# adjectivized verbs in Japanese



## Seikun

Hi.
I just want to confirm this by asking you guys. I was listening to Bonnie Pink's Last Kiss song and this verb came up:

最後のキスは忘れないよ

My question is, is 忘れない acting not as a verb istelf, but rather as an adjectivized verb? Even though it is at the end of the sentence particle は makes me think that 忘れない is acting like an adjective.

My question may sound rather obvious, but please keep in mind that my knowledge of Japanese is limited and every discovery in this language is a great progress to me, so please bear with me.

Thanks^^


----------



## kenmori

Hi, Seikunさん.

In the phrase, 忘れない is a verb, and は is used to emphasize 最後のキス. 

The post by uchi.m to the thread called "topic marker は" will help. As uchi.m says about テニスはしない, は is often used with a verb in its negative form to emphasize the object, or to contrast it with other things. To emphasize it more, だけは〜ない can be used: 

最後のキス*を*忘れないよ。--> 最後のキス*は*忘れないよ。--> 最後のキス*だけは*忘れないよ*。*


By the way, many years ago, I started (and finished) reading Saint-Exupery's Le Petit Prince in French with almost no knowledge of the language. I had a very good time learning a lot.


----------



## Seikun

Hi Kenmori^^
We might be talking about the same thing. I see it this way. If 忘れない were placed before キス it would be translated as "unforgetable kiss" (忘れないキス). Here the verb is not acting as a verb, but rather as an adjective, the verb is showing the characteristic of the noun. Thus, even though 忘れない is at the end of the sentence its function is not that of a verb, but that of an adjective. If trying to translate it as literal as possible I would translate it like this:

最後のキスは忘れないよ = (As for) the last kiss, it is unforgetable (for me). 

That is what particle は gives to understand to me about 忘れない. It is not an action being realized, it is a characteristic being exposed.

Is this reasoning correct?

Thanks.


----------



## fitter.happier

Seikun said:


> Hi Kenmori^^
> We might be talking about the same thing. I see it this way. If 忘れない were placed before キス it would be translated as "unforgetable kiss" (忘れないキス).


 Not exactly, Seikun. 忘れないキス means _a kiss I won't forget._

_An unforgettable kiss _would be 忘れがたいキス or 忘れられないキス.

忘れがたい literally means _difficult to forget_, and is formed by attaching がたい (_difficult_) to the stem of the verb, in a similar fashion to _V stem_ + にくい.
忘れられない is the potential form of 忘れる, and it literally means can't _forget/unable to forget_. 信じられない (can't believe/unbelievable) is formed the same way.



> 最後のキスは忘れないよ = (As for) the last kiss, it is unforgetable (for me).


 Perhaps the fact that 忘れない ends in -i led you to think that it is an adjective, but it is in fact a verb (= 忘れません)

I would translate it as _I won't forget our last kiss_.


----------



## xiaolijie

In order to progress far into the language, I'd recommend seeing all the following: 
忘れない, 忘れられない, いいたい、多い、行かない、etc.
as belonging to the same category (such as group-3 verbs), regardless of how they would look once translated into another language. The basis for the classification is that _*they bear the same form (=the い_form) and behave the same way (= same conjugation)*_


----------



## Seikun

I see. It is a little difficult to understand since I didn't know this other use for particle _wa_ so if somebody would like to explain this use and how this affects verbs in the negative form, please, post it here. Otherwise, I would like to request any website I could read about this.

What made me think of _wasurenai_ as an adjectivized verb is particle _wa _placed before the verb. One usually sees verbs acting as adjetives when they precede nouns (飛ぶ鳥). Then I couldn't get that a kiss could carry out an action like forgetting. I assumed what she meant is that the attribute of the kiss is that it is unforgettable for her. Here I skipped the use of _wa_ and _ga_ most likely. Also I based this reasoning on an example I found on the net. Here is one:

_忘れない_日々 _Unforgettable_ Days. (MISIA).

Thanks for the help^^


----------



## Kaiketsu Zorori

Seikun said:


> <...>Then I couldn't get that a kiss could carry out an action like forgetting. <...>


"kiss" here is a topic, not a subject as you assumed, and as such it doesn't carry any action. It's just "being discussed" in this sentence. At least that's my understanding >_<


----------



## Flaminius

Seikun said:


> (. . . .) I didn't know this other use for particle _wa_ so if somebody would like to explain this use and how this affects verbs in the negative form, please, post it here.


To my mind _-wa_ in 最後のキスは忘れない marks the beginning of the scope of negation; the end of the scope is the negated verb itself.  If "forgetting the last kisses" can be represented as predicate P, the sentence is ¬P, or the speaker giving a personal assurance to the trueness of ¬P.  You might ask what this much formalisation is for.  Well, marking the scope of negation comes in handy with a big predicate.  If the predicate is too long, it's not easy to find what part of the sentence the negation covers. 

Marking the scope of negation is optional in Japanese.  最後のキスは忘れない is almost identical to 最後のキスを忘れない.  Either way, there is no dispute about who the subject is; the speaker.



> I assumed what she meant is that the attribute of the kiss is that it is unforgettable for her. Here I skipped the use of _wa_ and _ga_ most likely.


If 忘れない were an adjective that describes an attribute of the kiss, then it should be able to mark the subject with _-ga_, which is impossible.  Compare the following two:
1.  *最後のキスが忘れない。 [always interpreted as "The last kiss will not forget."]
2. 最後のキスが悲しい。 [No problem at all.  The kiss has a quality that arouses sadness in the experiencer.]



> _忘れない_日々 _Unforgettable_ Days. (MISIA).


It is a matter of translation.  Even though Japanese does not have to indicate the subject when a sentence is uttered, it does not mean that such a sentence lacks a subject.  (There are some arguments over what the subject is in theoretical linguistics and over whether or not the concept subject is a beneficial one in Japanese grammar.   We shall leave all those aside, and play it safe.)   The implicit subject of 忘れない日々 is most likely the speaker.  Otherwise, if the context is a collective memory such as 3.11, 8.6 etc., then it is a group of people that the speaker thinks share memories with them.


----------



## uchi.m

Songs can be pretty much revealing. Just like when learning grammar at WR.

More details about the differences between は and が can be found here (by the way - it's Flaminius-sensei at work on this link)

I just hope I won't forget about adjectivized verbs till the end of the week, for I have an oral examination. Soon there will be the JLPT, too. >_<

I promised to myself I would pass JLPT Level 1 anytime soon, but guess what? Not a sign of it. For the last nine years T_T

Wish me good luck (on both: the JLPT 1 _and _the oral thing)


----------



## Seikun

Flaminius said:


> It is a matter of translation.  Even though Japanese does not have to indicate the subject when a sentence is uttered, it does not mean that such a sentence lacks a subject.  (There are some arguments over what the subject is in theoretical linguistics and over whether or not the concept subject is a beneficial one in Japanese grammar.   We shall leave all those aside, and play it safe.)   The implicit subject of 忘れない日々 is most likely the speaker.  Otherwise, if the context is a collective memory such as 3.11, 8.6 etc., then it is a group of people that the speaker thinks share memories with them.


Taking it all because I am not that good at quoting >.<

It is a little HARD to understand why _wa_ and not _wo_ ever since _wo_ seems to be the propper and logical particle to use here. My first thought aiming to solve this and get to understand it was by unconciously comparing it with verbs preceding a noun:

飛ぶ鳥 = a flying bird. 
In this example I am not stating the verb is an adjective, but it is somehow acting like one, just like the English gerund (once again, _flying_ bird).
Now the negative form:
飛べない鳥 = a bird that cannot fly.
Taking this example my reasoning to understand this was: "well, there should be a _wo_ here, not a _wa. _But maybe what she is trying to say is that _the last kiss is something *unforgettable*_ for her". Why? I just thought if a verb preceding a noun "tends" to act like an adjective, maybe placing the verb at the and preceded by particle _wa_ would show this particularity of the verb (acting as if it were an adjetive (compound verbs/phrases, I think...).

If I were to be more literal in order to try to replicate this in English:

Unforgettable last kiss.
the last kiss is unforgettable.

Well. You guys say this use of _wa_ in this type of phrase is for emphasis. I don't quite get it. I would need a more simple, less pragmatic explanation taking into account japanese is so different from English and from Spanish which is my mother tongue, so I am going through three languages at the same time. But Flaminus's last paragraph made me think that Bonnie Pink simply omitted the subject (herself). If this is the case then the sentence makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise, I don't get why _wa_ and not _wo_ >.<

I am not trying to find the exact literal equivalent neither in English nor Spanish. I just want to find the sense in this as most of us do I guess when we come across something that is so different between two languages.

Sorry, long post.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## uchi.m

Let's take a look back at the original post:


Seikun said:


> 最後のキス*は*忘れないよ


The *wa* in bold face can be thought of either as _as for_ or as a particle of contrast, in that the verb is in the negative form.
Este *wa *puede significar tanto _en cuanto a_ como ser partícula de contraste, dado que el verbo está en la forma negativa.


Seikun said:


> Well. You guys say this use of _wa_ in this type of phrase is for emphasis. I don't quite get it. I would need a more simple, less pragmatic explanation taking into account japanese is so different from English and from Spanish which is my mother tongue, so I am going through* three languages* at the same time.


Flaminius-sensei has to deal with Japanese, Latin and Hebrew, if not Greek during her work on Biblical texts. Sometimes, even Chinese, but I guess this is most probably some sort of gimmick or easiness due to the having of Chinese characters in the Japanese language. Three languages? Deal with it. ¿Le gustaría a usted aprender portugués? 


Seikun said:


> But Flaminus's last paragraph made me think that Bonnie Pink simply omitted the subject (herself). If this is the case then the sentence makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise, I don't get why _wa_ and not _wo_ >.<


Lea por favor lo que hé escribido arriba. El *wo *no sirve en este caso porque se pierdería el sentido de contraste y temática de la frásis.


----------



## Seikun

> uchi.m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look back at the original post:
> 
> The *wa* in bold face can be thought of either as _as for_ or as a particle of contrast, in that the verb is in the negative form.
> Este *wa *puede significar tanto _en cuanto a_ como ser partícula de contraste, dado que el verbo está en la forma negativa.
> 
> 
> 
> My japanese is limited so this "particle of contrast" concept is new to me. I always knew: _wa_ = topic marker.
> Anyway, and please correct me if necessary. When you guys say particle _wa_ helps to make emphasis/contrast in negative sentences could be in some cases equivalent to raising the tone of one's voice when we want to emphasize a word or a feeling, etc?
> 
> Somehow this could be what wa is trying to imply?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flaminius-sensei has to deal with Japanese, Latin and Hebrew, if not Greek during her work on Biblical texts. Sometimes, even Chinese, but I guess this is most probably some sort of gimmick or easiness due to the having of Chinese characters in the Japanese language. Three languages? Deal with it. ¿Le gustaría a usted aprender portugués?
> Lea por favor lo que hé escribido arriba. El *wo *no sirve en este caso porque se pierdería el sentido de contraste y temática de la frásis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want to start an argument. Flaminius's explanations are great and she is very skillful from what I see. In contrast as you all can see I am a slow learner, I am not complaining about having to go through three languages, I was just pointing out a natural process when learning a language this way and not by exposure. By this I mean, when I come across something that is so different from my mother tongue I ponder over it and even blend my own language until I attain to understand that "expression" if you will. I try to see what they see by saying something that way.
> 
> I can deal with Portuguese because both Spanish and Portiguese are more than similar. I am also dealing with Old Norse, Korean and Chinese, but Japanese is my priority.
> 
> Thanks^^
Click to expand...


----------

