Yes, the verbs attached to the -te form is categorized as "auxiliary verb" in Japanese grammar, e.g., ~ている/ある, ~ておく, ~ていく/くる, ~てやる/あげる/もらう/くれる, ~てしまう, ~てみる/みせる, etc.. These auxiliary verbs are already lost the meaning the original verb has, or have special meaning the original doesn't have, similar to "have" in English I mentioned here.Q1:「何を読んでいる」would I be right in calling いる an auxiliary here?
The answer to this is very simple. It's because V + V is not grammatical. Verbs can't be linked that way.Regarding Q3: my question wasn't clear.
Why not simply say:「教えるやる」 . Why is the ーて form necessary here? That's what i was trying to ask. It's not used to link sentences and it doesn't express the progressive because it's not used with 「いる」 . Those are the two sole purposes described in A Dictionary of Japanese Grammar for the ーて form.
So basically, I understand that 「やる」does, but I don't understand why 「教える」 should be written in the ーて form here. If it has already been explained, please refer to the post so you guys don't need to repeat the same thing again.
I think I have a good understanding of this actually, having read a fair deal about this.Main thing you need to do is read up on your giving/receiving verbs and how all that works. There are many differences from English.
:emoji_face_palm::emoji_grinning: Sorry Toritoribe! For some reason it didn't click until I read it in my book even though you did write it. Go figure!That's exactly what I already pointed out in the following post.
Yes, I understand that part. I've read that in DBJG about the usage of ーて and how it has different functions depending with which verb that form is used in combination with いる/ある.For instance, in the present progressive 食べている, 食べて shows that the action "eat" was already started, and is in the state now, i.e, "is eating". On the other hand, 来ている shows that the action "come" was already completed, and is in the state now.
Yup, that's one way to see things.As for your question 教えてやる, it's reasonable to interpret that the -te form means the action "teach" is completed, and then gives it to the addressee.
It's probably a rhetorical question but still: I'd explain that "do", "have" and "be" are primal verbs. This means they can someone times play an auxiliary role and at other times plain play a main verb role depending on the context they're used in.By the way, how do you explain if a non-native English learner asks you the reason why the past participle form is used with "have" in the perfect tense?
I think it's good to know how the ーて form functions in different contexts by giving various examples to compare. I mean, you can say that the ーて form+いる expresses a progressive without explaining what the ーて form means in that construction. Just like you can explain what ーて+やる is used for without covering what the ーて form means as half of that unit. What I couldn't understand here was why the ーて form was used with やる which turns out to do a favor just like explaining ーて +いる expresses the progressive."have + past participle" expresses or in what situation it's used. You'd better to think that ~てやる/あげる means "to give a favor of doing" as a set, as I wrote repeatedly.
so that's why jt_ was referring:The whole clause "ゆうふくなものたちが
SoLikewise, in Xが住む街, 街 is being described/modified by Xが住む.
Do these explanations help your understanding at all?
So it's hard to understand that ESU at the moment since I can't figure out the part in bold.So I thought this is likely a combination of two words, one of them being a 「い」adjective.
So 「終止形」refers to the predicative form which means the form used at the end of non-polite sentences.I used the term 終止形 since I thought "the form used at the end of non-polite sentences(more precisely, including past, negative, past negative, etc.) " would be easier to understand for you.
How can they be the same? What do you mean by "same" here? I mean, based on the definitions you've provided, they're clearly different. I mean, they might be written the same but will change categories depending on where they are used in a sentence, right?However, 終止形 and 連体形 are completely the same in modern Japanese, so I chose 終止形.
I checked both links and I see what you mean (as far as how it's written).See 語形 (かく, うける, おきる,,,) are the same as 終止形 (well, except 形容動詞 "na-adjective"), but these two forms are not always the same in the left category 文語 (= classical Japanese).
I understand that:Likewise, in Xが住む街, 街 is being described/modified by Xが住む.
Do these explanations help your understanding at all?
裕福 is what's called a な adjective or "adjectival noun". It connects to nouns with な, so 裕福なX means, simply, "(a) wealthy X".
How is it possible to have a dictionary form verb before a noun? I understand it defines 「街」probably in the sense of living there but how?Here's my question this time regarding 「すむ街」.
I looked up 「街」again in the dictionary to see if I hadn't missed anything. It can be used as a suffix so maybe that's it.
「すむ」, from what I can tell, can only mean a verb, either:
「澄む」、「済む」、「住む」or「棲む」. Those are all in the "dictionary form" here used in combination with 「街」, a noun. I would hypothesize that 「すむ」is 「住む」. So it's living in a city. I just want to understand the inner workings of this.
Yes, I understand but that's not what I meant. I guess it doesn't really matter that much but that 住む+街 is bothering me for some reason. I know that 「住む」 means to reside somewhere. I would've expected a 「に」 there to be used in combination with 「住む」and 「街」.
町に住む = reside in townYes, I understand but that's not what I meant. I guess it doesn't really matter that much but that 住む+街 is bothering me for some reason. I know that 「住む」 means to reside somewhere. I would've expected a 「に」 there to be used in combination with 「住む」and 「街」.
町に住む = reside in town
I'm more puzzled by why 街 is followed by 駅 without any connecting particle. I don't think 街駅 is a word. Seems like there should be a に after 街 to me.
Zizka said:How is it possible to have a dictionary form verb before a noun? I understand it defines 「街」probably in the sense of living there but how?
Zizka said:I would've expected a 「に」 there to be used in combination with 「住む」and 「街」.
See, to me, they don't represent the same construction. The first one does but not the second one.空中に ふわふわ うかぶ 街
かいだんを のぼった先にあるトビラ
See, I would've thought that the が助詞 here would indicate that the whole excerpt is about what precedes the particle because there are no punctuation marks to indicate that there are many sentences here.Xが住む marks X as the grammatical subject of 住む, hence "X lives (somewhere)".
Yes, but it also marks the subject of 「すむ街Xが住む marks X as the grammatical subject of 住む, hence "X lives (somewhere)".
You asked the function/meaning of the -te form, not auxiliary verbs やる or いる, so it's equivalent to the reason why the past participle form is used, not "have" or "be". Thus, you need to explain why the past participle form expresses the perfect tense when used with "have", or why the same form expresses the passive voice when used with "be". Is this kind of linguistic information really useful for beginner learners?It's probably a rhetorical question but still: I'd explain that "do", "have" and "be" are primal verbs. This means they can someone times play an auxiliary role and at other times plain play a main verb role depending on the context they're used in.
Then I'd explain the purpose of the primal verbs when used as auxiliary and their purpose/meaning as main verbs with some examples to show the difference in a compare/contrast sort of approach.
There is a historical background. Those two forms are different in ancient Japanese (roughly until Heian period), as in the wiki pages I linked, but significant changes happened in Japanese language in the middle age, for instance, the functions of が and の were exchanged with each other (が used to be the possession marker, and の was the subject marker), euphonic changes happened in the conjugation forms (書きた --> 書いた, 飲みた --> 飲んだ).How can they be the same? What do you mean by "same" here? I mean, based on the definitions you've provided, they're clearly different.
Note that なにも doesn't mean "nothing" just by this word alone. This word is used only in negative sentences, so actually なにも~ない means "nothing" as a set.「なにも」: means ''nothing''.
ビーカーがとまった場所 is the same construction. 場所 is the location where the beaker has stopped, so it's indicated by に in the sentence. Or, even other examples you came across, the subject marker が is not there. You've never had doubts about it, just because you didn't realize it.I would've expected a 「に」 there to be used in combination with 「住む」and 「街」.
Not correct. The subject of 見えます is not ゆうふくなものたち. Those are two sentences (the first line is just a noun clause, not a complete sentence, though), as jt_-san wrote.Yes, but it also marks the subject of 「すむ街
駅の近くにいる きん色のものに
せいいを 見せている オタシが」
Correct?
Ah ok so it's not a double negative then so:This word is used only in negative sentences, so actually なにも~ない means "nothing" as a set.
Well, it's interesting to be aware of it I'd say.Is this kind of linguistic information really useful for beginner learners?
I feel like this is more peripheral to the language so I won't pursue this further with more questions at this point in time but it's still unclear to me.There is no need to distinguish them in modern Japanese.
I could have sworn you had posted a message where the other period would technically make it two sentences show up. I can't find it just now so I added my own.hose are two sentences