Datasets:

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2712", "answer_count": 1, "body": "The following sentence is from a newspaper article メレンゲ菓子は数あれど、これほど繊細なものは珍しい。\n\n 1. あれど ＝ あるけど makes sense to me in the context, and this seems to be supported by my searches so far - is it simply a written form?\n 2. The full phrase \"は数あれど\" appears extremely common on google - is 数 here read しばしば, and is this a set phrase?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T17:13:00.867", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2711", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T18:10:24.837", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "set-phrases" ], "title": "Regarding は数あれど (or possibly just あれど )", "view_count": 949 }

[ { "body": "1. Yes, basically. It's a literary construction (and indeed the origin of けど); basically you take the conditional stem (仮定形) of a verb (or other conjugable) and instead of attaching 〜ば you attach a 〜ど: so あれど、言えど、思えど、よけれど etc.\n\nNote for pedants: Technically, it's the perfective stem (已然形) we attach a 〜ど\nto.\n\n 2. 数 is pronounced かず here. The collocation 数ある means ‘many’. The first half of your sentence may be translated as follows: ‘Although there are many meringues, ...’", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T18:04:04.223", "id": "2712", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T18:04:04.223", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2711", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2718", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I hear 意外に and 意外と used frequently to mean \"more so than I thought.\" They seem\nto be interchangeable. Example:\n\n> 意外と簡単でした = Easier than I thought\n\nAre they both grammatically correct? Is there a difference in nuance or usage\nusing ni vs to? I don't recall ever hearing them used with a present or future\ntense verb. Can you think of an example where they might be used outside of\npast tense?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T23:16:06.657", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2714", "last_activity_date": "2022-04-28T01:14:12.697", "last_edit_date": "2022-04-28T01:14:12.697", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "580", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "particles" ], "title": "Is there any difference between 意外に and 意外と?", "view_count": 2352 }

[ { "body": "Take a look at the blog post on <http://d.hatena.ne.jp/hiiragi-june/20080528>\n\nTo summarize:\n\n> 意外に feels more like written Japanese and 意外と is more colloquial. They both\n> grammatically correct and they **both have the same meaning**. Although 意外に\n> feels more traditional.\n\nThe rest of the blog post is about history of dictionaries and some\ndictionaries actually don't even talk about the difference between these two.\n\nAccording to\n<http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/10029/m0u/%E6%84%8F%E5%A4%96/>\n\n> [補説]現在では「意外に」と同様、「意外と知られていない事実」のように「意外と」の形も用いられる。\n\nWhich means\n\n> Currently, in the same way as「意外に」, 「意外と」has been used like 「意外と知られていない事実」\n\nSo to answer your question, yes they are pretty much interchangeable. Note\nthat に and と are generally not always interchangeable, but in this special\ncase it is.\n\nAlso note that the meaning of 「意外に」and 「意外と」has more to do with something not\nmatching one's expectations and expressing one's surprise, so it is more\naccurate to translate it as \"unexpectedly\", rather than \"more so than I\nthought\", although in some cases it means \"more so than I thought\". I know I'm\nbeing nit-picky here but just want to make sure you understood it right.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T06:32:55.827", "id": "2718", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T07:02:12.487", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-18T07:02:12.487", "last_editor_user_id": "23", "owner_user_id": "23", "parent_id": "2714", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2723", "answer_count": 2, "body": "[This recent question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/2698/162)\nintroduced me to the concepts of\n[外来語【がいらいご】](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gairaigo), defined as foreign words\nnot originating from Chinese, and\n[和製英語【わせいえいご】](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasei-eigo), which are English\nconstructions that were made in Japan.\n\nAccording to the above links, the word `レンジ` is considered a 外来語 because it is\nderived from the English word \"range\", which is an old-fashioned way of\ntalking about a stove.\n\nWhat happens when a 外来語 is combined with another word to form a compound word?\n\nFor example, `ガスレンジ` is a gas stove, not a \"gas range\" in English. Is this an\nexample of 和製英語?\n\n`電子レンジ` combines a 外来語 with a kanji-compound. Is this still considered 外来語?\nOr, is there some other classification for words like this?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T04:38:45.207", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2715", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T20:12:01.890", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "162", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "loanwords", "terminology", "wasei-eigo" ], "title": "How do you classify a word like \"電子レンジ\"?", "view_count": 584 }

[ { "body": "There is a disagreement between Troyen and Derek, and I am not sure to\ndetermine which is correct, so I will give two possibilities: If it is the\ncase, as you suggest, that there is no (compound) word as `gas range` in\nEnglish, then `ガスレンジ` would be an instance of 和製英語. If on the other hand, as\nDerek suggests, an English compound word `gas range` was incorporated into\nJapanese as one unit, then it would be 外来語.\n\n**Schema of complex gairaigo vs. wasei-eigo**\n\n * gairaigo\n\n> base (English) + ball (English) → baseball (English) → **ベースボール** (Japanese)\n\n * wasei-eigo\n\n> American (English) → アメリカン (Japanese) \n> coffee (English) → コーヒー (Japanese) \n> アメリカン (Japanese) + コーヒー (Japanese) → **アメリカンコーヒー** (Japanese)\n\n`電子レンジ` is not a 外来語.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T05:13:31.253", "id": "2716", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T05:53:47.467", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-18T05:53:47.467", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2715", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "After reviewing Wikipedia article\n[語種](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%AA%9E%E7%A8%AE), which states that a\nword is either 和語【わご】, 漢語【かんご】, 外来語, or 混種語【こんしゅご】, I can safely answer that\n`電子レンジ` belongs to 混種語 group.\n\nA 混種語 (mixed type word) is a combination of two or more words (hence, is also\na 複合語【ふくごうご】) of differing categories 和語, 漢語, 外来語.\n\n * 和語: native Japanese, which include most 動詞 and 形容詞. Includes 固有語【こゆうご】.\n * 漢語: borrowed from ancient China\n * 外来語: borrowed from other than above. Includes 和製外来語, which includes 和製英語.\n\nThere are two component words in `電子レンジ`: `電子` and `レンジ`.\n\n * `電子`: 漢語\n * `レンジ`: 外来語 which is corrupted to 和製英語 by usage, see my old answer below for my postulation.\n\n* * *\n\nOld answer:\n\nMethinks it's classified as compound word (複合語). The words in a compound can\nbe of any origin, and of any class (verb, noun), so it's difficult to say if a\ncompound like 電子レンジ is 和製英語 or not. Maybe you can classify as:\n\n * \"purely 外来語\": ガスレンジ, ~~高等学校~~\n * \"purely 固有語\": 夜明け, 旅立つ\n * can't think of pure compound 和製英語, because words like ボールペン in my opinion is considered as one word in Japanese. I don't know if ノートパソコン qualifies, as パソコン is a contraction rather than a 和製英語.\n * \"mixed\": 電子レンジ, ビニール袋\n\nInteresting to note here is that although words like レンジ and ビニール are\noriginally 外来語, their usage in such compounds may \"corrupt\" them into 和製英語\n(e.g. レンジ in 電子レンジ is actually oven, and ビニール in ビニール袋 is just plastic). In\nthat case, classifying ガスレンジ as \"purely 外来語\" might be controversial.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T08:40:41.530", "id": "2723", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T20:12:01.890", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-19T20:12:01.890", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "154", "parent_id": "2715", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2737", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I am familiar with the set phrase 「言われてみれば」 as a way to say \"Now that you say\nthat\", but as I examine the phrase further, the phrase structure strikes me as\nstrange. The 〜てみる conjugation is commonly used to say \"to try doing\nsomething\", but what meaning does it give when used with passive verb form;\n\"to try being done\" does not make much sense to me.\n\nMaybe one might argue that 「言われてみれば」 is a set phrase so I should just accept\nit as such, but when I googled around I found that while many verbs yielded\nzero results when I tried to find their [passive]てみれば forms, there are some\nverbs, mostly related to speech, that can use this form:\n\n * 本当に好きだったと聞かれてみれば、本当に愛してたと答えられる。 \n\n * 違う病院に行く、ご事情を話されてみれば良いと思います。\n\nBut there are also some verbs that are not related to speech:\n\n * 愛されて壊されてみれば (song lyric)\n\n * お前が轢かれてみれば分かるから、お前で実験してみろよ。\n\nSo, in general what meaning does this form give to the original verbs, and in\nwhat kinds of scenarios is it used for?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T05:56:59.317", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2717", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:55:30.270", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:55:30.270", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "usage", "verbs", "meaning", "conjugations", "て-form" ], "title": "Usage and meaning of [passive verb]-てみれば", "view_count": 2219 }

[ { "body": "We can process this confusing construction if we first realize that \"try\" is\n(more often than not, I would say,) a poor substitution for the ～てみる form.\nThis is because \"try\" conjures up the connotation of \"attempt\", which implies\na possibility of failure. For this particular meaning, the ～ようとする form is more\nsuitable.\n\nA better explanation of ～てみる, then, is that it shows that the speaker's (or\nactor's) attention is directed toward the effects or result of completing the\naction. 食べてみる is literally to \"eat and see\": to first eat, and then see what\neffect that has (i.e. whether you enjoy the taste or not). 市役所に行ってみる is to go\nto City Hall and see what the result of going is (perhaps to see if they can\nanswer some questions you have). We always have two actions: the primary, and\nみる, which deals with observation upon completing the primary action.\n\nBy extension:\n\n> 言われてみれば… If I were to focus my attention on the effects (recollections,\n> changes in mental state) of having been told that…\n\nAs is often the case, the literal translation fails to come across with the\nsame succinctness as the original, which is why phrases such as \"Now that you\nmention it…\" are used instead. But although the primary verb is passive, the\nphrase still fits into the ～てみる construction as described above.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T16:07:24.553", "id": "2737", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T16:07:24.553", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2717", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2721", "answer_count": 1, "body": "My boss just corrected one of my documents from 企業向きな開発 to 企業向けの開発.\n\nApart from the の/な problem that I always get wrong, is there a problem with 向き\n? \nI got it from my textbook that says 子供向きです\n\nCould someone shed some light on when to use one or the other? \nAm I fine if I decide to just stick to 向け all the time?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T07:42:36.727", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2720", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T07:55:06.987", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 21, "tags": [ "usage", "words" ], "title": "Difference between 向け and 向き", "view_count": 5215 }

[ { "body": "向け is the short-form of the word 向ける and 向き's dictionary form is 向く.\n\n向き/向く has more to do with suitability. For example, someone who is afraid of\nblood is not suited to be a doctor, we would say 医者に向いてない (not suitable to be\na doctor)\n\n向ける/向け has more to do with target and objective. `企業向けの開発` implies that the\ndevelopment is targeted at 企業(enterprise) for example.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T07:55:06.987", "id": "2721", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T07:55:06.987", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "23", "parent_id": "2720", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "The following sentences are difference usage of 向き which have different\nmeanings. Why do they differ?\n\nこの本は初心者向きである。 This book is suitable for beginners.\n\n逆さまに向きを変えてください。 Please turn over.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T08:25:07.220", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2722", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T09:44:01.177", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-18T08:42:14.960", "last_editor_user_id": "23", "owner_user_id": "619", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage" ], "title": "Usage and means of 向き", "view_count": 211 }

[ { "body": "The first \"向き\" is a suffix based on the verb 向く , the second is a noun whose\norigin is the same verb.\n\n\"この本は+初心者+向き+である\" is \"this_book+beginners+for+is\"\n\n\"逆さまに+向き+を+変えて+ください\" is \"around+the_orientation+object_particle+change+please\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T08:48:00.800", "id": "2724", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T09:44:01.177", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-18T09:44:01.177", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2722", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2731", "answer_count": 4, "body": "My teacher says that we should avoid `あなた`, like `わたし`, which could be taken\noff. Following this, I try to refer to the second person by the name:\n`加藤さんの趣味は何ですか`. But there are situations where we forget the name. How can we\nsay \"You\" without being rude, or using `あなた`? I give some examples, but they\ncould be wrong:\n\n> A: 久しぶり。元気してた？ \n> B: 久しぶりだね～元気だよ。あなたは？ (is it better to say: そっちは？?)\n\n> A: あなたの名前は？ (is it a little rude? should I hide あなたの?)\n\n> A: あなたの作ったケーキがおいしかったよ。 \n> B: 本当？あなたのケーキのほうがおいしかったと思うけど。\n\n> 店員：あなたは何を探しますか？\n\n> A: あなたはむてき！", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T12:14:54.133", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2727", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-19T01:06:09.743", "last_edit_date": "2018-05-19T00:52:21.320", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "usage", "politeness", "pronouns", "second-person-pronouns" ], "title": "Is it offensive to say あなた?", "view_count": 7829 }

[ { "body": "This is what [デジタル大辞泉](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/5417/meaning/m0u/) says\nabout あなた:\n\n> 1. 対等または目下の者に対して、丁寧に、または親しみをこめていう。\n> 2. 妻が夫に対して、軽い敬意や親しみをこめてい。\n>\n\nIn definition (1), it's said that あなた is used for second person who is\nequivalent or subordinate/inferior/junior while being polite or\nintimate/familiar. Definition (2) states that it can also be used between\nspouses to intimately call each other.\n\nSo, あなた itself is not offensive if used appropriately while taking your\nrelationship with the other person into consideration. You have to be careful\nif you want to use it with strangers because it would seem that you are\nassuming the other parties as equivalent or inferior to you, or that you are\ntrying to be familiar with them. Since the Japanese culture encourages being\nreserved towards outgroups and strangers, you better be sure if you really\nwant to use あなた, otherwise stick to using names (e.g. 田中さん), professions (e.g.\n先生) and indirections (e.g. そちら) to refer to the other person.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T14:29:32.813", "id": "2731", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-19T01:05:08.547", "last_edit_date": "2018-05-19T01:05:08.547", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2727", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "For your question of how to say \"you\" without being rude in a context where\nyou're not sure of the person's name or your status relationship, you can say\n`「そちら」`.\n\nAs for when to use `あなた`, this might seem a little odd, but think of `あなた` as\nlike calling someone \"dude\". You use it between friends. You _can_ say it to\nstrangers, but only if you're trying to convey deliberate familiarity. It's\nbest not used in formal situations, but, again, you can get away with it if\nhandled right.\n\nOne difference is that I wouldn't say to my girlfriend \"dude, I like you\", but\nI would say `「あなたが好き」`. So I'm not saying it's a translation.\n\nThe point is that in English, pronouns can be made appropriate or not by\ncontext, and the same kind of thinking applies. \"Dude\" is not offensive or\nnot, it's just used at certain times. Same with `あなた`.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T15:34:30.433", "id": "2734", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-19T01:06:09.743", "last_edit_date": "2018-05-19T01:06:09.743", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2727", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "I suggest you read this thread:\n\n[In actual Japanese society, how often are second-person pronouns\nused?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/4040/in-actual-japanese-\nsociety-how-often-are-second-person-pronouns-used)\n\nAs I replied there, I would suggest avoiding 2nd person pronouns (including\nあなた) completely, unless you're absolutely sure what you're doing.\n\nAs you say yourself, it's common to use the name of title of the person you're\ntalking to, so the only trouble would be if you do not know these. Even in\nthese cases, often context will make it clear who you are talking about\nwithout being explicit.\n\nAlso consider using keigo:\n\n> あなたの名前は？<\\- avoid \n> お名前は？<\\- keigo, safe\n>\n> あなたは何を探していますか？<\\- avoid \n> 何をお探しですか <\\- keigo, safe", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-05-24T01:39:39.053", "id": "5600", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-24T01:39:39.053", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "2727", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "If you know the other party's name or title, by all means use it. Otherwise,\nomitting the pronoun as @dainichi suggests is the best idea, if possible.\n\nHowever, when you don't know the person you're talking to and you must use\nsomething, `あなた` is perfectly acceptable. For example, it is commonly used to\nrefer to website visitors, or to the person filling out a form, in\nadvertisements and so on. Even in person you can use it if the situation is\nsomewhat formal (in informal one you could use words like\n`お兄さん・お姉さん・おじさん・おばさん` or `きみ`).\n\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%AE%E4%BA%8C%E4%BA%BA%E7%A7%B0%E4%BB%A3%E5%90%8D%E8%A9%9E)\nhas this to say:\n\n>\n> 相手の名前にさん付けするか、「あなた」と呼ぶのが日本語では最も無難な二人称である。ただし、両親や尊属、先生に対して使うのは失礼とされる。なお、地方によっては両親に対して方言で「あなた」に相当する語を使うことがある。\n>\n> Using either (name)-san, or \"anata\" is the most safe/inoffensive way of\n> referring to second person in Japanese. However, it is considered rude if\n> used to refer to parents, relatives, or teachers. But it may be acceptable\n> for parents in some regions or dialects.\n\nThe article goes into more options you can use for the second person.\n\nP.S. See also <https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/4042/3295>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-09-13T22:32:38.660", "id": "12820", "last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T22:44:14.930", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "2727", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I translate these words as either \"only, just, simply\".\n\nI'd like to know how I could differentiate these 4 ways (i.e., when I use that\none, and when I use the other).\n\nExamples:\n\n> * たったひとつの恋 (Dorama)\n> * ただの子供だ\n> * ただ待つだけだ\n> * よし, この 10 万円は君にあげよう. ただし, これ以上はお断わりだよ. \n> ... \n> ... so on\n>", "comment_count": 14, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T12:26:54.433", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2728", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T04:53:31.777", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T04:53:31.777", "last_editor_user_id": "422", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "usage" ], "title": "Difference between 「 ただ」, 「たった」, 「ただ　～だけ」, and 「ただし」", "view_count": 4046 }

[ { "body": "As far as I know, たった and ただ have exactly the same meaning, and are just\nvariants, something like ばかり and ばっかり。 As to the third example sentence, I'd\nventure to say that the ただ there is the same ただ at the head of the snake. (笑)\n\nBy the way, as Mr. Ito points out in comments above, if you meant to say,\n\"It's just an ordinary snake\" or the like, it needs to be ただの蛇だ。 If you meant\n\"It's only a snake\", as in a case where you were expecting a Yeti, it would be\n蛇だけだ。", "comment_count": 14, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T02:55:48.003", "id": "2804", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-23T03:47:39.863", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-23T03:47:39.863", "last_editor_user_id": "634", "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2728", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2730", "answer_count": 1, "body": "`Verb る-form + そう` indicates hearsay.\n\n> 帰るそうだ \n> 'I hear he will go home.' \n> 帰らないそうだ [Negative]\n\n`Verb masu stem (i.e. conjunctive form 連用形) + そう` shows information obtained\nthrough the senses, observation:\n\n> 帰りそうだ \n> 'It looks like he will go home.' \n> 帰らなさそう [Negative]\n\nWith this, how do you achieve past tense?\n\nFor \" **hearsay** \", do you say:\n\n> 帰ったそうだ \n> ' I heard he went home.'\n\nWhilst for \" **observation** \", do you say:\n\n> 帰りそうだった \n> 'It looked like he went home.'", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T12:44:23.070", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2729", "last_activity_date": "2014-08-06T06:49:58.780", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-18T13:11:44.473", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "verb た-form + そう, hearsay or observation?", "view_count": 1266 }

[ { "body": "As Lukman pointed out, you got conjugations right. However, I am not sure if\nyou interpreted 帰りそうだった accurately. In 帰りそうだった, the observation was made\nbefore the person went home. So in English, it is something like “It looked\nlike he was going to go home.”", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T13:15:17.620", "id": "2730", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T13:15:17.620", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2729", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2735", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I found a page in Japanese with title\n\"[世界でもっとも汚染された10の都市](http://gigazine.net/news/20070518_world_dirtiest_cities/)\".\nHaving encountered the phrase 「もっとも」 for the first time, I looked it up on\nWWWJDIC and found two entries:\n\n> 尤も 【もっとも】 (adj-na,adv,conj,n) quite right; plausible; natural; but then;\n> although;\n>\n> 最も 【もっとも】 (adv) most; extremely;\n\nSince the page is about world's dirtiest cities, I assumed that the もっとも used\nin the page title is the second one 最も that means \"most, extremely\". However,\nshould I have not known what the page is about, I think I would have not known\nwhich of the two もっとも is the one used in the title since both of them can be\nused an adverb. Since WWWJDIC example sentence for 尤も is using it as a noun, I\ntried to look for sample sentences that use 尤も as an adverb with not much\nluck.\n\nAre there scenarios where 尤も is commonly used as an adverb? If it's rare, is\nit safe to assume that if もっとも is used as an adverb in a sentence, it is most\nprobably 最も, otherwise if it's not used as an adverb it is most probably 尤も?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T15:02:11.293", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2733", "last_activity_date": "2019-08-28T09:37:16.930", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "adverbs", "homophonic-kanji" ], "title": "もっとも: distinguishing between 尤も and 最も", "view_count": 563 }

[ { "body": "Ignoring the difference in kanji, there are three common meanings of もっとも.\n\n(1) (adverb) most \n(2) (na-adjective) reasonable \n(3) (conjunction) but, however\n\nWhen written in kanji, 1 is 最も\n([Daijirin](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E3%82%82%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82&match=beginswith&itemid=DJR_moxtutomo_-020)\nand\n[Daijisen](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/219473/m0u/%E3%82%82%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82/))\nand 2 and 3 are 尤も\n([Daijirin](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E3%82%82%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82&match=beginswith&itemid=DJR_moxtutomo_-010)\nand\n[Daijisen](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/219472/m0u/%E3%82%82%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82/)).\nThere was an adverb もっとも which meant “undoubtedly” and “at all” and was\nwritten as 尤も, but this usage is archaic.\n\nSo, the answer to your question\n\n> is it safe to assume that if もっとも is used as an adverb in a sentence, it is\n> most probably 最も, otherwise if it's not used as an adverb it is most\n> probably 尤も?\n\nis yes, but note that 尤も has two different meanings (2 and 3).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T15:40:43.283", "id": "2735", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-19T05:07:26.713", "last_edit_date": "2014-12-19T05:07:26.713", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2733", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2740", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I learned that you can use でも ( _demo_ ) at the beginning of a sentence to\nmean \"but,\" and that you can use けど ( _kedo_ ) at the end of a sentence to\nmean \"though.\" However, I don't see a difference between these two.\n\nFor example, suppose someone says this:\n\n * あした かいもの に いきましょう. _Ashita kaimono ni ikimashō._ \"Let's go shopping tomorrow.\" \n\nWould there be any difference in these two responses?\n\n * でも あした は やすみ です. _Demo ashita wa yasumi desu._ \"But tomorrow is a holiday.\"\n * あした は やすみ です けど. _Ashita wa yasumi desu kedo._ \"Tomorrow is a holiday though.\"\n\nTo me, these two responses seem to have the exact same meaning. So my question\nis this: Are there are any differences between でも ( _demo_ ) and けど ( _kedo_\n)? It seems like the placement of the \"but\" (でも at the beginning and けど at the\nend) could change the emphasis. Is that true? If so, how?\n\nAlso, are there any situations when you can use one but not the other?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T17:06:37.257", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2738", "last_activity_date": "2019-05-09T16:14:00.047", "last_edit_date": "2019-05-09T16:14:00.047", "last_editor_user_id": "19278", "owner_user_id": "219", "post_type": "question", "score": 71, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "conjunctions" ], "title": "でも (demo) versus けど (kedo) to mean \"but\"", "view_count": 252173 }

[ { "body": "I think you are correct: the meaning of your 2 example sentences is the same.\nBut to me the nuance feels a little different between the two. Whereas \"でも あした\nは やすみ です.\" feels like a simple statement of fact, \"あした は やすみ です けど.\" feels\nlike there is an expectation that the first speaker should have known that\ntomorrow is a holiday.\n\nI can't think of any situations when you could use one and not the other.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T21:31:04.380", "id": "2739", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T21:31:04.380", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "580", "parent_id": "2738", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "でも and けど are both \"but\". However, けど links a second clause - which may or may\nnot be actually said out loud.\n\nSo, when you are saying \"あした は やすみ です けど.\" you are actually saying something\nmore like:\n\n\"Tomorrow is a holiday (but), so we can't go to the store\"\n\nbut dropping the \"obvious\" bit of the sentence.\n\n\\--\n\nAnother very important usage of this - at least heavily used here in Kansai -\nis to \"soften\" your statement when you make an assertion about something, so\nas to not appear too strong. It works with the same idea:\n\n\"I'd like to go けど\" ... \"I'd like to go (but I won't if that causes difficulty\nfor someone)\"\n\nYou'll hear this ALL the time! It's a nice little \"early step\" in your\nJapanese, to be a bit more Japanese-sounding.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T23:01:21.023", "id": "2740", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T23:01:21.023", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "631", "parent_id": "2738", "post_type": "answer", "score": 63 }, { "body": "I'm not Japanese, but I'm Asian and where I am from, we share the same or\nalmost the same sort of colloquial idiosyncracy when it comes to what we term\nin English as a \"hanging sentence\".\n\nBoth JMadsen and Samurai Soul are correct. It is the intention of the speaker\nwho uses \"kedo\" to \"softly\" put forth an opposing idea as a response to\nanother statement. It's \"soft\" in a way as being polite and not too forward\nabout it as it allows the other speaker to \"sort the logic out\" in the \"kedo\"\nsentence by him/herself.\n\nCulturally, Asians are naught to putting up very forward or strongly opposing\nreplies to queries not emanating from a business standpoint. Meaning in\neveryday, common but polite or semi polite conversations among friends,\nrelatives or acquaintances, \"kedo\" would offer a very good nuance to a smooth\nconversation. But depending on how one stresses the \"kedo\" sentence, it also\nadds more \"color\" to the inward intention of the speaker just like in English.\n\nAn emphatic \"kedo\" or \"demo\" might allow a further query or worse, an argument\nto ensue.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-04-01T08:56:56.697", "id": "11605", "last_activity_date": "2013-10-17T04:59:13.563", "last_edit_date": "2013-10-17T04:59:13.563", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "3327", "parent_id": "2738", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Actually, けど means \"although\"; not \"but\", that is why it finishes a sentence.\nけどis usually translted as \"but\" because it is more common to say but in\nEnglish while no one tells you that the actual meaning is \"although\". Now you\ncan make perfect sense of the word.\n\nでも literally mens \"but\", on the other hand.\n\nIt is the problem with most Japanese courses, they never tell you what words\nreally mean leaving you confused and not allwing you to understand the way\nJapanese people see and express the world around them.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-07-12T01:06:13.233", "id": "60038", "last_activity_date": "2018-07-12T01:06:13.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "20088", "parent_id": "2738", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2752", "answer_count": 2, "body": "See title. I'm looking for idiomatic ways to say something like this - over-\nemphasizing something, worrying about it overly much, etc.\n\nBonus points if a literal 大 (whether read as だい or おお) is involved; I'm hoping\nto make a particular bit of wordplay work. Alternatively, perhaps a way of\ntalking about \"using 大 as a prefix to a word\" that could have the former\nconnotations?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T04:35:03.987", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2742", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-20T02:06:03.967", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "627", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "translation", "colloquial-language" ], "title": "How can I say \"make a big deal [about/out of/of] X\"?", "view_count": 916 }

[ { "body": "I think what you're looking for is some variant on `過ぎる【すぎる】`. It can mean \"go\nbeyond\" or \"go by\" as in a physical sense, but is often used in a sense of\n\"going too far\" or \"doing too much\" in the sense you're talking about.\n\nI've often seen it used with just hiragana when trying to convey that meaning.\nFor example:\n\n> 心配しすぎる 【しんぱい しすぎる】 (over worrying)\n>\n> 強調しすぎた 【きょうちょう しすぎた】 (over emphasized)\n\nFor \"making a big deal of X\", as asked for in the comments, you could do this:\n\nXを大騒ぎする 【Xを おおさわぎする】 (Making a big deal out of X)\n\nIt doesn't use `すぎる`, which I think is a good general solution given your\noriginal question, but for the sentence you specifically asked about, this is\na more or less direct translation which should do the trick.", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T05:30:37.190", "id": "2744", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-20T02:06:03.967", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-20T02:06:03.967", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2742", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Anything wrong with just a good-ole `大したものにしないで`? Plus that should nab me some\nbonus points!\n\n* * *\n\n**EDIT:**\n\n大したものにしないで → 大【たい】した・もの・に・しないで\n\n * 大した → \"serious\", \"important\", lit. \"made big\"\n * 大したもの or 大したこと → \"a serious/important matter/thing\", \"a big deal\"\n * 〜にする → \"make it this way\"\n * 〜ないでください or 〜ないでくれ → \"(Please) don't do\" \n * しないで → \"Don't do\" (with ください・くれ omitted)\n\nI guess I subconsciously thought the title of the post said \"don't make a big\ndeal [about/out of/of] X\", but now I see that it clearly does not.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T14:24:00.140", "id": "2752", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T19:29:49.957", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-19T19:29:49.957", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2742", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2747", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I hear both 残念ながら and 残念なことに when expressing that something was unfortunate\nbefore the actual sentence, much like the English \"Unfortunately, ...\".\n\nHowever, I'm not sure on where these two phrases differ. Is their usage the\nsame?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T05:38:22.607", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2745", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-15T06:18:35.103", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-20T05:04:46.120", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "word-choice", "grammar", "usage" ], "title": "What is the difference between 残念ながら and 残念なことに", "view_count": 2913 }

[ { "body": "To me, the two are nigh identical. With `残念ながら` _ever so slightly_ less\nformal-sounding (and more common) than `残念なことに`...\n\nAccording to [this site](http://nihon5ch.net/contents/bbs-study/old/mie-\nbbs.cgi?s=118):\n\n> たまたまこの文の場合は、文頭に来る「～ことに」と逆接になる「～ながら」の「～」のところに「残念」という言葉が来ているので、似た用法となっていますね。\n\nWhich I roughly interpret as 「〜ことに」giving more surprise/contradiction (but I\nmust admit I'm not all that clear and could be wholly mistranslating that\none... anybody care to confirm/infirm?).\n\nAt any rate, grammar is slightly different:\n\n * 残念 **なことに** 、抜かなければならない歯は、このような歯です。\n\n * 残念 **ながら** 抜くことになる歯は このような歯です。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T06:35:08.537", "id": "2746", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T14:25:22.917", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-19T14:25:22.917", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "2745", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I believe the difference is:\n\nIn `残念ながら` the focus is on the speaker's feeling while they tell you the\ninformation. It's like saying \"I'm sorry to have to tell you, but...\" The\nspeaker's feeling of disappointment exists _alongside_ the information.\n\nIn `残念なことに`, the focus is on the thing the speaker is telling you, and is a\ncause of the disappointment. It's like saying \"What's particularly\ndisappointing is...\" The speaker's disappointment _comes from_ the\ninformation.\n\n> 残念ながら、あなたと別れる。 (It's sad, but I'm going to break up with you.)\n>\n> 残念なことに、結婚しようかなと思っていた。 (What's sad is, I thought we maybe could have\n> married.)\n\nThese two examples are subtley different. In the in the first case, you are\nbeing told that a breakup will happen, _despite_ the fact the speaker is sad\nabout it. In the second case, you are being given a fact which is _itself_ a\ncause of disappointment.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T07:35:21.667", "id": "2747", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-15T06:18:35.103", "last_edit_date": "2012-06-15T06:18:35.103", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2745", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I agree with Dave that the two seem very close. If we look at the core\ndefinitions, we can see this:\n\n### 〜ながら: \"while 〜\"\n\nAlthough we usually stick this on the end of the verb stem (食べながら、見ながら、など), it\ncan retain the same meaning in English here.\n\n * 残念ながら、... → \"While it's unfortunate, (here's the truth of it) ...\"\n\n### (emotion/feeling word) + ことに(は): \"Very 〜\", \"To my 〜\"\n\n * おどろいたことに → \"To my surprise\" / \"Surprisingly\"\n * 嬉しいことに → \"Very happily\"\n * 残念なことに → \"Very unfortunately\" / \"To my disappointment\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T15:00:36.317", "id": "2753", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T15:06:04.987", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-19T15:06:04.987", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2745", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I think the sentences:\n\n> 何歳ですか？\n>\n> いくつですか？\n>\n> 年齢は？\n>\n> お年は？\n\nare all sentences that ask \"How old are you?\"\n\nHow are they different?\n\nWhat form is most polite?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T08:43:38.113", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2749", "last_activity_date": "2014-10-08T02:52:28.123", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "619", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words", "politeness", "ellipsis" ], "title": "Polite Way to Ask \"How old are you?\" : 何歳 , いくつ ,年齢 , ご年", "view_count": 10608 }

[ { "body": "> 幾つですか？\n\nいくつ is not normally spelled with kanji. Also, this is actually asking, ‘How\nmany?’ To ask for someone's age, you should use the honorific form: **お**\nいくつですか。 This is the standard way.\n\n> 何歳ですか？\n\nThis is direct, but still in the polite form.\n\n> 年齢は？\n\nThis is direct and also informal. I can't imagine many situations where this\nwould be appropriate. Maybe if you're asking a child what their age is.\n\n> ご年は？\n\nI can't say I've ever seen this before...", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T09:52:10.127", "id": "2750", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T14:13:01.517", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-19T14:13:01.517", "last_editor_user_id": "578", "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2749", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I will probably go with \"お歳をお聞きしてもいいですか？\" if I had to ask the age of some\nstranger or customer etc. If the other person is a female, I might throw in\n\"大変申し訳ありませんが\" before the question. It is considered impolite to ask a female\nher age in Japan. If you have to ask for whatever reason, you are expected to\ntake extra care.\n\nIf you are asking an acquaintance, \"何歳ですか？\" or \"何歳でいらっしゃるんですか？\" will be more\nnatural. You should use 何歳でいらっしゃるんですか if you think the other person is senior\nthan you. おいくつですか？ おいくつでいらっしゃるんですか is also appropriate in this situation.\n\n年齢 is not commonly used to form questions, perhaps because it is a bit formal\nor even a bit bureaucratic. A police officer or something could ask\n年齢を教えてもらえますか？ ご年齢は？ and so on. It is frequently used in formal situations, as\nin 国民の平均年齢は or 年齢が高い層の平均貯蓄額はX万円だった etc.\n\nFinally, when you address an young child, you can say なんさい？ or いくつ？.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T04:42:44.660", "id": "2764", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-20T04:42:44.660", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2749", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2754", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In a recent [comment\nexchange](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38494/what-does-jus-\nfolks-is-jus-dumb-mean/38496#38496) on ELU.SE, a Japanese man (my senior in\nyears, and a \"guest\" in the forum whose questions I had answered regularly for\nsome time, but not much lately as I have been scaling back my participation\nthere), said in his comment to my response:\n\n> お久しぶりです。\n\nI felt obliged to respond in kind with\n\n> ご無沙汰いたしました。\n\nand that is how I replied. But it just felt a little strange in a comment-\nchain discussion. What do you think? Might こちらこそ or something else have been\nbetter?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T11:12:32.177", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2751", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:54:42.767", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:38:10.367", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "85", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "politeness", "set-phrases", "greetings" ], "title": "ご無沙汰いたしました — OK for electronic communications?", "view_count": 242 }

[ { "body": "In response to the post's title, I think, yes, it's OK for electronic\ncommunications. But `ご無沙汰しています` (it's usually 〜ています or 〜ております) sounds weird\nfor such a casual acquaintance (if he's even that much to you). I think it's\nreserved for very close and/or very important relationships (extended family\nmembers, past teachers/professors/senpai, old friends, etc.). For just an\nacquaintance, I'd probably just respond with an equal `久しぶりですね`.\n\nI'm not sure of `こちらこそ` in this situation. It sounds fine to _me_ , but I'll\nlet someone else more knowledgeable comment on that.\n\n* * *\n\n**EDIT** : I did find some examples where it was ご無沙汰 **しました／いたしました** and had\nthe same meaning. Guess I learned something.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T15:15:22.403", "id": "2754", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T20:53:40.170", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-19T20:53:40.170", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2751", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "In the song \"Eien no tobira\" (永遠の扉) by Yonekura Chihiro (米倉千尋) the chorus\nstarts with this line:\n\n> 言葉じゃなくて約束もなくて\n\nSince じゃなくて is contraction of ではなくて, I would have expected the second clause\nto say でもなくて, but it became もなくて with the で omitted instead. There is\npossibility that the lyric writer really wanted to say \"there is no my promise\neither\" instead of \"it is not my promise either\" but that would make it not\nparallel to the the first clause \"it is not my word\" (sorry I can't find a\nbetter translation for 言葉 in this context).\n\nAssuming if the lyric line's second clause was supposed to say 「約束でもなくて」, is\nit okay to omit the で particle and yet still retain the intended meaning\nthrough parallel structure with the first clause? In the context of a song or\nliterature, does this kind of trick work?\n\n_N.B. It is a really nice song. I recommend trying listening to it if you\nhaven't :)_", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T15:51:19.987", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2755", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T05:47:23.593", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-20T02:10:45.747", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "particle-で", "song-lyrics" ], "title": "Omitting the particle で in Xでもない", "view_count": 221 }

[ { "body": "I'd have to say the answer is \"no\". Removing で would totally change the\nmeaning from \"to not be\" to \"to not exist\":\n\n * `約束もなくて`: \"there is also no 約束\"\n * `約束でもなくて`: \"it is neither a 約束\"\n\nIt is talking about a subject (which I couldn't determine) which:\n\n 1. are not (human) words (described by `言葉じゃなく`), and\n 2. have no _rules_ or _fate_ (`約束もなく`). I'm inclined to think it's more of _rules_ , but usage of `約束` for the meaning of `rules` is usually related to an organization or society (i.e. community rules, company rules, etc.). If it takes the meaning of _fate_ , then it instead means that the subject has no particular destiny that makes it unchangeable.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T03:31:43.043", "id": "2762", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T05:47:23.593", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T05:47:23.593", "last_editor_user_id": "154", "owner_user_id": "154", "parent_id": "2755", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2757", "answer_count": 1, "body": "[Quoth Edict](http://www.edrdg.org/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic/wwwjdic?1MUE%E3%81%9F%E3%82%8A%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82), たりとも means\n\"(not) even; (not) any\", and is probably used as such:\n\n> 一問たりとも答えられなかった。(even one question, cannot answer)\n\nIs たりとも made up of the individual portions [たり](http://www.edrdg.org/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic/wwwjdic?1MUE%E3%81%9F%E3%82%8A) (\"such things as\") and\n[とも](http://www.edrdg.org/cgi-bin/wwwjdic/wwwjdic?1MUE%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82)\n(\"even if\")?\n\nWhat's the etymology of たりとも?\n\nWhat are some other ways to analyze its construction?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T15:56:02.800", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2756", "last_activity_date": "2014-07-20T14:23:00.060", "last_edit_date": "2014-07-20T14:23:00.060", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "grammar", "etymology" ], "title": "What's the analysis for たりとも?", "view_count": 322 }

[ { "body": "You are close, but yout problem is that you are trying to interpret `...たりとも`\nas a modifying clause. It is rather a subject with a relative clause: 'I could\nnot answer even something that is a (mere) single question'.\n\nBut if you are not particularly interested in a deep analysis, you can just\nunderstand `たりとも` as a fixed expression meaning 'even'.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T16:50:46.720", "id": "2757", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T16:50:46.720", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2756", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2761", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm wondering if it is true that words in JLPT5 are taught first in japanese\nschools, then JLPT4, then JLPT3, 2, 1.\n\nOr is that in japanese schools they have another order altogether such that it\nmay be possible for them to learn a JLPT1 vocab before they learn a JLPT5\nvocab?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T20:36:12.833", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2760", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T00:52:53.933", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T00:52:53.933", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "words", "learning", "jlpt" ], "title": "Are JLPT vocab taught in the same order as it is taught in japanese schools?", "view_count": 707 }

[ { "body": "The order of learning words and kanji for Japanese schools and JLPT are\ncompletely uncorrelated.\n\nWhich is to say that the JLPT doesn't attempt to emulate learning as Japanese\npeople do. So while there is some overlap in the sense that both groups\ngenerally follow a principle of going more simple to more complex, what a non-\nnative learning Japanese will find simple and what a Japanese student will\nfind simple can be different.\n\nFor a comparison, you can look at this [list of JLPT\nkanji](http://www.tanos.co.uk/jlpt/jlpt5/kanji/), and [this list of Japanese\nfirst grade kanji](http://japanese.about.com/library/blkodgrade1.htm). Both\ncontain about 80 characters, but you can note some differences.\n\n`語【ご】(language)`, `電【でん】(electricity)`, and `話【わ】(talk)`, are on the JLPT list\nand not the Japanese grade one.\n\n`森【もり】(forest)`, `林【はやし】(woods)`, and `犬【いぬ】(dog)` are on the Japanese grade\none but not the JLPT list.\n\nI know your question is directly about vocab and not kanji, but it was a\nlittle easier to locate and look through lists of kanji, and if the kanji the\ntwo groups are learning are different, you can be sure the words they use\nthose kanji for are different too.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T01:05:39.447", "id": "2761", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-20T01:25:04.907", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-20T01:25:04.907", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2760", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2767", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Can you help breakdown 言わん?\n\n> 彼女は当たり前と言わんばかりに答えた \n> She answered as if it was a matter of fact.\n\nAre these incorrect, have different meanings?\n\n> 彼女は当たり前と **言う** ばかりに答えた \n> 彼女は当たり前 **なこと** ばかりに答えた \n> 彼女は当たり前 **なんだと** ばかりに答えた \n>\n\nDo you know another way of saying \"as if to say\"?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T13:04:42.163", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2765", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T00:53:13.703", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-20T13:33:48.120", "last_editor_user_id": "54", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "conjugations", "expressions" ], "title": "Saying \"as if to say\" - What's happened to 言う in と言わんばかりに?", "view_count": 701 }

[ { "body": "**Edit** : In light of Tsuyoshi's comments below, I am changing my\netymological explanation.\n\nTo answer your first question: 言わんばかり was originally 言わむばかり. This can be\nbroken down into two parts: 言わむ, which is the classical form of 言おう, and ばかり,\nwhich here is being used in the sense of something just about to happen. So\n言わんばかり might be literally translated as ‘as if [he] wanted to say’.\n\nAs for your alternatives:\n\n> 彼女は当たり前と言うばかりに答えた\n\nThis is somewhat ungrammatical, but would probably be interpreted as the exact\nopposite: ‘She answered just saying “of course”.’ If we change it to\n「彼女は当たり前と言ったばかりに答えた。」 it would mean, ‘She answered just because it was said to\nbe obvious.’\n\n> 彼女は当たり前なことばかりに答えた\n\nThis would probably be interpreted like the above: ‘She answered just because\nit was obvious.’\n\n> 彼女は当たり前なんだとばかりに答えた\n\nThis means the same thing as the original sentence, but is more emphatic. The\nなんだ can (should?) be omitted.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T15:22:42.907", "id": "2767", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T00:53:13.703", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-01T00:53:13.703", "last_editor_user_id": "578", "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2765", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "To further elaborate on Zhen Lin's learned reply, according to 大辞林, \"ばかり\"\nderives from the verb \"はかる\", to measure. Also, considering that one of the\nmeanings attributed to \"ばかり\" is \"approximately\", it seems reasonable to say\nthat the listener is imposing a judgment on, or \"measuring\" the speaker's\nintended meaning, In this case, it might be more useful to think of \"ばかり\" as\nmore or less synonymous with \"程\". In English, it might be something like \"She\ndidn't say as much as that it was obvious, but . . . (she might as well have\nsaid that it was)\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T19:32:03.810", "id": "2769", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-20T19:32:03.810", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2765", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "These three phrases can be used to express emotions and feelings that cannot\nbe controlled.\n\nFor example in the following sentences:\n\na) １点差で負けたので、悔しく **てならない** 。 \nb) １点差で負けたので、悔しく **てしょうがない** 。 \nc) １点差で負けたので、悔しく **てたまらない** 。\n\nWith this,\n\n1) How do the above sentences differ? Are they all interchangeable? Are any\n\"stronger\" than the others? (To me てたまらない seems particularly strong due to\nたまらない meaning \"unbearable\".)\n\n2) If we were to literally translate the above sentences would they be\nsomething along the lines of:\n\na) I lost by one point, it's so frustrating it just can't be. \nb) I lost by one point, it's so frustrating there is nothing I can do. \nc) I lost by one point, it's so frustrating it's unbearable.\n\nNote: I understand the てならない and てしょうがない have an additional function when used\nwith verbs which can mean \"can't help but\", as in\nこの写真を見ると、子供の頃のことが思い出されてならない／しょうがいない。However, for the scope of this question, I\nthink we should keep it to the meaning of \"unbearably\" or \"so ~\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T14:16:21.097", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2766", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-10T13:10:15.857", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:54:00.177", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "grammar", "て-form" ], "title": "Contrasting 〜てならない、〜てしょうがない and 〜てたまらない", "view_count": 6818 }

[ { "body": "This isn't really a complete answer, but I'm trying to work out what you're\ngetting at. Firstly, I don't think these sentences are interchangeable, and\nsince each means different things, I would hesitate to rate their relative\nforcefulness.\n\nI don't think your translations work for me. The meaning I get from: a)\n１点差で負けたので、悔しくてならない。 is \"Since I lost by (only) one point, I shouldn't be\nupset\". And from: b) １点差で負けたので、悔しくてしょうがない。 \"Since I lost by a single point, I\ncan't help being upset.\"\n\nPartly, I just don't understand the English. a) I lost by one point, it's so\nfrustrating it just can't be.\n\nWhat can't be? The frustration or the losing? In the Japanese, the frustration\nand the \"just won't do\" are pretty clearly connected, but I get the feeling\nthat you're trying to say something different in the English.\n\nb) I lost by one point, it's so frustrating there is nothing I can do.\n\nDo you mean it's frustrating _that_ there's nothing you can do, or do you mean\nthat you are frustrated to the point where you are physically unable to do\nanything? Again,in the Japanese, \"frustration\" and \"nothing can be done\" are\nconnected grammatically, so it's difficult for me to see how it mean anything\nother than that the frustration can't be helped.\n\nCan you clarify? As it stands, I'm having trouble understanding exactly what\nyou are asking.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T02:27:45.807", "id": "2774", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-21T02:27:45.807", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2766", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "## Tentative transmission of nuances\n\nIf you permit it, I'll use other sentences rather than yours, that allow me to\nexpress better my understanding of those grammatical constructions.\n\nThe meanings are very close as you know, so, it still might be ambiguous…\n\n> 会いたくてならない\n\nI want to see you again, it's stronger than me. \nKeywords: inability-to-refrain, state-reached\n\n> 会いたくてしょうがない\n\nI want to see you again at any cost. It's a pity, I know, but there's nothing\nwe can do about it. \nKeywords: hopelessness, fatalism\n\n> 会いたくてたまらない\n\nI so much want to see you again, I'm deeply in love you know! \nKeywords: self-control, feelings\n\n## Corpus bonus\n\nInteresting data coming from a nice blog article ([original\nlink](http://nishimura-hisashi.blogspot.com/2009/03/blog-post_4951.html) no\nlonger active and [not available in WayBack\nMachine](https://web.archive.org/web/20151022233407/http://nishimura-\nhisashi.blogspot.com/2009/03/blog-post_4951.html)):\n\n「てならない」 \n①気がして ②思えて ③思われて ④不思議で ⑤気になって \n①思われて ②気がして ③不安で ④気になって ⑤かわいそうで\n\n「てたまらない」 \n①～したくて ②うれしくて ③おかしくて ④好きで ⑤嫌で \n①～したくて ②うれしくて ③気の毒で ④嫌で ⑤さびしくて\n\n「てしかたがない」 \n①②気がして 涙が出て ③～したくて ④見えて ⑤気になって \n①気になって ②思われて ③～したくて ④気がして ⑤涙が出て\n\nYou may also like this [Chie-like entry](http://okwave.jp/qa/q4170018.html).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-31T09:09:40.223", "id": "2953", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-10T13:10:15.857", "last_edit_date": "2023-08-10T13:10:15.857", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2766", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "> **Possible Duplicate:** \n> [Do Japanese writers use underline for\n> emphasis?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1735/do-japanese-\n> writers-use-underline-for-emphasis)\n\nWhat do the punctuation marks next to あだ and はるひ mean?\n\n\n\n\nI can type the sentences, or show the passage if it helps.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T16:55:39.573", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2768", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-21T03:07:59.343", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "punctuation" ], "title": "What are these furigana (or punctuation marks)?", "view_count": 204 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2771", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Ok, so there seems to be some controversy over whether we can really say that\nthere are 'の-adjectives', or whether we simply use a noun in an \"attributive\"\nway (a term which I don't actually really understand). But it's clear that\nthere's something interesting going on here, a deviation from the \"default\"\nunderstanding of の (as marking the genitive case), and I'd like some\nclarification.\n\nLet's look at what seems to be for whatever the classical example:\n\n○ 「永遠の愛」 \"eternal love\"\n\nIt's clear that we can't just apply the pattern \"X の Y ⇔ Y of X\" here*. But\nwhat is really going on? How do we know that the usual pattern doesn't apply\nhere - is it contextual? A matter of set-phrasing? Is it because 永遠, being\nabstract, would need to be reified to be used in the normal way?\n\n* It's worth noting that the pattern doesn't even hold in English here, which **does** seem to be a special case.\n\n\"love of eternity\" - a strange thing to talk about, but in English,\nreification is implicit so this works just as well as \"love of gold\".\n\nBut what is more strange is that with \"love\" in particular, this doesn't have\nthe normal genitive-case meaning - an English speaker parses \"love of gold\"\nnot as the love which is expressed by gold, but love such that gold is the\nthing that is loved. Similarly for \"eternity\", following the same role.\n\nAnd it doesn't even work the same way with similar words... * _\"desire/lust of\ngold\"_ \\- should be \"desire/lust **for** gold\". But regardless, a love which\nis eternal is not the same thing as a love which is expressed by (belongs to,\nreally; but in what other sense can love be possessed than by expressing it?)\neternity-seen-as-an-entity, which would be the default interpretation of the\npattern.\n\nWhat happens in Japanese with that example? 「金の愛」 - grammatical? How would it\nbe interpreted? How about with explicit reification (「金のことの愛」・「金のものの愛」）？\n\nAnd how literal is it to translate 「永遠の」 as \"eternal\"? Can we describe what's\ngoing on here more pedantically? What determines our ability to use a noun\nthis way with の?\n\nAnd am I getting too philosophical? :)", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T22:37:18.910", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2770", "last_activity_date": "2018-01-09T10:00:51.903", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "627", "post_type": "question", "score": 28, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-の" ], "title": "So-called の-adjectives - how does の *really* work?", "view_count": 25438 }

[ { "body": "As I understand it, the term “no-adjective” simply means “nouns which are\ntypically translated to adjectives in English and other languages.” If we\ntreat Japanese as a language in its own right, distinguishing them from nouns\nas different parts-of-speech is completely artificial.\n\nThe particle の makes a modifier of a noun. The exact relationship between the\nmodifier and the modified noun can be almost anything;\n[Daijisen](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/171157/m0u/%E3%81%AE/) lists\nfourteen relationships such as ownership, belonging, location of existence,\nlocation of action, time, and so on, and one of them is “attribute and\ncondition.”\n\n> [瀕死]{ひんし}の[重傷]{じゅうしょう} a life-threatening injury \n> [縦]{たて}じまのシャツ a shirt with vertical stripes\n\n(The examples are from Daijisen, the English translation of the first example\nis by [FumbleFingers](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/38783/is-it-\ncorrect-to-say-he-got-a-fatal-injury-in-the-accident-when-there-is-a-\npos/38785#38785) on english.stackexchange.com, and the translation of the\nsecond example is by me.)\n\nThe の in 永遠の愛 is the same thing. The noun [永遠]{えいえん} (eternity) is turned to a\nmodifier 永遠の, and it describes an attribute of the love.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T23:37:54.553", "id": "2771", "last_activity_date": "2018-01-09T10:00:51.903", "last_edit_date": "2018-01-09T10:00:51.903", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2770", "post_type": "answer", "score": 36 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2781", "answer_count": 3, "body": "My Japanese text book says that a present-tense verb followed by ことにする is used\nto indicate making a decision about the action. But I've also noticed the verb\n決める, and that it's usage is very similar.\n\nSo supposing we have a sentence such as:\n\n朝ご飯を作った後に、ジョギングすることにした。(After making breakfast, I decided to jog.)\n\nMy question is, would there be any specific semantic difference if 決める was\nused? In all the cases that I've seen, the final する has always been in the\npast-tense, but 決める has been in a variety of forms; is this possible\ndifference of the two?\n\nThanks! :)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T00:54:23.733", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2772", "last_activity_date": "2019-10-03T12:27:02.567", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "636", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "word-choice" ], "title": "ことにする vs. ことに決める", "view_count": 19402 }

[ { "body": "Using your example sentence as a guideline, the difference is this:\n\nWith `ことにした`, you have decided to jog, and you _might_ have jogged. `ことにする`\n_implies_ action taken. Usually in the sense that you habitually do it.\nHowever, you might just mean you've made a decision.\n\nWith `ことに決めた`, you have decided to jog, but whether or not you have jogged yet\nis an open question. You have only conveyed your intentions. It strictly\n_only_ refers to a decision with no implication of action.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T05:22:48.500", "id": "2780", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-21T06:52:46.997", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-21T06:52:46.997", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2772", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "This is what \"A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar\" has to say on the matter\nof ことにする vs ことに決める:\n\n> _Koto ni suru_ and _koto ni kimeru_ 'determine to do s.t.' are virtually\n> identical in meaning. The difference is that the former is an idiom and,\n> therefore, frequently used in colloquial speech, while the latter is\n> appropriate when the speaker is talking about a relatively important\n> decision in a rather decisive manner. Also, _koto ni suru_ can be used to\n> mean 'I hereby decide to ~' but _koto ni kimeru_ cannot. Thus, [1] below\n> cannot be rephrased by _koto ni kimeru_.\n>\n> [1] 私は会社をやめることに **します** /???きめます。 \n> _Watashi wa kaisha wo yameru koto ni shimasu /???kimemasu._ \n> (I've decided to quit my company.)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T05:54:19.463", "id": "2781", "last_activity_date": "2019-10-03T12:27:02.567", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "108", "parent_id": "2772", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "ことにする vs ことになる is equal ことに決めた\n\n私は会社をやめることにします。（自分が決めた） I've decided to quit my company.\n私は入院中はタバコをやめることに決めた。（他人（医者が決めた））is equal 私は入院中はタバコをやめることになった。（他人（医者が決めた）） I\nhad to abstain from smoking while I was in the hospital.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T04:58:22.833", "id": "2789", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-22T04:58:22.833", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "619", "parent_id": "2772", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2782", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is it true that when we see 伯母 it usually (90%) means \"parent's elder sister\"\nand sometimes (10%) can be used to refer to the parent's younger sister?\n\nOn the contrary, when we see 叔母 does it always (100%) mean \"parent's younger\nsister\" and never \"parent's elder sister\" ?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T02:18:45.877", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2773", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-29T20:05:15.150", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-21T05:45:34.077", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "vocabulary", "nuances" ], "title": "Using 伯母 / 叔母 to refer to one's aunt", "view_count": 2636 }

[ { "body": "So far as I know, `伯母` does not ever intentionally mean anything other than\n\"elder\" aunt.\n\nThe issue you are probably seeing is that since the words are pronounced the\nsame, and that these kinds of age differentiations are not as important as\nthey once might have been, the distinction between the two words is something\nthat Japanese can mix up.\n\nI saw a Japanese TV show one time where they had two men, one with a shirt\nthat had `叔父【おじ】(younger uncle)` written on it, and the other with\n`伯父【おじ】(older uncle)` written on it, and people were tested on which was\nwhich. About half got it wrong.\n\nI just asked some random people beside me at the coffee shop, and one woman\nsaid that the difference was not to do with age at all, but whether or not the\naunt or uncle was related by blood or marriage. Huh. The dictionary clearly\nsays it's about age, so I take this as further indication that the usage and\nmeanings are becoming less clear in modern Japanese.\n\nAnd a little internet searching further shows that [Japanese can be unclear on\nthe\ndifference](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1011298390).\n\nSo, bottom line, no, it's not the case that `伯母` can ever intentionally be\nused to mean the younger aunt, but it probably sometimes is mistakenly used\nthat way.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T07:51:46.727", "id": "2782", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-21T12:57:20.607", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-21T12:57:20.607", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2773", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "In Chinese -- which the Japanese kanji are derived from and modelled after --\nit's a title that a person would use to refer to the wife of their father's\nyounger brother.\n\nStill an aunt (regardless of age, because if she's older than your father but\nmarried his younger brother --- she gets this \"demoted\" form of paternal aunt-\nin-law).\n\nFor \"auntie\" -- in general... like someone who is not blood related, nor\nrelated by marriage, but is just a friend of your parents or whatnot you can\nuse the 姨 word that is given to a maternal aunt (your mother's sister).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-06-29T16:40:49.990", "id": "5992", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-29T20:05:15.150", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-29T20:05:15.150", "last_editor_user_id": "3437", "owner_user_id": "1474", "parent_id": "2773", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2777", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Could someone explain why 猥シャツ is defined as \"obscene shirt (pun)\"? I don't\nunderstand how this is a pun.\n\n> 猥シャツ 【わいシャツ】 (n) (See Ｙシャツ) obscene shirt (pun)\n\nSource: [http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUEワイシャツ](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E3%83%AF%E3%82%A4%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A3%E3%83%84)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T02:43:41.067", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2775", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-14T04:40:13.103", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-21T06:24:59.970", "last_editor_user_id": "159", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "puns" ], "title": "What is the pun in 猥シャツ?", "view_count": 520 }

[ { "body": "Look up the word 猥褻. It will all become clear.\n\n猥褻 = わいせつ = obscenity", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T03:03:32.420", "id": "2776", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-14T04:40:13.103", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-14T04:40:13.103", "last_editor_user_id": "107", "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2775", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "The pun is that the kanji 「猥」, read 「わい」, means \"obscene\", whereas 「ワイシャツ」\nmeans \"dress shirt\". The\n[portmanteau](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau) 「猥シャツ」 therefore means\n\"obscene shirt\".", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T03:03:36.447", "id": "2777", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-21T03:03:36.447", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "2775", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2783", "answer_count": 7, "body": "湯 in Japanese refers to \"hot water.\" In Chinese, it means \"soup.\" How common\nare kanji with different meanings in Chinese? Also, why do differences occur\nin the first place? Were the meanings in both languages originally the same\nand gradually diverged over time?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T04:55:48.533", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2779", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-08T04:17:52.733", "last_edit_date": "2012-07-15T03:19:14.123", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "219", "post_type": "question", "score": 21, "tags": [ "kanji", "chinese" ], "title": "Japanese kanji with different meanings in Chinese", "view_count": 12984 }

[ { "body": "When the Chinese writing system was introduced to Japan, the Japanese people\ntried to incorporate the Chinese characters, or Kanji, to the words that means\nthe closest thing in the Japanese language. For example, the word たべる, which\nis a word that probably existed before monks from China introduced Kanji to\nthe Japanese people. When Kanji is finally introduced, the Japanese people\nfind that the the kanji 食 has the closest meaning to たべる, hence how 食べる is now\nwritten with the kanji 食. Inevitably, some meanings did not translate exactly\nthe same when it was introduced to the Japanese language and some differences\ndid arise. Now how exactly did this difference arise, it's open for debate.\n\nNotable differences you will see are examples like 勉強 which means \"to study\"\nin Japanese, but it means \"reluctance\" in Chinese. 大丈夫 which means \"Are you\nalright?\" in Japanese and \"Grown-up man\" in Chinese. 手紙 which means \"letter\"\nin Japanese, and in Chinese it means \"toilet paper\" (I just learned that\nrecently too). 高等学校 which means \"high school\" in Japanese and \"college\" in\nChinese. As for words with individual Kanji, I can't think of many right now,\nbut I suspect they exist as well, but majority of them I believe are compound\nKanji words.\n\nThere is another more obvious cases of difference in Japanese kanji and\nChinese kanji, and these are known as 和製漢字 (wasei-kanji, not to be confused\nwith 和製英語 wasei-eigo), which means Japanese created kanji. 峠 is one such\nexample. However in this case the Kanji itself does not exist in the Chinese\nlanguage.\n\nNow, if your goal is to communicate effectively in both languages, it's\nimportant to know that majority of the time Kanji in Japanese and Chinese does\nactually means, or almost means the same thing, what you do need to know is\nthat Kanji will not be used in the same context to say the same thing in\nChinese and Japanese. For example, 食 does mean food in both Chinese and\nJapanese, but you will probably not see Chinese people use the word 食 to mean\n\"to eat\" like how the Japanese do. But in the ancient Chinese,食 also means \"to\neat\".For example 食之无味 。And in Cantonese 食 still means \"to eat\" today.For\nexample 食饭。These are differences in usage, not necessarily differences in\nmeaning.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T08:22:14.693", "id": "2783", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-27T03:28:16.167", "last_edit_date": "2013-12-27T03:28:16.167", "last_editor_user_id": "4396", "owner_user_id": "23", "parent_id": "2779", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 }, { "body": "A [nice list](http://www.sljfaq.org/afaq/cj-false-friends.html) can be found\nin [sci.lang.japan FAQ](http://www.sljfaq.org/) (which is itself worth reading\nto people learning Japanese).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T17:14:36.957", "id": "2785", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-21T17:14:36.957", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "142", "parent_id": "2779", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "I know that 鮪 (まぐろ, tuna) means \"蝶鮫\" (ちょうざめ, sturgeon), and that 鮭 (さけ,\nsalmon) means 鰒 (ふぐ,fugu) in Chinese.\n\nIt seems that the mistakes comes from reading the descriptions of the fish\nwithout seeing actually what the writer meant. Then, interpretation errors let\nto putting a fish name on another fish.\n\nSource: 日本人の知らない日本語, volume 1.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T01:17:09.067", "id": "2787", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-22T01:17:09.067", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2779", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "湯 does mean hot/boiling water in Classical Chinese (but not in modern\nvarieties like Mandarin or Cantonese or Min where it means \"soup\"). The\nClassical Chinese reading is preserved in the saying 赴湯蹈火 \"to step through hot\nwater [and] tread on fire\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T17:38:37.107", "id": "2797", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-22T17:38:37.107", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "641", "parent_id": "2779", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "I know this was asked a long time ago, but i will answer in case someone else\nwants this info.I'm more of a Chinese learner looking to also learn Japanese.\nSo if anyone can correct me, feel free to. Here are some words I've seen that\nhave the same or almost the same character and the same meanings. Sorry I\ndidn't include tones for all of them, I got lazy.\n\n歌, means song, is Gē in Mandarin, uta in Japanese \n色, color, Sè in Mandarin, Iro in Japanese \n白, white, Bái, Shiro \n花, flower,Huā,Hana \n空, sky, Kong, Sora (Kong can also mean empty, or air in chinese. To mean sky,\ntiankong is more specific) \n愛, love, Ai, ai. (This character is only the same when using the traditional\nchinese character. The word is the same other than the falling tone in\nMandarin) \n雨 Rain, yu3, ame. \n鳥 Bird, Niao3, Tori (once again, traditional character only. The simplified is\ndifferent) \n虹 Rainbow, Hong, Hiji \n美 Beautiful, Mei3, Utsuku \n何 How, He2, Hani \n太陽 Sun/Tai4 Yang4, Tai yo1 (only the same in traditional chinese, is similar\nin simplified)\n\nHere are some that are really similar but not quite the same: 学习\nLearning/Xuexi vs. 学ぶ Learning/Manabu. The first character is the same, second\nis not\n\n透明 Transparent/Tou ming vs. 透明な Transparent/ to mei na (Japanese has one more\ncharacter)\n\n黑 Black/Hei1 vs. 黒 Black/Kuro (The box in Chinese is different, but otherwise\nthe character looks similar.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2014-08-16T03:04:41.527", "id": "18246", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-08T04:17:52.733", "last_edit_date": "2021-02-08T04:17:52.733", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "7038", "parent_id": "2779", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "约瑟夫 in Chinese is (according to Google Translate) Joseph. But in Japanese,\nthis is something you really shouldn't get a tattoo of! Assuming it as as\noffensive as the English translation is.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-04-26T13:26:03.217", "id": "46877", "last_activity_date": "2017-04-26T13:26:03.217", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "21901", "parent_id": "2779", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "The most interesting cases in my opinion is 走｛はし｝る.\n\nIn Japanese, you know it means \"to run\". However, in Mandarin, 走 means \"to\nwalk\", but in classical Chinese and many modern Chinese dialects (e.g.\nCantonese), it still means \"to run\".\n\nI know there are a few similar cases (meaning in Japan carried on a lost usage\nfound in classical Chinese) but I can't recall them from top of my head.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-04-29T09:51:28.370", "id": "46931", "last_activity_date": "2017-04-29T09:51:28.370", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "19346", "parent_id": "2779", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2788", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Is there any difference in the sentence when we mix the order of the\nconjugations in this sentence:\n\n1) あいにく私はカメラを家においてきてしまった\n\n2) あいにく私はカメラを家においてしまってきた\n\nOr are both \"correct\" and mean the same thing with not much difference in\nnuance?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T01:07:29.130", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2786", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:53:33.843", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:53:33.843", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "nuances", "conjugations", "て-form" ], "title": "おいてきてしまった vs おいてしまってきた", "view_count": 380 }

[ { "body": "Example 1) is the natural one. It means that it was a mistake to come with the\ncamera left at home. 2) is strange. It means, assuming it is grammatical, that\nit was a mistake to put/keep a camera at home, and came. I am not sure if it\nis even grammatical.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T01:26:31.150", "id": "2788", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-22T03:10:37.487", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-22T03:10:37.487", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2786", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2792", "answer_count": 3, "body": "How do we decide if 中 is ちゅう or じゅう ?\n\nFor example, in this sentence １０人中３人はビデオを持っている which pronunciation should we\nuse?\n\nWhat about this: そのピアニストの演奏中、彼らは一心に耳を傾けた。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T05:07:31.187", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2790", "last_activity_date": "2020-09-19T15:49:45.523", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:53:15.373", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "words", "pronunciation" ], "title": "How do we decide if 中 is ちゅう or じゅう?", "view_count": 3750 }

[ { "body": "\"out of\" is 「ちゅう」, \"through\" is 「じゅう」.\n\n> 中 ちゅう \n> (suf,abbr,n-suf) medium; average; middle; moderation; middle school; China;\n> in; out of (e.g. three out of ten people); during (a certain time when one\n> did or is doing something); (P) \n> 中 じゅう \n> (suf) through; throughout; in the course of; all over or throughout (e.g. a\n> place)\n\n**EDIT:**\n\nThat second example is \"during\", so 「ちゅう」.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T05:15:43.380", "id": "2791", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-22T05:22:56.510", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-22T05:22:56.510", "last_editor_user_id": "22", "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "2790", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "* **じゅう** (or, rarely: ぢゅう) is used for expressions covering a **length** of time (resp. area) from start to finish, in its entirety. I.e. \"through\", \"all of\":\n\n> 一年中【いちねんじゅう】 all year\n>\n> 一日中【いちにちじゅう】 all day\n>\n> 世界中【せかいじゅう】 all over the world\n\n * **ちゅう** is for pointing a particular time (resp. specific location) out of an interval (resp. general area). I.e. \"out of\", \"during\":\n\n> 午前中【ごぜんちゅう】 [at some point] during morning\n>\n> 会議中【かいぎちゅう】 in a meeting [e.g. \"he is in a meeting _at the moment_ \"]\n\nNote that in some cases, both can be used and the only way to tell would be\nfrom context (e.g. an expression followed by に is more likely to be ちゅう) or in\nspeech:\n\n> 来月中【らいげつじゅう】 all of next month\n>\n> 来月中【らいげつちゅう】 [some time] next month", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T05:37:22.120", "id": "2792", "last_activity_date": "2018-10-21T03:03:12.413", "last_edit_date": "2018-10-21T03:03:12.413", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "2790", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 }, { "body": "１０人中３人はビデオを持っている\n\nHere, 中 reading is うち", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2020-09-19T15:49:45.523", "id": "80731", "last_activity_date": "2020-09-19T15:49:45.523", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "40363", "parent_id": "2790", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2803", "answer_count": 1, "body": "_**Note:** I understand the risk that this question might be considered \"too\nlocalized\". However, my hope in asking isn't just to translate this one\ninstance, but to use it as an exploration of how and why standard Japanese\nwords can get modified by a native speaker so as to deviate so far from the\ntextbook that they become unparsable to a learner._\n\nOne thing I find somewhat frustrating about my level of Japanese is that my\nability to understand people rapidly drops off the more they add character to\nwhat they say.\n\nSo, for example, I can't understand the crazy rantings of a man who, for some\nreason, is walking down the street shouting at the top of his lungs.\n\nWhich is what I encountered today when walking through Aoyama Ichome. The guy,\nwho didn't look particularly crazy, was walking along, shouting at the top of\nhis lungs to no one in particular.\n\nIt frustrated me that I couldn't understand him. He rolled his Rs too much,\nshortened his words, and possibly used slang I didn't get. At one point (not\nin the recording), I made out the words `娘【むすめ】(daughter)`, and `ですか`. That\nwas it, though.\n\nI followed behind him for a bit and recorded him using Soundcloud, [which you\ncan listen to here](http://soundcloud.com/ebisudave/sounds-from-monday-\nafternoon). The sound quality is better than I expected, but still a little\nquiet.\n\nHowever, I know that in English I would be able to cut through the noise and\nmake out what he says. In Japanese, I can't parse his words.\n\nCan anyone make out what he is saying, and in addition offer some analysis of\nthe types of modifications that make his words so hard to parse?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T07:12:59.533", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2793", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T14:22:04.007", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-28T01:31:38.020", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "translation", "slang" ], "title": "What is this crazy guy shouting?", "view_count": 1082 }

[ { "body": "It sounds like this person is suffering from hallucination, or he is reading\nan avant‐garde poem. Can't pick all. phirru's comment on the audio is overall\nwrong. It may be a political protest, but there are parts that are clearly not\nserious, like `うなぎの遊園地`.\n\n> まだ済んでねえんだよ。[...]\n> 馬鹿野郎が。あ?青山の御本堂。うなぎの遊園地。檻から散歩してんのか？ケンジタカノ。等々力で御長女がそうして[...]したんだよ。なー。何のあれしたんだよ？\n\n * `ケンジタカノ` is either a name `タカノケンジ` (unknown how it is written) read in first name- family name order, or is a `検事` named `タカノ`.\n * `あれする` is a typical phrase mainly used when you cannot phrase your thoughts immediately, similar to the English `you know, ...`.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T01:30:51.193", "id": "2803", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T14:22:04.007", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-28T14:22:04.007", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2793", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2795", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This is a frequent problem that I think many Japanese learners experience. You\nlook at some Japanese sentences, and you understand the words, and most, if\nnot all, the grammar, and yet still, it just doesn't seem to mean anything.\n\nThat is the case when I look at this ad that I recently saw on the subway:\n\n\n\nThe text says:\n\n> 本当のガキ大将は、弱い者いじめなんて絶対にしなかった。\n>\n> 昔話でもしながら、ま、一杯。\n\nIn kana:\n\n> ほんとうの がきたいしょうは、 よわいもの いじめなんて ぜったいに しなかった。\n>\n> むかしばなしでも しながら、 ま、 いっぱい。\n\nAnd my rough translation:\n\n> The leader of the gang never bullied the weak ones.\n>\n> While talking about old time, hey, have a glass.\n\n`がき` means more like \"punk\", but in this case since it's plural, I opted for\n\"gang\". `一杯` means a full cup, but I went with \"glass\" as in \"have a glass of\nbeer\".\n\nThe second sentence, that one should enjoy a beer while talking over the old\ntimes seems clear enough.\n\nBut... the leader of the bullies didn't pick on the weak? Am I reading that\nright? And if so... It's a weird assertion. Isn't the leader of the bullies by\ndefault complicit in bullying?\n\nThe picture adds to my confusion? I think the kid on the far left is the\nleader of the bullies, the kid with the broken net is the victim, and the rest\nare the gang. It looks like the leader is the one who broke the net...? It\nseems to contradict what the words say.\n\nWhat the heck is going on? Does it mean what I think it means and I'm not\ngetting some cultural aspect in order to understand it? Or does it not mean\nwhat I think it means?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T07:38:51.317", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2794", "last_activity_date": "2015-11-20T10:47:17.840", "last_edit_date": "2015-11-20T10:47:17.840", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "word-choice", "translation", "culture", "copywriting" ], "title": "What does this ad say? (Connotations of ガキ大将)", "view_count": 875 }

[ { "body": "Apologies if you did already realize this, but it seems like _maybe_ your\ntroubles are arising here because you aren't aware of the range of meanings of\nthe word ガキ大将. (You can find it in Daijirin and Wikipedia etc. using the all-\nkanji spelling 餓鬼大将.)\n\nIt has a lot of cultural baggage attached -- the Showa nostalgia level is over\n9000, for starters -- but an important point is that it doesn't necessarily\nmean \"leader of the bullies\" as in someone to be avoided. Sometimes, the\ngakidaishō is just the toughest, bravest member of the local gang (= kids who\nplay in the area), and therefore their leader -- someone who _protects_ them\nfrom bullies, who are not part of the gang. And of course, there can be gray\nareas, kids who are bully-ish but have strange changes of heart: think Giant\nin Doraemon and Nelson in the Simpsons.\n\nI think that this is the point of the ad: \"Back in the day, the _real_\ngakidaishō [the kids we looked up to] weren't bullies.\" The picture is a bit\nblurry, but maybe the point is that the kid on the left _isn't_ the gakidaishō\n-- he's the bully! And so the gakidaishō and his friends are on the right,\nrushing to the scene of the crime to teach the bully a lesson.\n\nAs for the second part, yeah, you are surely right on there.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T08:42:49.370", "id": "2795", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-22T10:07:08.623", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-22T10:07:08.623", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2794", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "WWWJDIC does not tally their meanings of 掛ける and 掛かる so i find it hard for a\nbeginner like me to properly learn these 2 words..\n\nDo all these meanings of 掛ける and 掛かる tally: (is this list correct):\n\n1a) to hang 地図を掛ける\n\n1b) to be hung 地図が掛かる\n\n2a) to take (time/money) 時間を掛ける\n\n2b) to be taken.. 時間が掛かる\n\n3a) to multiply ２と３を掛ける\n\n3b) to be multiplied２と３が掛かる\n\n4a) to wear (glasses/necklace) ネックレスを掛ける\n\n4b) to be worn.. ネックレスが掛かる\n\n5a) to make a call 電話を掛ける\n\n5b) to be made.. 電話が掛かる\n\n6a) to make an insurance 保険を掛ける\n\n6b) to be made.. 保険が掛かる\n\n7a) to set (engine/alarm) into \"on\" mode テープレコーダを掛ける\n\n7b) to be set.. テープレコーダが掛かる\n\n8a) to fix (toothache/headache) 頭痛を掛ける\n\n8b) to be fixed.. 頭痛が掛かる\n\n9a) to lock 鍵を掛ける\n\n9b) to be locked.. 鍵が掛かる\n\n10a) to secure (seatbelt) シートベルトを掛ける\n\n10b) to be secured.. シートベルトが掛かる\n\n11a) to apply (salt/toppings) 塩を掛ける\n\n11b) to be applied.. 塩が掛かる\n\n12a) to spread over/around (cloth/dust/tape) テープを掛ける\n\n12b) to be spread.. テープが掛かる\n\n13a) to cast (spell) 魔法を掛ける\n\n13b) to be cast.. 魔法が掛かる\n\n14a) to trick (someone) トムを掛ける\n\n14b) to be tricked.. トムが掛かる\n\n15a) to have a feeling (pity/hope) 情けを掛ける\n\n15b) to be felt.. 情けが掛かる\n\n16a) to present (someone to court / idea to conference) 質問を掛ける\n\n16b) to be presented.. 質問が掛かる\n\n* * *\n\nIs it true that the **only** meaning that is not available in both 掛かる and\n掛ける, is:\n\n 1. to depend on (someone/something) 我々が彼の手伝いに掛かる\n\n* * *\n\nPS: if some of the example phrases are wrong please correct me thx!\n\nPS: i think i will leave out \"standard phrases\" out of the discussion, like:\n腰を掛ける, 迷惑を掛ける, お目に掛かる", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T10:38:08.567", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2796", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-31T01:49:41.500", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-31T01:49:41.500", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "verbs", "meaning", "transitivity" ], "title": "Do all the meanings of 掛ける and 掛かる tally?", "view_count": 1376 }

[ { "body": "There are a few of these uses that I'm not familiar with, but the uses I do\nknow all look ok to me (yes meaning both transitive/intransitive forms ok).\nSorry this is not a complete answer:\n\n 1. Yes\n 2. Yes\n 3. Yes\n 4. Yes - I've never heard it used with necklace, but definitely with megane.\n 5. Yes\n 6. not familiar with this usage\n 7. Yes\n 8. not familiar with this usage\n 9. Yes\n 10. Yes (9 & 10 could be considered the same - secure a seat belt, secure a lock)\n 11. Yes\n 12. Yes, but it 12b looks like a typo - I assume you meant テープが掛かる\n 13. Yes\n 14. Yes\n 15. not familiar with this usage\n 16. not familiar with this usage\n\n* * *\n\nI'm not a grammar expert, but it doesn't seem to me that the \"depend on\" usage\nis an exception to the rule either. I don't think it would sound funny to say\n\"あなたに掛けている\", we're counting on you (or we're betting on you?).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-30T23:26:46.943", "id": "2951", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-30T23:26:46.943", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "580", "parent_id": "2796", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2799", "answer_count": 1, "body": "A certain dialog in my book has a man describing the symptoms of his cold to\nthe doctor. It reads thus:\n\n> 医者：熱はありますか。 \n> 患者：はい、きのうから。夕べはぞくぞく寒気がしたので、高熱が出るんじゃないかとひやひやしたんですが、今のところ **７度８分**\n> 【なな・ど・はち・ぶ】くらいでおさまっています。\n\nThe English translation on the next page read, \"Doctor: Do you have a fever?\nMan: Yes, I do, since yesterday. Last night I came down with the chills and\nstarted shivering, and I was afraid I'd get a really high fever. Now it's only\nabout 37.8°C though.\"\n\nMy question is, was the original Japanese sentence a typo and should have said\n**37度８分** instead of just **７度８分** , or do Japanese people commonly just refer\nto body temperatures by the number of degrees over 30? Although if it's the\nlatter, how would you refer to a body temperature of 40 or more (for\nargument's sake; ignoring the fact that you'd probably be dead)?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T19:24:24.823", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2798", "last_activity_date": "2014-02-24T08:00:04.513", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:52:40.740", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "usage", "numbers", "expressions", "counters", "abbreviations" ], "title": "Temperature abbreviations?", "view_count": 2302 }

[ { "body": "Your book is correct. When talking about human body temperature, 三十 is often\nomitted, probably because it is obvious. While there is nothing wrong with\nsaying 37度8分 (37.8 degrees Celsius), it is often abbreviated to 7度8分. Even 37度\n(37 degrees Celsius) without a fractional part sometimes becomes 7度.\n\nYou cannot abbreviate the temperature when it is 40 degrees or higher. As for\nunusually low body temperature, I would guess that many people avoid\nabbreviating, say, 31度5分 (31.5 degrees Celsius) to 1度5分, because it is so\nunusual that it is not immediately clear what it means if abbreviated.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T20:04:44.703", "id": "2799", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-23T02:48:05.020", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-23T02:48:05.020", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2798", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2801", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Initially I'd thought ひき is for small animals and 頭 is for animals that are\nnot small (\"big\" animals) however EDICT\n(<http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E3%81%B2%E3%81%8D>) seems to claim that horses belong to\nthe ひき group and not the 頭 group (yet of course I think we can agree that a\nhorse is not \"small\" at all!).\n\n1) Basically I was wondering is it true that \"horses\" is the exception where\nwe ignore the \"small\" / \"big\" rule and they are always counted with ひき\n(regardless of the size of the horse) instead of 頭 ?\n\n2) Are there any cases when ひき is used to refer to a _non-small_ animal?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T22:01:37.493", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2800", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-20T13:25:01.547", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-23T00:10:43.617", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "counters" ], "title": "ひき or 頭 for horses?", "view_count": 905 }

[ { "body": "I don't personally know the answer, but exploring my way through EDICT:\n\na) In the definition, sense 3 - counter for horses - is listed only as \"き\nonly\" (so not ひき); it is also marked as an archaic term.\n\nb) Skimming the examples page for 馬, I could only find one example using a\ncounter:\n\n> そのレースで争った馬は４頭だけだった。\n>\n> Only four horses competed in the race.\n\n**Edit:**\n\nActually, I found another one as well:\n\n> 彼は牛を２頭の馬と交換した。\n>\n> He exchanged his cow for two horses.\n\nSo both of the examples use 頭 for the counter.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-22T22:49:28.023", "id": "2801", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-22T22:49:28.023", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "537", "parent_id": "2800", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Regarding 匹, the original sense was that which comes in pairs. As a counter,\nit referred to animals with asses which have a left and right half. Primary\nexamples were horses and cows. Gradually it became used for other animals such\nas reptiles, fish and insects. Eventually, a desire to count large animals\nemerged and this was accomplished with 頭. Now 匹 generally refers to smaller\nanimals.\n\nThere are several counters used for horses. The primary counter is 頭.\nHistorically, the common counter was 匹, but this is now obsolete or at least\narchaic.\n\nOther counters include 蹄 (tei), 騎 (ki), and 乗 (jō).\n\n * A 蹄 a horseshoe and four 蹄 is equivalent to one horse.\n * A 騎 is used for a horse that is being ridden.\n * A 乗 is used to count horse-drawn wagons. One 乗 is expected to have four horses.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-09-20T13:25:01.547", "id": "6861", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-20T13:25:01.547", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1141", "parent_id": "2800", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2806", "answer_count": 2, "body": "While hiking I saw 3 bears, and I have heard a lot of people say ひき to count\nthem. There was a mother and two small ones, if that matters.\n\nBut when talking about it I also have been told that 頭 should be used to count\nbears.\n\nAre both usable? Does it depend on the age of the bear?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T04:40:19.207", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2805", "last_activity_date": "2019-04-06T12:46:23.170", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "counters" ], "title": "Counter for 熊 (bears): ひき or 頭?", "view_count": 937 }

[ { "body": "`頭【とう】` is a counter for what are usually herd animals. Cows, elk, horses,\nelephants... The four legged thing might also be a factor. You don't\nnecessarily _have_ to see them on a ranch for foodstock purposes, but it's\nthat _kind_ of animal.\n\n`ひき` is the counter for pretty much every other kind of animal that isn't\ncovered by a more specific counter like `頭`, or `羽【わ】` for birds.\n\n* * *\n\nA point that arose in the comments below which is important enough to make\nsure it's seen with this answer:\n\nA key factor seems to be the human relationship to the animal, and whether\nthat animal can be reared, hunted, or exploited in some way. As was pointed\nout in the comments, `頭` _can_ be used for bears if the context is hunters\nharvesting them. [At least one example of this was\nfound](http://www.pref.akita.jp/fpd/matagi/matagi-04.htm), though I suspect\nthis usage is extremely limited in scope.", "comment_count": 16, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T05:18:17.687", "id": "2806", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-12T05:25:55.603", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-12T05:25:55.603", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2805", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "熊 is usually counted with [頭]{とう}. A rough pattern is that large animals are\ncounted with 頭, and small animals are with [匹]{ひき}, although this is by no\nmeans a firm rule.\n\nI have never heard of using 頭 for herd animals and 匹 for non-herd animals.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T02:30:28.740", "id": "3129", "last_activity_date": "2019-04-06T12:46:23.170", "last_edit_date": "2019-04-06T12:46:23.170", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2805", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2809", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Is it true that when someone uses the word うるさい, it means that there is a\nfeeling of _\"discontent\"_ ?\n\nLike for example, we will take this sentence: \"It will be noisy in the\nfactory\"\n\n\"It will be noisy in the factory\" is neutral. (no nuance of _annoyance_ )\n\nBut is it true that if we translate that sentence into japanese using うるさい as\na replacement for noisy, immediately we will have the nuance that the speaker\nis \"annoyed\" at the noisyness?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T07:31:55.120", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2807", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-08T11:11:48.300", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "nuances" ], "title": "Does うるさい have a \"negative\" connotation?", "view_count": 1017 }

[ { "body": "Yes. It has negative connotation. I think the English `noisy` has it as well.\nThe neutral way of saying it in Japanese is `音が大きい`, and in English `the sound\nis loud`.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T08:30:09.893", "id": "2808", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-23T08:30:09.893", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2807", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "`うるさい` definitely conveys a negative attribute which you could reasonably call\n\"annoyance\".\n\nThis is why in Japanese, the equivalent of \"shut up!\" is `「うるさい！」`. It's\nsaying the noise you're making is annoying, and _therefor_ you should \"shut\nup\".\n\nSo if you say:\n\n> 工場{こうじょう}の中{なか}はうるさい\n\n... you're definitely saying \"the inside of the factory is loud\" in an\nuncomfortable way. \"Annoying,\" if you like.\n\nIf you wanted to say it with a neutral tone:\n\n> 工場{こうじょう}の中{なか}は音{おと}が大{おお}きい。\n\n\"There is a great deal of noise inside the factory.\"\n\n* * *\n\nOn a side note, I actually think the English \"noisy\" is also negative. If I\nwanted to describe the sound in the factory without a negative connotation I'd\nsay, \"It's _loud_ in the factory.\"", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T08:30:16.327", "id": "2809", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-08T11:11:48.300", "last_edit_date": "2014-03-08T11:11:48.300", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2807", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "I think it has a negative nuance.\n\nThe other day, I was walking next to a laboratory with a lot of computers. It\nmade hell of a noise. I said \"うるさいですね\" as we passed by, and some people around\nme told me that I had just done a blatant impoliteness.\n\nI still think that it's no more impolite than saying \"it's hot\" during summer,\nbut eh…", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T10:35:39.657", "id": "2810", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-23T10:35:39.657", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2807", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2816", "answer_count": 3, "body": "This is a follow-up question to [Does うるさい have a \"negative\"\nconnotation](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2807/does-have-a-\nnegative-connotation).\n\nI've seen `うるさい` written as `五月蝿い`.\n\n 1. 現代では、is this form used often / at all?\n 2. What does this have to do with flies (蝿【はえ】) in May? Do a lot of flies hatch in May due to excessive trash built up from Golden week? Or is there a lot of poop outside for some reason that attracts them? Or dead carcasses?\n 3. Is it at all related to 蝉【セミ】 and May is when they start to come out for the summer, and the [蝉時雨]{セミしぐれ} is unbearably noisy?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T15:03:35.030", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2811", "last_activity_date": "2020-11-08T04:54:11.667", "last_edit_date": "2020-11-08T04:54:11.667", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "kanji", "words", "meaning", "ateji" ], "title": "うるさい written as 五月蝿い", "view_count": 2288 }

[ { "body": "According to <http://gogen-allguide.com/u/urusai.html>\n\n`五月蝿い` is an ateji, from the fact that house flies in May are especially\nnoisy. Note that うるさい is often written in kana and I don't see it written in\nKanji very often unless the writer is trying to convey something. Even within\nnative speakers, this is considered to be one of the `難読漢字` (hard to read\nkanji)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T16:55:49.843", "id": "2812", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-23T17:03:46.740", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-23T17:03:46.740", "last_editor_user_id": "23", "owner_user_id": "23", "parent_id": "2811", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I've seen the spelling 煩い too, but うるさい seems the most common one to me.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T19:34:42.010", "id": "2813", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-23T19:34:42.010", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "644", "parent_id": "2811", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "1. The usage of 五月蝿い in the present day is not cut-and-dry. It is not an entirely abandoned spelling, but how common it is depends on the field.\n\n * Fact 1: Because 蝿 is not in the 常用漢字 list, editors of materials that stick to the list when possible (newspapers, materials for kids + learners, many other \"regular\" publishers, etc.) will not use it. Now, for some words that involve a mixture of 常用 and non-常用 kanji, publishers will just replace the offending kanji with kana, e.g. 漏えい instead of 漏洩. But because 五月蝿い is ateji as Ken points out, you can't apply that technique very well: the best you could do is 五月さい, but that is not very satisfactory because the 蝿 does not correspond to the さ in any meaningful way, and indeed without the 蝿 as a visual cue many people would probably read that string as ごがつさい and be momentarily confused. So if you can't use 蝿, you may as well just write it うるさい or, less likely, 煩い -- less likely because although 煩 is on the 常用漢字 list, うるさ[い] is not an approved reading for it.\n * Fact 2: 五月蝿い is nevertheless a pretty well-known ateji, and so in cases where there is no strict \"常用漢字 only!\" policy in place, it may be used. It is not uncommon in literature, for example, and as it will usually be offered as a choice by cellphone/computer input methods when you enter うるさい, many people might use it in mail or blogs even if they wouldn't use it writing by hand.\n 2. Okay, so first of all, this spelling is not fresh to the word うるさい. The word 五月蝿 /sabahe/ has been around since the Nihonshoki, and has been used to mean \"noisy and annoying\" since at least the 1100s, according to the 日本国語大辞典. So you had 五月蝿 meaning \"flies in month 5\", then 五月蝿 meaning \"noisy and annoying (like the flies in month 5)\", and then finally someone applied the block 五月蝿 to the spelling of うるさい. This may seem like a minor point, but my point is, the spelling 五月蝿 was presumably only invented once, and that a long time ago. It may be the case that the environmental or social conditions that made the flies in month 5 seem particularly annoying disappeared thousands of years ago; it doesn't necessarily correspond to anything in the present day. \n \nIncidentally: Why do I use the weird translation \"month 5\" above? Well, you\nhave to remember that 五月 in the old (lunar) calender isn't the same as 五月 in\nthe Gregorian calendar. It can overlap a bit with modern May but it more often\ncoincides with June and early July, when it starts getting really hot. I don't\nknow exactly what made ancient Japanese people single out the flies of the\nfifth month as noteworthy, but it clearly had nothing to do with Golden Week\n:)\n\n 3. No, I doubt it has anything to do with cicadas. I'm not aware of any evidence that ancient or modern Japanese had trouble telling flies and cicadas apart, so if they'd meant 蝉 they would have written it that way. Also, as noted above the 五月 part doesn't correspond to May.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T00:25:49.880", "id": "2816", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-24T00:36:24.327", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-24T00:36:24.327", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2811", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2815", "answer_count": 1, "body": "How do we decide whether to call a shirt a ワイシャツ or 背広 ? What's the difference\nin nuance between the two terms?\n\nSide question: [EDICT](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E3%83%9B%E3%83%AF%E3%82%A4%E3%83%88%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A3%E3%83%84)\nclaims that a ホワイトシャツ is a white business shirt but even if it's a gray or\nblack (or what-have-you) colored business shirt, we can still call it a\nホワイトシャツ or ワイシャツ right?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T23:23:01.137", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2814", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-23T23:42:55.820", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "nuances" ], "title": "What is the difference between ホワイトシャツ・ワイシャツ and 背広?", "view_count": 191 }

[ { "body": "I think you're confused here. 背広 is a suit, not a shirt. As to the second\nquestion, ワイシャツ is the generic name for a dress shirt, button-down shirt,\noxford shirt, etc. Color doesn't enter into it. Also, ホワイトシャツ is archaic now.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T23:42:55.820", "id": "2815", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-23T23:42:55.820", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2814", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2826", "answer_count": 2, "body": "割合 and 率 both mean ratio, rate, and percentage. What is the difference?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T02:27:25.147", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2817", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T07:59:05.233", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-24T06:09:21.787", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "619", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "vocabulary", "nuances", "kanji" ], "title": "Difference between 割合 vs 率", "view_count": 537 }

[ { "body": "Neither means percentage. Percentage is one hundred times ratio or rate. The\nJapanese word for it is `百分率`. Likewise, permillion is one million times ratio\nor rate. The Japanese word for it is `百万分率`.\n\nMy impression is that `割合` and `ratio` are the general terms for a quantity\ndivided by another quantity (usually but not always of the same dimension).\n`率` and `rate` are especially for cases where its lowness or highness is\nconnected to its preferred amount in an ideal situation. For example, `率` or\n`rate` is used for `誤差~` or `error ~` because the ideal case would be zero. It\ncan be also used for `正解~` or `correctness ~` because the ideal situation will\nbe one. It is also used in `転送~` or `bit ~` because the larger the better.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T11:46:31.657", "id": "2826", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-24T11:46:31.657", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2817", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "these two words literally share the similar meanings of ratio,rate.\ntranslation of the the explaination from the [yahoo 知惠袋\nwebsite](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1410443619)\n\n割合 normally is used to refer to the proportion of sth,the relationship of one\nthing to another in size, amount, etc.\n\neg: 1. The proportion of men to women in the college has changed dramatically\nover the years. 近年学校の男女の割合を大きく変化しています。\n\n```\n\n 2. Limestone and clay in the proportion 2: 1. \n 石灰石と粘土の割合は２対１also :\n 石灰石と粘土の比率は２対１\n \n```\n\n率 is often used after a sort of noun in order to express the percent of\n...;for instance percentage \"百分率\", percent of pass \"合格率\", percent of\nattendance \"出勤率\" etc. and as mentioned above, when use with \"比\" as\"比率\",\n比率shall substitute \"割合\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T07:59:05.233", "id": "2846", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T07:59:05.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "651", "parent_id": "2817", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2821", "answer_count": 2, "body": "My understanding of the word `音沙汰【おとさた】(news, letter)` is that in terms of\nusage, it functions the same way that `連絡【れんらく】(contact, communication)` does.\nIt refers to modes of communication between people.\n\nThe context in which I read it was a book, written recently, where the author\nspoke about communication from a girlfriend at that time. The author seemed to\ndeliberately choose `音沙汰` over `連絡` to convey a different feeling of how\ncommunication was in the sixties, when the relationship happened.\n\nSo you could say:\n\n> 音沙汰がなかった\n\nor...\n\n> 連絡がなかった\n\n... and they would have the same essential meaning, but the former says,\n\"there was no contact by phone or letter,\" and the latter says \"there was no\ncontact by phone, letter, email, text, etc...\"\n\nSo my question is, does `音沙汰` mean communication in a sense of writing letters\nand making phone calls, and therefor has a\n[`昭和【しょうわ】`](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Dwa_period) era (or earlier)\nfeel to it?\n\nAnd has `音沙汰` been more or less entirely replaced in modern Japanese by `連絡`\nbecause now we use email and text messaging and a wider variety of more\nimmediate communication technologies?\n\nOr am I just totally off base about the meaning and usage of `音沙汰`?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T06:38:11.837", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2818", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T16:02:08.637", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T16:02:08.637", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "word-choice", "culture" ], "title": "Is 音沙汰 not used anymore because communication technology has changed?", "view_count": 346 }

[ { "body": "AFAIU, 音沙汰 doesn't limit what the media of communication is. You could refer\nto email, facebook etc when using 音沙汰.\n\n連絡 is more \"materialistic\" than 音沙汰. Or more bureaucratic. 音沙汰 is I guess more\n\"dramatic\" than 連絡. Basically you can use 連絡 for insignificant things as well\nas significant things, but 音沙汰 is more natural when it's used for significant\nthings.\n\nTo give you an example, it would be a (tiny) bit strange if you'd use 音沙汰 in\nthis way:\n\n```\n\n 今日の午後配達だと言っていたけど、宅配便の人から音沙汰はない\n \n```\n\nwhereas it sounds perfectly normal to say:\n\n```\n\n 今日の午後配達だと言っていたけど、宅配便の人から連絡はない\n \n```\n\nI guess the former sentence would become ok if it were\n\n```\n\n 昨日の配達だと言っていたけど、宅配便の人から音沙汰はない\n \n```\n\nbecause you'd expect 宅配便の人 to call etc. if it's been already a day.\n\nOn the other hand, both the below sentences sound perfectly ok:\n\n```\n\n 必ず弁償すると言っていたが、その後音沙汰はない\n \n 必ず弁償すると言っていたが、その後連絡はない \n \n```", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T09:14:10.413", "id": "2821", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T11:49:39.027", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T11:49:39.027", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2818", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Whereas `連絡` is neutral about the expectation, `音沙汰` implies expectation of\nits happening, and is used only within a negative context, like `しか`, `at\nall`, `一銭も`, `a red cent`. Following this fact, it is unnatural to use `音沙汰`\nwith `は` as in Enno's examples. It should be used with `が`.\n\n> 音沙汰がない \n> 'She hasn't sent a single letter' \n> 'She hasn't given a single phone call' \n> 'She hasn't given a single e-mail'\n>\n> 連絡がない \n> 'There is no communication from her'", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T12:41:24.433", "id": "2827", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-24T12:41:24.433", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2818", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2946", "answer_count": 3, "body": "A friend once commented to me that Japanese has a larger vocabulary than\nEnglish. I said I didn't think it did, because it wasn't really accurate to\ncall all kanji compounds \"words\". My friend said I was crazy.\n\nWords like `新車【しんしゃ】(new car)` and `愛車【あいしゃ】(one's own car / \"beloved\" car)`\nare in the dictionary, but... aren't they really just the application of\nprefixes to the word \"car\"?\n\nPut another way, in English I wouldn't consider \"neopragmatism\" it's own word,\nit's just the addition of the prefix \"neo\" to the word \"pragmatism\". (I don't\neven know if it's in the dictionary or not and won't look it up, because my\npoint is that as a native/fluent English speaker, I can stick 'em together if\nI want, dictionary be damned!) Aren't some kanji compounds the same kind of\nthing... not really words, but just obvious in meaning when combined\ncorrectly?\n\nPut yet another way, if one were trying to learn Japanese vocabulary, it would\nbe ridiculous to have a list that included all the possible kanji combinations\nthat get used in the real world. It's more efficient to learn a concept like\n`新` as a prefix and you instantly have potential understanding of many kanji\ncompounds - `新語【しんご】(new word)`, `新貨【しんか】(new currency)`, `新地【しんち】(new\nterritory)`, etc...\n\nSo, is any valid kanji compound really considered its own word in some kind of\nofficial or commonly understood sense, or are some kanji compounds considered\nmerely \"combinations\"?\n\nIf I combine kanji in some new and useful way, have I invented a new word, or\nam I merely using the kanji in the Lego-like combinative way they're intended\nto be used?\n\nAnother way I might ask is, do Japanese consider \"words\" and \"combinations\" as\nseparate things?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T07:18:34.593", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2819", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-07T06:14:17.763", "last_edit_date": "2015-06-16T13:54:25.040", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "words", "kanji", "compounds", "prefixes" ], "title": "Are all kanji compounds considered words?", "view_count": 5078 }

[ { "body": "If you follow your logic, you would have to say `New York` is not a word but\nare two words, or that there is no difference between `greenhouse` and `green\nhouse`. I think you have an essential misunderstanding about what words are,\nand you are confusing a word and a dictionary entity.\n\nWhenever a particular expression means something that cannot be obtained\nsystematically from the meaning of its components, then, that has to be\nspecified in the dictionary. Word is something that has integrity in the sense\nof accent pattern, etc. A dictionary entity may be a word, or may be a phrase\n(idiom). A word may be a dictionary entity, or may be created systematically\nand hence not in the dictionary.\n\nFor example, `greenhouse` as opposed to `green house` is a word and is a\ndictionary entity because its meaning cannot be systematically obtained from\nthe meanings of `green` and `house`; it meaning is something that is specific,\nand does not necessarily have to be green or have plants (green) grown inside.\nIf there is a word `neopragmatism`, that would probably have significance in\nthe relevant field of study, and would mean a particular academic school; It\nwould not mean anything that is 'newer' ('neo') than 'pragmatism'. I doubt\nthat you can 'stick them together and damn the dictionary'. For `新貨`, it is a\nword because of the integrity seen from the accent pattern, etc. It is a\ndictionary entity also because it has a specific meaning in the history of\nJapanese currency, and cannot mean anything that is a new coin. Likewise, for\n`新地`, I can imagine that it has a specific meaning for a particular area of\nland in the context of history about a certain geographical location; hence it\nis a dictionary entity.\n\nConclusion. All kanji compounds are a word. The moment you say compound, it is\na word (To be precise, not all of what you refer to are compounds). But that\nis independent of whether it is dictionary entity or not.\n\nYou may want to take a look at the German history, where many words came to be\nspelled together, hence assumed a single word, in order to increase the\ndictionary entries (which is inappropriate from what I mention above) and show\nthe superiority/strength of the language/country to the rest of the world.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T11:18:16.457", "id": "2824", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-24T12:23:48.943", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-24T12:23:48.943", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2819", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "I ran across this paper today (via\n[languagehat](http://www.languagehat.com/archives/004351.php)): \"[The\nindeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and\nsyntax](http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/staff/haspelmath/pdf/WordSegmentation.pdf)\",\nby Martin Haspelmath. It's a bit technical, but the boiled-down summary is\nthat it is difficult to define \"word\" such that the concept is applicable and\nuseful to all languages. (Some linguists might disagree; I tend towards\nsympathy with Haspelmath's view.)\n\nSo there is no \"official or commonly understood sense\" that we can appeal to\nhere -- or rather, there are lots, and which one we choose depends on what we\nwant to do with it. One simple pragmatic rule of thumb would be to say that a\n\"word\" is what's in the dictionary. In English, this means that things like\n\"New York\" and \"neoclassical\" are indeed words, and in Japanese it would mean\nthat the commonly accepted kanji compounds are words and the rest are not. But\nI guess you don't like this answer, because otherwise you wouldn't have needed\nto ask the question.\n\n> If I combine kanji in some new and useful way, have I invented a new word,\n> or am I merely using the kanji in the Lego-like combinative way they're\n> intended to be used?\n\nThe second half of this sentence kind of begs the question, I think: the way\nthey're \"intended to be used\"? (Intended by who?) What I would say is this:\nwhen you combine kanji that aren't habitually combined that way, you _are_ ,\nin most cases, inventing a new word. The reason for this is simple: simply\ncramming Sino-Japanese morphemes together like that does not result in an\nunremarkable sentence, even if your meaning is crystal clear. People will\nnotice what you're doing and consider it unusual. Thus, it's more akin to\nsaying \"blueplate\" than \"blue plate\" in English. And this is leaving aside any\nconsideration of accent, etc. (Note: I'm using \"kanji\" here but of course what\nI mean is \"morpheme that is associated with a particular kanji\".)\n\n(Sidebar: We might want to exclude cases where you combine groups of kanji\nthat are already words in their own right, e.g. 階級 \"class\" ＋ 意識\n\"consciousness\" = 階級意識 \"class consciousness\". On the other hand, we might want\nto consider this a long-ass four-kanji word; just because we segment it into\ntwo words in English doesn't mean it has to be that way -- in German it's\n_Klassenbewusstsein_ , which is clearly made up of _Klasse(n)_ \"class\" +\n_Bewusstsein_ \"consciousness\" in the same way.)\n\nNow, some morphemes-that-happen-to-be-associated-with-kanji are \"better at\"\nmaking new words than others. That is, you can attach 新- or 超- to pretty much\nanything and as long as an obvious meaning is apparent, most people will go\nwith it. Some, like -的 and -中, attach so easily that you might indeed question\nwhether the results are \"words\" as such. If you wanted to argue that many\ncompounds created spontaneously with -的 weren't \"real words\", and you accepted\nthat this means that words like \"lion-like\" in English also aren't \"real\nwords\", then I won't disagree with you. (I might have doubts about the\nusefulness of that definition of \"word\", but that's a different topic.)\n\nHowever! Kanji that can be freely recombined like this are very much in the\nminority. You are free to invent any word you like, of course, but that\ndoesn't mean that you can expect people to understand it. English is pretty\nflexible, too, but I still can't go around saying \"Blueplate the whitenings\nbefore you exroom later,\" even if it would be obvious what I meant from\ncontext.\n\nSo whether you call clusters of kanji \"words\" or \"combinations\", some clusters\nare going to be more acceptable than others, and people do have to learn those\nclusters by rote. It's true that you can often figure out the meaning from the\nkanji, so that if you haven't encountered a word before you can make a good\nguess at what it means -- but it doesn't work the other way round. If you have\na concept you want to express, and you don't know the word for it, you can't\njust throw kanji together and expect the result to be accepted without\ncomment. You have to say it in other words that you already know.\n\n(It's the same in English: Even if you know the morphemes \"tele-\" and\n\"vision\", how are you supposed to know that that's how you say \"television\"\ninstead of \"electro-opticon\" or something? You aren't; you can't. Knowing the\nmorphemes helps you figure out what new words you encounter mean, but it\ndoesn't help you figure out what combinations are actual words.)\n\nAnd so, with the exception of easily-combining kanji like 新 and so on, you\nreally do need to learn all the words you want to _use_ , one by one. You can\nonly reliably get away with guessing from first kanji principles when it comes\nto _passive_ tasks, like reading. (And even then, every so often you will make\na mistake, because the meaning of some multi-kanji compounds just isn't\ntransparent.)\n\n> Another way I might ask is, do Japanese consider \"words\" and \"combinations\"\n> as separate things?\n\nI don't know if this question is really answerable... until this question I\nwouldn't have thought that any English speaker would reject \"neopragmatism\" as\nan independent word, so clearly speakers of the same language can disagree on\nseemingly basic concepts like this.\n\nBut in the vast majority of cases, if you make up some combination of kanji\nthat is meaningful to you and ask a Japanese speaker \"is this a word?\", then\nunless it's in the dictionary (and they know it) they will say \"no\", and if\nyou ask them the same question about a compound that you know to exist, they\nwill almost certainly say \"yes\". If you press them on the \"no\", they might\nexpand their answer to \"well, I can see how you mean X by that compound; I\nguess it's a word now that you've coined it,\" but the point is, we don't have\nanywhere near absolute freedom to mix and match if we want to stay within the\nbounds of \"standard Japanese\" rather than \"psychedelic poetry.\"\n\n**Edit:** Dave sez in comments:\n\n> I think your very last statement that deviating from standard Japanese lands\n> you right into psychedelic poetry goes off the mark. Languages, and the\n> people that use them, invent new words and uses all the time, which is how\n> languages evolve as a matter of course.\n\nLet me address this because it is a fair point. \"Psychedelic poetry\" was an\nexaggeration, yeah. It's absolutely true that new words are invented as a\nmatter of course in language. The question isn't \"Can words be invented or\nnot?\", it's \"How much invention, and of what sort, can one get away with?\" And\nthe answer is determined by both cultural and personal factors:\n\n**Cultural:** So as we all know, from at least the late Edo period through to\nthe early Showa period, Japan was importing a bunch of concepts from foreign,\nnotably European sources. They didn't have words for these concepts, so they\ninvented new ones, and they often did it with kanji compounds, e.g. 競争 for\n\"contest\", 自由 for \"free\", 彼女 for \"her\" _(women weren't a new concept, of\ncourse, but the highly European style of pronoun use was)_. So back then, you\ncould get away with quite a lot of invention, although of course your newly\ncoined word would have a certain nuance of foreignness.\n\nBut, after WWII, the pendulum swung hugely towards importing foreign concepts\nusing phonetic loans (in katakana). This is why we say コンピューター instead of 電脳\nor whatever. And as a result of this swing, it became less normal to invent\nkanji compounds, and so new kanji compounds became more noticeable and \"odd\".\n\nSidenote 1: There was also a reaction against foreign influence (historically,\nmore about the early Chinese influence) in the shape of the\n[Kokugaku](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokugaku) school. They often coined\nnew words using native Japanese vocabulary to replace existing Sino-Japanese\nwords, and these new words had a distinctly \"Kokugaku\" feel. So even the\ncultural factors are not absolute; they depend on specific circumstances.\n\nSidenote 2: You can compare this kanji-compound frenzy with the use of Latin\nand Greek vocabulary to invent new scientific and engineering terms in\nEnglish, back when modern science was new and had to name all these new ideas\nit was discovering.\n\n**Personal:** The other thing about the \"getting away with\" concept is that it\nwill depend on how different you can handle being. If you (not you personally,\nDave, the general \"you\") are okay with everyone thinking of you as someone who\ninvents new words all the time, and you think that the possible negative\neffects of this (people thinking you're a weirdo for not speaking \"normally\",\nwork clients mistaking your creativity for simple error, etc.) are outweighed\nby the benefits of being able to say awesome things, then you will be able to\n\"get away with\" a lot more than someone who doesn't want to stand out that way\nand therefore has to stick to words that already exist.\n\nAnd this, too, is not absolute: it's very common for families, both English-\nand Japanese-speaking and presumably everywhere else, to have their own\njargon: words they invented or modified that everyone in the family\nunderstands but that no-one would dream of using outside the family, or expect\nanyone outside the family to accept as a \"real word\" (even if the meaning is\nquite clear).\n\nSo I guess what I'm saying is, I don't disagree with you that new words are\ninvented all the time and there is no absolute prohibition against it. It may\neven be true that Japanese is more flexible in this regard than English\nbecause kanji are perceived as \"modular\". But there are still many factors,\noften changing drastically over time, which condition the relative \"social\nacceptability\" of different kinds of word-coining.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-30T14:01:20.160", "id": "2946", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-31T04:05:29.877", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-31T04:05:29.877", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2819", "post_type": "answer", "score": 39 }, { "body": "In order to understand how kanji really works, you need to understand that\nkanji compounds sometimes mean exactly as they look. In that sense, I\nunderstand why you think of it as a prefix: As in Shinkansen. Shin means new\nand Kan sen has to do with a line of travel. In Japanese, it means bullet\ntrain.\n\nHowever, there are words such as SaYuu, where the two kanji put together form\na completely different concept. \nBy itself, Hidari also read as (sa) means left. Migi also read as (u) means\nright. When put together, they don't necesssarily mean left and right, but\nmight mean influence, and therefore, one would not be a prefix or a suffix of\nthe other, but they would be a completely different concept.\n\nThink of Oxymoron in English. If you tried to put these words together and\nform the meaning, you would not get the actual meaning that is in the\ndictionary, or at least not right away if you are not a native English\nspeaker. An oxymoron is like a satire based on a word or idea having one\nmeaning, but that meaning being used in the wrong way such as... government\nIntelligence.\n\nThere are cases, though, where shin is used like a prefix and means (new) to\ndescribe something. That can most easily be seen in town or city names. But\nShinbun (new hearing) is not correct. Shinbun means newspaper!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-05-07T06:14:17.763", "id": "58421", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-07T06:14:17.763", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "29823", "parent_id": "2819", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2823", "answer_count": 2, "body": "JLPT 2 has this word **短~** (たん)\n\n[EDICT](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E7%9F%AD#top) lists it as `fault; defect; weak point;` or\n`minor (music)`, however there isn't any examples at all on the usage of the\nword.\n\nDoes anyone have some example usages (applications) of the word ?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T08:58:13.760", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2820", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-24T10:48:33.487", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "usage", "vocabulary" ], "title": "How do we use the word 短~ in a sentence?", "view_count": 238 }

[ { "body": "That definition is very uncommon. A word like `短所【たんしょ】(weak point)` uses it\nin that sense, but in the vast majority of cases, the kanji `短` means \"short\"\nand changes words in a way that has that meaning in mind.\n\nTake a look at [this list of words beginning with\n`短`](http://www.jisho.org/words?jap=%E7%9F%AD&eng=&dict=edict&tag=&sortorder=relevance)\nto see how it's used.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T09:32:50.443", "id": "2822", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-24T09:32:50.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2820", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "There are two set phrases that come to mind:\n\n * 短を補う (remedy one's defects -- the EDICT definition)\n * 短を捨て、長を取る (discard the bad, retain the good).\n\nUsing 短 in this way is extremely kanbun-y and, apart from set phrases like the\nabove, as Dave M G says it would be unlikely to occur in regular speech.\n\nIn the musical sense of \"minor\", 短 is used as a prefix, like this:\n\n * イ短調 = (key of) A minor\n * 変ロ短調 = (key of) B♭ minor\n * 嬰ハ短調 = (key of) C♯ minor\n * ニ短三和音 = D-minor triad (D, F, A)\n * 短六度 = Minor sixth (interval)\n\nNote names and sharp/flat terminology are a whole different question\n([hint](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroha)), but basically 短調 = \"minor key\",\n短音階 = \"minor scale\", 短三和音 = \"minor triad\", etc. You can replace 短 with 長 to\nget the major version of any of these.\n\nUsing 短 in the context of music to mean \"minor\" _is_ completely normal -- in\nfact it is the _standard_ way to express the concept of \"minor\" found in\nclassical Western harmony.\n\nI note that you cite the word as \"短~\"; could it be that JLPT 2 is referring to\nthe use of 短 as a prefix? (I ask because of the squiggly line after it which\noften indicates \"insert something here\" in Japanese language learning texts.)\nAs Dave says, 短~ appears this way in 短所 \"weak point, fault\", 短気 \"short-\ntempered\" etc. with the meaning \"insufficient, faulty\" but it also very\ncommonly carries the meaning of literal shortness: 短期 \"short term\", 短距離 \"short\ndistance\", 短銃 \"pistol (= short gun)\", etc. You wouldn't learn this searching\nfor 短 on its own, though, as AFAIK 短 as the standalone Sino-Japanese word たん\nonly has the figurative meaning of \"fault\" discussed above, and not the\nliteral meaning of \"shortness\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T10:31:53.907", "id": "2823", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-24T10:48:33.487", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-24T10:48:33.487", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2820", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I feel like I hear だべ all the time (through TV and on the streets of Yokohama\nwhere I live), but I'm wondering about it's origins and modern usage.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T14:48:35.773", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2829", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-26T16:28:29.037", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "647", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "particles", "dialects" ], "title": "What dialects use だべ？", "view_count": 3791 }

[ { "body": "It's Tohoku dialect.\n\nBasically, だべ is だろう, 行ぐべ is 行こう. There are a lot of variations though, as you\ncan say for example だすっぺ for でしょう.\n\nI doubt though that your hear that a lot on TV, except during interviews of\npeople who suffers from the tsunami or nuclear accident. And it would be\nsubtitled anyway…\n\nEdit: Ok, so it seems that だべ is in fact an \"coastal\" ending. This is why your\nheard it in Yokohama, while in didn't where I lived. It's used all along the\nPacific coast, and is thus not restricted to Tôhoku. I do not know, though, if\nthey use べ without だ as in the examples I gave.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T04:03:51.387", "id": "2839", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T03:00:09.193", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-01T03:00:09.193", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2829", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I believe べ is the equivalent of the volitional in some, usually considered\nrural, northern dialects.\n\nFor instance, いぐべ = 行こう (with a systematic voicing thrown in for a good\nmeasure) of [Miyagi-ben](http://miyagiajet.tripod.com/miyagi-ben03.html).\n\nYou can also see [\"Tohoku Dialects as a Speech of Rednecks: Language Crossing\nin Japanese TV\nPrograms\"](http://ir.lib.shizuoka.ac.jp/bitstream/10297/5474/1/110214001.pdf).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-26T16:28:29.037", "id": "3582", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-26T16:28:29.037", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "808", "parent_id": "2829", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2832", "answer_count": 1, "body": "The example sentences in [WWWJDIC](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E3%81%8F%E3%81%B3) all use the word \"首\" in the \"fire\"\nsense (e.g. 彼を首にしてやる) hence I was wondering is the term only used to refer to\n\"firing\" someone?\n\nOr is it also used to refer to students who have just graduated and not yet\nfound a job (they have never had a job before so they can't be fired can\nthey)?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T00:24:25.660", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2831", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T03:30:32.283", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "usage", "vocabulary", "meaning" ], "title": "Can 首 be used to refer to students who have just graduated and not yet found a job?", "view_count": 168 }

[ { "body": "No, you can't use 首 to refer to students who have just graduated and don't\nhave a job yet.\n\nPardon me if I am incorrect here, but I think maybe you think that \"首にする\"\nmeans \"turn (someone) into a 首\", and so 首 is an idiom for \"unemployed person\"\nor something. [Edit: My apologies, it looks like you were just taking the word\nof EDICT, which (wrongly, I think) makes exactly this claim.] This is not the\ncase, though. \"首にする\" ultimately comes from the metaphor of beheading (!) and\nalthough it can be extended to other forms (もう首だろう etc.), it only refers to\nthe act of firing/being fired, not to the result (being unemployed). So, it is\nnot relevant to recent graduates... or any unemployed person, actually, except\ninsofar as you can talk about their past: \"She was fired in May,\" etc.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T01:14:26.800", "id": "2832", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T03:30:32.283", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T03:30:32.283", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2831", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2834", "answer_count": 2, "body": "WWWJDIC lists いちにん and ににん as alternative readings of 一人 {ひとり} and 二人 {ふたり},\nbut I can't recall anywhere I heard those readings except when counting more\nthan 10 people for example 三十一人 {さんじゅういちにん}. Is that the only situation where\n一人 and 二人 are read as いちにん and ににん, or are there any other situations?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T02:52:03.100", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2833", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T03:05:41.547", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "numbers", "readings", "counters" ], "title": "When to read 一人 and 二人 as いちにん and ににん?", "view_count": 1153 }

[ { "body": "Other than your example `三十一人`, I can think of `一人前`, `二人前`, `二人三脚`, `二人羽織`.\nBut by itself, I don't think they are read as 'いちにん' or 'ににん'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T03:02:33.940", "id": "2834", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T03:02:33.940", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2833", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "The only thing I can think of is `一人称【いちにんしょう】` and `二人称【ににんしょう】` meaning\n\"first person\" and \"second person\" respectively. This means \"person\" as in\n\"point-of-view\" or parts of speech (\"third person\" is `三人称【さんにんしょう】`).", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T03:05:41.547", "id": "2835", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T03:05:41.547", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2833", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2850", "answer_count": 2, "body": "How does 丼勘定 {どんぶりかんじょう} (sloppy accounting) related to 丼 {どんぶり} (bowl of rice\nwith toppings)? I mean, why どんぶり of all foods and things? Was there special\nhistory for the origin of this set phrase?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T03:16:24.583", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2836", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T12:00:11.973", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T03:23:26.043", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "etymology", "set-phrases" ], "title": "Why is there 丼 {どんぶり} in 丼勘定 {どんぶりかんじょう}?", "view_count": 208 }

[ { "body": "First, let's be a bit more precise. saiga-jp.com [gives](http://www.saiga-\njp.com/cgi-\nbin/dic.cgi?m=search&sc=0&f=0&j=%E4%B8%BC&g=&e=&s=&rt=0&start=1&sid=1314242595_34874)\n\n丼 a china bowl\n\n丼勘定 sloppy accounting, spending money unsystematically\n\ni.e. the character refers to the bowl itself directly, and only by extension\nto food served in such a bowl.\n\nSeems to me like it's a metaphor, and a fairly arbitrarily selected one. You\nmight as well ask why English speakers \"hit the nail on the head\", as opposed\nto (doing anything else properly), when they get something right. 勘 has\nmeanings like 'intuition' and 定 like 'determine', so (my guess!) the metaphor\nis of putting all the numbers (receipts?) into a bowl, swirling them around\nand pulling out a result that looks right.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T03:28:39.323", "id": "2837", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T03:28:39.323", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "627", "parent_id": "2836", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Judging by the following link, どんぶり in this phrase didn't originally refer to\nthe bowl, but a pocket in the front of an apron, where money was kept:\n<http://gogen-allguide.com/to/donburikanjyou.html>\n\nIf someone was throwing all the incoming money into one pocket and fishing out\nchange for customers from same, they probably didn't have a great idea at any\none time of how much they had or any way of keeping track.\n\n<http://www.samue.co.jp/shop/haori/ooedo4/ooedo4.html> \\- this has an Edo-\nstyle \"どんぶり\" for a little visual reference (you'll note they use どんぶり勘定 with\nthe hiragana).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T11:13:10.880", "id": "2850", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T12:00:11.973", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T12:00:11.973", "last_editor_user_id": "571", "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "2836", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "虚; 空; 洞 【うろ】: hollow; cavity; hole\n\npronunciation is only one but why are there three kanji words??what are they\ndifferences??", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T03:56:25.350", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2838", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T13:38:09.543", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "619", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "usage", "kanji", "words" ], "title": "虚; 空; 洞 【うろ】and differences", "view_count": 354 }

[ { "body": "**Why are there three kanji words?**\n\nAt the time when there was no writing in Japanese, there was no such\ndistinction. I'm guessing that the Chinese had separate words for the\ndifferent concepts. And when Chinese characters were brought into Japan,\nmultiple Chinese characters that had approximately the same meaning\ncorresponded to a word that the Japanese already had. Then these Chinese\ncharacters were assigned to the Japanese concept.\n\n* * *\n\n**What are their differences?**\n\nConsider `探す` and `捜す`. Both are `さがす` and mean \"to search\". `捜す` nuance is\n\"to search for something lost\".\n\nIn the similar vein of kanji sharing readings and similar meanings, I'm\nguessing 虚, 空 and 洞 take on the nuances of \"hollow\", \"cavity\" and \"hole\".\n\nI'm of the opinion that they are different. (If my shirt had a tear, I would\nsay it had a 穴 or 洞 rather than a 空. A hole in my shirt makes more sense than\na cavity in my shirt. The boundary of \"cavity\" has an added dimension to that\nof \"hole\")\n\nConsider the following:\n\n(To analyse the sense of the kanji I'm also going to consider other readings\nfor the said kanji along with compound words)\n\n> For 虚:\n>\n\n>> 1. きょえい [虚栄] (n) vanity, vainglory (abstract nothingness, as opposed to\nsomething tangible being absent)\n\n>>\n\n>> 2. うつろなめ [虚ろな目] (n) vacant eyes (abstract nothingness)\n\n>>\n\n>> 3. きょぎょう [虚業] (n) risky business (Risky; might amount to `nothing`)\n\n>>\n\n>> 4. きょすう [虚数] (n) complex number, imaginary part, imaginary number (I'm\ntrying to illustrate abstractness)\n\n>>\n\n>> 5. うそ [嘘] (n) lie, falsehood, incorrect fact, inappropriate (the 口\nradical with 虚; to speak (use 口 for 虚) but the result is as good as not\nspeaking i.e. a lie)\n\n>>\n\n>>\n\n>\n> If I were to try to squeeze these senses into a concept available in\n> English, it would be \"void\". This would be most similar to \"hollow\" as I\n> feel that \"hollow\" describes abstract qualities better than \"cavity\" or\n> \"hole\". (I'm not saying that \"cavity\" or \"hole\" cannot be used in an\n> abstract sense though)\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> For 空: (Ignoring the sense of \"air\" or \"gaseous\" as that would result in too\n> much data)\n>\n\n>> 1. あき, すき [空き, 明き] (n) room, time to spare, emptiness, vacant\n\n>>\n\n>> 2. あきかん [空き缶] (n) empty can (Intangible, but suggests absence of a\n`something` thereby creating a space)\n\n>>\n\n>> 3. あきがら [空き殻] (n) empty shell (Intangible, but suggests absence of a\n`something` thereby creating a space)\n\n>>\n\n>> 4. くうそうてき [空想的] (adj-na) imaginary (Abstract)\n\n>>\n\n>> 5. くうせつ [空説] (n) groundless rumor or story (Intangible)\n\n>>\n\n>> 6. くうそう [空想] (n, vs) daydream, fantasy, fancy, vision (Intangible)\n\n>>\n\n>>\n\n>\n> Here we see that 空 has the sense of \"hollow\"(abstract and non-abstract) and\n> \"cavity\". \"cavity\" suggests a space bounded by something e.g. a can, a shell\n> or a room. As opposed to \"hole\" which boundary is different from a cavity.\n> (See previously given example of a hole in a shirt)\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> For 洞:\n>\n> I'm very tempted to equate this to the Chinese 洞[dòng] which in Japanese\n> would be 穴[あな], literally meaning \"hole\". However, reading Japanese\n> dictionary entries suggest that 洞 in Japanese is quite different from its\n> Chinese main meaning:\n>\n\n>> 1. どうけつ, ほらあな [洞穴] (n) cave, den, grotto\n\n>>\n\n>> 2. どうけん [洞見] (n, vs) insight, discernment\n\n>>\n\n>> 3. どうさつ [洞察] (n, vs) discernment, insight\n\n>>\n\n>> 4. どうさつりょく [洞察力] (n) insight, discernment\n\n>>\n\n>> 5. どうもん [洞門] (n) cave entrance, tunnel\n\n>>\n\n>>\n\n>\n> Now I'm going to bring in a Chinese dictionary definition of 洞:\n>\n\n>> 没有堵塞，可以穿通 (méi yǒu dǔ sè, kě yǐ chuān tōng) Which would mean \"Not blocked,\ncan pass through\"\n\n>\n> This Chinese definition works perfectly for 1. through 5. above. Passing\n> through physically into a cave, and passing through cognitively to attain\n> insight. Still a dimension less than \"cavity\" though, it only specifies a\n> hole, but beyond that does not specify a \"3D\" boundary.\n\n* * *\n\n**For fun** :\n\nHere's some food for thought that compounds the kanjis in question:\n\n> くうきょ [空虚] (adj-na, n) emptiness, vacancy. (Seems to be used abstractly)\n>\n> くうどう [空洞] (n) cave, hollow, cavity\n>\n> くうどうか [空洞化] (n, vs) making hollow, making meaningless", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T13:38:09.543", "id": "2916", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T13:38:09.543", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2838", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "I was taught that these two phrases are interchangeable and have the same\nmeaning.\n\nHowever, I recently wrote a few practice sentences using this grammar point\nand they were corrected to use ずには instead of ないでは\n\nThe sentences I wrote were:\n\n> 1. 知り合いにそっくりだったので、話しかけ **ないでは** いられなかった。\n> 2. まだ子供なので、許さ **ないでは** いられなかった。\n>\n\nHowever, both of these were corrected to:\n\n> 1. 知り合いにそっくりだったので、話しかけ **ずには** いられなかった。\n> 2. まだ子供なので、許さ **ずには** いられなかった。\n>\n\nI was under the impression that both were acceptable and can't find anything\nstating otherwise. Is there something in particular with these sentences that\nthey can only use ずには？ Or am I completely missing something?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T04:06:10.967", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2840", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-01T21:47:34.530", "last_edit_date": "2017-02-01T21:46:59.807", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "negation", "auxiliary-ず" ], "title": "What is the difference between 〜ないではいられない and 〜ずにはいられない", "view_count": 2200 }

[ { "body": "Both are same meaning.\n\n｢動ーない形」 + 「ないではいられない」 e-g(1)．彼のもの真似を見るとおかしくて、笑わないではいられない。\n\n「する」 +「せずにはいられない」\n\ne-g(1).知り合いにそっくりだったので、話しかけずにはいられなかった。\n\ne-g(2).車の多い道路で遊んでいる子供を見て、注意せずにはいられなかった。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T04:39:20.973", "id": "2841", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T08:48:40.367", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T08:48:40.367", "last_editor_user_id": "619", "owner_user_id": "619", "parent_id": "2840", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I would think it would be degree of politeness/formality where ずに seems more\npolite/formal.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T01:07:15.180", "id": "2860", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T01:07:15.180", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "2840", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "IMO both of these sentences are correct.\n\n> 1. 知り合いにそっくりだったので、話しかけないではいられなかった。\n> 2. まだ子供なので、許さないではいられなかった。\n>\n\nAs a native speaker, the sentences did feel a bit odd to me at first. This is\nprobably because ずには is much more frequently used than ないでは. Perhaps this is\nbecause it's shorter and easier to pronounce.\n\nMy layman advice is to stick to ずには.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T01:45:44.090", "id": "2862", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-01T21:47:34.530", "last_edit_date": "2017-02-01T21:47:34.530", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2840", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2880", "answer_count": 2, "body": "他 is one of these common words that still to this day confuses me...\n\nMy general assumption is that:\n\n * used as a prefix, it should always be read 【た】, e.g.: 他人【たにん】\n * when treated as a \"substantive\" (that is essentially, followed by の), it is 【ほか】: 他【ほか】の人【ひと】(?)\n\nBut then, some expressions crop up, like 他の物, which my dictionary indicates as\nread 【たのもの】, and make me doubt whatever little I have deduced so far.\n\nCould anybody settle the た/ほか rules once and for all (and point out any nuance\nin meaning, if they exist, between the two usages)?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T05:29:45.073", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2842", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-18T21:45:11.330", "last_edit_date": "2014-06-18T03:50:52.790", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 25, "tags": [ "grammar", "readings" ], "title": "Reading (and usage) of 他: when is it 【た】, when is it 【ほか】?", "view_count": 2849 }

[ { "body": "You are right about when to read it as `た`. The cases where it is read as `ほか`\nis correct, but some (mainly aged) people optionally read it as `た`.\nSimilarly, `等` is read as `など` or `とう`, but some aged people read it as `とう`\ninstead of `など`.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T08:13:21.580", "id": "2880", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T08:13:21.580", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2842", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "First I want you to know you are asking about what people would call the\ndifference between on-reading and kun-reading (音読み versus 訓読み), which are\nancient chinese (or sino-japanese, as my professor refers it) reading and\n(traditional) japanese reading respectively. **Simply speaking, chinese\noriginated words (or parts) are pronounced in sino-Japanese ways. japanese\noriginated words are pronounced in traditional Japanese ways.** and that was\n**supposed** to be the grand, master, iron rule of pronouncing things in\nJapanese\n\nSecond is, the state of Japanese is defined on a \" **sort of** as-is\" basis,\nthat is to say, while there are some unclear rules, whatever people are used\nto reading in practice, it may become regulation. This is why you see these\ndifferent readings. Rendaku(連濁, or sequential voicing, another thing that\nmight change the pronunciation of a word) is a wonderful example of a twisted\n(metaphorically) morphology rule in Japanese. Japanese people sometimes\ndeliberately play with the pronunciation of a kanji to express even more\nmeanings than it already have.\n\n**So what I would recommend is, do it the hard way, learn a lot of words,\nbefore you start guessing.(as opposed to trying to find a general rule)**\n\nBack to your answer. I think you sort of got it in your two rules, they are\ntwo special cases of two meta-rules.\n\n1, prefix can be associated to an on-reading because words that are pronounced\nin sino-japanese are either of chinese origin, or japanese-made-chinese word.\n\n**This is why you feel they are always prefix of something** : most chinese\nwords have two chinese charecters.\n\n2, On the opposite, when a kanji **stands alone** as a word or with a kana on\nits side, it is more likely a kun-reading word. \"hokano hito\" is a good\nexample because the kanji 他 is alone. But relating it with the use of \"no\"\nmight not be such a good idea. because no connects nouns, and nouns are....\nnasty.\n\nAgain, there are many exceptions to my rule 1 and 2, I know you guys are gonna\nlist it any way, so i might as well provide some:\n\nTo your second question: not all kanji can distinguish meaning with its\npronunciation alone in a word. and unfortunately i find it hard to do so with\n他.\n\nYou can often tell the origin and sound changes happened along the history\nthough, which nobody cares unless you are linguist or really, really love the\nlanguage.\n\nbtw there are more readings of this kanji that are not used, thought you might\nbe interested. from <http://kotobank.jp/word/%E4%BB%96>\n\n［音］タ（呉）（漢） ［訓］ほか あだし ［名のり］(<-that's for people's names)おさ・ひと\n\nEdit: I would definitely read 他の物 \"hokano mono\" because its less confusing.\nta+no become the head/stem of words such as \"tano-mu\" \"tano-mashii\", which\nboth have a tail started with m.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-06-18T21:45:11.330", "id": "17499", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-18T21:45:11.330", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "6610", "parent_id": "2842", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2847", "answer_count": 1, "body": "A book I've read states that けど is a 接続詞 (conjunction).\n\nHowever, another book I had read states that it is a 助詞 (particle).\n\nWho is right?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T07:34:34.320", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2844", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-21T15:46:49.093", "last_edit_date": "2014-12-21T15:46:49.093", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "terminology", "conjunctions" ], "title": "Is けど a 接続詞 (conjunction) or 助詞 (particle)?", "view_count": 527 }

[ { "body": "けど is a conjunction.It is not a particle. In conjunction with… …と関連［接続］して；\n…と合同［連絡］して, …とともに. and けど is also 接助・終助.\n\nadverbial particles 副詞的小詞 《on, in, out, over, off など》.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T08:38:04.223", "id": "2847", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T09:35:25.797", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T09:35:25.797", "last_editor_user_id": "619", "owner_user_id": "619", "parent_id": "2844", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 5, "body": "How did the の get in the expression 「◯◯のバカ!」? Was the expression originally\nlonger? Is there any other example of usage other than insults?\n\n(other example I know of: 「つよし君のエッチ!」 or anything to the same effect)\n\nEdit: Another example by Pacerier: 「Tsunadeのばあさん」. Seeing that バカ is also a\nnoun, that would make them similar grammatically.\n\nEdit 2: Or maybe not. I think what I hear in old-fashioned candy stores are\nsurnames, not first names, e.g. 高橋のばあさん, whereas it would mean \"the grandma of\nTakahashi household (whose store sells candies)\". I don't know if Tsunade is a\nsurname or not though.\n\nI did a quick search and miraculously, one BBS that is discussing construct\nuses the exact same sentence 「お父さんのバカ！」:\n<http://mentai.hanako.2ch.net/gengo/kako/981/981698334.html>", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T07:40:37.210", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2845", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-09T03:48:08.923", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T15:01:23.193", "last_editor_user_id": "154", "owner_user_id": "154", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "particle-の" ], "title": "What is the role of の in 「お父さんのバカ!」", "view_count": 1550 }

[ { "body": "This `の` is not the possessive-genitive like English `'s`, but is the of-\ngenitive like English `of`. English has a similar expression `stupid of my\nfather`. Genitive case is the case that a noun can assign to a noun, and since\nthe predicate `ばか` here is a(n) (adjectival) noun, genitive case is used.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T10:03:39.083", "id": "2848", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T20:46:30.953", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T20:46:30.953", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2845", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "It's very common, and is not a possessive.\n\nI usually translate this kind of AのB as \"B the A\". お父さんのバカ is \"father the\nidiot\", or more naturally \"that idiot father\". Another example is I was given\nages ago was \"犬のボビー\" for \"Bobby the dog\". I sometimes introduce myself as\n\"フランス人のX\" (where X is my real secret identity) which is again a similar\nconstruction.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T10:55:35.980", "id": "2849", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T10:55:35.980", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2845", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Some people (e.g. Samuel E. Martin, John R. Bentley, Alexander Vovin) argue\nthat this の is actually (or originally) a \"defective verb\", distinct from\ngenitive の. Here's Vovin's explanation, from \"A reference grammar of early\nJapanese prose\" (2003):\n\n> 5.2.1.4 Defective verbs \n> \n> The traditional grammar makes no mention of defective verbs, these being\n> verbs with fewer paradigmatic forms than other verbs. There are three\n> defective verbs in Classical Japanese, _n-_ \"to be\", _to_ \"to say\", and _to_\n> \"to be\". I include below a detailed description of the existing paradigmatic\n> forms of these defective verbs. \n> \n> 5.1.2.4.1 Defective verb _n-_ \"to be\" \n> \n> The defective verb _n-_ \"to be\" has only three paradigmatic forms:\n> infinitive _n-i_ , gerund _n-ite_ , and attributive _n-o_. Its major\n> function is that of a copula. Samuel E. Martin was the first scholar who\n> proposed to treat the various forms of _n-_ as rudimentary copula forms\n> (Martin 1988:34). In traditional Japanese grammar they are usually treated\n> as 接続助詞 \"connective particles\" (Ikeda 1975:205-218). [...] \n> \n> 5.1.2.4.1.3 Attributive form of the defective verb _n-_ \"to be\" \n> \n> The function of the attributive form _n-o_ is the same as that of its\n> modern counterpart _no_ in the Modern Japanese examples _tomodati no\n> gakusei_ \"a student who is [my] friend\", _mei no Sumiko_ \"Sumiko who is [my]\n> niece\". [...] \n> \n> 竹とりの翁 \n> Taketori n-o okina \n> Taketori be-ATTR old man \n> old man Bamboo-Cutter (TM 29.2) [...]\n\nVovin argues that this is also the /no/ we see used with numbers in\nconstructions like _Shichinin no samurai_ (\"The Seven Samurai\").\n\nI'm not convinced at this point that treating these phenomena as defective\nverbs solves more problems than it creates (i.e. that it isn't easier just to\nview them as semantic extension of the particles they resemble) -- but then, I\ndon't have nearly as comprehensive an understanding of the details as\nMartin/Bentley/Vovin do. So I'm throwing this in here as something interested\nparties might want to read up on.\n\nIncidentally, this analysis would be susceptible to the same counterargument\nas Axioplase's 犬のボビー: specifically, the objection that 犬のボビー that means\n\"Bobby, who is a dog\", but お父さんのばか means \"My father is an idiot\", not \"The\nidiot, who is my father\". But I think that expressions like お父さんの馬鹿 can be\nunderstood as exclamations directed _at_ the person they describe. \"You fool!\"\n→ \"You fool, who art my father!\" (cf \"Our father, who art in Heaven\"). This\nworks even if the addressed person is not present, just as I can cry \"Damn\nyou, Mendoza!\" if I discover Mendoza's evil handiwork long after Mendoza has\nfled town.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T23:46:31.857", "id": "2938", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-29T23:46:31.857", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2845", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "As @syockit points out, there's a big difference between お父さんのバカ！ and 犬のボビー.\n\nお父さんのバカ！ is an exclamation in itself, and cannot be used as a grammatical\nelement in a bigger phrase. If you wanted to do that, you would have to say\nバカなお父さん, with な in this case, because バカ is a na-adjective.\n\nFor nouns that do not also work as na-adjectives, e.g. お父さんの無礼者！, it would\nturn into 無礼者のお父さん, the appositive use of の.\n\nEnglish also has a concept of 'appositive genitive' which resembles の's\nappositive usage:\n\n * (Something is rotten in) the state of Denmark\n * the month of May\n\netc.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-02T15:38:12.620", "id": "4533", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-02T15:38:12.620", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "2845", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "The の in 「お父さんのバカ！」 is the [genitive no-\nparticle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case).\n\nBasically the function of the genitive no-particle is to convert a _noun_ into\nan _adjective_ so that it can describe a noun.\n\nIt is useful to think of 「お父さんのバカ！」 as the _long-version_ of 「バカ！」, for the\nsame reason that 「赤い花！」 is the _long-version_ of 「花！」.\n\nWe can roughly dissect the sentence 「お父さんのバカ！」 into 3 parts:\n\n> 1. noun 「お父さん」: father\n>\n> 2. genitive particle 「の」 (converts the noun お父さん into an adjective to\n> describe 「バカ」)\n>\n> 3. noun 「バカ」: an idiot\n>\n>\n\nAnd the literal translation of the sentence 「お父さんのバカ！」 is roughly:\n\n> Dad-the-idiot!", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-06-09T03:48:08.923", "id": "5782", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-09T03:48:08.923", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "parent_id": "2845", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "I'm sure this is a translation of a haiku but I'm not able to find the\noriginal text or even the author.\n\n> As the sun\n>\n> goes down the birds\n>\n> land one by one.\n\nI've been trying to Google it but can't seem to find anything.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T20:03:46.723", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2852", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-11T09:52:03.117", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "655", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "translation", "resources", "quotes", "poetry" ], "title": "Looking for the original Japanese of this haiku", "view_count": 415 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2863", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I saw on a board the other day someone referring to insecticide as \"薬\", which\ndoesn't really fit with the English conception of \"medicine\". I looked up \"薬\"\nin Kenkyuusha, and sure enough, \"chemical\" was listed as a meaning (along with\n\"enamel\", which is just weird if you ask me, but anyway . . .). My question\nis, how broadly does the \"chemical\" sense apply in normal usage? For example,\nwould an adhesive,a cleanser, or a solvent be classed as \"薬\"? Additionally,\nare there other senses which might surprise an English speaker?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T20:52:52.567", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2853", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T01:57:25.507", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "meaning" ], "title": "How broad is the meaning of 薬?", "view_count": 498 }

[ { "body": "> Additionally, are there other senses which might surprise an English\n> speaker?\n\nI was surprised at how it is used in relation to explosives:\n\n * 火薬【かやく】 → Gunpowder\n * 弾薬【だんやく】→ Ammunition\n * 爆薬【ばくやく】→ Explosive", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T22:57:36.163", "id": "2854", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T22:57:36.163", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2853", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "If you pronounce it くすり, then it basically exclusively refers to something\nthat will have a positive effect on living beings (primarily therapeutic but\nalso in a more lax manner). In a strict sense くすり will be material, but it can\nalso be used as a metaphor: \nNote: I wrote くすり for illustrative purpose, but normally it is written as 薬.\n\n```\n\n このくすりを呑みなさい (therapeutic)\n スパイスはくすりにもなるのでたくさん食べましょう (\"good for your body\")\n 歩道でスケートボードしてて骨折か。まぁ、いいくすりになったんじゃないの？ (metaphoric)\n 水槽にくすりを入れてあげなさい (to non-humans)\n \n```\n\nMetaphorically, it can be applied to non-living things as well, but it must\nhave an positive effect: 日本経済に処方するくすりとなるか？\n\nWhen it's pronounced やく, it's basically exclusively used in conjunction with\nother kanji, as in 薬品、爆薬、薬量、薬価 etc. etc. Here it can more broadly refer to\nchemicals. If you are a chemist, a cleaner may well be a 薬品. If you are a\nlayperson, to call an ordinal cleaner \"薬品\" sounds a bit odd. If it's some kind\nof an potent, special cleaning agent or something, then ppl use 薬品. I guess\nthat's similar to English.\n\nYou might hear the word \"ヤク\", which I believe comes from 薬. This is\nexclusively a slang for entertaining drugs (basically illegal drugs).", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T01:57:25.507", "id": "2863", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T01:57:25.507", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2853", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2884", "answer_count": 2, "body": "\n\nThe passage suggests that **not all na-type adjectives can be used as real\nnouns** as shown in (b). It doesn't seem to be a case of careless choice of\nwords, since in the 2nd para, the passage uses \"some\" and in the 3rd para, the\npassage uses \"all\", and there is an explicit contrast.\n\nI was wondering why is it that not all na-type adjectives can be used as real\nnouns. As far as I know, all na-type adjectives can be used as if they are\nreal nouns, like for example, this is grammatical right:\n\n```\n\n 特有は確かだ\n \n```\n\nIs there even 1 na-type adjective that can't be used as a real noun as shown\nin (b) (to prove that passage right) ?", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T00:42:47.073", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2855", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T03:28:29.937", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "na-adjectives" ], "title": "Is there even 1 na-type adjective that can't be used as a real noun?", "view_count": 714 }

[ { "body": "_Is there even 1 na-type adjective that can't be used as a real noun as shown\nin (b) (to prove that passage right) ?_ : Yes. 確かに一つの答えは確かだ。", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T01:06:34.867", "id": "2859", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T01:06:34.867", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2855", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "If we are to follow how Japanese dictionaries classify them, we don't have to\nworry about the fact **\"not all na-type adjectives can be used as real\nnouns\"**. The Japanese dictionary lists `健康` as both 名詞 (noun) and 形容動詞 (na-\nadjective) so that's why it can be used as a noun. On the other hand, `確か` is\nnot listed as noun, therefore it cannot be used as a noun. One more example is\n`きれい`.\n\n* * *\n\nPreviously I used [dic.yahoo.co.jp](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp) or\n[dictionary.goo.ne.jp](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp). Now maybe I recommend\n[Weblio](http://www.weblio.jp/). It also has bidirectional English-Japanese\ndictionary ([other screenshot](https://i.stack.imgur.com/S2VoE.png)). ", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T18:05:54.567", "id": "2884", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T03:28:29.937", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-03T03:28:29.937", "last_editor_user_id": "154", "owner_user_id": "154", "parent_id": "2855", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2858", "answer_count": 3, "body": "The title of a piano arrangement of a Touhou song (Hakurei Reimu's Theme) is:\n\n> 「東方永夜抄 - Imperishable Night.」 より 博麗霊夢のテーム\n\n**(Question)** What does `より` do in the title?\n\nIf it were to mean \"from the game \"Imperishable Night\"\", would `から` be just as\nsuitable?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T00:45:18.363", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2856", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-20T05:59:35.823", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "particle-より" ], "title": "より not used for comparing?", "view_count": 2036 }

[ { "body": "You are correct that より means from, and can be replaced with から. - rdbより", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T00:58:03.550", "id": "2857", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T00:58:03.550", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2856", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "`より` as well as `から` means 'from'. This is the primary meaning. Many languages\nuse the word corresponding to 'from' for introducing the standard for a\ncomparative. It is the comparative usage that is the derived meaning.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T01:06:32.793", "id": "2858", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-20T05:59:35.823", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-20T05:59:35.823", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2856", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "There are many uses of より that are not comparative per se.\n\nIn some communications, when A writes to B, A starts his letter with \"Bさんへ\"\n(To B). And when he signs, A writes \"Aより\" (From A).\n\nAlso , one can write \"ニンテンドー3DS 本日より値下げ、新価格 1万5000円\" to express \"Starting\ntoday, the 3DS becomes cheaper with a new price of 15000 JPY\".\n\nMoreover, as a source of information is cited, より is often used:\n天気予報により明日は雨です: according to the weather forecast, it will rain tomorrow. \n(Nota bene: in this case, より is the verb よる in 連用形, hence the presence of\nparticle に before it. One could also say \"によって\" or \"によると\".)\n\nFinally, your case is also a source (but not a retransmission of information\nnor a citation). It's just \"from\". This feels (and probably is) more formal\nthan \"から\", and is very common.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T01:39:04.547", "id": "2861", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T04:34:24.663", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-26T04:34:24.663", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2856", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2866", "answer_count": 3, "body": "One day, I asked my japanese friend how I could invite some friends to eat. He\nsaid \n\"一緒に食べに行くかい？\"\n\nI know that we could also say:\n\n行きましょうか（行こうか）？ \n行きませんか（行かない）？ \n行きますか（行くの）？\n\nbut I got interested in why he used \"kai\". \nI'd like to know others situations that japanese people use \"kai\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T02:35:28.770", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2864", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-12T01:21:35.997", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-12T01:21:35.997", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "usage", "particles", "register", "questions", "sentence-final-particles" ], "title": "In what situation can I use ~かい (for interrogative question)?", "view_count": 18590 }

[ { "body": "As opposed to 「か」, which is open-ended and can have any sort of answer, 「かい」\nis expected to have an answer in the affirmative or negative only, that is,\nyes or no, with subsequent explanation optional.\n\nExample:\n\n> 誰か来たのか \n> 誰か来たのかい\n>\n> 誰が来たのか \n> × 誰が来たのかい", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T02:46:34.967", "id": "2866", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T04:07:32.200", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "2864", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "I'm not so sure about the folksiness, but it's definitely very informal. I've\nmainly heard it used in speaking to children and intimates. I don't think it\nwould be used toward social superiors in most situations. By the way, there's\nan analogous variant of the copula, だい, as in 「ママのおにぎりはどうだい？」.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T03:07:41.220", "id": "2867", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T03:07:41.220", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2864", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "かい is used to soften the rudeness of か in informal speech. Sentences like\n\"見たか？\" or \"好きか？\" are harsh to the ear, and using かい instead of か is thus nicer\nto the listener.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T03:46:46.393", "id": "2872", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T03:46:46.393", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2864", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2871", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I learned from a Japanese friend that ふむふむ could be translated like \"oh, I got\nit\", \"I see\", \"I know\", or \"ok\". It could be also in this form: ふむふむ なるほど\n\nBut, my sister lived in Japan for 5 years, and she had never heard of it.\n\nIs it still used?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T03:28:30.813", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2868", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-06T13:33:55.990", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:50:27.820", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "usage", "onomatopoeia" ], "title": "Is「ふむふむ」still used nowadays?", "view_count": 7279 }

[ { "body": "Friends and I quite often use \"ふむ\" (just once) in electronic communications in\norder to show acknowledgement, though with a very slight nuance of reluctance\nor thoughtful consideration.\n\nHere's an example from a native Japanese speaker, after hearing about the\ncontext of a quiproquo:\n\n> ふむ。誤解されやすい書き方をしたので間違えて解釈されちゃったんだろう。\n\nThough it's not \"I know\", it's definitely \"OK\", \"I see\" or something like\nthat.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T03:43:52.013", "id": "2871", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T03:43:52.013", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2868", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I use ふむ as well. Seldom ふむふむ. I think that's true for many people. I don't\nknow how to put this well, but basically it sounds a bit.. um.. ridiculous\nmaybe? \nYou see it often in manga.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T03:52:55.227", "id": "2874", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T03:52:55.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2868", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I think Sexy Commando says either \"ふむふむ、なるなる...\" or\"なるふむなるふむ\" while reading a\nnewspaper in one episode. Obviously, this is a humorous use.\n\nBTW, I have a great related oyaji gag: I put out my hand to see if it was\nraining. By chance, a bird flew overhead just then and dropped some poop,\nwhich fell into my hand. I looked at it and said ふーーん?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T15:40:31.357", "id": "2883", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T14:18:50.423", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-27T14:18:50.423", "last_editor_user_id": "647", "owner_user_id": "647", "parent_id": "2868", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "A Japanese friend I started talking to two days ago (he's 27) uses ふむふむ with\nme when we write to each other. Sorry, I don't remember where in Japan he's\nfrom.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-12-06T13:33:55.990", "id": "19786", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-06T13:33:55.990", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7876", "parent_id": "2868", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2873", "answer_count": 1, "body": "It seems common enough for Japanese to attempt to use English, that we get\nsome truly bizarre translations. Especially bad are older games that were non-\nprofessionally translated to what we came to call \"Engrish\", due to what could\nhave been a misspelling of the very name for our language. I don't imagine\nthis happens, or happened, very often in the reverse direction. Is there a\nword in Japanese for Japanese text that has been poorly translated from\nEnglish (or any language)?\n\nIn particular, imagine a game that has perfectly normal Japanese, but you can\nchoose the language, and the language list has \"English\" spelt \"Engrish\",\ngiving you an early warning sign that this could be really bad (and possibly\nalso really awesome, but not intentionally). I'm looking for the opposite\nmistake, where it's the Japanese that's poor, if it exists and can be\nunderstood in the same way.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T03:38:11.713", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2869", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T03:47:06.047", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "452", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "terminology" ], "title": "Does Japanese have a term equivalent to \"Engrish\"?", "view_count": 1367 }

[ { "body": "We usually use 変な日本語、おかしな日本語、怪しい日本語. Most of our supply comes from products\nmade in non-Japan Asia (Thai, China, Korea etc.) and western tattoos :)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T03:47:06.047", "id": "2873", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T03:47:06.047", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2869", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is そっか just more slangy? Is そうか the same as saying ああそう? Or, is this more a\nspoken thing? If so, what is used when writing?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T03:43:37.413", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2870", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:50:05.713", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:50:05.713", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "556", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "word-choice", "contractions" ], "title": "What is the difference between そうか and そっか?", "view_count": 25685 }

[ { "body": "I think that\n\n * そうか is \"I see\", \"really?\"\n * そっか is \"Ah! I see!\", \"oh! I understand what you meant!\", \"ORLY?\". The interjection kind of reaction.\n * ああそう is \"oooooh? I see\". This is something I hear often when people are not convinced at all, but are friendly with you, even playing with you. (Say, you were seen with two different girls the same day, your friends say you're picking up too many girls, and you explain \"it's not what you think! one was my sister, and the other was showing me the way!\". Your friends would then say \"ああそう\", and attack again: \"but you were holding hands!\"…)\n\nIn writing, you'd just write \"そうですか\". Writing (in any language) should be more\npolite and formal, so as to avoid misinterpretation…", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T03:58:20.820", "id": "2875", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T03:58:20.820", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2870", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "Japanese speakers often use expressions aimed at themselves. Functionally it's\nlike they're talking to themselves, which would sound strange in English\nspeaking countries but is par for the course here. 「そうか・そっか」 is an example of\nthis kind of expression – people make an exclamation (\"Oh, OK!\") to themselves\nwhen they realize something, grasp a meaning, make a logical connection, etc.\nIn these cases デス・マス isn't necessary because it's understood that the speaker\nis making the statement toward him or herself, and not the other party. While\nthe meaning is essentially the same, the use is different from 「そう〔なん〕ですか」,\nwhich is explicitly directing the statement toward the other party for further\ncomment.\n\nTo answer your question, there isn't a difference in meaning, but I usually\nhear the second more often in conversation. Any time the consonant sound is\ndoubled up with the small ッ the meaning becomes more emphatic (e.g., 「すごくおいしい\nreally delicious」 vs 「* _すっごく_ *おいしい REALLY delicious」.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T10:22:31.820", "id": "2895", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T10:22:31.820", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "662", "parent_id": "2870", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "> **Possible Duplicates:** \n> [Is it ok for non-japanese to refer to themselves as 僕（ぼく） and if not\n> why?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/580/is-it-ok-for-non-\n> japanese-to-refer-to-themselves-as-and-if-not-why) \n> [How should I select what first-person pronoun to\n> use?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/74/how-should-i-select-\n> what-first-person-pronoun-to-use) \n> [How commonly are \"あたし\" (atashi) or \"僕\" (boku) used in\n> Japan?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/952/how-commonly-are-\n> atashi-or-boku-used-in-japan)\n\n**one teacher said:**\n\n> When we are talking about kids, we differenciate boys and girls\n>\n> * 私：for girls\n> * 僕：for boys\n>\n\n>\n> for adults, it doesn't matter\n\n**another teacher:**\n\n> it's expected that I refer to myself as 僕 always, because I'm a man\n\n**one japanese friend:**\n\n> 僕 seems little cute\n\n**my brother:**\n\n> always use 俺 within friends\n\n... \nI always try to use 私 \nhow is the best way to say \"I\" or \"me\" (for boys, and for girls)?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T04:57:37.023", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2876", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T01:15:36.387", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "first-person-pronouns", "register" ], "title": "私 (watashi) vs 僕 (boku)", "view_count": 3040 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2879", "answer_count": 4, "body": "For over a decade of speaking (poorly) and listening to Japanese, it seems to\nme that I have almost exclusively heard the word `えらい` in the sense of meaning\n\"admirable\".\n\nFor example, I'd mention volunteering in Tohoku, and someone might say `えらいね`\nto say \"hey, good on you,\" or something like that. I swear this kind of use of\n`えらい` was the only one I was aware of for years.\n\nThen, recently, I'm reading [Tintin](http://www.tintin.co.jp/index2.html) and\nI come across this panel:\n\n\n\n> **Tintin:** えらいときに 来あわせちゃった ([I] happened to arrive at a really bad time!)\n\nThe context is that he's just arrived in a town where there is a war brewing\nbetween some local factions, and people are being conscripted for the army.\nTintin fears getting forced into service. A bad time to show up indeed.\n\nThat use of `えらい` didn't match my expectations, so I [looked it up in a\ndictionary](http://www.jisho.org/words?jap=%E3%81%88%E3%82%89%E3%81%84&eng=&dict=edict),\nand to my surprise, `えらい` does indeed mean \"terrible\", as well as \"admirable\"\nand \"excellent\".\n\nSo... questions abound:\n\nIs this use of `えらい` rare or limited in some way so that the usage that I am\nfamiliar is the dominant use? Or is it me who just happens to not have been\nexposed to the whole spectrum of meanings?\n\nIt seems from the dictionary that when used in the positive light there are\ntwo kanji, `偉い` and `豪い`. I'm guessing the second kanji is more rare, but is\nthere a difference in use or meaning?\n\nLastly, if the sentence `「えらいときに来あわせちゃった」` were taken out of context and\npresented completely on its own, is there any way of knowing whether the\npositive or negative meaning of `えらい` was intended?", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T06:41:33.063", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2877", "last_activity_date": "2017-04-10T03:51:36.187", "last_edit_date": "2017-02-27T12:39:55.660", "last_editor_user_id": "19357", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "word-choice", "meaning", "words", "usage", "definitions" ], "title": "Does 「えらい 」also mean \"terrible\"?", "view_count": 11441 }

[ { "body": "This usage of えらい has always struck me to be kind of ironic or sarcastic. Not\nso much like the change in meaning of \"awesome\" or \"terrific\", but more like\n\"Oh, it looks like I came at a _great_ time - I'm in for it now!\" As such, I\nthink there would be loads of examples where it would be impossible to know,\nwithout context, whether the meaning is positive or negative.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T07:13:26.390", "id": "2878", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T07:13:26.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2877", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "> Or is it me who just happens to not have been exposed to the whole spectrum\n> of meanings?\n\nThis is the good answer I think. It's quite common, and as far as I'm\nconcerned, I think I learnt the \"terrible\" meaning first :)\n\n> 偉い and 豪い.\n\nA quick look at compound words with the first kanji give: excellent deed,\nmagnificent, great man… and the second: flood devastation, luxurious, wealthy\nfamily, tremendous snowfall…\n\nIt seems that the first kanji has only positive compounds (at least, when in\nfirst position), and I have encountered it very often. I have never seen the\nsecond one _alone_ , always in compound words.\n\n> Lastly, if the sentence 「えらいときに来あわせちゃった」 were taken out of context and\n> presented completely on its own, is there any way of knowing whether the\n> positive or negative meaning of えらい was intended?\n\nNegative, definitely. Look: \"ちゃった\" says it all. I guess that えらい is a bit like\nthe English pair \"terrible/terrific\" which in French happens to be a single\nword too \"terrible\". It can be ambiguous, but in sentences like\n\"えらい失礼をし(ちゃっ)た\", it's crystal clear…", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T07:39:14.970", "id": "2879", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T07:39:14.970", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2877", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "1) The \"negative usage\" you mention is Kansai dialect. That is why you did not\nsee it. It does not actually mean negative thing by itself. It means 'huge' or\n'very', and the negative part is usually implied or is omitted. It is\ninterchangable with `大変(な)`.\n\n> えらいことしてもうた \n> 'I caused a huge issue'.\n>\n> えらいすんません。 \n> 'I am very sorry'.\n\n2) `偉い` is normal. I haven't seen the other kanji used in ordinary life.\n\n3) The positive meaning you were falimiar with is predicated of an animate\nthing. The \"negative meaning\", or the 'very' meaning is predicated of things\nlike events, times, situations. In `えらいとき`, `とき` is clearly the latter, so you\ncan tell it is the negative sense.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T08:20:11.747", "id": "2881", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T08:25:56.890", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-26T08:25:56.890", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2877", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Instead of literal translation try for an equivocal/equasive translation.\n\nErai, I would equate to the English \"god damn,\" or \"goddamned.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-02-27T11:25:12.140", "id": "43910", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-27T11:25:12.140", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "20067", "parent_id": "2877", "post_type": "answer", "score": -2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "My first thought is that いかない in this phrase conveys the meaning of 行かない, that\nis, not progressing to something. But this is mere guesswork.\n\nWhat is the history of いかない in ~わけにはいかない? Does it have roots in the verb 行く or\nis this way off base?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T12:23:41.533", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2882", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T04:09:19.713", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "etymology" ], "title": "Where does the いかない in ～わけにはいかない come from?", "view_count": 412 }

[ { "body": "EDICT shows the full thing as 「訳には行かない」, so I would venture to guess that the\nderivation from 「行く」's additional meanings of \"to proceed\" or \"to take place\"\nis correct.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-26T20:23:18.257", "id": "2885", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-26T20:23:18.257", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "2882", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Personally, I understand that いかない just as 行かない and would take like \"(It)\nwon't go that way\" for ~わけにはいかない.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T05:48:13.767", "id": "2887", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T05:48:13.767", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "2882", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "From what I gathered from reading [Steven Pinker's _The Stuff of\nThought_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stuff_of_Thought), humans evolved\nin a world with tangible physical objects and obvious physical actions, so\nalmost all of our thinking is based in that reality.\n\nAs a result, most of what appears to be highly abstract thinking is actually\nbuilt on our attempts to attach metaphors of tangible things and actions to\nintangible concepts.\n\nWhich is an academic way of getting around to the fact that I think you'll\nfind the concept of \"go\", or `行く【い・く】`, to most likely come to take on a\nmeaning of \"possibility\" in a lot, if not all, languages.\n\nIn a tangible world, a ball can not go to another place if there is a wall\nbetween here and there. And so it follows that the abstract ball can not\nachieve its destination if a conceptual barrier prevents it. Resulting in an\nattachment of an idea can not become possible because it can not \"go\" there.\n\nI believe what you are looking for, then is an origin of how `行く` came to take\non the meaning of \"possible\" in a Japanese context, but I think the reality is\nthat it is more of a broader issue, and so you are unlikely to find an\netymological explanation that is exclusive to Japanese.\n\nThe one thing I think can be said that is strictly defined in the realm of\nJapanese is that it is more common to see `行く` written in kana, `いく`, when\nused in the more metaphorical sense, as in the phrase `訳にはいかない`. Not a hard\nand fast rule by any means, but I believe that to be the case, because the\nkanji is tied too much to the literal \"go\".\n\nAlso, just as sort of \"bonus reading\", see [this\npage](http://okwave.jp/qa/q903786.html) for a bit of discussion in Japanese\nabout how exactly `訳にはいかない` is used. I hadn't really thought of it in\nopposition to `したい`, as one answer puts it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T04:09:19.713", "id": "2966", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T04:09:19.713", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2882", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2899", "answer_count": 3, "body": "My understanding of using `わ` at the end of a sentence is that it's\nessentially just for emphasis, just like using `よ`, and that only women can\nuse it.\n\nHowever, as far as I know, women can, and often do, use `よ` as well.\n\nSo is there a difference in meaning, nuance, or context which would make a\nwoman choose to use `わ` instead of `よ`?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T05:40:22.970", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2886", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-12T18:07:57.200", "last_edit_date": "2016-04-12T18:07:57.200", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "word-choice", "sentence-final-particles", "register", "gender", "particle-わ" ], "title": "When women use わ at the end of a sentence, is it different from よ?", "view_count": 27638 }

[ { "body": "In general, sentence final particle use varies a lot depending on the region.\nIn Kyoto, where I live, for example, men and women both use わ freely, and even\nthrow out the occasional 「わよ」. I think it sounds softer, more restrained and\nless insistent than よ but that's only my personal opinion. I haven't seen a\nthorough breakdown of the usage for the two, but I think you'd have to dig\nthrough academic papers to find something. I've been told that the meaning is\nessentially the same.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T10:15:05.107", "id": "2894", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T10:15:05.107", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "662", "parent_id": "2886", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "_Disclaimer: I'm just a random Japanese native and my answer below isn't based\non formal research or anything like that._\n\nThe feminine 「わ」 seems to have become almost extinct. You see it in text books\nand novels, but it's extremely rare to hear people actually using it.\n\nThe kansai 「わ」 is different from the feminine 「わ」. The feminine 「わ」 is used in\n標準語 or 東京弁 and not in 関西弁. The kansai 「わ」 is only used in 関西弁.\n\nThe kansai 「わ」 is used by both male and female, and has no feminine effect\neven when used by female. The feminine 「わ」 does have an feminine effect, and\nis sometimes used to signal that the character in a book is a female etc. The\ntwo わ are also pronounced differently.\n\nInterestingly, 「わよ」 is exclusively feminine 「わ」. Male usage of 「わよ」 is\nassociated with transgender and homo-sexuality (talents like 美輪明宏 use it,\npresumably to emphasize their femininity?). Usage of わよ seems to be rare among\nJapanese female (at least in younger generations).\n\nSo to summarize, Japanese female mostly use something other than わ nowadays.\n\nAs an anecdotal evidence, I'll cite this [chiebukuro\nquestion](http://okwave.jp/qa/q1666636.html):\n\n```\n\n ドラマや漫画（アニメ）に出てくる女性はほとんどの人が\n 語尾に\n 「～わよ」「～よ」「～わよ」「～だわ」など\n （例・「知らないわよ！」\n ・「だからアホなのよ」\n ・「そう思ったわ」\n ・「おちゃめだわ～！」） \n つけますが、今までこういう女の子言葉使う方実際には見たことがありません。\n \n```\n\nFor people's opinion on this, you can take a look at [the\nquestion](http://okwave.jp/qa/q1666636.html) (many obnoxious comments\nunfortunately, but there you go)", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T13:06:30.713", "id": "2898", "last_activity_date": "2014-09-08T15:00:00.630", "last_edit_date": "2014-09-08T15:00:00.630", "last_editor_user_id": "6840", "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2886", "post_type": "answer", "score": 23 }, { "body": "* `よ` expresses that the speaker assumes that the recipient does not know what is said.\n * `わ` does not have such implication, and it just adds feminine flavour to the sentence.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T13:11:42.383", "id": "2899", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T03:15:29.780", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-28T03:15:29.780", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2886", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3754", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I have an issue with the word `立{た}つ`, which is that I get it's basic meaning\nis \"to stand\", but I see it used in all sorts of ways that don't make sense to\nme.\n\nHere are some examples, from various native sources, where `立{た}つ` throws me\noff:\n\n> 顔立{かおだ}ちが環境{かんきょう}に影響{えいきょう}し、性格{せいかく}が変{か}わるから。\n>\n> どうやら星{ほし}も音{おと}をたてるらしい。\n>\n> このジュースは時間{じかん}がたつと成分{せいぶん}が沈殿{ちんでん}します。\n\nMy translations, flawed as they may be, are, respectively:\n\n> \"One's looks are influenced by the environment, because one's disposition\n> changes.\"\n>\n> \"It's seems somehow like the stars are making noise.\"\n>\n> \"After some time the pulp(ingredients) in this juice will settle.\"\n\nSo, when I hear or read `立{た}つ`, I basically get the drift, but...\n\n * What is standing in terms of your face to change your looks?\n\n * Noise can stand? If I had to say the second sentence, I would use `音{おと}をする`. I would never think of sound as \"standing\".\n\n * Time standing? I would think maybe time passes, as in `時間{じかん}を過{す}ごしす`, but I would never think of time as standing.\n\nEither the Japanese language has a different concept of what it means \"to\nstand\", or `立{た}つ` has a different meaning than I understand it (in addition\nto the meaning I do understand.)\n\nCan someone break down for me how these concepts are \"standing\" in these\nexamples? Hopefully so I can get some insight that will help me own and use\n`立{た}つ` like Japanese people do. :)", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T06:30:50.530", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2889", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-18T08:12:05.970", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-18T08:12:05.970", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "kanji", "definitions" ], "title": "I can't stand 立つ【た・つ】: Do all its meanings derive from \"stand\"?", "view_count": 1945 }

[ { "body": "A lot of the usages you mentioned are idiomatic. So 「腹が立つ to get angry /\npissed off」 refers to the worm that lives in your stomach getting angry, IIRC\n(according to [Japan's Cultural Code\nWords](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0804835748)). In general, 「立つ」\ndoesn't refer only to the action of standing, but also coming to be, or taking\nshape, such as 「波が立つ a wave rises/appears」. Because of this it's sometimes\nused as an intransitive verb to show that something was accomplished or\nfinalized, as in 「計画が立ちました the plan was finalized / we finalized our plans」.\nNote that Japanese often uses intransitive verbs to show that a transitive\naction reached a successful conclusion, as in the previous example.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T10:09:18.080", "id": "2893", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T10:09:18.080", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "662", "parent_id": "2889", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "[This answer is based on my personal (inner) research]\n\nIn a nutshell, all the extended uses of たつ derive from a single meaning, which\nis not exactly what you'd imagine from the English word \"stand\".\n\nAs illustrated below, my inner image for たつ is \"suspended-perpendicular-\nupward\". \"stand\" is the opposite: \"suspended-perpendicular-downward\". Yes,\ntheir meanings overlap, but also different.\n\n\n\nSo if you only have the word \"stand\" in mind when you try to understand たつ,\nyou're ill-equipped. You need to mix in some sense of \"forward/upward motion\"\nto accurately translate たつ; facial features stand \"out\", stars give \"off\"\nsounds, time \"goes\".", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-18T02:17:00.373", "id": "3754", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-18T02:17:00.373", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2889", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2900", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I was about to ask a question but I can't without first confirming,\n\nIs this sentence:\n\n```\n\n 彼は映画スターであり、政治家もだ。\n \n```\n\ngrammatically correct, and mean:\n\n```\n\n He is a movie star and also a politician.\n \n```\n\n== \nFollow-up question here: [Why does replacing だ to である changes the meaning of a\nthe sentence?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3144/why-does-\nreplacing-to-changes-the-meaning-of-a-the-sentence)", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T06:37:18.480", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2890", "last_activity_date": "2019-05-22T16:01:35.833", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Is this grammatical: 彼は映画スターであり、政治家もだ。", "view_count": 617 }

[ { "body": "I can't comment in the comment section since I just joined, but the usual way\nof saying this would probably be 「映画スターだけではなく or だけじゃなくて、政治家もしている」. People\noften use 「する」 to talk about jobs. Also, 「であり」 is formal written style and\nwould sound strange in conversation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T09:57:25.057", "id": "2892", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T09:57:25.057", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "662", "parent_id": "2890", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Sounds odd. How about:\n\n> 彼は俳優で、また政治家でもある。\n\nYeah, I don't like the word 映画スター too much.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T12:09:45.290", "id": "2897", "last_activity_date": "2019-05-22T16:01:35.833", "last_edit_date": "2019-05-22T16:01:35.833", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "647", "parent_id": "2890", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Recall that `だ` is the contracted form of `である`.`で` has to be attached to a\nnoun. You can't leave it behind `も` as `もである`. So the correct way of inserting\n`も` will be:\n\n> 彼は政治家でもある\n\nYou might be wondering whether `で` before `も` can be omitted. Only arguments\ncan have the (case) particle omitted before `は` or `も`. In this case, the noun\n`政治家` is a predicate, so you cannot omit `で` before `も`.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T13:18:36.497", "id": "2900", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T13:18:36.497", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2890", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2901", "answer_count": 2, "body": "`すぐ`, and especially `今すぐ`, is my habitual way to express \"soon\", or \"right\nafter this\".\n\nI know that `じき` means more or less the same thing, and when I hear it or see\nit written, I get the general meaning of the sentence.\n\nHowever, I don't feel comfortable saying it myself because I'm unclear on how\nthey differ and what the nuances are.\n\nWhat are the conditions in which to choose one over the other, and do they\ndiffer in meaning?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T10:45:27.407", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2896", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-29T07:02:53.423", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "time" ], "title": "What's the difference between じき and すぐ?", "view_count": 573 }

[ { "body": "`じき` means temporally farther than `すぐ`. I don't know if the meaning of `じき`\noverlaps with the English `soon`. If it does, then `soon` has a broader\nmeaning than `すぐ`. `じき` can instead be translated as 'sooner or later', or\n'eventually'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T13:24:31.623", "id": "2901", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T17:50:15.933", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-27T17:50:15.933", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2896", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "じき and すぐ are analogous.\n\nじき（に）〈すぐに〉 in a moment； immediately； 〈間もなく〉 soon； in a short time； before long\n\ne-g(1).もうじき12時だ. It is almost ［close on, getting on for］ twelve o’clock.\n\ne-g(2).この子はじきに物を覚える. This boy learns very quickly ［is very quick to learn］.\n\n〈直ちに〉 immediately； at once； straightaway； instantly； in a moment ［minute］； in\nno time； on the spot； right away ［off］\n\ne-g(1).よろしければすぐおいでください。 Please come here soon if you don't mind.\n\ne-g(2). 彼女はすぐ医者を呼ぼうと言った。 She proposed that a doctor should be called in\nimmediately.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T07:02:53.423", "id": "2924", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-29T07:02:53.423", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "619", "parent_id": "2896", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2903", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Despite its being one of the most basic element of daily-life Japanese, I\noften find myself looking for a proper way to end certain phone conversations.\n\nOf course, I know the standard: `[それでは]失礼します`, or: `よろしく[お願いします]`...\n\nBut somehow, neither of these seems quite right when ending a (somewhat\nformal) conversation where _I_ am the customer (e.g. making a restaurant\nreservation). I often opt for a basic `ありがとうございました`, but I don't think it is a\nvery idiomatic way to end such phone conversations.\n\nWhat would be a good phrase, beside the ones above, to end a phone\nconversation with a stranger?\n\n**Update:** So from Tsyoshi's comments, it sounds like `失礼します` is just the way\nto end all phone conversations, service people included. But Dave MG's\n`はい、どうも` provides a nice alternative (and he's the only answer), so I'll\naccept it.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T15:00:04.070", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2902", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-16T21:10:09.560", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-02T00:31:37.317", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "business-japanese", "greetings", "idioms" ], "title": "Ways to end a phone conversation", "view_count": 7113 }

[ { "body": "For my money, `「はい、どうも」` just can't be beat.\n\nWhat's that? Too informal, you say?\n\nFar from it, my good man. `「はい、どうも」` isn't a replacement for `よろしく` or\n`宜しくお願いします` when you're winding down the conversation.\n\nBut there's always that awkwardness that sets in - happens in English, too -\nwhen you and the person on the other end are saying conversation-ending-\nphrases and no one knows who is going to be the person who actually hangs up.\nI find I get into the goodbye-vortex even more with customer service people\nbecause... well, I don't know why for sure but I suspect they think it's rude\nto hang up on me.\n\nThat's where `「はい、どうも」` comes in. You've been polite all conversation, you've\nthrown in a few `「失礼します」` where appropriate, and now it's time to just get off\nthe phone.\n\nYou throw out a `「はい、どうも」`, and then **BAM** , you slam down the receiver\n(even though it's a smart phone and you already pressed the button on the\nscreen - we're doing this old school, baby!), then you raise your hands in\nflawless victory.\n\n> はい、どうも!!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T18:13:36.383", "id": "2903", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T18:13:36.383", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2902", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "[According to Tsuyoshi Ito in the\ncomments](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2902/ways-to-end-a-\nphone-conversation#comment6424_2902),\n\n> “失礼します” (not しましす) and “よろしくお願いします” both sound appropriate as a way to close\n> a phone conversation as a customer. “ありがとうございました” sounds a little strange.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-06-16T21:10:09.560", "id": "17472", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-16T21:10:09.560", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "3437", "parent_id": "2902", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2906", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've seen this many times in mangas, here's one example:\n\n> アンタなんかが手にしていいお金じゃない **っつーの** ！！！\n\nContext: A girl catches a thief that stole today's takings at the shop she's\nworking at.\n\nThank you! 手伝ってくれてありがとう。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T18:45:16.253", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2904", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-30T07:08:21.810", "last_edit_date": "2014-06-30T07:08:21.810", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "664", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "colloquial-language", "て-form", "contractions" ], "title": "What is the usage of 「つー」, what does it mean and what other ways are there to express the same thing ?", "view_count": 1529 }

[ { "body": "It's a shortening of って言うの! or って言っているの! and shows some irritation on the part\nof the speaker. \"What I'm telling you is . . .!\" There's some good\nexplanations here: <http://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/1847367.html>", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T19:13:47.030", "id": "2906", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T19:13:47.030", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2904", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2907", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Since there is apparently no literal translation for \"never\", how would you\ntranslate this idiom ?\n\nWhat periphrasis would you use to express the same meaning ?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T18:52:08.053", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2905", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T19:59:07.943", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "664", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "idioms" ], "title": "\"Never say never\"", "view_count": 1255 }

[ { "body": "How about something like 「絶対なんて絶対にない」? It has the same self-contradictory\nnature as the English original, and [seems to have some use as\nwell](http://www.google.com/search?cx=c&ix=c2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22%E7%B5%B6%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%AA%E3%82%93%E3%81%A6%E7%B5%B6%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%AB%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84%22).\nThe meaning is slightly different, however. You could also go with something\nlike 「ありえないなんてありえない」 or something...", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-27T19:45:59.010", "id": "2907", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-27T19:59:07.943", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-27T19:59:07.943", "last_editor_user_id": "76", "owner_user_id": "76", "parent_id": "2905", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "**tl;dr** : when answering a negative question, can いいえ be used to affirm what\nthe question states as a whole?\n\nI came to Japan at the age of six, and I guess I pass as a normal native\nspeaker of Japanese to most people (aside from some personal quirks like long\nresponse time).\n\nHowever, there's one thing, one very basic thing that I have a hard time\ngetting right without a conscious effort: answering negative questions.\n\nConsider this negative question:\n\n> 車、持ってないんですか？ You don't have a car?\n\nThe right way to answer is:\n\n * いいえ、持ってます / いいえ。 Yes, I have one.\n * はい、持ってません / はい。 No, I don't.\n\nThe problem is, I almost always mix up はい/いいえ and end up answering just like\nin English. i.e. Describing _my_ situation rather than responding to what the\nasker has in mind. With a single word answer, with no clarifying comment, it\ncould be a life-or-death mistake.\n\n\n\nOver the years, despite the threat of death, I've developed a self-serving\nhypothesis that with most negative questions, the answer is predetermined and\nanticipated by context and it doesn't matter much if I screw up. This\nhypothesis seemed to work sometimes.\n\nMy question is, can I keep on believing my hypothesis? For example, if you\nwere asked\n\n> もう料理はいらない？\n\n 1. Answering はい implies what the asker has in mind \"She looks full\" is true; your meal is over. (the correct answer in Japanese)\n 2. Answering いいえ implies you're not in the mood for another dish, just like the asker thought; your meal is over. (according to my hypothesis)\n\nOr, is there no pathway for the kind of logic in #2 in the Japanese way of\nthinking?\n\n* * *\n\n**Edit 1** : to clarify the scope of this question, a few bullet points if I\nmay...\n\n * Assume the question is a simple, plain negative question \n * that is, no double negatives (...じゃないんじゃない?), confirmation in the form of a question (...じゃないですよね?), etc.\n * answered with a single word (はい/いいえ/うん/ううん)\n * taking place between true, pure-bred native Japanese speakers\n\n**Edit 2** : thanks to the feedbacks, I've come up with a definition of the\nproblem in a more formal fashion. Here goes..\n\nConversations take place amid tensions (or harmony) between several norms:\n\n * Grammatical norm - the correct usage defined by grammar books\n * Social norm - accepted, default usage in practice\n * Contextual norm - accepted usage defined by context\n\nThe question is, when answering a negative question with a single word, can\ncontextual norm disagree with the grammatical one? i.e. can an utterance of\n\"いいえ\" mean \"はい\" as defined in grammatical speak? As of this writing, one\nanswer says _yes_ , two others say _no_.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T00:48:02.123", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2908", "last_activity_date": "2014-04-10T12:57:03.603", "last_edit_date": "2014-04-10T12:57:03.603", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "128", "post_type": "question", "score": 22, "tags": [ "negation", "deixis" ], "title": "The reality of answering いいえ to a negative question", "view_count": 6652 }

[ { "body": "This was a big problem for me as well (in the reverse direction, that is)!\n\nIn this kind of yes/no questions, the asker forms a hypothesis and then asks\nwhether this is true. If it's true, you say yes, else no.\n\n```\n\n 車持ってないの？ ->\n 「あなたは車を持っていない」は正しい？ ->\n 正しくない ->\n いいえ、もっています\n \n \n もう料理はいらない？ -> \n 「あなたはもう料理はいらない」は正しい？ -> \n 正しくない -> \n いいえ、もっと食べたいです\n \n \n 今日天気悪くない？ -> \n 「今日は天気が悪い」は正しい？ -> \n 正しい -> \n うん、悪いねぇ\n \n```\n\nSo at least in my book, if you answer 「いいえ」 to 「もう料理はいらない？」 then it always\nmeans you want more.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T01:38:16.910", "id": "2909", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T01:38:16.910", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2908", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "My understanding is that, in Japanese, you answer the question, whereas in\nEnglish, you ignore the question and just affirm or negate the predicate part.\nIn other words, Japanese is more logical than English, (whereas English may be\nmore pragmatic than Japanese).\n\n**Japanese**\n\n> 車を持っていますか \n> 'Is it the case that you have a car?' \n> \\--はい \n> 'It is the case that I have a car.' = 'I have a car.' \n> \\--いいえ \n> 'It is not the case that I have a car.' = 'I do not have a car.'\n>\n> 車を持っていませんか \n> 'Is it the case that you do not have a car?' \n> \\--はい \n> 'It is the case that I do not have a car.' = 'I do not have a car.' \n> \\--いいえ \n> 'It is not the case that I do not have a car.' = 'I have a car.'\n\n**English**\n\n> Do you have a car? \n> [Ignore the question. Just affirm or negate the predicate '(you) have a\n> car'.] \n> \\--Yes. I have a car. \n> \\--No. I do not have a car.\n>\n> Don't you have a car? \n> [Ignore the question. Just affirm or negate the predicate '(you) have a\n> car'.] \n> \\--Yes. I have a car. \n> \\--No. I do not have a car.", "comment_count": 15, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T02:55:23.853", "id": "2911", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T03:14:20.827", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2908", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "Since this question was asked, I've gone around and asked about a half dozen\nJapanese people the following question:\n\n> If you ask someone 「もう食事はいらない？」 and they answer 「いいえ」, do you think they\n> want more or not?\n\nThe result: Turns out it's just as vague as English with as much individual\nresponse. Most people said you would have to know more about the context what\nelse was said, and that it would be a little unusual to just say `「いいえ」`\nwithout anything else (which I take to mean that a follow up clarification is\nneeded and expected).\n\nSome said it would depend heavily on the way it was said, because your tone\nalone could convey the necessary information. Saying `「いいえ」` in a flat tone\nmeant \"I don't want more food\", but if said in a sort of happy upbeat tone, it\nmeant \"I do want more\".\n\nOne woman actually said that if she wanted to convey she did not want any more\nfood, she would say `「はい、いいえ」` as in, \"yes, as you expect, my answer is no, I\ndon't want more food\".\n\nI know others here would like to declare there is a rule that is followed, or\nshould be followed, but I believe this kind of ambiguity of response to\nnegative questions thing is not particular to Japanese, or English, but is\njust a function of human communication.\n\nIn other words, I think your stated premise that context will determine\nwhether `はい` or `いいえ` is correct. It would be unnatural to just tersely say\n`はい` or `いいえ` and leave it at that anyway, so you're naturally bound to follow\nup with the clarification needed to make sure everyone is on the same page.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T19:58:19.363", "id": "2918", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T19:58:19.363", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2908", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "There might not be a clear answer to this question. In order to avoid the\nproblem, you could always repeat the verb used in the question.\n\nFor example: 車、持ってないんですか？ In the case that I do have a car: ありますよ In the case\nI don't: ありませんね", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-04-10T12:54:30.263", "id": "15366", "last_activity_date": "2014-04-10T12:54:30.263", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4793", "parent_id": "2908", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2913", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I have a bottle of 洗顔料(facial soap), and the instructions are:\n\n> ご使用量の目安 ポンプ`１～２`回 (use about 1 to 2 pumps)\n\nIf I were to read `1~2` aloud, how would I do it?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T02:49:20.163", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2910", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T03:00:49.677", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "readings", "numbers" ], "title": "Reading a number range", "view_count": 969 }

[ { "body": "I think the most standard is `1から2`. You can also read it as `1乃至2`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T02:59:43.397", "id": "2912", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T02:59:43.397", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2910", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "If the numbers are consecutive, you would just count and adjust the last\nnumber accordingly. In this case, `いち、にかい`. If it were, say, 5-6 times,\n`ご、ろっかい`.\n\nIf it's an actual range, I think you'd just throw から in the middle. 1-5 =\n`いちからご`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T03:00:49.677", "id": "2913", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T03:00:49.677", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2910", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2915", "answer_count": 2, "body": "A book about architecture I'm trying to read (it's a bit of a slog what with\nthe technical jargon and such) contained this description of a temple\nbuilding: 二重、初重５X4間、裳階 （もこし） つき、上重４X3間. So it's two stories, the first being\nfive rooms by four, with lean-to rooms attached, etc. I have a few questions\nabout this. First, how is the \"X\" in 5X4 read? Additionally, I'm assuming that\n初重 and 上重 are read しょじゅう and じょうじゅう, respectively. Is this correct?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T04:38:05.257", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2914", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:48:19.567", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:48:19.567", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "readings", "numbers", "counters" ], "title": "How to read the X in 5X4間?", "view_count": 522 }

[ { "body": "The English \"by\" is read 「かける multiply」 in Japanese. A 3x4 matrix, for\nexample, is 「3かける4行列」 in Japanese. I assume your readings are right in the\nsecond part of your question, but can't seem to find them anywhere.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T10:51:27.960", "id": "2915", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T10:51:27.960", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "662", "parent_id": "2914", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I think you are making a big miskate. As for `５X4間`, you interpret it as 'five\nrooms by four', but it is not clear what that means, and probably that is\nwrong. `間` is a traditional unit for length. It is approx the long length of a\ntatami (about 1.8m). `５X4間` means a ５間 by 4間 rectangle.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-28T18:39:43.090", "id": "2917", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-28T18:39:43.090", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2914", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2923", "answer_count": 4, "body": "A colleague is organizing an event and sent everyone an email beginning like\nthis:\n\n> 田中{たなか}イベント担当{たんとう}の田中です。 \n> **イベントの前{まえ}ふり **をば** 。**\n>\n> ... (explanation about the event)\n\nThe first line is a funny intro (the guy is known for joking all the time)\n\n**QUESTION** : What does the イベントの前ふりをば part mean?\n\nIs it another joke? Does it convey any information?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T01:29:10.920", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2920", "last_activity_date": "2021-10-16T01:40:48.100", "last_edit_date": "2021-10-16T01:40:48.100", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "meaning", "colloquial-language", "ellipsis" ], "title": "Meaning of: イベントの前ふりをば。", "view_count": 513 }

[ { "body": "をば is a classical particular used for particularly strong emphasis. I'm\nguessing something like _drum roll_ \"And now, setting the stage for our Really\nBig Shoe, . . .\" (edit) - On second thought, Ed Sullivan is maybe a little\nanachronistic for Classical Japanese. Maybe more like \"Forsooth!\" or whatnot.\n笑", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T01:51:31.973", "id": "2921", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-29T02:08:41.177", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-29T02:08:41.177", "last_editor_user_id": "634", "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2920", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "前フリ is technical entertainment jargon for the sentences that are used to set\nup a joke. For example \"hey, the other day, I met a guy at the kombini…\" or\n\"two guys of different religion are in a plane…\"\n\n`イベントの前ふりをば` would thus represent the necessary words prior to the event\nitself, so that everyone can enjoy it properly. I guess that \"をば\" is just a\nmistake or some hardcore simplification of \"を語れば\", \"をすれば\" or something like\nthat.\n\nsources:\n[Chie](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1419635209)\nand\n[Chie](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1310458333).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T01:59:12.790", "id": "2922", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-16T05:23:40.937", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-16T05:23:40.937", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2920", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "をば is basically the particles を + は combined together. It works like を but\nplaces extra emphasis on the object (in theory; in practice this \"extra\nemphasis\" might be diluted so that it basically just signals formal style).\n\nSo this sort of をば works like the を in \"ご協力を！\" (as a complete utterance) --\nthere is an action implied, but the actual verb is left unsaid. In the case of\n\"ご協力を\", if you were to add a verb it would be \"お願いします\" or similar, but in the\ncase of this 前ふりをば it's the speaker announcing what they're about to do, so\nmaybe させていただきます would be closer. (I'm not sure what specific verb would be\nmost usual; in any case, the whole point of this construction is to avoid a\nspecific verb.)\n\nSo イベントの前ふりをば basically means \"Here's the setup for/information about(?) the\nevent\", except said using a certain pattern which originates in formal\ndiscourse but is now used as a sort of self-lampooning mock-formality. You can\nfind lots of examples of this sort of thing by searching for ご検討をば, 情報をば etc.\non Google.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T03:15:54.153", "id": "2923", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-29T03:15:54.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2920", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "Considering he is known for joking all the time, maybe be just used おば where\nit should be in fact オーバー (over), saying that \"what I want to say before\nintroducing the event\" (まえふり) is \"over\". The \"まえふり\" here refers to his self\nintroduction \"田中イベント担当の田中です。\"\n\nThis at least makes more sense to me.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-27T17:09:09.440", "id": "4102", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:09:09.440", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "2920", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2926", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I asked about this in the comments section of another question, but no one\nresponded, so I guess I'll ask it here. The question involved expressing that\nsomeone was both a movie star and a politician, and various good alternatives\nwere offered. It occurred to me that 兼 might work, so I checked example\nsentences in a dictionary, and found 「総理大臣兼外務大臣」. That seems similar enough.\nHowever, I was wondering, does 兼 work with two things as wildly disparate as\n\"movie star\", and \"politician\", or does it sound strange? In other words,\nwould one expect a stronger or more logical connection between the things that\n兼 connects?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T08:04:53.767", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2925", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-31T14:27:41.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "usage" ], "title": "Does 「彼は映画スター兼政治家だ。」 sound weird?", "view_count": 169 }

[ { "body": "ALC samples suggest that you do not want to mix movie star with politician:\n\n * 社長兼最高執行責任者\n * 2004年アテネオリンピック女子バレーボール世界最終予選兼アジア地区大陸予選\n * ロックギタリスト兼歌手\n * オーナー兼経営者\n * 音楽家兼プロデューサー\n\nMost samples come from newspapers, having a quite formal flavour. It clearly\nshows that you want to link occupations (rather than favourite pastry), and\nthat they have to be related.\n\nMy suggestion would be to do some research on Arnold Schwartzenegger and\nRonald Reagan, and in doubt, to avoid using 兼 as in the title of your question\n:)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T08:22:24.217", "id": "2926", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-29T08:22:24.217", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2925", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Although describing 映画スター兼政治家 as “weird” might be too strong, you are right\nthat 兼 is more often used when the combination has a close logical relation.\n\nIn my understanding, this is because 兼 makes a compound word and using a\ncompound word implies that the speaker considers the combination as a single\nnotion. Using an example from Axioplase’s answer, it is reasonable to consider\nロックギタリストでもあり歌手でもある人 (a person who is a rock guitarist and a singer at the same\ntime) as a single notion, so calling such a person ロックギタリスト兼歌手 makes sense. On\nthe other hand, it is probably uncommon to consider 映画スターでもあり政治家でもある人 (a\nperson who is a movie star and a politician) as a single notion because being\na movie star and being a politician seem very different, and therefore\n映画スター兼政治家 sounds a little off.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-30T15:32:45.587", "id": "2948", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-30T15:32:45.587", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2925", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I think `兼` means 'multipully assigned'. So the things to be connected has to\nbelong to a single list of assignments.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-31T14:27:41.227", "id": "2954", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-31T14:27:41.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2925", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2929", "answer_count": 4, "body": "From Wikipedia:\n\n> [\n> -§-](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_differences_in_spoken_Japanese&oldid=446725647)\n> 貴様 -- formerly an extremely honorific form of address; in modern speech is\n> as insulting as, but **more refined than** , \"temee\"\n\n貴様 is often said (by textbooks) to be the most insulting word used refer to\nsomeone, even more insulting than 手前.\n\nThen, what does the article mean when it says that 貴様 is more refined than 手前?\n\nOr is that information just plain wrong?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T09:19:04.407", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2927", "last_activity_date": "2015-04-25T20:04:09.557", "last_edit_date": "2015-04-25T20:04:09.557", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "politeness", "pronouns", "second-person-pronouns" ], "title": "Why is \"kisama\" more refined than \"temee\"?", "view_count": 19596 }

[ { "body": "Refinement is a reflection of the speaker, not the listener. While an opposing\nbaron would use 「貴様」, a thug would use 「手前」.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T10:22:39.593", "id": "2929", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-29T10:22:39.593", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "2927", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 }, { "body": "If nothing else, /teme:/ is Tokyo (shitamachi) dialect, while /kisama/ is\nstandard Japanese. Refinement doesn't necessarily correlate with politeness;\n\"ignorant oaf\" might be considered more refined than \"top bloke.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T10:29:43.597", "id": "2930", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-29T10:29:43.597", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2927", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I've also seen 貴様 used between brothers. 手前 is a word one most likely wouldn't\nuse toward a brother.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-25T17:45:12.557", "id": "4813", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-25T17:45:12.557", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1188", "parent_id": "2927", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Kisama is so often used in anime,it hardly seems vulgar!It seems like a crude\nway of saying 'you',the same way hokkiens and taiwanese use limpei to describe\n'i'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-09-18T13:37:49.987", "id": "18710", "last_activity_date": "2014-09-18T13:37:49.987", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7304", "parent_id": "2927", "post_type": "answer", "score": -4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "30251", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I realize that very likely the answer to this question is likely to be\nsomething along the lines of \"that's just the way it is\", but I thought it\nworth asking to see if there were some insights that weren't immediately\napparent.\n\nIn Tokyo, the JR train line called the 山手線【やまのてせん】 seems to have dropped the の\nfrom the way it is written. It seems there used to be areas of Tokyo referred\nto as [山の手](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B1%B1%E3%81%AE%E6%89%8B) , which\nwas where the elites lived and is in opposition to the term 下町【したまち】(downtown,\nlower class areas). I hear the 下町 often enough in reference to areas like\nAsakusa, but I haven't heard anyone use 山の手. The only やまのて I know of these\ndays is the 山手 train line.\n\nThere is also an area of town called [御茶ノ水]【おちゃのみず】, where the の is still\nthere, but in katakana. Why not leave it in hiragana...?\n\nSo, is there any rhyme or reason to how these conventions of spelling came\nabout? Is there a relation?\n\nOr are they just quirks of tradition that just stand on their own without any\nrhyme or reason?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T11:35:18.827", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2931", "last_activity_date": "2019-06-20T07:54:20.467", "last_edit_date": "2016-01-02T10:21:05.850", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 25, "tags": [ "word-choice", "etymology", "katakana", "spelling" ], "title": "Why did の disappear from 山手, but in 御茶ノ水 it's in katakana?", "view_count": 1647 }

[ { "body": "I also think it's maybe a stylistic thing. In 大阪, there is an area called\n[森の宮]【もりのみや】. Around the area, I've seen it written any of the following ways:\n\n * 森の宮\n * 森ノ宮\n * 森之宮\n * 森宮\n\nI've also noticed this for places that have a 「が」in them like 関ヶ原. Sometimes\nit can be が、ヶ、ケ、or not there at all. Not that this necessarily applies to 関ヶ原,\nbut I've definitely seen the different styles for other such places (that I\ncan't currently recall).\n\nYou can see most of them in [this Google\nmap](https://www.google.com/maps?cid=6682431842307005685&socpid=238&socfid=maps_api_v3:smclick).\n\n* * *\n\nEdit: Google changed their map APIs, so my shared map \"pins\" seem to not work\nany more, but you should still be able to find some of the different examples\non the map if you look closely.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T14:37:10.373", "id": "2933", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-04T17:45:55.077", "last_edit_date": "2016-01-04T17:45:55.077", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2931", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "According to Wikipedia, the correct name of “山手線” is “やまのてせん.” In the\napplication form of business license submitted by The National Railway (then\n日本国有鉄道) to the government before the start of operation in early Meiji era, it\nwas indicated as “山ノ手線,” and remained so until / during the World War II.\n\nHowever, the National Railway (then 国鉄) started to use the name 山手線 side-by-\nside with the rōmaji “Yamate Line” immediately after the end of the War when\nthey were directed by GHQ to indicate station names both with Japanese\ncharacters and the Latin alphabet. Before and around this time, the National\nRailway people had been using the name of “ヤマテ,” an abbreviation of ”山ノ手線” for\ntheir internal communications. They simply appropriated their password to the\nofficial indication of “山ノ手線.”\n\nIn response to the movement to make the names of stations and railway lines\nfamiliar to the public and easy for them to read, along with the introduction\nof the famous “Discover Japan\" campaign in 1970, JR decided to place 振り仮名 to\nthe names of all stations and railway lines, and they placed “やまのてせん” as 振り仮名\nto “山手線” on March 7, 1971.\n\nPresently, the destination of direction displays in the Yamanotesen trains is\nshown as “山手線” in Kanji and “YAMANOTE LINE” in rōmaji.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-01-06T07:37:34.193", "id": "30251", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-07T06:17:25.283", "last_edit_date": "2016-01-07T06:17:25.283", "last_editor_user_id": "12056", "owner_user_id": "12056", "parent_id": "2931", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 }, { "body": "When I first arrived in Japan in the summer of 1970, 山手線 was known simply as\nやまてせん - it (suddenly) came to be known as やまのてせん around a year later. Back\nthen, I had never seen it referred to as 山ノ手線.\n\nFurther, the area where we lived in Yokohama was also known as the Bluff, 山手,\nやまて, between the 石川町 and 山手 stations along the 根岸線.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-06-20T07:54:20.467", "id": "68950", "last_activity_date": "2019-06-20T07:54:20.467", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "34426", "parent_id": "2931", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I have been informed that よゆう is to do with temporal or physical room, while\n余地 has to do with emotional room, but I might have misunderstood the\nexplanation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T14:36:00.403", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2932", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-01T02:54:11.377", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-31T01:55:36.790", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "673", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "word-choice", "vocabulary", "synonyms" ], "title": "what's the difference between 余地 and よゆう?", "view_count": 527 }

[ { "body": "From WWWJDIC's example sentences search, the results for 余裕{よゆう} mostly deal\nwith time or money. (84 results all to do with either time or money)\n\n> 彼{かれ}は自動車{じどうしゃ}を買{か}う余裕{よゆう}はない。 (He cannot afford to buy a car)\n>\n> 時間{じかん}の余裕{よゆう}がありますか。(Do you have much time to spare?)\n\nThe results for 余地{よち} seem to apply to a broad spectrum of other things:\n\n> 彼女{かのじょ}の美{うつく}しさに関{かん}しては、疑{うたが}う余地{よち}がない。 (There is no doubt as to her\n> beauty)(Lit: no margin for doubt)\n>\n> 彼の遅{おく}れは弁解{べんかい}の余地{よち}はない。(There is no excuse for his lateness)(Lit: No\n> margin for explanation)\n>\n> 車{くるま}がもう１台{だい}入{い}る余地{よち}が十分{じゅうぶん}ある。(There is enough room for one more\n> car)\n>\n> (Interestingly most of the examples on WWWJDIC use 余地{よち} for \"no room for\n> doubt\")\n\n* * *\n\nEDIT: To add on to Enno's hypothesis about 余地{よち} being more specific than\n余裕{よゆう}.\n\nPerhaps it's more about how the range of “room“ is specified rather than how\nspecific they are.\n\n余地{よち} starts from the outer margin and goes towards your reference point.\n\n余裕{よゆう} starts from your reference point and goes towards the outer margin.\n\nOf course this is just my hypothesis.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T15:50:28.093", "id": "2936", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-01T02:54:11.377", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2932", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "**tl;dr** _余地 is more specific than 余裕, and IMO the tendency Flaw observed is\na secondary product of this._\n\n余裕 can be used in the following ways. Note that I have to change the sentence\na little bit if I wanted to use 余地 instead, or can't use it at all because it\nwould sound unnatural:\n\n```\n\n Space:\n タンクにはまだ余裕がある　（×タンクにはまだ余地がある）\n タンクにはまだかなりの量が入る余地がある\n \n 駐車スペースにはまだ余裕がある　（×駐車スペースにはまだ余地がある）\n 駐車スペースにはまだかなりの車が入る余地がある\n \n State of mind:\n 既に５点差がついているので、ゴールキーパーも余裕の表情です　（×余地のある表情です）\n 精神的に余裕がない (×精神的に余地がない)\n 余裕をもって (×余地をもって）\n \n```\n\nSimilarly let's try to analyze example sentences using 余地:\n\n```\n\n 弁解の余地なし　（×弁解の余裕なし）\n 疑う余地なし (×疑う余裕なし）\n \n```\n\nSo there is something going on other than the difference in what the \"room\"\ncan refer to.\n\nIf we compare these sentences:\n\n```\n\n まだ戦う余地がある\n まだ戦う余裕がある\n \n```\n\nThe former sounds more critical than the latter (i.e. the former sounds like a\ndismal situation. The latter sounds more optimistic). I think this comes from\nthe fact that 余地 is more specific about how much room is left. If you say\nまだ戦う余地がある, you are left with just what is necessary to win the battle (i.e.\nyou are on the edge of loosing the battle). If you say まだ戦う余裕がある, then you are\nnot being specific and thus it implies that you still have some more room\nleft.\n\nSimilarly, you can simply say タンクにはまだ余裕がある, but you need to specify how much\nroom is left if you use 余地 (タンクにはまだ* _かなりの量が_ *入る余地がある）.\n\nSimilarly, 精神的に余地がない sounds unnatural but まだ頑張れる余地がある sounds ok, presumably\nbecause 頑張る implies an aim to be accomplished, which is specific. You can also\nsay まだ頑張れる余裕がある which will again sound more optimistic.\n\nInterestingly, 疑う余裕がある sounds unnatural probably because the brain expects\nthat there is a specific room in the logic to be filled in order to establish\na fact.\n\nIf you can create enough specificity, 余地 can also be used for money:\n今年の予算に、社内旅行を入れる余地はありますかね？\n\nSo, IMO the tendency that came up in Flaw's answer is a secondary product of\nthis.\n\nBut then of course this is just my lay-man top-of-my-head theory :p", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-30T04:30:41.907", "id": "2941", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-30T04:30:41.907", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2932", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I have been wondering about this, since every time I hand in a 作文 in a\nJapanese class, I'm corrected on conjunctions. It seems to me that whenever I\nuse a てform as a conjunction, a response comes back that it has a cause-and-\neffect feel. I thought that it was just neutral, since there are so many\ndifferent ways to express cause and effect, but it seems that might not\nactually be the case. That being said, I thought that stem forms and なく might\nbe the actually neutral way to join two clauses. I just wanted to know if I'm\ncorrect.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T14:46:54.997", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2934", "last_activity_date": "2020-03-13T09:28:37.760", "last_edit_date": "2020-03-13T09:28:37.760", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "673", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "て-form", "conjunctions", "renyōkei" ], "title": "なく vs. なくて and stem form vs. てform as conjunctions", "view_count": 2151 }

[ { "body": "te-form is similar to the English participial construction, and has the\nfollowing restrictions as opposed to using the stem.\n\n1) It implies temporal order\n\n> 泣いて、笑った \n> 'having cried, laughed'\n>\n> 泣き、笑った \n> 'cried and laughed' [Without temporal implication]\n\n2) Volitionality of what is connected must match\n\n> 朝、起きて、歯を磨いた \n> 'In the morning, having gotten up (intentionally), I brushed my teeth\n> (intentionally).'\n>\n> × 朝、目覚めて、歯を磨いた \n> 'In the morning, having woken up (subconsciously), I brushed my teeth\n> (intentionally).'\n>\n> 朝、起き、歯を磨いた \n> 'In the morning, I got up, and brushed my teeth.'\n>\n> 朝、目覚め、歯を磨いた \n> 'In the morning, I woke up, and brushed my teeth.'\n\nNote that this second restriction is reminiscent of, if not exactly the same\nas, prohibition against dangling participle in English.\n\nThese two restrictions together may indirectly lead to the impression that\nthere is a cause-and-effect feel for te-form.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T15:18:28.590", "id": "2935", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-29T15:31:35.207", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-29T15:31:35.207", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2934", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2940", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is it true that all nouns must be able to accept a が particle and a を\nparticle?\n\nI was curious about how we could form a sentence with:\n\n 1. 特別が\n\n 2. 特別を\n\n 3. 出色が\n\n 4. 出色を", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-29T19:33:42.357", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2937", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-31T07:02:19.633", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-31T07:02:19.633", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "adjectives", "syntax" ], "title": "Is it true that all nouns must be able to accept a が particle and a を particle?", "view_count": 409 }

[ { "body": "Well, it seems obvious and weirdly asked.\n\n 1. A noun does not \"accept\" a particle.\n 2. A noun can _always_ be the object or the subject of a sentence.\n\nTrivial examples \"Nounが名詞です\" and \"Nounを習った\". A few less trivial examples, just\nfor the sake of it:\n\n> 特別が普通より良い\n\nSpecial is better than common (à la \"less is more\")\n\n> 特別を普通にしたい\n\nI want to make special things common (as a progressive architect may say)\n\n> 自然な例文と引きやすさに出色がある\n\nThere is excellency in the natural examples and in the 引きやすさ. (Example drawn\nfrom <http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki>/三宅徳嘉)\n\n> 出色を英訳すると、どうなりますか\n\nHow do you translate 出色 in English?", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-30T01:04:05.470", "id": "2939", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-30T01:04:05.470", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2937", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Nouns can always take the particles を and が. 形容動詞 cannot take these particles\n_unless_ they are also classified as 名詞. As far as I know, neither 出色 or 特別\nare independently-functioning nouns in standard grammar. One way you can check\nis by googling the exact phrase \"特別を\", for example. If hits are low, or if you\nget hits with 特別 set off from the を by quote marks, brackets etc. (for\nexample, 「特別」を訳す, translate _the word_ \"特別\"), the odds are good that you can't\nuse it. That said, people will use language as is their wont, and there are\nsome legit hits for 特別を. That does not mean it is standard, correct usage, and\nwill not give you license to use it.\n\nThere are some na-adj. that are also nouns. 安全なところ, a safe place; 安全を守る,\nobserve safety.\n\nAdditionally, some na-adj. can be converted into nouns by adding the suffix さ\nto them. 静かな街, a quiet street; 街の静かさ, the stillness of the street. You can\ngoogle these to test them as well.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-30T03:03:10.237", "id": "2940", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-30T03:03:10.237", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2937", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2944", "answer_count": 4, "body": "If I wanted to describe the person I was speaking about as being Japanese, to\nme it seems natural to say:\n\n> 日本人{にほんじん}の相手{あいて}\n\n... however, one time a Japanese teacher told me it's more correct to say:\n\n> 相手{あいて}の日本人{にほんじん}\n\n... but that never sat right with me. To me the first way seems more logical\nbecause it goes from more general to more specific.\n\nIs `相手{あいて}の日本人{にほんじん}` more correct?\n\nIf so, why?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-30T12:06:19.033", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2943", "last_activity_date": "2013-05-26T10:49:40.183", "last_edit_date": "2013-05-25T09:48:49.357", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-の" ], "title": "相手の日本人 or 日本人の相手?", "view_count": 802 }

[ { "body": "This の signifies the two words refer to the same thing, and 相手の日本人 means\nsomeone who is 相手 and 日本人 at the same time. I do not think that using 日本人の相手\nwhen you mean 相手の日本人 is _incorrect_. However, 日本人の相手 is ambiguous: it may mean\nthe same as 相手の日本人, but it may also mean an opponent/partner/company of some\nJapanese person, as in 吉田さんの相手. This is probably why the teacher said that it\nis more correct to say 相手の日本人 than to say 日本人の相手.\n\nIf you think that 日本人の相手 is _more natural_ than 相手の日本人, that may be because\n日本人の相手 corresponds better to the English expression, where “Japanese” is an\nadjective.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-30T12:31:18.453", "id": "2944", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-30T12:41:05.543", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-30T12:41:05.543", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2943", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "Tsuyoshi Ito's answer is right, but I think there is another factor here. It\nis specifity. `相手` 'the other person' is specific enough to identify the\nperson. Nevertheless, if you modify it as `日本人の相手`, it sounds like there are\nseveral people that are referred to as `相手`, and you are narrowing it down by\nadding `日本人の`, which is redundant, and hence not appropriate, if there is only\none person you are talking to. On the other hand `日本人` 'Japanese person' is\nnot specific enough, and it makes sense to modify it with `相手の`, making it\n`相手の日本人`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-30T13:53:30.233", "id": "2945", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-31T23:12:21.870", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-31T23:12:21.870", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2943", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "Hmm, this may be a tough answer to argue against the two previous which are\nanswered by native speakers. But here goes...\n\nTo me it just seems like a matter of perspective. With `日本人の相手`, it's saying\n\"Out of (the group of) Japanese people, the one who is an 相手.\" With `相手の日本人`,\nit's \"Out of all the 相手's, the one who is Japanese\". So it seems like a choice\nof with what you want to associate the person more; are you placing more\nemphasis on them being an 相手 or a 日本人. However, for reasons I can't explain,\nit _does_ sound like `日本人の相手` could be representing more than one person,\nwhereas `相手の日本人` sounds like only one person.\n\nI also stumbled upon something similar once. A friend of mine was saying\n\"Enjoy the rest of your summer\". She said it as 「 **残りの夏休み** を過ごしてください」and it\ndidn't sit well with me either (and still doesn't) -- I thought it should be\n`夏休みの残り`. But it seems like the same perspective issue. \"Of all the things\nthat have a remainder, the one that is summer\" vs. \"Of all the parts of\nsummer, the remaining part\".\n\nI think as English speakers, `日本人の相手` sounds more natural to us because in\nJapanese 101, we're taught to \"adjectivize\" nouns this way, like `日本の車`,\n`スイスの時計`, `ドイツのビール`, and so on. So we project this same pattern onto people.\nThe confusion is that with the previous examples, it makes no sense to switch\nthe order. Take `日本の車`: the two groups are Japan and cars, and there is no\nlarger \"semantic group\" that contains both of them. The groups are so separate\nthat only \"a car from Japan\" makes sense; \"a Japan from cars\" makes no sense.\nHowever, in the case of 相手 and 日本人, the two groups are part of the same larger\n\"semantic group\": people. So it confuses us about which one should modify the\nother one. But going back to our knowledge of \"adjectivizing\" nouns, we tend\nto put 日本人の as the adjective.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-30T14:51:44.687", "id": "2947", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-30T14:51:44.687", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2943", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "My answer will undoubtedly not be as complete as Ito-san's, but here's my two\ncents:\n\nInstead of looking at の as a possessive particle, you should try to see it as\na particle attaching some quality or attribute to said noun. In that sense\n`相手の日本人` does **not** mean `the 日本人 of 相手`, but `the 日本人 having an 相手\nquality`.\n\nIn the same sense `残りの夏休み` (from istrasci's answer) means `The part of the\nsummer vacation that has the 'leftness' quality`. Aka: the part that's left.\n\nI am by no means an officially trained linguistic, but ever since I began\nlooking at の in this way, it made my world a lot simpler. In fact, this is in\nmy view also how the 'possessive の' works:\n\n`私の友達` → The friend having an 'of me' quality → my friend.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-05-26T10:49:40.183", "id": "11960", "last_activity_date": "2013-05-26T10:49:40.183", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "2951", "parent_id": "2943", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2977", "answer_count": 3, "body": "## Background, problem statement\n\nVery often, I find myself in situations where I have to build structurally\ncomplex sentences in Japanese, and find myself struggling, trying to put all I\nwant to say in a single sentence. As far as the other languages I know well\nenough go, it's not an issue since\n\n 1. they have relative pronouns that resolve many ambiguities (that, which, who, whose, qui, que, dont, auquel…),\n 2. their grammar allow incremental stacking of relatives, starting with the base of the sentence (see example).\n\nI guess there are two viable solutions to my problem, but I never really paid\nattention to which was usually chosen in spoken (nor, in fact, written)\nJapanese.\n\n## Solution 1, the most likely\n\nBreak your sentence in many small chunks, make a sentence of each chunk, and\nconvince yourself that unlike French or English, it's not awkward to have a\ntrain of sentences like \"Aです。Bです。AとBの関係はCです。Dです。CとDの関係はEです…\"\n\n## Solution 2, the \"wished\" one\n\nIt is possible to express unambiguously sentences like\n\n> On Monday, the dog that ate the pudding that I cooked and whose owner's\n> sister I met yesterday will be castrated.\n\nMy attempt at this sentence would be like:\n\n> 月曜日には昨日妹さんにあった飼い主がいる私が作っていたケーキを食った犬が去勢手術を受ける。\n\nBut even though I feel quite satisfied with this simple, quite linear one, I\ndon't think it's likely to be heard… (FWIW, the sentences I build are often\ndescribing inter-related complex mathematical relations, which makes thing\neven harder…)\n\nThe recent remark on\n[\"invertion\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2943/or) makes me\nwonder even more if this common to have such sentences, because inversion may\ncause ambiguities to arise:\n\n> 日本人の相手がいる人\n\nThe person with a Japanese interlocutor? The Japanese with an interlocutor?\n\n> 相手の日本人がいる人\n\nThe partner with a Japanese person? The person with a Japanese partner?\n\n## Questions\n\n * Do you have issues expressing complex relations in Japanese?\n * How do you get round this issues?\n * Are there relation patterns in English that you will definitely break into several Japanese sentences?\n * Do you have trouble understanding the aforementioned kind of Japanese sentences?\n\nAnd subsidiary question, if ambiguity is definitely a major issue to all: how\ncould the language not evolve to avoid ambiguities?", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-31T14:49:03.797", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2955", "last_activity_date": "2023-03-01T15:54:06.733", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "356", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "comprehension", "relative-clauses", "ambiguity" ], "title": "How to unambiguously express sentences with lots of relative propositions?", "view_count": 698 }

[ { "body": "I don't see anything wrong with solution 1, but not because it makes it easier\nfor the speaker. Breaking up complex ideas also makes things easier for the\nlistener to digest, piece by piece. Of course it's ridiculous to take it to\nthe level of \"Here's this. Here's that. That relates to this in a certain way.\n. . _ad nauseam_ \". But you can and probably should limit how much information\nyou put into one sentence, then logically work in more complex relationships\nin separate sentences. Even in English, I don't think I would ever think to\nput all the information contained in your example into a single sentence. I'd\nbe more likely to say something like \"Yesterday I met the sister of the guy\nwhose dog ate that pudding I made. She said the dog will be fixed on Monday.\"\nOr even more simply \"You know that dog that ate the pudding I made? I met his\nowner's sister yesterday. Apparently, the dog's getting fixed Monday.\" In\nJapanese, maybe 「昨日、私が作ったプリンを[Edit-see comments\n(X食われたX)]食った犬の飼い主さんのお姉さんに出会った。犬は月曜日に去勢されるよ。（へへへへ）」", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T05:42:24.937", "id": "2967", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T14:31:33.383", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-01T14:31:33.383", "last_editor_user_id": "634", "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2955", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "This happens a lot in patent translations, so you might get some hints by\nsearching for these terms: 特許 請求項 翻訳\n\nThis site has this example:\n\n> 1. A dynamic random access memory including at least two banks, each of\n> said banks including memory cells arranged in rows and columns, said memory\n> cells storing data provided by at least one bit line and by at least one\n> data line, the dynamic random access memory comprising: first switching\n> means for selecting one of said at least two banks; and second switching\n> means connected to said first switching means for selecting one of said\n> columns, wherein said first and second switching means couple one of said\n> bit lines to one of said data lines, enabling data to be written into or\n> read out of memory cells common to said selected bank and to said selected\n> column.\n>\n\n>\n> [請求項１]\n> 少なくとも２個のバンクを含み、前記各バンクが行と列に配列されたメモリ・セルを含み、前記メモリ・セルが少なくとも１本のビット線と少なくとも１本のデータ線から供給されるデータを記憶するダイナミック・ランダム・アクセス・メモリであって、 \n> 前記少なくとも２個のバンクのうちの１個を選択する第１のスイッチング手段と、 \n> 前記第１のスイッチング手段に接続され、前記列の１つを選択する第２のスイッチング手段とを備え、 \n>\n> 前記第１および第２のスイッチング手段が、前記ビット線のうちの１本を前記データ線のうちの１本に結合して、前記選択されたバンクと前記選択された列に共通のメモリ・セルにデータを書き込み、またはそこからデータを読み取ることができるようにする（ことを特徴とする）、ランダム・アクセス・メモリ。\n\n[source](http://www.honyakunoizumi.info/column/Column_PatentTrx.htm)\n\n[This site](http://xenakis.cocolog-tcom.com/) has many more translation\nexamples. \nThe wording in patent translation is obviously very formal and it's probably\nnot what you want, but I guess if you want to investigate whether one language\nis somehow better at unambiguously expressing sentences with lots of relative\npropositions, this could be an interesting corpus.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-02T10:04:18.070", "id": "2977", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-02T10:04:18.070", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2955", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "You’ve probably noticed this but English is a right-branching language,\nmeaning subordinate clauses generally get deeper as you go to the right.\nJapanese in contrast is a left-branching language. Language is always spoken\nfrom left to right (forgive the conflation of speaking and writing), so\nnaturally a right-branching language lets you deeply nest subordinate clauses\nwith little confusion about how the clause relates to the utterance as a\nwhole. If you were to deeply nest subordinate clauses in Japanese, the\nlistener would hear the deepest subordinate clause first.\n\nWhen speaking Japanese, you already have to keep a sort of stack (in the\nprogramming sense) of components in your head as you hear the sentence, and\ndelay interpretation until hearing the predicate (or until you’re confident of\nwhat the predicate will be, given the flow of the dialogue). Deeply nesting to\nthe left, hence, greatly elongates this stack; so unless the speaker can keep\nmore than 7 components in mind at once, they are forced to make an\ninterpretation without full information, which can in the worst case lead to\nthem having to re-hear the sentence if their interpretation turned out to be\nirreparably wrong.\n\nThose sorts of garden path sentences can be used for comedic effect by utterly\nchanging the meaning of an entire long utterance with a のではない, らしい, or some\nother ending. In those cases, one can simply negate or slightly alter there\nexisting interpretation, so there isn’t a great mental burden or a need to\nrehear the sentence. This also applies to relatively semantically-light\nfunction words like こと、よう, etc. that don’t give the listener much mental\nburden when transitioning from a long relative clause.\n\nAt the same time, this is what makes deeply nested sentences like those found\nin English unnatural in many cases. Moderately long sentences with one, rarely\ntwo, layers of nesting can be fine. The subordinate clauses should be kept\nbrief in most cases if they modify something that is crucial to their\ninterpretation, but you’ll find some flowery novels that push them to the\nlimit.\n\nWhen translating an English sentence with deep nesting or lengthy subordinate\nclauses, though, you’ll just have to break up the sentence a bit. “I met a guy\nwho knows a guy x 100 who knows Ariana Grande.” would not translate well to\nJapanese without breaking it up. A good test may be to reread what you wrote\nin Japanese two days later and see if you can easily interpret it without\nrecalling the English.\n\nAnother tactic is to translate relative clauses by putting them in parentheses\nafter the word they describe. For example, “which is located in Shimbashi,\nMinato-ku Tokyo-to” could be rendered as “(東京都港区新橋にある)” immediately following\nthe noun it describes (preceding any particles). This induces some mental\nburden to interpretation but not as much, and since they are parenthetical the\nreader may choose to ignore them on first pass.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-03-01T15:54:06.733", "id": "98751", "last_activity_date": "2023-03-01T15:54:06.733", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22756", "parent_id": "2955", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2958", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I was taught that there is a grammatical form which goes like this:\n[V-stem]に行く\n\nFor example: 遊びに行く, which means _\"Go. Reason: to 遊ぶ\"_\n\nI was wondering does this grammatical form work for verbs whose stems are not\nstand-alone words by themselves?\n\nOk, in case this gets confusing..\n\nI mean 遊び is the stem of 遊ぶ, and 遊び is a standalone word in the dictionary\nwhich means \"play (n)\".\n\n選び is the stem of 選ぶ, but 選び is not a standalone word in the dictionary. 選び by\nitself means nothing.\n\n砕き is the stem of 砕く, 掘り of 掘る, 食べ of 食べる, 威張り of 威張る, 植え of 植える. but\n砕き、掘り、食べ、威張り、植え by themselves are not standalone words in the dictionary. By\nthemselves, they mean nothing.\n\nDoes these work:\n\n 1. 砕きにいく。 _\"Go. Reason: to 砕く\"_\n\n 2. 掘りにいく。 _\"Go. Reason: to 掘る\"_\n\n 3. 食べにいく。 _\"Go. Reason: to 食べる\"_\n\n 4. 威張りにいく。 _\"Go. Reason: to 威張る\"_\n\n 5. 植えにいく。 _\"Go. Reason: to 植える\"_", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-31T18:25:00.840", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2956", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T12:25:09.937", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Does [V-stem]に行く works for verbs whose stems are not stand-alone words by themselves?", "view_count": 1862 }

[ { "body": "Yes, the form “[continuative form (-te stem) of a verb]に行く・来る” works even with\na verb whose continuative form is not used as a noun in isolation. For\nexample, 応援しに行く is perfectly fine even though the action of cheering is 応援,\nnot 応援し.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-31T19:20:29.997", "id": "2958", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-31T19:36:45.397", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-31T19:36:45.397", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2956", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "Yes you can use them even though they are not dictionary entries.\n\nAll verbs and い-adjectives in 連用形* inflection can be used as a noun.\n\n> Inflections for 五段 verbs:\n>\n\n>> 未然形 (Imperfect): verb stem + あ sound\n\n>>\n\n>> *連用形 (Continuative): verb stem + い sound\n\n>>\n\n>> 連体形 (Attributive): verb stem + う sound\n\n>>\n\n>> 已然形 (Perfect): verb stem + え sound\n\n>>\n\n>> 命令形 (Command): verb stem + え sound\n\n>\n> Inflections for 一段 verbs:\n>\n\n>> 未然形: verb stem\n\n>>\n\n>> *連用形: verb stem\n\n>>\n\n>> 連体形: verb stem + る\n\n>>\n\n>> 已然形: verb stem + れ\n\n>>\n\n>> 命令形: verb stem\n\nThis noun produced from a verb in 連用形 is a noun for the act of the verb.\n\nFor example, in 1. \"I walk to the park\", \"walk\" here is a verb.\n\nCompare this to 2. \"I'm having a walk in the park\". \"walk\" here is a noun,\nthis is the type of noun formed by a verb in 連用形.\n\n* * *\n\nAnd to correct you slightly, using your example, `遊び(あそび)` is not [Verb Stem],\nThe verb stem would be `遊（あそ）`. Some dictionaries call `あそび` the [Verb-Masu]\nbecause that's how we would conjugate the verb to add the polite helper verb\n`ます`. Technically it would be called the 連用形.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T12:25:09.937", "id": "2971", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T12:25:09.937", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2956", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2963", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I decided to split this into a thread by itself because I was afraid of\ncramming too much into the [first\nthread](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2956/does-v-stem-works-\nfor-verbs-whose-stems-are-not-stand-alone-words-by-themsel).\n\nIs it true that only movement verbs can take [V-stem]に to express a purpose?\n\nWill it be possible for a non-movement verb to take [V-stem]に to express a\npurpose?\n\nFor example (let's take a really wild example), could 遊びに食べる even imply\nsomething like _\"Eat. Reason: Play.\"_ / _\"Eat your vege, so that you can\nplay.\"_", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-31T18:34:07.040", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2957", "last_activity_date": "2017-10-29T05:07:13.133", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Is it true that only movement verbs can take [V-stem]に to express a purpose?", "view_count": 1012 }

[ { "body": "Yes it is true. According to my grammar dictionary, [Verb in 連用形 + に] can only\nbe used with motion verbs such as `行く`, `来る`, `帰る`, `入る`, `出る` to mean \"to\ngo/come/motion-verb (in order to) do something\". The \"In order to\" becomes\nexplicit when の為に is used, indicating a rather important purpose.\n\n* * *\n\nLet me try to break down the composition:\n\n> * Take 遊ぶ as the verb.\n>\n> * 遊ぶ in 連用形* yields 遊び (a playing)(Noun)\n>\n>\n\n>\n\n>> *any verb or い-adjective can become a noun when placed in 連用形. This is\nsimilar to the English concept of \"gerund\". E.g. `talk` is a verb. `talking`\nis also a verb. But in the sentence \"Is my `talking` distracting you?\"\n`talking` here is a noun.\n\n>\n> * `に` as a particle indicates a point of space/time/reasoning.\n>\n\n>\n> (Compared to `から` which is a half-line with a start point; from a point in\n> space/time/reasoning)\n>\n> (Compared to `まで`, which is the other half-line with an end point;\n> terminating at a point in space/time/reasoning)\n>\n> And let's also take a motion verb:\n>\n> * 行く : to go\n>\n\nThen let's try to piece it back together:\n\n * 遊びに (The point of reasoning of \"a playing\")(Since 遊び is not a time or space)\n\n * 遊びに行く (To go to the point of reasoning of \"a playing\")**(More naturally parsed as \"To go play\")\n\n** because 行く goes towards whatever is marked by に\n\n* * *\n\nNow let's try for your example:\n\n> 遊びに食べる (To eat, at the point of reasoning of \"a playing\"). It cannot be\n> naturally parsed because に does not relate the thing it marks with the verb\n> 食べる. Unlike に+motion verb, whatever に marks is directly related to the\n> motion verb.\n\nThe act of eating has nothing inherent to do with the playing. On the other\nhand, moving has an inherent connection to the destination. See sawa's\nexplanation of に in [\"に and で\nrevisited\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2197/and-revisited)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T02:39:53.597", "id": "2963", "last_activity_date": "2017-10-29T05:07:13.133", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2957", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2961", "answer_count": 2, "body": "It seems like this is a remnant of (or reference to) older forms of Japanese.\nIs that all there is to it, or does it have special meaning?\n\nExamples from songs:\n\n> 歌声 笑い声 満ちる大空 目指すは憧れ\n\n(DuDiDuWa*lalala - KOTOKO)\n\n> 吹きやまぬは残り風 [...] \n> 巡りゆくはこの心\n\n(残り風 - いきものがかり)\n\nAnd lastly, the same with が: \n(At least I _suspect_ that it's not the \"but\" kind of が. Feels like the\nsubject particle for some reason.)\n\n> 巡り逢ったが 運の尽き\n\n(刀と鞘 - ALI PROJECT)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-31T20:30:05.880", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2959", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-25T05:30:28.773", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-25T05:30:28.773", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "315", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "verbs", "particle-は", "archaic-language" ], "title": "What is the nuance when は directly follows a verb in plain form?", "view_count": 825 }

[ { "body": "This construct was common in classical Japanese, but now it is archaic or\npoetic. In classical Japanese, the attributive form of conjugating words can\nbe directly followed by particles which attach to nouns (without inserting の).\n目指すは would become 目指すのは in modern Japanese, 吹きやまぬは would become 吹きやまぬのは or\n吹きやまないのは, and so on.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-31T21:38:52.653", "id": "2961", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-31T21:38:52.653", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2959", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "Tsuyoshi Ito has already answered this question, but I'd like to add one\ndetail:\n\nI think I see `目指すは〜` a lot more than other verbs followed by は. Although I\ncan't find it in any dictionaries, from personal experience I think it might\nbe common enough to be considered something like a set phrase, or possibly a\nholdover from when this grammar was more common.\n\nSearching [_The Balanced Corpus of Contemporary Written Japanese\n(BCCWJ)_](http://www.kotonoha.gr.jp/shonagon/) for 目指すは, I find 73 results, of\nwhich 4 look like false positives (they matched はず rather than the particle\nは). So that's 69 results, and given the size of the corpus, I think that's a\nfairly large number. For comparison, the corpus has 194 results for カタツムリ.\n\nA lot of the corpus results for 目指すは look something like this:\n\n> 目指すは **優勝だ** ！\n\nAnd that's more or less how I'm used to seeing this phrase used. [Searching\nfor the same phrase on\nGoogle](https://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&q=%22%E7%9B%AE%E6%8C%87%E3%81%99%E3%81%AF%22)\ngives a lot of similar results.\n\nIn any case, I think it's worth learning as a pattern of its own.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-05-24T12:36:59.387", "id": "16118", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-24T12:36:59.387", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2959", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2964", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In English, \"barely\"/\"hardly\" can be used both with a connection to time\n(\"just finished\"):\n\n> I had barely finished eating when he arrived. (食べたばかり...)\n\nor to express the idea that a goal was reached at great effort, sometimes\nagainst expectations:\n\n> We barely made it alive.\n>\n> There was so much wind, I could barely move forward.\n>\n> I can hardly explain it myself.\n\nThe former (time-related) can generally be translated well with words like\nばかり/ばっかり. There are also a few expressions such as ギリギリ or やっとこ, that can\nexpress both shortness of time and \"difficulty\", but building them in the\nabove sentences would be slightly unnatural.\n\nBeside these, is there a more idiomatic way to unambiguously translate that\n\"can do with difficulty\"/\"nearly couldn't do it, but still managed\" adverbial\nmeaning in sentences like the ones above?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T02:31:21.810", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2962", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T10:15:38.477", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Translating \"barely\", \"hardly\" etc", "view_count": 2671 }

[ { "body": "First, for your lunch example, I'd definitely use \"かないかのうち\" rather than \"ばかり\"\n\nThen, for idiomatic ways with adverbs、what about \"ほぼ〜ない\" or \"ほとんど〜ない\"？\n\n> ほとんど聞き取れないような声 (a barely audible voice)\n\nYou may try \"辛辛\" or \"辛くも\", but I never used (nor heard) them.\n\n> 辛くも勝利する (win by a hair)\n\nOr なんとか\n\n> 何とか締め切りに間に合った (we barely met the deadline)\n\nAccording to edict, 碌々 and まず, both followed by a negative construction, seem\nto work too, but ALC doesn't know anything about that.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T02:54:38.530", "id": "2964", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T10:15:38.477", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-01T10:15:38.477", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2962", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I think かろうじて fits for most of these. If you want a more \"dangerous\" sense,\n危うく might work. For \"I can hardly explain it myself\", maybe something like\n「自分だって説明がほとんど出来ないんだよ。」 (Edit) It just occurred to me, For the time sense ones,\nyou can also use とたん: 「食べ終えたとたん、彼が着いてきた。」 \"Just as I finished eating, . . .\".\nやいなや also has the \"as soon as\" meaning, but I think it has a negative\nconnotation. 「部屋の中に踏むや否や、けんかが始まった。」 \"The minute I stepped into the room, the\nargument was on.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T02:57:54.283", "id": "2965", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T03:40:35.867", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-01T03:40:35.867", "last_editor_user_id": "634", "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2962", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2969", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider the following sentence:\n\n> お金じゃないところが好きだから一緒にいるの\n>\n> 【おかね じゃない ところが すき だから いっしょに いるの】\n\nI think it means \"I'm with you because of the parts of you that don't have to\ndo with money\".\n\nI'm wondering about the use of `ところ` here. It seems to mean the same thing as\nwhat `こと` was said to mean in [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2102/what-is-the-in-\nsentences-such-as), which is a vague collection of qualities that a person can\nhave.\n\n**Question one:** Does `ところ` mean exactly the same thing as `こと` here, or are\nthere differences? Would `「お金じゃない` **`こと`**`が好きだから一緒にいるの」` change the meaning?\n\n**Question two:** I think this question refers specifically to a person who\nmay or not have money, because of a wider context. However, from purely a\ngrammatical point of view, could it also mean \"I don't like things to do with\nmoney, so that's why I'm with you\"? In other words, the speaker is expressing\nmore about the fact they aren't materialistic, as opposed to commenting on the\nresources of the person being spoken to.\n\n**Question three:** If you read this statement without other context, would\nyou assume that the person being spoken to does not have money, and the\nspeaker likes that person _in spite_ of that fact? Or, would you assume the\nperson being spoken to may or may not have money, but either way it is not\nrelevant to the speaker?\n\n* * *\n\n**Bonus question:** I'm a little confused by the `の` at the end. I thought `の`\nat the end of a sentence indicated a question, but that doesn't seem to be the\ncase. What's `の` up to here?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T09:28:50.097", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2968", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T01:31:59.207", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "definitions", "particle-の" ], "title": "Does ところ mean the exact same thing as こと in this sentence?", "view_count": 848 }

[ { "body": "こと in the sense discussed in the linked question is, as far as I've seen it,\nonly used in the XXのこと form, and it doesn't refer to any one identified part\nof somebody/their personality.\n\nところ in this sense is more a specific point or points. You wouldn't use\n彼【かれ】のところ to refer to his personality as a whole, but 彼のどんなところが好き？ is a common\nphrasing. You can like some ところ and dislike others, and still like 彼のこと as a\nwhole.\n\nSo:\n\n 1. I think こと here would not be interpreted as the same as in 彼のこと, and it might be taken as liking a non-materialistic lifestyle (お金じゃないこと) as opposed to anything about the person being spoken to.\n\n 2. I think it specifies that the thing(s) the speaker likes about the other person are not to do with money. As above, if it was こと not ところ I think it could take your \"I don't like things to do with money, so that's why I'm with you\" meaning.\n\n 3. I sort of read it as him having (or having had, then recently lost) money, but either way it doesn't matter to the speaker.\n\nB: の here is a sort of light emphasis, and distinguishable in speech from the\nquestion の by the use of a falling intonation rather than rising. It's a\nfeminine form.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T10:49:34.303", "id": "2969", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T13:49:15.303", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-01T13:49:15.303", "last_editor_user_id": "571", "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "2968", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2974", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I already know the main usages of の as said\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/283/what-is-the-\nsignificance-of-no), but I was wondering: If I want to use the possessive\nindicator in a row, is it correct?\n\nFor example, if I wanted to say \" _My family's car is blue._ \", could I write\nsomething like this example?\n\n> 私の家族の車は水色です。\n\nAnd are there restrictions or alternatives to this I'm not aware of?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T17:43:44.940", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2972", "last_activity_date": "2014-11-09T14:49:29.867", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "37", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "particle-の" ], "title": "Can I use more than one possessive の in a row in the same sentence?", "view_count": 4072 }

[ { "body": "There is no restriction on the number of `の`s you can string together.\n\nIt might get a little silly looking after a point, but there is no grammatical\nrule that prevents it.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T17:49:43.830", "id": "2973", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-01T17:49:43.830", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2972", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Your example is perfectly correct and natural. Using ～の twice in a row is\nusual. (I am not so sure about particles other than の, but in this answer, I\nwill focus on repetition of の.)\n\nHow about more repetitions? I agree with Dave M G that, as far as\n_correctness_ is concerned, you can use as many ～の as you like. However, if a\nsentence uses ～の many times in a row, it starts to look strange. In general,\nusing the same construct again and again is usually considered as a poor\npractice.\n\nFor example, if a hypothetical report is titled 敬語の用法の習得の困難さの原因の考察, it is\nunderstandable (“Consideration of Reasons for the Difficulty of Learning the\nUsage of Honorifics”) and probably most people agree that it is _correct_.\n(This example is partly based on rdb’s comment on Dave’s answer.) This example\ndoes not have an issue with ambiguity which Axioplase (rightly) raised.\nNevertheless, this title is _awkward_ because of the repeated uses of の.\n敬語の用法の習得 **が** 困難 **である** 原因の考察 sounds better.\n\nSome people even say that you should not use ～の three times in a row for good\nwriting. [Here is an\nexample](http://itpro.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/COLUMN/20100430/347675/).\nHowever, funny part of that text is in its correction: one of the “good\nexamples” in an older version of the text contained ～の three times in a row! I\nthink that the lesson is that there is no firm rule about the number of times\nyou can use ～の in a row in good writing, although unfortunately it does not\nseem that the author learned this lesson.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-01T18:30:12.183", "id": "2974", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-03T12:10:30.903", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-03T12:10:30.903", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2972", "post_type": "answer", "score": 23 }, { "body": "A simple problem is that you don't know the span of what comes around の.\n\n> 私の姉にプロポーズした友達\n\nIs it (私の姉)にプロポーズした友達, the friend who asked my sister to marry him? \nIs it 私の(姉にプロポーズした)友達, My friend who asked to marry some girl/sister?\n\nJust in that simple case, you have an ambiguity. Even with your example, in\nfact:\n\n> 私の家族の車は水色です。\n\nIs it 私の(家族の車) or (私の家族)の車? \nIn the first case, I talk about the car of my family but not about the car of\nyour family. In the second case, I talk about the car of my family, but not\nabout the house of my family. This too is ambiguous.\n\nThe more の you stack up, the more ambiguities you get, maybe exponentially.\nThis can make comprehension very hard.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-02T02:06:14.143", "id": "2976", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-02T06:11:16.363", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-02T06:11:16.363", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2972", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2979", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Is it possible to tell whether a word would be written in kanji or if it would\nbe written in hiragana without actually reading it, like it is reasonably easy\nto tell if a word is likely to be written in katakana? (An example for\nkatakana would be \"this is an English loanword so it's probably written in\nkatakana\")\n\nBackground: The kana version of Japanese for Busy People 1 uses only kana - it\ndoesn't have kanji with furigana, and I'm wondering if not knowing which words\nare really hiragana, and which are not really hiragana would be a problem.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-02T11:36:11.210", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2978", "last_activity_date": "2021-07-15T07:30:37.393", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:23:50.240", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "kanji", "hiragana", "orthography" ], "title": "Is it possible to tell whether a word is kanji or hiragana without reading it?", "view_count": 4010 }

[ { "body": "Not per se. EDICT has \"uk\" (usually kana) and \"uK\" (usually kanji)\nannotations, but for the most part either is acceptable.\n\n> 只今 ただいま \n> (int,exp, **uk** ,abbr,n-t,adv) Here I am; I'm home!; presently; right\n> away; right now; just now; (P)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-02T13:08:14.253", "id": "2979", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-02T13:08:14.253", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "2978", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "Words that perform a grammatical function can almost always be written in\nhiragana without it looking strange. Hiragana is usually the preferred way to\nwrite such words. Additionally, particles are always written in hiragana.\n\nGiongo and gitaigo (onomatopoeic and mimetic/sound-symbolic words) will always\nbe written in kana of some kind, either hiragana or katakana. I don't think\nI've seen kanji used for this purpose.\n\nDepending on the situation, you can usually get by with writing honorifics in\nhiragana too, though many have widely-used kanji (様, 君, etc). Others have none\n(さん, ちゃん).\n\nCan't think of anything else...", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-02T13:09:18.147", "id": "2980", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-02T13:09:18.147", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "2978", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Expanding on my comment, some word types that are likely to be written in kana\nwhich haven't been covered so far:\n\n 1. Cases where one or more kanji in the compound are considered rare/difficult (for the level of the text). Examples: 石鹸【せっけん】, where 鹸 is the sticking point. This is commonly written せっけん or 石けん, or if the kanji are used furigana may be provided. \n\n 2. Cases where the kanji are common but being used for sound rather than meaning. Examples: 沢山【たくさん】, although it is seen both ways, 薬缶【やかん】, where the kanji 薬 is in there for historical reasons but doesn't much related to the modern meaning, and 駄目【だめ】, which is also often written in katakana.\n\n 3. Cases where there are multiple kanji options, particularly common for verbs. Example: わかる which can be written 分かる、判る、解る。 The different kanji have slightly different nuances, but if you are unsure which is best you can get around it by using kana.\n\n 4. Cases where katakana are used by convention, such as in scientific contexts. Example, ゾウ科【か】 for the family Elephantidae, instead of 象科。\n\nPossible combination of 1. and 2. above: 綺麗【きれい】 uses the non-jouyou 綺 so an\nalternative is to write it with another, similar kanji with the same reading -\n奇麗. However, 奇 doesn't fit well with the meaning of the word, and it's not\nuncommon to see kana used.\n\nIn some cases the choices are down to personal preference, but also audience\n(if you are writing for children or adults, for the layperson or the\nspecialist), and how you are writing (people tend to use more kanji when\ntyping than when handwriting).\n\nExample: 歳・才【さい】, for counting ages. 才 is a grade 2 kanji, so only books for\nvery young children would use kana. 歳 isn't taught until much later in school,\nthough, so 才 is quite common, even though official documents will use 歳。 才 is\nalso more commonly used when handwriting - not necessarily because people\ncan't remember how to write 歳, it's just quicker. (see also [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1842/ \"here\") )", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-02T16:07:39.830", "id": "2981", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-02T16:07:39.830", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "2978", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2984", "answer_count": 3, "body": "What's the meaning of つまづい in this context?\n\n> たとえ何があっても \n> つまづいても迷っても", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-02T19:12:33.293", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2982", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-03T16:11:43.463", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "definitions" ], "title": "What does つまづい mean?", "view_count": 474 }

[ { "body": "<http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/50364/m1u/%E8%BA%93%E3%81%8F/>\n\nIt's just old 仮名遣い.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-02T19:49:16.453", "id": "2983", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-02T19:49:16.453", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2982", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "You're parsing it incorrectly. The second line should be\n\n> つまづいて・も・迷って・も\n\nSo `つまづいて` is the 〜て form of `つまづく`, which @rdb pointed out is probably an\nolder spelling of `つまずく【躓く】`, which means \"to trip/stumble\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-02T20:12:18.903", "id": "2984", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-02T20:12:18.903", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2982", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Let me add a little about the spelling つまづく. It is an alternate (secondary)\nspelling of つまずく, and not necessarily an _old_ spelling as stated in other\nanswers.\n\nThis verb was etymologically a compound word made of つめ and つく with a vowel\nmutation (つめ→つま) and [rendaku](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendaku) (つく→づく).\nIn the [historical kana\northography](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_kana_orthography), it was\nwritten as つまづく, reflecting the fact that the latter part came from つく.\n\nIn the [modern kana\northography](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_kana_usage), most uses of\nletter づ were replaced with ず to match the orthography with pronunciation. One\nof the exceptions is that づ arising from rendaku has been retained. If you\nthink of the origin, づ in つまづく indeed arises from rendaku and therefore the\nword would have been written as つまづく even in the modern orthography. However,\nbecause it is not obvious from its meaning that this verb is a compound word,\nit was decided in the [official\nrecommendation](http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/k19860701001/k19860701001.html)\nthat the primary spelling of this verb should be つまずく, with a remark that it\ncan be alternately written as つまづく. The recommendation also lists other\nexamples of words of this kind.\n\nSo, つまづく is not only the spelling in the historical orthography but also a\npermitted spelling in the modern orthography, although the primary spelling in\nthe modern orthography is つまずく.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-02T22:48:38.930", "id": "2985", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-03T16:11:43.463", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-03T16:11:43.463", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2982", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2988", "answer_count": 3, "body": "What's the difference between 成人 and 大人 ?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-03T05:47:12.103", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2986", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T10:41:41.903", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "vocabulary", "synonyms" ], "title": "What's the difference between 成人 and 大人?", "view_count": 2147 }

[ { "body": "成人 means adult or to mature or to grow up. 大人 just means adult.\n\nYou may use 大人 as \"Only adults can see this film\" I'd treat it like a noun.\n大人だけこの映画が見える。\n\nFor 成人 you may use it in a similar context as above or you can say someone has\ngrown up. In the next example. Sandra has grown up to be a beautiful woman.\n\nサンドラは成人してびじんになりました。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-03T07:57:43.693", "id": "2987", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-03T07:57:43.693", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "683", "parent_id": "2986", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "成人 is a very specific term and refers to persons who reached the age of 20 and\nabove. It's derived from the definition of the Japanese law, which says\n\"年齢二十歳をもって、成年とする\".\n\nYou used to get drafted and taxed after this age. In today's context, it's the\nlegal drinking/smoking age.\n\n大人 is a more lax term and usually means persons that are older than around 18\n- 25 (depends on the context/speaker).\n\n大人 is also used to mean \"mature\". For example, a toddler can be 大人 like this:\n\n> A: 大樹君、３歳なのにお寺が好きなんだって！ \n> B: 大人～（笑）\n\nYou can't do this with 成人. It's also more formal than 大人 so it's much more\ncommon to use 大人 in everyday speech. Also 成人になる specifically means \"to turn\n20\". 大人になる usually means \"to become mature\".\n\n> 芳一は来年成人になる -> OK \n> 芳一は来年大人になる -> Weird \n> 美緒もだんだん成人になってきたなぁ -> Weird \n> 美緒もだんだん大人になってきたなぁ -> OK", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-03T14:18:06.040", "id": "2988", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-03T14:18:06.040", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2986", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "This is what I found in my dictionary. Considering I'm not actually an expert,\nor even an intermediate at reading Japanese, it might not be the definite\nanswer you're looking for.\n\nBut since it was impossible to post it as a comment, I'm writing it as an\nanswer:\n\n> おとな **【大人】** \n> せいじん **【成人】**\n>\n> ☞ アダルト \n> 成長して一人前になった人。【英】 an adult \n> 使い方\n>\n> **大人** ▽体だけは **大人** だが、まだ頼りにならない▽年は若いがなか \n> なか **大人** だ \n> **成人** ［…スル］▽子供たちは **成人** して独立した▽ **成人** 式\n>\n>  \n> 用例組み合わせ：\"◯\"=可, \"△\"=避けた方が無難, \"—\"=不適当\n>\n> **[使い分け]** \n> **【１】**\n> 「大人」は、年齢を経ただけでなく、社会的、身体的、精神的に成熟した一人前の人間をいい、また、世故にたけた、ずるさのようなものを含んだ意味でも使うのに対して、「成人」は、単に成年に達した人全般をさす。\n>\n> **【２】**\n> 「成人」は、少年法では満二〇歳以上をいい、「おとな」よりも年齢的な区別がはっきりしている。また、「少年」「未成年」等に対し、すでに成長の過程を終え、肉体的にも社会的にも、周囲から責任ある者として扱われる年代の人をいうこともあり、この場合、「大人」と近い意味になる。\n>\n> 反対語大人⇔子供 成人⇔未成年\n>\n> `関連語` \n>\n> アダルト「おとな」「成人」の意。他の語と複合して用いられることも多い。また、形容動詞的にも用い、中年以降の落ち着いた年代をさすこともある。「アダルトショップ」「ヤングにもアダルトにも人気のファッション」「アダルトな魅力」\n\nThe thesaurus is \"Tsukaikata no Wakaru Ruigo Reikai Jiten\" (使い方の分かる類語例解辞典),\nwhich is provided by the Japanese publisher\n[Shogakukan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shogakukan).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T15:28:23.683", "id": "3001", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T10:41:41.903", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-05T10:41:41.903", "last_editor_user_id": "37", "owner_user_id": "37", "parent_id": "2986", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2993", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Has any [Australian\nEnglish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_English_vocabulary) become\nincorporated into Japanese as gairaigo? Or would most Japanese people only be\nexposed to Australian English from Australian-made shows such as \"The\nCrocodile Hunter\"?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-03T14:39:43.887", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2989", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-04T08:49:54.817", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "loanwords" ], "title": "Is there any gairaigo based on Australian English?", "view_count": 266 }

[ { "body": "I am personally not aware of any Australian gairago. Being Dutch I looked at\nimported words before due to rangaku in the 17th century, followed by\nimporting some Portuguese and later massive English import of words. And\nnowadays the eyes and ears are very focused on US English to the point where\nspeaking with an Australian or UK English accent actually makes it more\ndifficult for Japanese to understand you.\n\nI guess the only Australian import words will be limited to the standard\nkangaroo, koala, dingo, and so on. But I am not sure if we can call that real\nAustralian English (due to these words coming from Guugu Yimithirr, Dharuk)?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T08:49:54.817", "id": "2993", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-04T08:49:54.817", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "685", "parent_id": "2989", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "Japanese has some sets of characters which look very similar or even\nidentical. Obviously, context is usually more than enough to distinguish which\ncharacter is intended, but I'm wondering if there are subtle differences which\ncan be used to disambiguate. It's easy enough to compare characters in\ncomputer fonts, so my question is really more about handwriting.\n\n * ー (katakana), 一 (kanji) and — (em dash)\n\nThe first two can be distinguished from the last one in Minchō-type fonts, and\nusually it is possible to distinguish between all three. In vertical writing\nthe katakana _bō_ and the em dash are oriented vertically so is easily\ndistinguished from the kanji _ichi_.\n\nWhat about in handwriting or Gothic-type fonts? I suspect they are\nindistinguishable then, but counterexamples are welcome.\n\n * ロ (katakana) and 口 (kanji)\n\nIn print, katakana _ro_ is usually printed a little bit smaller than kanji\n_kuchi_. In some of the fonts I have the final stroke of katakana _ro_\nprotrudes to the right, while the penultimate stroke of kanji _kuchi_\nprotrudes downwards.\n\n * カ (katakana) and 力 (kanji)\n\nLike the above, katakana _ka_ is usually printed a little bit smaller than\nkanji _chikara_ ; but I've also noticed that the little hook is subtly\ndifferent for katakana _ka_ , and that in some fonts katakana _ka_ has a bit\nof a rightward slant or curvature.\n\n * ニ (katakana) and 二 (kanji)\n\n * エ (katakana) and 工 (kanji)\n * タ (katakana) and 夕 (kanji)\n * ト (katakana) and 卜 (kanji)\n\nOther than size, it seems like the only way to distinguish these pairs in\nMinchō-type fonts is to rely on the tendency for katakana to have more brush-\nlike strokes than the kanji.\n\n * ハ (katakana) and 八 (kanji)\n\nThese are usually easy to distinguish in print, even in brush-type fonts,\nsince the last stroke of katakana _ha_ is of a different type from the last\nstroke of kanji _hachi_. What about in handwriting?\n\n * え (hiragana) and 之 (kanji)\n\nThese are easily distinguished in print and good handwriting, but I have\ntrouble making them distinct in _my_ handwriting.\n\n * へ (hiragana) and ヘ (katakana)\n\n_Is_ there any difference between these two? They are identical in Hiragino\nMincho, for instance...", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-03T16:53:36.857", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2990", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-01T08:36:42.270", "last_edit_date": "2014-03-01T08:36:42.270", "last_editor_user_id": "4091", "owner_user_id": "578", "post_type": "question", "score": 29, "tags": [ "kanji", "orthography", "kana", "handwriting" ], "title": "Distinguishing certain characters in handwriting and print (Similar-looking Kana and Kanji)", "view_count": 13784 }

[ { "body": "In the case of a kanji and kana that are similar as in your examples\n(ロ、カ、ニ、エ、タ、ト、ハ), the kanji of the pair is slightly bigger, almost as if it's\nbeen zoomed in on a little bit. Depending on your font, you can even see this\nwhen placed side-by-side. However, I personally think `え` and `之` are\ndifferent enough that you should easily be able to distinguish them.\n\nAs far as the hiragana and katakana `へ`, I was always taught that in writing\nthem, the hiragana should be _slightly_ rounded at the top whereas katakana is\nan exact point. Again, that's what I was taught and don't know if this is a\nhard rule or not. But as you point out, many fonts show them to be exactly the\nsame, and even in practice I don't always round off the hiragana.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T18:11:34.403", "id": "3005", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-04T18:11:34.403", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2990", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I noticed that most of the pairs in your list are between kana (mostly\nkatakana) and kanji, with the only exception of へ. In my opinion, in most\nsituations you can infer whether it's the kana or kanji symbol from the\nsurrounding text. I think katakana symbols rarely sits alone on its own\nbecause we would find them in a bunch of at least 2 characters in a sequence.\nSo if we find 私の力 and 入り口 then we would know that they are the kanji ちから and\nくち because otherwise the katakana would be alone by themselves. On the other\nhand, if we find バカ and クロ then we would know they are the katakana 'ka' and\n'ro' for the same reason that the katakana バ and ク cannot be alone by\nthemselves. This is, however, just a theory of mine so I don't have anything\nto back them up.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T08:08:29.340", "id": "3012", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T08:08:29.340", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2990", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "**if you want good handwriting, you need to learn to write with a brush.**\n(and when you buy one, don't make the mistake i made and go for the biggest\none. choose one that's as long, small-circumfrence, and thin as possible. 10\ndollars, or five pounds, is a good price to pay. there's no need to pay for\nink or paper at this stage. black watercolor on white printer paper works\nwell. i store my [colors](http://www.jazzgreen.com/journal/pics/watercolours-\njamjar.jpg) in little jam jars, the kind they have at hotels.)\n\nyou can also write with something brushlike, such as a\n[fudepen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudepen) or a ballpoint pen, which can\napproximate brushstrokes because it responds to pressure well. if you choose\nto go with a fudepen, i recommend [this\none](http://www.jlist.com/product/STA113).\n\nas a side note, i have seen some excellent ballpoint pen calligraphy. in\nchina, it became somewhat of a fad after the revolution. and comes under the\nbanner of\n[硬筆書法](http://images.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=458&q=%E7%A1%AC%E7%AD%86%E6%9B%B8%E6%B3%95&gbv=2&oq=%E7%A1%AC%E7%AD%86%E6%9B%B8%E6%B3%95&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=2276l2276l0l3146l1l1l0l0l0l0l70l70l1l1l0).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-11T20:48:59.600", "id": "3107", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-11T20:54:53.087", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-11T20:54:53.087", "last_editor_user_id": "350", "owner_user_id": "350", "parent_id": "2990", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "re: カ (katakana) and 力 (kanji)\n\nWell, I can normally distinguish them _quite_ well. Now, that is. When you\ndraw an imaginary basic bottom line to the kana per line, the chikara kanji\nnormally looks a bit as if it is too far below, by fractions of an inch;\nwhilst the katakana ka does not cross that line by any means. Hmm, do I have\nsome back up? Yes I do. I had to translate a Japanese sentence using Google\nTranslate and both characters were in that text: the chikara kanji and the\nkatakana ka. My observations described above were plain to see once I had my\nbrowser zoom cranked up quite a bit. So maybe they will help someone out there\nafter all... :)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-05-07T19:57:34.817", "id": "11843", "last_activity_date": "2013-05-07T19:57:34.817", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3455", "parent_id": "2990", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2992", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Are foreign personal names usually written in katakana, or is this dependent\non the type or writing, and the target audience? For example, this Japanese\nWikipedia entry on [Steven\nBradbury](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B9%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E3%83%BC%E3%83%96%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%83%96%E3%83%A9%E3%83%83%E3%83%89%E3%83%90%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC)\nuses katakana, while this Wikipedia entry on\n[JRuby](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/JRuby) uses romaji for the contributors.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T00:45:18.850", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2991", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T05:24:11.530", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T05:24:11.530", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "orthography", "katakana", "rōmaji" ], "title": "Are foreign personal names usually written in katakana rather than Romaji?", "view_count": 1800 }

[ { "body": "As you guessed, it depends on the type of writing and the target audience, and\nalso on the style. In text written for general public, such as newspaper\narticles, foreign personal names are usually written in katakana. In academic\nbooks and papers, it is more common to see names in the Latin script (at least\nin mathematics and computer science).\n\nAs for Wikipedia, a [guideline of the Japanese\nWikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3a%E8%A1%A8%E8%A8%98%E3%82%AC%E3%82%A4%E3%83%89#.E6.97.A5.E6.9C.AC.E5.90.8D.E4.BB.A5.E5.A4.96.E3.81.AE.E4.BA.BA.E5.90.8D)\nstates that foreign names other than Korean and Chinese names should be\nusually written in katakana. I do not know how strongly this guideline is\nenforced.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T02:49:37.520", "id": "2992", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-04T02:49:37.520", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2991", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3263", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I found this adjective from 7!!'s song 「ラヴァーズ」(Lovers):\n\n> 無邪気なる\n\nDictionary entries categorises 無邪気 as a noun and な-adjective.\n\nFor reference, I shall extract parts from two different stanzas in the song.\nThey share the same rhythmic structure and melody:\n\n> 君は今 涙流した\n>\n> **`泣きじゃくる`** 子供のように\n>\n> たとえ未来(あす)が見えなくなっても守るよ\n>\n> 夏の空見上げてニラんだ\n\n* * *\n\n> 君の手を強く握った\n>\n> **`無邪気なる`** 子供のように\n>\n> たとえ時間(とき)が現在(いま)を奪ってもススムよ\n>\n> 夏の空目指して走った\n\n**Observations** : The parts in bold both are 5 syllables and both end in る\n\n**Conjecture** : The songwriter used 無邪気なる to be more poetic and lyrical.\n(Because without \"る\" it just \"would not fit\")\n\nI understand that present day な-adj results from なる-adj which in turn results\nfrom classical Japanese's なり copula, and some なる-adjectives (like 単なる)\nsurvived.\n\n**(Question)** Can we produce なる-adjectives by \"regressing\" な-adjectives? Are\nthere any guidelines that prevents or allows us to produce なる-adjectives?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T13:06:18.340", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2994", "last_activity_date": "2019-10-03T06:33:53.733", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "grammar", "adjectives", "song-lyrics" ], "title": "Producing なる adjectives", "view_count": 2002 }

[ { "body": "The answer to your question is simple.\n\nWe have this grammar in a lot of Japanese Christian prayers. For example we\nsay:\n\n> 王なる神様、this means Our God King \n> 聖なる神様、our Holy God\n\nNow there are some words that can be used with the なる form and some that can\nonly use the な form\n\nきれいなる女 is incorrect because the adjective きれい can not take the なる form.\n\nThere is no real way to tell which words can take the naru and which take na\nonly but most cases the なる form can only be used with the おんよみ (Chinese\nreading) of a single kanji, like the two examples I gave you.\n\nThe funny thing is that 無邪気 can both be used as 無邪気な or 無邪気なる\n\nThe なる form is mostly used in songs or prayers or old Japanese more often,\nnever used in conversation.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T04:58:58.533", "id": "3263", "last_activity_date": "2019-10-03T06:33:53.733", "last_edit_date": "2019-10-03T06:33:53.733", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "164", "parent_id": "2994", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I think you are right. The `-なる` form is the attributive form of _nari_\n-adjectives in Classical Japanese.\n\nWe have many idioms and quotes in Classical Japanese like\n\n```\n\n [健全]{けんぜん}なる精神は健全なる肉体に宿る # -なる: attributive form of nari-adjective \n 好きこそものの[上手]{じょうず}なれ # -なれ: imperative form of nari-adjective\n \n```\n\nPoems (especially Haiku and Tanka) are sometimes written in CJ. And CJ is used\neven the title of a game, e.g. 「[汝]{なんじ}は[人狼]{じんろう}なりや？」.\n\nAttributive forms of some _nari_ -adjectives and _tari_ -adjectives in CJ are\nfrequently used in both literature and conversation, for example [広大]{こうだい}なる,\n[偉大]{いだい}なる, [錚々]{そうそう}たる, [堂々]{どうどう}たる, and so on.\n\nI think _nari_ -adjectives which are less used today, e.g. [綺麗]{きれい}なる,\n[自然]{しぜん}なる, &c., and back-forming _nari_ -adjectives from _na_ -adjectives is\naccepted, and it sounds a little old-fashioned or like you're speaking with an\naccent.\n\nP.S.: \nAlmost all _nari_ -adjectives in CJ become _na_ -adjectives in Modern\nJapanese, and _tari_ -adjectives become verbs suffixed with とする.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-06-30T03:00:19.800", "id": "25442", "last_activity_date": "2016-05-14T11:21:25.117", "last_edit_date": "2016-05-14T11:21:25.117", "last_editor_user_id": "10490", "owner_user_id": "10490", "parent_id": "2994", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2999", "answer_count": 3, "body": "For those who might not be familiar with the series\n[Tintin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin) (soon to be in\na [major motion picture](http://www.us.movie.tintin.com/), by the way), there\nis a character named [Captain\nHaddock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Haddock) who is famous for\nshouting out colourful exclamations when he gets upset.\n\nHis signature exclamation when he's surprised or angry is \"Blue blistering\nbarnacles!\". At least, that's what it is in English. I don't know what the\noriginal French would be. In any case, it's just sort of an arbitrary thing to\nshout.\n\nIn Japanese, his trademark exclamation is made into `「コンコンニャローのバーロー岬！」`.\n\n\n\n_(In the panel above, he is looking at a ship in the harbour, and the ship has\nraised a flag saying it is in quarantine, and he's just shouting his surprise,\nthe same way one would yell \"Oh no!\" or something like that.)_\n\nThis is obviously not a direct translation of the English (or the French, I\nassume), and I know it's just an equivalently arbitrary colourful thing to\nsay. However, I'm struggling to parse exactly what he is saying.\n\nI know the last `バーロー` is probably just a katakanization of the name \"Barlow\",\nand `岬【みさき】` is \"cape,\" as in the coastal geographical feature. So it ends on\n\"Cape Barlow\".\n\nI'm thinking the `コンニャロー` is an abbreviated `この野郎【このやろう】`, which translates to\nsomething like \"you rascal\", or worse, [depending on how severe you think the\ncontext is](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2118/is-there-an-\nequivalent-to-george-carlins-seven-dirty-words-in-japanese).\n\nThe first `コン` really throws me. I don't think it's just a stutter, because he\nsays it this way each and every time. Even in some other cases where he does\nclearly stutter, this repetition is still preserved.\n\nThe use of `の` throws me a bit too, as I [struggle a bit with the use of `の`\nin general](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2943/or).\n\nI can't make it come together. What is he shouting?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T13:07:51.777", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2995", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-29T19:55:45.903", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "word-choice", "translation", "particle-の" ], "title": "Blue blistering barnacles, what is Captain Haddock saying?", "view_count": 1526 }

[ { "body": "As you said, コンニャロー is abbreviated この野郎, which means “you bastard.” バーロー is\nabbreviation of ばか野郎, “you fool” or something. In this case, probably neither\nof them is directed to any specific person, but both are used just as general\nphrases for expressing frustration or anger.\n\nOther parts do not have any meaning. Huh?\n\nWell, バーロー岬 is a pun of バーロー and バロー岬 ([Point\nBarrow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Barrow), the northenmost point of\nthe US). But obviously Point Barrow has nothing to do with this exclamation.\n\nコンコン might refer to yelping of a fox, but it is unclear what it refers to\nbecause anyway it has no reason to refer to anything here.\n\nI do not know what の signifies here, but it definitely sounds more natural to\nme than コンコンニャローがバーロー岬 or other particles. I cannot explain why. (I did not\nknow _Les Aventures de Tintin_ , so it is very unlikely that I prefer の just\nbecause it is used in the story.)\n\nIf you listen to the rhythm, コンコンニャローのバーロー岬 is made of four parts: コンコン (4\nmorae), ニャローの (4 morae), バーロー (4 morae), みさき (3 morae). This is considered as\na rhythmical phrase. In Japanese, a block of two or four chunks of four morae\nis often considered rhythmical, and the first and/or last block can have one\nless mora. So, while neither コンコン nor 岬 has any specific meaning, they are\nthere to make the whole phrase to roll off the tongue.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T13:43:00.843", "id": "2999", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-04T13:43:00.843", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2995", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "I think コンコン also has an effect to bring smooth transition to the subsequent\nelement コンニャロ in terms of sound. \"kon\" phonetically is a part of \"kon-nya-ro\".\nSo, \"kon-kon-konnyaro\" sounds like a stutter (to me). By the way, do you know\nニャロメ, a cartoon character created by Fujio Akatsuka? コンニャロ could be expanded\nto コンニャロメ, and I cannot help thinking that ニャロメ went through the translator's\nhead. You have to be in your 40s or over ;-)\n\nニャロメ： <http://dictionary.sanseido-\npubl.co.jp/wp/2008/08/24/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A-%E3%81%AE%E3%81%9E%E3%81%8D%E3%82%AD%E3%83%A3%E3%83%A9%E3%81%8F%E3%82%8A-%E7%AC%AC1%E5%9B%9E/>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-16T14:50:34.540", "id": "3745", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-16T14:50:34.540", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "859", "parent_id": "2995", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I cannot help with the Japanese-English translation. But I want to point out,\nthat, in the original French version, the Captain says «Milles milliards de\nmilles sabords» which translates roughly to «Thousands of billions of\nthousands of ports/scuttlings» which, doesn't say much \"things\" but is pretty\nmuch a tongue-twister like \"Blue blistering barnacles!\" is for an Anglophone.\nI say the Japanese version will PROBABLY tend to mimic that.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-19T05:19:13.070", "id": "9799", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-29T19:55:45.903", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-29T19:55:45.903", "last_editor_user_id": "3437", "owner_user_id": "2992", "parent_id": "2995", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2998", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider these example sentences given by my grammar dictionary:\n\n> (1) 私はデパートへ贈り物を買いに行った。\n>\n> (2) そこへ何をしに行くんですか。\n\n**Observation** : The location is marked by へ instead of に.\n\nConsidering that a sentence such as `デパートに行く` is grammatical,\n\nif the locations in (1) and (2) are marked by に, two にs would be present in\nthe same sentence.\n\n**(Question)** : Can the location in (1) and (2) be marked by に? Would two にs\ncause the sentence to be ungrammatical?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T13:18:20.873", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2996", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-11T00:20:08.587", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-に", "renyōkei" ], "title": "Using に twice in the [Verb-連用形]に行く sentence pattern", "view_count": 1703 }

[ { "body": "Yes. They can. The two にs are different. The first is location, the other is\npurpose. The only restriction against using two particles in a single clause\nin Japanese is for を.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T13:26:30.540", "id": "2998", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-04T13:26:30.540", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2996", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3002", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Earlier today my friend and I were looking for a restaurant that someone had\nrecommended we go to. We couldn't find it, and so my friend suggested I should\ncheck again with the person who recommended the place about where it is\nlocated.\n\nIn telling me to check with my other friend, the Japanese friend I was with\nsaid:\n\n> 場所を聞いておく。【ばしょを きいて おく】\n\nMy very loose translation is \"you should ask [them] the place.\"\n\nThis is a classic case of what I encounter a lot which is that I get the\nmeaning enough to know what is being asked and how to respond, but I can't\nclaim to understand _completely_. I don't exactly know what `おく` is doing\nhere.\n\nI know that `おく`, usually means \"to place\", as in to put something in a place\nand leave it here. However, it also means, \"to do in advance\".\n\nSo I assume it's something like that second meaning being used here, but, if\nso, do what in advance of what, exactly? Ask my friend in advance of\nattempting to go to the restaurant a second time? That seems logical, but it\nalso seems like _a lot_ of assumed context and extra information to store in\none verb.\n\nWhat exactly is `おく` doing when attached to `聞いて`?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T13:25:22.307", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2997", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T03:17:59.900", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-04T14:04:23.667", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "verbs" ], "title": "What exactly is おく doing in 聞いておく?", "view_count": 1009 }

[ { "body": "I checked in the dictionary and pulled up one meaning that might fit, out of\nabout 20 various definitions of おく.\n\n```\n\n *do sth* anyway; just [simply] *do sth*; *do sth* for the time being.\n \n```\n\nSo, you could take it as \"Anyway, you should ask\" , \"You should just ask\" ,\n\"For the time being, you should ask\".\n\nThat said, I don't think this is different than the \"do in advance\" meaning.\nI've always taken ~おく to mean do in advance _for some reason or future\nbenefit_. The future benefit of asking in advance here would pretty clearly be\nto avoid another wild goose chase, wouldn't it?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T15:31:59.837", "id": "3002", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T03:17:59.900", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-05T03:17:59.900", "last_editor_user_id": "634", "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2997", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "> I know that おく, usually means \"to place\", as in to put something in a place\n> and leave it here. However, it also means, \"to do in advance\".\n\nThe `～ておく` form means \"do something in advance\", not just `おく` by itself. But,\nyes, this example means \"Ask them the place (ahead of time / in advance)\".\nThere's no context for the sentence, but maybe the asker won't see them again,\nso he needs to ask now while he has the chance. Or like @rdb said, he should\nask ahead of time instead of blindly trying to find the place and risk getting\nlost.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T17:59:02.270", "id": "3004", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-04T17:59:02.270", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2997", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3003", "answer_count": 1, "body": "From early on, I've used `こら` and `ほら` somewhat interchangeably. They both\nmean \"hey!\"\n\nI picked them up from friends early on without really having a sense of the\ndifference.\n\nNow, after some time, I've come to understand that `ほら` is simply \"hey!\", as\nin just getting someone's attention, and `こら` is \"hey\" with a flavour of\n\"dude, what the hell?\" mixed in.\n\nThe thing is, I still tend to slip and use `こら` when maybe I should say `ほら`,\nand vice versa. Old habits die hard.\n\nMy question is, when I mix up and say `こら` instead of `ほら`, how bad is it?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T14:49:09.583", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3000", "last_activity_date": "2019-03-20T14:46:30.740", "last_edit_date": "2019-03-20T14:46:30.740", "last_editor_user_id": "17797", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "word-choice", "interjections" ], "title": "Is こら a lot more rude than ほら?", "view_count": 1697 }

[ { "body": "[こら](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E3%81%93%E3%82%89&match=beginswith&itemid=DJR_kora_-020)\nis uttered usually when the speaker is scolding or blaming someone.\n[ほら](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E3%81%BB%E3%82%89&match=beginswith&itemid=DJR_hora_-030)\nis used to draw someone’s attention to something. They are not\ninterchangeable.\n\nI do not know how bad it is to mix them up, especially if other people know\nthat you speak Japanese as a foreign language, but using こら in an\ninappropriate situation can be rude and may give the impression that you\nconsider that you are superior to the addressee.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T16:07:32.917", "id": "3003", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-19T05:27:34.643", "last_edit_date": "2014-12-19T05:27:34.643", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3000", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3007", "answer_count": 1, "body": "When expressing \"It takes about 1 hour and 15 minutes\", would it be best to\nsay\n\n```\n\n １時間１５分掛かる。\n \n```\n\nor\n\n```\n\n １時１５分掛かる。\n \n```\n\nor maybe\n\n```\n\n １時１５分間掛かる。\n \n```\n\n?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-04T23:47:40.717", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3006", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T00:29:00.430", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "686", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "grammar", "time" ], "title": "Amount of time and 間", "view_count": 617 }

[ { "body": "１時 means \"one o'clock\". １時間 means \"one hour\". So you have to say １時間１５分掛かる。 If\nyou want to express the \"about\", you can say およそ１時間１５分掛かる。 or １時間１５分くらい掛かる。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T00:29:00.430", "id": "3007", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T00:29:00.430", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3006", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3075", "answer_count": 4, "body": "[In their comment to an\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2991/are-foreign-\npersonal-names-usually-written-in-katakana-rather-than-romaji/2992#2992) on\nthe question [\"Are foreign personal names usually written in katakana rather\nthan Romaji?\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2991/are-foreign-\npersonal-names-usually-written-in-katakana-rather-than-romaji), user\n[sawa](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/users/458/sawa) says:\n\n> ... Chinese names should be written in kanji rather than katakana and read\n> by the Japanese pronunciation. For example, 金大中 is キムデジュン, not きんだいちゅう, but\n> 毛沢東 is もうたくとう, not マオジードン. ...\n\nThis got me wondering, since each Japanese character generally has at least\ntwo readings is there always one clear reading for pronouncing such names?\n\nI expect of course that the \"on\" readings would be used, but often there is\nmore than one on reading for the same character.\n\nFrom the comments so far (no answers yet) this is indeed very interesting, and\non [Zhen Lin's](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/users/578/zhen-lin)\nprompting I would like to include Korean names as well despite their being\ndiscounted in the older linked question.", "comment_count": 15, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T12:48:38.370", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3013", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T22:18:10.473", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "kanji", "pronunciation", "readings", "names", "chinese" ], "title": "When Chinese personal names are written in Japanese in kanji is there always an obvious reading?", "view_count": 8204 }

[ { "body": "According to\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%AB%E3%81%8A%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B%E5%A4%96%E5%9B%BD%E5%9B%BA%E6%9C%89%E5%90%8D%E8%A9%9E%E3%81%AE%E8%A1%A8%E8%A8%98#.E6.97.A5.E6.9C.AC.E8.AA.9E.E5.81.B4.E3.81.8B.E3.82.89.E3.81.AE.E5.91.BC.E7.A7.B0),\n\n> [...]\n>\n> また、朝日新聞は中国人名のルビを中国語読みで表記している。（グループ会社のテレビ朝日は日本語読み）\n>\n> [...]\n>\n>\n> 日本漢字音による読みは原則として漢音を用いるが、金日成、済物浦、銭其琛をそれぞれ「きんにっせい」、「さいもっぽ」、「せんきしん」と読むように呉音や慣用音が用いられることも稀にある。また個別の慣用によって、北京をペキン、香港をホンコンと読んだり、台湾の高雄を「たかお」と訓読みしたりする場合がある。\n\nHere is my translation, additions in square brackets:\n\n> [...]\n>\n> On the other hand, the Asahi Shimbun prints Chinese names with ruby\n> annotation giving the Chinese pronunciation. (Asahi Television, which is in\n> the same group, uses Japanese readings.)\n>\n> [...]\n>\n> As a general rule, Japanese readings [of these names] use kan-on, but in\n> rare instances go-on and kan'yō-on are also used: for example, Kim Il-sung\n> (金日成), Jemulpo (済物浦), and Qian Qichen (銭其琛) are read respectively as _Kin\n> Nissei_ , _Saimoppo_ , and _Sen Kishin_. [Pure kan-on readings for these\n> would be _Kin Jissei_ , _Seibuppo_ , and _Sen Kichin_.] Also, it is\n> customary to call Beijing (北京) _Pekin_ , Hong Kong (香港) _Honkon_ , and there\n> are cases where kun-yomi is used, such as Kaohsiung (高雄) in Taiwan, which is\n> called _Takao_.\n\nThe same article also describes the corresponding phenomenon in Korean and\nChinese.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T14:28:15.990", "id": "3075", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T14:28:15.990", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "3013", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "They usually convert the kanji directly with the corresponding japanese\npronunciation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-07-06T23:25:34.413", "id": "6062", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-06T23:25:34.413", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1498", "parent_id": "3013", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "Due to a policy called _mutualism_ (treat back the way you are treated),\nChinese names are written in the corresponding Japanese kanji, and are\npronounced with the most typical Japanese on-reading. Korean names are written\nin katakana that describes an approximation of the Korean pronunciation. There\nare some exceptions for readings that have been established earlier, and for\nacademic contexts.\n\nConversely, Japanese names are incorporated into Chinese, being written with\nthe corresponding Chinese characters, and read in the Chinese pronunciation,\nwhereas Korean incorporates Japanese names into Hangul with approximation of\nthe Japanese reading.\n\nHowever, mutualism in Japanese is not consistent. Japanese has double\nstandard, and this mutualism only seems to apply to east Asian languages. For\nexample, English incorporates Japanese names in the given name-family name\norder, and if mutualism were to be applied, Japanese should incorporate\nEnglish names in family name-given name order such as オバマバラク or ブッシュジョージ\ninstead of バラクオバマ or ジョージブッシュ, but it is not done in that way. This may be\nreflecting some kind of bias in Japanese.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-07-07T00:05:43.667", "id": "6063", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T22:18:10.473", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T22:18:10.473", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3013", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "This answer won't be very helpful if you're looking for a general rule that is\nfollowed.\n\nThere was a Chinese girl in my Japanese class, and she asked the teacher how\nshe should write and pronounce her name. However, the teacher replied with\nsomething that seems plainly obvious now that I know of it. The teacher told\nher that it's her name so it's her decision.\n\nThe teacher did explain the most commons ways to her though:\n\n * Write her Chinese name with the corresponding Japanese kanji and read it as a Japanese approximation of the Chinese pronunciation\n * Write her Chinese name with the corresponding Japanese kanji and read it as a Japanese name\n\nI have no idea which way is more common, so I can't help you with that, but\nkeep in mind that each person can decide what to do with their name. If you\naren't sure, it's probably best to just ask the person.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-07-07T03:50:40.320", "id": "6066", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-07T03:50:40.320", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "575", "parent_id": "3013", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Having picked up about 2,000+ characters from Chinese, one of the fastest ways\nfor me to acquire a feel for Japanese grammar and word order, as well as\n_some_ useful kanji readings, has been to study classical Chinese texts in\n[kanbun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanbun). Yet I constantly struggle with\nthe resources available to me. I know that there have been some multi-volume\ncollections of kanbun which ought to be in the public domain, like the 漢文叢書.\nBut I can't seem to find a good online resource. Ideally, I'd like to be able\nto pick any classical Chinese text and study a kanbun reading of said text.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T13:34:52.707", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3015", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T22:34:43.363", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "350", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "resources" ], "title": "Free, online resource for kanbun readings of particular texts?", "view_count": 1049 }

[ { "body": "There are many public domain books available online at the Diet library,\nincluding a bunch of kanbun: <http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/index.html>\n\nYour chances of finding a free online resource will generally be lower as the\nwork you're interested in gets more obscure. (Conversely, if you're going to\nbe reading Confucius or something I think you'd be much better off just\nspending 500 yen for a paperback edition -- 岩波文庫 or 講談社学術文庫 or whatever.)\n\nAs Zhen Lin says, though, kanbun is not really a good way to get a good sense\nfor _Japanese_ grammar and word order, or vocabulary... The minimal reordering\ninto SOV (compared to SVO) and so on is present, it's true, but in general\nkanbun has a very idiosyncratic style that differs in many respects from\nstandard modern Japanese. (Edit: But, let me state for the record so as not to\nsound negative, I think that reading this kind of work can be very rewarding,\nand it can certainly help with understanding \"pure Japanese\" works that are\nnevertheless strongly influenced by kanbun -- which covers a lot of territory\nup through, say, WWII).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T20:49:05.823", "id": "3020", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T22:34:43.363", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-05T22:34:43.363", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3015", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]