This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Sentence structure?

Same here, haha! I was like wait, what, I have no idea what this says! Don't worry Kirakira, I have a lot of trouble like I said with So/N, Tsu/Shi. Sometimes I mistake katakana Re for hiragana Shi, but then I notice it's a lot more rigid...and surrounded by other katakana,

At least I got the time right. Well, I'm not learning Japanese to play FFIX, this is just helping me and such, to get my hiragana and katakana recognition up to speed.
 
I have a lot of trouble with so/n and tsu/shi in katakana.

Tsu ツ ans so ソ have the dot-like short line(s) on the left relatively vertical, whereas shi シ and ン have the dot-like short line(s) on the left relatively horizontal.
 
Wow, that's really clear...is there any way you could give me a short little test, like words that has those symbols in it?

Also, I was doing conjugations of words and stuff today...it's still really hard for me. :\ Some of it comes naturally (sounds right) but a lot I'm still not understanding.
 
Wow, that's really clear...is there any way you could give me a short little test, like words that has those symbols in it?
I think distinguishing them could be difficult in printed letters. Handwriting becomes more distinct.
But basically, shi and n require all lines to be more like horizontal, whereas tsu and so have all lines leaned toward vertical.
ニ歎ニ団
ニ箪ニ停?

if it becomes too vertical "so" starts to look like "ri."
ニ椎?ニ箪
 
Thanks again! Let's see if I get'em right. More vertical = Shi...hm. First one is Tsu/Shi, second one is...so/n?
And when I apply the horizontal/vertical:


First one is more vertical, meaning it's so, and the second one almost horizontal, so it's "zoon"!
 
Last edited:

First one is more vertical, meaning it's so, and the second one almost horizontal, so it's "zoon"!
yes! Also there is another clue in hand writing and in some printed styles.

The former is so, and the latter is n.


The first one is tsu, the second shi.
 
Here's another way to distinguish between "shi" and "tsu."

shi: The starting points of all three strokes lie roughly on a vertical line.


tsu: The starting points of all three strokes lie roughly on a horizontal line.




some font examples
 
Wow. Absolutely wow...thanks, you guys, this is the most help I've EVER gotten!!

 
I like to watch TV.

We can also say

I like watching TV.

Both the phrases 'to watch TV' and 'watching TV' are nouns.


I sure appreciate this thread and the time taken to explain nominalizers.

I've had a hard time with understanding the uses for 'koto' and 'no' myself. However, one thing keeps running me into a wall:

Though 'to' or 'with' can be added to a verb, that phrase is still describing an action, thus is still a verb. Adverbs are also possible in some cases, even conjuctions, but still I don't get yet how it could become a noun.

I've never been taught growing up that adding an '-ing' suffix to a verb makes it a noun. I was shown that a noun is strictly a person, place, thing or idea. If the word decribes an action of any kind, no matter the tense, it is still an action word, thus always a verb.

"to watch T.V." stills sounds like an action phrase to me, therefore, with only the word "T.V." representing a noun of any kind, being a thing.

So I'm getting hung-up, admittedly, on the explanations given in this regard. I guess my resulting question is, are these sorts of action phrases able to become noun phrases only for Japanese structure's sake?
 
I think it is natural to feel that way. You are right. Verbs are verbs. Adding "to" or "ing" to the verb does not change the category of the word. However, we are not talking about how the word sounds like or its semantic meaning.

(Strictly speaking, the phrases "to watch TV (or watching TV)" is produced only under certain circumstances. Imagine what comes after or before it in real conversation. "Watch TV" is also uttered only in specific instances, like "Watch TV online!", urging someone to take action.)


When it comes to nominalizers, we are only talking about syntactic aspects or how words are combined in the sentence (also, we are not talking about tense). Probably, native speakers of Japanese would feel the same way if someone asked the difference between taberu + koto (no) vs. taberu. Semantically, taberu koto (no) and taberu have little difference. Difference arises only in combination with other words in a sentence.

If you are uncomfortable with the idea of nominalizers you can think of it roughly in this way:

1. Sentences are made of combination of words.
2. Certain words come with certain words (this is called syntax).
3. In Japanese and English, a group of words, called "noun", can come to A and B position in the sentence "A is B" or the sentence "A wa B desu" (Actually, there are other sentences that should be included in this explanation, but for convenience and to avoid confusion, let's not talk about other sentences).
4. A certain group of words, called "verb", cannot come to A or B position without modification.
5. If you want to put a word of this group ("verb') in A or B position, you need to add "to" or "ing" to the word in English or "koto" or "no" to the word in Japanese (strictly speaking, "no" cannot be attached to the word that comes to position B).
 
Last edited:
Hey, xtremevillan, try out this java game for kana to help your kana recognition. You just match the hiragana to the katakana and vice versa to earn points. You even get the additional bonus of learning the old kana ゐ/ヰ (wi) and ゑ/ヱ (we)!

By the way, anyone know how to input those by typing on Mac OSX? I had to resort to the virtual keyboard....
 
Wow, thanks so much! That helped a lot. I used the vertical shi horizontal tsu method, and for n/so, I used the ri comparison.
 
By the way, anyone know how to input those by typing on Mac OSX? I had to resort to the virtual keyboard....
If you use the IME ことえり, I've heard that "wyi" is for ゐ/ヰ, "wye" for ゑ/ヱ.
(I'm not a Mac user, so I'm not responsible for this.)
 
Concerning the verb nominalizer thing. I think it boils down to this theoretical stance: When you say "I like running/to run" you are describing the IDEA of running. You are not currently running, you don't plan to in the future (If you restrict your understanding of the present situation to the text), and you aren't saying you did it in the past. You are discussing the abstraction of it. Therefore, "running" in that sentence is not a verb but in a noun in the classic definition of the word. I'm assuming that the same holds true for Japanese with the "no ga" or "koto" 'form' of a verb.
 
If you use the IME ことえり, I've heard that "wyi" is for ゐ/ヰ, "wye" for ゑ/ヱ.
(I'm not a Mac user, so I'm not responsible for this.)
ゐゑヰヱ

Hey, you were right! Thanks for that (never would have guessed that on my own)!
 
Thank you for this link, Glenn! I'll have to read it over a few times... I've never taken notice of this grammatical structure before, so it'll take some getting used to.

Ganbatteimasu! :haihai:
 
スティルツキン sounds like steelskin to me.. lol
スティールスキン sounds more accurate though.

「見ることは信じることです」 does that make sense?
 
見ることは信じることです」 does that make sense?

The Japanese equivalent of Seeing Is Believing is 「百聞は一見に如かず(hyakubun wa ikken ni shikazu)」, which translates to something like, "Hearing about it a hundred times does not equal looking at it once with your own eyes".
 
That seems closer to "a picture is worth a thousand words." I guess it works both ways?
 
they are all very similar ideas.
I knew what i said wasnt accurate but i gave it a shot anyways, lol.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…