the past negative polite form of verbs.KrazyKat said:I'm not really sure where the -te form of verbs comes from. Can anyone help?
show me proof of the 'evolution' of 'da'.
and look at this website: Speaking polite Japanese - Tae Kim's Japanese grammar guide
under the part '「です」 is NOT the same as 「だ」'
kohlrak said:I wonder if that guy has ever heard of cultural taboo. Always using です for certain questions rather than だ is (major guess here, actually) like saying "am not" instead of "ain't."
And whether a verb is irregular or not has nothing to do with any other language.
For one, Japanese prose (literary, scholarly) uses だ profusely, and rarely です unless the author is being intentionally polite to the reader. People talking casually amongst themselves will often use だ or nothing at all. Probably 95% of all novels in Japanese use the word だ on average about 5-10 times per page. Can you say anything remotely similar about the word "ain't" in English?kohlrak said:Oh, that's right, i keep forgetting that they're not both the same type of things (languages) therefor cannot be compared. So i can't compare テデイーベア with teddybear, i can't compare 槭 with "maple tree" either. If you can compare those 4, then tell me why i can't compare "desu" as "am not" and "だ" as "ain't."
I can when it is in reference to this. Especially because the following thing he says has no source of information.JimmySeal said:For one, Japanese prose (literary, scholarly) uses だ profusely, and rarely です unless the author is being intentionally polite to the reader. People talking casually amongst themselves will often use だ or nothing at all. Probably 95% of all novels in Japanese use the word だ on average about 5-10 times per page. Can you say anything remotely similar about the word "ain't" in English?
"ain't" is a colloquialism. だ is not. There are times in even the politest of speech, where だ can be used without a hint of disrespect.
According to the credits of the page, it was wrote by "tae kim." Such an accusation requires either a source or an educated look at a language. I don't see "Dr." or any of the such anywhere. I'd like to know his qualifications to his assumption.As I've explained before, the 「だ」 is used to declare what one believes to be a fact.
Can anyone find any more documents that back up this guy's words? In fact, some of his lessons have been based upon "i have heard."「そうだと思います」 is valid while 「そうですと思います」 is not because 「です」 can only go at the end of the sentence.
kohlrak said:So i can't compare テデイーベア with teddybear, i can't compare 槭 with "maple tree" either. If you can compare those 4, then tell me why i can't compare "desu" as "am not" and "だ" as "ain't."
Aye, but you can use other languages to make an "educated guess."
kohlrak said:Stupid or ignorant is actually an exadurated meaning somewhat. In certain religons, being "pure" does mean being "stupid" and lack of beleiving what you are told (even by teachers) is supported, and that you should cross examine the possibilities first.
kohlrak, you remember of me at your age I used to learn stuff pretty much the same way, heads on, by myself.
However, for Japanese, I found that my usual brute force approach doesn't work well at all.
You see, I'm trying to learn to read/write kanas, and I'm back at grade school, writing symbols on a sheet of paper hundreds of times to make'em sink, now call that 'old style'.
However, as for the topic at hand, I have to say that I also find that learning the meat of verb conjugations is a must (which is why I bought the book Japanese Verbs: Saying What You Mean, by Tim R. Matheson).
If you want to read the content of his book, it is available online.
AND, I also believe that だ is some kind of verb, according to my definition of a verb anyway.
Those are Tae Kim's lessons? I e-mailed him about two years ago to tell him that one can't just invent meanings for words as one sees fit (in reference to his use of the term "gobi") and he told me that he was just gonna keep on doing what he's doing. He has no qualifications. His lessons are very nicely laid out and surely contain some very good information, but if you find anything that contradicts him, go with the other source.kohlrak said:I can when it is in referance to this. Especially because the following thing he says has no source of information.
According to the credits of the page, it was wrote by "tae kim." Such an accusation requires either a source or an educated look at a language. I don't see "Dr." or any of the such anywhere. I'd like to know his qualifications to his assumption.
Can anyone find any more documents that back up this guy's words? In fact, some of his lessons have been based upon "i have heard."
JimmySeal said:Those are Tae Kim's lessons? I e-mailed him about two words to tell him that one can't just invent meanings for words as one sees fit (in reference to his use of the term "gobi") and he told me that he was just gonna keep on doing what he's doing. He has no qualifications. His lessons are very nicely laid out and surely contain some very good information, but if you find anything that contradicts him, go with the other source.
kohlrak said:Age 26... hm... Might have hit that age where things start to not sink in so easily. They say the older you are, the less you can learn new stuff... Never found proof for it, but sometimes i agree. Oh, and i mean no offence by that.
kohlrak said:I find it easier to remember them if you use them in sentances that have meaning, rather than just rewriting them over and over. Though, might not be so easy for certain kana.
kohlrak said:No doubt, infact the webpage that sme one here found was by the author. It's very intresting and the best tut on verbs i've ever seen for any language. When i reach a time i can get my own credit card and such, i just may order that book.
Yulp, that's the site. I'm guessing by the head of the page though, that the book happens to have information that is not on that page. Thus, why i have plans to buy it in the future, even if i do become rather well if japanese by that time.
kohlrak said:Indeed, but it seems that there are 2 members of this place that seem to be persistant in trying to argue with me about something i say. I'm sure they know who they are, but i won't mention their names.
kohlrak said:EDIT: how old were you when you started to study?
Those are Tae Kim's lessons? I e-mailed him about two years ago to tell him that one can't just invent meanings for words as one sees fit (in reference to his use of the term "gobi") and he told me that he was just gonna keep on doing what he's doing. He has no qualifications. His lessons are very nicely laid out and surely contain some very good information, but if you find anything that contradicts him, go with the other source.
Ha. Funny. I did go through some of the chapters quickly on this page and found the approacc and topics to be weird comparing to everything I had read up to that point.
Yeah, it may be true... However, I still believe I learn quite fast But I have difficulty to get myself involved with something completely new, already getting a cranky old'timer I guess
Don't dismiss the web site already. The only thing that's added in the book is the kana writing, everything else is the same, but in html format.
Ah, well, there's always arguing for arguing sake I found that most of the times, when people argue too long on a definite subject, they most often loose perspective and end up agreeing upon without even realizing it because they express things differently, their minds just understand it differently.
25 I started sometime last year. I concentrated on trying to understand the spoken language only at first. I watched the entire "Let's Learn Japanese" series and it was a good starting point. But now I want to get a broader understanding and found out that I at the very least had to learn kanas. About kanji though, I wish they wouldn't exist!!!
JimmySeal said:The て form consists of the 連用形 of a verb followed by the particle て or で accordingly. In modern Japanese that 連用形 is often in a predictably modified form, such as 泳い instead of 泳ぎ, to give an arbitrary example.
"to be" is very much a verb, but in Japanese, だ is classified as a helping verb.
And whether a verb is irregular or not has nothing to do with any other language.
JimmySeal said:For one, Japanese prose (literary, scholarly) uses だ profusely, and rarely です unless the author is being intentionally polite to the reader. People talking casually amongst themselves will often use だ or nothing at all. Probably 95% of all novels in Japanese use the word だ on average about 5-10 times per page.
Mike Cash said:I think that needs a bit of clarification.
Most of the uses of だ in literary settings will be in quoted speech. Outside of that, である tends to be the norm. です is, as you state, typically nowhere to be found.
KrazyKat said:From just my experience, a lot of the novels I have read have used だ rather than である.
kohlrak said:From what i read, である is no longer in common use. Is it a writer thing or are they just old books? lol
Yes, the ones I'm familiar with also all use である at times.Mike Cash said:I'd be interested in hearing more about those novels. All the novels (and nonfiction) I have read have consistently used である。
Could you clarify what you mean by "consistently?"Mike Cash said:I'd be interested in hearing more about those novels. All the novels (and nonfiction) I have read have consistently used である。