Datasets:

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3017", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I've often seen 「食べる」 used, when should we use 「食う」 ? Are these two\ninterchangeable ? Can you provide examples ?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T14:53:38.163", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3016", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-06T08:37:14.070", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:45:55.213", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "664", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "usage", "readings", "register" ], "title": "What is the difference between 「食う」 and 「食べる」?", "view_count": 19312 }

[ { "body": "They both mean \"eat\", as you no doubt already know.\n\n`食{た}べる`however, is \"eat\" in the sense of \"sit down and have a meal\". Not\nstrictly that, but that's more the image. It also means eat as in\n\"sustenance\", the food you eat regularly to stay alive.\n\n`食{く}う` is eat in the sense of \"consume\", as in one animal eating another.\n`食う` can be used for people, of course, and it conveys a more raw sense of\n\"I'm going to get this food in me!\"\n\nSo, to get more specific to your question...\n\nThey are not entirely interchangeable because of the different implications\ndescribed above.\n\nAn example of `食べる` is\n\n> 食{た}べるために働{はたら}いている。\n>\n> _(I) work so that I can eat_\n\nNote in this example, there's the dual implication of working so that one can\nafford meals, and also to maintain oneself by having continued access to\nsustenance.\n\nAn example of `食う` is:\n\n> 食{く}うか食{く}われるかの世{よ}の中{なか}\n>\n> _In this world, it's eat or be eaten. \"It's a dog eat dog world\"_", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T15:38:27.977", "id": "3017", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-06T08:37:14.070", "last_edit_date": "2013-02-06T08:37:14.070", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3016", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "I'm not sure where you're from, Aki, but depending on your native language you\nmight have already come across a pair of words that mean almost the same\nthing, but one of them has a slightly bad connotation where the other is more\nneutral.\n\nIn my native language, German, we have \"essen\" (to eat [humanly], 食べる) and\n\"fressen\" (to eat [animalistic], 食う).", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T21:23:36.903", "id": "3021", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T21:23:36.903", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "644", "parent_id": "3016", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "It's probably worth noting that 食う also gets used for things like time and\nmoney getting eaten up 「暇も金もパチンコ機器に食われちゃった。」 and being on the receiving end of\nbad stuff 「激しいパンチを食った。」 「お目玉(叱り)を食った。」. There's also a similar verb 食らう (くらう),\nwith pretty much the same meaning.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T23:00:19.237", "id": "3022", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T23:00:19.237", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3016", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "食う is often used by teenage or young adults, especially males.\n\nAccording to a discussion I had with thirty-something Japanese guy the other\nday, it's a verb that people start to stop using when they reach 25/35, at\nwhich stage they go back to the less vernacular 食べる.\n\nHowever, 食う is pervasive in some dialects. For example, in Tôhoku, \"食べてください\"\n(\"please eat\") is often said \"け\", derived from \"食え\" (\"eat!\").", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-06T01:18:56.477", "id": "3023", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-06T01:18:56.477", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3016", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3019", "answer_count": 2, "body": "This is something I first noticed when I was at an aquarium in Japan (as\nevidenced in my examples) and continued to see ever since. There are certain\npairs of animals, that while _extremely_ similar, have certain distinguishing\ncharacteristics such that English speakers (well, most anyway) know them\napart; or at least that they are different animals even if they don't know\nwhich is which.\n\n**Disclaimer - I'm no animal expert, so I may mix up these pairs, but I'll try\nto Google them to be sure.**\n\nFor example, `alligators` and `crocodiles`. English speakers know these are\ndifferent even if they're not sure what the differences are. Alligators have\nbroader, rounder snouts, while crocodiles have longer, pointier snouts. Also\nsomething about the teeth. But in Japanese, they're both just `ワニ`. I asked my\nJapanese friend, and he said the average Japanese person doesn't know this\ndifference or is even aware that they are considered different animals.\n\nHere are several other pairs that seem to just get lumped together in the same\nJapanese word (by the average person):\n\n * Turtle (flat wide shell) vs. Tortoise (large dome shell) → 亀【カメ】\n * Seals (have fur; concave ears) vs. Sea Lions (smooth body; protruding ears) → アシカ\n * Dolphin (have a \"beak\"; spiky teeth) vs. Porpoise (no beak; flat teeth) → イルカ\n\nEven pairs that are blatantly different often get grouped:\n\n * Crab vs. Lobster → カニ (not sure if Japanese people use ロブスター or not)\n * Mouse vs. Rat → ネズミ\n * Monkey vs. Ape → 猿【サル】\n\nThere are many other examples, but these are the only ones I can think of\nright now. I'm sure the `学名` are different, but like I said, it seems like the\naverage Japanese person doesn't make, or even know of a difference in these\npairs. Why is this?", "comment_count": 19, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T16:14:59.173", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3018", "last_activity_date": "2020-12-22T15:20:45.943", "last_edit_date": "2018-08-02T16:20:08.980", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "words", "word-choice", "animals" ], "title": "Non-distinguished animal pairs in Japanese", "view_count": 1067 }

[ { "body": "First, I think speculating on what people actually know based on what options\nthe language provides is too speculative. For example, I don't know the\ndifference between a porpoise and a dolphin, even though the English language\nprovides the option to specify either one. So the issue of what Japanese\nspeakers _know_ should simply be put aside.\n\nHowever, it is worthwhile to consider why it is that Japanese, as a language,\ndoes not differentiate between certain animals.\n\nSome examples you cite actually do common have common enough differentiations\nthat I don't think they are representative of what you are asking about.\n[`ネズミ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8D%E3%82%BA%E3%83%9F) means mice\nand can be used for rats, but rats can be specified with\n[`ドブネズミ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%89%E3%83%96%E3%83%8D%E3%82%BA%E3%83%9F).\nAlso, sea lions are\n[`アシカ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%82%B7%E3%82%AB) and seals\nare\n[`アザラシ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%82%B6%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B7).\n\nWith the rest, you can notice a pattern. Japan has turtles, dolphins, and\ncrabs. It does not have tortoises, porpoises, and lobsters. It shouldn't be\nthat difficult to see how animals which were exposed to the culture relatively\nrecently, and are so similar to known animals, that for the average person,\nthey use a similar word.\n\nHowever, note that although they are not common, and maybe mainly used in\nscientific circles, there are words for all animals. So tortoise is\n[`リクガメ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AF%E3%82%AC%E3%83%A1%E7%A7%91),\nporpoise is\n[`ネズミイルカ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8D%E3%82%BA%E3%83%9F%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB%E3%82%AB),\nand lobster is\n[`ザリガニ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B6%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AC%E3%83%8B). I\nhave seen`ザリガニ` offered in restaurants, though in the long run it might lose\nout to `ロブスター`. Wendy's in Japan, for example, offers a\n[`ロブスターバーガー`](http://news.mynavi.jp/news/2012/11/16/059/index.html?gaibu=hon)\n(as of 2012).\n\nWith apes... you get into some interesting territory there. In my experience\nwith English, \"apes\" usually refers to gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and\nmaybe orangutans, but often does not include humans, unless the context is\nspecifically about evolution or something similar where precision matters.\n\nEven putting aside objections some might have about whether or not humans\nshould be included when saying \"apes\", [the scientific term \"apes\" actually\nincludes two families of animal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape), one of\nwhich includes things like [gibbons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbon),\nwhich most English speakers almost certainly _don't_ have in mind when using\nthe term \"ape\".\n\nSo, the common English use of \"ape\" has some rather arbitrary lines drawn by\nculture, just as arbitrary as where Japanese draw the lines for `猿{さる}`.\nLooked at that way, that Japanese doesn't differentiate between ape and monkey\nthe way English does isn't a lack of specificity, but goes into other issues\nfar beyond the scope of this question and answer.\n\nBottom line, though, is that in Japanese if you want to start talking about\napes, you will have to be _more specific_ than English:\n[`ゴリラ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AA%E3%83%A9%E5%B1%9E),\n[`チンパンジー`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%81%E3%83%B3%E3%83%91%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B8%E3%83%BC%E5%B1%9E),\n[`ボノボ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9C%E3%83%8E%E3%83%9C), and, of\ncourse, `人間{にんげん}`.\n\nJust for comparison, Japan does make some differentiation not found in other\nlanguages as a result of the environment. For example, I believe it's because\nthey have hot springs that they have the words `湯{ゆ}` and `水{みず}` for hot\nwater and regular water.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T19:53:31.750", "id": "3019", "last_activity_date": "2020-12-22T15:20:45.943", "last_edit_date": "2020-12-22T15:20:45.943", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3018", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 }, { "body": "There's also a divide between things like Strawberry [taste] which is usually\nwritten in katakana as ストローベリー 「sutoro-beri-] and Strawberry [the fruit] which\nis written as いちご[ichigo]。\n\nthere ａｒｅ ａｌｓｏ ｍｏｒｅ ｗｏｒｄｓ ｆｏｒ ｔｈｉｎｇｓ ｌｉｋｅ ｐａｐｅｒ： Two come to mind:\n\n紙 Paper [Generic] 和紙 Paper [Handmade]\n\nJapanese doesn't make the distinction for the same reason we don't make the\ndistinction between different forms of snow like the Inuit:\n<http://www.princeton.edu/~browning/snow.html> It's culturally less important\nto know.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-05T18:51:33.113", "id": "3382", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-05T18:51:33.113", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "17", "parent_id": "3018", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3091", "answer_count": 5, "body": "Often times at the gym, when I'm on my way out, covered in sweat, one of the\nstaff will say `お疲{つか}れ様{さま}です` (\"you've worked hard\"...?).\n\nUsually at work situations, I've often found that saying some variant of\n`お疲{つか}れ` back makes sense, because we're usually in the same situation or\nwe're finishing at the same time.\n\nHowever, in this case, they're working and I'm a customer, so I'm never quite\nsure how to respond. Saying some variant of `お疲れ` back to them doesn't seem\nright, as they are still working.\n\nI feel a little weird saying `ありがとう` (thanks) or something like that, because\nit seems to be acknowledging my own efforts (\"why yes, I _have_ worked\nhard!\"), which doesn't seem quite right.\n\nWhat would be the right response?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-06T02:44:12.773", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3024", "last_activity_date": "2021-04-24T03:34:05.267", "last_edit_date": "2013-11-14T21:30:04.467", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "word-choice" ], "title": "What is an appropriate response to お疲{つか}れ様{さま}です in non-work situations?", "view_count": 26476 }

[ { "body": "If you leave but they're still working, wouldn't \"(お先に)失礼します\" be appropriate?\nIf it's quite informal, maybe you can just say something like \"ああ。それでは、また明日！\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-06T03:07:01.090", "id": "3025", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-06T03:07:01.090", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3024", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "If you don't feel like saying something special you could just nod to him/her.\nThey say that to everyone and don't usually expect any answer at all.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-06T13:45:39.737", "id": "3028", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-06T13:45:39.737", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "664", "parent_id": "3024", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "At the bouldering gym I go to, when people leave they say お疲れ様です to which\neveryone replies お疲れ様です.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T02:04:45.413", "id": "3033", "last_activity_date": "2021-04-24T03:34:05.267", "last_edit_date": "2021-04-24T03:34:05.267", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "3024", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "お疲れ様です has many meanings depending on the context and your divided feelings, I\nthink, reflect Japanese people's own different usages. It is _simultaneously_\na greeting and an acknowledgement of having put in hard work and being in a\nstate of tiredness.\n\nAt **work** , お疲れ様です acknowledges each other's hard work and responding\nusually suggests \"it's nothing, you've also worked hard.\" At your **gym** ,\nお疲れ様です is more literally like \"You must be tired,\" but is essentially just a\ngreeting, like \"How are you?\" in English.\n\nThe correct response should be 「どうも」would suggest \"Thank you for your\nthoughtfulness,\" rather than \"I _have_ worked hard!\"", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T17:20:48.967", "id": "3091", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-19T02:30:22.830", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-19T02:30:22.830", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "703", "parent_id": "3024", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "THis is a hard one to translate. Answering specifically to the case you raised\nwhere you are the customer, it's just the business telling you that they\nacknowledge that you may have been in a physically demanding situation. It's a\nroutine greeting. Take for instance, in a long-haul plane ride, JAL or ANA\ncaptain might tell you, 長らくのご搭乗、お疲れさまでした。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-04-20T02:38:18.927", "id": "86238", "last_activity_date": "2021-04-20T02:38:18.927", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "14444", "parent_id": "3024", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3030", "answer_count": 1, "body": "There are a few compound nouns that are made by compounding something with na-\nadjectives like 好き and 嫌い, for examples:\n\n * 花見好き\n * 子供好き\n * 水嫌い\n * 人嫌い\n * 負け嫌い\n\nAre these compounds followed by a な particle? Or do they lose the na-adjective\nstatus and become 名詞 nouns (followed by a の particle)?\n\n> 水嫌い な 犬 \n> or \n> 水嫌い の 犬 \n> ?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-06T12:45:52.780", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3026", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T03:25:45.420", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-07T03:25:45.420", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "compounds", "na-adjectives" ], "title": "If a compound noun is made from a na-adjective suffix, is it followed by a な particle?", "view_count": 1203 }

[ { "body": "In word formation, there is a rule known as Right Hand Head Rule, which states\nthat the component that comes to the right side of a complex word determines\nthe base meaning and the grammatical category (parts of speech) of the whole\nword, and is called the _head_. This applies to Japanese as well. In all of\nyour examples, 好き and 嫌い are the heads of the respective examples, which are\nna-adjectives (adjectival nouns). That is why the whole word becomes a na-\nadjective.\n\nHowever, for the combinations with 嫌い, there is an alternative way to derive\nthem. That is, besides the na-adjective 嫌い, there is a verb 嫌う, whose stem is\n'kiraw-'. The stem is often used as a noun, and it can create compounds as\nwell. Again following the right hand head rule, the created compound becomes a\nnoun (e.g. 'mizu-giraw-'). Whenever there is a stranded consonant in Japanese,\na vowel is inserted to make it compatible with Japanese phonology, and\nparticularly for wago, the inserted vowel is 'i'. So the compound becomes\n'mizugirawi'. A phonological rule in Japanese further comverts 'wi' into 'i',\nand the compound noun 水嫌い appears, which will take の.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-06T14:39:04.293", "id": "3030", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-06T22:58:33.097", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-06T22:58:33.097", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3026", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3029", "answer_count": 2, "body": "* There are verbs with _irregular_ humble forms, e.g. the humble form of 借りる is 拝借する.\n\nFor these verbs, are the \"normal humble conjugations\" still used, or\nconsidered grammatical? \nWould お借りする be acceptable?\n\n * Similarly, there are verbs with _irregular_ honorific forms, e.g. the honorific form of 食べる is 召し上がる.\n\nFor these verbs, are the \"normal honorific conjugations\" still used, or\nconsidered grammatical? \nWould お食べになる and お食べです be acceptable?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-06T13:33:25.600", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3027", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-22T11:40:52.630", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "verbs", "conjugations", "politeness", "honorifics", "irregularities-exceptions" ], "title": "For verbs with irregular humble/honorific forms, are the regular forms still used?", "view_count": 1320 }

[ { "body": "“Are they used?” and “Are they acceptable?” are different questions. The\nregular forms such as お借りします and お食べになります are used, but they are less formal\nthan the irregular forms such as 拝借します and 召し上がります. Whether the less formal\nexpressions are acceptable or not depends on how formally you want to speak.\n\nBy the way, you are confusing grammatical terms “respectful form,” “humble\nform,” “polite form,” and “honorific form.” 拝借します is the polite form of the\nhumble form of 借りる, where the humble form of 借りる is 拝借する. 召し上がります is the\npolite form of the respectful form of 食べる, where the respectful form of 食べる is\n召し上がる. Whether an expression is in polite form or not is orthogonal to whether\nit is in respectful or humble form. Honorifics are the broader concept which\nincludes all of respectful form, humble form, and polite form. For details,\nsee [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific_speech_in_Japanese).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-06T13:52:05.833", "id": "3029", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-06T13:52:05.833", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3027", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "For some of the verbs with irregular respectful and/or humble forms, the\ncorresponding regular forms are also used, e.g. お借りする, お食べになる, although they\nusually sound less formal.\n\nFor some, most of which compose of two moras, that's not the case, e.g.:\n\n> 行く ?お行きになる|いらっしゃる *お行きする|参る\n>\n> 来る *お来になる|いらっしゃる *お来する|参る\n>\n> 見る *お見になる|ご覧になる *お見する|拝見する\n>\n> 言う ?お言いになる|おっしゃる *お言いする|申す\n\nCheck [here](http://www.sanseido.net/main/words/hyakka/sonkei/) for more", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-05-22T10:38:53.707", "id": "16088", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-22T10:38:53.707", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5346", "parent_id": "3027", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3032", "answer_count": 2, "body": "It's not the first time I hear it, but I've found it in [this\nscene](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cr08R75yyU). I understand that, as in\n知る or 始まる, a started action whose consequence remains is expressed in\ncontinuous form. However, I thought that the negative form was constructed in\npresent or past, as 知らない or 始まらなかった, but not in continuous. I find examples as\nthe [linked video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cr08R75yyU) using instead\nthe negation of the continuous （見ていない）. In this case I would've used 「見なかった」.\n\nAm I missing something or is it a slang transformation? In that case, which\nform should be used? Thanks a lot!\n\nFerran\n\n_EDIT: corrected misspelling/bad grammar. Tremendous lapsus :(_", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-06T21:32:27.613", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3031", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:45:20.907", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "695", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "slang", "colloquial-language", "て-form" ], "title": "Colloquial use of「〜て〔い〕ない」, maybe instead of 「〜なかった」", "view_count": 374 }

[ { "body": "I hear 「まだ見ていない。」, which seems entirely normal, comparable to the English\nconstruction \"I still haven't seen it.\" => \"I'm in a still-continuing state of\nnot seeing it.\" I suppose there's some element of volition here; it's still\npossible for her to see it if she wants to. For example, if a pterodactyl flew\noverhead, and you missed seeing it, you would say 「見なかった」. You're no longer in\na state of being able to see it, even if you wanted to. It wouldn't make sense\nto express it as a continuing state in such a case.\n\nBTW, is 「見なくなかった」 a typo?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-06T23:02:18.073", "id": "3032", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-06T23:02:18.073", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3031", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "I second @syockit's comment above. 「〜なかった」 is neutral with respect to\nvolition, while, for volitional verbs such as 「見る」, 「書く」 and 「行く」, the\n「〜て〔い〕る」 construction implies volition. This means 「〜て〔い〕ない」 shows volition\nbut lack of execution/completion. Here's an example:\n\n「小論、できました？ Did you get your essay finished?」\n\n * 「いいえ、しませんでした・しなかったです No, I didn't do it.」\n * 「いいえ、〔まだ〕していません・して〔い〕ないです No, I haven't done it (yet).」\n * 「いいえ、〔まだ〕できていません・〔い〕ないです No, it isn't done (yet) / I haven't gotten it finished (yet)」\n\nPeople drop the イ to make it more colloquial/less formal. Don't confuse this\nwith 「〜てある・てない」, which is used to talk about the continuing result of a\ntransitive verb:\n\n * 「ドアが開いている The door is open (neutral)」 \n * 「ドアが開けてある The door is in the state of having been opened (implies an agent)」", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T11:35:38.773", "id": "3046", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T14:59:03.523", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-07T14:59:03.523", "last_editor_user_id": "662", "owner_user_id": "662", "parent_id": "3031", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3041", "answer_count": 4, "body": "How to say \"workaround/quick-and-dirty hack\" in Japanese in the context of\ncomputer programming?\n\nALC says 次善策 for \"workaround\" but of course it does not convey the sense of\ndirtiness/fragility/speed I am looking for.\n\nContext: quick email about a software feature, to my superior, with whom I am\non very friendly terms but still use -ます form for instance.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T02:42:57.850", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3034", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T12:53:06.923", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-07T02:58:23.347", "last_editor_user_id": "107", "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "word-requests" ], "title": "How to say \"workaround/quick-and-dirty hack\"", "view_count": 674 }

[ { "body": "I don't know if it's used specifically in programming, but やっつけ仕事 might give\nthe sense you want. I wouldn't use it a formal context. There's always the\nall-purpose 臨機応変のX, which you probably could use formally.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T03:12:41.813", "id": "3035", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T03:12:41.813", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3034", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I use the jargon word (ダーティ)ハック！ Simple and direct.\n\nYou could also say something like 適当な解決方法、適当なやり方", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T06:08:40.510", "id": "3041", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T10:16:00.617", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-07T10:16:00.617", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3034", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "May be 裏ワザ can be use for some cases.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T07:06:32.780", "id": "3044", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T07:06:32.780", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "3034", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Besides Hyperworm and rdb's answers,\n\n> その場しのぎ", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T12:53:06.923", "id": "3048", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T12:53:06.923", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3034", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3042", "answer_count": 3, "body": "What's the difference between [V-ながら][V2] and [V-ている]間[V2] ?\n\nFor example, is there any difference in nuance between these 2 sentences:\n\n 1. トムはテレビを見てる間勉強していた\n\n 2. トムはテレビを見ながら勉強していた", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T03:52:29.347", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3036", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:45:11.203", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:45:11.203", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "usage", "nuances", "conjugations", "て-form" ], "title": "What's the difference between [V-ながら][V2] and [V-ている]間[V2]?", "view_count": 1837 }

[ { "body": "This is the impression I get from the sentences:\n\n 1. Tom was studying for (at least) the entire time he was watching TV. He may have studied later too, it's unclear; but we can at least say that while he was watching TV, he was definitely studying. The sentence is interested in **telling us what Tom was doing during the time he was watching TV**.\n\n 2. Tom was studying while watching TV. He may also at some point have just watched the TV without studying, but this isn't important. The sentence is interested in **describing (the nature of) Tom's action of studying** and is not interested in when he was watching TV.\n\nI've answered your examples rather than your actual question, I'm afraid. ^^;\nPerhaps someone else will be able to tackle it better?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T04:21:32.320", "id": "3038", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T04:21:32.320", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3036", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "> 田中さんは、AをしながらBをします\n\nmeans that Mr Tanaka primarily does A. Incidentally, he also does B.\n\n> 田中さんは、友達と飲みながら通常会話を学びます。 Mr Tanaka learns casual conversation skills while\n> drinking with his friends.\n\nThe main action is drinking, it's the whole context. Incidentally, it's also\nthe unrelated opportunity to practice conversation.\n\nSome grammar books would tell you that \"ながら\" is similar to \"のに\", to show that\nit's linking two different actions, and does not concern time (even though\nthey are simultaneous):\n\n> テレビを見ながら、宿題に集中する\n\nis almost \"even though I'm watching the telly, I'm concentrating on my\nhomework.\" It's a kind of opposition showing that the two actions are not\nlogically connected.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T06:13:18.177", "id": "3042", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T09:27:59.277", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-07T09:27:59.277", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3036", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Your example sentences sound pretty much the same. My preference is for the\n～ながら version, since both actions share a subject and are volitional.\n\nThe main difference, I think, between these two forms shows up when we add a\nsecond subject to the mix:\n\n> ○ トムは **弟が** テレビを見てる間勉強していた。 Tom was studying while his brother watched TV.\n>\n> × トムは **弟が** テレビを見ながら勉強していた。 (incorrect)\n\nThe two actions in a ～ながら construction must have the same subject, so you\ncan't use ～ながら to construct a sentence of the form, \"Person #1 did A while\nPerson #2 did B.\" ～ている間, on the other hand, merely means \"While [action] is\nhappening…\" or \"While [condition] is true…\", so you can have different\nsubjects:\n\n> 雨が降っている間、このカフェでコーヒーでも飲みましょう。 While it's raining, let's grab something to\n> drink at this coffee shop.\n>\n> ねこがいない間はネズミは遊ぶ。 While the cat's away the mice will play.\n\nI'm going to avoid the discussion of which is the primary action and which is\nthe secondary; those kinds of rules tend to break down in everyday usage and\ndon't contribute much to learning.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T13:42:44.307", "id": "3050", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T16:04:22.593", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "3036", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "What are the differences between using 度 and 回 when used to count number of\noccurrences?\n\nFor example:\n\n 1. そんなことは一度もしたことがない\n\n 2. そんなことは一回もしたことがない\n\nAre there any restrictions on what kind of actions referred by そんなこと that can\nbe used with 度 or 回 in the examples above?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T03:53:55.747", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3037", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:44:51.297", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:44:51.297", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 36, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "numbers", "counters" ], "title": "Differences between 度 and 回 when counting occurrences", "view_count": 11967 }

[ { "body": "In your example, context wise is the same they're both correct because they're\ncounting an occurrence- both words can be used for counting occurrences.\n\n`度 can be used for counting degrees in angles and temperature whereas 回\ncannot.`\n\n`回 is more often used for rounds and revolutions whereas 度 is not used.`\n\nTo be explicit, my dictionary(midori) categorises their use as the following:\n\n`度- Degrees, occurrence, time, counter for occurrences`\n\n`回- times, rounds, games, revolutions.`\n\nNote that since the example you gave is counting an occurrence, it matches for\nboth (time for 回)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T12:58:06.657", "id": "3049", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T13:07:40.750", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-07T13:07:40.750", "last_editor_user_id": "683", "owner_user_id": "683", "parent_id": "3037", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "For counting a number of occurrences 回 and 度 are interchangeable with small\nnumbers. Somewhere around 4 (the line is quite vague), 度 becomes uncommon, and\nby the time you get to 6, 回 is pretty much the only one used. (Naturally, 度\ncan be used with any number for counting degrees, as noted in Azeworai's\ninformative answer.)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T13:51:54.910", "id": "3051", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T13:51:54.910", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "3037", "post_type": "answer", "score": 23 }, { "body": "Just as a supplement to the others:\n\n度 and 回 are actually not terribly unlike 'once, twice, thrice' vs. '# time(s)'\nin distribution.\n\n * 1度 and 1回 are more or less interchangeable.\n * 2度 is admittedly less common than 2回 in the general case (unlike 'twice'), but still fairly similar. Google examples: \n * '2度行きました' - 315,000 hits, '2回行きました' - 1,650,000 hits\n * '1日2度は' - 1,630,000 hits, '1日2回は' - 7,730,000 hits\n * 3度 is typically only found in expressions, like 三度の飯 or 二度あることは三度ある.\n * 4度 and up are unlikely to occur in an 'occurrence' meaning outside of extremely restricted contexts.\n\nHOWEVER, ordinal numbers are actually quite different: ～度目 actually maintains\na fair amount of results with larger numbers (particularly for counting\nsporting events).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T00:05:28.810", "id": "3058", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T00:05:28.810", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "698", "parent_id": "3037", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "> Note: I'm posting this as answer rather than adding it to the question for\n> two reasons: (1) I came up with this theory after I posted the question and\n> after I read the other answers (2) adding this to the question would\n> significantly change the nature of the question and it'd be unfair to those\n> who already answered\n\nAfter reading answers from Derek and Ross, I came up with a theory on how 度\nand 回 differ from each other. Even though this theory came from my observation\nand lacked reference, the more I think about it the more probable it becomes\nso it might be the case that it is actually true.\n\nLooking at the kanji for 回, it's the same kanji that is used for 回る, 回数, 回転\netc, which all imply a circular flow, a rotation, a repetition. This nuance of\nrepetition is what 回 has and 度 lacks. The notion of repeating event brings\nabout another nuance: intention (if you are causing the event to happen) and\nexpectation (if you are just observing it). When an event is known to repeat,\nthere is an expectation that it will happen again, while an event that simply\noccurs may not be expected to repeat.\n\nIf this is actually true, then it would explain Derek's answer why 度 becomes\nuncommon after the 4th time (or whatever the vague limit is). Events may occur\nthe first time, second time and third time, but after the fourth time it is\nhard not to expect it will happen the fifth time. The fifth time is no longer\n\"yet another occurrence\"; there is an expectation for it to happen; the fifth\ntime and so on are now repetitions.\n\nOn the other hand, 度 which is also used as a counter for degrees, while may\nnot signify the notion of repetition, it has the notion of progression, i.e.\nthat we do not only look at the occurrences as events that happen again and\nagain but also compare the quality/quantity of the occurrences among each\nother. While 回 focuses on repetitions, 度 focuses on progressions. This can be\nseen from the subtle difference between 「今回」 and 「今度」.\n\nThis difference between 度 and 回 also extends to the choice between using\n「もう一回」 and 「もう一度」 in a request. Based on my observation, 「もう一回」 in a request\nis loaded with intention and expectation that the requested action will\nhappen, while 「もう一度」 lacks that expectation so it makes the request rather\nneutral and reserved. This probably explain why 「もう一回」 sounds a bit childish\nand is commonly used by children due to its bluntness in showing how they\nexpect and insist the request to be fulfilled. On the other hand, the notion\nof progression in 度 loads 「もう一度」 with a request to improve the action. That's\nprobably why when we want to ask somebody to repeat what he says because we\ncouldn't hear the first time, it's more natural to use 「もう一度言ってください」 because\nwe want the speaker to say it better/louder. 「もう一回言ってください」 may sound like we\nwant the speaker to simply repeat exactly what he said the first time.\n\nAt this point, let's further extend this theory to distinguish the example\nsentences in my question. I think it's no farfetched to say that the\ndifference between using 度 and 回 in saying \"I haven't done it even once\" lies\nin your expectation and intention; whether you want to do it or not):\n\n> そんなことは一回もしたことがない \n> I haven't done such thing even once (and I want to do it).\n>\n> そんなことは一度もしたことがない \n> I haven't done such thing even once (and I do not even want to do it).\n\nAny comment on this theory of mine?", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T02:53:49.160", "id": "3060", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T04:00:34.523", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-09T04:00:34.523", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3037", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3059", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Are there any differences (nuances or usage) when using prefix 子, 小 or 仔 for\ndenoting young animals?\n\nExamples:\n\n * Kitten: 子猫 vs 小猫 vs 仔猫\n * Puppy: 子犬 vs 小犬 vs 仔犬\n * Pony: 子馬 vs 小馬 vs 仔馬\n * Calf: 子牛 vs 小牛 vs 仔牛\n * Lamb: 子羊 vs 小羊 vs 仔羊\n * Piglet: 子豚 vs 小豚 vs 仔豚", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T05:08:00.760", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3039", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T00:27:00.473", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "homophonic-kanji", "animals" ], "title": "Kitten: 子猫 vs 小猫 vs 仔猫", "view_count": 1780 }

[ { "body": "子 means child. 仔 means an animal child, but does not seem to be used much\nregularly except for mentioning a child of a horse. 小 means small, which often\nmeans child but not necessarily.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T12:39:03.053", "id": "3047", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T12:39:03.053", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3039", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "The OP's comment just now is on the right track:\n\n小猫 certainly could be just a small cat. \n仔猫 would be more common in science, but for a different reason than you\nguessed: 仔 is actually the correct character for a child animal, but it's not\none of the 1945 -- er, 2136 as of last year, is it? -- 常用漢字. Since 子 looks and\nmeans almost the same, it took on the added responsibility of being the\nsimplified form of 仔.\n\nI think for the anthropomorphism case those characters would need to be\nswitched. =p\n\nGoogle hits [Japanese pages only]: \n\"仔猫\" - 3,160,000 \n\"子猫\" - 10,700,000 \n\"小猫\" - 1,310,000", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T00:27:00.473", "id": "3059", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T00:27:00.473", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "698", "parent_id": "3039", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "When someone tells you, \"Omedetou,\" what are the different things you can say?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T05:14:19.343", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3040", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:44:37.960", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:44:37.960", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "culture", "greetings" ], "title": "Replying to Omedetou", "view_count": 7080 }

[ { "body": "ありがとう。\n\nいいえ、いいえ。\n\nまあ、頭いいから、合格するなんて当たり前だったべちゃ。", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T06:16:22.023", "id": "3043", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T06:16:22.023", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3040", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3055", "answer_count": 2, "body": "What is the role of と particle in 「二度としない」? Is it [quotative,\nadverbialisation, change of state or\nsupposition](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2666/what-is-the-\nfunction-of-when-its-not-quoting-or-doing-exhaustive-listing/2670#2670)?\n\nAlso, what extra nuances does it contribute to the expression compared to if も\nis used instead (二度もしない)?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T17:37:16.330", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3052", "last_activity_date": "2020-02-27T03:43:51.647", "last_edit_date": "2020-02-27T03:43:51.647", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "particle-と", "set-phrases", "polarity-items" ], "title": "The role of と particle in 「二度としない」", "view_count": 628 }

[ { "body": "It's best to consider 二度と as an adverb on its own, meaning '(not) again'.\n\nThe 二度 here is pronounced 「にど」, but the meaning aligns with its alternate\nreading, 「ふたたび」 -- which is, of course, usually written 再び in modern Japanese.\n\nThe と here feels very similar in usage to the と in an onomatopoeic expression\nlike きっぱりと [an intuition which seems to be confirmed, since they're adjacent\nsenses in 大辞林], but is used very much like English '(not) [small amount]',\ne.g. 'It won't cost you a penny' (「1円とかからない」). The difference with 二度と just\nseems to be that its frequency of use is raised to the level of a more\nstandard adverb. Additionally, there's also またと, which carries basically the\nsame meaning, and is generally used in the adjectival expression またとない.\n\nAs for 二度も -- this is actually entirely different, being a simple production\nof 二度+も, and meaning 'even twice' (positive or negative). I'll refer you to\nALC for examples: <http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E4%BA%8C%E5%BA%A6%E3%82%82/UTF-8>", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T20:22:59.280", "id": "3055", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T22:51:33.017", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-08T22:51:33.017", "last_editor_user_id": "698", "owner_user_id": "698", "parent_id": "3052", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I do not know what “adverbialisation” means, because the particle と which\nsignifies quotation, change of state, and supposition also makes an adverbial\nphrase.\n\nThis と signifies a limit on something in a similar way to “even” in English,\nbut its usage is restricted compared to “even.” と is attached to a small\nquantity and used with negation, and means that something is even below the\nstated (small) quantity.\n\n> 五分と待てない (from\n> [Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%A8&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=1&pagenum=1&index=113712900000),\n> sense 1-[6]); cannot wait even for five minutes (let alone ten minutes)\n\nTherefore, the literal meaning of 二度としない is “will not do even twice,” which\nmeans “will not do again.”", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T20:42:32.607", "id": "3056", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T23:02:05.327", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-07T23:02:05.327", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3052", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3054", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'm not sure what this example sentence is trying to teach. The translation is\nreally throwing me off.\n\n> 易しい漢字も書けなりました \n> I cannot even write easy kanji anymore\n\nI see the \"even ... easy kanji\" and the \"anymore\" in なりました, but where's the\ncannot coming from?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T19:20:50.473", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3053", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T11:54:22.650", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Where's the negation in 〇〇も書けなりました?", "view_count": 330 }

[ { "body": "This is a typo for 書け **なく** なりました (have become unable to write).\n\nWhere did the example sentence come from?\n\n* * *\n\nThe / only operates on \"なった\" and not \"なく なった\": ", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T19:39:20.040", "id": "3054", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T11:54:22.650", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-21T11:54:22.650", "last_editor_user_id": "315", "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3053", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Based on a few sentences I found on the internet, I think 書けなる might be a\ncolloquial contraction of 書けなくなる and not simply a typo, although I'm not sure\nhow widely it is used.\n\n[Example 1](http://www.geocities.jp/kasagi_zin/Q_A1.htm):\n\n> ただ、設定考えるの好きなので、考えすぎてかえって書けなることは過去ありました\n\n[Example 2](http://d.hatena.ne.jp/shiga_kenken/20051210) (this one clearly\nshows that it is not a typo):\n\n> 確かに、そういう方面を気にしだしたら、書けなくなるといえば書けなるかもしれませんね。\n\n[Example 3](http://sky.ap.teacup.com/tukiakari/141.html) (this one is a poem\nthat uses both 書けなる and 書けなくなる):\n\n> 書けなる、その前に、書きたいことがあります。 \n> ペンが止まってしまったら、その後は、何も書けなくなる。 \n> ぼんやりと浮かんでくる想いを書きたい。 \n> 言葉に、したい。 \n> 頭の中の知ってる言葉をかき集めて、伝えたい。\n>\n> そこにいる、あなたへ。\n\nThe third example kinda hinted that there is a difference between 書けなる and\n書けなくなる.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-07T23:44:59.857", "id": "3057", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-07T23:56:14.817", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-07T23:56:14.817", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3053", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3062", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I would like to know a bit more about the \"ねば\" grammatical construction. Every\nnow and then, I hear people say sentences like\n\n> 東京に行かねばならぬ\n>\n> 粘々丼を食べねば倒れる\n>\n> なんとかせねばいい\n\nIt's quite clear that ねば means the same as なければ, but\n\n * Is it a shorten form of なければ, or a different construction?\n * Is it an old form, or something that has been around for 20 years or so?\n * Is its usage limited to some regions? ages? social classes?\n * How (in)formal is it?\n * Is it like なきゃ and なくちゃ? (as far as usage is concerned, not nuances)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T03:26:16.860", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3061", "last_activity_date": "2018-01-10T12:20:15.070", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "356", "post_type": "question", "score": 22, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "nuances" ], "title": "ねば in 食べねば; relation between ねば and なければ", "view_count": 4030 }

[ { "body": "ねば can be divided into two parts:\n\n * ね, the 已然形 (realis) form of the Classical Japanese auxiliary verb ず\n * ば, basically the same as modern ば\n\nSo to answer your questions in detail (great format, by the way!):\n\n * It is a different construction -- actually なければ is a reinvention of the same concept (已然形 + ば) using modern parts!\n * It is a very old form, here it is in the Manyoshu: \"... 君が目見ねば苦しかりけり\" (\"... Not seeing you (lit. your eyes), I suffer.\" -- note the use of the 已然形 was a bit different back then. This changed a few hundred years ago (IIRC) to something more like our usage)\n * I don't think its usage is especially limited except insofar as it is a bit of an archaism. (Note that the first two examples include ならぬ and 倒る, also archaisms.) I think most people would recognize it, but few would use it except for intentional effect (intentionally overformal speech as joke, etc.). However, this kind of pseudo-archaic talk is quite popular among certain internet circles, so it might be more common and \"normal\" there, and might have seeped out into real life from that point. I hope that someone else will be able to provide better info on this point.\n * As above, it is a bit of an archaism and so while not informal as such, it might be considered inappropriate or unusual in a case where standard Japanese was expected. \n * なきゃ and なくちゃ are normal standard Japanese, just informal (as you know of course), so it is not like them.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T04:11:03.570", "id": "3062", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T04:18:40.093", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-08T04:18:40.093", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3061", "post_type": "answer", "score": 21 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3067", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I learned in Tae Kim's Grammar Guide that だ cannot be used when asking a\nquestion. But in the book [Japanese Sentence Patterns for Effective\nCommunication](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/4770029837) by Taeko\nKamiya, I found several example sentences that used だ in a question. I also\nhave seen it being used this way in anime.\n\nI'm guessing there is some type of exception to all of this? Anyways, I hope\nsomeone can shed some light on the subject for me. :)\n\n== EDIT ==\n\nHere is an example from the aforementioned book:\n\n> どうしてゆうべ来なかったんだ？ (Why didn't you come last night?)\n\n \nAnd here is an example from the title of the 249th episode of the show Dragon\nBall Z:\n\n> 悟飯はどこだ!? (Where's Gohan!?)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T04:54:03.627", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3063", "last_activity_date": "2012-03-26T02:47:26.833", "last_edit_date": "2012-03-26T02:47:26.833", "last_editor_user_id": "58", "owner_user_id": "58", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "questions", "copula" ], "title": "Can だ ever be used in a question?", "view_count": 1288 }

[ { "body": "Yes, it can be used in a question, as long as the sentence also contains a\nquestion word: だれ, なに, どこ, etc.\n\n * 誰だ？ = Who's there? \n * 何やってんだよ = What (the hell) are you doing? - (Note that よ can be added at the end)\n\nBoth of your examples fit this pattern: どうして and どこ are the question words.\n\nWithout a question word, you are much less likely to see this pattern,\nalthough there are a few special/edge cases that might technically count as\nuse of だ. For example: \"友達だぁ？・・・ふざけるな！\" = \"'Friends'?! Don't give me that\ncrap!\"\n\nUpdate: As Axioplase says in comments, this is a ~~very informal~~ non-polite\nway of asking a question (it is だ, not です, after all), and can also carry a\n\"confrontational\" or \"accusatory\" nuance -- especially when combined with ん,\nwhen it becomes less a question (\"what are you doing?\") and more of a demand\nfor an explanation (\"why are you doing that?\").", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T06:31:31.470", "id": "3067", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T20:42:44.013", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-08T20:42:44.013", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3063", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 }, { "body": "It may be worth noting that the だ form is the most informal. You might ask a\nquestion this way (なんだろう！） but only to someone of a lower rank..", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-11T02:45:36.130", "id": "3100", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-11T02:45:36.130", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "705", "parent_id": "3063", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3068", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Compare the following two sentences:\n\n> あそこに[行]{い}こうと[思]{おも}っている\n>\n> あそこに[行]{い}こうを[思]{おも}っている\n\nIf I'm right about this, they both mean that the speaker is thinking of going\nsomewhere.\n\nHowever, the difference is that in the first case, the use of `と` indicates\nthe speaker is literally saying those words in their mind. The English\ntranslation would be:\n\n> I'm thinking, \"I'll go over there.\"\n\nIn the second case, `を` indicates that the speaker is not literally thinking\nthose words, so it's not a quote of their thoughts, it's just a description of\ntheir thoughts. So the English translation would be:\n\n> I'm thinking of going over there.\n\nI think this is right, but somehow the second one looks really awkward to me,\nso it doesn't feel right in some way.\n\nIs my intuition correct that there is something grammatically wrong with it?\n\n... should it be `が` instead of `を`?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T05:58:04.070", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3065", "last_activity_date": "2012-03-17T07:40:50.733", "last_edit_date": "2012-03-17T07:40:50.733", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "particle-と" ], "title": "Can と and を be interchanged with 思う the way I think they can?", "view_count": 1088 }

[ { "body": "Basically, を follows a noun (eg. \"車\") or a nominal group (eg. \"私が運転してる車\"), not\na proposition. (This) と follows a proposition, not a noun or nominal group.\n\n行こうを思う is thus not grammatical. You'd want 行くことを思う for a grammatically correct\nsentence. It would mean that you think of the concept of going. It is\ndifferent from thinking of _you_ going, which would be 行こうと思う, where the 行こう\nform embeds the subject (since it's a form used to express introspection or\nmonologue where the subject is known to be the thinker). In fact, 行こうとする、\n行こうと思う are very common and standard forms to say \"I'm getting ready to do go\"\nand \"I think I'll go\".\n\nAnother thing, you can say \"君を思う\" (I'm thinking of you) but not \"君と思う\". You'd\nneed \"君だと思う\" (I think it is you) or something like that which has a different\nmeaning.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T08:20:16.593", "id": "3068", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T02:35:40.217", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-09T02:35:40.217", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3065", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3069", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Following hot on the heels on my other question about [`と` and\n`思う`](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3065/can-and-be-\ninterchanged-with-the-way-i-think-they-can), I know `と` can be used with `言う`,\nbut can it also be applied to verbs that imply some kind of thinking process\nother than `思う`?\n\nDo these make grammatical sense?\n\nあそこに行くと決めた【あそこに いくと きめた】 (I decided, \"I'll go over there\")\n\nあそこに行くと考えた【あそこに いくと かんがえた】 (I considered, \"I'll go over there\")\n\nあそこに行くと感じた【あそこに いくと かんじた】 (I felt, \"I'll go over there\")\n\nIf so, are there other verbs that might take と to imply a thought process\nbehind the action?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T06:05:31.887", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3066", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T08:27:53.333", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "word-choice", "verbs", "particle-と" ], "title": "Can と be used with verbs other than 思う to imply a thought process behind the action?", "view_count": 228 }

[ { "body": "> but can it also be applied to verbs that imply some kind of thinking process\n> other than 思う?\n\nYes, all of them, I think.\n\n> Do these make grammatical sense?\n\nYes. But I wonder how to say the third one. The translation is weird… With\n感じる、 I think that a better example is\n\n```\n\n もう死んでいたと感じた\n \n```\n\nI felt that he was already dead (say, by touching him)\n\n> If so, are there other verbs that might take と to imply a thought process\n> behind the action?\n\nYes, as I said earlier.\n\n```\n\n 旅行しようと検討してる。 \n 早く寝ないとと思いだした。 (yes, double と) \n 彼はアホだと分かった。\n \n```\n\nand many others I guess.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T08:27:53.333", "id": "3069", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T08:27:53.333", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3066", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3082", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Are there any differences between using おしまい {oshimai} and おわり {owari} to mean\n\"the end\" (both with neutral and negative connotations)? Are they always\ninterchangeable?\n\nE.g:\n\n> テスト失敗したらおわりだぜ。\n>\n> テスト失敗したらおしまいだぜ。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T09:45:31.480", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3071", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-15T06:37:04.750", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances" ], "title": "おしまい {oshimai} vs おわり {owari}", "view_count": 25063 }

[ { "body": "On the one hand, I think that おしまい is mostly used to close an event or a\nceremony, something that has been willingly started. So your second sentence\nsounds weird to me.\n\nOn the other hand, I think that おわり is not something you control. Your\nsentence says it's over, not that you stopped it.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T02:29:10.913", "id": "3081", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T02:29:10.913", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3071", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I don't think there's really much difference in meaning or connotation,\nalthough おしまい sounds more formal to me, probably because it has the honorific\nお attached. OTOH, I've never seen お仕舞い at the end of a movie, so maybe there\nare differences in customary usage. {EDIT: The following is inaccurate: 終わる is\nalso used transitively} One difference is that you can \"おしまいにする\" something,\nwhereas you can't \"おわりにする\" things, because of the transitive/intransitive\npairing 終える/終わる.(END EDIT, see comments)\n\nIn your example sentences (incidentally, you need to stick a \"に\" in them), I\ndon't think there's a dime's worth of difference between the two. They both\nmean \"I'm done for, it's all over, the jig is up, put a fork in me, Goodnight\nIrene.\"", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T03:11:20.580", "id": "3082", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T18:41:19.113", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-09T18:41:19.113", "last_editor_user_id": "634", "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3071", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "\"Oshimai\" can be formal, but it is also used with small children. I would\ntranslate it as something like \"We're done with that now\" or \"We're moving on\"\n\n\"Owari\" has more of a feeling of finality, as in \"We won't be coming back to\nthis again\" or \"That time has passed.\"\n\nI agree with previous comments on the grammar of it all, but the connontation\nis important as well.\n\nSource: I teach K-12 in Japan", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-01-15T06:37:04.750", "id": "30432", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-15T06:37:04.750", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "12223", "parent_id": "3071", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3074", "answer_count": 2, "body": "According to people I've asked, and [this\npage](http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/~ts/japanese/counter.html), if I pay 20\nAustralian dollars for my meal, it seems I say ni ju doru (20-ドル), and that ni\nju-en doru (20-えん-ドル) would be ungrammatical - \"dollar\" acts as the counter.\n\nIs it possible to refer to the Australian dollar as a noun in other\ncircumstances (eg while talking about how the dollar fared on the exchange\nmarket)? If so, is this only because it's a loanword, or can the same apply\nwith native Japanese words?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T13:24:21.283", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3072", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:44:01.533", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:44:01.533", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "numbers", "counters" ], "title": "Can counter words also be nouns?", "view_count": 476 }

[ { "body": "A quick Google search brought me to [this Amazon\npage](http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E5%BC%B7%E3%81%84%E5%86%86%E3%81%AF%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E5%9B%BD%E7%9B%8A-%E6%A6%8A%E5%8E%9F-%E8%8B%B1%E8%B3%87/dp/4492395008)\nfor a book with title 「強い円は日本の国益」, which is an example where the counter for\nJapanese Yen 円 is used as a noun to refer to the currency unit, thus I believe\ncounter words for currencies can be used as nouns.\n\n\n\nEDIT: StackExchange engine breaks the Amazon Japan link again so here are the\nraw URL (you need to copy-paste):\n<http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E5%BC%B7%E3%81%84%E5%86%86%E3%81%AF%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E5%9B%BD%E7%9B%8A-%E6%A6%8A%E5%8E%9F-%E8%8B%B1%E8%B3%87/dp/4492395008>", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T14:08:53.793", "id": "3074", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T15:50:59.427", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-08T15:50:59.427", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3072", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I think there are some coincidences, but for the most part I don't think you\ncan just use a counter suffix as its own noun. Unless you're explicitly using\nit as the topic of a sentence to describe what the counter means.\n\nFor example, `匹【ひき】` (counter for animals) could not be used as a noun by\nitself...unless your sentence is 「『匹』とは小さな動物を数える助数詞です。」(\"Hiki\" is a counter\nfor counting small animals.\n\nI previously said that there are some coincidences. For example, `一本【いっぽん】`\nmeans 1 cylindrical object. Now `本` by itself _is_ a word -- \"book\". But you\nwould never use it by itself in the context of a cylindrical object; only as a\nbook.\n\nLikewise, `〜頭【とう】` is used for counting \"heads of animals\" like cows, etc.\n(see posts [HERE](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2805/counter-\nfor-bears-or) and [HERE](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2800/or-\nfor-horses) for discussions about which animals can be counted this way). `頭`\nby itself is `あたま` (or less frequently, `かしら` or `こうべ`) and means \"head\". But\nyou would never use `頭` by itself in the context of \"heads of animals\".", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T15:02:03.213", "id": "3077", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T15:02:03.213", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3072", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3076", "answer_count": 1, "body": "The i-adjective はやい can refer to being fast or being early, but each of the\nmeanings has affinity towards separate kanji: 速い (fast) and 早い (early). Yet,\nwhile it's not surprising that the antonyms of both 速い and 早い have the same\npronunciation おそい, both おそい that means \"slow\" and \"late\" seems to share the\nsame kanji: 遅い. Although WWWJDIC and dictionary@goo both include 鈍い as an\nalternative kanji for おそい, it does not seem to have affinity towards any of\nthe two meanings either.\n\nIs this really the case that the same kanji form can refer to both meanings,\nor were there separate kanji for each (maybe abolished during the reform or\nsomething)?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T13:55:23.580", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3073", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T14:30:32.507", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-08T14:04:29.087", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "kanji", "homophonic-kanji" ], "title": "Separate kanji for おそい when referring to being late and being slow", "view_count": 1060 }

[ { "body": "大辞泉 shows `鈍い` as well, but I think this is more often `【のろい】`. However, the\nsame dictionary shows that (this) `のろい` can also mean \"slow of speed\"; but\nI've heard it mostly used as \"slow-witted\".\n\nAs an aside, `鈍い` can be any of `【のろい】`, `【にぶい】`, or `【おそい】`. They all carry\ndifferent primary meanings though, so be careful of their usage.\n\n> Is this really the case that the same kanji form can refer to both meanings,\n> or were there separate kanji for each (maybe abolished during the reform or\n> something)?\n\nYes, I don't see why not. `高い` is the same type, meaning \"high\" or\n\"expensive\". And its opposites are very different (`低い` and `安い`, resp.)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T14:30:32.507", "id": "3076", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T14:30:32.507", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3073", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3079", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In many Indo-European ancient languages, there used to be a strong connection\nbetween the words for _right_ and _left_ on one side and the words for _south_\nand _north_ **1** (respectively) on the other side. \nThis suggests that the sacred orientation used to be facing eastwards - in the\ndirection of the rising sun **2**.\n\nIn Chinese instead the character\n[左](http://www.chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E5%B7%A6)\n(zuǒ) means both _left_ and _east_ (an older version than 東/东) while instead\n[右](http://www.chineseetymology.org/CharacterEtymology.aspx?submitButton1=Etymology&characterInput=%E5%8F%B3)\n(yòu) means both _right_ and _west_ (an older character than 西). In this case,\nthis seems to suggest a preferred orientation towards the south.\n\nI have, in light of this preamble, the following questions.\n\n * Are there any evidence for ひだり (hidari) or みぎ (migi) being used in the sense of _east_ and _west_ respectively?\n * If not, are there any older words for _left_ and _right_ that would be used in the sense of cardinal directions (whether in the Chinese way or in the Indo European way)?\n\n* * *\n\n**Note 1** : \nFor instance:\n\n * **Celtic languages** : Gaelic : _deas_ (south and right); Gaulish _dexsiuo_ (south and right); Old Irish _[desse](http://www.smo.uhi.ac.uk/sengoidelc/duil-belrai/lorg.php?facal=desse&seorsa=Gaidhlig)_ (south and right); Welsh _[de](http://www.geiriadur.net/index.php?page=ateb&uni=y&prefLang=&term=de&direction=we&whichpart=exact&type=noun)_ (south and right); Breton *[dehou](http://www.agencebretagnepresse.com/cgi-bin/dico.cgi?dico=breton&key=dehou&buton=Traduire)\n * **Sanskit** _daksinah_ (south and right), Avestan _dashina_ (south and right) \n * **Ancient Latin** _scaevus_ and **Archaic Greek** _σκαιὀς_ (meaning both \"left\" the side of the shadow).\n\n**Note 2** : \nOther indications include:\n\n * European Bronze Age tombs generally orientated towards the east. \n * The word _**orient** ate_ itself.\n * Orientation of ancient maps towards the east.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T16:32:23.663", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3078", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T09:49:06.733", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T09:49:06.733", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "92", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "etymology", "history" ], "title": "Left (ひだり) and right (みぎ) as cardinal directions", "view_count": 2275 }

[ { "body": "In Kyoto, 左 as in 左京区 means east, whereas 右 as in 右京区 means west. This is due\nto the fact that the emperor's palace was built on the center of the north\nedge of the city at the time (Heian period), and to observe the whole city\nfrom the emperor's perspective would mean facing south, and left will mean\neast, and right will mean west. Kyoto was influenced by the ancient city 長安 of\nChina. I suspect the reason left and right are connected to east and west in\nChina is the same, and I suspect that connection holds only when you are in\nthe context of 長安, but if you think you are sure about your information, I do\nnot particularly intend to claim against it.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-08T17:45:11.170", "id": "3079", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-08T17:51:49.387", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-08T17:51:49.387", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3078", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "A novel I'm reading contains this snippet of dialogue. The manager of a love\nhotel is explaining why she doesn't return to her apartment between shifts:\n\n> 帰ったって何があるってわけじゃなし、誰が待っているわけじゃなし、ホテルの仮眠室で寝て、起きてそのまま仕事をすることの方が多い。\n\nDoes the わけじゃなし here parse to \"わけ じゃ 無し\", or is she dropping the ”い” in \"わけ じゃ\nない し\"? Just in case it might be relevant, she speaks very colloquially, and is\nfrom the Yamagata countryside, although I can't detect any particular\nregionalisms in her speech. The setting is Tokyo.\n\nIf it is \"わけ じゃ 無し\", how does it work grammatically?\n\n{EDIT-ADDENDUM} For anyone who's interested, I asked a native speaker about\nthis, and his impression was that \"わけじゃなし\" adds an edge of scorn (「ばかにする」 is\nthe way he put it) that \"わけじゃないし\" doesn't have, but with the same meaning. He\nalso reckoned that it derives from \"無し\", although, personally, I still think\nthat's an open question. Where's an etymologist when you need one?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T01:51:02.850", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3080", "last_activity_date": "2019-10-26T15:53:50.370", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-12T04:46:23.867", "last_editor_user_id": "634", "owner_user_id": "634", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "How to parse わけじゃなし", "view_count": 1056 }

[ { "body": "I honestly think this is nothing more than a dropped い, and the proper\nrendering is わけじゃない:\n\n> 帰ったって何があるって **わけじゃない** し、誰が待っている **わけじゃない**\n> し、ホテルの仮眠室で寝て、起きてそのまま仕事をすることの方が多い。\n>\n> **It's not like** I have something to do if I go home, and **it's not as\n> if** someone's waiting for me, so more often than not I sleep in the hotel's\n> break room and start working after I wake up.\n\nIt wouldn't be the first time い has been squished out of the sentence by its\nneighbors. Poor い has never really been able to stand up for itself, what with\nthose two short strokes separated by that gap. It starts with changing ～ている to\n～てる, and then before you know it, someone goes and changes ～ない to ～ねぇ, and it\njust gets worse from there.\n\nYou can stop this syllable dropping madness! Join the Global い Preservation\nAlliance today!", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T14:39:08.243", "id": "3089", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T14:39:08.243", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "3080", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I asked a handy native speaker (Tokyo linguistic area) about this one and got\nan interesting response. They had no comment on where exactly なし comes from,\nbut they perceived a specific difference between なし and ないし:\n\n * A ってわけじゃないし、 B ってわけじゃないし... = \"For one thing, it's not A; for another, it's not B...\" -- the しs signpost that it all adds up into a coherent whole, a multifaceted _argument_ if you like.\n * A ってわけじゃなし、 B ってわけじゃなし... = \"It's not A, it's not B...\" -- the two parts are separate; there is no \"link\" from A to B; it is a series of discrete assertions rather than a guided tour through an argument.\n\nIn a comment above Tsuyoshi says that わけじゃなし has the same meaning as わけじゃないし,\nso this might just be my informant's idiolect (or Tsuyoshi's!), but I thought\nI'd throw this up anyway, for interested parties.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-12T05:02:28.913", "id": "3112", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-12T05:02:28.913", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3080", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I think you should count でなし, じゃなし (ではなし), and でもなし special idioms. They are\nunrelated to し in ～ないし.\n\nGrammatically, they are highly unique that they are allowed to connect\ndirectly after the **dictionary form** of a verb, which is an almost lost\nparticle usage (連体形準体法) except for [several combinations of\nに](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/27907/7810)\n([2](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/5069/7810),\n[3](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/29886/7810),\n[4](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/29418/7810)) and a few [sporadic\ncases](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/25955/7810).\n\n> ○ 誰が待っているわけじゃなし \n> ○ 誰が待っているじゃなし \n> × 誰が待っているじゃないし (unless 誰が待っている is somebody's quote)\n\nFrom meaning, they carry a certain connotation the Classical なし used to have\nas 終止形 \"terminal form\" of adjective, which is signifying the end of the\nsentence. Of course, we no longer speak Classical Japanese and they are used\nmore as subordinate clauses rather than in the real end of sentences. But they\nstill take advantage of this nature to create a feeling that you end the\nclause \"abruptly\". What I mean is that, they work as if _semicolon_ -ed\nclauses as below:\n\n> 帰ったって何があるってわけじゃなし、誰が待っているわけじゃなし、ホテルの仮眠室で寝て、起きてそのまま仕事をすることの方が多い。 \n> _I don't have anything back at home; I don't have anyone waiting for me;\n> most of the time I sleep in the hotel's resting room and just continue\n> working after I get up._\n\nApparently, this kind of phrasing would be handy in some styles of speech,\nbecause otherwise Japanese rarely allows you to link phrases without a\nconjunctional element (there's no \"no music, no life\" construction in\nJapanese). When you use ～ないし, it will be correctly like the translation\n@DerekSchaab has provided.\n\n**PS** \nYou may see these forms followed by に, in this case they are equivalent to ～なく\nor ～なくて.\n\n> 見るでもなしに眺めている \n> 見る（わけ）でもなく眺めている \n> _be staring it blankly without looking [at anything particular]_", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-10-26T15:40:05.760", "id": "72757", "last_activity_date": "2019-10-26T15:53:50.370", "last_edit_date": "2019-10-26T15:53:50.370", "last_editor_user_id": "7810", "owner_user_id": "7810", "parent_id": "3080", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3088", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I have some untranslated mangas that come in pairs of two, and each of them is\nlabeled with 上 or 下 to denote which is the first volume and which is the\nsecond. I'm wondering if these labels are only used for pairs of two or can\nalso be used for trilogies, maybe in the order of 上 - 中 - 下 perhaps, but I\ndon't have access to library or bookstore for Japanese books to verify.\n\nSo, are the usage 上 and 下 as labels only limited to books/movies/etc that come\nin pairs of two?\n\np/s: On related note, in ダンゴ３兄弟, the eldest dango is 長男, the second is 次男 and\nthe youngest is 三男. If they were actually ダンゴ二兄弟 instead, would they be\nlabelled with 上 and 下 instead? I think I've heard \"上の子\" or \"下の子\" being said\nbut I'm not sure if they are referring to the order of siblings or something\nelse.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T04:49:56.270", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3083", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T19:03:25.113", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-09T08:03:44.637", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "usage", "numbers" ], "title": "Are the usage of 上 and 下 as labels only limited to items that come in pairs of two?", "view_count": 458 }

[ { "body": "上 - 中 - 下 is common for trilogies, yes.\n\nThen, no the nouns 長男、 次男、 三男 are fixed and show the rank. Unlike a story\nwhich comes in two parts, and where you (as the author) _know_ that there will\ntwo or three parts, you don't know how may children you'll have. Moreover, it\nwould be quite a pain for an absolute naming/ranking convention to be\nrelative!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T05:11:24.127", "id": "3084", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T19:03:25.113", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-09T19:03:25.113", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3083", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "上巻, 中巻, 下巻, are all used. 中巻 is probably rarer because it's harder to write a\ntrilogy than a two-parter. I don't really understand your second question.\nThere's no 上 or 下 involved here. It's eldest son, second son, third son.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T05:15:02.220", "id": "3085", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T05:15:02.220", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3083", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "As Axioplase and rdb said, it is common to label a three-volume book as 上巻,\n中巻, and 下巻, or simply 上, 中, and 下.\n\nAs for your second question, 上の子 (うえのこ; the older child) and 下の子 (したのこ; the\nyounger child) can be used to distinguish two children (usually siblings) in\ninformal context. If there are many children to talk about, you can even say\n上から2番目の子 (うえからにばんめのこ; the second oldest child) and so on.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T12:06:13.073", "id": "3088", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T15:41:05.927", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-09T15:41:05.927", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3083", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3087", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What are the differences when using the following words/phrases to mean\n\"perhaps\", \"maybe\" or \"probably\"?\n\n * 多分\n * 恐らく\n * 蓋し {けだし}\n * もしかして\n * ひょっとして\n * なかろう (negative -> probably not)\n * だろう / でしょう / であろう\n * かも知れない\n\nPlease add any other words/phrases that provide similar meanings.\n\n_N.B I hope istrasci doesn't mind me using his favorite question title pattern\nhere :P_", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T08:56:46.173", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3086", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T10:24:17.953", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-09T09:56:36.497", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances", "synonyms" ], "title": "Fun with synonyms - \"perhaps/maybe/probably\"", "view_count": 17626 }

[ { "body": "Well, the first problem is that they often mix together, and are thus rather\nhard to tell apart…\n\nShould I give exclusive nuances, I'd go like this:\n\n * 多分: Maybe. I don't know. 多分行きます。 (very often, 多分行くかもしれません)\n * 恐らく: has a negative nuance by the kanji. 恐らく雨が降る\n * 蓋し {けだし}: (never heard, I won't conjecture)\n * もしかして: By any chance, would it be possible that… もしかして、彼女だったの？ \n * ひょっとして: Small, unimportant thing that may help you: ひょっとしたら、誰も気づかない \n\n * かも知れない: way to round the corners, not to affirm too much. 彼が好きかもしれない。\n\nなかろう / だろう / でしょう / であろう deserve their own question if it hasn't been done\nyet, for it can mean many things. Basically, it can be a conjecture in which\nyou want people to know that you think like this (the cake you give to your\nfriend: おいしいでしょう？ The description of a party on facebook that happens it the\nmiddle of a thursday afternoon: 誰も来ないだろう！)", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T10:24:17.953", "id": "3087", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T10:24:17.953", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3086", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3092", "answer_count": 2, "body": "So, we have the kanji 上・下 which can be read as either かみ・しも or うえ・した, and as I\nunderstand it, those two are antonym pairs. But what are the differences\nbetween the two?\n\nThe thesaurus isn't very helpful. For instance, it says, for うえ\n\n> 何かとくらべて高い方の位置、場所。\n\nand for かみ it says\n\n> 位置が高いこと。また、ひと続きのものの初め。川では上流、和歌などでは前半をいう。\n\nIf I understand this correctly, this is saying that うえ is simply the place or\nposition above some reference level, while かみ is the state of _being_ above,\nor the start of a series. But the dictionary entry for かみ goes on to give\ndefinitions like\n\n> 位置の高い所。\n\nwhich bring it right back into the territory of うえ, or at least very close. It\nalmost looks like the distinction is supposed to be relative vs absolute, but\nthis just confuses me since, at least in my mind, above/below are inherently\nrelative.\n\n**Question.** What are the differences between かみ・しも and うえ・した? Are there\nminimal pairs illustrating these differences?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T16:04:37.363", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3090", "last_activity_date": "2018-06-08T16:28:20.270", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "meaning", "synonyms", "direction" ], "title": "Ups and downs: かみ・しも vs うえ・した", "view_count": 1217 }

[ { "body": "AFAIK, うえ・した is just \"(on) top/above vs. (on) bottom/underneath\".\n\nかみ・しも is usually \"upper vs. lower\", meaning talking about different parts of\nthe same thing. The easiest example of this to remember is \"upstream\" vs.\n\"downstream\" (川上【かわかみ】 vs. 川下【かわしも】) or \"upwind\" vs. \"downwind\" (風上【かざかみ】 vs.\n風下【かざしも】). Also, more generically, 上手【かみて】 (upper part) and 下手【しもて】 (lower\npart).\n\nOther than these few examples, the only other ways I've seen かみ・しも used are\nreferencing place names (地名). An example in Osaka is\n[[上新庄]{かみ・しん・じょう}](http://bit.ly/2sT3dpu) and\n[[下新庄]{しも・しん・じょう}](http://bit.ly/2sHIZ2G) (upper and lower Shinjou). You can\nsee on the map that they are pretty even north-south-wise, so the 上 and 下\nprobably refer to their positioning along the Kanzaki river which empties into\nOsaka Bay to the southwest. Another is [[桂]{かつら}](http://bit.ly/2sHptnf) and\n[[上桂]{かみ・かつら}](http://bit.ly/2sHq7Bb) near 嵐山 in Kyoto. Also,\n[[上京区]{かみ・ぎょう・く}](http://bit.ly/2M9nFeJ) and\n[[下京区]{しも・ぎょう・く}](http://bit.ly/2Mbzm4C) districts in Kyoto.\n\n**TANGENTIAL NOTE** : notice that `上手` and `下手` both have multiple readings\nthat mean different things.\n\n### 上手\n\n * 上手【じょうず】（じょうず）／上手【うま】（うま）い → Skillful; clever; good at\n * 上手【かみて】（かみて） → the upper part; stage left\n * 上手【うわて】（うわて） → to be better than someone else at something; to \"have the upper hand\" (advantage); overhand (sumo throw / baseball pitch)\n\n### 下手\n\n * 下手【へた】（へた） → lack of skill; poor; bad at\n * 下手【しもて】（しもて） → the lower part; stage right\n * 下手【したて】（したて） → take a lower position; being humble/modest; underhand grip (sumo / baseball)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T19:01:44.790", "id": "3092", "last_activity_date": "2018-06-08T16:28:20.270", "last_edit_date": "2018-06-08T16:28:20.270", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3090", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 }, { "body": "Your dictionary definition seems to be saying that:\n\n> * かみ, しも are used when the objects in question are lined up along a single\n> dimension monotonically with respect to the height/degree in question.\n> * うえ, した are used when the objects are distributed within two or more\n> dimension.\n>\n\nThis matches with my intuition.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-09T21:10:35.613", "id": "3093", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-09T21:54:57.900", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-09T21:54:57.900", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3090", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3095", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Hearing the word 小悪魔 used here and there, I had always foolishly assumed that\nthe addition of that '小' in front, made it a much more harmless, playful,\nversion of the real thing. And consequently, calling someone (with whom one is\nfamiliar enough, of course) '小悪魔', would be akin to using the literal\nequivalent in English, where nobody would ever be offended at being called a\n\"[little\ndevil](http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=little+devil&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1068&bih=880)\".\n\nHowever, recent conversations have sown the seeds of doubt in my mind, and\nupon checking the dictionary (what I should have done earlier), I find that\nthe official definition given by WWWJDIC is:\n\n> 小悪魔 [こあくま] (n,adj-na) (col) rogue, devil, imp\n\n... which has zero playfulness to it, and sounds about just as bad as calling\nsomebody \"Satan\" or \"the Devil\" (悪魔 without 小).\n\nMy question is therefore:\n\n**How strong (and potentially offensive) is the word in a casual context? Does\nit have _any_ of the \"harmless naughtiness\" overtones a clueless English\nspeaker might expect from such a term?**", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-10T04:15:24.070", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3094", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-10T04:53:47.640", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-10T04:37:35.517", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "vocabulary" ], "title": "小悪魔【こあくま】: \"Little devil\"... or real devil?", "view_count": 2356 }

[ { "body": "Your instinct was basically correct -- WWWJDIC isn't really the authority on\nnuances ;)\n\n大辞泉 sums up the literal and colloquial meanings quite well, judging from my\nexperience:\n\n> １ 小さく力の弱い悪魔。しょうあくま。 \n> ２ 男性の心を翻弄(ほんろう)する、魅力的な若い女性。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-10T04:38:09.270", "id": "3095", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-10T04:38:09.270", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "698", "parent_id": "3094", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "A quick Google check turns up a lot of Cosmo-style how-to-be-a-coquette sites\nwith fashion, make-up, lifestyle, and dating advice. There's even a fashion\nmagazine called \"小悪魔ageha\" aimed at courting-aged girls:\n[http://infor.co.jp/publications/esp.php?_page2=detail&_itemCd=15](http://infor.co.jp/publications/esp.php?_page2=detail&_itemCd=15)\n. Based on that, it doesn't seem any more insulting than \"You're a real knock-\nout, Babe\", but I suppose there are contexts where that could be dangerous\ntoo.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-10T04:53:47.640", "id": "3096", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-10T04:53:47.640", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3094", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3099", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What are differences among 第一, 一番 and 第一番, all of which seem to mean \"the\nfirst\" in English? Are any of them more suitable for some specific scenarios\nthan the others (e.g. 安全第一 but 世界で一番)?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-10T14:28:42.863", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3097", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:43:28.677", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:43:28.677", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "word-choice", "numbers", "counters" ], "title": "The first: 第一 vs 一番 vs 第一番", "view_count": 2086 }

[ { "body": "* 第一番, 第一, 一番: noun 'number one'. 一 still retains its meaning as a number, so it can be replaced by the number character: 第1番, 第1, 1番.\n\n> 交響曲第一番/第一/一番/第1番/第1/1番 \n> 'symphony no. 1'\n\n * 第一, 第1 can be used as a prefix.\n\n> 第一/第1交響曲 \n> 'symphony no. 1'\n\n * 第一: noun 'has priority'. 一 does not retain the meaning 'one', and cannot be replaced by '1'.\n\n> 安全が第一 \n> 'safety is the priority'\n\n * 一番, preferrably written in hiragana as いちばん: adverb 'most'. ー does not retain the meaning 'one', and cannot be replaced by '1'.\n\n> 世界でいちばん(高いビル) \n> 'the {b-/tall-}est (building) in the world'\n\n * 第一, preferrably written in hiragana as だいいち: adverb 'in the first place'. ー does not retain the meaning 'one', and cannot be replaced by '1'.\n\n> だいいち、先生がまだ来ていない \n> 'the teacher has not come yet in the first place'", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-10T15:14:04.157", "id": "3099", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-10T15:14:04.157", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3097", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3103", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Textbooks usually teach that 花見 / お花見 means \"cherry blossom viewing\".\n\nTatoeba has a couple of examples supporting that:\n\n> * ヒラヒラと桜の花が舞っている。もうお花見の季節も終わりだな \n> It looks like cherry blossom-viewing season is at an end. You can see the\n> petals fluttering down.\n>\n> * 水戸市は花見客でいっぱいだった。 \n> _The city of Mito was crowded with blossom viewers._\n>\n> * 私は花見に行ってきました。 \n> _I have been to see the cherry blossoms._\n>\n> * 花見ができる春が待ち遠しい。 \n> _I can't wait for spring to come so we can sit under the cherry trees._\n>\n> * お花見に行きませんか。 \n> _Why don't we go and see the cherry blossoms?_\n>\n>\n\n>\n>\n> [[source]](http://tatoeba.org/eng/sentences/search?query=%E8%8A%B1%E8%A6%8B&from=jpn&to=eng)\n\nMust 花見 / お花見 refer only to \"cherry blossom\" viewing?\n\nCan they be used for \"flower viewing\" in general?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-11T12:38:10.690", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3101", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-29T03:04:56.100", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words", "usage" ], "title": "Is 花見 only for \"cherry blossom\" viewing?", "view_count": 368 }

[ { "body": "花見 usually refers to cherry-blossom viewing. However, it can refer to other\nkind of blossom trees. For example, 梅の花見 refers to\n[plum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prunus_mume)-blossom viewing, and when it\nis clear from the context, it can be also referred to simply as 花見.\n\n花見 does not refer to viewing flowers in general. For example, going to view\norchids or tulips is not usually considered as 花見.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-11T13:16:03.030", "id": "3103", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-11T13:16:03.030", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3101", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "What are the differences among the following two-kanji words that seem to mean\n\"eternity\":\n\n * 永遠 {えいえん}\n * 永久 {とわ}\n * 永世 {えいせい}\n * 永代 {えいたい}\n * 永劫 {えいごう}\n * 永永 {えいえい}\n * 久遠 {きゅうえん}\n * 悠久 {ゆうきゅう}\n * 恒久 {こうきゅう}\n * 恒常 {こうじょう}\n * 長久 {ちょうきゅう}\n * 無窮 {むきゅう}\n\nPlease include any other related words (preferably two-kanji only) but please\nexclude those that make use of period of a lifetime like 一生, 末代 etc, or big\nnumber of years/era like 千代, 万古 etc.\n\np/s: I noticed that the first two 永遠 and 永久 are the most commonly used; is it\ntrue and why them instead of the others?", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-11T15:37:12.927", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3104", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T13:31:05.113", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-11T15:53:38.000", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "nuances", "synonyms", "definitions" ], "title": "Fun with synonyms - \"eternity\"", "view_count": 1310 }

[ { "body": "1. 永遠{えいえん}\n\n> [彼女]{かのじょ}は[夫]{おっと}を永遠に[愛]{あい}し[続]{つづ}けるであろう。 \n> I don't think she'll ever get sick of that guy (her husband).\n\n 2. 永久{えいきゅう} \n\n> 私はこの[出来事]{できごと}を永久に[忘]{わす}れない。 \n> I wont forget this.\n\n 3. 永世{えいせい} \n\n> 永世[中立国]{ちゅうりつこく} \n> A Neutral Country (in Japanese without the word eisei it is not implied\n> that a country has a policy of neutrality. Whereas, in English, the word\n> Neutral Country by itself implies that this is a policy that the country has\n> singed onto. The eisei portion of this word makes the idea a unchangeable\n> bound policy.)\n\n 4. 永代{えいたい} \n\n> pronounced eidai and this is used as a name of a person or place. There is a\n> city in Tokyo called Eidai and a bridge called Eidai-bashi\n\n 5. 永劫{えいごう} \n\n> 永劫[回帰]{かいき} \n> An ancient Greek philosophy called \"Eternal Recurrence\", which is also\n> found in ideas like Reincarnation and the circle of life ideas, where life\n> never dies, it just changes or revolves.\n\n 6. 永永{えいえい} \n\n> 永永[無窮]{むきゅう}の毎日 \n> \"Same old same old\" might be a good definition for the idea that there was\n> nothing new that week and every day was kinda the same, unchanging.\n\n 7. 久遠{きゅうえん}\n\n> Pronounced Ku-On and used in people's names\n\n 8. 悠久{ゆうきゅう} \n\n> Sometimes written UQ and found in Game Titles but has the same meaning as\n> Eien 永遠 except used for game or book or movie titles.\n\n 9. 恒久{こうきゅう}\n\n> 恒久的{こうきゅうてき}な平和など[幻想]{げんそう}に過ぎない。 \n> A world without war is a pipe dream. (in Japanese uninterrupted peace means\n> a world without war)\n\n 10. 恒常{こうじょう} \n\n> イングランドとスコットランドの間の[恒常的]{こうじょうてき}な[国境]{こっきょう}[戦争]{せんそう}は終わった。 \n> The constant border wars between England and Scotland finally came to an\n> end.\n\n 11. 長久{ちょうきゅう}\n\n> The name of the Japanese \"Chokyu Era\"\n\n 12. 無窮{むきゅう} (see number 6)", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T06:10:36.650", "id": "3264", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-07T14:06:21.930", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-07T14:06:21.930", "last_editor_user_id": "54", "owner_user_id": "164", "parent_id": "3104", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "There's a lot of good information in the other answer already, the main goal\nof this answer is to fill in some of the other definitions etc.\n\n * 永遠{えいえん}:\n\n> When something continues for all time in a certain state without ending, for\n> example love which never ends or neverending world peace. `永遠に` can take the\n> meaning of \"forever\" or less commonly \"permanently\". Highly interchangeable\n> with `永久{えいきゅう}` and vice-versa.\n\n * 永久{えいきゅう}: \n\n> Something which is permanent or perpetual, for example permanent love or a\n> permanent license. Also used for immortal achievements, works, fame etc.\n> `永久に` can take the meaning of \"permanently\" or less commonly \"forever\". \n> \n> Usually `えいきゅう`, but can also be pronounced `えいこう`. Is sometimes pronounced\n> `とわ` to take a more abstract meaning, but the Kanji `常{とわ}` is more common\n> with that reading according to Daijirin.\n\n * 永世{えいせい}: \n\n> A long period of months and years or an era which never ends. Also used in\n> `永世[中立国]{ちゅうりつこく}` as Joshua has noted.\n\n * 永劫{えいごう}: \n\n> An eon. (The other answer has already done a great job explaining about\n> 永劫[回帰]{かいき} I think.)\n\n * 永代{えいたい}: \n\n> A very long time in months/years or eternity. Used in `永代[供養]{くよう}`,\n> \"services performed in perpetuity by a Buddhist temple for the repose of a\n> departed soul\" according to JMDict.\n\n * [永々]{えいえい}: \n\n> I think this can mean \"forever\", but it generally just emphasizes a notably\n> long period of time, e.g. \"the practice has continued for 100 years.\"\n> Usually written with a `くりかえし` (`々`) but can also be written as `永永`.\n\n * 久遠{くおん}: \n\n> A buddhist term for eternity. Infinite time or the distant past/distant\n> future. Usually pronounced `くおん` but can also be `きゅうえん`.\n\n * 悠久{ゆうきゅう}: \n\n> Unending. Used in `悠久の[歴史]{れきし}` (neverending history.)\n\n * 恒久{こうきゅう}: \n\n> Used in permanent government/constitutions/laws/treaties/measures/solutions\n> et al.\n\n * 恒常{こうじょう}: \n\n> Doesn't really mean \"eternal\" so much as \"constant\", e.g. \"constant\n> weather\".\n\n * 長久{ちょうきゅう}: \n\n> Used in wars/battles to indicate eternal luck/good fortune e.g.\n> `[武運]{ぶうん}長久` and `幸運{こううん}長久`. Also indicates the Choukyuu era from\n> 10/11/1040-24/11/1044 as has been noted.\n\n * 無窮{むきゅう}: \n\n> Something which is always in a state which never changes, e.g. \"an\n> unchanging art style\" or something which is of the state of being\n> infinite/immortal.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T06:55:16.287", "id": "3674", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-09T05:55:48.063", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-09T05:55:48.063", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3104", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "I'd like to add: 無限{むげん}. It means infinity but infinity and eternity can be\ninterchangeable at times..", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-07-30T13:31:05.113", "id": "6329", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T13:31:05.113", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "769", "parent_id": "3104", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3106", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 私の祖母は私が欲しい以上のものをくれた\n>\n> 私の祖母は私が欲しがる以上のものをくれた\n\nI want the meaning to be \"my grandmother gave me more then I wanted.\" Is the\nsecond sentence right and the first sentence wrong?\n\nI learned 欲しがる for the third person, but I found the second example as a first\nperson example. Which is correct?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-11T17:42:57.643", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3105", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-18T16:10:10.203", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "word-choice", "grammar" ], "title": "Another example where I don't know if 欲しい or 欲しがる is right", "view_count": 315 }

[ { "body": "The generalization that がる is used only for third person is wrong. Both of\nyour examples are grammatical, but only the first one means what you want.\n\n> 私の祖母は私が欲しい以上のものをくれた \n> 'My grandmother gave me more than what I wanted.'\n>\n> 私の祖母は私が欲しがる以上のものをくれた \n> 'My grandmother gave me more than what I expressed that I wanted.'", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-11T18:13:04.383", "id": "3106", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-18T16:10:10.203", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3105", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3111", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In Chinese letter writing there is a phrase \"教祺\" that can be roughly\ntranslated as \"good luck in teaching\" and is used exclusively in the letter\nending greeting. Is there a counterpart in Japanese letter writing? Or is\nwishing the teacher's health good enough?\n\nEdit: found a [rather long list](http://www.iwate-jh.ed.jp/pfc/pfc01.htm) of\nletter greetings and cannot find anything specific to teachers.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-12T00:42:11.703", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3108", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T01:59:24.693", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-03T01:59:24.693", "last_editor_user_id": "689", "owner_user_id": "689", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "politeness", "formality", "chinese" ], "title": "What is proper letter ending greeting for a letter to a teacher?", "view_count": 2209 }

[ { "body": "The standard formal opening, equivalent to English \"Dear Sir/Madam\", is 拝啓.\nThe closing, equivalent to \"Sincerely Yours\", is 敬具. I don't see why you\ncouldn't put in the Chinese greeting as well, along with a little explanation.\nThe teacher might find it interesting/charming, and there's nothing wrong with\na little cross-cultural exchange.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-12T03:49:51.527", "id": "3111", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-12T03:49:51.527", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3108", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3110", "answer_count": 1, "body": "So, I have the sentence\n\n> 礼儀のひとつも見せたらどうだね騎士殿\n\nI am getting stumped on the どうだ part. If I am reading the slang dictionary\ncorrectly (and I can only find it in a non-English one), it seems to be slang\nfor どや顔, which I can't find in other dictionaries (although split, it seems to\nmean \"cheap lodging face(person)\"), and then it says\n\n> 「どうだ？」という意味で使われる方言。語尾をあげて\n\nWhich as far as I can tell, means that it is a suffix of some kind as part of\na dialect. It's not very specific, and seems to leave the sentence incomplete.\nGoogle Translate says it means \"it do\".\n\nSo my understanding of this is hindered by conflicting alternate translations\nand the possibility of it being dialect-specific. Can anyone get me on the\nright track?\n\nIf it helps, the previous thing the character said was something like \"What\nsort of attitude lets you enter [my apartment] at your convenience?\"\n\nThe full slang dictionary entry is this:\n\n> どや顔（どやがお） - 日本語俗語辞書\n>\n> 【年代】 2007年 【種類】\n> †『どや顔』の解説どや顔の『どや』とは関西方面で「どうだ？」という意味で使われる方言。語尾をあげて「どや？」と聞くこの言葉、何かが完成したり\n\nAnd it highlighted the portion that matched my search.\n\nI hope this question isn't too narrow-focused.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-12T03:05:32.610", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3109", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-12T03:34:55.457", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "452", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "meaning", "slang" ], "title": "What does どうだ mean?", "view_count": 9475 }

[ { "body": "It's standard, normal Japanese. どう = how; だ = the copula. \"How would it be if\nyou showed me even one courtesy, Sir Knight.\" But it really means, \"How about\na little manners here?\".", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-12T03:34:55.457", "id": "3110", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-12T03:34:55.457", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3109", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3118", "answer_count": 4, "body": "In saying that something doesn't exist, is it unusual to use the ga particle\n(が) and a negative verb? For example, would \"(Uchi ni) Terebi ga arimasen\" be\nan unusual way to say \"There isn't a TV (at my house)\"?\n\nThe reason I'm wondering is that lesson 8 of Japanese For Busy People, which\nintroduces the ga particle and the existence of people and things, teaches\n\"place ni noun ga arimasu/imasu\" to say \"The object exists at this location!\".\n(If you were talking about a noun whose existance was already known, and you\nwere just providing additional information, it currently suggests using \"wa\"\nand \"desu\" - eg \"terebi wa ookii desu\" - \"the television is big\")\n\nAlso, at the start of chapter 9, it teaches \"place ni noun ga arimasu ka\", and\ntells you how to do the positive answer \"Hai, noun ga arimasu\".\n\nHowever, it doesn't teach \"noun ga arimasen/imasen\" to say \"The object doesn't\nexist!\". The only time it mentions the negative form is with \"Nani mo\narimasen\" and \"Dare mo imasen\", which is to say that nothing or no-one exists\nat a specific location.\n\nSince it doesn't teach \"noun ga arimasen/imasen\", I'm wondering if it's\nbecause that's not grammatically correct.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-12T12:05:59.097", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3113", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-25T03:46:21.383", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-25T02:27:37.270", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "negation", "particle-が" ], "title": "Is it unusual to have the ga particle with a negative verb?", "view_count": 7388 }

[ { "body": "I'd say using が particle with negative verbs is not unusual at all especially\nif it is [exhaustive が\nusage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_grammar#Exhaustive_ga).\n\nConsider if the question was: \"I think you said before that your house doesn't\nhave this one electrical appliances I've forgotten which one was it, was it\nTV, fridge or microwave?\" To answer this question, you need to say something\nthat say TV, out of electrical appliances, is the one you don't have at your\nhouse: \"it is the TV that my house doesn't have\" - 僕の家にはテレビがありません. That is to\nsay that you use が to single out the topic from some set of choices or even\nthe whole 'universe', and it works similarly for both positive and negative\nverbs.\n\nIf the topic is not coming from a set of choices, meaning your statement does\nnot imply anything about the rest of the world, you would use は instead:\nテレビはありません - \"There is no TV (and I imply nothing about whether other things\nexist or not).", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-12T13:01:56.337", "id": "3114", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-12T13:01:56.337", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3113", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "'Ga' has nothing to do with negation. Your example 'テレビがありません' is completely\nfine.\n\nThe reason you need 'mo' in those examples is because Japanese uses a category\nof words called indeterminates (which includes 'なに' and 'だれ'), which can be\nused as a universal quantifier (which translates to English as 'any ...'),\nexistential quantifier (which translates to English as 'some ...') or an\ninterrogative quantifier (which translates to English as 'wh...').\nIndeterminates take 'も' to function as a universal quantifier or 'か' to\nfunction as an existential quantifier or take neither to function as an\ninterrogative quantifier.\n\n> 何でもあります \n> 'There is anything.'\n>\n> 何もありません \n> 'There isn't anything.'\n>\n> 何かあります \n> 'There is something.'\n>\n> 何がありますか \n> 'What is there?'", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-12T13:05:32.883", "id": "3115", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T03:57:16.733", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3113", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "> Since it doesn't teach \"noun ga arimasen/imasen\", I'm wondering if it's\n> because that's not grammatically correct.\n\nIt is correct. For example,\n\n```\n\n どうしてさみしいんですか？ (Why are you sad?) \n 彼氏がいないので、さみしいんです。 (I'm sad because I don't have a boyfriend)\n \n```\n\nor\n\n```\n\n 最近忙しくて、友達に会う時間がない。 (I've been too busy recently to see my mates)\n \n```\n\nHowever, very often, when you state your negation, you emphasise your\nsubject/topic. It is therefore common to turn が into は.\n\n```\n\n 家にテレビがありますか？ (Do you have a telly at home?) \n いいえ、家にテレビはありません。(A telly? No, I don't have one at home.)\n \n```", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-13T01:07:07.667", "id": "3118", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-25T03:46:21.383", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-25T03:46:21.383", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3113", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "To complement other answers, let me state why が is less often used with\nnegation.\n\nOne of the roles of が is to introduce a new thing into the [universe of\ndiscourse](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/22/whats-the-\ndifference-between-wa-and-ga/51#51), whereas は is used when the thing you are\ntalking about is already in the universe of discourse. It should be\nunderstandable that it is rare that one introduces a new subject and the first\nthing to say about it is what it is _not_ like.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T02:58:07.480", "id": "3130", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T02:58:07.480", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3113", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3117", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This might be an off topic question. If it is just close my question.\n\nI want to know what anime do you recommend to learn japanese? The problem with\nthe anime I've watch so far is that they tend to speak pretty casual and some\nof them use yakuza way to talk. Is there any appropriate anime for those who\nwant to learn Japanese or should I give up on anime and learn from a different\nmedia (drama, news, etc.).\n\nI don't pretend to learn only from listening (I've been studying japanese for\nabout 5 years). It's just that I think that learning any language is not only\nreading books.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-12T20:29:29.587", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3116", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-12T22:07:13.283", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-12T21:15:55.653", "last_editor_user_id": "29", "owner_user_id": "618", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "learning", "resources", "anime" ], "title": "Appropiate anime or media to learn japanese", "view_count": 3318 }

[ { "body": "The main issue you're going to run into is explained in [this\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/215/on-learning-japanese-\nfrom-anime-manga/399#399), specifically:\n\n> Avoid learning from manga until you're at a level where you can make the\n> difference between what you hear and what you can say.\n\nIn spite of this, there is a rough guideline you can use to determine which\nanime you might be able to use to learn even basic pronunciation.... it needs\nto be _boring_ to your average 15 year old.\n\nIn other words:\n\n * no space ships\n * no dragons\n * no magical girl outfits\n * no mecha\n * and absolutely no gainax bounce\n\nThis isn't to say that you can't learn _something_ from these shows... but be\nconstantly suspicious of the constructions/vocabulary you hear in them until\nyou have a pretty good grasp of the language.\n\nSo, what does that leave us? Mostly\n\n * high school dramas (beware archtypically gendered language)\n * detective/mystery shows\n * sports-focused anime\n\nThe only thing that sometimes gets you here is the \"humor\" characters that are\nadded in with a \"wild\" accent. For obvious reasons, be careful of any\ncharacter's \"catch phrase\".\n\n(Disclaimer: I am not a highly accomplished speaker. A few years ago I was\ninvolved with an anime club that was roughly half made up of native\nJapanese... this is mostly from a series of conversations with these kids, and\nshould be understood from that anecdotal frame of reference)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-12T21:47:15.737", "id": "3117", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-12T22:07:13.283", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "29", "parent_id": "3116", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Does マシ come from English? Or is it a semantic emphasis?", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-13T03:57:46.710", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3119", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:43:02.827", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:43:02.827", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "709", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "orthography", "katakana" ], "title": "Why is マシ written using katakana?", "view_count": 922 }

[ { "body": "まし is not a loanword. It is actually\n[増し](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%BE%E3%81%97&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=118414200000),\nthe noun form of verb 増す (“to increase”). However, it is not usually written\nin kanji, probably because the meaning diverged widely from the original verb\n増す.\n\nIf you follow the standard orthography, there is no reason why まし should be\nwritten in katakana. However, it is true that many people write マシ in\nkatakana. I do not know why.\n\nThe following is my speculation about a possible reason. Sometimes words are\nwritten in katakana to avoid a large chunk of hiragana and make them stand out\nin a sentence. For example, in the following two sentences, the latter may be\neasier to read.\n\n> こんな安物でもないよりはまだましだ。 \n> こんな安物でもないよりはまだマシだ。\n\nThis may (or may not) be a reason why many people write マシ rather than まし.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-13T14:49:48.933", "id": "3125", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-13T14:49:48.933", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3119", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3121", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In one of the Bleach anime ending songs, \"Hanabi\" has the [following\nline](http://www.3131.info/%E3%81%84%E3%81%8D%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%8C%E3%81%8B%E3%82%8A/HANABI/):\n\n> 繋ぎゆく この想い 愛しき 君\n\n\"itoshiki\" seems to come from \"itoshii\", but how does this -ki form of\ni-adjective work? I found a few other adjectives that have -ki forms, e.g.\n幼き{おさなき}, 素晴らしき{すばらしき}, 古き{ふるき}, 良き{よき} etc but that's about it.\n\nIs this form productive? Is it selective, i.e. only some i-adjectives can have\nthis form? Or has it become archaic, and thus only limited to those that\nsurvived into present Japanese?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-13T05:32:13.307", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3120", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-13T06:10:45.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 22, "tags": [ "grammar", "i-adjectives" ], "title": "How does -ki form of i-adjectives work? (e.g. 愛しき)", "view_count": 10601 }

[ { "body": "The `-ki` ending is the archaic rentaikee (adnominal form). It used to be\nstandardly used in relative clauses/attributive uses of an adjective. The\nchange from `-ki` to the present `-i` is called i-ombin. Today, this is used\nonly when the writer wants to use the archaic form for some literary effect\nsuch as in literature, lyrics, poems, etc.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-13T06:10:45.227", "id": "3121", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-13T06:10:45.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3120", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3140", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Last night, when I asked my wife to send an email to me, she said もう送っている\nwhich I took to mean that she was \"sending the message\". (The message had a\nbig attachment so I imagined that it could take a few minutes to be sent.)\nWhat I later realized is that in this context 送っている meant that \"the message\nhas been sent\". I thought that Vている is the same as a progressive or -ing form\nin English. According to my wife, if she wanted to say she was sending the\nmessage it would have been, 送っているところ.\n\nIs it true that the 送っている always means **continuation of state** (ie. \"has\nbeen sent\") or does it depend on the context? Other verbs in the Vている form\n(for example 食べている) seem to mean **continuation of action** (ie. \"eating\").\nDoes the meaning of Vている change depending on the verb it's used with? Can we\ndivide every verb into a \"continuation of state\" or a \"continuation of action\"\ncategory or is it more complicated?\n\nFinally, where does てある fit into all of this. From my textbook grammar, I\nwould have thought 送ってある would be the correct phrase for \"it has been sent\".\n\nRelated question: [If Vて+いる isn't a gerund, then what is\nit?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1363/if-v-isnt-a-gerund-\nthen-what-is-it)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-13T08:11:55.543", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3122", "last_activity_date": "2019-12-16T15:32:07.247", "last_edit_date": "2019-03-12T22:40:13.140", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "81", "post_type": "question", "score": 81, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "て-form", "aspect" ], "title": "When is Vている the continuation of action and when is it the continuation of state?", "view_count": 13327 }

[ { "body": "To answer your first question, I'd say it depends on context. The もう in your\nfirst example indicates that it's supposed to be read as a continuation of\nstate, while the ところ in the second example indicates it's supposed to be read\nas a progressive.\n\nOne might also ask what the relation between 〜た, 〜ている, and 〜てある is. Here is an\nillustration I once read:\n\n> 電車が来る。\n\nThe train is coming into view.\n\n> 電車が来た。\n\nThe train has just arrived.\n\n> 電車が来ている。\n\nThe train has arrived and passengers are boarding.\n\n来てある is ungrammatical basically because 来る is intransitive. The 〜てある\nconstruction implies a certain agency: someone performed an action on\nsomething and it remains in that state (by some deliberate action or\ninaction). Drohan gives the following examples in _A handbook of Japanese\ngrammar_ :\n\n> 戸が閉まっている。 The door is closed.\n>\n> 戸を閉めている。 The door is closed. They are closing the door.\n>\n> 戸が・戸を閉めてある。 The door has been closed (and has been left so).", "comment_count": 14, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-13T12:06:29.667", "id": "3123", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-13T13:06:42.130", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-13T13:06:42.130", "last_editor_user_id": "578", "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "3122", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The key to understanding this difference in **aspect** (not tense) lies in\nknowing what kind of verb we're dealing with. For verbs that describe actions\n(食【た】べる, 走【はし】る, etc) and events (降【ふ】る, 吹【ふ】く, etc), ～ている shows the\ncontinuation of an action. For verbs that describe changes in state (死【し】ぬ,\n割【わ】れる, 溶【と】ける, etc), ～ている shows the continuation of a state.\n\nAnother way to conceptualize this is the idea that action/event verbs can take\nplace over a length of time, while change-in-state verbs often happen\ninstantaneously.\n\nThere are some diagrams on [page 54 of this\nbook](http://books.google.com/books?id=l-C4H2sBJlEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false)\nthat help a little. I will redraw two of them here (with some modifications)\nfor the sake of convenience:\n\n### Type 1: action/event verbs\n\n\n\n### Type 2: change-in-state verbs\n\n\n\nSo where does 送【おく】る fit in? We might be tempted to think that 送【おく】る is an\naction verb, and in a sense it is, as it is transitive and takes a direct\nobject. But 送【おく】る shows an instantaneous change in state: a change from _not-\nsent_ to _sent_. This is why 送【おく】っている means \"I have sent [it].\"\n\n\"Ah,\" you say, \"but there are change-in-state verbs that happen over a length\nof time. How do we deal with those?\" Let's look at 溶【と】ける:\n\n> アイスが **溶【と】けている** よ。はやく食【た】べなさい。 Your ice cream **is melting**. Hurry up and\n> eat it.\n>\n> アイスが **溶【と】けちゃう** よ。はやく食【た】べなさい。 Your ice cream **will melt away**. Hurry up\n> and eat it.\n>\n> うわぁ、アイスがぜんぶ **溶【と】けている** 。どうしよう？ Woah, the ice cream **has** all **melted**.\n> What should we do?\n>\n> 友【とも】だちとしゃべっている間【あいだ】に、アイスが **溶【と】けちゃった** 。 My ice cream **melted away**\n> while I was chatting with a friend.\n\n溶【と】ける is one of those pesky verbs that doesn't fit into just one of our\ncategories above. It could be taken as either an event verb or a change-in-\nstate verb. So 溶【と】けている could be taken as \"is melting\" or \"has melted\",\ndepending on the context. Verbs such as 死【し】ぬ, however, show only an\ninstantaneous change in state. 死【し】んでいる always means \"has died\", and not \"is\ndying\".\n\n\"But!\" you say, not wishing to be denied any chance for objection, \"What about\nusing ～ている with expressions of frequency?\" This is where ～ている doesn't line up\nwith any of our nice English translations:\n\n> 古【ふる】くなった細胞【さいぼう】は毎日【まいにち】 **死【し】んでいる** 。 Old cells **die** every day. (not\n> _are dying_ or _have died_ )\n>\n> 毎週【まいしゅう】大阪【おおさか】に **行【い】っている** 。 I **go** to Osaka every week. (not _am\n> going_ or _have gone_ )\n\nThis could be interpreted as a use of progressive aspect, but translating it\ninto English with an _-ing_ verb form doesn't work grammatically.\n\n## Movement verbs\n\nVerbs like 行【い】く, 来【く】る, and 帰【かえ】る, which deal with movement from one point\nto another, look like action verbs on the surface, but in their ～ている forms,\nthey work more like change-in-state verbs:\n\n> 彼【かれ】は日本【にほん】に **行【い】っている** 。 He **has gone** to Japan. (He went to Japan,\n> and is still there.)\n>\n> お父【とう】さんはまだ **帰【かえ】っていない** 。 Dad **hasn't come home** yet. (He may be on the\n> way home, but the change in state from _not-home_ to _home_ hasn't happened\n> yet.)\n\n## ～ところ\n\nThere are times when you want to take a change-in-state verb and \"zoom in\" on\nthe point when the change takes place to treat it like a continuous-action\nverb. This is what ～ところ is for:\n\n> 送【おく】るところだ。 I am just about to send it.\n>\n> 送【おく】っているところだ。 I am sending it right now. (implies that the speaker has her\n> finger on the button for \"Send\")\n>\n> 送【おく】ったところだ。 I just sent it.\n\nNaturally, ところ can also mean \"place\", so you might have to do some contextual\nsleuthing to figure out which is meant:\n\n> ビルが **崩壊【ほうかい】している** ところを見【み】た。 I saw the building as it **was collapsing**.\n> (note ～ている in Japanese, _was_ in English!)\n>\n> 道路【どうろ】の **崩壊【ほうかい】している** ところを直【なお】す。 We will repair the places where the\n> road **has collapsed**.\n\n～つつある, attaching to the ～ます stem (壊【こわ】れつつある), can be used like ～ところ, but is\nmore common in writing than in speech.\n\n## ～てある\n\nThe main difference between ～ている and ～てある (aside from the fact that ～てある\nrequires a transitive verb, which I'm sure you already know), is that ～てある\n**implies the existence of an actor who performs the action for some\npurpose**. ～ている, on the other hand, has no such implication, and reads as\nthough the action occurred with no particular purpose. Thus we can draw the\nfollowing contrast:\n\n> ○ 寒【さむ】いので、窓【まど】が閉【し】めてあります。 It's cold, so the window has been closed.\n>\n> × 寒【さむ】いので、窓【まど】が閉【し】まっています。 ~~It's cold, so the window is closed.~~\n> (incorrect)\n\nSuppose, however, you walk into a room with an open window, and you have no\nidea whether the window was opened for some purpose. In this case, ～てある is\nincorrect:\n\n> ○ あ、窓【まど】が開【あ】いている。 Ah, the window is open.\n>\n> × あ、窓【まど】が開【あ】けてある。 ~~Ah, the window has been opened.~~ (incorrect)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T16:18:24.937", "id": "3140", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-19T23:11:59.673", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "3122", "post_type": "answer", "score": 104 }, { "body": "送る is not a change-of-state verb, so 送っている means \"is sending\", not \"has sent\".\nSo you are right, the correct form for the situation you are describing is\n送ってある (or simply 送った).\n\nThat being said, are you sure she did not say もう送ってる? I sometimes hear てる as a\ncontracted form of てある (although probably not \"correct\" strictly speaking),\nbut using ている for てある sounds quite unnatural to me.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-08-22T00:36:54.610", "id": "6546", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-22T15:15:08.147", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-22T15:15:08.147", "last_editor_user_id": "1073", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "3122", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I finally started going through some JLPT N1 grammar the other day, and one of\nthe ones I'm looking at has me a bit confused: the ～にあって・～にあっても form. The book\ndescribes its usage as such:\n\n> ～のような特別の状況・時期・場所だからこそあることが起こる\n\nThe 時期 and 場所 parts I can understand, but my problem is with the 状況 side of\nthings. The problem this arose on was this:\n\n> 木村氏は（ ）にあって、日々多忙なスケジュールをこなしている。\n\nThe choices(the ones that make sense, that is) are:\n\n> １ 一国の指導者\n>\n> ２ 一国の指導者という立場\n\nThe answer is #2 - can anyone explain to me why? It seems like the first one\nis describing a 状況, but apparently not - at least, not more than 立場 does. Or\nis that 立場 referring to a place?\n\nEDIT - Since 立場 is the right answer, can someone say why 一国の指導者 is not\nactually a 特別な状況? Also, why does 立場 fall into the proper category?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-13T14:29:57.217", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3124", "last_activity_date": "2012-04-04T23:08:32.063", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "263", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "jlpt", "て-form", "nuances" ], "title": "How the ～にあって form works - situations, places, times, what?", "view_count": 1034 }

[ { "body": "To be clear, answer 1 is grammatically incorrect, not just inferior.\n\nIt might be easier to grasp if you think of a 状況 here as something you find\nyourself “in”, rather than something you “are”. The difference is being _in_\nthe position of a leader, instead of _being_ the leader.\n\nNote that the problem here has nothing to do with this special\ndefinition/usage of ～にあって・～にあっても. The distinction is simply between 〜にある and\n〜である.\n\n彼は指導者 **である** — He _is_ the leader\n\n彼は指導者という立場 **にある** — He _is in_ the position of a leader\n\n`〜という状況 (situation)` and `〜という役目 (role)` are also fine, because you are _in_ a\nsituation, _in_ a role, etc.\n\nAccordingly, the following sentence is grammatically correct, and means\nexactly the same thing:\n\n> 木村氏は一国の指導者 **で** あって、日々多忙なスケジュールをこなしている。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-26T22:57:42.433", "id": "3819", "last_activity_date": "2012-04-04T23:08:32.063", "last_edit_date": "2012-04-04T23:08:32.063", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "888", "parent_id": "3124", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3127", "answer_count": 4, "body": "The `〜そう` form means \"seemingly 〜\" and is usually conjecture made based on\nfirst-hand information. This usually means seeing something or hearing about\nsomething and making a conjecture, e.g., `おいしそう` when seeing the food.\n(Presumably, first-hand information would extend to ESP, psychic visions,\netc., if you believe in that.)\n\nNow, it's hard to imagine that this would ever apply to `かわいい` based on visual\nfirst-hand information; since you're actually seeing the thing, there's no\nguessing about whether or not it's cute. However, it would be possible to make\na \"seemingly cute\" conjecture if the first-hand information was hearing a\ndescription of something. For example, maybe your friend is describing their\nnew puppy to you. Upon hearing the description you might respond that it seems\ncute.\n\nBy the rules, `かわいい` (sometimes written `可愛い`) would then become\n`かわいそう【可愛そう】`. Unfortunately, this coincides with `かわいそう【可哀想】` meaning\n\"pathetic; pitiful; sad\".\n\n 1. Is the \"seemingly cute\" `かわいそう` even used practically in the way I mentioned (or some other way)?\n 2. If so, is context enough to distinguish which of the two words it's actually supposed to be? Or should you just avoid it altogether? Because I can think of a context where it would still be ambiguous.\n\n> \"My new puppy is small, and fluffy, and likes to play ball. But a cat\n> attacked him the other day\". \n> \"かわいそう\" → (Is it \"Seems cute\" or \"Poor thing\"???)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-13T19:24:49.227", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3126", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-13T00:45:31.633", "last_edit_date": "2023-08-13T00:45:31.633", "last_editor_user_id": "32952", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances", "homonyms", "ambiguity" ], "title": "\"Seemingly cute\" - かわいい + 〜そう", "view_count": 6012 }

[ { "body": "From what I've read, the original meaning of \"かわいい\" had less to do with\n\"cuteness\", and more to do with inherent qualities such as weakness, small\nsize, docility, etc., that engender a feeling of pity. As far as I recall, the\nchange in meaning to \"cute appearance\" is fairly recent. So it could be that\neither \"かわいそう\" just hasn't caught up with the new meaning yet, or is useful\nenough retaining the older meaning that it's unlikely to change.\n\nAdditionally, as a conjecture (and keep in mind that it's just a conjecture: I\ndon't feel 100% confident about this), I think there may be a tendency to use\n~そう to express qualities that are not immediately visible, i.e. that are\ninferred rather than seen. For things judged by outside appearance only, it\nmay be that the construction \"~く/に みえる\" is more natural. So, in your example,\nmaybe \"かわいく見える\" would give the \"It looks cute\" meaning. My sense is that\n\"かわいそう\" doesn't give this meaning.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-13T21:30:53.023", "id": "3127", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T07:30:10.407", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-14T07:30:10.407", "last_editor_user_id": "634", "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3126", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "First of all, I do not think that people use かわいそう to mean “seemingly cute.”\nBut I cannot pin down the reason of this.\n\nI think that it is at least partly because かわい+そう would have the same form as\nかわいそう meaning “pitiful.” However, I am not sure if this is the only reason.\n\nAs you noticed, かわいい describes appearance. I cannot think of a context where\n白そう or 青そう (or other colors plus そう) is used naturally, and it does not seem\nto have anything to do with ambiguity. This may support an argument that\nかわい+そう is not used because かわいい describes appearance.\n\nHowever, 明るそう (“seemingly bright”) is used (and it is not limited to\nfigurative usage such as 明るそうな未来). For example,\n\n> [いかにも明るそうな電球でした。](http://www.waride.net/hakodate.html)\n\n(This example describes large lamps on a squid-fishing boat, which are used to\nattract squids at night. Because the author saw the boat during the day, the\nlamps were not turned on and the author described the lamps as “seemingly\nbright.”)\n\n>\n> […ルームランプを消費電力が少なくて白くて明るそうなLEDに変えてみました。](http://homepage2.nifty.com/mmas/legacy/diy-\n> lamp.html)\n\n(Here an LED room light is described as “seemingly bright” probably because\nthe description is from the perspective at the moment before the author\nchanged the room light to the LED light.)\n\nThis means that そうだ meaning “seemingly” can be sometimes attached to a word\ndescribing appearance. This is why I am not sure about the exact reason why\nかわい+そう is not used.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T02:16:10.417", "id": "3128", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T02:16:10.417", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3126", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "My answer builds off of rdb's answer.\n\nMy understanding is that ～そう for usage of \"seems\" cannot be used for actual\ninformation that is apparent. I.e. you can't say \"she looks cute\" using そう for\nsomeone you are looking at. Though, you get on the slippery slope when you\nwant to say something like \"she sounds cute\" after you get off a phone\nconversation. But then I think you'd use the \"～く/に 聞こえる\" grammatical pattern\nfor that.\n\nIn terms of using \"～く/に みえる\", rdb is right in that gives a completely\ndifferent meaning to what you are looking at. I have always thought about みえる\nas saying \"She looks cute (but normally doesn't/shouldn't)\" connotation built\nin.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T03:15:30.013", "id": "3132", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-13T12:38:35.177", "last_edit_date": "2014-03-13T12:38:35.177", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "3126", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I hear かわよさそう used frequently as a substitute for かわいそう, and sometimes its\naltered companion, かわよい. I presume it's _very_ slangy and I feel perhaps a bit\nfeminine, but it does exist nonetheless. Another workaround might be to use\n可愛{かわい}らしい, which while technically different, at least approaches the\nintended meaning. As for _when_ it's used, I don't think it breaks any\nconventions. I usually hear it when something sounds like it would be cute.\nClearly this change is taking place because of かわいそう having the alternate\nmeaning, but I think this is evidence that the concept of modifying かわいい in\nthat way at least isn't abandoned entirely.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-03-14T02:42:56.790", "id": "14872", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-14T02:42:56.790", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "3126", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3134", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Today as I was transferring trains in Nagoya the station attendant was\nshouting repeatedly「ありがとうございや」. Doing a search on the internet revealed that\nthis seems to be a shorted form of ありがとうございやした but I have never heard of this\nbefore.\n\nIs this from a specific dialect/age group/group Is it's usage just a simple\nreplacement of 「ま」in 「～ました」 Can this be done to any verb, or is it limited to\n「る」ending verbs that conjugate to 「い」in 丁寧語 (polite speech)?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T03:07:40.940", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3131", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-02T02:50:10.290", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-02T02:50:10.290", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "dialects", "greetings" ], "title": "「ありがとうございや」 - Dialect? Train Station 言葉？", "view_count": 376 }

[ { "body": "I have thought without much grounds that this is an Edo word (江戸言葉). You can\nsee it in 時代劇 such as 水戸黄門. But this also seems to be a 役割語 'stereotyped role\nwords' that is assumed to be used by a lower-rank gangster/thief against the\nleader of the group. I am not sure whether it is actually so. I am surprised\nto hear that it is heard in present Nagoya.\n\nThis form is applied to any verb.\n\n> 金庫を開けやした、親分。[consonant verb] \n> 'I opened the safe, my leader.'\n>\n> 茂吉の奴をここで見やした。 [vowel verb] \n> 'I saw the guy Mokichi here.'\n>\n> 奴が来やした。 [irregular verb] \n> 'The guy just arrived.'\n>\n> 物(ぶつ)を手配しやした。 [irregular verb] \n> 'I made an arrangement for the thing.'", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T03:34:37.283", "id": "3133", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T04:04:44.980", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3131", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "It might be ありがとうございやす with devoiced す.\n[ございやす](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%94%E3%81%96%E3%81%84%E3%82%84%E3%81%99&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0),\nwhose meaning is the same as ございます, was used in the Edo dialect in the\n16th–19th centuries, and seems to be still in use in the Ibaraki dialect. I do\nnot think that either ありがとうございや or ありがとうございやす is used in the Nagoya dialect.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T03:37:15.123", "id": "3134", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T03:37:15.123", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3131", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3137", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In English it would be strange to have more than one \"WH question\" word in a\nsentence,\n\nFor example:\n\n> Tomorrow, where are we meeting, at what time and to do what ?\n\nIt sounds like it's grammatical English, but nevertheless it sure sounds odd\n(or an intentional joke) at best.\n\nIn Japanese, what is the stand on sentences that has more than one \"WH\" word?\ne.g:\n\n> 明日、何時にどこで何をしに会いますか。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T09:16:00.960", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3135", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T12:31:14.610", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-14T09:22:19.220", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar", "questions" ], "title": "Is it grammatical to have more than one \"WH question\" words in a sentence?", "view_count": 1548 }

[ { "body": "It's fine, although, as in English, if you stack up too many you end up with\nsomething faintly ridiculous, of course. (This can even be emphasised for\nhumorous purposes: try Googling \"地球が何回回った時\").\n\nStill, I would say that Japanese is more tolerant of multiple WH- words in a\nsentence than English is, maybe because in Japanese the WH- words can be left\nin place rather than fronted, and so the result is less structurally\nremarkable.\n\n(Come to think of it, in English, too, multiple WH- words don't seem\nparticularly objectionable when they're in a non-fronted structure: \"You went\nWHERE with WHO?\" \"Wait, who said what to who now?\" etc.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T11:38:34.637", "id": "3137", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T11:38:34.637", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3135", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Multiple wh-question is fine in any language as far as I am aware of. The\nrelevant parts in the answer are related by some function or are lists.\n\n> English: \n> A: Who is meeting whom where when to do what tomorrow? \n> B: John is meeting Bill at 3:00 at school to review the class [single\n> answer] \n> B': John is meeting Bill at 3:00 at school to review the class, Tom is\n> meeting Dave at 1:30 in front of the tree to go to the gym, ... [list\n> answer] \n> B'': The first graders are meething their caretakers in the hall at 2:00 to\n> talk about next week. [functional answer]\n>\n> Japanese: \n> A: 明日、誰がいつ何処で何のために誰と会うの? \n> B: ジョンが三時に学校でビルと復習するために会うんだよ。 [single answer] \n> B': ジョンが三時に学校でビルと復習するために、トムがデーブと一時半に木の前で運動しにいくために、... [list answer] \n> B'': 一年生たちが二時に集会場でそれぞれの保護者と来週の打ち合わせのために会うんだよ。 [functional answer]\n\nIn languages like English, one wh-phrase moves to the beginning of the\nsentence. In languages like Japanese, none of the wh-phrase is obligatorily\nmoved. In languages like Serbo-Croatian, all of the wh-phrases move to the\nbeginning of the sentence.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T12:31:14.610", "id": "3138", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T12:31:14.610", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3135", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3139", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In rather formal situations, when would you use 頂戴します ?\n\nI use いただきます all the time to express the fact of receiving something, but I\njust heard a colleague using 頂戴します over the phone.\n\nIf I understand well, [this page](http://okwave.jp/qa/q5415908.html) suggests\n頂戴します is when receiving material merchandise.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T09:44:46.250", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3136", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T15:18:03.317", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "usage", "politeness" ], "title": "When to use 頂戴します instead of いただきます?", "view_count": 983 }

[ { "body": "Without much basis, I feel that いただく is used more when the opponent actively\ngives away or at least permits the thing to be taken away, whereas 頂戴する is\nused more when the intention on the agent is stronger than that of the\nopponent.\n\n> 屠殺場で動物の命を頂戴する \n> 'take away the life of animals at a slaughter house'\n>\n> お涙頂戴もの \n> 'TV programs that make you cry'\n>\n> 商品を壊された場合は、弁償金を頂戴致します。 \n> 'In case you broke our merchandise, we would be asking for compensation.'", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-14T12:47:12.503", "id": "3139", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-14T15:18:03.317", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3136", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3142", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In a\n[manga](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%81%E3%81%9E%E3%82%93%E4%B8%80%E5%88%BB)\nI am currently reading, one of the character exclaims:\n\n> 安心しな。秘密に **しとく** から。\n\nThe general meaning of the second part (\"I'll keep it a secret\") is quite\nobvious, and it seems that \"しとく\" (ostensibly derived from し, with a suffix\nappended) has more or less the same meaning as plain \"する\". But I am curious\nabout the grammatical (or dialectal?) construct used here, its usage, nuance\netc.\n\nThe closest to an explanation I could find, was this verb in WWWJDIC:\n\n> とく (v5k) to do something in readiness for, to get something (needful) done\n\n... but I must admit I'm still at a loss as to why it would be used as an\nauxiliary here.\n\n**What is the _exact_ nuance (and grammatical origin) of that \"しとく\" and does\nthe \"とく\" suffix work with other verbs?**", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T03:58:31.220", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3141", "last_activity_date": "2020-11-24T00:49:34.973", "last_edit_date": "2012-04-13T16:43:53.003", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "grammar", "conjugations", "て-form", "contractions" ], "title": "Where does the verbal form しとく come from?", "view_count": 4252 }

[ { "body": "しとく comes from しておく, which in turn comes from して置く. The literal translation of\nして置く would be, \"do it, and then put [the results]\". Basically it describes the\nact of doing something and storing the result of that so that when that result\nbecomes useful, you can use it.\n\n**EDIT:** \nThis literal meaning changed overtime (I presume) and しておく became to mean \"do\nsomething to prepare for something that might happen\". In case of `秘密にしておく`,\nthe speaker is saying that he/she will keep it secret in case it turns out\nwhatever thing they were discussing indeed needed to be kept secret. I guess\nit makes some sense, as you could think that the state of that thing being\nkept secret, is \"stored\" or \"put\" somewhere, and then it turns out that that\nstate was useful, or something like that.\n\nThe nuance further changed (I presume!), and it became ok to use it almost as\na softner. For example, a Japanese speaker might say `今日飲んどく？` instead of\n`今日飲みに行く？`. Technically it still means to drink \"just in case\", but here it's\njust used to soften the speech. 秘密にしておく could also be a softner, depending on\nthe context.\n\n> え、また泥酔して記憶なくなったの？ 大丈夫！秘密にしとくから（笑） \n> -> Softner \n> 今のところ会社の人には秘密にしておいてください \n> -> Let's keep it secret for the time being, in case it it wise to keep it\n> as a secret.\n\nしておく is frequently used with とりあえず, which translates to \"for the time being\".\n\n```\n\n 今日は台風が来ているから、飛行機が飛ぶか分からないけど、取りあえず準備だけはしておこう。　　\n 今日は台風が来ているから、飛行機が飛ぶか分からないけど、取りあえず準備だけはしとこう。\n \n```\n\nBoth are ok, while the latter is colloquial.\n\n```\n\n 次いつ駐車できるかわからないから、ここでお昼ごはんにしとくか？\n 次いつ駐車できるかわからないので、ここでお昼ご飯にしておきましょうか？\n \n```\n\nAbove is another example. しとく is more frank/colloquial form of しておく.\n\n～おく can also work with other verbs. Here are some examples:\n\n```\n\n ここ、塗っとこうか？\n ここ、塗っておきましょうか？\n \n 飯、食っとけ。\n ご飯食べておいてください\n \n```\n\n**EDIT2** \nApparently it's even more complex than that. [Here is a Japanese\npaper](https://web.archive.org/web/20071029144346/https://libweb.nagoya-\nwu.ac.jp/kiyo/kiyo51/jinbun/kojin/20yamamoto.pdf) on ～ておく's meaning.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T04:26:04.753", "id": "3142", "last_activity_date": "2020-11-24T00:49:34.973", "last_edit_date": "2020-11-24T00:49:34.973", "last_editor_user_id": "30981", "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "3141", "post_type": "answer", "score": 29 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3154", "answer_count": 1, "body": "WWWJDIC lists both あまりに and あまりにも to mean \"too much; excessively; too\" but are\nthey exactly the same in term of usage and nuance?\n\n> あまりに 《余りに》 (adv) (uk) too much; excessively; too \n> Ex: 料理にあまりに時間がかかりすぎる。 Cooking takes up too much time.\n>\n> あまりにも 《余りにも》 (adv) (uk) too much; excessive; too \n> Ex: それは彼にとってはあまりにも易しすぎる仕事だ。 It is too easy a task for him.\n\nCan they be used interchangeably?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T05:27:45.793", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3143", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-16T12:57:32.620", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "set-phrases" ], "title": "Usage and nuance of あまりに vs あまりにも", "view_count": 1250 }

[ { "body": "[I read](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1458054474)\nthat the も adds greater emphasis. With that in mind, I can see it in the\nfollowing translations:\n\n> 私たちは、あまりに自分のからだを医者任せにしてきたきらいがあるのではないでしょうか。 \n> Don't you think that we have tended to entrust (the care of) our bodies too\n> much to doctors? \n> \n> あの人はあまりに **も** 内気でどうにも好きになれない。 \n> He is **_so_** introverted, I don't think I'll ever grow to like him. \n> \n> 彼の離婚を二人の価値観があまりに違っていたことによる。 \n> Their divorce was caused by the fact that their value systems were very\n> different. \n> \n> 彼女があまりに **も** 自分勝手だったので、一言言わないではいられなかった。 \n> Because she was acting **_so_** selfishly, I couldn't resist saying\n> something to her.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-16T12:57:32.620", "id": "3154", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-16T12:57:32.620", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "3143", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3145", "answer_count": 1, "body": "1. 「彼は映画スターであり、政治家もだ。」 means \"He is a movie star, and a politician is a movie star, too\" (from Tsuyoshi's comment below [this other post](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/2890/264))\n\n 2. 「彼は映画スターであり、政治家でもある。」 means \"He is a movie star and also a politician.\" [(Source)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_grammar#Quantity_and_extents:_.E3.81.A8_to.2C_.E3.82.82_mo.2C_.E3.81.8B_ka.2C_.E3.82.84_ya.2C_.E3.81.8B.E3.82.89_kara.2C_.E3.81.BE.E3.81.A7_made)\n\nIf we were to replace だ with である in (1), we have: 「彼は映画スターであり、政治家もである」. [Sawa\nsuggests](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2890/is-this-\ngrammatical/2900#2900) that で has to be attached to a noun for a sentence to\nbe grammatical, so after swapping the positions of も and で, we have:\n「彼は映画スターであり、政治家でもある」.\n\nWhat I cannot understand is why does replacing だ to である (and applying the\nnecessary で and も swap) changes the meaning of the sentence?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T06:07:37.647", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3144", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-15T06:20:00.123", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "copula" ], "title": "Why does replacing だ to である changes the meaning of a the sentence?", "view_count": 4788 }

[ { "body": "You are misunderstanding where the difference is.\n\n> 彼は映画スターであり、政治家もだ。\n\nThere are two は in this sentence: 彼は and 政治家は, but the latter is hidden behind\nも. You thus have the following: 彼は映画スターである and 政治家も映画スターである。\n\n> 彼は映画スターであり、政治家でもある\n\nThere is only one は in this sentence: 彼は, but there are two \"である\", the latter\nbeing augmented with a も. You thus have the following: 彼は映画スターである and\n彼は政治家で(も)ある。.\n\nTo sum up: もである is different from でもある. It's not the だ/である that makes the\ndifference.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T06:20:00.123", "id": "3145", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-15T06:20:00.123", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3144", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3148", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Using あまりに（も） in a sentence with 過ぎる, is it redundant because they both mean\ntoo much/excessive?\n\nIn the following example stolen from Lukman (thank you), does the sentence\nchange if you drop the あまりに Ex: 料理にあまりに時間がかかりすぎる。 Cooking takes up too much\ntime.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T07:40:00.047", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3146", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-15T08:04:39.980", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Using　あまりに（も）　in a sentence with <verb stem>過ぎる, is it redundant?", "view_count": 978 }

[ { "body": "あまりに(も) strengthens the degree of exceeding, but probably it does not make\nmuch difference. One important property of this kind of adverbs is to\ncompensate the head-finalness of Japanese. In Japanese, the head of a phrase\ncomes at the end of it. Therefore, as is often pointed out, you cannot tell\nwhether a clause is going to be negated or not, interrogative or not, etc.\nuntil you reach the end of the clause. You cannot position the head in the\nfront, but adverbs can be positioned in the front, and if a particular adverb\nshows concord with a particular head, then that will give you a clue before\nyou reach the end of a clause. In case of あまりに, it often matches すぎる (but not\nnecessary require the existence of it)\n\n> 料理にあまりに時間がかかりすぎる\n\nso the moment あまりに is pronounced, you can tell that the clause will have the\nmeaning of exceeding. Similarly けっして concords with negation, and はたして with\ninterrogative.\n\n> 料理はけっしておいしくない\n>\n> 料理ははたしておいしいのか\n\nThey function as giving clues to what type of sentence it is going to be\nbefore the end is reached.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T07:59:25.710", "id": "3148", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-15T08:04:39.980", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3146", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3325", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I was told how an older non-native lady would say \"it's okay!\" and that it was\nperceived to be just like that person and cute many because it was\ngrammatically incorrect. She would say, いいだよ\n\nNow I didn't know that rule but I was sure I had heard いいだよ before. It is such\na simple statement but even these things trip me up.\n\nSo I'm guessing the rule is like\n\n```\n\n だ after な-adjectives, nouns\n No だ after い-adjectives \n \n```\n\nCan I get something definitive on this please? What about adverbs?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T16:35:16.853", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3149", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-03T04:03:03.473", "last_edit_date": "2012-06-03T04:03:03.473", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "276", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "i-adjectives" ], "title": "Does the だ get dropped after an い-adjective", "view_count": 405 }

[ { "body": "There are regions where \"いいだよ\" gets said\n(http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/1775/mikawa.html), but it's not\nstandard 標準語 Japanese. With adverbs, it probably depends. I don't think you\ncould say \"すぐにだ”, but \"ときどきだ\" sounds OK.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T17:38:38.213", "id": "3150", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-15T17:38:38.213", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3149", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Are you sure it's wasn't いいんだよ and you just couldn't hear the ん clearly?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T14:15:23.853", "id": "3325", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T14:15:23.853", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3149", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3152", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I've recently discovered that certain particles could be omitted from a\nJapanese sentence (to help make it shorter), and still preserve the original\nmeaning. Unfortunately, most resources about this topic that I've looked at\nare vague at best; and some even contradict each other!\n\nThis question is really a few sub questions (but I really don't think each one\ndeserves its own thread since they're so closely related.) The answers don't\nhave to be too detailed; just general points are fine. Anyways, the things I'd\nlike to know are:\n\n * Which particles can be omitted from sentences?\n * Does the omission of particles make a sentence informal/impolite?\n * When can particles be dropped? (e.g. How can you decide that it's okay both socially and grammatically)\n * Can multiple particles be dropped in a single sentence?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T19:40:27.173", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3151", "last_activity_date": "2021-11-25T20:29:30.627", "last_edit_date": "2021-11-25T20:29:30.627", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "58", "post_type": "question", "score": 39, "tags": [ "particles", "ellipsis" ], "title": "What are the guidelines for omitting particles?", "view_count": 21235 }

[ { "body": "> Which particles can be omitted from sentences?\n\nは, が, and を are often dropped; に sometimes. か, as a sentence-final question\nparticle, can be replaced with intonation.\n\n> Does the omission of particles make a sentence informal/impolite?\n\nInformal yes, but not necessarily impolite. Dropping particles is only for\nspoken Japanese, so you won't see it in (proper) writing.\n\n> When can particles be dropped? (e.g. How can you decide that it's okay)\n\nWhen the situation allows. Speaking informally to someone above you or with\nwhom you don't have a close relationship is impolite. But if the situation\nlets you speak informally, you can.\n\nIn situations where polite Japanese is called for (speaking to your\nboss/teacher/doctor/etc or giving a formal speech/presentation), all particles\nmust be kept in the sentence. Omitting particles does not change the meaning\nof the sentence or make it incorrect per se, since the missing particles can\nbe inferred from context and word order, but it does make the sentence\ninformal and thus unsuitable for polite contexts.\n\nAs noted above, in writing (excluding Twitter, blogs, and other informal\nvariants of writing) all particles must be kept.\n\nIf you are unsure as to whether to keep or omit particles, a good rule of\nthumb is to err on the side of keeping the particles.\n\n> Can multiple particles be dropped in a single sentence?\n\nYes.\n\nExamples:\n\n> これあげるよ。（＝これ **を** あげるよ。） You can have this. (lit. \"I'll give this [to\n> you].\")\n>\n> おまえ昨日、学校行った？（＝おまえ **は** 昨日、学校 **に** 行った **か** 。） Did you go to school\n> yesterday? ( _slightly masculine_ )\n>\n> あたしスイカ好き。（＝あたし **は** スイカ **が** 好き。） I like watermelon. ( _feminine_ )\n\nが and を, as you recall, are dropped when the part of the sentence they mark is\nmade into the scope/topic (marked by は):\n\n> 図書館でこの本を借りました。 I borrowed this book at the library.\n>\n> この本をは図書館で借りました。 (making この本を the scope)\n>\n> この本は図書館で借りました。 (replaced ungrammatical をは with は)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-15T20:16:01.073", "id": "3152", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-15T21:16:24.937", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "3151", "post_type": "answer", "score": 35 }, { "body": "> The modern \"use ALL the particles\" written style is not the Ideal form from\n> which particles are dropped, but an artificially hypercorrected form \n> [from a comment by\n> Matt](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3151/what-are-the-\n> guidelines-of-omitting-particles#comment7168_3152)\n\nSurely languages change over time. Using all the particles is the current\ncorrect usage. English orthography was at one time far less fixed than it is\nnow, but that does not make modern standard orthography \"artificial and\nhypercorrected\" (or, of course, the older orthography \"wrong\").\n\nSome older English writing also contains contractions that are no longer used\nbut were once normal. However, they were still contractions.\n\nI would tentatively suggest that the particles were always logically\nnecessary, and that what varies over time is the acceptability of their\nomission in formal use.\n\nA parallel case might be the omission of \"that\" in a sentence like \"the cake\n(that) I ate\". This cannot be done in French or Spanish, but is regularly done\nin English. However the omitted \"that\" is always logically there. The\nacceptability of its omission may vary with time, place and context.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-04-23T19:21:22.597", "id": "23933", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-29T19:57:49.263", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "7438", "parent_id": "3151", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "<https://cotoacademy.com/omitting-particles-japanese-can-skip-wa-o-ga-e-\njapanese/>\n\nThis article has a chart that breaks down usage rules for the different types\nof particles in a table.\n\n> Omitting particles in casual spoken Japanese is very common. But when can\n> you do this – and how should you do it? \n> In this short blog we will show you which particles can be skipped and\n> which must remain. \n> Japanese Particles can be omitted only in conversational sentences, not in\n> written language. \n> The first rule about Japanese particles is that omitting them can only\n> occur in spoken Japanese. So when you are writing Japanese – remember to\n> include them! \n> Japanese sentence patterns determine some relationships between words As\n> the heading above implies, the basic Japanese sentence pattern has an order\n> which informs the relationship between certain words. \n> The basic sentence pattern in Japanese has the word order ” S is O is / to\n> V. ” (Subject is object is / to verb) , and its role can be understood by\n> the position of the word even without particles. So, in a basic japanese\n> sentence「は」and「を/が」 can be omitted. \n> Let’s look at a more detailed chart below that explains some of the common\n> examples of omitted particles in Japanese Grammar.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2020-10-16T03:52:10.673", "id": "82119", "last_activity_date": "2020-10-16T07:20:11.537", "last_edit_date": "2020-10-16T07:20:11.537", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "40624", "parent_id": "3151", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3156", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In the following, I feel it should be 会話が出来 **る** どころか.\n\n> ジムは日本語で会話が出来ないどころか、簡単な挨拶も出来ない。 \n> Jim is not only unable to converse in Japanese; he cannot even make simple\n> greetings.\n\nI was expecting the sentence to end talking about how well Jim can speak\nJapanese. If this is a valid usage, can you please give a more literal\ntranslation?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-16T12:40:01.510", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3153", "last_activity_date": "2022-09-12T15:02:22.120", "last_edit_date": "2022-09-12T15:02:22.120", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "particles", "conjunctions" ], "title": "Is this a valid use of どころか?", "view_count": 455 }

[ { "body": "**Edit** I changed my answer after considering Tsuyoshi Ito's answer. As he\nsays, having an affirmative should be preferrable as given in his answer (But\nthat was a different point from your question).\n\nIt is grammatical, but may not be completely natural. It is ungrammatical to\nend it without the latter part. A literal translation is\n\n> As for Jim, not to mention whether he is not able to converse in Japanese,\n> he cannot even make simple greetings.\n\nwhich reflects the unnaturalness in the original Japanese. See Tsuyoshi Ito's\nanswer for the correct sentence, which I translate as\n\n> As for Jim, not to mention whether he is able to converse in Japanese, he\n> cannot even make simple greetings.\n\nAs the example\n\n> 成功するどころか、失敗ばかりしている\n\nshows, the construction does not depend on the existence of a negation in the\nlatter part, so the feeling of denial against the first part seems to come\nfrom `どころか`. However, also in the makeup of `どころか`, there is no morpheme you\ncan attribute the meaning of negation. I take it that the first part of this\nconstruction is not negated, but is a neutral proposition, and is excluded\nfrom consideration. The English translation will include `whether`. Since\nnegation under `whether` is redundant, that causes the unnaturalness Tsuyoshi\nIto points out.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-16T13:35:19.350", "id": "3155", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-17T13:29:27.560", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-17T13:29:27.560", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3153", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "It is not unseen, but it is incorrect, or at least different from the\ntraditional usage of どころか. As you said, the correct expression is\n\n> ジムは日本語で会話が **できる** どころか、簡単な挨拶もできない。\n\nAnother correct way is\n\n> ジムは日本語で会話ができない **ばかりか** 、簡単な挨拶もできない。", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-16T14:31:56.427", "id": "3156", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-16T14:31:56.427", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3153", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3164", "answer_count": 2, "body": "What generally accepted mnemonic phrases are there in Japanese that are used\nfor memorizing a sequence of numbers or words?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-17T02:29:29.413", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3158", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:02:23.210", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:02:23.210", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "learning", "puns" ], "title": "Mnemonic phrases for memorizing a word or number sequence", "view_count": 2239 }

[ { "body": "* Square root of two\n\n> 1.41421356... \n> 人世人世に人見頃 (ひとよひとよにひとみごろ) \n> 'It's peoples world; peoples world. It's time to observe people.'\n\n * Square root of three\n\n> 1.7320508... \n> 人並みにおごれや (ひとなみにおごれや) \n> 'Treat me as if you do to other people.'\n\n * Square root of five\n\n> 2.2360679... \n> 富士山麓オーム啼く (ふじさんろくオームなく) \n> 'Base of Mt. Fuji, a parrot cries.'\n\n * Base of natural logarithm\n\n> 2.718281828459045... \n> 鮒一鉢、二鉢、一鉢、二鉢、至極おいしい (ふなひとはちふたはちしごくおいしい) \n> 'One bowl, two bowls, one bowl, two bowls of crucian carp. Very delicious.'\n\n * Months that do not have 31 days\n\n> 2, 4, 6, 9, 11 \n> 西向く士 (にしむくさむらい) \n> 'A samurai facing west'\n\n * Beginning year of the Heian era\n\n> 794 \n> 啼くよ鶯、平安京 (なくようぐいすへいあんきょう) \n> 'Crying is a bush warbler, the Heian capital.'\n\n * Beginning year of the Kamakura era\n\n> 1192 \n> いい国作ろう、鎌倉幕府 (いいくにつくろうかまくらばくふ) \n> 'Let's make a good country: The Kamakura shogunate.'\n\n * Order of first elements in the periodic table\n\n> H (水素, すいそ), He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F, Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Cl, Ar, K,\n> Ca \n> 水兵リーベ僕の船 名前があるシップス クラークか （すいへいリーベぼくのふねなまえ…） \n> 'Sailor, _Liebe_ (de:love), my boat. Ships with names; maybe Clark?'\n\n * Chemical elements in the halogen group\n\n> F (フッ素; ふっそ), Cl (塩素; えんそ 'chlorine'), Br (臭素; しゅうそ 'bromine'), I (ヨウ素; ヨウそ\n> 'iodine'), At (アンチモン 'antimony') \n> ふっくらブラジャー、愛の痕 (ふっくらブラジャーあいのあと) \n> 'A plumpy brasier: trace of love'", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-17T02:43:35.943", "id": "3159", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-17T10:39:26.967", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-17T10:39:26.967", "last_editor_user_id": "315", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3158", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "The ones that I am most familiar with are for tying historical events to\nyears. They can be found in vast numbers on websites\n[like](http://hyakuten.fc2web.com/)\n[these](http://529eqfaxoxa7m.finito.fc2.com/)\n[ones](http://www.geocities.jp/niginiginomiko/goroawase2.htm) and in exam\nstudy guides.\n\nI'm not sure about \"generally accepted\"; some are probably more widely known\nthan others. I would not be surprised to observe patterns corresponding to the\n流派 (schools) of traditional Japanese arts, where the _goroawase_ students\nlearn can be linked to geographical location/study guide used/target\nschool/etc.\n\nI am personally fond of the variants on \"naku yo uguisu\" in your example (e.g.\n\"haku yo uguisu\", \"the warbler vomits\" for 894, etc.), and of course \"Iroiro\nsankyū, Porutogaru\" for 1639 when Japan's ports were officially closed to\nPortuguese ships.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-17T06:42:05.343", "id": "3164", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-17T06:42:05.343", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3158", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> **Possible Duplicate:** \n> [Difference between -て行く and\n> -て来る](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/676/difference-between-\n> and)\n\nmy doubt is which verbs I can use with ~てくる (~ていく)\n\nABOUT ME \nI don't want to say \"I undestand\", but I'd like to say \"I'm understanding\"\n(I'm becoming to understand)\n\n> わかってきました。 \n> わかるようになってきました。\n\n(what is the difference?)\n\nABOUT OTHERS \n\"She's becoming to understand it\"\n\nマリさんは...\n\n> わかってきたそうです。 \n> わかるようになってきました。\n\n(what is the difference?)\n\nMaybe first it's important to know the possibilities of てくる (ていく). How can I\nknow which verbs I can use ～ようになってくる and/or just ～てくる. Is there much\ndifference between them?\n\n * あの店、昼間 開くようになってきました。\n * あの店、昼間 開いてきました。 \n * あの店員はドアを開けるようになってきました。 \n * 彼はやせるようになってきましたね。 \n * 彼はやせてきましたね。 \n * バイトをやめたときから、テレビを見るようになってきました。\n * バイトをやめたときから、テレビが見れるようになってきました。\n * 雨がやんできます。\n * 雨がやむようになってきます。\n * 今からカメラは安くなっていきます。\n * 今からカメラは安くなってきます。 \n\nsorry if my examples are wrong, I just created them while I was writing.\njapanese is really interesting, but really difficult. \nhope you could understand my doubt. and please, give examples! \nよろしく thanks", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-17T03:58:27.363", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3160", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:41:32.733", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "verbs", "て-form" ], "title": "Verbs +「~てくる」 , which verbs?", "view_count": 2840 }

[ { "body": "The general idea is\n\n> * てくる: The action/change is coming toward your territory/perspective.\n> * ていく: The action/change is going away from your territory/perspective, or\n> is moving in a direction irrelevant to you.\n>\n\n * 高くなります/高くなりました\n\n> * Suppose you are on the roof of a building, observing down on a high\n> tide gradually rising toward you\n>\n\n>> 高くなってきます。 \n> 高くなってきました。\n>> * Suppose you are observing from far away a high tide gradually rising,\nor you are in the bottom of a sea (perhaps in a wet suit) looking up the clear\nwater rising \n> 高くなっていきます。 \n> 高くなっていきました。\n\n * About me\n\n> * When you are in the very process of understanding \n>\n>\n\n>> 分かってきました。 \n> 分かるようになってきました。\n>> * When you are retrospecting how you came to understand \n> 分かっていきました。 \n> 分かるようになっていきました。\n\n * About others\n\n> * In a first person narration \n> 分かってきました \n> 分かるようになってきました。\n> * In a third person narration \n> 分かっていきました \n> 分かるようになっていきました。\n> * Indirect report \n> 分かってきたそうです。 \n> △ 分かっていったそうです。", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-17T05:11:08.957", "id": "3162", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-17T05:38:15.920", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-17T05:38:15.920", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3160", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I always hear ～なぁと思った, but I don't know if it comes from:\n\n食べるかなーと思った。 or like \nきれいだなーと思った。 or \n寒いなーと思った。\n\nI think this sound なーと思う is so relaxing and so nice, that I want to use it.\nBut actually I would like to know how is used and where.\n\nRelated to it, I was thinking if we can use a suffix before と思う, like:\n\n * そのパソコンは高いねと思ってた。I was thinking how expensive is that computer (is it ok?)\n * あの道は危なくないさと思う。I think that street is safe.\n * 。。。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-17T05:08:12.207", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3161", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-02T04:46:09.013", "last_edit_date": "2017-02-02T04:46:09.013", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "sentence-final-particles", "quotes" ], "title": "Can I use suffixes (な、ね、さ、わ...) before と思う?", "view_count": 455 }

[ { "body": "I think your first three examples and the first one in the list below are all\nfine, but the very bottom one with 思う doesn't work.\n\nPutting particles before と思った is useful as a way of adding a voice or nuance\nto your thoughts at the time, but when it comes to と思う, there's no time\ndifference to make that necessary. さ could just as easily (and should) go\nafter 思う.\n\nEDIT: Hmm. Maybe I have the wrong approach to this one, because かなーと思う is\nsounding fine... :|", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-17T10:58:39.853", "id": "3165", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-17T11:18:20.070", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-17T11:18:20.070", "last_editor_user_id": "315", "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3161", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I think particles like \"よ\", \"さ\", and \"ね\" sound a little strange before \"と思う\".\nIf you think about what you're doing when you say \"I think\", you're\nessentially quoting your own inner dialogue. Using particles that are normally\nmeant to elicit agreement from (ね), or convey information to (よ,さ), a second\nparty to a conversation make that inner dialogue sound a little schizophrenic.\nIt's just not logical in my opinion. On the other hand, particles like \"なぁ\",\n\"か\", \"かな\", sound fine.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-18T09:15:46.977", "id": "3168", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-18T13:44:59.343", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-18T13:44:59.343", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3161", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3167", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I was at a Japanese restaurant called `星岡 (ほしがおか)`. And I was trying to figure\nout what the `が` does in it.\n\nI instinctively translated it to \"Starry hill\" (Not sure of my translation\nthough).\n\n**(Question)** What does `が` do in this case? Or is it simply 名乗り and I\nshouldn't think too much into it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-17T13:49:39.257", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3166", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-18T04:35:21.110", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-が" ], "title": "Particle-が in restaurant's name. Genitive particle?", "view_count": 287 }

[ { "body": "Your speculation seen in the title is correct. `が` is the archaic genitive\ncase particle. You can still observe this form in fixed expressions such as\n`我が` (わが) 'my'.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-17T14:26:45.887", "id": "3167", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-18T04:35:21.110", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-18T04:35:21.110", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3166", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3170", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider the following:\n\n> [1] 僕は日本人ではなく, シンガポール人です。 (I'm not Japanese, I'm Singaporean)\n>\n> [2] 僕は日本人ではないが, シンガポール人です。 (I'm not Japanese but Singaporean)\n\nComparing my sentences to the worked examples in my grammar practice workbook,\n[1] would be correct while [2] would be wrong.\n\n**(Question)** Is [2] a valid sentence?\n\n**(Side Question)** Can I read `ではなく` as `じゃなく`?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-18T14:12:08.647", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3169", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-18T16:39:41.333", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "conjunctions", "particle-が" ], "title": "When is disjunctive-が appropriate in connecting sentences?", "view_count": 376 }

[ { "body": "Your textbook is wrong in saying that [2] is wrong. Whenever `P` and `Q` work\nin the opposite direction towards expectation of `R`, `P ではないが Q` is okay. For\nexample, it is fine in the following context:\n\n> A: だれか、アジア人はいませんか。 \n> 'Is there any Asian?' \n> B: 僕は日本人です。 \n> 'I am a Japanese.' \n> C: 僕は日本人ではないが, シンガポール人です。 \n> 'I am not a Japanese, but am a Singaporean.'\n\nIn this context, `僕は日本人ではない` closes up one possibility of C being an Asian,\nbut then, `シンガポール人です` opens up another possibility, working towards the\nexpectation of, and in fact affirming, C being an Asian.\n\nUsually, you read as it is written. If you want `じゃなく`, you will usually write\nso. But it is not that wrong to read `ではなく` as `じゃなく`. It is wrong/correct to\nthe extent that reading English `cannot` as `can't` is.\n\nActually, even when `P` and `Q` do not work in the opposite direction, you can\nuse `PがQ` as long as `P` is providing a new topic into the discourse.\n\n> 彼は試験に受かったが、これは普段からの努力の賜物だ。 \n> 'He passed the examination, and that is due to his consistent effort.'", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-18T16:17:54.520", "id": "3170", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-18T16:39:41.333", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-18T16:39:41.333", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3169", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3172", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Hi all I was wondering if we want to treat a quoted phrase as a \"noun\", is it\nnecessary to put a と particle behind the quoted phrase?\n\nFor example:\n\nA) The \"received\" in \"received from Tom\"\n\n 1. 「トムから頂きます」の「頂きます」, or\n\n 2. 「トムから頂きます」との「頂きます」 ?\n\nB) The \"tadaki\" in \"itadakimasu\"\n\n 1. 「いただきます」の「ただき」, or\n\n 2. 「いただきます」との「ただき」 ?\n\nBasically I was trying also just to figure out how should we know whether or\nnot to put a と particle after a quote?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T00:29:27.090", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3171", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-19T02:39:03.960", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "syntax", "phrases", "quotes" ], "title": "Is と necessary after a quoted phrase?", "view_count": 250 }

[ { "body": "`と` is used to introduce a subordinate clause, and is close to the English\n`that`. When to omit them with quotations seems to differ between the two\nlanguages. I cannot give you an explanation, but let me just illustrate.\n\n * Complement of quotation verbs\n\n> He said that he likes apples. \n> He said he likes apples. \n> × He said that \"I like apples\". \n> He said \"I like apples\".\n>\n> 彼は、自分がりんごが好きだと言った。 \n> × 彼は、自分がりんごが好きだ言った。[In Tokyo dialect] \n> 彼は、「私はりんごが好きだ」と言った。 \n> × 彼は、「私はりんごが好きだ」言った。[In Tokyo dialect]\n\n * Complement of nouns\n\n> the fact that he likes apples \n> the fact he likes apples \n> × the fact that \"he likes apples\" \n> × the fact \"he likes apples\"\n>\n> 彼がりんごが好きとのこと \n> × 彼がりんごが好きのこと \n> 彼がりんごが好き **な** こと \n> × 「彼はりんごが好き」とのこと \n> × 「彼はりんごが好き」なこと \n> × 「彼はりんごが好き」のこと\n\n * As a noun\n\n> × the word \"he\" in that \"he likes apples\" \n> the word \"he\" in \"he likes apples\"\n>\n> × 「彼はりんごが好き」との「彼」 \n> 「彼はりんごが好き」の「彼」", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T01:10:24.683", "id": "3172", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-19T02:39:03.960", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-19T02:39:03.960", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3171", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3177", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In my [JLPT](http://www.jlpt.jp/e/) workbook, there is this example question:\n\n> **適当{てきとう}な語{ご}を選{えら}びなさい**\n>\n> この殺人{さつじん}事件{じけん}の裏{うら}には（ ）上{じょう}のトラブルがあるようだ。\n>\n> **A** 金額{きんがく} **B** 大金{たいきん} **C** 金銭{きんせん} **D** 基金{ききん}\n\nThe answer is... (drum roll, please)... **C** , `金銭{きんせん}`.\n\nFirst, I'm a little vague on the meaning of `金銭{きんせん}`. Seems to just mean\n\"money\", but how is it different from just saying `金{かね}`?\n\nMore importantly, while it does fit as an answer, I don't clearly see why it's\na better answer than **B** , `大金{たいきん}` (can also be read `おおがね`), which means\n\"a large amount of money\".\n\nTo me it makes more sense that a large amount of money is more of a motive for\nmurder than just money in general.\n\nWhy is `金銭{きんせん}` a better answer than `大金{たいきん}`?\n\n* * *\n\nRough translation of the question:\n\n> **_Select the appropriate word_**\n>\n> It appears that underneath this incident of murder there was some trouble\n> with ( ).\n>\n> **A** An amount of money **B** a large amount of money **C** money(?) **D**\n> a fund", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T03:44:53.703", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3174", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-09T13:36:31.233", "last_edit_date": "2014-12-09T13:36:31.233", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "word-choice", "jlpt" ], "title": "Why isn't a large amount of money a good enough reason to kill someone?", "view_count": 1924 }

[ { "body": "As @nkjt said in a comment above, this `〜上` is the one meaning, \"from the\nviewpoint/standpoint of 〜\". A very common one you'll see in a lot of places is\n`安全上の注意 (\"safety precautions\" -- I used to see this under the lids of those\nfancy toilets)`. So `金銭上` would mean \"from the standpoint of money\", or put\nmore simply, \"financial\". So it would translate as, \"...it appears there was\nsome financial trouble.\"\n\nAlso, as you mentioned in the comments, the other answers aren't necessarily\nwrong, but they are not the best choice for the sentence. In this case, the\nother three words `金額 (amount of money)`, `大金 (large sum of money)`, and `基金\n(funds/funding)` could work if there were more context. However, for it to be\nthe _best_ answer, it seems like you'd need a fair amount of context. You'd\nalmost need a short \"story\", probably involving an amount of money and/or a\ndescription of the crime scene. But something like that would be better fitted\nto the reading section of the test instead the grammar or vocab section.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T14:42:06.303", "id": "3177", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-04T03:46:52.757", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-04T03:46:52.757", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3174", "post_type": "answer", "score": 23 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3186", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I noticed in many anime I watched that 「言っただろう」 is often contracted into\n「言ったろ」 in conversations between friends and families. I'm guessing this\ncontraction is both colloquial and standard (as in, everyone understands it).\n\nBut I'm wondering if this contraction of 「だろう」 is limited to the phrase\n「言っただろう」 only. Is there any instance where 「だろう」 gets contracted before other\npast tense verbs than 「言った」, e.g. 来たろ?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T04:18:42.927", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3175", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T01:31:48.447", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "colloquial-language", "contractions" ], "title": "Colloquial contraction of だろう into ろ after past tense verb (e.g. 言ったろ)", "view_count": 1699 }

[ { "body": "I'm not sure that this is a contraction of 言っただろう, actually, I would interpret\nit as a contraction of 言ったろう -- which has the same meaning as 言っただろう, but is\nnow archaic or at least very old-fashioned, I think (alas).\n\n * \"僕の感覚が鋭敏なことは前に言ったろう？\" = \"Said I not that my senses were acute?\" (from [Sasaki Naojiro's translation of \"The Fall of the House of Usher\"](http://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000094/card882.html))\n\n(Note: It is possible that the evolution was not direct, and 言っただろう/言っただろ were\nindeed intermediate steps. I don't have any evidence either way, just Occam's\nRazor.)\n\nAnyway, the ろ ending can be applied to any verb in theory. 笑ったろ, 喰ったろ, etc.\nBut be careful not to confuse it with the \"-たろ\" or \"-たろう\" that actually mean\n\"-てやろう\" -- totally different ending!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T00:45:17.693", "id": "3186", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T01:31:48.447", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-20T01:31:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3175", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3178", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Regarding written English that isn't proofread ...\n_[it's](http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe) quality\n[definately](http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling) leaves\n[alot](http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-\nat-everything.html)_ to be desired. I would advise people against treating\nwritten English that wasn't professionally written (for example, mailing lists\nor Stack Overflow questions) as good English.\n\nAm I likely to pick up bad spelling or grammar from Japanese that is written\nby native speakers but isn't professionally written?\n\nAssume that I'm reading somewhat serious material, such as the ruby-dev\nmailing list, rather than [YouTube](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube)\ncomments.\n\nI'm not really planning on learning spelling and grammar from them, just\npracticing reading the kana within the emails, but I don't want to mis-train\nmyself (learn something that isn't correct) by accident.\n\nI've also heard warnings not to learn from Japanese done by the opposite sex -\nsadly, I don't think there'd be too large a risk of that with a programming\nmailing list!", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T09:16:52.980", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3176", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-13T22:11:19.837", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-12T09:45:09.120", "last_editor_user_id": "3073", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "learning", "orthography", "publishing" ], "title": "Is Japanese that lacks proofreading likely to contain bad spelling or grammar?", "view_count": 2349 }

[ { "body": "Even the quality of professional writings (probably without proofreading) such\nas an article in an online newspaper is very bad these days. For example, on\narticles on an online news site [www.livedoor.com](http://www.livedoor.com),\nwhich I regularly read, I usually find several grammatical mistakes each day.\nYou can only trust professional writings that are printed on paper.\n\nI don't think it is a good idea in general to learn a language from sources\nsuch as programmers' questions, but there are some points that may help you.\n\n * If something is just a simple mistake, then that should happen randomly, so the more you read, the more likely that that mistake that you wrongly picked up will be corrected. If it happens repeatedly, then that might be slang, or at least you are making the same kind of mistake as natives.\n\n * One common mistake you encounter on the internet is _誤変換_ 'misconversion'. Nowadays, in most cases, the kanji (Chinese character) parts of Japanese are not directly typed on a computer, but are input indirectly: First they are input by their reading, most often by hiragana, and then the user looks through the possible combinations of kanji matching the reading that the computer provides, and picks one. Sloppy people or people with a low education level often pick up the wrong one. For example, I often see `確立` where `確率` is supposed to be used. If you think that a word does not make sense in the context, you can suspect that it is meant to be a different kanji word with the same reading.\n\n * Another common mistake is the wrong use of particles. But they are not that frequent, and you will likely notice it when it is wrong if you read enough.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T14:59:05.087", "id": "3178", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-06T03:08:18.627", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-06T03:08:18.627", "last_editor_user_id": "91", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3176", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "The spelling and grammar are two different things. You might easily pick up\nbad grammar because people (especially on the internet) tend to write as they\nwould speak. So I'd use caution when trying to pick up grammar this way.\n\nHowever, with Japanese, spelling is hardly an issue. Since kana correspond to\nsounds, if you can pronounce a word, then there is almost no chance you can\nmisspell it. The only time I think there might be misspellings is if you don't\nrecognize a long sound or a small っ in a word and would then not put it into\nthe word. Also, as @sawa mentioned, homophonic kanji may produce spelling\nerrors as well.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T15:12:27.057", "id": "3179", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-19T15:12:27.057", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3176", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "This is something I've been wondering myself and the answers here so far have\nbeen wonderful. I'm gunna add something different. I'm guessing you're a\nprogrammer, so I think you might like to think about it like a programmer and\nconsider this question a question of [corpus\nlinguistics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_linguistics). I dunno if Ruby\nhas an [NLP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language_processing) package\n(like [Python's NLTK](http://nltk.org/)) for Japanese but if it does and you\nknow how to use it, then you pretty much have an answer to your question.\nAnswers here could only tell you which textual domains are trustworthy for low\nerror rates and will likely not lead to mistraining (newspaper articles,\ngoogle blogs, etc), which domains have notoriously high error rates which will\nlead to mistraining (youtube comments, etc) or what the most common types of\nerrors actually are by listing them. But if your goal is to avoid mistraining\nwhile you read text in your browser, then your only task is to not fail in\nidentifying errors. So really you should be thinking about how to identify\nerrors given that you can't do it yourself because you're not a native\nspeaker.\n\n\"Am I likely to pick up bad spelling or grammar from Japanese that is written\nby native speakers but isn't professionally written\" In short, no. For the\ngrammatical errors, they are just as abundant in English as in Japanese as in\nFrench as in etc. Unless you can explain why a Japanese native is more or less\nlikely to make a grammatical error than an English native? So if you trust the\nEnglish ruby dev mailing list, then for all practical purposes there is no\nreason not to trust the Japanese dev mailing list.\n\nI'm guessing basically that your question is one of\n[likelihood](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likelihood): \"how common are\ngrammatical errors\" and \"how common are spelling errors\" where spelling is\nusing the wrong kanji or mistyping. If avoiding mistraining is your goal, then\nto achieve that you only need to correctly identify errors.\n\nFor the spelling, just copy a representative text sample and past it into a\nword processor like Word with Japanese spell check on and see how many red\nsquigglies appear. Add or subtract from the dictionary on specific instances\nto train the spell checker. You can literally get an approximate numerical\nanswer to \"how likely\" a spelling mistake is given the specific textual\ndomain, such as a mailing list or newspaper articles in like 20 minutes. If\nthere isn't a spell checker then use [Kuromoji](http://www.atilika.org/).\n\nSpelling errors aren't as straightforward as grammatical errors. The ideal way\nto test for grammaticality is get a census from natives not a yes/no boolean\nvalue. There should be a census on what qualifies as a blatant grammatical\nerror, so for example using the wrong preposition \"print down a paper\" instead\nof \"print out a paper\" should have near 100% agreement from native speakers.\nBut something like \"me and Bill\" instead of \"Bill and I\" no doubt receives a\nmore fragmented census. So just create an index, then you decide based off\nscores on the index whether or not that's something you want to adopt and\ninternalize. For example things higher up on the index are more reliably safe\nto learn yourself.\n\nFor starters, the most unacceptable grammatical errors would be easy to\ncandidatentially identify, because they are by definition rare and so you\ndon't expect them to occur systematically. So in English the phrase \"The\nchildren never have waited\" would occur infrequently in a corpus relative to\nthe phrases \"The children {will/must/couldn't/should} have waited\" which tells\nyou it _could_ be an error. The larger the corpus the more evidence you will\nhave in favour or against that hypothesis.\n\nLooking at frequencies to identify erroneous constructions would have to be\nsupplemented by parsing the text. With a [syntax\ntree](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_syntax_tree) you could compare it\nto a [syntax model](http://kheafield.com/code/kenlm/) of Japanese to compute\nwhether or not it's derivable. Use a [string\nmetric](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_metric), such as the [Levenshtein\ndistance](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenshtein_distance), to define the\ndistance from a 100% grammatically correct syntax to get an index of\n\"ungrammaticality\". Depending on how many rules you have you can make very\nminute definitions on what is acceptable grammar. You should be able to do all\nthis on an NLP package.\n\nIf your corpus is something like Youtube comments, there is still something\nyou can learn from them. It seems that most comments are in sentence fragments\nand inconsistent with punctuation. So you can't learn anything above the\nphrase level from Youtube. That still leaves things like\n[collocations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collocation) (frequent word\npairings) to learn. A lot of what natives think is grammatical is actually\njust collocational. When you ask a native if something is grammatical and they\nsay yes but tell you not to say it because people just don't say it, then the\nthing in question is in reality probably just a collocation, so if you want\ngood language habits, you need to learn collocations.\n\nIn terms of practical learning and not just theory, what I think you would\nwant to do is write a text filter, maybe in Javascript with\n[TinySegmenter](http://chasen.org/~taku/software/TinySegmenter/) or something,\nso that you could visit a website, run the Javascript, and use a color scheme\n(that corresponds to the computed index) to highlight text that, according to\nyour script, deems bad grammar. Red for the blatant unquestionable errors,\norange for errors that are more tolerable, etc. The point is to identify\nerrors on the page as you read the text. If this is done, then there's no risk\nof mistraining.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-12T20:26:18.470", "id": "9971", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-13T22:11:19.837", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-13T22:11:19.837", "last_editor_user_id": "1454", "owner_user_id": "1454", "parent_id": "3176", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3189", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Here are a few examples of 訳 that I am having trouble with:\n\n僕は決して農業が嫌いな訳じゃない。 Boku wa kesshite nōgyō ga kiraina wake janai. \nBy no means do I dislike farming. (Lit: The reason is not that I dislike\nfarming)\n\nHow does the kesshite work here and is wake best translated as reason?\n\nわけありの二人 [ex #1268] A couple with some amorous circumstances\n\na commentator provided this explanation for the latter example:\n\nわけ originally comes from the act of dividing things into what is right and\nwhat is wrong.Therefore, わけ came to mean 'reason' or the rationale of how\nthings are done. That later got expanded to include the amorous relationship\nin the sense of 'there is a reason for them to be together or in love,' as\nsuggested by #1268. any further clarification would be appreciated.\n\nそれを纏めるのはわけはない [ex #1269]Sore o matomeru no wa wake wa nai Not difficult to\nresolve that issue\n\nそれとこれとはわけが違う [ex #1270] You are trying to compare apples and oranges.\n\n訳のわからぬことを言うな。 [ex #4961] Wake no wakaranu koto o iu na. Don't tell me such\nnonsense!\n\nany exposition of these 3 examples would be appreciated.\n\nFinally i saw this mentioned as a \"slang term\". I am not familiar with it, I\nwas wondering if any one knows it and can explain it.:\n\n\"訳分からない”", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T16:14:20.577", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3180", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T02:20:15.060", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-19T19:40:56.467", "last_editor_user_id": "54", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "grammar", "vocabulary", "slang" ], "title": "\"訳分からない\" various uses of 訳", "view_count": 1204 }

[ { "body": "\"わけ\" has a range of meanings from \"reason\" to \"meaning\" to \"significance\".\n\n 1. 僕は決して農業が嫌いな訳じゃない。 \"決して\" = decidedly, absolutely. \"It absolutely doesn't mean that I dislike farming.\" More idiomatically: \"It's really not like I dislike farming.\"\n 2. \"わけありの二人\" \"A something-significant-going-on couple.\" It's a little idiomatic in usage, but generally \"わけあり\" means there's something going on, there are certain circumstances, etc. If you know or suspect something significant is behind something, and you can't or don't want to explain in detail, \"わけあり\" gives you an out.\n 3. \"わけない\" Insignificant = simple, easy, \"a piece of cake\".\n 4. \"訳(の、が)分からない\" Meaningless = Greek to me, piffle, horsefeathers, nonsense.\n 5. \"それとこれとはわけが違う\" That and this have different significance, i.e. they can't both logically fit within the scope of the discussion at hand.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T02:20:15.060", "id": "3189", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T02:20:15.060", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3180", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3265", "answer_count": 1, "body": "それは彼の身に応えだした。 [ex #4531] It is beginning to tell on him.\n\ncan anyone explain this sentence? is it useful or archaic?\n\nis it related to this?\n\n骨身にこたえる", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T17:13:41.437", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3181", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-24T06:24:02.407", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "vocabulary", "expressions" ], "title": "それは彼の身に応えだした。 Can anyone explain this?", "view_count": 249 }

[ { "body": "それは彼の身に応えだした。\n\nThat wore him out.\n\n身に応える = to get tired.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T06:24:02.407", "id": "3265", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-24T06:24:02.407", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "164", "parent_id": "3181", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3217", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In [Tae Kim's Guide](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/compound)\nthere is a conversation that goes like this:\n\n> Tom: 時間がなかった。\n>\n> Mary: だからパーティーに行かなかったの？\n\nI was wondering is 「だから」 actually a short-form of 「それだから」 ?\n\nSimilarly, in the sentence 「なので、友達に会う時間がない。」, is 「なので」 actually a short-form\nfor 「それなので」 ?\n\nI was thinking does the 「それ」in 「それだから」have anything to do with the 「それ」in\n[this question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/713/what-is-the-\ndifference-between-and/717#717). Does the 「それ」in「それだから」imply that the \"thing\"\nis not known by the speaker but by the listener?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T01:52:13.397", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3187", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:41:06.383", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "syntax", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "Is 「なので」actually a short-form for「それなので」?", "view_count": 1492 }

[ { "body": "This question is difficult to answer without a definition of what is and isn't\na \"short-form\", but here are some thoughts.\n\nなので and だから (and けれど, が, etc.) are in modern Japanese able to function as\nfully independent sentence-beginning lexemes. They are not \"short forms\" of\nそうなので etc. any more than 書いた is a \"short form\" of 書いたり/書いたる. (However, they\nare obviously _etymologically_ related to clause-final usage of なので and だから,\njust as 書いた is etymologically related to 書いたり/書いたる.)\n\nAs evidence, consider that as discussed in comments in many cases it is not\npossible to substitute a \"long form\" without changing the implication\nsomewhat. Here are some intuitive observations about my own idiolect (note\nthat I am not a native speaker).\n\n * それだからパーティーに行かなかったの？, そうだからパーティーに行かなかったの？, etc. are not at all equivalent to だからパーティーに行かなかったの？ Note that だから is a couple hundred years old and was sometimes written with kanji making it clear that it was not considered short for anything, e.g. 然から. (That's from a mid-19th century example in 日本国語大辞典.)\n * Sentences beginning with が can always be rewritten だが or ですが, but again, not それだが or そうだが in most cases.\n * なので strikes me as the least resistant to a そうなので rewrite -- but still pretty resistant, and more to the point, such rewrites sound awkward and unnatural even if technically allowed.\n\nAnd here are some counterarguments to the above:\n\n * First, the prescriptive argument: なので or が have to imply something before them because なので and が can't appear independently. This is a \"just because\" sort of argument similar to \"You have to use 'were' for the subjunctive case in English; 'If I was' is just plain wrong.\" I do not put much stock in this sort of thinking (although there are times when a certain strictly defined style is required, and this should not be ignored) but I include it for completeness. I do know if there is any prescriptive objection to だから or です.\n * Second, the \"invisible structure\" argument: these words don't actually include a それ or a そう, but that at some level their use implies something equivalent to それ or そう in the structure, and therefore, the \"full form\" is \"there\" in some sense. I am not sure if any school of linguistic analysis would actually make such an argument in this case, but I include it as a possibility.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T04:40:35.050", "id": "3217", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T04:40:35.050", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3187", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "are 「なんとかなる」 and 「だいじょうぶ」the same?\n\n> 大丈夫か？ \n> なんとかなるか？\n>\n> 大丈夫よ。 \n> 何とかなるよ。\n>\n> 大丈夫さ。 \n> なんとかなるさ。\n>\n> だいじょうぶだった。 \n> なんとかなった。\n>\n> 大丈夫じゃない/だいじょうぶじゃなかった。 \n> なんとかならない/なんとかならなかった。\n\n...\n\nthanks \nsorry if someone already asked it, but i couldn't find. \nよろしく", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T02:19:16.077", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3188", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:40:51.110", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:40:51.110", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "usage", "expressions", "idioms" ], "title": "Difference of 「なんとかなる」 vs. 「だいじょうぶ」", "view_count": 3038 }

[ { "body": "\"なんとか\" means \"somehow\" so \"なんとかなる\" literally means \"it will become (good)\nsomehow\". When you use \"なんとかなる\", you are not 100% sure about whether you will\nbe okay or not. There is a hint that you are somehow relying on the nature to\ntake its course; \"Que sera, sera\"; whatever will be, will be. Adding \"か？\", \"よ\"\nor \"さ\" just changes the statement into a question, an exclamation, an advice\nor the like; it does not change the level of your confidence in the statement\nmuch.\n\n\"大丈夫\" on the other hand is a strong affirmation that everything is okay.\nAlthough it is a set-phrase, we can see how strong an affirmation it is from\nthe literal meaning of its components - 大 means \"big\" while 丈夫 means \"strong\nand durable\". It is no where as wishy-washy as \"なんとか\". When you use \"大丈夫\", you\nmean it.\n\nHowever, it's worth nothing that both of them sometimes are used together in\nthe form of \"大丈夫だよ。なんとかなる。\". Rather than looking at it as self-contracting, I\nwould say that it is a pattern of conversation, where you give your assurance\nfirst and then give a hint to the other person that you might not want to take\nthe full responsibility of whether he will really be okay or not later, for\nwhen you don't want to say \"It's okay, I myself will make sure you will be\nokay\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T03:47:55.830", "id": "3190", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T03:47:55.830", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3188", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3195", "answer_count": 6, "body": "The screenshot below is from Kotoba for iPhone.\n\n\n\nIt shows the character for \"cool\", 冷 as used in the word 冷たい. However, the\ncharacter in the stroke order diagram is slightly different to the main one\ndisplayed top-left!\n\nWhy is this? Which one is correct? Or are both correct?\n\nI suspect the stroke order diagram actually comes from a Chinese font, rather\nthan a Japanese font. I'd like to confirm this.\n\nThanks to Lukman for the following screenshot:\n\n", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T04:46:12.190", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3191", "last_activity_date": "2018-11-20T14:20:33.233", "last_edit_date": "2015-02-05T10:27:33.700", "last_editor_user_id": "6840", "owner_user_id": "82", "post_type": "question", "score": 28, "tags": [ "kanji", "handwriting" ], "title": "Why are there two versions of the kanji for 冷?", "view_count": 11432 }

[ { "body": "The screenshots below are from some font website.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThey show the character \"S\", as used in the word \"Script\". However, the\ncharacter in the pictures are entirely different to one another! I have seen\neven more variations!\n\nWhy is this? Which one is correct? Or are they all correct?", "comment_count": 18, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T05:13:34.147", "id": "3192", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T05:13:34.147", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3191", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "It’s just differences in font/handwriting. But as a side note, I've always\nwritten the version in the top-right of your screenshot, that's just how I was\ntaught for Chinese.\n\nSee also nciku's [Chinese dictionary\nentry](http://www.nciku.com/search/zh/detail/%E5%86%B7/1309235) for the\ncharacter.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T05:45:37.243", "id": "3193", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T06:05:35.713", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-20T06:05:35.713", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3191", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Don't panic. They're variant forms of the same character. You will encounter\nothers. Chinese characters are very old, and have evolved in a variety of\nways, including scriveners' errors, simplification, vulgarization, invention,\netc., etc., etc. Fortunately, unless you're reading pre-war texts, most\nvariations in use now are pretty easy to remember.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T06:04:22.887", "id": "3194", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T06:04:22.887", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3191", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "It's no big deal, just that the most common standard handwritten form of the\ncharacter is different from the most common printed form of the character.\nThis doesn't even rise to the level of \"variant character\" in the strictest\nsense (like 悪 vs 惡). The two are the _same character_ , just like a joined-up\nprinted さ is the same as a disjoint handwritten one, or a cursive [a] is the\nsame as a printed one in English.\n\nThe Chinese/Japanese thing is a red herring: here are\n[two](http://kakijun.main.jp/page/0728200.html)\n[more](http://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%86%B7) sources clearly aimed at\nJapanese people showing this handwritten form. It _is_ true that the printed\nChinese form looks more like the diagram, but this is just because the\n\"official\" printed Chinese form was revised to be more in line with the pre-\nexisting standard written form, shared by both Japanese and Chinese.\n\nIf you won't take my word for the above, check out [the jōyō kanji\nguidelines](http://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kijun/naikaku/pdf/joyokanjihyo_20101130.pdf)\n[PDF] from the Ministry of Education. Scroll down to the section headed\n\"明朝体と筆写の楷書との関係について\" and you will see many similar cases of difference between\nstandard printed and written forms, along with the Ministry formally declaring\nthat these differences do _not_ result in \"different characters\", or that the\nwritten form is \"wrong\". (\"... 筆写の楷書における書き方の習慣を改めようとするものではない。 ...\n印刷文字と手書き文字におけるそれぞれの習慣の相違に基づく表現の差と見るべきものである。\")\n\nNote that the character 令 is actually one of the examples in their\n\"筆写の楷書では，いろいろな書き方があるもの\" section, and the form with a final vertical is\nrecognized as a possible \"correct\" handwritten version, so if it makes you\nfeel more comfortable, go for it! Just don't be ragging on people who write it\ndiagonally, because that's cool too.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T06:36:58.887", "id": "3195", "last_activity_date": "2018-11-19T20:49:21.293", "last_edit_date": "2018-11-19T20:49:21.293", "last_editor_user_id": "750", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3191", "post_type": "answer", "score": 31 }, { "body": "It's nothing to worry about, I would go as far to say that it's not even a\ndifferent \"radical\". (How can it be? It's the same Kanji.) Just like in\nEnglish, things get, shall we say, \"corrupted\" in hand writing. Nothing is\never as neat and pretty as the pixels on a finely crafted character.\n\nFortunately, this is an easier one to remember. Ignore my awful mouse\nhandwriting.\n\n\n\nI've seen entire sections reduced to squiggles. Look at this for example:\n\n\n\nIn summation, keep it in mind and move on to the next Kanji. You're going to\nfind a lot these types of \"differences\" along the way. Enjoy!", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T06:44:13.553", "id": "3196", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T06:44:13.553", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "parent_id": "3191", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "「令」( _command; order_ ) contains two components:\n\n * 「亼」, an upside-down「口」( _mouth_ ), with handwritten shape sometimes as「亽」and sometimes the same as the Traditional print shape「亼」(cf.「食」・「今」・「合」・「倉」);\n * 「卩」, picture of a _kneeling person_. Only in the character「令」(and derivatives), this component is uniquely handwritten as「龴」and uniquely printed as「ㄗ」.\n\n# `[商](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shang_dynasty) \n[甲](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_bone_script) \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tMFtE.png) \n[甲](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/JiaguwenReference)597 \n[合集32870](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/jgwhj/?bhfl=1&bh=32870&jgwfl=)``[春秋](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_and_Autumn_period) \n[金](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_bronze_inscriptions) \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rQZde.png) \n秦公鐘 \n[集成262](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/yzjwjc/?bh=262&jgwfl=)``[秦](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_dynasty) \n[簡](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_and_wooden_slips) \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gguo9.png) \n[秦律](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/QinwenziReference)32 \n[睡虎地竹簡](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuihudi_Qin_bamboo_texts)`\n\nAs mentioned elsewhere,\n\n * The shape「{{zh-CN:令}}」is the universal (Chinese, Japanese, and elsewhere) handwritten shape, and doubles as the Mainland Chinese printed shape, which merged the handwritten form into the printed form;\n * The shape「令」is the Traditional printed shape, which Japanese has kept unchaged.\n\nMany differences in the printed shapes of some characters are due to the\n[different regions importing different sets of handwriting features into the\nprint shape](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/questions/792/characters-which-\nhave-several-different-shapes/31942#31942). For example, the Republic of China\n(Taiwan) standardised the character as somewhat of a hybrid:「{{zh-TW:令}}」,\nwith handwritten form「龴」and printed form「亼」.\n\n* * *\n\nNote that「龴」is not actually a meaningful component. It may be useful as a\ngraphical element to describe characters specifically for an [ideographic\ndescription\nsequence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideographic_Description_Characters_\\(Unicode_block\\))\ndecomposition, but「龴」is not originally a character or common mark, and it is\nonly coincidence that some modern shapes of characters happen to contain this.\nFor instance:\n\n * In「予」,「龴」was originally the top component of「呂」.「予」([Baxter-Sagart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructions_of_Old_Chinese#Baxter%E2%80%93Sagart_\\(2014\\)): **/*laʔ/** ) is composed of phonetic「呂」(Baxter-Sagart: **/*[r]aʔ/** ) and a distinguishing mark「亅」, added to differentiate「予」from「呂」.\n\n#\n`[戰國](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period)・[燕](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yan_\\(state\\)) \n金 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/xBAVR.png) \n襄安君鈚 \n[集成9606](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/yzjwjc/?bh=9606&jgwfl=)``[西{{ko:漢}}](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_dynasty#Western_Han) \n[篆](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_script)・[隸](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_script) \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8jUxs.png) \n[老子](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching)甲・106 \n[馬王堆帛書](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawangdui_Silk_Texts)``西{{ko:漢}} \n隸 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eYsHY.png) \n老子乙・前9 \n馬王堆帛書``西{{ko:漢}} \n隸 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B6Ohl.png) \n居延簡甲826 \n``現代 \n[楷](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_script) \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/rTNYW.png) \n \n`\n\n * In「矛」( _pike_ ),「龴」was originally the shape of the blade.\n\n# `[西周](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Zhou) \n金 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/42e0e.png) \n⿹戈冬簋 \n[集成4322](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/yzjwjc/?bh=4322&jgwfl=)``戰國・[秦](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_\\(state\\)) \n[大篆](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_seal_script) \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eRKaL.png) \n廿五年上郡 \n``[東{{ko:漢}}](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_dynasty#Eastern_Han) \n簡・隸 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/v0yeD.png) \n屯戍16.5 \n流沙墜簡``現代 \n楷 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aavJO.png) \n \n`\n\n* * *\n\n**References:**\n\n * 季旭昇《說文新證》\n * 黃德寬《古文字譜系疏證》\n * [小學堂](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/)\n * [國學大師](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-11-20T14:20:33.233", "id": "62950", "last_activity_date": "2018-11-20T14:20:33.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "26510", "parent_id": "3191", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3202", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Both けもの and けだもの are written in kanji as 獣, but is the beast with 'だ' inside\nmore brutal than the one without 'だ'? Or are they simply two variants of the\nsame noun, thus they refer to exactly the same type of beasts? If they are the\nsame word, why is 獣道 only read as けものみち but not けだものみち?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T07:26:44.207", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3197", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T09:49:07.430", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "word-choice", "readings", "animals" ], "title": "Are けもの and けだもの different types of beasts, or simply two variants of the same word?", "view_count": 194 }

[ { "body": "Apparently the reading comes from \"毛の物\", (as くだもの = 木【く】の物), so both mean\n\"beast\" as in \"furry mammal\" (although I'm sure it will stretch to cover those\nhairless cats).\n\nけだもの has an additional meaning that けもの doesn't, when applied to people\n(strongly negative, like \"he's a monster\").\n\nThat might also be the reason that 獣道 uses the more neutral reading けもの (and\nalso 獣偏 is けものへん).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T09:49:07.430", "id": "3202", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T09:49:07.430", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "3197", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3205", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This sentence originally came from a newspaper article. Unfortunately, I\ncopied it onto a flashcard for later study and then lost the original context.\n\n> 彼は、可能性について「念頭に全くない」と否定した。\n>\n> 【かれは、かのうせいに ついて 「ねんとうに まったくない」と ひていした。\n\nWhat I'm confused about is the end part that says `と否定した`. Does it mean that\nhe denied the statement, or that he was denying the possibility?\n\nWhich of these following translations is more correct?\n\n * Speaking of the possibilities, he denied saying \"it's totally not on my mind.\"\n * Speaking of the possibilities, he denied them, saying \"it's totally not on my mind.\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T07:32:15.400", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3198", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T14:27:44.040", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-20T08:07:04.080", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "particle-と" ], "title": "Is this the denial of a statement, or a statement of denial?", "view_count": 164 }

[ { "body": "(Possibly this was the original context, and you cut it down for the\nflashcard? <http://ch25oda.kitaguni.tv/e1678763.html> )\n\nHe is denying \"可能性\", and 「念頭に全くない」 is quoting the phrasing he used to deny it.\n\nYou can think of it as close to:\n\n> 彼は、可能性について「念頭に全くない」と言って否定した。\n>\n> \"Regarding the possibility, he denied it, saying...\"\n\nAs opposed to:\n\n> 彼は、可能性について「念頭に全くない」と言ったことを否定した。\n>\n> \"Regarding the possiblity, he denied saying that...\"\n\nIndirect quoting is also fine:\n\n> 念頭に全くないと否定した。\n\nAlternative arrangement with similar meaning:\n\n> 「念頭に全くない」と可能性を否定した。\n\nAnother example utilising a quote + associated verb, and then を否定、 since I\njust saw it pop up on Yomiuri:\n\n>\n> 「中国政府は一貫してハッカー攻撃に反対している。中国も国外からのハッカー攻撃を受けている主要な被害国であり、中国がハッカー攻撃を仕掛ける拠点との見解は根拠がない」などと述べ、中国の関与を否定した。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T14:27:44.040", "id": "3205", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T14:27:44.040", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "3198", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3200", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I am having discussions with my Japanese friend about developing a new\ncomputer application. I want to suggest to him to not write the code from\nscratch but to use other libraries as our base. How can I say that?\n\nThere are a lot of words about starting. Which is the best suit for my\ncontext?\n\nFor example:\n\n> 元から, \n> 初めから, \n> 最初から, \n> 端から.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T08:45:06.407", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3199", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-25T22:42:13.110", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-20T14:13:28.310", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "730", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words" ], "title": "How to translate \"from scratch\"", "view_count": 1560 }

[ { "body": "All of 元から, 初めから, 最初から, 端から refer to \"the beginning\", which all imply it is a\nbeginning of something that is already there. For example, when you talk about\na botched marriage using \"最初から結婚しなければよかった\", you are talking about a marriage\nthat has already happened; it has a beginning.\n\nOn the other hand, when you are just about to suggest to your friend about how\nto start writing the computer application, the application code is not yet\nthere. There is no beginning to refer to. Even in English, we would use\n\"writing from scratch\", not \"writing from beginning\". It would be a different\ncase if you need to rewrite code that already exists. In that case, the code\nalready has \"a beginning\", thus you can use \"rewriting the code from the\nbeginning\".\n\nSo, how do we say \"writing from scratch\" in Japanese? One expression you can\nuse is **\"一から\"** or even \"ゼロから\".\n\n> [ウェブサイトのレイアウトを一から作成するPhotoshopのチュートリアル集](http://coliss.com/articles/build-\n> websites/operation/design/photoshop-tutorial-web-layout-4.html)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T09:08:15.860", "id": "3200", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T09:08:15.860", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3199", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I agree with Lukman that the common phrase in Japanese for “from scratch” is\n一から, and sometimes ゼロから. I would just like to note that some people use\nスクラッチから for this meaning. It might be understood as a literal translation, but\nit seems a little different to me because the loanword スクラッチ is seldom used\nfor the meaning “a mark made on a surface with a pointed object”—implying that\nreplacing the English word “scratch” with the loanword スクラッチ does not really\nserve the purpose of translation. I personally find the phrase スクラッチから\nstrange, but it is used by some people anyway.\n\nBy the way, in model building, some people use the word スクラッチ itself for the\nmeaning “the process of building something from scratch” as in フルスクラッチで作る\n(build (a model) completely from scratch). This usage seems to arise from the\nwords スクラッチビルド (scratch building) and フルスクラッチビルド (full scratch building).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-25T22:42:13.110", "id": "9848", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-25T22:42:13.110", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3199", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I am under impression that the first syllable in a word gets a dakuten when it\nis transformed into voiced form under the effect of rendaku. But in the\nidiomatic expression 様みろ {ざまみろ}, the kanji 様 which is read as さま gets voiced\nand obtains the dakuten without any rendaku. How did that happen? Apart from\nsaying \"well, it's a set phrase so just accept it as is\", could there be any\nreason, etymologically speaking, why it became ざま?\n\nAlso, are there any other scenario where words get voiced/dakuten without\nrendaku?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T09:49:05.417", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3201", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-22T03:32:42.153", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-22T03:32:42.153", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "idioms" ], "title": "How did the ざ in 様{ざま}みろ get the dakuten?", "view_count": 420 }

[ { "body": "According to J-J dictionaries (e.g. 大辞林{だいじりん}), ざま exists as an independent\nword, although derived from さま, taking a similar meaning with a\nnegative/jeering sort of nuance.\n\nWould you count くらい・ぐらい as another example?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T12:16:38.590", "id": "3203", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-22T02:21:40.120", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-22T02:21:40.120", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "3201", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3216", "answer_count": 1, "body": "幼いときに老けて、老いて子供に戻る。 I can make a few guesses as to the specific meaning but I'm\nnot sure which one is right.. does anyone know what would be the most correct\ntranslation of this sentence?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T15:03:36.430", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3206", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:40:31.437", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:40:31.437", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "words", "quotes" ], "title": "幼いときに老けて、老いて子供に戻る。Can anyone explain the nuances of this sentence?", "view_count": 202 }

[ { "body": "You hear 老いて子供に戻る a lot, but I haven't heard 幼いときに老けて. Google seems to agree\nwith me, so I'm assuming it's not a proverb or something.\n\nThe phrase 幼いときに老けて is rather peculiar because 老ける means \"become an old man /\nbehave like a old man\" and has a negative nuance. So it's not the same as\n\"grow old\"; if you are 幼い and do 老ける, then that's very unusual. It's like an\noxymoron, but I don't \"get\" what is meant here. Perhaps with more context it\nwould make sense, but frankly my guess is that whoever wrote this phrase\ndidn't fully understand the nuance of 老ける.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T03:26:19.010", "id": "3216", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T03:26:19.010", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "3206", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3209", "answer_count": 1, "body": "On a TV show, an idol was given this task to think of:\n\n> 心が晴れやかになる一言 \n> 'A word (or phrase) to lift someone's mood' (My loose translation)\n\nThe idol responded:\n\n> アナタの心の雨を[止]{や}ませてあげたいな \n> 'Let me try and get rid of that cloud hanging over you'. (Very loose\n> translation, I know)\n\nSo, more literally translated, I guess it would be:\n\n> 'Let me stop the rain in your heart'.\n\nI would like to know how `あげたい` works here. Is it working like:\n\n> I'd like to give you my action of stopping the rain in your heart\n\nOr is it working differently?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T18:06:23.777", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3207", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-30T09:14:50.380", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T09:14:50.380", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "nuances", "verbs", "perspective" ], "title": "How is the あげたい working here?", "view_count": 374 }

[ { "body": "`〜てあげる` is the form of \"doing X for someone\". The quote is just the\ncombination of that and the `〜たい` form (want to do). So it is \"I want to do X\nfor you\". Of course, remember that `〜てあげる` should not be used for 目上の人, and\neven when used properly might sound patronizing in the wrong context.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T19:03:16.953", "id": "3209", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T20:13:02.477", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-20T20:13:02.477", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3207", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "Does anyone have a list, or know of a list of the most commonly used phrases\nin japanese? The bigger the list the better.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T18:53:59.307", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3208", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-11T08:55:44.237", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-11T08:55:44.237", "last_editor_user_id": "11849", "owner_user_id": "729", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "phrases" ], "title": "Most common everyday phrases in Japanese", "view_count": 917 }

[ { "body": "Any JLPT syllabus (such as [this one](http://www.jlptstudy.com/)) is likely to\ncontain many common phrases (such as\n[these](http://www.jlptstudy.com/N5/N5_expression-list.html)).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T21:21:28.563", "id": "3210", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T21:21:28.563", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "3208", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "The corpora listed at <http://research.nii.ac.jp/src/eng/list/index.html> are\nfocused on speech, but that is probably the direction you'd like to go.\n(written collections will be heavily biased towards 'netspeak' or 'newspaper\nlanguage')", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T21:26:18.530", "id": "3211", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-20T21:26:18.530", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "29", "parent_id": "3208", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3213", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Does it make sense to have an i-adjective (in て-form) immediately before\n「ください」?\n\nFor example, when asked to choose between hot and cold coffee, can I use\n「温かくてください」, or must I turn it into nominal phrase (温かいのをください)?\n\nAnother example, is it fine to say 「優しくてください」, or must I insert a て-verb\nbefore ください (優しくしてください)?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-20T23:50:55.690", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3212", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T01:03:30.613", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "syntax", "i-adjectives" ], "title": "An i-adjective immediately before 「ください」?", "view_count": 801 }

[ { "body": "In Japanese, you always need a main verb to complete a sentence. If you\ndirectly attach an i-adjective to an auxiliary `ください` via `て`, then you will\nnot have a main verb anywhere. You need at least one main verb in between:\n\n> 温かくしてください \n> 優しくしてください\n\nIn sentences with i-adjectives or copula, it may not be obvious that you are\nusing a verb, but underlyingly, you do have a verb. For example, the ordinary\nending of an i-adjective is `い`:\n\n> 寒い\n\nThis `い` includes a hidden verb `ある`, which is not obvious because the\nsequence `くある` is contracted to `い`. If you place something that interrupts\nthe whole hidden sequence, thereby preventing the contraction, then you can\nsee that there is indeed a hidden `ある`:\n\n> 部屋は暗いだけでなく、寒くもある。 \n> × 部屋は暗いだけでなく、寒くもい。 \n> × 部屋は暗いだけでなく、寒いも。\n\nWith nouns or na-adjectives, you may end a sentence with `だ`, but that is a\ncontracted form of `である`, which includes the verb `ある`. Again, it may not be\nobvious that `だ` is the contracted form of `である`, but if you place something\nthat interrupts the whole hidden sequence and prevents the contraction, you\ncan see that there is indeed a hidden `ある`:\n\n> 彼は生徒でもある \n> × 彼は生徒もだ \n> × 彼は生徒だも", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T00:00:59.847", "id": "3213", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T01:03:30.613", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-21T01:03:30.613", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3212", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3215", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider the following:\n\n> 1. このりんご`（ は / が ）`食べないでください。\n>\n> 2. Person A: どちらが東ですか。\n>\n> Person B： こちら`（ は / が ）`東です。\n>\n>\n\n>\n> Workbook answers are `は` for 1. and `が` for 2.\n\n * In 1., I would expect the person to be pointing at the apple or at least gesturing with body language towards the apple. Furthermore the apple is physically present within proximity of the speaker as evidenced by use of \"`この`\". Therefore the apple is already present in the \"universe of discourse\" and the use of は to extract it from the \"universe of discourse\" is justified.\n\n * In 2., Discourse is introduced by person A. The workbook chooses `が` as the correct answer. \n\n**(Observations)** The apple is tangible while direction is intangible.\nHowever, both are present in the \"universe of discourse\". \"Direction\" is part\nof \"immediate environment\" and I should always be able to refer to immediate\nenvironment using `は` since it's shared information between two parties.\n\n**(Question)** Can't I similarly take \"direction\" as already present in the\n\"universe of discourse\" and use は to refer to it in 2.?\n\nEDIT: [Concept of \"Universe of Discourse\" taken from jkerian's\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/22/whats-the-difference-\nbetween-wa-and-ga/51#51)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T02:27:08.817", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3214", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T05:52:48.757", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-が", "particle-は", "demonstratives" ], "title": "Extracting from, and introducing to Universe of Discourse using は and が with こそあど-demonstratives", "view_count": 185 }

[ { "body": "In 2., `こちら` is the focus, not a topic, and is new information. You cannot use\n`は` for it. `東です` is the old information. Your reasoning of \"present in the\nuniverse of discourse\" is irrelevant for the choice of these particles (and,\nactually, I don't understand what you are talking about). The information\nstructure is the following.\n\nAfter A's question, before B's response, the following is the old information\nshared by A and B:\n\n> Old Information: There is some direction that fills in the underline in:\n> `__________が東です。`\n\nB's response gives new information, that is, what fills in the underline. The\nnew information provided by B's response is this:\n\n> New Information: It is `こちら` that fills in the previous underline.\n\nSince `東です` is the old information, it is possible to make this a topic rather\nthan `こちら`:\n\n> 東の方向はこちらです。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T02:50:44.157", "id": "3215", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T05:52:48.757", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-21T05:52:48.757", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3214", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3219", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider these stanzas taken from the opening song of Aria the Animation:\nUndine.\n\n[Translations taken from this\nsite](http://www.animelyrics.com/anime/aria/undine.htm)\n\nBackground information:\n\n * An Undine as a mythical concept is a female water spirit or nymph. In the anime \"Aria\", they are what gondola operators are called. (In layman terms they are boat rowers)\n\n * Vocative case: the case used for a noun identifying the person or thing (animal, object, etc.) being addressed.\n\n> さあ 漕ぎ出そう 光る波へ\n>\n> 笑顔が すぐ こぼれる (Come, let us row towards the shimmering waves, our smiles will\n> soon overflow.)\n>\n> ねえ 伝えよう このときめき (Hey, let us impart the feelings of our beating hearts. )\n>\n> 風にのって あなたのもとへ\n>\n> 行くわ `ウンディーネ` (Riding the wind, I will return to you `as an Undine`.)\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> さあ 漕ぎ出そう 遥か未来へ\n>\n> 水面に 夢 広がる (Come, let us row towards that distant future; our dreams will\n> spread out over the water.)\n>\n> ねえ 見つけよう まだ知らない\n>\n> 宝物を あなたと一緒に (Hey, let us discover yet unknown treasures.)\n>\n> 探そう `ウンディーネ` (Together with you `as Undines`.)\n\nI disagree with translation in the highlighted parts above.\n\n**(Question)** Can it mean \"Riding the wind, I will return to you, `my\nUndine`\" and \"Together with you, `my Undine`\"? Treating `ウンディーネ` as vocative\ncase?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T06:00:37.237", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3218", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T06:35:53.103", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation", "song-lyrics" ], "title": "Name/Title at the end of a sentence. Vocative case?", "view_count": 1073 }

[ { "body": "I hadn't thought about the possibility of vocative case in Japanese, and your\nquestion provides an interesting point. The usage in your examples are clearly\nvocative, but it may not be that clear whether these expressions actually bear\nvocative case.\n\nThere is a group of particles called 間投助詞 (`さ`, `よ`, `ね`), which might be\ncandidates for vocative case particles. Assuming that case cannot be stacked\nin Japanese (which is not necessarily true in other languages), the fact that\nyou can stack `さ` and `ね` with `が` excludes the possibility that they are\nvocative case particles.\n\n> 彼がさ、... \n> 彼がね、...\n\nWe are left with `よ`, and you can attach `よ` to the relevant phrases in your\nexamples. I suppose this is the vocative case particle. When there is no\nexplicit case particle following a vocative phrase as in your examples, there\nshould be several possibilities:\n\n 1. It is not vocative case. It simply lacks case. Since it is not an argument, a caseless noun phrase is possible.\n 2. There is underlyingly some other (default) case such as nominative, and is omitted.\n 3. There is underlyingly vocative case (which we can assume `よ`), and is omitted.\n\nI don't think there is a consensus on the answer for this.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T06:35:53.103", "id": "3219", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T06:35:53.103", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3218", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "I was taught in college that the 〜ない verb conjugation behaves like an\ni-adjective, thus it has 〜く form, it takes 〜ければ for \"if\" scenario, it modifies\nthe noun that follows it etc. Also, I know that the 〜くて form of i-adjective\nhas overlapping roles with 〜て form of verb, such that it can be used to\ncombine the i-adjective or verb with the next predicate, e.g. 滑りやすくて転んだ and\n転んで泣いた. However, while 〜て form of verb can be used before auxiliary ください, for\nverbs that have been conjugated with 〜ない, instead of using the 〜なくて form with\nください, we have to use 〜ないで form instead.\n\nI just learned from [sawa's answer for my previous\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3212/an-i-adjective-\nimmediately-before/3213#3213) that i-adjective (even with 〜くて form) cannot be\nfollowed immediately by ください for the reason that the main verb is missing, but\n〜なくて conjugation is attached to a verb so the issue of missing main verb\nshould not be there anymore. Yet, why is it still not 〜なくてください, but is\n〜ないでください instead? Where's the missing link in my reasoning? And finally, how\ndoes the 〜ないで form match with ください?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T14:42:36.663", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3220", "last_activity_date": "2013-09-23T22:08:37.220", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "conjugations", "negation", "て-form" ], "title": "Why do we use 〜ないで instead of 〜なくて before auxiliary ください?", "view_count": 2719 }

[ { "body": "Perhaps ～ないでください is not [て-form of ない]+ください. It could be formed by using the\nて-form of the copula.\n\nAnother way I think it can be formed is:\n\n> Negated-Verb + で*(the condition/state of how the action takes place) +\n> ください(please do for me).\n\n*Could be で-particle or the て-form(Verb conjunctive form) of the copula.\n\nThis would yield \"Please do for me such that the condition/state of the verb\nis negated\". Or more naturally as \"Please do not do [verb]\"\n\n* * *\n\nEDIT:\n\nQuoting from sawa's answer in [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3212/an-i-adjective-\nimmediately-before/3213#3213):\n\n> In Japanese, you always need a main verb to complete a sentence. If you\n> directly attach an i-adjective to an auxiliary ください via て, then you will not\n> have a main verb anywhere. You need at least one main verb in between\n\nI think it's because there is no main verb in なくてください. It's probably the same\nway sawa explained in the previous question. The \"hidden\" verb in ないでください is\nagain the copula (In its て-form).\n\nEDIT2:\n\nI guess that the [verb] in [verb]なくてください is not the \"main verb\" sawa was\ntalking about.\n\nI think it should be [verb 1]ない + [Main verb (verb 2) to which ください will be\nadded to] + ください\n\nください does not append itself [verb 1]. It appends itself to (verb 2).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T14:58:59.570", "id": "3221", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T15:45:10.760", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3220", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "There is some Deep Magic going on here. Let me try to offer a theory which,\nhopefully, will not muddy the waters further.\n\nThe ～て form of verbs (both positive and negative) implies a decision point.\nThat is, at some point in time, you choose to do something or not to do\nsomething. Once this choice is made, it is irreversible.\n\nConsider 食べてください. In effect, this request means, \"At some point in the future,\nplease choose to go from your current state of _have-not-eaten_ to _have-\neaten_.\" Once you enter the state of _have-eaten_ , you cannot go back. You\ncannot undo the action of eating.\n\nWith ～なくて, a second action always exists, even if it is implied. That is, the\ndecision is between not doing one thing and doing something else. 注意しなくて転んだ\nmeans that at a certain point, you chose not to enter the state of paying\nattention, and as a result you tripped. As with 食べてください, the decision (the\nchoice of states) is treated as a single point in time and is irreversible.\n\nThis is why ～なくて cannot take ください. With 食べなくてください, you are essentially saying,\n\"At some point in the future, please choose to go from your current state of\n_have-not-eaten_ to _have-not-eaten_.\" This is illogical; you cannot change\nfrom state A to state B when A and B are the same. What you really want to say\nis, \"Please stay in the state of _have-not-eaten_.\" But because ～て is limited\nto a single decision point, it cannot handle the range of points expressed in\n\"stay in this state.\" To use an analogy from geometry, it is like the\ndifference between a point (a discrete, finite quantity of one) and a line (an\ninfinite quantity of points).\n\nBecause the action of staying in the state of _have-not-eaten_ (the action of\nnot entering the state of _have-eaten_ ) takes place over a range of time, the\n～ないで form is needed. To explain why, consider what happens when we replace\nください with いる. We find the same problem with ～なくて:\n\n> ○ 食べている eating (or remaining in the state of _have-eaten_ )\n>\n> × 食べなくている (grammatically incorrect)\n>\n> ○ 食べないでいる not eating (or remaining in the state of _have-not-eaten_ )\n\nいる in these forms implies the continuation of a state. 食べている works because a\nstate-change was made at some point (食べて) and you are continuing in that state\n(いる). 食べないでいる works because you started out in a state (食べないで) and are\ncontinuing in that state (いる). But 食べなくている does not work because there is no\nstate-change in 食べなくて, therefore you cannot continue in it with いる.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T18:32:23.613", "id": "3228", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T18:32:23.613", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "3220", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "`AないでB` permits two readings, the 'means' reading (accomplish B by doing A),\nand the conjunction reading (A and B).\n\n`AなくてB` only permits the conjunction reading (A and B).\n\nSome painfully literal interpretations...\n\n> 食べなくてください \n> 'Not eat and give to me'\n>\n> 食べないでください \n> 'Not eat and give to me' \n> 'Give to me by not eating'\n\nI think it is the \"Give to me by not eating\" interpretation that eventually\nevolved into \"Please do not eat\", which is why 食べなくてください cannot have that\nmeaning.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-09-23T22:08:37.220", "id": "12912", "last_activity_date": "2013-09-23T22:08:37.220", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "3220", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3232", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've long known 冷やす as the transitive counterpart of 冷える. But thanks to [one\nquestion here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3191/why-are-\nthere-two-versions-of-the-kanji-for-tsumetai), I've realized that there is\nanother version with an extra syllable in it: 冷やかす. Although 冷やかす seems to\nhave secondary meaning of making fun of someone, the first meaning \"to\nrefrigerate\" seems to overlap with 冷やす. Is there any difference between them?\n\nBeing curious, I looked up in the dictionary for other verbs that have \"Xsu\"\nand \"Xkasu\" variants and found another pair: 散らかす and 散らす. Same question, how\nare they different?\n\nLastly, are there any other verb pairs that are different in look from each\nother by one additional syllable while still maintaining transitivity, and\nwould there be any pattern on how the verbs in each pair different from each\nother?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T15:47:01.547", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3222", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-22T00:32:42.600", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "word-choice", "vocabulary", "nuances", "verbs" ], "title": "How different is 冷やかす from 冷やす? And 散らかす from 散らす?", "view_count": 922 }

[ { "body": "In case of 散らす and 散らかす, 散らす is purposefully done while 散らかす is kind of a by-\nproduct that happened while you were trying to do something else.\n\n> 金箔を散らす -> Decorate by sprinkling it with gold flakes. \n> 金箔を散らかす -> While decorating, litter the gold flakes (and not clean up\n> afterwards)\n\n冷やかす is a bit archaic (don't ask me why!) so I'll use 寝かす instead to\nillustrate the point. Here, かす means \"to force something to do something\". For\nexample, 子供を寝かせる means \"Make the child sleep\". In case of 冷やかす, it means to\n\"Make something chill\" (literal meaning: \"let something chill itself\").\n\nI guess this makes some sense in regard to 散らす/散らかす distinction, because the\nliteral meaning of 散らかす is \"Let something litter itself\". Basically the person\nis allowing (negligently) the gold flakes to scatter around, while in case of\n散らす, the person is actively scattering the gold flakes (by himself).\n\nAnother example is やらかす which is a slang for \"screw up\". I'm not sure what the\netymology for this is though.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T00:32:42.600", "id": "3232", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-22T00:32:42.600", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "3222", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3280", "answer_count": 3, "body": "In another forum, someone said the difference between\n\n> 誰が盗んだのか、誰か知りませんか。\n\nand\n\n> 誰が盗んだか、誰か知りませんか。\n\nis that the former _has more emphasis on the verb`盗む`_. Another person said\nthat that's not the case. And that they are the same, but he couldn't explain\nwhy.\n\nI was wondering what the significance of the `の` is in the sentence\n`誰が盗んだのか、誰か知りませんか。`? Is the `の` particle in that sentence also the same as the\n[_particle の for\nexplanation_](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/nounparticles#part5)?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T16:13:00.757", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3223", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:28:46.463", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:28:46.463", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar", "nuances", "tense", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "What is the significance of the \"の\" in the sentence \"誰が盗んだのか、誰か知りませんか。\"", "view_count": 686 }

[ { "body": "> Is the 「の」 particle in that sentence also the same as the particle の for\n> explanation ?\n\nSeems like that's the case. My lecturer in college explained that this usage\nof の transforms the predicate into a nominal clause, something similar to\nusing \"the fact that\" to wrap your statement in English.\n\n> A: なぜケーキを食べませんでしたか? (Why did you not eat the cake?)\n>\n> B1: もうご飯を食べました。 (I already ate rice.) -- weird \n> B2: もうご飯を食べたのです。 ([Due to] the fact that I already ate rice.)\n\nAs you can see from my example above, の especially with です has the same\nconnotation of reason as から, that's why ので can be used (sometimes?) to replace\nから:\n\n> もうご飯を食べたからケーキは食べませんでした。 (Because I already ate rice, I didn't eat the cake.) \n> もうご飯を食べたのでケーキは食べませんでした。 ([Due to] the fact that I already ate rice, I\n> didn't eat the cake.)\n\n~~So, your sentence 誰が盗んだのか、誰か知りませんか translates to \"Does anyone know about the\nfact that somebody stole [something]?\", which is different from\n誰が盗んだか、誰か知りませんか -- \"Does anyone know who stole [something]?\". In the latter,\nthe asker is sure that somebody has stolen something, but in the former, the\nasker is not sure so he's asking for confirmation first. By asking it this\nway, the asker is being tactful by showing that he's trying to confirm if the\ntheft did happen or not first instead of asking directly who did it.~~ EDIT:\nseems like my translation of the sentences in the question is a bit off, so\nI'll have to rethink and come up with a revision later. Sorry about that; I'm\nalso learning here > ___ <", "comment_count": 17, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T16:34:54.667", "id": "3225", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T17:54:14.100", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-21T17:54:14.100", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3223", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I’m not a specialist, but let me show my fearless explanation. I think two\nsentences have different constructions but both have the same meaning.\n\nWhen it comes to their constructions, I would put them this way.\n\n「か」\n\n> 誰が盗みましたか？（ask for information）\n>\n> →誰が盗んだ（change the form in order to implant in an indirect question）\n>\n> ＋ （それを）誰か知っていますか\n>\n> =「誰が盗んだか、誰か知っていますか？」\n\n「のか」\n\n> 誰が盗んだのですか？（ask for an explanation）...1)\n>\n> → 誰が盗んだのだ（change the form in order to implant in an indirect question）\n>\n> ＋ （それを）誰か知っていますか\n>\n> ＝「誰が盗んだのか、誰か知っていますか？」...2)\n\n1) I agree with your guess that the 「の」 particle is for explanation.(at this\nstage)\n\nYou say that someone said that 「のか」sentence has more emphasis on the verb. I\ncan understand his feeling to some extent. He might feel that way maybe\nbecause 「のだ」is used to express the speaker’s strong opinion or decision in\nsome cases. But I would take「の」as a particle for explanation rather than for\nemphasis, in this case.\n\n2) At this stage, I would take「のか」as a tool to implant the first direct\nquestion 「のですか」into the final stage. I think it's similar to the function of\n'that' conjunction in English.\n\nAnyway, I would use both of them with little awareness of the difference.\nAlso, if someone asks me those questions, my answer will be the same. It might\nbe better to think they’re the same and「の」exists only in order to express the\nconstruction.\n\nEDIT: I added 1) 2) to my answer. I'm very sorry to confuse you. But I hope\nwhat I'm saying will still be your help.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-25T08:52:03.507", "id": "3280", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-26T03:11:06.660", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-26T03:11:06.660", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3223", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "\"だか\" sounds very harsh. I've already discussed it a bit in situations like\n[行くかい](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2864/in-what-situation-\ncan-i-use-for-interrogative-question).\n\nI just believe that inserting の here allows to soften the sound without\nchanging the meaning.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T05:15:29.400", "id": "3302", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T05:15:29.400", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3223", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3226", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This is from the comments on [this youtube page](http://youtu.be/2YuAN6HzsmA)\nwhere an infant is cuddling with a bemused cat.\n\nThe commentator is writing on how cute the scene is. I am having trouble\nfiguring out some of the subjects (which can be hard for students of\njapanese). If anyone would care to point out the subjects or correct my\nattempt at a very loose translation, it would be greatly appreciated.\n\nI'm having the most trouble in figuring out the first line. (The numbers only\nindicate the lines):\n\n> 1. 自分だったら、これを大きくなってから見たら感動するだろうな。\n> 2. なんの気なしに一緒に暮らしている猫が\n> 3. 昔から、こんなに愛情深く寄り添ってくれていたなんて。\n> 4. 「猫さん」「猫センパイ」と呼びたくなるレベル。\n>\n\n 1. To see these two growing up together would be so moving. (for me the speaker)\n 2. Look at this laid back cat just living together like its nothing,\n 3. snuggling up with so much love, must have been doing that for a long time. (for it to have been so comfortable)\n 4. At this level I'd like to call him Mr. Cat, or even Prof. Cat. (superior cat)\n\nSo in line 1, I'm having trouble understanding who this これを大きくなってから applies\nto. I'm guessing it's the kid and cat growing up together, not the writer\ngrowing up. Also in line 4, perhaps the writer is saying this:\n\n> \"Mr. Cat, at this level I'd like to call you Prof. Cat ((superior cat))\"\n\nI know _senpai_ doesn't relate to professor, but I just chose something\nsomeone might say in English. Also, does と呼びたくなる mean the speaker\n(him/herself) wants to call the cat _senpai_ , or does the speaker want the\ncat to be called _senpai_ by all in general? (First person versus third person\nplural.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T16:23:32.950", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3224", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T17:37:10.847", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-21T17:37:10.847", "last_editor_user_id": "37", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "slang", "first-person-pronouns" ], "title": "Finding the subject in Japanese. 自分だったら、これを大きくなってから見たら感動するだろうな", "view_count": 332 }

[ { "body": "The key is the これを大きくなってから見る in the first line. The subject on both sides of\nthe te-form is the same (自分).\n\n> 1 If it (the baby) was me, I would surely be moved if I saw this after I\n> grew up. \n> 2 That this cat, who I had been living with without thinking anything much\n> of it, \n> 3 had been snuggling up affectionately to me from such a long time ago\n> (/young age). \n> 4 (It would be moving) To (such) a level that I would want to address him\n> with \"san\" or \"senpai\" (treat him as an equal or as my senior).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T17:13:24.697", "id": "3226", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T17:13:24.697", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3224", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "I'm looking for a large comprehensive list of phrases that are commonly used\nby the Japanese, anyone know of some resources for that?\n\nI've seen the list on\n[here](http://research.nii.ac.jp/src/eng/list/index.html) but most of them\naren't exactly what I need, are there any other sources?", "comment_count": 15, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T18:21:05.197", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3227", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-09T16:34:45.943", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-22T00:51:18.230", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "729", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "resources", "phrases" ], "title": "Looking for Japanese common speech phrases list", "view_count": 673 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3230", "answer_count": 2, "body": "> 日本人は英語を学ばず **とも** 暮らせる環境に居ます。\n>\n> Japanese people are in an environment where they can live without having to\n> learn English.\n\nIs the とも in this sentence one word or is it two words: と and も ? I guess it\nis one word as I see it in this sentence as well:\n\n> 一方、日本語の文字は、漢字を学ばなく **とも** よいなら世界でもっともやさしいといわれています。 On the other hand,\n> written Japanese is one of the easiest in the world if you do not have to\n> learn kanji.\n\nWould anyone care to explain the とも and how it is used in these sentences?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T21:20:20.827", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3229", "last_activity_date": "2020-03-15T00:52:49.283", "last_edit_date": "2020-03-15T00:52:49.283", "last_editor_user_id": "25875", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "words", "particles" ], "title": "What is the とも in this sentence? 日本人は英語を学ばずとも暮らせる環境に居ます。", "view_count": 2159 }

[ { "body": "It is\n[this](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/160335/m0u/%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82/)\nとも, specifically the first definition. Originally two particles, now arguably\none word. \"X とも\" basically means \"Even if X\" in cases like this.\n\n * 日本人は **[英語を学ばずとも暮らせる]** 環境に居ます。 \nJapanese people are in an environment where **[they can live even if they\ndon't learn English]**.\n\n * 一方、日本語の文字は、 **[漢字を学ばなくともよい]** なら世界でもっともやさしいといわれています。 \nOn the other hand, Japanese characters are said to be the easiest in the world\nif **[you don't have to learn kanji]**. \nOn the other hand, Japanese characters are said to be the easiest in the world\nif **[it's OK even if you don't learn kanji]**. \n\n(The second translation in that last one is intentionally overliteral to show\nthe \"even if\".)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T23:50:29.780", "id": "3230", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T23:50:29.780", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3229", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "This usage of とも is the one explained in [this Wikipedia article on Japanese\nparticles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_particles#to_mo):\n\n> To mo (no kanji): \"even if, even though; at the ...-est; whether;\n> [emphasis]\"\n\nIn `学ばずとも`, 学ばず is the negative form of 学ぶ using the 〜ず conjugation, which\noften used with 〜に to mean \"without doing X\", e.g. 学ばずに means \"without\nlearning\", thus 学ばずとも means \"even without learning\".\n\nAs for `学ばなくとも`, I'm going to use [this dictionary@goo\npage](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/55052/m0u/%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82/) as\nthe basis to say that it is similar to 〜ても, thus \"漢字を学ばなくともよいなら\" is equivalent\nto \"漢字を学ばなくてもよいなら\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-21T23:54:59.137", "id": "3231", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-21T23:54:59.137", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3229", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3238", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> たばこは体に悪いとわかってはいるものの、なかなかやめられない。\n\nIf it's は, does omitting は change the meaning in verb-te~はいる? And also, could\nyou talk about what いる is doing?\n\nIf it's はいる, in what sense would you describe はいる's usage?\n\nAlso, as I googled for more examples, I noticed there was a general pattern of\nてはいる[が・けど・ものの]、... Is there something to this?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T01:31:05.900", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3233", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-22T05:19:52.650", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-22T01:37:26.513", "last_editor_user_id": "54", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "negation" ], "title": "Is this は or はいる: ～わかってはいるものの", "view_count": 1523 }

[ { "body": "It's the 助詞 \"は\". I'll leave it to the linguists for a technical description,\nbut the practical effect is to emphasize the verb. \"Although I _do_ know\ncigarettes are bad for my body, I pretty much can't quit.\"", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T03:16:07.667", "id": "3238", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-22T03:16:07.667", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3233", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3236", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm having difficulty with this sentence:\n\nTense appears inconsistent to me. I need help understanding the correct use of\nverb forms.\n\n> 冬休みにずっと九州に [Fill in the blank] おばあさんのうちに **いました** (past)\n>\n> 1. 住む\n>\n> 2. 住んだ\n>\n> 3. 住んでいる (Correct)(non-past)\n>\n> 4. 住んでいた\n>\n>\n\nBased on the bold portion above, I would choose option 2 or 4 for tense\nconsistency. But I'm wrong and I don't know why.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T02:34:31.783", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3234", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-22T02:45:40.097", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "tense" ], "title": "Help with tense/aspect (past vs. non-past in Verb and Verbている）", "view_count": 427 }

[ { "body": "Verbs used as adjectives don't need to match the tense of the rest of the\nsentence, they merely need to be true (As for, say, the grandmother that\ncurrently lives in Kyushu).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T02:45:40.097", "id": "3236", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-22T02:45:40.097", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "3234", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3237", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I know that when I read sites like Wikipedia and there are foreign words they\nwill often give the name with the original alphabet and spelling as well as a\nphonetic and a literal translation. So for instance the entry for Tokyo has\n(東京 Tōkyō, \"Eastern Capital\") next to the first use of Tokyo.\n\nI had this thought because I was debating on how to translate the name of a\nplace near where I live. It's called Little Italy (think China town but\nItalian). I was going to translate it phonetically as `リトルイタリア` but I think\nthat loses some of the meaning so I was going to add `小さいイタリア` with the\nspecification that it was a literal translation.\n\nSo my question is how do I indicate that something is a literal translation\nnot a phonetic translation?", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T02:36:24.067", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3235", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:32:14.690", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:32:14.690", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "734", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "translation" ], "title": "How do you indicate a literal translation", "view_count": 1251 }

[ { "body": "First of all, I think you'd be better off with \"リトル・イタリー\". Second, I think\nmost Japanese are familiar with \"リトル\", so it might be better to forgo the\nliteral translation and include something descriptive instead.\n\"イタリア系の人が多く住む地区\" or \"イタリア料理のレストランが多い地区\", depending on what kind of Little\nItaly you mean. If you must, \"直訳：小さいイタリア\" would indicate that it's a literal\ntranslation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T03:06:41.717", "id": "3237", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-22T03:06:41.717", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3235", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Not sure what the point of a literal translation is here, as there would be\nmany better ways to explain what \"Little Italy\" is without resorting to\n\"小さいイタリア\".\n\nBeside the perfectly fine katakana transliteration, you could always take\nexample on similar neighbourhoods in Japan:\n\n[\"Chinatown\" (aka \"Little China\") in\nYokohama](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokohama_Chinatown) is 中華街, so \"Little\nItaly\" could be イタリア街 or even 伊街, if you want to make it _really_ obscure.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T05:02:22.237", "id": "3239", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-22T05:02:22.237", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "3235", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3242", "answer_count": 1, "body": "No, this is not about any Buddhist chant or mantra that can be used to call\nforth Japanese gods or heavenly spirits, but rather about any specialized\nwords or interjections that attract attention of the God/spirits that we want\nto communicate with. Similar to the following equivalent interjections in some\nlanguages I know:\n\n> English: 'O' \n> e.g: O The Great God\n>\n> Arabic: 'يا' (pronunciation: Ya) \n> e.g: ياربي\n>\n> Malay/Indonesian: 'Wahai' \n> e.g: Wahai Tuhanku\n\nDoes Japanese have such words/interjections? Even though 神様へ might be serving\nthe purpose, へ lacks the glorification that 'O' has. Note that 'O', 'يا' and\n'Wahai' are not restricted to God/spirits/heavenly beings only since they can\nalso be used towards people, for example in a sermon, so the Japanese\nequivalent(s) must also have to have similar scope in order to qualify.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T08:21:55.437", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3241", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-26T10:36:19.627", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "honorifics", "phrase-requests", "interjections", "religion" ], "title": "How to invoke God/spirits in Japanese", "view_count": 1150 }

[ { "body": "It sounds like you are looking for the vocative case particle in Japanese.\n\nTaken from [wikipedia's article on vocative\ncase](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative_case#Japanese):\n\n> In archaic Japanese, or when written as verse, a particle `よ` and `や` may be\n> affixed.\n>\n\n>> 少年`よ`、大志を抱け (Boys, be ambitious, quote by William S. Clark)\n\n>>\n\n>> 神`よ`、汝の誉れはその御名のごとく (O God, Thy praise is according to Thine name, from\nBach's cantata)\n\n>>\n\n>> じいさま`や`、山さ雨は降っただけ (Old man, was it raining on the mountain?)\n\nThe article however notes that this is archaic, and usually vocative case in\nJapanese is formed with null morpheme, i.e. without any specific particle.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T08:45:21.547", "id": "3242", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-22T08:45:21.547", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3241", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3244", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I think it's known that some intransitive verbs can take を particle and be\nused as transitive verbs such as for example 「私のことを分かってくれない」. While using 分かる\ntransitively would require specific scenarios or patterns, from the point of\nview of an English speaker it just naturally makes sense, for the reason that\n\"understand\" is a transitive English verb.\n\nOn the other hand, there are verbs that are naturally intransitive in both\nJapanese and English, that simply do not make sense to assign any noun\nobjects, like 死ぬ and \"to die\". There is no way to imagine \"Subject dies\nobject\", both in English and Japanese, unless if we modify it to \"Subject\nallows/makes object to die\" but that would change the main verb in question,\nagain, both in English and Japanese.\n\nAt first I thought 行く and 来る are parts of those naturally intransitive verbs,\nsince there is no way for \"Subject goes object\" or \"Subject comes object\". And\nthen I found a proverb 「天馬空を行く」, which made me look up \"を行く\" on Google. The\nresult? 8.75 millions results. \"を来る\" has 243K results which are a lot less but\nstill a significant figure that shows that out there, 行く and 来る are used with\nを. However, my thought still remains, that there is no way for \"subject goes\nobject\". Looking at sample usages, there seems to be a pattern of the nouns\nthat are modified by \"を行く\" are roads, path etc, but imagining it in English as\n\"to apply the act of going onto the road as the object\" doesn't work to me.\n\"を来る\" does not even have any pattern that can be seen among the sample noun\nobjects.\n\nExamples from Google results:\n\n * お気楽サラリーマンジャングルを行く！\n * 歴史街道を行く\n * 一歩先を行くPythonプログラマが読むべきOSS\n * 私は私の道を行く\n * 晴れの日を来る\n * 遠い道を来るまでに\n\nSo, how do we make sense of 「を行く」 and 「を来る」?", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T16:29:30.080", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3243", "last_activity_date": "2022-03-04T00:26:18.197", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-23T04:01:01.383", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 26, "tags": [ "usage", "meaning", "transitivity", "particle-を" ], "title": "Making sense of transitive usage of 行く and 来る - 「を行く」 and 「を来る」", "view_count": 3472 }

[ { "body": "Think of it as `through`.\n\n> 空をゆく \n> 'go through the sky'\n>\n> ジャングルを行く \n> 'go through a jungle'\n>\n> 歴史街道を行く \n> 'go through a historic street'\n>\n> 一歩先を行く \n> 'go through (a path) one step ahead'\n>\n> 私の道を行く \n> 'go through my own way'\n>\n> 晴れの日を来る \n> 'come through a sunny day (atmosphere)'\n>\n> 遠い道を来る \n> 'come through a long road'", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T17:52:03.153", "id": "3244", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-22T17:52:03.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3243", "post_type": "answer", "score": 30 }, { "body": "Another way to think of を in this sense is to do some action which \"leaves\nsomething behind you\", either literally or figuratively. Here are some\nadditional examples:\n\n> * 公園を散歩する → Walk (through) the park; the park is \"behind\" you after you've\n> walked through it.\n> * 家を出る → Leave home; home is now \"behind\" you in your time-line of\n> activities\n> * 階段を下りる → Go down the stairs; same as walking example\n> * 大学を卒業する → Graduate from a university; you're \"leaving behind\" student\n> life as you go forward into your future\n> * 道を通り抜ける → Make your way down the street; same as walking example\n>", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T17:05:25.773", "id": "3255", "last_activity_date": "2018-08-19T03:24:47.180", "last_edit_date": "2018-08-19T03:24:47.180", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3243", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "For 行く, one could think of it the way one does the transitive use of _to go_\nin English ([which does exist,](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/go)\nscroll down to the transitive definitions). One of your examples provides an\neasy and appropriate example of this, \"私は私の道を行く\". I'd put this as \"I go my own\nroad.\" The method doesn't always work with a literal, word-by-word\ntranslation, but it might help with pinning down the concept behind the\nmeaning of a phrase.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-03-04T00:26:18.197", "id": "93599", "last_activity_date": "2022-03-04T00:26:18.197", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50735", "parent_id": "3243", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3251", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Knowing that 行く is punctual, stative, and a motion verb, I also know that,\n`日本に行っている` means \"I/he/she have gone to Japan (and am still there)\" rather\nthan \"I am currently going to Japan.\"\n\nI also feel that 行っている can be used in the sense of habitual action, so that\n`大学に行っている` can mean either \"I'm at the college\" or \"I go to college\" depending\non the context.\n\nThat being said, can I also use 行っている in the sense of a habitual action in\nconjunction with 間（に)?\n\n> 大学に行っている間、もっと勉強すればよかった。- I wish I had studied more when I was going to\n> college. \n> 大学に行っている間に高校の彼女と別れました。- While I was in college, I broke up with my\n> girlfriend from high school. \n>\n>\n> 大学に行っている間、雨が降りました。- It was raining while I was at school. \n> 大学に行っている間に宿題をしました。- I did my homework while I was at school. \n>", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-22T21:11:47.163", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3245", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T07:05:05.703", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "581", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning" ], "title": "Can I use 行っている間（に） in the sense of a habitual action?", "view_count": 1186 }

[ { "body": "> That being said, can I also use 行っている in the sense of a habitual action in\n> conjunction with 間（に)?\n\nThe answer is yes. 行っている can mean both “have gone” and “go habitually,” with\nor without 間.\n\n> 仕事の関係で毎週月曜日に大阪に行っている。 I go to Osaka for business every Monday.\n\nThis sentence states that the speaker is currently following the pattern of\n“going to Osaka every Monday,” and does not imply that the speaker is\ncurrently in Osaka.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T07:05:05.703", "id": "3251", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T07:05:05.703", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3245", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3247", "answer_count": 1, "body": "When we say \"birds singing\", there is a positive connotation.\n\nWhen we say \"birds crowing\", there is a negative connotation.\n\n\"The birds are making some sound\" seems to be objective, and thus neutral.\n\nI was wondering is it true that 鳴く is absolutely neutral?\n\nIn other words, would the sentence 「小鳥が鳴いてる。」 have a positive connotation,\nnegative connotation, or is it an absolutely neutral sentence?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T02:37:22.937", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3246", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T06:28:50.743", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "usage", "vocabulary", "nuances" ], "title": "Does 「鳴く」 give any nuances about the sound being made?", "view_count": 159 }

[ { "body": "I think it is neutral; it just implies the subject is a bird, an insect, or\nsome other kind of animal. For positive connotation, there is a verb `さえずる`\n'chirp'. For bad connotation, there is a verb (not limited to bird but can be\nused more generally) `さわぐ` 'make noise'.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T02:46:30.373", "id": "3247", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T06:28:50.743", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-23T06:28:50.743", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3246", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3250", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I want to know the difference between 可決 and 許可.\n\nI searched the dictionary and the meaning is quite the same: approval or\npermission.\n\nSo, what is the difference and how to use them differently?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T06:22:33.353", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3248", "last_activity_date": "2015-07-31T22:00:12.540", "last_edit_date": "2015-07-31T22:00:12.540", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "730", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances" ], "title": "Difference between 可決 and 許可？", "view_count": 230 }

[ { "body": "They are entirely different\n\n * `可決`: approval of a matter by vote (←→ `否決`: disapproval)\n * `許可`: permission (←→ `不許可`: 'no permission')", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T06:34:18.817", "id": "3250", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T06:34:18.817", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3248", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3252", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I want to know the different between these two words.\n\nThe meaning is the same which is social science.\n\nSo, what is the difference?\n\nEdit: Sorry for confusing question. I mean the different usage.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T06:30:14.530", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3249", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T08:31:47.897", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-23T08:31:47.897", "last_editor_user_id": "730", "owner_user_id": "730", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words" ], "title": "The difference between 「人文科学」　and 「社会科学」", "view_count": 206 }

[ { "body": "Consider the following:\n\nTaken from WWWJDIC's example sentence database:\n\n> 人文科学:\n>\n\n>> * 歴史学は人文科学の一部門である。\n\n>>\n\n>>\n\n>> History is a branch of the humanities.\n\n>>\n\n>> * 哲学研究は人文科学の１つだ。\n\n>>\n\n>>\n\n>> The study of philosophy belongs to the humanities.\n\n>\n> 社会科学:\n>\n\n>> * その大学の課程は自然科学と社会科学から成り立っている。\n\n>>\n\n>>\n\n>> That university's curriculum covers natural science and social science.\n\n`人文科学` and `社会科学` would correspond to `humanities` and `social science`\nrespectively.\n\nNow the question becomes \"What is the difference between humanities and social\nsciences?\"\n\nTo quote from [this article](http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-\nlanguage/difference-between-humanities-and-social-sciences/):\n\n> Humanities are a branch of science that deals with the heritage and the\n> question of what makes us human. Humanities deal with law, history, ancient\n> languages, modern languages, philosophy, history, religion, and\n> visual/performing arts. Humanities are considered to be more philosophical\n> than social sciences.\n>\n> As there is a scientific approach to social sciences, it is considered to be\n> a branch of study in between humanities and natural sciences. Anthropology,\n> criminology, administration, archaeology, education, economics, psychology,\n> linguistics, political science, law, and history come under the purview of\n> social sciences.\n\nThere is some overlap between humanities and social sciences, but the\ndifference lies in the approach.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T07:52:51.913", "id": "3252", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T07:52:51.913", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3249", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3254", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'd like to get an idea of when it is appropriate to use different expressions\nfor expressing disjunction (of the inclusive AND exclusive variety).\n\n「AとBとCの中で...」、「どちら」、and 「か」 come to mind, but I think they have situational\nusage (that I'm not entirely aware of). 「か」 seems somewhat awkward, 「どちら」 is\nlimited to a decision between two things, and so forth. How would an inclusive\nor be expressed ('A or B' as opposed to 'either A or B')?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T13:10:03.660", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3253", "last_activity_date": "2019-09-09T15:43:12.423", "last_edit_date": "2019-09-09T15:43:12.423", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "736", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "grammar", "nuances", "particles", "conjunctions" ], "title": "What are the various ways to express 'or' and when are they appropriate?", "view_count": 10786 }

[ { "body": "Natural languages usually have exclusive disjunction. In order to express\ninclusive disjunction, you usually have to add some materials to exclusive\ndisjunction.\n\n * Exclusive disjunction between two things\n\n> A か B (の({うち/間}の)どちらか(一つ/一方)) \n> 'between A or B'\n\n * Exclusive disjunction among more than two things\n\n> A か B, (か) C (の({うち/間/中}の)どれか(一つ)) \n> 'among A, B, or C'\n\n * Inclusive disjunction between two things\n\n> A か B の({うち/間}の)少なくとも{一つ/一方} \n> 'A and/or B'\n\n * Inclusive disjunction among more than two things\n\n> A か B, (か) C の({うち/間/中}の)少なくとも一つ \n> 'A, B, and/or C'\n\n* * *\n\nSince the OP seems to be having trouble with the notation, I will expand the\nfirst one so that there is no parentheses and braces:\n\n * Exclusive disjunction between two things\n\n> A か B \n> A か B のどちらか \n> A か B のどちらか一つ \n> A か B のどちらか一方 \n> A か B のうちのどちらか \n> A か B の間のどちらか \n> A か B のうちのどちらか一つ \n> A か B のうちのどちらか一方 \n> A か B の間のどちらか一つ \n> A か B の間のどちらか一方\n>", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T15:46:35.260", "id": "3254", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T17:40:03.997", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-23T17:40:03.997", "last_editor_user_id": "94", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3253", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "There are a couple more examples for exclusive that I can think of:\n\n * AそしてまたB\n * AまたはB\n * AそれともB\n * A或【ある】いはB", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T17:28:24.490", "id": "3256", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T17:28:24.490", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3253", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3258", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Which しんこう is the one Yotsuba-chan meant when she said 「しゅっぱつしんこ〜」 in the\nmanga excerpt below? WWWJDIC lists so many two-kanji words that read as しんこう,\nand even after eliminating totally irrelevant ones there are still a few\nplausible choices:\n\n> 新興 【しんこう】 (n,adj-no) rising; developing; emergent; \n> 進行 【しんこう】 (n,vs) advance; progress; \n> 進攻 【しんこう】 (n,vs) attack; drive; advance; invasion; \n> 進航 【しんこう】 (n,vs) sailing on\n\n\n\n(From manga 「よつばと！」, 4th volume, page 30)", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T17:34:17.560", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3257", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T17:47:26.940", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "homophonic-kanji" ], "title": "しゅっぱつしんこ〜, what is Yotsuba-chan saying?", "view_count": 624 }

[ { "body": "Was this the one where they went fishing? That was a fun story. I'm starting\nto wish I hadn't eBay'd my Yotsuba books last year.\n\nAnyway, I'm pretty sure 出発 **進行** is what you want. There's even [a Wikipedia\npage for\n出発進行](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%87%BA%E7%99%BA%E9%80%B2%E8%A1%8C) which\nsays that this phrase is in the lingo book for train operators as part of the\nsafety procedure of [pointing and\ncalling](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointing_and_calling)\n([指差喚呼](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%8C%87%E5%B7%AE%E5%96%9A%E5%91%BC)).\n(The phrase basically means permission to advance has been granted.)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T17:47:26.940", "id": "3258", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T17:47:26.940", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "3257", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3268", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 一生懸命な彼に申し訳ない気がしました。そこで、私は一度彼と会って面と向かって断ろうと思ったのです。 \n> 'I felt I had to do something so I decided to meet him face to face and\n> tell him I wasn't interested.'\n\n`一生懸命`を副詞として使ったら 'eagerly, with utmost effort, very hard'\nという意味になると思います。でも形容詞として使ったらどんなニュアンスになりますか？この例で否定的なニュアンスがあるのか誰か説明してくれませんか？\n\nIf `一生懸命` is used as a な-adjective to describe someone, is it usually\nnegative? In this example, the suitor was overly persistent, so the girl\nwanted to actively reject him.\n\nPlease pardon any mistakes made in my faulty Japanese.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T21:24:56.970", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3259", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:38:36.630", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:38:36.630", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "adjectives", "nuances", "na-adjectives" ], "title": "\"一生懸命な”のニュアンスを説明してもらえませんか。Nuances of 一生懸命な", "view_count": 397 }

[ { "body": "I don't think \"一生懸命\" by itself has any particular connotations either way.\nDefinitions given in Kenkyuusha's 新和英大辞典 range from \"desperate, frantic\", to\n\"earnest,eager\". It really seems to depend on context. It just means that\nwhatever you're doing, good or bad or in-between, you're doing it full-out.\n\nIn the example, I really don't get any sense at all of a negative judgment; in\nfact, quite the opposite. \"I felt so sorry for him, trying so hard.\" After\nall, if she wanted to express annoyance, she could have said he was \"しつこい\", or\neven \"うるさい\".\n\nIncidentally, \"断ろうと思った\" means that she considered rejecting him, not that she\ndecided to do it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T09:16:09.577", "id": "3268", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-24T09:16:09.577", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "3259", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3261", "answer_count": 1, "body": "暴風警報発令中のため本日 bōfū keihō hatsurei chū notame honjitsu\n\n* * *\n\nの営業はお休みとさせて no eigyō wa oyasumi to sasete\n\n* * *\n\nいただきます。 itadakimasu.\n\n* * *\n\n暴風 bōfū = storm winds \n警報 keihō = warning \n発令 hatsurei = official announcement \n中 chū = in the middle \n警報発令中 keihōhatsureichū = alert \n〜のため notame = due to \n本日 honjitsu = today \nの no = possessive article \n営業 eigyō = business \nは wa = subject marker \nお休み oyasumi = taking a day off \n(と)させて (to)sasete = \"causative form?\" _*_ \nいただきます itadakimasu = polite \"will do\" \n\nThis sign was on the door of a closed store during the recent typhoon in\nNagoya. I am just wondering about the ending: お休みとさせていただきます。\n\nさせて is the causative form of する, is it not? But in this case, would one be\nable to translate it as: \"we allow ourselves to be closed today\" or \"we take\nthe liberty of being closed today\", as in they are the ones who are letting\nthemselves take the day off and not anyone else?\n\nOr, are they saying \"be kind enough as to let us take the day off\"?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T22:36:54.587", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3260", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-24T01:54:14.720", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-24T01:54:14.720", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "conjugations" ], "title": "What would be the literal meaning of the causative form here? 暴風警報発令中のため本日の営業はお休みとさせていただきます。", "view_count": 1642 }

[ { "body": "`させ` not only means 'make/force' but also means 'let/allow'.\n\nIn Japanese culture, the relation between a shop/seller and the customer is\nnot equal. The customer is in much higher status than the seller, as is\nrepresented in the generally recognized phrase `お客様は神様だ` 'a customer is god'.\nA shop attendant will almost always use the honorific and polite form to the\ncustomer, whereas the customer may or may not. It is a common scene in Japan\nthat during the entrance of a customer to a shop, an employee will bow and say\nsome greeting word, but the customer may just ignore and not say a word. Even\nan owner closing their own shops without much notice in advance, or running\nout of stock, is considered to be an act of causing trouble to the potential\ncustomer, and is a reason for appology.\n\n`...のため、お休みとさせていただきます` is a common phrase used by shop owners meaning 'due to\n..., we will be allowed by you to be closed'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-23T23:13:28.780", "id": "3261", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-23T23:27:10.140", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-23T23:27:10.140", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3260", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3288", "answer_count": 4, "body": "For the longest time, I thought that a verb ending in `て+いる` meant that one\nwas currently doing an action, similar to how we use `~ing` in English to mean\na contuinuing state. So `食{た}べている` means \"eating\".\n\nHowever, I've run into confusion over sentences like `日本{にほん}に来ている`. I thought\nit meant, \"coming to Japan\" but apparently it actually means \"came to Japan\nand still here\".\n\nAfter some looking into the issue, it seems that there is a thing in Japanese\ncalled a \"[punctual\nverb](http://books.google.com/books?id=Gu3k3eiOXWAC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=japanese%20punctual%20verbs%20verbs&source=bl&ots=haUZrxiS0n&sig=_tTM43jZrCWWutH-\nlupRtMxcDTo&hl=en&ei=fm18TtDBPIyUtwet7N1v&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=japanese%20punctual%20verbs%20verbs&f=false)\".\nThese are actions that can not be extended or divided, so they're either done\nor not done. `来る` it would seem, is one of these verbs, because you have\neither come or not. At least, as far as Japanese is concerned.\n\nHowever, the matter is not entirely resolved for me. Consider this screenshot\nfrom a weather report:\n\n\n\nShouldn't `台風{たいふう}が日本{にほん}に来{き}ている` mean \"the typhoons have come to Japan and\nare already here\"? However, according to the dates included in the image, it\nis clearly depicting that the typhoons are _on their way_ , in the _process_\nof coming.\n\nWhat is the dividing line between a punctual action and a continuing action,\nand how does one know which verbs are which?", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T03:45:12.557", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3262", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-10T04:35:19.233", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-10T04:35:19.233", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Does Vて+いる always mean an action already completed?", "view_count": 5306 }

[ { "body": "No.\n\nIt can mean an action that has already been completed. \nご飯はまだ食べてない。 \nAww, but I haven't eaten yet.\n\n今ご飯を食べてるからさぁ。 \nI'm in the middle of dinner. (can this wait?)\n\nWe do the same in English grammar sometimes. \n1) I ate dinner\n\nI ate dinner before he walked in the door. \nI had eaten dinner before he walked in the door.\n\nLook! I ate my dinner. \nLook! I have eaten my dinner.\n\nnotice that the past simple can be used in place of the past perfect and\npresent perfect in English.\n\nThe only way you know if the Japanese verb is a past or continuous event is by\nthe context or by a modifier such as an adjective in the sentence. Words like\nまだ or 今 will give you a nice hint.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T06:39:52.433", "id": "3266", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-24T06:39:52.433", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "164", "parent_id": "3262", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "It depends. If the verb expresses something that can continue (e.g. eating)\nthen Vている means that the process is still going on. If the verb expressing\nsomething that cannot continue (e.g. getting on a train), Vている means that the\naction is completed. So it does not depend on additional markers such as まだ or\n今 but on the type of the verb.\n\nThere are some caveat emptors, though. Some verbs in the Japanese language are\nnot considered continuing, in sharp contrast to other languages. One example\nis 来る (\"to come\"). 電車は来ている means \"the tram has arrived\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T09:10:03.933", "id": "3267", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T11:53:13.033", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-27T11:53:13.033", "last_editor_user_id": "585", "owner_user_id": "585", "parent_id": "3262", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I found [this interesting page](http://www014.upp.so-\nnet.ne.jp/nbunka/00jan.htm) that explains the different meanings of 〜ている. The\nauthors self-proclaimed at the bottom of the page that they are expert\nJapanese teachers so I'm going to trust that page in order to answer your\nquestion. ([Here is the Japanese version of that page](http://www014.upp.so-\nnet.ne.jp/nbunka/001ga.htm) \\- you need to use Shift_JIS encoding to view it\nthough)\n\nHere are some text quoted from that page (examples are given in romaji so I\nleft them as is):\n\n> 1.Indicating a continuing action (be ～ing)\n>\n> *Verbs which are used in this usage are almost transitive verbs.\n>\n> ... examples omitted ...\n>\n> *Some intransitive verbs whose subjects are animate or other intransitive\n> verbs which express the natural phenomena.\n>\n> Kare wa heya no naka o aruki mawatte imasu. (He is walking around in the\n> room.)\n>\n> Kireina kingyo ga suisoo no naka o oyoide imasu. (A beautiful goldfish is\n> swimming in the aquarium.)\n>\n> Kanojo wa odotte imasu. (She is dancing.)\n>\n> Soto wa ame ga futte imasu. (It is raining outside.)\n\nNow, you might ask \"Is 来る not an intransitive verb whose subject animates?\".\nThe thing is, in Japanese 来る is an instantaneous action verb, meaning it\nfocuses on whether the subject has come or not; it does not look at the\nprogress the subject is making in \"coming\". It is just about \"has the subject\ncome or not?\". As a result, you can hear that when the subject reaches the\ndestination, the other people who are at that place would shout 「来た！」, and\nwhile the subject is still at that place he is \"来ている\", meaning as far as his\ncoming is concerned, he has already come thus he is still maintaining his\nstate of \"already come\": 来て+いる.\n\nThen there is a question of what to say when the subject is on the way, i.e.\n\"is coming\" in English sense? That's when we use 〜て来る form. While most 〜て来る\nverbs mean \"to do something and return\", there are some verbs that when used\nwith 〜て来る form mean \"is currently coming here doing X\", for example 歩いてくる,\n走ってくる, 飛んでくる etc. 歩いてくる does not mean \"to walk and return\" but \"is walking\nhere\".\n\nAt this point, we haven't really wrapped up why 来ている used with typhoon means\nthat the typhoon is coming rather than it has come, have we? Remember in two\nparagraphs back I stated that in Japanese 来る is an instantaneous action verb?\nWell, the thing is there are times people are interested in the process of\nsomething coming to their location. The news was announcing an upcoming\ntyphoon so in this situation the coming of the typhoon is the context of\ninterest, and the verb 来る is referring to the movement of the typhoon, thus 来る\nhas now become an intransitive verb whose subject animates, thus 来ている takes\nthe meaning of \"is coming\" in this context.\n\nIf that still fails, let me just take directly from the page linked in the\nfirst paragraph: it is a natural phenomenon, which qualifies it to take the\nmeaning of \"is coming\" .. 許してあげてください :P", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T15:00:42.477", "id": "3271", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-24T15:00:42.477", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3262", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "I think the question is answered by now, but in any case I just wanted to\nmention that Martin’s Reference Grammar of Japanese describes three different\nuses for ～ている:\n\n 1. Repetitive/habitual: 学校を通っている → I usually pass through the school; I’m passing the school these days;\n 2. Continuative: 学校を通っている → I am passing the school right now (but haven’t passed it yet);\n 3. Resultative: 学校を通っている → I have passed the school (already).\n\nYou’ll need context to know which of the three meanings is intended.\n\nFurther, as other people have said, some verbs are perceived as “punctual” and\ndon’t have the continuative (no. 2) meaning. They can still be repetitive or\nresultative. Such verbs include 行く、開く、来る、出る and many others.\n\nYou can read the whole section on google books:\n[http://books.google.com/books?id=SszxbMtHbs8C&pg=PA517#v=onepage&q&f=false](http://books.google.com/books?id=SszxbMtHbs8C&pg=PA517#v=onepage&q&f=false)\n. There’s a list of punctual verbs on page 518.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-26T14:28:07.570", "id": "3288", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-26T14:57:01.437", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-26T14:57:01.437", "last_editor_user_id": "622", "owner_user_id": "622", "parent_id": "3262", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3281", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Hi all I was wondering what is the difference between these two sentences:\n\n> 1. 「決して悪気があっての回答ではないです。」\n>\n> 2. 「決して悪気がある回答ではないです。」\n>\n>\n\nI can't really make out the gist of the meaning of 「あっての」.\n\n[WWWJDIC](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E3%81%82%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%81%AE)'s explanation of\n「あっての」 is _\"which can exist solely due to the presence of\"_ (rather\nconfusing..) and the example sentences do not really give much clue to the\nmeaning/usage of the word.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T11:59:25.363", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3269", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-01T23:45:47.687", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:38:01.983", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "words", "relative-clauses" ], "title": "「悪気があっての答え」 vs 「悪気がある答え」", "view_count": 507 }

[ { "body": "Yes, `～あっての` indicates an almost 100% dependency on the ～ part. My book\ndefines it as `「～があるという条件があってはじめて～が可能」ということを強調する`. Here are the accompanying\nexamples that might make more sense:\n\n> * **愛あっての結婚生活だ。** 愛がなければ、一緒に暮らす意味がない。 → A marriage (lifestyle) depends\n> completely on love. If there's no love, there's no point in living together.\n> * 私たちは **お客様あっての仕事** ですから、お客様を何より大切にしています。 → Ours is a job based entirely\n> around our clients, so we always place the highest importance on them.\n>\n\nAs for your examples, it's hard to tell the difference in the meaning. It's\nalmost like the first one admits that it might have been somewhat malicious\n(\"It is by no means a 100% malicious answer (but it might have been a\nlittle).\") Whereas the second one seems like absolutely nothing about it was\nmalicious at all. Tough call.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T18:07:11.273", "id": "3274", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-01T23:45:47.687", "last_edit_date": "2015-06-01T23:45:47.687", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3269", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I think that the あっての in your example is different from the one in the\ndictionary.\n\n悪気があっての回答 means “a reply given out of malice.” 悪気がある回答 means “a malicious\nreply.” The former describes the state of the person who made the reply,\nwhereas the latter describes an attribute of the reply itself. So I would\ntranslate the two examples as\n\n> 1. I did not reply (do the reply) out of malicious intent by any means.\n> 2. The reply is not malicious by any means.\n>", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-25T10:53:24.213", "id": "3281", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-25T18:43:19.050", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-25T18:43:19.050", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3269", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I want to know the difference between `〜がる` and `〜がっている`, and in what\nsituations I can use them.\n\nMy friend said `〜がる` is used for a regular activity that someone does every\nday or every week, and the person also wants to do that activity.\n\n`〜がっている` is used for activities that someone really wants to do but hardly has\ntime to do.\n\nIs this right?", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T14:26:19.477", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3270", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-04T23:57:29.310", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-04T23:57:29.310", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "730", "post_type": "question", "score": 24, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "adjectives" ], "title": "What is the difference between \"〜がる\" and \"〜がっている\"", "view_count": 12590 }

[ { "body": "I'll try to explain がる and がっている more generally, and then conclude with a\ndirect answer about たがる and たがっている.\n\nAs stated in [When to use 欲しがる instead of\n欲しい](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2524/when-to-use-instead-\nof), it is strange to talk directly about the mental state of someone else. がる\nprovides one medium for discussing your conjecture about another persons\nmental state, and roughly means \"shows signs of X\". It is used specifically\nwith ～ほしい, ～たい, and adjectives relating to emotion (often called personal\npredicates).\n\n> たけしさんは食べたがっている。Takeshi is showing signs of wanting to eat. \n> 兄は車をほしがっている。My older brother is showing signs of wanting a car. \n> 彼はうれしがっている。He is showing signs of being happy.\n\nGenerally, the difference between がる and がっている resembles the difference\nbetween the non-past and ている forms in other verbs.\n\n> 彼は犬を怖がる。He is afraid of dogs. (generally speaking) \n> 彼は怖がっている。He is afraid. (right now)\n\nIt seems that especially with たい and ほしい, がる and がっている can introduce some new\nsubtlety. Consider the following:\n\n> 車をほしがる。He wants a car. \n> 車をほしがっている。He wants a car.\n\nOn the surface, both seem to simply mean that he wants a car. However, there\nis a little more to it, ほしがる conveys a sense that he wants a car in general,\nbut right now, it may not be his top priority. At the present moment, he's\nprobably showing signs of something else (maybe he looks sad because his test\ngrade was low!). On the other hand, ほしがっている conveys a sense of immediacy and\nimportance. If he ほしがっている's, he is probably either showing signs of it right\nnow or he wants it enough in general that he would ほしがる it pretty often.\nRegardless of which you choose, at the present point in time, he wants the\ncar.\n\nHere's how you can keep it all straight. Remember the literal translation of\nがる? \"To show signs of wanting\"\n\n> 車をほしがる。He shows signs of wanting a car. \n> 車をほしがっている。He is showing signs of wanting a car.\n\n**Disclaimer:** My experience with this form is not extensive, and I'm drawing\npretty heavily on intuition (from a very modest amount of experience). I hope\nsomeone else can make sure I haven't misrepresented anything or left anything\nout.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T04:00:51.873", "id": "3365", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-04T04:00:51.873", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "581", "parent_id": "3270", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "Let me have a go at this:\n\n> * * *\n>\n> ~がる:\n>\n> * ~がる: [is showing]/[will show] signs of ~\n>\n> * ~がっている: continued state of showing signs of ~\n>\n> * がった: Was showing signs of ~. Whether or not the person is currently\n> showing signs of ~ has yet to be verified.\n>\n> * がっていた: Was showing signs of ~ for an indeterminate period(Unless a time\n> range is specified). Person is currently not showing signs of ~.\n>\n>\n\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> ~たがる:\n>\n> * ~たがる: [is showing]/[will show] signs of wanting to do ~\n>\n> * ~たがっている: continued state of showing signs of wanting to do ~\n>\n> * ~たがった: Was showing signs of wanting to do ~. Whether or not the person\n> is currently showing signs of wanting to do ~ has yet to be verified.\n>\n> * ~たがっていた: Was showing signs of wanting to do ~ for an indeterminate\n> period(Unless a time range is specified). Person is currently not showing\n> signs of wanting to do ~.\n>\n>\n\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> ~ほしがる:\n>\n> * [Noun] を ほしがる: to appear to want [Noun]\n>\n> * [Noun] を ほしがっている: continued state of appearing to want [Noun]\n>\n> * [Noun] を ほしがった: appeared to want [Noun]\n>\n> * [Noun] を ほしがっていた: had appeared to want [Noun]\n>\n>\n\n>\n> * * *\n\nI would deduce that the choice between ~がる and ~がっている would be affected by the\ntime when you as a first person observes when the other party starts to \"show\nsigns of ~\"\n\n * For ~がる: The time when you as a first person observes the other party and makes the statement based on your deduction that he currently appears to show signs of ~\n\n * For ~がっている: You as a first person has observed at some indeterminate time in the past, that the other party had shown signs of ~ and further deduced that the other party's state continues up to the point of you making the statement.\n\nNow to put it into examples:\n\n 1. Let's say I'm meeting up with a friend(Let's name him Jim) and both of us walk past a store, and I notice that Jim is looking earnestly at something in the store window. In this case I would use がる to describe Jim's behaviour.\n\n 2. Now suppose some time has elapsed, and I discuss 1. with another person. My previous memory tells me that Jim had shown that he wanted a particular thing from the store, and I surmise that his want carries on to the present moment. I would use がっている to describe Jim's behaviour.\n\n* * *", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T04:38:40.077", "id": "3366", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-04T05:05:53.703", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3270", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3273", "answer_count": 1, "body": "It seems that there are around 14-17K Google results on each of\n\"[雨を降って](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E9%9B%A8%E3%82%92%E9%99%8D%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%22)\"\nand\n\"[雪を降って](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E9%9B%AA%E3%82%92%E9%99%8D%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%22)\"\nkeywords. Is 降る yet another intransitive verb that are used with を? Does it\nmean something like \"rain on me\" and \"snow on me\", or is it simply typo?\n\nSome sample usages taken from Google results:\n\n * 今夜雨を降っている\n * 雨を降っても傘ささないのが仇となった\n * 沢山の雪を降っているの画像 \n\nN.B. I don't think [either \"through\" or \"leaving something behind\"\ninterpretations](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3243/making-\nsense-of-transitive-usage-of-and-and) can work with \"を降る\".", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T16:07:44.823", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3272", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T04:51:06.920", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "particle-を", "transitivity" ], "title": "雨を降っています - grammatically correct sentence or just typo?", "view_count": 354 }

[ { "body": "I would say it's a typo, but 17K Google results is hard to compete against. It\nmay be incorrect grammar that gets \"accepted\" as correct and becomes\nincorporated into the language. Correct grammar would be:\n\n * `雨は・が降る` → \"It's raining\" or \n * `雨を降らす` → \"Make it rain\" (if someone/thing could cause rain -- like God, a spirit, character in a story, etc.)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T17:08:58.873", "id": "3273", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-24T19:29:30.420", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-24T19:29:30.420", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3272", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3276", "answer_count": 6, "body": "Sometimes, a single foreign word or etymologically related words from\ndifferent dialects/related languages is/are incorporated into Japanese with\ndifferent transcriptions/pronouncations and often different meanings. The most\nobvious and systematic ones are the different on-yomi's assigned to a single\nkanji, which came from different ancient dialects of Chinese.\n\n> 明 (みん, めい, みょう)\n\nBesides kanji, there are some with gairaigo:\n\n> ガラス < glas (Dutch) 'glass, glass window' \n> グラス < glass (English) 'glass cup'\n>\n> コップ < kop (Dutch) 'cup' \n> カップ < cup (English) 'trophy cup'\n\nAre there any other examples of gairaigo groups like this?\n\nI would like to exclude those that are due to 平板化 (deaccentation) such as the\nfollowing:\n\n> クラブ (KUrabu) < club (English) 'club activities before/after school' \n> クラブ (kuRABU) < id. 'host(ess) club'\n>\n> ゲーム (GEemu) < game (English) 'game' \n> ゲーム (geEMU) < id. 'video game'", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T20:03:47.193", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3275", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-09T12:17:33.057", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "synonyms", "loanwords" ], "title": "Different transcriptions for words with related origin", "view_count": 525 }

[ { "body": "Here are a few:\n\n * truck → トロッコ (on rails), トラック (lorry)\n * English → イギリス (via Portuguese \"Inglez\"), イングリッシュ\n * letter → レッテル (\"label\", via Dutch), レター (letter, e.g. love letter)\n * gear → ギヤ (gear, mechanical), ギア (gear = equipment [and less often, mechanical gear])\n * chocolat(e) → ショコラ (via French), チョコレート (via English)\n * curry → カレー, カリー", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-24T20:33:51.757", "id": "3276", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-24T20:33:51.757", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3275", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "I was recently told about a word with three different transcriptions with\nthree different usages, which I cannot help sharing!\n\n>\n> [かるた](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E3%81%8B%E3%82%8B%E3%81%9F&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0na)\n> (usually a specific kind of playing cards) < carta (Portuguese) \n>\n> [カルテ](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AB%E3%83%86&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0na)\n> (a medical record) < Karte (German) \n>\n> [カード](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E3%82%AB%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0na)\n> (a card; a rectangular sheet, usually of paper) < card (English)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-09T20:39:57.380", "id": "3419", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-09T20:39:57.380", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3275", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "ビール Beer (English?) \nビアガーデン Beer garden (English _via_ German)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-10T04:23:59.000", "id": "3421", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-10T04:23:59.000", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3275", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Buffet, which is usually バイキング (baikingu = viking), is sometimes represented\nas ビュッフェ (usually in on-train buffets) or as バフェ (in Okinawa only, which has a\nlarge US military presence), according to [Katakana Mysteries: 6 loan words\nJapan got wrong](http://nihonshock.com/2009/09/katakana-mysteries-6-loan-\nwords-japan-got-wrong/).\n\nWiktionary gives キャラメル and カラメル for\n[caramel](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/caramel).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-27T11:00:58.930", "id": "4095", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-09T12:17:33.057", "last_edit_date": "2012-06-09T12:17:33.057", "last_editor_user_id": "91", "owner_user_id": "91", "parent_id": "3275", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Yay! Fun question (and I'm like half a year late)! I thought of a couple\n\n> ゴム rubber, from Dutch gom \n> ガム chewing gum, from English gum\n>\n> ストライク strike as in baseball \n> ストライキ strike as in workers refusing to work\n>\n> アイアン iron as in golf \n> アイロン iron as in ironing shirts", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-03-08T02:28:25.490", "id": "4951", "last_activity_date": "2012-03-08T02:28:25.490", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "3275", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "dainichi's answer アイアン and アイロン reminded me of this:\n\n> マシン 'machine' as in マシン語 'machine language' < machine (English) \n> ミシン 'sewing machine' < machine (English)\n>\n> メリケン 'American' as in メリケン粉 'flour' < American (English) \n> アメリカン 'American' < American (English)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-03-08T02:33:04.487", "id": "4953", "last_activity_date": "2012-03-08T02:33:04.487", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3275", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3278", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I have a couple of questions. **Can verb-suru verbs be classified as\njidoushi/tadoushi?**\n\nAnd could you take a look at this legend to help clear up my confusion?\n\n _Higher-\nres:<https://i.stack.imgur.com/PkLYB.jpg>_\n\nI'm having trouble understanding the significance of the ガ/ヲ and (ヲ)スル that\ngets wrapped around the vocabulary items in this vocab book.\n\nIt mentions that ガ/ヲ indicate 自動詞/他動詞, but I don't know if that applies to the\nbold part of the vocabulary item (the 見出し語) — it's rare but there are entries\nthat have an ＜他＞ or ＜自＞ mark, along with accompanying example sentences.\n\nAlso confusing is that an example sentence for 超過 uses を (albeit with a marker\nover the を) even though ガ is prefixed to the vocab item.\n\nSo, **what's the significance of them**? They come in a variety of\ncombinations:\n\n * ヲ **設定** （ヲ）スル\n * ガ／ヲ **中断** スル\n * ガ **作業** （ヲ）スル\n\nI couldn't find an example when the ＜他＞ mark is used with verb-suru words, but\nhere are some more examples:\n\n _higher-\nres:<https://i.stack.imgur.com/CUdMW.jpg>_\n\n _higher-\nres:<https://i.stack.imgur.com/Knl7b.jpg>_\n\n _higher-\nres:<https://i.stack.imgur.com/194Zk.jpg>_", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-25T02:45:25.650", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3277", "last_activity_date": "2023-05-16T23:48:51.310", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-25T04:58:41.003", "last_editor_user_id": "54", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "particles", "verbs" ], "title": "Trying to make sense of this 記号, I'm wondering if verb-suru verbs can be jidoushi/tadoushi?", "view_count": 500 }

[ { "body": "In your book, `車がスピードを増した` is listed under intransitives (<自>) rather than\ntransitives (<他>) even though it has an を-marked phrase. This seems to suggest\nthat the book is making the (in)transitive distinction in a non-standard way\nso that it does not coincide with ガ/ヲ marking. (It says\n`ガ/ヲはそれぞれの動詞が自動詞/他動詞であることを表す`, but that contradicts with the listing mention\nabove.) Let's see if there are other interpretations than mine.\n\n* * *\n\n**The distinction made in the book**\n\n> `ヲ`: Verbs that take a phrase marked with `を`. (Transitive verbs in the\n> standard sense) \n> `ガ`: Other verbs. (Intransitive verbs in the standard sense)\n>\n> `<他>`: Verbs that take a semantically typical object (such as theme) \n> `<自>`: Other verbs\n\nTypical objects are noun phrases that have the semantic role technically\ncalled _theme_ , that is, the object of the act mentioned by the verb. It\nusually goes under some change of state or its location changes. For example,\nin `John painted the wall`, `the wall` is an object in the ordinary sense as\nwell as a typical object since the act of painting is done against the wall,\nwhich undergoes change. Opposed to this, in `The car gained speed`, `speed` is\nnot a typical object, and some people may find it controversial as to call\nthis an object in the ordinary sense. Because of this difference, `ヲ` vs. `ガ`\ndoes not coincide with `<他>` vs. `<自>` in the sense mentioned in the book.\n\nThere is another use of `ヲ` found in your book. For example, in:\n\n> ヲ設定（ヲ）スル\n\nthe second `ヲ` is mentioning that you may put an `を` between the noun and\n`する`. Some suru-nouns require this `を`, some can optionally take it, and some\ndo not take it. This depends on how much the suru-noun (usually a kango or\ngairaigo) became familiar in Japanese. You have to memorize this for each\nsuru-noun. Note that two `を` are not allowed in a single clause in Japanese,\nso they will not be used together. In the above example, you have to go with\neither of the first two of:\n\n> 友達がファイルを設定する \n> 友達がファイルの設定をする \n> × 友達がファイルを設定をする\n\nFinally, just as given in your examples, noun-suru verbs do have\ntransitive/intransitive distinction in the ordinary sense or in the sense\nmentioned in the book.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-25T05:43:17.757", "id": "3278", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-25T06:00:03.683", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-25T06:00:03.683", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3277", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Just to complement the previous answer. Judging by the photos you posted, your\nbook seems to by trying to tell you that there are verbs that have both an\nintransitive meaning (marked by ガ) and a transitive meaning (marked by ヲ).\nWhen this happens, it gives examples for boths senses: the examples for the\nintransitive sense are under 自、the examples for transitive sense by 他. To take\nan example; as you can see in Jisho, [増す](https://jisho.org/search/masu) has\nboth a transitive and intransitive meaning, so your book marks it with \"ガ・ヲ\".\nThen it provides the examples: under the heading < 自> are all the intransitive\nones and they all take ガ; under <他> all the transitive ones and they all take\nを（ヲ）. \nWhen the verb only has a intransitive/transitive meaning, it will provide you\nwith a verb that has the other meaning. So for example 欠ける it's marked by ガ:\nthis verb only has an intransitive meaning. Then you get to the bottom of the\npage, and you find some examples under the heading <他>; **but these are\nexamples that use the verb 欠く, the transitive \"version\" of 欠ける**. So\n**茶碗の縁がかけてしまいまった** \"The brim of the cup is chipped\". but **義理を欠く** \"To break\nyour duty\". If you are confused about what transitive and intransitive means\nand their link to the particles \"が・を\" check\n[this](https://jlptsensei.com/learn-japanese-\ngrammar/%E4%BB%96%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E-%E8%87%AA%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E-transitive-\nintransitive-verbs-meaning/) .", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-05-16T23:48:51.310", "id": "99656", "last_activity_date": "2023-05-16T23:48:51.310", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55393", "parent_id": "3277", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "I was wondering what the differences are between these three: ～がたい、〜にくい、〜づらい\n\nThey all seem to be some sort of variant of \"Hard to do ~\". But it seems they\nare used with different verbs and/or imply slightly different things. However,\nI'm not sure on what these are.\n\nQuestions:\n\n1) When should you use one of these over the others. For example, when should\nyou use ~がたい over ～にくい and ～づらい\n\n2) What is the difference (and are all 3 acceptable?) between:\n\n 1. わかりがたい \n 2. わかりにくい\n 3. わかりづらい", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-25T06:14:20.413", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3279", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-28T13:06:02.443", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-26T01:35:27.170", "last_editor_user_id": "736", "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 37, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "nuances" ], "title": "The differences between ～がたい、〜にくい、〜づらい", "view_count": 13509 }

[ { "body": "Great question! Here's how I understand them:\n\n### ～にくい 【～難い】\n\nThe most general of the three. Basic \"hard/difficult to do ～\" meaning.\n\n### ～づらい 【～辛い】\n\nYou can see that it comes from `辛【つら】い` which can mean \"difficult\" or\n\"painful\". So `～づらい` is usually a more subjective meaning, whereas `～にくい` is\nusually more objective. Also, `～づらい` is limited to actions that are\nintentional.\n\n### ～がたい 【～難い】\n\nVery difficult to do. \"Virtually impossible\". The most expressive of the\ndifficulty.\n\nSo I would say that `(～にくい <=> ～づらい) <<< ～がたい`. Also notice that `～にくい` and\n`～がたい` have the same kanji. In practice, I don't think they're ever written in\nkanji, but if you were to see it, I don't know if even the sentence context\nwould help you know which one it was.\n\n> 2. What is the difference (and are all 3 acceptable?) between:\n>\n\n> 1. わかりがたい\n> 2. わかりにくい\n> 3. わかりづらい\n>\n\nYes, they would all be acceptable, but would be used in different\nscenarios/contexts according to the definitions (exercise left to the reader).\n\n**UPDATE** ー According to the PDF posted by @Derek Schaab below, `分かりがたい` is\nnot acceptable because `分かる` is not an 意志動詞. However, `理解しがたい` is acceptable\nin its place.\n\n**NEXT UPDATE** ー I wanted to add this example that I've been thinking of for\na while. Hopefully it will be helpful to someone.\n\n> * [バンド名]の好きな曲は何？ → What is your favourite song by [band name]?\n> * 選びにくい………てか、選びづらいのだ。まー、やっぱりそれよりも選びがたい。 → (roughly) It's hard for me to\n> choose....rather, it kind of hurts my brain to try to choose one. Actually,\n> it's almost impossible for me to pick (which one).\n>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-25T14:59:09.767", "id": "3282", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-28T05:31:36.683", "last_edit_date": "2021-02-28T05:31:36.683", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3279", "post_type": "answer", "score": 36 }, { "body": "@istrasci's answer is very good but as an addendum, I would say that\n\nづらい and にくい are not interchangeable because their nuance is very different.\nにくい is more of a physical difficulty that everyone would experience where づらい\nis more about an external social force or social norm that would prevent you\nin particular to doing it. (Istrasci did slightly cover this point when\nmentioning subjectivity)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-26T04:32:51.110", "id": "3286", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-26T04:32:51.110", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "3279", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "がたい is really formal and limited in usage compared to the others. For example:\n信じがたい話 Someone's story that is hard to trust or believe.\n\nづらい means that something is emotionally or mentally trying for the doer Thus\n食べずらい would mean that is difficult to eat because it takes a lot of effort to\nget through it.\n\nにくい is the most general and often refers to physical limits or limits of one's\nability, be it situational or permanent. Thus 食べにくい can be used just as 食べづらい\nwith just a slightly different and more casual nuance as if just saying \"it is\ndifficult to eat\" in itself as opposed to it is difficult FOR ME to eat.\n\nThere's one more phrase that shares a common meaning and that is のは難しい which\nis the polite non-slangy way to say something is difficult to do.\n魚を食べることは難しいです。 It is difficult for me to eat fish.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-02-28T13:06:02.443", "id": "84388", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-28T13:06:02.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "42066", "parent_id": "3279", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "4944", "answer_count": 1, "body": "The linguistics text I’m reading has a sentence with this fragment:\n「動詞の表す動作・作用が[…]」。 Consulting dictionaries just made me more confused; what’s\nthe contrast between the two in this context? “Action” vs. “effect”?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-25T17:55:57.097", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3283", "last_activity_date": "2012-03-07T07:25:39.053", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "622", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "linguistics" ], "title": "動作 as opposed to 作用", "view_count": 384 }

[ { "body": "動詞 in Japanese can represent 3 different things, 動作、作用 and 存在. An example will\nbe easier to understand.\n\n```\n\n 動作：\n 道を歩く\n \n```\n\n歩く is categorized as 動作をあらわす動詞, because when you walk, you move your legs, in\nother words \"movement\" or \"action\".\n\n```\n\n 作用：\n 壁に絵をかける\n \n```\n\nかける is categorized as 作用を表す動詞, here 壁にかける is having an \"effect\" on the wall.\n\n```\n\n 存在：\n 机に本がある\n \n```\n\nある is categorized as 存在を表す動詞, here ある indicates \"existence\".\n\nSo back to your question, \"動作\" doesn't directly place any influence on other\n\"things\" whereas \"作用\" directly \"effects\" other things.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-03-07T07:25:39.053", "id": "4944", "last_activity_date": "2012-03-07T07:25:39.053", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1217", "parent_id": "3283", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]