the link if it is important that I visit it.

 

[zxuiji]

The description clitic seems to fit the grammar (yes it is grammar going by what you yourself have pointed to, quote is below) that I meant I had gotten the hang of, is there any list of example sentences on this site (or others you know of) for trying to translate into japanese?

...this field includes morphology...

Clitic - Wikipedia

In morphology and syntax, a clitic...

Edit: おやすみ

 

[Mike Cash]

there is at most 3 spoken ones and obviously the 1 unspoken "?"

You can't count the number of English grammars in that sentence, or any other sentence. If you can, please list the three grammars you see.

it would be best to mention it in your comment before or after the link if it is important that I visit it.

Did you think we went to the trouble of locating resources and linking them for your sole benefit and were just doing it for our health or to amuse ourselves?

It would seem there is no use for us to bother, then.

is there any list of example sentences on this site (or others you know of) for trying to translate into japanese?

You can't translate into a language you don't know, and you haven't a clue about Japanese. You also can't seem to get a clue when it comes to everyone telling your plan to learn by translating isn't going to work. But I'll write some English sentences for you here and you can have fun translating them into Japanese if it will make you happy:

1. I have to order a new battery for my mother's wheelchair.

2. I can't remember where I put my car keys.

3. Put your keys on the table nearest the front door.

4. I put my younger sister on the train to Tokyo.

5. It's your turn to feed the dog.

There you go. Let me know when you have those done correctly and I'll make you another batch.

 

[SomeCallMeChris]

You can't count the number of 'grammars' in a sentence because there are no 'grammars' in a sentence, it's a misuse of the word. A grammar is a system for describing a language. If you're talking about multiple grammars, you're either talking about multiple languages, or multiple ways of describing the same language. (Or, to be extremely pedantic, one could also be talking about multiple schoolbooks about language).

In theory, you could in fact describe and count all of the grammar *rules* that apply to the construction of a piece of language. In practice, however, there is no complete description of any natural human language, so any such assessment is imperfect from the beginning. (Arguably you can do this with Esperanto or other artificial languages.... except, of course, the ones that are successful start to evolve and become natural languages over time, despite their constructed origins, so you can only do it with new or unsuccessful artificial languages.)

You can, of course, count all the rules involved in any segment of computer language but that's not very useful. It is trivial enough to add that information to compiler output though, if you really cared. (It is also possible for more than one grammar to completely describe the same language so when you count the number of rules you also have to specify under what system you're counting. )

If (when?) we can describe human languages to that level of precise detail, then we would have all we need for computers to actually 'understand' human language (at least in the sense of being able to correctly symbolically manipulate it) and we could write perfect translation software. That day is still a long, long way away.

I don't even want to know what this talk about multiple tiers of 'grammars' is. None of this is how language works, neither the ideas being expressed about language, nor the language being used to describe it, and most certainly not the OP's ideas of how language is learned.

 

[Mike Cash]

馬耳東風、 且つ馬の耳に念仏

 

[zxuiji]

You can't count the number of English grammars in that sentence, or any other sentence. If you can, please list the three grammars you see.

I think I was counting just "do", "you" and "in" in regards spoken grammar, sure there are likely other structural grammar rules but as I said before everything I know in english grammar is now use on a subconscious level so trying to pull that out of there is non-trivial.

Did you think we went to the trouble of locating resources and linking them for your sole benefit and were just doing it for our health or to amuse ourselves?

It would seem there is no use for us to bother, then.

You know what I mean, important enough that it would affect my more immeadiate posts, I'll eventually spot them and visit them but for those you don't want to wait for me to spot (or have someone else point out to me as has occured on several occasions now)

You can't translate into a language you don't know, and you haven't a clue about Japanese. You also can't seem to get a clue when it comes to everyone telling your plan to learn by translating isn't going to work. But I'll write some English sentences for you here and you can have fun translating them into Japanese if it will make you happy:

1. I have to order a new battery for my mother's wheelchair.

2. I can't remember where I put my car keys.

3. Put your keys on the table nearest the front door.

4. I put my younger sister on the train to Tokyo.

5. It's your turn to feed the dog.

There you go. Let me know when you have those done correctly and I'll make you another batch.

Thanks, although to be clear I was more on about the 2nd tier grammar (which I think that last one might fit) practice, I just figured there would be a resource somewhere that had such a list starting with easy sentences that gradually become longer as you go down the page. Also had such a list not existed then I would have started trying to translate all our posts on a seperate thread so that the english and japanese were swapped, not ideal for practicing low level grammar but if needs must.

 

[zxuiji]

You can't count the number of 'grammars' in a sentence because there are no 'grammars' in a sentence, it's a misuse of the word. A grammar is a system for describing a language. If you're talking about multiple grammars, you're either talking about multiple languages, or multiple ways of describing the same language. (Or, to be extremely pedantic, one could also be talking about multiple schoolbooks about language).

In theory, you could in fact describe and count all of the grammar *rules* that apply to the construction of a piece of language. In practice, however, there is no complete description of any natural human language, so any such assessment is imperfect from the beginning. (Arguably you can do this with Esperanto or other artificial languages.... except, of course, the ones that are successful start to evolve and become natural languages over time, despite their constructed origins, so you can only do it with new or unsuccessful artificial languages.)

You can, of course, count all the rules involved in any segment of computer language but that's not very useful. It is trivial enough to add that information to compiler output though, if you really cared. (It is also possible for more than one grammar to completely describe the same language so when you count the number of rules you also have to specify under what system you're counting. )

If (when?) we can describe human languages to that level of precise detail, then we would have all we need for computers to actually 'understand' human language (at least in the sense of being able to correctly symbolically manipulate it) and we could write perfect translation software. That day is still a long, long way away.

I don't even want to know what this talk about multiple tiers of 'grammars' is. None of this is how language works, neither the ideas being expressed about language, nor the language being used to describe it, and most certainly not the OP's ideas of how language is learned.

I did say it was a guess remember, anyhow it is always possible to count the number of grammar rules, clitics and anything else related to grammar at any point in time (even thousands of years ago), it's just not possible for us because we lack all the data needed, Jehova and Jesus Christ however do (don't bother de-railing to them if your heart is not open to the reality of their existance) have that data so they can.

As for the tiers I'm refering to how grammar starts at the low level clitics, forms basics structure open that then goes advanced with sometimes more complicated structure on top of those structures.

 

[zxuiji]

馬耳東風、 且つ馬の耳に念仏

I'll respond to this when I've tried translating it

 

[Mike Cash]

I'll respond to this when I've tried translating it

You're not going to work on the sentences I made for you?

 

[zxuiji]

You're not going to work on the sentences I made for you?

I will but I'm doing this one first since it contains proper grammar no don't and as such could proove an invaluable experience for when I do the previous lot.

edit that bit that was before the quote wasn't supposed to be there