Talk:燻る

(I've dropped the idea of putting Classical and Modern Japanese in a single entry and linking them with .) Maybe we need a code for Classical Japanese first? These are the reasons I think Classical and Modern Japanese should be treated separately: On the other hand, such a simple periodization of the history of Japanese may be enough for the written language, but not for the spoken language as there is also Old Japanese and 江戸語. Eirikr, any ideas? --Dine2016 (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Modern Japanese could be written in both modern and historical kana orthography, but Classical Japanese are usually in historical kana orthography only. (We have かく－かく－かく（書）, おきる－おきる－おく（起）, あう－あふ－あふ（合・会） and たずねる－たづねる－たづぬ（尋・訪）)
 * 2) Conjugations are different. Classical Japanese had 終止形–連体形 opposition, and the -TAR- suffix was “non-final” (by also having such an opposition: -TARI vs -TARU). Modern Japanese has instead a nonpast–past opposition due to the -TAR- suffix reduced to -TA and being “final”. Japanese school grammar thus do not reflect morphology accurately, and we need a different paradigm for Modern Japanese verbs.*


 * I think I support the idea, but honestly I don't think I am qualified to give my opinion yet... —Suzukaze-c◇◇ 01:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)