All issues
Volume 1967 (1967)
- Issue 51 Pages 1-
- Issue 50 Pages 1-
Volume 1967, Issue 51
Displaying 1-8 of 8 articles from this issue
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|
-
Takao SUZUKI1967 Volume 1967 Issue 51 Pages 1-15
Published: March 30, 1967
Released on J-STAGE: November 26, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSIn this paper an attempt is made at presenting an outline view of Turkish kinship terms used in address. However, in view of the scarcity of literature devoted to Turkish Kinship terminology, some complementary remarks as well as a few critical ones are given to Robert Spencer's paper on the referential use of Turkish kin terms appeared in Anthropological Quarterly Vol.33, 1960.
One of the points made in this connection is that in reference the principle of egocentricity is strictly observed and no violation is found either in the form of the socalled teknonymous use or in any other modified version of it. And the principle is also carried over in the system of address.
A rather detailed analysis is given to the use of“ yenge-eniste” in address in conjunction with“ gelin-damat, ” the result of which is applied to the determination of the range of possible kin types designated by these terms in reference.
It is also pointed out that in intrafamilial context, consideration of possessive suffixes in address is necessary, since the usage is determined in exactly the same way as a person may be addressed by name alone or not.
Lastly informal fictive use of kin terms in address is briefly examined.View full abstractDownload PDF (686K) -
Seizô AOYAGI1967 Volume 1967 Issue 51 Pages 16-29
Published: March 30, 1967
Released on J-STAGE: February 09, 2011
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSIt is pointed out in Parts 1 & 2 that, in dealing with “passive voice” in Modern Begali grammar, consideration should be given to the passive in the “neutral” syntactic structure traditionally called bhava-vacya in Bengali. In Part 3 the bhavavacya is characterized by the total absence of the subject, real or formal, in a sentence and by the fact that a noun or a pronoun which corresponds to the subject of a non-bhava-vacya sentence is in oblique case, especially in objective case with dative meaning functioning as a “topic word”, an equivalent of “daimoku-go” in Japanese grammar.
Based on these characteristics of bhava-vacya, the only passive construction in Modern Standard Colloquial Bengali (Calit-bhasa) can be formulated as follows (Part 4):
noinun or pronoun in objective case + passive participle of transive verb + help verb in 3rd person used impersonally
e.g./amake daekha jae/<<I am seen>> literally ‘with-regard to-me, seen is’
The first element of this structure can be omitted if allowed by the context or the situation in which an utterance occurs.
e.g./dhore-neua jak/<<Let it be granted>>
This impersonal passive construction (IPC) is unstable for the following reasons (Part 5). 1) If an inanimate noun is the first element of this structure, it might be taken to be the subject of a sentence, because usually for inamimate nouns the objective case and the nominative are the same in form, having no suffix. Hence IPC would be replaced by a personal passive construction which was in use before (e.g./ami daekha jai/<<I am seen>>. 2) The passive participle in IPC might be interpreted as a verbal noun, since they are not distinguishable by their form, both ending in -a (or -no). Thus IPC would be replaced by a personal non-passive construction with a verbal noun as the subject. This is analogous to the type which was plentiful in Middle Bengali and is preserved in the East Bengali dialects (according to S. K. Chatterji), e.g./amake daekhon jae/<<I am seen>> lit. ‘with-regard-to-me, a-seeing goes-on’.
In short, this unstability of IPC is due syntactically to the pressure of the subject-predicate structure which dominates the Bengali language except bhava-vacya, and morphologically to the identity of the form of the passive participle with that of the verbal noun, which can be traced back to the same condition in Old Indo-Aryan where the passive participle in -ta or -ita could be used as a noun of action.View full abstractDownload PDF (1130K) -
Yasutosi YUKAWA1967 Volume 1967 Issue 51 Pages 30-51
Published: March 30, 1967
Released on J-STAGE: February 09, 2011
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSThe main aim of this paper is to show that the so-called subject does not exist in Japanese. The reasons are the following:
[I] Some Japanese sentences can be constructed without a so-called subject.
e.g. Ikimasu. ‘I, we, he, she or they will go.’
Sizukada. ‘It's quiet.’
[II] Several expressions are used as subject.
e.g. Boku ikimasu. ‘I will go.’
Boku-wa ikimasu. ‘I will go.’
Boku-ga ikimasu. ‘I will go.’
If the subject existed in Japanese, it should be one of the most fundamental elements in the construction of the sentence, and it is very queer that several expressions can be used as subject.
In this case, the word-order does not show subject at all, because there are sentences like:
Kare-o nagutta. ‘I hit him.’
Kare-ni ageru. ‘I will give it to him.’
where kare-o and kare-ni, which seem to be in the same place as the subject is, mean ‘him’ and ‘to him’ respectively.
[III] Wa itself does not show that the noun to which it is attached is the subject.
e.g. Kare-wa naguranaide oku. ‘I won't hit him for a time.’
where kare-wa means ‘him’, and not ‘he’. So, postpositional expressions like A-wa do not indicate the subject. The word-order has nothing to do with the subject, and neither has the postposition. Then, what does show the subject ?
[IV] Consider sentences like:
Kare-wa iku. ‘He will go.’
Kare-ga iku. ‘He will go.’
Kare-ni ageru. ‘I will give it to him.’
Zenbu ageru. ‘I will give all.’
Takusan ageru. ‘I will give much.’
Eiga-o miru. ‘I will see a film.’
Gakko-e iku. ‘I will go to school.’
In these sentences, kare-wa, kare-ga, kare-ni, zenbu etc. are all on almost the same level of grammatical importance in the sentences.
These facts [I]-[IV] tell us that, in Japanese, the so-called subject is a kind of adverbial like zenbu, takusan, toto etc. We can find such phenomena in other languages such as Tibetan, so the existence of the subject is not universal at all, but is a feature of certain languages.View full abstractDownload PDF (1763K) -
Shigeo KAWAMOTO1967 Volume 1967 Issue 51 Pages 52-58
Published: March 30, 1967
Released on J-STAGE: February 09, 2011
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (379K) -
Mantaro HASHIMOTO1967 Volume 1967 Issue 51 Pages 59-69
Published: March 30, 1967
Released on J-STAGE: November 26, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (342K) -
[in Japanese]1967 Volume 1967 Issue 51 Pages 70-74
Published: March 30, 1967
Released on J-STAGE: May 23, 2013
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (251K) -
[in Japanese]1967 Volume 1967 Issue 51 Pages 75-77
Published: March 30, 1967
Released on J-STAGE: November 26, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (122K) -
[in Japanese], [in Japanese], [in Japanese], [in Japanese], [in Japane ...1967 Volume 1967 Issue 51 Pages 78-95
Published: March 30, 1967
Released on J-STAGE: November 26, 2010
JOURNAL FREE ACCESSDownload PDF (1018K)
- |<
- <
- 1
- >
- >|