Something form language courses i lack...

[kohlrak]

Regular verbs follow a "regular pattern." Which means a consistent pattern.

 

[KrazyKat]

So why would you think that "take" would have more meanings because it is irregular, or that ある/いる is irregular, or that if "to print" and "to rub" are not irregular in other languages that means that they aren't in Japanese either?

 

[kohlrak]

Because irregular verbs typically are the most important verbs (the most used ones). To be, to have, to do, to need and such. I'm surprised "talk" isn't one of the common ones.

 

[KrazyKat]

I need
I needed
I have needed

Where is that irregular again?

Aside from that it seems you have a fundamental flaw in your understanding. Just because you see a correlation between regualrity and how often a verb is used in English doesn't mean that they actually affect each other. And neither of them have any realtion to how many meanings a word has. Further, if such a correlation does exist in English why would you assume that it should hold for other languages?

 

[kohlrak]

need might be in other languages.... =p

ANd the correlation does work for other languages...

Avoir (to have)

être (to be)

faire (To do)

all 3 are french.

 

[KrazyKat]

But "need" is an English word.

Yes, some commonly used words in French are irregular, but Japanese only has 2 irregular verbs. Its not the only language with a very small number of irregulars, I think that Esperanto for example doesn't have any! How is that the same? And how are you claiming that this affects the meaning of the words?

 

[kohlrak]

I think that Esperanto for example doesn't have any! How is that the same?

IT'd be a first... I brought up a question at the KLI (Klingon Language Institute) about how the personal pronounce might simply be verbs (the copula in particular) only conjugated. Such would then be the only irregular verb in klingon. Upon bringing this up, a few people shared information on how "the copula" was used in their native language and other languages they've studied. Arabic and Hebrew had some intrestings concepts with it. Typically the most used verb in almost every language, and typically the most radical irregular. And the fact klingon only has 1 irregular verb, i think Okrand made it that way on purpose to add to it's uniqeness.

And how are you claiming that this affects the meaning of the words?

Why the above post was said, would be for the quote below.

Further, if such a correlation does exist in English why would you assume that it should hold for other languages?

I was mearly pointint out that such a corolation is not just static to english. I couldn't possibly come up with the list of irregulars in english without some other language to compare it to, simply because everything sounds normal to me.

 

[tanhql]

an irregular verb in japanese is when the other tenses have totally different readings, especially the kanji part. there only 2 irregular verbs, to come and to do.

to come:
kuru(present casual)
kimasu(present polite)

kita(past casual)
kimashita(past polite)

konai(present negative casual)
kimasen(present negative polite)

konakatta(past negative casual)
kimasen deshita(past negative polite)

notice the reading for the kanji part of the verb changes from 'ku' to 'ki' to 'ko'? this is irregular. to do, suru, is also the same. it changes from 'su' in suru to 'shi' in shimasu.

i think the irregularity you mean is the conjugation part. do you know that japanese verbs are divided into 3 groups? irregular verbs are group 3. group 1 verbs and group 2 verbs have different kinds of conjugation. just as in english, to change a verb to past tense, you can't just add an 'ed' to all verbs. there are some that lies outside of this rule, like 'got', came', 'saw'. i think the irregular in english is 'eat' to 'ate'.

here's a page that explains the verb conjugations:
Charts to Help You Conjugate Japanese Verbs
How Do You Use the Japanese Verb "Te"

 

[kohlrak]

actually, i'm reading one on the verb conjugations now. But do you really not consider だ as an irregular verb?

 

[tanhql]

actually, i'm reading one on the verb conjugations now. But do you really not consider だ as an irregular verb?

だ as in です? if so, that depends if you regard 'is/am/are' as a verb in english.

all verbs in japanese, in their dictionary forms, end in a 'u'.
like 'iku', 'hanasu', 'kaeru'. if it doesn't have a 'u', it is not a verb.

 

[kohlrak]

nothing is completely consistent. I don't see what it isn't a verb. despite it is an involentary action, it is still an action. Therefor, a verb.

 

[tanhql]

nothing is completely consistent. I don't see what it isn't a verb. despite it is an involuntary action, it is still an action. Therefor, a verb.

like? give examples.

you're starting a really meaningless 'debate'. all your predecessors have learn japanese according to these rules, and have learn pretty well.

if you think your method of learning japanese is good, try doing the sushi test in a few months. i won't be surprised if you can't even pass the test.

 

[kohlrak]

i just may if i have the time *bookmarks*

 

[Mike Cash]

nothing is completely consistent. I don't see what it isn't a verb. despite it is an involentary action, it is still an action. Therefor, a verb.

As much as I would love to jump in and agree with you here, I can't.

I would just like to say that it is refreshing to find another person who, like myself, believes that when reality and his opinions don't jibe, it is reality that needs to get with the program.

 

[kohlrak]

Of course, logically we can't exist... Anyway, i still dont' see why it isn't a verb.

 

[tanhql]

Of course, logically we can't exist... Anyway, i still dont' see why it isn't a verb.

how is 'is/am/are' a verb in english? a verb is an action word. like 'i am a boy'. what is the action done?

 

[kohlrak]

the act of to equal something. "to exist as." and Exist is a verb. Like i said, it's an involentary action. Just because it's not outgoing, dosn't mean it's not an action. Saying it isnt' is like saying "to have" isn't because the verb would be "to get" and "to have" just means you have it, "weather you like it or not."

 

[tanhql]

Verb-Misdefined vs. Hunter-Joyce Grammar Program--Hands-on.htm
Misdefined Verb/Subject Article--Hunter, Anthony D.

i especially like(from the first website):

The Variant Forms of the Verb BE Do Not Show Action

The verb be can have eight forms when it functions as a main verb. None of these forms shows action. Consequently, textbook writers have devised the so-called definition "state-of-being-word" to help students identify these words. Unfortunately, what they are defining appears to be the predicate noun and predicate adjective that follow the verb as complement. Nouns like hero, skier, and winner and adjectives like huge, wealthy, and circular that are the genuine state-of-being words. The function of the verb be in such sentences is merely to juxtapose the subject and predicate elements, to be a space-filler between these two elements of the sentence. (In fact, there are languages that omit the verb between such elements).

in japanese, sometimes desu/da is completely ommited.

and all verbs in japanese have the nasai command form, kudasai please form, etc. does desu/da have any of this form? if so, what do they mean?

all verbs in japanese can be used on their own, ie, the whole sentence is just comprised of the verb itself, like 'ikimasu!'. can desu/da do the same?

are you still so stubborn to think that desu/da is a verb?

 

[kohlrak]

and all verbs in japanese have the nasai command form, kudasai please form, etc. does desu/da have any of this form? if so, what do they mean?

Is there a "please form" of the "to have" verb? I guess that isn't a verb either, eh? I don't think "to have" can be used alone in japanese either, can it?

 

[tanhql]

but the form exists, doesn't it?
持ってください
有ってください

is there even a ~te form for desu/da?

and 'to have' can be used in individual sentences.

鉛筆を持っていますか？
はい。持っています。
do you have a pencil?
yes, i do.

ここにお手洗いは有りますか？
はい。有ります。
is there a toilet here?
yes, there is.

and in 'correct' japanese, you need a particle to attach a verb to an object. what's the particle that you attach desu/da to an object?

 

[kohlrak]

and in 'correct' japanese, you need a particle to attach a verb to an object. what's the particle that you attach desu/da to an object?

comes back to my point that really no one is to judge what is correct and what is not considering every language has many dialects and many people of a same dialect have a different preferance in their own speech. Just like some people in america don't like to use contractions.

but the form exists, doesn't it?
持ってください
有ってください

Lemme guess, you made that based on regular conjugation of the verb? Find it in a book. If だ was regular, i'm sure you could make that form for it too, but it's not regular. Just because you don't find it in a book dosn't mean it exists.

This came up in klingon debates already. We came to the conclusion that just because something can be formed grammatically correct, dosn't mean it is correct. For instance:

HoHqu'

HoH - To kill

-qu' - (Emphasises the verb. Makes it's meaning stronger. Kinda like "really" does in english.)

Essentually, it means "really kill" but that can't happen(but is used to show emphasis, even though it can't happen), but it's gramatically correct, but it can't be used. That means "HoHqu'" is impossible. Along those lines, "please have" is also impossible, but it can still be formed. Just because you can form those verbs that way, dosnt' mean the verb form exists... If you know what i mean, it's rather hard to explain... In english "have" could be consiered an imperative to "to have" but you can't actually have an imperative "have" form, but you could form it that way, so to speak. Even though it it spelt the same way as another form. Just because you can gramatically make something, dosn't mean it exists.

 

[tanhql]

all verbs, no matter which group it is in, can be made into ~tekudasai form. had 'da' been even a verb, all japanese textbooks and learning websites will include it as an irregular verb. but up till now, all the textbooks and websites i've seen don't even include it as a verb. maybe i should ask my native japanese teacher tml as to is desu/da a verb or not.

and why i say all verbs in japanese must end in a 'u', is because the conjugations make use of the last/last two syllable to conjugate, like ku, gu, u, ru, su, tsu, mu, nu, bu. all verbs in dictionary forms have to end in one of these sounds to be able to conjugate. even the irregular suru and kuru ends in 'ru'.

and if desu/da is a verb, what is the causative and passive forms (and etc forms) of desu/da?

 

[The7thSamurai]

Lemme guess, you made that based on regular conjugation of the verb? Find it in a book.

(Have please) 持ってください = over 260,000 results in Google
(Be please) 有ってください = over 400,000 results in Google

 

[KrazyKat]

Why the above post was said, would be for the quote below.

Then you haven't actually answered any of my questions in post 52.

To clear some things up:
A verb doesn't have to be an action, they also express events and states.
だ is a 助動詞 (auxiliary verb) and it's -te form is で. Or at least it's 連用形(renyoukei) is, I'm not really sure where the -te form of verbs comes from. Can anyone help?
We don't usually write ある in kanji.

 

[kohlrak]

Then you haven't actually answered any of my questions in post 52.

Actually it, reply 53 was an answer for 52.

all verbs, no matter which group it is in, can be made into ~tekudasai form.

And who's to say だ had one, but since it was un needed, it was forgotten? Actually, that would be provided that the language had written instructions upon creation. Problem is, most languages change by use. Kinda like "gonna."

and why i say all verbs in japanese must end in a 'u', is because the conjugations make use of the last/last two syllable to conjugate, like ku, gu, u, ru, su, tsu, mu, nu, bu. all verbs in dictionary forms have to end in one of these sounds to be able to conjugate. even the irregular suru and kuru ends in 'ru'.

だ is naturally irregular, therefor the ones who conjured it up as だ probably realized this (or just plain didn't care) and maybe it was a syllable or 2 longer than they liked it so they just skipped over the last syllable.

(Have please) 持ってください = over 260,000 results in Google
(Be please) 有ってください = over 400,000 results in Google

I have an inability to read japanese at the moment, could you give me a translation to "だから自信を持ってください!"? Thank you... Oh, and as a note, you trust google way too much, man. For all we know, those search results are making fun of the ability to conjugate it in that way. Perhaps maybe how people read "ish" in english. Plus, i said to find it in a book. Google's NOT a book like many people seem to think it is.

and if desu/da is a verb, what is the causative and passive forms (and etc forms) of desu/da?

If something is not needed, it's forgotten. Think of it as "evolution of language." And no, i'm not an athiest that beleives people evolved, but languages do go through "survival of the fittest" and such. Problem is, english seems to be too clingy with it's words.

A verb doesn't have to be an action, they also express events and states.

Not all actions are outgoing. My bringing up of "have" was just that. Where is the actual action in having something? Have is a verb in many languages, not just japanese. I see just as much action in "have" is I do "to be." We forget that un needed exceptions to a language aren't written down, because they're un needed exceptions. It's called "generalization." They do this to keep the size, and cost, of books down.