Well at least I'm trying, I'm sure you've come across plenty of others who simply gave up right?
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?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?
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.
So, you mean a sentence such like "this is a pen" is single? (Wait, this sentence includes four words. Seems like too complicated...)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
Do you really think I don't know it??? Sigh...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
Clitic - Wikipedia...this field includes morphology...
In morphology and syntax, a clitic...
there is at most 3 spoken ones and obviously the 1 unspoken "?"
it would be best to mention it in your comment before or after the link if it is important that I visit it.
is there any list of example sentences on this site (or others you know of) for trying to translate into japanese?
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.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.
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)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.
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.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.
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.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'll respond to this when I've tried translating it
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.You're not going to work on the sentences I made for you?