Apr 14, 2015 07:01
9 yrs ago
Japanese term
同一言語形式
Japanese to English
Other
Linguistics
このように見ると、名詞につくčuŋも形容詞につくčuŋも同一言語形式であるといえる。
I'm translating a paper about Tibetan predicates from Japanese to English.
I know there is a linguistic term to cover this, but "same form" or "identical form" doesn't work because this is not a question of form but a question of meaning. Both units express the same meaning when used with nouns and adjectives, so they can be regarded as ???.
このように見ると、名詞につくčuŋも形容詞につくčuŋも同一言語形式であるといえる。
What I want to say is ...regarded as the same morpheme. But I'm not sure if it will capture the whole nuance.
Thanks for your help!
I'm translating a paper about Tibetan predicates from Japanese to English.
I know there is a linguistic term to cover this, but "same form" or "identical form" doesn't work because this is not a question of form but a question of meaning. Both units express the same meaning when used with nouns and adjectives, so they can be regarded as ???.
このように見ると、名詞につくčuŋも形容詞につくčuŋも同一言語形式であるといえる。
What I want to say is ...regarded as the same morpheme. But I'm not sure if it will capture the whole nuance.
Thanks for your help!
Proposed translations
(English)
| 3 | semanteme |
Marc Brunet
|
| 4 | The same linguistic form |
Milind Joshi
|
| 2 +1 | the same particle / the particle with the same function |
Port City
|
Proposed translations
6 hrs
Marc Brunet
Australia
Australia
Australia
To seize the 'point' beyond the words
Native in: French
Works in: Japanese to English, Japanese to French, French to English
Related KudoZ points
:
8
Selected
semanteme
You might like to consider this term, if it serves your interpretation, but it's a far cry from what the Japanese term used here normally denotes.
"Semanteme definition : one of the minimum elements of lexical meaning in a language."
"Semanteme definition : one of the minimum elements of lexical meaning in a language."
Note from asker:
| Thank you for your discussion entry. Yes, it's possible. The part of speech here is an auxiliary verb. They can have different meanings when attached to adj, nouns, verbs, etc. But the author is showing that although adj noun use seems different, the essential meaning within the morpheme itself is the same. This particular example thata certain object or state beffel the speaker and was not a restult of his intention |
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "Thanks for carefully considering my question. It was really helpful. Also thanks to others for your suggestions."
56 mins
Milind Joshi
Native in English
Works in field
Smooth changeover, meaning unbeaten
Native in: English 
, Marathi
Works in: Japanese to English, English to Marathi, English to Japanese
The same linguistic form
The sentence can be translated as "If we look in this way, the prefix / suffix čuŋ for the noun and the prefix / suffix čuŋ for the adjective also, may be said to have the same linguistic form."
Reference:
Note from asker:
| Thank you, but please read my explanation. This does not seem to be a question of form. I've already checked the online dictionary weblio. Nick |
+1
1 hr
the same particle / the particle with the same function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_particle
Please see the sections on nouns and adjectives in the link below:
http://www.oocities.org/tibetanlanguage/Tibetan_language.pdf
The document below lists 14 types of particles in 5.4.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic464661.files/Less...
Depending on the context, the term may mean "the particle with the same function." Apparently, they "look" the same. So, what the author wants to say may be that they have the same function. (Since I don't know Tibetan, it's just my guess. )
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2015-04-14 13:05:37 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The above suggestion was made assuming the word doesn't conjugate. If it does, maybe it means "the same inflectional form" or "the same declension."
Please see the sections on nouns and adjectives in the link below:
http://www.oocities.org/tibetanlanguage/Tibetan_language.pdf
The document below lists 14 types of particles in 5.4.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic464661.files/Less...
Depending on the context, the term may mean "the particle with the same function." Apparently, they "look" the same. So, what the author wants to say may be that they have the same function. (Since I don't know Tibetan, it's just my guess. )
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 6 hrs (2015-04-14 13:05:37 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
The above suggestion was made assuming the word doesn't conjugate. If it does, maybe it means "the same inflectional form" or "the same declension."
Peer comment(s):
| agree |
Chrisso (X)
13 hrs
|
Discussion
Well, for these two cases at least, would you go along with reducing the 'nuance' referred to in your linguistic material to one of 'an unexpected (unforeseen, exceptional) turn of events'?
If so, I can see no essential change between the two 'subjective/aspectual accents' conveyed by this Tibetan AuxVb.
They could in fact be rendered in English by the same phrase. How about:
"I happened to (get a book/feel good) yesterday."?
Would you say, a sort of equivalent of [～形容詞・形容動詞]+されてしまった or [動詞]＋（ら）れてしまった ?
But getting the same result with a Nn seems more difficult unless the context is there to help. something like:
ex: ... but the spell she cast was the wrong one, and she was transformed into a bear instead of a butterfly.".
Now, to complete the picture of the problem you are tackling, Nick, can you give us some examples of your own on the resulting semantic variations that normally occur when that Aux Vb predicates the different parts of speech you mentioned?
here is an auxiliary verb. They can have different meanings when attached
to adj, nouns, verbs, etc. But the author is showing that although adj noun
use seems different, the essential meaning within the morpheme itself is
the same. This particular example that a certain object or state beffel the
speaker and was not a result of his intention.
If not, the next riddle I would mull over would be: why on earth should the meaning of this part of speech be normally expected to change just when coupled with a different part of speech (here Nn/Adj), especially when the morpheme that expresses it is exactly the same?