Isn’t that also true of Romantic languages as well? “Me” and “myself” are both nouns but that doesnt stop them also being pronouns.
Neither am I but some people with degrees in linguistics think that way so I have to at least consider that a defensible point of view.
[quote=“anon26625345, post:20, topic:93609”]
In the 私 example you give above, the usage is exactly the same as in the English (me, my, mine, I)[/quote]
If 私 can be used as me, my, mine, and/or I then it certainly has more than one meaning and functioning as a pronoun doesn’t necessarily mean it is a pronoun. While it can be argued that function defines a thing, I have used a knife as a screw driver but I’m pretty sure it’s still a knife and not a screw driver.
Please understand, my initial response to you was tongue-in-cheek. You asked if we saw why that statement was ‘bullshit’ so I quickly listed off a few reasons it could be called that and asked if I missed the reason you had in mind.
My understanding is that both are pronouns and not nouns. They do take the place of a proper noun after all don’t they?
I have to admit that I didn’t get that your response was tongue-in-cheek, and I apologise for being dismissive. My comment was meant to be ridiculous because I was trying to say why I think these kind of “grammar makes the man” arguments are stupid and generally based on a poor understanding of the target language. Have you ever read The Writing on the Wall: How Asian Orthographies Inhibit Creativity by Hannas? It’s a fucking shitshow, and these “studies” just continue the same orientalist tradition, to everyone’s net loss.[quote=“anotherone, post:22, topic:93609”]
While it can be argued that function defines a thing, I have used a knife as a screw driver but I’m pretty sure it’s still a knife and not a screw driver.
[/quote]
If it worked as a screwdriver in the function that you gave it, isn’t it a screwdriver to all intents and purposes? It drove a screw, after all. It might well have other functions but at the end of the day, it performed the same task as a screwdriver. You used it as a screwdriver, it drove screws; isn’t it fair to say that functionally, in the given task you assigned it, it worked as a screwdriver?
Nope and it sound like I shouldn’t either 
The stereotyping used to justify colonialism will take a long time to purge from our world view but we are getting better. The hope we place in our children is eternal even when unfounded.
That’s the kind of question philosophers have argued about for centuries. While I don’t think we will settle it, that is something I’ve found an answer for which works for me (for non sentient things). No, using it as a screwdriver does not change the nature of the knife. It was created as a knife (which speaks to intent), works poorly as a screwdriver, and remains, ever after misuse, a better knife than a screwdriver (which speaks to purpose). That I chose to use the wrong tool for a job does not change what tool remains best suited for that job nor does it confer additional screw driving abilities to the knife.
To put it in terms of language, and accepting that meaning is use, while we can be understood when we use language incorrectly we are better understood when we use it properly. And while it has been argued that language is not calculus and should never be taught that way, I do see benefit from making use of the agreed upon forms. Doing so may not be the only way to communicate an idea but it does remain a more useful one in most cases.
1 Like
All tools are hammers. Except a chisel - that’s a screwdriver.
4 Likes
No-- those uses still are in the vein of “coming into forceful contact with,” not as the “I don’t know the difference between effect and affect so I’ll just punt” use here.
Well, European languages tend not to have 27 (or so) different ways of saying I, depending on who’s doing the talking, who’s doing the listening, how tough or polite you want to feel, how close the listener and speaker are, etc.
But I’d argue that the causality runs the other way. Because the Japanese culture stresses group identity and hierarchy, these concepts appear in the language. Because Europeans tend to value individualism more, the English first person pronoun is capitalized.
Though, that being said, these fine folks disagree with my reasoning for a capital I.
2 Likes
I’d argue, for instance, “I” is capitalized because… it just is. Languages (like everything) collect and preserve all kinds of idiosyncrasies and arbitrary bric-a-brac. And while languages (like everything) change, they change slowly. We use the toolkit we learned when we acquired our language, and then we… keep using it. Do English speakers (usually) put adjectives before nouns because, um… qualities of things are super-important to us? No, we do it because that’s how English does it. There is likely not a different, more interesting reason.
Fair enough. But, saying that it just is, is not a particularly satisfying answer. The real reason may not be interesting, but it’s still worth knowing (if you’re the kind of person who enjoys a good treatise on the meaning of the). The link I posted above refutes my claim as well. The reason they give is that writing ‘I’ simply looks nicer than writing ‘i’.
What I can say with confidence is that the syntax, grammar, and vocabulary of Japanese reinforces many of the social norms that Japanese culture is known for. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
1 Like
There might very well be answers, but 1) they’re probably prosaic (and not psychologically revealing), and 2) they’re probably not explanations for why people today use this or that grammatical construction or whatever.
Yeah if someone has a political agenda saying so for sure you are right. Even I do think differently in Japanese vs English that’s not the source of thinking on those matters
1 Like
Thinking differently in any two languages is pretty much a given. What I take exception to is the idea that Japanese speakers are suddenly unable to think about or express ideas about the future just because they have a different set of grammatical rules for doing so.
1 Like
My first language is American so when I hear native speakers of Japanese speaking about the future it does seem different because I have to expend more effort on context.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
