Could someone please help me wrap my head around the 'n' and its other occurrences?

For example, Tae Kim writes in his entry on negative verbs, " If you have ever heard ｢すまん」 and wondered what that meant, it's actually an example of this grammar. Notice that 「すみません」 is actually in polite negative form. Well, the plain form would be 「すまない」, right? That further transforms to just 「すまん」. The word brings up an image of おじさん but that may be just me. Anyway, it's a male expression."

It seems plausible that it is simply a contraction of ない　（すまない→すまん）, but couldn't it also just be ん added to the imperfective form すま in the same fashion that ます is negated by adding ん to ませ ? Ie, just a holdover from earlier times?

Then we have the　ん in んです. That, I believe, IS a contraction (of の) and seems to function as a noun as seen by its ending です. This suggests that it has no relation to the ん found above in ません, right? Yet, the polite past negative is ませんでした. Is this really a verb anymore? Again, I'd guess 'yes' since verbs ending in ない are still considered verbs despite having an adjective attached to them.　

Next, Tae Kim adds this, "An old, classic version of negative verbs that are still occasionally used are the ones that end in 「ぬ」 instead of 「ない」. In fact, I just saw this on a sign at the train station today, so it's not that uncommon. For any verb, you can replace 「ない」 with 「ぬ」 to get to a old-fashion sounding version of the negative. Similar to the last section, 「する」 becomes 「せぬ」 and 「くる」 becomes 「こぬ」. You may hear this grammar being used from older people or your friends if they want to bring back ye olde days. "

OK, so this makes sense. The examples are both irregular so it's not so apparent at first glance, but it looks like what we have here is their imperfective forms + the attributive (aka dictionary form) of ぬ.

As a verb, ぬ conjugates as:

Imperfective: n/a　I think
Continuative: ず (used like　ないで when negating parts of a sequence of action)
Attributive: ぬ or ん
Izenkei: ね

So, aren't these old timers just saying すまん instead of すまぬ? And, why do we have ませんでした (and not something like ませずた)? "Just 'cause"? And, there doesn't appear to be a need for ませんです? Is it too redundant in terms of politeness?

Are there some other n's I am missing?　I'd appreciate the help.

Quote:It seems plausible that it is simply a contraction of ない　（すまない→すまん）, but couldn't it also just be ん added to the imperfective form すま in the same fashion that ます is negated by adding ん to ませ ?

I don't really see the point in the distinction you're trying to draw, but as you yourself quoted lower down, -ません is a contraction of -ませぬ. ん itself (in the context of negative verbs) is a contraction of ない or ぬ.
Did a speaker attach the contracted form of ぬ/ない to their verb, or did they attach ぬ/ない to their verb and then contract it? Who knows? Who cares?

Quote:This suggests that it has no relation to the ん found above in ません, right?

Yes, but in this case の/ん is a particle, not a noun.

Quote:Yet, the polite past negative is ませんでした. Is this really a verb anymore?

Yes.

Quote:The examples are both irregular so it's not so apparent at first glance, but it looks like what we have here is their imperfective forms + the attributive (aka dictionary form) of ぬ.

Yes.

Quote:So, aren't these old timers just saying すまん instead of すまぬ?

If they're actually saying すまぬ, then they're saying すまぬ.

Quote:And, why do we have ませんでした (and not something like ませずた)?

Not sure how you arrived at ませずた, but it's gibberish.

Quote:And, there doesn't appear to be a need for ませんです? Is it too redundant in terms of politeness?

Yes, there would be no point in saying ませんです.

JimmySeal Wrote:

Quote:This suggests that it has no relation to the ん found above in ません, right?

Yes, but in this case の/ん is a particle, not a noun.

I'm not so sure about this. I've seen people talk about this as being a noun and saying that the sentence before is modifying the noun.

A)なんで車で行くの？
B)電車より速いんだ。

Here, you could say that 速い is modifying the noun ん, which is a contraction of の. Just like 速い can modify any normal noun, some say that's what it's doing here. "It's a thing(の） of it being faster than the train." or "It's that（の） it's faster than the train." Thus, really the copula　だ is connecting the subject (which is omitted) to the noun の, which is modified by 速い, thus giving the noun some content.

Not sure what the prevailing attitude of linguists is here, but I've definitely seen this explanation in multiple places (though I don't remember if any of them were written by linguists. If I were at home I could go through my sources and check).

Also, this might be interesting to the OP--in Kansai dialect the s sound often becomes the h/f sound, especially in the combination せん, which becomes へん. In fact, even in direct form kansai people say 分からへん instead of 分からない. And the past version of へん？ It's へんかった. So 分からなかった in Kansai dialect is わからへんかった.

Sometimes Kansai dialect is more regular than standard Japanese. In standard Japanese the negative form of ある is ない, which seems completely different. But in Kansai you can say あらへん, which makes ある seem just like a regular verb. Of course, the negative past tense is あらへんかった.

In Kyoto we have have the polite form of はる, which is like the ます from in standard Japanese. So the polite form of する is しはる. The past tense is しはらへん and the negative past is しはらへんかった.

Needless to say, there was a lot I didn't understand when I first moved to Kansai, haha.

Quote:I'm not so sure about this. I've seen people talk about this as being a noun and saying that the sentence before is modifying the noun.

A)なんで車で行くの？
B)電車より速いんだ。

Well Daijisen calls it a particle:
http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/171...%E3%81%AE/
(See 2-1 and 2-2)

I'm rather doubtful that this の is the same thing as the nominalizer の, but I'm no linguist.

JimmySeal Wrote:I'm rather doubtful that this の is the same thing as the nominalizer の, but I'm no linguist.

Yeah, it's usually considered a particle. I don't really care which it is (the book I original used called it an extended predicate, but I don't remember if it used the word particle or not)--I know what it means and how to use it so it doesn't matter which it is--I'm just saying that I've seen fairly reputable sources call it a noun as well.

Tzadeck Wrote:In Kyoto we have have the polite form of はる, which is like the ます from in standard Japanese.

Not quite. -はる is a 尊敬語 suffix with a -ます degree of respect. It's used to talk about other people, but never oneself. This is entirely different from -ます. Also, the two are typically chained together in any situation that would call for the -ます form in standard Japanese (いかはります　たべはります).

Tzadeck Wrote:Also, this might be interesting to the OP--in Kansai dialect the s sound often becomes the h/f sound, especially in the combination せん, which becomes へん. In fact, even in direct form kansai people say 分からへん instead of 分からない. And the past version of へん？ It's へんかった. So 分からなかった in Kansai dialect is わからへんかった.

Cool, I didn't know that that! I just popped over to wikipedia and found this:

"In informal speech, the negative verb ending, which is -nai in standard Japanese, is expressed with -n and -hen, as in ikan and ikahen "not going", which is ikanai in standard Japanese. -N is a transformation of the classical Japanese negative form -nu and is also used for formal speech and idioms in standard Japanese. -Hen is the result of contraction and phonological change of ren'yōkei + wa senu, the emphatic form of -nu."

It's not attributed, so I have no idea which source it is from.

Tzadeck Wrote:Sometimes Kansai dialect is more regular than standard Japanese. In standard Japanese the negative form of ある is ない, which seems completely different. But in Kansai you can say あらへん, which makes ある seem just like a regular verb. Of course, the negative past tense is あらへんかった.

In Kyoto we have have the polite form of はる, which is like the ます from in standard Japanese. So the polite form of する is しはる. The past tense is しはらへん and the negative past is しはらへんかった.

Needless to say, there was a lot I didn't understand when I first moved to Kansai, haha.

I can imagine. Nagoya has its peculiarities too, but I find them hard to pick up because they seem to be falling out of use with people around my age (unlike Kansaiben's I suspect). When I've asked friends about something I've heard that was a bit strange sounding, they often admitted that while they understood the meaning, they never used the expression. I guess I'd have to spend more time in izakayas chatting with the local ojisans if I wanted to learn Nagoyaben.

On the other hand, Kansaiben seems to be alive and well. Thanks for the insight!

JimmySeal Wrote:Not quite. -はる is a 尊敬語 suffix with a -ます degree of respect. It's used to talk about other people, but never oneself. This is entirely different from -ます. Also, the two are typically chained together in any situation that would call for the -ます form in standard Japanese (いかはります　たべはります).

Yeah, it probably wasn't my best explanation. I kind of simplified things a bit into a did-you-know-format. Even with a rather simple aspect of kansai-ben like the negative へん, there are can be a lot of special rules or sound changes, especially with very common or irregular verbs like する or できる that make its use a bit more complex than you might expect. Depending on region you get things like しぃひん、せえへん、できひん、でかへん, and so on.

Ah, ok. I figured you probably knew, but I think that much merits a mention so as to avoid any misconceptions.

First, thank you for your help.

JimmySeal Wrote:Yes, but in this case の/ん is a particle, not a noun.

I said "Then we have the　ん in んです. That, I believe, IS a contraction (of の) and seems to function as a noun as seen by its ending です."

I admit that my use of "seems" there was a bit ambiguous. I didn't mean to assert that it was a noun; just that it seems to function like one in the way Tzadeck mentioned.

Quote:And, why do we have ませんでした (and not something like ませずた)?

JimmySeal Wrote:Not sure how you arrived at ませずた, but it's gibberish.

Quote:And, there doesn't appear to be a need for ませんです? Is it too redundant in terms of politeness?

JimmySeal Wrote:Yes, there would be no point in saying ませんです.

That was kind of the point I guess. Both, in terms of politeness, seem redundant. I can see how the past tense use of でした serves the purpose of giving た something to attach to.

My made-up example was to demonstrate that if language were just grammar (obviously not the case), why wouldn't it simply be 未然形 (for politeness) + 連用形 (for negation; in continuative form to allow further inflection) + 連体形 (past and final ending)? I was just wondering if it's just another quirk of Japanese (like ない) or if it's just my misunderstanding of the role of ん in ませんでした.

JimmySeal Wrote:Ah, ok. I figured you probably knew, but I think that much merits a mention so as to avoid any misconceptions.

I wonder how useful it is to know anything about Kyoto-ben if you don't live here, haha. Osaka-ben makes its way into a lot of media, but you only very rarely see Kyoto-ben used in anything. Although, I remember that the Ruroni Kenshin OVA (Samurai X in the States) had some Kyoto-ben in it. And I guess sometimes maiko or geisha characters speak Kyoto-ben.

I consider the の to be a noun; it doesn't really behave like any other particles and the nominalizer is exactly what the meaning is -- why it's sometimes literally translated as "It's that X" or "The fact is that X" depending on the context.

yudantaiteki Wrote:it doesn't really behave like any other particles and the nominalizer is exactly what the meaning is

I'm not sure what you mean by this. A lot of particles have their own idiosyncratic usages. In terms of being sandwiched between verbs and the copula (as Oniichan mentioned), a lot of particles are used that way: から、まで、だけ、ばかり、ほど. It also serves a very similar purpose to particles like　ね、よ、ぞ、かしら、とも, etc. in that it gives a "tone" (for lack of a better word) to the whole sentence. I think that's rather different from simply nominalizing a verb.

I guess, thinking about it more, that I also thought of it as a noun when I used to think about it. The thing is, thinking of it as a noun explains both how to deal with it grammatically as well as the meaning, which mimics the structures in English that yudantaiteki also mentioned ("It's that....").

If you think of it as a particle you have to think of it as something different from the nominalizer の (i.e., you need to introduce a new concept into how you think of Japanese), you have to establish the meaning of the particle in your head, and then you need to remember how it's used grammatically. If you just think of it as a noun being modified it solves all those problems at the same time. So it just seems more pragmatically useful to think of it as a noun.

Yeah, I'm just used to thinking about it as the nominalizer because that's how JSL describes it. There's also a relation with the way that the 連体形 form in classical Japanese can be a noun, or it can act like のだ in modern Japanese.

There's also the き-ending of い-adjectives, which seems to go along with -ぬ...

And there is little point in asking "why" when studying a language; there are always some things we just have to accept. (Unless of course, you have a strong interest in linguistics)

That it's a nominaliser doesn't mean that it can't be a representation of the negative form of a verb...

I'm probably biased as a JSL kid

Tzadeck Wrote:I'm probably biased as a JSL kid

JSL?

EDIT: Japanese the Spoken Language?
I like their romanisation, and it's closer to how I use wapuro-romaji; ち as "ti" etc.

How does it romanise しゃ and じ? I use to type them as "sya" and "zi".

That's it. JSL romaji is the same as Nihon-shiki except that it uses "oo" instead of "ou". I also use the nihon-shiki for the most part when I'm typing, although I use "sh" instead of "sy" and "ji" instead of "zi".

I probably use the zi, sya etc. because hiragana was pretty much the first thing I taught myself, and I've never read anything extensive in romaji, except when I was googling a grammar point or something, as using hiragana sometimes corrupted the google search... I sometimes write it as ji, sha, etc, esp. when I'm kinda writing down as I say it, but I fill that sya links it better with the hiragana because it follows the pattern of kya, nya, etc.

The equivalent of ～はる is ～なさる, not ～です。