未然形 (Imperfect, e.g. in 読まない) 連用形 (Conjunctional, 読みます) 終止形 (Final, e.g. 読む) 連体形 (Attributive, e.g. 読む本) 仮定形 (Hypothetical, e.g. 読めば) and 命令形 (Imperative, e.g. 読め) are the forms Japanese verbs and adjectives can take when they are conjugated. There's also the 音便形, which "evolved" from the 未然形 (Euphoric, e.g. 読もう)
For verbs and i-Adjectives 連体形 and 終止形 are the same, however na-adjectives need either だ or な. You can read more about this on Wikipedia.

I don't know what B1, B2,.. are though.

Last edited by Evil_Dragon (2010 March 04, 6:51 am)

Go pick up a 古語辞典, there will be a chart in there somewhere that will explain it pretty well (in modern Japanese too).

But just for your info, knowing about those different categories is pretty much useless unless you plan to study Classical Japanese (古文). In modern there really will never be any confusion which category it falls into. Once you get back to 古文 however, it's often important to know what's going on with verbs because of the nature of how they inflect.

For example, in classical when ば is used it can either mean "if" or "when," and this is determined by which form the verb is in.

Last edited by Ryuujin27 (2010 March 04, 7:18 am)

Jarvik7 wrote:

Evil_Dragon wrote:

There's also the 音便形, which "evolved" from the 未然形 (Euphoric, e.g. 読もう)

There is no such thing as "an" 音便形. て form, 食べてる (without the い), すげえ, etc are ALL 音便形.

Depends on who you ask. There are either six or seven stem forms, with or without "an" 音便形.
In classical Japanese grammar there is of course no such thing.

Jarvik7 wrote:

Evil_Dragon wrote:

Jarvik7 wrote:

There is no such thing as "an" 音便形. て form, 食べてる (without the い), すげえ, etc are ALL 音便形.

Depends on who you ask. There are either six or seven stem forms, with or without "an" 音便形.
In classical Japanese grammar there is of course no such thing.

What makes 読もう an 音便形 and 読んで not one? Calling one onbin and the other te form (but not onbin) is definitely non-standard terminology.

How should I know? It's just that different authors use different terms. I read at least one grammar that declared 音便形 (or maybe 意向形, or both, I don't clearly remember) as a stem form of its own that is derived from the 未然形. Some modern grammars might even "fuse" 終止形 and 連体形 (hypothetically speaking, I never read one myself).

Last edited by Evil_Dragon (2010 March 04, 7:58 am)

Jarvik7 wrote:

Do you have an example of a text that says 音便形 is a specific form in and of itself?

If I did I would have told you already. Maybe it's something I read or was told in Japan, I'm not entirely sure. Or I am being fooled by my memory.

Last edited by Evil_Dragon (2010 March 04, 8:22 am)

cactus wrote:

And what B1,B2,B3 etc is supposed to mean?

I remember using some grammar books which used the B1-5 system in the past.
Iirc they use that to indicate the verbal "base" (does it make any sense?) and the number stands for  the vowel in which the base would end in a godan conjugation (japanese order).
For example if we were to pick the verb 書く, B1 would be 書か-, B2 書き- and so on, then the grammar would tell you to add -ない　to a B1 to get the plain negative form, B1+せる for the causative form, B2+ます etc...
I'm not 100% sure and I cannot seem to find those books to check, so I could be way off.

Jarvik7 wrote:

That sounds like a pretty godawful way to hide the names of the verb forms from the learner.. even worse than calling verbs type 1/2.

It certainly is.
I just found out that one of the grammar books that uses this system is some kind of pocket-sized grammar, which comes in a format dangerously resembling that of traveler's dictionaries, definitely not aimed at a serious learner.
Though I'm pretty sure I've seen it used in grammar books aimed at college students.

I don't think that's the most useful way to study modern Japanese anyway -- the terms aren't even really that good for classical Japanese (they're holdovers from 18th century kokugaku studies).  Unfortunately you do have to be familiar with the terms if you see them in Japanese works (or if you have to be familiar with them because of some external situation).  It's the same annoying problem that you see in Western linguistics as well; everyone knows the terms and categories suck but it's so hard to reform that that nobody bothers, even linguists.

Last edited by yudantaiteki (2010 March 04, 5:17 pm)

What is "gaijin-esque" about it?  The only complaint I've seen about it is that it sticks too much to the traditional 国語学 method, but other than that it seems like a decent book.  The book you linked to seems fine as well.  (How does it deal with the cases like 知れり?)