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

[pgsmith]

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

That was your original question. You've received a lot of opinions on it. However, you insist on arguing with people when their opinions differ from your own. You accuse them of not understanding what you wrote, or not getting your 'point'. I, and most everyone that is reading this thread I imagine, understood exactly what point you were making, but I made it very clear that I didn't agree with it. Instead of arguing with all of the people that have chimed in here, you should be thanking them for taking the time to answer your original question and share their thoughts with you. For me, I feel that pluralizing Japanese words is incorrect, so I don't do it. By association, none of the students at our dojo do it either. The whys and wherefores are irrelevant.

[JSchmidt]

I also think saying tsuked is alright, because otherwise it doesnt make sense. Or rather, the very fact that it exists suggests that it's being used frequently... because every other cut (men, kote) is "I hit men" or "I hit kote". But instead of saying "I hit tsuki" it's "I tsuked him" or something... I wonder why that is, hmm. Does the Japanese language use the word tsuki as a verb, or is this just some kind of arbitrary adaption?

Maybe, before you start arguing how we use the words, you should learn what they mean?.

[1stdan]

Just to stir things up a bit, like it really needs to be, Wouldn't you have to also take into account the structure of Japanese language sentences. Doesn't Japanese structure its phrases differently than english?
I dont think you can overlay english rules of grammar on a language that does not use them. And I dont care how much a Japanese word is used in another country it does not become property of that language.
It is true that you can know the origin of a word but that dont make it yours. "Arigato" no matter how many times i say it will always be Japanese, Period.

Now all that being said. if there is no plural form of a word in a language you would like to study,use or learn why not try to use the words properly.
And, By the way I think if you did use it in english isn' there some sorta rule for english where the same word can be singular or plural. For instance
"one sensei or many sensei may stand by one sheep or in a flock of many sheep."

I dont know why i used sheep, maybe its cause I'm in Texas.

[pgsmith]

I dont know why i used sheep, maybe its cause I'm in Texas.

Ah ... Texas! Where the men are men, and the sheep are nervous!

No wait ... that's Oklahoma.

Nevermind!

[MadMachineMan]

No, we should not pluralize Japanese words simply because we are too lazy to use even proper English grammar.

Example, we don't say deers or steers, we say "I saw many deer." or "We had to wrangle several steer.". These are just the first 2 words that come to mind, there are countless others in the English language.

The same rule applies to Japanese words, use correct grammar "Many sensei." "Several kendoka." "I bought two katana." "I train in a few styles of karate." or whatever is appropriate. I mean how silly would it be to say "I train karates."? To say "I train several types of karates." would be redundant too.

Trying to apply bad English grammar to foreign words just makes the situation worse.

[dillon]

oh nos

[hl1978]

The same rule applies to Japanese words, use correct grammar "Many sensei." "Several kendoka." "I bought two katana." "I train in a few styles of karate." or whatever is appropriate. I mean how silly would it be to say "I train karates."? To say "I train several types of karates." would be redundant too.

Trying to apply bad English grammar to foreign words just makes the situation worse.

Why does it sound silly? Is it because we have so many exceptions? Is it because people might get confused if they read older texts if we were to standarize pluralization? Is it because as a native speaker, it may sound strange? I can still understand it based off of context.

If English is the main language for international communications, spoken by nearly as many people as a second language as those for whom it is their first, wouldn't it make sense to apply consistant rules so that everyone can become conversant rather quickly? I'm probably a bit biased as I live with my fiancee who is not a native english speaker so I am exposed to this fact of life daily. She has a difficult time with singular/plural words as her native language does not have the concept as we do in english.

On the otherhand why don't we all just learn esperanto instead :P

[1stdan]

I dont think we are talking about learning a whole new language as your fiance is doing. Were talking a bout a few select words. I am willing to bet your fiance would like to be able to use the singular/plural forms of words properly if she could.
Or do you think she would prefer to give up and claim that she has incorporated english words into Esperanto and thats the way it is.

One thing that is not to be mistaken is that is is difficult at best to learn another language, hell i don't even speak english as properly as I should and its my native language. But when i learn a phrase or word in a different tongue i try to speak and use it properly.
In this case that means not pluralizing Japanese words that have no plural form.

[MartialArtsGirl]

Just to stir things up a bit, like it really needs to be, Wouldn't you have to also take into account the structure of Japanese language sentences. Doesn't Japanese structure its phrases differently than english?
I dont think you can overlay english rules of grammar on a language that does not use them. And I dont care how much a Japanese word is used in another country it does not become property of that language.
It is true that you can know the origin of a word but that dont make it yours. "Arigato" no matter how many times i say it will always be Japanese, Period.

Now all that being said. if there is no plural form of a word in a language you would like to study,use or learn why not try to use the words properly.
And, By the way I think if you did use it in english isn' there some sorta rule for english where the same word can be singular or plural. For instance
"one sensei or many sensei may stand by one sheep or in a flock of many sheep."

I dont know why i used sheep, maybe its cause I'm in Texas.

Did you even read my posts??? omg seriously. I dont know why I even bother posting anything when nobody reads it.

There's no point in even arguing about this. It's gotten rather ridiculous actually.

Furthermore, to whoever called me lazy- I don't appreciate it. I have gone to great lengths trying to explain certain things. That's great if you don't agree with them (even though I learned them in my graduate school classes. You don't have to believe everything you learn, even in college. I'm just happy I got my point across!!! Though please understand, what I am saying is not so much my opinion but what I have learned in class).

Also, do not assume I am being lazy if I choose to use Sensei(s) or if I say tsuk-ed or whatever. You might find it difficult to switch your language but I don't. If I pluralize something, or change the morphemes at the end of the word, then I will be doing it consciously and not due to laziness. I fail to see how changing the way you use a word is even hard- its so simple that whether or not you put effort into it shouldn't even be an issue (for native English speakers, that is. If English is your second language thats different). But for me, it's as easy as breathing. So don't throw insults at me. I am trying very very VERY hard not to do it to you.

Anyway, I don't really want to argue this anymore. As I said it's getting ridiculous. The thread is not about arguing which way is right or wrong. It is about which version of the word do you use? There is a difference. So anyway, lets get back to happily discussing this without arguing over right or wrong, ok? Because there is no point: if people want to be wrong, sometimes there's no way to change that and in reality its not that important anyway. Lets just not insult people Ok? Thanks.

[turboyoshi]

No, we should not pluralize Japanese words simply because we are too lazy to use even proper English grammar.

I think that's being a bit harsh. MAGirl wouldn't have asked the question if she wanted to be lazy.

The same rule applies to Japanese words, use correct grammar "Many sensei." "Several kendoka." "I bought two katana." "I train in a few styles of karate." or whatever is appropriate. I mean how silly would it be to say "I train karates."? To say "I train several types of karates." would be redundant too.

What rule, specifically, are you referring to? The problem with the english language is there is no clear rule that explains why deers is not a valid plural form for deer but cows is a valid plural form for cow.
MAGirl is questioning what is correct grammar once the word becomes adopted into the english language? It's a valid question. English rules are more fluid and I think this is one of the things that makes English a more difficult language to learn compared to most of the common ones. Before this thread started, I didn't know that "senseis" was a valid plural form. Now I wonder how this was decided. It's interesting.

Karate is not really a good example because karate and sensei are different types of nouns. Sensei would be classified as a countable (or concrete) noun and as a general rule, we pluralize such nouns by adding or changing the final syllable. And, apparently, sensei has been adopted into the english language (around 1968 according to Merriam-Webster online) and can be pluralized as senseis or sensei.

MAGirl, I can no longer say it's wrong to say senseis and I would never try to correct someone else for using the word that way, but I don't think it's necessary, and I still wonder if it isn't an example of american hubris. At least, I can't think of a situation where referring to sensei in conversation would be confusing if I didn't use a different form to distinguish between plural or singular. For the tsuki example you gave, since tsuki is a noun (according to my AJKF kendo dictionary) I wouldn't say "I tsukied (or tsuked) someone" but rather "I hit tsuki" just as if I were saying "I hit men." However, that's mainly because I dislike the tendency to verbify nouns but eh, I won't get upset over it.

[The great I AM]

I dont know why I even bother posting anything when nobody reads it.

There you go! Now you're beginning to understand teh interwebz! Welcome!

[1stdan]

Did you even read my posts???

Yes MAG I did read them and I disagree with you. Just because we borrow, use and even abuse a word does not make it ours. We should use them correctly. Time does not change right or wrong.

[Knicky]

I think its a mix of everything. I do think you should use what you know to be correct but on the other hand -- communication is just being able to get a point across.

I study Japanese everyday, work in a Japanese environment, etc etc etc. But, when talking to English speakers I still do say "Care-ri-oo-ki". To me, thats a word I learned a long time before being introduced to Japanese. But when I speak in Japanese I say カラオケ. Completely different sound but I know talking to my family if I used the Japanese pronunciation of it, they'd never know what I was talking about.

I think we are all going to have our pet peves about certain words -- like mine -- "sushis". But, its just communication. Japanese bastardizes foreign words itself terribly. But they get the point and it boils down to effective communication.

One great thing about English though -- we have a great vocal range in our language. As in, the phonetics of it make us able to pronounce a lot of different words from different languages. Even more so if stress symbols were incorporated into standard English. (There is plenty exceptions to this of course: No clue how Spanish speakers make that rolling R sound)

[b8amack]

In the end, it won't matter what we think about the issue, anyway.

I dislike American spelling, but I've still noticed myself using words like "dialing", because I see it on my phone all the time. And of course on the internet I despair of people ever learning the difference between "lose" (as in the opposite of "win", or to misplace an object or oneself in one's environs) and "loose" (as in to release, or the opposite of "tight").

How words get incorporated into English will be decided by knuckleheads, as has always been the case. It's why computers have "mouses" rather than "mice", and Canada has a "toonie" rather than a "doubloon".

[ShinKenshi]

I fail to see how changing the way you use a word is even hard- its so simple that whether or not you put effort into it shouldn't even be an issue (for native English speakers, that is. If English is your second language thats different). But for me, it's as easy as breathing.

The problem that I, as well as others, have with this is that just because it is easy to change and pluralize a foreign word to suit English grammar doesn't mean that we should. To me, it's akin to doing literal translations of foreign phrases/words and robbing them of their cultural connotations. I am a native English speaker yet having grown up in Japan, I have a very, very hard time pluralizing Japanese words due to knowing Japanese grammar.

Anyway, I don't really want to argue this anymore. As I said it's getting ridiculous. The thread is not about arguing which way is right or wrong. It is about which version of the word do you use?

Yet you facilitated the change from a question into a debate by arguing with people's opinions, which you had requested in the first place.

So anyway, lets get back to happily discussing this without arguing over right or wrong, ok?

Sorry if this comes across as insulting but you might want to follow your own advice. Each time someone has posted an opinion different to your own you have immediately argued it and tried to assert yours as correct and theirs as wrong. The minute someone voices an opinion similar to your own, you jump on it as a kind of validation of yours with the perceived air of, "look folks, you obviously don't get it but here's someone who does and that shows I'm right." Again, I'm not trying to be insulting but that is how you have come across.

Because there is no point: if people want to be wrong, sometimes there's no way to change that and in reality its not that important anyway.

Earlier you said that their is no right or wrong (which there very well could be) yet this statement seems to indicate that you have strong feelings as to what is right (your opinion) and what is wrong (most of the other opinions). Echoing what pgsmith said, you asked for people's opinions and you got it. If you didn't want it to dissolve into an argument then you shouldn't have argued with them in the first place.