Talk:Japanese conjugation/Archive 1

Romaji?
What's up with all the romaji? I demand kana! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.153.157 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? Addition of kana would increase the size of the page and slow load time, possibly throw off the table balance. No essential information would be added, just eye candy. If you're familiar with the language, you can make the switch easily enough in your own mind.


 * Replacing the Romaji with kana would defeat the purpose here by obscuring the content for anyone who cannot read kana. RJCraig 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Japanese articles should all have kana, because Romaji, while good for typing Japanese on a keyboard, is in all other cases a hindrance to learning the language. I say it should all be written in kana with rollovers in Romaji. That way the Romaji is still there, but people can associate it with the actual Japanese. If I won't be overwritten by some Romaji-only extremist, I'll go ahead and put all of the kana in.Mewish


 * I'm by no means a "Romaji-only extremist" and otherwise would not have any objection to your proposal but would like to make the following observations:
 * (1) This is the English version of Wikipedia; while inclusion of information in native orthographies is always preferrable, entries should be geared towards English readers.
 * (2) Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia, not a language learning resource (although it can certainly be used as such). There are plenty of textbooks and other sites on the web for learners.
 * (3) Are the rollovers you are planning on using compatible with all browsers?
 * (4) Finally, use of the native orthography in this case obscures much of what is really going on in the conjugations. Use of Romaji is preferrable in these tables.


 * Please wait for feedback from others before beginning your changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJCraig (talk • contribs) 08:35, 30 April 2006  (UTC)


 * Why are there kana on this page now? It looks worse (to me) to be inconsistent in usage than it does to not use it at all (or to use it and break tables).  Worse still, there are kanji on the page, too; if people were worried about Japanese learners not understanding the kana, kanji should absolutely be avoided.  Could the usage issue perhaps be resolved by placing a line of kana above/below the line of romaji? 218.225.111.205 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, knowing both Romaji and Kana/Kanji are important steps in learning Japanese. If this table is to act as a good tool for both people who just want to learn to speak and conjugate the langauge without anything else (though I think that is a little fruitless) as well as a resource for people actually learning Japanese (like me) to keep of the straight (although my book has a glossary, this is still an excellent summary page), having both writing systems is not such a bad thing.  I added Kana/Kanji to two tables and they look fine, but I stopped in reference to this debate.  Also, that Kanji used on this page is not at all diffcult or obscure and any person who can read Hiragana I would hope would know some if not a majority of the Kanji used and use the Romaji in place of Furigana.   128.104.186.82 20:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Another issue with adding kana is that some computers can't display it properly (or at all) with no workaround. For instance, when I have free time at school, I work on conjugation, and I am eternally grateful that this article offers romaji, as the computers at my school don't have Japanese support. -S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihon.ai (talk • contribs) 17:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge
This article should either be merged with Japanese grammar, or the material on conjugation in that article removed. No sense in duplication. &mdash; Kaustuv Chaudhuri 07:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Readers should note that this was discussed on the Japanese grammar talk page. Please refer to that. --DannyWilde 05:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Change of direction
What this article ought to be discussing are the different conjugation paradigms of Japanese, not the different combinations of verbs and particles. Look at the Latin conjugation article, for example. Perhaps we should start an article in that format at Japanese conjugation. I have started a /Rewrite along those lines. The particles would need a separate article though...

Besides the structural issue, I take issue with the use of JSL-oriented terminology. - 振霖T 14:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you take issue with, specifically? In many cases the JSL perspective is more in accord with modern linguistic analysis than the traditional "multiple stem" one (which is basically a product of the obscuring of the underlying forms by the orthography). I feel there is a place for presentation of the traditional system (it's interesting and familiarity with it is essential when discussing grammar with native speakers who have been indoctrinated into it), but also believe that it is largely irrelevant to an understanding of the real structure of the language. RJCraig 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What? Whether you analyse the godan mizenkei as - a or -a, it's still a mizenkei which corresponds kami-ichidan -i, shimo-ichidan -e (ichidan -Ø), ka-hen ko, sa-hen se (with an anomaly for shinai), keiyōshi -kara.
 * There is ample evidence for continued usage of bare mizenkei for conditionals - nara and tara. The only form which is not used bare in modern Japanese is the kateikei (except when considering the etymologically mizenkei nara as a kateikei of da), but in classical Japanese, the equivalent izenkei was used bare in kakari-musubi: mizu-koso nagarure, tuki-koso kiyokere. The fact that all 6 forms can be used bare, and that the 6 forms vary from paradigm to paradigm is proof enough for me that the 6 forms exist, and are not a product of euphony.
 * Admittedly there are some holes in traditional analysis - the passive and causative do not quite fit in with the other uses of mizenkei - but the ka-hen and sa-hen forms muddle up a purely euphonic theory as well. - 振霖T 05:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying; I now understand better where you are coming from, although I am still curious about your investment in the traditional system. Please remember the distinction between synchronic and diachronic analysis. While we see a continuity from classical to modern which we label Japanese, no such entity actually exists, and the language is born anew as it is acquired by each speaker. In this process of rebirth, reanalysis often occurs, giving rise to the changes we see across history. RJCraig 07:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The reanalysis has not been so great. The same holes which existed in applying traditional analysis to classical Japanese still apply in modern, and most of the reasoning still applies. However, sound change has caused some forms to multiply in realisation - mizenkei now has two realisations in godan due to u-induced-mutation (-a + u > -ō), renyōkei now has a distinct realisation when used with -te (i-mutation, geminate-mutation, nasal-mutation) . On the other hand, shūshikei and rentaikei have merged in most paradigms. The only major reanalysis that I can think of that has happened between classical and modern is the recovery of the secondary stem in the subjunctive form of non-godan verbs: se + u > (u-induced-mutation) shō > shiyō; mi + u > myō [for some reason, not myū] > miyō; uke + u > ukyō > ukeyō. Well, aside from the ichidan-ification of nidan verbs, where all forms with -u- are changed to the secondary stem vowel... but that's less reanalysis and more analogy fairy - 振霖T 14:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously we differ in the scales by which we measure; I consider the shift from a four-major-plus-four-irregular conjugational system to a two-major-plus-three irregular system to be a massive change. The development of stem allomorphy in the godan verbs is also not insignificant. Neither is the reanalysis by which stem formative morphemes became associated with endings. When analyzing the modern verbal system, only the actual forms which occur are important. The traditional analysis and orthography are irrelevant. (By the way, in what paradigm is the rentaikei not equivalent to the shūshikei? While somewhat meaningful in discussing Classical Japanese, these terms represent a confusion of form and function when dealing with the modern language.) RJCraig 16:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keiyōdōshi / da have distinct shūshikei and rentaikei. (Whether or not they should be considered verbs is another debate.) But ultimately: the JSL analysis and the traditional analysis differ little except in the terminology. Irrealis stem, (pre)-nai form, mizenkei - they all refer to the same thing. My preference is to call it irrealis or mizenkei. This is how I analyse Japanese morphology: User:Zhen Lin/Japanese morphology chart. - 振霖T 12:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't considering adjectives or the "copula" earlier, only modern verbs.
 * I salute your diligence in creating those (very nice looking) charts. However, I see only a few points that differ from the traditional orthography-based line; hence I would hesitate to call yours a thorough morphological analysis. True, both the traditional and modern morphological analyses refer to the same forms, but to imply that their differences reduce to simple terminological variation is a serious misrepresentation. RJCraig 19:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well then, show me something where modern and traditional analyses differ significantly. - 振霖T 00:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ??? I am coming to the conclusion that we are talking past each other and that attempting to "show" you anything is an exercise in futility. Nevertheless...consider, for example, the ichidan verbs in your chart, subdivided into kami and shimo. First off, using these traditional labels conceals that these are verbs whose stems end in a vowel, either -i or -e. These verbs have an invariant stem to which endings are added. For them, the various -kei distinctions are irrelevant. The godan (consonant-stem) verbs do not have stems with six forms, they have two (or, at most, three): 書く for example has a stem with two allomorphs, kak- and kai-; the second is used before the "past tense" ending -ta/-da (itself having two allomorphs), etc. A form such as 書かない is not kak+a+nai but kak+anai, with the negative ending having two allomorphs, -nai used with V-stems and -anai used with C-stems. As another example, the continued analysis of the "volitional/hortative" as a mizenkei form results in the disparate analyses kak+o+u and tabe+yō for the C- and V-stems, respectively. Realizing that the ending is actually -(y)ō simplifies the analysis immensely: kak+ō and tabe+yō.
 * Rather than go on at length with further examples here, I will follow your example and create a user page (or two); since I fear I lack your facility in creating wiki-tables, this may take a day or two. Finally, if you want to dismiss the modern analysis as a simple JSL construct, I fear there is no point in further discussion. RJCraig 01:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Consider Latin declension. No paradigm has unique forms for the six major cases, yet no one disputes that those six cases exist. Same here. No (modern) verbal paradigm has unique realised forms for all six forms [only mizenkei and ren'yōkei can really be called stems; kateikei is marginal now with only -ba and meireikei even more so with only -ro] [indeed, no regular paradigm distinguishes shūshikei from rentaikei]. I can see how kak-o-u/tab-e-yō/m-i-yō is less simple than kak-ō/tabe-yō/mi-yō -- but in both cases, allomorphy exists - admittedly the former has two morphemes with two allomorphs each whereas the latter has one. I recognise that kaku has a stem kak- (kai- is marginal) and that modern taberu has a stem tabe-, but I don't see how kak-a-nai/tab-e-nai/m-i-nai is any simpler than kak-anai/tabe-nai/mi-nai - in both cases, allomorphy exists -- in the former, in the realisation of the mizenkei, in the latter, the realisation of the negative auxilliary. For kak-e-ba/tab-ere-ba/m-ire-ba vs. kak-eba/tabe-reba/mi-reba I could see the case, if a consonant cluster reduction is assumed -- but vowel cluster reduction cannot explain -(a)nai -- i-a should collapse to e (as in ki-ari > k-eri) and e-a should collapse to a (as in -te-ari > -tari). Otherwise I don't see why allomorphy in the suffixes is any more a desirable analysis than allomorphy in stem forms. Nearly a dozen common allomorphous suffixes [-(a)nai, -(a)zu, -(y)ō, -(i)masu, -(i)tai, -*te/-*de, -(r)u, -(r)eba, -e/-ro, -(s)aseru, -(r)areru, -(rar)eru] vs. five allomorphous suffixes [-(y)ō, -*te/-*de, -(s)aseru, -(r)areru, -(rar)eru] and five allomorphous forms [-a/-ø; -i/-ø; -u/-ru; -e/-re; -e/-ro] - neither seems obviously better to me. - 振霖T 15:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my use of the parentheses notation has been a source of confusion; if so, my apologies. When I write -(a)nai I do not mean one morpheme which is added to the stem and then acted upon by phonological rules (euphony); it is simply shorthand for the two allomorphs which occur in complementary distribution: -nai/-anai. (In the same way, I would use -(ə)z to express the English 3rd person singular present verb ending morpheme.) So mention of consonant and vowel cluster reduction is unwarranted as I am not assuming any. In connection with this, however, I am concerned by your conflating (throughout) of the classical and modern languages: they are not the same thing. The i-a > e and e-a > a reductions across morpheme boundaries are surely no longer operant. Finally, could you explain the reasoning behind your analysis of mireba and tabereba into m-ire-ba and tab-ere-ba? (Does the hyphen imply a boundary, or is this just your notation for...what?) RJCraig 04:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly happy with the current structure of the article and don't see the need for the suggested changes. The "rewrite" seems careless to me; much of the information in the current page, such as the details of irregular verbs, has been lost, and the sentences are confusing because they are not illustrated with any examples. That's not good at all. In general the writing style is sloppy and the level of unexplained "decorative" jargon is fairly confusing. What's more the tables are much too large for my browser screen. The whole thing seems to be more an argument about terminology than anything else. Why not merely add notes on terminology to the current article? One of the many problems with the current Japanese grammar article is the direction of the article seems to have been to jam as much linguistic jargon into the page as possible, and there is very little actual insight into the way the language is used. I've read the entire page but I didn't find it enlightening. Also, having looked at the page Latin conjugation, frankly this Japanese page seems clearer and much more readable in its current state than the latin one. --DannyWilde 01:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a language learning resource. - 振霖T 00:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So it's OK to be careless, have bad presentation, and lack insight? --DannyWilde 00:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about that. - 振霖T 13:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not in so many words, no. But to insist on a presentation that obscures the actual structure of the modern language for some reason (that I can't imagine) basically boils down to the same thing, no? (This isn't some sort of "Japanese is so unique that it is immune to modern [=Western?] methods of linguistic analysis" thing, is it?) The traditional analysis is a cultural artifact, one which is interesting in its own right and deserving of inclusion in an encyclopedia; however applicable it may have been to earlier forms of the language, its use now serves only to conceal the inherent simplicity of the system. RJCraig 01:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the current page needs a rewrite. Argue as you will about the terminology for different forms. Being as wikipedia is not a language learning resource, I don't think that's overly significant for the aims of the page. However, the current layout is painfully repetitious and obscures some of the basic underlying patterns of the forms. No matter how you classify things there will be irregularities from things like oku -> oita, oite, but there are overwhelming patterns in how the different verbs and adjectives inflect, patterns which are wholly ignored in the current presentation. Presenting those patterns must necessarily mean subscribing to a specific morphological analysis, even if it needn't be rigorous to the standards of linguistics publications. Which, for all the failings of the JSL system and terminology, that sort of approach gives a much more accurate portrayal of modern japanese than the classical analyses do. ~ Winterkoninkje 04:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Other minor conjugations?
What about other conjugations that are mostly just variations of the main types? Like -tai (want), or -masenka (invitation), -mashou (suggestion), etc. It would be nice to have a reference for all of these various types, as I can't seem to find any good references elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.75.88.119 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement, this list claims to be comprehensive, but it is by no means so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.73.163.125 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 November 2006  (UTC)

There are also the -mai negative volitional, the -na negative imperative, the adverbial form (briefly mentioned here under the section on causative adjectives), the -sa form of i-adjectives, nominalizing a verb with no or koto, the -tari, the classical -nu/-n negative and the -zu(ni) negative conjunctive, the use of the volitional copula to indicate probability, etc. Some things shown on Japanese grammar aren't even on this page, when that page says to see this one "for a full list". 130.101.163.29 (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Some of these might be necessary, but others (Negative volitional comes to mind) are not, as some are used very infrequently in conversation. -S. S. 17:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihon.ai (talk • contribs)

"i form" (ren'youkei) section
I added two more uses of this form and have some questions about some of the statements in this section:


 * 1) Under yagaru the text says: (The te form can be substituted for the i form.) koroshite yagaru?! Could this be a mistake for koroshite yaru?
 * 2) For some verbs, the i form also forms part of related words in ways that are not governed by any general rules. Basically conjunctive in nature, the "i form" for most verbs combines with a wide variety of nouns and other verbs.
 * 3) The i form of kakeru (to bet) is a word on its own: kake, which means "a bet". Use of this form as a nominal is common for many verbs. Hanashi, anyone?
 * 4) In kirihanasu, hanasu is suffixed to kiri...odd usage of "prefix" which I am going to fix now. --RJCraig 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * koroshiteyagaru is a possible form. It's the same as koroshiteiyagaru, i.e. ren'yookei of korosu + setsuzokujoshi te + (shortened) ren'yookei of iru + yagaru. It's the same shortening as in, say, miteiru -> miteru. -- Coffee2theorems 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the phrase, "In yakuza speech" be deleted from the -yagaru entry, considering that lots of people who aren't yakuza use it all the time? 71.223.134.8 07:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that "To express a wish when followed by the ending たい" shouldn't be in this list. After all, it's "tabetai", not "taberitai". Second opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refried (talk • contribs) 06:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

mistake in ichidan potential conjugaion table?
It seems that there is a mistake there, I don't know about "kigaeru", but definitely "miru" -> "mieru", "mienai" etc. However I have no reliable reference on hand to check. 213.186.192.40 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mieru and miru are different verbs. Mirareru and mireru are both possible. -- Coffee2theorems 21:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Presentation order of voices (and other questions)
Is alphabetical order really the best presentation for this page? It doesn't make sense to me to present causative passive before passive voice is discussed. I recognize the counter-argument (as a reference page, conjugations should be listed in the most readily accessible order), but I personally remain unconvinced by it.

Additionally, the i-form section is too bloated to be easily tractable and infringes on other sections. I tried to get to standard (polite) conjugations using the table of contents, and the best I could find was the present/future tense section -- which contains no new information at all about conjugations! I had to use my browser's search feature and look for "masu" before I was finally able to locate the information I wanted.

Incidentally, why is the term "i-form" used as the section heading? I cannot claim a comprehensive experience in learning Japanese (having only taken classes from one university), but the term "verb stem" seems a more obvious choice, especially since many ichidan verbs don't end in i in this form.

Actually (note: I like starting paragraphs with adverbs), why is the i-form section even here at all? Yes, it's an explanation of the renyoukei, but the information presented within doesn't fit together well and is difficult to locate. 218.225.111.205 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the answer to shirnking the section greatly may be borrowed from the Genki Series of text books. In that series, verb conjugations are presented in table form with example verbs in the first column and the conjugation types along the top row. I think we could condense the article by order if this approach is taken. Thoughts? 75.128.245.146 20:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Example: 128.104.185.197 21:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to agree with anon that the merits of an alphabetical order would be unable to compete with to an improved order. A condensed table would define the ordering of tense sections in the article, as well as linking to the corresponding article section. Probably any attempt at a more logical ordering would be more acceptable than alphabetical. So far the information readers obtain from the article contents table at the top is the alphabetical order of the English tense names. 75.4.245.11 00:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * されば sureba ???
 * sureba in the previous table shall be written すれば
 * 81.24.22.230 12:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it should have been. Sorry, I guess I was thinking in passive.  Fixed.
 * 75.133.84.88 08:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is more confusing than educative
Hello all.

I came to this article after studying Japanese verbs on text books and I found this article tremendously messed up and confusing. The article starts with "Japanese verb conjugations are easy" and right after that, it goes on to explain "saseru", etc., and presents a complicated table without any other prior introduction. No mention to formal forms and dictionary forms. No mention to the use of kanji, kana and romanji. Which romanji is going to be used in the article? Hepburn? What is the first verb table about? What is the meaning of "causative - example - causative"? Are there 2 causatives?...

I'm back to my books. This article did not help me at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.41.170.42 (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's meant as a reference, not a lesson &mdash; mosy on over to Wikibooks if you're looking to learn the language. The ordering of verb forms appears to be alphabetical, which is why C for Causative goes first, even though it's not a particularly common conjugation. Jpatokal (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wtf!? Theres not a single definition of any verb on this page except for an incidental one in an example! What kind of stupid "reference (not a lesson)" doesn't tell you a single verb meaning!? I don't want to learn the language thank you very much, I want to know the meaning of ONE VERB! I challenge Jpatokal to look in any encylopedia with a good ... decent ... half decent section on Japanese Verbs & not find a single meaning! This article did not help in the slightest!!! --Samhed (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I had the same problem when I came here looking to learn. After looking elsewhere I made up a summary table that I think makes more sense of the rest of the article. Uno b4 (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Irregular?
I don't understand how the -te and -ta forms of "irassharu" are meant to be irregular; they follow the same rules as any other verb that ends in "ru." Ru = tte and ru = tta. How are they irregular? I'm going to change it, but if someone can explain to me how said verb is irregular in that respect, feel free to change it back. —unsigned 10:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "irassharu" is irregular. Please read the last section. And da, desu, and masu are auxiliary verbs. Oda Mari (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be redone....
...and I may start up the revision. Seems one of the problems is that the verb form are listed alphabetically (Causative, i form etc.) This should be in list kinda like this. I was taught Japanese by learning the present-past polite forms, and the negitive forms first. I think this is how its usually taught.

So, I think that should definitely go first. AS the other problems I saw on the topic above, II didn't go through the whole page. I saw this as something easy to fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.171 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * well, I 've started it, but I am going to continue my work tomarrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.171 (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to format the tables so the kana and romanji are in separate columns? It's a little hard to read as it is. I'd do it, I just don't know how. Dookama (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm done with moving the form of the verbs around. I've only moved the ones I know and I think the forms of the verbs learned first. Dookama, I think there is a way to format the table like that..... I'll gladly do it with the section I've moved/fixed. But, how to you want it? Something like this? Hopefully you can understand my crappy table made from scratch...

________________________________________________________ type of verb |   past |    examples    |    past      | ________________________________________________________ kana|romaji | |kana|romaji |  |kana|romaji |   |kana|romaji | ________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.171 (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Ok. Looking at the tables, almost all of them have the same verbs, which is good, cause it will help the reader understand conjugating better. But, in some of the tables there are verbs which arent used in the other tables. So, I'm taking a look at all the verbs and putting them here, so then later I'll standardize the tables to use the same verbs, based on which one is used the most. So, this is kinda like my little sandbox for what to do, so y'all can kinda ignore this..

いる iru, える eru食べる taberu (eat) 2, 着替える kigaeru (change clothes)8 見る miru (see)1

い i adjective安い yasui (cheap)2, 痛い itai (painful)1, 寒い samui (cold)2, な na adjective簡単 kantan (simple), 静か shizuka (quiet)1

IRREGULAR VERBS する suru (do) 来る kuru (come) 行く iku (go) いらっしゃはる irassharu (polite) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.186.171 (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is still confusing, usage and more lead in on when to use certain tenses is needed, just going right into "here is how the tenses are conjugated" is very unhelpful. Summary tables should probably also follow the body text of sections, not the other way around.  As an intermediate Japanese learner this just looks like a wall of text right now.  The article needs to be organized more hierarchically. Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

How does this compare to Wiktionary?
Most Japanese verbs in Wiktionary use the templates found in Wiktionary:Category:Japanese conjugation templates. Many of the terms used for different conjugations are not used at all here. A good example of this is 待つ which uses Wiktionary:Template:ja-go-tsu because it is used in the examples on this page. The terms "Imperfective" (not seen on this page), "Continuative" (i form), "Terminal" (unconjugated), "Attributive" (unconjugated), "Classical imperfective/hypothetical" (appears to be the same as "Imperative"), "Negative continuative" (not seen on this page), "Perfective" (Past tense), and "Conjunctive" (Te form) are not used on this page. I was just wondering if they should be, as they may qualify as more correct terminology. — bse3 (talk • contribs • count • [ logs ]) 22:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this page needs an overhaul. It is really hard to wade through to find a simple answer. In my personal sandbox, I have created a new layout for this page. Since I used a lot of "find and replace" it may need some proof reading. As far as the "usage" sections go, I haven't changed much. Mostly I have just gotten rid of the tables under each verb form and added a new section for verb types featuring tables like the ones found in Wiktionary. I find this tons easier to understand. The naming conventions for each verb forms have also been changed to match this style (see above). Plenty of internal links between sections make for easier navigation. Though this new format removed some examples, it is much neater. Most of them were unecessary, as they were repetitive. With the exception of the perfective and conjunctive forms, all consonant stem verbs follow the same pattern. I left a simplified table in the perfective section to show these variations (the conjunctive one was removed, as it is just the same except for one letter a→e). I am not sure if the formal section is too confusing (especially the passive part). Though this doesn't cover every irregularity in Japanese verbs, it gives a basic overview that is much easier to understand and compliments the pages in Wiktionary very nicely. — bse3 (talk • contribs • count • [ logs ]) 00:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The conjugation of adjectives?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think adjectives conjugate, but rather that they decline like nouns and pronouns. Since this article deals with verbs and adjectives I think it should either be split up or renamed because if I'm right the very first sentence of this article is wrong; "this page is a list of Japanese verb and adjective conjugations". Please comment, I want to make sure. --BiT (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're correct. Just look up any Japanese adjective in Wiktionary and you will see the "Template:ja-adjdecl" which clearly says "Declension of _____" at the top. — bse3 (talk • contribs • count • [ logs ]) 23:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's weird to think that this page has been going on for roughly three years come September and nobody noticed. Oh well, it's not that hard correcting this right? We just have to move the page to "Japanese verb conjugation and adjective declension" or "Japanese verbal and adjectival inflexion" or something. --BiT (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But adjectives are verbal words (用言) in Japanese, rather than nominal (see Latin grammar for a system in which the adjectives are nominal). They follow the inflection pattern of verbs, rather than nouns (which incidentally don't inflect at all), so the word "conjugation" is correct in every of its sense. (Anonymous coward) 129.199.192.1 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But conjugation's primary definition is "the inflection of verbs". I know only a small deal about differences between the Japanese and Western grammar terms, but if Japanese "verbal words" are called "adjectives" in English then I should think they decline, rather than conjugate. Also, since adjectives are defined as a part of speech that "modifies a noun" they should be called adjectives rather than "verbal words" or "verbs". Kuroi has the same meaning as black, and calling it a verb would only complicate things further. --BiT (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'It is black' is 'Sore wa kuroi'/それは黒い. But 'It was black' is 'Sore wa kurokatta'/それは黒かった. Not 'Sore wa kuroi katta'/それは黒いかった. See Japanese adjectives and Japanese grammar. Hope they help. Oda Mari (talk) 06:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I know how kuroi declines, but how does that change anything? Adjectives decline in many languages; Latin, Icelandic, German... Sure it's odd that it declines by tense, but that isn't a prerequisite to being a verb. --BiT (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't say ja adjective is verb. Maybe the IP's translation was not good. In Japanese grammar, 形容詞/adjective, 形容動詞/adjectival verb and 動詞/verb are categorized as 用言 which can be translated as a word with declined or conjugated endings. That's all I know and as a native speaker it's not odd that adjective declines by tense. Probably it's better not to think Japanese grammar with the grammar of alphabetical languages. I don't think there's a linguistic relation between them. Oda Mari (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd then go by argument from authority, from the most dummy kind of grammar book ( http://books.google.com/books?id=hMW5_6YZbY0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=japanese p165), to more respectable scholarly introductions (http://books.google.com/books?id=BoMv3n4hPPcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=japanese which talks about "conjugational endings" on p119). I can't see why we shouldn't reserve the word "declension" to word categories that actually *behave like* nouns. (Again the anonymous coward) 129.199.156.21 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You can usually only conjugate for tense, but decline for case, so it seems a good warning when you come across a 'adjective conjugation', or a 'verb declension' for that matter (though I can hardly imagine what the latter could be like) -- 'beware! there's something very atypical going on here'. Why not? 89.231.112.93 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the current title is very inappropriate. According to Wikipedia's own article on declension, declension indicates the typically nominal categories of number, case, and gender. Adjectives are not for nothing called 'nomina adjectiva' in Latin. Japanese so-called 'adjectives' do not inflect for any of these categories at all; they only inflect for purely verbal categories like tense and mood. That is why no one will ever call a Japanese so-called 'adjective' a 'nomen adjectivum': it isn't one. On the contrary, many people DO call them 'adjectival verbs'. Their inflection is verbal, not nominal, and should therefore be called 'conjugation', and not 'declension'. 130.54.130.241 (talk) 00:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not it's called "adjective conjugation" or "adjective declination" seems a minor point to me, the bigger issue in my mind is that this article is now called "verb conjugation" and yet it still includes adjectives. Japanese adjectives calls it "adjective inflection" and includes a fairly clear explanation, while Japanese_grammar isn't quite as pithy but is even more thorough again. Anyone object to me moving adjective-related content from this page to the Adjective page? I'll be doing it in sections over time, so please wade in with me if you get the chance. Uno b4 (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The conjugation of "desu/です"?
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I think the various forms of "desu/です" should be added to the tables. Some of 'desu's forms aren't even mentioned, "deshō/でしょう", for example. I also think someone should add a footnote to the Negative or Past Tense sections about the irregular past-negative '-masu' form: "-masen deshita/ませんでした" TrueTsumetai (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

-て　います (te imasu)　form mising??
I learned it it in my Japanese classes. Its the polite form of a habitual action, or present state or progress. Maybe someone with more language experience could add it here (don't wanna add false information). -Thomas (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It already is, under -て　いる (te iru). "imasu" is merely the verb "iru" with the "-masu" stem added to make it more polite. TrueTsumetai (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Small organizational confusions
At the start of the Past Tenses, it says "The past tense is very similar in conjugation to the te form. Most of the past tenses are formed by replacing "te" with "ta"." The problem is, te forms haven't been introduced or explained yet, and won't be for another three sections. I'm not sure the best way to fix that, so mentioning it here.

In a possibly related issue, the terms consonant stem and vowel stem are introduced in tables without explanation and then later used in text as if they were understood. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Table layout
I am proposing to make some changes to the table layout. This is a model:

This is what I've changed:


 * Clarified that "consonant stem" applies to a whole bunch of verb endings, not just the -ru one. Similar layout change for "vowel stem" text.
 * Made separate rows and examples for -iru and -eru verbs.
 * Made the "example" row headings more logical. Both columns are examples, not just the first.

Please let me know if you have any objections. 86.186.142.207 (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC).

Proposal for change in verb candidate in passive
I have two reasons why I would like to propose that we change one of the verbs in the table for passives, from 着替える to 食べる.


 * There has just recently been a discussion on the Language Reference Desk about the 'passive form' of the verb 着替える. User:Oda Mari has informed us that 着替えれる cannot have a passive, as it is an intransitive verb, and while I have said that it may be used in the suffering passive as you article notes, and also has the honorific form, she disagrees that it can be used in the suffering passive.


 * 着替える is a compound verb, made up of 着る+替える. There is no need to have a compound verb in an instructional table of grammatical endings. I don't see why a simpler verb such as 食べる cannot be used. This would also clear up the problem mentioned above.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. If you can contact me on my talk page to notify me of any answers here, I would be very happy. --  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  11:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Negative form
It negates what? only the non-past tense (and all other negations are made syntactically unless said otherwise) or several forms (which then)? 46.186.37.98 (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)