User talk:Squidley

Welcome!

Hello, Squidley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 00:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Continuing keiyoushi debate

Hi. Can you cite any papers, perhaps your own, that call keiyoushi verbs? From my (non-specialist) reading of the literature, this is quite a radical step. Even your favourite reference doesn't go this far. Are we so constrained by technical definitions that we cannot translate keiyoushi as "adjective"? Why can we not understand "adjective" in the context of a Japanese grammar as separate from some narrow definition of "adjective" preferred by some linguists? Wikipedia is not a place for grinding axes, no matter how reasonable; I would object to 90% of the articles on mathematical logic otherwise. I hope you don't see this message as unfriendly in any way. I have entirely come around to your side on the matter of pronouns, and I concede "copular noun", but I am still not sold on calling keiyoushi "stative verbs". I personally would be in favour of including a prominent caveat lector with all the reasons you have stated about calling them "stative verbs", but keeping the term "adjective" nevertheless. By the way, if you don't object, I shall be glad to have this discussion on sci.lang.japan where experts like Dr. Mathias can give us their opinion. TIA. — Kaustuv 00:51, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I found this a while ago, but was too busy to post to Wikipedia. Contrary to what I thought, Yoko McClain, in her 1981 Handbook of Modern Japanese Grammar, used the term "verb" to refer to keiyooshi. Specifically, page 87 starts a section called "Adjective (Verbal Adjectives)." She wrote that "Japanese adjectives... differ from English [ones] in that they function as verbs." So there is a mainstream reference.

I did read the discussion on sci.lang.japan, and while some good points were made, I also found more ill-informed opinions than I care to deal with. (As an aside, I loved the way you presented my side--great job!) I suppose the opinion that bothered me most was the notion that I was trying to force Japanese into a Western descriptive mold. On the contrary, it is those who insist that keiyooshi are adjectives who are doing that!

Anyway, I think you misunderstand Crystal's definition of adjectives, and it seems to me that part of that is based on your non-acceptance of "auxilliaries" as verbs. Remember, the full term is "auxilliary verb." Besides, what else can they be if not verbs?

I'll follow up on this later--I gotta go now. Squidley 23:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Squidley --

I've joined the discussion on Japanese grammar, and I've been puzzled by your mention of "true" adjectives. I was hoping you might be able to explain that in better detail. Kaustuv has given a decent summary of Martin's views over on the Talk:Japanese_grammar/adjectives page towards the bottom, but even then I'm a bit at a loss. Also, would the Martin text in question be A Reference Grammar of Japanese? I have yet to read any Martin, and would like to get a handle on his view of the language.

Thanks, --- Eiríkr Útlendi 15:10, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi! "True" adjectives are ones that are not predicates. They are very limited in Japanese, and include words like ookina, chiisana, and some instances of onaji. Onaji as a noun may be followed by da, but it is not syntactically a noun in phrases like onaji hito 'the same person.' Notice we can also use the other adjectives here, like ookina hito 'a big person,' but that ookina can never show up as a predicate or before a copula, e.g., *ano hito wa ookina (desu).

I'm sure the text Kaustuv mentions is Martin's reference grammar. Squidley 23:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! That might also touch on one other confusion I've had -- why the na adjectives are called nouns, which now seems to be primarily due to how they require the copula in predicates. For while one can say ishi ga aru as easily as ishi da, onaji ga aru or shizuka ga aru don't really work too well. :) Cheers, --- Eiríkr Útlendi

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]