Talk:気にするな

気にするな is a verb form or phrase?(period: 2 weeks approx.)

This should be categorized as "phrase".
a: there is no するな in conjugation.(see する)

する
未然形	連用形	終始形	連体形	仮定形	命令形
し(ない)	し(ます)	する(。)	する(時)	すれ(ば)	しろ(！ or 。)
し(よう)	し(て)

b: "-な" is one of ending-sentence particles(in ja, 終助詞), not an ending of conjugation.
c: "don't worry"(don't is an additional element). and "-な" is also an additional element. "don't worry" is registered as "Phrase" And Wiktionary is supposed to have conformity. --220.52.27.1 02:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Either all plain negative forms are just that -- verb forms -- or they are non-idiomatic sum-of-parts entries and thus not worth of inclusion.

Regarding "conformity", a phrase in one language may be a single term in another language. The fact that don't worry is currently listed as a phrase in English has exactly zero bearing on the correct part of speech for the translation of this saying into other languages.

In addition, our Japanese conjugation table is incomplete, so the lack of plain negative imperative there is no valid argument against its existence as a verb form. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(somewhat off-topic, but searching for "するな" in Google I was rather surprised to see that this entry is the first result :p —suzukaze (t・c) 06:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC))

(more on-topic) It seems like 終助詞 refers to words like だ and よ. Does （動詞）～な really count? I'd consider it part of the verb, as it only means "don't" after the plain form of a verb. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• suzukaze: It is often listed as a 終助詞 in monolingual dictionaries: see about a quarter of the way down the page here for the Daijisen entry.

That said, I don't think that invalidates the argument that [PLAIN FORM] + な is a verb form. At least a few Japanese authors on Google Books describe this as a conjugation form, and apply the label 禁止形 (kinshikei, “prohibitive form”). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

気にするな

Sum-of-parts. This is just the regular negative imperative of 気にする (ki ni suru, “to mind something, to worry about something”).

If we are not to delete this, the entry must at least be stubbified. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 17:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep as a useful phrasebook entry per don't worry. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• The Japanese phrase isn't as idiomatic. Moreover, the Japanese phrase's structure makes it much more limited in its social acceptability: the plain verb form する (suru, “to do”) + な (na, negative imperative) is a very informal form, and could be interpreted as extremely bossy and arrogant in a way that don't worry wouldn't be. I don't think the Japanese term is appropriate for a phrasebook. Shinji, what say you? Are imperatives (positive or negative) appropriate for a phrasebook? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 09:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  I know the phrasebook project is based on usefulness, and a sum of parts can be accepted. In this case, as you clearly say, a bare imperative is not polite and you can use it only to close friends, children, lower people in hierarchy, or in cheering (行け!, がんばれ!, etc.). Having an entry for 気にするな is probably misleading. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, besides not being the best analogue of "don't worry", this expression is indeed unsafe and cannot be recommended for people unfamiliar with the language or customs and who have distant relationships to their audience, or to put it another way, the type of people who use phrasebooks. --Haplogy (話) 05:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I struck my vote due to the arguments of the Japanese editors. Perhaps a more appropriate equivalent could be created as a phrasebook entry, though? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • A polite, phrasebook worthy equivalent would be 気にしないでください.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 07:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I've stubbified the entry and indicated that this is a verb form, specifically the plain negative imperative. We don't seem to have a template for this verb form (at least, there's nothing that quite fits over in Category:Form-of templates). If anyone is aware of a better template (or creates one), by all means please replace the call to {{n-g}}. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep though "気にするな" should be categorized in Phrase, not in Verb. All you guys in Wiktionary are so wise that you'd already know "気にするな is a phrase translated from English phrase "don't worry". Wiktionary is supposed to have an entry of those phrases. --Carl Daniels (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• If 気にする (ki ni suru) is categorized as a verb, which it should be as it's a phrasal verb, then 気にするな (ki ni suru na) is a verb form, as the plain negative imperative form of 気にする.

Also, did you read the thread above? 気にするな is extremely more restricted in appropriate usage than the English don't worry. The Japanese could come across as fucking don't worry about it, or depending on context, even as fuck off. This is enough of a divergence in meaning and usage that listing 気にするな as a phrasebook entry for don't worry could actually be dangerous to any poor schmuck attempting to use such a phrasebook in Japan.

The entry is being kept, as a verb form of 気にする. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)　

• I still believe "気にするな" should be categorized as a phrase. We can apply a simple analytic approach: <"気にするな"(ki ni suru na)> is <"気にする"(terminate form of verb)> + <"-な"(sentence ending particle)>. "-な"(- na) is additional and grammatically belongs to a group of sentence-ending particles(終助詞), like -よ, -ね, -か, -ぞ, -ぜ, ... . So, "気にするな"(ki ni suru na) is not a verb form, while "気にしろ"(ki ni shiro) is a verb form. (Plese refer Japanese conjugation table of "する" - a1:し(ない), a2:せ(ず), b1:し(ます), b2:し(て), c:する（。）, d:する(とき), e:すれ(ば), f:しろ（。or ！）) And, don't worry ("don't" is additional) is also registered as a phrase as I said before. I think we have some room to reconsider. In advance, Thank you.--Carl Daniels (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  The な here is not a particle but an inflectional suffix. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry sir! it's a particle! 食べるな, 飲むな, 気にするな, ... All of these "-な" is a sentence-ending particle "な"(na)(禁止の終助詞「な」) it is clear as yo can see here (（禁止）「な」（例）二度と飲むな。)I suppose you are Japanese. You can see it.(私は日本語文法を日本語の用語で理解しています/ I understand Japanese grammar with Japanese terminology.) :) if you have an opinion, you can bring the reference. --Carl Daniels (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• There is also a recognition that this analysis of the plain negative imperative (and even of the plain imperative) may be problematic. See ja:w:活用#活用形の問題点 (“Conjugation#Problems with the Conjugated Forms”) for some discussion of this.

There are multiple possible analyses of Japanese verb forms. What we currently call the “passive” in English could well be analyzed instead as a kind of sum-of-parts, as the irrealis or incomplete verb stem + reru or rareru, with the latter element itself decomposable into ra (as a ligature element or sorts when the verb stem does not end in a) + reru (derived from the attributive form of passive / spontaneous base auxiliary verb ru via regular historical processes that applied to all lower bigrade verbs). But for practical purposes, we treat the passive as a single form. There is no real reason that one could not analyze the plain negative imperative similarly, and indeed some do, even some Japanese authors, such as at least a few of those appearing here on Google Books, using the term 禁止形 (kinshikei, “prohibitive form”) to refer to this conjugation. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Carl Daniels: As Eirikr said, there are sources on the prohibitive form (禁止形), and it is totally up to you which theory you follow. “私は日本語文法を日本語の用語で理解しています” well, honestly speaking, it doesn’t help. In the traditional Japanese grammar (国文法), all phonologically-dependent non-inflecting morphemes are called joshi (助詞), and it doesn’t distinguish clitics and inflectional suffixes. If you analyze the prohibitive -na, you can clearly see that nothing can be inserted before it, which is a sign of inflectional suffix rather than a clitic.

Prohibitive な	Exclamatory な
食べるな。 Don’t eat.	よく食べるな。 You eat a lot!
—	よく食べたな。 You have eaten a lot!
—	よく食べるよな。 You eat a lot! No?

Anyway this is a digression. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• If we are to analyze this as not a verb form, then this is non-idiomatic SOP and not worthy of inclusion. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• if you say so, why do we prepare an entry "don't worry" as a phrase? I thought we were able to have "phrase".--Carl Daniels (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm confused by your insistent reference to the English entry. Are we not discussing the Japanese entry? If so, 気にする is currently regarded as an integral idiomatic term that is treated as a verb. Hence, its plain negative imperative is regarded as a form of that verb, and we have therefore applied the template {{ja-verb-form}} in the 気にするな entry. The phrase-ness or non-phrase-ness of the English entry has exactly zero to do with the correct part of speech for the translation of don't worry into other languages.

This also fails to decide the question: if 気にするな is deemed to be not a verb form, then it is a non-idiomatic sum-of-parts, as 気にする + な, and thus it fails CFI and should be removed. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have a phrase for you: "My hhovercraft is fool of eelss". As explained above, 気にするな may be a literal translation for the phrase, "don't worry", but socially it's closer to "don't worry, toots" addressed to the boss's wife. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No clear consensus to delete. bd2412 T 13:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)