Discussion between Flaw and Pacerier - 2012-04-30

next day → last day (18 days later) »

3:37 AM

5

A: Role of の in そんなの

I believe that the の here is the same の as the の which is explained in this thread: What is the difference between the nominalizers こと and の? Basically the の here is a noun which means "thing". It is similar to こと (noun) which also means "thing". The difference between の and こと is that の is used...

Perhaps the の in そんなの refers to a person in a way similar to 今のは誰? ?

Uh I think you meant to ask "Perhaps the の in 今のは誰 refers to a person in a way similar to そんなの?". ,if so, the の in "今のは誰?" cannot refer to a person because 今 is a noun and we cannot have a noun modifying another noun unless to form a compound noun.

Yes it can due to ellipsis. "今の(人)は誰？" It becomes a "one" or 的(in Chinese). (Singlish:"Just now that one who?")(Chinese: 刚才的是谁). This seems similar to そんなの - That kind one/那样的. It seems weird to bring in Singlish but it seems like a useful intermediate language.

The usage is anaphoric. It has to refer to something in context.

@Flaw Ellipsis is different from anaphora (in case we are talking about different things, I'm referring to the one @ goo.gl/nWWQO), for example, in the sentence "Susan dropped the plate. It shattered loudly.", "it" refers to the phrase "the plate", a case of anaphora. However now instead of "It shattered loudly.", we apply ellipsis on "it" giving us "[It] Shattered loudly.", "shattered" is still a verb, "loudly" is still an adverb, and "it" still refers to the plate. The grammatical functions of all the words in the sentence remains unchanged regardless of ellipsis.

Similarly, in *"今の(人)は誰？"*, the "の" isn't referring to the person. The "の" is referring to the no-particle, the person is referred to by the "人". Regardless of whether the "人" is omitted or not due to ellipsis, the grammatical functions of the words in the sentence remains unchanged. "の" still refers to the no-particle and the "人" still refers to the person. The "の" doesn't suddenly refer to a person since it is still the no-particle and not a noun. Particles cannot be used anaphorically, words that can be used anaphorically are the *pronouns* e.g. これ, ここ

Shall we carry this to chat? It seems to be cluttering up this space.

I'm going to remove the comments in the question so it's not so cluttered there.

3:39 AM

Hi

Ok, let's continue the discussion here.

K i've removed the comments there since it has been copied over here

Ellipsis is different from anaphora, but they're not mutually exclusive.

Susan dropped the plate. It shattered loudly.

"It" is anaphoric.

This is distinctly different from using "one" though

Susan dropped the plate. A blue one.

is "one" also anaphoric?

Yes it is.

"one" is capable of being anaphoric because it is a pronoun.

今のはだれ - Just now one, was who? (pardon the use of Singlish)

well の is functionally equivalent

It's different.

not 1:1 equivalent, but functionally so

3:46 AM

Let me explain why they are two totally different things altogether.

okay

(My line of thought was that they are functionally equivalent, although not a 1:1 equivalence in terms of syntax)

Ok firstly Japanese has particles

no is a particle.

only pronouns can be capable of being anaphoric

"one" is a pronoun.

They are two totally different grammatical "things".

well it's not just about the grammatical class of entities

similar to how 好き is not a verb

it's about the functional roles they serve

Yes that is right.

Btw you're Singaporean as well right?

3:48 AM

"one" serves as a pronoun, whereas no serves as a particle.

yepp

(So I know how far I can push my Singlish while being understood)

You too?

Yup

Just ORDed not long ago

ok gd den we can type this way

cos its much faster

今のはだれ - Just now one, was who? <<< this is wrong.

why wrong

3:50 AM

今のはだれ when translated

is " Just now, was who?"

disagree

noticed that the "one" is omitted due to ellipsis

compare with 刚才的是谁

uh y do you disagree with that about.

Seems that "one" has to come in

3:51 AM

Ok let me show the translation step by step:

今 >> just now

の particle >> ""

今の >> Just now DE

は particle >> ""

since "no" is a particle

今の and 今

has entirely different meanings

True.

but since there is no equivalent

they'll be translated to the same things

刚才 is a temporal noun. 刚才的 is a noun that refers to something in context

3:53 AM

Btw how would you translate "今の" ?

My translation is "just now's"

"just now" is temporal. "Just now that one" is a noun that refers to something in context.

so 今の would be a noun that refers to something in context i.e. "Just now that one"

今 >> "just now", の >> "'s", 今の " just now's"

but の does not map to 's

that's what im talking about

it's only one way to represent it

3:54 AM

there is no equivalent.

It refers to a specific object

the closest is to use "one"

that's not correct

I bought a pen. It was a red one

the noun that is after the no-particle.

is the one that referes to a specific object

yes the noun is implicit!

3:55 AM

it is there. but it is omitted due to ellipsis

so the portion prior to that is functionally that noun

we are getting to the point now.

ペンを買った。赤いのです。

nothing is implicit, it is there but omitted due to ellipsis

so we cant say "the portion prior to that is functionally that noun"

Why not?

It feels absolutely intuitive for me to do so

3:56 AM

ok

の is not just a particle with no semantic meaning

what is the full version of "今のはだれ" without ellipsis

Ok let me try a different approach.

ペンを買った。赤いペンです。- I bought a pen. It was a red pen.
ペンを買った。赤いのです。 I bought a pen. It was a red one.

uh sry

could you pause for a while, let me ask u a question

今の人は誰？ >> "just now that person, is who?"

do you agree with that translation?

Yup

3:59 AM

ok hold on

今の[人]は誰？ >> "just now [that person], is who?"

agree?

Yes

I know what's happening next

This is where we disagree

uh hold on

My stand is that "one" automatically comes in to fill the gap.

your stand is that it doesn't

my stand is

the "one" is like "あいつ"

when you switch "that person" to "one"

you are switching "人" to "あいつ"

Well あいつ happens to map to "guy" for me instead of "one"

4:02 AM

or perhaps "もの" would be a better fit

because "one" is a generic placeholder noun

so we use "もの"

It has to be の

もの = one, agree?

disagree

4:03 AM

how would u translate もの ?

tangible object

So if we were talking about ideas

and you talked about "that one"

ok hold on let me make a curve

it still has to be の

let's curve back to this first: 今の[人]は誰？ >> "just now [that person], is who?"

my next step is this:

[今]の[人]は誰？ >> "[just now] [that person], is who?"

agree?

To a minimal extent

4:05 AM

what about this:

because the genitive case is not explicit in English

{今}の[人]は誰？ >> "{just now} [that person], is who?"

i mean

Consider this instead:　刚才的人是谁

i'm grouping "今" >> "just now" which you agreed

Ok let's use the chinese version

{今}の[人]は誰？ >> {刚才}的[人]是谁

agree ?

okay

4:07 AM

ok let me go to the next step:

hold on gotta try smt

the chinese one is clear

{今}{{の}}[人]は誰？ >> {刚才}{{的}}[人]是谁

okay

so you are saying that の refers to the person

but as we can see it doesn't

it doesn't

but 今の does

in the same way that 刚才的

今の refers to 刚才}的

刚才的 doesn't refer to that person

Why not?

4:11 AM

刚才的 is an "adjective" of that person

It is functionally the same

ok when we say 刚才的

we omit "person"

since its tellable from context

but "刚才的" is an adjective describing the omitted "person"

it "assumes" the person

it becomes a noun representing the person

functionally the same

are you saying that 刚才的 is a noun ?

not in a strict word classification

4:13 AM

so

there's a difference between what grammar classifies the individual things

and the collective of them

it's not functionally the same

(if that made any sense)

as a noun

It cannot be a mere adjective

4:13 AM

why is it not an adjective?

"Talking about pens, I write with a blue one"

刚才 is a noun, and to modify a noun with a noun we attach 的 inbetween

try the second half in Chinese

this maps 1-to-1 to the japanese version

...我用蓝色的写

4:15 AM

ok

You cannot adjective the verb

this is where you are wrong.

blue one is not 蓝色的

blue one is "蓝色的na ge"

or 蓝色的dong xi

so ..我用蓝色的写 is ungrammatical?

it is grammatical due to ellipsis

it is an elided noun

4:16 AM

我用蓝色的[pen]写

so the rest functions as a noun

ok wait you are saying "蓝色的" functions just like a noun ?

you cannot 使用 an adjective of 蓝色的

蓝色的 can be attached to any noun

so why is it not an adjective?

But you can 使用 a noun of [蓝色的(Elidednoun)]

The whole construction turns into a noun equivalent

The individual grammar classes of the words is not the same as the sum

4:18 AM

wait ur point is 蓝色的 is syntactically equivalent to a noun ?

Yes

okay okay I shall make it clearer

[蓝色的] is not a noun. [蓝色的(Elidednoun)] is a noun.

and that is what i was saying..

They are exactly the same when you look at it. But they are not if you start placing them into grammar categories.

your point is that "的" refers to the person.

my point is that "的" doesn't refer to the person.

It nominalises the whole thing

and makes it refer to a person

the entire group is affected by the nominalising の

4:21 AM

ok let me rephrase what you have said:

[蓝色的] is not a noun. [蓝色的(elidedperson)] is a noun.

is that right?

But they are orthographically equivalent

Under different analyses they turn out to be different things

are you saying that the "的" refers to "elidedperson"

I'm saying that the 的 forces the whole thing to refer to the person

it becomes futile to analyse the component parts

ok i understand the differences now in the evaluation

We're using different modes of analyses

Also probably my fault in the initial phase

4:26 AM

there is one disadvantage i can tell using your approach though

I was not clear when I attributed the whole issue to の

when 的 forces the whole thing to refer to the person, you are "erasing" the ellipsis

Yea I get what you mean

I sounded like I made の contain everything

poor phrasing on my part

I didn't mean to say that all the content was held in の. I meant to say that の modifies the whole thing to behave differently.

i don't think that's called anaphora

"The use of a word referring to or replacing a word used earlier in a sentence, to avoid repetition"

今の replaces 人

But then again there seems to be a lack of "earlier in a sentence"

My concept of anaphora also included "entities already developed in discourse and present in context"

4:31 AM

an anaphora ( /əˈnæfərə/) is a type of expression whose reference depends on another referential element.

E.g., in the sentence 'Sally preferred the company of herself', 'herself' is an anaphoric expression in that it is coreferential with the expression in subject position.

That depends if "referential element" necessarily has to be an explicit sentential element.

Because I'm not sure if it can refer to non-sentential contextual element

Again probably bad choice of words on my part X_X

the "referential element" is a sentential element which refers to a non-sentential contextual element.

Seems to stem from the problem that I make no distinction in my mind from "repeated concepts in my mind" and "repeated concepts spoken"

lol

For example, if two of us knew Sally.

And I refer to her as Sally.

It is a repeated concept in my mind, and a non-repeated concept spoken

And if I used "she" it would be "anaphorically" referring to the repeated concept in my mind

This is where the use of "anaphora" gets horribly mashed up in my thoughts I think.

4:38 AM

I think that anaphora can only be "anaphora" if it refers to a "spoken word", e.g.:

Well at least now I know that that distinction is important to make when talking about anaphora

the word "Sally" is a "referential element" which refers to a non-sentential contextual element, which is the human Sally.

the word "She" doesn't refer to the human Sally,

it refers to the word "Sally", which refers to the human Sally.

My brain can't take much more of this

Considering that I've not yet had breakfast

uh ok

i think this is interesting topic

Yes it certainly is

4:40 AM

if i got any more new finds I'd ping you again with @Flaw

But it's not just about language now

It seems to also go into how minds work

And how individuals perceive grammar differently

that's why the clarification of terms is important..

Or futile

hahaha

lol there's no better way to discuss if

otherwise

I tried thinking in pure thought without the confines of language and grammar once

Unfortunately there was this major major problem

There is simply no way to communicate

4:42 AM

lol yea

No one would understand concepts and ideas floating around in my head until I used some form of predefined language

I shall go off for lunch now

lol ok cyas then

cya

next day → last day (18 days later) »

Transcript for

Apr '1230

Discussion between Flaw and Pacerier

Imported from a comment discussion on japanese.stackexchange.c...

nominalisation particle-no

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile