Language desk
< December 27	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 28[edit]

Two questions about Japanese alphabets[edit]

So they use three alphabets: Chinese characters for most words, and two syllabic alphabets that spell out things there are no Chinese characters for, one reserved for grammatical particles and the like and the other for foreign words.

1) Are all symbols of the first syllabic alphabet actually used? Does every syllable appear as a particle or something?

2) Why did they need TWO extra alphabets if they both basically supplement the Chinese characters? Couldn't a single alphabet suffice for everything those characters don't cover? --Qnowledge (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, there are three main components to Japanese writing, none of which is commonly or validly called an "alphabet". According to any valid definition of an alphabet, consonants are generally written independently of vowels, which does not happen in traditional Japanese writing. Instead there is one set of "logographic" Chinese-based characters, and two "syllabaries". As you can read on the relevant articles, hiragana is used for ordinary tasks of writing inflectional endings, grammatical particles, and such, while katakana is used for ideophones ("sound effect" type words) and foreign words borrowed phonetically... AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, all hiragana letters are actually used. No, not every hiragana is a particle. Some are just a syllable in a word.

2) At first, there were only kanji. Buddhist monks, when reading complex documents, would use little abbreviated characters (parts of characters) next to some Chinese characters to give a hint of pronunciation. Eventually, these abbreviated characters became katakana. Because katakana was originally used as annotation for difficult Chinese characters and for a kind of shorthand, it was a tool of scholars had a reputation as such.

Women in the imperial courts began to use simplified forms of some kanji for writing poems, personal letters, and such. These eventually became hiragana. Many words can be written in kanji only, or parts of the word (or even the whole word) may be written in hiragana. Kanji characters are very formal and cold. By changing a kanji to hiragana, it softens the word and imparts warmth. Texts for young children will have a few kanji, but large amounts of words will be expressed in hiragana. The number of hiragana will be reduced in texts for older and older children.

Katakana is not only for foreign words, but also technical words and words that you want to stand out (like italics). Yes, a single kana (such as hiragana) could be used for everything in written Japanese. Either kana can be used to write every Japanese word, but using the three writing systems gives a lot of depth, feel, and texture to a writing. —Stephen (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Present perfect[edit]

Imagine Hitler ranting at his generals after an unexecuted order of his caused some trouble: "Das war ein Befehl!" – Wouldn't one have to translate that with the present perfect ("That has been an order!") – unlike the translation given in the relevant subtitle of the video linked below –, as he is referring to the present effects of an event in the past?--Herfrid (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here's the context...--Herfrid (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine one of Hitler's generals attempting to correct Hitler's grammar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is an oversimplified or incorrect rule. In the sentence "Hitler has ordered the destruction of Stalingrad", the present perfect might be correct (if the order is still valid and may still be carried out). In this case, the order was not carried out, so the present perfect is particularly inappropriate. When classifying what a past utterance was, you would normally use the simple past. --Boson (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boson, but then what about points no. 4 & 5 (and the corresponding examples) in the information here, for instance? Since – from the temporal perspective of Hitler and the officers addressed by him at the time of speaking – we could say that the fact that the order has not been carried out becomes relevant for the present at the time of the utterance, couldn't we?--Herfrid (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though there may be very slight differences between American and British English, I would say that this does not normally present a problem for native speakers, but it is difficult to explain concisely. What is important is that rules normally written in books etc. are an attempted approximation of the intuitive rules applied by native speakers. Relevance may well be a necessary condition for all uses of the present perfect, but it is not a sufficient condition, and it may be unhelpful as a general rule. What is probably common to all uses is the existence of a time span that lasts until the present (a very short time before the moment that the utterance begins). It is not necessary that the activity or state itself continue until the present, but the present perfect is normally not used if there is an implication that the encompassing time span (during which the activity, state, or event occurred) terminated before the present. This may become clearer when we get to examples, but acquiring a feeling for what this encompassing time span means is an important part of native-speaker competence. You wrote "we could say that the fact that the order has not been carried out becomes relevant for the present at the time of the utterance, couldn't we?" However, stating that the order was ignored indicates that the time span during which the order may have been issued ended at that point in the past. This also explains why you can't normally say "* I have been fired yesterday, however relevant it is to the present."

It may be helpful to differentiate 4 (somewhat arbitrary) different types of use:

(1) continuative ("I have lived here for ten years.")

(2) experiential or existential ("I have never been to Paris.", but not "* Pope Gregory has never been to Paris.")

(3) resultative ("I have lost my car keys!" [I cannot get into my car] but not "* I have lost my car keys but I found them in my pocket when I undressed.")

(4) recent news ("Tromp has invaded Kleptostan!", but you would not answer "* Has he done that last night?")

This does not mean that the present perfect must be used in all cases where it is permitted, but you can't really use it if the time span for the possible occurrence ended before the present.

Where there is a choice, American English may tend more toward the preterite.

--Boson (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good summary! But I'm not sure I'd assert the "you really can't use it..." part quite so unconditionally. Compare Jesus' sacrifice has freed us from the law. I admit I'm having trouble coming up with a similar "secular" example, but I think there must be one. Maybe it depends on what you mean by "time span for possible occurrence". --Trovatore (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re "But I'm not sure I'd assert the 'you really can't use it...' part quite so unconditionally": I agree. I had to check that I actually wrote 'you can't really use it...'; the really was intended to relativize (or fudge) rather than intensify. But I take your point. It's difficult to express exactly what I mean because it's more about attitude or perspective, rather than objective temporal facts like dates when things actually occurred. That's why I think it can be useful to think of the four different types. I would say, your example Jesus' sacrifice has freed us from the law is resultative, i.e. the speaker is stating that we are now free "from the law". With this example, it might be simpler to say that it is a matter of whether the proposition is being presented in terms of its relevance to the present (a necessary condition for the present perfect). But the word relevant might not get across the implication that the proposition is still true and has not been rendered invalid by intervening events. "Time span for possible occurrence" was probably not the best way to express what I meant. In terms of your example, my intended meaning was that when the present perfect is used the "freeing effect" (as opposed to the sacrifice itself) may have occurred at any time between the sacrifice and the present (e.g. at our birth). I am trying to explain (at least to myself) the differing levels of intuitive acceptability of

Jesus' sacrifice has freed us from the law but we have lost that freedom through ...

Jesus' sacrifice has freed us ... over 2000 years ago

Jesus' sacrifice and that of martyrs through the centuries have freed us ...

Jesus' sacrifice, over 2000 years ago, has freed us ...

My suspicion is that this example is a bit confusing because there are two actions: the sacrifice and the freeing. Another (slightly different) example I recently came across in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language was "He has got up at five o'clock". I immediately thought: "You can't say that!" but (even before reading the explanation) I realized that it must mean something like "He has been known to get up at five o'clock", i.e. in the time span from the beginning of time up to the present it has happened at least once.

--Boson (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't imagine any context where it would be appropriate to say "that has been an order". It just sounds very awkward. The present perfect is used less with "to be" than with a lot of other verbs (I think that's also true in German — the Praeteritum is rare for most verbs, but for sein it's quite normal, and I'm guessing that native speakers would struggle to find a context that would invite das ist ein Befehl gewesen). --Trovatore (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a non-native speaker (!), I totally agree with you that it does indeed sound weird. I'm just wondering why that is so if it can in fact be argued for from a strictly grammatical point of view…--Herfrid (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on reflection I want to amend that — the present perfect with "to be" is used a lot, but not with this sort of bare noun complement. It reminds me of a Dave Barry sketch where he was describing his experience on a radio show, touting a parody home-improvement book he had written, where the host thought the book was serious.

Host: Dave, where do you recommend adding insulation?

DB: Bob, I recommend the driveway.

Host: My guest has been Dave Barry!

This use of the present perfect is correct but a little bit "marked". I'm struggling to figure out how to characterize why I don't get the same reaction to a sentence like "that guy has been an annoyance all day", which sounds perfectly normal. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interposed question (which occurred when writing my post above): As the formal rule goes that one is not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition, how would I have to recast a sentence like "It can be argued for"?--Herfrid (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blind adherence to that "rule" would render most people rather put out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The simplest would probably be "an argument could be made for it". --Boson (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore: In fact, after thinking it over, I would say you can actually say "das ist ein Befehl gewesen" in German.--Herfrid (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The French say that the English can't do logic because their language isn't up to it. Poetry, yes, but not logic.PiCo (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore: So, we have to end up simply accepting the fact that sometimes "to be" can be used with the pp and sometimes not – for no exactly logical, but rather for merely idiomatic reasons?--Herfrid (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. Were you expecting different? --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest: yes, I was! As I thought there is always at least some logic about the use of a tense…--Siebi (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]