20 ms·

> I think some of the "Japanese has a ton of grammar points" is an effect of how the Japanese-as-a-second-language teaching resources label things, where a lot

> I think some of the "Japanese has a ton of grammar points" is an effect of how the Japanese-as-a-second-language teaching resources label things, where a lot of what you could classify as "sentence patterns" are described and taught as "grammar". Sentence patterns are grammar. They are a major presence in English grammar, where e.g. in almost all cases you can only determine the subject of a sentence by the fact that it precedes the verb. Other languages are more explicit. Fundamentally we use "grammar" to refer to whatever governs the meaning that appears in a well-formed sentence that isn't just part of the individual meanings of (the uninflected forms of) the words in that sentence. But this is not an entirely satisfactory definition, and grammar can show up in surprising ways. Consider the difference between the verbs "look" and "see". In Japanese, there is no difference. They are the same verb and they mean the same thing. Japanese learners do not understand why English speakers draw a distinction, and they struggle to use the correct word when speaking English. In Mandarin, these verbs are also the same verb. But Mandarin speakers draw the same distinction that English speakers do - if they mean "look", they will say 看, and if they mean "see", they will say 看到, inflecting the verb with a grammatical suffix indicating successful completion. Although they do not use separate verbs, they have no trouble tracking the English distinction. In English, obviously, the same distinction is drawn. But the mechanism is lexical; we treat these as being entirely different words. I suggest that a Japanese learner choosing "see" when they mean "look" or "watch" is making a grammatical error, the same way that they'd be making a grammatical error if they said 看 instead of 看到 while trying to speak Mandarin.

pm215 3y ago
What I mean is that, to use an English example "in comparison to X, Y" and "in contrast to X, Y" are not grammatically different -- the words are all doing the same jobs in the same structure, it's just a different verb. But they're both useful idiomatic patterns to learn. It happens that the standard in Japanese as a second language teaching is to call (the Japanese equivalents to) these different idiomatic patterns different grammar points. Personally I don't care too much about the terminology as long as everybody is on the same page, and because this is the standard in the J2L communities it's generally fine; but it does mean that looking at the size of the volumes of a "Dictionary of Japanese Grammar" is a bit misleading about how grammatically complex the language is. I would suggest that choosing "see" when you mean "watch" is a vocabulary error, not a grammar error - you picked the wrong verb, but didn't use it in an ungrammatical way (eg wrong tense or mixing transitive and intransitive or getting subject and object the wrong way round).
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > I would suggest that choosing "see" when you mean "watch" is a vocabulary error, not a grammar error - you picked the wrong verb, but didn't use it in an ungrammatical way (eg wrong tense or mixing transitive and intransitive or getting subject and object the wrong way round). Have you tried doing this? In general you can't swap these verbs without the resulting use being ungrammatical. The problem is that "watch" is durative (it takes time) and "see" is punctual (it takes no time).
  - pm215 3y ago
    "I watched the hawk landing in the tree" ; "I saw the hawk landing in the tree" -- both fine grammatically.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      Is this the level of analysis you apply to all your work? Try "I was watching the hawk as it landed in the tree."
  - IIsi50MHz 3y ago
    "I'd like to see that film." | "I'd like to watch that film." (interchangeable) "I see birds." / "I watch birds." (very different) "I'm seeing birds." ~ "I'm watching birds." (semantic'ly identical, but the first one is unusual) "I'll see you home." / "I'll watch you home." (second on is word choice error)
Izkata 3y ago
> Consider the difference between the verbs "look" and "see". > In Japanese, there is no difference. They are the same verb and they mean the same thing. Japanese learners do not understand why English speakers draw a distinction, and they struggle to use the correct word when speaking English. Isn't that like 見る and 見える?
- chrisoverzero 3y ago
  見える only means “look” in the “to seem” or “to appear” sense. Often in English, we have multiple words for sensory experiences to indicate how much focus is put into the action. “Seeing” a picture is less focused than “looking at” a picture. “Hearing” a song is less focused than “listening to” a song.
  - emmelaich 3y ago
    I wonder if that inspired the lyric in "Come Together" Got to be good-lookin', 'cause he's so hard to see According to Wikipedia, "The lyrics were inspired by his relationship with Ono,"
  - Izkata 3y ago
    > “Seeing” a picture is less focused than “looking at” a picture. Isn't that backwards? Like in the phrase "they look but do not see", which was what I had in mind in my first comment. Isn't that something like "見るけど見えない" ?
    - jprival 3y ago
      To look is to train one’s eyes on, or to scan for, something. To see is to perceive it. So one can look without seeing, and one can also see something without intentionally looking.
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        But as you've implicitly noted, you cannot see something without looking. That would be physically impossible. You can also use "look" to emphasize that focus does not exist; one of the sentences I've collected for interesting use is "He stared at the page, not seeing it." In that case, there is no possibility of a page being overlooked or otherwise missed. What the sentence is telling us is that although "he" is directing his eyes at the page, his mind is on something else, so "seeing" never occurs. The difference between "see" and "look" has nothing to do with focus. It is what I noted in the discussion of Mandarin - success. Seeing is the goal of looking. Note that this phenomenon where native speakers have no trouble obeying a distinction that their language requires, but come out with total nonsense when asked why they choose one form or another, is completely characteristic of grammatical rules, and not characteristic of vocabulary selection.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

pm215 3y ago

What I mean is that, to use an English example "in comparison to X, Y" and "in contrast to X, Y" are not grammatically different -- the words are all doing the same jobs in the same structure, it's just a different verb. But they're both useful idiomatic patterns to learn. It happens that the standard in Japanese as a second language teaching is to call (the Japanese equivalents to) these different idiomatic patterns different grammar points. Personally I don't care too much about the terminology as long as everybody is on the same page, and because this is the standard in the J2L communities it's generally fine; but it does mean that looking at the size of the volumes of a "Dictionary of Japanese Grammar" is a bit misleading about how grammatically complex the language is. I would suggest that choosing "see" when you mean "watch" is a vocabulary error, not a grammar error - you picked the wrong verb, but didn't use it in an ungrammatical way (eg wrong tense or mixing transitive and intransitive or getting subject and object the wrong way round).

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> I would suggest that choosing "see" when you mean "watch" is a vocabulary error, not a grammar error - you picked the wrong verb, but didn't use it in an ungrammatical way (eg wrong tense or mixing transitive and intransitive or getting subject and object the wrong way round). Have you tried doing this? In general you can't swap these verbs without the resulting use being ungrammatical. The problem is that "watch" is durative (it takes time) and "see" is punctual (it takes no time).
- pm215 3y ago
  "I watched the hawk landing in the tree" ; "I saw the hawk landing in the tree" -- both fine grammatically.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    Is this the level of analysis you apply to all your work? Try "I was watching the hawk as it landed in the tree."
- IIsi50MHz 3y ago
  "I'd like to see that film." | "I'd like to watch that film." (interchangeable) "I see birds." / "I watch birds." (very different) "I'm seeing birds." ~ "I'm watching birds." (semantic'ly identical, but the first one is unusual) "I'll see you home." / "I'll watch you home." (second on is word choice error)

Izkata 3y ago

> Consider the difference between the verbs "look" and "see". > In Japanese, there is no difference. They are the same verb and they mean the same thing. Japanese learners do not understand why English speakers draw a distinction, and they struggle to use the correct word when speaking English. Isn't that like 見る and 見える?

chrisoverzero 3y ago
見える only means “look” in the “to seem” or “to appear” sense. Often in English, we have multiple words for sensory experiences to indicate how much focus is put into the action. “Seeing” a picture is less focused than “looking at” a picture. “Hearing” a song is less focused than “listening to” a song.
- emmelaich 3y ago
  I wonder if that inspired the lyric in "Come Together" Got to be good-lookin', 'cause he's so hard to see According to Wikipedia, "The lyrics were inspired by his relationship with Ono,"
- Izkata 3y ago
  > “Seeing” a picture is less focused than “looking at” a picture. Isn't that backwards? Like in the phrase "they look but do not see", which was what I had in mind in my first comment. Isn't that something like "見るけど見えない" ?
  - jprival 3y ago
    To look is to train one’s eyes on, or to scan for, something. To see is to perceive it. So one can look without seeing, and one can also see something without intentionally looking.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      But as you've implicitly noted, you cannot see something without looking. That would be physically impossible. You can also use "look" to emphasize that focus does not exist; one of the sentences I've collected for interesting use is "He stared at the page, not seeing it." In that case, there is no possibility of a page being overlooked or otherwise missed. What the sentence is telling us is that although "he" is directing his eyes at the page, his mind is on something else, so "seeing" never occurs. The difference between "see" and "look" has nothing to do with focus. It is what I noted in the discussion of Mandarin - success. Seeing is the goal of looking. Note that this phenomenon where native speakers have no trouble obeying a distinction that their language requires, but come out with total nonsense when asked why they choose one form or another, is completely characteristic of grammatical rules, and not characteristic of vocabulary selection.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]