Yes, that part. Also, the way I read it, Yamada’s criterion seems to be “opt-in” in the sense that it says “if the verb is +ACT, it cannot take -ru for present tense”, but since the criterion is pretty restrictive (only transitive verbs make -te aru, to begin with), that leaves us with a lot of verbs that might make present tense, but I’m not sure they actually do in practice with the non-past/plain form… I suspect a better answer might have to do with volition or visible state change; I would need to check in Jacobsen’s The transitive structure of events in Japanese, for a start; that is, if I can get my hands on a copy. I’m interested in what you find out in the papers you read, in any case, so don’t hesitate to come back and share with us a summary of the papers on -te iru you found, once you’re done reading them (well, if you want to).
Unfortunately, I have finals until next week so I’m gonna have to take a break from any kind of linguini analysis for a bit. But when I come back, will do.
質問のある方はどうぞ。
(Please feel free to ask any questions.)
I don’t get the use of 方 here?
It’s the かた reading. People with questions, go ahead.
Nenad is asking about the usage, I’ve always wondered the same too
方 can also means people or person. It’s like more polite I guess. I think it’s just a stylistic choice.
I keep forgetting kata can mean person. :facepalm: Thanks
剣道は、武士の時代に遡る日本古来の武術です。
This is something I have lots of trouble with even after a year now. Is it always true that whenever there’s a verb preceding a noun, the entire clause acts like an adjective? I can’t read these kinds of sentences at all. Is there an easier way to read them?
EDIT: I can read them, but I don’t comprehend them.
My question is that I wanted an easier way to read it. It seems like working the sentence backwards like you did actually helps.
The subject here is actually 剣道 (Kendo). It’s marked with the は particle, but I’m pretty sure it’s the grammatical subject in this sentence. The second clause is is ancient Japanese martial art. I think if I split the two clauses into their individual meanings like this.
日本古来の武術です。
Is ancient Japanese martial art.
剣道は、武士の時代に遡る
Kendo dates back to age of samurai.
Then if I combine them together . . .
剣道は、武士の時代に遡る 日本古来の武術です。
Kendo is an ancient Japanese martial art which dates back to the age of the samurai.
That seems to help. It’s just annoying how I have to pick it apart like this instead of just being able to read it and immediately understand.
EDIT: I think It would actually be dating back to the age of the samurai since it’s acting as an adjective now.
EDIT 2: Actually the first part that I split it into probably isn’t a clause, since clauses have to have a subject. My bad.
I have read
both of your responses, and I have to say I agree with both of you. 剣道 is the subject of the entire sentence, as the base sentence is 県道は武術です。What kind of 武術？武士の時代に遡る日本古来の武術。
We have a relative clause within a relative clause here.
I have no reference works to link to here, but の in this case can be read as a form of である (like な, in a sense).
This is something I heard a couple times, from my teacher, and from a fellow student who has delved into classical Japanese quite a bit (I think the teacher might have got it from him 
). But it seems to make sense, and sentences like these seem easier to parse if I read の as である.
I can get you the sources in a couple days, I think. (I can ask my classmate, at least).
Also, adjectives are basically relative clauses.
Thank you! Unfortunately I can’t seem to access the website you posted. 
Oh I see! I didn’t realize キロ was a counter. Thank you for the clarification!
You an access it from the Internet Archive from here.
Thank you so much!
Maybe it was temporarily down? I just checked, and the site’s still running. In any event, it sounds like you were able to access it through the internet archive.
I can’t access it either. Seems to be DNS related.
I just came across the words 寒かろう and 暑かろう and learned from Tae Kim that this is a volitional form for i-adjectives and negative endings (just as I had suspected from the look):
http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/volitional2#Using_as_volitional_for_endings
But what I totally don’t understand: What does this do to the meaning of the adjective? Where does the volition go into? For the negative, it seems to be clear (“let’s not…”) but how can it be volitionally cold or hot? Tae Kim’s example sentence
運動を始めるのが 早かろう が 遅かろう が、健康にいいというのは変わりません。
Whether you start exercising early or late, the fact that it’s good for your health doesn’t change.
keeps the meaning of “early” and “late” and does not seem to add volition to them… ?
(Or is this just a literary way of saying 寒い and 暑い?)
Thanks for any explanations 
this is just a standard grammar structure that involves the use of volitional form
I wouldn’t worry about what it does to the meaning of the word on its own as youll pretty much never see it used anymore. You may see 早かろう悪かろう or something, though.
Funny that we were discussing just that with @konekush and others in another thread yesterday.
Very short answer: 寒かろう 〜 寒いだろう plus concessive が (= と = とも) 〜 ても
Application: 寒かろうが暑かろうが 〜 寒くても暑くても “whether it is cold or hot”
Notice that by translating like that, you lose the original conjectural nuance (だろう), though it matters very little, w.r.t. the sense. Also, this 寒かろう is like だろう a conjectural/tentative form, not volitional.
Long short answer
This volitional/conjectural form (hereafter, the U form) comes from the older MU form, which attached to the A stem: samukaramu > samukarau > samukaroo.
MU was the most general of the classical modal inflections and could express either volition or conjecture (more often the latter, it is traditionally said). One way to look at MU is that it was the general irrealis (unrealised) inflection, similar to the subjunctive mood in English; put differently: it was really vague.
Flash forward, its descendant U now generally exhibits a dichotomy (unless overriden by context or grammar such as ga/to(mo)):
- it expresses volition by default: when attached to an action verb;
- it expresses conjecture when volition makes no sense: identity (daroo), adjectives, etc.
But just like English subjunctive, “general-purpose” U form sees little use today and adds little meaning by itself. Compare 1 and 2, 3 and 4 (from the jt4u page), 5 and 6:
- samuku te mo atuku te mo ~ whether it is cold or hot
- samukaroo ga atukaroo ga ~ whether it be cold or hot
- kimi ga imooto de atte mo naku te mo ~ whether you are my sister or not
- kimi ga imooto de aroo to nakaroo to ~ whether you be my sister or not
- kimi ga imooto de wa naku te mo ~ though you are not my sister
- kimi ga imooto de wa nakaroo ga ~ though you be not my sister
Now let’s try to plug that into the instances where U acts as volitional. In English, the subjunctive hardly stands alone, so we may need to add “I propose that” or something for it to make sense:
- ikimasyoo ~ [I (politely) suggest that] we go
- yaroo to omou ~ *I intend that I do it — (we don’t normally say that)
Of course, most of the time, the natural translation is not to use the subjunctive in English, but modal auxiliaries instead (will, would, could, should, may, might). However, I think the comparison is very relevant. Anyway, I know my explanations are confusing sometimes, but hopefully improving!
While studying grammar for the JLPT N4 I came across the grammar topic ~より~のほう in the shinkanzen master book. They are not limiting it to just のほう+が.
I only know the usage of のほう with the particle が (so のほうが). Now the shinkanzen book gives the following example: わたしはご飯よりパンのほうをよく食べます。
Looking at Genki I, Basic Dictionary of Japanese Grammar and Tae Kim’s Guide, I can’t find any explanation or examples that don’t use が…
So now I’m trying to figure out the difference. In which situations do I have to use が and in which do I have to use other particles?
In that example sentences the verb 食べる is used together with the adverb よく. If I want to say something like “do X more (often) than Y” instead of / without using any adverbs “formed” from adjectives (e.g. “do X faster than Y”), are particles used depending on the verb (and in which context the verb is used)? So in the example sentence it is Noun+を+食べる (to eath sth.), and that’s why を is used?
And is it correct to say: “わたしはパンのほうご飯よりをよく食べます。”? Do I have to use を directly after のほう? (It seems like with のほうが, が always follows directly after のほう no matter if it’s used before or after より.)
EDIT: Actually, found my answers in the “Notes” of DBJG (p. 143, no. 4). In case anyone is interested:
“X のほう is a noun phrases, therefore it can also be a direct object, an indirect object etc. However, when it is used for something other than the subject, the “Y より X のほう (を, に, etc.)” order is preferable.”
I take from this:
- If X のほう is a subject, it usually goes with が. If it’s an object, the particle used depends on the verb.
- Objects/subjects are marked by particles, so there usually has to be a particle directly after X のほう.