Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

underreacted.leaflet.pub

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 276 posts

Re: Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

#261

Post by charcircuit »

csande17 wrote: post #233
charcircuit wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The straw man is how you claim it is usually taught. You claim that only 2 groups are taught when 3 get taught. You claim that you are given arbitrary tables to memorize, but it's usually explained to foreigners that you replace the last romaji to i when conjugating the verb into -masu form. So in essence this article boils down to someone claiming that the usual explanation is confusing and then their own system tur…

I definitely remember only learning about two groups, personally. Is the third group, like, "irregular verbs", or do some books teach "the -suru verbs" as the third group (instead of "suru" being a single irregular verb that you can attach nouns to)?

The three groups taught to foreigners are:

- u verbs / Group 1 verbs / 五段活用

- ru verbs / Group 2 verbs / 一段活用

- Irregular verbs / Group 3 verbs / 不規則動詞

>or do some books teach "the -suru verbs" as the third group (instead of "suru" being a single irregular verb that you can attach nouns to)?

In books for native speakers instead of having irregular verbs they have:

- サ行変格活用 which are the suru and noun + する verbs

- カ行変格活用 which are the kuru verbs.

Re: Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

#262

Post by danabramov »

timr wrote: post #257
danabramov wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the explanation here is misleading Misleading means it leads to a wrong conclusion somewhere. Please demonstrate which wrong conclusion my article is leading to. >and that's because of the dependence on romaji / transliteration There is no "dependence" on transliteration per se. I use it as a visual shortcut for moving along the kana row, as I show in the middle of the post using the table. For all the examples we'r…

Speaking of defensive…you’re on every comment thread here, arguing with anyone who disagrees with you, even a little. I didn’t say you were “wrong” — I said that your approach isn’t going to work well for most people as they learn, because it’s missing context. I gave you an example in my comment. Take my advice or not, but it’s true. > What could kanji possibly have to do with this? We're discussing a thing rooted i…

I feel like there’s some kind of miscommunication, and I can’t bridge it, which is driving me a little crazy. I genuinely don’t understand why it’s bad that I wrote something for people who don’t want to depend on fluently reading kana for learning conjugation rules. I genuinely do not see the connection between the two — I don’t think there’s anything “simpler” in seeing how む becomes んだ than in how m_ + ita collapses into nda. It’s literally the same thing. There is no added clarity by using kana. I understand you’re “supposed” to learn it first and so on, but it does not actually aid the process of learning the specific things covered in the post. You mention identification of stems from kanji but this is not the thing I am teaching in the post? It’s about the rewrite rules once you know the stem, not stem detection.

The main thing I don’t get though is… I never claimed my post will be useful to “most people”. Where did you take that claim? Why is everyone assigning that claim to me and then refuting it? I repeatedly said many times in the thread that I don’t expect this to be helpful to anyone except people like me — and everyone is arguing that no, you should do it the other way around. Where is this assumption coming from?

Re: Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

#263

Post by danabramov »

lmm wrote: post #253
danabramov wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you just explain what you’re trying to say. I genuinely don’t understand your point. What is my mistake?

You're saying "romaji" when you mean "romanisation". Yes in Japanese it's called ヘボン式ローマ字, but when people use "romaji" as a loanword in English it's generally understood to mean the written characters, the result of romanisation, not the process of romanisation (and certainly not "Hepburn romanisation specifically as distinct from other romanisation systems", but you've already non-apologised for that).

I don’t know what post you’re referring to. I understand romaji is the character set.

If you’re nitpicking on this sentence:

> I thought it’s acceptable to refer to Hepburn as just “romaji”

I’ll expand it:

> I thought it’s acceptable to refer to Hepburn [-flavored romaji] as just “romaji”

I think it’s clear by context what I was saying.

Re: Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

#264

Post by danabramov »

runarberg wrote: post #252
danabramov wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have some ideas about what works for language learners that is not expressed by language learners experts. This seems like a culture clash. In programming blogging, it is completely fine to write blog posts about the mental model that works for you (as long as it doesn't contradict evidence) and then maybe it works for somebody else. The idea that I need to first get an approval from a commission of Serious Teacher…

I think you may be spot on about the culture clash. Language learning takes a long time, and there are really no short-cuts nor magic solutions that will get you from zero to competent within any reasonable amount of time. This is in stark contrast with programming. If you already know a programming language, you can get reasonably acquainted with your second one by following a really good tutorial in a single aftern…

That seems like the best diagnosis so far for what’s happening in the thread and gives me some peace. I guess it also means I’ll try to keep my future explanations to myself because intersecting with a community with these norms is highly unpleasant. I wouldn’t say I regret writing this post, but this whole discussion killed my joy about sharing further on this topic.

Re: Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

#265

Post by timr »

danabramov wrote: post #262
timr wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of defensive…you’re on every comment thread here, arguing with anyone who disagrees with you, even a little. I didn’t say you were “wrong” — I said that your approach isn’t going to work well for most people as they learn, because it’s missing context. I gave you an example in my comment. Take my advice or not, but it’s true. > What could kanji possibly have to do with this? We're discussing a thing rooted i…

I feel like there’s some kind of miscommunication, and I can’t bridge it, which is driving me a little crazy. I genuinely don’t understand why it’s bad that I wrote something for people who don’t want to depend on fluently reading kana for learning conjugation rules. I genuinely do not see the connection between the two — I don’t think there’s anything “simpler” in seeing how む becomes んだ than in how m_ + ita collaps…

> I feel like there’s some kind of miscommunication, and I can’t bridge it, which is driving me a little crazy. I genuinely don’t understand why it’s bad that I wrote something for people who don’t want to depend on fluently reading kana for learning conjugation rules.

I didn't say it was bad. That's the miscommunication. You're taking it personally when people give you advice, and interpreting it as criticism.

(I mean, some people here are probably being obnoxious about it, but that's genuinely not my intent. I said at the very top of my first comment that if your method works for you, great! It's a completely normal part of learning to create explanations that fall apart with additional experience. For whatever it's worth, in the process of writing the previous comment, I looked up some things that refined my own understanding of the linguistics!)

Re: Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

#266

Post by kazinator »

csande17 wrote: post #260
kazinator wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ichidan verbs end in "ru", but many verbs that end in "ru" are godan. Once and for all, I just have to remember that ichidan end in "ru" and drop the entire "ru" and replace it with the conjugative suffix; and so the previous kana stays the same (one column). The godan ones fracture the last kana, changing it into the four siblings in the same row (or else replace it with って or った). If we have a -ru verb and the -ru…

> For instance, I think that every single verb that ends in "-rimasu" in the polite form (other than just arimasu?) is a godan -ru word. Not quite: https://jisho.org/search/%23words%20%23v1%20%3F*%E3%82%8A%E3...

Good catch: the -riru verbs, where the -ri isn't coming from the godan conjugation of ru, but is part of the stem before the -ru.

None of these are ever other than ichidan? If we imagine a -riru verb that is godan, it would have to go to -ririmasu.

That sounds like something only a ditzy weather girl called Ririko would say, for a gag. :)

FWIF, the "#words #v5r ?*りる" search does come up two hits:

The first one is 手を借りる, which is a classification error; it is a compound verb that conjugates exactly like 借りる by itself.

The second one is a curiosity: ラリる -- to get high on drugs. Supposedly godan, so it does give us ラリります, etc.

Wikipedia page on it with some etymology/origin notes: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ラリる

Well, apologies to Ririko there!

Re: Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

#267

Post by kazinator »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #250
kazinator wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the matter of 'si' and 'ti', they are not appropriate in a model of modern Japanese No romanization scheme captures all the phonetic nuances of Japanese. And neither does the Japanese writing system. They are not intended to be detailed models of the spoken language. > that doesn't mean that the syllable which is notionally given that place in the kana table represents that hypothetical sound It's all convention…

> In other words, the writing system being a detailed model of phonetics is not necessarily a good thing. > No romanization scheme captures all the phonetic nuances of Japanese. The fact that alveolar and palatalized sibilants both exist as contrasting phonemes is not a "nuance". It will be represented in every writing system that anyone ever puts forward, as indeed it already is. The only advantage of putting 'si' i…

Well no; we have hit on that in a private (e.g. one person's own personal) system for breaking down verb conjugation, with the help of roman representation, there is an advantage to using "si" for し, in that they can have have a single stem like "hanas*" that goes to "hanas* -u", "hanas* -anai", "hanas* -imasu" and so on. In that system, they don't have to deal with the phonetic detail that si is alveolarized: which has no bearing on the conjugation logic. The conjugation logic will correctly produce something that contains "si", which is understood as "shi", completely independently/orthogonally.

Romanization systems that use "si" and its ilk are obviously out of favor for the purposes of romanization; I'm not proposing to popularize that. (And really, romanization as such should be largely avoided; relying on it is a trap for learners).

But there is a small advantage in that if you are typing Japanese with romaji-based IME on a device, it is two keystrokes to code し using "si" compared to three keystrokes for "shi", so why not.

I'm not sure what you mean by "exist as contrasting phonemes". There do not exist two phonemes "si" and "shi" at all, in Japanese, let alone as pairs that can be substituted in the same spot of a word to change its meaning. If you speak such that you substitute si for shi, you will still be understood. There are foreign accents like that in Japan. I've also heard unpalatized "ni".

Re: Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

#268

Post by danabramov »

timr wrote: post #265
danabramov wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there’s some kind of miscommunication, and I can’t bridge it, which is driving me a little crazy. I genuinely don’t understand why it’s bad that I wrote something for people who don’t want to depend on fluently reading kana for learning conjugation rules. I genuinely do not see the connection between the two — I don’t think there’s anything “simpler” in seeing how む becomes んだ than in how m_ + ita collaps…

> I feel like there’s some kind of miscommunication, and I can’t bridge it, which is driving me a little crazy. I genuinely don’t understand why it’s bad that I wrote something for people who don’t want to depend on fluently reading kana for learning conjugation rules. I didn't say it was bad . That's the miscommunication. You're taking it personally when people give you advice, and interpreting it as criticism. (I m…

What is the advice though?

Is it to not write at all about what works for me? Is it to change what I write into the “accepted” approach and away from what I actually wanted to write? Is it to present my writing differently?

What’s the actual thing that you think would make people in this thread happy (or maybe just you for a start). Like outcome-wise. Next time I write, I do… what?

If it’s to use kana in an article like this, it’s kind of like if I painted a picture of a cat and everyone said they would rather see a dog. OK but that’s not what I was painting? I set it as a constraint for myself to not use kana in the article. It would be a completely different article if it used kana, and that article wouldn’t be worth writing to me.

I shared what works for me, not what I’m recommending for everyone else. So what is the advice? Maybe it’s not to write at all? Some secret third thing?

Re: Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

#269

Post by timr »

danabramov wrote: post #268
timr wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like there’s some kind of miscommunication, and I can’t bridge it, which is driving me a little crazy. I genuinely don’t understand why it’s bad that I wrote something for people who don’t want to depend on fluently reading kana for learning conjugation rules. I didn't say it was bad . That's the miscommunication. You're taking it personally when people give you advice, and interpreting it as criticism. (I m…

What is the advice though? Is it to not write at all about what works for me? Is it to change what I write into the “accepted” approach and away from what I actually wanted to write? Is it to present my writing differently? What’s the actual thing that you think would make people in this thread happy (or maybe just you for a start). Like outcome-wise. Next time I write, I do… what? If it’s to use kana in an article l…

I repeated my advice in both replies. You do you, man.

Re: Japanese verb conjugation the simple hard way

#270

Post by danabramov »

timr wrote: post #269
danabramov wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the advice though? Is it to not write at all about what works for me? Is it to change what I write into the “accepted” approach and away from what I actually wanted to write? Is it to present my writing differently? What’s the actual thing that you think would make people in this thread happy (or maybe just you for a start). Like outcome-wise. Next time I write, I do… what? If it’s to use kana in an article l…

I repeated my advice in both replies. You do you, man.

Is it “learn kana” or something else? I know kana. I’ve read through both replies once more and I can’t find any other unifying thread.

Did you assume that I don’t know kana because I’m not using kana in the article?

Post reply on HN