|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:17 pm
konnichiwa!!! watashi wa moookau desu. onamaewa??
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:25 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:37 am
kkmochi konichiwa anata no namae nani desu?(hi what is ur ame) Saki komori (mwh jpanese name) Genki desu(r u healty i think) Seems like you know some vocabulary, but grammar in Japanese is very different from English. First off, if you want to make a sentance a question, you need the question marker 'ka'. Take your third sentance: "Genki desu" literally means 'is healthy.' It is assumed that since you've dropped the subject and it is a statement, it is a statement about yourself: the subject is 'I'. So, we have "I am healthy". However, if you say "Genki desu ka" that makes it a question like "is healthy?" ((Again, since the subject has been dropped, and it is a question, it is assumed the statement is about who you are talking to. So we have "Are you healthy?")) Secondly, when you DO have the subject in the sentance, you need the marker 'wa'. ('wa' is actually called the topic marker in Japanese, but it refers to what we call the subject in English) In your first sentance, since the topic is 'anata no namae' then this phrase needs 'wa' to come after it to mark it as such. And since it is also a question, you need 'ka' at the end. So we end up with "Anata no namae wa nani desu ka.". One smaller note is that when you use the word 'nani' with 'desu' you drop the 'i' and it becomes 'nan desu'. So the final sentace is "Anata no namae wa nan desu ka." And because I'm a stickler for details: 'konnichi wa' has two 'n's not one =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:51 pm
Hikari.S Secondly, when you DO have the subject in the sentance, you need the marker 'wa'. ('wa' is actually called the topic marker in Japanese, but it refers to what we call the subject in English) Ah, not necessarily. "Ga" is actually the subject marker, but can be superceded by "wa" if the subject also happens to be the topic (or in other cases where "wa" is appropriate). However, "wa" can also mark the direct object, among many other things, so it's not a good idea to assume that whatever "wa" is marking is the subject. For example: Sushi wa tabeta. = As for sushi, (somebody known from context) ate (it). If "wa" were the subject marker, that sentence would then mean "Sushi ate," which it obviously does not mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:42 pm
KirikoAkushi Hikari.S Secondly, when you DO have the subject in the sentance, you need the marker 'wa'. ('wa' is actually called the topic marker in Japanese, but it refers to what we call the subject in English) Ah, not necessarily. "Ga" is actually the subject marker, but can be superceded by "wa" if the subject also happens to be the topic (or in other cases where "wa" is appropriate). However, "wa" can also mark the direct object, among many other things, so it's not a good idea to assume that whatever "wa" is marking is the subject. For example: Sushi wa tabeta. = As for sushi, (somebody known from context) ate (it). If "wa" were the subject marker, that sentence would then mean "Sushi ate," which it obviously does not mean. 1. I never said 'wa' was the subject marker. English does not distinguish between topic and subject so it would be confusing to refer to them as separate if I am speaking in English. So, I drew a comparison. 2. Wa does not 'supercede' Ga they are simply used differently. They are very similar but used independant of each other. A sentance could have both, or just one or just the other. They abide by separate rules. 3. Wa cannot be used to mark a direct object. It can replace the direct object marker, but only because you are changing the direct object word itself into a topic. So, in your example, if you say 'sushi wa tabeta' sushi is no longer a direct object but now is the topic. There is no direct object in that sentance anymore. Markers are only used for a single purpose. So anything that is marked by 'wa' is always the topic. No matter what. Anything marked by 'wo' is the direct object, always. And anything marked by 'ga' is always the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:31 pm
Hikari.S KirikoAkushi Hikari.S Secondly, when you DO have the subject in the sentance, you need the marker 'wa'. ('wa' is actually called the topic marker in Japanese, but it refers to what we call the subject in English) Ah, not necessarily. "Ga" is actually the subject marker, but can be superceded by "wa" if the subject also happens to be the topic (or in other cases where "wa" is appropriate). However, "wa" can also mark the direct object, among many other things, so it's not a good idea to assume that whatever "wa" is marking is the subject. For example: Sushi wa tabeta. = As for sushi, (somebody known from context) ate (it). If "wa" were the subject marker, that sentence would then mean "Sushi ate," which it obviously does not mean. 1. I never said 'wa' was the subject marker. English does not distinguish between topic and subject so it would be confusing to refer to them as separate if I am speaking in English. So, I drew a comparison. 2. Wa does not 'supercede' Ga they are simply used differently. They are very similar but used independant of each other. A sentance could have both, or just one or just the other. They abide by separate rules. 3. Wa CANNOT be used to mark a direct object. It can replace the direct object marker, but only because you are changing the direct object word itself INTO a topic. So, in your example, if you say 'sushi wa tabeta' sushi is no longer a direct object but now is the topic. There is no direct object in that sentance anymore. Markers are only used for a single purpose. So anything that is marked by 'wa' is always the topic. No matter what. Anything marked by 'wo' is the direct object, always. And anything marked by 'ga' is always the subject. I don't think you understand what a subject and a topic are. A topic is what you're talking about in the conversation/paragraph/whatever. While subject may be synonymous with topic in other instances (e.g. "the subject of a paper"), grammatically, it is not. A subject, according to Merriam-Webster, is "a word or word group denoting that of which something is predicated." In English, the subject is always the executer (for lack of a better word) of the verb, as "is/are/etc." is still considered a verb. Since "desu" is technically not a verb (though it serves some of the same purposes as "to be" in English), you can't really define the subject with that exact wording, but it's basically the same idea. " I ate" - I is the subject, because it's performing the verb in the predicate. A topic can be the subject, the direct object, the location, the destination, anything. "Wa" does not change that meaning of what's being marked. It just marks it as what's being talked about. Sushi is still the direct object in my example, but it's also the topic, so the "wo/o" is superceded by the "wa." "Ga" and "wo/o" are the only two particles that get superceded by "wa" when the subject or direct object (or whatever else they're marking) becomes the topic (or whatever else "wa" is doing, like in a comparison). However, other particles simply precede "wa," which is evidence that they are still playing the same role in the sentence that they were without "wa" and they are certainly not the subject. Gakkou de wa watashi ga benkyou shimasu. = As for at school, I study. Since "Gakkou de" is not studying, it's not the subject. The subject in this case is "watashi." "Gakkou" is marked by "de," making it the location, and the location is marked by "wa" making it the topic. Sushi wa tabeta. Sushi is what's being eaten, making it the direct object. The direct object in this case, is also the topic, so there must be a "wa." But unlike with most of the other particles, "wo/o" is a special case that gets dropped when marked by "wa." But it's still the direct object.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:43 pm
Well, I wont argue with you anymore then. Obviously you will not be convinced of anything I say and I will not be convinced of anything you say. I could give you a grammar lesson on what a direct object is and is not but I dont expect that will acheive anything.
We just see things differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Hikari.S Well, I wont argue with you anymore then. Obviously you will not be convinced of anything I say and I will not be convinced of anything you say. I could give you a grammar lesson on what a direct object is and is not but I dont expect that will acheive anything. We just see things differently. Except that this isn't about seeing things differently. It's grammar, ffs. A topic and a subject are not the same thing, not even in English grammar, so saying that "wa" makes it into what we call a subject is entirely incorrect. And go ahead and tell me what you think a direct object is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:26 pm
I never said that 'wa' marked a subject. 'wa' marks the TOPIC. I only used the word 'subject' to try and make it more understandable to the other person I was talking to.
Secondly.... Wa is the topic marker and nothing else. If 'wa' follows any word or phrase that word or phrase is defined as the topic. Nothing can be both a direct object and a topic. It is one or the other. Wa, Ga, Wo are all distinct from each other and all have separate rules for when to use them.
Direct object: "a noun or noun phrase representing the primary goal or the result of the action of its verb"
So: if you want to say "I ate sushi" you would say "sushi wo tabeta". You are applying the verb "eat" directly to the object "sushi".
If you say "sushi wa tabeta" you are no longer saying "I ate sushi" or even "as for sushi, I ate it" All you are saying is "as for sushi, ate." Using 'wa' and thus making 'sushi' the topic simply defines an ambiguous relationship between sushi and eating. As another example, you could say something very similar like 'neko wa tabeta' There is nothing grammatically to define whether you are eating the cat or the cat is eating some unsepcificed thing. If you want to be more specific about the relationship between the 'neko' and 'tabeta', you have to either make 'neko' the direct object, or you add a direct object like "neko wa sakana wo tabeta". In the same way, with "sushi wa tabeta" you can't say for sure how eating is related to the sushi, but of course, we naturally assume it is being eaten not doing the eating.
In summary, a word cannot be both general and specific at the same time so it cannot be both topic and direct object.
I had trouble with this myself, but my husband is fluent in Japanese (he studied at Akita University) and he has explained this to me many times so I could grasp it naturally. This is also how my Japanese teacher explained it to me. I would suggest you ask your own teacher about this and see what they say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:53 pm
Hikari.S I never said that 'wa' marked a subject. 'wa' marks the TOPIC. I only used the word 'subject' to try and make it more understandable to the other person I was talking to. Secondly.... Wa is the topic marker and nothing else. If 'wa' follows any word or phrase that word or phrase is defined as the topic. Nothing can be both a direct object and a topic. It is one or the other. Wa, Ga, Wo are all distinct from each other and all have separate rules for when to use them. Direct object: "a noun or noun phrase representing the primary goal or the result of the action of its verb" So: if you want to say "I ate sushi" you would say "sushi wo tabeta". You are applying the verb "eat" directly to the object "sushi". If you say "sushi wa tabeta" you are no longer saying "I ate sushi" or even "as for sushi, I ate it" All you are saying is "as for sushi, ate." Using 'wa' and thus making 'sushi' the topic simply defines an ambiguous relationship between sushi and eating. As another example, you could say something very similar like 'neko wa tabeta' There is nothing grammatically to define whether you are eating the cat or the cat is eating some unsepcificed thing. If you want to be more specific about the relationship between the 'neko' and 'tabeta', you have to either make 'neko' the direct object, or you add a direct object like "neko wa sakana wo tabeta". In the same way, with "sushi wa tabeta" you can't say for sure how eating is related to the sushi, but of course, we naturally assume it is being eaten not doing the eating. In summary, a word cannot be both general and specific at the same time so it cannot be both topic and direct object. I had trouble with this myself, but my husband is fluent in Japanese (he studied at Akita University) and he has explained this to me many times so I could grasp it naturally. This is also how my Japanese teacher explained it to me. I would suggest you ask your own teacher about this and see what they say. I will take back what I said about the direct object. My original point with that anyway was that "sushi" was not the subject. After all, this is what you said: "Secondly, when you DO have the subject in the sentance, you need the marker 'wa'. ('wa' is actually called the topic marker in Japanese, but it refers to what we call the subject in English)" Telling that to someone who doesn't fully understand "wa" will probably give them even more trouble distinguishing between "wa" and "ga," because you did pretty much say that what precedes "wa" is the subject, even if you didn't explicitly say, "'wa' is the subject marker."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:52 am
Wow, you guys sure are getting rilled up for a beginners japanese conversation biggrin I found a couple websites that tackle the "wa/ga" issue The Simplistic explination: About.com: Wa/GaThe more in depth explination: Wa/Ga differenceThe definition of a topic IS the subject of a essay, speech, etc, which probably causes half the "wa/ga" problems, in our english minds we think "wa is topic marker, a topic is a subject of something, therefore wa is a subject marker." And most beginner Japanese books offer "watashi wa" as a way of saying "I" so you end up with a lot of "watashi wa juu-go-sai desu. watashi wa kookoo sei desu. watashi wa amerika jin desu." But wa is more like "As for . . ." and only needs to be said once until the conversation goes to a different topic (or subject biggrin ) Now, I'm not sure about this "sushi wa tabeta" sentance, unless theres a contrasting element that's not stated. like "tenpura wa tabenakatta ga, osushi wa tabeta" (I didn't eat tempura but I did eat sushi) Anyway, wa is a kind of subject marker, and subject is already a bit of a broad term in English, so don't bicker over the semantics of that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 4:12 am
I agree with you that it is not, as far as Japanese is concerned, correct to say the 'wa' marks the subject.
However since as Freakezette said, the ideas of topic and subject are not as clearly distinguished in English so no matter how you slice it, explaining 'wa' is going to be confusing and sometimes not quite correct for a while until the person gets used to the language.
I was just trying to explain one of the hardest things to grasp in about 5 words whee (My lunch break was ending)
I really enjoyed our conversation however, it helped me to understand the concepts better having to think about it so hard myself biggrin
hirugohan o tsukuranakereba naranai kara ikimasu sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:36 am
Freakezette Anyway, wa is a kind of subject marker, and subject is already a bit of a broad term in English, so don't bicker over the semantics of that. "Subject" isn't that broad in grammar, however, so it's probably a good idea to make the distinction early on between a grammatical subject and subject in other contexts. My original response wasn't really about semantics, I honestly thought Hikari.S thought that "wa" was used for marking grammatical subjects, which you do see sometimes. Hikari.S I really enjoyed our conversation however, it helped me to understand the concepts better having to think about it so hard myself icon_biggrin.gif I really enjoyed it too. ^^ Kinda kept me from doing my homework a little bit, so thanks for responding promptly, so it didn't go on as long as it could have, lol (Even if there weren't a response, I would have kept checking back ^^;; ). Anyway, sorry that I do tend get carried away in internet debates, lol. どうもすみませんでした。
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:51 am
konnichi wa Hayley desu O-genki desu ka.
Oshiete kudasai fool wa nihongo de nan desu ka
arigato gozaimasu
helo my name is hayley how are you?
can you help? how do you say fool in japanese?
than you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:28 am
I think that the "in depth wa/ga" website I posted earlier has the best "final word" in the wa/ga debate: Quote: So just study wa and ga, and do the best you can to think about which is appropriate in each case. But be aware you'll probably never get it totally right. Ah, like so many things in Japanese . . . . I was just teasing you guys about getting too rilled up, that conversation certainly made me think and then do some research about the wa/ga difference, before I would have said "you use wa here and ga there because you just do" without offering an actual explination. anyway, back to beginning japanese!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
