The problem I have is making difference between Intransitive Verbs and Passives, and its use. I know that often intransitive verb and passive is the same but not always. Than there is the passive of the intransitive verb also. :|

What I know is that all verbs do not have transitive/intransitive pairs. Some verbs are only transitive or intransitive. But passive can be formed of any verb and it is possible that the passive does not make sense in meaning.

When I see the transitive/intransitive pairs many mean just what the passive would and this is the root of the whole confusion. Somebody told me to 'try hard not to think of intransitive verb as being passive'. The things I have read which explain the topic of intransitive verbs and also the passive but do not go into explaining this confusion which I am sure many people are facing.

I don't exactly understand your confusion, actually.

彼はドアをしめる　-> He closes the door.
ドアがしまる -> The door closes.
ドアが彼にしめられる -> The door is closed by him.

That's basically how the grammar works, although the last sentence is probably just as awkward in Japanese as it is in English. We make the same transitive vs. passive vs. intransitive distinction in English, we just don't have a separate verb for it as often.

the difference between a passive and intransitive, difference for example between 現れる　(intransitive) and 現せる (passive of transitive)。

One is 'to appear' and the other is 'to be revealed' ...



Here's a suggestion for understanding the difference -
Passive requires that there is some other agent that acts on the subject.
'The door is closed' is a bad example because it doesn't read as passive, but typical documentary narrator lines like, 'the chemical is applied to the surface' are a better example. The chemical is applied -by- someone, and the grammar implies it. We know there has to be an actor even if it isn't stated. Same in Japanese.

'The door closed' is fine for an intransitive example, but perhaps following our documentary, 'The chemical evaporates' is better. The chemical -may- evaporate due to an agent (like a lab tech applying heat or air), but it may just be evaporating on its own in the due course of time. The grammar doesn't specify, but depending on the context an intransitive suggests that the subject acts on its own, or else that we don't care what the agent is.

So, with 現れる something comes into sight, like a person walking down the road and getting close enough to be seen.

With 現せる somebody makes it visible, such as by turning on a light or removing a cover.

Bumping this thread because I have a similar question.

For example 決める is to decide on something. 決まる is for something to be decided on. 決められる is something is decided on. 決まられる is I'm not sure?

Aren't 決まる and 決められる the same? I'm not sure where 決まられる goes with all this. If anyone can clear up the confusion it would be helpful.

決まれる does not exist outside of the honorific passive, and even there it's fairly rare.

決まる means that something is decided. The subject is the thing, and there is no strong implication of a "decider" the way there is with 決めてある or 決められた.

Quote:現せる

The transitve version of 現れる is あらわす. 表せる is its potential verb.

Quote:決まれる does not exist outside of the honorific passive

(Though I'm not sure what is "honorific passive")
The honorific forms of 決める are 決められる, お決めになる or お決めなさる.
That of 決まる is only お決まりになる though some people find it awkward. (To them 決まる doesn't have any honorific forms)

viharati Wrote:(Though I'm not sure what is "honorific passive") The honorific forms of 決める are 決められる, お決めになる or お決めなさる.

決められる is the honorific passive. That is to say, it is the passive form being used as an honorific.

I was going to say the passive of 決まる didn't exist at all, but Google has examples like this:
ご結婚が決まられたおふたりへ
今年、年末に沖縄に移住が決まられたお客様
就職が決まられた方へのお願い

Because 決まる (and intransitives in general) are sometimes used to be indirect (and thus polite), I guess some natives feel that it is appropriate to make that honorific. I don't know how widespread this use is, though.

(I'm afraid this just causes more confusion for the basic intransitive/passive question, though. Perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up at all.)

matrixofdynamism Wrote:The problem I have is making difference between Intransitive Verbs and Passives, and its use.

So am I. So are 9 out of 10 native Japanese speakers, I'm sure. Doesn't stop them from speaking Japanese though, interestingly enough.

10 out of 10 Japanese speakers have no problem using the passive and intransitive forms correctly.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

matrixofdynamism Wrote:The problem I have is making difference between Intransitive Verbs and Passives, and its use.

So am I. So are 9 out of 10 native Japanese speakers, I'm sure.

No idea where that statement came from. There is a distinct semantic difference between a passive and an intransitive (like in English), I doubt any Japanese has any problem differentiating the two.

RandomQuotes Wrote:決められる is the honorific passive. That is to say, it is the passive form being used as an honorific.

Hmm.. That seems misleading for learners because those "honorific passives" are an active voice.

yudantaiteki Wrote:I was going to say the passive of 決まる didn't exist at all, but Google has examples like this:
ご結婚が決まられたおふたりへ
今年、年末に沖縄に移住が決まられたお客様
就職が決まられた方へのお願い

Because 決まる (and intransitives in general) are sometimes used to be indirect (and thus polite), I guess some natives feel that it is appropriate to make that honorific. I don't know how widespread this use is, though.

I'm Japanese but I've never heard it though it's certainly understandable.

EratiK Wrote:No idea where that statement came from. There is a distinct semantic difference between a passive and an intransitive (like in English).

I wouldn't know, even though my English is flawless.

You do know. If you're using them correctly in English, you know what the difference is.

yudantaiteki Wrote:You do know. If you're using them correctly in English, you know what the difference is.

I'm telling you, I have no idea what the difference is between passive and intransitive verbs. I don't know what they are. I use them correctly because I've been listening to and copying how other people use them, not because I'm aware of any kind of rules.

I also know that if, instead of listening and copying, I would've just focused on learning the rules, I wouldn't be able to speak English correctly.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

EratiK Wrote:No idea where that statement came from. There is a distinct semantic difference between a passive and an intransitive (like in English).

I wouldn't know, even though my English is flawless.

There is a difference between being conscient of a mechanism and being able to tell two forms apart. If you tell me you can't spot the difference between "I ran" and "the cake was eaten" I wouldn't believe you because anybody can, they're two different forms. In the same way that passive and intransitive in Japanese have a different morphology.

And I know that until I learned some of the important rules, my Japanese was slipshod despite spending quite a bit of time in Japan. Different people learn different ways.

yudantaiteki Wrote:Different people learn different ways.

To me, that seems like an unlikely proposition. Everything I know is consistent with the proposition that people learn to speak natural languages the same way: by copying expressions and ways of saying things they've heard repeatedly, rather than by creating new expressions they've never encountered before, based on abstract rules they've studied. Only with time are students able to correctly modify an expression, and only very slightly even at an intermediate level. It takes people who are already fluent to be able to create significantly new ways of saying things (and they don't do it by conceptualizing abstract rules).

The only use I've seen anyone have for rules that tell you how to put verbs into various tenses and forms is to pass exams. I've never ever seen them used to speak naturally and fluently. Take the sentence before this one, for instance: the reason why I know that I used the appropriate tense there is because it "sounds right". Not because I know the name of the tense, or because I applied some kind of rule. And it "sounds right" because I heard that tense used many times before, to say what I said there. Having things sound right without thinking about rules is the only way to be fluent, and different people don't develop the ability to have things "sound right" in different ways, we all do it the same way: through repeated exposure.

I have learned to use languages by relying on syntax: programming languages. So, if it was possible to do that with a natural language, it would come more naturally to me than most. But I'm not able to do that. No one is, because unlike artificial languages, natural languages aren't built starting with a set of grammar rules. It's the other way around: grammar rules are created in an attempt to describe how people speak. And they don't really work, because they aren't fit for the task.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

yudantaiteki Wrote:Different people learn different ways.

To me, that seems like an unlikely proposition. Everything I know is consistent with the proposition that people learn to speak natural languages the same way: by copying expressions and ways of saying things they've heard repeatedly, rather than by creating new expressions they've never encountered before, based on abstract rules they've studied.

We're not talking about the two extremes you're outlining here. Learning grammatical rules helps you make sense of what you are hearing/seeing. Of course you're not going to learn rules and create sentences out of the rules. But if you read an explanation of intransitive vs. passive then when you see intransitive and passive constructions it will help you make sense of them. Grammar is not "rules", it's an explanation of how and why native speakers use language the way they do.

Learning about grammar helped me immensely, and having to teach the grammar helped me even when I was beyond the N1 level. There was so much I didn't know, even about basic constructions, despite having large amounts of exposure.

Here's my question: How is the learner supposed to know what they've heard repeatedly if they're not allowed to use any sort of explanation of what it is they're hearing?

viharati Wrote:Hmm.. That seems misleading for learners because those "honorific passives" are an active voice.

Could be. I didn't make up the word, It's a pretty widely used word. My guess is that who ever came up with the term, however many years ago, did it because it's formed looks identical to the passive form.

I'm reading a great book right now that covers this exact topic. It's called "Making Sense of Japanese: What the Textbooks Don't Tell You" by Jay Rubin.

I'm actually reading the section about passives and their translation difficulties right now. Book is like $10 on Amazon, I'd definitely recommend it. My Japanese ability is still too low to really get the most out of it, but I've still learned a lot.


Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I still don't quite have my head wrapped around it yet.