On 2018/03/29 4:58, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:
> On 28 March 2018 at 16:41, Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> It's quite clear that they are at least *phonologically* bound markers and
>> not separate words - I wouldn't ever call them 'particles'.
> You're confusing things here: things can be phonologically bound yet be
> separate words. That's the point of calling them "clitics". That's the
> whole point here: there's no question that the Japanese particles are
> phonologically bound. The question is whether they are still to be
> considered separate words (clitics) or not (suffixes).
> The word "particle" itself says nothing about phonological boundedness, so
> it's perfectly fine to call a bound marker a particle.
Ah, we may have had a bit of a terminology mismatch, then. By 'separate
words' I mean both syntactically and phonologically, with a clitic being
separate syntactically but not phonologically and thus not a true
'separate word' by that definition. I take the word 'particle' to denote
only 'separate words' in this sense, which thus implies phonological
unboundedness. I suspect that using 'particle' in a way that includes
clitics might diminish the term's usefulness for specifying /unbound/
words that have only a grammatical function - a class of things which
would no longer have a dedicated term.
(I could be wrong to take it this way, though! It's a connotation I seem
to have picked up somewhere along the way, and couldn't back it up with
> On 28 March 2018 at 19:58, Chris Peters <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I treat particles as separate clitics, as well. Mostly for the fact that
>> particles don't change pronunciation like other Japanese linguistic
>> features do.
>> Example: "roku" (six) + "kai" (floor of a building) becomes "rokkai"
>> (sixth floor).
>> Yet, if you were to add the particle "kara" (meaning "from" -- as if
>> "roku" were a place name), it becomes "Roku kara" ("from Roku"), rather
>> than contracted to "rokkara".
> I'm not sure that helps: classifiers are clearly a very different part of
> speech from particles. That one PoS behaves in a certain way says nothing
> about how another one should behave. Finally, I wouldn't necessarily expect
> placename Roku to behave phonologically the same as number roku.
Additionally, those markers do cause that kind of a change in some
contexts in colloquial speech:
/yakkara/ 'because [subj] does'
The triggering environment is different, though - only /ru/ changes
AFAIK. You could argue that that only applies to sentence-final
illocutionary force markers rather than to the noun case markers they're
derived from, though; I'm unaware of the same change applying to
このメールは、AVG によってウイルス チェックされています。