Something form language courses i lack...

[tanhql]

I'm not really sure where the -te form of verbs comes from. Can anyone help?

the past negative polite form of verbs.
~ta -> ~te
~da -> ~de

and kohlrak, your 'arguement' in post 75 contains a lot of falacies. show me proof of the 'evolution' of 'da'.

だから自信を持ってください means 'so please have the self-confidence'.

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」'

and the phrase 'いいですか？' has the same meaning as 'いいの?', only the formal is polite. so by your reasoning, does it means that ですか is the polite form of の?

 

[kohlrak]

show me proof of the 'evolution' of 'da'.

Weeeeeeeell. There is no proof (that i can come up with at the moment cause i'm still incapable of conjuring up sentances in japanese let alone reading historical information) that だ. evolved, nor is there any proof that it didn't. Typically it does. Almost every word of every language goes through some change. We can look at "boat" (english) and "boot" (german) and notice that they are close. Actually, we can conferm that german and english have the same roots, they just developed in different ways. For だ not to have evolved, it would be quite a surprise.

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」'

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."

 

[The7thSamurai]

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."

Like we've told you before, there's really no comparison when it comes to English/Japanese formalities.

 

[JimmySeal]

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.

 

[kohlrak]

Oh, that's right, i keep forgetting that they're not both the sametype 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 compater those 4, then tell me why i can't compare "desu" as "am not" and "だ" as "ain't."

And whether a verb is irregular or not has nothing to do with any other language.

Aye, but you can use other languages to make an "educated guess."

 

[JimmySeal]

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."

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.

 

[kohlrak]

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.

I can when it is in reference to this. Especially because the following thing he says has no source of information.

As I've explained before, the 「だ」 is used to declare what one believes to be a fact.

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.

「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.

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."

 

[The7thSamurai]

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."

You definitely shouldn't compare テデイーベア with teddy bear. The big danger with the Japanised English words is that often the meaning changes slightly, so as a general rule, they should be learned as separate words. One prime example is comparing ナイーブ with "naive". Although ナイーブ originally came from the English word "naive" the meaning is slightly different. ナイーブ means "pure" or "innocent", but the English version can have a slight negative meaning to it - "stupid" or "ignorant".

 

[kohlrak]

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.

 

[The7thSamurai]

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.

That's it. I give up. Goodbye and good luck.

 

[persil]

Really interesting discussion!

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 level, 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).

AND, I also believe that 窶堋ｾ is some kind of verb, according to my definition of a verb anyway.

 

[kohlrak]

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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).

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.

If you want to read the content of his book, it is available online.

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.

AND, I also believe that だ is some kind of verb, according to my definition of a verb anyway.

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.

EDIT: how old were you when you started to study?

 

[JimmySeal]

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."

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.
だ and です can not be whimsically interchanged to switch between polite and casual forms. That much is true. But it's not for the reasons that Tae Kim states there.

 

[persil]

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.

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.

 

[persil]

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.

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

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.

Yeah, however, I believe in multiple senses used = deeper learning. It has worked pretty well until now. I'm almost done with those senseless scribblings

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.

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.

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.

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.

EDIT: how old were you when you started to study?

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!!!

 

[kohlrak]

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.

Yulp, read the bottom. Anyway, i was always suspicious of his content when i read the gobi sections... Don't know what it was... I included them anyway, but right now you've only confirmed my theory of not trusting that page. I will promptly cut them out...

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.

That's probably why they felt weird. lol I'm completely new to japanese, and they still felt weird.

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

That's why i'm stuffin' my head with junk right now while i still can.

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.

The only page i found that was, apparently, made specifically to eliminate the problems with japanese verbs that i have been having that apparently others have had. No way i'm dismissing it yet. Infact i've emailed the admin of the site to ask what isn't convered since the page does warn that not everything is covered. I don't know if he means the exceptions or if he means a few of the verb forms/combinations. That's what i am afraid of at this point, other than that, i would actually include it as a primary study resource.

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.

Actually, i've come to realize that was my problem here from the start. I don't think like everyone else. Normally i dont' see it this radical though when i join group boards... I still don't think everyone quite has the right idea of what my study tactics and plans are. Who knows, maybe in the typical week it takes for some one to undertand what i really mean, you might actually see my way of learning just like yours, only less on the wallet. Maybe not, though, but i am noticing that over the past few days it went from quit a bit of hostility, to a sudden warmth, but not everyone's bein' warm yet. It's this thing about me... lol I had this problem with the KLI as well. First everyone saw what i was saying as no sence, then they understood me. lol Anyway, enough rambling...

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!!!

Aye, i know what you mean. I personally wish that kanji only represented verbs and were only 1 kanji. It does seemingly make conjugation a bit easier. I just don't like how they come in compounds, other than that i don't mind them. You might wanna try my practical usage method for the kanji, i think your study method would get annoying when studying the different meanings of the kanji. That is, providing that i have the right idea of what you're doing.

 

[KrazyKat]

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.

Thank you.

 

[kohlrak]

and that i can agree on. I only see that other languages can be a model for an educated guess when one is required. Sorry for any confusion that may have been aroused. When comparing languages, there are certain terms (like imperative form, verb, or noun) that are global for all languages. Any other comparisons i do are either literal translations, figurative translations, or educated guesses that you shall check on when appropriate. Using the grammar of one language is not to be compared to another. (Excluding the sentance order format, since it's typically standardized. EX: Subject: Dog Object: Cat Verb: chase. Format: OSV. Sentance: Cat Dog Chase.)

 

[Mike Cash]

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.

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.

 

[kohlrak]

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

 

[KrazyKat]

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.

From just my experience, a lot of the novels I have read have used だ rather than である.

 

[Mike Cash]

From just my experience, a lot of the novels I have read have used だ rather than である.

I'd be interested in hearing more about those novels. All the novels (and nonfiction) I have read have consistently used である。

 

[undrentide]

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

I wonder what you've read? Something must be wrong with it, as である is still much used, very common.
Here is just an example.
内田樹の研究室
This is a blog by Prof. Tatsuru Uchida of Kobe College. He is a famous writer as well, and his style is nothing exceptional (that means he is not a special person employing である style writing) - it is just a normal writing.

In his latest entry (today - 31st July) there are 16 である (21 if you count its past form であった), in another entry of 27th July, there are 8 である.
You'll find many である in books, blogs, etc. I don't understand why you want to argue about what you hardly know or understand yet.

 

[Elizabeth]

I'd be interested in hearing more about those novels. All the novels (and nonfiction) I have read have consistently used である。

Yes, the ones I'm familiar with also all use である at times.
You can see examples of regular です・ます looking at newspapers online,
at least NHK, but I think that is definitely the exception within the convention of "published/printed" materials.

 

[JimmySeal]

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?"
Here are the first two sentences of 世界の中心から愛をさけぶ:

朝、目がさめると泣いていた。いつものことだ。

And turning to a random page in リング the first copula I came across was だ (not in quoted speech).
In my admittedly limited reading experience, I've gotten the impression that だ is the norm, but that である crops up from time to time for variety or to make particularly complicated sentences clearer.

And turning to a random page in ﾆ椎?ﾆ停?愴丹 the first copula I came across was 窶堋ｾﾂ (not in quoted speech).
In my admittedly limited reading experience, I've gotten the impression that 窶堋ｾ is the norm, but that 窶堙??堋?窶堙ｩ crops up from time to time for variety or to make particularly complicated sentences clearer.