Question from a beginner : います
- Thread starter gabrielhpg
- Start date
- 15 Mar 2002
- 16,758
- 2,298
なるほど, that's evil
But illustrative and instructive, don't you think? Too bad the person it was meant for won't see it. No loss, though.
Kraise
先輩
- 8 Mar 2013
- 380
- 46
僕なら、文法的な説明なしで全然分からなかったのに。
さすがは、凄い。Mikeさんの日本語が得意で時間が少しだけかかったあと、自然にわかるようになったね。
Lanthasさん、説明、共有してくれてどうもありがとう。
Edit: wait, the post order got messed up!
Thank you Mike, your contextualization gives me worries about my own skills though. Learning how to "think" in japanese is certainly something that is going to take some time, more than I wanted, though.
Maybe situations like this one are the reasons (?) Japanese people don't really learn "grammar" in school, other than classical japanese and such, I guess... anyway, very productive thread for me , thank you all again
Last edited:
nekojita
先輩
- 14 Jan 2009
- 1,660
- 444
We're not trying to "wear you out", "nitpick", etc. (Also, Mike is not a moderator, but his posts above are worth a read). This started when you came into a thread started by a beginner, and told him things like this (without any caveats):
This is true in some contexts, but not true in a lot of others, and is also a common beginner misunderstanding. It is not a personal attack to point that out - not just for your sake, but for the original poster of this thread and other people who might be reading.
It is the nature of this forum, particularly the Learning Japanese subforums, that corrections are made. Since I'm not a native speaker, Toritoribe does correct me when I say something wrong or dumb, as well. I take that as a good thing; it's actually quite hard, as Mike said, to get feedback a lot of the time.
This is true in some contexts, but not true in a lot of others, and is also a common beginner misunderstanding. It is not a personal attack to point that out - not just for your sake, but for the original poster of this thread and other people who might be reading.
It is the nature of this forum, particularly the Learning Japanese subforums, that corrections are made. Since I'm not a native speaker, Toritoribe does correct me when I say something wrong or dumb, as well. I take that as a good thing; it's actually quite hard, as Mike said, to get feedback a lot of the time.
thesuker
先輩
- 20 May 2014
- 242
- 3
Continuing on the -ている topic, I'm starting to understand it, but there are some particular cases that I don't get. I have no problem in just accepting it's that way. What moves me to ask is more curiosity than necessity..
Why do we say 知っています in affirmative, yet we say 知りません in negative? For example 子供の時、英語を知っていました。でも、日本語を知りませんでした。
Could it be because knowing something is the result of a process that happens over a period the time, and not knowing something is a present state?
Why do we say 知っています in affirmative, yet we say 知りません in negative? For example 子供の時、英語を知っていました。でも、日本語を知りませんでした。
Could it be because knowing something is the result of a process that happens over a period the time, and not knowing something is a present state?
nekojita
先輩
- 14 Jan 2009
- 1,660
- 444
知る is classified as 瞬間動詞, which means a verb representing an instantaneous change. Think of it as the transition from 知りません to 知っています. In this case we easily can explain 知っています as being in the "state" of knowing something. 知ります does get used, just not to refer to the state:
(examples borrowed from this corpus)
そういう人も、いつかは挫折を知りますよ (description of future)
まず声をかけ、状況を知ります。そして、必要な部分だけを援助します。(description of process - these are instructions which are often written using ます or dictionary form).
The issue is then why the negative of 知っています is generally 知りません not 知っていません (although the latter is sometimes used). In most other cases you'd expect, and get 〜ています and 〜ていません - for example, you do say 分かっています and 分かっていません as opposites of each other.
Apparently a few linguists have come up with theories about why this is, but basically 知る is just a bit of an oddity here and it's easiest to remember it as an exception
(examples borrowed from this corpus)
そういう人も、いつかは挫折を知りますよ (description of future)
まず声をかけ、状況を知ります。そして、必要な部分だけを援助します。(description of process - these are instructions which are often written using ます or dictionary form).
The issue is then why the negative of 知っています is generally 知りません not 知っていません (although the latter is sometimes used). In most other cases you'd expect, and get 〜ています and 〜ていません - for example, you do say 分かっています and 分かっていません as opposites of each other.
Apparently a few linguists have come up with theories about why this is, but basically 知る is just a bit of an oddity here and it's easiest to remember it as an exception
- 22 Feb 2008
- 18,266
- 4,926
@MRubingh -san, there are many threads/posts about ～ている form in this forum. For example, the newest one;
https://jref.com/threads/います-ています.55658/
There is also an explanation in Tae Kim's site you recommended.
Other uses of the te-form – Learn Japanese
(See "Enduring state-of-being vs enduring state of action Vocabulary".)
explanation in Genki (images one of our members posted previously) (note: "this group" refers to Group 3 (punctual verbs) in the last image)
And here's an example;
まだ太っていますが、実はこれでも痩せてきているんです。
I'm still fat, but actually I'm going down in weight.
(Is it possible to consider that 太っています expresses on-going action in this sentence?)
Hope these will be helpful for you to understand the concept of ～ている form.
@Kraise -san,
Although the context states the meaning, as Mike-san wrote, a comma is often put after 起きて (i.e. もう起きて、いなかった) in this usage in order to avoid being misinterpreted as the negative of the -te iru form.
https://jref.com/threads/います-ています.55658/
There is also an explanation in Tae Kim's site you recommended.
Other uses of the te-form – Learn Japanese
(See "Enduring state-of-being vs enduring state of action Vocabulary".)
explanation in Genki (images one of our members posted previously) (note: "this group" refers to Group 3 (punctual verbs) in the last image)
And here's an example;
まだ太っていますが、実はこれでも痩せてきているんです。
I'm still fat, but actually I'm going down in weight.
(Is it possible to consider that 太っています expresses on-going action in this sentence?)
Hope these will be helpful for you to understand the concept of ～ている form.
@Kraise -san,
Although the context states the meaning, as Mike-san wrote, a comma is often put after 起きて (i.e. もう起きて、いなかった) in this usage in order to avoid being misinterpreted as the negative of the -te iru form.
We learn grammar since in elementary school; such like verb conjugations, i-adjectives and na-adjectives(形容詞 and 形容動詞 in Japanese) or polite forms.
Kraise
先輩
- 8 Mar 2013
- 380
- 46
@Toritoribe -さん、
すみません、I really believed untill now that japanese didnt have to study grammar in school, being the main subject of their 国語 classes, the topics related to 古典, sorry.
すみません、I really believed untill now that japanese didnt have to study grammar in school, being the main subject of their 国語 classes, the topics related to 古典, sorry.
MRubingh
後輩
- 17 Nov 2014
- 40
- 5
I wrote that myself, in this thread. I've seen things that way for a long time now, and to arrive at that insight I do not need that person you mentioned.
"This started" ?!?! Well, sorry to be here on this forum and to have caused all this confusion. I'll try to keep out of the language threads on this forum then.
That last sentence is noted.
The rest is again yet another repetition of the same old issue of details versus abstract thinking. You Moderators pointing to context and concrete situations all the time (as you did again in the quote above), versus me trying to find "abstract rules". This issue seems to be pretty stubborn. We seem to live in completely different worlds mentally, with views (and learning styles) that seem stubbornly incompatible.
Which caused me to go out on a limb and google for { Japanese culture "abstract reasoning" }, which turned up hits like the following:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nisbett/cultcog2.pdf
Culture and Cognition (by Nisbett & Norenzayan)
http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Buchtel&Norenzayan_ThinkingAcrossCultures2009.pdf
Thinking across cultures (by Buchtel & Norenzayan)
http://www.competent.jp/blog.html?9
(These seem to be archived abstracts from a discussion forum)
I'm now seriously wondering whether I have to examine for myself whether I have an issue not only with the way of thinking (i.e. lack of abstract reasoning ability) of you Moderators, but whether I also seem to have an issue with Japanese and East-Asian culture in general. (Which is in some ways an interesting question to have discovered.) Me, I'm quite very definitely "into" analytical and abstract reasoning, i.e. the kind of reasoning that seems more or less to have been invented by the ancient Greek philosophers. I find it very hard NOT to think that way.
I'm wondering to which degree it is necessary to mentally "go native" in order to learn to read or speak the Japanese language.
Regards,
Menno ( メンノー )
- 22 Feb 2008
- 18,266
- 4,926
Just out of curiosity, what do you think about my example;
or other ones such like 雄大な景色が目の前に広がっている, ハンカチが廊下に落ちている or 道は緩やかに右に曲がっている。? Do you think these -te iru forms express on-going actions of "to get fat", "to expand", "to fall" or "to wind/twist" in your way of "abstract thinking"?
aspenx
後輩
- 13 May 2014
- 49
- 14
Hi Menno. I am (was?) an engineer by education. I remember modeling control systems and feedback loops and what not. It may sound superficial but I do understand where you are coming from regarding "abstract thinking".
However, as a "senior" in learning the Japanese language, I can tell you that the way to mastering this language isn't as easy as mathematically modeling however elegant. This is because a pinch of dumbing down here and there early on in your learning can have a huge impact on you down the road. You will be less flexible, gloss through too many nuances, and eventually not be open to other forms of the language that you are not familiar/comfortable with.
For example, in most Japanese language schools (that I know of), students are stuck with the -masu form for several months (some even years!) before the schools introduce any equivalent to it. This certain school (that I got myself enrolled in more than 10 years ago) however drilled the entire verb conjugation system at students once they finish with the hiragana. The difference is huge. The school did get quite a lot of criticism from casual learners who said the lessons were too hard. Many quit, but they also lost an advantage that had to be gained from "right education" early on.
I have been switching between "abstract thinking" and "nitpicking" for the longest time. This forum helps me to revise/reinforce the correct usage of the language and sometimes I even learn something new. As far as I see, there have been no aggression by anybody against you.
Please take into mind that the abstract thinking you mentioned is not for everyone. And certainly, it is not the way if you want to become really good at this language.
MRubingh
後輩
- 17 Nov 2014
- 40
- 5
Hello Aspenx san, and all,
Aspenx san, welcome to the forum, and thank you for your interesting and helpful posting.
---
Before I begin, I first want to streamline terminology a bit. Following the terminology used in the papers I mentioned, I'd like to introduce the following terms:
1) ANALYTIC reasoning and learning style = seeks to cut up problems into mutually independent subproblems, and seeks to formulate abstract rules/models to solve each subproblem, where the models/rules are ideally as independent from context as possible (i.e. the models are "general" i.e. "abstract").
2) HOLISTIC reasoning and learning style = does not dissect problems into subproblems, always looks at concrete cases, and always takes into account context. In this reasoning style, it is no problem that context can always have a very significant influence on the meaning of a part. It seems that, in this reasoning style, general models (that are meaningful in the "abstract" sense, i.e. without any context taken into account) are not sought or used (or at least not very much).
I.e. I'd like to replace "nitpicking" by "holistic reasoning". The holistic style is new and foreign to me (to tell the truth I'm fascinated by its alienness), but I'm open to the possibility that the holistic style may be a viable reasoning style too.
To summarize, the hypothesis is that Western culture and Western languages are relatively analytic, and that East-Asian culture and languages are relatively holistic. And the question is: to which degree is it necessary to adopt the holistic reasoning style when learning Japanese as a foreign language? (when one is a Westerner who has been previously conditioned to predominantly use the analytic reasoning style).
That is absolutely interesting. You wrote in your "info" that your native language is English. Your place of origin, Singapore, seems to put you in an excellent location to compare between "Western" (analytic) and "East-Asian" (holistic) cultures.
So you agree with the thesis that in order to learn to use the Japanese language at ADVANCED level, it is necessary to indeed adopt the holistic reasoning style to a certain degree. That is really interesting.
Your statements seem to imply that you think that it is possible to learn Japanese to beginner's (or medium) level using analytic style exclusively and without adopting holistic thinking -- but that it beomes hard to advance to proficient level without adopting a degree of holistic thinking. (Am I interpreting you correctly?)
Can you give a simple example of a Japanese sentence that can be understood only via holistic thinking, and that is hard to make sense of via analytic thinking?
---
I have another question: namely, to which degree may the lack of concern in native Japanese speakers for formulating clear grammar rules for the Japanese language be the result of the simple fact alone that they are native speakers? (i.e. have been brought up in the language, therefore "think in" the language automatically without having to "construct" sentences laboriously via conscious use of explicit grammar rules).
My own native language is Dutch, and I've been on a forum for learning Dutch as a foreign language, and I found it hard to explain Dutch since I have little idea of Dutch grammar rules -- when speaking Dutch, I do not use grammar rules and rely exclusively on my "innate feeling" for the language. Note that my own "deemphasizing" of grammar rules for Dutch is unrelated to the fact that Dutch (as a typical Western-European culture) is predominantly analytic in nature. For a foreign language like German or English, I do need grammar, and experience shows that on a conscious level (where one can formulate and discuss things) I know more about German and English grammar than many native German or English speakers (who do not need grammar for their own native languages). Conversely, I'd assume that the few people learning Dutch as a foreign language would probably know more about Dutch grammar than I do. My question is: To which degree are we confounding this "innate language feeling" factor for native speakers with the tendency of the "holistic reasoning" approach to deemphasize grammar rules?
That is: Is our assessment that Japanese is by nature a "holistic thinking style" language correct, or are we merely being confused by the fact that native Japanese speakers do not really NEED grammar themselves? I'm not intending here to accuse anyone of a lack of knowledge, I only want to eliminate a factor that could conceivably skew our analysis.
---
Of course. That is very obvious. Learning styles differ significantly between people, so I do understand that the analytic style is probably not at all helpful for some people (and I guess it might even cause some people to get confused and get onto wrong tracks).
However, I want to state that the reverse may also be true: namely, here in "the West" there exists a significant number of analytic thinkers, to whom the analytic learning style comes naturally, and who (like me) have the reverse difficulty, namely who have difficulty with and get confused by the "holistic" learning style. Working directly from a large set of concrete examples (each complete with a concrete context) and without much use of models and theories is really quite difficult for me, and the "holistic" approach positively confuses me (which was the cause for me mistakenly having gotten so upset with the Moderators for which I'd like to apologize).
It is now clear to me that the style in the language threads in this forum is strongly oriented toward the "holistic" learning style. Maybe to some extent this is only fitting, since "holistic" seems to be the Japanese culture, and in view of the thesis that the Japanese language uses a "holistic" thought pattern.
It is very clear that our esteemed Moderators on this forum are very concerned that analytic stuff may confuse people. Maybe to a certain degree that is fitting and correct. If it is true that learning Japanese, by the nature of the language, implies a necessity to absorb a degree of holistic thinking, then it follows that it seems correct that the language threads put a RELATIVELY larger emphasis on the holistic learning style than on the analytic learning style. However, for my taste I still feel that the holistic style is slightly too aggressively policed on this forum -- I feel that with my analytic preference I do not really belong here, and I'll probably go looking for other forums on which the analytic learning style is less strongly deprecated. It's a question of balance. Even if it is logical that the holistic approach should be preferred, then it still does not follow that the analytic viewpoint should be completely suppressed. Think of the significant precentage of analytic thinkers among the Westerners learning the Japanese language. For these people, I think a forum that exhibits some small degree of understanding of their way of thinking seems more helpful than a forum that seeks to "completely suppress" any form of analytic thinking. This is because communication needs to come from both sides: it is bridge building. The goal is to bridge between A (English) and B (Japanese). All I am saying is that, however much it is fitting and correct that the target language (B) receives the emphasis, despite this the bridge needs to connect not only with B, but also with A.
---
With best regards,
Menno ( メンノー )
Aspenx san, welcome to the forum, and thank you for your interesting and helpful posting.
---
Before I begin, I first want to streamline terminology a bit. Following the terminology used in the papers I mentioned, I'd like to introduce the following terms:
1) ANALYTIC reasoning and learning style = seeks to cut up problems into mutually independent subproblems, and seeks to formulate abstract rules/models to solve each subproblem, where the models/rules are ideally as independent from context as possible (i.e. the models are "general" i.e. "abstract").
2) HOLISTIC reasoning and learning style = does not dissect problems into subproblems, always looks at concrete cases, and always takes into account context. In this reasoning style, it is no problem that context can always have a very significant influence on the meaning of a part. It seems that, in this reasoning style, general models (that are meaningful in the "abstract" sense, i.e. without any context taken into account) are not sought or used (or at least not very much).
I.e. I'd like to replace "nitpicking" by "holistic reasoning". The holistic style is new and foreign to me (to tell the truth I'm fascinated by its alienness), but I'm open to the possibility that the holistic style may be a viable reasoning style too.
To summarize, the hypothesis is that Western culture and Western languages are relatively analytic, and that East-Asian culture and languages are relatively holistic. And the question is: to which degree is it necessary to adopt the holistic reasoning style when learning Japanese as a foreign language? (when one is a Westerner who has been previously conditioned to predominantly use the analytic reasoning style).
That is absolutely interesting. You wrote in your "info" that your native language is English. Your place of origin, Singapore, seems to put you in an excellent location to compare between "Western" (analytic) and "East-Asian" (holistic) cultures.
So you agree with the thesis that in order to learn to use the Japanese language at ADVANCED level, it is necessary to indeed adopt the holistic reasoning style to a certain degree. That is really interesting.
Your statements seem to imply that you think that it is possible to learn Japanese to beginner's (or medium) level using analytic style exclusively and without adopting holistic thinking -- but that it beomes hard to advance to proficient level without adopting a degree of holistic thinking. (Am I interpreting you correctly?)
Can you give a simple example of a Japanese sentence that can be understood only via holistic thinking, and that is hard to make sense of via analytic thinking?
---
I have another question: namely, to which degree may the lack of concern in native Japanese speakers for formulating clear grammar rules for the Japanese language be the result of the simple fact alone that they are native speakers? (i.e. have been brought up in the language, therefore "think in" the language automatically without having to "construct" sentences laboriously via conscious use of explicit grammar rules).
My own native language is Dutch, and I've been on a forum for learning Dutch as a foreign language, and I found it hard to explain Dutch since I have little idea of Dutch grammar rules -- when speaking Dutch, I do not use grammar rules and rely exclusively on my "innate feeling" for the language. Note that my own "deemphasizing" of grammar rules for Dutch is unrelated to the fact that Dutch (as a typical Western-European culture) is predominantly analytic in nature. For a foreign language like German or English, I do need grammar, and experience shows that on a conscious level (where one can formulate and discuss things) I know more about German and English grammar than many native German or English speakers (who do not need grammar for their own native languages). Conversely, I'd assume that the few people learning Dutch as a foreign language would probably know more about Dutch grammar than I do. My question is: To which degree are we confounding this "innate language feeling" factor for native speakers with the tendency of the "holistic reasoning" approach to deemphasize grammar rules?
That is: Is our assessment that Japanese is by nature a "holistic thinking style" language correct, or are we merely being confused by the fact that native Japanese speakers do not really NEED grammar themselves? I'm not intending here to accuse anyone of a lack of knowledge, I only want to eliminate a factor that could conceivably skew our analysis.
---
Of course. That is very obvious. Learning styles differ significantly between people, so I do understand that the analytic style is probably not at all helpful for some people (and I guess it might even cause some people to get confused and get onto wrong tracks).
However, I want to state that the reverse may also be true: namely, here in "the West" there exists a significant number of analytic thinkers, to whom the analytic learning style comes naturally, and who (like me) have the reverse difficulty, namely who have difficulty with and get confused by the "holistic" learning style. Working directly from a large set of concrete examples (each complete with a concrete context) and without much use of models and theories is really quite difficult for me, and the "holistic" approach positively confuses me (which was the cause for me mistakenly having gotten so upset with the Moderators for which I'd like to apologize).
It is now clear to me that the style in the language threads in this forum is strongly oriented toward the "holistic" learning style. Maybe to some extent this is only fitting, since "holistic" seems to be the Japanese culture, and in view of the thesis that the Japanese language uses a "holistic" thought pattern.
It is very clear that our esteemed Moderators on this forum are very concerned that analytic stuff may confuse people. Maybe to a certain degree that is fitting and correct. If it is true that learning Japanese, by the nature of the language, implies a necessity to absorb a degree of holistic thinking, then it follows that it seems correct that the language threads put a RELATIVELY larger emphasis on the holistic learning style than on the analytic learning style. However, for my taste I still feel that the holistic style is slightly too aggressively policed on this forum -- I feel that with my analytic preference I do not really belong here, and I'll probably go looking for other forums on which the analytic learning style is less strongly deprecated. It's a question of balance. Even if it is logical that the holistic approach should be preferred, then it still does not follow that the analytic viewpoint should be completely suppressed. Think of the significant precentage of analytic thinkers among the Westerners learning the Japanese language. For these people, I think a forum that exhibits some small degree of understanding of their way of thinking seems more helpful than a forum that seeks to "completely suppress" any form of analytic thinking. This is because communication needs to come from both sides: it is bridge building. The goal is to bridge between A (English) and B (Japanese). All I am saying is that, however much it is fitting and correct that the target language (B) receives the emphasis, despite this the bridge needs to connect not only with B, but also with A.
---
With best regards,
Menno ( メンノー )
Last edited:
Kraise
先輩
- 8 Mar 2013
- 380
- 46
I surely have no place in this thread anymore but, regarding the " to which degree it is necessary to mentally "go native" in order to learn to read or speak the Japanese language.", I'd like to point out that, as a Iearner myself, I've noticed that japanese has shown to be a quite unforgiving language if you try to progress without changing your mindset to "japanese mode".
Can't really give a better advice than the ones I've been given so far, "immersion is the way to go if you want to get far", proper comprehension of japanese will (with some frequency) come only after you've seen the its expressions used in tons of possible different ways, kind of an enlightening experience that will make you stop searching for equivalent words in your native language.
Can't really give a better advice than the ones I've been given so far, "immersion is the way to go if you want to get far", proper comprehension of japanese will (with some frequency) come only after you've seen the its expressions used in tons of possible different ways, kind of an enlightening experience that will make you stop searching for equivalent words in your native language.
nekojita
先輩
- 14 Jan 2009
- 1,660
- 444
たとえ、うなぎ文?
It's really not a matter of western vs. eastern schools of thought (my native language is English, btw). You seem to be interested in something like the grammar-translation method, which is ironically these days much less popular in Europe but still used to teach English in Japanese schools.
Feel free to analyse grammar etc. in your own threads here; my only issue was with you (as a self-admitted beginner) attempting to give advice to another beginner which was misleading. Not with having a model, but offering up a model that was incomplete and doesn't agree with standard linguistic models for ている
Here, for example, (EUC-JP encoding required ), which is a great site. I'll give a rough translation:
先にかんたんに述べてしまうと、まず、
１ 「Ｖ－ている」の形には本来ならないものが「状態動詞」
で、「Ｖ－ている」の形で、
２ 「進行中の動き」を表す動詞が「継続動詞」、
３ 「動きの結果としての状態」を表す動詞が「瞬間動詞」、
４ 常に使われる動詞が「特殊動詞」（例は後で出します）
となります。この分類のしかたのほうが、手続きが単純でわかりやすいので、ほとんどの文法書がこのやり方をとっています。
1. Verbs that don't take ている form are "stative verbs"
In ている form:
2. Verbs that show an ongoing action are "durative verbs."
3. Verbs that show the state/outcoming of an action are "
instantaneous verbs"
4. Verbs which always use ている are "special verbs" (examples given later).
He then adds that since way of dividing verbs is simple and easy to understand, most grammar books use this system.
See also this paper, which gives the same categories and says:
In the end, I do believe in 習うより慣れよ, lots of extensive reading and limiting the level of analysis. A good book on grammar (I recommend the どんな時どう使う series) certainly can help the learning process, but at some point you have to accept that natural languages are just messy, and don't follow a nice set of rules.
It's really not a matter of western vs. eastern schools of thought (my native language is English, btw). You seem to be interested in something like the grammar-translation method, which is ironically these days much less popular in Europe but still used to teach English in Japanese schools.
Feel free to analyse grammar etc. in your own threads here; my only issue was with you (as a self-admitted beginner) attempting to give advice to another beginner which was misleading. Not with having a model, but offering up a model that was incomplete and doesn't agree with standard linguistic models for ている
Here, for example, (EUC-JP encoding required ), which is a great site. I'll give a rough translation:
先にかんたんに述べてしまうと、まず、
１ 「Ｖ－ている」の形には本来ならないものが「状態動詞」
で、「Ｖ－ている」の形で、
２ 「進行中の動き」を表す動詞が「継続動詞」、
３ 「動きの結果としての状態」を表す動詞が「瞬間動詞」、
４ 常に使われる動詞が「特殊動詞」（例は後で出します）
となります。この分類のしかたのほうが、手続きが単純でわかりやすいので、ほとんどの文法書がこのやり方をとっています。
1. Verbs that don't take ている form are "stative verbs"
In ている form:
2. Verbs that show an ongoing action are "durative verbs."
3. Verbs that show the state/outcoming of an action are "
instantaneous verbs"
4. Verbs which always use ている are "special verbs" (examples given later).
He then adds that since way of dividing verbs is simple and easy to understand, most grammar books use this system.
See also this paper, which gives the same categories and says:
(I wouldn't recommend the above to someone just wanting to learn Japanese but if you're interested in the linguistics side then have a look).
In the end, I do believe in 習うより慣れよ, lots of extensive reading and limiting the level of analysis. A good book on grammar (I recommend the どんな時どう使う series) certainly can help the learning process, but at some point you have to accept that natural languages are just messy, and don't follow a nice set of rules.
aspenx
後輩
- 13 May 2014
- 49
- 14
I must first admit that the WOT got the better of me (my brain isn't processing everything). I state English as my native language just for convenience's sake. Depending on the definition of "native", I may be able to declare up to three.
I will just say I believe one has to be really precise (to the extent of being pedantic?) to be good at _any_ language.
I am not sure I understand what is required. I believe context (holistic?) is important in any sentence in any language. Are you suggesting otherwise?
Again, this has nothing to do with the nature of the target language. There are probably a lot more readers than the number of posts may suggest. I believe it is for the best interest of everyone to be really precise with the explanations. The "analytic" way is something that a Japanese native might be better suited to advise you on casually either because of the nature of your relationship or simply because the native had learned the language in a much different way that us (who pick it up as adults as a second/third/fourth language).
I didn't know there was a name for it! I was just talking about this with a friend the other day and he couldn't believe that I was "reading" Japanese novels even when I was just starting to pick up the language. It was certainly much more interesting than sloughing through sheets and sheets of grammar practice...
- 22 Feb 2008
- 18,266
- 4,926
つまり例示された具体例に関しては分が悪くて論破できそうにないから論点を一般論にずらすと。村上春樹なら「やれやれ」って書くところだろうな。やれやれ…。
@MRubingh -san, you can create a new thread for your linguistic interest. I strongly recommend reading one of our members eeky-san's posts; his questions, our answers, and his way of understanding.These would be definitely helpful for you. (If you find mojibake in his threads, please don't hesitate to inform that. I will revise the threads preferentially.)
Back to the topic of this thread "-te iru form"; I'm going to point out just one thing; the concepts "punctual/instantaneous" or "durative", which I mentioned previously in this thread, are not specific to Japanese grammar, as nekojita-san wrote.
Lexical aspect - Wikipedia
The pdf file thesuker-san provided and nekojita-san linked above would be helpful, too. (It's a bit long, though.) You 'll find that the "HOLISTIC" way of analysis is applied also for English verbs, not only for "East-Asian" languages, in the thesis.
@MRubingh -san, you can create a new thread for your linguistic interest. I strongly recommend reading one of our members eeky-san's posts; his questions, our answers, and his way of understanding.These would be definitely helpful for you. (If you find mojibake in his threads, please don't hesitate to inform that. I will revise the threads preferentially.)
Back to the topic of this thread "-te iru form"; I'm going to point out just one thing; the concepts "punctual/instantaneous" or "durative", which I mentioned previously in this thread, are not specific to Japanese grammar, as nekojita-san wrote.
Lexical aspect - Wikipedia
The pdf file thesuker-san provided and nekojita-san linked above would be helpful, too. (It's a bit long, though.) You 'll find that the "HOLISTIC" way of analysis is applied also for English verbs, not only for "East-Asian" languages, in the thesis.
