Language opens the world to other possibilities.
A laboratory for thinking with language.
The term "formal noun" is still used ordinarily today. On the other hand, the five parts of speech that removed particles and auxiliaries were not adopted by school grammar. We grade Matsushita Daizaburō's work in three parts: terminology, how units are cut, and parts of speech.
Read the essay What does the "hazu" of "shirazaru hazu nashi" point to? Or the "mono" of "kitaru mono wa kobamazu"? Matsushita Daizaburō divided nouns into three — true nouns, pronouns, and formal nouns — and gave a clear place, under the name "formal noun," to nouns whose meaning has drained away and only form remains. We read that passage of Part 3 in the original.
"Yama" can be a word by itself. But the Sino-Japanese "san" (mountain) cannot. Neither can "o" or "ni." Matsushita Daizaburō called the parts of words "genji" and made the rules of how they combine one pillar of grammar. We read the general remarks of Part 2, "Genji-ron," in the original.
We learn that "kore" is a pronoun, standing in for a name. But when someone says "Kore, nani o suru," is that "kore" standing in for anything? Matsushita Daizaburō says pronouns easily turn into interjections. Behind it lay a distinctive idea of dividing words into "intuition" and "concept."
The parts of speech taught in school number about ten: noun, verb, adjective, particle, auxiliary verb, and so on. Matsushita Daizaburō made them five. Particles and auxiliaries fall outside the parts of speech. His reason is explained through the image of a person and shoes.
A sentence is made of words in a row. Matsushita Daizaburō did not think so. Language has three steps: the unit of utterance (danku), the word (nenshi), and the parts of a word (genji). Why are "hana o," "tsuki ni," and "sakitari" each one word?
The particles "o," "ni," and "tari" are not words. "Gakusei-rashii" is one word made of three parts. Matsushita Daizaburō (1878–1935) built Japanese grammar from a starting point entirely different from what is taught in school. We read the outline of his Hyōjun Nihon Bunpō (1924) in his own terms.
The idea that action words are born from names of things is still basic to how Japanese word-formation is understood. The theory that the "shi" of east and west is wind is still introduced. The ear-eye-nose-mouth correspondences and the Japanese–Korean kinship theory, on the other hand, never became proven theories, and were used in the political arena too. We grade Kanazawa Shōzaburō's work in separate parts.
Ferdinand de Saussure 
Edward Sapir 
Ludwig Wittgenstein 
Wilhelm von Humboldt 
Plato 
Aristotle 
Antoine Arnauld 
Noam Chomsky 
J. L. Austin 
A Genealogy of "What Is Language" 
William Jones 
Jacob Grimm 
Max Müller 
Otto Jespersen 
Rasmus Rask 
Franz Bopp 
August Schleicher 
Karl Brugmann 
David W. Anthony 
A Genealogy of "Why Does Language Change" 
Ōtsuki Fumihiko 
Yamada Yoshio 
Hashimoto Shinkichi 
Arisaka Hideyo 
Shinmura Izuru 
Orikuchi Shinobu 
Ueda Kazutoshi Kanazawa Shōzaburō Matsushita Daizaburō How words signify
Language and thought
Communities in conversation
Who defines meaning?
Can words cause harm?
The power of definition
What language can do
Languages and meanings lost
Open research by Human / AI