« first day (1248 days earlier)   
02:00 - 17:0017:00 - 19:00

5:05 PM
Martin doesn't list very many. He lists this stuff in section 3.12, starting on page 272. On page 276, he lists the involuntary transitive punctuals 失う and 忘れる, along with positive 知る as transitive but "perhaps involuntary", and 分かる in its punctual meaning (as in 分かっている), which some speakers have started to use with を instead of が.
Hmm. I think there's also the accusative-quotative verbs like 思う.
5:30 PM
In English, I habitually use italics for mention and "quotes" for meaning
Here we're using quotes for both, which is okay...
If it were my own post, I think I wouldn't bother with quotes for mention when it's in a different script because I think the distinction is obvious already
Like in this answer:
A: How do I write "Hard Work and Smart Work"?

Tsuyoshi Ito重労働 usually means “hard physical work,” so it is not appropriate here unless you are talking about physical work. Also, some people may have difficulty understanding what スマートな労働 means at all, because スマート used to mean “slender” instead of “smart.” (But this may not be a big problem anymore bec...

Bare Japanese writing for mention and quotes for meaning work well, I think
I don't think adding quotes to this answer would improve it
6:03 PM
Dunno. I use quotes around Japanese when I mention it, because I don't use quotes around Japanese when I use it. "The 連用形 of 「行く」 is 「行き」." I quote meaning as well, since I think it's mention.
(Or at least, this is what I try to do.)
In that context the quotes help.
But I think in Tsuyoshi Ito's answer, linked above, the quotes would be unnecessary
> When an English word is used as an intensifier, it loses its literal meaning. Originally, very meant "truly" (like verity, verify, verily, and so on), but now we can say very tasty ("tasty to a great degree").
Using italics and quotes like this is pretty common in discussions of English
I think you lose something if you use the same convention for both (quotes)
But meh.
I tend to use italics rather than quotes when I'm mentioning romanized Japanese morphemes.
Just because "-ta" looks awful compared to -ta.
Me too. And quotes for glosses.
I wish there were a way to link to questions and answers which automatically pulled their titles as the link text.
> Sir-u 'acquires knowledge of' is transitive but perhaps involuntary, and ...
When Martin romanizes verbs like sir-u, he indicates the morpheme boundary before -(r)u with a hyphen only when it's ambiguous, as in i-ru versus ir-u. Other words he just writes like iku
I'm not really in the habit of romanizing Japanese verbs to begin with
So I don't have an established practice with respect to that...
6:13 PM
Hmm. I mainly just indicate the morpheme boundaries that are relevant to whatever I'm talking about.
Well, he only indicates the distinction between vowel-stem and consonant-stem like this when listing a verb in citation form
Some linguists write sir- instead
Ah, I see.
But the sir- style always seemed less accessible to me
I think I'd use sir- if I was writing a paper or something, but I don't think I'd use it on this site.
What are your thoughts on omow-?
i- contracts to - following -te  ←  This amuses me
@DariusJahandarie Seems like a good technical description
6:16 PM
That is, if you have in mind the rules that /w/ drops before /i u e o/
Right. I usually don't both with that unless I want to either be anal about things for some reason, or talk about 音便.
@DariusJahandarie I read once that second-generation speakers of Japanese that don't attend Japanese schools tend to natively acquire ~てる and ~てます and have to be taught later that they're considered short forms of ~ている and ~ています
I do think their usages are pretty distinct.
Like, if you actually include the い when you're talking out loud, it is definitely quite noticeable, at least to me.
I'm trying to get used to actually using proper romanization rather than the crap I usually type.
I still mess up on things like "tyo" though.
I try to use a romanization scheme that is appropriate to the task at hand, if I'm romanizing
6:21 PM
I just mean when I'm typing.
I type whatever's shortest
So I tend to type j instead of zy
But I type ti instead of chi
What about tyo vs cho?
I think I usually type tyo
A year or two ago I finally got in the habit of typing n' instead of nn
I just can't imagine typing taichou as taityou.
Yeah, ditching nn was the best thing ever.
Typing taityou seems natural to me
6:23 PM
I have seen a lot of phonemic romanization
Things like tyotto don't faze me :-)
Oh, I do type ふ as fu rather than hu most of the time
I want a little Q
I don't like giant Q
Unfortunately, Q is one of the few characters there's no Unicode small caps equivalent for
Well, when two big Qs get together...
I like being able to type siɴziru and toʜkyoʜ
6:27 PM
Hah, ʜ kills me there.
Japanese phonologists use /N/ and /Q/ and /H/
Some use /R/ instead of /H/, which breaks my brain
Is the /H/ suppose to stand for something?
Well, you know how it's pretty common for people to write 佐藤 as Satoh, like on business cards?
Oh, hah.
I think it's an extension of that sort of dealie
And it lets you posit a ʜ morpheme, too: こう・そう・ああ・どう = /koʜ soʜ aʜ doʜ/
6:30 PM
Reading Japanese romanization has broken my intuition for how to pronounce things in English to quite a large degree.
I mean, not that specific symbol, but creating a "long vowel" phoneme does.
That was just a mostly unrelated comment I was making.
Ah, I understood that
I don't even remember how I would have pronounced Satou back before I knew Japanese.
I often sort of plod ahead on the same line of thought I start even if people say other stuff . . . :-)
6:33 PM
Oh. I considered that possibility, but couldn't quite connect the dots.
02:00 - 17:0017:00 - 19:00

« first day (1248 days earlier)