japanese verbs/particles

[tanhql]

1) is there a website with a list of all the verbs and all the conjugation listed?

2) what is the simplest way of remembering if a verb is in group 1 or group 2, including exceptions, other than refering to the list?

3) under what circumstances can に replace で,へ,を etc? (especially に and を, direct(を) and indirect(に) objects is very confusing for me)

[novemberfog]

1) Not sure, and if there was I doubt it would be inclusive of all verbs. I do know that there the "500 Verbs" series has an edition for Japanese.

2) If the verb ends in 〜る, then you know it is class 2. If it is not する or 来る then it cannot be class 3, thus the verb would be class 1. Exceptions will be exceptions and you just have to memorize them as you come across them.

3) The particle に is very hard to figure out. You just have to keep reading example sentences until you come to an understanding. Every time someone tries to make a simple definition, one could find exceptions.

[nipponman]

3) under what circumstances can に replace で,へ,を etc? (especially に and を, direct(を) and indirect(に) objects is very confusing for me)

に and を

This is actually an easier issue than most students make it especially when talking about に and を (Unless you're refering to their locational attributes which is different). に is an indirect object marker, and ,を is the direct object marker. "I threw the ball to Jim"

ジムに玉を投げた.

に and へ

There is not much difference here, I don't know of any at least, they are interchangeable.

に and で

This is also a simpler issue than most make it to be. に always refers to static contexts, while で refers to dynamic ones. 公園で遊ぶ vs. 公園に住む "To play in a park" (dynamic, changing action) vs "To live in a park" (static, non-changing action). Be careful with this explanation however, it doesn't extend very far. V-でいる, in one of its three uses., can be a more static context than V+う／る, however, even though this is still the case, で is used. 子供が公園で遊んでる。に here would be incorrect. It is instructive to note that all particle-noun phrases (e.g. 子供が,公園で ,etc) can be eliminated from conversation (provided context is provided) except the indirect object marker に, this cannot be eliminated.

[tanhql]

"If the verb ends in 〜る, then you know it is class 2. If it is not する or 来る then it cannot be class 3, thus the verb would be class 1. Exceptions will be exceptions and you just have to memorize them as you come across them."

not necessary. 入る,始まる,座る etc have a 〜る, but they are all in group 1.

[novemberfog]

tanhql:

If the verb ends in 〜る, then you know it is class 2. If it is not する or 来る then it cannot be class 3, thus the verb would be class 1. Exceptions will be exceptions and you just have to memorize them as you come across them."

not necessary. 入る,始まる,座る etc have a 〜る, but they are all in group 1.

Naturally there are exceptions, and there is nothing you can do about it but remember the verbs that are exceptions. The only rule regarding class 2 verbs is that ~る endings designate class two verbs.

[yingguoguy]

2) what is the simplest way of remembering if a verb is in group 1 or group 2, including exceptions, other than refering to the list?

I find it helps to always try and learn the dictionary る form, the た/て form, and the ます form of a verb together and try and memorize a few sentances with all the various forms. Once you have those, most other conjegations become obvious. If I don't know the た/て form seperately I find it hard to hear them properly in speech.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call group 1 -iru/-eru verbs exceptions. I don't know what the ratio of these to group 2 verbs is, but I don't think you should make any assumptions about what a verb is, you just need to know it's group.

[nipponman]

Naturally there are exceptions, and there is nothing you can do about it but remember the verbs that are exceptions. The only rule regarding class 2 verbs is that ~る endings designate class two verbs.

Another thing to remember, る endings only designate class two verbs if they come after いorえ. It cannot be a class two verb otherwise. Now, there can be class one verbs that come after い or え　e.g帰る is 帰った but 変える is 変えた. You must memorize the cases where group one verbs have a る that comes after い or え, you cannot memorize any other exceptions as there is none. Remember, you can only have a group-II verb if the る ending follows an い or え, otherwise it is group-I.　入る,始まる,座る except the first verb, all these verbs do not follow an いorえ (the second one follows a ま the third a わ) so automatically I know that they are group-I

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call group 1 -iru/-eru verbs exceptions. I don't know what the ratio of these to group 2 verbs is, but I don't think you should make any assumptions about what a verb is, you just need to know it's group.

Its not a stretch, that's the rule. There are no group-II verbs that come after any other vowel sound other than い or え, none. So, by default, all group-I verbs that follow い or えand end in る must be exceptions.

　

[yingguoguy]

Its not a stretch, that's the rule.

The rules I was taught:

1) Any group 1 verb ends with -u,-ku,-gu,-su,-tsu,-nu,-mu,-bu, and -ru.

2) Any group 2 verb ends with -iru, -eru

3) The group 3 verbs are kuru and suru and have irregular conjugations.

-ru verbs with a preceeding i or e are not exceptional in the sense that they don't break any of the above rules. Given any verb ending in -iru or -eru it is impossible to infer from the rules wether it is in group 1 or group 2.

The only verb generally considered to be exceptional is iku, as it's past form is itta, not iita as you would expect from the rules given for group 1 verbs.

There are no group-II verbs that come after any other vowel sound other than い or え, none. So, by default, all group-I verbs that follow い or えand end in る must be exceptions.

This is a logical fallacy. Contrast with:

There are no Japanese people with anything other than natually black hair, none.

(okay maybe a dubious statement, but play along for the moment )

So, by default, all Americans with black hair must be exceptions.

[nipponman]

The only verb generally considered to be exceptional is iku' date=' as it's past form is itta, not iita as you would expect from the rules given for group 1 verbs.

[/quote']

This is not true, だ is considered the most exceptional verb, as it doesn't end with a う

sound.

This is a logical fallacy.

You're missing the point. I'm not calling group-I verbs that end in -る and follow an い or anえ

exceptions because they violate group-I rules, I call them exceptions to the rule that group-II verbs only end in that way. Hopefully you agree that you can never find a group-II verb that doesn't end in -いる or -える, that sounds like a rule to me.but so that people don't go and take every verb that ends in いる or -える to be group-II, we present exceptions to this rule. Your arguing from the point that these aren't exceptions to the group-I rules, and your right. Only problem is, nobody is talking about that (that didn't ask the question at least). These are exceptions to the group-II rules.

[yingguoguy]

This is not true, だ is considered the most exceptional verb, as it doesn't end with a うsound.

But da isn't generally considered to be a verb but the copula. It shows the tense and politeness level of sentences when these are not indicated by the verb or (for tense only) the i-adjective. Although it's usually translated into English at 'to be', it's not actually a verb and the English rule that all sentences must have a verb isn't true in Japanese.

Hopefully you agree that you can never find a group-II verb that doesn't end in -いる or -える, that sounds like a rule to me.

Agreed, see my rule 2 above.

but so that people don't go and take every verb that ends in いる or -える to be group-II, we present exceptions to this rule.

Your right that learners definately need their attention drawn to the fact that not everything that ends in -i/eru is a group 2 verb, and a text should provide examples of group 1 -i/eru endings to drive this point home. I also accept, which I missed originally, that tanhql refered to exceptions to the rules in his first post, and people were just following his usage.

My point was that it's bad practice to think of group 1 -i/eru verbs as being exceptional in the sense of assuming that any -i/eru verb is in group 2 unless it appears on a list of a exceptions that you've specially memorized, as it'll probably end up being quite a long list, and whenever you hit a verb, you'll waste time trying to remember if it's on the list or not.

It's also, I think, a bad idea to memorize in the form (帰る is group 1),(食べる is group 2) but rather (帰る、帰った,帰ります),(食べる,食べた,食べます), partly for the same reasons it's bad to try and remember Chinese tones by their numbers, but mainly because it speeds up most conjugating most forms. You shouldn't have to think about groups in conversation.

[nipponman]

But da isn't generally considered to be a verb but the copula. It shows the tense and politeness level of sentences when these are not indicated by the verb or (for tense only) the i-adjective. Although it's usually translated into English at 'to be', it's not actually a verb and the English rule that all sentences must have a verb isn't true in Japanese[/b'].

To linguists yes, but to most learners the distinction between a copula and a verb isn't that visible/important. For example, in "He would be the first one to ask...", is "be" a verb or a copula? The answer is a copula, does anyone care? Not really.

My point was that it's bad practice to think of group 1 -i/eru verbs as being exceptional in the sense of assuming that any -i/eru verb is in group 2 unless it appears on a list of a exceptions that you've specially memorized' date=' [b']as it'll probably end up being quite a long list, and whenever you hit a verb, you'll waste time trying to remember if it's on the list or not.

It's also, I think, a bad idea to memorize in the form (帰る is group 1),(食べる is group 2) but rather (帰る、帰った,帰ります),(食べる,食べた,食べます), partly for the same reasons it's bad to try and remember Chinese tones by their numbers, but mainly because it speeds up most conjugating most forms. You shouldn't have to think about groups in conversation.

You are aruging from a learners perspective, while i'm arguing from a technical perspective, as such we're both arguing over semantics. Fact of the matter is I agree that you shouldn't memorize groups in that way, just be aware that they exist. I'm sure you must admit though, that the group explanation works wonders for why 帰るconjugates differently than代える.

[yingguoguy]

To linguists yes, but to most learners the distinction between a copula and a verb isn't that visible/important. For example, in "He would be the first one to ask...", is "be" a verb or a copula? The answer is a copula, does anyone care? Not really.

In the English language you're right, in fact I'll be honest and say I've not idea what copula means when referring to English grammar. However when studying Japanese grammar one of my first questions was "What going on with this desu then? Is it a verb or what?" One of the key moments in learning Japanese is realizing the purpose of "de/desu" in a sentance, and why for example "samukatta desu" and "samukunai desu" make sense and "samui deshita" and "samui ja arimasen" don't, rather than just seeing them as arbitary rules.

You are aruging from a learners perspective, while i'm arguing from a technical perspective, as such we're both arguing over semantics. Fact of the matter is I agree that you shouldn't memorize groups in that way, just be aware that they exist. I'm sure you must admit though, that the group explanation works wonders for why 帰るconjugates differently than代える.

Sorry don't mistake my meaning, of course learners should be aware what the word groups are. When learning a new verb you need these to calculate the various verb forms anyway. My meaning was rather than working from the dictionary form and the group number to get the -ta form, you should memorize the dictionary and -ta form and work backwards to get the group number, as and when you need it.