hi kompostiturska,
first of all, nice theorizing, but the role of hiragana is precisely that: to add all the particles to the root kanji, derived from chinese. for example, Nakano (of the field or of the middle) would be (naka)no. naka in kanji, no in hiragana. there would be absolutely nothing to stop the use of the hiragana to provide the verb conjugations. In fact, its very purpose was to add these little bits and pieces to the root term.
Thanks for the tip on the Korean-Japanese connection! I will admit i don't really know too much on the subject, except that historically the influence on many levels appears to have been largely eastward - see Bruce Cumings for example on the history of korea and its relationship with Japan.
hi enk,
I think maybe you have misunderstood the point. I pointed out that Japanese has no conjugations, as evidence against a link between the two languages. By telling me that all the finno-ugric tongues did not have verb conjugations until they were added (how, exactly? you are not clear on this point) you are strengtheneing the evidence for a Finnish-Japanese link. Moreover, when I say that Japanese has no verb conjugations that depend on the subject, that is precisely what i mean. Does that preclude me knowing that Japanese has conjugations depending on the socio-hierarchical relationship between speaker and audience? I deliberately left out mentioning that since it is an irrelevancy for the case concerned. Thank you for your kind direction to Wikipedia, but I have already had to speak Japanese of the appropriate respective form to friends, colleagues, and superiors, so I am already only too aware of the painfully difficult and contorted forms you have to learn if living in Japan. Actually, the different forms come in part from relaxed use being an easier to enunciate form, and more formal ones being the full shebang of syllables. (example: to a friend: "wakannai"; to a colleague: "wakarimasen")
Finnish also has this to a lesser extent. Compare: "tiedatteko te? to "tiiaks saa?" or "ma meen kauppaan" to " mina menen kauppaan"... which one is used for friends, which one to employers?
Regarding swedish, it is interesting to note that it used to have conjugations for the plural form. English used to have conjugations for all the different subjects, but today all that remains (in the regular verbs) is the third person singular, the relic -s ending that many foreign learners of English love to hate. Is it not more likely that languages would move away from having conjugations, due to economy of syllables? [unless, of course, the language prefers to use the conjugation itself to specify the subject, so that there is no need to use a separate pronoun: example: Italian - "Sono Jan" not "Io sono Jan"("am Jan" not "I am Jan") - or "dove vai?" not "Dove tu vai"? ("where are going?" not "where are you going")]
regards,
Jan
Finnish and Japanese
Let's start over again:
conjunctions, those little words that tie other sentence elements together.
conjugation: what happens to verbs.
I said specifically that F-U languages had no conjunctions. For what
it may, you do seem to confuse the two terms quite often.
And Japanese verbs do conjugate, just not for person. Witness:
And in Finland, the hierarchal system between employer and employee is
far far far far more relaxed than it is elsewhere, even in the USA, for
instance. If I were to say "tiedättekö te?" to my boss, they would die
laughing. A good idea only if I covet their spot.
As for Italian, there are certain tenses where it is imperative that the
pronoun be used so as to not mix up which person is being referred to.
I more fear that I have no misunderstood your point, but I'm starting
to realize why people in my department were so adamant about laypeople
not making half-cocked conclusions as to the relationships between
languages. If you're interested in seeing how screwed up a real linguist
can get with trying to group languages, I highly recommend Greenberg's
work in the Americas with Amerindian languages. He based those
familial relationships on words he found in dictionaries, etc. and the result
was just as chaotic.
-君子 (言語学者)
conjunctions, those little words that tie other sentence elements together.
conjugation: what happens to verbs.
I said specifically that F-U languages had no conjunctions. For what
it may, you do seem to confuse the two terms quite often.
And Japanese verbs do conjugate, just not for person. Witness:
Based on that, then, the different verb forms, conjugated for tense (for instance) in Japanese:In linguistics, conjugation is the creation of derived forms of a verb from its principal parts by inflection (regular alteration according to rules of grammar). Conjugation may be affected by person, number, gender, tense, aspect, mood, voice, or other grammatical categories. All the different forms of the same verb constitute a lexeme and the form of the verb that is conventionally used to represent the canonical form of the verb is a lemma.
日本語ができますか。私は彼が病気だと思う：I think he is sick.
私は彼が病気だったと思う：I think he was sick.
私は彼が病気だと思った：I thought he was sick.
And in Finland, the hierarchal system between employer and employee is
far far far far more relaxed than it is elsewhere, even in the USA, for
instance. If I were to say "tiedättekö te?" to my boss, they would die
laughing. A good idea only if I covet their spot.
As for Italian, there are certain tenses where it is imperative that the
pronoun be used so as to not mix up which person is being referred to.
I more fear that I have no misunderstood your point, but I'm starting
to realize why people in my department were so adamant about laypeople
not making half-cocked conclusions as to the relationships between
languages. If you're interested in seeing how screwed up a real linguist
can get with trying to group languages, I highly recommend Greenberg's
work in the Americas with Amerindian languages. He based those
familial relationships on words he found in dictionaries, etc. and the result
was just as chaotic.
-君子 (言語学者)
-
Kompostiturska
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:19 pm
Although I'm still "level-sucky" in Japanese, I do know thatjanbrewer wrote: first of all, nice theorizing, but the role of hiragana is precisely that: to add all the particles to the root kanji
Except the fact that hiragana were created a lot later. The use of man'yoogana (kanji used to represent Japanese sounds) started around the 6th century, and besides, Chinese was the "language of the educated" for a very long time, so who knows how badly Japanese has been "damaged". A good comparison could be the loss of the possissive suffix in spoken Finnish (which irritates the hell out of me, BTW).there would be absolutely nothing to stop the use of the hiragana to provide the verb conjugations
Hi enk,
I do appreciate your input... Just that we seem to always misunderstand each other. I do not claim to know anything from a professional perspectice, and I agree that I am merely shooting off half-baked speculations based on casual observation- I have never denied this. (You should have known from my comments on "mokomaki hikitupa.") I would point out that the grammatical depth to which the people contributing to this discussion regarding similarities between Japanese and Finnish have gone is not as lame a standard of scholarship as Greenberg's misguided efforts. These are truly grammatical (not sure if that's the right word) similarities in both structure and the sound of repeating structures in both languages that adds the fascination - I read the discussion on phonemes and on percentage correlations etc, but I am not sure that these similarities we have found in Jap and Fin do not weigh a higher percent of contribution to the level of similarity between the languages, given that they are so fundamental to the languages in question. i do admit that the human brain has a lame grasp of probabilities, and will try to find patterns where there are none, but do you really mean to say that all the little suffixes that seem to correllate are a total coincidence? can you prove this? i would really like to see an extended rebuttal of there being any connection between Japanese and Finnish. The burden of proof lies with you, linguist.
Regarding our litle discussion on conjunctions and conjugations, I pointed out right after my first message that I had made a mistake - I had stated conjunctions instead of conjugations - I guess you never picked up on that. i have never spoken of conjunction (except unfortunately in error), you were the only one to bring that into the discussion, quite unilaterally. I did miss that you were changing the suject; I had just assumed you were continuing with the term "conjunctions" for my benefit. Anyway, there is no more need to tell me about Japanese conjugating - although I don't explicitly state it in the previous message; where I went off on a tangent about the different verb forms that depend on social hierarchy - i am aware of this, and took it as a given you would be too. I guess it was my fault for not communicating clearly enough. Anyway, I will repeat what i said for the THIRD time. 'Japanese has no verb cojugations dependding on the subject of the speaker". this should perhaps be rephrased, so that you understand: "Japanese verb conjugations do not change when the subject of the speaker changes." let's get this clear once and for all.
I know Japanese verbs DO conjugate, in fact that is what japanese verbs do a hell of a lot, just like Finnish. I did not make it clear enough that i know this, So here goes, my lunderstanding via examples - quick and easy - correct if I am wrong, please:
I understand = ymmarran = watashi wa wakarimasu
contrast with
you understand = ymmarrat = anata wa wakarimasu
I would do = mina tekisin = watashi wa shinakkereba naremasen
contrast with
you would do = sina tekisit = anata wa shinakkereba naremasen.
( I may have fluffed the Japanese forms here; don't have time to look them up)
easy, right? the finnish one changes, the Japanese does not.
and finally, how both japanese and finnish conjugate for tense, for example:
understand = ymmartaa = wakaru
I understand=ymmarran=(watashi wa) wakarimasu
understood= ymmarretty = !"#¤%
i never denied this in the first place, just was not clear. I will try to be more explicit next time.
"And in Finland, the hierarchal system between employer and employee is
far far far far more relaxed than it is elsewhere, even in the USA, for
instance. If I were to say "tiedättekö te?" to my boss, they would die
laughing. A good idea only if I covet their spot."
Of course. that is why I said "to a lesser extent." Why does the polite form even exist? In Japan, the interaction is far more ritualised and formal. If in Finland, there were such a formal climate, the more polite form would be used more often. What you are discussing is a cultural difference, an irrelevancy to what "moods" exist in the grammars of the langauges. Just because Finns won't use it, does not mean that it does not exist on paper.
"As for Italian, there are certain tenses where it is imperative that the
pronoun be used so as to not mix up which person is being referred to."
of course, something i am well aware of and never denied. Non ho mai detto che in Italiano non bisogna, a volte, utilizzare i pronomi. D'ora in poi, mi parli in Italiano se mi vorresti insegnare di questa lingua. (Matildemichi, mi dispiace un sacco se faccio dei sbagli... Sara' perche' sono passati tanti anni in che non parlo Italiano. Secondo me. e' la lingua piu' bella del mondo.)
Of course I defer to your superior knowledge as an asiantuntija in the field, but I wish you would not be so quick to assume that I know totally nothing, if I don't explicitly state every little thing that I know. I would like to discuss on a level removed from arguing over minutiae. Can you show me some conclusive evidence (since it seems so easy to dismiss the link) against a link between the two languages? I would like to know.
Regards,
Jan Brewer.
ps I have very little time and am squeezing these messages in when I can - so i don't express very clearly what i fully intend to say -apologies, please have patience!
I do appreciate your input... Just that we seem to always misunderstand each other. I do not claim to know anything from a professional perspectice, and I agree that I am merely shooting off half-baked speculations based on casual observation- I have never denied this. (You should have known from my comments on "mokomaki hikitupa.") I would point out that the grammatical depth to which the people contributing to this discussion regarding similarities between Japanese and Finnish have gone is not as lame a standard of scholarship as Greenberg's misguided efforts. These are truly grammatical (not sure if that's the right word) similarities in both structure and the sound of repeating structures in both languages that adds the fascination - I read the discussion on phonemes and on percentage correlations etc, but I am not sure that these similarities we have found in Jap and Fin do not weigh a higher percent of contribution to the level of similarity between the languages, given that they are so fundamental to the languages in question. i do admit that the human brain has a lame grasp of probabilities, and will try to find patterns where there are none, but do you really mean to say that all the little suffixes that seem to correllate are a total coincidence? can you prove this? i would really like to see an extended rebuttal of there being any connection between Japanese and Finnish. The burden of proof lies with you, linguist.
Regarding our litle discussion on conjunctions and conjugations, I pointed out right after my first message that I had made a mistake - I had stated conjunctions instead of conjugations - I guess you never picked up on that. i have never spoken of conjunction (except unfortunately in error), you were the only one to bring that into the discussion, quite unilaterally. I did miss that you were changing the suject; I had just assumed you were continuing with the term "conjunctions" for my benefit. Anyway, there is no more need to tell me about Japanese conjugating - although I don't explicitly state it in the previous message; where I went off on a tangent about the different verb forms that depend on social hierarchy - i am aware of this, and took it as a given you would be too. I guess it was my fault for not communicating clearly enough. Anyway, I will repeat what i said for the THIRD time. 'Japanese has no verb cojugations dependding on the subject of the speaker". this should perhaps be rephrased, so that you understand: "Japanese verb conjugations do not change when the subject of the speaker changes." let's get this clear once and for all.
I know Japanese verbs DO conjugate, in fact that is what japanese verbs do a hell of a lot, just like Finnish. I did not make it clear enough that i know this, So here goes, my lunderstanding via examples - quick and easy - correct if I am wrong, please:
I understand = ymmarran = watashi wa wakarimasu
contrast with
you understand = ymmarrat = anata wa wakarimasu
I would do = mina tekisin = watashi wa shinakkereba naremasen
contrast with
you would do = sina tekisit = anata wa shinakkereba naremasen.
( I may have fluffed the Japanese forms here; don't have time to look them up)
easy, right? the finnish one changes, the Japanese does not.
and finally, how both japanese and finnish conjugate for tense, for example:
understand = ymmartaa = wakaru
I understand=ymmarran=(watashi wa) wakarimasu
understood= ymmarretty = !"#¤%
i never denied this in the first place, just was not clear. I will try to be more explicit next time.
"And in Finland, the hierarchal system between employer and employee is
far far far far more relaxed than it is elsewhere, even in the USA, for
instance. If I were to say "tiedättekö te?" to my boss, they would die
laughing. A good idea only if I covet their spot."
Of course. that is why I said "to a lesser extent." Why does the polite form even exist? In Japan, the interaction is far more ritualised and formal. If in Finland, there were such a formal climate, the more polite form would be used more often. What you are discussing is a cultural difference, an irrelevancy to what "moods" exist in the grammars of the langauges. Just because Finns won't use it, does not mean that it does not exist on paper.
"As for Italian, there are certain tenses where it is imperative that the
pronoun be used so as to not mix up which person is being referred to."
of course, something i am well aware of and never denied. Non ho mai detto che in Italiano non bisogna, a volte, utilizzare i pronomi. D'ora in poi, mi parli in Italiano se mi vorresti insegnare di questa lingua. (Matildemichi, mi dispiace un sacco se faccio dei sbagli... Sara' perche' sono passati tanti anni in che non parlo Italiano. Secondo me. e' la lingua piu' bella del mondo.)
Of course I defer to your superior knowledge as an asiantuntija in the field, but I wish you would not be so quick to assume that I know totally nothing, if I don't explicitly state every little thing that I know. I would like to discuss on a level removed from arguing over minutiae. Can you show me some conclusive evidence (since it seems so easy to dismiss the link) against a link between the two languages? I would like to know.
Regards,
Jan Brewer.
ps I have very little time and am squeezing these messages in when I can - so i don't express very clearly what i fully intend to say -apologies, please have patience!
Last edited by janbrewer on Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:31 am, edited 7 times in total.
yes, all that still fits with this picture. the original man'yoogana were taken for their sounds, and Japanese was written phonetically. As time passed, the original kanji chosen for their phonetic similarity with Japanese were simplified into the kana.... they still bear semblance to the Chinese originals - e.g. "ka" looks much like the Chinese "jia."Kompostiturska wrote:Although I'm still "level-sucky" in Japanese, I do know thatjanbrewer wrote: first of all, nice theorizing, but the role of hiragana is precisely that: to add all the particles to the root kanji
Except the fact that hiragana were created a lot later. The use of man'yoogana (kanji used to represent Japanese sounds) started around the 6th century, and besides, Chinese was the "language of the educated" for a very long time, so who knows how badly Japanese has been "damaged". A good comparison could be the loss of the possissive suffix in spoken Finnish (which irritates the hell out of me, BTW).there would be absolutely nothing to stop the use of the hiragana to provide the verb conjugations
The verbs taken from Chinese did still have all the conjugations used for other purposes - tenses, conditionals, etc. - as the ongoing discussion with enk covers - so it seem quite unlikely they would bother to add the kana to these but not for the subject!!
Though sorry for pointing out the obvious...
enk wrote:Neither does Swedish:Japanese, by the way, has no verb conjunctions depending on the subject of the sentence.
jag vet
du vet
han/hon vet
vi vet
ni vet
de vet
Is it related then? Granted Swedish did use to have a plural form in
addition to the singular form.
so why do you talk about conjugations here, if you are addressing the claim that it has no conjunctions????????? you did understand what I meant.
Verbs do conjugate in Japanese, not for person, but for tense, mood, etc.;
more information on that can be found on Wikipedia, for instance.
As for conjunctions, Finnish did not have any of its own before it borrowed
or derived them, just like the rest of the F-U languages.
okay, now you are changing the subject. I had never intended conjunctions, and you knew that, so I was surprised when you used the expression here but took it as a propagation of the mistake, for my benefit. This is interesting, and I did not realise. I apologise for missing the switch. Japanese, of dourse, does have conjunctions like "dakara" and "kedo" ..... Can you shed more light on conjunctions in finnish? which ones do we have now, and where did they come from?
Thanks,
Jan brewer
-enk
ooh! I just can't get over this hobby!!! it's so addictive... here goes another one:
Jap speaker: "Ano.....
Fin: "No....
these are identical in meaning.
Anyway, upon further reflection, you can save that rebuttal, enk. i have been thinking - and the volume of stuff in each language that has zero correlation with each other is like, a million times the few coincidences...
these coincidences are pretty neat, though! I guess if you gave two teams of a million monkeys a million years with typewriters and the kind of phonetic, agglutinating particles that make up the languages, they would come up with some coincidences too, though maybe not as striking ones (the reason they are so strinking is they are so commonly used in daily life). well, it's been fun to dream, but I will give this up.
so, what do you think of the alleged connection between Tamil (spoken by Dravidians) and Finnish?
Jap speaker: "Ano.....
Fin: "No....
these are identical in meaning.
Anyway, upon further reflection, you can save that rebuttal, enk. i have been thinking - and the volume of stuff in each language that has zero correlation with each other is like, a million times the few coincidences...
these coincidences are pretty neat, though! I guess if you gave two teams of a million monkeys a million years with typewriters and the kind of phonetic, agglutinating particles that make up the languages, they would come up with some coincidences too, though maybe not as striking ones (the reason they are so strinking is they are so commonly used in daily life). well, it's been fun to dream, but I will give this up.
so, what do you think of the alleged connection between Tamil (spoken by Dravidians) and Finnish?
Proven!, which of you writes the wikipedia entry?sammy wrote:Cripes, I did not even notice - well spottedMark I. wrote:
I just looked dictionary what's evä in English = fin.
So, even those fins are coloured as Finnish!
Humuhumu, nukunuku, apuaa
Can there be more concrete link than this
Besides, some Finns also have a nose like a pig.
Q.E.D.
Not me, I'm apparently totally unknowledgeable about what I'mRichard wrote:Proven!, which of you writes the wikipedia entry?
talking about
.Mahalo sammy
Non ho bisogno di impartirti una lezione di niente, in quanto è futile.
La pace sia con te,
-enk
PS. Anyone who feels the need to correct my "Italian": go for it. I never
learned to write standard Italian and my grandparents mainly spoke nnapulitano
