I wouldn't think so. I think that an elephant's nose is nagai because it's on four legs and it's not like the human/caucasian nose. If you looked at the nose at a certain angle on a human, it is rather tall.

nadiatims Wrote:Do people actually say 鼻が高い for elephants?

No they don't. What I said was the only example I found of 鼻が長い was used to describe elephants. You wouldn't say 鼻が長い for people as imabi had originally written on his site.

I think I did that only because I had made a sentence with it with elephants shortly before. Things like that tend to happen to the best of us

I don't know about y'all, but this makes me want to research elephants.

I have a medical question. If one of your back teeth is bleeding quite a bit, what do you do? I just had a scare, a lot of blood came out and my mouth hurts like it got hit just from brushing my teeth. I hate the test and smell of my blood--it smells like coins.

imabi Wrote:I have a medical question. If one of your back teeth is bleeding quite a bit, what do you do? I just had a square, a lot of blood came out and my mouth hurts like it got hit just from brushing my teeth. I hate the test and smell of my blood--it smells like coins.

If you haven't had your wisdom teeth out yet, you probably have an impacted wisdom tooth and are going to have to have all four of them out sooner rather than later. This is neither cheap nor comfortable, but it is better done when younger than older

(If you do it in your thirties, the roots will have grown quite long and hard; if you do it in your forties or later, the roots may even fuse with the bone and require some -serious- surgery rather than a relatively simple extraction.)

You can try simply regularly brushing, flossing, and using oral rinse, but you've probably already got an infected and impacted tooth that will start to hurt continuously in a little time.

(Actually... given your age... you might just be having the wisdom teeth come -in- for the first time and may not have a problem yet. Hmm.)

I know I have all four. I need to tell my parents that it happened. I don't want my teeth to shift. My teeth have been hurting periodically. Is there are a correllation with strong headaches too?

Absolutely, it's pretty common to get headaches when your wisdom teeth start doing their thing. I'd definitely get them out. It sucks, but it's just one of those things.

definitely Sounds like wisdom teeth to me. Visit a dentist...? They might not need to be removed. I never had mine removed. They did occasionally hurt as they were coming out, but now all four are completely fine.


Regarding your whole は／が lesson.

I'd explain it something like:

が

が marks a grammatical 'subject'. Grammatical subject refers to the word to which the verb/predicate of the sentence applies, the thing verbing or being verbed (in passive constructions). See the following English examples:

Tom eats a hamburger. subject = Tom
A hamburger eats Tom. subject = A hamburger
A hamburger is eaten by Tom. subject = hamburger (passive)
Tom is eaten by a Hamburger. subject = Tom (passive)

In English grammatical subject is determined by word order. In Japanese however the
subject is set by attaching the particle が as a post-position.

ハンバーガーを　トム君が　食べる。subject = tom　

We can switch the order around and the subject doesn't change:
トム君が　ハンバーガーを　食べる。subject is still tom

But if we switch the particles...
ハンバーガーが　トム君を　食べる。subject = hamburger
トム君を　ハンバーガーが　食べる。subject = hamburger

Can you identify who/what is doing the eating in the above Japanese examples?
If you answered Tom for the first two and hamburger for the next two then you are correct. 食べる is active (not passive), so subject refers to the word doing the action.

What if we change 食べる to 食べられる (to be eaten (passive))? Who/what is the subject? Who/what is the agent (doing the eating) in the following examples?

1. トム君が　ハンバーガーに　食べられる。
2. トム君に　ハンバーガーが　食べられる。
3. ハンバーガーに　食べられる。
4. トム君が　食べられる。

Answers: 食べられる is passive (to be eaten). The が marked word is still the subject but now it is the thing being eaten (because 食べられる means "to be eaten"). You may have guessed that に here marks the agent (one performing the action) in passive constructions.
1. subject = tom, agent = hamburger
2. subject = hamburger, agent = Tom
3. subject = unknown, agent = hamburger
4. subject = Tom, agent = unknown

Note: It is a convention of communication in Japanese, that the subject is omitted in Japanese when it is obvious within the context. Because of this, explicitly mentioning it when it is unnecessary can convey unintended meaning, specifically identifying the が marked word as the thing to which the predicate applies (at the exclusion of other things). For example, declaring at a dinner party "魚がうまい" might imply that the while the fish is delicious, the other dishes are nothing special.

は
は is usually referred to as the 'topic' marker. 'topic' refers (broadly speaking) to what the sentence or clause is 'about'. Japanese sentences frequently follow a topic/comment structure. は raises a a topic, and then what follows is a comment about it.
Examples:
冬は雪が降る。> Winter (topic), snow falls (comment). > In winter snow falls.
トム君は？> Tom (topic), ?(comment) > How about Tom/you (depending on context)?
冬は雪が降るけど、夏は降らない。> winter (topic), snow falls but summer (change topic), doesn't fall. > In winter it snows, but in summer it doesn't.

Just like with が above, when what is being discussed is obvious from the flow of the discourse, the topic can be omitted. If it is clear you are talking about yourself, you don't need to say 私は at the start of every sentence:
この人はトムです。
アメリカ人です。

This person(topic), is Tom (comment).
(still talking about Tom) is American (comment)

This is Tom.
He is American.

EDIT:
Long story short:
が is used to send a 'subject' argument to the verb/predicate. Generally speaking 'subject' refers to what 'verbs' for active verbs, and what 'is verbed' for passive verbs.
は is used to raise/change the current topic and direct the flow of the discourse.


Your (Imabi) explanations about が are overly complicated and somewhat imaginary:

"Ga shows natural phenomenon, not things new. Things are established as the norm. Things like "the sky is blue" are examples of natural phenomenon. Events and things that are relatively new to discussion are not discussed with ga."

Are you saying 空は青い is not a valid sentence?

"Ga is affirmative and more or less states the obvious. So, what happens with ga are more or less facts."

So if I say ”君が馬鹿”　it becomes a statement of fact. Sweet!

"Ga can also show emphasis when the same word that ga marks is repeated. This is quite strong, and it is a further usage of how it can mark the subject."

This is idiomatic, 今が今 for example appears in dictionaries...

What you've written about は／が　and forcefulness in the "花子が勉強が嫌いなのだ。" is just your imagination.

"Note: These sentences are translatable into the dictionary form because the verbs end in the Shuushikei (end base of a verb), which means that they can not only show the present tense but also the predicate (to-form of a verb). "

what does this even mean?

"Particle Note: The case particle ga must not be used with other case particles. "

except when it is, for example 誰もが

I mentioned this before, but you really should take down your "犬は聞こえるが、犬は見えない。" example. It doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't appear to make sense.

"I went to Tokyo, but I am not going to Kyoto."

that should be: I've been to Tokyo but I haven't been to Kyoto.

Imabi,
thank you very much for the changes here:
http://www.imabijapaneselearningcenter.c...4bushu.htm

You just changed romaji to English names. But I didn't mean that.
I explained very poorly what I meant, I am sorry.


I meant something like these:
たてぼう 【縦棒】
棒 ぼうpole, rod, stick
縦 たて 1) the vertical, height

はねぼう 撥ね
跳ね 【はね】 (n) (1) (a) jump; (2) splashes (usu. of mud); (3) upward turn at the bottom (e.g. of a vertical stroke of a kanji or of a hairdo); (4) close (e.g. of a theatrical performance); breakup

not to be confused with
羽 はね (1) feather, plume, wing,


にすい 冫【二水】
水 みずwater (cold, fresh)
on: sui
2 strokes + sui


刀刂 かたな ・刂 りっとう【立刀】
刂 りっとう【立刀】
on: riti + tou

心忄
心 こころ ・忄 りっしん(べん) 【立心偏】
心 こころmind, heart, spirit
忄【立心偏】
立 on: ritu
心 on: sin
ritu + sin = りっしん
偏 on: hen, ben (rendaku)


禾
のぎ（へん）【ノ木偏･禾偏】
禾 katakana ノno +木 ki (rendaku)

I've got another question.

My granny knows that 'existence' verbs aru and iru are used as follows:
aru for inanimate objects and iru for animate.
But she sometimes hears iru used for inanimate things and aru for animate.

For instance

The woman says (at 0:16):
日本語には漢字とひらがなとカタカナがいます。
Why is that so? Or is just my granny getting hard of hearing and the nice woman says something else?

buonaparte Wrote:日本語には漢字とひらがなとカタカナがいます。
Why is that so? Or is just my granny getting hard of hearing and the nice woman says something else?

I heard あります at the end.

pudding cat Wrote:

buonaparte Wrote:日本語には漢字とひらがなとカタカナがいます。
Why is that so? Or is just my granny getting hard of hearing and the nice woman says something else?

I heard あります at the end.

So my granny IS getting hard of hearing. That's what I suspected.
もし天国に行ったら絶対神様に文句言うよ。

Never mind. Life's going on. With my granny or without her.

On the subject of Japanese noses previously discussed above in this thread, it might be interesting to note that Takao Suzuki writes the following in his "Words in context: a Japanese perspective on language and culture";

Quote:"According to the usage of European languages today, noses may be large or small, or long or short, but are usually not high or low-like mountains. Turkish also uses its equivalents of long and short to describe noses. In Japanese, on the other hand, we use nagai 'long' and mijikai 'short' for noses only on limited occasions, as, for example, in reference to the protagonist in Ryuunosuke Akutagawa's short story "Hana," who agonized over his ugly nose. But normally noses are described as takai 'high' or hikui 'low'. (Suzuki, 1973)

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anyones point here, but merely clear up some confusion and shed some light on an interesting phenomena touched upon in this thread.

Nadiatim, mo is not a case particle. Therefore the statement is still true. I explained the same things you did, and the reversible word order was covered previously. It would be good to note that in the particle note at the end. I really needed to limit sentences with "wo" in that lesson too. I also can't mention the passive, and it's wrong for me to even have a single potential sentence--which I do--because it's really unfair. Now, I did choose mieru, which is really good to know even if you don't know anything about the potential. Oh, and people may freik out if the word predicate is used; so, I had to define it in the few instances I use the word now. The Shuushikei can = the predicate by the way, which is what that footnote was about because someone had a question why it was translated in dictionary form. As I've seen those two sentences before that you want me to take down, it's not happening. Sorry. More examples of the pattern include

犬が聞こえはしても、見えはしない。
見てはいるが、聞いてはいない。
ゆっくりとは読めるが、すらすらとは読めない。

That sentence was Hanako was based off of what I have found as well. It is true. I'm not in a fantasy. It is definitely hard when you have gotten so far and haven't seen certain applications, but use that to discard them. Ima ga ima is not just the only situation. I give several other examples, and I will be glad to conjure up dictionary resources and show you more Japanese examples.

I didn't say sora wa aoi is wrong; in most situations it would not be used. If the sky was bluer than normal, if we found out a planet had a blue sky, if the night sky turned blue on us, if the sky was normally a different color and was now blue, and all of this we have a little insight of the new conversation, wa would be used.

In some dialects buanoparte, arimasu is only used, or vice versa. Of course, there may also be dialectical differences in the appearance. Iru is used for living things, other than plants, whether they are animate or not. Sea anemones are good examples. Sorry about the misunderstanding of what you wanted; I just thought the Japanese names make sense for those that know Japanese. And, there really isn't much room. A pdf file would be needed...or a completely different resource page appended to it.

I hope this helps.

imabi Wrote:Sorry about the misunderstanding of what you wanted; I just thought the Japanese names make sense for those that know Japanese. And, there really isn't much room. A pdf file would be needed...or a completely different resource page appended to it.

I hope this helps.

Thank you very much, sensei.

But your site is not for people who know Japanese.

I figured the meanings myself, but I rembember very well that I was immensely annoyed when I was beginning to learn Japanese and the bushu names meant practically nothing because they were always listed in kana only.

The other thing that has always annoyed me is the fact that pitch accent is not marked.
When you begin even the simplest words are an unnecassary problem: is これ LH or HL? No idea. Imagine an English dictionary without stress marks.

re も, 大辞泉 is telling me も is 係助詞 along with は、さえ、しか、しも etc so I guess you're statement is correct. I don't really see the usefulness of the distinction though. To me もis also a case marker, just a case that doesn't exist in English, I guess you'd call it an inclusive case or something.

What you're not understanding regarding your 3 examples is that in each of those the thing before は is different. 聞こえ is different from 見え, 見て from 聞いて and ゆっくりと from すらすらと. You're changing the topic to make contrasting comments about them. But in "犬は聞こえるが、犬は見えない。", 犬＝犬. There is no reason to raise the same topic twice, it sounds weird.

re 花子, adding なのだ make its it explanatory not forceful, and this is irrespective of whether you use は or が. が does not "present things as facts" as you seem to think.

There is nothing particularly odd about the statement 空は青い, other than that it's a statement that is obvious. 空は青い。バナナは黄色い。トマトは赤い。
Whether you'd use が or は here has absolutely nothing to do with it being a natural phenomenon or not...

re XがX, there is also 皆が皆. This is also listed in the dictionary, but that's my point. They're idiomatic, you will sound stupid if you apply it generally as if it's a grammar rule as you suggested is the case. You can't just say XがX to mean Xが with emphasis.

You've obviously learned a fair amount of Japanese, and for that you should be commended, but you don't know as much as you think you do. Acknowledging that will only be beneficial to your studies.

I have read several works that describe ga as showing natural phenomenon. I know the subject does not have to be repeated, but I was showing it just to make a grammatical point, not practicality. I know exactly no da shows explanation, which is also pushing the point/statement.

I am not sure about your view on repetition, as I do not think that there is restriction. Practical common applications perhaps.

I tell you what I will do. When I get back home from church, I will try to eliminate the ambiguity. I think some of the misunderstandings we are having with each other is due to specificity. For example, ga can show natural phenomenon, but when may be used instead in those sentences, it just makes the item the topic. The topic does technically change with the sentence with the dog because the verb is differently. X ga X da is a perfectly fine pattern, but the effect is different than in X wa X da. In fact, I have heard several instances of both in shows, and the response is unique. I think placement and more clarity will help. As you know, I did have a more dictionary like listing of the situations with ga and wa respectively. So, be sure to check back once get the things I want changed.

By Amaterasu, it is a long thread.
Isn't it high time it was cosed for good?

I added a lot more notes about wa in Lesson 10. If someone could check it this time to see if it's fine now, that would be great.　I've also fixed up 9 again.

from lesson 9:
"Ga shows phenomenon.The particle ga may describe the existince of a non-specific thing. However, the particle wa, as we will see next lesson, is specific and known by the listener and speaker. "

Where did you read this? Your example 波が高い could in another context be 波は高い. It's still showing a phenomenon. 雪が降る could also be 雪は降る. Notions of natural/unnatural, new/old information, emphasis/forcefulness that you mention on your site aren't at all necessary things to consider when you speak. It's much simpler than that. You simply use が to specify grammatical subject for clarity or for identification within a sentence or clause, and は to clarify/change what you're commenting about. It's really that simple. You could start a novel with トム君は... The reader knows nothing about Tom at this point but will read on to find out. The writer is simply using は to basically show now I'm talking about some guy Tom.

Your examples:
犬が犬だから、吠える。
子供が子供だから、ごたごたを起こす。
are simply connecting two clauses with the word から.
They are not examples of your 今が今 and 皆が皆 (which should be mina ga mina btw) grammar point. Note how 犬が犬だ is a valid sentence (dogs are(だ) dogs), but 今が今/皆が皆 are not, they're idiomatic (hence they pop up in dictionaries.

from lesson 10:
"The particle wa shows emphasis,"
where do you get this from? This is not a generally applicable rule but rather something that may be true depending on certain contexts. What exactly does は emphasize?

"As you will see, it may single out an item and or distinguish it from other things, thereby emphasizing them. "
Actually が is more likely to do that. は simply specifies what is being commented about. The comment may or may not be specific only to the は marked word.

"Most sentences in Japanese start off with a topic."
this is not true. Conversations might tend to start with a topic. maybe. But If the topic is raised repeatedly without it changing, it sounds odd in Japanese, kind of equivalent to not using pronouns in English (he, she, it etc).

"The particle wa may describe an eternal truth, something that is know as a fact. "
wut? Didn't you say before that が is used for stating facts (also untrue).

"The particle wa can show existence, and it can also stress a degree. "
what does stress a degree mean? also I'm pretty sure verbs are used for showing existence in Japanese...

there are still some oddities in your example sentences, but I won't go over them now.

Here's a nice article about が/は btw:
http://celta.paris-sorbonne.fr/anasem/pe...eneral.pdf

Explaining wa/ga on the sentence level is pointless. You MUST describe the situation the sentences are used in.
What about these?

In a shop.
これはいいです。 - No, thank you. I don't want it.
これがいいです。 - This one is good, I'll take it.

In a restaurant
「お勘定はどうしましょうか。 」 - What about the bill, what shall we do?
「私が払います。 」 - I will pay.
「いいえ、私が払います。」 No, I will pay.

From a movie. A painter who has always wanted to paint HELL.
He sees it (his own daughter is burning alive):
これが地獄だ。
And he was the cause of her death:
地獄は俺だ。

EDIT
I'm no expert, of course. But I think that trying to learn Japanese by using sentences out of context and with no audio does not make any sense.

Well, I won't pretend to know particularly more about は・が than anyone else who can read a little Japanese, but I do think that niwasaburoo-sensei has a very good handle on it.
You will have to set your browser to EUC-JP if it doesn't detect it, and I'm afraid I'm not aware of a translation of niwasaburoo-sensei's works.

http://www.geocities.jp/niwasaburoo/09wa.html

Ga does show phenomenon. As for ame wa furu, that is saying as for the rain, it is falling. It specifically says that it is falling and the speaker and listener know it is the rain being discussed. Ame ga furu says its raining. I show this and give examples accordingly. Yes, ima ga ima is adverbially. However, I gave several conditions to that section. I read around five sources to put the notes on my lesson.

As for is specific. And, it is described as such in several textbooks. I also said wa is often showing something known by the speaker and listener, and a fellow member here pointed that out.

Existence in the sense of being with the predicate and presenting the noun or nouns that go along with it. You must read everything within context.

You are arguing about minute wording, and I do not say anywhere in the text you cant say things like ringo wa akai. The thing is is that you could ask a thousand members here how to describe ga and wa, and you could get a thousand valid opinions.