richvh wrote:Unlike you, I sought out opinions from native speakers as to whose understanding was more correct, rather than relying on my opinion of what my teacher's opinion would be; unlike you, Chris made an account on lang-8 to argue his case in that thread; you could have done the same, if you wished to argue the point.
I wasn't trying to argue the point. Nocturnal Ocean asked me to clarify my rationale, which I did. I wasn't interested in canvassing other opinions, nor did I try to stop other people from expressing their own opinions.
As for the accusation of incompetence - whether you realize it or not, when several people disagree with you on a point, and you accuse one of them of incompetence on the basis of that point, you're accusing all of them of the same thing
I didn't accuse Yudan of incompentence on the basis of that point alone. I was referring to the fact that Yudan had translated that as "Print" which clearly is misleading at best. Nobody else translated it as "print."
(I'm still unconvinced that a single こと can't be a sequential process laid out by して…する, however convoluted you think the second post I quoted might be.)
And I've stated all along that it could be, but unlikely. As I've said before, think of AてBことができる and test that on a few examples.
If you really wanted to say "I can do A, then B sequentially" (as opposed to B without A, or B before A, etc.) I don't think you will make yourself clear by just saying AてBことができる. You probably have to insert additional explanation to make sure that people understood you were referring specifically to A and B in strict sequence.
The second post also ignores the context of the discussion, which is that if you look at the other definitions of the word as well, it seems unlikely that the first definition is inclusive of "printing" because the other definitions don't require that aspect.
That's why I thought the second example was convoluted, it seems the person posting it did not understand the full context of the discussion, which is a specific sentence in the context of a dictionary definition that includes multiple definitions.
It's possible to construct scenarios such that こと would be inclusive of the conjunction - I myself said it was possible, remember? But they would need to be special circumstances, like the example.
And yes - saying someone's grammar isn't up to JLPT 3 level is a far more sweeping accusation than saying someone is wrong on a single point, (which is just debating - if everyone thought everyone else was right, there wouldn't be any debate, now would there?) which is why you got singled out for this moderator's attention.
Well, I thought I was being clear that I was referring to the specific understanding of the application of こと not being up JLPT3 level. On rereading my post, I agree that it was very likely that my statement would be interpreted as Yudan's entire understanding of Japanese (especially when combined with my advice to review basic grammar). My apologies.
Isn't your set of recent posts proof that it is possible to "overread" someone's words? You have now "accused" me of several things that I didn't do, all based on your misunderstandings. I have since made my apologies to Yudan, what you want to do is up to you.
Christine Tham wrote:Equating 万葉仮名 to 古語 is equivalent to equating runes to Old English, so my point stands.
No, because 古語 does not mean "runes", or the equivalent of runes. I did give the definition earlier, which is very specific.
For reference, Kenkyusha's definition is " an archaic [obsolete] word; an archaism." As an example, この言葉はもう古語になっている. (This word is archaic [obsolete, no longer in use].)
My point is that the usage is not archaic. People do still have names that use words based on the writing system. On that basis, 万葉仮名 usage is not 古語.