Japanese Verbs Types

[kentaku_sama]

This may be a wierd question but I was wondering what all the different Japanese verb types are.　I don't mean like 一段動詞　五段動詞　I mean like the different types like　
損じる　現れる　上る　Ect...　Why some end in only one hiragana while others have more.　Things like that.　Compound verbs like　消え去る　Most likely only a native could answer my question because I've never seen any info for this online.　I've just wondered what all the different patterns are。And what their Japanese names are in grammar.　

[NileCat]

Since I’m not an expert, take it with a grain of salt.

The kana following the kanji stems are called 送りがな.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okurigana

When kanji were imported from China over a thousand years ago, they invented the okurigana to absorb the difference between the kanji-only-writings and the colloquial language which had existed before the introduction of kanji.
e.g) 李下不正冠 →　李下に冠を正さず
In the course of the development of the modern Japanese writing system, the rule of the okurigana had been modified so as not to create confusion.
e.g1)　すくない　【少】
If you wrote it 少い, what the negative form “すくなくない” would be? 少くない? Doesn’t it look like just “すくない”? So it should be 少ない／少なくない, not 少い／少くない.
e.g 2)　おこなう 【行】
Even if you write it 行う, everyone could read it as おこなう. Nevertheless, how about the conjugation like おこなって? …行って? …It would seem いって instead of おこなって. So, only in order to avoid the confusion, it should be 行なって.

So, even though I understand that the rule seems like chaotic to you, we native can see the “conventional rules” in the system. There might exist some grammar terms to define the rules but, unfortunately, I know nothing about them.

[kentaku_sama]

Ok so that must be why they are different. Thanks

[JaySee]

e.g 2)　おこなう 【行】
Even if you write it 行う, everyone could read it as おこなう. Nevertheless, how about the conjugation like おこなって? …行って? …It would seem いって instead of おこなって. So, only in order to avoid the confusion, it should be 行なって.

I'm of course not a native speaker, but I believe that the correct form is actually 行う, not 行なう, and this (in my non-native experience) is how you'll see it written most of the time. Even though this way the -te form of both 行く and 行う are the same, it (again in my experience) doesn't cause much confusion as the meanings of the two verbs are quite dissimilar, so context usually makes it quite clear how the kanji should be read.

[jimbreen]

The kana following the kanji stems are called 送りがな.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okurigana

An excellent article.

e.g 2)　おこなう 【行】
Even if you write it 行う, everyone could read it as おこなう. Nevertheless, how about the conjugation like おこなって? …行って? …It would seem いって instead of おこなって. So, only in order to avoid the confusion, it should be 行なって.

But it isn't. It's still 行って (most of the time.) Although the rules for 五段 verbs mean that it should be 行う, I would really prefer it if 行なう were used, as it would stop 行って and 行った being ambiguous. Of course you can tell whether it is 行う or 行く from the context, but even the best parsing software often gets it wrong, which to those of us working on NLP in Japanese is very annoying.

Jim

[Mitto]

I'm of course not a native speaker, but I believe that the correct form is actually 行う, not 行なう,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okurigana に

The 1981 Cabinet notification prescribes (通則1) the okurigana usage 行う (for 行 read as おこなう), but 行なう is also explicitly permitted (通則1許容).

って書いてあるでしょ。NileCat氏は、混乱を防ぐためには「行なって」と書くのがいいと言っているだけです。最近では、新聞やテレビでも「行なう」がよく使われます。

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc ... 18001.html

[jimbreen]

The 1981 Cabinet notification prescribes (通則1) the okurigana usage 行う (for 行 read as おこなう), but 行なう is also explicitly permitted (通則1許容).

って書いてあるでしょ。NileCat氏は、混乱を防ぐためには「行なって」と書くのがいいと言っているだけです。最近では、新聞やテレビでも「行なう」がよく使われます。

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc ... 18001.html

なるほどね。

The 国語字典 largely reflect that:
広辞苑: おこな・う 【行う】
大辞林: おこな・う ... 【行う〔行なう〕】
大辞泉: おこな・う 【行う〔行なう〕】
小談志GJD: おこな・う 【行う・行なう】

The major JEs don't touch it:

新和英大辞典第５版: おこなう【行う】
新和英中辞典: おこなう【行う】
ルミナス和英辞典: おこなう　行う
三省堂GC: おこなう　行う

I go with the flow:
WWWJDIC: 行う(P); 行なう 【おこなう】 (v5u,vt) to perform; to do ....

Maybe in a few years the JEs will buckle. At present on WWW hits, 行う is leading 行なう by 213M to 15M.

Jim

[NileCat]

Thank you all.
Jimbreen, I appreciate your conclusion.

JaySee is right too. My post was badly phrased. Like Mitto (you’re native, right?) kindly understood me, I guess it could make sense only when the reader has already known that 行う is (was?) supposed to be the "correct" one as a kind of common sense or something. Sorry, that’s my fault.
What I wanted to explain was the concept and the vicissitude of Okurigana in general. I thought that that could answer to op’s question: Why some end in only one hiragana while others have more? I myself use 行う most of the time. However, I would use 行なって in many cases even if it were prohibited by law . And I’d fight on my life against anyone who dares to accuse it as an "error".

[JaySee]

I'm of course not a native speaker, but I believe that the correct form is actually 行う, not 行なう,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okurigana に

The 1981 Cabinet notification prescribes (通則1) the okurigana usage 行う (for 行 read as おこなう), but 行なう is also explicitly permitted (通則1許容).

って書いてあるでしょ。NileCat氏は、混乱を防ぐためには「行なって」と書くのがいいと言っているだけです。最近では、新聞やテレビでも「行なう」がよく使われます。

http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc ... 18001.html

Now I know we're getting awfully close to arguing semantics, but I interpreted NileCat's "it should be 行なって" as「行なって」と書かなければならない - i.e. "this is the rule".

The officially 'correct' form is in fact 行う, as it is the form prescribed by the people who are apparently allowed to do so, and it is the form listed first in the kokugo dictionaries. Then again, I'm well aware that in this case, 'correct' is not meant in an absolute sense (perhaps I should have put the word in quotes in my original post as well). After all, just like the joyo-kanji list, the notification prescribing the usage of okurigana states that "この「送り仮名の付け方」は、科学・技術・芸術その他の各種専門分野や個々人の表記にまで及ぼそうとするものではない". So basically, if it makes you happy you can follow the rules set out in the notification (and you probably should if you're a journalist), but if you don't want to then that's great as well. This means that even if 行なう weren't also allowed as an alternative form in the notification, you'd still be perfectly fine writing it like that.

[NileCat]

Thanks, JaySee!
And I apologize again for my awful English.

But what I wanted to say is slightly different, I’m afraid.

So basically, if it makes you happy you can follow the rules set out in the notification (and you probably should if you're a journalist), but if you don't want to then that's great as well.

Today, even if you are a journalist, it is assumed proper, officially. The official (no matter what it means) rule stated it in 1981. That’s the major point in my opinion if you want to see it accurately. (I realize that there are quite a few people who wouldn't agree with me)
Anyway, I’m afraid the phrase you quoted from the notification seems irrelevant, very strictly speaking. At least that is not the one which my opinion (and maybe Mitto's too) was based on. The important part is this.

五　各通則において、送り仮名の付け方は許容によることのできる語については、本則又は許容のいずれに従つてもよいが、個々の語に適用するに当たつて、許容に従つてよいかどうか判断し難い場合には、本則によるものとする。

本文
単独の語
１　活用のある語
通則1
本則　活用のある語(通則2を適用する語を除く。)は，活用語尾を送る。

許容　次の語は，(　)の中に示すように，活用語尾の前の音節から送ることができる。
表す(表わす)　著す(著わす)　現れる(現われる)　行う(行なう)　断る(断わる)　賜る(賜わる)

That's why quality papers use them too today.
(And, usually this kind of argument is held over the interpretation of the specific "許容に従ってよいかどうか判断し難い" case, not over the general rule, JFYI )