Subject Verb Agreement Japanese

English relies heavily on its fixed word order to make sense – the time slots for „subject“ and „object“ are fundamentally immobile. Japanese, on the other hand, relies on particles to indicate the function of each nominated name or phrase. Here are two that you must fully understand: an English sentence must be composed of at least one subject, a verb and an object in that order. In Japanese, however, the order must be subject, object, and then verb. Kodomo is followed by ga, so we know that „the child“ is the subject, and terebi is followed by o, so that „TV“ is the object. The verb mita is the past form of miru „to watch“ (you will learn more about the conjugation of verbs). „The child was watching TV.“ If we had reversed the subject and the object… Japanese is much more flexible. Just to the left of the verb can be reorganized without changing the basic meaning of the sentence, although, as you learn, there is always a favorite order. The object can even be moved in front of the pattern without the risk of mixing it.

How is that possible? Fall marking is the most important reference to the interpretation of sentences in Japanese, while animacy and the order of words are much weaker. However, if subjects and their cases are omitted, Japanese honor verbs and modest verbs can provide information that will compensate for the absence of rolling marking. This study examined the use of honorable and modest verbs to indicate the assignment of case roles by native Japanese and Japanese Anglophones. The results obtained for native speakers replicated previous results with respect to the dominant force of fall marking. However, if case markings were missing, native speakers relied more on honour marking than on word order. In these sentences, the treatment, based on the honorary distinction, was delayed by about 100 ms compared to the treatment based on the reference to the fall marking. The learners made extensive use of the honour agreement indication, but their use of Cues was much less precise than that of native speakers. In particular, they failed to systematically invoke the reference to the agreement in the absence of case markings. Overall, the results support the model`s forecasts and expand its coverage to a new type of culturally specific cue.

From what I see, the Japanese are doing the same thing, but go even further — the subject disappears completely. Uehara (1998)[10] finds that Japanese grammarians do not agree on the criteria that make certain words „inflectional,“ katsuya and others, in particular, 形容動詞 keiy-d-shi – „na-adjective“ or „na-nominal.“ (It is indisputable that nouns such as `book` and `mountain` are not implacable and that verbs and i-adjectives are turning points.) The assertion that na adjectives are flexible is based on the assertion that the syllable is „there,“ which is usually considered a „copula verb,“ is really a suffix – a bend. So hon `book`, creates a one-word sentence, Honda `it`s a book`, not a two-word sentence, hon there. However, many constructions seem incompatible with the suffix copula requirement. In some cases, new verbs are created by adding -ru (〜) to a name or using it to replace the end of a word. This is most often done with borrowed words and results in a word written in a mixture of katakana (strain) and hiragana (inflectional termination), which is also very rare. [4] This is generally flippant, with the most established example sabo-ru (, cutting class; Crocheted game) (about 1920), by hoof-ju () (- sabotage), along with other common examples like memo-ru (, write a memo), memo (, memo) and misu-ru (- make a mistake) misu (- error). In cases where the borrowed word already ends with a ru (), this can be stung to a ru (as in gugu-ru (, to google), Google () and dabu-ru (to double), by daburu (, double). [5] Japanese adverbs are not as closely integrated into morphology as in many other languages.

Kommentieren ist momentan nicht möglich.