As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

Help talk:Part of speech/ja

From OmegaWiki
Revision as of 17:34, 28 June 2012 by InfoCan (talk | contribs) (moved Talk:Part of speech/jpn to Help talk:Part of speech/ja)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi there!

I am not much of a linguist, so this looks all right to me. I wonder if it is possible to add subcategories, it would perhaps be nice to be able to classify 動詞 as

  • 五段
  • 上一段
  • 下一段.

Another problem is whether 代名詞 should be a subcategory to 名詞 or not present at all... Gon-no-suke 01:43, 27 February 2007 (EST)

If I understand it right, subcategories are not supported by the database software yet. But it can't hurt to have them ready when the software allows to add them, so I'll make a second, expanded table when I have the time.
代名詞 (pronouns) should be a separate category to keep in line with most other languages, although they are non-inflecting like Japanese nouns and you're right that it is technically not necessary to treat them as a separate word type.
You could add them on the same level from the beginning and let users choose if they want to be specific. Gon-no-suke 23:02, 27 February 2007 (EST)
The only tricky one is the type 連体詞 (Rentaishi), I've found several translations for the term and I'll try to check with a few experts which one should be used.
Apart from that, could you help with Swedish translations of the terms? --Mkill 21:04, 27 February 2007 (EST)

There was an entry in Duden for [Adnomen]. There is also some data on [this page], but I dont know how linguistically accurate they are. Gon-no-suke 23:02, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I have feedback from the j-studien mailing list, and I got feedback from an author who wrote a German book about Japanese grammar (Jens Rickmeyer), where he said he prefers the term "Adnomen" for the new version of his book. So I consider that one settled.
And thank you for the link with the table, it looks good and I think we can work with this one.
The only issue I still have is the two types of adjective. I've seen several terms for these now, and after some consideration I prefer "i-djective" and "na-adjective". Sure, it may sound a little too much like elementary school and lack "academic credit", but these two are easily understandable to everyone. And easy-to-use for the average contributor is what we should aim for. --Mkill 10:33, 5 March 2007 (EST)