Re: THEORY nouns and cases (was: Verbs derived from noun cases)

takatunu wrote:
> I guess there is nothing to bicker about, but if you refer to "hoshii" I
> wouldn't agree with the term "direct object" since in its hypercorrect use
> this "diret object" should take the subject clitic "ga" like for an
> intransitive verb:
Actually, I was referring to -tai, which *can*, and usually *does*, take
_wo_.

Pai wo tabetai.  "I want to eat pie".  The morphological adjective
_tabetai_ takes the accussative _pai wo_.  (Although, _pai ga tabetai_
is also legal, just less common)

> Plus, to me na-adjectives are not "more" adjectives than i-adjectives are.
> They are just "nominal" adjectives vs. "verbal" adjectives. But I guess this
> all depends of the books and school you learn this from.
Well, you can view it that way.  But, the way I see it, na-adjectives
are a separate class, neither noun nor verb (although, admittedly, many
of them *can* be used as adjectives, but not all, those ending in -teki,
for example, IINM, are always adjectives).  -I is a class of verb.
Therefore, if anything deserves to be called "true adjective", it would
be the one that's not part of another class, i.e., the na-adjectives.

Of course, the books I use call i-adjectives "true adjectives" and
na-adjectives "quasi-adjectives", which makes no sense to me.  I can't
see any logic that would make the i-group more adjectival than the
na-group.

Reply