Jarvik7, your explanation is good. The question is, how does one explain all the other strange behavior in the r-godan area? In the example above, 起きる does end in i when る is removed, but what about 食べる? It doesn't end in i when る is removed, therefor there should be a loss of mora, right? If we say "Well, it's different in the case of -eru ichidan", we can just as well find an -eru godan, such as 帰る.

I agree with your last paragraph regardless, grammar might be humanly imposed rules which came "after the fact", but there is still regularity and rules within a language. If there weren't, no grammar would ever be applicable.

Tobberoth wrote:

Jarvik7, your explanation is good. The question is, how does one explain all the other strange behavior in the r-godan area? In the example above, 起きる does end in i when る is removed, but what about 食べる? It doesn't end in i when る is removed, therefor there should be a loss of mora, right? If we say "Well, it's different in the case of -eru ichidan", we can just as well find an -eru godan, such as 帰る.

The 音便 environment in this instance is りて (which becomes って). As such there would be no effect on 食べる (which has a continuative form of 食べ). If it was a godan, in which case the continuative would be 食べり, you would indeed get 食べって.

Te form exhibits so much "weirdness" because it is probably the most used grammatical construct in Japanese. Heavy use leads to heavy change. That is why most of the final mora + te constructs have 音便 on them. (死んで←死にて).

食べる is shimo-ichi-dan, so I don't see how it's an example of godan weirdness. I didn't mention it in my last post which might have caused some confusion, but 起きる also isn't godan, it's kami-ichi-dan.

Last edited by Jarvik7 (2009 May 19, 6:12 pm)

Tobberoth wrote:

The point is, you're saying 起きる becomes 起きて because き already ends in i, so the り isn't needed (おこりて). In 起こる, り is needed since こ doesn't end in i. Correct? Well, in 帰る, the ending is e, not i. Therefor, it should be かえりて, no?

It is 帰りて, 音便ed to 帰って in modern Japanese...　変える on the other-hand is a shimo-ichi-dan verb, so it has continuative form かえ, which doesn't produce the 音便 environment when conjunctive て is added. 買える is the same, although it is a conjugated verb. 返る is the same as 帰る. In any case, this 音便 only takes place on godan verbs even if the environment occurs elsewhere (ex 借りる), probably because ichidan verbs are never modified to make their forms, so the verb wouldn't be understood if 音便ed.

Kami-ichi-dan verbs all end in -i for all of their forms (thats what the kami ichidan part means, it uses one vowel from the upper half of a i u e o). Godan verbs all have to be modified through mora replacement to end in -i for their continuative form. That is what I meant, but I admit that I could have been clearer as to the relevance. 食べる is a shimo-ichi-dan which means that all forms end in one vowel from the LOWER half of a i u e o, aka -e, thus like kami-ichi-dan you never have to replace a mora.

Godan and ichi-dan verbs can both end in る for the same reason that 車 and 暇 both end in ま (aka no reason). The verbs are divided into groups based on their conjugation patterns, not on their verb endings. English language Japanese texts encourage learning based on verb ending since it is easier for a beginner, and English language texts rarely encourage in depth understanding anyways.

Originally there were more verb groups.

Verb Group: example of allowed verb endings
四段: く　ぐ　す　つ　ふ　ぶ　む　る
下一段: る
上一段: る
下二段: (nothing ex 得)　く　ぐ　す　ず　つ　づ　ぬ　ふ　ぶ　む　ゆ　る　う
上二段: く　ぐ　つ　づ　ふ　ぶ　む　ゆ　る
ラ変: り
ナ変: ぬ
カ変: (nothing) ex　来
サ変: (nothing) ex す

As you can see there was even more overlap, one doesn't even end in a -u sound, and some technically have no endings since the entire verb is one mora. There are also a lot of verb endings which no longer exist, like ゆ. I've only studied as far back as Heian language, but Nara period was even more complex. Everything was collapsed into Godan except for the two ichidan groups and the last two 変 groups, which became 来る and する during meiji & post-ww2 reformations. It gives the illusion of simplicity when there is infact a lot more under the surface.

Anyways, see wiki for more info on the specific environment in question.

Last edited by Jarvik7 (2009 May 19, 7:11 pm)

sethg wrote:

The above post is a perfect reason to ignore grammar altogether. :: headache ::

Ask a question about grammar, get an answer about grammar. Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA LA, but I like to have a deep understanding. As a bonus I can read stuff like Genji Monogatari in the original.

Last edited by Jarvik7 (2009 May 19, 7:22 pm)

Jarvik7 wrote:

Ask a question about grammar, get an answer about grammar. Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears and go LA LA LA LA, but I like to have a deep understanding. As a bonus I can read stuff like Genji Monogatari in the original.

Oh no, I admire you for knowing so much, but I'm just saying... grammar is, in reality, so depthy and complicated... if just fluency in speaking and reading the modern language is your goal, why deal with the grammar? If you do want to read Genji, then yeah, you're probably gonna need some grammar to kind of "backtrack" through the language.

Jarvik7 wrote:

nac_est wrote:

Asriel wrote:

why it's　起こって instead of 起こて.

This makes for an interesting question: why is it 起こって instead of 起こて? Saying that it's because 起こる is a godan verb doesn't count, because that's something that's been made up at a later time to make it fit into the grammar.

Because the continuative form of 起こる (classically yodan, modern godan) is 起こり, with the conjunctive particle て attached to the end it becomes 起こりて. Due to predictable & regular sound changes (音便) it became 起こって in modern Japanese. There was no way it could have become 起こて.

起きる's continuative form is 起き (it already ends with an i vowel without a kana change) so it doesn't produce the environment in which 音便 occurs, and thus there is no loss of a mora (り) with a replacement by a geminate (っ). If it was the case that the continuative form was 起きり, then the te form would be 起きって. You would also get 起きります.

Just because you don't fully understand verb groups (and their conjugation) don't say that they "don't count". Grammar may be descriptive, but language naturally develops rules which humans then try to describe. You might as well complain that there is no reason for water to be みず and not GNQ2IH.

Wow, I was just gonna say "because it's 起こります" but a history lesson is even better!

jmkeralis wrote:

Like I said, I'm definitely not the norm - the more languages you learn, the easier they get, so I'm not as likely to get mixed up as someone who's on their second language.

This is something that a lot of people don't take into consideration. For me, Japanese is my first attempt at another language and it's rough sometimes. Someone who has experience with other languages (like Khatzumoto and many others) will likely find learning Japanese much easier than someone like me. It shouldn't be an excuse, but don't be depressed if you don't move as fast (I'm giving myself advice here).

jmkeralis wrote:

Well, so much for me getting a few laughs about misreading katakana.  This apparently morphed into a grammar thread. :-)

Haha, much like languages, threads here just seem to... evolve. A bit faster, though

Jarvik7 wrote:

nac_est wrote:

Asriel wrote:

why it's　起こって instead of 起こて.

This makes for an interesting question: why is it 起こって instead of 起こて? Saying that it's because 起こる is a godan verb doesn't count, because that's something that's been made up at a later time to make it fit into the grammar.

Because the continuative form of 起こる (classically yodan, modern godan) is 起こり, with the conjunctive particle て attached to the end it becomes 起こりて. Due to predictable & regular sound changes (音便) it became 起こって in modern Japanese. There was no way it could have become 起こて.

起きる's continuative form is 起き (it already ends with an i vowel without a kana change) so it doesn't produce the environment in which 音便 occurs, and thus there is no loss of a mora (り) with a replacement by a geminate (っ). If it was the case that the continuative form was 起きり, then the te form would be 起きって. You would also get 起きります.

Just because you don't fully understand verb groups (and their conjugation) don't say that they "don't count". Grammar may be descriptive, but language naturally develops rules which humans then try to describe. You might as well complain that there is no reason for water to be みず and not GNQ2IH.

I see that my post may have passed for sarcasm/complaint or a hidden attack to grammar, but it really isn't so. I actually find (Japanese) grammar to be fun, and I learned a lot through it.
Thanks for the lengthy explanations, they are quite interesting. It's also true that I don't fully understand verb groups, as I've only studied them in a superficial way.

I hope however that you could see my point in that post. I was induced into writing it when I read Asriel 's use of the word why when talking about grammar. It is my opinion that grammar cannot tell us why things are the way they are. It only (attempts to) construct a logical framework to make the language more easily analysed.
So when I said "it doesn't count" I didn't mean to say that grammar is worthless, only that it isn't meant to explain things to learners.

As a (meagre) proof of the fact that grammar is not necessary at the early stages of learning, consider this: I, a learner with "scarce understanding of verb groups" who didn't even know what 音便 was before today, have been able to correctly use these verbs for some time now.

Finally, there is no reason for water to be みず and not something else. Languages are mysterious (to me, at least ).

Tobberoth wrote:

I agree with your last paragraph regardless, grammar might be humanly imposed rules which came "after the fact", but there is still regularity and rules within a language. If there weren't, no grammar would ever be applicable.

Isn't it kind of a ridiculous oversimplification to say that grammar is human imposed rules which came "after the fact"?  Grammar rules come both before and after the fact because language changes.  For example, certain languages have had professional grammarians for hundreds of years, and many of them have certainly helped to mold new language, essentially because the rules they wrote were then considered standard and taught to students.  In this case, the grammar rule existed before the new language, which is then molded to fit the grammar pattern.

Even without professional grammarians, isn't this how language works?  Like when you make up words by adding suffixes and prefixes, or by making a word that isn't a noun into one.  You know these grammar patterns in a intuitive way even without an academic background, and this influences the way you--and everyone else--makes new language. 

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting what you two were saying properly.

Last edited by Tzadeck (2009 May 20, 6:14 am)

harhol wrote:

bombpersons wrote:

I have my ps3 (running linux) running a python script that chooses videos from my terabyte hardrive and shows them like a tv channel. So all I have to do is turn the tv on and I get Japanese input all the time

As awesome as this first sentence sounds, surely this would lead to an insanely high electricity bill?

Quite possibly...I haven't found out yet...

Actually a little concerned now...

nac_est wrote:

...I was induced into writing it when I read Asriel 's use of the word why when talking about grammar. It is my opinion that grammar cannot tell us why things are the way they are...

Well I just reread my post in the context of all these crazy grammar explanations, and I've gotta say, I actually sound like I know what I'm talking about, don't I?

Truth is, I only know a very little bit about all this grammar stuff. I know how to use it, because that's how I was taught. All I meant is that a textbook will teach you when you use a って　and just a て, whereas you probably won't pick it up as fast from just listening.

There, I just had to dispel any ideas that I'm actually smarter than I am