Something form language courses i lack...

[kohlrak]

When learning klingon by myself, i learned alot about what to expect when learning a new language... Problem is, Klingon dosn't have different verb forms... The verbs don't conjugate, therefor conjugation is a problem for me... I learned a little from my first year of french (i'll be taking a few more years of it) but alot of these terms i've never seen before... Basically, i need some one to explain the following terms...

Attributive form

Terminal form

Continuative form

Imperfective form

Hypothetical form

Imperative form

conditional (i think i understand that, but i'm not quite sure...)

provisional

volitional

adverbial and
-te forms

Thanks in advance... And despite this may seem trivial... i'm actually trying to figure this out on my own so i don't have to request examples of all the forms of the cupola...

[Bucko]

Found this after searching Google for one minute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_grammar#Conjugable_words

Try using Google a bit more and I'm sure your questions will be answered.

Your welcome,

Bucko

[kohlrak]

Actually, that wikipage is a copy of http://www.jref.com/language/japanese_grammar.shtm which only goes over the terms for the stem forms and not the terms for the tail forms, and it has no examples.

Basically, you spent 1 minute to find a page full of information that i can't use at this point. It took me only 5 seconds to find the same information on an easier to read page simply by going to "language" then to "grammar" on the menu bar above.

Though, i thank you for putting some output into trying to help me... Though, my issue that started this stopic is still unresolved.

[Bucko]

Try dictionary.com maybe?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/attributive

[kohlrak]

1 step ahead of you, but i'd like to see you try to get meaning, considering it dosn't always explain the grammar meaning... For instance, "volitional"'s referance refers to an adjative and noun. It is not pertaining to the japanese conjugation of verbs. Therefor, there is an issue there.

[Bucko]

Dude, you're getting way to ahead of yourself. If you look in the dictionary you'll see that your 'volition' is your will. Something that you want to do, or want others to do. In English it's like saying "I've decided that I'll go university" or "let's go to the bar".

[kohlrak]

Holy crap, i didn't even notice... o.O maybe i need to just take a breather and get my head out of the book for 5 minutes. lol

[Bucko]

Maybe just take a break from the grammar? Remember there's a massive amount of vocab and kanji to learn too.

[kohlrak]

Eeh, but some of the kanji isn't even used anymore, and i know from klingon and french experience that i can't learn vocab words (and remember them) by any other method than actually using them. At this point, i still can't hold a basic conversation. Therefor, i cannot use any vocabulary or kanji.

[nice gaijin]

don't compare Japanese to English, French, or Klingon for that matter. It's not doing you any good. Learn the language on it's own terms, instead of trying to treat all languages like they work the same way.

[Bucko]

What do you mean some of the kanji isn't used? There are over 2000 used every day. If I look out my window I'll see about 200 characters just on signs on my street.

[kohlrak]

as some one said here (in another post i think), the kanji for the 2 ある are not commonly used.

don't compare Japanese to English, French, or Klingon for that matter. It's not doing you any good. Learn the language on it's own terms, instead of trying to treat all languages like they work the same way.

So i should relearn the term conjugation, and verb, and noun, and such?

[Bucko]

Some words don't use kanji, 99% do.

[nice gaijin]

The grammar structures in Japanese are very different from English. There is nothing wrong with using English words to describe Japanese grammar structures, but there's a point where you just have to use the language and walk on your own without using your experience with other languages as a crutch.

You seem to be reluctant to listen to those who have walked the path before you. Enjoy your road-rash.

[kohlrak]

and i know from klingon and french experience that i can't learn vocab words (and remember them) by any other method than actually using them. At this point, i still can't hold a basic conversation. Therefor, i cannot use any vocabulary or kanji.

Bucko, with that said, i point out that the quote above still remains an issue with learning new kanji.

The grammar structures in Japanese are very different from English. There is nothing wrong with using English words to describe Japanese grammar structures, but there's a point where you just have to use the language and walk on your own without using your experience with other languages as a crutch.

doing as close to literal translations as i can will help me understand the language itself and the logic behind it. And if it wasn't for my knowledge of using "to have" as a small example used in french, i would still be sitting here on lesson 8 of japanese trying to figure out why "have" is used to show something is located at a certain place. Thus why i do it.

You seem to be reluctant to listen to those who have walked the path before you. Enjoy your road-rash.

You're talking to a 16 year old... You think a 16 year old would take advice from others? lol Even that said, i still have high expectations for myself, and it is alot to say i plan on succeeding with my crazy idea, considering i am a pessimist at most times.

[nice gaijin]

doing as close to literal translations as i can will help me understand the language itself and the logic behind it. No, that is why you are still struggling with the difference and meanings of ありません and じゃありません

[Bucko]

You blatently admit to being stubbon enough not to take advice, yet you still come here with questions?

If you want a direct translation, "aru" means more along the lines of "exist". "Have" is "motte iru".

[kohlrak]

No, that is why you are still struggling with the difference and meanings of ありません and じゃありません

Actually, i've been done struggling with that quite a few replies ago...

You blatently admit to being stubbon enough not to take advice, yet you still come here with questions?

When i tell some one to jump i assume they will either jump, walk away or do nothing, stand alone action. When i tell some one to help me, i expect them to either help me, stand there and watch, walk away, or make it worse. When i ask for answers, i assume i will get answers stand alone as answers. When i ask for advice, i assume i will get advice, stand alone as advice. Does it get anymore simple? You fail to realize that i do know the dangers of what i am doing, but i'm doing it anyway in spite of it. So obviously, i have some kind of idea what's going on.

If you want a direct translation, "aru" means more along the lines of "exist". "Have" is "motte iru".

もって - (1) with; by; (2) by means of; because; in view of

ある - (v5r-i,vi) (1) to live; to be; to exist; (2) to have; (3) to be located; (4) to be equipped with; (5) to happen; to come about

Are you trying to scare me off again?

[JimmySeal]

You're talking to a 16 year old...
なるほどなぁ…
:-)

[undrentide]

もって - (1) with; by; (2) by means of; because; in view of
ある - (v5r-i,vi) (1) to live; to be; to exist; (2) to have; (3) to be located; (4) to be equipped with; (5) to happen; to come about
Are you trying to scare me off again?

もって you've quoted is 以って, while what Bucko is referring to is 持っている.

[kohlrak]

naruhodonoa? ... somthing didn't translate right... lol Apparently i missed one of the "special cases" conversions... なぁ looks like one...

持っている

quick undetailed analasys says it's a form of "to carry." And i stress "undetailed"

[jt_]

kohlrak,

A question for you:

Are you interested in learning Japanese -- that is, actually becoming proficient in speaking, reading, writing and understanding the language? Or are you just interested in learning "about" Japanese -- that is, analyzing and talking about "how" Japanese works (and the "logic" behind it) in English?

If it's the latter, please feel free to carry on as you're doing now.

If it's the former, a word of advice: give up on your current approach to the language, and just buy yourself a college-level Japanese textbook (Genki, Nakama, Yookoso, Japanese for Busy People to name a few; there are many, some better than others, but any one will do for your purposes) and start from Chapter 1, page 1.

What you are doing now is akin to attempting to learn to play the piano by opening it up and examining the insides of the instrument, while reading a book that explains the physics of how it produces sounds. It may be a fascinating exercise, but you could keep it up for a year and still not even be able to play "Chopsticks."

Just my two cents -- as with any unasked-for advice, you're free to take it or leave it.

[kohlrak]

Are you interested in learning Japanese -- that is, actually becoming proficient in speaking, reading, writing and understanding the language? Or are you just interested in learning "about" Japanese -- that is, analyzing and talking about "how" Japanese works (and the "logic" behind it) in English?

I plan on learning how it woks, so i can "plug things in" so to speak. Basically, i wanna try to do this so i can learn the language via "pluggin' things in" (kinda hard to explain what i mean by this) since it'll save more time. Basically, time is my enemy, so i'm trying to force everything in by "killing myself" with a large amount of research and such. Then when school time arrives (which will be in a month or so) i will just plug things in when i need to say something, and basically just read what is said. From there it would (with much much time) make me capable of speaking, reading, writing, and understanding at a basic level. From there to intermediate, then advanced, then "proficient", then fluent. Such a task would take quite a few years, but it would require only so much time a day (time i can put forth during the boring hours of the day when i can't just pull out the book since i leave it at home and knowing i would have too much work when i get home to read).

If it's the former, a word of advice: give up on your current approach to the language, and just buy yourself a college-level Japanese textbook (Genki, Nakama, Yookoso, Japanese for Busy People to name a few; there are many, some better than others, but any one will do for your purposes) and start from Chapter 1, page 1.

I wish that were an option... The book would probably require a few hours a night, which would be impossible to provide during the school year, and after a school year, anything i learned previous of it and do not use would not be remembered. i'm entering 10th grade, and they love to put work on us. Then on top of that i would have to go to a collage bookstore (love to know where the nearest one is) and hope they have some kind of resource for japanese. Now i don't know about other places, but i live in PA and it's rather hard to get such material. Then we talk about costs... I'd expect such a book to be at least $50, and i do not have a job. I can't ask my dad for money as we already have a book to study japanese from. I honestly wish i could take your advice.

What you are doing now is akin to attempting to learn to play the piano by opening it up and examining the insides of the instrument, while reading a book that explains the physics of how it produces sounds. It may be a fascinating exercise, but you could keep it up for a year and still not even be able to play "Chopsticks."

But in due time, after pressing the keys i learn how make sound, from there i could elaborate on that idea and make a collection of sounds. Then i could conjure up a tune. From a few tunes i could make a song.

Just my two cents -- as with any unasked-for advice, you're free to take it or leave it.

I have no choice(that seems to be the message that isn't getting around), but to leave it, whileso, i do respect it.

[Bucko]

kohlrak, trust me, your "system" here will only lead you down a slower path to Japanese proficiency, and if time really is your enemy, you're doing yourself a big disfavour by trying to analyse and piece together the language this way. All this time could be spent learning new vocab, katakana, hiragana, and kanji, using very basic sentence patterns. What I recommend is that when you learn a new sentence structure just take it for what it's worth and don't analyse it too much. Then, come three or six months later, the true, deep "meaning" (that you're searching for now) will suddenly click. From that moment that sentence pattern will actually feel natural since you'll be able to feel the meaning of it when you use it.

Take it from me man, I've been studying Japanese for over 18 months now, and teaching English to Japanese for almost two years, so I feel pretty confident of my advice.

Best of luck.

[Mike Cash]

Post #23 provided me with a much needed chuckle. Many thanks.

[Ma Cherie]

Yeah, after reading this thread I was giggling a bit. :blush: :p

[Mike Cash]

I think the OP might like to look into studying linguistics rather than attempting to recreate the study of linguistics independently.

He might also give a little thought to modifying his snottiness.

[kohlrak]

kohlrak, trust me, your "system" here will only lead you down a slower path to Japanese proficiency,

Do i have a choice?

All this time could be spent learning new vocab, katakana, hiragana, and kanji, using very basic sentence patterns.

Previous of the lesson i am on, the only actual lessons were either strictly vocab, phrases with no way to elaborate, or the one lesson 8 where we talk about how to request different items in a restaurant. I really don't have basic sentance patterns.

What I recommend is that when you learn a new sentence structure just take it for what it's worth and don't analyse it too much.

It's not the sentance structure i'm analyzing. It's conjugation. I'm trying to figure out how the words themselves work. Subject Object Verb is a very easy structure to learn. That is, if that is what you mean. Right now i'm trying to figure out the classes of words and how to use them. It's not like i have anything much to go on at this point. when asking about じゃ and では i was trying to assertain if they were conjugations of a verb into a small verb phrase. I never knew it was 2 particles put together.

Then, come three or six months later, the true, deep "meaning" (that you're searching for now) will suddenly click. From that moment that sentence pattern will actually feel natural since you'll be able to feel the meaning of it when you use it.

like i said, it's not the sentance pattern i'm having trouble with. It's making vocabulary and understanding the words. It's not like i'm trying to make 2 or more seperate clauses, i'm trying to create simple 1 clause sentances like "how are you?" or "i like to eat" or such. Now i know that's slightly more complicated in japanese, but those were simply examples of what i'm attempting.

Take it from me man, I've been studying Japanese for over 18 months now, and teaching English to Japanese for almost two years, so I feel pretty confident of my advice.

I think i understand your point of view now... I think you're getting the wrong idea of what i'm attempting. I'm not trying to force the language in my head, i'm trying to get to a point that i can construct simple sentances from a dictionary.

I think the OP might like to look into studying linguistics rather than attempting to recreate the study of linguistics independently.

I'm not trying to recreate the study.

He might also give a little thought to modifying his snottiness.

If you were given more questions than answers and staying up so late your eyes are poppin' out, you'd be a little cranky too.

[Mikawa Ossan]

quick undetailed analasys says it's a form of "to carry." And i stress "undetailed"
You know how "take" in English can have about a zillion different meanings depending on context?

持つ is similar to this. BTW, 持っている is kind of like the "-ing" form of the verb. The base verb is 持つ, and it could be translated as "to have/hold", but due to the nature of Japanese verbs, this English translation is nowhere near perfect for grammatical reasons.

[kohlrak]

You know how "take" in English can have about a zillion different meanings depending on context?

Of course, it's irregular.

持つ is similar to this. BTW, 持っている is kind of like the "-ing" form of the verb. The base verb is 持つ, and it could be translated as "to have/hold", but due to the nature of Japanese verbs, this English translation is nowhere near perfect for grammatical reasons.

Irregular, perhaps? ある seems to be irregular too. And whatever あります's infinitive form is likely to be as well.

[Mikawa Ossan]

ある seems to be irregular too. And whatever あります's infinitive form is likely to be as well.
The base form of あります is ある, by the way. Incidentally, Japanese does not have infinitive forms of verbs. ある、たべる, etc. are called "base forms" or "dictionary forms" of the verb, but they are not infinitives.

[kohlrak]

i ment います not あります. X'D what was i thinking? lol

There are no infinitives? Intresting... They used for seperate clauses or used for some other case? (considering "dictionary forms" in other languages are used for seperate clauses, but from what i've seen in japanese so far, it may not be such. Other than "non past tentative" and "non past polite" forms, i really have no way to interpret the meaning of verbs.)

[tanhql]

you can check up these sites:
http://www.guidetojapanese.org/particles2.html
http://japanese.about.com/library/weekly/aa031101a.htm
http://www.animeyume.com/site_features/jguide4.html
http://www.timwerx.net/language/jpverbs/

[kohlrak]

That about page on the verbs explained a small amount...

http://www.animeyume.com/site_features/jguide4.html

Partially wrong, but is partially correct as well... (it says that there are only 2 irregular verbs...)

http://www.timwerx.net/language/jpverbs/ <-- appears to be the most useful... どもありがとう、tanhqlさん！　(qatlho'neSqu', tanhql Dun)

[tanhql]

http://www.animeyume.com/site_features/jguide4.html
Partially wrong, but is partially correct as well... (it says that there are only 2 irregular verbs...)

and there is. only する and 来る are irregular. 行く is not a irregular verb, since all it's conjugations, except the ~te form, follows the rules of it's group's conjugation.

what you are doing now is akin to a japanese learning english by 'dissecting' english. like:
is 'pare' derived from 'are'? since both have an 'are'? so does it mean one person cannot pare, since 'are' is a plural, and 'pare' is derived from 'are'?

[kohlrak]

That's not quite how i'm analyzing the language. What i'm doing at the moment is trying to find the different types of conjugation and how they affect the sentance. Then i shall worry about the types of verbs and how they're conjugated as i come across them in the book. Currently, だ is conjugated in my book. But not all the conjugations and conjugation types are listed at the moment. Even bigger problem is that they use words that are different from the referances on most websites such as wiki. You don't find "tentative" (for example) conjugation on wiki or even on this site, for that matter, but you do in my book. I've figured out as much as my book is incomplete and unthorough, despite how it advertises that it is thorough. Basically, it does serve as a model for research though. it provides ideas, that mearly need elaborated on. Right now, it is introducing the copula. Therefor, my current objective is to understand the types of conjugation (not types of verbs at this point) so i can understand the conjugations of だ which aren't fully documented here. All the pages to this point explain how it is used, but not the effects of the use of such conjugation. EXAMPLE:

Hypothetical form (仮定形 kateikei)
is used for conditional and subjunctive forms, using the -ba or -domo ending.

They say that instead of saying "it is used to give a feeling of unsureness". And i'm only guessing that it is what they mean.

and you forgot one... だ. Just because it's called the "copula" dosn't mean it's not a verb. And what about "to do"? i heard "to do" is irregular as well. Well actually, according to the dictionary, する could be many things, including "to do." It could also mean "to print" "to rub" and such as well. Based on my knowledge of other languages "to print" and "to rub" are not irregular.

And no, i'm not trying to be rude. It now is all comming together what your problem with my method is... You're not understanding what my method is... We're not on the same page... It seems that you guys think i'm trying to understand meaning from nothingness. I'm trying to learn how things are done, not neccesarily a point behind doing those things. Creepy enough, i like to analyze english as well. lol

[tanhql]

します is the present formal form of する
テニスをします = 'to do tennis'. to play tennis. テニス is tennis.
仕事をします = 'to do work'. to work. 仕事 is work.
掃除をします = 'to do cleaning'. to clean. 掃除 is clean
勉強をします = 'to do study'. to study. 勉強 is study

so from this examples, する can change nouns or adjectives into verbs. like 'study' in english can be a noun or verb, and the する seperates the noun meaning from the verb meaning.

[kohlrak]

reminds me of "pull a" in english. EX:

Pull a Terminator.

Meaning: To kill everything in an area using the strongest weapons at hand.

Though, i can see already that it's not quite the same. lol And i really love how that works. X'D Though, such a verb is begging for abuse, but i will try not to abuse it. lol

[Bucko]

That about page on the verbs explained a small amount...
http://www.animeyume.com/site_features/jguide4.html
Partially wrong, but is partially correct as well... (it says that there are only 2 irregular verbs...)

Chances are that most of those learning websites are 100% right. And when you think they're wrong, you're probably wrong, as in your example given above. You should trust them more.

[kohlrak]

and what do you have to base this on? Alot of people make learning websites with false facts just so they look smart and are appriciated. And everyone loves to be appriciated.

[Bucko]

I base it on the fact that I've never come across an error on a Japanese learning website.

[kohlrak]

Try taking a look at a C++ learning site, it counts as a learning site too, right? Many have errors.... (and no, i'm not making a pun about 404.)

[Bucko]

In my experience, when I've come across a would-be error, it turned out to be something that I just hadn't learnt yet.

[kohlrak]

I've used C++ for a while now, way too often is the standard library taught as if it is actually part of the language when it is not. This is very misleading and when writing stuff for other processors, this could add alot of extra work and time in writing a compiler. And alot of C++ examples don't compile. lol

[jt_]

I plan on learning how it woks, so i can "plug things in" so to speak. Basically, i wanna try to do this so i can learn the language via "pluggin' things in" (kinda hard to explain what i mean by this) since it'll save more time. Basically, time is my enemy, so i'm trying to force everything in by "killing myself" with a large amount of research and such.You repeatedly mention how limited your time is. Well, if that's the case, it's even more important for you to make the best use of that time by studying effectively, rather than just spinning your wheels with "research" that isn't going to get you even one step closer to understanding even the most fundamental points of the language.

Then on top of that i would have to go to a collage bookstore (love to know where the nearest one is) and hope they have some kind of resource for japanese. Now i don't know about other places, but i live in PA and it's rather hard to get such material. Then we talk about costs... I'd expect such a book to be at least $50, and i do not have a job. I can't ask my dad for money as we already have a book to study japanese from. I honestly wish i could take your advice.I'd be willing to bet that you could find a decent Japanese textbook somewhere online (perhaps second-hand) for considerably less than $50.

I wish that were an option... The book would probably require a few hours a night, which would be impossible to provide during the school year, and after a school year, anything i learned previous of it and do not use would not be remembered.The book wouldn't "require" any more time than you have and are willing to put into it. Just pull it out when you have time, read a bit, and put it away when you need to do something else.

It now is all comming together what your problem with my method is... You're not understanding what my method is... We're not on the same page... It seems that you guys think i'm trying to understand meaning from nothingness. I'm trying to learn how things are done, not neccesarily a point behind doing those things. Creepy enough, i like to analyze english as well. lolThe problem is that you're trying to reinvent the wheel, and doing so in the most difficult way possible. You're taking fundamental concepts of Japanese and making them infinitely more complicated than they need to be. It's unfortunate, because you seem intelligent enough to be a pretty good student of the language -- if only you were approaching it in a better way.

[Mike Cash]

I base it on the fact that I've never come across an error on a Japanese learning website.

That's a damned poor thing to base it on.

I guess you never saw the old "Japanese Is Possible" series on the thankfully-defunct Maktos site.

[kohlrak]

You repeatedly mention how limited your time is. Well, if that's the case, it's even more important for you to make the best use of that time by studying effectively, rather than just spinning your wheels with "research" that isn't going to get you even one step closer to understanding even the most fundamental points of the language.

Well, i can't study effectively when i have nothing to study.

I'd be willing to bet that you could find a decent Japanese textbook somewhere online (perhaps second-hand) for considerably less than $50.

I would require a method of payment. That would require my dad's credit card or such, and that would require his approval... He does not approve of any purchases online at all... he's paranoid.

The book wouldn't "require" any more time than you have and are willing to put into it. Just pull it out when you have time, read a bit, and put it away when you need to do something else.

If i stuff enough in my head, i can and study what i stuffed in my head without lugging a book around with me duringschool and stuff. I have enough to carry as it is, plus i run the risk of something happening to it. THen i'd be out of a book for however long it takes to replace it, when i can simply cram stuff into my head now, then worry about it comming to me naturally.

The problem is that you're trying to reinvent the wheel, and doing so in the most difficult way possible. You're taking fundamental concepts of Japanese and making them infinitely more complicated than they need to be.

Not quite. ANd i don't mind extra complications actually, though i don't see where it's extra complication. I love to think. I also make habit of converting 8 bit binary numbers in my head when i'm really really bored.

It's unfortunate, because you seem intelligent enough to be a pretty good student of the language -- if only you were approaching it in a better way.

I take that as a compliment, but i simply have an unusual method of taking each task at hand. I learned klingon this way (shame how many people take me unseriously for it) and only a few weeks after learning the grammar rules it actually poped. All i need is my dictionary for the vocabulary and i can convey any message and i can easily understand any message in klingon. The only reson vocabulary is a problem, is that i don't have enough people to talk to in klingon to use the vocabulary with. Now, i'm aware that Japanese will take slightly longer as it has a few more rules. But, unlike klingon, i will have lots of people to use the vocabulary with, so when it does click, i become better and better much faster than i did with klingon. I thank you as well though, not very often that i am complimented.

[Mike Cash]

If you were given more questions than answers and staying up so late your eyes are poppin' out, you'd be a little cranky too.

From Tuesday through Thursday, I spent 65 straight hours at work, during which time I not only performed my job duties, I also suffered through a bout of either influenza or food poisoning, with accompanying fever, vomiting, and explosive diarrhea (which circumstances required me to clench and retain for four hours). During those 65 hours, I was never once in a horizontal position. Following that, I had about 6 hours to be at home before going to work again. I spent those 6 hours sleeplessly making countless miserable dashes between my futon and toilet and then went and performed my job duties again. Friday night I got to lie down for the first time in four days.

Did you see me being cranky?

[kohlrak]

nope, and if you can handle that, then it's something to honor.

[KrazyKat]

Of course, it's irregular.
Irregular, perhaps? ある seems to be irregular too. And whatever あります's infinitive form is likely to be as well.

I don't think you know what regular means. I suggest looking it up.

[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:
http://japanese.about.com/library/weekly/aa031101b.htm
http://japanese.about.com/library/weekly/aa031101c.htm

[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 involentary 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 (http://momo.jpf.go.jp/sushi/) 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]

http://writingforkeeps.com/VerbAloneArticle.htm
http://writingforkeeps.com/VerbPlusArticle.htm

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?

[Bucko]

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.

[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: http://www.guidetojapanese.org/polite.html
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: http://www.guidetojapanese.org/polite.html
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."

[Bucko]

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 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."
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 referance to this. (http://www.guidetojapanese.org/polite.html) 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."

[Bucko]

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

You definately 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.

[Bucko]

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).

If you want to read the content of his book, it is available online, I don't know if it was already pointed out by someone else, but here it is anyway: http://www.timwerx.net/language/index.htm .

AND, I also believe that だ 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, I don't know if it was already pointed out by someone else, but here it is anyway: http://www.timwerx.net/language/index.htm .

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. (http://www.guidetojapanese.org/polite.html) 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.
http://blog.tatsuru.com/
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 definately 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.

[KrazyKat]

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

I had a quick look through some of the novels I've got here.　I didn't count anything in speech marks.
幽霊博物館　by 赤川次郎 seems to use　both, although I think である was more common.
I couldn't see any である at all in 体は全部知っている by 吉本ばなな
だ　seemed more common in イン・ザ・プール by 奥田英郎　but である was used too.
I couldn't really judge which was more common in 風の海、迷宮の岸 from 小野不美子’ｓ　十二国記

Here's one example from 幽霊博物館
私とカメラの間に、誰かがフラフラと出て来たのだ。

[Mike Cash]

Could you clarify what you mean by "consistently?"

I think it is adequately qualified by the nine words preceding "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.

I don't doubt that it is used. That's why I asked for some examples of what sort of novels/writers used it, thinking that perhaps the information might help in spotting some sort of commonality (genre/author/period/etc).

[Elizabeth]

I don't doubt that it is used. That's why I asked for some examples of what sort of novels/writers used it, thinking that perhaps the information might help in spotting some sort of commonality (genre/author/period/etc).
The only example I have within reach is 治太宰の斜陽、a literary novel published in 1947 and just at a quick glance counted an equal number of each, da and de aru.

[JimmySeal]

I think it is adequately qualified by the nine words preceding "consistently".
Well I would think so too, but the implication that you have never read a book that used だ outside of a quotation nearly knocked me out of my chair. That is what you meant by "consistently," right?

Flipping to pages at random,
リング, 鈴木光司
現に、小栗は椅子に座ったまま、動こうともしない。い や、動けなかったのだ。

ローマは一日にして成らず、塩野七生
ペルシアは、繁栄するこの一帯をわがものにしようと欲 したのだ。

'course it's easier to find examples of だった (as opposed to であった) than だ because most fictional exposition tends to be in past tense.

[Elizabeth]

Well I would think so too, but the implication that you have never read a book that used だ outside of a quotation nearly knocked me out of my chair. That is what you meant by "consistently," right?

It was merely a response to the earlier post that "da" in novels tended to be used instead of de aru. Consistently I would take as regularly, in each instance, that had not been his experience.

[kohlrak]

I don't understand why you want to argue about what you hardly know or understand yet.

I'm not starting another argument, i was just stating that from what i have read, it is no longer in common use.