Print

Print


Sent from my iPad

On 12 Feb 2014, at 08:54, Eugene Oh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> On 11 Feb 2014, at 09:45, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> On 11 February 2014 10:17, Douglas Koller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>>> Ame ga fureba/futtara, pikunikku ni ikimasen (desyoo). If it rains,
>>> we're
>>>>>> not going on a picnic.
>>> 
>>>>>> Didn't study formally and don't know how the natives analyze it
>>>>>> (conditional?). Wouldn't call it a gerund, but is it finite? "Ame ga
>>>>>> fureba" is not a complete sentence any more than "When in Rome" is.
>>> 
>>>>> Conditional. Non-finite. There are only two finite forms, the non-past
>>> (-u,
>>>>> which in modern Japanese has fused with the "modifier" form) and the
>>> past
>>>>> (-ta).
>>> 
>>>> I have a question about that: given that Japanese verbs don't show any
>>> type
>>>> of agreement to their arguments, how does one distinguish between
>>>> non-finite and finite forms?
>>> 
>>> Hence my question mark.
>> Once again, my question was directed at Eugene. Like you, I'd like to know
>> when a verb form in Japanese is considered finite or non-finite, and
>> whether it even makes sense to talk about non-finite verb forms in Japanese.
> 
> Aren't finite verb forms those that make an independent clause?
> 
> --Ame ga furu. Works.*
> --Ame ga futta. Works. 
> --Ame ga fureba. Not a complete independent clause unless you assume a certain degree of ellipsis
> --Ame ga futtara. Same. 
> --Ame ga futte. Same. 
> 
> The attributive form which is identical I acknowledge makes this a little problematic synchronically given you could also say "Ame ga furu hi" which is a noun phrase. But I think we should distinguish the two forms.

Isn't "having conquered Gaul" in "Having conquered Gaul, he set about invading Britain" and independent clause? Or is it somehow "part of" "he...Britain"?