Should we pluralize Japanese words as they become part of the English language?

[MartialArtsGirl]

Disclaimar: Slightly dorky/geeky stuff.
Ok:
Many words that were once Japanese have actually become incorporated into the English language. (I.e. sushi, karate, etc.) I'm a bit interested in linguistics and stuff, and someone brought up the idea that words like ippon, or Sensei, for example, should not be pluralized, but I personally notice that I do pluralize words that originate from Japanese.

In actuality it doesn't really matter, but I thought it would be an interesting question to ask people whose first language is English: How do you use words like ippon or Sensei? Do you pluralize them or not?

What I think is interesting about asking this is that, in truth there is no one "right" answer to this question. However as these words become a part of the English language (just as the word kindergarten is now a part of the English language even though it was originally a German word) the majority of English speakers will either pluralize it or not, and what the majority do will essentially determine the "right" way to do it in the future, as the words are adapted into our language.

So to English speakers: How do you use the Japanese words that you've been learning in kendo? Pluralized or not?

Edit: Actually it's not necessarily the majority that makes a word "proper" or "standard" English; No need to go into detail about it on KW though.

[Splinter]

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

But yeah, if there's more than one of that thing, pluralize the heck out of it.

[atgm]

English has both kinds of traditions, so there's an argument either way. With a lot of words that we've taken from Latin and Greek, the plural form is the Latin or Greek plural, though it can go either way with some (c.f.: octopus). With other words that have been completely subsumed into English, like "taco," you see Anglicized plural forms. However, I don't really like to apply English grammar rules to foreign words that haven't been incorporated into the English language as a whole. It may make me a pedant, but that's just my personal point of view. In this particular case, I would argue that we should use Japanese words in the same way that they would be used in Japanese, as much as possible, so I don't pluralize them.

In that vein, it does rub me the wrong way when people use Japanese words incorrectly (for example, "Sensei Bob"), but I don't really do anything about it most of the time. For one thing, the mistakes are made out of ignorance, not malice; for another, they're not speaking Japanese and don't need to speak Japanese. Like MAG said, there's no right or wrong. really, there's just personal preference. My preference is to box languages up.

[Wraith]

In that vein, it does rub me the wrong way when people use Japanese words incorrectly (for example, "Sensei Bob"),

Hey!

What did Bob ever do to you? No need to go naming names!

You go Bob, I got your back...

[verissimus]

English has both kinds of traditions, so there's an argument either way. With a lot of words that we've taken from Latin and Greek, the plural form is the Latin or Greek plural, though it can go either way with some (c.f.: octopus). With other words that have been completely subsumed into English, like "taco," you see Anglicized plural forms.

There are also examples where the word borrowed from another language is in plural form already, but used in the singular / collective sense in English. For example, 'agenda' is already plural in Latin.

My feeling is that the borrowed word will eventually be used in English with English grammar, and the 's' ending. I am trying to think of a good example: to my mind there's the word 'guru' borrowed from Sanskrit / Hindi, which in English is pluralized as 'gurus' (as in 'software gurus'), but has a completely different suffix in the original language, depending on the context.

[atgm]

And then there are examples where you take a singular AND plural form, use them appropriately, then the plural form becomes a general singular form, as in data.

[Knicky]

Long as you use common sense with English I don't think it matters. Japanese doesn't have plural forms of words.

If you take the word for 'shinai' there is no equivalent in Japanese of putting an 's' on the end. You add another word somewhere in there to make it plural in the sense of there is more than one.

There is bigger issues with regards to how you use some words like 'play' kendo vs. 'do' kendo. etc.

[ShinKenshi]

Personally, I don't like the idea of pluralizing Japanese words because as Knicky pointed out, there is no such thing as plural form in Japanese as you indicate more than one of something by adding another word or clearly indicating so (x number of something or group of something). I cringe every time I hear someone say "shinais" or "bogus" and heaven forbid I ever hear someone say "sushis" for I will want to beat that person over the head.

That being said, why do people feel the need to apply English grammar to foreign words? If you know that word in Japanese can be both plural and singular, why force it to fit with a different grammar structure by forcing it to be one thing? Just leave it as it is, don't tack on that extra "s" and save everyone a headache.

[Big One]

How do you pluralize "Bogu"?

[atgm]

Most people don't know, like I said before. So why beat them over the head with it? It doesn't really make a difference.

"bogus" does annoy me online, though, just because it looks like an actual English word. So if someone bought a few sets of counterfeit tezashi armor, they'd have bogus bogus! Yeah.

Japanese words don't have plurals as such. There are various endings that can be used to indicate more than one, but just thinking right now, I can only think of ones for some types of people and some pronouns. So "bogu" means "one set of bogu" or "two sets of bogu" or "sixteen sets of bogu" or "many bogu." Numbers of objects are indicated by actual numbers along with counter words for the types of objects being counted (think "five reams of paper").

Now you know more than you ever wanted to know.

[MikeW]

no, I don't make Japanese words plural.

[Kokoro777]

The English language is such a mongrel of a language anyway. Words borrowed from Ancient Greek, Latin, French, German, Italian...its all in there and many people incorrectly add an 's' to words that shouldn't have them: Stadium, cannon, corpus canvenosum (!)... But at the end of the day language is about communication and understanding and if adding an 's' facilitates that then I see no harm. After a year or two you stop wincing when you hear 'katanas' and 'senseis'

[pgsmith]

Should we pluralize Japanese words as they become part of the English language?

No.

What I think is interesting about asking this is that, in truth there is no one "right" answer to this question.

I'm sorry, but there absolutely is one right answer. Do what you know to be correct. If you know that Japanese has no pluralization, then pluralizing is incorrect. If you know what proper spelling and punctuation are, is it correct NOT to use it? If you know that 'you are' is contracted as you're rather than your, would it be correct to write it as "your" just because most people do?

If you know what the right thing is, there is no excuse for not doing it in my opinion.

[Kokoro777]

In that case I hope you don't say 'cannons', 'stadiums' , 'corpus cavernosums' or use phrases such as 'think different' (incorrect adjective rather than the correct adverbial 'differently')!

[MartialArtsGirl]

I don't think that word means what you think it means...

But yeah, if there's more than one of that thing, pluralize the heck out of it.

What does it mean? I always thought it had two meanings... something like, what you get when you score a point, and also "death" or something like that.

No.

I'm sorry, but there absolutely is one right answer. Do what you know to be correct. If you know that Japanese has no pluralization, then pluralizing is incorrect. If you know what proper spelling and punctuation are, is it correct NOT to use it? If you know that 'you are' is contracted as you're rather than your, would it be correct to write it as "your" just because most people do?

If you know what the right thing is, there is no excuse for not doing it in my opinion.

There isn't one right answer yet. The words are Japanese, yes, but as they become English words, they will be adapted. How they are adapted is still to be determined.

Also, although there is a more "correct" way of doing things in writing and as far as punctuation, grammar in particular is more fluid in language. I'm sure that most people, though, would consider "You all" to be incorrect English. However, technically it is not incorrect English but rather NON-STANDARD English. The difference is that to some groups of people "you all" is the correct way to talk. It is used and it is proper (i.e. ok) to use it. How do you think languages develop and change over time? Languages are not static, dead things.

That being said, "standard English" is the generally "accepted" English, at least in formal occasions and among certain dialects. That doesn't make other dialects any more or less correct. In fact, standard English (or the standard dialect in any language) is usually the dialect used by the upper class or the well off class. So it's often not officially decided in the way you think (French being once exception to this).

Furthermore, there is a certain phenomenon in language were words are adapted from one language into another. This happens all the time. It's easy to list words that are currently without a doubt English, but that once originated from other languages in the same way as the new Japanese words in our vocabulary. The interesting thing about kendo words is that, they are even newer compared to words like sushi or karate. This essentially means that, as kendo grows in the U.S. and the English speaking world, those of us who practice kendo and use these words now will help determine the proper usage of these words for the future. The question of whether or not it is plural is not yet decided; Just because they were originally Japanese words and originally could not be pluralized does not mean that as they are adapted into English that won't change (or that that adaption can't change). Once they are adapted, (which is slowly happening now) they will no longer be Japanese but English words. Thus, as English speakers, we decide how to use it in our own language.

That being said, it seems that the general consensus is to not pluralize Japanese originating words. I actually think that pluralizing bogu (to bogus) just doesn't sound right, so I do agree to a certain extent with this not pluralization of the words(not counting words like Sensei or ippon which I tend to pluralize); Since the trend is moving away from pluralizing, I'm going to make a prediction that the words might be incorporated into English in a non-plural form like latin words. We shall see what happens.

P.S. One interesting way to check if certain words are fully adapted into English or not is if they are in word spell checkers. For example, tsunami, sushi, kindergarten, and zen are all recognized by the spell checker. Sensei, ippon, bogu and shinai are not.