Datasets:

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "Supposing that you want to express a list of events or actions\n**exhaustively** and **without significance in ordering** (for example:\n`Yesterday, I ate some ice cream, went to the store, and read a book`, but\nthose things weren't necessarily done in sequence), what are the possible\ngrammar constructions that can be used? These are some possibilities I've\nseen:\n\n> * **て** → This seems too temporal to me; that is, it seems like all events\n> are sequential. Can the て-form be used without time relations or\n> restrictions?\n> * **たり** → This seems like it would work, but I don't know how exhaustive\n> it is, since it seems to imply somethings might have been left out.\n> * **Stem (連用中止法)** → Not sure about this one. What is the proper way to\n> use this? I believe this is similar to the て-Form.\n> * **そ(う)して** → I think this simple conjuction works, but it seems slightly\n> tiresome if one is listing many actions.\n>\n\nI hope this question isn't being too open. I'm just looking for some opinions\nand explanations for the different grammatical constructs that could be used\nin these types of expressions.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T01:45:28.707", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3560", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T19:57:48.993", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-25T19:57:48.993", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "58", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances" ], "title": "How to exhaustively list predicates in a non-temporal way?", "view_count": 444 }

[ { "body": "I doubt that there is a construct which means an exhaustive, unordered list\nunambiguously, just in the same way as there is probably no such construct in\nEnglish.\n\nYou are right in that listing with -て means (or at least strongly implies) the\ntemporal order, and in that -たり suggests that the list is not exhaustive.\n\nUsing two or more そして (or そうして) sounds unnatural, and it also strongly\nsuggests the temporal order.\n\nListing with 連用中止法 itself does not indicate whether the list is exhaustive or\nnot, and does not necessarily mean an ordered list. However, if you write\nsomething like:\n\n> 昨日アイスクリームを食べ、店に行き、本を読んだ。\n\nI would assume by default that the events are stated in the temporal order\nbecause it is the most natural order.\n\nI think that listing with -し reduces the implication of the temporal order:\n\n> 昨日アイスクリームを食べたし、店に行ったし、本を読んだ。\n\nbut it increases the implication that the list is not exhaustive in my\nopinion, so it is probably not what you are looking for, either.\n\n* * *\n\n_Added_. If you say the number as in\n\n> 昨日はアイスクリームを食べる、店に行く、本を読むという三つのことをした。\n\nit implies that the list is exhaustive. The list is not necessarily in the\ntemporal order, but again, I would probably assume that the list is in the\ntemporal order unless the context implies otherwise.\n\nIn writing, a list can be annotated as “([順不同]{じゅんふどう})” to explicitly state\nthat the order is insignificant. For example, the [list of supporting\norganizations for the traffic safety campaign in fall\n2011](http://www8.cao.go.jp/koutu/keihatsu/undou/h23_aki/kyosan.html) is\nstated as “(順不同).” However, it is unusual to use it in a sentence.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T03:05:51.267", "id": "3563", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T12:24:29.843", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-25T12:24:29.843", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3560", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "My simple solution: using たり, and finishing with \"まあ、それだけかな？.\"\n\nYou could also use the て form with all but one elements of your list, and\neventually add something like \"あ！、そうだ！それで、Xもした。\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T05:19:45.870", "id": "3571", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T05:19:45.870", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3560", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "I have found that there are a number of words in Japanese that correspond to\n\"heaven\" in English. By heaven I mean the concept of a paradisiacal afterlife.\nThe two most frequent in my limited and flawed personal experience are\n\n> 天国 (as well as just 天) and 極楽 which I often find is useful to translate as\n> \"paradise\"\n\nOffhand, and in my own (again flawed) way of thinking, I see 天国 see as a bit\nmore austere, while 極楽 maybe has a more sensual feel. I associate 天国 more with\nnative Japanese myths and religion (shintoism) while 極楽 has more of a buddhist\nfeel (and thus not purely Japanese) as it is from the Pure Land school of\nBuddhism.\n\nI am wondering if there are any other terms for heaven in wide use, and also\nabout the different feel and nuance each word possesses. I am also interested\nin which word Japanese Christians use for Christian heaven, and indeed if\npractitioners of specific faiths discriminate in their vocabulary for heaven.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T02:44:40.367", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3561", "last_activity_date": "2017-01-22T07:18:12.617", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-26T21:37:33.710", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "translation", "words", "culture", "religion" ], "title": "Heaven in Japanese", "view_count": 4658 }

[ { "body": "I cannot post comments so I link it here:\n\n[http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/天国](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E5%9B%BD)\n\nThis tells you what religion uses what term.\n\nAlso note the figurative term 楽園{らくえん} and パラダイス", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T05:12:01.900", "id": "3568", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T05:23:12.977", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-25T05:23:12.977", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "793", "parent_id": "3561", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Examples are...\n\n**[天国](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E5%A4%A9%E5%9B%BD)** (Tengoku), which is\nthe **Heaven** of Christianity and Islam,\n\n**[天](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E5%A4%A9)** (Ten), which Confucianists\noften use for something metaphysical about something up there somewhere,\n\n**[浄土](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E6%B5%84%E5%9C%9F)** (Jodo), which is\nthe Buddhists' Heaven.\n\nor\n\n**[黄泉，黄泉の国](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E9%BB%84%E6%B3%89%E3%81%AE%E5%9B%BD)**\n(Yomi, Yomino-Kuni), which is the dead world of Japanese old mythology\n\nand I was able to find at least 10 and more.\n\nI think the reason why there are so many is due to the widespread of\nConfucianism as well as the Shintoism and Buddhism all blended but not\nChristianity in the Western sense.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-09-26T23:09:25.593", "id": "28293", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-27T01:06:21.627", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-27T01:06:21.627", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3561", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "I would argue that the Buddhism element is not purely Japanese. Shinto and\nBuddhism are both assimilated into the Japanese understanding of religion.\n\nMy Japanese friend says that there isn't any difference between 天国 and 極楽 in\nher understanding. However, she says that the latter is less used, and would\nbe said by an elder man who is just receiving a massage, as an expression of\npleasure. Whereas 天国 is more like the actual place you imagine your dead pet\nwent to.\n\n(But if you asked a pious Japanese Buddhist or Christian the answer might be\ndifferent.)\n\nIn the Japanese translation of the Gospel of John I read the word used for\nheaven was just 天（てん）.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-01-22T07:18:12.617", "id": "42767", "last_activity_date": "2017-01-22T07:18:12.617", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "19516", "parent_id": "3561", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "I was writing to my japanese friends, and I got some doubts. Hope it wasn't\nasked here before.\n\nHow can I express \"what about ...\" in Japanese? Particularly:\n\n> What about having some breaks? \n> What about doing it on Mondays and Tuesdays? \n> What do you think about this sweater? \n> What do you think if we go tomorrow? \n> How about openning the windows? \n> What if we move this chair to another place? \n> ...\n\nI was thinking of:\n\n> どうですか。 \n> いかがですか。 \n> よろしいですか。\n\nIs the following correct?\n\n> 月曜日と火曜日するのはどうですか。", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T02:47:23.653", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3562", "last_activity_date": "2014-07-05T17:40:34.770", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-27T00:29:26.410", "last_editor_user_id": "422", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "usage", "expressions" ], "title": "how can I say \"what about...?\" in Japanese?", "view_count": 13679 }

[ { "body": "> どうですか。 いかがですか。 よろしいですか。\n\nYes, you answered your own question. (Each of these words have their own level\nof politeness and you can mix some conditional in there with shitara,sureba)\n\nUsually どう(ですか) works in most situations. It's simple and you can't be\nmistaken when using it. \"どう思う\" (what do you think) and ”いい?” (ok?) Work as\nwell.\n\nHowever I will propose another way to say that: The volitional form. I think\nthat's what some clever people would call it. See the examples below to see\nwhat I mean:\n\nWhat about we take a break?\n\n> よし、休もうか？\n\nWhat about doing it on Sunday?\n\n> 日曜日にしようか？\n\nWhat do you think if we go tomorrow?\n\n> 明日に行こうか？\n\n_use ましょう form instead for extra politeness (行きましょう...etc.)_", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T04:33:17.000", "id": "3566", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T04:33:17.000", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "793", "parent_id": "3562", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "This might be some dialectal issue, but I'm pretty sure what you mean in your\nEnglish examples above is \" _How_ about\", not \"what about\". The latter is a\nneutral question (\"what happened to...\" etc.) whereas \"how about\" does imply\nyou are offering or suggesting something.\n\nIn case you are indeed trying to translate \"how about\", I think いかがですか,\nいかがでしょうか etc. are exactly what you want.\n\nIt strikes the same balance between suggestion/offer and asking for opinion\n(どうですか is very close, slightly less polite, and a bit more asking than\noffering, imho).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T04:33:50.823", "id": "3567", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T04:33:50.823", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "3562", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "You really have several choices depending on the exact meaning of the\nquestion. If the question is making a suggestion for the listener to respond\nwith an answer, then `～（よ）うか` (\"Shall we ～?\") as mentioned, or just `～は？` if\nthe action has already been established.\n\n> * 日曜日にしようか？\n> * う～ん、日曜日はムリ。\n> * ほんじゃぁ、月曜日は？\n>\n\nIf you're trying to give advice/suggestion/weak command to the listener in the\nform of a \"How about doing ～?\" question, then `～たら（どう（ですか））？` is what you\nwant.\n\n> * 母： 妹【いもうと】の誕生日だよ。ケーキでも買ったら？ → Mother: It's your little sister's\n> birthday. How about buying her a cake or something?\n>\n\nBut if you're just asking for the listener's opinion on something, like your\nexample \"What do you think about this sweater?\", `～（について）どう思う？`\n\n> * このセーター（について）、どう（思う）？\n>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T05:35:00.060", "id": "3572", "last_activity_date": "2014-07-05T17:40:34.770", "last_edit_date": "2014-07-05T17:40:34.770", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3562", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3569", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I saw this phrase discussed on esaura.cc\n\n> 話が噛み合わない \n> 'There's a gap in their conversation.' \n> 'They can't meet on common ground.' \n> 'They have been at odds with each other.' \n> 'They have not been on the same page.'\n\nIs this the same `噛み` as in `[噛]{か}み[付]{つ}く` 'to bite (at), to snap at, to\nsnarl at' or `噛{か}む` 'to bite, to chew, to gnaw'? If so, or if not so, would\nanyone care to explain or expand on the metaphoric implications of the\noriginal sentence (on the assumption that it uses a metaphor)?\n\nHere is the original page: <http://esaura.cc/questions/598>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T04:15:01.813", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3564", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-29T19:58:30.717", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-28T19:03:51.020", "last_editor_user_id": "37", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation", "words" ], "title": "How does 話{はなし}が噛{か}み合{あ}わない work?", "view_count": 231 }

[ { "body": "A definition from [Jim Breen's\nEDICT](http://jisho.org/words?jap=%E5%99%9B%E3%81%BF%E5%90%88%E3%81%86&eng=&dict=edict):\n\n> 噛み合う かみあう \n> (v5u,vi) to gear (engage) with; to be in gear (mesh); to bite each other\n\nGears have teeth, so it could be said that they \"bite\" into each other.\n\n[](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gears_animation.gif)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T05:13:49.083", "id": "3569", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-29T19:58:30.717", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-29T19:58:30.717", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "3564", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Well, I think you can see a relation with gears that have dents (aka teeth, 歯)\nand when two gears are well in phase, well united, the teeth are properly\ninterleaved. I think you can derive something like the \"fitness of bites\",\ni.e., 噛み合う from there.\n\nIt's quite far-fetched and purely hypothetical, but still, it make sense (to\nme at least).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T05:14:34.490", "id": "3570", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T05:14:34.490", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3564", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I found this sentence on a video game review site:\n\n> 日本だと「不思議のダンジョン」と言ったほうがわかりやすいかもしれないローグライクゲーム。\n\nI am not sure whether `だと` means 'in Japan' or 'if it were in Japan'. The\ntranslation in one case would be:\n\n> This is a rogue-like game that, in Japan, is called 'Amazing Dungeons' which\n> is probably a bit easier to understand.\n\nA rogue-like game is a genre of video game which is similar to the original of\nthe genre, Rogue. The other option which I personally think is more likely is:\n\n> This is a rogue-like game which if made in Japan would probably be called\n> something more easy to understand like 'Amazing Dungeons'\"\n\nIt boils down to me not knowing the `だと` construction. Can someone be kind\nenough to explain this usage to me?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T11:07:54.710", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3574", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T23:59:13.670", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-25T17:43:07.237", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "805", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "usage", "particle-と" ], "title": "What does the だと mean in 日本だと?", "view_count": 14300 }

[ { "body": "Salaam, Not an academic answer, but hope it helps:\n\n日本だと、日本ですと\n\nin english is like \"with Japan\", or \"with the case of Japan\", and used to\nattract attention on the subject matter.\n\nIn my opinion, 日本では, is more general or neutral.\n\nUsually it's better to specify what part of the subject is examined\n\nAnother usage is with a judgement appended, which implies that you bind your\npoint of view to the statement: ー日本は便利だと思います [ Japan is practical, that's what\nI think] ー日本はやすいだといいです [ [if] Japan is cheap, that'll be good]\n\nAnother colloquial usage is like this: ーなんだと？ [what is it (that is\nhappenin...)?]\n\nInverting the order we get another interesting usage like this: 日本とは、なんだ？ [&\nconcerning] Japan, what about it?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T23:22:47.707", "id": "3576", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T23:22:47.707", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "798", "parent_id": "3574", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Instead of `だと`, it should be broken down into `だ(copula)` and `と(particle)`.\n\n`と` here is used as a particle that indicates an uncontrollable event or state\nwill follow after what the particle marks. Sometimes parsed as `if` but not\nreally accurate since it's not really a conditional. Also can be parsed as\n`when`.\n\n日本だと[A] would mean \"if/when in Japan, [A] follows as a consequence (not\ncontrollable by the first person and/or seemingly agent-less).\"\n\nAlso take a look at [Derek's answer regarding と for\n\"if\"-clauses](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/393/differences-\namong-%E3%81%9F%E3%82%89%E3%80%81%E3%81%AA%E3%82%89%E3%80%81-%E3%82%93%E3%81%A0%E3%81%A3%E3%81%9F%E3%82%89%E3%80%81-%E3%81%88%E3%81%B0-etc/1784#1784)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T23:59:13.670", "id": "3577", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T23:59:13.670", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3574", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "I have come to the conclusion that to the beginner it is useful to equate the\nparticle は with the article ‘the’ in English. Even more so for a Swedish\nspeaker since the Swedish article is an ending.\n\nA difference is that we say あなたは but not “the you”. However あなたは is short for\nan old あの方 and not a true pronoun. Similar ways of avoiding a true ‘thou’ were\ncommon in Sweden 50 years ago (and forced an article). English examples are\nrarer but we can say “the other side” instead of “they” when referring to\nanother political party.\n\nThus I propose は as the definite form nominative case ending and が as the\nindefinite form nominative case ending.\n\nOn the whole I think that the distinction between Japanese postpositions and\nendings in Germanic languages is misleading. Why is の a postposition and ‘s an\nending? Presently I see は, が, の and を as case endings and I would appreciate\nto see examples where it does not work out.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-26T06:10:49.297", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3578", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-27T07:21:10.390", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-26T18:13:14.397", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "809", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "particles" ], "title": "Article versus postposition", "view_count": 582 }

[ { "body": "> Comments please.\n\nJLU is about questions and answers, not theses and comments.\n\n> I have come to the conclusion that to the beginner it is useful to equate\n> the particle は with the article ‘the’ in English\n\nI came to the conclusion that it was a bad idea, for it forces you to think in\nanother language (whether this other language is your mother tongue or not is\nirrelevant).\n\nIf your objective is to speak, then I think instead that it is useful to\n_observe_ in what situations people use は, in what situations people use が,\nand to do the same without thinking.\n\nIf your objective is to study the language, then get linguistics right from\nthe beginning.", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-26T07:51:29.813", "id": "3579", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-26T07:51:29.813", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3578", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "You will be in a world of hurt if you get into habit of thinking は to be a\nnominative. It is not. が can be said to be a nominative. は is not a case: it\nis a topic particle. It works on any case, but it \"overwrites\" が (nominative)\nand を (accusative) case markers. It usually focuses something to set the topic\nof the utterance, or to establish contrast. Examples:\n\n私【わたし】が食【た】べた。\n\nI(nom) have eaten.\n\n私【わたし】は食【た】べた。\n\nI(nom,focus) have eaten.\n\nContast: Me, I've eaten. (But _he's_ being slow.)\n\nMy story: Me? I've eaten. (After that, I took a quick coffee. Now I have to go\nto a meeting.)\n\nパンを買【か】った。\n\n[I've] bought bread(acc).\n\nパンは買【か】った。\n\n[I've] bought bread(acc,focus).\n\nContrast: Bread, I've bought. (I forgot the milk, though.)\n\nBread's story: I bought bread. (It was moldy. There was all this blue stuff on\nit. I tried to take it to the store, but they wouldn't give me my money back.)\n\n彼【かれ】に上【あ】げた。\n\n[I've] given it to him(dat).\n\n彼【かれ】には上【あ】げた。\n\n[I've] given it to him(dat,focus).\n\nContrast: I did give it to him. (She gets nothing.)\n\nそこで食【た】べる。\n\n[I'll] eat there(loc).\n\nそこでは食【た】べる。\n\n[I'll] eat there(loc,focus). (That other place was not very delicious.)\n\nOther than that, yes, は brings the \"known entity\" / \"old topic\" / \"thema\"\nmeaning to the sentence, to contrast with \"new info\" / \"rhema\" that not having\nit usually means, in much the same way the \"the\" does in English when compared\nto \"a\". They are not equivalent by any means, but that aspect _is_ there.\n\nHowever, there's more meanings and usage to は than definite nominative. Don't\ndo it, you're making yourself a disservice long-term.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-26T16:01:04.310", "id": "3581", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-26T16:01:04.310", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "808", "parent_id": "3578", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "In addition to the other comments here, I must say that は and が are poor\nanalogues of \"the\" and \"a\". I know how you got this idea because I once had it\nmyself. But it doesn't work all that well.\n\nPerson A: ゴルフとテニスと、どちらが好きですか。 \nPerson B: テニスが好きです。\n\nIn B's response, テニス takes が, which suggests (according to your model) that\nit's indefinite. Now let's look at the same conversation in English:\n\nA: Which do you prefer, golf or tennis? \nB: I prefer tennis.\n\nHmm. No article. What about Spanish?\n\nA: ¿Cuál prefieres, el golf o el tenis? \nB: Prefiero el tenis.\n\nHere the response takes \"el\", a definite article. Thus が is not functioning\nlike an indefinite article, or indeed an article at all; it is a different\nthing altogether that only sometimes resembles the use of articles in English.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-27T07:16:03.000", "id": "3587", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-27T07:21:10.390", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-27T07:21:10.390", "last_editor_user_id": "224", "owner_user_id": "224", "parent_id": "3578", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3584", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm wondering about these, mainly because I don't see how they change the\nmeaning.\n\n> これほど確かな証拠がある **上は** 、Ａが犯人だと認めないわけにはいかない。 \n> Since there's such solid evidence, there's no denying that A's the culprit.\n> [?]\n\nCould I replace 上は with 上 or 上に, if so how would the meaning change?\n\nHow about in these cases?\n\n> 彼の姉は成績優秀な **上** 、スポーツもよくできる。 \n> 彼の姉は美人の **上に** 性格も良い。\n\nIn reading them I think \"in addition to\" but if I were to use them I might\nstutter because I don't get how they differ.\n\nThank you!", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-26T21:54:22.913", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3583", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-27T04:47:50.020", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-27T00:03:05.350", "last_editor_user_id": "54", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "How are 〜上, 〜上は and 〜上に different?", "view_count": 2831 }

[ { "body": "**1\\. Simple Adverbial**\n\n`上(に)` means 'on top of'.\n\n> これほど確かな証拠がある上(に)、Ａが犯人だと認めないわけにはいかない。 \n> (1) 'On top of having such solid evidence, there is no denying that A is\n> the culprit.'\n>\n> 彼の姉は成績優秀な上(に)、スポーツもよくできる。 \n> 'On top of having high academic achievements, his sister plays sports\n> well.'\n>\n> 彼の姉は美人の上(に)性格も良い。 \n> 'On top of being beautiful, his sister also has good personality.'\n\n**2\\. Topicalization**\n\nWhen you topicalize the `上(に)` phrase using `は`, it will be interpreted as\ncontrastive topic. That is, while:\n\n> これほど確かな証拠がある上は、Ａが犯人だと認めないわけにはいかない\n\n**denotes** the same (1) as with the non-topicalized sentence, it further\n**implies** the converse:\n\n> (2) 'If it were not on top of having such solid evidence, it would not have\n> been the case that there is no denying that A is the culprit.'\n\nSo, by combining the denotation (1) and the implicature (2), the actual\n(informal) meaning of the topicalized sentence becomes:\n\n> (1) and (2), that is: \n> 'Since I have such solid evidence, there is no denying that A is the\n> culprit.'\n\nBy the way, the combination `上は` is a bit archaic or formal. You can use\n`以上(は)` to avoid that and mean the same thing.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-27T02:19:28.370", "id": "3584", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-27T04:47:50.020", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3583", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "In the middle of the Famicom game Bucky O'Hare, a cutscene starts with this\ntext:\n\nこうして ４人を きゅうしゅつした バッキーであったが・・・じつは それは バッキー オヘアを とらえる ために トードぐんが しくんだ わなだったのだ！！\n\nThe meaning of the sentence is obvious -- \"Thus Bucky rescued the four, but\n[etc., etc.]\" -- but I can't quite grasp this use of であった. I realize it's from\nである, but its role here doesn't seem to be a simple \"was\". What's going on\nhere?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-27T06:59:04.803", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3586", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-08T08:35:33.510", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-07T05:36:54.617", "last_editor_user_id": "224", "owner_user_id": "224", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "copula" ], "title": "Strange use of であった in narrative", "view_count": 708 }

[ { "body": "\"It was Bucky that...\", by comparison with 救出{きゅうしゅつ}した **のは** バッキーであった, is an\neasy trap to fall into, but I don't think it's right.\n\nThe sentence `こうしてバッキーは４人を救出した` describes events from an objective global\nperspective, but the wording in the sentence in the question takes a small\namount of time to reflect on Bucky himself as he existed at that point in time\n-- what he's thinking, feeling, etc.\n\nであった asserts that Bucky was for a brief moment \"Bucky, who in this manner had\n(just) saved the four\". We briefly reflect on what this change feels like /\nmeans for him.\n\nI'm finding this very hard to put into English phrasing, and this attempt\ntakes a wrong turn or two, but hopefully it gets there:\n\n> \"And so there was Bucky, having in this manner (just) saved the four--\"\n\nI think it would help to post a more powerfully emotive example, but I'm\nhaving trouble finding one... >_>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-27T14:32:50.023", "id": "3590", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-27T14:32:50.023", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3586", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "The question is well put. It is indeed a special case of how 連体修飾 (the\nrelative clause) is used in narrative.\n\nLinguistically this is quite simple to derive:\n\nハッキーは４人を救出した 'Bucky saved four people' transformed into\n\n４人を救出したハッキー 'Bucky, who saved four people'.\n\nWhat is interesting is the use to which this particular structure is put.\n\n４人を救出したハッキーであった... is literally 'Was Bucky, who saved four people...'.\n\nBut this doesn't make much sense. I think Hyperworm's rendition of this as 'So\nthere was Bucky, who saved four people' is a good one. It could also be\nrendered 'So here we had Bucky, who saved four people'.\n\nAs a narrative style, this is not telling us that Bucky saved four people\n(which we presumably know already). It is telling us something about the\nsituation -- here was Bucky, this guy who had saved four people. As Hyperworm\nsays, this little sentence is a prelude to further information, namely, that\nthis was actually a trap.\n\nThis is a device commonly used in certain types of Japanese narrative. To make\nup a silly example (sorry, it's the first thing that popped into my head)\nusing the present tense rather than the past tense:\n\nブッサイクな女が大嫌いな次郎だが、この次郎はもうすぐ東京一の不細工な女性に出会うところだ。 Here we have Jiro who hates ugly\nwomen, and he's about to meet the ugliest woman in Tokyo.\n\nThis is setting the scene rather dramatically for what is about to happen. Of\ncourse we could say in Japanese as well as in English:\n\n次郎はブッサイクな女が大嫌いだが、この次郎はもうすぐ東京一の不細工な女性に出会うところだ。 Jiro hates ugly women, but he's\nabout to meet the ugliest woman in Tokyo.\n\nBut this would lack the dramatic flourish that the use of 連体修飾 (relative\nclause) provides.\n\nHope this clarifies what this structure is all about.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-08T08:35:33.510", "id": "4223", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-08T08:35:33.510", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1038", "parent_id": "3586", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3595", "answer_count": 4, "body": "For some reason I can't remember how to say \"try to **_\" or \"have to (must)\n_** \" in Japanese. How can I say this? Any variations you can include would be\nappreciated.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-29T17:24:30.153", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3593", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-01T21:26:51.383", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "814", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "translation" ], "title": "How to say, \"try to __\", \"have to __\"", "view_count": 11162 }

[ { "body": "* try to: `...-te みる`\n * have to: `...-(a)nak-ere ba ならない`\n\n> 食べてみる \n> 'try to eat'\n>\n> 食べなければならない \n> 'have to eat'", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-29T17:37:26.423", "id": "3594", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-29T21:19:57.440", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Try to ~\n\n> ~ようとする (Does not give any information whether the action was actually\n> carried out in entirety)\n>\n> ~てみる (Try for the sake of seeing the result, does **not** have negative\n> implication as in \"to try (unsuccessfully )\" )\n\n* * *\n\nhave to(must) ~\n\n> ~なければならない\n>\n> ~なくては｛ならない・いけない｝\n>\n> ~ないといけない\n>\n> ~ねばならない\n\n~なくては is often contracted to ~なくちゃ\n\n~なければならない can also be contracted and have ならない elided to form \"~なけりゃ\" or\n\"~なきゃ\" which is used informally.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-29T17:43:10.710", "id": "3595", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-29T17:43:10.710", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Some other grammar for \"have to\" that was not yet mentioned:\n\n### 〜ことになる\n\nThis means \"it has been decided that 〜\", but is often used as an indirect way\nto say that you have to do something (even if it's been decided by you).\n\n> * 家族が大阪に引っ越すことになった → It's been decided that my family is moving to Osaka\n> (= We have to move there).\n>\n\n## More Advanced:\n\n### 〜ないわけにはいかない\n\n### 〜ざるをえない\n\n### 〜ないではいられない・〜ずにはいられない\n\nThese all basically mean \"can't not do 〜\" or \"can't avoid doing 〜\", although\nthe double-negative may slightly lessen the \"activeness\" of having to do it.\n\n> * この[推理小説]{すい・り・しょう・せつ}を終わりまで読まないではいられません。 → \"I have to / I can't not read\n> this suspense novel all the way to the end!\"\n>\n\nEach one has its nuances of what types of situations in which it can be used,\nwhereas the \"basic\" ones in @Flaw's answers aren't limited (much, if at all).\n\n## \"Most Advanced\" (mostly formal and/or written forms only. Not likely used\nin conversation)\n\n### 〜ないではすまない・〜ずにはすまない\n\n### 〜ないではおかない・〜ずにはおかない\n\n### 〜を禁【きん】じ得【え】ない\n\n### 〜を余儀【よぎ】なくされる", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-31T15:31:33.553", "id": "3621", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-01T19:20:03.473", "last_edit_date": "2016-01-01T19:20:03.473", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "It come to top of my mind for 'try to' ...してみる. やってみる....しようとする. ...を試みる.\n\nand ...ねばならない. ...せざるを得ない. ...を余儀なくされる. for 'have to.' But the last one may\nsound a bit antiquated today.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-01-01T21:26:51.383", "id": "30182", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-01T21:26:51.383", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "12056", "parent_id": "3593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3607", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I've never really fully grasped the meaning of `[一]{いち}[応]{おう}` since it seems\nto have no good English equivalent. What is the meaning, usage, and nuances of\n`一応`?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-29T19:16:28.497", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3597", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-30T06:04:32.533", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-30T01:39:15.337", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "814", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "usage", "meaning" ], "title": "一応: Usage and meaning", "view_count": 6912 }

[ { "body": "`一応` means \"anyway\". In an affirmative context, it will mean: \"I think it will\nnot work, but I will do ... anyway\". In negative context, it will mean \"I\nthink it is not necessary, but I will do ... just in case.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-29T23:18:56.450", "id": "3602", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-29T23:18:56.450", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3597", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I think sawa's answer is correct, but it might mean other things as well in\ndifferent contexts. Looking at [Space\nALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E4%B8%80%E5%BF%9C/UTF-8/) it seems to also mean,\nespecially at the start of a sentence:\n\n * Pretty much (agree etc)\n * At least...(something can be fulfilled or satisfied)\n * At any rate...\n * A fair amount of...(success/agreement etc when used as `一応の`)\n * For the time being...\n\nI think \"it [won't/doesn't] [fit/suit/work with] something but X will happen\nanyway\" might also work in some contexts. For example, I think \"It doesn't\nreally suit him, but he's doing X anyway\" might work.\n\nAnother way of translating this might be \"I guess...\", \"kind of...\" or \"sort\nof...\" e.g. \"I kind of agree with him I guess\", \"there's a settlement of\nsorts\", \"I guess I'll go along with it.\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-30T01:43:26.817", "id": "3606", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-30T06:04:32.533", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-30T06:04:32.533", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3597", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "A word that might help you to understand 一応 is **tentative** , in both senses:\n\n 1. temporary, subject to change (tentative name, tentative plan)\n 2. done while unsure (tentative step, tentative statement)\n\nI'll post the Japanese example sentences from\n[ニューセンチュリー和英辞典](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E4%B8%80%E5%BF%9C&dtype=3&dname=2ss&stype=0)\nand relate them to that word.\n\n> `...と結論を下しても一応さしつかえはないだろう` \n> (Even if we conclude X, it shouldn't give us problems, tentatively\n> speaking.)\n>\n> `一応そこへ行ってみよう` \n> (Let's just tentatively go there and see what happens, though we might not\n> find what we want.)\n>\n> `一応その書類に目を通しておこう` \n> (I'll tentatively give those documents a look over and see if I find any\n> errors, though I'm not entirely sure it's necessary.) or \n> (I'll give those documents a look over, tentatively/temporarily, at least\n> until I find something else to do.)\n>\n> `一応この本で間に合う` \n> (This book will do, tentatively/temporarily, at least until I get a better\n> book.)\n>\n> `私たちは一応合意に達した` \n> (We reached an agreement, tentatively, although I'm not certain we agree on\n> everything or that we will continue to see eye-to-eye.)\n>\n> `君の言うことは一応もっともだ` \n> (Your argument holds water, tentatively, although I'm not certain you've\n> entirely turned me around to your point of view yet.)\n\nI don't intend to suggest that \"tentative\" is a natural translation for all\ncircumstances. This is just to help you get an idea. There are many ways of\nactually translating it -- for instance, in my second sentence, I used \"just\",\nand that word would probably have sufficed on its own.\n\nOther possible translations depending on the context include \"for the time\nbeing\", \"some kind of a\", \"seems to be\", and other words that indicate\nuncertainty or temporariness.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-30T02:25:12.537", "id": "3607", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-30T02:25:12.537", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3597", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Can the よう ending be used for imperatives like て？\n\nIf so then can you show some examples?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-29T20:26:36.133", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3598", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-30T08:04:45.053", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "verbs" ], "title": "Can the よう ending signify an imperative?", "view_count": 344 }

[ { "body": "Not exactly. The \"～よう\" conjugation is applied to 一段 verbs when forming the\ncasual volitional form. Being the _casual_ form, it doesn't mean \"Shall we\n(speaker and listener) ...\" so much as \"We (speaker and listener) will ...\".\n\n> 食べよう \n> \"We will eat.\"\n>\n> 寝よう \n> \"We will sleep.\"\n\nThe proper imperative conjugation for 一段 verbs is of course \"～ろう\".", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-30T02:41:48.693", "id": "3608", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-30T08:04:45.053", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-30T08:04:45.053", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "3598", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3611", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm currently reading _[The Tale of Peter\nRabbit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tale_of_Peter_Rabbit)_ in Japanese,\nbut the opening to the story is confusing me a bit.\n\n> [昔々]{むかしむかし}あるところに、四[匹]{ひき}の小さなウサギが **いました**\n> 。彼らの[名前]{なまえ}はプロプシー、モプシー、コットンテールとピーター **です** 。\n\nAs you can see, the first sentence is in the past tense, but the second seems\nto be in the present. Double checking several English versions of the text,\nthey all have both in the past tense; and in general switching tenses in\nEnglish is frowned upon.\n\nNow, I know that Japanese treats tenses differently from English, but this\nseems odd to me. Thus, my question is: Can you switch tenses like this in\nJapanese, and if so, what (extra) nuances (if any) does it carry?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-29T21:44:03.947", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3600", "last_activity_date": "2021-11-17T05:35:00.840", "last_edit_date": "2021-11-17T05:35:00.840", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "58", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "tense" ], "title": "Why does the narrator switch tenses here? ～いました　～です", "view_count": 923 }

[ { "body": "This is definitely not unusual: verbs often switch tenses in the middle of\nJapanese narratives for effect. I don't have a definitive reference to back\nthis up, but I'll try to explain the general concept as best I understand it.\n\nIf I remember correctly, the past tense often has more emphasis in a Japanese\nnarrative than the present tense. For example, consider the following two\nsentences.\n\n> 智{さとし}は玄関{げんかん}に行{い}きます。ドアを開{あ}けると、幼馴染{おさななじみ}の優子{ゆうこ}がいました。\n>\n> Satoshi went to the front door. Opening it, he found his childhood friend\n> Yuko!\n\nIn this case, the first sentence sets the scene (in the present tense) and the\nsecond one provides the action (in the past tense).\n\nIn your example, the order of the tenses is reversed—the first sentence uses a\npast-tense verb and the second uses a present-tense verb—but I think that the\nbasic principle is the same.\n\n> [昔々]{むかしむかし}あるところに、四[匹]{ひき}の小さなウサギが **いました**\n> 。彼らの[名前]{なまえ}はプロプシー、モプシー、コットンテールとピーター **です** 。\n\nAt the beginning of the story, the reader knows _nothing_. In my experience,\nit's very common for Japanese narratives to start with a sentence in the past\ntense because it emphasizes the initial information that is given. The next\nsentence switches back to the present tense because it is providing\nsupplementary information: we already know that there are four rabbits, and\nthe author is simply filling in their names (providing background).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-30T07:45:36.407", "id": "3611", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-30T07:45:36.407", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "773", "parent_id": "3600", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3604", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I heard the expression `[意]{い}[外]{がい}といい` in a video. I know that `意外に`\nexpresses something you didn't expect:\n\n> 意外においしいよ。 \n> It's delicous! (and I didn't expect that)\n\nWhy did I hear `意外と` instead of `意外に`? Is that a specific dialect? Or, is it\nstandard Japanese?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-29T22:43:30.720", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3601", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-01T00:37:33.073", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-01T00:37:33.073", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "usage", "words" ], "title": "What does 意外と mean?", "view_count": 1330 }

[ { "body": "“いがいといい” is “[意外]{いがい}と[良]{い}い” (unexpectedly good).\n\n意外と is a less traditional synonym for 意外に (unexpectedly), the latter being the\n連用形 (continuative form) of the na-adjective 意外だ.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-29T23:54:43.970", "id": "3604", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-29T23:54:43.970", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3601", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "What are your favorite fun ways to learn Japanese? (At any level)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-29T23:21:00.020", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3603", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-29T23:21:00.020", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "814", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "learning" ], "title": "Fun ways to learn japanese", "view_count": 446 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3633", "answer_count": 3, "body": "For instance, \"He is eating\" is \"Kare wa tabete iru\". However, \"He is dying\"\nis not \"Kare wa shinde iru\". Another example is \"He is going to Japan\" is not\n\"Kare wa nihon ni itte iru\". So if I can't use the \"te iru\" form to express an\naction currently in progress for verbs like shinu, iku, kuru, then what would\nbe correct way to make those sentences?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-30T01:42:24.180", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3605", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-04T16:50:18.413", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-30T05:07:01.797", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "769", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "tense" ], "title": "How do I express sentences like: He is dying?", "view_count": 1762 }

[ { "body": "There's not a solid grammar-based way to express this with stateful verbs such\nas the ones in your example, at least as far as I'm aware. You'll probably\nneed to use an adverb. Two such examples are the general `[中]{ちゅう}` and\n`[途]{と}[中]{ちゅう}` (which probably has a more specialized usage).\n\nEither example should at least get your point across with your \"He is going to\nJapan\" example (`[彼]{かれ}は[日]{に}[本]{ほん}に[行]{い}く[途]{と}[中]{ちゅう}です`), though these\nparticular adverbs may not be the absolute best way to do so. Also, maybe I'm\nmistaken, but `[死]{し}ぬ[途]{と}[中]{ちゅう}` sounds a bit awkward as well, at least\nto me, so words like these should be used with caution.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-30T06:11:48.830", "id": "3610", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-30T06:11:48.830", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "3605", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "As I've answered in other posts (like [this\none)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3361/%E5%A4%AA%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%82%8B%E7%8C%AB-\nvs-%E5%A4%AA%E3%81%A3%E3%81%9F%E7%8C%AB), `〜つつある` is a construct meaning\n\"happening right now\" that disambiguates confusion that `〜ている` may have.\nHowever, for your example (\"is dying\"), `死にかける／死にかかる` is more appropriate as\n@glacier mentioned in the comments.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-31T14:33:35.170", "id": "3620", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-31T14:33:35.170", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3605", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "As @Hyperworm suggested, it might be good to have a more comprehensive set of\nexamples, so I've sifted through the many sentences in the [Tatoeba\ndatabase](http://tatoeba.org/eng/). Using a [python\nscript](http://pastebin.com/hELnXvq0) I reduced the number of sentence pairs\ndown to around 800 sentences, I then went through and documented the\ndifferences in around 150 of them which I thought might be relevant.\n\nThese are mainly words/expressions which haven't got `ている` (or some variant of\n`ている`) in the Japanese sentence, but have `is ...ing`/`are ...ing` etc inside\nthe English sentence. I've also added words/expressions which have some\nvariants of `ているところ` or `かけている` in them.\n\nThis answer is community wiki, so if there are any errors or you want to add\nsomething etc then feel free to edit it.\n\n* * *\n\n## A-B:\n\n * **approaching (a typhoon is ...):** 接近中【せっきんちゅう】\n * **asking for (trouble):** 招【まね】くことになる\n * **becoming:** なりつつある\n * **becoming (colour is ... to one's face):** と似【に】合【あ】う\n * **becoming better:** 良【よ】くなりつつある\n * **becoming smaller:** 小【ちい】さくなりつつある\n * **beginning to:** ～になりかけている\n * **breathing hard:** 息【いき】苦【ぐる】しそう\n * **beginning (homework):** とりかかろうとしているところ\n * **brimming (with tears):** （泪【なみだ】で）あふれた\n * **bucking (under pressure):** つぶされそう\n * **building (a bridge):** 建設中【けんせつちゅう】\n * **burning:** 炊【た】いている途中【とちゅう】\n\n* * *\n\n## C:\n\n * **changing/turning into:** 変【か】わりつつある\n * **changing (health ... for the better):** 向【む】かいつつある\n * **changing (society is ...):** 変化【へんか】しつつある\n * **climbing (up a tree):** 登【のぼ】っていく\n * **coming:** くる途中【とちゅう】/来【く】る途中【とちゅう】\n * **cooling (affection is ...):** さめかけていた\n * **coming through (teeth are ...):** （歯【は】が）はえてきた\n * **crossing (the street):** 横切【よこぎ】っているところ\n * **cruising/sailing:** 航行中【せんこうちゅう】\n * **crumbling away (traditions are ...):** 消滅【しょうめつ】しつつある\n\n* * *\n\n## D:\n\n * **declining (business is ...):** 下【さが】り坂【ざか】 (metaphorical in the sense of \"going downhill\" or \"on a downward slope\")\n * **decreasing (cases):** 減少【しょうめつ】しつつある\n * **decreasing/is being decreased/are decreasing:** 減【へ】りつつある\n * **deliberating:** 熟考中【じゅっこうちゅう】\n * **disappearing (life is ...):** 絶滅【ぜつめつ】しつつある\n * **disappearing (lines between something are ...):** 消失【しょうしつ】しつつある\n * **doing study:** 勉強中【べんきょうちゅう】\n * **drawing on (winter is ...):** 近【ちか】づきつつある\n * **dripping (sweat is ...):** 落【お】ちてくる\n * **driving (me crazy):** 気【き】が変【へん】になりそう\n * **driving (while ... a car):** 運転中【うんてんちゅう】\n * **dying (humans/animals etc are ...):** 死【し】にかけている/死【し】に掛【か】けている\n * **dying (of grief):** 死【し】にそう\n * **dying (plants are ...):** 枯【か】れかけている\n * **dying off (population is ...):** 減少【めっしょう】しつつある\n\n* * *\n\n## E-F:\n\n * **entering (a new phase):** 突入【とつにゅう】しつつある\n * **expecting (a baby/child):** 妊娠中【にんしんちゅう】/生【う】まれる予定【よてい】\n * **fading (hope):** 消【き】えつつある\n * **failing (eyesight is ...):** 衰【おとろ】えつつある\n * **failing (my memory is ...):** 衰【おとろ】えた\n * **falling (darkness is ...):** 下【さが】りつつある\n\n* * *\n\n## G:\n\n * **gaining (weight):** ふえつつある\n * **gaining ground:** 優勢【ゆうせい】になりつつある\n * **gaining on (his car is ... us):** 追【お】いつきつつある\n * **getting shorter:** 短【みじか】くなりつつある\n * **giving a bath (to a baby):** 入浴【にゅうよく】させているところ\n * **going after:** 追【お】いかけている\n * **going down (quality):** 下【さ】がりつつある\n * **going down (sun):** しずんでいく\n * **going home:** 帰宅【きたく】する途中【とちゅう】/帰【かえ】る途中【とちゅう】\n * **going on trial:** 裁判【さいばん】にかけられる\n * **going out of (town):** 出【で】かけている\n * **going through/progressing through:** 進行【しんこう】しつつある\n * **going to:** 行【い】く途中【とちゅう】/行【い】くところ\n * **going towards:** 向【む】かう途中【とちゅう】\n * **going up (prices are ...):** 上【あ】がりつつある\n * **growing:** 増加【ぞうか】しつつある\n * **growing (stronger from illness):** よくなりつつある\n\n* * *\n\n## H-M:\n\n * **hardening:** 固【かた】まっている途中【とちゅう】\n * **having a bath:** 入浴中【にゅうよくちゅう】\n * **having a recess:** 休憩【きゅうけい】時間中【じかんちゅう】/休憩時間【きゅうけいじかん】\n * **having (lunch/breakfast):** とっているところ/取【と】っているところ\n * **having (lunch/dinner):** 食【た】べているところ\n * **having lunch/having dinner/eating:** 食事中【しょくじちゅう】\n * **increasing:** 増加【ぞうか】しつつある/増【ふや】しつつある/増【ふ】えつつある\n * **inquiring into/investigating/looking into:** 調査中【けんさちゅう】\n * **killing (my back is ... me):** 死【し】にそうだ\n * **killing (my job is ... me):** 死【し】ぬほど\n * **leaning towards:** 傾【かたむ】きつつある\n * **looking (into records):** 調【しら】べているところ\n * **losing ground:** まずくなりつつある\n * **making progress:** 進歩【しんぽ】しつつある\n * **making (them) study hard:** 猛勉強【もうべんきょう】させられているところ\n * **moving to:** 移動【いどう】しつつある\n\n* * *\n\n## O-R:\n\n * **opening (doors are .../flowers are ... etc):** 開【あ】きかけている\n * **picking up/recovering:** 回復【かいふく】しつつある\n * **planning to...:** 計画中【けいかくちゅう】\n * **preparing (supper):** 用意【ようい】をしているところ\n * **receding from:** 後退【こうたい】しつつある\n * **rehearsing (a play):** （劇【げき】の）稽古【けいこ】をしているところ\n * **rising (sun is ...):** 昇【のぼ】りつつある\n * **rising (tide is ...):** 満【み】ちてくる\n * **running (a vehicle):** 運転中【うんてんちゅう】\n * **running dry:** 枯【か】れかけている\n * **running out:** 無【な】くなりつつある/底【そこ】をつきかけている\n * **running short:** 不足【ふそく】しつつある\n\n* * *\n\n## S-W:\n\n * **seeing (a play):** 観【み】ているところ\n * **seeking to:** 希望【きぼう】する\n * **serving (a sentence):** 服役中【ふくえき】\n * **showing (a movie):** 上映中【じょうえいちゅう】\n * **sinking:** 沈【しず】みつつある/沈【しず】みかけている/沈【しず】んでいく\n * **sleeping (my legs are ...):** しびれた\n * **starting:** 始【はじ】まりつつある\n * **staying:** 滞在中【たいざいちゅう】\n * **taking off (the aircraft is ...):** 離陸【りかく】しつつある\n * **taking shape:** 具体化【ぐたいか】しつつある\n * **teething:** 歯【は】が生【は】えかけているところ\n * **thinning:** 希薄【きうす】になりつつある\n * **walking:** 歩【ある】いているところ\n * **washing (a car):** 洗【あら】っているところ\n * **writing (a letter/term paper):** 書【か】いているところ\n\n* * *\n\nWords/expressions I was uncertain about but may need to be elaborated on:\n\n * **go out:** 出【で】る/出【で】かける\n * **arriving:** 到着【とうちゃく】する/着【つ】く/着【つ】く予定【よてい】/入港【にゅうこう】する予定【よてい】\n * **talking:** 話【はな】す/話【はな】しかけている/お話【はな】しする/話【はな】している途中【とちゅう】\n * **developing? (was listed as exploring):** 開発【かいはつ】しつつある\n * つく/つきかけている (etc)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-03T05:55:42.673", "id": "3633", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-04T16:50:18.413", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3605", "post_type": "answer", "score": 23 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3622", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In my JLPT practise book, there is this question:\n\n> その国王{こくおう}は戦{たたか}いに負{ま}け____の一部{いちぶ}を失{うしな}ってしまった。\n\nWhich I roughly translate as, \"The kingdom lost a part of its ___ _ in the\nbattle.\"\n\nThe possible answers to fill the space are:\n\n> A 領域{りょういき} (territory)\n>\n> B 領土{りょうど} (territory)\n>\n> C 占領{せんりょう} (occupation)\n>\n> D 領収{りょうしゅう} (receipt)\n\nBoth A and B are defined as \"territory\" and a lot of other overlapping words.\nSo, going by the kanji, I figured `領土{りょうど}` was more to do with the physical\nland, and `領域{りょういき}` was more to do with the dominion. So my answer was\n**A**.\n\nThe book, though, says the correct answer is **B**.\n\nAs is usually the case with JLPT questions, both _could_ work, but what makes\n`領土{りょうど}` the more appropriate answer in this case?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-30T13:08:57.740", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3612", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T14:23:00.560", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-31T04:43:05.097", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "word-choice", "jlpt" ], "title": "Why is 領土{りょうど} more suitable than 領域{りょういき} in this JLPT practise question?", "view_count": 542 }

[ { "body": "I'm not entirely sure of the reason myself, but looking at Daijirin, Daijisen\nand Space ALC:\n\n 1. `領域`: Comprises land, sea or airspace. Can also include the extent of knowledge/experience, extent of power/authority, or extent of operation (in electronics etc.) Often refers to land in relation to international law or a given state. It seems to be used a lot in the context of entering an area, being located/existing in an area or being confined to an area. (Also has many other meanings/expressions. See the Space ALC link below for more information.) \n\nSources:\n[Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E9%A0%98%E5%9F%9F&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0)\n|\n[Daijisen](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/232323/m0u/%E9%A0%98%E5%9F%9F/)\n| [Space ALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E9%A0%98%E5%9F%9F/UTF-8/)\n\n 2. `領土`: Primarily comprises of land (as opposed to `領海{りょうかい}` and `領空{りょうくう}`), but is broadly interchangeble with `領域` and can also more widely mean sea and airspace. Often refers to land in relation to a given state. Often seems to be used a lot in the context of conquering/gaining/losing territory, returning/ceding land etc and is used a lot more in territorial disputes (as in `領土問題`.) \n\nSources:\n[Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E9%A0%98%E5%9C%9F&stype=0&dtype=0&dname=0ss)\n| [Daijisen](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/232695/m0u/) | [Space\nALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E9%A0%98%E5%9C%9F/UTF-8/?pg=1)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-30T14:09:11.970", "id": "3613", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-31T06:47:13.397", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-31T06:47:13.397", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3612", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "A non-academic, franc distinction is that \"領域\" means 'area' without particular\nconnotation of possession. It is normally used in mathematics like\n\"閉曲線Cの囲む領域の面積を求めよ\" 'give the area surrounded by the closed curve C'. \"領土\"\nspecifically means 'territory land of a country' and has clear mentioning of\npossession. In this case it is the best answer.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-31T22:45:20.593", "id": "3622", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T14:23:00.560", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-28T14:23:00.560", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3612", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3617", "answer_count": 5, "body": "I was driving the other day and saw a truck with 一般 written as 般一 on the\ndrivers side door. My wife was telling me that this is often the case with\ntrucks, where it is actually written from right to left in 縦 style, as if\nthere was only 1 row. Just was wondering if there was a particular reason for\nit or if this is limited to just trucks or can this be found elsewhere.\n\nOf note, it was _NOT_ written flipped so as to be seen correctly when looked\nat through a mirror like ambulances and such in the U.S.\n\nNote: This question is on the border in terms of being off-topic, but since it\nis referring to language use within Japanese culture, I felt it was\nappropriate to ask.\n\nExamples of text \n<http://septieme-ciel.air-nifty.com/nikubanare/2005/09/post_5b58.html>", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-31T01:43:18.767", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3614", "last_activity_date": "2018-02-17T15:30:39.420", "last_edit_date": "2018-02-17T15:30:39.420", "last_editor_user_id": "97", "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "culture" ], "title": "Why are some words written backwards on trucks", "view_count": 4210 }

[ { "body": "For ambulances in police cars, I thinks it's often written in mirror on the\nfront of the vehicle.\n\nFor the side of the trucks, yes, this is quite common. It can also be found on\nthe billboard of restaurants, and on reprints of old beer posters.\n\nThis has a name: 右横書き. It was used before WWII, when horizontal writing was\napplied to Japan during Meiji, but never really made it outside the corner\ncases I just cited: left-to-right had more success.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-31T02:56:13.953", "id": "3615", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-31T02:56:13.953", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "There are two different issues to consider here.\n\nThe first is right-to-left horizontal writing as explained by Axioplase.\n(Note: Sometimes this is considered a special case of vertical writing, with\ncolumns of height one as your wife suggested. This is not necessarily the\ncase. For example, the ー (choonpu) is always written horizontally rather than\nvertically in these situations, which would indicate that the writing is\nindeed \"horizontal\". But that's a side issue.)\n\n**But I don't think that this is what you saw.** [edit: I overstated this\npoint. Right-to-left writing is obviously what you saw, but my point is that\nthere is a _reason_ for the right-to-left writing in this point, and it isn't\njust \"sometimes Japanese is written that way.\"] I think you saw a similar but\ndifferent phenomenon. I don't know the right phrase to google up a detailed\nexplanation, but think of the way that most flags have an obverse side (that\nwe all recognize) and a reverse side which is the mirror image of the obverse\nside (so that the design nearest the flagpole stays nearest the flagpole even\nwhen the flag is viewed from behind). The same principle is often applied to\nwriting on Japanese vehicles.\n\nSo, viewed from the left (passenger's side), it says 一般. The 一 is nearest the\nfront bumper, the 般 is further towards the back bumper. If you want to\nmaintain this state on the driver's side, you have to put the 一 on the\n_right_. So you get 般一. I bet that if you had gotten a look at the passenger's\nside of that truck, it would have said 一般 in regular order.\n\nPut more simply, don't think of it in terms of \"writing from left to right\" vs\n\"right to left\". Think of it as \"writing from front of vehicle to back of\nvehicle.\"", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-31T05:06:59.763", "id": "3616", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-31T14:05:09.213", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-31T14:05:09.213", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "Matt's answer is right enough, and Axioplases's description does have\nhistorical accuracy, but I felt differently enough to propose another answer.\n\nFirst, here is the truck in question, with the words `カンガルー便` written on the\nside, \"backwards\".\n\n\n\nNote, though, that the text for the parent company, Seino, is the \"right\" way\nround, presumeably because it's in romaji, which is not as flexible as\nJapanese kanji and kana in terms of direction. If this were simply a matter of\nviewing the car in a \"front is top\" concept, then why not also include the\nromaji? It's only the Japanese text that is flexible enough about direction.\n\nHow flexible is Japanese in terms of direction? A little. The root of the\nissue lies in the fact that Japanese text is traditionally written vertically.\nThe choice to go left or right when writing horizontally is, or was, therefor\nsomewhat arbitrary. Back in the day, one would have come across writing right\nto left more than today, as in this old train sign:\n\n\n\nOr how the car brand \"Ford\" is written `ドーォフ` (or `ドーオフ`) on this Taishō era\nbuilding:\n\n\n\nOr in this awesome political map:\n\n\n\nNote in all these pictures that the romaji offered goes left-to-right, but\nboth kanji and kana are right-to-left.\n\nWhy do these historical examples matter? Because it's evidence that there is a\ncultural basis for accepting text right-to-left that makes the truck sign\npossible in Japanese culture.\n\nWhat I'm driving at is the contrast with English culture where the direction\nof text is 100% locked in to be left to right. If a hypothetical delivery\ncompany in an English country wrote \"Yreviled Ooragnak\" on the side of their\ntrucks, because they wanted to follow a \"front is top\" logic, or _any_ other\nrational, no one would have any doubt they were doing something wrong. The\nhorizontal direction in English is non-negotiable, with the only exception\nbeing deliberabe subversion of the norm in some kind of artistic context.\n\nOf course, the massive exposure to English text has influenced textual\npresentation in Japan, to the point where you don't see this much anymore. But\n**it's not a rule** that writing must go left to right, and some people will\nstill go right to left, like this racist jerk here, who probably did it\nprecisely because he doesn't want to play by the west's rules (Just so its\nclear, although the text direction supports my point, the content of this\njerk's sign is unredeemable, and I _strongly_ oppose the sentiment):\n\n\n\nSo the \"backward\" phenomena is not just about vehicles or flags, or a front-\nas-top logic. Japanese text, insofar as it has escaped English cultural\nhegemony, can be flexible about which horizontal direction it goes in. Why\nexactly Seino opted to go right-to-left on the right side of their trucks, I'm\nnot sure, I just know that the option to do so existed for them because the\nlanguage permits it in a general sense.\n\nMaybe right-to-left writing will die out, as it does seem to be the exception\nthese days. Or maybe not. Consider this nostalgic retro-branding of a biscuit\nbox, made available in 2014, preserving the right-to-left writing, for the\nJapanese text only, to give an old-timey feel. Maybe one day a retro trend\nwill spark a revival...\n\n\n\nWhat I'm pretty sure you won't see, though, is bottom-to-top. The text\ndirection is not _that_ flexible.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-31T06:06:00.223", "id": "3617", "last_activity_date": "2014-04-14T04:46:24.823", "last_edit_date": "2014-04-14T04:46:24.823", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 }, { "body": "It think it is to make it easier to read off a running car. When a person\nstaying still at a side of a road watches a car passing by, it is easier to\nread if the letters run from the front of the car to the rear because the\nletters will flow through the eyes of the person in the correct order. That is\nwhy you see this more often with trucks that have longer body and longer\nmessage rather than with shorter cars. If the characters were to be written\nleft right on the right side of a truck, a reader has to skim thourgh the\ncharacters (moving their head) faster than the speed of the truck.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-31T22:57:32.717", "id": "3623", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-31T22:57:32.717", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "On trucks and other vehicles I've mostly seen it written \"backwards\" on one\nside and in the more common direction on the other side.\n\nBut to me the much more usual place to see such \"backwards\" writing is on the\ntraditional signs on traditional gates such as are or were part of castles,\ncity walls, etc.\n\n(I quote backwards because one way of looking at Japanese writing is that it\ndoesn't have a correct direction, just a more common one, with the other also\nbeing used.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-01T08:40:54.213", "id": "3625", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-01T08:40:54.213", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "parent_id": "3614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3619", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What does なんたらという mean? I searched なんたら's meaning and it showed. The following\n\n * oojah \n * oojahkapiv \n * oojamaflip \n * oojar \n * oojiboo\n\nI used eow.alc.co.jp to search.\n<http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%AA%E3%82%93%E3%81%9F%E3%82%89/UTF-8/> What do\nthis mean? Is this a japanese only word?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-31T09:36:44.067", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3618", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-31T10:47:21.467", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "786", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "meaning" ], "title": "What does なんたらという mean?", "view_count": 328 }

[ { "body": "I suspect this is a type of [metasyntactic\nvariable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasyntactic_variable), a word which\nstands in for an unknown word. I don't know why those examples were chosen,\nbut more common metasyntactic variables in my idiolect are 'whatchamacallit',\n'doodad', 'thingummy' etc.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-31T10:47:21.467", "id": "3619", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-31T10:47:21.467", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "816", "parent_id": "3618", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've seen a few sets of terminology when referring to the causative form, so\nfor the basic case, I will use the following: `instigator が agent に 〇〇 を\nｖ－させる。`\n\nIn its most basic, text-book form, we have sentences such as:\n\n> 子供にお弁当を買わせます。 \n> 後輩にビールを飲ませます。\n\nAdditionally, most textbooks mention something along the lines of\n[intransitive verbs or verbs that do not call for を] have an agent marked with\nを。(sorry for the ad-hoc bracketing, but it was hard to parse beforehand)\n\n> 先生が私をトイレに行かせました。 \n> その人が私をそこに座らせました。\n\n* * *\n\n 1. If I use 行く with another verb as its purpose, is を available to mark the agent? It seems like this should be the case since お弁当を should be connected to 行く。 \nCompare:\n\n> [a] 子供にお弁当を買いに行かせます。 \n> [b] 子供をお弁当を買いに行かせます。\n\n 2. With intransitive verbs, must I use を to mark the agent? \nCompare:\n\n> [a]その人は私をそこに座らせました。 \n> [b]その人は私にそこに座らせました。\n\n 3. If I leave off the object of a transitive verb due to ellipses, may I mark the agent with を? (This seems strange, but I figured I'd ask.) \nCompare:\n\n> [a]子供に買わせました。 \n> [b]子供を買わせました。\n\n 4. If I use a transitive verb, but use を to mark something that is moved through or done with effort, may I still mark the agent with を? \nCompare:\n\n> [a]子供に道を行かせます。 \n> [b]子供を道を行かせます。 \n> [c]彼に私のことを分からせます。 \n> [d]彼を私のことを分からせます。\n\n 5. I've also heard mention that some speakers occasionally use を to mark the agent with intransitive verbs without any further details. Is this something that a seemingly random group of people does? Is it due to dialectal variation? Is there a pattern to when it can be done? Is there a difference in nuance?\n\nIn the cases where I can choose between marking the agent with を or に, is\nthere any difference in nuance? \nIn a fairly old grammar, I've read that using に _may_ soften the statement a\nlittle.\n\nFor each question with example sentences, I'm primarily concerned with a few\nthings:\n\n 1. Is this permissible? (would it sound incorrect in conversation look incorrect in writing)\n 2. What would a native speaker usually do?\n\nOf course I also welcome any information about dialectal variation, language\nchange, etc!", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-01T02:51:00.133", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3624", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-26T17:53:14.980", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-01T13:03:35.623", "last_editor_user_id": "581", "owner_user_id": "581", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "nuances", "particles", "causation" ], "title": "When the agent takes を in the causative form", "view_count": 2427 }

[ { "body": "First up I'll have to equate a few terms to avoid confusion. \nI'm going to equate your concept of \"instigator\" with \"causer\". And your\nconcept of \"agent\" as \"causee\"\n\n* * *\n\n> **(1)** If I use 行く with another verb as its purpose, is を available to mark\n> the agent? It seems like this should be the case since お弁当を should be\n> connected to 行く。 \n> Compare:\n>\n\n>> [a] 子供にお弁当を買いに行かせます。( (Causer/Instigator) let the child go to buy 弁当) \n> [b] 子供をお弁当に買いに行かせます。(Cannot be parsed)\n\nThis portion has nothing to do with the causative construction. `弁当に買う` is\ngrammatically wrong because `買う` is a transitive verb. It **has** to be\n`弁当をかう`.\n\nAlso, it is okay to have two `に`s in the sentence because they are different\n`に`s. `子供に` marks it as a relational/indirect object. `買いに` marks purpose of\naction. [(Also take a look at sawa's answer to another\nquestion)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2996/using-%E3%81%AB-\ntwice-in-the-\nverb-%E9%80%A3%E7%94%A8%E5%BD%A2%E3%81%AB%E8%A1%8C%E3%81%8F-sentence-pattern)\n\nNow lets look at 1[a]. Is `を` available to mark the agent?\n\n**No.** This is because you cannot have more than one `を` appearing in a\nclause. The causee (in your case the \"agent\") can be marked only by `に`\nbecause `を` has already been used once in `弁当を買う`\n\n* * *\n\n> **(2)** With intransitive verbs, must I use を to mark the agent? \n> Compare:\n>\n\n>> [a]その人は私をそこに座らせました。(That person let me sit there) \n> [b]その人は私にそこに座らせました。(That person let me sit there)\n\n**EDIT:** (My intuition says that `そこに座らせます` is fine, but `私にそこに座らせます` is not.\nI think it should be `私にそこで座らせます` instead, or else I'd have two `に`s\nperforming \"indirect object\" role. Please someone let me know in the comments\nif I got this portion right/wrong) \n\nYes `私を` has to be used if you want to maintain the use of `そこに`.\n\n* * *\n\n> **(3)** If I leave off the object of a transitive verb due to ellipses, may\n> I mark the agent with を? (This seems strange, but I figured I'd ask.) \n> Compare:\n>\n\n>> [a]子供に買わせました。( (Causer/Instigator) let the child buy (something) )(Assuming\nsufficient context) \n> [b]子供を買わせました。( (Causer/Instigator) let (Somebody) buy the child)\n\nAgain nothing to do with the causative construction. `子供を買う` means \"to buy the\nchild\" and not what I think you think it means.\n\n* * *\n\n> **(4)** If I use a transitive verb, but use を to mark something that is\n> moved through or done with effort, may I still mark the agent with を? \n> Compare:\n>\n\n>> [a]子供に道を行かせます。 \n> [b]子供を道を行かせます。 \n> [c]彼に私のことを分からせます。 \n> [d]彼を私のことを分からせます。\n\n**No.** As in (1), you cannot have を appearing more than once in a clause.\n\n**EDIT:** In 4[c] and 4[d], I dont think they're grammatically correct. 分かる is\nan intransitive verb i.e. it cannot be `ことを分かる`. I think a better way to\nexpress it would be:\n\n> [c'] 彼に私のこと​｛について・にかんして｝分からせます。 \n> [d'] 彼を私のこと​｛について・にかんして｝分からせます。\n\n* * *\n\n> **(5)** I've also heard mention that some speakers occasionally use を to\n> mark the agent with intransitive verbs without any further details. Is this\n> something that a seemingly random group of people does? Is it due to\n> dialectal variation? Is there a pattern to when it can be done? Is there a\n> difference in nuance?\n>\n> In the cases where I can choose between marking the agent with を or に, is\n> there any difference in nuance? \n> In a fairly old grammar, I've read that using に _may_ soften the statement\n> a little.\n\nChoosing to use `に` or `を` can mean different things. The exception to this\nrule is that you cannot use `を` more than once in a clause.\n\nThe difference between `を` and `に` lies in the agent/causee's volition.\n\nWhen `に` is used, the causee does the action in line with his volition.\n\nWhen `を` is used, it is independent of the causee's volition. This means it\n**can** have the nuance of being forced. (Although may not always be the case,\nit depends on context)\n\nSo (2)[b] (if grammatical) means that \"you\" intended to sit there, and that\nperson let you. (2)[a] can also mean the same thing, but it can also mean that\nthat person **forced** you to sit there.\n\nNow two questions are begging to be asked:\n\n 1. \"When we have no choice but to use `に` because `を` has already been used once, how do we know if the action is in line with the causee's volition or not?\"\n 2. \"Then how do we express \"being forced to ~\" unambiguously?\"\n\nThe answer to 1. is that we can't. We have no choice but to guess from the\ncontext of which the sentence is being used.\n\nAnd 2. To express \"being forced to ~\" we can use the causative-passive\nconstruction:\n\n> その人は私をそこに座らせられる。(That person made me sit there)", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-01T11:42:02.287", "id": "3626", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-26T17:53:14.980", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3624", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3628", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Does anyone know what \"jukai\" means? Does it exist in the Japanese language?\nSome said it means 'birth or emergence'. Some said it is not \"jukai\" but maybe\n\"jetai\" 'fertilization, conception (breeding)'.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-01T20:03:09.023", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3627", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-01T23:35:55.653", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-01T23:35:55.653", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "416", "post_type": "question", "score": -4, "tags": [ "words" ], "title": "What does \"jukai\" mean?", "view_count": 13767 }

[ { "body": "I only find 3 occurrences of `じゅかい` in my 大辞泉 (none of them dealing with\nbirth):\n\n * 受戒 → accepting/receiving Buddhist precepts\n * 授戒 → giving/conferring Buddhist precepts to followers\n * 樹海 → a \"sea of trees\"; \"broad expanse of dense woodland\"\n\n`Jetai` is not a Japanese word.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-01T20:57:07.413", "id": "3628", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-01T22:19:31.507", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-01T22:19:31.507", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3627", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3639", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've looked in many dictionaries, but I can't fully grasp how the word\n`[苦]{く}[笑]{しょう}` is used. I've seen it in dictionaries as being a kind of\n\"embarrassed laugh\". It appears to be used to deprecate the speaker and others\nor point out ridiculousness, but I see it used in all sorts of ways that may\namount to a kind sarcasm.\n\nCan this word amount to a form of sarcasm, and what is the cultural\nsignificance of this word? Is it used in different ways by men vs women? Is it\nprimarily used in the written language, or is it also spoken in conversation?\n\nAlso, what's the difference between `[苦]{にが}[笑]{わら}い` and `苦笑`?\n\nSome examples of it being used:\n\n> 1. 急{きゅう}に厳{きび}しくなってきた (苦笑) \n> \n>\n> 2. お迎{むか}え待{ま}ち中{ちゅう} (苦笑) \n> \n>\n> 3. 外{がい}部{ぶ}被{ひ}曝{ばく}受{う}けてきました (苦笑)\n>", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-02T01:34:26.293", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3629", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T00:53:40.720", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T00:53:40.720", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "internet-slang" ], "title": "The meaning, usage and cultural significance of the word [苦]{く}[笑]{しょう}", "view_count": 1667 }

[ { "body": "> Can this word amount to a form of sarcasm?\n\nYep. Here is a typical use\n[「中国製2万円ガイガーカウンターの“高性能”に専門家苦笑」](http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/world/china/515144/).\nHere is an example in spoken language:\n\n> A: これで年金は100年安心なんだってさ \n> B: ほんと苦笑{にがわら}いするしかないなぁ\n\nUsually in spoken language, you pronounce it as にがわらい probably because it's\nharder to misunderstand, but the internet abbreviation ((苦笑)) is usually\npronounced くしょう. In written language, both にがわらい and くしょう is common. Both have\nidentical meanings unless you are a novelist or something ;). It is commonly\nused in both written/spoken language.\n\nWomen may less frequently use 苦笑 in a way that mocks other people, but this is\nsecondary to a general tendency (due to women being socially expected to be\nless aggressive) and is not specific to this word. I think it's fair to say\nboth gender use it in the same way.\n\nSocial significance... Personally I think 苦笑 is a very \"Japanese\" word. There\nis also an extremely common emoticon `(^^;)` or also `（汗）` which can be used\n(almost) interchangeably with 苦笑. As you can see, it depicts a person smiling,\nbut sweating at the same time. According to [this undergraduate\npaper](http://www.page.sannet.ne.jp/gucci/seminar/soturon.pdf), these kind of\nemoticon is second most frequently used (most frequent being the simple\n\"smiling\" emoticon). So it definitely appears to be a very important emotion\nin the Japanese language. I myself use this emoticon a lot. Yet when I think\nabout it I can't think of a good parallel in US, Germany. It could be an\ninteresting study.\n\nI think Flaw is onto something with his/her analysis, although I don't think\nthe _primarily, intended_ meaning is \"smile to appear within social norms\".\nPerhaps it's more accurate to say that this word is _used_ to appear within\nsocial norms.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-04T08:14:37.490", "id": "3639", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-04T08:14:37.490", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "3629", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3631", "answer_count": 2, "body": "The word \"should\" in English has these uses when not used as a question:\n\n 1. To express the expectation of the speaker (Probabilistic reasoning). \n * The train should arrive in 10 minutes.\n 2. To express a condition \n * Should it rain, the event will be cancelled.\n 3. To express obligation or the duty of ~. \n * I should go home. \n * You should study hard for the exam.\n 4. To indicate an ideal state perceived by the speaker. \n\n * Everyone should have equal rights.\n\nFrom my understanding, I use `~はず` for 1., `~ば`(or other conditionals) for 2.,\nand `~べき` for 3. .\n\n**(Question)** What can I use for 4.?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-02T03:19:56.793", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3630", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-04T02:36:33.167", "last_edit_date": "2021-02-04T02:36:33.167", "last_editor_user_id": "7810", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "translation", "word-choice", "words", "conditionals" ], "title": "\"Should\" in Japanese", "view_count": 1834 }

[ { "body": "2 could also use `場合` to be a little more formal (`雨の場合は...`). 3 can also use\n`～もの` as another option to `～べき` (`猛勉強するものだよ！`).\n\n4 lacks a little context. While most of the time it will be perceived as\nsubjective (i.e., \"(It's my opinion that) Everyone should have equal rights,\"\nit could also be objective in a few circumstances. For example, \"A new law\npassed. Therefore, everyone should have equal rights (now),\" or something\nsimilar. Each case would use something different, and I'm thinking `～べき` again\nif it's subjective and `～はず` if it's objective.\n\nI'd also add a #5 to your list: subjective recommendation, for which you could\nuse `〜たほうがいい` (and, I believe, also `〜たらいい` or `〜ばいい`).\n\n> お前、風邪【≪かぜ≫】気味【ぎ・み】だね。今日学校を休んだほうがいい。 → You seem sick. You should stay home\n> from school today.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-02T05:11:00.217", "id": "3631", "last_activity_date": "2013-10-10T15:11:47.060", "last_edit_date": "2013-10-10T15:11:47.060", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3630", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "**TL;DR** You should be able to use ～はず or ～べき to indicate an ideal state\nperceived by the speaker, but a phrase that contains 理想 would help to\nemphasize that fact.\n\n* * *\n\n### 1\\. To express the expectation of the speaker (Probabilistic reasoning)\n\nYou say that you would use はず in this case, but given your sample sentence\nthat sounds a bit too strong (unless you are really trying to emphasize the\npoint). I think that ～だろう／～でしょう or even ～よう would be perfectly acceptable and\nprobably more common.\n\n> \"The train should arrive in 10 minutes.\"\n>\n> 電車はあと十分で来るでしょう。 _(when you are expressing your belief or opinion)_\n>\n> 電車はあと十分で来るようです。 _(after looking at a timetable)_\n\n### 2\\. To express a condition\n\nI agree with you in saying that ～ば (or some other conditional) would be\nappropriate in this case.\n\n> \"Should it rain, the event will be cancelled.\"\n>\n> 雨が降ったらイベントは中止になります。\n\n### 3\\. To express obligation or the duty of ~\n\nYou say that you would use ～べき in this case, but the following would also work\njust as well.\n\n * ～なければならい\n * ～なければいけない\n * ～ないといけない\n\nIn fact, I think that these are used more often than ～べき.\n\n> \"I should go home.\"\n>\n> 家に帰らなければいけない。\n>\n> \"You should study hard for the exam.\"\n>\n> ちゃんと勉強しないといけないよ。\n\nNote that you can also use こと to express obligations (I often see this in\nbulleted lists).\n\n> \"You should study every day.\"\n>\n> 毎日勉強すること。\n\n### 4\\. To indicate an ideal state perceived by the speaker\n\nHere I think that you could use either ～はず or ～べき, but to make it clear that\nyou're talking about an ideal state it would probably help to start your\nsentence with a phrase containing 理想.\n\n> \"Everyone should have equal rights.\"\n>\n> 理想上では皆に平等の人権があるはず。", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-03T23:35:01.550", "id": "3637", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-17T02:17:27.350", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "773", "parent_id": "3630", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3686", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I have a couple of questions about the volitional form of verbs that I've\nbecome unclear on lately. Here is a Bible passage containing the grammar in\nquestion:\n\n_(Note that I'm using a Bible passage as I\nhave[before](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1760/how-to-choose-\na-reading-\nfor-%E9%99%8D%E3%82%8B-%E3%81%B5%E3%82%8B-%E3%81%8F%E3%81%A0%E3%82%8B) because\nit directly relates to the topic. I'm not trying to bring any spiritual\ndiscussions into this post.)_\n\n>\n> 「主{しゅ}の名を呼び求める者はだれでも[救]{すく}われる」のです。ところで、信じたことのない[方]{かた}を、どうして呼び求められよう。聞いたことのない方を、どうして信じられよう。また[宣]{の}べ伝{つた}える人がなければ、どうして聞くことができよう。[遣]{つか}わされないで、どうして[宣]{の}べ[伝]{つた}えることができよう。\n> ー ローマの[信徒]{しんと}への手紙 10[章]{しょう}:13-15[節]{せつ}\n>\n> As the scripture says, \"Everyone who calls out to the Lord for help will be\n> saved.\" But how can they call to him for help if they have not believed? And\n> how can they believe if they have not heard the message? And how can they\n> hear if the message is not proclaimed? And how can the mesage be proclaimed\n> if the messengers are not sent out? - Romans 10:13-15\n\nSo, my questions are:\n\n 1. How does the volitional form work in this type of rhetorical question (without a か I might add)? Would the same meaning come across if these questions simply ended in 辞書形＋か (like `どうして信じられるか`)?\n\n 2. Can Verb-意志形 always be replaced by Verb-辞書形＋でしょう／だろう in this type of question? Because substituting that into these questions seems to make a little more sense to me. `どうして信じられるでしょう` → \"How can they (possibly) believe?\"\n\nOf course, it does not make sense that you could substitute it when Verb-意志形\nmeans \"let's do X\". (`あとで外食しよう` → \"Let's go out to eat later\", is clearly\ndifferent than `あとで外食するでしょう` → \"We'll probably go out to eat later\")", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-02T19:33:46.147", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3632", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-29T16:13:32.400", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "verbs", "volitional-form" ], "title": "Verb volitional form (動詞の意志形) - usage", "view_count": 2079 }

[ { "body": "Note that this isn't just the volitional, which for 呼び求める would be 呼び求めよう,\nit's the volitional of the potential form, and it's specifically paired with\nどうして. It is, as you say, a rhetorical question.\n\nどうして呼び求めることができよう(か) would have the same meaning, I don't know why they use\nthat form in some sentences and not in others in your quote.\n\nThis form has a stronger sense of \"impossibility\" than your other suggestions.\nFrom the speaker's point of view, it is impossible for someone to \"call to him\nfor help if they have not believed\".\n\n> 聞いたことのない方を、どうして信じられよう。 (聞かなければ、信じられない。)\n\nSome commentary on どうして + ことができよう in Japanese:\n<http://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/5764430.html>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-09T11:36:38.427", "id": "3686", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-09T11:36:38.427", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "3632", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "> How does the volitional form work in this type of rhetorical question\n> (without a か I might add)?\n\nThis kind of question often end in volitional form. （～しよう, ～だろう, etc.）\n\nか is not absolutely needed if there is a question verb (どうして) in the sentence.\n\n> Would the same meaning come across if these questions simply ended in 辞書形＋か\n> (like どうして信じられるか)?\n\n～ようか sounds like you're thinking about this question, rather than asking\nsomeone else.\n\nどうして信じられる(のだ/のか) can be a rhetorical question, but often requires a listener.\n\nどうして信じられるか is used as a quoted question, どうして信じられるか、分からない\n\n> Can Verb-意志形 always be replaced by Verb-辞書形＋でしょう／だろう in this type of\n> question? Because substituting that into these questions seems to make a\n> little more sense to me. どうして信じられるでしょう → \"How can they (possibly) believe?\"\n\nYes, especially in modern Japanese.\n\n> Of course, it does not make sense that you could substitute it when Verb-意志形\n> means \"let's do X\". (あとで外食しよう → \"Let's go out to eat later\", is clearly\n> different than あとで外食するでしょう → \"We'll probably go out to eat later\")\n\nHmm. I think the Japanese translation of Bible is a special kind of Japanese\n(翻訳調?). It's definitely not 文語調. But it is not the kind of 口語調 we usually\nspeak.\n\nI don't know if you can substitute it when it means \"let's do\", but I think\nit's sometimes substituted when it means “I will (agree to) do”.\n\ne.g. I think such kind of expression is very likely to appear in it.\n\n> 呼び求めよ、然{さ}すれば、我は汝の呼び求めに応えるであろう \n> 悔い改めよ、そうして、我は汝の罪を許すであろう", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-04-26T09:23:28.087", "id": "15606", "last_activity_date": "2014-04-26T10:07:53.790", "last_edit_date": "2014-04-26T10:07:53.790", "last_editor_user_id": "4833", "owner_user_id": "4833", "parent_id": "3632", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I have a fuzzy understanding that っぷる is something like っぽい (-ish) or っぷり\n(manner, style). Could you offer a more clear definition?\n\nFor example someone eating salad for dinner says:\n\n> 貧乏 **っプル** じゃないよ。ベジタブル **っプル** だよ。最近食べ過ぎで野菜をたくさん食べたくなるのよ。", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-03T08:20:33.433", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3634", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:28:11.403", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:28:11.403", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "definitions", "colloquial-language" ], "title": "How would you define っプル?", "view_count": 486 }

[ { "body": "My guess is what you mean is the word ぶる ぶり (also ぷり) derived from ～振る ～振り. If\nso, here is some explanations...\n\nThe original word 振る is a verb meaning \"act like\". Examples are: 急に他人ぶる (act\nsuddenly as if he/she is a stranger), 素人のくせに専門家ぶる (act as if he/she is an\nexpert even though they have no idea). It is more often used to imply that the\nperson isn't what they are trying to imply by their way of acting.\n\n振り is more often used in a positive way, referring to the (honorable) way of\nacting. Example: 見事な食べっぷり (how he/she eats (in a grandiose way)), あっぱれな走りっぷり\n(his/her great way of running).\n\nThis further evolved into the slangy usage of ぶる、ぶり、ぷり. For example one might\nsay 何貧乏ぶってんの？（笑） to mock a friend who made a lot of money by gamble or\nsomething and is wearing old shoes. Another example could be\nあいつの振られっぷりは毎回半端ない（笑）( he always gets turned down by girls in a grandiose way,\nhaha). It's usually used for an humorous effect, so it's not a word you use\noften.\n\nYour example sounds a bit weird and could be rewritten like this:\n\n> 貧乏ぶってるんじゃないよ、ベジタリアンぶってるんだよ。最近食べ過ぎで野菜をたくさん食べたくなるのよ。\n\nThis sounds grammatically correct, but it still sounds weird/confusing because\nit's weird that you'll _act_ like a vegetarian when you simply want to eat\nvegetables. A slightly better example would be:\n\n> A: またもやしかよ。何貧乏ぶってんだよ（笑） \n> B: 貧乏ぶってるんじゃないよ、ベジタリアンぶってるんだよ。ベジタリアンの方がもてるらしいから（笑）\n\n**EDIT:** \nThis word has no relation with プル derived from カップル as in 馬鹿ップル. It's rare to\nuse this ップル for anything else than 馬鹿ップル though. As a native I wouldn't\nrecognize ベジタップル as a 馬鹿ップル variant.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-04T03:17:02.900", "id": "3638", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-04T03:17:02.900", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "3634", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "61301", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'm talking about the `曰` from `曰【いわ】く`, not the common `日【ひ】` we all know and\nlove.\n\n 1. Why would they \"make\" two characters that look (for all intents and purposes) _exactly_ the same?\n 2. How do you really differentiate them except by context? `曰` just looks like a ずんぐりした `日`. Presumably the stroke order is the same? Because I haven't been able to find it anywhere. What would you have to do when actually _writing_ it to make sure it's not mistakable? It looks like the middle line of `曰` intentionally doesn't go all the way across.\n\nI simultaneously love and hate this character. Any insight into its mysterious\nexistence is appreciated.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-03T16:50:14.320", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3635", "last_activity_date": "2018-09-22T07:20:20.217", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:38:30.980", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "kanji", "etymology" ], "title": "What's the deal with/origin of the character 曰?", "view_count": 1602 }

[ { "body": "In your question, you seem to already be aware of what differentiates `曰{いわ}く`\nfrom `日{ひ}`, which is that the middle stroke does not go all the way across,\nso that it does not touch the vertical stroke on the right side.\n\nSo I think the issue your having is the same as one that I remember having a\nlong time ago when first learning kanji, which was an underappreciation of how\nexacting the Japanese language is about how kanji are written. For me, it was\nthe difference between `土` and `士` that first confused and then educated me\nabout how what I thought were subtle differences were actually big\ndifferences. In English, we can be a lot more flexible about how to write a\ncharacter without losing the understanding of which character it is. Probably\nbecause with so many fewer characters, the risk of ambiguity is less, though\nthat's just a pet hypothesis of mine.\n\nIn any case, for the most part, in Japanese small differences like that which\ndifferentiates `日{ひ}` and `曰{いわ}く` really do matter, and signify entirely\ndifferent characters. (Which negates the need to answer your other question\nabout how it is the same character is used for such different things, since\nthey are not, in fact, the same character).\n\nTake a look at [this page](http://nihonshock.com/2009/09/20-similar-looking-\nkanji/), or [this\npage](http://www.kanjitastic.com/en/kanji/list/set/Similar_Kanji), each of\nwhich provudes lists of kanji characters that look very similar. Note, for\nexample, the subtle differences between `己{おのれ}`, `已{のみ}`, and `巳{み}`.\n\nOn my computer, the difference between `日{ひ}` and `曰{いわ}く` is not clear\nbecause of the font I'm using. If that's the case with you, look at [this\npage](http://kakijun.main.jp/page/iwaku04200.html) which shows a clear graphic\nof how to draw `曰{いわ}く`, so you can see very clearly that the middle stroke is\nintentionally not touching the right side.\n\nHaving said all that, you should also be aware that sometimes there are small\ndifferences in the conventions of how kanji are drawn, so that there are cases\nwhere the same kanji can be drawn differently, depending on the font or the\nperson writing it. Take a look at [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3191/why-are-there-two-\nversions-of-the-kanji-for-tsumetai) especially, and also maybe [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2990/distinguishing-\ncertain-characters-in-handwriting-and-print) to explore those issues.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-03T20:17:19.510", "id": "3636", "last_activity_date": "2014-02-08T03:05:09.713", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3635", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "## **Why would they \"make\" two characters that look (for all intents and\npurposes) exactly the same?**\n\nThey didn't look the same, the shapes just happened to converge.「日」depicts the\nsun:\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/Go6P1.png) \n[前](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/JiaguwenReference)4.29.5 \n[合集8236](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/jgwhj/?bhfl=1&bh=8236&jgwfl=)`` \n[篆](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_seal_script) \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OnmpK.png) \n[說文解字](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuowen_Jiezi) \n``現代 \n[楷](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_script) \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aitEX.png) \n[標楷體](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A8%99%E6%A5%B7%E9%AB%94) \n``現代 \n楷 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FUlgi.png) \nEPSON正楷 \n`\n\nThe horizontal line in the middle (sometimes a dot, sometimes completely\nabsent) was to distinguish「日」from visually similar shapes such as「囗」and「〇」.\n\n「口」( _mouth_ ) was originally not confusable with these shapes, being a\npicture of a mouth with the corners of the mouth obviously drawn:\n\n# `商 \n甲 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/857rl.png) \n[珠](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/JiaguwenReference)579 \n[合集27706](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/jgwhj/?bhfl=1&bh=27706&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/GwnLH.png) \n[睡](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuihudi_Qin_bamboo_texts)ㆍ[為](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/QinwenziReference)32 \n``現代 \n楷 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qvvlY.png) \n標楷體 \n`\n\nUnfortunately, the corners of the mouth later disappeared, leaving us with a\nsimple shape [commonly confused with「囗」( _to surround_ ) and「〇」( _a circle_\n)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/45298/is-there-a-difference-\nin-drawing-between-the-mouth-and-enclosure-kanji-radic/60353#60353) in the\nmodern script.\n\nThe character「曰」was created from「口」, being originally a depiction of a mouth\nwith a mark above it representing _outwards_ direction from the mouth,\nindicating the meaning _to speak_.\n\n# `商 \n甲 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4MYKG.png) \n[前](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/JiaguwenReference)7.17.4 \n[合集8233](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/jgwhj/?bhfl=1&bh=8233&jgwfl=)``秦 \n簡 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yiHhJ.png) \n[睡ㆍ法](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/QinwenziReference)121 \n``現代 \n楷 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/e4yac.png) \n標楷體 \n``現代 \n楷 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EQcH4.png) \nEPSON正楷 \n`\n\n> Adding a small mark to represent directionality was part of how the\n> characters「上」and「下」came into being. Both originally used a long horizontal\n> line as a reference, and a smaller mark representing the direction from the\n> reference; the vertical strokes weren't added until later.\n>\n> # `商 \n> 甲 \n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kYsN2.png) \n>\n> [前](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/JiaguwenReference)7.32.4「上」 \n> [合集102](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/jgwhj/?bhfl=1&bh=102&jgwfl=)``商 \n> 甲 \n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ylErq.png) \n>\n> [甲](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/JiaguwenReference)942「下」 \n> [合集8943](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/jgwhj/?bhfl=1&bh=8493&jgwfl=)`\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> The structure of「曰」is very similar to the structure of the synonym「言」.「言」was\n> originally「舌」( _tongue_ ) with an additional horizontal mark on top.\n>\n> # `商 \n> 甲 \n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/w4bgZ.png) \n> [甲](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/JiaguwenReference)499 \n> [合集30697](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/jgwhj/?bhfl=1&bh=30697&jgwfl=)``秦 \n> 簡 \n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RKHJn.png) \n> [睡ㆍ秦](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian/Reference/QinwenziReference)1 \n> ``[西漢](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_dynasty#Western_Han) \n> 篆 \n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4jMaE.png) \n> [老子](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching)ㆍ甲 \n> ``現代 \n> 楷 \n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/N1IVj.png) \n> \n> `\n>\n> For reference,「舌」was originally a picture of a tongue sticking out of a\n> mouth「口」with saliva marks.\n>\n> # `商 \n> 甲 \n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/60Yp7.png) \n> \n> [合集6248](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/jgwhj/?bh=6248&bhfl=1)`` \n> 篆 \n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5LBmt.png) \n> 說文解字 \n> ``現代 \n> 楷 \n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/maunT.png) \n> \n> `\n\nThere is a further character which has the potential to cause confusion:「甘」(\n_delicious_ > _sweet_ ) was also created from「口」, being originally a depiction\nof something tasty (represented by a mark) inside of「口」.\n\n# `商 \n甲 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/654qv.png) \n乙1010 \n[合集21731](http://www.guoxuedashi.com/jgwhj/?bhfl=1&bh=21731&jgwfl=)`` \n篆 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z2aCS.png) \n說文解字 \n``現代 \n楷 \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/k6l29.png) \n標楷體 \n`\n\n* * *\n\n## **How do you really differentiate them except by context?**\n\nUnfortunately, the mark in「曰」sometimes shifted position or was drawn right\nacross the horizontal boundaries of the character. The [regular\nscript](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_script) samples above are from a\nTaiwanese (標楷體) and Japanese font (EPSON正楷書体), respectively, and in the\nTaiwanese font the middle horizontal lines span both「曰」and「日」, while in the\nJapanese font the line does not span either character, making this at best an\nunreliable way of distinguishing the two.\n\n**As individual characters,「曰」and「日」should be distinguished by their\nwidth;「曰」is _never_ taller than it is wide, while「日」is _always_ taller than it\nis wide.**\n\nEven this method is unreliable when it comes to _component parts_ of\ncharacters, because modern parts of characters obey proportion rules for\naesthetic purposes rather than for semantics, and the shape of the component\nis no longer relevant in this case. This is most obviously demonstrated in\n[the character「晶」, which is really three\nsmaller「日」](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/60304/does-the-\netymology-of-%E6%98%9F-suggest-the-japanese-chinese-knew-the-sun-was-a-\nstar/60306#60306) stretched to various proportions in different fonts.\nFortunately,\n\n * 「日」is found as part of characters to do with _time/brightness/rising/weather_. If it's not on the left or right side, its position in a character may also provide a semantic hint, e.g. \n * 昇 ( _rise up_ )\n * 間 ( _gap_ > _space_ , depicting sunlight streaming through a gap in the door)\n * 昏, 暮 ( _dusk_ )\n * 「曰」and「甘」are both semantically connected to _mouth_ and/or modified from the shape of「口」.\n\n * 會 ( _to meet_ , originally contained「口」modified to「曰」)\n * 旨 ( _delicious_ , originally contained「口」modified to「甘」, now looking like「曰」)\n * 曹, 者, 香 (contains [_distinguishing marks_](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/45298/is-there-a-difference-in-drawing-between-the-mouth-and-enclosure-kanji-radic/60353#60353))\n * How about when both semantic parts are found in one character?\n\n * 「昌」was the original character of「唱」, which was a compound indicating a _morning_ (represented by a risen sun「日」) _call_ (originally「口」, now「曰」) _to work_ , extended to mean _chant, song_.\n\n**As components, we can only distinguish between「曰」and「日」based on the entire\ncharacter, and not the shape of the component.**\n\n* * *\n\n# References:\n\n * 季旭昇《說文新證》\n * [Multi-function Chinese Character Database](http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/lexi-mf/)\n * [Chinese Linguipedia](http://chinese-linguipedia.org/)\n * [小學堂](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-09-03T15:11:11.083", "id": "61301", "last_activity_date": "2018-09-22T07:20:20.217", "last_edit_date": "2018-09-22T07:20:20.217", "last_editor_user_id": "26510", "owner_user_id": "26510", "parent_id": "3635", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "When composing sentences in Japanese, the verb tends to be last right? For\nexample,\n\nバナナを食べました。 --> I ate a banana\n\nBut recently I came across a sentence where the verb was at the beginning of\nthe the sentence.\n\n折れた淡い翼。\n\nHow is this possible? 「折れた」 means \"broken; bended,\" would it translate as \"\nbroken fleeting wings\"?\n\nThis is the first line in a song that I am trying to translate. The first\nverse is as follows:\n\n> 折れた淡い翼\n>\n> きみは少し青すぎる空につかれただけさ\n>\n> もう誰かのためじゃなくて\n>\n> 自分のために笑っていいよ\n\nI am not worried about the translation but rather why the verb is in the\nbeginning of the sentence and why there is no need for 「を」.\n\nThank you!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-04T16:11:28.757", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3640", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-28T02:34:58.830", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:27:47.160", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "822", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "readings", "relative-clauses" ], "title": "How can a verb be in the beginning of a sentence when it is usually at the end? Ex. 折れた淡い翼。", "view_count": 1218 }

[ { "body": "It happens in sentences where the verb acts kind of like an adjective. I mean,\nnot exactly but here is an example:\n\nIn English you might say \"The person I met yesterday\" which turns into\n\"昨日会った人\" (きのうあったひと) in Japanese or \"The banana I ate yesterday\" =>\n\"昨日食べたバナナ\"。I think this is called noun phrase in English.\n\nThe important thing about this is that it's one complete part of a sentence.\nSo if you have \"I want to meet X again\" you can replace X with \"the person I\nmet yesterday\":\n\n\"X また会いたい\" => \"昨日会った人にまた会いたい\"\n\nHope this helps.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-04T16:30:22.133", "id": "3641", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-04T21:53:14.620", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-04T21:53:14.620", "last_editor_user_id": "388", "owner_user_id": "388", "parent_id": "3640", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "For one thing, it's not a complete sentence. It looks a lot like a song title.\n\n`折れた淡い翼だ` would be a properly formed sentence, if a somewhat odd one in\nisolation.\n\nOne of the things you can do with plain-form sentences in Japanese is use them\nto modify nouns. In Japanese, there's a general rule that when X modifies noun\nY, the ordering is \"X, then Y\".\n\nA sentence ending in Xだ changes to modify noun Y with XのY (usually).\n\nA verb or i-adjective simply uses its plain form directly before the noun Y.\n\nIn this case, both the adjective (淡い) and the past-tense verb (折れた) modify the\nsame noun (翼).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-04T16:42:52.073", "id": "3642", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-28T02:34:58.830", "last_edit_date": "2013-12-28T02:34:58.830", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "29", "parent_id": "3640", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "They both mean \"Can you/I eat?\" So can they be used interchangeably?\n\nI know that the て-form is used when speaking a command to someone so is it a\nmore direct(?) form of asking a question? Like asking a question to someone\nwho is superior to you?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-04T17:17:16.273", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3643", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T04:47:00.367", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T04:47:00.367", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "822", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "What is the difference between 「食べるいいですか」 and 「食べていいですか」", "view_count": 317 }

[ { "body": "The difference is that the former is ungrammatical, the latter is grammatical.\nThey cannot be used interchangeably.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-04T17:24:47.713", "id": "3644", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-04T17:24:47.713", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3643", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I have read several definitions of だって but none of them seem to make sense\nwhen I see it at the beginning of a sentence and I read the context. I saw one\nexample Japanese sentence and in the English translation だって wasn't translated\ninto anything.\n\nSo what is だって when it's at the beginning of a sentence?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-04T23:05:05.457", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3645", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:27:00.527", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:27:00.527", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "meaning", "register", "copula", "て-form", "ellipsis" ], "title": "What is だって when it's at the beginning of a sentence?", "view_count": 2164 }

[ { "body": "Well, since I have no examples to go off of, I'll guess at which type of\nscenario you're thinking of. It can mean like \"But\" or \"Well (then)\" in a kind\nof defensive sort of way. Usually giving a reason for some action. Like\nなぜかというと. Ex:\n\n> お皿{さら}のものはみんな食{た}べなさい → Eat everything on your plate. \n> だってお腹{なか}が一杯{いっぱい}なんだもん → But I'm full!", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-04T23:20:45.087", "id": "3646", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-05T01:57:11.507", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-05T01:57:11.507", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3645", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "だって (at the beginning of a sentence!) is always followed by:\n\n * reason, pretext (because, ...etc.)\n * opposition (but, ...etc.)\n\nSo it's not only 'but' or 'like I said'.\n\nIt's context dependent and it CAN be translated as because.\n\n_(Context is an emo-schoolgirl-drama.)_\n\n> **山崎くん** ：スマイルぐらいしてよ。なんでオレともう喋らないの？\n>\n> _At least give me a smile. Why don't you talk to me anymore?_\n>\n> **リカちゃん** ：だって、「りかちゃんが好きじゃない」って聞いちゃった\n>\n> _Because I heard you don't like me._", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-07T14:14:30.547", "id": "3664", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-07T14:14:30.547", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "793", "parent_id": "3645", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "Also seen as 「ハイきたぁ～！」.\n\nMaybe it's used among young people.\n\nIt seems to express the idea that you have achieved your expectations, or\nsomething like that.\n\nI hope someone can explain it better.\n\nYoroshiku.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-04T23:35:53.483", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3647", "last_activity_date": "2019-06-15T23:23:47.670", "last_edit_date": "2019-06-15T23:23:47.670", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "expressions" ], "title": "What does 「ハイきた。」 mean?", "view_count": 1216 }

[ { "body": "It's a colloquial form of `はい、来た` as in \"yep, (it's) come\" or \"yep, (it's)\narrived\".\n\nThe way it seemed to be used when I searched blogs (when written as `ハイきた` and\nother similar variants) was mainly \"just in!\", \"read all about it!\", \"scoop!\"\netc. It was often put as the title in blog posts or just before images etc for\ndramatic effect.\n\nIt also looks like it can have a different meaning when written as `ハイきたぁ～！`\nand similar, taking the meaning \"yep, the time has come!\", \"yes, it's that\ntime again!\", \"oh no (not again)!\" etc in the context of exams et al.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-05T03:57:25.163", "id": "3648", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-05T13:15:43.663", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-05T13:15:43.663", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3647", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "「はい、きたぁ~」 is fairly close to \"there we go\" in English.\n\n「はい、きたぁ~」 can be used for positive and negative events. 「はい、きたぁ~」being used\nfor pleasant events is more frequent.\n\nOne nuance is that when you use 「はい、きたぁ~」 for negative event it would probably\ncorrespond more to \"there we go again\", then to \"there we go\".\n\nHope it helps.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-03-02T08:04:41.090", "id": "14682", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-02T08:04:41.090", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4803", "parent_id": "3647", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "It's like saying \"Here it comes!\" if it is in context of キターーー(゜∀゜)ーーーー!!!!!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-03-02T11:48:26.283", "id": "14690", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-02T11:48:26.283", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4804", "parent_id": "3647", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "I don't understand when you use them and what the difference is between the\nthree.\n\nFor example, when you say:\n\n> 火事 **によって** 多くの森林が焼けてしまった。 \n> 今回の地震 **による** 津波の心配はない。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-05T05:20:16.177", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3649", "last_activity_date": "2020-03-14T14:24:52.437", "last_edit_date": "2020-03-14T14:24:52.437", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "825", "post_type": "question", "score": 30, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "て-form" ], "title": "What's the difference between による, により and によって?", "view_count": 31770 }

[ { "body": "Depending on the context, they can all mean:\n\n * **because of/due to** (a reason):\n\n> **震災{しんさい}によって** たくさんの人の命が失われた。 \n> There were many people who lost their lives **due to the earthquake**.\n\n * **by** (a method/way/means):\n\n> 先生は **テストにより** 、[学生]{がくせい}が[理解]{りかい}したかどうかをチェックする。 \n> Teachers check if students understand **by (means of) tests**.\n\n * **by** (identifies the agent of the action, particularly in a passive sentence):\n\n> この機械{きかい}は **誰によって** [発明]{はつめい}されましたか？ \n> **Who** was this machine invented **by**? \n> \n> (just for comparison, here's that as an active sentence without `によって`): \n> この機械を発明したのは誰ですか？ \n> Who invented this machine?\n\n * **dependant on** (when highlighting differences):\n\n> 生活{せいかつ}習慣{しゅうかん}は **国によって** 違う。 \n> Lifestyles differ **depending on the country**.\n\n`によって` and `により` are effectively the same [according to\nDaijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%AB%E3%82%88%E3%82%8A&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&index=115020900000&pagenum=1),\nbut `により` is somewhat more formal than `によって` [according to\nDaijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%AB%E3%82%88%E3%82%8A&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0&index=14147100&pagenum=1).\nI'll try to break up your example sentence (and add one for `により`):\n\n> **火事{かじ}によって** 多くの[森林]{しんりん}が焼{や}けてしまった。 \n> **Because of a fire** many forests burnt down. \n>\n>\n> 牛は **角{つの}により** 人は **言葉により** 捕{つか}まえられる。 \n> An ox is taken **by the horns** and a man **by word**.\n\n`による` is slightly different (i.e. `による` is used in the following example\nbecause it's talking about a _tsunami_ because of the earthquake):\n\n> 今回の **地震{じしん}による津波{つなみ}** の心配{しんぱい}はない。 \n> There's no worry of a **tsunami because of the earthquake** this time. \n>", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-05T05:55:26.053", "id": "3650", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-07T03:05:59.447", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-07T03:05:59.447", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3649", "post_type": "answer", "score": 29 }, { "body": "による modifies a noun, and both により and によって modify a verb or an adjective.\n\nにより and によって are almost synonymous, although in the informal context, によって is\nmore usual than により.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-06T00:42:55.810", "id": "3658", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-06T00:42:55.810", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3649", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "I ended up reaching this post because I was looking for the answer while\nreading through the grammar but I think I finally understand.\n\nLike user797 pointed out, によって is depending on/according to.\n\nBut whether or not you were asking this, I think want to know the difference\nfrom that compared to both による and によると. I'm assumign this because I was the\nmost confused about this. The book I'm using specifically says that AによるとB\nmeans The information from 'B' depends on the actual source which is 'A'.\n\n人によって意見は違う。 Opinions are different depending on the people. (no direct source)\n彼によると悪い判断だった. According to him, it was a bad decision. (direct source is him)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-11-07T15:55:47.667", "id": "13370", "last_activity_date": "2013-11-07T15:55:47.667", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1557", "parent_id": "3649", "post_type": "answer", "score": -3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3653", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I don't understand what the `-化` suffix in the following sentence means for a\nword like `カリスマ`, or why fearing it can lead to early retirement. Can anyone\nshine some light?\n\n> 52歳の若さではあったが、カリスマ化を恐れて早々に身を引き、...", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-05T10:21:17.360", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3651", "last_activity_date": "2012-04-07T12:23:12.460", "last_edit_date": "2012-04-07T12:23:12.460", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "318", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "words" ], "title": "Meaning of -化 in context", "view_count": 1200 }

[ { "body": "Let's examine 化 and some compound words it forms:\n\n> * 化(suffix) - action of making something\n>\n> * 悪化する - worsen, deteriorate. Lit: to make worse \n> Corresponding noun (without する) : deterioration\n>\n> * 一体化する - unify, integrate. Lit: to make into one body \n> Corresponding nouns: unification, integration\n>\n> * 一般化する - generalise. Lit: to make general/ordinary \n> Corresponding nouns: generalisation, popularisation\n>\n>\n\nNow for カリスマ化する, the literal meaning would roughly be \"to make charismatic\",\nand its corresponding noun would be as glacier puts it \"charismatification\".\nNot a real word but it's supposed to mean \"the process of being made\ncharismatic\".\n\nFor the translation of the whole excerpt I think glacier has done a pretty\ngood job in the question comment.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-05T15:14:56.617", "id": "3653", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-05T15:14:56.617", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3651", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "やる時{とき}やるじゃん！ (Yaru toki yaru jan!)\n\nI think the meaning is something like \"When you want to do something, you do\nit\".\n\nOr maybe, \"When you are about to do something, you just do it.\"\n\nThis is a positive expression?\n\nDoes it mean you have confidence in what you do? Or that you do it without\nthinking first?\n\nThanks!", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-05T15:09:54.187", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3652", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-06T01:48:42.137", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-06T01:48:42.137", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "expressions" ], "title": "My friend said she says \"やる時やる.\" a lot. What's the translation to english?", "view_count": 2016 }

[ { "body": "やる時はやる means \"When [you/I] (really decide to) do things, [you/I] **do** them\".\nThe nuance is that you don't just **try** to do them, you do them and do them\nwell.\n\nThe expression conveys that a person has the ability to do things well when\nthey put their minds to it, even if they are slow to act in the first place.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-05T20:42:37.343", "id": "3656", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-05T20:42:37.343", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3652", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "I think it means to get things done when necessary. Here is an example taken\nfrom\n[here](http://www.websaru.info/%E3%81%8A%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8%E3%82%8A.html):\n\n花子はオットリしているようで、やるときはやる人間だ。\n\nHanako seems quiet, but she get things done when it's necessary.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-05T20:47:21.277", "id": "3657", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-05T20:47:21.277", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "388", "parent_id": "3652", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3655", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider this sentence:\n\n> それは三十年前のことだから、もう[fill in the blank]。\n\nThe answer given by the workbook is `忘れた`.\n\nChoices are:\n\n 1. 忘れる (forget)\n 2. 忘れた (forgot)\n 3. 忘れている (continued state of forgetting)\n 4. 忘れていた (had forgotten, currently may or may not be forgotten)\n\nMy thought process:\n\nChoice 1 is ruled out because it is present/future tense, but the question\ndescribes something in the past.\n\nChoice 3 cannot make sense to me. If one is able to talk about something that\none forgets, the person is currently not forgetting it. (I do not see how this\ncan make sense in the first person) (Unless it's a dynamic state of memory\nwhere the person keeps forgetting and recalling bits and pieces?)\n\nChoice 4 was my choice. I don't understand why 2 is correct while 4 is not. I\nthought 4 to be correct because he had forgotten about the issue, but is\ncurrently remembering it while making the statement.\n\n**(Question)** Why is choice 2 correct and 4 wrong? And under what\ncircumstances do we use 3 ?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-05T16:41:17.493", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3654", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:25:26.457", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:25:26.457", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "word-choice", "tense", "て-form" ], "title": "Usage of 忘れる, 忘れた, 忘れている, 忘れていた", "view_count": 1726 }

[ { "body": "I am pretty sure that wherever you had this question, there was a context\nbecause any of these four can be correct depending on the context. If it was\nasked without context, I will have to say that your source is not reliable for\nstudying Japanese.\n\n> 1. 僕はこれまで彼をある出来事のために恨んできた。でも、それは三十年前のことだから、もう忘れる。\n>\n> 2. 僕はかつて難しい計算ができた。でも、それは三十年前のことだから、もう忘れた。\n>\n> 3. 僕は難しい計算ができたはずだ。でも、それは三十年前のことだから、もう忘れている。今、試験を受けてみて分かった。\n>\n> 4. そういえば、僕は以前にここに来たことがあった。でも、それは三十年前のことだから、もう忘れていた。\n>\n>\n\n`忘れる`'s inner event is done at an instance. So the use of `ている` form for this\nverb means that the completed state sustains. Together with tense, it can mean\nfour things:\n\n * 1). Non-past non-perfective: 'the instantanious event of forgetting happens in non-past'\n * 2). Past non-perfective: 'the instantanious event of forgetting happened in past'\n * 3). Non-past perfective: 'the state of having forgotten has sustained up till now'\n * 4). Past perfective: 'the state of having forgotten has sustained up till past'", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-05T18:07:59.180", "id": "3655", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-06T03:01:09.903", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3654", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3661", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Someone has said this in my manga.\n\n> まず！我らの使命は２つ！！\n\nDoes he actually say \"two\" or \"に\"? If the latter, why not use 二? I don't see\n二つ as being any different.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-07T01:56:17.610", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3660", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:19:20.943", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:19:20.943", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "452", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "readings", "numbers" ], "title": "When a number is written in western numerals, how do you say them?", "view_count": 394 }

[ { "body": "“2つ” is just another notation for “二つ,” and is read as ふたつ, although some\npeople consider the notation “2つ” as incorrect.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-07T02:38:18.493", "id": "3661", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-07T02:38:18.493", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3660", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "> Does he actually say \"two\" or \"に\"?\n\nAs @Tsuyoshi said, `2つ` is read `ふたつ`\n\n> If the latter, why not use 二? I don't see ニつ as being any different.\n\nIt's a manga, as you said, and it's very common to have a lot of crappy\nwritten Japanese in them (special readings, mix of English, neologisms…).\n_You_ don't see 2つ being different from 二つ, but _the author_ did. You'll have\nto ask him why he chose this \"spelling\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-07T04:56:50.180", "id": "3662", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-07T08:34:09.003", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-07T08:34:09.003", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3660", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I only know the 2 meanings of it as follow:\n\n 1. Use when thinking - no meaning\n 2. Use to agree with others - the meaning is like \"yes, I think so\"\n\nWhat else and what situation can it be used?\n\nIf someone ask me \"これはあなたの財布ですか？”, Can I answer 「そうですね」? Is it strange? or Is\nit better to answer without 「ね」?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-07T15:29:13.030", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3665", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:24:51.760", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:24:51.760", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "730", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "translation", "words", "meaning", "register" ], "title": "How and when to use 「そうですね」？", "view_count": 4428 }

[ { "body": "In your example:\n\n> これはあなたの財布ですか\n\nそうですね doesn't work.\n\nThe ね at the end gives a feeling of asking for a confirmation (As in _yes,\nright?_ )\n\nAt the beginning of a sentence ね is used to get someone's attention or (if\nfollowed by an interrogation mark) to ask for confirmation.\n\nJust use そうです instead.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-07T15:52:27.930", "id": "3666", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-07T15:52:27.930", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "793", "parent_id": "3665", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "そうですね can also be if you are thinking about the response or even if you are\ndisagreeing with a statement.\n\n```\n\n 最近円高って大変だと思わないですか\n そうですね。大丈夫だと思いますよ。\n \n```\n\nIt is used by a listener to acknowledge something you said, but not\nnecessarily agree with it. Like, 'I get that you think that, but I completely\ndisagree.'", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-09T13:54:27.990", "id": "3687", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-09T13:54:27.990", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "838", "parent_id": "3665", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "For example :日本語を勉強します.\n\nDo you pronounce ni hon go wo or ni hon go---", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-07T16:17:25.637", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3667", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-21T14:56:33.053", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-10T16:53:49.660", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "828", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "particles", "pronunciation", "particle-を" ], "title": "How do you pronounce を after a subject?", "view_count": 6895 }

[ { "body": "「を」 is never used to lengthen a 「お」 sound, only 「う」 or 「ー」, and in certain\nspecific situations 「お」.\n\nHaving said that, the \"w\" sound is normally elided so that it sounds _similar_\nto a long 「お」, but there is usually enough of a difference to make a\ndistinction.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-07T16:39:13.130", "id": "3668", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-07T23:51:02.870", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-07T23:51:02.870", "last_editor_user_id": "22", "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "3667", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "“を” is pronounced in the same way as “お,” that is, without a consonant.\nTherefore, if it is preceded by a mora with vowel /o/, it sounds in the same\nway as [chōonpu](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%8Donpu) “ー.”\n\nSome people pronounce “を” as /wo/, but this pronunciation is nonstandard.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-07T22:51:16.453", "id": "3669", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-07T22:51:16.453", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3667", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "日本語を勉強します\n\nIn other languages (I don't know the term for this) 語を can be transcribed as\n`go'o`\n\nThere is a slight stop between both sound, almost not perceptible. In faster\nspeech, if no cut is perceptible, there is definitely an accentuation\ndifference. (or voice level)\n\nTo compare with other similar sounds:\n\n * おう is an uninterrupted `ooh` sound\n * おお if part of the same word, is also an uninterrupted `ooh` sound\n * ...お お... (as in 2 different words 日本語おねがい) is also a `o'o` sound", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T00:37:04.317", "id": "3670", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-08T00:37:04.317", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "793", "parent_id": "3667", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "The other answers seem to have come controversy, so I'm going to propose a\ndifferent approach, which is that of a non-native learner of the language.\nNative speakers will disagree about the pauses and intonations, just like\nnative English speakers disagree over things like\n\"[tomato](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2oEmPP5dTM)\".\n\nThe point to know, in reference to your question, is that there is no\nconvention or rule that makes `を` combine with a word before it.\n\nHowever, when listening to native speakers talk, as a non-native, you will\n_very likely not hear any distinction_ , especially if they are speaking\nquickly. And, of course, any kind of distinction you might discern will vary\ndepending on who you listen to, so you can't expect it every time.\n\nMy recommendation to you as a learner of the language is that when you _speak_\n, consciously keep `を` separate from the word before. Pause if you want, don't\nif you don't want. Also, whether or not your separation of `を` from the word\nbefore it is distinct or not will not matter too much to a listener, because\ncontext makes it understood that it was there.\n\nThe important thing is that you know it's there. Because good grammar is not\njust a good idea, it's the law.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T02:27:42.430", "id": "3702", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-21T14:56:33.053", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-21T14:56:33.053", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3667", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I recently heard about a manga entitled\n_[つっぱしり元太郎](http://www.mangazukan.com/2006/11/post_588b.html)_ , and I'm\nslightly confused about the meaning of the 「つっぱしり」 in its name. I've looked\nthe word up in several dictionaries, but have gotten no results.\n\nFrom what I know and have seen, it seems that it is derived from the verb\n[突っ走る]{つっぱしる} (which would make sense given the apparent nature of the manga.)\n\nThus my question is: What is 「つっぱしり」 in this context? Is it an independent\nnoun or adjective (if so, what is its meaning?), or is it grammatical-form\nderived from the aforementioned verb (if so, what is the grammar behind it?)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T04:05:35.150", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3671", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-13T14:49:00.390", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-13T14:49:00.390", "last_editor_user_id": "11849", "owner_user_id": "58", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice" ], "title": "What does 「つっぱしり」mean in this context?", "view_count": 557 }

[ { "body": "Let us examine the form of the verb in question.\n\n`突っ走る` is the `終止形` (Dictionary form) Or the form you would normally use for\npresent/future tense.\n\n`突っ走り` is the `連用形` (Verb continuative form)\n\nOne of the uses of a verb in `連用形` is to form verbal compounds:\n\n> Consider these in isolation:\n>\n> * 着{き}る (Verb in 終止形) meaning \"To wear\"\n>\n> * 物{もの} (Noun) meaning \"thing\"\n>\n>\n\n>\n> Now consider the compound from their combination:\n>\n> * 着物{きもの} meaning \"kimono\" or literally as \"a thing you wear\" (着 is the\n> 連用形 of 着る)\n>\n\nNow let's examine `つっぱしり元太郎`:\n\n> Consider them in isolation:\n>\n> * つっぱしり - 連用形 of つっぱしる meaning \"to run swiftly\"\n>\n> * 元太郎(noun) - Gentarou (I assume a person's name)\n>\n>\n\n>\n> Put them together to form:\n>\n> * つっぱしり元太郎 - \"(the) Gentarou (who) runs swiftly\"\n>\n\nNow let's compare `つっぱしる元太郎` with `つっぱしり元太郎`.\n\nUsing 連用形 to modify the noun makes it an (intrinsic) attribute of the noun.\nUsing the plain form(連体形) to modify the noun describes the noun in terms of\nwhat it is currently doing(being) or will do(be).\n\n> * つっぱしる元太郎 - \"Gentarou who is running(or will be running) swiftly\"\n>\n> * つっぱしり元太郎 - \"Gentarou who has the attribute of being able to run swiftly\"\n>\n>\n\n* * *\n\nTidbit on `終止形` and `連体形`:\n\n> 手紙はペンで書く (Write a letter with a pen) \n> 書く is in 終止形 or \"sentence ending form\" or \"predicative form\"\n>\n> ペンで書く手紙 (A pen-written letter) \n> 書く is in 連体形 or \"attributive form\"\n>\n> There might be some confusion because now apparently the \"attributive form\"\n> does not in fact give the noun the attribute! Actually what it does is it\n> attributes **the action** to the noun, which is so very different from\n> describing it with an intrinsic attribute.\n>\n> Compare with `書き手紙`. That would mean \"the letter that writes\" which does not\n> make sense under most contexts.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T04:36:24.807", "id": "3672", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-09T11:11:51.450", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3671", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "> I'm slightly confused about the meaning of the 「つっぱしり」 in its name. I've\n> looked the word up in several dictionaries, but have gotten no results.\n\nRikaichan immediately gives the verb you quoted. `つっぱしり` is naturally a noun\nderived for it.\n\n> Thus my question is: What is 「つっぱしり」 in this context?\n\nNothing more than a nickname I guess. Like Mickeal \"King of the pop\" Jackson,\n\"Typhoid\" Mary, and many others…", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T09:42:04.390", "id": "3681", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-08T09:42:04.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3671", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3676", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I have this sentence in one of my JLPT practise books:\n\n> 電子{でんし}レンジは冷{さ}めた料理{りょうり}を温{あたた}める **のに** 重宝{ちょうほう}だ。\n\nI thought `のに` meant something like \"in spite of\". So, to me, this sentence\nseems to be saying that a microwave oven is convenient (or a \"precious\ntreasure\") _in spite_ of the fact that it warms cold food.\n\n... but, isn't that exactly what a microwave oven is supposed to do? Shouldn't\nthe sentence be something more like:\n\n> 電子{でんし}レンジは冷{さ}めた料理{りょうり}を温{あたた}める **ので** 重宝{ちょうほう}だ。\n\nIs this a typo, or is `のに` used in another way that make sense here?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T06:52:49.290", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3673", "last_activity_date": "2018-04-09T03:08:54.387", "last_edit_date": "2018-04-09T03:08:54.387", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-に", "particle-の", "particle-で", "jlpt" ], "title": "This instance of のに is opposite from my expectations", "view_count": 477 }

[ { "body": "I suspect it's the nominalizer の, making the noun phrase \"...温めるの\". Then the\n'directional/intention' particle に is appended, giving intention towards which\nthe 電子レンジ can be considered 重宝.\n\nThis can be occasionally tricky to sort out from the \"in spite of\" usage, but\nit is an alternate parse to be aware of.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T07:34:51.937", "id": "3675", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-08T07:34:51.937", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "29", "parent_id": "3673", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "のに can have several meanings, \"despite\" being the most common one. But it can\nalso mean \"in order to\" (~のため）. Here are some examples (taken from\n[here](http://www.jgram.org/pages/viewOne.php?tagE=noni-2)):\n\n> パスポートは海外旅行に行くのに必要です。 \n> A passport is necessary to travel abroad.\n>\n> 電子レンジは冷めた料理を温めるのに重宝だ。 \n> A microwave is handy to heat up cold food.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T07:36:48.540", "id": "3676", "last_activity_date": "2018-04-09T03:08:34.250", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "388", "parent_id": "3673", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3682", "answer_count": 1, "body": "On the web I can find many occurrences of both 色々な and 色々の. \n色々な seems to be used more often though.\n\nCan I always use 色々な and get away with it, or is 色々の the only choice in some\nparticular cases? \nIf yes, which cases?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T07:37:42.547", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3677", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:24:20.590", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:24:20.590", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "word-choice", "idioms" ], "title": "Can I always use 色々な or do I have to use 色々の sometimes?", "view_count": 517 }

[ { "body": "This is where the status of a word is murky. It is unsettled between a na-\nadjective and a noun. However, probably most of the cases where you found\n\"色色の\" come from some old people. It has an archaic flavour. In addition, \"色色\"\ndoes not take any other case markers in present-day oridinary conversation\nlike: \"色色が\" or \"色色を\"; it should not allow genitive \"の\" as well (but according\nto the link Tsuyosi Ito provided, there are cases where it may be used). You\ncan always use \"色色な\", and get away with \"色色の\".\n\n**Addition** : Tsuyoshi Ito's link below reminded me of another similar\nexample: \"様様な\" vs. \"様様の\". The contrast between them can be considered the same\nas above.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T10:35:55.540", "id": "3682", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-08T18:45:11.473", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-08T18:45:11.473", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3677", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3679", "answer_count": 2, "body": "What does あらいだす mean? I have been hearing it from my colleague and based on\nhis explanation it means to identify. For example identify the problem. I\ntried to search the net and it only results to \"Washout\" 洗い出して{あらいだして}. Does\nanyone know what this mean? if it really is identify.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T08:20:37.413", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3678", "last_activity_date": "2012-04-11T02:49:06.217", "last_edit_date": "2012-04-10T23:46:06.737", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "786", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "meaning", "idioms" ], "title": "What does あらいだす mean?", "view_count": 367 }

[ { "body": "According to jisho.org\n[洗い出す](http://jisho.org/words?jap=%E3%81%82%E3%82%89%E3%81%84%E3%81%A0%E3%81%99&eng=&dict=edict)\nmeans \"to reveal by investigation\". Hope this helps.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T08:29:14.073", "id": "3679", "last_activity_date": "2012-04-11T02:49:06.217", "last_edit_date": "2012-04-11T02:49:06.217", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": "388", "parent_id": "3678", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "From EDICT via Rikaichan:\n\n> 洗い出す あらいだす (< -te) \n> 洗いだす あらいだす (< -te) \n> (v5s,vt) to reveal something by washing the surface; to bring to light; to\n> reveal by investigation", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-08T08:30:05.493", "id": "3680", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-08T08:30:05.493", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "3678", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3684", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I often get text messages from people who use the twitter-derived slang 「なう」\nto mean \"now.\" As in 「電車なう」meaning \"(I am on the) train now.\"\n\nHowever, these mainly come from women, and one gay dude. Is that just a\ncoincidence, or does using this term actually have some feminine/effeminate\nconnotation, like appending わ for emphasis (e.g. 「疲れたわ〜」)?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-09T01:06:07.147", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3683", "last_activity_date": "2017-10-07T23:46:59.420", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-24T09:35:08.747", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "833", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "slang", "loanwords", "internet-slang", "feminine-speech" ], "title": "does 「なう」have effeminate connotations?", "view_count": 619 }

[ { "body": "No. It does not have any feminine connotations.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-09T07:48:08.130", "id": "3684", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-09T07:48:08.130", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3683", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "I would think that girls and gay men might be more likely to use it, because\nit is a bit of a cute/silly thing (being a sort of silly borrowing from\nEnglish, for some reason written in hiragana rather than katakana).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-10-07T23:46:59.420", "id": "53671", "last_activity_date": "2017-10-07T23:46:59.420", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "18041", "parent_id": "3683", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3689", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I have recently seen 「やってもた」 used in a Japanese conversation, I don't remember\nthe context exactly, but it was something like：\n\n> 久々にやってもた。\n\nAfter asking my Japanese friend, it turns out to be some kind of Osaka-ben\nexpression used instead of 「やってしまった」, where the 「も」 stands for 「しまう」. My\nfriend couldn't give me another use of this so I'm here asking two questions:\n\n 1. Is my explanation of 「やってもた」 accurate?\n\n 2. Can we extract from this example a generic grammatical rule that can be applied to most situation? \n\nI seek to learn Osaka-ben and I'm trying to replace my old habits, so I would\nbe very grateful if you can provide some external resources about this or at\nleast mention your sources.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-09T15:49:01.970", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3688", "last_activity_date": "2014-11-03T08:45:28.230", "last_edit_date": "2014-11-03T08:45:28.230", "last_editor_user_id": "6840", "owner_user_id": "664", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "colloquial-language", "contractions", "dialects", "phonology", "kansai-ben" ], "title": "Is 「やってもた」 the same as 「やってしまった」? What is the grammatical rule behind this?", "view_count": 457 }

[ { "body": "1) It is \"やってもうた\" or \"やってしもた\". \n2) The form \"もうた\" or \"しもた\" are shortened forms of \"しもうた\". The (auxiliary) verb\n\"しまう\" has a stem ending with the glide \"w\": \"simaw-\", and underwent different\ndevelopments in Kansai and Kantoo regarding inflection. In Kantoo, the \"w\" was\ninterpreted as a consonant, and was used to trigger gemination (a.k.a.\n[促]{そく}[音]{おん}[便]{びん}) in past tense:\n\n> simaw-ta → simatta\n\nOn the other hand, in Kansai, the \"w\" (back glide) was turned into \"u\" (high\nback vowel), and then underwent further change of vowels (k.a. ウ音便):\n\n> simaw-ta → simauta → simouta\n\nIf you are expecting external materials on these sound changes, you may want\nto study about ウ音便 and 促音便.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-09T16:56:27.420", "id": "3689", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-10T07:45:54.093", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-10T07:45:54.093", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3688", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I am in the process of publishing a book on verse, more particularly,\n\"American Haiku and Senryu -- 1008 Pauses Along the Path\" and I need to\nascertain whether or not the title is appropriate, i.e. is the inclusion of\nthe word Senryu necessary?\n\nDoes Haiku cover the following? (The first chapter contains traditional Haiku\nverse; the remainder of 5-7-5 form deals with non-nature, politics, man and\nwoman and various observations.) Again, I wish to acknowledge the correct way\nto entitle the content.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-09T20:01:37.783", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3690", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:23:29.730", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:23:29.730", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "839", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "words", "nuances", "poetry" ], "title": "u and Senryu placement", "view_count": 158 }

[ { "body": "If a large part of your book indeed covers non-nature, politics,\nrelationships, etc, and they do not contain a \"season word\" then by strict\ndefinition of topic they are senryū. However, in the strictest sense, even\nEnglish \"topic-valid\" haiku with a [季語](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kigo)\n(season word) can be deemed not to be haiku if it doesn't have Kireji\n[切れ字](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kireji).\n\nI would respectfully suggest that the decision on a title is perhaps better\nbased on what you believe the familiarity of your potential readers with\nJapanese poetry will be, rather than on literary accuracy. And good luck with\nyour publication!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-22T21:59:28.860", "id": "4059", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-22T21:59:28.860", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "981", "parent_id": "3690", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3729", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What's the difference between 「うまく」, 「上手に」 and 「よく」, all seemingly meaning\n\"well\" in English?\n\nSomeone said that I should use 「よく」 rather than 「うまく」 in the following\nsentence. Can anyone explain why?\n\n> この文の意味は ~~うまく~~ **よく** 分からなかった。\n\nI'd really like to know the difference between the 3 words, or maybe just some\nexamples of where one is more suitable than another if possible.\n\n**Edit:** Doing some digging through many e-mails, it turns out it wasn't\n「うまく」 vs 「上手に」 at all as in the original question, but I think the other\nperson clearly preferred 「上手」 over 「うまい」:\n\n> ～さんのクラフトは ~~うまそう~~ **上手** 。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-10T01:20:45.247", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3691", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-14T08:44:51.310", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-14T08:41:52.860", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "word-choice", "expressions" ], "title": "What's the difference between 「うまく」, 「上手に」 and 「よく」?", "view_count": 5516 }

[ { "body": "> What's the difference between 「うまく」, 「上手に」 and 「よく」, all seemingly meaning\n> \"well\" in English?\n\nQuite roughly: 上手に means \"skilfully.\" You don't skilfully understand a\nsentence, so that's why you don't say *`この文の意味はうまく分からなかった`.\n\nうまく is quite informal in meaning \"well\" with a \"skilfully\" nuance. You use it\nfor qualifying how you threw that bowling ball to do a strike, or how your\nsister sang at the karaoke.\n\nよく is a formal or neutral way to say \"well\" as in \"properly.\"\n\nよく分かりましたか？", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-14T08:44:51.310", "id": "3729", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-14T08:44:51.310", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3691", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3699", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I have this sentence as part of a question in my JLPT practise book:\n\n> スリのグループがボスの合図{あいず}で乗客{じょうきゃく}から金{かね}を盗{ぬす}むのを目{ま}の当{あ}たりにして恐{おそ}ろしかった。\n\nPart of the sentence means, \"the pickpocket group steals money from the\npassengers from the signal given by the boss,\" and part of the sentence means\n\"being face to face is scary.\"\n\nI presume it's the boss's eyes that are scary, but I can't make this sentence\ncome together.\n\nWhat would be the best translation for this sentence? What is the underlying\nstructure that binds it together?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-10T05:37:11.470", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3693", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-10T08:49:41.457", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation" ], "title": "How do the two ideas in this sentence come together?", "view_count": 343 }

[ { "body": "The sentence has the following structure\n\nXを目の当りにして恐ろしかった。\n\nWhich translates literally as\n\nI saw X and I was scared.\n\nThe X in your example sentence is what is called a noun phrase. The sentence\ntranslates as\n\nI saw how a group of pickpockets stole money from a passenger at the sign of\ntheir boss and I was scared.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-10T07:17:30.573", "id": "3699", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-10T08:49:41.457", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-10T08:49:41.457", "last_editor_user_id": "388", "owner_user_id": "388", "parent_id": "3693", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3697", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This sentence comes from my JLPT practise book:\n\n> 宗教{しゅうきょう}とは **何{なん}か** 、迷信{めいしん}とは **何{なん}か**\n> を正確{せいかく}に定義{ていぎ}するのは困難{こんなん}だ。\n\nI think it's basically saying:\n\n> Things like religions and supersitions are hard to define accurately.\n\nHowever, I get a sense that there is a comparison being made. Is the sentence\nsimply saying that religions and superstitions are _both_ hard to define, or\nthat it is hard to define religions and superstitions as different _from each\nother_?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-10T05:47:29.617", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3695", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-11T01:53:23.703", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-11T01:53:23.703", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation" ], "title": "Is this sentence making a comparison?", "view_count": 164 }

[ { "body": "The sentence just says, 宗教とは[何]{なに}か (what a religion is) and 迷信とは[何]{なに}か\n(what a superstition is) are difficult to define precisely. It does not say\nanything about their relationship. (It does not say “things like,” either.)\n\n_Edit_ : I added readings to 何 in this answer. See also ento’s comment on the\nquestion, which actually pinned downs the source of your confusion.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-10T06:01:45.300", "id": "3697", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-10T20:07:19.583", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-10T20:07:19.583", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3695", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3698", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This comes from a friend's post on Facebook. The situation is that my friend\nhad injured his leg a while back, but it has since healed and he's now in for\na checkup. His leg is in great condition, so the doctor thinks he's ready for\nsports.\n\n> 先生{せんせい}には「もうフットサルして来{こ}い」と言{い}われた！\n\nWhich I think essentially means, \"My doctor said [to me] I should go play\nfutsal! (lit: play and come back)\"\n\nHowever, I thought `には` essentially meant \"in the [place]\". So, since my\nfriend is not just using `に`, is he saying this was said by someone, maybe the\ndoctor, maybe a nurse or someone, in the vicinity of the doctor? Maybe in the\noffice?\n\nOr am I over thinking this?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-10T05:58:15.483", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3696", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-11T07:23:34.857", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-11T07:23:34.857", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "particle-に" ], "title": "Does には in this sentence imply vagueness of the source?", "view_count": 195 }

[ { "body": "No this には is there because the verb is in passive form and it means \"by\". The\nsentence literally means\n\n\"I was told by the doctor to come play futsal already.\"\n\nThe following sentence is equivalent:\n\n先生が「もうフットサルして来い」と言った！\n\nThe doctor said \"Go play futsal already.\"\n\nThe に comes whenever there is passive. For example \"I was told by you\" is\n\nあなた* _に_ *言われました。\n\nThe は in your sentence is the normal は used for emphasis.\n\nHope this helps.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-10T07:03:32.883", "id": "3698", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-11T06:37:37.827", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-11T06:37:37.827", "last_editor_user_id": "388", "owner_user_id": "388", "parent_id": "3696", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "( _If the question is inappropriate here, please direct me to an appropriate\nsite or forum_ )\n\nIn an effort to simplify the acquisition of pitch in L2 learners (ie. myself),\nI created a pdf document that groups verb endings and morphemes into more\nmanageable groups: [Verb Pitch\nTable](http://dl.dropbox.com/u/353241/verb%20pitch.pdf).\n\nHowever, reliable data is difficult to establish.\n\n**Can anyone confirm that the data is accurate for Standard or Tokyo\nJapanese?**\n\nI asked 2 Japanese speakers (1 quickly, 1 in detail) and it seems okay. The\nonly problem is that some of the data conflicts with what I found in my NHK\nAccent dictionary. For instance, after accentless verbs, でしょう、だろう、らしい are said\nto have pitch on the antepenultimate mora, but this was thought to be odd by\nthe speakers I asked；とも is said to be HL but the one speaker thought it should\nbe H]LL (downfall occurs before). My goal is to create a quick and easy\nreference for anyone wanting to sound like the average speaker of the Greater\nTokyo Area.\n\nI realize the question is complex, but I hope to provide an efficient method\nto help learner predict pitch in all verbs with the help of a simple all-\nencompassing tool.", "comment_count": 14, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T00:11:30.967", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3700", "last_activity_date": "2013-09-27T23:38:43.033", "last_edit_date": "2013-09-27T23:38:43.033", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "801", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "verbs", "pronunciation", "dialects", "pitch-accent" ], "title": "Is the pitch data correct in this pdf file intended for learners?", "view_count": 305 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3818", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What's the difference between 「この辺{へん}」 and 「この辺{あた}り」?\n\nI used to always read 「この辺{へん}」as 「この辺{あたり}」 as I thought it would be confused\nwith 「変{へん}」 but it apparently is different.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T00:22:08.827", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3701", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-26T21:41:11.330", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "796", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "word-choice", "expressions" ], "title": "What's the difference between 「この辺{へん}」 and 「この辺{あた}り」", "view_count": 2359 }

[ { "body": "この辺 is _slightly_ more colloquial.\n\nIn speech, would I be comfortable saying この辺 to…?\n\n * the emperor: absolutely not\n * the CEO of a major corporation: maybe\n * a teacher: yes\n * a random stranger: yes\n\nSo, admittedly, この辺 would only be impolite/unprofessional in a few extreme\nsituations, as long as it’s not in writing.\n\nIn formal writing (like newspapers), you would most likely opt for この辺り,\nunless inside a quotation, interview, or perhaps an editorial. But even in\nemails, I would recommend using この辺り to anyone you wouldn’t joke around with,\nsuch as a new customer or a complete stranger. Sure, some people may not care\nat all, but better be polite than not.\n\nOn the flip side, there are times when この辺り is less likely to be used, such as\nby…\n\n * a bully/gangster to his victim, e.g. 「今日はこの辺にしといてやるよ！」\n * children in general, e.g. 「さっきまでこの辺にいたよ」\n\nOther than this, I agree that they are near synonymous, although in specific\ncases one may feel more natural than the other. But all these distinctions\nseem to be more about rhythmic flow than semantics, owing to how へん sounds\nmore abrupt/hasty or concise, while あたり sounds softer and more delicate.\n\nAnother possible explanation for this perceived difference is the fact that\n〜辺り can be used properly in many more grammatical contexts than 〜辺. As you may\nknow, in proper usage 〜辺 is generally restricted to demonstratives such as\nこの〜, その〜, and あの〜. So for example, 「ロビーの辺でお待ちください」 (as opposed to\n「ロビーの辺りでお待ちください」) is unequivocally weird and impolite. Therefore, while\n「この辺でお待ちください」 is not in itself grammatically incorrect, may seem less polite\nthan 「この辺りで〜」.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-26T21:41:11.330", "id": "3818", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-26T21:41:11.330", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "888", "parent_id": "3701", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3704", "answer_count": 1, "body": "For usernames, etc., you usually see like `ユーザ名` or something similar. Or like\non my Skype, it says `Skype名`. How is the 名 pronounced in these situations?\nI've never been able to conclusively find this anywhere. My instinct tells me\nit's `な` because these seem like compounds nouns (like `星空【ほしぞら】`, etc.) that\nuse kun-yomi.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T03:12:19.003", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3703", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:25:55.480", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:25:55.480", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "kanji", "readings", "terminology", "computing" ], "title": "How is 名 pronounced in computer terms?", "view_count": 664 }

[ { "body": "It is read as めい. “ユーザ名” is read as ユーザめい, “Skype 名” is スカイプめい.\n\nI do not know the reason for that, but if I make a guess, this may be because\ngairaigo in a compound word is treated in a similar way to [Sino-Japanese\nwords](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Japanese_vocabulary).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T03:19:49.233", "id": "3704", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-11T03:19:49.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3703", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "さっき、お弁当を買ってきた三十代の男性同僚が、入室したら「外雨が降っているぜ！早く弁当買っといた方がいいかも！」と勢い良く言った。\n\nその「ぜ」の意味はなんだべ？\n\n「行くぜ」ならなんとなく分かるんだが、今の文脈だとさっぱり迷ってしまうんだ…", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T03:45:14.333", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3706", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:22:56.113", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:22:56.113", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "particles", "register", "nuances" ], "title": "「雨が降っているぜ」の「ぜ」の意味について", "view_count": 867 }

[ { "body": "単に男らしさ、荒荒しさを表現しようとしているのと違いますのんか。その同僚の方は体育会系でっしゃろ。なぜ「行く」の場合は分かって「雨が降る」の場合はお分かりにならないのか分かりませんねん。意志の有無を問題にしてらっしゃるのですやろか。そげなことは気にせんでよかと思いますばい。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T04:01:58.520", "id": "3707", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-11T04:01:58.520", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3706", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "「[語尾の「～ぜ」というのはどこの方言でどんな意味ですか（駄）](http://komachi.yomiuri.co.jp/t/2009/0805/255509.htm)」によると、 \n“降っているぞ”→“降っているぞよ”→“降っているぜ” \nと変化した言葉とのことです。\n\nしかし現代で「～ぜ」の意味するところは、 \n[役割語](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BD%B9%E5%89%B2%E8%AA%9E)としての方が大きいように思えます。", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T04:54:00.967", "id": "3710", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-11T04:54:00.967", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "842", "parent_id": "3706", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3709", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Observe the change:\n\n> 彼女は行かないと思う。 \" **I think** that she will not go\"\n>\n> 彼女は行くまいと思う。 \" **She thinks** that she will not go\"\n\n`彼女は` and `と思う` are conserved in the sentence, yet the person who is doing the\nthinking is different.\n\n**(Question 1)** Is the use of the negative volitional form the direct cause\nof the change?\n\n**(Question 2)** How do I make specific the person who is doing the thinking\nin each case? \nI.e. How do I express \"I think that she will not go\" using 行くまい and \"She\nthinks that she will not go\" using 行かない?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T04:14:30.490", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3708", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-11T05:04:04.703", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "volitional-form" ], "title": "Who is doing the thinking?", "view_count": 592 }

[ { "body": "> (Question 2) How do I make specific the person who is doing the thinking in\n> each case? I.e. How do I express \"I think that she will not go\" using 行くまい\n> and \"She thinks that she will not go\" using 行かない?\n\n彼女が行くまいと(私は)思います。\n\nand\n\n彼女は行かないと思っている。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T04:22:43.587", "id": "3709", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-11T04:22:43.587", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3708", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3721", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Here is a snippet of text from a JLPT(N1) question:\n\n>\n> 「俺{おれ}は料理{りょうり}が得意{とくい}なんだ」と自慢{じまん}げに語{かた}る男性{だんせい}の頭{あたま}に、素材{そざい}の値段{ねだん}やかかる時間{じかん}、そして誰{だれ}が後{あと}片付{かたづ}けをするか、などという問題{もんだい}は存在{そんざい}しません。あくまで趣味{しゅみ}なのですから、高価{こうか}な肉{にく}や滅多{めった}に使{つか}わない香辛料{こうしんりょう}を駆使{くし}し、無駄{むだ}をいっぱい出{だ}しながら料理{りょうり}するのです。そして使{つか}い散{ち}らかされた道具{どうぐ}を洗{あら}うのは、奥{おく}さんだったりする。\n\nAnd here is the related question:\n\n> 筆者{ひっしゃ}は男性{だんせい}の料理{りょうり}をどう思{おも}っているか。\n>\n> **1** 無駄{むだ}な努力{どりょく}である。\n>\n> **2** 家族{かぞく}を満足{まんぞく}させている。\n>\n> **3** 実用的{じつようてき}ではない。\n>\n> **4** 自立{じりつ}のために不可欠{ふかけつ}だ。\n\nI chose answer **1**.\n\nHowever, according to the book, the correct answer is **3**. But I just don't\nsee where the issue of practicality, `実用的{じつようてき}` is made clear within the\ntext.\n\nAlso, isn't saying something is impractical another way of saying that the\neffort is useless, as in `無駄{むだ}な努力{どりょく}`? Is the distinction being made a\nsubtle one, or am I not seeing something obvious in front of my face?\n\nWhy exactly is **3** the correct answer?\n\nPlease note: I am hoping that someone can point out the specific key words and\nphrases that I should be focusing on in order to help me see the meaning, not\njust summarize what the text is saying. I'm trying to understand the language\nof the text in the question, not just it's premise. Thanks!", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T06:24:56.453", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3711", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-12T17:46:14.697", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-12T17:43:43.987", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "jlpt" ], "title": "Why is this JLPT(N1) question a matter of practicality, not futile effort?", "view_count": 933 }

[ { "body": "I agree with the book's answer. It says that for {the guy,guys}, cooking has\nnothing to do with time and money spent of buying food and cooking, cleaning\nand so on. It's just a matter of choosing expensive and rare ingredients,\nwithout thinking of who'll clean (it's the wife's job).\n\nTo sum up: guys are clueless when it comes to cooking, completely unrealistic,\nfar away from reality.\n\nThat's answer #3.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T08:00:12.477", "id": "3712", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-11T08:00:12.477", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3711", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Axioplase explained why choice 3 is a correct answer. Here is why choice 1\n(after the correction in revision 2 in the question) is incorrect: 無駄な努力 is at\nleast a 努力 (effort; trying something hard), but the author does not view men’s\ncooking as an effort at all.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T15:38:05.027", "id": "3716", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-11T15:38:05.027", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3711", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Re your edit, starting again trying to translate the entire thing:\n\n「俺は料理が得意なんだ」と自慢げに語る男性の頭に、素材の値段やかかる時間、そして誰が後片付けをするか、などという問題は存在しません。\n\n> To the male head who says braggingly \"cooking is my specialty\", the cost of\n> ingredients and the time it takes, and who is going to clean up afterwards,\n> those kind of problems don't exist.\n\nあくまで趣味なのですから、高価な肉や滅多に使わない香辛料を駆使し、無駄をいっぱい出しながら料理するのです。\n\n> In the end it's a hobby, it utilises high-priced meats and spices which are\n> seldom used, it entails a lot of wasting (of money) while cooking. \n> \n> (Note: 無駄を出す can mean \"unnecessarily labour\"/\"waste money\"/\"waste resources\"\n> etc depending on the context I believe. This phrase might have been chosen\n> deliberately to try to trip up the answerer.)\n\nそして使い散らかされた道具を洗うのは、奥さんだったりする。\n\n> And it's the wife who often cleans the dirtied utensils.\n\n \nThe question is \"What does the writer think about the man's/men's cooking?\"\n\n 1. 無駄な努力である: A waste of effort.\n 2. 家族を満足させている: It's making the family satisfied.\n 3. 実用的ではない: It's impractical.\n 4. 自立のために不可欠だ: It's essential for independence (of the man/men.)\n\nBy those criteria, it's 3 as it isn't a total waste of effort to cook the\nfood, but it isn't practical either.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-13T05:36:56.723", "id": "3721", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-12T17:46:14.697", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-12T17:46:14.697", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3711", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3715", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In a report I handed in earlier this week, my professor corrected my sentence\nto\n\n> 日本において、金融政策の目的に関する考え方が時間 **を** 伴い、変わってきた。\n\nfrom 「 **に** 伴い」. Is there a practical difference between the two?\n[ALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%AB%E4%BC%B4%E3%81%86/UTF-8/)\n[shows](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%82%92%E4%BC%B4%E3%81%86/UTF-8/?ref=sa) a\nbunch of examples with essentially identical usage.\n\nHere's the definition from 大辞林：\n\n> 1. 一緒に行く。引き連れて行く、またつき従って行く。「秘書を伴って行く」「父に伴って博物館に行く」\n>\n> 2. ある事柄に応じて生ずる。「危険を伴う手術」「人口増加に伴う住宅問題」\n>\n>\n\nIt seems like に and を are being used interchangeably. Is there a rule of thumb\nfor when to use which?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T11:54:16.070", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3713", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-14T03:39:36.400", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "662", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "nuances", "particles" ], "title": "Is there a difference between に伴う and を伴う?", "view_count": 950 }

[ { "body": "Their nuances are different, and you need to decide each time which is\nappropriate.\n\nWhen を is used:\n\n * 秘書を伴って\n\n> You are the main person, and your secretary is accompanying you.\n\n * 危険を伴う手術\n\n> The main event is surgery, and some danger comes with the surgery.\n\nWhen に is used:\n\n * 父に伴って\n\n> Dad is the main person, and you are accompanying him.\n\n * 人口増加に伴う住宅問題\n\n> The main (first) event is population growth, then housing problem comes\n> after that.\n\nWith 時間を伴う or 時間に伴う, \"something happens with the passage of time\", so time\ncomes first, then something happens, therefore 時間に伴って is appropriate. See also\nTsuyoshi Ito's comment.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-11T14:56:30.040", "id": "3715", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-14T03:37:21.737", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-14T03:37:21.737", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "845", "parent_id": "3713", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3718", "answer_count": 2, "body": "> 語学学習は私の新しい習慣の一部になりつつあるのでしょうか？\n>\n> \"Is learning languages becoming a part of my new daily routine?\"\n\nなりつつある here seems similar to なっている... are they often interchangeable? Would I\nbe able to change them back and forth without changing the meaning of this\nsentence much? This is my first contact with this suffix so if anyone has\nwarnings about its usages or beginner's mistakes, please feel free to espouse.\n\nwwwjdic defines つつある as :to be doing; to be in the process of doing\n\n<http://nhg.pro.tok2.com/qa/kousei-7.htm>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-12T05:53:20.343", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3717", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-29T20:00:56.550", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "How close are なりつつある and なっている?", "view_count": 683 }

[ { "body": "They are not interchangable.\n\n * `なりつつある`: in the process of becoming \n * `なっている`: have (already) become", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-12T07:30:04.710", "id": "3718", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-12T07:30:04.710", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3717", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "Usually, (ます形)つつある and ～ている are interchangeable. However, when it comes to\n瞬間動詞 such as 死ぬ, なる (both are 瞬間動詞の接近型), they are not.\n\nAs なる has been well explained, let me use 死ぬ as an example.\n\n * 死につつある：in the process of being dead; dying\n * 死んでいる：is dead", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-09-01T07:42:35.847", "id": "6671", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-29T20:00:56.550", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-29T20:00:56.550", "last_editor_user_id": "3437", "owner_user_id": "1669", "parent_id": "3717", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "what does もういわない mean? I got this message from someone and i dont think it\nmeans what I think...", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-12T17:37:52.803", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3719", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-13T02:41:53.097", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "848", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "hiragana" ], "title": "what does もういわない mean?", "view_count": 650 }

[ { "body": "I would venture \"I won't say anymore.\"\n\nIf you were asking the same thing over and over, \"I won't say it again\" is a\npossibility.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-13T02:41:53.097", "id": "3720", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-13T02:41:53.097", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "838", "parent_id": "3719", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3724", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I don't know how to intentionally write the kanji that way, but on my ubuntu\nsystem 強い sometimes gets rendered that way.\n\nWhat I'd like to know first if it's incorrect or if it's some rare but still\nvalid way to write it. I went through all the kanji in my jisho that featured\n弓 but none of them matched the weird tsuyoi.\n\nSecondly I'd be interested in if anyone had any explanation for why it's\nrendered like this?\n\nMy personal guess is that it has something to do with the fonts or something.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-13T11:25:52.063", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3722", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-13T18:06:20.143", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "258", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "kanji" ], "title": "Is the 強い with a ロ instead of ム on top a valid kanji in Japanese?", "view_count": 437 }

[ { "body": "The kanji with ム\n([強](http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/5F37/index.htm)) and the\nkanji with 口\n([强](http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/5F3A/index.htm)) are two\nforms of the same kanji. In Japanese, the two forms were used interchangeably\nbefore the [kanji reform in\n1946](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji). After the 1946 kanji\nreform, the form with ム is the standard form of the kanji and the form with 口\nis used only in limited circumstances such as family names.\n\nI think that the [simplified\nChinese](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters) uses the\nform with 口 rather than the form with ム.\n\n> What I'd like to know first [is] if it's incorrect or if it's some rare but\n> still valid way to write it.\n\nWhether it is “valid” or “incorrect” depends on your stance, but it is a\nnonstandard form according to the current standard of kanji characters in\nJapanese.\n\n> Secondly I'd be interested in if anyone had any explanation for why it's\n> rendered like this?\n\n“How to set up a computer to use Japanese” is off topic on this website. I\nsuspect that you are using a Chinese font, and I am not sure.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-13T14:51:43.997", "id": "3724", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-13T15:27:38.667", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-13T15:27:38.667", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3722", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "As for the correctness, see Tsuyoshi Ito's answer. As for why it is rendered\nlike this, it is due to the famous political and/or cultural struggles between\ndifferent countries at the Unicode committee and other computer industries.\n\nIn general, non-East Asian countries (especially American and European) do not\ncare about the subtle differences between Chinese characters, and want to make\nthe font encoding as concise as possible, assigning a single code to multiple\nvariants of related characters or rendering those characters (even if they\nhave different codes) as the same. The attitude of trying not to bother with\nEast Asian languages is obvious in Microsoft products. In Windows (at least\nuntil XP), the entire operating system (not just the locale setting) is\ndifferent for different languages, and when you want to use an East Asian\nlanguage on an English version, you not only have to set the locale, but have\nto figure out the way to turn on the 2-byte encoding service, which is turned\noff by default and is hidden somewhere making it difficult to access. Google's\nChrome web browser is also known for its terrible handling of font encoding\nespecially for East Asian languages. (Rare as an American company, Apple has\ngood understanding on this matter, and iOS does not have different versions\nfor different languages. You just change the language setting, and it works.)\n\nOn the other hand, the East Asian countries are concsious of the difference,\nand in general are for encoding them differently. If any East Asian country is\ntoward unifying them, I can imagine a political reason. For example, if\nMainland China wants to exclude the traditional form and push the simplified\nform to be adopted, then that can be a road map towards culturally unifying\nHong Kong, Makau, and Taiwan.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-13T18:00:34.840", "id": "3725", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-13T18:06:20.143", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-13T18:06:20.143", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3722", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3731", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In English when you hold out something to someone, sometimes a vocal prompt\nlike \"here\" or \"there\" is said to indicate that you are giving it to the\nperson.\n\nIn Chinese (or at least in Singapore) we sometimes use something that sounds\nlike \"na\" or even use the Chinese word \"给(gěi)\" as an expression while holding\nout something towards the recipient.\n\nEDIT: Perhaps I should have been more specific about what I'm referring to.\nI'm not referring to giving \"gifts\", but just giving in general. Something\nlike just passing a note to somebody or when someone looks in need of a tissue\nand you just hold it out to them.\n\n**(Question)** What's the equivalent of this concept in Japanese? I ask\nbecause I think it feels quite awkward to either remain silent, or to form a\ncomplete sentence asking the person to receive it especially if you are\nfamiliar with the person.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-13T12:52:45.877", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3723", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-30T14:40:07.800", "last_edit_date": "2015-06-30T14:40:07.800", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "spoken-language", "phrase-requests", "giving-and-receiving" ], "title": "What do you say when giving something to somebody?", "view_count": 7790 }

[ { "body": "`はい`\n\n`どうぞ`\n\n`これ、あげます`\n\n`小さいものですが…`\n\n`よけいなものなんですが…`", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-14T08:50:22.890", "id": "3731", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-14T08:50:22.890", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3723", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "In dramas and anime I often see people just saying これ", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-06-03T15:21:44.687", "id": "5733", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-03T15:21:44.687", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "902", "parent_id": "3723", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3727", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I am trying to understand the difference between using いえ and うち. I originally\ndrew the conclusion that うち is used for your own house and いえ for others'\nhouses, but my Japanese teacher said that this is not always true (but did not\nexplain how to use each...).\n\nWhat is the correct usage of いえ and うち? What difference is implied by using\none instead of the other?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-13T22:11:53.470", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3726", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-02T01:13:58.443", "last_edit_date": "2012-06-02T01:13:58.443", "last_editor_user_id": "575", "owner_user_id": "575", "post_type": "question", "score": 50, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances", "words", "synonyms" ], "title": "What is the difference between いえ and うち?", "view_count": 25170 }

[ { "body": "It is similar to \"house\" vs. \"home\". You can say \"be at home\" but not \"be at\nhouse\". The differences are:\n\n * いえ: physical house vs. うち: includes the environment, family, returning place, as well as a physical house\n * いえ: neutral about the owner of the house vs. うち: the speaker's own home by default.\n\nYour conclusion is right, but I guess what your teacher means is that,\nsometimes, you can say things from the second or third person's perspective,\nand that makes it possible for the first person to say \"うち\" to refer to a non-\nfirst person's home. For example, \"うちに帰りなさい\" means \"go home\". And this means\n\"one's own home\", but the speaker can say this standing on the point of the\nview of the second person, meaning the second person's home.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-13T23:33:29.413", "id": "3727", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-13T23:45:37.020", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-13T23:45:37.020", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3726", "post_type": "answer", "score": 48 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3732", "answer_count": 2, "body": "The verb `触れる` challenges my concept of what を does; to mark a direct object.\n\nConsider these [uses of\n触れる](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%82%92%E8%A7%A6%E3%82%8C/UTF-8/):\n\n> （人）の頬に指を **触れる** (Touch a finger to someone's cheek)\n>\n> （人）の頬に手を **触れる** (Touch someone's cheek with your hand)\n\nNow, if transitivity of the verb were not taken into account, I would guess\nthat it's the finger or hand that is being touched since they are marked by\nthe direct object marker `を`. But because I know that `触れる` is intransitive, I\nunderstand that the object is marked by `に` instead.\n\n**(Question)** What is the role of `を` when used in the above type of pattern?\nShould the particle be `で` instead since `指`/`手` are the \"means\" by which the\naction was carried out?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-14T03:06:54.743", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3728", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-14T09:27:50.793", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-に", "particle-を" ], "title": "Use of に and を with 触れる", "view_count": 477 }

[ { "body": "Just think that 触れる is \"to shake, agitate, stir, displace\" or something like\nthat.\n\n> (人）の頬に手を触れる\n\nI displace my hand to the chin of a person -> I touch the chin of a person.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-14T08:48:27.683", "id": "3730", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-14T08:48:27.683", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3728", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "My daijirin lists both an intransitive and transitive form of the verb 触れる.\n\nI suspect this is just a mismatch between the Japanese verb and it's closest\nEnglish equivalent. The verb is something more like 'move-to-be-in-contact-\nwith', so the direct object is the part of the body you're moving.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-14T09:27:50.793", "id": "3732", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-14T09:27:50.793", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "29", "parent_id": "3728", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3737", "answer_count": 2, "body": "After reading numerous publications, I've spotted a trend or custom on\ndetermining whether kanji is or is not used for certain words. The most\nobvious ones are:\n\n**こと・事**\n\n> …が実は犯人だったという **こと** がわかる。\n>\n> (haven't found a sentence which uses 事 alone yet)\n\n**ほう・方**\n\n> …事前に連絡した **ほう** がいいだろう。\n>\n> …彼の **方** が優秀である。\n\n**とき・時**\n\n> …を実施した **とき** 、企業の声は…\n>\n> その **時** が来たら、また私に…\n\nAnd there are other words of which, the usage of kanji is avoided. I may want\nto ask which is preferrable for each of the situation above, but in another\nquestion. What I want to ask here is:\n\n## Question\n\nDo publishers/writers employ a certain guideline/reference for selecting kanji\nwhen writing for public reading? If so, who governs the guideline? Is there a\npublication describing it?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-14T18:50:01.160", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3733", "last_activity_date": "2012-03-27T01:42:10.587", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "154", "post_type": "question", "score": 22, "tags": [ "word-choice", "kanji", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "When writing for general public, is there a general guideline for selecting kanji?", "view_count": 2735 }

[ { "body": "These are called formal noun (形式名詞). Officially, they should be written in\nhiragana.\n\nPDFs of `公用文における漢字使用等について（平成22年内閣訓令第１号）` can be found\n[here](http://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/pdf/kunreibesshi_h221130.pdf) or\n[here](http://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/joho/kijun/sanko/koyobun/pdf/kunrei.pdf).\n\nA more general guideline is that closed class words or morphemes (particles,\ninflectional endings, formal nouns, adverbial affixes, etc.) should be written\nin hiragana.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-14T19:48:30.447", "id": "3734", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-14T21:30:35.160", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-14T21:30:35.160", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3733", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "This is from an excerpt about when to use kana instead of kanji. Since I can't\nreally translate it well, I'll leave a lot out, so check out the [publisher's\npage](http://dictionary.sanseido-\npubl.co.jp/dicts/encyc/allknow_conv_ja/subPage3.html).\n\nAlso, I don't have much exposure but still a couple seem strange to me, like\nわたし and 素敵. Even the book uses 私 in its preface.\n\n## Words that should be written with hiragana\n\nThere is the question of whether or not a word can be written using the jōyō\nkanji. But there are also words where, even though they can be written using\nthe jōyō kanji, their ease of reading and how distanced the kanji's essential\nmeaning has come [from the word] should be taken into consideration. The\nfollowing is a general criterion.\n\n### 1\\. Nouns\n\n(1)Words that can't be written with the jōyō kanji, rephrased or replaced with\njōyō kanji. あいさつ［挨拶］(挨 and 拶 were recently added to the list, so I'm not sure\nof the books current stance on them) あぐら［胡座］ あっせん［斡旋］ 竹ざお［竹竿］ 手ぬぐい［手拭い］ 注\n動植物名を学術的なものとしてとらえたときには、常用漢字で書けるものであっても、かたかなで書くことが多くなってきている（「かたかなで書く単語」参照）。\n\n(2)Borrowed words who's foreign-feeling has faded away; no longer feel\nborrowed\n\nかるた たばこ きせる\n\n### 2\\. 形式名詞\n\nこと［事］ 音楽を聞くことが好きだ。 もの［物］ 決して謝るものか。 とき［時］ 彼が来るときはいつも雨だ。 ところ［所］\n聞くところによると、あいつは、もうすぐ結婚するらしい。\n\n### 3\\. Pronouns\n\nあなた［貴方］ わたし［私］ おれ［俺］ これ［此れ］ それ［其れ］ だれ［誰］ ここ［此処］ そこ［其処］ どこ［何処］ どなた［何方］\n\nNote: You may write the following in kanji.\n\n私（わたくし） 僕 我 君 彼 彼女 自分 何\n\n### 4\\. Verbs・補助動詞\n\n動詞は、意味によって、漢字とひらがなを使い分けるほうが望ましい（「漢字とかなを使い分けたほうがよい単語」参照）。\n\n### 5\\. Adjectives\n\nありがたい［有難い］ おもしろい［面白い］ おかしい［可笑しい］ かわいい［可愛い］ すばらしい［素晴らしい］ うらやましい［羨ましい］ うれしい［嬉しい］\nゆゆしい［由々しい］ つまらない［詰まらない］\n\n### 6\\. 連体詞\n\nある［或］ いわゆる［所謂］ この［此の］ その［其の］ わが［我が］\n\n### 7\\. Adverbs\n\nあえて［敢えて］ あまり［余り］ あらかじめ［予め］ いずれ［何れ］ およそ［凡そ］ かなり［可成り］ せいぜい［精精］ せっかく［折角］ ぜひ［是非］\nだんだん［段段］ なお［尚］ ほとんど［殆ど］ ますます［益益］ もし［若し］ やはり［矢張り］ わずか［僅か］\n\nNote: Words like the following are mostly written with Kanji.\n\n案外 一概に 主に 格別 現に 強いて 徐々に 絶えず 何しろ 奮って 優に\n\n### 8\\. Conjunctives\n\nあるいは［或いは］ および［及び］ さて［扨］ しかし［然し］ しかも［然も］ すなわち［即ち］ ただし［但し］ ところが［所が］\n\n### 9\\. Interjectives\n\nああ おい おお へえ もしもし\n\nNote: To add emphasis these are written in katakana\n\n### 10\\. Postpositions\n\nくらい［位］ ながら［乍ら］ まで［迄］ ばかり［許り］ など［等］ ほど［程］\n\n### 11\\. 助動詞\n\nべき［可き］ ようだ［様だ］ そうだ［相だ］\n\n### 12\\. Prefixes・suffixes\n\nお葬式 お名前 ご覧ください ご結婚 青み 高め 子どもたち\n\n### 13\\. いわゆる当て字\n\nすてき［素敵］ めでたい［目出度い］ とかく［兎角］ やはり［矢張り］ おくゆかしい［奥床しい］ さすが［流石］ ちょっと［一寸］ わんぱく［腕白］\n\n## Words that use kanji or kana depending on circumstance\n\n意味や使い方によって、漢字とかなを使い分けると、読みやすくなる単語がある。\n\n上げる 本を棚に上げる。 \n本を読んであげる。 \n言う 意見を言う。 \n人間という生物。 \n行く 町へ行く。 \n消えていく。 \n入れる 口の中へ入れる。 \n人の意見をいれる。 \n上 台の上に置く。 \nご一読のうえ、返送願います。 \n内 内をかためる。 \n見ているうちに、気分が悪くなった。 \n得る 高収入を得る。 \nやむをえません。 \n限り 限りなく広がっている。 \n命令がないかぎり、動くな。 \n切る 紙を切る。 \nこの紙には書ききれない。 \n下さる 先生が本を下さった。 \nはやく返してください。 \n来る 明日は三時に来る。 \nちょっと行ってくる。 \n事 事は重大だ。 \n食べることが趣味だ。 \n出す 返事を出す。 \n動きだす。 \n通り にぎやかな通り。 \nそのとおりです。 \n時 時は金なり。 \n帰りついたときはだれもいなかった。 \n所 新しい所へ移る。 \n今、書いているところだ。 \n中 家の中へ入る。 \n雨のなか、ありがとうございます。 \n見る 映画を見る。 \n小説を書いてみる。 \n持つ ステッキを持つ。 \nあと五年はもつ。 \n物 重い物を運ぶ。 \nそんなことをするものではない。 \n\n## Words written with katakana\n\n### 1\\. Foreign countries, names\n\nアメリカ フランス ロシア ベルリン アダムズ アリストテレス\n\n### 2\\. Loan words\n\nアナウンサー インフレーション エチケット ケーブルカー Note: Words that have been highly assimilated\ninto Japanese, and words who no longer feel borrowed may also be written in\nhiragana. たばこ てんぷら じゅばん\n\n### 3\\. Foreign currencies and units of measure\n\nドル ポンド ユーロ メートル リットル ヘクトパスカル\n\n### 4\\. 擬音語・Onomonopia\n\nカタカタ ガチャン ワンワン メーメー\n\n### 5\\. 俗語・隠語\n\nインチキ デカ ピンはね\n\n### 6\\. Names of plants and animals\n\nタヌキ キツネ サケ マス タマネギ スミレ ヒノキ Note: Where the idea of a plants and animal has\nfaded, the name is used figuratively or as a result of some manufactured\nproduct, you may also write these in hiragana.\n\nかまぼこ こいのぼり のり巻き わしづかみ\n\nNote: It's fine to write the following plant and animal names with kanji\n(they've have been adopted into the jōyō kanji).\n漢字で書いてもよい（常用漢字表にとりあげられている）動植物名。\n\n動物→犬 牛 馬 蚊 蚕 鯨 猿 象 鶏 猫 羊 豚 蛇 蛍 植物→麻 稲 芋 梅 漆 菊 桑 桜 芝 杉 竹 茶 菜 松 豆 麦 桃 柳 綿\n総称として→魚 貝 木 草 鳥 虫 藻\n\n### 7\\. 「学術用語集」で決められている語\n\nカセイソーダ タンパク質 リン酸\n\n### 8\\. 際立たせる場合（ふつうは、ひらがなで書く）\n\n(1)擬態語 ニヤニヤ ダラリ ノッソリ (2)感動を表す語 アラ オット マア (3)その他、意味やニュアンスを強調する場合 交渉はヤマを迎えた。\nこの人、ちょっと、ヘンです。\n\n### 9\\. To emphasize a kanji reading\n\n「愛」の音読みは「アイ」である。", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-15T04:08:12.027", "id": "3737", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-15T04:08:12.027", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "3733", "post_type": "answer", "score": 24 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3736", "answer_count": 1, "body": "On a certain online correction site, my sentence:\n\n> 正直に言うと、最近アメリカのドラマを **観ていたばかり** 。\n\nWas given many possibilities. Some people crossed out 「ばかり」 like 「観ていた ~~ばかり~~\n」 in the following sentences so I'm inclined to think I might've been wrong:\n\n> 正直に言うと、最近アメリカのドラマを **観てばかりいた** 。 \n> \n> 正直に言うと、最近アメリカのドラマ **ばかりを観ていた** 。 \n> \n> 正直な話、最近はアメリカのドラマ **ばかり観ていた** 。\n\nOne of the answerers also wrote the same ending as I did though, so I'm\nslightly confused:\n\n> 正直、最近アメリカのドラマを **観ていたばかり** 。\n\nIs there a reason why there's so many usages of 「ばかり」, and is one or more of\nthese more \"correct\" than the others or are they somehow arbitrary?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-15T00:15:24.417", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3735", "last_activity_date": "2021-11-25T19:29:57.200", "last_edit_date": "2021-11-25T19:25:13.973", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "796", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-ばかり" ], "title": "Correct usage of ばかり: 正直に言うと、最近アメリカのドラマを観ていたばかり", "view_count": 1039 }

[ { "body": "It actually has two meanings. When it is put after the predicate like your\noriginal example, it means \"just now\", and it conflicts with `最近` \"recent\".\nThat is why your sentence was corrected.\n\n> (?)正直に言うと、最近アメリカのドラマを観ていたばかり。 (Meaning-wise odd) \n> 'Being honest, I have just now been watching American dramas recently.'\n\nIf you put it within the predicate phrase like the first three sentences of\nyour four examples below that, it means \"only\" or \"exclusively\". In this\nsecond meaning, the focus of \"only\" moves depending on where you put it and\nwhich part is accented.\n\n> 正直に言うと、最近アメリカのドラマを観てばかりいた。 \n> 'Being honest, I have been exclusively watching American dramas.' \n> I.e., \"I have not done anything but watching American dramas.\"\n\n> 正直に言うと、最近アメリカのドラマばかり(を)観ていた。\n>\n\n>> _Interpretation 1._ \n> 'Being honest, I have been watching exclusively AMERICAN DRAMAS.\" \n> I.e., \"(I may have done activities other than watching something, but) I\n> have not watched anything other than American dramas.\"\n\n> > _Interpretation 2._ \n> 'Being honest, I have been watching exclusively American DRAMAS.\" \n> I.e., \"(I may have done activities other than watching some American\n> things, but) I have not watched any American things other than dramas.\"\n\n> > _Interpretation 3._ \n> 'Being honest, I have been watching exclusively AMERICAN dramas.\" \n> I.e., \"(I may have done activities other than watching dramas, but) I have\n> not watched any dramas other than American ones.\"\n\nI have no idea why you have the last sentence. It is almost the same as your\noriginal sentence, and does not improve anything.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-15T02:12:29.237", "id": "3736", "last_activity_date": "2021-11-25T19:29:57.200", "last_edit_date": "2021-11-25T19:29:57.200", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3735", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3916", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'd like to expose my young children to the sounds of Japanese at night as\nthey go to sleep. Specifically, I'd like to play Japanese lullabies or other\nsoothing music with vocals. Where do I find such music?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-16T03:44:58.390", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3738", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-11T13:20:45.583", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-11T13:20:45.583", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "548", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "learning", "resources", "phonetics", "music" ], "title": "What Japanese lullabys are available to provide early Japanese exposure to children?", "view_count": 367 }

[ { "body": "I know a children's song, かえるのうた (The Frog's Song, The Frog Song) I'm not sure\nif you'd classify it as a lullaby, but it has a simple melody and can even be\nsung in a round (I think of it as the Japanese \"Row, Row, Row your Boat\")\n\nHere's a link: [Frog Song](http://thejapanesepage.com/audio/kaeru_no_uta)\n\nNote: There seems to be a regional difference where the line \"Gero gero gero\ngero\" is replaced with \"Kiki kiki kiki kiki\".\n\nEnjoy!", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-07T00:13:00.977", "id": "3916", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-07T00:13:00.977", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "921", "parent_id": "3738", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3742", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've noticed there's a lot of overlap between the following words meaning\n\"earnest\" or \"serious\" when talking about a person:\n\n * まじ\n * 真面目{まじめ}\n * 真剣{しんけん}\n * 本気{ほんき}\n * 正気{しょうき}: (This word really means \"sane\" I believe, but I'm including it as I think 「正気か？」 can translate to \"are you serious?\")\n * 素直{すなお}: (I'm not sure whether this word meaning \"honest\" belongs here I but keep wondering what it's relationship to 真面目{まじめ} is when it means \"obedient\". I thought there might be some overlap in it's usage, e.g. 「素直な顔」 \"obedient face\" and 「真面目な顔」 \"serious face\". It could well be unrelated though.)\n\nWould I be allowed to ask what the differences between these words are and\nwhen they're used?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-16T06:33:17.790", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3740", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-17T00:55:38.010", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-16T08:14:32.817", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words" ], "title": "Earnest and serious: when should each be used?", "view_count": 1356 }

[ { "body": "> まじ\n\nNever heard it used, except in 「まじで？」 which is sometimes written \"本気\". It\nmeans \"aren't you joking\" (see 本気)\n\n> 真面目\n\n真面目に勉強した。 He applied himself to studying.\n\n> 真剣\n\n真剣にやってくだい。 Do it conscientiously, won't you?\n\n> 本気\n\n本気で言った。 He wasn't joking when he said that.\n\n> 正気\n\nI never heard/used it enough to answer…\n\n> 素直\n\nUnrelated to the above… It means docile, honest, compliant…", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-16T07:03:08.483", "id": "3741", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-16T07:03:08.483", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3740", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "* `まじ` colloquial and contracted form of `真面目`.\n * `真面目` 'diligent, serious'\n * `真剣` 'serious, under one's best' implies some tension\n * `本気` 'one's best, mean it'\n * `正気` 'has not lost conscious (due to alchohol, drug, fainting, or extreme situation, etc.)'\n * `素直` 'obedient, open minded'", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-16T09:44:47.670", "id": "3742", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-17T00:55:38.010", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-17T00:55:38.010", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3740", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "震災で家族を亡くしたOtoyaは、売られた奉公先で暴行されそうになったところを、家の跡取りである一威(Kazui)に助けられる.\n\nI was thinking that since 暴行 can be a する verb, that maybe され had something to\ndo with that, but I'm really not sure. Can someone explain?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-16T13:13:53.633", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3743", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-16T15:31:24.927", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "858", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "verbs" ], "title": "What does され do in this sentence?", "view_count": 318 }

[ { "body": "Yes your intuition is correct. It has something to do with する.\n\n * される is the passive verb form of する.\n\nWhat does the passive-form do?\n\nCompare:\n\n> AはBをぶつ - \"A hits B\"\n>\n> AはBにぶたれる - \"A gets hit by B\" (The verb ぶつ is in the passive-construction)\n\n* * *\n\nNow why is it `され` and not `される`?\n\n * `され` is the `連用形` of the passive construction of the verb `する` for which auxiliaries such as `~そう`, `~ます` etc. may be appended to\n\nLet's examine what `連用形+そう` does:\n\n`~そう` is an auxiliary construction that presents what the verb is expressing\nas a conjecture of the speaker concerning a present state or a future event\nbased on the speaker's observation.\n\nCompare:\n\n> 雨が降る \"It is raining\"\n>\n> 雨が降りそうです \"It looks like it will rain\"\n\nNow we're left with combining `そう` with `~になる` \"to become~\" in past tense;\n`~になった` \"became ~\", to form the expression `~そうになった` which is roughly means:\n\n> Literally: became the state of \"appearing to be ~\"\n>\n> Natural Translation: almost/nearly did ~\n\n* * *\n\nThe next step is putting all the parts together step by step:\n\n> * 暴行する - \"to assault\"\n>\n> * 暴行される - \"to get assaulted\"\n>\n> * 暴行されそうです - \"looks like will get (or is being) assaulted\"\n>\n> * 暴行されそうになった - \"became the state of \"looks like will get (or is being)\n> assaulted\" \"\n>\n>\n\nThen we try to naturally understand the last step and end up with:\n\n> \"to almost get assaulted\"\n\n* * *\n\nNow `暴行されそうになった` is followed by `ところを` (which I imagine is derived from ところ +\nを + Elided Verb) (I'm not really sure where `ところを` comes from and also\nderiving it would be out of the scope of this question)\n\n * `ところを` means something like \"in the midst of\" and is quite similar to `ときに` (Their difference would also be out of the scope of this question)\n\nTheir combination, `暴行されそうになったところを` would roughly mean \"In the midst of almost\ngetting assaulted\"", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-16T14:18:39.767", "id": "3744", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-16T15:31:24.927", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3743", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3752", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Does anybody have a clue what `こまけー` might mean? Below are some sentences for\ncontext and the phrase as it's used:\n\n> まじめでおカタい感じの女子大生は、やたらとわたしを目を敵にしてきた。わたしが何をやっても文句をつけてくる。「しょうゆの向きは、こうじゃなくてこう！」って\n> **こまけー** んだよ!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-17T01:11:11.013", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3746", "last_activity_date": "2018-09-19T14:24:06.410", "last_edit_date": "2012-07-17T15:47:49.910", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "861", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "slang", "register", "phonology" ], "title": "What does こまけー mean?", "view_count": 1297 }

[ { "body": "In Edo-speak (江戸言葉) or rough speak in present Japanese, a sequence of a vowel\nfollowed by a high vowel is often contracted to one long vowel. `こまけー`'s\noriginal form is `[細]{こま}かい` 'detailed'. In this case, it is claiming that the\nother person cares too much about subtle things.\n\nThere are other patterns as well:\n\n> ai → ee, [高]{たか}い → たけえ \n> ei → ee, [競]{けい}[馬]{ば} → けえば (Standard pronunciation; written as けいば) \n> oi → ee, [面]{おも}[白]{しろ}い → おもしれえ \n> ui → ii, [悪]{わる}い → わりい \n> au → oo, [買]{かう}た → こおた (Kansai dialect; written as こうた) \n> eu → oo, でせう → でしょお (Standard pronunciation; written as でしょう) \n> ou → oo, [泥]{どろ}[棒]{ぼう} → どろぼお (Standard pronunciation; written as どろぼう) \n> iu → uu, [言]{い}う → ゆう (Standard pronunciation; written as いう)\n\nAll these follow the following phonological rule:\n\n```\n\n [α high][+ high, β back] → [α high, - low, β back]:\n \n```\n\nwhere\n\n```\n\n +---------------+--------+--------+\n | | - back | + back |\n +---------------+--------+--------+\n | + high, - low | i | u |\n | - high, - low | e | o |\n | - high, + low | | a |\n +---------------+--------+--------+\n \n```\n\nNote: As far as I know, this rule was discovered by 窪薗晴夫.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-17T02:15:29.157", "id": "3752", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T14:01:23.047", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T14:01:23.047", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3746", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3748", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Sorry if this is really simple and I'm overlooking the obvious, but I'm not\nsure how the following sentence should be translated as I've noticed on\nprevious occasions that the word 「心配{しんぱい}」 might be used in a vague or\nambiguous way:\n\n> 各国{かくこく}で地震{じしん}が起{お}きているのでオーストラリアも心配{しんぱい}です。\n\nI can think of three possibilities:\n\n * There are earthquakes occurring in many countries, so there are also concerns that one will occur in Australia.\n * There are earthquakes occurring in many countries, so Australia is also concerned that one will occur.\n * There are earthquakes occurring in many countries, so I'm concerned that one will also occur in Australia.\n\nAlso, when should 「心配」 by itself be used instead of 「心配しています」 etc, as I think\nboth phrases can be translated to \"(I'm) worried\" and \"(I'm) concerned\" in\nEnglish?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-17T01:13:11.253", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3747", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-17T06:59:30.060", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-17T06:59:30.060", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "translation", "words" ], "title": "Usage of the word 心配", "view_count": 613 }

[ { "body": "オーストラリアも心配です just means “I am worried also about Australia,” and it does not\nspecify what exactly the speaker is worried about. In your example, it is\nclear from the first half of the sentence that the speaker is worried about\nthe possibility of earthquakes (and more precisely, probably the damage which\nearthquakes may cause) also in Australia.\n\n心配だ is a na-adjective meaning “worrying.” From\n[Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E5%BF%83%E9%85%8D&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=1&pagenum=1&index=110108100000)\nwith my translation into English:\n\n> テストの結果が心配だ。 I am worried about the result of the exams.\n\nYou cannot replace 心配だ with 心配している, because the subject of 心配する is a person\nwho is worried.\n\n> ×テストの結果が心配している。 The result of the exams is worried (about something).\n\nIt is ok to use ～を心配している:\n\n> テストの結果を心配している。 I am worried about the result of the exams.\n\nalthough it is less natural than the example in the dictionary.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-17T01:39:04.853", "id": "3748", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-17T01:39:04.853", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3747", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3750", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Is the pronunciation of `対応済` `たいおうすみ` or `たいおうずみ` ?\n\nContext: Software\n\nExample:\n\n```\n\n ユーザが押したときに問題が起こらないように対応済\n \n```", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-17T01:44:25.627", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3749", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-22T07:44:27.637", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-22T07:44:27.637", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "readings", "phonology", "suffixes", "rendaku" ], "title": "Pronunciation of 対応済", "view_count": 188 }

[ { "body": "It is たいおうずみ. More generally, the [suffix 済 or\n済み](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%B8%88%E3%81%BF&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=110511200000)\nis read as ずみ. This is an example of\n[rendaku](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/rendaku).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-17T02:04:24.450", "id": "3750", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-17T23:00:54.907", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3749", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 5, "body": "Forgive me if this question seems foolish, but perhaps curiosity has gotten\nthe best of me 'cause I am asking away. Every time I sit down to practice some\ngood ol' kanji writing, I can't help but notice the lack of rounded shapes,\ncircles, spheres, etc.. Sure, there are some curved strokes, but even in words\nthat speak of \"circular\" and \"rounded\" things (丸、円...), there is nothing\nremotely \"round\" in the kanji to speak of.\n\nI know very little about the etymology of kanji, so perhaps I am embarrassing\nmyself by asking this question. However, I am curious to know -- were there\never circular strokes in kanji? What's the story, if there is one at all...?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-18T02:20:50.577", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3755", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-04T15:34:18.590", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "864", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "kanji" ], "title": "Are there no rounded or circular strokes in any 漢字？", "view_count": 7727 }

[ { "body": "No need to be embarrassed. We all start somewhere.\n\nI first erroneously answered by saying, \"there are no rounded stokes in\nJapanese kanji.\" However, only after I submitted my answer did I notice you\nwere specifically asking if there were _ever_ rounded strokes. D'oh!\n\nOkay, so... to start, there are, as you know, no current circular strokes in\nkanji.\n\nHowever, if you go back far enough into the origins of kanji, you can see that\n[they were based on\npictographs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_signs_in_China#Ji.C7.8Eh.C3.BA),\nwhich can be curvy and all sorts of shapes. So, in a way, yes, there used to\nbe rounded shapes.\n\nThe trick is where do you draw the line on when they can be considered\n\"Japanese\" kanji. As you know, kanji was brought over from China and then\nadapted to fit Japanese needs.\n\nIt has evolved, but I believe that by the time Japan started using the\ncharacters, they were already formalized on the mainland and no longer had any\ndistinct circles. (History available\n[here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji#History)).\n\nSo I think a sensible answer could be that _Japanese_ kanji has never had\nround shapes.\n\nHowever, I think one could argue that kanji _itself_ , if you go back far\nenough, had some circular(ish) shapes in it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-18T03:01:19.957", "id": "3756", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-18T03:10:07.677", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-18T03:10:07.677", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3755", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "There are many ways to write Kanji, similar to how there are many ways to\nwrite Romaji. The main difference I think is that we generally haven't needed\nan \"official writing style\" for Romaji, probably because there are so few\nletters.\n\nBut with Kanji there are many different parts and even different types of\nlines that can make a difference in meaning so there have been several\n\"official writing styles\" over thousands of years which improve legibility.\n\n**The \"official writing style\" for Kanji taught in Japan does not use circular\nshapes.**\n\nHowever, some people will use circles in handwriting or fonts to make the\nwriting seem \"cute\":\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8XNJq.png)\n\nAlso, there are other styles of writing, like Grass Script（草書）or Seal\nScript（篆書）that make heavy use of curves and circles. **These were \"official\nwriting styles\" hundreds of years ago.** The highlighted text below\nreads,「天地玄黄」\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5EYKU.jpg)\n\nAs was mentioned by @Questioner, **some of the oldest standardized forms of\nKanji that have yet been found in China very commonly use curved and circular\nshapes.**\n\nAncient inscriptions like these found on ritual metal cooking pots that you\ncan see in museums show this older type of writing with lots of curves and\ncircles. This was the \"official writing style\" of the time, though there were\nstill many differences compared to the standardization of today.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AcGfj.png)\n\nHere's a side-by-side comparision of the common character「果」in modern angular\nand ancient circular styles:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/etb7m.png)\n\nIt might be worth mentioning that Hiragana (with curved shapes) were developed\nfrom Kanji (usually similar to the Grass Script versions). Here's a good\nresource that shows how that works:\n\n<http://ameblo.jp/hikkobo/entry-11900991321.html>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-11-28T01:32:37.127", "id": "41267", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-28T01:48:03.457", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-28T01:48:03.457", "last_editor_user_id": "7055", "owner_user_id": "7055", "parent_id": "3755", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "There is 「㪳」but I’m not sure what it means, it may be phonetic.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-02-23T03:32:56.813", "id": "65656", "last_activity_date": "2019-02-23T03:32:56.813", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "33065", "parent_id": "3755", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "This thread is already quite old, but @ひまわり's recent contribution caught my\nattention.\n\nAs far as _Kanji_ are concerned, i.e. Chinese characters used in Japanese\nlanguage, it is safe to assume indeed that they don't contain rounded or\ncircular strokes, at least in printed form, and it could be expected to be the\nsame for all other languages (Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese).\n\nHowever, the Unicode set of Unihan characters contains some quite surprising\nexceptions I happened to run into.\n\n1/ There are three characters with an elliptic component, very similar to what\ncan be found in Hangul:\n\n㔔㪳㫈\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hVLE7.png)\n\nInterestingly enough, there are also three characters with the same angular\ncomponent replacing the elliptic one:\n\n㔖㪲㫇\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qge4W.png)\n\nBTW, the source of these six characters is definitely Korean.\n\n2/ Two characters have rounded parts, one looking like a vertical sine wave,\nand another one similar to Japanese hiragana り:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yu7Tz.png)\n\n3/ Even more puzzling, some characters contain _loops_ :\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/NZMAS.png)\n\nI must confess that these Unihan characters are somehow an enigma to me, I\nignore which texts they originally come from, and wonder how they've made\ntheir way to the Unicode set altogether...\n\nPlease note that operating systems may not correctly display all these\ncharacters, since they are quite unusual. In order to be able to see them\nproperly, an appropriate font such as the [Hanazono\nMinchō](http://fonts.jp/hanazono/) typeface has to be installed first.\n\nAnother way to have a look at them is to access the relevant PDF code charts\nfrom the official Unicode web site. They are found in the following blocks:\n\n * [CJK IDEOGRAPH EXTENSION A](http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U3400.pdf) (7MB)\n\n * [CJK IDEOGRAPH EXTENSION B](http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U20000.pdf) (40.5MB)\n\n * [CJK IDEOGRAPH EXTENSION F](http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2CEB0.pdf) (4.5MB)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-02-23T18:26:53.610", "id": "65664", "last_activity_date": "2019-02-24T14:35:06.590", "last_edit_date": "2019-02-24T14:35:06.590", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3755", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "According to Wiktionary[](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%A0%86%AD) this\nmay be an ancient form of 雲 meaning cloud According to\nWiktionary[](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%A0%AA%B3) this may be 虎\n(Tiger) in an ancient form. According to\nWiktionary[](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%A1%A6%B9) this is government\nbased on the similarity to 官. And lastly is the ancient cursive form of 巨\n[](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%A2%80%93). All of this from a simple\nwiktionary search.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-02-04T15:34:18.590", "id": "84042", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-04T15:34:18.590", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "41808", "parent_id": "3755", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3759", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In this quote by Akihiro Miwa, 「そんな～ことはありません」 isn't used the way I'd expect it\nto be:\n\n> 努力{どりょく}をしない人も[平等]{びょうどう}になどと、そんなバカなことはありません。 \n> It's (extremely?) foolish to treat people who don't make an effort equally.\n\nI think 「そんな～ことはありません」 is used for emphasis here, but is using negation in\nthis way common and how does \"there aren't those kind of foolish things\"\nbecome \"extremely foolish\"?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-19T00:23:50.797", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3757", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-19T10:49:55.727", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-19T06:39:30.633", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "set-phrases" ], "title": "Emphasis instead of negation in 「そんなバカなことはありません」", "view_count": 243 }

[ { "body": "You are right that in your example, そんなバカなことはありません means “It is extremely\nfoolish.” I think that the literal meaning of this expression is “There is\nnothing as foolish as such a thing,” from which the meaning “It is extremely\nfoolish” follows logically.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-19T02:30:57.850", "id": "3758", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-19T02:30:57.850", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3757", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "`そんなバカなことはありません` has two interpretations in arbitrary context.\n\n> 1. Literally meaning \"those foolish things\" are not existent.\n>\n> 2. It means that those things set a new precedent for foolishness. That is\n> to say that it was unprecedented, or exaggerated to appear unprecedented. So\n> one way to understand it would be to take it as \"extremely foolish\".\n>\n>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-19T10:49:55.727", "id": "3759", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-19T10:49:55.727", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3757", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3764", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I could not help but notice that adjectives cannot directly conjugate to have\na potential form:\n\n> E.g. `赤い` **does not** become `赤られる` for (can be red)\n\n**(Question)** Which of the below are acceptable forms to convey a potential\nfor adjectives? What about な-adjectives?:\n\n> * 赤く出来る (using potential-form of する)\n>\n> * 赤くなれる (using potential-form of なる) (This seems to mean \"can become red\"\n> which is so very different from \"can be red\")\n>\n> * EDIT: 赤いがなり得る (I found this construction, I'm not sure what it does and\n> how different it is from 赤くなれる and 赤くなり得る)\n>\n> * 赤いことができる (Using the sentence pattern ～ことができる)\n>\n>\n\n>\n> I also thought about using the copula but there isn't any potential form for\n> だ/です. Unless it's であられる?\n>\n> * Would 赤いであられる make sense for \"can be red\" ?\n>", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-19T13:26:01.810", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3760", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-20T05:30:40.387", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "adjectives", "potential-form" ], "title": "How to construct potential form for adjectives", "view_count": 4092 }

[ { "body": "It depends on what you mean by “potential form.”\n\nBoth れる/られる and ことができる are attached to a verb and their basic meaning is “have\nthe ability to do.” (れる/られる has very different meanings such as passive and\nrespect, but I ignore them for the purpose of this answer.) Because they are\nabout the ability, the subject is usually animate.\n\nThe combination of ある+られる would be あられる, but this combination is ungrammatical\nfor a reason I do not know.\n\nAlthough the meaning of れる/られる/ことができる has large overlap with the meaning of\n“can” in English, it does not cover the usage of “can” in “can be red” (= may\nbe red; possibly be red).\n\n“Possibly” can be translated as “～可能性がある” as cypher wrote in a comment, or\n“～かもしれない.” Therefore, “can be red” is 赤い可能性がある or 赤いかもしれない. Although 可能性がある\nand かもしれない are not completely the same, I am not prepared to explain the\ndifference now.\n\nBelow I will try to explain whether each of your examples is grammatical or\nnot and what its meaning is.\n\n * 赤くする is “redden (something),” and 赤くできる (or 赤く出来る, although できる in this usage is usually written in hiragana) is “have the ability of redden (something).”\n * 赤くなれる is “have the ability to turn red,” but I do not know when it can be used.\n * 赤くなりうる is “possibly turn red.” Unlike 可能性がある and かもしれない, [得]{う}る in this meaning can be only attached to a verb.\n * 赤いがなり得る is ungrammatical because 赤いがなる is ungrammatical.\n * 赤いことができる is ungrammatical because ことができる can be only attached to a verb as I wrote above.\n * 赤いであられる is ungrammatical for two reasons: 赤いである is ungrammatical, and the combination あられる is somehow ungrammatical as I wrote above.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-20T05:11:17.650", "id": "3764", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-20T05:30:40.387", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-20T05:30:40.387", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3760", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3762", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Why is は used at the end of こんにちは? Is the last letter the [particle\nは](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/379/why-are-the-\nparticles-%E3%81%AF-\nha%E2%87%92wa-%E3%81%B8-he%E2%87%92e-and-%E3%82%92-wo%E2%87%92o-not-spelled-\nphonet), or is there a different explanation?\n\n[Which is correct: こんばんわ or\nこんばんは?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/131/which-is-\ncorrect-%E3%81%93%E3%82%93%E3%81%B0%E3%82%93%E3%82%8F-or-%E3%81%93%E3%82%93%E3%81%B0%E3%82%93%E3%81%AF)\nmentions konnichiwa, but the question is interpreted more as \"When should I\nuse こんばんわ and when should I use こんばんは?\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-20T01:02:31.980", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3761", "last_activity_date": "2017-03-24T12:50:23.753", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "spelling", "hiragana" ], "title": "Why is konnichiwa spelt こんにちは?", "view_count": 14346 }

[ { "body": "According to [gogen-allguide](http://gogen-allguide.com/ko/konnitiwa.html),\n`こんにちは` originated from the `今日{こんにち}は` (\"today\") in\n`今日{こんにち}はご機嫌{きげん}いかがですか？` (\"how are you today\") and similar expressions.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-20T01:15:18.430", "id": "3762", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-20T01:15:18.430", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3761", "post_type": "answer", "score": 21 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3782", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Inspired by [this question of rounded or circular strokes in\nkanji](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3755/are-there-no-rounded-\nor-circular-strokes-in-any-%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%EF%BC%9F), I got an idea to\nprove that there is no circular strokes in kanji by examining all kanji\nradicals, which is a lot less that examining all kanji characters.\n\nBut that would work only if kanji characters are made up of radicals only, and\nwould not work if kanji characters could contain strokes that are not part of\nthe list of all radicals.\n\nSo, are kanji characters made up of radicals only or can they contain strokes\nthat are not radicals?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-20T02:48:59.760", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3763", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-27T13:23:51.670", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "kanji", "terminology", "radicals" ], "title": "Are kanji characters made up of radicals only or could they contain strokes that are not radicals?", "view_count": 3367 }

[ { "body": "The short answer is: not all the elements of all the characters are\n‘radicals’. For example 凹 (concave, hollow) consists according to the\ndictionaries of 部首 _bushu_ (or radical if you will, more on that below) 凵 and\nthree more strokes that cannot be further analyzed or categorized.\n\nA more complete answer would depend (as Tsuyoshi Ito already indicated in his\nnote) on what you mean by ‘radical’. In my short answer I assumed ‘radicals’\nto mean the 214 _bushu_ from the 康熙字典 (Kangxi dictionary). Those 214 _bushu_\nhave long been regarded as a standard, but variant lists of _bushu_ exist,\nboth from the past and of the present. Since basically _bushu_ form an index\nsystem, whether a _bushu_ is listed or not depends on its usefulness for the\nfunction of indexing - not as a tool of structural analysis of the characters.\n\nHowever, since it is possible to map a lot of the parts of characters onto\n_bushu_ , _most_ characters could _indeed_ be analyzed as consisting of\n_bushu_. A lot of the 象形文字 _shōkei moji_ (pictographs) like 木 tree, 目 eye, 馬\nhorse, etc.) are _bushu_ themselves and need then not be further analyzed as\nsuch. Further, the type of strokes that are used to draw a character have been\nsimplified to the point that almost any segment or stroke can be seen as a\n‘variant’ of some _bushu_ \\- particularly if you include one stroke _bushu_\nlike 一, 丨, 丶, 丿 and 乙 (the last one can potentially be used as a kind of wild\ncard for any longer curved stroke).\n\nTo rephrase your question: are there characters that contain elements or\nstrokes that can not be mapped onto _bushu_? The answer to that would\napparently depend on which list of _bushu_ you use, and how liberal you are in\nusing one stroke _bushu_ as wild cards, but _very few_ at most. However, that\nis mainly the result of the way characters and strokes have been simplified,\nresulting in strokes and shapes that overlap today, even though they were\ndifferent at some time in the past. For that reason identifying elements as\n_bushu_ not always helps to understand why a character looks a certain way.\nFor starters, it does not help understand the _bushu_ that are complex\nindependent characters themselves. Often these are pictographic or symbolic,\neven though it is often possible to ‘analyse’ these _bushu_ with yet other\n_bushu_ , for example 貝 ( _bushu_ 154) as consisting of 目 ( _bushu_ 109) and\ntwo dots ( _bushu_ 3 and 4) while in fact it's a pictograph of the shell(s) of\na oyster or a clam. Or 自 ( _bushu_ 132), which can be seen as consisting of\nagain 目 and a dot, but is in fact a pictograph of a nose.\n\nLikewise other characters of which elements can be mapped onto _bushu_ often\nhave a different history as well. For example 去 is usually indexed under 土 (\n_bushu_ 32) _earth_ (while the remaining stokes could be seen as a variant of\n厶 ( _bushu_ 28)), but according to Henshall it originally depicted a lid on a\nrice container.\n\nComing back to other possible meanings of ‘radical’, the Wikipedia page\n[\"Radical (chinese\ncharacter)\"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_%28Chinese_character%29)\nthat Tsuyoshi Ito linked to is accurate enough, but potentially somewhat\nconfusing, because traditionally (in the context of Western linguistics) a\nradical had nothing to do with an index system (as the _bushu_ are) and was\nused with a meaning that is rather the opposite of the meaning of terms like\n‘signific’ or ‘semantic determinative’ (or ‘phonetic’ for that matter). Boltz\n(1994:67) explains well how historically a ‘semantic determinative’ like for\nexample 牛 to the left of 勿 in 物 was later added to clarify the meaning\n‘creature; thing’ and that thus in fact 勿 should be the ‘root’ or ‘radical’ in\nthe original Western linguistic sense of those terms - exactly _not_ the\n‘signific’ or ‘semantic determinative’. In the context of Chinese and Japanese\ncharacters the term ‘radical’ is therefore best avoided.\n\nIn conclusion I'd like to go into the _reason_ that was given for asking\nwhether _kanji_ are only made of ‘radicals’, which was: can a comprehensive\nlist of those radicals be used to scan for the existance of circular strokes\nin _kanji_?\n\nThe answer to that question is much more emphatic: **no way!**\n\nFirst of all for the reason already (perhaps not explicitly enough) stated,\nnamely that even if you limit kanji to ‘regular scipt’ _kanji_ , _kaisho_ ,\n(楷書) and would take the largest existing list of _bushu_ (and perhaps\ncomparable elements, like e.g. elements from the indexes of some dictionaries\nlike the one by Nelson), a _kanji_ written in _kaisho_ could still contain\nsomewhat surpising shapes (especially if you take all kanji into account, not\njust regular use ones) to which 丿 or 乙 might point, but not predict the actual\nshape of.\n\nThe second reason presumes that you not necessarily would want to limit your\nsearch to kanji written in _kaisho_ style. Certainly in the [oldest form of\nkanji](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_bone_script) that have been found,\nstrongly curved and even perfecly circular forms were possible ([here a nice\nimage of an oracle shell featuring several\ncircles](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB%3aOracleShell.JPG)).\nCurrently, artists feel free to create kanji inspired by these very old\npredecessors.\n\nThe later [seal script](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_Script) (originally\nwritten with brush and ink on bamboo) allowed to some extend curved and more\nor less circular shapes as well. Interestingly, variants of seal script are\nstill used quite frequently. This style may for example be used for their\naesthetic value in [stamps](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_seal), or\nbook headings, sign boards1, etc.\n\nApart from _kaisho_ and seal script, other styles are in use. For example\ncursive forms, that are used in hand writing or in calligraphy. Designers of\ntypefaces for printing fonts or sign boards take hints from all of those. See\n[a sample of a handwriting\nfont](http://www.wazu.jp/gallery/views/View_unifont.html) that includes round\nshapes. Entire books have been printed with typefaces that are very different\nfrom _kaisho_. That would indicate that the rectangular shapes of _kaisho_ are\nnot a standard that is written in stone.\n\n* * *\n\nNotes: \n**(1)** (from second last paragraph): A [Google search for \"篆書\"\n看板](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E7%AF%86%E6%9B%B8%22%20%E7%9C%8B%E6%9D%BF&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&ei=HSLSTsCYA46aOs-\nhgaEP&sa=N) will show plenty of results, for example [on\nseikeikai.net](http://www.seikeikai.net/signboard/date_11-27-2008.html), [this\nimage showing two shop\nsigns](http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/47/50/33e04ea01fb6cf1a92dc42e4e6ae37ff.jpg)\nand [another\nsign](http://img.blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ybi/1/73/ed/garagaranyan/folder/1132884/img_1132884_21947920_5?1231709754).\n\nReferences: \nWilliam G. Boltz (1994) _The origin and early development of the Chinese\nwriting system_. American oriental society: New Haven. \nKenneth G. Henshall (1990) _A guide to remembering Japanese characters_.\nTuttle Company: Vermont & Tokyo.", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-22T11:37:55.603", "id": "3782", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-27T13:23:51.670", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-27T13:23:51.670", "last_editor_user_id": "836", "owner_user_id": "836", "parent_id": "3763", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3817", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've just learned that `～わけにはいけない` as in `断{ことわ}るわけにはいけない` (\"I can't refuse\")\napparently isn't valid but `～わけにはいかない` is, even though I've been using the\nformer frequently.\n\nBut what is the difference between `いかない` and `いけない` and when should they each\nbe used? Also, is `(te form)はいかない` valid? I'm guessing `～してはいかない` isn't valid\nbut `～してはいけない` is.\n\nIs `うまくいけない` or `納得いけない` valid? In English I think \"this can't go well\" or \"I\ncan't tolerate that\" sounds like it would work, but I'm not sure it would in\nJapanese.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T00:32:46.633", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3765", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:20:11.040", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:20:11.040", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "796", "post_type": "question", "score": 24, "tags": [ "grammar", "expressions" ], "title": "What's the difference between 「いけない」 and 「いかない」?", "view_count": 18082 }

[ { "body": "`いかない` is less often a problem as it's derived from `行く`, but `いけない` can be\nboth the negative potential form of the verb `行く` \"to go\" and the negative\nform of the verb `行ける` \"to be good (at)/to go well/to be acceptable.\" 6\n\nTherefore `いかない` and `いけない` may appear to be similar, but they can actually be\ntotally different.\n\n* * *\n\n`いかない` \"won't go/doesn't go\" from `行く`:\n\n> **～わけにはいかない** : An expression which means \"I cannot very well\" when after a\n> verb that isn't in the past tense. 5\n>\n> * `いつまでもけんかしているわけにはいかない` \"I can't very well keep fighting forever.\" 7\n>\n\n`いけない` \"unable to go/can't go\" from `行く`:\n\n> **そのパーティーにいけない** : Can mean \"I can't go to the party.\" 2\n\n`いけない` \"unacceptable/bad\" from `行ける` 5:\n\n> **～てはいけない** : Can mean \"unacceptable if\" however it's more often translated\n> as \"must not/may not.\" Means \"must/have to\" if on the end of a negative\n> verb. 5\n>\n> * `走{はし}ってはいけない` \"you must not run.\"\n> * `走らなくてはいけない` \"you must run.\" \n> \n>\n>\n\n>\n> **～はいけない** : Can mean \"won't do/no good/bad\" as well as \"naughty.\"\n>\n> * `彼{かれ}はいけない` \"he is naughty.\" 1\n> * `それはいけない` \"that's bad\" in many contexts. 2 \n> \n>\n>\n\n>\n> **～て（で）いけない** : Means \"undesirable/unpleasant\" after a conjunctive form.\n>\n> * `いい人だが、おしゃべりでいけない` \"A great person, but his/her chattering isn't to be\n> desired.\" 4 \n> \n>\n>\n\n>\n> **～といけないから… or ～といけないので… etc** : On the end of verbs means \"it will be bad\n> if ~ happens so ...\"\n>\n> * `雨{あめ}が降{ふ}るといけないから傘{かさ}を持{も}ちなさい` \"It will be bad if it rains so take\n> an umbrella.\" 1 \n> \n>\n>\n\n>\n> **\"It's your fault that\"** :\n>\n> * `お前がよく[注意]{ちゅうい}していなかったのがいけないんだ` \"It was your fault that you weren't\n> careful.\" 3 \n> \n>\n>\n\n>\n> **\"Hopeless\"** : (`駄目{だめ}`) if used as `もういけない` or `やっぱりいけなかった`.\n>\n> * `あの病人{びょうにん}はもういけないようです` \"It seems that patient is beyond hope.\" 1\n> * `試験{しけん}はやっぱりいけなかった` \"Just as I feared, I've failed the exam.\" 1 \n> \n>\n>\n\n>\n> **\"Unfortunate/too bad\"** (expressing sympathy):\n>\n> * `それはいけません` in response to hearing that someone is unwell would mean\n> \"it's unfortunate that you are unwell.\" 1 \n> \n>\n>\n\n>\n> **Other meanings:**\n>\n> * \"Beyond hope of recovery\" if used as `いけなくなった` 3\n> * \"Unable to drink alcohol\" as in `あまりいけない口でして` 4\n> * \"Darn!\" when by itself, similar to `しまった` or `ちくしょう` 1\n> * Used by females as in `あ、いけない、どうしよう` \"Oh dear, now what am I going to\n> do?\" 1\n>\n\n* * *\n\n**Sources:**\n\n 1. Louis' provided images\n 2. [the lang-8 link as above](http://lang-8.com/315974/journals/1188521/%25E4%25BE%258B%25E6%2596%2587%25E3%2581%25AE%25E8%25B3%25AA%25E5%2595%258F)\n 3. [Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%84%E3%81%91%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0)\n 4. [Daijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%84%E3%81%91%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=00805400)\n 5. [Kodansha's furigana Japanese dictionary](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/4770024800)\n 6. [JMDict](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/jmdict.html)\n 7. [Space ALC](http://www.alc.co.jp/index.html)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-26T07:01:55.410", "id": "3817", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-02T08:05:43.347", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-02T08:05:43.347", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3765", "post_type": "answer", "score": 23 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3785", "answer_count": 2, "body": "When we first studied adjective conjugation in my Japanese class, I kept\nmaking the same mistake habitually; I would conjugate the past tense of\nい-adjectives with でした at the end instead of dropping the い and adding かったです.\nMy teacher would correct me, and now I've more or less started doing かったです,\nbut I still wonder about how \"wrong\" adjective-でした is.\n\n> ○ あのテストは難しかったです。\n>\n> ×? あのテストは難しいでした。\n\nIs the second sentence straight out wrong and/or extremely unnatural-sounding?\nWould anybody in Japan conjugate adjectives like this? Or does it possibly\nintroduce a _slightly_ different meaning?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T03:30:25.213", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3766", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:19:07.577", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "575", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "grammar", "conjugations", "adjectives", "i-adjectives", "tense" ], "title": "い-Adjective Conjugation: かったです vs でした", "view_count": 5469 }

[ { "body": "It is ungrammatical. No one will conjugate like that.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-23T00:41:34.390", "id": "3784", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-23T00:41:34.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3766", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "`あのテストは難しいでした` to me sounds strange. If you search Google for `テストは難しいでした`,\nyou get about 10 results, many of them written by foreign speakers.\n`テストは難しかったです` however gets far more results.\n\nI wouldn't right out say that it's wrong to use `難しいでした` as you can find many\ninstances of it when you search for it. However, I think it's overwhelmingly\nused by females when you look through the results. It's just a speculation of\nmine, but it may sound slightly \"cuter\" or \"younger\" to use `難しいでした` as in\n`確かに難しいでしたけれどーー字の雰囲気で何となく解りましたから――ー大丈夫でした` and similar examples.\n\nThat said, I think people learning Japanese should use `難しかったです` rather than\n`難しいでした`.\n\n**Disclaimer:** I'm not a native speaker, just my thoughts.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-23T02:32:39.803", "id": "3785", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-23T04:15:51.423", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-23T04:15:51.423", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3766", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "> **Possible Duplicate:** \n> [Rules for slang of Japanese\n> numbers](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/853/rules-for-slang-\n> of-japanese-numbers)\n\nThey seem to be some form of replacing kana sounds with numbers to spell\nthings with numbers. Are these actually used anywhere \"real\"? or are they just\na bit of fansite silliness?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T07:08:38.703", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3767", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-21T07:08:38.703", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "29", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "numbers" ], "title": "What are the ゴロ番, and how do they work?", "view_count": 89 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3771", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In my JLPT workbook, it gives these examples to explain the difference between\n`延{の}びる` and `伸{の}びる`:\n\n> 髪{かみ}は[１]{いっ}か[月]{げつ}に１センチぐらい伸{の}びる。\n>\n> 会議{かいぎ}はいつも30分{ぷん}ぐらい延{の}びる。\n\nThey both mean \"stretch\", more or less, so I assumed the difference was that\n`延{の}びる` was more about time and space, and `伸{の}びる` is more about distance\nand length.\n\nHowever, take a look at this practise question:\n\n> １９７２年、東京{とうきょう}から大阪{おおさか}までだった東海道{とうかいどう}新幹線{しんかんせん}は岡山{おかやま}まで____________。\n>\n> **A** 長引{ながひ}いた **B** 広{ひろ}がった **C** 延{の}びた **D** 伸{の}びた\n\nI chose, **D** , because it was about length.\n\nAccording to the book, though, the answer is **C**.\n\nHow can I make sense of this answer in light of the example sentences?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T07:44:50.860", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3768", "last_activity_date": "2021-06-10T18:32:43.063", "last_edit_date": "2015-11-29T03:05:18.593", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "word-choice", "jlpt" ], "title": "伸{の}びる versus 延{の}びる in a JLPT question", "view_count": 1085 }

[ { "body": "Using the Microsoft IME as a guide, generally 延びる seems to be used as \"extend\"\nand 伸びる as \"grow\":\n\n**延びる:**\n\n * Extend a conversation\n * Extend a schedule\n * Extend life span\n * Extend a subway into the suburbs\n\n**伸びる:**\n\n * Plants/people grow\n * Expand investigations (in relation to the law etc)\n * Grow one's knowledge\n * Grow a market/earnings", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T08:12:58.060", "id": "3771", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-21T14:01:59.923", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-21T14:01:59.923", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3768", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "According to [business-textbooks.com](https://business-textbooks.com/nobasu-\ndifference/#toc-4)\n\n>\n> 延ばすのもう1つの意味としては、あるものに別のものをくっつけ、長さを足すというものがあります。具体的な物としては、延長コードがこれにあたります。こうした付着による長さの付け足しは、「伸ばす」には含まれませんから、この点は両者の違いとなっています。\n\nSo the instance of adding one thing's length to another to extend the total\nlength uses 延, and this seems to match the case in question, that of extending\ntracks.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-06-10T18:32:43.063", "id": "87020", "last_activity_date": "2021-06-10T18:32:43.063", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "9153", "parent_id": "3768", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3778", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In my JLPT practise book, there is a section demonstrating the difference\nbetween `なぐる`, `たたく`, `打{う}つ`, and `ぶつ`. If I understand them, they are all\nvariants of \"hit\", with subtle nuances to differentiate them.\n\nI have this example explaining the use of `ぶつ`:\n\n> いたずらをした子供{こども}は、母親{ははおや}にお尻{しり}をぶたれた。\n\nAnd then I have this question:\n\n> なまけ者{もの}の弟{おとうと}は人{ひと}から尻{しり}を_ ** ___ __**_ないと、なかなか仕事{しごと}をしない。\n>\n> **A** ぶたれ **B** たたかれ **C** 打{う}たれ **D** なぐられ\n\nI chose **A** , which means I fell unto the usual JLPT trap where they\ndeliberately mislead with similar contexts. D'oh!\n\nStill, in any case, I can't see why **B** is a better answer. In fact, the\nsubtleties of difference make me unsure why any of them are not appropriate.\n\nWhat makes **B** the right answer, and the rest wrong?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T07:55:55.317", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3769", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-22T05:07:54.253", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-22T03:26:14.943", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "word-choice", "jlpt" ], "title": "たたく versus ぶつ in a JLPT question", "view_count": 505 }

[ { "body": "* **尻をぶつ** :\n\n> Means to spank someone as punishment for something which has been done (in\n> the first case because of naughtiness.)\n\n * **尻をたたく** :\n\n> Means to give someone a good hiding without those connotations (in that case\n> because of laziness.)\n\n * **打つ** :\n\n> Doesn't work because `ぶつ` is used for people and `打つ` for inanimate things.\n\n * **殴る** :\n\n> Doesn't work because it's more for violently hitting/continuous beating of\n> someone with a stick/fist etc.\n\n`なまけ者` means \"lazy person\" and `なかなか仕事をしない` means \"the (younger brother) stays\nlazy\" in this context I believe, so the sentence would translate to \"unless\nthe lazy younger brother is given a good hiding, he stays lazy.\"", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T14:21:03.787", "id": "3778", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-22T05:07:54.253", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-22T05:07:54.253", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3769", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "尻をたたく is an idiom, sort of like English \"kick in the pants\". Consider:\n\n> My lazy little brother never does any work until someone gives him a good\n> kick in the pants.\n\nYou wouldn't interpret this as _literal_ brutality, just forceful\nreminding/urging. Same goes for 尻をたたく, at least in this case, and you can tell\nbecause of context: it just seems really unlikely that modern-day training\nmaterials for a nice upper-middle-class test like JLPT(N1) would present\nstories of someone's brother getting _literally_ beaten by unnamed third\nparties simply for being lazy.\n\nI also think that when talking about someone _else's_ butt in the context of\nliteral butt-spanking (i.e. not using a set idiom like 尻をたたく) you would tend\nto use お尻, not just 尻.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-22T03:05:47.663", "id": "3780", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-22T03:05:47.663", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3769", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3794", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In my JLPT practise book, there is this question:\n\n> 子供{こども}のけんかに親{おや}が_ ** ___ __**_きた。\n>\n> **A** 乗{の}り越{こ}えて **B** 乗{の}り切{き}って **C** 乗{の}り出{だ}して **D** 踏{ふ}み込{こ}んで\n\nI chose **D** , because it seemed to me that the meaning of `踏{ふ}み込{こ}んで`\nmeans to \"bust in on\". As in, interrupt the kids who are fighting.\n\nHowever, the book says the answer is **C** , which seems odd to me because I\nthought `乗{の}り出{だ}して` meant something like \"to set out to do **_X_** \". Since\nthe sentence doesn't seem to me to contain the **_X_** action the parents set\nout to do, it looks incomplete to me.\n\nSo I must not understand the use of `乗{の}り出{だ}して`.\n\nWhat would be an accurate translation of the sentence, and what exactly is\n`乗{の}り出{だ}して`?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T08:04:48.903", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3770", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-24T00:04:59.413", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-22T16:52:07.443", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "jlpt" ], "title": "How to use 乗{の}り出{だ}す", "view_count": 357 }

[ { "body": "First, lets look at why 踏{ふ}み込{こ}んで isn't correct. 踏{ふ}み込{こ}んで can be used as\n'step into' as in 部屋に足を踏み込む, but I usually see the case where it is used as\n'to make a bold start/to dive into'.\n\n乗{の}り出{だ}す is tricky here, because most of the usage you'll see in news\narticles and such is that of 'embark', or 'set out'. The other dictionary\nmeaning doesn't really fit this question so well either, 'to lean/move\npressingly forward' (the latter from goo's 4th definition:\n\n> ４ からだを前にぐっと出す。「身を―・して演奏を聴く」).\n\nDictionaries don't always hold all the meanings of a word, especially the\nidiomatic ones. So I did a google search for for 親が乗り出す, and there were a\nlarge number of hits similar to the JLPT question where I would translate 乗り出す\nas 'intervene in or step into ( a children's fight)\" and also as a secondary\nmeaning as \"to get involved (in marital life/decisions involving their\nchildren)\"\n\nI looked at many dictionaries and couldn't find any definitions that matched\nthis one, so perhaps it will do to know that 親が乗り出す has this idiomatic use\ncase.\n\nFor completeness I searched for 親が踏み込む as well, and came across these kinds of\nsentences, which does look similar to secondary meaning of 親が乗り出す, to get\ninvolved, but is a bit different from intervening or stepping into a\nchildren's fight:\n\n> 1.子どもには子どもの世界がありますし、そこに親が踏み込むとストレスになるだろうし\n>\n> 2.そこで聞きたいのはもしお子さんが同じようになった場合どこまで親が踏み込むべきなのでしょうか\n\nSo while it is close, I think this is a sufficient explanation of 乗り出す to\nanswer and explain the question.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-24T00:04:59.413", "id": "3794", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-24T00:04:59.413", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "878", "parent_id": "3770", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3783", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I often see `手{て}`, hand, used in a metaphorical sense to mean something along\nthe lines of effort or presence... but I'm not totally sure.\n\nFor example, consider this sentence:\n\n> 手を[抜]{ぬ}いて仕事{しごと}をしていたら、部長{ぶちょう}に怒{おこ}られた。\n\n`手{て}を抜{ぬ}く` appears to be a set phrase, meaning, \"to slack off.\"\n\nHowever, I'm trying to get at exactly what the `手{て}` refers to. When I first\nread this sentence, I thought that if one pulled one's \"hand\" out, then one\nsimply wasn't doing the work.\n\nWhat it seems to mean instead, though, is that one is still going to do the\nwork, but not put in an effort.\n\nIs it accurate to say, then, that `手{て}`, when used metaphorically, _usually_\nrefers to \"effort\"? Would the sentence mean the same thing if it was written\nlike this:\n\n> 努力{どりょく}しなくて仕事{しごと}をしていたら、部長{ぶちょう}に怒{おこ}られた。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T08:15:25.057", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3772", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-22T16:41:45.540", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-22T01:10:03.493", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "word-choice", "metaphor" ], "title": "What is the metaphorical meaning of 手{て}?", "view_count": 533 }

[ { "body": "It seems to mean \"effort\", i.e. \"attempt to accomplish something\", yes.\n\nThe primary not-completely-literal usage of 手 that I'm most familiar with is\nin discussions of the game of Go, where it generally means \"play\" or \"move\" in\nthe game-mechanic sense of \"single action by one player\", and sometimes \"play\"\nin the sense of \"manner of playing the game\" (as in the phrase 神【かみ】の一手【いって】).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-22T01:01:57.893", "id": "3779", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-22T01:01:57.893", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "627", "parent_id": "3772", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "手 is such a basic word that it represents many meanings, one of which is\n“efforts.” Other examples of 手 in this meaning are:\n\n * 手をかける (take great care), 手がかかる (be troublesome (because it requires efforts))\n * 手が込んでいる/手の込んだ (intricate)\n\nThere are too many meanings of 手 to list them up. Look up in a dictionary for\na list.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-22T16:41:45.540", "id": "3783", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-22T16:41:45.540", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3772", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3774", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I have this question in my JLPT practise book:\n\n> 明日{あした}は雨{あめ}が降{ふ}りそうな_ ** ___ __**_がする。\n>\n> **A** 予報{よほう} **B** 予知{よち} **C** 予感{よかん} **D** 予測{よそく}\n\nI chose **A** , mostly because of seeing `予報{よほう}` used a lot when talking\nabout weather. The dictionary backs me up on that by defining it as\n\"forecast.\"\n\nBut the book says the answer is **C**. Is this because the use of `そう` means\nthat the prediction of tomorrow's weather is a vague feeling? `予感{よかん}` seems\nto me a sort of vague notion.\n\nI'm not clear on this, because I thought `そう` could mean \"appear\" in a more\nneutral sense, in which case, `予報{よほう}` should fit just as well, shouldn't it?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T08:25:03.900", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3773", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-22T16:40:24.793", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-22T16:40:24.793", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "word-choice", "jlpt" ], "title": "Does そう imply vagueness in this JLPT question?", "view_count": 243 }

[ { "body": "You need to translate the sentence in your head before you decide which answer\nyou're going to pick (if you're not entirely sure).\n\nFirst read it without the gap filled in and try to guess what it wants to say.\n\nThe example sentence here approximately wants to say \"It looks as if it's\ngoing to rain tomorrow.\"\n\nThe information of \"looks as if\" is already contained in \"雨が降りそう\" but as it\nhappens, in your example they want to turn this general (objective) sentence\ninto a subjective sentence. This information is contained in the \"~がする\" at the\nend of the sentence. There are many examples of expressions of personal\nfeelings in combination with \"~がする\", for example:\n\n悪い気がする\n\n悪い気分がする\n\nXな感じがする\n\nand many more, in particular ~予感がする.\n\nNow let's see why 予報 doesn't work here. As you pointed out, 予報 means\n\"(weather) forecast\". Using this in the gap, the sentence would roughly\ntranslate as follows:\n\n\"The forecast makes as if it was going to rain tomorrow.\"\n\nNote that I purposefully translated it as closely to the original as possible\nwith the result of it being ungrammatical. This is because the \"~がする\" at the\nend points you to a personal feeling which then used with \"weather forecast\"\nends up not fitting together because \"having\" a forecast is not a personal\nfeeling.\n\n**Edit**\n\nSo to more precisely answer your question:\n\n明日は雨が降りそうです。\n\nIs the objective version and translates as \"It looks as if it's going to rain\ntomorrow.\"\n\nAnd\n\n明日は雨が降りそうな予感がする。\n\nIs the subjective version and translates as \"I think it looks as if it's going\nto rain tomorrow.\"\n\n~そう can always be used to say \"looks as if\". For example\n\nこの建物は地震で傾きそうです。\n\nHope this helps.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T09:59:51.523", "id": "3774", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-21T11:02:00.837", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-21T11:02:00.837", "last_editor_user_id": "388", "owner_user_id": "388", "parent_id": "3773", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I have always known that for a verb that ends with a `く`, the past/perfective\nform ends with `いた` and the conjugative form ends with `いて`.\n\nBut today I found in Wiktionary that there are alternative perfective forms\n[`抱った`/`抱って` for\n`抱く`](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%8A%B1%E3%81%8F#Conjugation_2) and\n[`書った`/`書って` for\n`書く`](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%9B%B8%E3%81%8F#Related_terms).\n\nAre those simply typo/mistake in Wiktionary or could there be some truths in\nthem?\n\nScreenshot:\n\n", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-21T10:00:24.603", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3775", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T04:41:36.213", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T04:41:36.213", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "conjugations" ], "title": "抱った vs 抱いた and 書った vs 書いた", "view_count": 591 }

[ { "body": "I no longer use Rikaichan because it made me lazy (and I switched to\nChrome...), but I remember that if you typed a く verb with a って/った conjugation\nand punched it in, it would still pop up and show as the て/た form. Give it a\nshot. Unfortunately I can't explain why, but it leads me to believe that maybe\nit was correct at some point. There's a 国語 teacher right next to me, but I'm\ntoo embarrassed to ask :/", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-24T00:02:39.343", "id": "3793", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-24T00:02:39.343", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "879", "parent_id": "3775", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3789", "answer_count": 4, "body": "This might sound like a strange question, but how does the usage of commas\ndiffer when used in Japanese compared to English?\n\nI believe `りんご、オレンジとバナナ` wouldn't work, but that it's OK to list like\n`りんご、オレンジ、バナナ` or `りんご、オレンジ、またはバナナ`. When should `りんごとオレンジとバナナ` and similar be\nused instead of commas or vice-versa?\n\nI've heard that going e.g. `分かりにくくて、読みたくない` with i-adjectives isn't correct\nbut `分かりにくいし、読みたくない` and `分かりにくく、読みたくない` is. I'm guessing it's OK to go\n`簡単で、特に問題はない` and `簡単し、特に問題はない` right?\n\nAdditionally, what is the meaning of `、。` at the end of a sentence, e.g.\n`気にしてなかったけど、。`? I think it might have some kind of emotive effect, so I think\nI'd translate it as \"I didn't _really_ care though\" (for emphasis.) I might\ntranslate `、。` as \"I'm flustered that...\" in some other contexts but I'm not\nsure.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-23T05:31:15.920", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3786", "last_activity_date": "2022-07-25T03:31:14.863", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-23T06:38:03.490", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "post_type": "question", "score": 38, "tags": [ "grammar", "punctuation" ], "title": "Usage of commas in Japanese sentences", "view_count": 30538 }

[ { "body": "The symbol “、” is called [読点]{とうてん}. It is used to denote a semantic\nseparation or a pause. Compared to comma in English, the usage of 読点 in\nJapanese is less governed by the grammatical rules. In other words, in\nJapanese, the author is free to use or not to use 読点 in any place where a\nseparation makes sense.\n\nWhen two nouns are placed side by side without any particle, a 読点 is almost\nnecessary.\n\n> I believe `りんご、オレンジとバナナ` wouldn't work, but that it's OK to list like\n> `りんご、オレンジ、バナナ` or `りんご、オレンジ、またはバナナ`. When should `りんごとオレンジとバナナ` and similar\n> be used instead of commas or vice-versa?\n\nYou are required to put a 読点 between two nouns placed side by side. You are\nfree to put 読点 after particle と or before adverb または.\n\n> I've heard that going e.g. `分かりにくくて、読みたくない` with i-adjectives isn't correct\n> but `分かりにくいし、読みたくない` and `分かりにくく、読みたくない` is. I'm guessing it's OK to go\n> `簡単で、特に問題はない` and `簡単し、特に問題はない` right?\n\nThere is no verb 簡単する, and therefore 簡単し is ungrammatical. Maybe you meant\n“簡単だし、特に問題はない.”\n\nAll of “分かりにくくて、読みたくない,” “分かりにくいし、読みたくない,” “分かりにくく、読みたくない,” “簡単で、特に問題はない,” and\n“簡単だし、特に問題はない” are grammatical. In these examples, you can also omit the 読点.\nHowever, depending on the rest of the sentence, omitting the 読点 in\n“簡単で、特に問題はない” or “簡単だし、特に問題はない” may make the sentence harder to read because\nit connects two descriptions (簡単だ and 特に問題はない) of different length.\n\n> Additionally, what is the meaning of `、。` at the end of a sentence, e.g.\n> `気にしてなかったけど、。`?\n\nThe combination “、。” is incorrect in the standard orthography in Japanese.\nSome people make a nonstandard use of three 読点 (、、、) in place of 三点リーダー (…),\nwhich is used in the same way as the ellipsis in English. I would interpret\n“、。” as “…。” if anyone uses the former.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-23T13:27:55.157", "id": "3789", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-23T16:58:55.323", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-23T16:58:55.323", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3786", "post_type": "answer", "score": 26 }, { "body": "Another way of describing a list is using 中点 \"・\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-24T22:28:49.460", "id": "3797", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-25T17:39:48.633", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-25T17:39:48.633", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3786", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "To expand on the topic a bit, constructions like 「りんごやオレンジ、バナナ（など）」 are very\ncommon in NHK News Easy, with や being any of a variety of listing particles. I\nhaven't run across this in any grammar lessons, but NHK should be a reliable\nsource.\n\nHere is a [reference\narticle](http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10010060681000/k10010060681000.html)\nwith this grammar in the first sentence, which I also transcribed below for\nconvenience:\n\n> 日本の公立の小学校や中学校、高校などに通っていて、外国の国籍を持っている子どもは約7万3000人います。\n\nThe key section there is 「小学校や中学校、高校」.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-05-01T02:35:44.417", "id": "24056", "last_activity_date": "2015-05-01T02:35:44.417", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "9981", "parent_id": "3786", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Here's another example where a comma is desperately needed but was omitted\n\n> 窓を閉めて電気をつけてください \n> (Literally: Window Close Light Turn on Please)\n\nThis sentence is from a textbook! I suppose when speaking, a person can say\n'to' (and) or add an unvoiced pause or add another transition word, but this\nis just awkward.\n\nIt wasn't until 1946 until the period (maru) was introduced because Emperor\nMeiji read foreign works and thought it would be a good idea. We can only hope\nthe current and future prime ministers will encountered a comma and see its\nvalue.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-07-25T03:05:15.473", "id": "95545", "last_activity_date": "2022-07-25T03:31:14.863", "last_edit_date": "2022-07-25T03:31:14.863", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "52019", "parent_id": "3786", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I apologize if I am beating a dead horse with this question but is this\ncorrect?\n\n> なっている: have (already) become\n\nas opposed to\n\n> なっていた: had become\n\nso often the meaning of なっている can be thought of as \"is\" while なっていた can be\nthought of as \"was\" ?\n\n> was:\n>\n> ある朝目覚めると私は有名になっていた。 One morning I awoke to find myself\n> famous〔イギリスのロマン派三大詩人の一人 George Gordon Byron （1788-1824） の名言。 One morning I\n> awoke to find myself sacked.（気が付いた時には首になっていた）のようにして使われる。〕\n>\n> いずれこうなっていたと思いますよ。 This would have happened one way or the other.\n\n(does it work for the latter example?)\n\n> is:\n>\n> なんでこんな遅い時間に買い物に行くの」「閉店まぎわにスーパーに行くと割引になっているんだよ」 \"Why do you go shopping so\n> late?\" \"Things are discounted if you go to the supermarket just before\n> closing time.\"\n>\n> 「ゲーセン」として知られるゲームセンターは、若者の人気のある遊び場所となっている。 The game center known as \"Gehsen\"\n> is now a recreation spot for young people.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-23T08:13:29.333", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3787", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-24T14:59:35.737", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "conjugations" ], "title": "How is なっている different from なっていた?", "view_count": 8681 }

[ { "body": "For non-durative verbs1, ~ている can mean the state persists from a point in the\npast up to present (As opposed to repeated action which it can also mean for\nsome non-durative verbs). For this use ~ていた means the state persisted between\ntwo points in the past. Which to use is depending on which type of timeline\nyou are referring to.\n\n\"X\" on the diagram indicates where(when) you are with respect to the event at\nthe point of making the statement.\n\nWhen using ～ている:\n\n> \\------------------------------>[State Start]----------------->(Present)\n> **X**\n\nWhen using ～ていた:\n\n> [State Start]----------------->[State End]---------------->(Present) **X**\n\n* * *\n\n1: Non-durative(Punctual) Verbs are verbs that represent\nmomentary/instantaneous action. When used with the auxiliary verb いる, they\nrepresent a continued state after the action was done or the action repeats.\n\nConsider:\n\n> 死んでいる (\"be dead\" as opposed to \"die again and again\")\n>\n> 跳んでいる (\"Jumping repeatedly\" as opposed to \"Jumped and state persisted\")", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-23T10:33:28.970", "id": "3788", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-24T10:46:25.217", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3787", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I believe this to be the case for `死ぬ`, though I think there's a lot of\noverlap in the following states. Note that `死ぬ` could be \"to die\", \"dies\",\n\"going to die\" etc but for the purposes of this question I'll leave those out:\n\n * 死ぬ -> die/will die\n * 死んだ -> died\n * 死んでいる -> is dead/will be dead (the present or future state of being dead)\n * 死んでいた -> was dead (the past state of being dead)\n\nTherefore, if I understand correctly for `なる`:\n\n * なる -> become/will become\n * なった -> became\n * なっている -> has become/will have become\n * なっていた -> had become\n\n**Has/will have become** :\n\n> なんでこんな遅い時間に買い物に行くの」「閉店まぎわにスーパーに行くと割引になっているんだよ」 \n> \"Why do you go to buy things at this sort of late hour?\" \"If you go to the\n> supermarket just before closing time things will have become discounted.\"\n>\n> 「ゲーセン」として知られるゲームセンターは、若者の人気のある遊び場所となっている。 \n> The game center known as \"Gehsen\" has become a recreation spot for young\n> people.\n\n**I think it would have (become)** :\n\nWhen something has the pattern of `こう/そう～ていたと思う` it becomes \"I think it would\nhave...this/that way\", for example:\n\n> いずれこうなっていたと思いますよ。 \n> I think it would have become this way anyway.\n>\n> 私の若いころ、科学者たちはこう言っていたのではないかと思います。 \n> I think that when I was young, scientists would have said this kind of\n> thing.\n\n**Had become** :\n\n> ある朝目覚めると私は有名になっていた。 \n> One morning I awoke to find that I had become famous.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-24T12:41:13.067", "id": "3796", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-24T14:59:35.737", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-24T14:59:35.737", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3787", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3791", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I have been going over the JLPT test from 1999 and came across this problem\nthat stumped me. For those planning to take the previous tests as practice you\nmay want to avoid this question.\n\n> 優勝戦{ゆうしょうせん}は、意外{いがい}に＿＿＿＿＿勝負{しょうぶ}が決まった。\n>\n> **A** あっけなく **B** そっけなく **C** はかなく **D** ものたりなく\n\nThe correct answer is **A** , あっけなく, but I'm not 100 percent sure why this is\na better choice than ものたりなく. Even the other two look like acceptable choices\nto me.\n\nIn the end, after looking up all the definitions, I picked **A** because of\nthe 意外{いがい}に, which suggests that the 優勝戦{ゆうしょうせん} was expected to not be so\nsimply decided. But when I thought about it more, D also seems like a suitable\nanswer because I would expect the championship game to be interesting as much\nas non-trivial.\n\nI concluded that D was not correct only because I could find many examples of\nit being used, but I'm afraid I'm still missing some of the nuance behind the\ncorrect answer.\n\nFor any interested further in my logic, I did this problem on my stream where\nI go over all the answers and look up examples, recorded at\n[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnmEiRkck3s&feature=channel_video_title](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnmEiRkck3s&feature=channel_video_title)\nfrom 6'30\" and continued at:\n[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShOpaZ9iOmw&feature=channel_video_title](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShOpaZ9iOmw&feature=channel_video_title)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-23T22:17:08.137", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3790", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-24T01:35:18.730", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-23T23:16:31.667", "last_editor_user_id": "878", "owner_user_id": "878", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "word-choice", "jlpt" ], "title": "あっけなく vs ものたりなく", "view_count": 304 }

[ { "body": "`ものたりない` means \"unsatisfying\" or \"lacking something\". `あっけない` means almost the\nsame thing but seems to contain the nuance of \"disappointingly brief/short\".\nIn fact, my dictionary says `ものたりないほど短【みじか】い`.\n\nAs you mentioned, **A** is the correct answer because of the `意外に`. It's\n(objectively) expected that the championship match would be exciting and\ndrawn-out. However, it was \"unexpectedly, disappointingly short\". `ものたりない`\nseems to be more subjective to the speaker, so \"unexpectedly\" isn't really\napplicable. I.e., matches are not usually played to in a certain way with the\nintent of giving specific emotions to the spectators; they are played to\ndetermine which team/player is better. The enjoyment of the spectators is just\na side-effect.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-23T22:32:54.543", "id": "3791", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-24T01:35:18.730", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-24T01:35:18.730", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3790", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "According to Yahoo, 呆気ない means simple/unsubstantial and thus uninteresting. It\nalso shows that one's expectations were unfulfilled because something was\nlacking. Seems very fitting for this. 物足りない doesn't have this rich nuance. It\ncan be pretty much directly translated. It means something, you may or may not\nknow what, was missing.\n\nSource：\n\nX呆気ないX ＞思ったより内容が貧弱または単純で、おもしろみがない。期待外れでもの足りない。 「―・い結末」 ＜－－looks like it's used\nfor results, so it's perfect for this question.\n\n物足りない ＞何か足りないようで不満である。どことなく不足である。ものたらない。\n\nJust discovered this site. Seems very interesting. I'm preparing for the test\nmyself, so I need as many resources as possible. Just one thing... what's with\nall the furigana? It's really hard to read and, in my opinion, hinders\nlearning. And again, it's really, really hard to read....", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-23T23:55:33.697", "id": "3792", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-23T23:55:33.697", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "879", "parent_id": "3790", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3800", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This sentence comes from my JLPT practise book in a section explaining the use\nof `解{と}く`:\n\n> 練習{れんしゅう}問題{もんだい}は答{こた}えを見{み}ないで、自分{じぶん}で解{と}いてください。\n\nI get that `解{と}く` means to \"unravel\" or \"solve\", but the sentence seems to be\nsaying \"When you can't see the answer to the practise questions, solve it\nyourself.\"\n\nWhich seems odd conceptually to me, because I can't really imagine a situation\nin which someone needs to be looking up answers for questions they could solve\nanyway.\n\nSo I'm wondering if there's something about `解{と}く` that I'm not getting. Or\nperhaps some other part of the sentence.\n\nWhat does the sentence mean, and how does `解{と}く` play into it?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T03:23:48.430", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3798", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-25T03:43:54.593", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-25T03:40:45.347", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "definitions", "jlpt" ], "title": "Not understanding 解{と}く in this sentence", "view_count": 179 }

[ { "body": "It means \"Try to solve it without looking at the answers\" 見ないで doesn't mean\n\"when you can't see\", it's a negative command/encouragement.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T03:43:54.593", "id": "3800", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-25T03:43:54.593", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "258", "parent_id": "3798", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3801", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Another sentence from my JLPT practise book, this time in a section explaining\nthe use of `ものを`.\n\n> 借金{しゃっきん}で困{こま}っていた友人{ゆうじん}を、助{たす}けようと思{おも}えば助{たす}けられた **ものを**\n> 、見捨{みす}ててしまった。\n\nI _think_ this sentence is saying, \"My friend who was having debt problems /\nif I had thought about helping I could have helped / but I forgot about it.\"\n\nIf I'm on the right track in the meaning, then I'm not sure what `ものを` is\nbringing to the party here.\n\nIs this sentence equivalent:\n\n> 借金{しゃっきん}で困{こま}っていた友人{ゆうじん}を、助{たす}けようと思{おも}えば助{たす}けられた **けど** 、見捨{みす}ててしまった。\n\nIf so, what extra meaning does `ものを` have that would make one choose to use it\nover `けど`?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T03:39:17.237", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3799", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-25T03:54:38.103", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "word-choice", "jlpt" ], "title": "Is ものを similar to けど?", "view_count": 192 }

[ { "body": "～ものを (sense [1]-1 in\n[Daijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%82%92&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0na))\nis similar to ～けど, but using ～ものを signifies the unsatisfactory feeling of the\nspeaker. In your example, I think that using ～ものを instead of ～けど expresses the\nregret of the speaker.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T03:54:38.103", "id": "3801", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-25T03:54:38.103", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3799", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3811", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This sentence is in my JLPT practise book in a section on the use of\n`目{め}まぐるしい`:\n\n> 社会{しゃかい}の目{め}まぐるしい変化{へんか}についていけず、時代{じだい}遅{おく}れになる会社{かいしゃ}も多{おお}い。\n\nI think the sentence is saying, \"There are lots of companies that do not keep\nup with the bewildering changes in society.\"\n\nIf that's right, why does it use `会社{かいしゃ}も多{おお}い` instead of\n`会社{かいしゃ}が多{おお}い`?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T03:55:11.627", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3802", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-25T06:53:37.017", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "jlpt", "particle-が", "particle-も" ], "title": "Shouldn't this も be が?", "view_count": 182 }

[ { "body": "The も suggests that there are (possibly a lot or more) companies that keep up\nwith society's changes, but there are **also** those that don't.\n\nが is also possible here, in which case the meaning would have no reference to\ncompanies that keep up with the changes. It doesn't change the overall\nmeaning, but does change the scope of what the speaker is referencing. With\nthe も example I might expect more that the speaker refers to both groups of\ncompanies in subsequent sentences.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T06:53:37.017", "id": "3811", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-25T06:53:37.017", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "878", "parent_id": "3802", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3805", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This sentence in my JLPT book is explaining the nuance of `映{は}える`, but\nactually it's the use of `ほしい` that's a puzzling me a bit:\n\n> このピンクのスカーフが映{は}える服{ふく}を選{えら}んでほしい。\n\nThis is saying that the pink scarf would go with some very flashy clothes.\n\nWhat I'm not clear on though, is if it is the speaker saying that they would\nlike to choose some flashy clothes to go with the pink scarf. In other words,\nit's the speaker who is doing the `ほしい`.\n\nOr, is it that the pink scarf itself is simply more suited to going with\nflashy clothes? Similar to how in English I could say, \"this pink scarf cries\nout for more flashy clothes to go with it.\" In other words, it is the scarf\ndoing the `ほしい`.\n\nSo is it the scarf or the speaker that the `ほしい` part of the sentence refers\nto?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T04:05:51.217", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3803", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-25T08:05:56.727", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "jlpt", "subjects" ], "title": "Can things hope?", "view_count": 174 }

[ { "body": "That sentence means \"I want you to choose clothes which resonate with this\npink scarf.\"\n\nAfter the te-form of a verb, `ほしい` means \"I want (you) to do something\"\naccording to Edict.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T04:36:06.787", "id": "3805", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-25T08:05:56.727", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-25T08:05:56.727", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3803", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3953", "answer_count": 1, "body": "As far as I understand it, `祝福{しゅくふく}` means \"bless\". I came across it in this\nsentence, and it struck me as weird:\n\n> だれもが彼の成功をうらやむと同時に、心から祝福した。\n\nMy rough translation is, \"At the same time that everyone was envious of his\nsucces, they blessed him from their hearts.\"\n\nI _think_ I get the grammar and syntax, and I also get that people can be\nenvious and grateful at the same time, or something like that.\n\nIt's just that to me (perhaps only to me), the word \"blessed\" has a lot of\nweight to it in terms of religious origins and conveys implications of ritual.\nI don't want to get too much into the English meaning of the word \"bless\",\nthough.\n\nMy main point is that I wonder if \"bless\" is really the most accurate\ntranslation?\n\nPerhaps it means more like \"grateful\"?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T04:24:09.210", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3804", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T02:20:14.413", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "word-choice", "translation" ], "title": "Is \"bless\" the best translation of 祝福{しゅくふく}?", "view_count": 314 }

[ { "body": "In the example sentence, `祝福{しゅくふく}する` means \"congratulate.\" Although\n`祝福{しゅくふく} (する)` is also used in religious contexts, that is not always the\ncase.\n\n`祝福{しゅくふく}する` can also mean “wish (someone) good luck / a happy life” as in\n`二人{ふたり}の前途{ぜんと}を祝福{しゅくふく}する`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-09T02:20:14.413", "id": "3953", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T02:20:14.413", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3804", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3809", "answer_count": 3, "body": "This question is in my JLPT practise book:\n\n> このチームの試合{しあい}の切符{きっぷ}はなかなか手{て}に_ ** ___ _**_ない。\n>\n> **A** 取{と}れ **B** 入{はい}れ **C** 入{はい}ら **D** 持{も}て\n\nMy translation is, \"I can't easily get the tickets to this team's games\".\n\nWell, that's sort of my translation. This issue is that according to the book,\nthe correct answer is **C** , but I chose **B**.\n\nIt seems to me more normal to use `入{はい}れない`, as in \"I **can't** get the\ntickets\", instead of `入{はい}らない` which I think would mean \"I **don't** get the\ntickets.\"\n\nI have a sneaking suspicion that `手{て}に入{はい}らない` is some kind of special case,\nbut it's not clear in the book's explanatory notes.\n\nCan someone break down why `入{はい}らない` is right and `入{はい}れない` is wrong?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T04:52:33.910", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3807", "last_activity_date": "2019-09-04T02:46:04.663", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-25T05:01:23.907", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "jlpt" ], "title": "入らない versus 入れない in a JLPT question", "view_count": 3059 }

[ { "body": "I'm pretty sure that here 手に入れる is てに入{い}れる. I don't know if it is ever used\nas てに入{はい}れる because this seems like it would be confusing, but if it is, this\nis rare. That being said I think you do hear 入{はい}（ら）れない as \"it won't fit\",\nbut someone should check me on this). 手に入れる means to obtain, just like 入{はい}る,\nso I needed to search to find an answer to your question. Apparently, the\nnuance with 手に入れる is that it is difficult and/or more effort was made to\nobtain, and that 手に入る is with not so much effort, such as finding something\nand picking it up, or being given something, etc.\n\nThat being said 手に入れる can be a result of luck, such as winning the lottery,\nbut this is considered something that is difficult to obtain. The example that\nhelps me remember is in RPG games when it uses 経験値を手に入れた after defeating\nmonsters (requiring effort), to mean \"obtained experience points\". You will\nprobably never see 手に入った in this case.\n\nFor this problem, we should assume that the speaker is just saying \"it's hard\nto get tickets for this team\" in the general case - that is, without spending\nsome great deal of effort.\n\nOn top of this, なかなか手に入らない is a common saying in my experience and backed by\ngoogle - it gets 24 million hits vs なかなか手に入れない and also has a definition in\nalc as 'hard to find/be rare to get/be always unavailable' vs the other's 300k\nhits on google (using quotes of course) with no entries in alc.\n\nLastly, for completeness, here's an excerpt I found on the web that explains\nthe two use cases in Japanese. From [this Lang-8\nentry](http://lang-8.com/231058/journals/800177/%25E3%2583%25AD%25E3%2583%2583%25E3%2583%2588):\n\n> あ、ききわすれた、\"手に入れる\"と\"手に入る\"は違いますか？\n>\n> Feb 09th 2011 17:46 aico\n>\n> すごいギャンブラー精神だ！ \n> 中国の人もギャンブル好きだよね。世界中のカジノって中国人客がすごく多いみたい。\n>\n> あ、ききわすれた、\"手に入れる\"と\"手に入る\"は違いますか？\n>\n> 何かを「獲得」という意味では同じだけど、\n>\n> 手に入れる<<何か努力や行動を起こして獲得。 \n> ・ロトで10億円手に入れる為にすべての財産をなげうってロトを買った。\n>\n> 手に入る<<誰かにもらったなど特に行動を起こさず勝手に獲得。 \n> ・美味しい皮蛋が手に入ったよ〜。台湾人の友達がお土産でくれたんだ。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T06:21:17.047", "id": "3809", "last_activity_date": "2019-09-04T02:31:12.000", "last_edit_date": "2019-09-04T02:31:12.000", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "878", "parent_id": "3807", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "### 手に[入らない]{はいらない} vs 手に[入れない]{いれない}\n\nIn this case it's a transitive / intransitive distinction. The dictionary\nmakes this pretty easy to see:\n\n> 手に入{はい}る: 自分の所有となる。\n>\n> 手に入{い}れる: 自分の物にする。\n\nSee the difference: `なる` vs. `する`. Pretty much the same as the original verbs:\n`はいる / enter (intransitive)` vs. `いれる / enter, put in (transitive)`.\n\nSo you could think of it as `手に[入る]{はいる}` / \"enters my hand\" and\n`手に[入れる]{いれる}` / \"put in my hand\" (not a proper translation, but good as a\nmnemonic).\n\nFrom this, if you want to say \"I can't get my hand on it\" as you were\nsupposing, you would rather say `手に[入れ]{いれ}られない` (potential form - can't - of\nthe transitive alternative) and this would imply that (even if) you tried\nactively it wouldn't be possible (as a side note, this returns a lot more\nsearch results than `なかなか手に[入れ]{いれ}ない` which to me sounds unnatural). When you\nsay `なかなか手に[入ら]{はいら}ない` then, it would rather mean that you wouldn't get any\n(not implying any effort on your side), so as @jlptn1 said \"hard to get\".\n\nDon't be fooled by the kanji being the same, it is 2 different verbs with\nrelated but different meanings.\n\n### 手に[入らない]{はいらない} vs 手に[入れない]{はいれない}\n\n[入れない]{はいれない} is the potential form (可能形) of [入る]{はいる}. [入る]{はいる} is a\nnon-[volitional](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_\\(linguistics\\)) verb\n(無意志動詞) here, meaning it doesn't express a voluntary action (as explained in\nthe preceding chapter).\n\nTypically, non-volitional verbs can't be put in potential form. That's why\n`手に[入れない]{はいれない}` is incorrect.\n\nNote that `[入れた]{はいれた}` can be encountered, but as the potential form of the\n_volitional_ verb (意志動詞) `[入る]{はいる}`. For example:\n\n> 有名大学に[入れない]{はいれない} (I can't get in a renowned university)\n>\n> 家の中に[入れた]{はいれた} (I could get into the house)\n\nThat's why [the link @user16315\nshared](https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/5318678.html) mentions [入れる]{はいれる} being\nrestricted to people (and not objects) as subjects: a living being as a\nsubject infers the \"entering action\" is \"voluntary\", whereas an inanimate\nsubject infers an \"involuntary\" one.\n\n`手に[入る]{はいる}` is a non-volitional verb, and naturally its subject is an object\n(`切符`), so it can't be put in potential form.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2014-02-17T17:05:49.297", "id": "14517", "last_activity_date": "2019-09-04T02:46:04.663", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "4533", "parent_id": "3807", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "このチームの​試合の​切符はなかなか​手に____ない。\n\nMy translation would be \"The tickets to this team's games are difficult to\nget.\" The point is what the \"subject\" is. Particle は emphasizes 切符 which\nbecomes the subject of the sentense. Therefore, the intransitive 手にはいらない (C)\nis the correct answer.\n\nThe possible form of 手にはいらない is the answer (B) 手にはいれない, but using only when\nthe subject is people, or living thing. For non-living thing, uses 手にいれられない\ninstead.\n\nIf you like to use 手にいれない, you could. In this case the subject should be I(私)\nwhich can be omitted. 切符, which is the object of the sentense, normally using\nを follow by. Therefore, このチームの試合の切符をなかなか手にいれない。 would be grammatical correct.\n\nFor more detailed explanation, here is a Japanese site I found.\n<http://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/5318678.html>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-07-30T16:57:51.047", "id": "37074", "last_activity_date": "2016-07-30T17:19:55.360", "last_edit_date": "2016-07-30T17:19:55.360", "last_editor_user_id": "16315", "owner_user_id": "16315", "parent_id": "3807", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3816", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider this [example sentence from\nSPACEALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E6%B0%97%E3%81%AB%E3%81%AA%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%81%9F/UTF-8/?ref=sa):\n\n> あなたがどうしているか気になっていた。 \n> \"I was concerned about how you were.\"\n\nWhat is the difference when `気にする` is used instead? I.e.,\n\n> あなたがどうしているか気にしていた。\n\n`～なる` seems to convey \"spontaneity\" or \"arising from nowhere\" while `～する`\nseems to convey deliberate agency. Would `～する` mean to be deliberately\nconcerned about the person? The `～する` version seems to be \"more concerned\"\nthan the `～なる` version because of explicit agency.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T05:49:04.700", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3808", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:18:24.083", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:18:24.083", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words", "meaning", "idioms" ], "title": "Comparing 気にする vs. 気になる", "view_count": 1128 }

[ { "body": "Yes, in that example, the only difference would be the deliberateness, and as\na potential difference, the degree of the concern. `気にする` is to be concerned\nabout something to the point of being bothered/disturbed by it. `気になる` could\nalso mean the same, but not necessarily so. Depending on the context and tone,\n`気になっていた` could be anywhere between lighthearted and grave.\n\nNote that `気にする` and `気になる` are not always interchangeable. `気にする` is to\nmind/care/worry as a generally negative emotion, while `気になる` is broader and\ncan be a neutral or positive feeling as well. So, when you are “interested by”\nrather than “concerned about” something, it is always `〜なる` and never `〜する`.\n\nHere is an example that I think illustrates the different connotations. Let’s\nsay you are talking about an artist who unveiled a new painting:\n\n> 彼は自分の作品が人にどう思われるか気になっていた \n> “He _wondered_ what people would think of his work.”\n\nSimilar to the usage of the word “wonder” in English, whether the artist is\nsimply _curious_ in what people would think, or whether he is somewhat\n_worried_ about their opinion, is not apparent in this one sentence. It is\ncontext-dependent.\n\n> 彼は自分の作品が人にどう思われるか気にしていた \n> “He was _concerned_ with what people would think of his work.”\n\nThis, on the other hand, shows a value judgement of the _effects_ of the\nartist’s interest in people’s opinions. You are saying that his interest\naffects him in a negative way. The extent of these negative effects can range\nanywhere from “it makes him a tiny bit anxious” to “he is preoccupied by it”\nto “he is destructively obsessed by it,” but in any case you have made a\njudgement that the effects on him are neither positive nor neutral.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T20:58:50.723", "id": "3816", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-05T03:54:14.497", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-05T03:54:14.497", "last_editor_user_id": "888", "owner_user_id": "888", "parent_id": "3808", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "4077", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Consider these [example sentences taken from\nSPACEALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E9%9B%BB%E8%A9%B1%E3%82%92%E3%81%8B%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B/UTF-8/):\n\n> [a] （人に）電話を **かける** 。 \" **put** in a call to ~\"\n>\n> [b] ~が（主語に）電話を **かける** 。 \" **receive** a telephone call from\"\n\nMy observations: Both sentences use かける. Transitivity is unchanged, there is\nno use of られる construction to indicate passive sentence structure. Yet one is\n\"to call\" and one is \"to receive the call\". So [a] and [b] do not seem to be\nconsistent.\n\nIn an attempt to resolve the inconsistency, I looked for other examples.\nConsider [other sentence also from\nSPACEALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E9%9B%BB%E8%A9%B1%E3%81%8C%E3%81%8B%E3%81%8B/UTF-8/):\n\n> [c] （～から）電話がかかってくる。 \"get called (主語に)\"\n\n[c] leads me to conclude that `かかる` is the intransitive counterpart to `かける`,\nand sentence [b] should be wrong.\n\n**(Question)** How do I express \"calling\" and \"receiving a call\"? Is the\npassive form of `かける` used at all?(I.e. かけられる)? Or is the passive of `かかる`\nused at all?\n\n**(Question)** Can I call the person performing the calling `電話をかける人` and the\nperson who is receiving the call `電話がかかる人` ?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T06:23:06.300", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3810", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T05:19:35.337", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "transitivity" ], "title": "\"To call\" or \"To receive a call\"", "view_count": 17514 }

[ { "body": "If you are okay with WWWJDIC as a credible source:\n\n * `電話がかかる` is \"[to get a phone call](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MDJ%C5%C5%CF%C3%A4%AC%B3%DD%A4%AB%A4%EB)\"\n\n * `電話をかける` is \"[to make a phone call](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MDJ%C5%C5%CF%C3%A4%F2%B3%DD%A4%B1%A4%EB)\"\n\nAs for the second question, I see nothing wrong with `電話をかける` and `電話がかかる`\nmodifying `人`. It's grammatical, at least. There is novel/movie titled\n\"時をかける少女\" after all :P", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T06:56:21.660", "id": "3812", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-25T07:02:08.763", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-25T07:02:08.763", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3810", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "You are confused by the translation. (I didn't realize the translation can be\nso confusing in the site.)\n\n> [a] （人に）電話をかける。 \"put in a call to ~\"\n\nHere \"~\" is 人\n\n> [b] ~が（主語に）電話をかける。 \"receive a telephone call from\"\n\nHere the part before に is the subject(主語) of the translation. So \"~\" is the\npart after \"from\" : \"主語 receive a telephone call from ~\"\n\nSo you can see, \"AがBに電話をかける\" means \"A calls B\". You can translate it as \"B\nreceives a call from A\".\n\nI don't think 電話がかかる人 is correct (電話をかける人 is OK, though). You can say 電話を受ける人\nto refer to the one received the call.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-26T17:50:55.897", "id": "4077", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-26T17:50:55.897", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3810", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3951", "answer_count": 1, "body": "_**Warning:** Potentially offensive terms._\n\nI'm watching _[The Walking\nDead](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walking_Dead_%28TV_series%29)_ on [Hulu\nJapan](http://www.hulu.jp) with [Japanese\nsubtitles](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%82%AD%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B0%E3%83%BB%E3%83%87%E3%83%83%E3%83%89).\nI've noticed that the English dialogue and Japanese subtitles differ a _lot_.\nMore than usual. It seems to me the quality of the translation is very low.\n\nIn one part, a character who is a vulgar racist propositions a woman, and she\nturns him down. In the English dialogue, he derides her by calling her a \"rug\nmuncher\". Which is a derogatory term meaning \"lesbian\".\n\nThe Japanese subtitle for when he says this is, though, is:\n\n> 菓子{かし}を盗{ぬす}みやがった\n\nMy understanding is that `やがる` is just a disdainful way of ending a sentence,\nso it means something like, \"fucking candy stealer.\"\n\nI googled the phrase `菓子{かし}を盗{ぬす}み`, but didn't come up with anything clear.\nIt might mean \"crybaby\", but that seems odd - wouldn't `盗{ぬす}み` refer to the\nthief, not the victim?\n\nSince the overall quality of the translations is so low, this might not have\nanything to do with what was said in English.\n\nWhat does this phrase mean, and does it have anything to do with the original\nEnglish?", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-25T18:13:32.633", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3815", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T02:13:42.520", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-26T01:58:18.687", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "translation", "slang", "offensive-words" ], "title": "Is this a slang, and possibly derogatory term, for \"lesbian\"?", "view_count": 3059 }

[ { "body": "I don't know why people are afraid to put forward negative answers... so I'll\njust do it myself.\n\nThe phrase seems to almost certainly be just some kind of mistake on the part\nof the translator and has nothing to do with slang for lesbianism.\n\nAlso, it is not a common phrase used in any particular way when a woman turns\ndown a man.\n\nIt's just a really, really bad translation job.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-09T02:13:42.520", "id": "3951", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T02:13:42.520", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3815", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3823", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've just found out that there's a couple of words for milk, and that they\nhave slightly different meanings. Which one would I have with my Weetbix in a\n\"viking style\" breakfast in Niseko?\n\nBased on the following links: [JREF](http://www.jref.com/forum/learning-\njapanese-64/milk-42531/) and [Japan forum page\n1](http://www.japanforum.com/forum/japanese-language-\nhelp/35077-%E7%89%9B%E4%B9%B3%E3%80%81%E3%83%9F%E3%83%AB%E3%82%AF%E3%80%81%E3%81%8A%E4%B9%B3.html?langid=2)\nand [Japan forum page 2](http://www.japanforum.com/forum/japanese-language-\nhelp/35077-%E7%89%9B%E4%B9%B3%E3%80%81%E3%83%9F%E3%83%AB%E3%82%AF%E3%80%81%E3%81%8A%E4%B9%B3-2.html)\nit seems that:\n\n 1. 牛乳 refers to cow's milk in particular, and the kanji for cow and milk appear in it.\n 2. ミルク is the gairaigo term. It's used for baby's formula, coffee, tea, desserts, powdered milk, or to mean \"milk flavored\". \n 3. According to Berlitz Earworms (not any of the links mentioned), the Japanese for milk tea is ... \"milk tea\". Presumably the concept is so foreign they don't even add vowels to it or use cha!\n 4. お乳 is baby-talk for breast milk, and is also used for breasts. (I'm not sure if it means the breasts of a nursing human mother, or can mean the breasts of any woman, or whether it used to be innocent baby-talk for a nursing mother's breasts and is now used in a vulgar sexual way for any woman's breasts)\n 5. おっぱい is another childish way of referring to breasts and breast milk - perhaps without it being used in a slangy sexual way?\n 6. [母乳]{ぼにゅう} means mother's milk, non-babyish and non-slang.\n\nWould I be correct in concluding that apart from breast milk or unprocessed\nmilk, 牛乳 is used for traditional forms of milk, and ミルク is used when modern\ntechnology is involved and/or the milk is being used in a way that's\nuntraditional (akin to the second paragraph of [this\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/908/91) on \"Why was ライス borrowed\nfrom English\")?\n\nIf so, would I use ミルク as having cereal and milk isn't native to Japan?\n\n(Warning: googling only for `miluku chichi` produced some NSFW results)", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T01:45:06.550", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3820", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T11:38:39.107", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "word-choice", "loanwords", "food" ], "title": "Would I have 牛乳 or ミルク with my cereal?", "view_count": 23968 }

[ { "body": "I can get into this answer a bit because I'm lactose intolerant, or as it is\ncalled in Japanese, `乳糖{にゅうとう}不{ふ}耐症{たいしょう}`.\n\nDespite the fact that genetically, [all Japanese should most likely also all\nbe lactose\nintolerant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence#Global_spread),\noutside of medical practitioners, most people have never heard the term, and\nso usually it's easier to just say I have a milk allergy (`牛乳{ぎゅうにゅう}アレルギー`).\nThere are complicated reasons for why Japanese can drink milk despite not\nhaving the lactase persistence gene, but this is a language forum, not a\nbiology one. The point is that I come up against the Japanese perceptions and\ndescriptions of milk products all the time.\n\nFor example, if I ask if a waiter if a dish has any milk products in it by\nasking about `乳製品{にゅうせいひん}`, they are just as likely to say yes if it has\nanother \"milky\" type thing in it, most notably soy milk: `豆乳{とうにゅう}`. So I\nhave to clarify that soy milk is okay, milk from cows (or other animals,\nthough that's usually not an issue) is not.\n\nSo, finally getting around to your question more specifically, there is a\n[concept of milk that predates western\ninfluence](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19227662), bound in the kanji\n`乳{にゅう}`. In modern usage, this can refer to mother's milk `(母乳{ぼにゅう})`,\ngoat's milk (`山羊{やぎ}乳{にゅう}`), soy milk (`豆乳{とうにゅう}`), or any kind of milky\nproduct. Most usually there will be other kanji to differentiate.\n\nThe katakana `ミルク` almost always refers to cow's milk for drinking, following\nthe American sense, and, as mentioned in comments, was a term brought over\nwith widespread milk use in general after the war. However, I believe it more\nrefers to the use than the source, because I have seen soy milk referred to as\n`ソイミルク` when it's for drinking (as opposed to cooking or making tofu). And, as\nyou have seen, in other drinking contexts like `ミルクティー`.\n\nIn other words, saying `ミルク` instead of `牛乳{ぎゅうにゅう}` doesn't do anything to\nclarify my problem any better, as they overlap too much.\n\nIn conclusion, in answer to your final question, you can have either `ミルク` or\n`牛乳{ぎゅうにゅう}` with your cereal as you please. They have differences, but in\nthat one particular context, both will be understood equally well.\n\n* * *\n\nLastly, on the issue of slang for breasts that you raise, `乳{にゅう}` is used in\ncontexts referring to breasts, such as `巨乳{きょにゅう}`, \"gigantic breasts\", which\nyou'll see all over men's (boy's?) magazines. The association between `乳{にゅう}`\nand breasts is there, but like slang in general, it's flexible, so your\nexperience might vary.\n\nI've only ever heard `おっぱい` in reference to breasts, and I think it's on the\nsame level as saying \"boobs\" in English. I don't doubt that it could also be a\nterm for breast milk, just that maybe I don't hang around enough breast\nfeeding children and their parents to have heard the term used that way.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T04:26:36.610", "id": "3823", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T04:35:11.823", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-27T04:35:11.823", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3820", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "In terms of the “substances” they could refer to, ミルク _includes_ 牛乳, plus all\nthe other examples that are given, like baby formula, creamer, and even semen\n(when used as sexual innuendo).\n\nTo keep it simple, let’s just say the “substance” we want to refer to is 牛乳.\nAs long as it is clear in the context that you mean 牛乳, it isn’t technically\nwrong to use ミルク in place of the word 牛乳. (This also means than when it may be\nunclear what you are referring to, like when you want to ask where the milk\naisle is at a grocery store, you should just say 牛乳.)\n\nStill, even when it is perfectly clear, there are a few guidelines when\nchoosing the less awkward term:\n\n * In the list of ingredients in a written recipe, you would never use ミルク. (See the recipes at [Cookpad](http://cookpad.com/%E3%83%AC%E3%82%B7%E3%83%94/%E3%83%9F%E3%83%AB%E3%82%AF). Even when the title contains the word ミルク, the ingredient is almost always listed as 牛乳.)\n * The word choice normally defaults to 牛乳. Choosing ミルク is more deliberate, to sound perhaps more fancier/appetizing, or to blend in with the other words surrounding it (e.g. ホットミルク, ミルクスープ)\n\nSo to go back to the original question, A. シリアルに牛乳をかける / B. シリアルにミルクをかける are\nboth correct and un-awkward, because the substance in question is unambiguous,\nA is the default, and in B, the katakana word シリアル is enough to justify the\ndeliberate use of ミルク.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T04:53:58.240", "id": "3824", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T11:38:39.107", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-27T11:38:39.107", "last_editor_user_id": "888", "owner_user_id": "888", "parent_id": "3820", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3822", "answer_count": 1, "body": "`な感じ` was crossed out and replaced with `という感じ` in a sentence that I wrote\nthat was similar to this one:\n\n> その文には「それは私にはもったいない」 ~~な感じ~~ **という感じ** があると思う。 \n> I think that sentence has a feeling of \"that's more than one deserves.\"\n\nWhat's the difference between `な感じ` and `という感じ` when written after quotation\nmarks?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T02:18:28.337", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3821", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T17:22:12.060", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-27T04:44:30.727", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice" ], "title": "What's the difference between \"な感じ\" and \"という感じ\" when written after quotation marks?", "view_count": 1283 }

[ { "body": "`な` is the attributive ending of a na-adjective or a noun. The modifier to the\nnoun `感じ` in your example ends with `ない`, which is an i-adjective, so it\nshould not take `な`.\n\nAs Flaw comments, `「～ない」感じ` is generally possible, but that has two problems\nin this particular case. First, `私` will not work as intended. You can use\n`自分` instead. Second, since the description in the modifier is is made from a\nnon first-person's perspective, it is more natural to insert `という`. You can go\nwith either:\n\n> その文には「自分にはもったいない」感じがあると思う。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T03:50:08.627", "id": "3822", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T17:22:12.060", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-27T17:22:12.060", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3821", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3828", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Excerpt from A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar:\n\nConsider the difference in the sentences below:\n\n> [a] 昼間遊ぶ代わりに夜遊ぶつもりだ。 \n> I intend to play at night instead of having fun in the daytime.\n>\n> [b] 昼間遊んだ代わりに夜勉強した。 \n> I played in the daytime, so (to make up for it) I studied at night.\n>\n> [c] 昼間遊んだ代わりに勉強するつもりだ。 \n> I played in the daytime, so (to make up for it) I intend to study at night.\n>\n> [d] 昼間遊ぶ代わりに夜遊んだ。 \n> I played at night instead of playing in the daytime.\n\n* * *\n\nI shall generalise the sentences to the form [X]代わりに[Y].\n\nFor [a] and [d], X and Y are regarding the same activity (遊ぶ). So when used\nwith 代わりに, Y occurs while the action is not performed at X.\n\nFor [b], X and Y are separate activities (遊ぶ and 勉強 respectively). When used\nwith 代わりに, both X and Y have the activity carried out.\n\nI think where I'm having trouble understanding is becoming evident. There\nseems to be a missing construction where X and Y are separate activities, and\nonly Y is carried out.\n\nI'm trying to convey \"I studied at night instead of playing in the daytime\"\n(The action of playing is not carried out).\n\nI know that there are ~ないで and ~ずに that does approximately the same thing, but\nthey create sentences that are \"Without X, do Y\" which does not have the\nnuance that \"instead\" creates, which is \"Do Y in place of X\"\n\n**(Question)** Can 代わりに do what I'm trying to do? If yes, how? Or must I use a\ndifferent word altogether?\n\n* * *\n\nReferences: \n1: A Dictionary of Intermediate Japanese Grammar, Seiichi Makino and Michio\nTsutsui (ISBN4-7890-0775-8)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T09:20:48.047", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3825", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T22:32:39.417", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice" ], "title": "\"Instead\" using 代わりに", "view_count": 14331 }

[ { "body": "I believe this works: \"I studied at night instead of playing in the daytime\"\n昼遊びをしなかった代わりに夜に勉強しました。\n\nAlthough it sounds a little strange to me because \"studying at night\" seems\nlike it doesn't make a good replacement for \"playing in the daytime\" mostly\nbecause they take up different time slots.\n\nHere's a more fitting example from alc. Note the contrasting connection\nbetween the two activities which makes 代わりに fit well.\n\n見学料をとられなかった代わりに、写真1～2枚なら買ってあげよう、と私は思った。 In place of the entrance fee, I\nfigured I would buy one or two photographs to help them out.", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T09:58:56.767", "id": "3826", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T22:32:39.417", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-27T22:32:39.417", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "878", "parent_id": "3825", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "There are two different usages for `代わりに`, and the problem comes from mixing\nthem up. You cannot distinguish them syntactically. Just look at the meaning\nto distinguish them.\n\n * 'X instead of Y' (X is done; Y is not done)\n\n> 昼間遊ぶ代わりに夜遊ぶ。 \n> 'play during the night instead of playing during the day'\n\n * 'X in exchange for Y' (X and Y are done)\n\n> 昼間遊ぶ代わりに夜勉強する。 \n> 'study during the night to make up for playing during the day'\n\nOnce you notice these usages, it might not look unnatural that there is no\nconstruction meaning that X is not done and Y is done.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T10:28:05.350", "id": "3827", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T10:28:05.350", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3825", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "If you want to say “I studied at night in place of playing in the daytime”\nusing 代わりに, then you can use 昼遊ばなかった代わりに夜勉強した. However, I cannot imagine the\ncontext where studying at night can replace playing in the daytime, and\ntherefore these sentences (both the English one and the Japanese one) look\nunnatural to me. If there is such a context, then both sentences will become\nnatural in that context.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T11:59:18.240", "id": "3828", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T11:59:18.240", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3825", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3830", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What are the differences between 技術 and 技能?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T20:51:47.000", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3829", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T22:52:20.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "892", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "nuances", "words" ], "title": "What are the differences between 技術 and 技能?", "view_count": 308 }

[ { "body": "There are several diffrences, and I am not sure if I can list them all. The\nfollowing is what I feel.\n\n * 技能 is for established techonology/skill (typically traditional ones), whereas 技術 is any kind of techonology (typically modern ones).\n\n * 技能 is attached to a human, whereas 技術 can be done by using machinery, human skills, improved planning of process, or combination of these.\n\n * 技能 is inherited from a master to a younger generation, and has the implication that, once acheived, it stays permanently for the person. 技術 does not have that implication.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-27T22:52:20.153", "id": "3830", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-27T22:52:20.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3829", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3834", "answer_count": 1, "body": "My JLPT practise book has these two sentences to help explain the difference\nbetween `お目{め}にか` **`け`**`る` and `お目{め}にか` **`か`**`る` in a context of\n[keigo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific_speech_in_Japanese).\n\n> それでは新製品{しんせいひん}お目{め}にかけましょう。\n>\n> 鈴木{すずき}さんという人{ひと}に初{はじ}めてお目{め}にかかりました。\n\nUnfortunately, the brief explanation they give about these sentences is not\nquite enough for me to be sure I've got it.\n\nI think the first case, `お目{め}にかける` is when you're asking someone else to look\nat something. \"Please look at **_X_**.\"\n\nAnd I think the second case of `お目{め}にかかる`is when you're doing the looking. \"I\nsaw **_X_**.\"\n\nI often get these kinds of differences mixed up. Can someone either confirm\nI'm right, tell me if and where I'm wrong, or enlighten me if there is some\nother nuance I should be aware of?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-28T05:11:43.193", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3831", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-28T05:35:58.637", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-28T05:35:58.637", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "jlpt", "keigo" ], "title": "What is the difference in these two keigo terms?", "view_count": 476 }

[ { "body": "The first is used when you're having someone take a look at something. In this\ncase I think it's safe to assume it means, \"let's show [them] the new\nproducts.\"\n\nSource (Weblio)--> 目にかける (2)（「お目にかける」の形で）見せる。見ていただく。\n\nThe second is the Keigolicious way to say 会う. More specifically, 会うing with a\nperson well above your status. In the Japanese version of \"7 Years in Tibet,\"\npeople use this when they meet the Dalai Lama.\n\nSource (Brad Pitt)--> \"お目にかかれて光栄です、猊下。\" >> It's an honor to meet you, oh holy\nlord of holiness.\n\nIt seems like every JLPT practice book has like 800 sentences about 新製品. It's\nreally irritating. Just be careful... your furigana says \"しんさくひん,\" but your\nKanji reads \"シンセイヒン.\"", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-28T05:29:13.397", "id": "3834", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-28T05:29:13.397", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "879", "parent_id": "3831", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3838", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I came across this sentence:\n\n> 四月 **だという** のに、結構寒いね。 \"It is April, but it is rather cold isn't it?\"\n\nRecalling what I learned about the のに conjunction, I can also make the\nsentence:\n\n> 四月 **な** のに、結構寒いね。\n\n**(Question)** What is the difference?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-28T05:20:07.013", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3832", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-15T05:10:24.467", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-28T05:27:04.550", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice" ], "title": "Difference between Noun+な and Noun+だという", "view_count": 1055 }

[ { "body": "In this case, there is very little difference, except in flavor. You shouldn't\nlook at it as という vs. な because they can't be compared. The な here simply\nallows you to use のに with the noun 四月.\n\nという, in my mind, is like putting air quotes on something. という gives the former\nexample more flavor, I think. Source --> Opinions, one Japanese and one\nAmerican. I asked the Japanese lady next to me and she agreed.\n\n四月だというのに、結構寒いね。>> Even though it's April, it's quite cold, huh? Flavor: This\nsuper coldness doesn't feel like \"April,\" you know?\n\n四月なのに、結構寒いね。>> Even though it's April, it's quite cold huh? Flavor: I'm\nstating a fact about the weather this April.\n\nというのに is used a lot, so keep an ear out for it.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-28T06:40:05.987", "id": "3838", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-28T06:40:05.987", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "879", "parent_id": "3832", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "A better translation of 四月だというのに、結構寒いね would be: ‘Even though they [we] say\n(that) it is April, it is rather cold’. The second sentence leaves out the bit\nof ‘they (or we) say’ and states it as a fact: 四月なのに、結構寒いね ‘Even though it is\nApril, it is rather cold’. Since the nuance of ‘they say it is April’ exists\nin English as well there is no need to leave out という in the translation or\nconfusion about how the two sentences differ.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-06T11:42:33.080", "id": "3906", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-06T11:42:33.080", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "836", "parent_id": "3832", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]