Japanese study group

[sister555]

And once again, let me repeat, Hydro, you should definitely watch "Quartet" with English subtitles, because the drama is really "cool", "witty", and sometimes せつない（sorry, there is no English word which match this).

 

"Quartet" with English subtitles:  http://yuizaki-libra.livejournal.com/36318.html

[Hydroblade]

12 minutes ago, sister555 said:

 

Hmm.  Japanese 「よく」 is very hard to explain.

 

First of all, よく in よくわからない is adverb（副詞）, which should be differentiated from adjective（形容詞）.

And I personally have no feelings that 「よく」must come with positive format, and I wonder how it is taught in Japanese language schools.

 

Ref.  https://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/よく

 

You might notice there are as many as 9 definitions only as adverb.

And I think よく in よくわからない is no. 1-4. （様態）

This is very similar to English "very" or "so".

I like it so much.

I don't like it so much.

 

From goo dictionary:  https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/227079/meaning/m0u/よく/

(goo dictionary is quite a good dictionary.  Its data is taken from the famous 大辞泉）.

Yes, that's why i wrote that it's used with adjectives and verbs  not that it was an adjective, sorry for the confusion!

And you might have no feelings about it because it's widely used, from the wiki link:

Quote

（理解、認識、知覚）

よく分かる。その人のことはよく知っています。

意味がよく分からない。よく知らない話で答えようがない。あまりよく覚えていない。前がよく見えなかった。

However, it is grammatically incorrect  I just pointed it out because it's another quirk of japanese language haha. Natives often use some grammatically incorrect terms but they are used so often that they become "acceptable". I should know. Spanish is full of these!

About whimsical well... "curious" might be another way to put it. Telenovelas practically have only six genres and... they are BORING I don't want to comment more on that because i will start bashing my own country  Just, if for some reason you decide to look at them because you're curious, in no way they represent mexican society and culture in an accurate way. At all.

[sister555]

4 分ぐらい, Hydroblade said:

Yes, that's why i wrote that it's used with adjectives and verbs  not that it was an adjective, sorry for the confusion!

 

Hmm.  You use sticky tongues so often, which makes me a bit irritated!!! (w)

 

4 分ぐらい, Hydroblade said:

And you might have no feelings about it because it's widely used, from the wiki link:

However, it is grammatically incorrect  I just pointed it out because it's another quirk of japanese language haha. Natives often use some grammatically incorrect terms but they are used so often that they become "acceptable". I should know. Spanish is full of these!

 

But then the sources listed above should carry notes as "colloquial" or something like that.

Could you kindly show the source of "grammatically incorrect"?  (BTW another sticky tongue really irritates me!!!!!!!!!  )

 

4 分ぐらい, Hydroblade said:

About whimsical well... "curious" might be another way to put it. Telenovelas practically have only six genres and... they are BORING I don't want to comment more on that because i will start bashing my own country  Just, if for some reason you decide to look at them because you're curious, in no way they represent mexican society and culture in an accurate way. At all.

 

OK, I'll wiki it afterwards.

[Hydroblade]

Just now, sister555 said:

 

Hmm.  You use sticky tongues so often, which makes me a bit irritated!!! (w)

 

 

But then the sources listed above should carry notes as "colloquial" or something like that.

Could you kindly show the source of "grammatically incorrect"?  (BTW another sticky tongue really irritates me!!!!!!!!!  )

 

 

OK, I'll wiki it afterwards.

I am sorry, that's just the way i talk 

The source of the grammatically incorrect is my japanese teacher and no way i'm making him come here to explain that  i already have the label of extra Fanyu because of the binder i take to the classes 

[sister555]

Just fyr.  We Japanese are also taught about correct usage of Japanese words/phrases, but I have never heard or taught that 「よく」must come with positive format.

[Hydroblade]

Just now, sister555 said:

Just fyr.  We Japanese are also taught about correct usage of Japanese words/phrases, but I have never heard or taught that 「よく」must come with positive format.

We weren't taught about it either, i just asked my teacher outside of class and word by word this is what he told me:

"Technically, yes, it is grammatically incorrect. However, it has been used for so long that people accept it like that with no explanation. Shouldn't actually be used like that but no one is going to beat you for doing it because everyone, EVERYONE does. It's a bit like 大きい being an イ形容詞 but being used like a ナ形容詞 sometimes."

[sister555]

1 分ぐらい, Hydroblade said:

I am sorry, that's just the way i talk 

 

Yes, but one gets a little irritated when a sticky tongue is posted so many times towards you. (^_-)-☆

 

1 分ぐらい, Hydroblade said:

The source of the grammatically incorrect is my japanese teacher and no way i'm making him come here to explain that  i already have the label of extra Fanyu because of the binder i take to the classes 

 

Hmm.  Your Japanese teacher might have some strange notion...

Quite unnatural, I suppose.

 

Then again, why those online dictionaries aren't carrying "colloquial" "misusage" with their definitions.

* As a dictionary, they always do for colloquialism, slangs, or misusage.

 

BTW, what is "Fanyu"??

[sister555]

Just now, Hydroblade said:

We weren't taught about it either, i just asked my teacher outside of class and word by word this is what he told me:

"Technically, yes, it is grammatically incorrect. However, it has been used for so long that people accept it like that with no explanation. Shouldn't actually be used like that but no one is going to beat you for doing it because everyone, EVERYONE does. It's a bit like 大きい being an イ形容詞 but being used like a ナ形容詞 sometimes."

 

I suppose he is more than 100 years old ....  It's like hearing Japanese lessons in Meiji era ..... (shrugs)

[sister555]

BTW, 大きな is now classified as 形容動詞, isn't it?

 

You know, there exist some theories/analysis/schools in Japanese linguistics, and this might be one of that phenomenon.

 

I just found a very good explanation.

Here:  https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/708424.html   (See No. 4 ベストアンサー）

 

In the above explanation, 大きな's old form, おほきなり comes from an old age.

 

Personally I feel your teacher's explanation is VERY WRONG (just my feeling, sorry), but the last senteces of the above explanation says it all (sorry for quoting as it is in Japanese):

 

そもそも文法というものは，最初に規則があるのではなく，人々が現実に使っている（いた）言葉の使い方の中からルールを見つけ出して出来上がったものですから，いくつもの違う解釈が生まれることもありうるのです。

 

So PERSONALLY I think your teacher's explanation is very wrong and even misleading.

But it's up to each one which theory to take.

 

 

 

[Hydroblade]

Just now, sister555 said:

 

I suppose he is more than 100 years old ....  It's like hearing Japanese lessons in Meiji era ..... (shrugs)

No, actually he is in his early 30s. He wasn't telling me "Don't use it!", no one else had that doubt but me, so i asked him after class. I told him i had found that use of よく on the internet and other sources and then he gave me that explanation. Personally i see nothing wrong in his explanation because he wasn't being restrictive or telling me "This is the only way you should use it!" as he told me it is accepted. 

 

I could compare it to this situation in spanish language.

There is a controversy with ordinal numbers, can't remember exactly which one was it because it was a facebook post. It's regarding the use of feminine or masculine articles depending on the ordinal number. There is a right way, but about 80% of the people use the wrong one because it sounds better. 

You won't find that listed on dictionaries.

 

And 大きい...小さい is in this situation too. They are "i adjectives with a na form". So they can be used both ways. Might be the same situation as よく. 

[sister555]

19 分ぐらい, Hydroblade said:

No, actually he is in his early 30s. He wasn't telling me "Don't use it!", no one else had that doubt but me, so i asked him after class. I told him i had found that use of よく on the internet and other sources and then he gave me that explanation. Personally i see nothing wrong in his explanation because he wasn't being restrictive or telling me "This is the only way you should use it!" as he told me it is accepted. 

 

I could compare it to this situation in spanish language.

There is a controversy with ordinal numbers, can't remember exactly which one was it because it was a facebook post. It's regarding the use of feminine or masculine articles depending on the ordinal number. There is a right way, but about 80% of the people use the wrong one because it sounds better. 

You won't find that listed on dictionaries.

 

And 大きい...小さい is in this situation too. They are "i adjectives with a na form". So they can be used both ways. Might be the same situation as よく. 

 

Well, it's completely OK if you trust your teacher's explanation.

But what bothers me is your teacher said "The usage is grammatically wrong", although he might have said it was accepted, he defined it as "grammatically wrong".  

 

I hope you have read the article https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/708424.html  (See No. 4 ベストアンサー）

Here quite old examples are introduced.  おほきなり was probably used in the Heian period.

 

So, according to your teacher's thesis (hypothesis?)  Heian era's おほきなり is already grammatically wrong.

But personally I feel the Heian period is too old to be referred to as "grammatically wrong", because it was more than 1,000 years ago!!  (wiki:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heian_period )

 

"i adjectives with a na form" in 大きな may be one thesis, but I'm sorry to inform you that in Japanese linguistics

大きな、小さな are classified as 「形容動詞」 or 「連体詞」 (please kindly refer to No. 4 ベストアンサー

 of https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/708424.html again).

 

Hydro, it might not be good to "stick to" one theory.  In fact what bothers me is you said "They are "i adjectives with a na form".

I think it is more correct to say that "They are classified as "i adjectives with a na form" in one thesis."  Because I have studied Japanese and Japanese linguistics when I was at University, but I have never heard of such classification.  So this is the reason that i feel your teacher's thesis is quite unique.

 

Hydro, I think I know that you would want to believe in what your teacher has said to you, but it might not be 100% perfect.

Please take every matter in a broad range.  After all it is one kind of thinking.  And there exists other kinds of thinking which are more commonly known/accepted in Japan.

 

Once again, I'd like to reiterate that I'm not trying to condemn your teacher, but I'm asking you to take every matter as a "possibility".  What your teacher said might not be 100% perfect.  In fact this is my first time I heard よく＋negative is grammatically incorrect or 大きな is "i adjective with a na form".  After all, it's not a "truth".  It's only a way of slicing things.

 

* Note:  I don't know about other countries dictionary, but at least Japanese dictionaries clearly show "colloquialism", "slang", or "misusage", etc.   Please have a look at several Japanese dictionaries.

 

 

Hydro, I think I can understand that you want to "believe" what your Japanese teacher has said.

But it's also true that I feel a strong uncomfortable feeling（違和感）to what your teacher has said.

 

I think we can reach one conclusion.  So I would like to make this argument to end.

In fact this is depriving me too much energy and time ... (lol)

 

 

[sister555]

Sorry everyone!!  Perhaps I and Hydro has got "too hot".  Maybe it's time to cool down ...

 

[Hydroblade]

11 minutes ago, sister555 said:

 

Well, it's completely OK if you trust your teacher's explanation.

But what bothers me is your teacher said "The usage is grammatically wrong", although he might have said it was accepted, he defined it as "grammatically wrong".  

 

I hope you have read the article https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/708424.html  (See No. 4 ベストアンサー）

Here quite old examples are introduced.  おほきなり was probably used in the Heian period.

 

So, according to your teacher's thesis (hypothesis?)  Heian era's おほきなり is already grammatically wrong.

But personally I feel the Heian period is too old to be referred to as "grammatically wrong", because it was more than 1,000 years ago!!  (wiki:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heian_period )

 

"i adjectives with a na form" in 大きな may be one thesis, but I'm sorry to inform you that in Japanese linguistics

大きな、小さな are classified as 「形容動詞」 or 「連体詞」 (please kindly refer to No. 4 ベストアンサー

 of https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/708424.html again).

 

Hydro, it might not be good to "stick to" one theory.  In fact what bothers me is you said "They are "i adjectives with a na form".

I think it is more correct to say that "They are classified as "i adjectives with a na form" in one thesis."  Because I have studied Japanese and Japanese linguistics when I was at University, but I have never heard of such classification.  So this is the reason that i feel your teacher's thesis is quite unique.

 

Hydro, I think I know that you would want to believe in what your teacher has said to you, but it might not be 100% perfect.

Please take every matter in a broad range.  After all it is one kind of thinking.  And there exists other kinds of thinking which are more commonly known/accepted in Japan.

 

Once again, I'd like to reiterate that I'm not trying to condemn your teacher, but I'm asking you to take every matter as a "possibility".  What your teacher said might not be 100% perfect.  In fact this is my first time I heard よく＋negative is grammatically incorrect or 大きな is "i adjective with a na form".  After all, it's not a "truth".  It's only a way of slicing things.

 

* Note:  I don't know about other countries dictionary, but at least Japanese dictionaries clearly show "colloquialism", "slang", or "misusage", etc.   Please have a look at several Japanese dictionaries.

 

 

Hydro, I think I can understand that you want to "believe" what your Japanese teacher has said.

But it's also true that I feel a strong uncomfortable feeling（違和感）to what your teacher has said.

 

I think we can reach one conclusion.  So I would like to make this argument to end.

In fact this is depriving me too much energy and time ... (lol)

 

 

I think you misunderstood me completely  i'm going to try to make myself more clear:

 

I definitely use よく in those ways that my teacher said that technically are grammatically incorrect. Because it feels natural, because i've been using them for a long time now and because i know it's ok. And he never told me i shouldn't do it, in fact encouraged me because it's a natural way the language evolves and he uses them himself. 

 

The na adjective thing is a completely different matter from the usage of よく. Actually he said that the use of 大きい、小さい as na adjectives comes from olden times, which is why it stayed despite them being currently classified as i adjectives (he was referring just to 大きい、小さい being i adjectives, not 小さな　大きな being i adjectives. It makes no sense because they don't have the i ending) I never said those forms were grammatically incorrect,  he used that example because he was illustrating the evolution of the language and how things that previously were considered wrong or right can be taken in the opposite sense in modern times (this referring not just to japanese or grammar, but any language and grammar, spelling and such)

 

[sister555]

15 分ぐらい, Hydroblade said:

I think you misunderstood me completely  i'm going to try to make myself more clear:

 

No I'm not.  I'm not misunderstanding you completely.

More accurately said, I'm not misunderstanding you at all.

 

Quote

 

First of all, i definitely use よく in those ways that my teacher said that technically are grammatically incorrect. Because it feels natural, because i've been using them for a long time now and because i know it's ok. And he never told me i shouldn't do it, in fact encouraged me because it's a natural way the language evolves and he uses them himself. 

 

It's not a matter of "Don't do it" or "Now accepted because everybody uses it".

What bothers me is that he stated that the usage is "grammatically wrong", with no explanation why it is wrong.

 

So once again, let me reiterate that the thing such as he encouraged you to use it and he said it's a natural way.

 

What annoys me is he "defined" that the usage is "grammatically wrong" showing no source.

 

Quote

 

The na adjective thing is a completely different matter from the usage of よく. Actually he said that the use of 大きい、小さい as na adjectives comes from olden times, which is why it stayed despite them being currently classified as i adjectives (he was referring just to 大きい、小さい being i adjectives, not 小さな　大きな being i adjectives. It makes no sense because they don't have the i ending) I never said those forms were grammatically incorrect,  he used that example because he was illustrating the evolution of the language and how things that previously were considered wrong or right can be taken in the opposite sense in modern times (this referring not just to japanese or grammar, but any language and grammar, spelling and such)

 

 

I think I'm not misunderstanding in this aspect either.  I didn't say at all that the usage of 大きな is grammatically wrong or anything.  I only said that the definition of "i-adjective" and "na-adjective" is quite unique and I have never heard of it before.

 

Please kindly note that you have been repeating the same thing again and again.

 (and most probably so do I ...)

 

So it is perfectly OK if you want to trust what your teacher has said to you.

But don't push it to me, please?  I have a strong sense of uneasiness about your teacher's theory, and could you kindly "admit" it, please?

 

After all, all grammatical explanation is not a "truth" or "fact".  It's just one theory and one way of slicing things.

 

So, once again, for the last time, I'd like to reiterate.

I'm not misunderstanding you or what you have stated at all.

It's all that I feel a strong uneasiness towards your teacher's explanation.

 

Hydro, I really want to put an end to this "argument", in other words, 

I'd like to make this to "We agreed that we disagree."

Okay?

 

In fact I'm feeling very exhausted.  So please kindly let loose of me.  Thank you so much.

[Hydroblade]

4 minutes ago, sister555 said:

 

No I'm not.  I'm not misunderstanding you completely.

More accurately said, I'm not misunderstanding you at all.

 

 

It's not a matter of "Don't do it" or "Now accepted because everybody uses it".

What bothers me is that he stated that the usage is "grammatically wrong", with no explanation why it is wrong.

 

So once again, let me reiterate that the thing such as he encouraged you to use it and he said it's a natural way.

 

What annoys me is he "defined" that the usage is "grammatically wrong" showing no source.

 

 

I think I'm not misunderstanding in this aspect either.  I didn't say at all that the usage of 大きな is grammatically wrong or anything.  I only said that the definition of "i-adjective" and "na-adjective" is quite unique and I have never heard of it before.

 

Please kindly note that you have been repeating the same thing again and again.

 (and most probably so do I ...)

 

So it is perfectly OK if you want to trust what your teacher has said to you.

But don't push it to me, please?  I have a strong sense of uneasiness about your teacher's theory, and could you kindly "admit" it, please?

 

After all, all grammatical explanation is not a "truth" or "fact".  It's just one theory and one way of slicing things.

 

So, once again, for the last time, I'd like to reiterate.

I'm not misunderstanding you or what you have stated at all.

It's all that I feel a strong uneasiness towards your teacher's explanation.

 

Hydro, I really want to put an end to this "argument", in other words, 

I'd like to make this to "We agreed that we disagree."

Okay?

 

In fact I'm feeling very exhausted.  So please kindly let loose of me.  Thank you so much.

I just really want to make clear this:

He did explain to me why it was wrong. And it made sense.

And, when learning japanese, every book will tell you there are "i-adjectives" and "na-adjectives" that is the grammatical term used to teach the language. I don't know which terms are used by natives but if you look up any japanese language learning site, they will break them down like that. Look it up if you have any doubts why, but really, every single japanese course will break them down like that.

 

I feel like the issue here is the way things are explained to those of us learning the language, and that it might not be the same way you learn the language in Japan. Which makes perfect sense because you can teach us the same things as natives have to learn as some students come as a blank slate and need elemental things explained and named in a different way. 

If that makes you uneasy i can't do anything about it because as learners, that is the standard terminology used to teach the language.