Talk:Japanese godan and ichidan verbs

Old

In addition to the duplication and the linguistically questionable terms "consonant verb" and "vowel verb", there is an actual serious error here. Godan verbs are what are usually considered to be group 1, not ichidan verbs. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and finding my mistake. About the terms used, the only linguist I know is the person who introduced me to them, so I doubt your supposition that they are linguistically questionable. In fact, the linguist in question actually said that the terms "godan" and "ichidan" were "artifacts of a syllabic writing system", and thus his opinion was that the terms "godan" and "ichidan" were the "linguistically questionable" ones. --DannyWilde 10:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Here at least is one thing I can agree with Mathias about! I can't see any problem with these terms (I use them myself), especially if you take them as shorthand for "consonant-final-stem verb" and "vowel-final-stem verb". RJCraig 04:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I think that "consonant verb" and "vowel verb" are artifacts of a writing system that uses Roman letters. I think it is mistaken to classify Japanese verbs using terminology that would apply to a language written in Roman letters. Japanese IS written in a syllabic writing system, called "hiragana" and "katakana," thus it makes more sense to classify verbs in terms with "artifacts of a sillabic writing system." I think to classify Japanese verbs as "wowel" and "consonant" verbs is mistaken, because in Japanese, to a native Japanese speaker, Japanese IS written in a syllabic writing system that stand on its own merit; the Japanese do not separate consonants and verbs the way an English speaker would; they separate it into different syllables. This "linguistic" system is an invented one; one invented from a non-native Japanese speaker point of view. I think the Japanese would know best what they are talking about, and Japanese should be discussed in its own terms, not in new "linguistic" ones. We would never, for example, describe the English language in terms using kana; that would be mistaken. I think this "vowel/consonant" system is superfluous, and more confusing. I'd rather this page describe Japanese verbs as the Japanese describe them, not as quote/unquote "linguists" describe them, thanks. KogeJoe (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

KogeJoe, by your logic IPA does not reflect reality because nobody uses IPA to write their language. This assertion might look good on paper, but an actual analysis of spoken English shows there are over 10 vowel sounds despite there only being 5/6 letters to mark these vowels (incidentally, this profusion of vowels is one reason for foreign accents). Linguists attempt to describe a language as it exists, with spoken language given some primacy as language itself has existed and does exist as a spoken language long before it is written - a child learns to speak long before they learn to read, and written natural languages are preceded by spoken languages. In summary, the written language is not the total of language itself, the signs are not the things they signify. If you read a little bit about linguistics first before dismissing it then it will be easier to understand.--adamatari (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Japanese is a spoken language. Words in the Japanese language have vowels and consonants, like any other spoken language. Linguists who refer to "consonant stem" and "vowel stem" verbs are referring to the actual structure of the spoken language, not to the written representation.

Both systems are, of course, invented, and in fact in some structural sense they are equivalent. There is no "natural" system of describing the Japanese language. The system you prefer was invented by Japanese scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries and is no more natural or automatically correct than the one used by linguists (including Japanese linguists working in Japan, by the way). Linguifauna (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me if I'm just confused as I'm a fairly new student to Japanese, but the way I've learned thus far is that verbs that must end in eru or iru are part of the group known as either Group II, Ichidan, -ru, vowel, or weak verbs, while all other regular verbs are known as either Group I, Godan, -u, consonant, or strong verbs. In your introduction this seems confused as you list consonant verbs in the former group and vice versa for vowel verbs. Incidentally this is the first resource I've encountered that uses the consonant/vowel nomenclature instead of Group I/II or Godan/Ichidan.

Welcome to Wikipedia and the Japanese language. Thanks for your comments. I have altered the page to add your nomenclature. Unfortunately there are lots of different nomenclatures for these verbs. A similar situation can be seen on the page Japanese adjectives, with four names for the same thing. The problem then is what to call them. The "consonant stem/vowel stem" one here is not my idea, I learnt it from a linguist called Bart Mathias on the sci.lang.japan newsgroup. I don't know if it was his idea or not. However, I think it's a very intuitively clear way of naming the two different types of verbs. Thanks for suggesting some corrections and additions to the article. There seem to be so many names that a table is needed. --DannyWilde 03:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Why can't we describe verbs as the Japanese describe them and teach them to native Japanese speakers in class? Is there a reason why we have to have all these zany Western ways of classifying verbs? I find it confusing. I first learned using the "group I, group II, group III" way, then I went to college, and the teacher used this strange "consonant/vowel" system that made even less sense than the first. Then I come to Japan and I learn that most Japanese call them ichi-dan, go-dan, and this system made SO MUCH MORE SENSE TO ME! Naturally, this is how the Japanese view their own language. I find that this "vowel/consonant" system for learning Japanese verbs is more of a nuisance than help. The teacher tries to teach me to separate vowel and consonant, when in my mind, having learned the kana used for writing Japanese, this is simply impossible. All these strange odd rules that only make sense to an ENGLISH SPEAKER. Between all these systems, I find the "ichi-dan, go-dan" system the easiest to learn, followed by the "group I" and "group II" system (how many of you learned the "i,chi,ri = tte, bi, mi, ni = nde" song?). I could just never make sense of this "vowel/consonant" thing. I wish it were destroyed and phased out all together. It's not "intuitive," it's confusing as all ***. KogeJoe (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that calling them consonant and vowel verbs is the most intuitive option available; hopefully Wikipedia will help popularize this nomenclature for English speakers. My first introduction to Japanese grammar was via a native speaker who listed all the possible terms but seemed to prefer using Godan/Ichidan. The only other suggestion I can think of for this page is perhaps a note somewhere stating how complete these two lists are. --Norfenstein 23:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC) (same user as above, now registered)

It seems that in the initial classification, the terms wovel and consonant are swapped. They apply to the stem, not to the ending. For -u verbs, the stem ends in a consonant, and for -ru verbs, the stem ends in a wovel. See also the source cited in the previous comment. MartinVidner 17:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully Wikipedia helps INFORM people of all the nomenclatures there are, and does not lean towards one or the other, ESPECIALLY this "consonant/vowel" thing. "The most intuitive?" I'd like to know why, and how. My first introduction to Japanese grammar was in high-school, and the teacher was herself non-Japanese. She liked to use the "group I/group II" system... I just learned it because well, I was a beginner. But then I went to college, and the non-Japanese person THERE liked the "vowel/consonant" system. I had to learn an entirely new and different system, and I liked the "group I" and "group II" system better... in the middle of my college education, they switched the teacher, and he prefered the "u-verb/ru-verb" system... which actually, to me, made more sense than either the "group I/group II" systems. But then I studied abroad, and the Japanese teacher used "ichi-dan, go-dan," which automatically and completely made sense! Ichi-dan, you drop the ru at the end (which is why "ru-verb" also works for me), go-dan, the last kana of any verb simply changes within the same kana-row to differentiate inflection! It all made sense!

This "consonant/vowel" thing simply does NOT make sense, AT ALL. It's got these new rules and exceptions that only make sense if you learn this strange and abstract new "system." Since when do Japanese words EVER end on consonants, when the only final in Japanese is "n?" Stems, or any word in Japanese for that matter, do not, cannot end in consonants EVER. So how is it that this new "system" makes any sense? That's right. You have to learn which verbs belong to each group and learn to "split" syllables in ROMAJI. NO SENSE AT ALL. Japanese is written in KANA, NOT Romaji. This "consonant/vowel" system means nothing to native Japanese speakers, and I say, confuses non-Japanese speakers more (sure confused me), and therefore, superfluous. The order of precedence should be, IMO, "go-dan, ichi-dan," which is how the JAPANESE do it, "u-verb, ru-verb," which is probably closer, and "group I, group II," which is probably the most removed out of all of them, but which still classifies the two major classes of verbs. "Vowel/consonant" is RIGHT OUT. It shouldn't even be considered. Japanese linguists should do all that is in their power to destroy this worthless system that only makes sense to the people who study it and nobody else. KogeJoe (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thought of something else: some explanation of how the "missing w" in words like arau qualifies them as consonant verbs might be helpful, perhaps by including one such verb in the example table at the top with a brief explanation following. --Norfenstein 01:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Norfenstein, the reason for the "missing w" is a matter of historical linguistics. In classical orthography, words like "omou" were written "omofu" (思う/思ふ), and the written conjugations reflected this so "omoeba" was "omoheba" (思ふ/思へば/思はない/etc). According to what I understand, this reflects an actual sound change between classical and modern Japanese, which led to the reduction of the "fu" into an "u" in the spoken language, which was reflected in the written language with the writing reforms following the second world war.　If you find an old copy of a Japanese novel written before the kana (and kanji) reform, you will find "omou" written "omofu", and "arau" as "arafu", and in Heian era literature this is also the case.--adamatari (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments to everyone. I will try to sort out the article in response to all your comments. --DannyWilde 00:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Terminology: 5 vs 1

According to this page: de:Fünfstufiges Verb#F.C3.BCnfstufige_Verben the godan verbs are called that because after cutting off the -u the final kana from the stem is thought to span all five lines in the kana grid as it were, that is to say, the vowel of the last kana of the stem is indeterminate until an ending is added. Is this the correct etymology? Or is the real reason these are called godan and ichidan verbs something different still? Shinobu (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the etymology I was taught as well. --Bookkish (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember folks; Japanese is written IN KANA. In the Japanese psyche, Japanese is spoken in inseparable syllables. Syllables only become separable if you write out Japanese in Romaji, and you start thinking in English, where the separation of each vowel and consonant is possible. It is impossible to "cut off the -u" or "-a, -i, -e," or "-o" for that matter, from kana; they are what they are. The reason they are called "go-dan," or "five-step" verbs, is because the last kana cycles through all of the kana in its row to form different verb inflection. You shouldn't think of it as "cutting off the -u," because you really can't do that. The only consonant final that exists in the Japanese kana system, and therefore in the Japanese psyche, is "n." This is why the Japanese must subtitute consonant finals like "t" or "s" with, for example, "to," and "su." (ie, chocolate becomes "chokoreiTO," and kiss becomes "kiSU.") It is MISTAKEN to think of kana as consonant/vowel combinations, because that only works in ROMAJI. The Japanese do NOT split "ku" into "k" and "u" or "su" into "s" and "u," EVER. This way of teaching is MISTAKEN. KogeJoe (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding kana

I think kana should be added next to the verbs, if only because of homonyms. But that's just me. Could this be done? ForestAngel (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think it would be MUCH more important to add the kanji for these things, particularly because if we noted the "verbs whose kanji stems are of two or more mora followed by the stem -ru are generally godan verbs" phenomenon, this article would become a LOT shorter. - Angelica K (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Urgent Change of Terminology, 2021-March

This article is extraordinarily confusing using unique nomenclature that's non-standard and semantically contradictory. This talk page hasn't been altered in almost 9 years.

The semantic meanings of the current nomenclature are irrelevant

The word "consonant" is clearly defined: a non-vowel. The word "vowel" is clearly defined: a, e, i, o, u. (I'll further add that these English vowels conveniently coincide with Japanese, even though they are pronounced differently.)

In the Japanese "alphabet" (syllabary) there are 46 "letters" (kana), all of which (barring 5 exceptions) begin with a consonant. To be clear, of the 46 kana: 41 kana begin with a consonant; 45 kana end with a vowel.

So it comes as no surprise that most Japanese verbs, and therefore verb-stems, begin with a consonant.

Furthermore, since all (except 1) of the kana end with a vowel, it's also unsurprising that all verb-stems end with a vowel.

So using "consonants" as a metric to categorise Japanese verbs is impossible. Consonants are irrelevant, as I will explain below.

Finally, there is no citation for the terminology involving "consonant" or "vowel" verbs. If this nomenclature wasn't already contentious enough, it simply has no reason to exist without a citation to prove its documentation.

The nomenclature used by Japanese people themselves

By all accounts of modern Japanese (i.e. not classical Japanese) as used in Japan itself, there are two groups of verbs:

1. 五段 (ごだん) Godan verbs
2. 一段 (いちだん) Ichidan verbs — These (in their dictionary form) always end in "~iru" or "~eru".

Japanese people don't usually classify a 3rd group for the 2 irregular verbs. I presume this is because Japanese children have usually mastered the words "do" (する) and "come" (来る・きる) before they're 3 years old, and therefore no further education on those 2 words exists in their grammar classes (this is my anecdotal experience as a teacher to children of such ages).

The nomenclature used by literature that teaches Japanese to non-Japanese people

Japanese language books, or at least the ones that target English-speaking learners, use the following standard nomenclature to categorise Japanese verbs:

1. 五段 (ごだん) Godan verbs / Group I verbs / (less commonly) 〜う verbs
2. 一段 (いちだん) Ichidan verbs / Group II verbs / (less commonly) 〜る verbs
3. Irregular verbs / Group III verbs / (less commonly) 変格活用 (へんかくかつよう) Henkakukatsuyō verbs

However, the most consistent terminology (which is included in most, if not all, literature) is the Japanese terminology itself: Godan verbs, Ichidan verbs and irregular verbs.

The Actually Consistent Definition of Verb Classification

Take the verb in its negative form. It has the following form: verb-stem + "nai".

1. 五段 (ごだん) Godan verbs — The verb stem ends with an "a" sound
2. 一段 (いちだん) Ichidan verbs — The verb stem ends with an "i" or "e" sound
3. Irregular verbs — しない (shinai) and こない (konai) are the two exceptions.

That's it. No additional rules. 100% accurate for every verb in the Japanese dictionary.

Notice how consonants are entirely irrelevant.

Arbitrary Lists

The article, at the time of this writing, states "Lists of verbs (examples) The following lists are not complete; feel free to add other verbs."

Why? Why is a list of "examples" required to be "complete"? Does this imply every possible known example must be listed? Doesn't that make the word "example" obsolete? Is that the goal?

If the lists are supposed to show every exception, why are the exceptions highlighted with a green background? That implies that the green columns are the true "Ichidan verbs" and the warning yellow-coloured columns are the "Be careful, this are Godan verbs masquerading as Ichidan verbs"... when the precise opposite conclusion is true.

Additionally, there are more "exception lists" below that say "Consonant-stem verbs ending in -iru Note: Homophone verbs listed above are not repeated here."

Why not? Having this Wikipedia page (ideally the reference page for the internet) with a complete table to warn people of exceptions, whilst excluding the exceptions previously cited earlier in the article, is misleading, inefficient and unhelpful. Doubling-up on information is better than having an arbitrarily incomplete list.

Moving forward — The future of this article

1. We will abolish the "consonant/vowel" nomenclature used in this article.
2. This article will abide by the standard "Godan (Group 1), Ichidan (Group 2) and Irregular verb" nomenclature used by everyone everywhere, including the Japanese themselves.
3. Having an arbitrary list of verbs is unhelpful. Perhaps the existing lists should be relocated to a stub Wikipedia page instead. We shouldn't have phrases
4. We should include a simple chart or categorisation system such that people can predict how verbs may be categorised from their dictionary form and include a short list of the most common "exceptions" (about 5-9 words, I believe).

Conclusion

The time is now. This important article needs to be updated to be in-line with standard nomenclature and consistent terminology.

I won't be waiting for people to endorse this opinion or for people to defend the current state of the article.

I'll begin making changes over the next few weeks. However if for some reason I don't get around to doing that, at least I've left a map of which direction this article should move towards so that other people can make these changes on "my" behalf.

Thank you kindly for reading this! This is my first edit on a talk page to discuss major changes I intend or desire to make on a Wikipedia article. As you can see I'm a little passionate about this topic, so I do apologise for my bluntness and overconfidence in this critique. In particular, if you've made contributions to this page yourself and I have critiqued them harshly in this short essay, I still am thankful for your contributions to the page as well. Clearly you are just as passionate about the Japanese language as I am, so let's work together to improve this page for everyone.

We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.

JKVeganAbroad (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

After 130 revisions in my sandbox over the past month-and-a-bit, I've finally updated this page to address the problems I described.

In the "Edit summary" I wrote: "Major page re-write to be simpler to understand, updating to modern terminology and use the standardized NIHONGO templates for Japanese text in web browsers"

This basically means I removed the obsolete and problematic "consonant verb" and "vowel verb" terminology from the page, except for a small sub-section where I explain the historical etymology of these obsolete terms.

I also copy-edited every section of the article to make it more readable and hopefully less confusing.

Since Wikipedia is not a list of words (let alone copy-pasted dictionary definitions, which might be copyrighted), I removed the arbitrary lists of vocabulary, and instead retained a small subset of examples for light demonstrative purposes.

I believe this page needs some more citations, but other than that, I think it's a more useful reference point now.

Please continue to improve this page!

JKVeganAbroad (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

References