Datasets:

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1341", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I'm a little unclear on the use a verb stem, followed by に and another verb.\n\nTake these two examples:\n\n> 特別なビザをもらって行った\n>\n> 特別なビザをもらいに行った\n\nI think the first means \"I went with a special visa\", but it might be simply\ngrammatically incorrect.\n\nThe second, I think means \"I went to get a special visa\". I'm pretty sure it's\ngrammatically correct as I got it from a native speaker.\n\nI have a lot of bad habits when speaking Japanese, and I think one of them is\nthat I often mess up and use the first form when I should use the second.\n\nSo I just want to be clear. Is the first example simply incorrect grammar (and\ntherefor meaningless), or does it mean what I think?\n\nAlso, do I have the translation on the second example correct?\n\nThis might be related to the difference between に and で as in [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1290/in-this-location-\ncontext-how-are-and-different).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T06:04:05.507", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1320", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-20T00:14:19.217", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "verbs", "particle-に", "particle-で" ], "title": "Correct usage of [verb stem] + に + [another verb]", "view_count": 5557 }

[ { "body": "The 連用形 of a verb is used with 「に」 to express a purpose. As such, the second\nmeans \"I went to receive a special visa\".\n\nThe 「～て」 form of a verb can be used to \"bind\" multiple verbs into a single\naction. When the following verb is 「行く」, the entire action takes the form of\nthe preceding verb continuously happening. As such, the first means \"I\ncontinuously received a special visa\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T06:16:00.200", "id": "1321", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T06:16:00.200", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1320", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "As Ignacio has said, the い-form (or the [連用形]{ren'yōkei} form) is used with に\nto indicate a purpose. \n`特別なビザをもらいに行った` means you're going somewhere, and your purpose for going there\nis getting a special visa.\n\n`特別なビザをもらって行った`, however, is quite incorrect. Indeed, ～て-form + いく can be used\nto make a compound verb that means \"beginning from a certain point, to be in\nthe process of gradually doing something\". For instance \"大きくなっていく\"\napproximately means \"to grow larger and larger\". There's also \"大きくなってくる\" which\nwould translate into the same thing in English, but has a different point-of-\nreference. With ～ていく, the process (of growing larger, for instance) starts at\na certain point (pointed by the verb's tense) and goes on from there. With\n～てくる, on the other hand, the process starting point is unmentioned, and it is\nviewed as progressing towards a certain point which is partially indicated by\nthe verb's tense. For example, if X is the point of time we refer to:\n\n> 人数が増えていった。 **X** _\\----> number of people grows ---->_ \n> 人数が増えてきた。 _\\----> number of people grows ---->_ **X**\n\nNote that X isn't necessarily the starting point **or** the ending point with\neither of these constructs. It just serves as the point of reference from\nwhich we look at it - in other words, ～ていく means we're looking forward and\n～てくる means we're looking backward.\n\nHowever, the sentence `特別なビザをもらって行った` doesn't fit into this pattern, for two\nreasons. First, it's rather hard to imagine \"getting a special visa\" as a\ngradual process. Second, you only rarely find いく and くる in this sense (of\nauxiliary verbs that are used to indicate a gradual process) written in kanji.\nThe standard is to write them in hiragana in such case. So `特別なビザをもらって行った`\ndoes look plain wrong to my eyes.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T22:24:23.600", "id": "1341", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-20T00:14:19.217", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-20T00:14:19.217", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1320", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "To get what I think you're asking for in your first example sentence, I'd have\nthought it to be more like the following:\n\n> 特別なビザを持って行った。\n>\n> I went holding a special visa.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-02-18T03:45:59.503", "id": "32253", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-18T06:30:07.293", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "13593", "parent_id": "1320", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1323", "answer_count": 4, "body": "The following sentence means \"seeing all the different foreign people was\ninteresting.\"\n\nThis, according to my Japanese friends is incorrect:\n\n> 色々な外国人を見ているは面白かった。\n\n... and this is correct:\n\n> 色々な外国人を見ているのは面白かった。\n\nTo me, the difference is so subtle that I can't really get a feel for how the\npresence of の really changes it.\n\nCan someone provide an explanation that clarifies what makes の important in\nthis situation?\n\nUpdate: I'm actually still confused by this. Couldn't the first example mean\n\"Looking at the various foreigners was interesting\", and the second example\nmean \"That I was looking at the various foreigners was interesting\"?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T06:16:48.123", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1322", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-15T08:45:19.327", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-30T06:36:10.340", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-の", "particle-は" ], "title": "What is the difference between は and のは?", "view_count": 49823 }

[ { "body": "In this case, 「の」 changes the verb \"to [be] see\" into the\n[gerund](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund) form \"[be] seeing\", which is\nwhat you found interesting. After that, 「は」 is just 「は」.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T06:24:24.837", "id": "1323", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T06:24:24.837", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1322", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "By putting \"の\", your are making a nominal group from the proposition that\nprecedes it, and you put the focus on the action (there is a nuance with \"こと\",\nwhich takes practice to feel). Then, since you made a nominal group, you need\nyour usual particles after, such as は、 に、 or whatever is required.\n\nExamples: \nケーキを食べるのが好きです。 \nI like to be eating a cake. (The fun is in the eating.)\n\nケーキを食べることが好きです。 \nI like to eat cakes. (Generality. I like cakes.)\n\n外で子供が遊んでいるのにじゃまされました。 \nI have been disturbed by children playing outside. (The playing is the reason\nof the disturbance)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T01:31:25.433", "id": "1347", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T00:39:40.520", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-24T00:39:40.520", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1322", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "we use の when we are talking about the verb. It is like \"to\" or \"-ing\" in\nEnglish.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T00:00:31.983", "id": "1486", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T00:00:31.983", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "426", "parent_id": "1322", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Actually both forms are correct. の is a recent development in Japanese, before\nit appeared, you'd use the 連体形(行く/熱い/綺麗な[る]/食べた[る]) directly before particles.\nAn example can be seen here:\n\n> 今宵は夜毎にこゝに集ひ來る骨牌（かるた）仲間も「ホテル」に宿りて、舟に殘れる* **は** *余一人のみなれば。\n>\n> 森鴎外 「舞姫」\n\nYou should still use の, though.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-15T08:38:52.517", "id": "1949", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-15T08:45:19.327", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-15T08:45:19.327", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1322", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1335", "answer_count": 4, "body": "According to dictionaries, the WA 和 in 昭和 has both the meaning of peace,\nharmonious and Japan, japanese (although mostly as the first kanji of a\ncompound, such as in 和語). So I wonder how Japanese of those times perceived\nthe announcement and the phrase.\n\nDid it carry immediately a meaning of (luminous) Peace _for Japan_ , or was\nthe national or identity element not present for a native speaker?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T08:29:07.030", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1328", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-01T21:39:43.437", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-09T21:04:39.080", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "126", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "history", "compounds", "puns" ], "title": "Was the name for the Shōwa era a voluntary pun?", "view_count": 387 }

[ { "body": "I think that's because 和 can be used as short form of 平和(へいわ-peace), 調和(ちょうわ-\nharmonious), 大和（やまと-Japan） and may be there is something more.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T08:34:42.787", "id": "1329", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T08:34:42.787", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1328", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "From what I understood from\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%98%AD%E5%92%8C&oldid=38048341#.E5.87.BA.E5.85.B8),\nit was meant to express the hope for peace at home and the desire for the rest\nof the world to be prosperous together: 国民の平和および世界各国の共存繁栄を願う意味である。\n\nIt lists a few other ideas for the name of the era as well:\n「神化」「元化」「同和」「継明」「順明」「明保」「寛安」「元安」", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T09:21:16.967", "id": "1331", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T09:21:16.967", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "1328", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Whether the emperor meant it as a \"pun\" (or something similar) is pretty hard\nto know. But it is doubtful.\n\n昭和 means harmony for the same reason that 和 is associated to Japan: in both\ncases, 和 represents the very specifically-Japanese conception of \"social\nharmony\" (which is different enough from the western word, for many scholars\nto use \"Wa\", even in English texts). It is not a coincidence, but it predates\nour era by a good 13 centuries.\n\nThe use of 和 in the spelling of 大和【やまと】([old name for\nJapan](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E5%92%8C)) has a long and\ncomplex history, but the gist of it is that it was picked as a replacement for\na previous kanji used by the Chinese\n([倭](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%80%AD)), which the Japanese did not find\nflattering. 和 did have a positive association with a philosophical concept\nthat the Japanese considered at the heart of their culture, hence the\nentanglement and how it became to be both \"harmony\" and \"japan\".\n\nTo answer your question of whether it carried a meaning of Harmony\n_specifically for Japan_ : yes, **in a way** , since \"Wa\" **is** the Japanese\nconception of harmony, and foreigners (particularly of this era) would\ndefinitely not be expected to grasp its meaning, let alone have it.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T14:22:34.010", "id": "1335", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T14:44:50.927", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-19T14:44:50.927", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1328", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "The posthumous name of Japanese emperors is pretty much chosen (even if it's\nnot official) while the emperor is still reigning - for example we know the\nlikely posthumous name for the current emperor.\n\nSo in terms of it being a pun, I'd say it isn't a deliberate reference to the\nhorrific war(s) Japan experienced during Hirohito's reign, or Japan's post-\nWWII pacifism.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-11-01T21:39:43.437", "id": "40572", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-01T21:39:43.437", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "parent_id": "1328", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1334", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I understand that 擬音語 (ぎおんご) imitate sounds, like どきどき imitates a heartbeat.\nSo, if these onomatopoeia don't have roots I wouldn't be at all surprised.\n\nBut where do 擬態語 (ぎたいご) come from? Do いらいら (to be irritated), きらきら (to\nglitter), すっきり (to be refreshed/relieved) have root words?\n\nIt was said on [this Japanese.SE\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1206/is-arara-a-word-\nor-just-a-vocal-noise) that ぴかぴか came from 光 (ぴかり), is this generally the case\nor an exception?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T11:25:51.067", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1333", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T01:03:12.033", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "etymology", "onomatopoeia" ], "title": "Do 擬態語 (いらいら, きらきら, すっきり, etc.) generally have root words?", "view_count": 690 }

[ { "body": "I didn't exactly say that ぴかぴか comes from ひかり (originally pronounced\n`pikari`), but rather that ひかり itself seems to be 擬態語. That is, `pikari` may\ncome from `pika` which may have been used to mean 'shining' back in the old\ndays just as it is today.\n\nI don't have time now to search for the etymology of the specific words you\ngave me here, but as far as I can tell, it is hard to find a root word for\nmost 擬態語, and it seems like many of them are, in fact, sound impressions that\nhave been subjectively attached to non-auditory phenomena (such as light or\nfeelings).\n\n### Update:\n\nCuriously enough, it turns out that いらいら might be one of these 擬態語 that\nactually originate in a word: いら (written 刺 or 苛) appears in Classical\nJapanese in the meaning of a thorn (the same as とげ in modern language,\napparently), and it probably also includes small toxic hairs as those on the\nJapanese Nettle (イラクサ). So いらいら obviously comes from the irritated (See the\nsimilarity? That's a nice one too :)) skin you get after being stung by a\nthorn or a nettle.\n\nAs for きらきら, we'll probably never know. This ideophone is almost as old as you\ncan get with Japanese: it already appears in 宇津保物語 (Utsubo Monogatari) as part\nof the verb きらめく, which maintained the same meaning to this very day.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T14:06:01.810", "id": "1334", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T16:44:57.983", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-19T16:44:57.983", "last_editor_user_id": "153", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1333", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1446", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In this [Question about computer science\njargon](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/698/japanese-dictionary-\nfor-mathematics-computer-science-jargon), most answers to date are electronic\nresources and that makes sense.\n\nBut I would like to know if there are printed japanese/english or\njapanese/german dictionary which gives careful consideration to scientific,\ntechnological and philosophical (analytical, epistemology) meanings of kanjis\nwithout being too difficult to peruse for a non-native learner. I would not be\nable to comfortably use a japanese-only reference.\n\nIt does not need to be strictly a dictionary. I am interested in printed books\nabout scientific japanese writing for instance, or specialized documents with\na glossary for that specialty. I remember among other things seing a japanese\ncolleague with a nice book about german philosophical concepts and their kanji\napproximation and translation. I presume there are other such books in areas\nsuch as biology, cognitive sciences, physics, history of science.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T14:52:56.820", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1336", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:26:05.480", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "126", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "resources", "terminology", "dictionary" ], "title": "Written resources for scientific and philosophic japanese?", "view_count": 405 }

[ { "body": "<http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1C> has many\ndictionaries, including some scientific ones.\n\nBut you asked for print media...\n\n * Computer Terms - [English-Japanese / Japanese-English Dictionary of Computer and Data-Processing Terms](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0262061147)\n\n * Chemical & Science - [Japanese-English Chemical Dictionary: Including a Guide to Japanese Patents and Scientific Literature](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/3527312935)\n\n * Science and Technical Terms - [Japanese/English - English/Japanese Glossary of Scientific and Technical Terms](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0471574635)\n\nThere are others, too. Searching Amazon for \"japanese english dictionary\nscientific\" is a good start.\n\nThanks to the rules here, 2 of those don't get linked. You'll have to copy and\npaste.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T14:22:16.523", "id": "1446", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T14:30:37.113", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-23T14:30:37.113", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1336", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Books: Basic Technical Japanese by Edward Daub, et.al Intermediate Technical\nJapanese\n\nSearch for \"Technical Japanese Series\" on amazon or google. There are books\nthat cover specific science/engineering areas.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T17:20:28.120", "id": "1451", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T17:20:28.120", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "417", "parent_id": "1336", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Just for fun, I'm curious about how native speakers do mental translation from\nGregorian calendar year (e.g 2011) to Japanese era name 年号 (e.g. 平成２３年), and\nvice versa. Do you have special and preferably fun ways like mnemonics or\nchildren songs (something like the ABC song) to help you do the translation\non-the-fly?\n\np/s: Due to subjectiveness of this question, I'm totally fine if this is made\ninto community wiki.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T15:43:07.387", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1337", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-26T12:46:06.680", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T07:45:38.700", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "numbers", "counters", "mnemonics" ], "title": "Gregorian calendar year to Japanese era name, and vice versa", "view_count": 1458 }

[ { "body": "From experience, I find Japanese people having lots of trouble converting\nbetween Japanese and Gregorian calendar years. I regularly surprise people\nwith my ability to do that as follows (Japanese calendar years are often\nrepresented with an alphabet character like `S` or `H`.):\n\n**Showa Era (1925 to 1989)**\n\n 1. Subtract 1900 (e.g. 1976 - 1900 = 76)\n 2. Subtract 25 (e.g. 76 - 25 = S 51)\n\n**Heisei Era (1989 to 2000)**\n\n 1. Count forward from 1989 (e.g. 1989 = H1, 1990 = H2, ...)\n\n**Heisei Era (2000 onwards)**\n\n 1. Add 11 to post-2000 Western date (e.g. 2010 = H21, 2011 = H22, ...)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T00:09:14.393", "id": "1345", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-26T12:46:06.680", "last_edit_date": "2012-05-26T12:46:06.680", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1337", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1339", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In what scenarios would you use 「」 quotation marks instead of 『』, and vice\nversa?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T19:19:24.990", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1338", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-20T00:10:08.637", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "96", "post_type": "question", "score": 32, "tags": [ "punctuation" ], "title": "When should either 「」 and 『』 be used?", "view_count": 1675 }

[ { "body": "In Japanese, the symbols 「」 are called [鉤括弧]{かぎかっこ} and the symbols 『』 are\ncalled [二重鉤括弧]{にじゅうかぎかっこ}. The basic rules for these symbols are simple: 「」 is\nused to denote quotation, and 『』 is used to denote quotation inside a\n「」-quote.\n\nExample:\n\n> [先生]{せんせい}が[生徒]{せいと}に「『おはよう』はフランス[語]{ご}で[何]{なん}と[言]{い}いますか」と[聞]{き}いた。 \n> A teacher asked a student, “How do you say ‘Good morning’ in French?”\n\nIn some contexts, 『』 is also used to denote the title of a book and other\nkinds of works.\n\nExample (from\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BA%83%E8%BE%9E%E8%8B%91) with an\nEnglish translation by me):\n\n> 『[広辞苑]{こうじえん}』は、[岩波書店]{いわなみしょてん}が[発行]{はっこう}している[中型国語辞典]{ちゅうがたこくごじてん}である。 \n> “Kōjien” is a middle-sized Japanese dictionary published by Iwanami Shoten,\n> Publishers.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T21:52:39.647", "id": "1339", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-20T00:10:08.637", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-20T00:10:08.637", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1338", "post_type": "answer", "score": 27 }, { "body": "I may be wrong about that, but I think they just serve as primary and\nsecondary quotation marks - the same way single quotes and double quotes serve\nin English. They exist since sometimes printers want to distinguish two kinds\nof quotes. How exactly they're used and what exactly they distinguish depends\non the publisher or writer, of course.\n\nThe most usual usage pattern (at least for printed publications) is probably\nthe same as in English: 「 」 are used for main quotations and 『 』 are used for\nquotations-within-quotations. That doesn't say this is the only usage pattern\nthough.\n\nSince most published writing today is actually out there on the net, and\ndoesn't go through a punctilious (so to speak) publisher, you get all kinds of\ndifferent and quite unorthodox uses of punctuation. For that matter,\nrespectable printers never used straight quotes (\"like these\") in English, but\nonly smart quotes (“like this”). They also used em- and en- dashes, never\nminus signs. But that doesn't prevent people from using straight quotes and\nminus instead of dash everywhere - so expect the same to happen with Japanese.\nStandards for punctuation marks existed in the Age of Print, but now the Age\nof Print is dead, long live the Age of the Internet.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T21:54:48.100", "id": "1340", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-19T21:54:48.100", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1338", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1373", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I've read that both the ～てしまう and ～きる (18th meaning of 切る at\n<http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E5%88%87%E3%82%8B>) forms are used to signify something\nhas been finished/done/completed.\n\nIf so, what exactly is the difference between the two conjugations (how do we\ndecide when to use which)?\n\nexample:\n\n1) もう荷造りしてしまった。\n\n2) もう荷造りしきった。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T23:04:02.983", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1342", "last_activity_date": "2015-10-16T17:03:10.533", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T09:05:34.210", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "nuances", "conjugations", "て-form" ], "title": "What exactly is the difference between <verb>-てしまう and <verb>- [切]{き}る?", "view_count": 3324 }

[ { "body": "_Added: This answer was written in response to the revision 1 of the question.\nIt turned out that the answer was not very relevant to the question which\nPacerier wanted to ask._\n\n-てしまった is the past form of -てしまう, and it means completion. It often implies that the action is undesirable.\n\n> 皿を割ってしまった。 (さらをわってしまった。) I broke a plate.\n\n-てきた is the past form of -てくる (not -てきる). The original meaning of くる (来る) is to come, and the form -てくる means that some action is done in a place other than here, with an implication that the actor will come back here after the action is completed (see the sense [17]-(イ) in [Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%8F%E3%82%8B&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=1&pagenum=1&index=105627000000) and the sense 9-(3) in [Daijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%8F%E3%82%8B&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=1&index=06504705274200&pagenum=1)). -てきた means that the action was done in somewhere else and the actor came back.\n\n> コーヒーを飲んでくる。 (コーヒーをのんでくる。) I will drink coffee and come back. (=I will take a\n> coffee break.)\n\nIn your examples, 荷物をもう荷造りしてしまった implies that it is a bad thing. Probably the\nspeaker packed the baggage, thought that he/she was ready for a trip, and\nrealized that he/she had forgotten to put something in it (therefore he/she\nhas to redo the packing). 荷物をもう荷造りしてきた means the packing was done in somewhere\nother than here.\n\n(By the way, in these examples, 荷物を sounds redundant to me, because if you say\n荷造りする, it is obvious that the object is 荷物. I do not think that it is\nincorrect, but it may be better to omit 荷物を.)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-19T23:45:38.370", "id": "1344", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T11:11:20.200", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-20T11:11:20.200", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1342", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Not a true answer, but {verb}てしまう has the nuance of the action has complete\ncoverage on the object/subject.\n\n> 勇者たちが滅んでしまった。 \n> The hero party is annihilated.\n\nIn the example above, it implies that not a single one member of the hero\nparty is left. It has the extra feeling of \"sadness, regret\" that such thing\nhappens.\n\nMeanwhile, {verb}きる is for notifying a course of action has completed all the\nway to its final stage.\n\n> 義理でもらった零ちゃんのチョコレートはまずかったけど、ちゃんと最後まで食べきった。 \n> The chocolate I got from Rei-chan out of courtesy was not tasty, but I ate\n> it to the end.\n\nHere is another idiomatic usage.\n\n> あなたの恩は感謝してもしきれないぐらい。 \n> Your deed, even if I thank it, I can never thank enough.\n\n(edited: previously, it was 感謝したくても, but as Tsuyoshi Ito pointed out, it would\nmean that the speaker didn't manage to thank. But not only that, it may imply\nthe following:\n\n> 感謝したくてもしきれない。だからあえて感謝しない。 \n> I can't thank enough even if I want to thank. Therefore I choose not to\n> thank instead.\n\noh, what arrogance!)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T19:32:56.070", "id": "1372", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-15T15:11:21.293", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-15T15:11:21.293", "last_editor_user_id": "154", "owner_user_id": "154", "parent_id": "1342", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "First, the ～てしまう construction can convey a sense of regret, which the 切る verb\nsuffix cannot:\n\n> 花瓶を落として割ってしまった。 I dropped the vase and [regrettably] broke it.\n>\n> 花瓶を落として割り切った。 (unnatural)\n\nWhen used in constructions expressing the completion or finishing of an\naction, 切る tends to sound best with actions that can be measured on a scale,\nbut there's a lot of overlap:\n\n> 使い切る use up (使ってしまう could work)\n>\n> 乗り切る completely overcome (乗ってしまう sounds unnatural)\n>\n> 冷え切る cool off entirely (冷えてしまう could work)\n>\n> 疲れ切る become exhausted (疲れてしまう could work)\n>\n> 出し切る put forth everything (出してしまう might work in some cases)\n\nAll of the verbs above imply the exhaustion of a finite quantity (使う, 疲れる, 出す)\nor a change that could stop at any point on an invisible scale (乗る, 冷える). This\naspect is reflected in the fact that the generic verb for \"run out\" is 切れる:\n\n> ノートパソコンの電池が切れた。 My laptop's battery died.\n>\n> おい、この納豆の賞味期限が切れているよ。 Hey, this nattō's past its expiration date, you know.\n\nOn the other hand, for actions that don't fit into a nice scale (i.e. they\neither happen or they don't), the ～てしまう form is usually better:\n\n> 泣き出してしまう burst into tears (泣き出し切る sounds unnatural)\n>\n> 変わってしまう change completely (変わり切る might work in rare cases)\n>\n> ほれてしまう fall head-over-heels in love (ほれ切る sounds unnatural)\n>\n> 消えてしまう disappear entirely (消え切る might work in rare cases)", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T19:40:30.833", "id": "1373", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T19:40:30.833", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1342", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1353", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I read once somewhere that the word 'sake' (酒, Japanese rice wine) comes from\nsha-ke (鮭, salmon). Can someone explain what this connection is?\n\nAny thoughts on why _most Japanese people_ * don't know the origin of the word\nsake are also appreciated.\n\n_*Most Japanese people who I know ... @Tsuyoshi Ito may know more._", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T01:14:58.467", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1346", "last_activity_date": "2013-10-24T11:39:18.810", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "etymology" ], "title": "What is the etymological connection between sake (alcohol) and sha-ke (salmon)?", "view_count": 4576 }

[ { "body": "One of several explanations for the origin of the word 鮭 is that the colour of\nthe salmon's flesh is that of a \"drunk red\", and that subsequently the word\n\"sake\" derived from either \"sakake\" (酒気, tipsiness) or \"ake\" (朱 scarlet, red).\n\nThe fact that this is in no way verified must help explain why most Japanese\nyou encountered had no idea about it… (and also, the derivation of the name is\nin the opposite direction of that which you implied.)\n\n(source: <http://gogen-allguide.com/sa/sake_sakana.html>)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T04:43:10.023", "id": "1352", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T04:43:10.023", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1346", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "What is the connection? None, apparently.\n\nAccording to [語源由来辞典](http://gogen-allguide.com/sa/sake.html) (always a good\nplace to check on that sort of question), none of the likely etymologies have\nanything to do with \"sha-ke\" or fish in general.\n\nThe above site mentions a couple of theories for the etymology of the word\n\"さけ\", including:\n\n * 汁【しる】 ＋ 食【け】 \n'soup' 'eat/food'\n\n * 栄【さか】え水【みず】 \n'water that makes you prosper'\n\nbut goes on to state that the most plausible etymology is the following: さ is\na prefix (of unspecified meaning) attached to き, an older word for sake. The\nfinal vowel assumedly changed somewhere along the way.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T04:53:17.150", "id": "1353", "last_activity_date": "2013-10-24T11:39:18.810", "last_edit_date": "2013-10-24T11:39:18.810", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1346", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Let me say a word about the secondary part of the question:\n\n> Any thoughts on why _most Japanese people_ * don't know the origin of the\n> word sake are also appreciated.\n\nA simple answer is because understanding the etymology requires study and\nresearch and most Japanese people are not linguists. Ask an average English\nspeaker what the etymological connection is between, say, _meal_ and _meat_ ,\nand I would not expect that you will get any answer beyond a guess. Being\nfluent in a language does not mean that one knows the etymology.\n\nBut there is something more on this. I heard that even when you ask linguists,\nit is often more difficult to trace the origin of a word in Japanese than in\nEnglish. This is because the origin of the Japanese language itself is unclear\n(see [Japonic languages](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japonic_languages) and\nthe [classification of\nJaponic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_Japonic)). If you\nthink about the etymological study as a kind of detective work, there is often\nnot much clue on which a theory about the origin of a word can be built. On\nthe other hand, there are [many languages](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-\nEuropean_languages) which have common origins with English, and it is often\npossible to get some clue by comparing them.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T15:40:01.573", "id": "1368", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T15:40:01.573", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1346", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1350", "answer_count": 3, "body": "As a studies of Japanese I've come across two distinct ways to group verbs for\npurposes of remembering how to conjugate them.\n\nう動詞 / る動詞 \nGroup1 / Group 2\n\nPacerier mentioned a verb1 and verb5, can someone explain to me how the verbs\nare divided for this system?\n\nAlso, how do Japanese people learn the different conjugations patterns? What\nsystem for verb classification do they use?\n\nthis question may boarder on off-topic, but i think as a Japanese learner, I'd\nlike to be able to ask verb related questions to a Japanese person, but if i\nsay う動詞, unless they are familiar with non-foreigners learning Japanese, they\ndon't know what I'm talking about.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T01:33:16.160", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1348", "last_activity_date": "2017-04-18T15:15:05.257", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T01:11:05.387", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "verbs", "parts-of-speech" ], "title": "Verb classifications by japanese learners", "view_count": 2912 }

[ { "body": "The two main classifications of regular verbs are 一段 and 五段, named after the\nnumber of forms their base takes.\n\n * 食べる -> 食べ\n * 入る -> 入ら・入り・入る・入れ・入ろ\n\nWithin 一段 there are two further classifications, although both are conjugated\nthe same way.\n\n * 上一段: 見る, 落ちる, etc.\n * 下一段: 寝る, 当てる. etc.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T01:42:48.050", "id": "1349", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T01:42:48.050", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1348", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "The two types are:\n\n**[五段動詞]{ご・だん・どう・し}** ー means \"5-level verbs\". This is the group where the\nconjugations match the 5 vowel sounds of their respective kana ending. A\ncommon 五段動詞 is 書く. It conjugates along the k- column of the hiragana table:\n\n> 書 **か** ない 書 **き** ます 書 **く** 書 **け** ば／書 **け** る 書 **こ** う\n\nWe can see that its conjugations hit all 5 of the k-kana: か き く け こ\n\nNote that 五段動詞 that end in 〜う (like 会う) have a conjugation of **_わ_ い う え お**\n(会 **わ** ない for the negative). This is not arbitrary, and there are historical\nreasons for this, but I will not attempt to get into them here.\n\nThe other type are the **[一段動詞]{いち・だん・どう・し}** (your るverbs). However, these\ncan be broken down based on (I believe) the last character of their \"base\nform\" (the part before the る). The kana columns go -a -i -u -e -o, where the\n-u is considered the \"center\". They are classified as \"upper\" ([上]{かみ}) or\n\"lower\" ([下]{しも}) based on the center.\n\n> * 着る is 上一段 since き is one level \"above\" the center (which would be く)\n> * 食べる is 下一段 since べ is one level \"under\" the center (which would be ぶ)\n>\n\nThere are such things as 上二段 and 下二段 verbs, but I don't think they exist in\nmodern spoken Japanese. At least that's what 広辞苑 implies.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T01:52:31.980", "id": "1350", "last_activity_date": "2017-04-18T15:15:05.257", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-18T15:15:05.257", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1348", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "There is a pretty good and complete overview of the two groups (一段/五段, which\ncan also be seen as \"U-dropping\" and \"RU-dropping\" in romaji) [on this\npage](http://homepage3.nifty.com/jgrammar/grammar/data/uniform.htm).\n\nする and くる have separate, exception-filled, conjugations of their own\n(sometimes referred to as サ行変格活用/カ行変格活用).\n\nNote that, like many technical grammatical question, I really don't think you\nwill get a very useful answer from a non-specialist native. Japanese verb\nconjugation rules are fairly straightforward (though filled with exceptions)\nand most Japanese simply \"know\" which is which, without necessarily knowing\nwhy. Quite the same way your average English speaker would be at a loss\nexplaining which verbs are regular and which aren't, and how irregular verbs\nwork.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T01:58:42.213", "id": "1351", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T01:58:42.213", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1348", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1355", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is the title ～[殿]{どの} used in modern day Japanese? If so, which people can you\nuse it with? I've only really seen it come across in referring to\n[大]{だい}[名]{みょう} (feudal lords). Also it is applicable to use as a translation\nof \"sir\" of people who have been knighted by the queen of England?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T05:57:36.183", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1354", "last_activity_date": "2019-12-02T23:41:09.877", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-03T06:09:04.013", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "honorifics" ], "title": "Is the title ～[殿]{どの} used in modern day japanese?", "view_count": 662 }

[ { "body": "You may use it in emails, especially when you contact another company or\nanother department which you have never contacted before.\n\n> 関係者各位殿 To whom it may concerned\n>\n> 〇〇社〇〇殿 To (someone) in company\n>\n> (部署名)殿 To (Department name)\n\n**Note** : I personally don't use it, because I feel that it's extreme polite,\nbut when I searched mailing list in my company, I got around 400 hits for\naround a year, so indeed some people use it.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T06:19:49.493", "id": "1355", "last_activity_date": "2019-12-02T23:41:09.877", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1354", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "I am not sure whether it counts as your expected answer, but you have titles\nwith 殿 used in monarchies or for aristocrats: エリザベス・オブ・ヨーク王女殿下（Her Royal\nHighness Princess Elizabeth of York）. You will have to check for yourself for\nhow to express each title, but it seems to be limited to the \"highness\"\nderivatives.\n\nThen, as a polite name suffix the Japanese Wikipedia page also states that it\nis seldom used in spoken Japanese, and mostly used in letters and documents.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T06:27:41.720", "id": "1356", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T00:40:56.667", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-24T00:40:56.667", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1354", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1360", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I am looking for a way to express the equivalent of \"statistically speaking,\n...\" (followed by a quote from a paper, or something like that), or pretty\nmuch any other grammatical construction that works well for the subject of\nquoting statistics or papers.\n\nI know the word 統計, but that always results in very cumbersome (and probably\nwrong) sentences, such as:\n\n> 統計の論文を読んだ、 \n> 統計の見方から、\n\nI am sure Japanese people will understand what I try to express, but it's\nhardly correct.\n\nWhile I honestly care about the answer and do not know it, I have also made\nthis question for meta-discussion: [Who is our target\naudience?](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9/who-is-our-\ntarget-audience/275#275)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T10:37:20.257", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1359", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T05:37:18.650", "last_edit_date": "2017-03-16T15:48:25.793", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "84", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "vocabulary" ], "title": "\"Statistically speaking ... \"", "view_count": 231 }

[ { "body": "try 統計的に言えば....\n\nasked google translate and it makes sense + shorter than what you used and\nseems more grammatically correct.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T10:43:29.893", "id": "1360", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T10:43:29.893", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "387", "parent_id": "1359", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "> Statistically speaking 統計的に言えば\n\n<http://www.raku-eigo.com/index.php?e=21> \n\\- Since this is an NHK course (for English), I'd say the Japanese part is\npretty safe...", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T12:25:37.437", "id": "1362", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T05:37:18.650", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-21T05:37:18.650", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1359", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Some more variations:\n\n> 統計的には...\n>\n> Statistically, ...\n\nShorter version of 統計的に言えば.\n\n~的 is quite versatile and, technically, it can be tacked on to almost any\nnoun. ex. お金的には (moneywise), 春的な (spring-like). But excessive or uncommon\nusage will be frowned upon as slang.\n\n> 統計的見地から言えば...\n>\n> From the standpoint of statistics, ...\n\nUsing 見地 adds objectivity and formality to your statement.\n\n> 統計上は...\n>\n> According to statistics, ...\n\nDepending on the context, this can sometimes imply that the speaker thinks the\ntruth doesn't lie in the numbers.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T13:15:45.053", "id": "1365", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T13:38:36.670", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1359", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1364", "answer_count": 1, "body": "[The many ways to say “and” in\nJapanese](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/474/the-many-ways-to-\nsay-and-in-japanese) thread showed me that ～し, ～し can be used give reasons for\nsomething.\n\n> この部屋は綺麗だし広いし間取りもいいから人気がある。 \n> This room is clean, wide and also good partition, so most of the people like\n> it. \n> \n> ねむいし仕事があるし (I'm sleepy, and I have work to do, and...[I really don't want\n> to] [so I can't do what you're asking])\n\nSeems kind of like ｘし、 ｙし [だ]から ｚ.\n\nCan it be used the other way around: ｚから、 ｘし、 ｙし. For example,\n今は休暇だから本を読んでるし、泳げるようになってるし、リラックスしてる。\n\nAnd how about for just serial actions, for example in reply to something like\n今日は何をしてる？\n\nBy the way, I don't remember seeing ～し in any textbooks so far, is it\nsomething you'd only use with friends?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T10:43:44.260", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1361", "last_activity_date": "2019-02-05T14:47:42.840", "last_edit_date": "2019-02-05T14:47:42.840", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "usage", "particles", "conjunctions", "particle-し" ], "title": "Are there various ways to use ~し?", "view_count": 3664 }

[ { "body": "> 今は休暇だから本を読んでるし、泳げるようになってるし、リラックスしてる。\n\nThis is just my opinion for this particular sentence, but I'd go with the ～たり\nform here:\n\n> 今は休暇だから本を読んで **たり** 、泳げるようになって **たり** 、リラックスしてる。\n\n～し lists either actions or qualities, and while it resembles ～たり in that **it\ndoesn't specify an order** in which the actions took place, it adds a **\" not\nonly, but also\"** implication to it:\n\n> 今年の夏は海に行った **し** 、山にも行った。 This summer I went to the ocean, and **[not only\n> that, I also went]** to the mountains.\n>\n> 荷物が多い **し** 、雨も降ってきたし、どこかで休もうか。 We've a lot of luggage, and **[not only\n> this, but]** it's started to rain, so shall we take a break somewhere?\n\n(Above examples taken from page 198 of\n[初級を教える人のための日本語文法ハンドブック](http://books.google.com/books?id=l-C4H2sBJlEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false))\n\nIn sentences like the second one above, where multiple ～し constructions are\nused to provide reasons, as you saw [in the other\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/474/the-many-ways-to-\nsay-and-in-japanese), the last し can be replaced with から with hardly any\nchange in meaning:\n\n> 荷物が多いし、雨も降ってきた **から** 、どこかで休もうか。 We've a lot of luggage, and it's started to\n> rain, **so** shall we take a break somewhere?\n\n～し can also get tacked onto the end of a sentence when that sentence provides\njustification for an immediately preceding statement:\n\n> せっかくパリまで来たんだから、観光でもしよう。天気もいいし。 We've come all the way to Paris, so let's do\n> some sightseeing. The weather's nice, too.\n>\n> このお店はすごくおいしいですよ。かなり安いですし。 The food here is amazingly good. And it's easy on\n> the wallet, too.\n\n～し can be used in both informal and formal settings (as seen in the second\nexample immediately above, it can follow the polite form).\n\n* * *\n\nMark Hosang kindly pointed out in the comments that in formal speech (and\nperhaps most commonly in written Japanese), the ～ます stem form of the verb する\n(し) is used as a transition between clauses, just as the ～て form (して) is used\nin spoken Japanese. From ALC:\n\n> 上海の不動産価格は去年1年間で24％ **増加し** 、今では中国で1番高くなっています。\n>\n> Shanghai's real estate prices **increased** 24 percent over last year, and\n> are now the highest in the country.\n\nThis is unrelated to the ～し form discussed in this question.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T12:59:59.577", "id": "1364", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T13:56:06.267", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1361", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1366", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I always thought that a verb ending in the `て` form along with the `いる` suffix\nwas the English equivelent of the \"ing\" form of a verb.\n\nThus:\n\n> see = 見{み}る, seeing = 見{み}ている\n>\n> do = する, doing = している\n\nHowever, according to the [Wikipedia entry on\ngerunds](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund), a gerund in Japanese is when\nyou add the particle `の`.\n\nSay what?\n\nTo be honest, I'm not actually that interested in grammatical technicalities,\nsuch as what label is applied to what verb form.\n\nWhat I am very interested in, though, is usage.\n\nSo what, precisely, is the difference in meaning and implication between:\n\n> 見{み}ている\n>\n> 見{み}ているの\n>\n> 見{み}るの\n\n(This question is a spin off from \"[What is the difference between `は` and\n`のは`](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1322/what-is-the-\ndifference-between-and/1347#1347)?\")", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T12:54:58.327", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1363", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-04T02:57:48.390", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 28, "tags": [ "verbs", "particle-の" ], "title": "If Vて+いる isn't a gerund, then what is it?", "view_count": 11780 }

[ { "body": "I think the confusion here arises from the fact that English can use the\n\"-ing\" form of a verb in two different ways: using a verb as a noun (gerund),\nor expressing a continuous action (progressive tense).\n\nIn plain language, adding の to a verb in Japanese transforms it into a noun\nand makes it suitable to be followed by は, が, or various other particles that\nneed to have a noun preceding them:\n\n> 映画【えいが】を **見【み】る** 。 I **will watch** a movie.\n>\n> 映画【えいが】を **見【み】るの** **watching** a movie (or, \"the act of watching a movie\")\n>\n> 映画【えいが】を **見【み】るの** が好【す】きだ。 I like **watching** movies. (Slightly different\n> translation since the plural is more natural in English.)\n>\n> 映画【えいが】を見【み】るが好【す】きだ。 (incorrect, since が can't follow a verb; it needs a\n> noun.)\n\nSo let's throw ～ている into the mix. ～ている shows the **continuation of an action**\n, for which English uses the \"-ing\" form plus a helper verb:\n\n> 映画【えいが】を **見【み】ている** 。 I **am watching** a movie.\n\nTranslating 見【み】ているの gets a little weird in English, but it can be used like\nthis:\n\n> 見【み】ているの [the act of] being in the middle of watching\n>\n> 彼【かれ】が映画【えいが】を **見【み】ているの** を見【み】た。 I saw him [when he was **in the middle\n> of** ] **watching** a movie.\n\nAnd of course, remember that ～ている does not always show the continuation of an\naction in Japanese. It can also show the **continuation of a state** :\n\n> このいすは **壊【こわ】れている** 。 This chair **is broken**. (not \"is breaking\")\n>\n> かばんの中【なか】に携帯【けいたい】が **入【はい】っている** 。 A cell phone **is in** the bag. (not \"is\n> entering\")\n\n* * *\n\nPostscript:\n\nこと is the other \"nominalizer\" (read: noun-making machine) that can be used\nlike の to turn a verb into a noun. Sometimes (but not always!) you can\ninterchange the two:\n\n> ピアノを **弾【ひ】くの** が好【す】きだ。 I like **playing** the piano.\n>\n> ピアノを **弾【ひ】くこと** が好【す】きだ。 I like **playing** the piano.\n\nThe full differentiation of の and こと as nominalizers is beyond the scope of\nthis question, but as a quick rule, の is generally used when the outer action\nhappens at the same place or time as the inner action, while こと is generally\nused when the two can be considered from a removed standpoint lacking\nimmediacy. (For further explanation, please see [What is the difference\nbetween the nominalizers こと and\nの?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1395).)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T13:45:22.187", "id": "1366", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T13:11:05.733", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1363", "post_type": "answer", "score": 30 }, { "body": "It is, quite plainly, a verb. But due to the 「～ている」 conjugation, the verb\nstops being \"V\" and becomes \"be\".\n\n> 「見る」 -> \"to see\", 「見ている」 -> \"to be seeing\" \n> 「する」 -> \"to do\", 「している」 -> \"to be doing\"\n\nIt happens that the English translation is a verbal phrase that contains the\nEnglish form of the gerund, but it is still a verb overall, with the primary\nfocus now on \"be\".\n\nEnglish does not really have a form where \"be\" manifests itself in the present\ntense when paired with a gerund, but if we shift to the past tense we see it\nshow up.\n\n> 「テレビを見ていた」 -> \"I had been watching television.\" \n> 「洗濯をしていた」 -> \"I had been doing the laundry.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T13:52:48.423", "id": "1367", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T13:52:48.423", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1363", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1370", "answer_count": 3, "body": "In a [recent question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1363/if-v-\nisnt-a-gerund-then-what-is-it/1367#1367) I asked, this example sentence was\noffered:\n\n> 映画を見る。 (I **will** watch a movie.)\n\nWhat struck me about this was that the translated version was the future\ntense.\n\nHowever, I always thought the plain form of a verb was tense-less.\n\n> 映画を見る。 I watch a movie.\n\nWhen I think about it, though, if the plain form is without tense (or at least\nnot future tense), then it wouldn't really be used much except in answer to a\nquestion:\n\n> Q: 退屈しているときには、通常に何をしている？ (What do you usually do when you're bored?)\n>\n> A: 映画を見る。(I watch a movie.)\n\nMaybe I just have it all wrong.\n\nIs the plain form usually assumed to be future tense? Or at least an\nexpression of intent?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T16:39:40.567", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1369", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-31T10:26:10.580", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "verbs", "tense" ], "title": "Would the plain form of a verb usually be translated as future tense?", "view_count": 3511 }

[ { "body": "I imagine most grammar texts break Japanese tenses into past and non-past. So\nthe plain form can be used to describe something you will do (once) in the\nfuture as well as something you do on a regular basis or something that tends\nto happen. Context tells you which is meant:\n\n> 明日【あした】は映画【えいが】を **見【み】る** 。 Tomorrow I will watch a movie.\n>\n> 毎週【まいしゅう】金曜日【きんようび】に映画【えいが】を **見【み】る** 。 Every Friday I watch a movie.\n>\n> 今夜【こんや】はレストランで夕食【ゆうしょく】を **食【た】べる** 。 Tonight I will have dinner at a\n> restaurant.\n>\n> 夕食【ゆうしょく】をいつもレストランで **食【た】べる** 。 I always have dinner at a restaurant.\n\nIn English the auxiliary \"will\" marks the future tense, but Japanese doesn't\ndiscriminate between the two usages shown above, so the same plain form 見【み】る\nand 食【た】べる can satisfy both cases.\n\nYour Q&A example is an instance where the non-past (plain) form of the verb\nshows a habitual action (I'm going to edit it a bit):\n\n> Q: 退屈【たいくつ】なときは、何【なに】を **する** ？ What do you do when you're bored?\n>\n> A: 普段【ふだん】は映画【えいが】を見【み】たり、漫画【まんが】を読【よ】んだり **する** 。 Usually I watch movies or\n> read manga.\n\nSo when you have a verb all by its lonesome without anything to tell you which\nof the two cases it fits into (like 映画【えいが】を見【み】る), you kind of have to guess.\nI usually fall back on translating it into the English future tense unless I\nhave reason to believe it's better left as English present.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T17:45:25.133", "id": "1370", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T14:58:51.240", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1369", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 }, { "body": "It can go either way. I think it struck you as odd because that example lacks\nany context.\n\n> 映画学のクラスでは何をする？What do you do in film class? \n> 映画を見る。Watch movies.\n>\n> 授業が終わったら何をするの？What are you going to do after class? \n> 映画を見る。[I will] Watch movies.\n\nIn Japanese they call it 辞書形 (dictionary form), and in English it's the\n[imperfective](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_verb_conjugations_and_adjective_declensions&oldid=432507568#Imperfective).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T17:46:00.147", "id": "1371", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-20T17:46:00.147", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "1369", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "This form is called in many names: the base form, the dictionary form, the\nimperfect form (which is a rather inaccurate term), and the non-past form. Its\nJapanese name (which you'll commonly find used on Japanese.SE.com) is\n[終止形]{しゅうしけい}, but that term refers to the shape of this form (i.e. how it\nconjugates) and not to its meaning.\n\nThe broadest (and probably only sufficient) definition of this form, is that\nit is unmarked for time and completion of the action. In essence, it's the\nmost generic form, that tells us very little - if you want more information,\nyou'd have to use other forms or glean it by looking at adverbs and judging\nfrom the context.\n\nThe base form does have some common uses:\n\n 1. **Generic present:** This is not truly \"present\" in the meaning that the event is ongoing now (for that meaning you'd have to use the present progressive tense: ～ている), but it rather refers to things that happen in general. This is very similar to the English present simple: When you say \"I read books\" you're definitely not saying that you're engaged **right now** in the reading of multiple books (at once?). You're just saying that's something that happens in general: it happened in the past, and it will probably happen again in the future. Please note, though, that there are many specific differences between the English simple tense and this: for instance, in English you generally say \"I live in New York\", but in Japanese you'd say: \n\n> 東京に住んでいる.\n\n 2. **Unmarked relative present:** It's also very common to skip using the longer present progressive tense when it appears in relative clauses and use the base form directly. That's why the base form 住む (which is very rare in the main sentence), is mostly found in relative clauses.\n\n 3. In some narrative styles, especially prose, the base form can be used to indicate a vivid experience, even if it happened in the past. This is very much like the \"so-and-so\" present in English in colloquial narratives like \"So I open the door and then he comes in and starts yelling at me [...]\". The only difference is that these narratives are considered unsophisticated or even \"incorrect grammar\" in English (and in many other Western languages that have them), while in Japanese this is perfectly excellent prose, and you'll find in it in practically any novel, pulp or masterpiece. Strangely enough, some of the Japanese people I've asked never noticed that this is actually the so-called \"present tense\" used in novels, and this very important function is also neglected in most textbooks.\n\n 4. **Future events:** Generally, Japanese doesn't grammatically distinguish events that have not yet taken place (i.e. future events) from events that have already been started. It only distinguishes events that are ongoing right now (the present progressive tense) and events that are already completed (the various past and perfect tenses, especially the た tense), but it doesn't distinguish future events (as long as they are quite certain) from events that happen in general or are otherwise unmarked for time.\n\nThe only way to distinguish the future from the general present in Japanese is\nto look at contextual cues and adverbs that point to time. Contextual cues are\neasy - if you think the speaker is talking about the future based on what he\npreviously said, then he probably is, case closed. Time adverbs are also very\neasy in some cases: if you hear the adverb 明日 (\"tomorrow\") then the sentence\nis about tomorrow, case closed. You should also pay attention to other adverbs\nsuch as また or かならず, that most of the times firmly set the sentence in the\nfuture.\n\nCompletely out of context, `映画を見る` just means \"seeing a film\". Yeah, it\ndoesn't have any time at all, like the English gerund in this case. Add\ncontext or more adverbs and complements to the sentence, and things get\nclearer:\n\n> * その映画は明日見るよ。 _I'll see that film **tomorrow**._\n> * 映画を見るのは楽しいですね。 _Seeing films is fun, isn't it?_\n> * 毎週、映画館に行って映画を見る。 _ **Every week** , I go to the cinema and see a film._\n>", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T21:07:29.663", "id": "1374", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-31T10:26:10.580", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-31T10:26:10.580", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1369", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1376", "answer_count": 1, "body": "(I apologize if this question is off-topic on Japanese.SE or is more suitable\nfor SuperUser).\n\nI like to write computer notes about what I learn in Japanese. From time to\ntime, I would like to be able to include in my text a given radical, say\nkokoro **心** , which takes several graphic forms when used as an element in a\nmore complex kanji, for instance .\n\nI did not succeed on my system (Mac OS X 10.7) to find the glyphs for these\nvariants exactly as I would like them (I would also be interested about how to\ndo this on Windows 7 or Linux).\n\nI first tried the name of the kanji from which the radical is derived. Then I\ntried to use the japanese name for them, such as risshinben (as in 快) and\nshitagokoro (as in 志), hoping that the hiragana or katakana input would\nrecognize them and propose me their representation, but it did not work.\n\nSo I looked into the Full Japanese Character Table, under the \"by radical\"\ntab, and found at least a version of each of them : 忄 (CJK 5FC4) and 㣺 (CJK\n38FA) with the correct kun readings. I have them now as favorites but do I\nneed to do that for all radicals? Do I need to register all of them in a user\ndictionary? I would imagine that I am not the only one who wants to do use\nthem.\n\nBesides, the versions I have found are not suited for all occasions: they are\ncentered on a standard kanji square. If I want them to appear near to a\nplaceholder, or demonstrate their proportion to the rest of a typical kanji, I\nhave to make complicated adjustments, depending on my use and the kind of\nradical.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-20T22:03:25.403", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1375", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:28:49.807", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:28:49.807", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "126", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "radicals", "input-method" ], "title": "How can you input and display a radical in a computer text document?", "view_count": 1316 }

[ { "body": "Someone collected those with unicode points.\n\n> <http://shimapucchi.blog93.fc2.com/blog-entry-321.html> \n> <http://tokyo.cool.ne.jp/kondo_hiro/proverb/busyu/busyu.htm> \n> <http://www.efontshop.com/feaddfont/help/busyu_list.htm> \n> <http://www.kanjijiten.net/radical/index.html> (page is in shift-jis\n> encoding) \n> <http://www.kanjikentei.jp/list/bushubetsu/>\n\nor some at wikipedia\n\n>\n> [http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/部首](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%83%A8%E9%A6%96)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T01:49:31.840", "id": "1376", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T01:55:01.120", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-21T01:55:01.120", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1375", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1379", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I frequently pass by an elderly neighbor who lives in the same apartment when\ncoming home from a dog walk. He's kind of an in-house carpenter for the\nbuilding and is frequently seen around the garage. I usually just nod to him\nwith a small murmur that sounds like こんにちは.\n\nNow this chap is not exactly as close as a family, so `ただいま` doesn't quite\nfeel right. But he's more on a talking basis rather than a higher-up, which\nrules out `ただいま戻りました`. I've seen `ただいまです` used in the Internets but not in\nspoken Japanese.\n\nWhat's the appropriate words of greeting in this situation?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T02:28:00.093", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1377", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-08T11:29:27.793", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-21T22:38:03.020", "last_editor_user_id": "29", "owner_user_id": "128", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "word-choice", "honorifics", "greetings" ], "title": "Appropriate ただいま-like greeting for a neighbor?", "view_count": 1278 }

[ { "body": "I think you may be totally ok with こんにちは.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T03:14:35.950", "id": "1378", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T03:14:35.950", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1377", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "ただいま is definitely not the right word for this situation.\n\nIt is exclusively used when arriving **home** (typically, when you step inside\nthe house). Sometimes, by extension, it can be used when coming back from a\ntrip and stepping into the airport or the train station of your destination,\ntalking to your loved ones waiting for you (or perhaps over the phone).\n\nAs you probably know, it is usually paired with お帰り【おかえり】/お帰りなさい【おかえりなさい】\n(\"welcome home\"), which can be used in slightly wider situations (famously,\nNarita airport \"welcomes [foreign travellers] to Japan\", but wishes \"お帰りなさい\"\nto its fellow Japanese citizen).\n\nBut in all cases, ただいま is most definitely used to address your inner circle\n(most typically, your companion and/or kids). Saying that to a stranger,\nhowever friendly, would be akin to saying \"Honey, I'm home\" to your building\nmanager ;-)\n\nAs Mark said: こんにちは/こんばんは/おはようございます is probably the most appropriate for a\nfriendly neighbour. On occasions, if you are coming home and he's going out,\nyou could give him some 行ってらっしゃい【いってらっしゃい】, but this might be better left to\nolder obaachans wishing _you_ a nice day.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T04:12:26.560", "id": "1379", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-08T11:29:27.793", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-08T11:29:27.793", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1377", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "Dave & Mark are both correct.\n\nPersonally tended to use どうもすみません to express surprise at our meeting, and then\npossibly followed by sucking air through the teeth and maybe a restrained\nこんにちは.\n\nThis seemed to do the trick with my landlord / office maintenance person /\nneighbours / etc.\n\nBTW, I've only heard ただいまです〜 in anime or from when said with a hint of irony.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T06:29:11.660", "id": "1384", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T06:29:11.660", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1377", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "As others said already, ただいま is just wrong in this situation: you're not\nannouncing people around you _in your house/lab/office_ that you're back, but\njust saluting someone who basically knows nothing about you and doesn't share\nany private space with you.\n\nAppropriate greetings for this kind of encounter with your neighbourhood range\nfrom こんにちは to いい天気ですね. I consider the latter to be even better: it's not\nreally a comment on the weather, just a way to say something when you have\nnothing else to say. Grandmothers meeting at bus stops are very good at\nsayings loads of things like that, without really engaging any conversation.\n\nPS: you _could_ say ただいま if you had left your neighbourhood for a few weeks,\nand upon meeting him, if he tells you \"welcome back\" during conversation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T07:24:51.633", "id": "1385", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T07:24:51.633", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1377", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1382", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've read that people usually change ない to ねー to make it more manly, like:\n\nしたくないよ becomes したくねーんだ\n\nSo basically i often heard questions ending with ない but have not heard anyone\nend a question with ねー\n\nHence this question: can we use ねー as a question?\n\nExample:\n\n[There's a party tomorrow]\n\n明日、行かない？ converted to 明日、行かねー？\n\nwhat about this: 明日、行かねーんだ？", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T04:42:36.507", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1380", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-11T20:14:09.367", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-11T20:14:09.367", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "grammar", "slang", "colloquial-language", "contractions", "spoken-language" ], "title": "can we use ねー as a question?", "view_count": 426 }

[ { "body": "As you say, ねー is a (very) informal, rather masculine, way of replacing ない at\nthe end of words.\n\nWorks for both verbs:\n\n行かない → 行かねー\n\nand い-adjectives (which are kind-of-verbs anyway, but let's not get into that\ndebate here):\n\n危ない【あぶない】→ アブねー\n\nin fact it also works with other \"-a\" kanas. E.g:\n\nヤバい → ヤベー\n\nAdding のだ/んだ as you do in your example is only warranted if you are making it\na strong assertion: 行かねーんだよ！\n\nAnd frankly, unless you spend your Saturday evenings loitering on the\nsidewalks of Sentâ-gai, you probably don't want to speak like that.\n\n**As a question** , it works just the same as the ない form (sort of a loose\nequivalent to the \"isn't it\" form in English):\n\n行かないか？ → 行かねーかー？\n\n... is \"grammatically\" correct (with or without \"明日\"), but rare (sounds really\nrough/rude to me). Probably because ねー is a fairly colloquial form, which is\nonly acceptable because it refers to yourself (and thus \"俺が行かねー\" is OK), but\nwhen you are asking the question form, you are using it on _somebody else_. If\nthat person is standing in front of you, no matter how close you are, this\ncould sound rather rude. Only acceptable context I can think of, would be\nreferring to an abstract third-party:\n\n誰か行かねーか？\n\nThis aside, the question form of ねー would mostly be used for **rhetorical**\nquestions:\n\n行かねーかー/行かねーかなー (\"Hmnn... Should I go?\")\n\nor \"semi-rhetorical\" questions like:\n\nアブねーなー？/アブねーかなー (\"isn't it kinda dangerous?\")", "comment_count": 15, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T05:31:54.773", "id": "1382", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T09:33:53.657", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-21T09:33:53.657", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1380", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1383", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Simplest example would be when you are getting a coffee and ask for a paper\ncup. It seems that both 紙の and 紙で are acceptable. What are the differences?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T05:04:43.310", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1381", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T05:44:22.727", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "399", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "particles" ], "title": "Difference between で and の when referring to \"usage\"", "view_count": 108 }

[ { "body": "My (non-native) intuition here is that by using の you are picking an attribute\nof the cup, which can really be any salient attribute it has. Syntactically,\nyou are just omitting the noun after the particle. By using で, on the other\nhand, you are choosing among a given set of options. I most frequently hear\nthis kind of で when picking a meal size (for example 小, 中 or 大).\n\nLook at it this way - you can also answer this question by saying 紙のカップで, but\nnot 紙のカップの.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T05:44:22.727", "id": "1383", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T05:44:22.727", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "318", "parent_id": "1381", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1387", "answer_count": 2, "body": "How do these two differ, for example:\n\n寂しそう vs 寂しげ\n\n楽しそう vs 楽しげ\n\n言いたそう vs 言いたげ\n\n大人げ vs 大人っぽい（...？ Not sure if this one works.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T09:43:38.067", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1386", "last_activity_date": "2015-10-19T00:03:00.863", "last_edit_date": "2015-10-19T00:03:00.863", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 26, "tags": [ "grammar", "suffixes" ], "title": "What is the usage of 〜げ and how does it differ from 〜そう or 〜っぽい?", "view_count": 5057 }

[ { "body": "They are the same (\"seems like\") but 〜げ has more of a connotation of 「それらしい」\nor 「っぽい」with the げ coming from the character 気 as in 気分. I remember it as\n\"that sort of feeling\".\n\nArguably this makes 〜げ more subjective whereas 〜そう is more objective but only\nso far as the observation is shared with others in the same/similar view point\nas the speaker.\n\n**A word about usage:-** You commonly use 〜げ when expressing your feelings. It\ncomes from the kanji 気, so this serves as a reminder. It matters \"what\" you\nare talking about, not just that an adjective comes before it.\n\n**Examples revised:-**\n\nSo observing the rule about expressing your feelings.\n\n> 1A. **寂しそうな** 顔をしている = OK (with a lonely face) \n> 1B. **寂しげな** 顔をしている = OK\n>\n> 2A. **楽しそうな** 雰囲気 = OK (seemingly enjoyable atmosphere) \n> 2B. **楽しげな** 雰囲気 = OK\n>\n> 3A. 言いたそう = OK (with a desire to say ...) \n> 3B. 言いたげ = OK (NB: this is common, but not widely used with other verbs)\n>\n> 4A. 大人っぽい = OK \n> 4B. 大人げ = (corrected: this is ok as in 大人がある or 大人げない or\n\nAlternatively these can be followed by に, as in 言いたげに見ている (looking with an\nexpression of wanting to say something).\n\n**Origins:-** Apparently this word has been around for sometime in certain\nparts of Japan (Ref: [http://otasuke.goo-\nnet.com/qa5447963.html?order=DESC&by=datetime](http://otasuke.goo-\nnet.com/qa5447963.html?order=DESC&by=datetime) > Answer 2), but some consider\nit to be 若者言葉 that is making the transition to accepted vocabulary (Ref:\n<http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%8B%A5%E8%80%85%E8%A8%80%E8%91%890> \\+ own\nexperience)", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T10:18:12.000", "id": "1387", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-09T09:21:19.273", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1386", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "Well, basically ADJ-I's radical + げ means some sort of \"with adj-as-a-noun\";\nit turns your adjective into a noun, expresses appearance. To make myself\nclear, let's see a few examples taken from the net:\n\n> 六本木でちょっと変わった楽しげな居酒屋 \n> A bar in Roppongi with a somehow different enjoyable atmosphere\n>\n> レッドカーペット出演芸人が寂しげに嘆く \n> the artists walking the red carpet sigh with a sad look.\n\nEven though I've never encountered it, I infer that \"言いたげ\" means \"with the\napparent wish to say\" (since the base was \"言いたい\", \"I want to say\"). In both\ncases, this is clearly something that you are observing. I think that you will\nmostly encounter げ+に or げ+な.\n\nそう, on the other hand, is trickier. It's either your impression, or something\nyou've heard.\n\n> 明日は雨が降るそうです。 \n> Tomorrow, it will rain (according to the weather forecast I heard)\n>\n> 明日は雨が降りそうです。 \n> Tomorrow, it looks like it is going to rain (that's my feeling, I might be\n> wrong).\n>\n> かれは嬉しそうです。 \n> He seems happy, he's happy.\n>\n> かれは嬉しいそうです。 \n> I heard he's happy.\n\nSimilarly,\n\n> かれはXXXを言いたそうです。 \n> I think he's trying to say something. (nota: I don't think it's natural, I\n> have almost never heard this kind of sentence).\n>\n> かれはXXXを言いたいそうです。 \n> I heard he wants to say something.\n\nFor the last one, I'd say it doesn't work, since you're working with a noun.\nAnd appearance or hearsays with nouns is another topic…", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T10:24:04.460", "id": "1388", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-09T09:24:01.767", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-09T09:24:01.767", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1386", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1391", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I was wondering what the meaning of かい and き is for the Google Summer Solstice\nDoodle pictured here: \n\nI'm guessing it has some relation to summer, but what?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T14:52:48.923", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1389", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T17:08:19.017", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "402", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "colloquial-language", "phrases" ], "title": "What is the meaning of かい and き in Google's Summer Solstice Doodle?", "view_count": 250 }

[ { "body": "快気 probably. \"Good feeling\". Or maybe 怪奇 for \"weird\", i.e., those strange pig-\nrabbits.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T15:04:10.137", "id": "1390", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T15:04:10.137", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1389", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Unfortunately, it is unlikely that these Japanese letters have anything to do\nwith summer.\n\nThese are mascots of [Kaikai Kiki Co.,\nLtd.](http://english.kaikaikiki.co.jp/whatskaikaikiki/), a company run by\n[Takashi Murakami](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takashi_Murakami), the artist\nwho painted this Google Doodle. Also note that the same mascots appear in the\n[Winter Solstice Doodle](http://www.google.co.za/webhp?hl=en), too.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T15:22:04.007", "id": "1391", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T17:08:19.017", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-21T17:08:19.017", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1389", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1394", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Today I was laughing my heads off reading puns at\n[言いまつがい](http://www.1101.com/iimatugai/), which is a collection of user-\ncontributed accidental puns and other mistakes.\n\nIt struck me that I never experienced this kind of uncontrollable laughter\nwith puns in English. Is it possible that the Japanese language have more room\nto generate possible puns, raising the number of funny puns?\n\nI'd be happy to be proven wrong, but then again, I'm equally curious to know\nwhat language features of Japanese make it such a prolific pun producer.\n\n* * *\n\nNote: [Sananmuunnos](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sananmuunnos), a sort of\nverbal play in the Finnish language, looks close to Japanese puns (だじゃれ).\nWikipedia explains why Finnish has a large pool of possible spoonerisms:\n\n> As Finnish is a mora-divided language, it is morae that are exchanged, not\n> syllables. Also, Finnish inflectional and derivational morphology is\n> extensive, thus applying a suffix from another word often produces a valid\n> word. This leads to large number of possible spoonerisms.\n\nI don't understand all of this, but this is the kind of explanation I'm\nlooking for.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T15:23:29.793", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1392", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T21:05:47.580", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-09T21:05:47.580", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "128", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "phonology", "puns" ], "title": "Is Japanese particularly good for punning/spoonerisms? If so, why?", "view_count": 1700 }

[ { "body": "I think you're not really talking about puns here, but about something that's\nsomewhat related, but still quite different: you're talking about slips-of-\ntongue (いいまちがい) that accidentally turn out to mean something else. Puns are\nquite different, since they are always intentional, and they can have multiple\nmeanings either because they sound the same as something else ( **homophonic\npuns** ) or they just use one or more words that have multiple meanings (\n**homonymic puns** ). You can read more about these distinctions (and others)\nin [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun).\n\nSlips-of-tongue (like the ones in 言いまつがい) are not only unintentional - they\nalso don't have rely on double meaning at all. In this case expression gets\nanother meaning just because it's mispronounced, not because there's another\nexpression with a different meaning that sounds the same (though it still\nhappen).\n\nJapanese has many such slips-of-tongue (as well as many homophonic puns) for\nthe same reasons Finnish has - and it's not surprising because both languages\nare [typologically](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_typology) very\nsimilar:\n\n * Both languages have moraic structure which means they are not divided to syllables (as in Eng-lish and most Eu-ro-pe-an languages) but to units called _moras_ (or _morae_ ), which always have the same length (while some syllables in English are shorter or longer than others). As far as I know, in Finnish, the word _sauna_ (which comes from Finnish of course :)) is divided just as in Japanese: sa-u-na (and not sau-na, as it is divided by its English pronunciation).\n\n * Both languages have [agglutinative morphology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutinative_language), that is, words are built by attaching many different prefixes and suffixes - this is unlike English and other Indo-European languages (note that Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian and Basque are the only major languages in Europe that are not Indo-European) where verbs and nouns usually have just a single grammatical ending (and that ending may indicate person, number and tense in the same time, for instance), and very rarely have more than one or two derivational affixes (like _un-_ or _-ness_ ) attached to a word. In Japanese, in contrast, you can build words such as 見回し出したくなければ which are made of maybe 10 different components: mi-mawas-i-ta-ku-na-ku-na-kere-ba, and have a very complex meaning (if you don't want to look around).\n\n * Both languages have a more limited phonology than English - that is, they have far less possible distinct sound combinations. This is probably the most important feature, since it means that if you randomly change a word, you're more likely to land on an existing word that means something else - when there are less possible sound combinations, words have to get more crowded. :)", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T17:15:37.900", "id": "1394", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-21T17:15:37.900", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1392", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "I will just comment one subquestion: \"Is it possible that the Japanese\nlanguage have more room to generate possible puns, raising the number of funny\npuns?\".\n\nWell, as far as I experienced it, puns are not that well received by the\nJapanese audience… As it is _very_ easy to do, doing puns in Japanese isn't a\nhighly acclaimed knowledge you can boast about. Besides a few smiles, you may\nmostly be greeted with something like \"さむい\" (which you could translate as\n\"doh\", or \"dude…\") or \"おやじギャグ\" (which is something like \"don't you have\nanything better to do?\").\n\nSo, while you can probably raise the number of puns by using this language,\nraising the number of _funny_ puns is something that may not be obvious,\nculturally speaking…\n\n(PS: there _are_ a few good play on words, such as ねぇちゃんとお風呂に入った？)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T02:38:06.320", "id": "1399", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T02:38:06.320", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1392", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1396", "answer_count": 1, "body": "As [Derek mentioned in his\npostscript](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1363/if-v-isnt-a-\ngerund-then-what-is-it/1366#1366), both こと and の are nominalizers that can\nturn a verb into a noun.\n\n> ピアノを **弾く【ひく】** 。 I **play** the piano.\n>\n> ピアノを **弾く【ひく】の** が好き【すき】です。 I like **playing** the piano.\n>\n> ピアノを **弾く【ひく】こと** が好き【すき】だ。 I like **playing** the piano.\n\nI had always thought こと was just a more formal version of の, but it seems\nthat's not the case:\n\n> As a quick rule, の is generally used when the outer action happens at the\n> same place or time as the inner action, while こと is generally used when the\n> two can be considered from a removed standpoint lacking immediacy.\n\nCan someone elaborate more on the distinction between こと and の?\n\nWhich version is more appropriate when the outer verb is an emotion verb such\nas 好き【すき】、思う【おもう】、考える【かんがえる】, etc?\n\nIs こと generally more preferred in formal writing?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T20:06:08.470", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1395", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-27T19:31:27.170", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "162", "post_type": "question", "score": 128, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "verbs", "nominalization" ], "title": "What is the difference between the nominalizers こと and の?", "view_count": 64103 }

[ { "body": "(This question had to show up eventually… :) For my answer, I'll be borrowing\nmost example sentences and categorizations from pages 176-179 of\n[初級【しょきゅう】を教【おし】える人【ひと】のための日本語【にほんご】文法【ぶんぽう】ハンドブック](http://books.google.com/books?id=l-C4H2sBJlEC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false)\nand from [this\nPDF](http://www.jpf.go.jp/j/urawa/j_rsorcs/textbook/setsumei_pdf/setsumei17_3.pdf).\n\n## Cases where only の is allowed\n\n 1. When the following verb deals with one of the senses: 聞く【きく】, 聞こえる【きこえる】, 見る【みる】, 見える【みえる】, 感じる【かんじる】, and so on.\n\n> 隣【となり】の家【いえ】でだれかが叫ぶ【さけぶ】 **の** が聞こえた【きこえた】。 I could hear someone shouting in\n> the house next door.\n>\n> 船【ふね】の中【なか】から、魚【さかな】が泳いでいる【およいでいる】 **の** が見えます【みえます】。 From inside the boat,\n> I can see fish swimming.\n\n 2. When the following clause occurs in concert with the preceding clause: 待つ【まつ】, 手伝う【てつだう】, じゃまする, and so on.\n\n> テニスコートが乾く【かわく】 **の** を待っています【まっています】。 I'm waiting for the tennis court to\n> dry.\n>\n> このパソコンを運ぶ【はこぶ】 **の** を手伝ってください【てつだってください】。 Please help me carry this\n> computer.\n\n 3. When the following verb is one of 止める【とめる】, やめる, and so on.\n\n> 彼【かれ】が出て【でて】行こう【いこう】とする **の** を止めました【とめました】。 I stopped him trying to leave.\n>\n> タバコを吸う【すう】 **の** をやめましょう。 Stop smoking.\n\nAs you can see, the common thread running through these cases is that there is\nan **immediacy of time and/or location**. That is, the outer clause\nnecessarily occurs at the same time and/or same location as the inner clause.\n\n## Cases where only こと is allowed\n\n 1. When the following verb deals with communication or internal thoughts: 話す【はなす】, 伝える【つたえる】, 約束する【やくそくする】, 祈る【いのる】, 希望する【きぼうする】, and so on.\n\n> ゼミに出られない【でられない】 **こと** を先生【せんせい】に伝えてください【つたえてください】。 Please tell the teacher\n> I can't make it to the seminar.\n>\n> 復興【ふっこう】が速く【はやく】進む【すすむ】 **こと** を祈っています【いのっています】。 I'm praying that the\n> recovery proceeds quickly.\n\n 2. When the following clause is one of だ, です, or である.\n\n> 私【わたし】の趣味【しゅみ】は映画【えいが】を見る【みる】 **こと** です。 My hobby is watching movies.\n\n(This is because if の were used, it would be confused with the ～のだ pattern.)\n\n 3. When the こと is part of a set pattern such as ことができる, ことがある, ことにする, ことになる, and so on.\n\n> 私【わたし】は外国【がいこく】で暮らした【くらした】 **こと** があります。 I've lived in a foreign country\n> before.\n>\n> あれを見なかった【みなかった】 **こと** にする。 I'm going to pretend I didn't see that.\n\nWith こと, the immediacy expressed by の is lost, and matters are considered from\na **more abstract, removed** standpoint.\n\n## Cases where both are allowed\n\n**In general** , for any cases not covered in the above lists, you can use\neither こと or の, **but** there are some times when you might choose one over\nthe other. For example, consider this pair of sentences from [a page in the\n日本語Q&A at ALC](http://home.alc.co.jp/db/owa/jpn_npa?stage=2&sn=9):\n\n> 僕【ぼく】はこうしてのんびり映画【えいが】を観る【みる】 **こと** が好きだ【すきだ】。 I like relaxing with a movie\n> like this.\n>\n> 僕【ぼく】はこうしてのんびり映画【えいが】を観る【みる】 **の** が好きだ【すきだ】。 I like relaxing with a movie\n> like this.\n\nThe key here is the こうして (\"like this\"), which indicates the speaker is making\na statement about something happening right now. Thus the statement has the\nimmediacy of time and place that の is best for. Using こと here isn't\ntechnically incorrect, but it sounds a little unnatural, so の is the better\noption.\n\n## Non-nominalizing uses of の\n\nAs a side note, there was one example sentence in the PDF I linked which\ndoesn't belong, in my opinion:\n\n> 毎月【まいつき】おこづかいを貯金している【ちょきんしている】 **の** は、新しい【あたらしい】スケートボードを買いたい【かいたい】からです。 The\n> reason I'm saving my allowance every month is because I want to buy a new\n> skateboard.\n\nThis use of の is the \"anticipatory の\" pattern. In this sentence, の could be\nreplaced with the more specific 理由【りゆう】. Another example:\n\n> 日本【にほん】にはじめて行った【いった】 **の** は5年【ねん】前【まえ】です。 The first time I went to Japan\n> was five years ago.\n\nの could be replaced with 時【とき】 here.", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-21T21:04:59.777", "id": "1396", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-27T19:31:27.170", "last_edit_date": "2018-05-27T19:31:27.170", "last_editor_user_id": "27987", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1395", "post_type": "answer", "score": 132 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1398", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I found this phrase 「家族に突っ込まれまくった」 and I believe it means \"[my] family really\nstuck it [to me]\" but I'm not familiar with the suffix まくる.\n\nAny examples and clarifications would be appreciated.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T01:28:11.667", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1397", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T02:28:06.997", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "suffixes" ], "title": "～まくる as a suffix, what does it mean and how is it used?", "view_count": 1595 }

[ { "body": "Ok, first, I _think_ your sentence translates as \"my family put me in a very\nbad situation.\" If that's what you meant, forgive my bad English.\n\nThen, for \"まくる\", a quick glance at ALC gave me nice examples to share with\nyou:\n\n～に長々としゃべりまくる: talk ~ to death \n～のことであせりまくる: panic wildly about \n～をしゃべりまくる: blat \n(人）についてペラペラしゃべりまくる: gush over \nエラーを出しまくる: give someone a bunch of errors (a program would)\n\nI guess this is helps you understand the nuance of まくる.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T02:28:06.997", "id": "1398", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T02:28:06.997", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1397", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1421", "answer_count": 2, "body": "There are three unique words that begin with こころ～:\n\n```\n\n 快い　（こころよい）、　試みる　（こころみる）、　志　（こころざし）\n \n```\n\nWhat is the origin of these words in relation to \"heart/spirit/mind\", if\nany??? Or is this just something coincidental? Why do only two of them have\nこころ in the kanji itself, but not the third??\n\nBy their meanings, I can kind of see how they relate to \"heart/spirit/mind\",\nbut why are there only three such words that became so unique (I'm discounting\nones like 心がけ、心構え、etc.)???", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T04:10:27.720", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1400", "last_activity_date": "2017-06-09T01:56:20.483", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-24T21:46:35.727", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "etymology" ], "title": "Origin/etymology of こころ～ words", "view_count": 924 }

[ { "body": "According to the Japanese dictionary of goo, 試みる is literally \"心見る\". It is\nabout checking or verifying (見る) the essence (心) of something. My guess is\nthen that \"こころみる\" is a Japanese word, whose meaning in Chinese was \"試\". So, as\nfor many other words, it's just a Japanese word on its Chinese character\n(which, even if it has the same meaning, may not have the same roots, hence no\n\"こころ\" in it.)\n\nFor the two others, well, 「心良い」is a valid spelling for one of the meanings\n(dare I say homonyms) of 快い meaning \"good nature\", and \"志\" is something you\ndecided from your heart or a conviction.\n\nI guess that's the answer to your first question.\n\nThe more you encounter vocabulary, the more you will encounter such words that\nembed another. I can't think of another example for こころ, nor any other\n\"subword\", but I can assure you there are quite a few, if not many.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T04:48:53.680", "id": "1401", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T04:48:53.680", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1400", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "All these words are obviously based on 心, although they use different kanji\ntoday. You have to keep in mind that kanji is not natively Japanese, but\nrather a but rather a bunch of Chinese characters representing Chinese words\nwith different semantic scopes than their Japanese counterparts. In the early\ndays of Japanese writing, mostly everything that wasn't poetry was written in\na style called [kanbun](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanbun), where it was\npractically translated into Chinese, and could be translated back into\nJapanese when reading.\n\nYou can read more about it in this thread: \n[Nuances between the different kanji spellings of あける：明ける vs. 開ける vs.\n空ける](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1229/nuances-between-the-\ndifferent-kanji-spellings-of-vs-vs/1236#1236)\n\nWhat happened with 快い et. al., is not different than what happened with many\nother words, such has 湖. I'll use 湖 as an example, since it's not abstract at\nall, and thus it's much easier to explain. ;)\n\nIn Old Japanese (and still today), the word for lake was just a compound of\nthe word [水]{みず}, _water_ (and more specifically fresh water, since salt water\nis [潮]{しお}), and [海]{うみ}, _sea_. Chinese, on the other hand, had an entirely\nunrelated words for \"water\", \"sea\" and \"lake\", and when translating to Chinese\n(for kanbun), Japanese writers had to use the proper Chinese character 湖 -\nthey couldn't make a compound like 水海, since it didn't mean anything in\nChinese. Later, the character 湖 stuck as the accepted character for みずうみ,\nalthough it was clear to anyone that this word comes from 水 + 海. For the very\nsame reason, salt (塩) and salt water (潮) ended up being written with two\ndifferent kanji although they used to be the same word.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T22:15:26.007", "id": "1421", "last_activity_date": "2017-06-09T01:56:20.483", "last_edit_date": "2017-06-09T01:56:20.483", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1400", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1408", "answer_count": 3, "body": "This is a bit of an _ad hoc_ question, but still should be well within the\nscope of JLU, so here goes:\n\nWhile trying to come up with [ideas for our new logo in the meta\ngroup](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/286/new-logo-for-\njapanese-language-usage/290#290) ( _subliminal message_ : go and\nparticipate!), the idea of an inkan-like 2x2 kanji logo was bounced around:\n\n```\n\n 用 日\n 法 語\n \n```\n\n(read vertically)\n\nThe design Derek made looks quite spiffy, but I am having some light doubt\nabout the use of \"日語\" as a stand-in for \"日本語\" (for balance and style, using\nthe full 3-kanji compound is not really an option). While the meaning is quite\nobvious, I wonder how accepted this \"abbreviation\" is, and whether it would\nlook natural to a native.\n\nMy question is: has anybody ever encountered 日語 used to mean 日本語 in a similar\ncontext? Do you have any example to point me to that could put my worries to\nrest?\n\nAlternatively: can you think of any good two-kanji compound to say the same\nthing? (I _did_ think of 和語, but my dictionaries say it has a specific\nmeaning, different from just \"Japanese language\").", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T05:32:55.413", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1402", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T12:42:23.200", "last_edit_date": "2017-03-16T15:48:25.793", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "kanji", "abbreviations" ], "title": "Is 日語 a good two-kanji stand-in for 日本語 (\"Japanese language\")?", "view_count": 951 }

[ { "body": "I have at least four ideas, sorted by incremental order of preference:\n国語、邦字、邦語、邦文. \nHowever, the average learner is unlikely to recognize them.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T05:38:57.893", "id": "1403", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T05:38:57.893", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1402", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I personally think 日語 is more look like chinese word for 日本語 to me. But as a\ntwo letter word, I still think it is a good one. Japanese use 国語 but that's a\nkind of meaning national language, which does not specifically saying about\nJapanese Language.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T06:31:35.477", "id": "1404", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T06:39:39.403", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-22T06:39:39.403", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1402", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I do not think that I have ever seen 日語 for 日本語 in Japanese. Both\n[Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%97%A5%E8%AA%9E&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=114896500000)\nand\n[Daijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%97%A5%E8%AA%9E&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0)\nlist the word 日語 with the meaning “the Japanese language,” but Daijirin notes\nthat the word is used in Chinese, Korean and so on. Indeed 日語 sounds like a\nChinese word to me.\n\nThere are a few words which mean almost the same thing as 日本語:\n\n * 国語 (こくご): Literally means “national language,” but it means the Japanese language. For example, classes on the Japanese language at school are called 国語, and the study of the Japanese language is called either 国語学 or 日本語学 at universities.\n * 邦語 (ほうご): The same as 国語.\n * 和文 (わぶん): Means “text written in Japanese.” For example, Japanese fonts are often called 和文フォント.\n * 邦文 (ほうぶん): Literally means “national text,” but it is used synonymously to 和文.\n\nHowever, note that it is usually called 日本語, and if you use another word, it\ncan imply something.\n\nProbably I should write my opinion about the logo on meta, but I will continue\nhere. As far as the logo is concerned, honestly, I do not think that any of\nthese replacements works. 日語 sounds like a Chinese word, and I get a\ncontradictory impression. I feel that 国語 and 邦語 (and 邦文) have an unnecessary\nfocus on “the national” language which does not really make sense on an\ninternational website. 和文 and 邦文 are slightly off because they mean not the\nlanguage itself but the text written in Japanese. Does 日本語 with the lower left\ncorner left blank really look bad?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T12:42:23.200", "id": "1408", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T12:42:23.200", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1402", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1407", "answer_count": 2, "body": "If someone says それだけ、食べないでください, does it mean:\n\n 1. Please don't eat only that [eat other things too!]\n\nor\n\n 2. [You can eat anything you like but] only that, please don't eat it.\n\n* * *\n\nWhat about それだけ、たべてください? Does it mean:\n\n 1. Please eat only that [and don't eat anything else].\n\nor\n\n 2. [I don't really care if you eat anything else but] only that, please eat it.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T08:56:53.023", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1405", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T01:17:48.837", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage" ], "title": "sometimes だけ gets mildly confusing..", "view_count": 384 }

[ { "body": "As the comments to the question state, I guess it's just very ambiguous. Real\nlife would probably provide you with something like \"everything else is ok,\nbut…\" or \"if there is no other choice but to do so, then…\"\n\nAnyway, without context, for the first sentence, I would lean towards \"please\ndon't eat this one\" (\"it's for the boss\").\n\nFor the second sentence, however, it just seems a bit weird to say \"please\nonly eat that\" :) One would rather say \"それだけ食べていいですよ\" (you may only eat this),\nso I would understand \"at least, eat that\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T09:48:18.427", "id": "1406", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T09:48:18.427", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1405", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "This is really ambiguous and depends on how it's stressed/paused:\n\n> それだけ食べないでください。 \n> \"Please don't eat _only_ that.\"\n>\n> それだけ、食べないでください。 \n> \"Please don't eat that. (Eat anything else.)\"\n\nThe actual sentence seems to have been this though:\n\n> それだけは、食べないでください。 \n> ^\n\nThat marks それだけ as the _topic_ , which clearly means _\" Please don't eat\nthat.\"_", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T10:06:06.643", "id": "1407", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T10:17:55.293", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "1405", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1413", "answer_count": 3, "body": "This question has come up on the side of at least a couple of other questions,\nbut I don't think it's been definitively answered, so let's see if we can come\nup with something solid.\n\nAfter going through the first ten pages of Google results for both \"ていてください\"\nand \"ていて下さい\" (very scientific, I know), I found 43 verbs and expressions that\nprecede these forms. The most common:\n\n```\n\n 待つ (まつ): 50 results\n 見る (みる): 33\n 楽しみにする (たのしみにする): 25\n 覚える or 憶える (おぼえる): 19\n 生きる (いきる): 9\n 期待する (きたいする): 5\n 見守る (みまもる): 4\n 強いる (しいる): 3\n 離れる (はなれる): 3\n 知る (しる): 3\n 思う (おもう): 3\n \n```\n\n待つ is somewhat expected, but there are some interesting entries here, such as\n生きる and 離れる. How is 生きてください different from 生きていてください, and likewise, how is\n離れてください different from 離れていてください? At a minimum, let's try to answer:\n\n 1. **What is the difference in nuance between these two?**\n 2. **When should you choose one over the other?**\n\nBonus points if you can draw from a trusted reference.\n\nRelated:\n\n * [What does the final て in 待ってて signify?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/948)\n * [deceze's answer for Am I coming or going? 戻ってくる vs 戻っていく](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1204/am-i-coming-or-going-vs/1208#1208)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T13:46:02.097", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1409", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T06:16:17.827", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "nuances", "て-form" ], "title": "What's the difference between ～てください and ～ていてください?", "view_count": 4148 }

[ { "body": "I think each verb is somewhat a case of its own, but generally speaking they\nall seem to relate somehow to the progressive nature of the ～ている form.\n\nIf we get to the specifics, here are my impressions, based on my experience,\nintuition and grammatical understanding (all of them seem to point to the same\nthing in this case, which is good). Sorry, no references now, but maybe I'll\ntry to search for some academic papers later. There's a good chance you can\nfind some on Google Scholar:\n\n * **生きていてください** \nI'm almost positive I've already heard or seen it somewhere. It seems to mean\nsomething along the lines of \"Please keep being alive\" or \"Please stay alive\",\ninstead of `生きてください` which means just \"Please live\", with an implied meaning\nsuch as \"living through something\" or \"choosing life over death\", but not\n\"staying alive\". According to Google, it's actually much more common than\n`生きてください`, and that's only natural, since in English too you'd usually ask\npeople to stay alive instead of just \"live\". :)\n\n * **離れていてください** \nThis is again the case of a request for keeping some state for a prolonged\nperiod instead of just doing a single action. I don't think I've encountered\nthis specific verb in this form (though it does seem very common according to\nGoogle), but it's easy to understand it as \"separate and remain separated\", or\nmaybe even more simply \"stay away\", \"keep distance\".\n\n * **覚えていてください** \n_Remember for a prolonged period_. Or as we'd probably say in English: _keep\nin mind_.\n\n * **見守っていてください** \n_Observe closely for a prolonged period_. Or idiomatically: _Keep an eye_.\n\n * **期待していてください** _Expect for a prolonged period_. Or idiomatically: _stay tuned_.\n\nYou've probably noticed how much I've had to resort to idioms in English to\ntranslate these Japanese phrases more accurately. That's because English\ndoesn't have an progressive imperative construction. And you may have also\nnoticed I heavily used the verbs _keep_ and _stay_ in most of the idioms I\ngave. That's because while English cannot express a progressive imperative, it\ncan always express a meaning of remaining in a certain state by using verbs\nsuch as _stay_ , _remain_ and _keep_. These verbs usually take an adjective or\nan adverb (including a preposition-as-adverb) and not another verb, so their\nuse is very idiomatic and not as regular as in Japanese.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T16:58:44.143", "id": "1413", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T16:58:44.143", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1409", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "Grammatically speaking, I totally and completely agree with Boaz Yaniv san.\n\nBut I guess Derek san might need ‘feeling’ when choosing the words.\n\nI would think this way only based on my experiences.\n\n## てください\n\ndoesn’t require the listener’s attention to the speaker’s request so much,\nbecause it refers to one point in time. Therefore, てくださいtends to be used in\neasy-going situations.\n\n * Time: now\n * Things: in front of your eyes\n * The speaker’s emotion: easy\n * The listener’s emotion: easy\n\n## ていてください\n\nrequires the listener’s attention very much. Also, the speaker pays more\nattention to the way the listener answers to his requirement. The speaker’s\nfeeling is ‘I’m always with you.’ This is because it refers to long time.\nTherefore, ていてくださいtends to be used in serious situations.\n\n * Time: from now to the future\n * Things: invisible\n * The speaker’s emotion: serious\n * The listener’s emotion: serious\n\nLet’s see some words out of your word collection. (Excuse me for you, you, you\nexpression.)\n\n## 待つ\n\nYour friends are walking on and on. You are left behind. You say 待ってください to\nthem. But they keep going. Then you say 待って（い）てください. (Your hope is growing\nstronger. You want to be with them and want them to wait until then. Your hope\nis sent to your friend by saying that.) (Of course you can say 待ってくださいagain,\nbut the feeling is a little calmer than 待っていてください)\n\nAnother 待ってくださいcommon situation. Your Japanese friends are speaking Japanese\nvery quickly and you can’t understand. Then you say 待ってください to interrupt their\nconversation. Another 待っていてくださいcommon situation. You have to go abroad on work\nfor a long time. Your girlfriend is home land without you. Then you say\n待っていてください. (I’ll soon be with you! Then we are going to get married!).\n\n## 生きる\n\nYou go to Japan for volunteer activity after a big earthquake. When you finish\nyour work, you say 強く生きてください to the local people. It’s a pretty normal\nsituation. The people accept your great kindness, because it is a kind\nfarewell phrase for such people. But if I were an affected person, I would be\nhappier to hear 元気で生きていてください. Some people might not feel such difference, but\nI would accept your be-with-you feeling. 生きてくださいsounds from distance for some\nreason. When I hear 生きていてください, I have a picture in my mind; you might come\nback to Japan in the future and we might drink to each other’s happiness!\n\n## 見守る\n\nYou are a celebrity. You got married with your girlfriend. In a press\nconference, you say 僕たちを温かく見守ってください to the audience. (Well, sometimes you say\n見守っていてください. But any celebrity has a pretending be-with-you feeling, I think.)\nAfter that, you hold a marriage party inviting your friends. You say\n僕たちを温かく見守っていてくださいto your friends. (Well, of course, you can say 見守ってください. But\nif you have a strong emotion, you will naturally say the longer phrase to\nexpress your feeling.\n\nAll in all, contexts are more important than rules to understand the meaning.\nSome people say there are no such differences between them. I understand the\nopinion in some points. But the core meaning of two phrases seems like this,\nat least to me. This might be a hypothesis, but it might be interesting to add\nsomething to it or correct it through your Japanese experience.\n\nNow, my English writing energy is up. Whew! I’m hoping you like this\nexplanation. Thank you.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T07:07:24.123", "id": "1475", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T08:15:31.610", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1409", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "**～てください** :\n\n * one-off request\n\n\n\n**～ていてください** :\n\n * asks for continued commitment to the requested action\n * the speaker may not be there during that time, but it's assumed that the two will meet again in the near or far future (and check back on the result)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T15:39:54.550", "id": "1477", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T15:39:54.550", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1409", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1411", "answer_count": 3, "body": "とても means \"very\" \n[好]{す}き means \"like\" \n[大好]{だいす}き means \"like very much\"\n\nIf I really like something can I use とてもとても大好きです ?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T14:23:04.077", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1410", "last_activity_date": "2021-09-02T01:35:51.293", "last_edit_date": "2021-09-02T01:35:51.293", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "300", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar", "adverbs" ], "title": "Can とても be used with [大好]{だいす}き or [大嫌]{だいきら}い?", "view_count": 6962 }

[ { "body": "[Google says\nyes](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A6%E3%82%82%E5%A4%A7%E5%A5%BD%E3%81%8D%E3%81%A7%E3%81%99%22),\nto the tune of 1 million hits. A lot of the time it's used to describe how\nmuch you like something (とても大好きなお店). I presume that you were asking \"Can you\nsay totemo daisuki desu to someone\". You can say that too (あなたがとても大好きです).\n\n[Totemo\ndaikirai](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A6%E3%82%82%E5%A4%A7%E5%AB%8C%E3%81%84%22)\ndoesn't have as big a number of hits in Google.\n\nSomeone else will have to confirm this, but it sounds sort of childish. Maybe\nbecause the feeling is so strong.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T16:01:52.233", "id": "1411", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T16:01:52.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "36", "parent_id": "1410", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "> can I use “Totemo totemo daisuki desu”?\n\nWhether you can use it or not depends on the context.\n\nI think that “totemo daisuki” is redundant and therefore it is better to use\neither “totemo suki” (without dai-) or “daisuki” (without totemo) when some\nformalness is required. However, in informal contexts, there is nothing wrong\nwith using the redundant expression to emphasize how much you like it. Using\nan informal expression can sometimes even imply that you really mean it (to\nthe extent that you do not care about avoiding redundant expressions).\n\nThe same applies to “totemo daikirai,” too.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T16:44:43.673", "id": "1412", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T16:44:43.673", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1410", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "I mean, totemo daisuki is in the lyrics of the Doraemon theme song, so... I\nwould say yes, you can use it...", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-09-01T23:59:19.377", "id": "89163", "last_activity_date": "2021-09-01T23:59:19.377", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "47054", "parent_id": "1410", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1422", "answer_count": 1, "body": "How did the character for \"leather\" - [革]{かわ ／ カク} - come to also convey the\nmeaning for \"newness\"? 広辞苑 lists one of the definitions (under かく) as\n`あらたまること, あらためること`, and we can see this in some of its associated 熟語: 変革, 改革,\n革新. Anyone know how this came to be?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T19:21:01.823", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1415", "last_activity_date": "2014-02-05T20:22:55.617", "last_edit_date": "2014-02-05T20:22:55.617", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "kanji", "etymology", "meaning" ], "title": "How did 革 \"leather\" come to mean newness?", "view_count": 1185 }

[ { "body": "The source for this dual meaning already exists in Chinese. 革 is originally a\npictograph of a stretched hide that is turned into leather. As a noun it meant\njust \"leather\", but as a verb it also meant \"stretching something flabby and\nmaking it taut\", which then was extended figuratively into \"making something\nold new\" and from there \"renewal\". Thus came all the meanings in compounds\nsuch as 革新, 改革 and 革命.\n\nSee e.g. **広辞苑** :\n\n> 解字象形｡\n> 動物の全身の皮をはぎ､さらしてぴんと広げた形｡たるんだものをぴんと張る意から､あらためる意に用いる。\n\nYou can also find a similar explanation online in Gogen-Allguide: \n<http://gogen-allguide.com/ka/kawa_hi.html>", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T22:27:01.317", "id": "1422", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-22T22:52:29.920", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-22T22:52:29.920", "last_editor_user_id": "153", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1415", "post_type": "answer", "score": 27 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "As I was studying vocabulary today, I happened to come across the titular 十干\nwhich are as follows:\n\n> [甲]{こう} • [乙]{おつ} • [丙]{へい} • [丁]{てい} • [戊]{ぼ} • [己]{き} • [庚]{こう} • [辛]{しん}\n> • [壬]{じん} • [癸]{き}\n\nThere's a somewhat lengthy definition near the middle of [this\npage.](http://ginjo.fc2web.com/117obikyuu/obikyuu.htm)\n\nI happened across this while looking up the word へい（塀 - wall), and the first\nentry in my プログレッシブ dictionary was 丙（へい）- showing the definition as \"3rd rank\"\nor a \"grade of C (in school)\". I proceeded to find that 甲 and 乙 are also used\nto mean a grade of A and B respectively.\n\nMy questions are: \n\n * Are these used in modern Japanese for ranking things??? If so, all of them, or just like the first 3??? And what kinds of things are ranked this way???\n * Is this a part of 尺貫法 or is it something completely separate???\n\n_[Side note: would anyone be interesting in making/helping to make a community\nwiki on 尺貫法? I find it strangely fascinating for some reason.]_", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T19:37:31.573", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1416", "last_activity_date": "2020-11-11T17:00:49.807", "last_edit_date": "2020-11-11T17:00:49.807", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "usage", "kanji", "history", "etymology" ], "title": "History of 十干（じっかん）and modern uses", "view_count": 639 }

[ { "body": "I use 甲 and 乙 when writing business-to-business **contracts** , meaning first\nparty, second party.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T07:40:47.123", "id": "1434", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T07:40:47.123", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "parent_id": "1416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "1. Sorry for that I'm sure the answer because of I can't find any references. However, as I know, it's not modern in Japanese ranking.\n 2. This system is not a 尺貫法. It is a sequence. It comes from Chinese: 天干 [(Celestial stem)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_stem).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T08:30:56.253", "id": "1436", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T08:30:56.253", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "148", "parent_id": "1416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "They used to be used to express (mathematical) variables until the western\ninfluence changed the custom to use western characters instead. It is still\nused where the tradition remains.\n\n * You can find them in traditional mathematics called 和算 especially on [算額](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AE%97%E9%A1%8D).\n * The cases that Nicolas mentions is actually a special case of the variable use. In contract, you do not use `甲乙` out of the blue. They do not mean first party, second party. They are preceded by a definition like: `賃借人 (以下甲とする)`.\n\nOther than as variables, it is used to mention some kind of orderings. Grading\nas you mentioned is one example.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-03-17T23:45:45.557", "id": "5037", "last_activity_date": "2012-03-17T23:45:45.557", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "In addition to what others have stated, below are three areas where I\nregularly see and use these:\n\n1: In Old Japanese, there were syllables that phonemically contrasted with\neach other such as ki1 / ki2, me1 / me2 etc. This is called 上代特殊仮名遣, and the\ndistinction essentially vanished at the start of Early Middle Japanese. In\npractice, the subscript 1 type is called 甲類 (kō-rui: type A or type 1) and the\nsubscript 2 type is called 乙類 (otsu-rui: type B or type 2).\n\n2: Reading of classical Chinese texts has a long history in Japan. This is\ncalled kambun (漢文). Due to syntax and grammatical difference, the order must\nbe changed for a text to be read as Japanese. The primary ordering marks are\n一二点 (ichini-ten) and レ点 (re-ten). In the former, one places numbers beside the\ncharacters to know how to read it. In more complex clauses, secondary,\ntertiary, and even quanternary marks are used to clarify the order. Secondary\nis 上・中・下 (上下点, jōge-ten), and tertiary is 甲・乙・丙・丁… (甲乙点, kōotsu-ten). While\nquite rare, in the most complex texts, a qunternary level using 天・地・人 called\n天地点 is also used.\n\n3: Old documents used a sexagenary cycle (干支 kanshi or eto) borrowed from\nChina to record days and years. This system combines the above 十干 (jikkan\n甲・乙・丙・丁・戊・己・庚・辛・壬・癸) with 十二支 (jūnishi 子・丑・寅・卯・辰・巳・午・未・申・酉・戌・亥). This produces\n60 pairs, each with a given order. For example, the 『続日本紀』 (Shoku-nihongi)\nbegins at 丁酉年 (hinototori or teiyū). This is number 34, and means any western\nyear that when divided by 60 results in a remainder or 37 (34 + 3). Hence,\n517, 577, 637, 697, 757, 814, 877 etc. In this case, it is the year 697.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-03-18T04:05:57.463", "id": "5038", "last_activity_date": "2012-03-18T08:36:13.693", "last_edit_date": "2012-03-18T08:36:13.693", "last_editor_user_id": "1141", "owner_user_id": "1141", "parent_id": "1416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "For example, both 悲しさ and 悲しみ are glossed as “sadness” in JMdict. What's the\ndifference?\n\nAccording to _A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar_ , 〜み “is more emotive\nand concrete characterization of some state”, while 〜さ “describes, in an\nanalytical manner, the degree of state represented by an adjective”.\n\nThe book uses a few examples to highlight the difference, but I can't make\nsense of it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T20:40:50.077", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1417", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-28T04:51:31.563", "last_edit_date": "2014-10-12T18:35:11.133", "last_editor_user_id": "3097", "owner_user_id": "414", "post_type": "question", "score": 40, "tags": [ "nuances", "adjectives", "suffixes", "nominalization" ], "title": "What is the difference between -さ and -み suffixes to make a noun out of an adjective?", "view_count": 12179 }

[ { "body": "`〜さ` seems to describe a \"measurable\" amount, while `〜み` seems to describe a\ngeneral concept of the adjective.\n\n> * 悲しみ - the general concept of sadness \n>\n> * 映画の悲しさ - the (amount of) sadness of that movie (possibly compared to\n> other movies).\n>\n\nThat's how I tend to compare them.\n\nAlso note that many of these types of adjective have corresponding verbs, such\nas `悲しむ`、`楽しむ`、`痛む`. The `～み` is just the stem of the `～ます` form, which is\noften used as a noun. So this might help distinguish them a little. For\nexample:\n\n> 帰り (the return), 踊り (a dance), 痛み (a pain), 楽しみ (enjoyment, fun)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T21:13:40.773", "id": "1418", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-31T23:07:01.847", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-31T23:07:01.847", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1417", "post_type": "answer", "score": 25 }, { "body": "They both mean the same thing but the nuance is as follows:\n\n```\n\n 〜さ (as in 悲しさ、楽しさ、痛さ) indicates a degree or an amount of 〜\n 〜み (as in 悲しみ、楽しみ、痛み）indicates a state of being\n \n```\n\nI find the following contrasting examples as definitive:\n\n> A:「痛さはどれくらいですか？」 = implies amount\n>\n> B:「痛み **の程** はどれくらいですか？」 = we add 程{ほど} to indicate an amount\n\nHowever, to make things easier (or harder) **B** is starting to imply \"an\namount\" too (I'll see if I can find an example).\n\nMy supposition is that **A** was originally \"the correct way\", but so many\npeople used the incorrect way that _it_ is becoming correct; _just like in\nEnglish, meh!_\n\nOn OKWave I found the following useful examples:\n\n```\n\n 「痛み」：　痛むこと、痛んでいる状態にあること = Pain, in a state of pain \n 「痛さ」：　どれだけ痛んでいるかの状態・程度 = A state indicating how much pain, an amount\n \n ○「私達の心の痛みがわかりますか」＝「私達の心が痛んでいることがわかりますか」\n => Do you understand that our hearts are pained (by this)?\n \n ○「私達の心の痛さがわかりますか」＝「私達の心がどれだけ痛んでいるかがわかりますか」\n => Do you understand exactly how much our hearts are pained (by this)?\n \n △「かなりの痛みだ」(NG)\n ○「かなりの痛さだ」＝ very painful\n \n ○「かなりの痛みがある」＝ very painful\n △「かなりの痛さがある」 (NG)\n \n Note, preceding「がある」the most appropriate option is「痛み」.\n \n ○「軽い痛みがある」＝ a little painful\n △「軽い痛さがある」 (NG)\n \n```\n\n(Source: <http://okwave.jp/qa/q6754018.html>)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T03:38:34.133", "id": "1429", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-28T04:51:31.563", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1417", "post_type": "answer", "score": 31 }, { "body": "the 悲しみ version could be re-written as 悲しく感じ, though not 100% accurate is a\nway to easily remember what the meaning is. This would be the feeling of\nsadness.\n\nさ i like to liken to 差, which means difference or level. So 悲しさ would be level\nof sadness", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T05:16:38.840", "id": "1431", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T05:16:38.840", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1417", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 7, "body": "I wanted to mention to a female staff member in a shop that I visit every day\nthat I had seen their photograph in the Shibuya shop. I was going to say:\n\n渋谷店であなたの写真を見た。\n\n..but あなた seemed too intimate. If I knew their name, I could have said, for\nexample:\n\n渋谷店で田中さんの写真を見た。\n\n..also きみ seemed too casual.\n\n渋谷店で君の写真を見た。\n\nWhat is the most natural way to refer to someone when you don't know their\nname and don't have a close relationship with them?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-22T23:08:54.273", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1423", "last_activity_date": "2014-07-10T23:06:15.227", "last_edit_date": "2012-06-28T01:00:34.933", "last_editor_user_id": "215", "owner_user_id": "215", "post_type": "question", "score": 33, "tags": [ "nuances" ], "title": "What is the most natural way to refer to someone when you don't know their name and don't have a close relationship with them?", "view_count": 8590 }

[ { "body": "Personally I would use ちなみに...渋谷で...写真見たよ... but I must be too shy.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T01:12:55.433", "id": "1424", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T01:12:55.433", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "By job name: 店員さん (clerk)、お巡りさん (bobby)、運転手さん (taxi driver), etc. Polite: そちら\n(which I prefer to あなた which may sound informal in some situations),\n\nGirl: お姉さん【ねえさん】 \nBoy: お兄さん【にいさん】 Man: お父さん【とうさん】、叔父さん【おじさん】, \nWoman: お姉さん【ねえさん】、お母さん【かあさん】、叔母さん【おばさん】 (this one is dangerous!), \nElder people: お爺さん【じいさん】、お婆さん【ばあさん】.\n\nBest way: ask for the name. \nBest way to ask for the forgotten name: ask for the kanjis of the name :)\n\nBut I agree, it takes a lot of practice to naturally think of a way to call\nout people…", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T01:41:32.347", "id": "1425", "last_activity_date": "2014-07-10T23:06:15.227", "last_edit_date": "2014-07-10T23:06:15.227", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 }, { "body": "@Axioplase gave a good general answer, I even +1'd it. @istrasci was also\ncorrect in that you can avoid saying \"you\" and instead say \"you're the person\nin the photo...\"\n\nHowever in this situation I think it would be natural (and smooth) to **read\nher name off her name badge.**\n\n**If you can read it:** confirm the reading with 「XXさんですね...」\n\n**If you can't read or she doesn't have one:** just casually ask 「すみません、お名前は？」\n\nAs a customer, you are in a superior social position (お客様は神様でしょう) so being\npolite yet a touch casual is appropriate. You don't want to be rolling out\nyour best keigo here.\n\nOnce you know her name, you can mention you saw her picture elsewhere, using\n@YOU's example would suffice here: 「ちなみに、渋谷で **XXさんの** 写真を見たようですが...」\n\nGood luck\n\n_NB: This question is borderline なんぱ, but how better to learn a language than\nby using it? *grin*_", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T02:22:00.130", "id": "1428", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T02:22:00.130", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "あなた has two usages. One is used by spouses when talking to their spouses and\ntranslates as \"Darling\"\n\nHowever, it is also can be used when you don't know the person all. In this\ncase I would think that Anata would be perfectly usable in this case. And in\nfact would be too cold if you've been seeing them all the time recently. Then\nagain if you haven't actually asked her name, I would stick you in the\noutsider group and still use Anata.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T05:19:58.717", "id": "1432", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T05:19:58.717", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Regarding your particular situation, I think Axioplase, Mark and Istrasci have\ngiven you all the options you really need. By order of smoothness, I would go\nwith:\n\n 1. skip name \n\n 2. あなた (as Mark says, there's a bit of cognitive dissonance between the two uses, but it still works) \n\n 3. whatever else...\n\nTo answer the more general formulation of your question title, I would add one\nthat I personally found a lifesaver in many similar situations. For people you\nwant to be polite to, but don't want to use 'あなた' with, for some reason:\n\n```\n\n そちら\n \n```\n\nWhile it is not ultra-common use and practically keigo level of politeness, it\nis still somehow neutral enough that using it in semi-formal conversations\n(typically in my case: people slightly older/higher, whose name I forgot and\nwhose meishi I misplaced, but for whom あなた sounds a little too precious) is\nperfectly alright.\n\n**Edit:** A very typical way I would use そちら, is if, after making a sentence\nomitting the subject (my first choice), there is an ambiguity and/or\nmisunderstanding. As a way of saying \"you [not me]\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T05:40:16.163", "id": "1433", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T01:19:17.080", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-25T01:19:17.080", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "How about お宅【おたく】?\n\n> お宅はオタクですか? \n> Are you an Otaku?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T16:49:33.473", "id": "2851", "last_activity_date": "2012-10-01T14:25:05.173", "last_edit_date": "2012-10-01T14:25:05.173", "last_editor_user_id": "1575", "owner_user_id": "154", "parent_id": "1423", "post_type": "answer", "score": -2 }, { "body": "I think 渋谷店であなたの写真見 **ましたよ** works properly in that situation. Basically あなた\ngoes with です/ます. The level of intimacy of expression can be controlled by the\nlevel of politeness. So, you can say much more politely and safely,\n渋谷店であなたの写真を **お見かけしました**.\n\nDropping あなた will also work, such as 渋谷店に貼ってある写真を見ましたよ.\n\nHowever, 君 is definitely too intimate (more intimate than あなた) and using her\npersonal name might sound like a stalker if she has not told you it yet.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-06-28T04:45:12.443", "id": "5982", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-28T04:45:12.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1119", "parent_id": "1423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1440", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I know of four countries with a specific kanji besides Japan: China, the\nNetherlands, the USA and UK. The last two must be quite recent (I presume 19th\ncentury) but I wonder on the details and context of the selection.\n\nThere is of course 蘭, abbreviated from 阿蘭陀 (o-ran-da/holland) used in 蘭学,\ndutch learning.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T08:08:51.387", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1435", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-12T01:08:26.477", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-12T01:08:26.477", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "126", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "kanji", "culture", "history", "loanwords", "demonyms" ], "title": "When and how did USA and UK come to be written as [米]{べい}[国]{こく} and [英]{えい}[国]{こく}?", "view_count": 3187 }

[ { "body": "Most, if not all, of foreign country Kanji names (not including names with\nobvious different origins such as China and Korea) - and there are many more\nthan 4 - are exactly this kind of abbreviation from a phonetic Kanji spelling\nof the country's name. 米 is an abbreviation of 亜米利加, 英 is 英吉利.\n\nLook in any Japanese dictionary and you'll find most prominent countries have\nthis kind of Kanji spelling and abbreviation.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T08:55:04.717", "id": "1439", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T08:55:04.717", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "318", "parent_id": "1435", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Good question!\n\n**「米国」** According to Japanese Wikipedia, the pronunciation of American was\nメリケン during the Meiji period, and was rendered into kanji as 「米利堅」\n\nSince the first character is 米 （べい、まい、めい） the abbreviation became 米国. This was\ndespite the fact that the full kanji representation of アメリカ is 亜米利加. I suspect\nit was because 亜 is already used to represent Asia.\n\n[Source](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%A1%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AB%E5%90%88%E8%A1%86%E5%9B%BD)\n\n**「英国」** Similarly, the Meiji era phoneticisation of England was エイギリ or 英吉利\nin kanji. Taking the first kanji of this for the abbreviation we get 英国.\n\nSince England is also synonymous in Japan with Great Britain, 大不列頓 or だい-ブリテン\nwas also used (in Meiji times, not now)\n\n[Source](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%8B%B1%E5%9B%BD)\n\nHere is a complete list of (nearly) all countries foreign to Japan and their\ncorresponding kanji-fied versions.\n\n[国名の漢字表記一覧](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BD%E5%90%8D%E3%81%AE%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E8%A1%A8%E8%A8%98%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7#.E3.83.A8.E3.83.BC.E3.83.AD.E3.83.83.E3.83.91.E3.81.AE.E5.9B.BD.E3.80.85)\n\nVery interesting link that one.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T09:01:21.733", "id": "1440", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-12T01:40:29.927", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-12T01:40:29.927", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1435", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1441", "answer_count": 6, "body": "My first question is about the rules of pronunciation of the letter \"H\".\n\nSome people pronounce the \"H\" as if it were \"Sh\". For example, \"Shijutsu\"\ninstead of \"Hijutsu\", or \"Shiyori\" instead of \"Hiyori\".\n\nIs there any rule about it? Or is it just a matter of regional accent where\nsome southern Japanese people pronounce the \"H\" as \"Sh\"? Or maybe, the older\nyou get, the more you accentuate the letters.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T08:39:33.157", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1437", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-12T16:39:30.897", "last_edit_date": "2014-10-19T11:46:13.140", "last_editor_user_id": "6840", "owner_user_id": "416", "post_type": "question", "score": 30, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "phonology", "phonetics" ], "title": "Why the \"H\" is pronounced as \"Sh\" in some cases?", "view_count": 17731 }

[ { "body": "Your first assumption is correct, it is a matter of accent.\n\nConsider the mouth shape and action required to form the sound for ひ (hi). By\ntightening and pressing the tongue closer to the roof of your mouth, the air\nrushes across your tongue and hits the back of your front teeth creating the\nSHHH sound.\n\nAlso consider that in the native Japanese phonology し is SI or SHI depending\non dialect and even mood. As there is no distinction between the two, it is no\nsurprise that a similarly formed phoneme suffers the same speaker bias / side\neffects.\n\nAt least, this has always been my observation over the last 16 years.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T08:49:18.250", "id": "1438", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T08:49:18.250", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "1437", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "The sound you hear in HI is not really a \"sh\" (as the English \"sh\"), but\nneither is the sound SHI an \"sh\". While it's very easy to learn to pronounce\nJapanese sufficiently, Japanese pronunciation does have its quirks, and you\nhave to get used to it. The \"sh\" situation (or fricative situation, as we'd\ncall it in linguistics lingo) is one of them.\n\nLet's first consider the sounds in hand. SHI and HI are both just romanized\ntranscription of the Japanese hiragana letters し and ひ. These letters (like\nmost kana letters) represent a combination of a consonant (//h// or //s//) and\na vowel (//i//), but in Japanese, some of these consonant+vowel combinations\ncan make the consonant sound change drastically. We usually see it in the\ncommon transcription system (Hepburn), so when we combine //h// and //u// we\nget FU (ふ) and when we combine //s// and //i// we get SHI (し). But in the case\nof //h//, although the pronunciation changes (and it changes _for everyone_ in\nthe standard dialect — you just don't always get to hear it), the\ntranscription system falls short of representing that change.\n\nNow let's look at the combination //s// + //i//: the vowel //i// causes a\nsound change that belong a very common class of sound changes called\n[palatalization](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization). These changes\nusually happen before front vowels (such as //e// or //i//) and this is the\norigin of the \"soft\" C and G in English that usually come before an E or an I\n(this palatalization originally occurred in Latin, so it has equivalent in\nmost European languages since they've all borrowed stuff from Latin, or are\ndirect descendants of it).\n\nIn Japanese, the palatalization we speak about occurs before //i// and //j//\n(not before //e//). //j// here means the consonant that's usually\ntransliterated as Y (since it sounds like \"y\" in English), in combinations\nsuch as RYO (りょ). When this consonant is combined with //s// we usually\ntransliterate it as sh, so しゃ (//s// + //j// + //a//) is transliterated SHA,\nalthough you sometimes always find the transliteration SYA.\n\nSo how does this changed pronunciation really sounds? To the ears of an\nEnglish speaker (or most Westerners) this usually sounds exactly like the\nEnglish \"sh\" — but it is not. [The sound of the English\n\"sh\"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_palato-alveolar_sibilant) is\npronounced with the tip of the tongue behind the teeth, but pointing toward\nthe palate (the roof of the mouth), while [the Japanese\nSH](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_sibilant) is\npronounced somewhat similarly, but the tip of the tongue is not pointing up,\nand the \"sh\"-like sound is actually produced by the having back of the tongue\nraised against the palate. These sounds _are_ different, and some languages\nmay distinguish between them. As it happens with English in Japanese though,\nit doesn't matter, and we'd just perceive the first one as \"English accent\"\nand the second as \"Japanese accent\". Linguists mark the first (English) sound\nas [ʃ] and the second (Japanese) sound as [ɕ].\n\nWith that settled, we can move to what happens with HI. In essence, it's very\nsimilar to SHI — we also have palatalization that happens in the same way (so\nit also occurs in HYA, HYO and HYU, although it is not reflected in the\ntranscription), but //h// is palatalized to something slightly different. This\nconsonant is called [palatal\nfricative](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_palatal_fricative), and it's\ntheoretically simpler to pronounce — you just raise your back of the tongue\nagainst the palate (you don't do anything with the tip, as opposed to the\nJapanese SH). This sounds a lot like a softer, more fluid version of \"h\".\n\nLearning to differentiate between all these sounds takes practice, but I\nsuggest listening to the recordings at the Wikipedia articles and trying to\nsee the difference yourself. The articles themselves are highly technical, but\nthey also contain a list of examples from other languages where you may find\nthese sounds.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T09:32:20.083", "id": "1441", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-12T16:39:30.897", "last_edit_date": "2018-05-12T16:39:30.897", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1437", "post_type": "answer", "score": 36 }, { "body": "Easiest example: Tokyo dialect. They often pronounce 人 as しと, with a very\nshort i, more like \"shto\" than \"shito\".\n\nIt's just a matter of pronunciation in different dialects.\n\nOther examples would be う which is somewhere between \"u\" and the German \"ü\",\ndepending on the person.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T10:05:52.327", "id": "1443", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T13:56:02.757", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T13:56:02.757", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "84", "parent_id": "1437", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I think I can really help you here with pronouncing these sounds correctly.\nYou heard of IPA? It's a phonetic language to represent most of the sounds of\nthe languages of the world. Each symbol represents a completely separate\nsound. I won't show you the IPA symbols, but they're on wikipedia for any\nlanguage you want to learn with audio examples and everything.\n\nThe \"sh\" in English \"shoe\", the \"sh\" in Japanese \"shi\", the \"h\" in Japanese\n\"ohayo\", and the \"h\" in Japanese \"hito\" are ALL different phonemes. Formants\nare what make different vowels and consonants sounds separate to listeners.\nFormants are like extra pitches layered on top of the fundamental pitch of a\nsound. For human speaking, there are about 3 important formants that help\ndistinguish our vocal sounds, but I won't get into that. I'll just tell you\nthat changing the position of the tongue and lips changes the shape of the\noral cavity so that sound resonates differently, with different formants even\non the same fundamental pitch or \"note\".\n\nFor \"shoe\" and \"shi\". Hold the \"sh\" sound for \"shoe\", and just slightly raise\nthe middle of your tongue relative to the tip. A formant will raise in pitch,\nand you'll be pronouncing Japanese \"sh\" as in \"shi\". It'll feel further back\nin your mouth than English sh, and have a higher pitched \"hiss\". Also, your\nembouchure will widen to accommodate your raised flattened tongue as it\nuncurls. It'll feel as though you're almost smiling instead of pouting out\nyour lips like with English \"sh\".\n\nNow, raise the back of your tongue on that same \"shh\" sound instead of the\nmiddle. The sound should have an even higher hiss now. The sound will be\ncoming from nearer to where your English 'h' originates. This sound is the\nJapanese \"h\" from \"hito\". Not really a \"sh\" or an \"h\" sound to me, more like a\ncross between \"h\" and \"y\" like the \"hy\" from \"hue\".\n\nGuess what? If you can make this sound you can say \"ich\" in German! \"Ch\" in\nGerman has two sounds. The more guttural one that's in common with Scottish\n\"loch\" is in words like \"macht\" and \"Woche\". Many English people have no\nproblem making this sound, albeit they usually say it too harshly and hold it\ntoo long. However, being a German allophone with the other pronunciation,\nEnglish people aren't told by Germans that the sound in \"ich\" and \"sprechen\"\nisn't the same as \"macht\". That sound is the one you made for Japanese \"hito\".\nIf you can say \"ich\", you can say \"hito\" and vice versa.\n\nPut a \"t\" sound before the Japanese \"shi\" \"sh\" sound like \"tsh\" and you have\nthe real Japanese \"ch\" sound like in \"chizu\".\n\nHope this helped! If you have any questions, just ask (:", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-12-06T07:53:51.440", "id": "13610", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-06T07:53:51.440", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4275", "parent_id": "1437", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "This question has a useful answer by Boaz Yaniv which points out that you may\nsimply be mishearing ひ as し, but it misses the fact that some speakers\nactually _do_ pronounce these the same way! This merger is mentioned briefly\nin [_The Phonology of Japanese_ , Labrune 2012,\np.69](http://books.google.com/books?id=ix9r6CbEl6IC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&ei=4eQ-\nVMeDF4GqogSnk4CwCQ&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage):\n\n> For certain speakers, the opposition between /h/ and /s/ is neutralized\n> before _i_ : _hi_ /hi/ and _shi_ /si/ are pronounced identically. The\n> opposition is neutralized to the benefit of /h/ in the Kansai area (/hi/,\n> /si/ = [hi]), to the benefit of /s/ in the Kantō area (/hi/, /si/ = [çi] or\n> [ɕi]), as shown below. These mergers were already attested at the beginning\n> of the eighteenth century.\n```\n\n> Kansai Kantō\n> _shima_ /sima/ [hima] [çima] / [ɕima] _'island'_\n> _hima_ /hima/ [hima] [çima] / [ɕima] _'(free)\n> time'_\n> \n```\n\nSo you're right, ひ is sometimes pronounced like し or vice versa, depending on\nboth regional accent and the individual speaker. [You may hear 東 pronounced\nlike しがし rather than ひがし in Shitamachi, for\nexample.](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B1%9F%E6%88%B8%E8%A8%80%E8%91%89#.E9.9F.B3.E9.9F.BB)\n\nAlthough at the moment only a minority of speakers have this merger, it's\npossible that in a few hundred years most speakers will treat し and ひ as the\nsame thing, [like what happened with the じ・ぢ or ず・づ pairs\nhistorically](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%9B%E3%81%A4%E4%BB%AE%E5%90%8D#.E6.AD.B4.E5.8F.B2).\nIt's also possible that this may never happen―language change is hard to\npredict!\n\nRegardless, you should be careful to distinguish these sounds in your own\nspeech; all you need to do as a learner is be aware of how other people talk\nso you can understand what they're saying.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-10-15T21:49:57.673", "id": "19108", "last_activity_date": "2014-10-15T21:49:57.673", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1437", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "just chiming in to say the word that nobody hasn't so far:\n[sibilants](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibilant).\n\nsibilants are fricatives with a greater proportion of energy in the higher\nfrequencies. in English, we have at least [s, ʃ, z, ʒ] for sibilant and [f, v,\nθ, ð ] for non-sibilant fricatives; think of sibilants as 'S-sounds', and the\ndistinction should be clear.\n\nthe important thing about the /sima/—/hima/ [ɕima]–[çima] distinction (for\nthose who observe it) is that the /s/ phoneme retains sibilance throughout its\nallophones [s, ɕ], whereas /h/ retains non-sibilance throughout its allophones\n[h, ç, ϕ].", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-10-16T12:21:54.617", "id": "19124", "last_activity_date": "2014-10-16T12:21:54.617", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7301", "parent_id": "1437", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1445", "answer_count": 1, "body": "what's the difference between ところで and ちなみに ?\n\nAre they always/often/seldom interchangeable?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T11:24:40.627", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1444", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T15:57:17.040", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "synonyms" ], "title": "what's the difference between ところで and ちなみに ?", "view_count": 8800 }

[ { "body": "Yes, as a sentence opener, they are mostly identical and definitely\ninterchangeable.\n\nAs for details and nuances, cursory Googling yielded\n[this](http://hinapon.wordpress.com/2007/02/15/%E3%81%A1%E3%81%AA%E3%81%BF%E3%81%AB%E3%80%80vs%E3%80%80%E3%81%A8%E3%81%93%E3%82%8D%E3%81%A7/):\n\n> **「ちなみに」** は今まで話していた内容に何か付け加えるときや、 その内容と関係があるけど、少し別の方向へ話を発展させるときに使います。\n```\n\n> A:　この大学には、学部生が500名、大学院生が50名います。\n> B:　ちなみに、そのうち女性は何割ぐらいですか。\n> \n```\n\n>\n> **「ところで」**\n> は、今まで話していた内容とは全然違うことを言うときに使います。でも、その新しい話は今まで話していたことから思いついた場合が多いです。\n```\n\n> 「おかげさまで、こちらはみんな元気です。\n> ところで、先日、そちらに品物を送ったんですが、もう届いていますか。」\n> \n```\n\nThe gist of which is: ちなみに would be introducing a new topic that is (however\nloosely) connected to the conversation so far, while ところで would be for\nabsolute _non-sequuntur_.\n\nHowever, as it also points out, ところで will often introduce a \"new\" subject that\ncame to the speaker's mind because of the previous subject (and is therefore\nnot all that disconnected).\n\nBottom line, they are pretty much interchangeable (but the nuance exists).\n\n**Note** : make sure not to confuse ところで with its many variants (and their\nplentiful meanings): ところです, ところが etc.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T12:15:21.257", "id": "1445", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T15:57:17.040", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1444", "post_type": "answer", "score": 25 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1450", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Why is it that in Japanese sentence one sees 男 or 女 with furigana that says\nひと? Furigana is supposed to help clarify the meaning of a kanji character, but\nusing ひと doesn't seem to help clarify anything. So what's the point of doing\nthat?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T15:43:00.090", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1448", "last_activity_date": "2021-07-21T00:36:30.163", "last_edit_date": "2021-07-21T00:36:30.163", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "meaning", "furigana", "ateji", "register", "creative-furigana" ], "title": "Reading 男 or 女 as ひと", "view_count": 467 }

[ { "body": "I have never seen 人 with おとこ or おんな for the furigana, but I've seen plenty of\nexamples when the person would be saying the furigana, but the meaning was\nfurther clarified by the kanji used.\n\nFor example, in Deadman Wonderland, it quite often has the letters DW with the\nfurigana ここ because the person said 'here' but was referring to the entire\npark.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T15:46:07.500", "id": "1449", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-23T15:46:07.500", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1448", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I think one of the reason would be politeness, for example あの人知っている？ is more\npolite than あの女 or あの男 in the sense. And the latter has some sarcasm or\ncontempt.\n\nUsing 人 with おとこ or おんな can be seen in manga or may be used in lyrics. My\nunderstanding of the difference between actual words and furigana is that\nfurigana sometimes refer to colloquial form, while main words or kanjis are\nused for deeper meanings.\n\nFor your case, reading as ひと is for politeness, and using kanji 男 or 女 to\nclarify the meaning, sometimes you may see あんた as 貴方 or 貴女 (for females).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-23T15:55:30.723", "id": "1450", "last_activity_date": "2015-07-31T22:05:38.177", "last_edit_date": "2015-07-31T22:05:38.177", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1448", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "The small っ (tsu) is usually used before a consonant to indicate gemination,\nless technically known as doubled consonants, which is how they are\ntransliterated in romaji.\n\nI have seen it at the end of some of what I call \"vocal noises\" where I\ninterpreted it as possibly a glottal stop. But the other day I saw it used on\nan advertising poster on public transport at the end of a word. At least so it\nlooked. What does it signify in this case?\n\nThe text in the ad is:\n\n> お待たせっ!\n>\n> 新しいタフマン\n>\n> 参上!!", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T01:30:45.877", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1457", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-02T08:06:12.160", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 45, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "orthography", "kana-usage", "gemination" ], "title": "What does the little っ (tsu) signify when at the end of a word?", "view_count": 63301 }

[ { "body": "It's a glottal stop, similar to the usage you mentioned (あっ, もうっ). It\nsignifies that the last mora is cut off abruptly. This can imply irritation\n(なんだよっ \"What!\") or excitement (大変だっ \"It's terrible!\"). In print, it's a little\nlike adding an exclamation point to the end of the sentence.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T01:43:32.793", "id": "1462", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-02T08:06:12.160", "last_edit_date": "2018-05-02T08:06:12.160", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "1457", "post_type": "answer", "score": 31 }, { "body": "Your example case is a little strange and without more context, I am not sure\nabout the intent.\n\nIn general cases, just like Amanda said: it indicates a word being cut-off (or\nsometimes a very strong exclamation).\n\nAn interesting aspect is that it seems to work a little different from the\nequivalent in Western languages, in that it does not _actually_ cut-off the\nword (in the text), but is added at the end. Let me illustrate...\n\nIf a comic book character was trying to say something, to be cut off suddenly\n(by another character, by a sudden event), the English would read something\nlike:\n\n`What's happen...` [cut to horrible monster devouring the hero]\n\nthe end of 'happen[ing]' being removed, is what indicates the abruptness of\nthe cut.\n\nThe Japanese version would more likely be:\n\n`なんだっ！？` or `なにこれっ？！`\n\nBoth of which would be fully-formed words without the っ.\n\nSo, っ at the end of a word means something like \"imagine the last mora of this\nword wasn't uttered\", rather than \"the rest of this word was cut-off\", as a\nWesterner could be inclined to see it.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T05:43:24.820", "id": "1469", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T05:43:24.820", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1457", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I'm Japanese native speaker. \nIn my opinion, little \"っ\" at the end of sentence is not pronounced at all. \nHowever, it often indicates \"small\" (not so serious) emotions of speaker, I'll\nshow you some example, comparing with other two expressions for writing: \n01. ふざけんなよっ \n02. ふざけんなよ… \n03. ふざけるなよ！ \n(All sentences mean \"Don't be silly\") \n \nAs you see, first sentence is the case including \"っ\" at the end. \nOn this case, I feel speaker doesn't get angry so much. \nLet's imagine the scene in which friends are talking, and some person says a\njoke. If I express his friend's reply to writing, I will use above first\nexpression. \nOn second one, I feel speaker tries to inhibit his/her emotion (but it often\nfail, because emotion is too intense). Here is good example. \n \n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PsHhz.png) \nThis is really famous scene of Dragon Ball. Freeza killed Kuririn, which\nenraged Goku. \nFirstly Goku speaks so calmly, but in fact he has strong emotion inside. \nAfter that, he can't inhibit his emotion, and he will be next form? I read it\nlong time ago, so I'm not sure. \nAnyway, \"―――!!!!!\" and little \"っ\" are used in below scene. Watching these\nexpressions, We can recognize his voice is sustaining with anger. \nYou might feel it's strange to use little \"っ\" now. In my opinion, this give us\na kind of \"light\" nuance. The author might not have used it if he had written\nhis story to strict novel. \n \n\nIn conclusion, by using some signs or something like little \"っ\" at the end, we\ncan express speaker's emotion in writing.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-08-18T18:05:57.793", "id": "27469", "last_activity_date": "2015-08-18T18:21:13.067", "last_edit_date": "2015-08-18T18:21:13.067", "last_editor_user_id": "10947", "owner_user_id": "10947", "parent_id": "1457", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 }, { "body": "From what I've experienced due to learning Cantonese and Mandarin, the Tsu is\nused often as a way to create a short abrupt stop on the previous character\nbut also to raise the tone of the character too? As we have tones in Cantonese\nin a similar way, I noticed that there is always a higher pitch to the shorter\nmore abrupt form of the word. I guess it's used sometimes as a way to present\nsurprise or raised pitch and in the case of the DragonBall Z image above, it's\nprobably to present the slow rising of the last KAAAAAAA! if anyone knows\nDragonBall, the explosive energy of their shouts always rise up or the ka me\nha me HA! is always raised higher in tone.\n\nThat's my beginners interpretation of the use of this character.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-08-07T16:23:19.267", "id": "52085", "last_activity_date": "2017-08-07T16:23:19.267", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "25311", "parent_id": "1457", "post_type": "answer", "score": -2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1461", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I was thinking, and I can't express the word \"some\" in Japanese.\n\nExamples:\n\n * There were **some** fruits on the table. (I would say \"テーブルの上に果物があった）\n\nMaybe 少しあった - but then I would translate as \"there were few fruits\".\n\n * There are **some** people here I know, and some I've never seen!\n\n * I still have **some** things to buy for that trip.\n\n * **some** of those CDs were broken.\n\n * we will have **some** news soon, just wait **some** minutes.\n\nYoroshiku! Thanks", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T01:32:48.153", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1458", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T13:22:17.493", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-27T13:22:17.493", "last_editor_user_id": "422", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "usage", "words" ], "title": "How can I say \"some X \" in Japanese?", "view_count": 36459 }

[ { "body": "This may be the case where there isn't a direct translation for \"some\".\n\nfor instance \"I still have some things to buy for that trip.\" becomes\n「旅行のためにまだ買うものが残っています。」", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T01:37:07.980", "id": "1459", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T02:48:21.583", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-24T02:48:21.583", "last_editor_user_id": "97", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1458", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "One option would be いくつか、何個か、何人か.\n\n> テーブルの上に果物がいくつかあった\n>\n> その部屋に何人かの人がいました。", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T01:39:41.367", "id": "1460", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T01:39:41.367", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1458", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Basically, you don't say it, it would be the default situation. You would\ninsist if there were only one, or a lot, by saying \"部屋に人が一人います\" or\n\"テーブルの上に果物がたくさんあります。\"\n\nYou may still say \"いくつか\" to mean \"some\", but it would even rather sound like\n\"several\": \"テーブルの上に果物がいくつかある。\"\n\nSo, to sum up: you don't have to emphasize it, it's already implied!", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T01:41:08.477", "id": "1461", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T01:41:08.477", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1458", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "The main (and most common) answer is: You don't say it. The same way there is\nno definite article in Japanese, indefinite (and by extension, vague\nquantifiers like 'some') can be omitted. Some verbal forms might help\nemphasise the idea of existence/quantity ('ある' instead of 'です' etc).\n\nFrom your examples, though, it sounds like you are really trying to express \"a\nfew\", rather than \"some\". In that case, you can sometimes use: 数【すう】(literally\n\"a number of...\") in **front** of the word. It does _not_ work with\neverything, so be careful.\n\nTypical uses of 数 include people (人) or units of time (日, 週, 年 etc.):\n\n```\n\n 彼女には数人のペンフレンドがいる \"She has a few pen pals.\"\n \n 私はもう数週間滞在しています。 \"I am staying for a few more weeks.\"\n \n 数分後に電話が鳴った。　\"A few minutes later, the telephone rang.\"\n \n```", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T05:55:51.880", "id": "1471", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T05:55:51.880", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1458", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1466", "answer_count": 3, "body": "In English, the word \"help\" can be used for any of these cases to ask somebody\nfor help or to give a help to someone:\n\n * In a store, when a clerk (store worker) says: \n\n> Can I help you, sir?\n\n * With friends, when you see that your friend needs some help on math:\n\n> Do you want a help with math?\n\n * When someone is carrying heavy things:\n\n> Shall I help you?\n\n * When it's me who needs some help.\n\n> I want a help to make cookies.\n\n * Help with household things (housework) such as cleaning, ironing:\n\n> Son, please help me cleaning the dishes.\n\n * To thank:\n\n> Thanks for your help. \n> I'm happy that I could help you somehow.\n\nIn what situations are the Japanese expressions \"手伝う\", \"手を貸す\", and \"助ける\" (or\nin the forms \"手伝いましょうか?\", \"手伝ってくれ?\", \"手を貸して。\", \"助けてくれ。\", :教えてあげる。\", \"教えよっか?\")\nused?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T03:34:50.717", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1465", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-02T05:00:55.567", "last_edit_date": "2016-09-02T04:52:21.840", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "words", "perspective" ], "title": "Can I help you?", "view_count": 7354 }

[ { "body": "I fully agree, this is much harder to translate (well) than one would expect.\n\nThere are hundreds of nuances and scenarios covered by the English \"can I help\nyou\", and you list a lot of them... So I'll focus on three very typical broad\ncategories (I'm sure people will give you more):\n\n**Strangers:** Typically, offering your help finding directions to a tourist\nwho looks lost.\n\nRather than a direct \"Can I help you?\", any variations on \"are you OK?\"\n(implying that you are ready to help) is probably the best way to go.\nDepending on context, anything from a `大丈夫ですか？` to `道に迷っているんですか。`\n\n**Close friends and family:** Where an equivalent of the informal \"Need a\nhand?\" would be appropriate. Then `手伝う` can come handy... From a purely\ncultural standpoint, I still would try to keep it sounding more like an offer\nthan a question. E.g. `手伝ってあげよう` (\"let me help!\") rather than (the otherwise\nperfectly correct): `手伝って欲しい？` (\"do you want me to help?\").\n\nLess close friends, subordinates or same-level colleagues would be variations\nof the above (with appropriate use of polite verbal forms).\n\n**Your boss** (or any person high-enough above you): is a different matter.\nThere are many sonkeigo-infused expressions to offer help. They all have in\ncommon that you must make it sound like you are _asking for a favour_ , not\n_doing_ them a favour.\n\nOne of my personal favourite sonkeigo expression for that is:\n\n`お手伝いさせていただきます`\n\n(with countless variants:)\n\n`お手伝いさせていただけますか`\n\n`お手伝いさせていただきましょうか`\n\n`手伝わせていただけますか`\n\netc.\n\nWhich _literally_ means you are begging your boss to do you the favour of\naccepting your help.\n\n**Edit:** as for ways to thank somebody for their help. It is once again down\nto context. Most basic (and literal) way would be: `手伝ってくれてありがとうございました` but if\nit was a big favour/help, you can't go wrong by focusing on \"the trouble\nyou've caused\" (and apologising for it), in which case you'd use:\n`迷惑をかけて申し訳無い` (for bigger favours) or a simple `すみません` (which means both\n\"sorry\" **and** \"thank you\" in that context).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T04:05:19.017", "id": "1466", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-02T04:23:45.193", "last_edit_date": "2016-09-02T04:23:45.193", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1465", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Here is what I can think of now.\n\nfor store worker\n\n> 何かお探しですか？\n\nmath,\n\n> 数学に関して困った事あったら言ってくださいね\n\nto help carrying heavy stuff\n\n> お荷物お持ちいたしましょうか？\n\nI wanna help to make cookies.\n\n> クッキー作るとき手伝ってもいい？\n\nSon, please help me cleaning the dishes.\n\n> お皿洗ってくれる？\n\nthanks for your help.\n\n> 手伝ってくれてありがとうね / 助かった\n\nIt's my pleasure\n\n> どういたしまして / よかった (for 助かった) よかった", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T04:24:31.347", "id": "1467", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T04:24:31.347", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1465", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Use the context, Luke!\n\n * In a store, when a clerk (store worker) says : Can I help you, sir? \n\"いらっしゃいませ！\" with an inquiring gaze at the customer\n\n * With friends, when you see that your friend needs some help on math: Do you want a help with math? \"大丈夫？助けてあげようか？\"、\"大丈夫？手伝ってあげようか？\" (I allow \"助ける\" here, for math can put people in trouble :P)\n\n * Someone is carrying heavy things: Shall I help you? \n\"ちょっと待って、手伝ってあげますよ。\" with an inviting gaze before taking any action. \n\"大丈夫ですか？手伝ってあげましょうか？\"\n\n * It's me who needs some help. I want a help to make cookies. \n\"お菓子作りたいんだけど…手伝ってくれる？\"\n\n * Help with house things (housework): cleaning, ironing, .. Son, please help me cleaning the dishes. \n\"○君、お母さんは忙しいから、皿洗いをしなさい。\"\n\n * Thanks for your help. \n有難うございました。大変助かりました。すみません。\n\n * I'm happy that I could help you somehow. \nいいえ、いいえ、当然ですよ。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T04:27:25.073", "id": "1468", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-02T05:00:55.567", "last_edit_date": "2016-09-02T05:00:55.567", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1465", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1747", "answer_count": 3, "body": "After reading this thread: [When would you use 低い【ひくい】 vs\n短い【みじかい】](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/594/when-would-you-use-\nvs), I'd just thought of something.\n\nI once heard that a long nose (witch / Pinocchio) is called 高い鼻 and not 長い鼻\nwhereas the opposite (short nose) is called 低い鼻 and never 短い鼻. but i couldn't\nbe sure (i mean in english, a tall nose just sounds wrong)\n\nDoes anyone know what's the difference between a 低い鼻 vs 短い鼻 and a 高い鼻 vs a 長い鼻\n?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T05:55:20.690", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1470", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-04T20:15:31.853", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "vocabulary", "nuances" ], "title": "低い鼻 vs 短い鼻 and 高い鼻　vs 長い鼻 ?", "view_count": 736 }

[ { "body": "One does say \"象は鼻が長い\" (\"the elephant has a long nose\"). 長い here seems to be\nlimited to animals. I guess the same goes for 短かい。\n\nFor people, you'd go for the 高い/低い pair.\n\nBy the way, \"鼻が高い\" also means \"to be proud\".", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T07:03:23.690", "id": "1474", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-02T07:22:11.120", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-02T07:22:11.120", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1470", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "In japanese, you say 鼻が高い when you are talking about people like American\nbecause japanese has low nose -_-", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T00:34:26.057", "id": "1494", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T00:34:26.057", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "426", "parent_id": "1470", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The distinction is not directly due to human vs. non-human as the other\nanswers say. In case of human, people are interested in the distance of the\ntip of the nose from the surface of the face (excluding the nose); hence the\nconcept of height is relevant. With elephants, their nose is not a solid thing\nsticking straight out of their face. Rather, its hanging off the face; hence\nthe notion of length is more appropriate.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-04T20:15:31.853", "id": "1747", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-04T20:15:31.853", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1470", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1473", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I just received an email ending like this:\n\n> 是非是非また誘って\n\nHow to read the `` ? \nZero results on Google.\n\nAs for the meaning, is it equivalent to `よ` ?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T06:44:33.957", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1472", "last_activity_date": "2012-06-23T09:54:34.550", "last_edit_date": "2012-06-23T09:54:34.550", "last_editor_user_id": "91", "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "meaning", "pronunciation", "katakana" ], "title": "Pronunciation and meaning of ", "view_count": 636 }

[ { "body": "It's [_mojibake_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojibake), not a valid\ncharacter. Looking at the character code I suppose it's this _emoji_ sent from\na mobile phone:\n\n\n\n<http://code.iamcal.com/php/emoji/>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T06:45:53.033", "id": "1473", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T06:45:53.033", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "1472", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 }, { "body": "The character you presented is U+E4FB. According to the Unicode standard, it\nis in the \"private use area\", which means a software or hardware vendor can\ndefine what the character means on their own system. Such a character has no\nuniversally accepted meaning.\n\nReference: [Wikipedia - Mapping of Unicode characters - Private use\ncharacters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapping_of_Unicode_characters#Private_use_characters)\n\n\" _The Basic Multilingual Plane includes a PUA in the range from U+E000 to\nU+F8FF (6,400)._ \"", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T14:42:41.160", "id": "2732", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T16:34:18.260", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-18T16:34:18.260", "last_editor_user_id": "603", "owner_user_id": "603", "parent_id": "1472", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1633", "answer_count": 4, "body": "Whenever I go to the Life supermarket near my house, they ask me at the check\nout:\n\n> ライフカードを持っていますか？ (Do you have a Life [members] card?)\n\nI always respond with something like:\n\n> いいえ、持っていません。\n\n持っていません (motteimasenn) means I don't have it, but I think more precisely it\nmeans I am not carrying it on me. As in, I have a member's card, but not with\nme right now.\n\nIt seems like the right way to answer, with the negative form of the verb they\nused in the question. And the person at the check out always seems to\nunderstand what I mean.\n\nHowever, I'm thinking it would be more accurate to answer:\n\n> いいえ、ありません。\n\nWhich means \"no, [I] don't have [a members card].\" I think saying ありません means\nthat it's not just that I don't have one with me, I don't have one at all -\nwhich is the case.\n\nSo, which is the more accurate way to respond? 持っていません or ありません?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T16:28:03.393", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1478", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T02:09:28.777", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-29T03:00:25.640", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "word-choice", "verbs", "negation", "questions" ], "title": "To not have: 持っていません or ありません？", "view_count": 12229 }

[ { "body": "ありません is informal, but we use it often. 持っていません means \"you don't HAVE (= carry\n) it\"\n\nありません actually means it doesn't exist, but no one actually cares :p\n\nAnd additional comments: if you are saying ありません then you don't have to say\nいいえ. Same thing with the opposite, if you say いいえ then you don't to say ありません.\n\nIn japanese, the answer doesn't have to be accurate, I don't even pronounce a\nword to answer and people can understand.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T00:31:35.637", "id": "1493", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T00:31:35.637", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "426", "parent_id": "1478", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I think the more grammatically correct answer between 持っていません and ありません is\n持っていません.\n\nThe reason is because the question is \"ライフカードを持っていますか？\". Answering with\n持っていません implies \"【ライフカードを】持っていません\", but with ありません it becomes \"【ライフカードを】ありません\"\nin which case the を particle seems out of place. To not say the 持って verb\nexplicitly, you can say いません, which would imply \"【ライフカードを持って】いません\" although\nIMO it sounds a bit curt. Answering with ない or ないです, however, should still be\ngrammatically correct since it implies \"【ライフカードを持って】ないです\".", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T21:08:19.500", "id": "1602", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T21:08:19.500", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "1478", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "Short answer: `持っていません` is the more appropriate. Because under this context,\nit says what needs to be said in the least surprising way.\n\nTo my understanding, the cashier only wants to know if you have the card right\nnow and here:\n\n> ライフカードを持っていますか？ Do you have a Life [members] card with you? (So you can earn\n> points now?)\n\nIn this case, just saying 持っていません or ありません automatically becomes a shorthand\nfor \"No, I don't have it with me\":\n\n> いいえ、[今は]持っていません。 No, I don't have it right now.\n>\n> いいえ、[今はここには]ありません。 No, it's not here right now.\n\nSince the cashier used the verb 持つ in her question, returning the same verb is\nthe most natural answer here.\n\nIf you want to emphasize that you don't even possess a Life card, you need a\nspecial marker to widen the context from \"here and now.\" Even then, it would\nsound awkward or angry to bring it up since it wasn't asked for.\n\n> もともと持っていません[し、毎回聞かれてうんざりです]1。 I don't have it in the first place[, so don't\n> bug me about that every time].\n>\n> [1] It's not logically implied, but some may interpret it this way.\n\nAs for ありません, I can't think of a natural way to express \"No, I don't possess a\nmembers card\" with it.\n\nある/ありません needs to be used in conjunction with certain categories of things\nand/or within certain contexts to mean possession. To list a few correct\nexamples,\n\n> 私には夢がある。 I have a dream. (From the famous speech by Martin Luther King, Jr.)\n>\n> もしも私にハンマーがあれば、 If I had a hammer, (\"If I had a hammer\" by Peter, Paul and\n> Mary)\n>\n>\n> [私には夫はありません。](http://www.bible.or.jp/vers_search/vers_search.cgi?cmd=search&trans=jc&book=joh.new&chapter=4&vers=17)\n> I have no husband. (John 4:17)\n>\n> 私にはカードはありませんが、埋め込みチップならあります。 I don't have a card, but I do have an embedded\n> microchip. (made-up example)\n\nI won't go into details here partly because it'll be out of scope for this\nquestion and partly because I don't have a clear answer. If it interests you,\n[here's a lengthy study by\nsomeone](http://viethuong.web.fc2.com/MONDAI/speaking04.html) about the usage\nof ある.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T16:31:35.623", "id": "1633", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T02:09:28.777", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1478", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "In the exact case you said (i.e. a checkout line), I think \"持っていません\" is\nbetter. If you say ありません, the clerk will usually say お作りしても宜しいでしょうか, further\ndelaying your checkout process :).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T22:47:58.467", "id": "1639", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T22:47:58.467", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "87", "parent_id": "1478", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "With many 擬音語 (ぎおんご, onomatopoeia) and 擬態語 (ぎたいご, mimetic words) there is a\ndouble form, where the word is repeated, and a form with っと at the end. For\nexample:\n\n * きらきら -> きらっと (sparkling) \n * ぴかぴか -> ぴかっと (twinkling) \n * ぺろぺろ -> ぺろっと (slavering?) \n * ちらちら -> ちらっと (fluttering) \n * ごろごろ -> ごろっと (rumbling) \n * どきどき -> どきっと (suddenly?)\n\nIs there one of these forms for every 擬音語/擬態語? I couldn't find some in the\ndictionary. How are the two forms used differently? Is this っと just another\ngrammatical form (like という)? And what about the similar forms ちらり, ちらりと and\nちらと or きらりと and きらり?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T16:57:38.577", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1479", "last_activity_date": "2020-12-27T17:51:14.433", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T01:02:39.130", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "36", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "usage", "onomatopoeia" ], "title": "How are the giongo/gitaigo double form and tto form related (きらきら vs. きらっと)", "view_count": 504 }

[ { "body": "っと means for a short time. for example きらきら is sparkling all the time but きらっと\nmeans it just sparkled for a moment. And it's same for others too.\n\nWhat you are mistaken is that we write 擬態語 in Hiragana (平仮名 (I wasn't sure if\nI wrote the English part right so I wrote it in Japanese)) and that we write\n擬音語 in Katakana (片仮名). And for for 擬音語 we don't usually use っと. ごろごろ for\ninstance.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T00:07:32.390", "id": "1487", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T02:05:51.773", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-25T02:05:51.773", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "426", "parent_id": "1479", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Good article on the topic: <http://nihonshock.com/2013/04/japanese-\nonomatopoeia/>\n\nBriefly summarized:\n\nBasically, most giongo/gitaigo can take four forms with basically the same\nmeaning\n\nDoubling(にこにこ)\n\nTo-ending(にこっと)\n\nRi-ending(にこり)\n\nCombination of the previous two (にっこり)\n\nProbably the only difference in meaning is described by Hikari in the other\nanswer: the doubled form can indicate a continuous state while the -to or -ri\nis a brief action or a change in state. Note that in manga the final と may be\nmissing (ニコッ).\n\nSometimes you may also encounter doubling of otherwise “standard” one/two\nsyllable words and which usually have kanji forms unlike onomatopoeia, e.g.\n\n色々(いろいろ)\n\n堂々(どうどう)\n\nSome of these can appear with a following と but they can’t be used in “halved”\nmode (e.g. いろっと can only be used when quoting someone).\n\nAlso there exist a category of adverbs with -ri or -to endings which do not\n(AFAIK) appear in doubled form: がっかり、しっかり、はっきり、ちゃんと、きっと and so on (see the\narticle for more examples).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2020-12-27T17:51:14.433", "id": "83301", "last_activity_date": "2020-12-27T17:51:14.433", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "1479", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1485", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I'd like to know if I can put ～じゃん at the end of every adjective, if there are\nany exceptions to that usage, and if it's different from ～じゃない.\n\n**Adj (na) + じゃん**\n\n> 便利 **じゃん**\n>\n> 便利だった **じゃん**\n>\n> 便利じゃない **じゃん**\n>\n> 便利じゃなかった **じゃん**\n\n**Adj (i) + じゃん**\n\n> 楽しい **じゃん**\n>\n> 楽しかった **じゃん**\n>\n> 楽しくない **じゃん**\n>\n> 楽しくなかった **じゃん**\n\nIs this possible? Wouldn't the correct way would be 楽しくない instead of 楽しいじゃん?\n\n**Verb + じゃん**\n\n> ある **じゃん**\n>\n> やる **じゃん**\n>\n> いる **じゃん**\n>\n> くる **じゃん**\n>\n> ...", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T17:36:28.523", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1481", "last_activity_date": "2018-08-28T14:07:30.473", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-27T14:34:46.960", "last_editor_user_id": "94", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 24, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "verbs", "colloquial-language", "adjectives" ], "title": "Usage of ～じゃん (～じゃない)", "view_count": 30448 }

[ { "body": "The first thing to understand here is that じゃん forms a [tag\nquestion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_question), so it's entirely\ndifferent than the negative form:\n\n> このゲームは楽しい。 This game is fun.\n>\n> このゲームは楽しいじゃん。 This game is fun, isn't it?\n>\n> このゲームは楽しくない。 This game isn't fun.\n>\n> このゲームは楽しくないじゃん。 This game isn't fun, is it?\n\nじゃん is an informal version of じゃない; this use of じゃない as a tag question was\n[covered by Tsuyoshi Ito\npreviously](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/453/expression-in-\nspoken-japanese/505#505).\n\nSince 形容詞 (けいようし; \"い-adjectives\") have different conjugation patterns than\n形容動詞 (けいようどうし; \"な-adjectives\"), you can easily tell when a tag question is\nbeing used. But you know that with 形容動詞, じゃない may be present in the negative\nform. Without additional context, the following could be ambiguous:\n\n> 便利じゃない。 It's not convenient. **Or** , It's convenient, isn't it?\n\nIn this example, intonation distinguishes tag questions from negatives: a tag\nquestion will put a rising intonation on じゃない, while a negative will put a\nfalling intonation on じゃない. (じゃん, however, is always a tag question and never\nforms a negative.)\n\nIn writing, this ambiguity can be cleared up by using a question mark or the\nquestion particle か:\n\n> 便利じゃない？ It's convenient, isn't it?\n>\n> 便利じゃないか。 It's convenient, isn't it?\n\nAdditionally, it's worthwhile to discuss here the difference between じゃない\n(じゃん) as a tag question and the sentence-ending particle ね:\n\n> あの映画、けっこうおもしろかったね。 That movie was pretty good, wasn't it?\n>\n> あの映画、けっこうおもしろかったじゃん。 That movie was pretty good, wasn't it?\n\nWith ね, the speaker is merely making a statement and anticipating the listener\nwill agree, but じゃん can often imply that the speaker wants to convince the\nlistener to agree. In the above example, you would use the first sentence\nafter seeing a movie with a friend without any prior expectation of how good\nthe movie would be. But the second is more appropriate if, for example, your\nfriend went into the movie thinking it would be bad, and after seeing it, you\nwanted to get him to agree with you that it was in fact a good movie.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T20:19:11.493", "id": "1485", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-24T20:19:11.493", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1481", "post_type": "answer", "score": 25 }, { "body": "じゃん sometimes means 'actually'. For example できるじゃん。= actually you can do it.\n\nand we use it with past-capable form. I don't know how to explain it but it's\nlike \"Actually we could play there = そこで(there) 遊べた(could play)\nじゃん(actually)).\n\nIt is not a formal saying. So don't use じゃん when you are talking to someone\nformally, and you can put it no where but at the end of the sentence.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T00:12:47.090", "id": "1488", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T20:17:20.093", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-25T20:17:20.093", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "426", "parent_id": "1481", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "じゃん is the colloquial contraction of じゃない. You can use the former (in an\ninformal context) anywhere you'd use the latter.\n\nAs @Hikari pointed out じゃない effectively has the meaning of \"actually\" in many\ncases. But more generally, it can be seen as a marker for rhetorical\nquestions. I find a good way to think about it, is as a softer equivalent to\n\"isn't it/doesn't it/etc\" in English.\n\n```\n\n いいじゃん → いいじゃない → \"it's ok[, isn't it?]\"\n あるじゃん → あるじゃない → \"there is[, right?]\"/\"there's some[, right?]\"\n \n```\n\nYou could also see it as a gender-neutral, _casual_ , equivalent to female-\nspeech かしら.\n\nI was often told じゃん is more commonly used in Kanto (and even some specific\nregions of it), but not to the extent where you could call it a regionalism: a\nlot of people everywhere use it in their casual conversation.\n\n**Post-merge update:** there is no strong distinction between the use of 'じゃん'\nafter verbs or adjectives (very possibly because the whole 'verb'/'adjective'\ndichotomy isn't as clean in Japanese as you would expect, coming from\nEnglish). In both case, it has the aforementioned use of adding a rhetorical\nquestion inflection...\n\nRegarding 楽しくない vs 楽しいじゃん:\n\nBoth are grammatically correct, with different nuances...\n\nRoughly:\n\n```\n\n 楽しくない？ → \"aren't you having fun?\" (or \"Isn't it fun?\" etc.)\n \n 楽しいじゃん　→ \"this is fun, isn't it\"\n \n```\n\n`じゃん` makes the [rhetorical] questioning much softer. More like a way of\nsaying \"I think this is fun, don't you?\". Whereas `楽しくない？` is a more direct\nquestion.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T01:43:34.047", "id": "1497", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T03:39:37.267", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-25T03:39:37.267", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1481", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1490", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is 呪縛 usually used to refer to a good spell or a bad one (like a curse)?\n\nI mean the dictionary writes the english meaning as: **spell/curse** but I was\nwondering what sort of nuance would be attached to 呪縛 ?\n\nBecause I was watching this show and they were saying stuff like: it's not a\ncurse (呪い), but a spell (呪縛)\n\nSo well from that i grasp that.. uh the nuances of 呪い are evil spells/curses,\nwhereas the nuances of 呪縛 are neutral spells/good spells?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T19:08:58.213", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1483", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T17:27:03.427", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-25T02:21:59.100", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "usage", "vocabulary", "nuances" ], "title": "What's the difference in the nuances that 呪縛【じゅばく】 and 呪い【のろい】 convey?", "view_count": 358 }

[ { "body": "I've learnt it. It is like this :\n\n`呪縛 > のろい > まじない` (from strongest to weakest curse)\n\nまじない is a spell but not the others if I'm taking the meaning of spell and\ncurse right. 呪縛 has more anger, and まじない has more hope.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T00:16:35.510", "id": "1490", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T02:08:18.527", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-25T02:08:18.527", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "426", "parent_id": "1483", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "These words can be characterized by two facets:\n\n * effect of the spell\n * intention of the spell-caster\n\n* * *\n\nLets deal with 呪縛 first by looking at its two Kanjis:\n\n * 呪: spell, curse\n * 縛: to truss, to bind\n\nSo 呪縛される literally means to be restricted by a spell.\n\n * effect: partially or wholly restrict someone's movement or thought\n * intention: mostly bad, sometimes good depending on the context (or neutral if you're bound by a past event.)\n\n> 忍者が呪縛の術をとなえた。A ninja cast a spell of paralysis. [effect:\n> paralysis][intention: good if you're an ally of the ninja, bad for the\n> enemy]\n>\n> 過去の呪縛にとらわれる。Fettered by the past. [effect: restriction of\n> thought][intention: neutral]\n\n* * *\n\n呪う translates directly to \"curse\".\n\n * effect: something bad, like bad fortune or death.\n * intention: bad\n\n> 末代まで呪ってやる! I curse you forever!\n\nNote that nothing may happen even if you were 呪われた by someone. Anything can\nhappen in between the act of cursing and the effect to take place. On the\ncontrary, 呪縛された means you're already bound by a spell.\n\nAlso, 呪い can have an on/off state; you can \"be under a 呪い\"(呪いがかかっている), \"break\na 呪い\"(呪いをとく). This is similar to 呪縛: you can \"be under a 呪縛\"(呪縛にかかっている),\n\"break a 呪縛\"(呪縛をとく). The difference is that 呪縛 has a constant effect on the\nvictim, while 呪い takes effect in a (series of) short event(s) (though it\ndepends largely on the content of the curse).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T16:53:22.227", "id": "1533", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T17:27:03.427", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1483", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "> **Possible Duplicate:** \n> [Usage of ～じゃん\n> (～じゃない)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1481/usage-of)\n\nusage of ～じゃん for verbs\n\nSometimes when i talk to a japanese, they use a lot this. I dont know if\nthere's a rule for it, and when i can or cannot use it.\n\nsome examples\n\n> ある **じゃん**\n>\n> やる **じゃん**\n>\n> いる **じゃん**\n>\n> くる **じゃん**\n>\n> ...", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-24T19:55:55.947", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1484", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T03:12:15.693", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "usage" ], "title": "Usage of ～じゃん　for verbs", "view_count": 140 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1513", "answer_count": 3, "body": "In episode 76 of Fairy Tail, Gildarts said this to Natsu:\n\n> 本気でそう思ったら、止め **やしない** よ。 _(honki de sou omottara, tome **yashinai** yo)_\n\nWhich was translated in the subtitle as:\n\n> If that's what you honestly believe, I won't stop you.\n\nI thought \"I won't stop you\" would simply be \"tomenai yo\", so I'm kind of lost\nabout what nuance the extra \"+yashinai\" conjugation carries. What kind of\nnegative conjugation is it?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T04:06:19.253", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1500", "last_activity_date": "2015-07-16T02:08:59.890", "last_edit_date": "2015-07-16T02:08:59.890", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "conjugations", "particle-は", "negation", "renyōkei" ], "title": "What does the \"〜やしない\" conjugation mean?", "view_count": 4804 }

[ { "body": "I think \"I won't bother to stop you\" or \"I don't bother stopping you\" would be\nmore close.\n\nAnd that \"ra\" might be \"rya\", but I don't know rya can be shortened to ra or\nnot.\n\n**Edit** : above is my hypothesis about \"ra\", but after watching the anime\nprovided by Amanda S, I hear as \"ya-shinai\" too as other said in comments.\n\nRegarding や-しない, I can't find in 国語 dictionaries, but JMDict and one\ndictionary site named tangorin say that や is は and used as colloquial form to\nemphasize negative (ない) sense.\n\nAnd it has meaning like \"I woulnd't\", \"I am afraid ... will\", ...\n\nref:\n\n * [http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/やしない](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E3%82%84%E3%81%97%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84)\n * [http://tangorin.com/general/やしない](http://tangorin.com/general/%E3%82%84%E3%81%97%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84)", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T04:14:11.327", "id": "1501", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T04:21:02.773", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-26T04:21:02.773", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1500", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "As others have said, this is probably really ～やしない, which is transmutation of\n～はしない. What this suffix does is usually one of two things:\n\n 1. It makes the verb a topic (with は) and then negate it. This is used to bring up the event described by the verb and then saying it won't happen (or isn't happening, have never happened - you get the point). From the context, this seems to be what's mainly happening here, Gildarts says to Natsu: \"Well as for stopping you (as you may expect or fear I would try to) - no, I won't do that\".\n\n 2. It's also often used when there seems to be little intention to topicalize the verb. In such cases, I think it's mostly used as a stronger and more passionate negative than the simple ～ない.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T20:38:53.143", "id": "1513", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T20:38:53.143", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1500", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "I'm assuming that 止めりゃしない was misheard as 止めらしない, where that りゃ is a\ncontraction of りや to りゃ.\n\nInstead of 止めらしない it should be 止めやしない. I've seen it written and heard it said\nas 止めりゃしない but I suppose you can consider that a \"slang mistake\" treating 止める\nas a go-dan instead of ichi-dan. (止めやしない is more common).\n\n止めやしない is [RYK(masu form)+や+しない], which has the same meaning as 止める(など)はしない\n[RTK(plain form)+(など)+は+しない] \"I won't do anything like try to stop you,\" so\nyou will hear both forms from time to time.\n\nThe りゃ comes in if it's a ラ行 godan verb because りや will contract to りゃ:\n蹴りゃしない, which again is the same meaning as 蹴るなどはしない\n\nOther examples with varying degrees of contraction:\n\n逃げやしない (does not contract) == 逃げるなどはしない 行きゃしない==行きやしない (sometimes contracts)\n== 行くなどはしない 蹴りゃしない (always contracts) == 蹴るなどはしない\n\nHowever, the entire construction is fairly rare when it's not 止めやしない, the\nsheer frequency of that words use probably contributes to the \"incorrect\nslang\" version of 止めりゃしない", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T17:48:06.250", "id": "1538", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T02:37:33.570", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-29T02:37:33.570", "last_editor_user_id": "433", "owner_user_id": "433", "parent_id": "1500", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I was looking in a dictionary, and both were listed as being defined as \"to\nlose one's way, to hesitate, or to waver,\" but I don't understand why there\nare two different kanji for the word.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T07:11:18.610", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1502", "last_activity_date": "2021-10-26T09:26:19.057", "last_edit_date": "2021-10-26T09:26:19.057", "last_editor_user_id": "31549", "owner_user_id": "428", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "word-choice", "kanji", "synonyms", "homophonic-kanji", "spelling" ], "title": "What's the difference between 迷う and 紕う?", "view_count": 441 }

[ { "body": "OK. Not the greatest answer (based on partial ignorance rather than\nknowledge), but on the chance nobody can come up with better:\n\n紕う and 迷う are ostensibly two spellings of the same word (まよう). This happens a\nlot in Japanese, as you probably know and is a characteristic feature of the\nweird marriage of native (oral) Japanese with native (written) Chinese hanzi.\nMany common Japanese words historically have two or three kanji spellings\n(see, for example: [all the different spellings of\nあける](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1229/nuances-between-the-\ndifferent-kanji-spellings-of-vs-vs)).\n\nIn this particular case my feeling (and it seems shared by both fluent\nforeigners and native speakers) is that 紕う is an **extremely rare** spelling\nof 'まよう'. Unfortunately, I cannot give you any information about a possible\nnuance between the two, since even the Japanese internet doesn't seem to have\nany, but regarding how rare 紕う is:\n\n * I have never seen it used, where \"迷う\" would be typically.\n * It is conspicuously absent from the [Tanaka corpus](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?10) of Japanese sentences (the kanji only appears in entirely different compounds/readings).\n * My IME (Mac OS X) has never heard of it: doesn't offer it as a choice, however hidden for 'まよう'.\n\nBased on all this, I think we can safely say 紕う is a rare/obscure/obsolete\nform and 迷う should be used whenever you want to say \"lost/confused\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T02:29:06.420", "id": "1519", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T02:29:06.420", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1502", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Dave already answered that there is no difference in 迷う and 紕う in modern\nJapanese. Dictionaries agree on this. However, the original meanings of these\ntwo kanji are completely different, and the reason why まよう has these two kanji\nnotations is related to the history of the Japanese word まよう itself, which is\nexplained in\n[Daijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%BE%E3%82%88%E3%81%86&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0).\n\nOriginally, the Japanese word まよう meant for a fabric to become spoiled and for\nthreads in a fabric to get tangled. This is the meaning of the kanji\n[紕](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%B4%95). Note that the radical 糸 (いと;\nthread) is in this kanji. I do not know if the word まよう is used in this\nmeaning in the modern Japanese.\n\nThere was an unrelated word\n[まどう](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%BE%E3%81%A9%E3%81%86&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&index=118519800000&pagenum=1)\nwhich meant to be puzzled or to get lost. Later the words まよう and まどう got\nconfused, and まよう started to be used also for the meaning of まどう. This is why\nまよう means to get lost in the modern Japanese! The kanji\n[迷](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E8%BF%B7&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=1&pagenum=1&index=22004921126900)\nmeans to get lost, and it matches the new meaning of まよう (although まどう is\nwritten as 惑う using a different kanji from 迷). The radical 辶 of 迷 means a\nroad.\n\nAll of this suggests that 迷う and 紕う are actually different words with\ndifferent meanings, tempting me to claim that it is incorrect to use 紕う for\nthe meaning “to get lost.” However, as you and Dave said, dictionaries list\nboth kanji as acceptable and do not seem to make distinction in meanings\nbetween the two kanji. Although I do not know the exact reason for this, my\nguess is that the two notations 迷う and 紕う were used interchangeably in the\nactual Japanese text often enough to justify listing both kanji in\ndictionaries.\n\n_Edit: In an earlier revision, the last paragraph of this answer was unclear.\nI reconsidered it, and hopefully this reflects my thought much better._", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T04:04:20.557", "id": "1521", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T17:06:38.893", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-26T17:06:38.893", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1502", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "33751", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Why is the name 五右衛門 read as ごえもん? \nHow can the three kanji 五右衛 be read with only two syllables?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T10:06:12.897", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1503", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-24T10:06:05.107", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-25T10:48:07.143", "last_editor_user_id": "88", "owner_user_id": "88", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "etymology", "readings" ], "title": "Why is 五右衛門 read \"goemon\"?", "view_count": 1357 }

[ { "body": "[Some](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q143434759)\n[people](http://twitter.com/#!/_ryu9/status/11886981072) say that _goemon_\n(五右衛門) and _iemon_ (伊右衛門) are pronounced like that since it's hard to\npronounce 2 or 3 continuous vowel sounds, as are supposed to be read as _g\n**oue** mon_ (ごうゑもん) / **_iue** mon_ (いうゑもん) per syllable.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T10:57:52.770", "id": "1506", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-24T10:06:05.107", "last_edit_date": "2016-04-24T10:06:05.107", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1503", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "Originally, these kanji were thought to be pronounced as:\n\n> 右衛門: _u we mon_\n\nBut since Japanese _u_ and consonant _w_ have little difference, the actual\npronunciation was like:\n\n> 右衛門: _wwe~we mon_\n\nLater, undergone the phonological change that merged _wi, we, wo_ into _i, e,\no_ :\n\n> 右衛門: _e mon_\n\nSo the truth is 右 and 衛 share a single syllable, but the fact has been\nobscured by the sound change.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-04-23T17:33:32.970", "id": "33751", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-23T17:33:32.970", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7810", "parent_id": "1503", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "In the linguistics topic of language typology, Japanese is often included in\nlists of [agglutinative (or agglutinating)\nlanguages](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutinative_language), but when\nlearning or reading about Japanese grammar exclusively this is rarely if ever\nmentioned. Other examples of agglutinative languages are Turkish, Finnish,\nHungarian, and Basque.\n\nLanguages always considered\n[agglutinative](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutination) usually talk about\nthings like lots of case inflections on nouns or lots of \"slots\" for various\ninfixes and affixes in the potentially long endings of both verbs and nouns.\nJapanese in contrast usually talks about lots of particles and lots of verb\nendings only.\n\nSo is it true that Japanese is an agglutinative language and how should we\nregard this in relation to how we normally discuss Japanese grammar?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T10:35:24.367", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1505", "last_activity_date": "2020-08-03T23:03:46.303", "last_edit_date": "2013-04-01T08:18:41.773", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 24, "tags": [ "grammar", "conjugations", "linguistics" ], "title": "Is Japanese really an agglutinative language?", "view_count": 15544 }

[ { "body": "From the [Examples of agglutinative\nlanguages](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutination#Examples_of_agglutinative_languages)\nsection of the Wikipedia page on\n[Agglutination](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglutination):\n\n> Japanese is also an agglutinating language, adding information such as\n> negation, passive voice, past tense, honorific degree and causality in the\n> verb form. Common examples would be hatarakaseraretara (働かせられたら), which\n> combines causative, passive or potential, and conditional conjugations to\n> arrive at two meanings depending on context \"if (subject) had been made to\n> work...\" and \"if (subject) could make (object) work\", and tabetakunakatta\n> (食べたくなかった), which combines desire, negation, and past tense conjugations to\n> mean \"(subject) did not want to eat\".\n\nIn short, Japanese is considered an agglutinative language because what other\nlanguages express with helping verbs and other additional words ( _was not_\nred, _could not be made to_ eat), Japanese expresses with suffixes that are\nadded to the word root (赤 **くなかった** , 食べ **させられなかった** ).\n\nNouns are usually not counted as agglutinative because they are conjugated\nwith the copula and not with a suffix, but if one considers particles to be\nnoun suffixes and not separate words, one could make the case that nouns are\nalso agglutinative, especially since some particles can be agglutinated (私\n**にも** , 僕 **だけには** ).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T19:13:35.773", "id": "1508", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T20:10:45.213", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-25T20:10:45.213", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "1505", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "According to the Wikipedia page on\n[Inflection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection#Japanese_.28isolating.2Fagglutinative.29):\n\n> Japanese shows a high degree of overt inflection of verbs, less so of\n> adjectives, and very little of nouns, but it is mostly strictly\n> agglutinative and extremely regular. Some fusion of morphemes does take\n> place (e.g. causative-passive -sare- as in ikasareru \"is made to go\", and\n> non-past progressive -ter- as in tabeteru \"is eating\"), but this is rare.\n> Formally, every noun phrase must be marked for case, but this is done by\n> invariable particles (clitic postpositions). (Many grammarians consider\n> Japanese particles to be separate words, and therefore not an inflection,\n> while others consider agglutination a type of overt inflection, and\n> therefore consider Japanese nouns as overtly inflected.)\n\nSo while Japanese is primarily agglutinative, it is not purely so. It is worth\nnoting that no language is purely any one type, as languages are constantly\nevolving (and doing so in a cycle, e.g. of synthetic⇔analytic\ninflection[1](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_%28linguistics%29#Long-\nterm_cyclic_drift)).", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T19:40:14.400", "id": "1509", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T19:40:14.400", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1505", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Agglutinative languages are somewhat harder to understand than other\ncategories. it's easy to see what the difference between synthetic fusional\nlanguages (like Latin or Russian) to isolating ones (such as Chinese or\nEnglish): in isolating languages you only have words mixed with each other in\nvarious ways, but no morphology (or at least not very much of it, since no\nlanguage is pure).\n\nBut why shouldn't we count agglutinative languages as isolating? If they just\nadd suffixes (or prefixes, to be inclusive: Bantu languages such as Swahili\nand Zulu use prefixes more than suffixes for indicating things). You can treat\nevery suffix as yet another word and then they're all just a few words bunched\ntogether, no different than in Chinese.\n\nBut the truth is that agglutinative particles aren't words. Unlike\n\"pre\"-positions, they can't stand alone and they can't put themselves wantonly\nin both sides of words (\"understand\" vs \"stand under\") or entirely removed\nfrom the word they describe (\"Which city do you live in?\"). In fact,\nagglutinative particles are so tied to the \"full\" words they are attached to\nthat they really are, for all intents and purposes, affixes. In most\nagglutinative languages, they are indeed written as prefixes and suffixes\n(i.e. there's no space between them and the words they describe) but in\nJapanese romanization (especially when targeted toward foreigners) they are\nnot. This is mostly due to a westernized perception of Japanese in my opinion.\n\nFor the record, the modern language most similar to Korean, which is given as\nan example for slot, is most probably Japanese. They both have a verb\nconjugation strategy which can be explained through slots (though it's\narguably simpler in Japanese than in Korean), but you won't find the word\n\"slots\" used in textbooks in neither of these languages (at least not the ones\nI've read).\n\nActually, \"slots\" is just a more disciplined way to view what is essentially a\nstandard order for suffixes. In Japanese, as well as in Korean, certain things\nhave to come before others. If your verb specifies negation for instance, it\nshould definitely come after volition (～たい), but also before the past tense\nmarker (～た). If you fulfill every possible category you can also count slots\nin Japanese, but it's less useful than in Korean, since in Korean some\nsuffixes that are not attached directly to each other still need to come\ntogether in some of the cases, so it might make talking about slots more\nhelpful, even for students (but it isn't - most Korean textbooks I've read are\nquite bad at making things simple :/)\n\nDeep inside, Korean uses [verbal\nbases](http://www.tufs.ac.jp/ts/personal/choes/korean/base/Ebase.html), just\nlike Japanese, and each suffix is attached to one of these verbal bases and\ncan be conjugated to any of them (so the next suffix could be attached to it).\nThe same thing can be said about Japanese, where the auxiliary verb だす is\nattached to the I-base of verbs (e.g. kak **i** for kaku) and the auxiliary\nverb あげる can only be attached to the TE-form. They both have further bases of\ntheir own, of course. Some other suffixes (such as ～ない and ～たい) behave more\nlike i-adjectives, but [as we've seen\nbefore](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1008/why-does-japanese-\nhave-two-kinds-of-adjectives-i-adjectives-and-na-adjectives), i-adjectives\nare, in fact, verbs.\n\nCase inflections on noun are actually quite rare. As far as I know, the only\nmajor (or perhaps we should say: commonly mentioned) agglutinative languages\nto ever have cases are Finnish and Estonian. Some languages, such as Turkish,\nHungarian or even Japanese are claimed to have cases, since there are\nparticles that mark things like direct object (accusative) or the instrument\nof a verb (instrumental). These should only be called cases, however, if they\nare used for [noun\nagreement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_%28linguistics%29),\nespecially with adjectives agreeing to their nouns. In Latin they do (compare\nDe Nov **o** Mund **o** _about the new world_ to Nov **i** Mund **i** _of the\nnew world_ ), and in Finnish [they also\ndo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_grammar#Adjectives). Japanese is\nobviously different, but the same can be said for most other agglutinative\nlanguages.\n\nIn fact, there is probably no single grammatical category (be it case, gender,\ntense, person, number, volition, negation or whatever) that is done through\nagglutinative suffixes in all agglutinative languages. Being an agglutinative\nlanguage has nothing to do with **what** is expressed through agglutination,\nbut rather with **how** it is expressed.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T20:20:32.897", "id": "1511", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T20:20:32.897", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1505", "post_type": "answer", "score": 24 }, { "body": "In some agglutinative languages, such as Hungarian, there are not just\nsuffixes, but pre-fixes and post-fixes. All may be used in the same word\nexpressed. The spoken language is not according to rule, but the intent what a\nperson want to express. Some cases an entire sentence can be expressed by a\nsingle word. Yes, some words can be indeed very long, or a lot can be\nexpressed by a short single word, that are formed by agglutination. That is\nwhy it's hard to learn it. Unless picked up at a very early age. The expressed\nor spoken language formed by the mind of the speaker, not by following any set\nrules..", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-12-25T06:15:10.147", "id": "41968", "last_activity_date": "2016-12-25T07:24:26.490", "last_edit_date": "2016-12-25T07:24:26.490", "last_editor_user_id": "7810", "owner_user_id": "19201", "parent_id": "1505", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1536", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Maybe it's just me, but I keep mixing up As in\n\n> すっかり忘れてた\n>\n> I've completely forgot\n\nand\n\n> さっぱりわからない\n>\n> I haven't the faintest idea / I really don't know\n\nare there other expressions to use them?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T12:05:15.390", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1507", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T16:53:06.717", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "60", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "usage", "words", "adverbs" ], "title": "way to use さっぱり (sappari) and すっかり (sukkari)", "view_count": 10257 }

[ { "body": "As for すっかり忘れた - すっかり is an adverb that simply means \"completely, without\nleaving anything left out\". Though すっかり忘れた is probably the most common usage,\nhere are other examples: 「宿題はすっかり終わった」 \"I completely finished my homework.\"\n「すっかり春になった」 \"It's completely become Spring.\"\n\nAs for さっぱり分からない - さっぱり is an adverb that means clean or refreshed/refreshing,\nand can also by extension mean \"completely (not)\" (hence さっぱり分からない). さっぱりした\nwould mean basically, \"to feel refreshed\". Other examples are: 「風呂に入ってさっぱりする」\n\"I feel refreshed after entering the bath.\", 「さっぱり売れない」 \"I can't sell\nanything.\", 「さっぱりと諦める」 \"I've completely given up.\" etc. If you come across a\nconstruction such as ～はさっぱりだ. It's usually a bad connotation meaning \"nothing\ngood\". 「成績はさっぱりだ」 \"There's nothing good at all about my grades.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T15:38:59.140", "id": "1531", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T15:38:59.140", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "433", "parent_id": "1507", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Note: This is not a direct answer to your request for further usage examples\nof the two terms in different verbs. I rather try to explain the nuance with\nthe help of a diagram and a pair of contrasting examples for each of the verb\nyou gave.\n\nAs you state in the question, both すっかり and さっぱり is about the completeness of\nsomething. The difference is that they deal with different kinds of\ncompleteness:\n\n\n\nすっかり is interested in the degree, or progress regarding completeness.\n\nさっぱり's interest, on the other hand, is how completely clean it is of\nsomething.\n\nFor example:\n\n> 食事をすっかり忘れてた: I've completely forgotten to eat. (= how much you forgot about\n> a single thing)\n>\n> 日本語をきれいさっぱり忘れた: I've completely forgotten my Japanese. (= all the vocabs,\n> syntax are gone from your head)\n>\n> すっかり分からなくなった: [I thought I knew something, but] Now I'm back to zero.\n>\n> さっぱり分からない: I don't have a clue.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T17:27:06.893", "id": "1536", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T16:53:06.717", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1507", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1512", "answer_count": 3, "body": "After reading in an answer to another question that Japanese adjectives are\nless inflected than Japanese verbs I'm wondering if there are inflections that\ncan be applied to verbs but not i-adjectives? Or what about the converse?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T20:10:54.947", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1510", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-01T18:10:45.893", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "i-adjectives" ], "title": "Are there inflections/endings that can be applied to verbs but not i-adjectives? (or vice versa)", "view_count": 933 }

[ { "body": "Most of the verb endings cannot be applied to adjectives.\n\nThere are no modern potential, passive, causative, or imperative suffixes:\n\n> x 赤られる (could be red) \n> x 赤られる (was redded?) \n> x 赤させる (was made red) \n> △ 赤かれ (be red! [archaic])\n\nAlso, politeness of adjectives is encoded by the copula, and not by polite\nverb endings:\n\n> o 赤いです (is red [polite]) \n> x 赤ます (is red [polite]) \n> o 赤くありません (is not red [polite]) \n> x 赤ません (is not red [polite])\n\nIn fact, the only endings that adjectives can really have are tense, negation,\nand the conditional mood.\n\n> o 赤い (is red) \n> o 赤かった (was red) \n> o 赤くない (is not red) \n> o 赤くなかった (was not red) \n> o 赤かったら (if it were red) \n> o 赤ければ (if it were red)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T20:29:08.083", "id": "1512", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T22:52:31.017", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-25T22:52:31.017", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "1510", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I want to add a few extra notes to Amanda's answer:\n\nThere are two different vector we should consider when comparing the coverage\nof i-adjective conjugation to the verb conjugation (which is obviously\nricher):\n\n 1. **Possible inflectional bases.** Only verbs have the following bases:\n\n * _Mizenkei_ (未然形), a.k.a A-forms, which are used for negation: 書かない。\n * Arguably the same can be said for _renyoukei_ 連用形, a.k.a I-form, but the く form is historically related to it and fills some if its roles.\n\nThe rest of the bases are also available for adjectives. This includes the TE-\nform (赤くて) suppositional form (赤かろう), and - yes - the imperative form: 赤かれ.\nIt's quite archaic and not very common, but you do see it a few times, so it's\ngood to know.\n\n 2. **Possible _actual_ categories (= grammatical meanings) that can be expressed:**\n\n * For instance, while adjectives in Modern Japanese don't have a mizenkei form, they're certainly able to express negation by combining their ～く form with ない.\n * They're also definitely able to express conditions by using a slightly different base than verbs (the same base with -k- that is used for the く forms): 赤かったら and 赤ければ are both correct and rather common (they're definitely not archaic like the imperative).\n * The same goes for suppositional forms, though the first usage is also slightly archaic: 書こう, 赤かろう or simply 赤いだろう.\n * Politeness is perfectly expressible by adjectives, but just as Amanda has noted, it relies on the copula. \n\nThe interesting categories that are not expressible by verbs are actually\nthese, as I see it:\n\n * Voice (Passive/Causative). The first one is to be expected, since i-adjectives are really stative verbs and being in a state is already an intransitive action that really is quite passive and you can't passivize it further. You can cause someone or something to enter such a state, however, so we would expect a causative form. But as it happens, such causative forms do exist, but they are irregular. You can always try to add する to the ～く form, but there are also irregularily derived verbs like 赤める and 広がる.\n\n * Volition. You can't describe a will to be ADJ like you could do with verbs with the ～たい form.\n\n * Progressive/durative aspect. A state is inherently durative, so you can't make it progressive by using ～ている forms. 赤くている is just nonsensical.\n\n * Many derivations using auxiliary verbs such as ～だす, ～しまう. Some other derivations only work when the state is verbalized into a process using なる, so you could say 赤くなってきた, although 赤くてきた doesn't sound natural.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T22:02:10.390", "id": "1515", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-25T22:02:10.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1510", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "I feel that that other answers are tied too much to the traditional analysis\nof Japanese, which is unsatisfactory from a modern academic point of view.\n\nContrary to what traditional grammar says, i-adjective does not inflect on its\nown. All there is is the `-ku` form. This is the only form of i-adjective that\nis available to syntax. What looks like conjugation on i-adjectives is\nactually conjucation on the copula/pleonastic verb `ある` that selects an\ni-adjective. Contraction (sometimes optional, sometimes obligatory) obscures\nthe form though:\n\n> 赤かった \n> akaku **ar** -ta → akakatta\n>\n> 赤くない \n> akaku **ar** -anai → akakunai (ar-anaku (ar-u) → nai)\n>\n> 赤くなかった \n> akaku **ar** -anakatta → akakunakatta (ar-anaku ar-ta → nakatta)\n>\n> 赤かったら \n> akaku **ar** -ta-ra → akakattara\n>\n> 赤ければ \n> akaku **ar** -eba → akakereba\n\nThe most opaque one is the plain form, the derivation of which is\ncontroversial:\n\n> 赤い \n> akaku ( **ar** -u) → akai\n\nOther than this, the form of i-adjectives without `-ku` can be observed, such\nas `寒さ` 'samu-sa', but that belongs to derivational morphology. It is not done\nat the syntax level, and is not relevant to inflectional morphology.\n\nSince all the conjugation of i-adjective is actually due to the help of the\nverb `ある`, there is no reason that you cannot do conjugation into other forms\nas long as you choose the right verb to assist it. Using Amanda's examples:\n\n> 赤くされる \n> akaku **s** -are-ru\n>\n> 赤くさせる \n> akaku **s** -ase-ru\n>\n> 赤くなれ \n> akaku **nar** -e\n>\n> 赤くなります \n> akaku **nar** -mas-u → akaku narimasu\n\nHere, the reason `ある` does not work all the way is due to\ntransitivity/unaccusativity of the verb, and also semantic compatibility,\nwhich Boaz Yaniv mentions.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-30T08:17:58.397", "id": "4125", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-01T18:10:45.893", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1510", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1518", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I would like to understand better the etymology or the cultural context\nsurrounding\n\n> 数寄者\n\nIf I believe [wwwjdic](http://www.edrdg.org/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic/wwwjdic?1MDJ%BF%F4%B4%F3%BC%D4), this compound is used to denote\n\n * a tea ceremony master (with a reference to a style of tea ceremony house architecture (数奇屋造り)) \n\n * a man of refined tastes\n\n * a lewd man, a lecher\n\nI do not succeed to understand the japanese wikipedia article about this to\nsee how they can be conflated in this way. There seems to be a famous poem\ninvolved and a warning about consuming one's wealth in the purchasing objects\nand services related to the arts.\n\nAlso why is 数 part of this. As a meaning for several? A man mastering the\nseveral arts involved in a tea ceremony?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T21:56:01.753", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1514", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:10:30.360", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:10:30.360", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "126", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "etymology", "culture", "history" ], "title": "How can [数]{す}[寄]{き}[者]{しゃ} both mean a tea ceremony master and a \"lewd man, a lecher\"?", "view_count": 329 }

[ { "body": "To answer the last part of your question first, 数 is part of this for it's\n_pronunciation_ , not meaning. This is called _ateji_ , which is when kanji\nare used to **phonetically** represent words. 寿司 (すし / sushi) is a common\nexample of this. Translations that follow are my own.\n\nAccording to the [Japanese Wikipedia page for\n数寄者](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%95%B0%E5%AF%84%E8%80%85), 「数寄」originally\nheld the same meaning as 「好き」 and remains in its _ateji_ form due to its now\ndistinct meaning. It shows particular fondness for artistic pursuits. However,\nin modern usage, its usage is approaching that of 「物好き」 -- which, while\nliterally meaning curious or whimsical, generally holds something more of a\nnegative, even _strange_ connotation (as I understand it).\n\nLooking in [Goo's\ndictionary](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/117613/m0u/%E6%95%B0%E5%AF%84%E8%80%85/),\nthree definitions are listed, roughly analogous to [those in\nWWWJDIC](http://www.edrdg.org/cgi-bin/wwwjdic/wwwjdic?1MDJ%BF%F4%B4%F3%BC%D4):\n\n 1. A _curious_ (物好き) person. A person of fantastic taste. \n 2. A person devoted to elegant tools, especially those related to tea ceremony. A refined person.\n 3. A lecherous or lustful person.\n\nIt also notes in #1 and #3 that it is a synonym for すきもの.\n\nI see two primary possibilities for meaning #3 has come to be. The less likely\nof the two is the actual **meanings** of the kanji used. 「数」 in its sense of\n_many_ , and 「奇」 in its sense of _strange_ or _eccentric_ (as seen in 奇人\nkijin) may have combined to roughly mean _person of many eccentric tastes_ ,\nwhich could have shifted to its current meaning. I think this is likely\nreading into it too much, and is unlikely.\n\nThe other possibility is its association with the word すきもの, which is another\npossible reading for 「数寄者」, as well as the only reading of 「好き者」.\n[WWWJDIC](http://www.edrdg.org/cgi-bin/wwwjdic/wwwjdic?1MDJ%B9%A5%A4%AD%BC%D4)\nlists \"lecher\" as the only definition for 「好き者」, while\n[Goo](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/117706/m0u/%E5%A5%BD%E3%81%8D%E8%80%85/)\nlists \"eccentric person\" as well. Despite that, it seems likely that either a\nmisreading of or simply sharing similar pronunciations lead to this meaning\nbeing associated with 「数寄者」.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T01:19:54.207", "id": "1518", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T01:19:54.207", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1514", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1517", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is it possible to say ～んじゃない？ If it is, how it differs from ～じゃない？\n\nIn what situation I should use ん/の for it, and what does ん/の express?\n\nExamples:\n\n> **[~い + ん]** \n> いい **ん** じゃない \n> 行きたい **ん** じゃない \n> 吸えない **ん** じゃない\n>\n> **[~な + ん]** \n> 好き **なん** じゃない \n> 先生 **なん** じゃない\n>\n> **[verb(~る/~た) + ん]** \n> する **ん** じゃない \n> 食べなかった **ん** じゃない\n\nIs it all possible? \nIn my opinion, the んform expresses there is something implicit or implied.\nlike a desire, or a sad comment, etc ; but saying it in a soft way.\n\nAlso:\n\n * じゃん is the shorten form of じゃない. \nCan I say ～んじゃん, then? \n\n> 楽しいんじゃん \n> 便利なんじゃん \n> するんじゃん\n>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T22:07:02.690", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1516", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-06T03:09:40.883", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:23:01.923", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "usage", "contractions", "formal-nouns", "tag-question" ], "title": "How is 〜んじゃない different from 〜じゃない?", "view_count": 7716 }

[ { "body": "Yes, you can say 〜んじゃない. The ん/の performs its usual function indicating that\nyou are explaining some fact ([see my answer to this previous\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/506/use-of-in-\nquestions-not-seeking-a-yes-no-answer/521#521)). 〜じゃない here turns the sentence\ninto a tag question ([see Derek's answer to your previous\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1481/usage-\nof/1485#1485)).\n\n> A: (I've already gotten five great answers to questions I asked on the\n> Japanese.SE site!) \n> B: ええ、便利なんじゃない？\n\nHere B uses ん to relate 便利 to A's statement, thus explaining why A is so\nhappy. \"Yes, it's convenient, isn't it [and that's why you are excited about\nit]!\"\n\n> A: (I'm so hungry...) \n> B: え？ さっき食べたんじゃない？\n\nHere B uses ん to explain B's own surprise at A's statement. \"What? Didn't you\njust eat [and this is why I'm surprised that you're hungry so soon]?\"\n\nAs for 〜んじゃん, yes, you can use it. But 〜じゃん is pretty blunt/masculine, so\ndon't use it with your boss.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-25T23:44:51.050", "id": "1517", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T00:21:36.383", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "1516", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Both '～じゃない？' and '～(な)んじゃない？' exist, but have different nuances.\n\n * '～じゃない？': The speaker already knows about or has made up his/her mind about something and is looking to _convince_ the listener or _confirm_ his/her understanding.\n * ～(な)んじゃない？: The speaker is not sure about the statement, and is _asking_ the opinion of the listener.\n\n'～(な)んじゃない？' usually sounds softer and smoother, so might be a safer choice in\nmost cases, but there are situations where only '～じゃない？' is correct:\n\n(When scolding someone)\n\n> × もう言ったんじゃない？ (Did you or didn't you already tell him/her?)\n>\n> ○ もう言ったじゃない？ I already told you, don't you remember?\n\n(When taking about Bush, and you already _know_ when he became president)\n\n> × ブッシュが大統領になったのは2001年なんじゃない？ (Not wrong per se, but implies a genuine\n> question, so doesn't fit here.)\n>\n> ○ ブッシュが大統領になったのは2001年じゃない？ Well, you know how Bush became president in\n> 2001...\n\nIn the above cases, you're not really asking for the listener's _opinion_ , so\n'～じゃない？' has to be used.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-06T03:09:40.883", "id": "4571", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-06T03:09:40.883", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "1516", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1523", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I noticed that there are some adjectives that have ～がる suffix to make them\ninto verbs. Some examples from WWWJDIC:\n\n> ほしがる \n> こわがる \n> いたがる \n> くるしがる \n> さびしがる \n> うれしがる\n\nApparently ～たい form also can take the ～がる suffix to become ～たがる suffix:\n\n> いきたがる\n\nRikaichan popup explains the ～がる as:\n\n> to feel (on adj-stem to represent third party's apparent emotion); to behave\n> as if one were\n\nSo I thought that I could append this suffix to any adjectives to add those\nconnotations. However, it seems that not all adjectives and ～たい have the\nsuffix. WWWJDIC does not return any exact matches for the following words:\n\n> やさしがる (to behave as if one were nice?) \n> きたがる (to feel that one wants to come? - Since いきたがる exists so logically\n> きたがる should exist too?) \n> ねむがる (to behave as if one were sleepy?)\n\nMy question is, as in the title, is ～がる suffix limited to specific adjectives\nonly? How do we know which adjectives can have the suffix and which adjectives\ncan't?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T04:01:51.260", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1520", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T05:17:41.337", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "adjectives", "suffixes" ], "title": "Is ～がる suffix limited to specific adjectives only?", "view_count": 1300 }

[ { "body": "As explained by the Rikaichan popup you reference in your question, ～がる is a\nsuffix for representing a third party's _apparent **emotion_**. As such, you\ncannot use it with やさしい or ねむい as these are not adjectives which describe\nemotions.\n\nAs it was explained to me, you cannot generally _know_ another person's\nemotions or thoughts, and so when speaking of them, you use either ～がる (e.g.\nうれしがる) or ～そう (e.g. うれしそう). To some extent, this is true even in English --\n\"John seems sad today\" seems more generally applicable than \"John is sad\ntoday\" (without John having said so himself).\n\n**To answer your question:** you use this for adjectives (including ～たい) which\nrepresent emotional or psychological states. It's very difficult to provide an\nexhaustive list of such adjectives.", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T04:20:17.670", "id": "1523", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T05:17:41.337", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-26T05:17:41.337", "last_editor_user_id": "384", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1520", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1537", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I understand that 〜すれば〜するほど is used to mean \"the more you do ~ the more ~\".\n\nHowever, I don't see how this meaning is derived from this sentence pattern. I\nassume the ば is from the conditional form and ほど is supposed to mean \"extent\".\n\n> 人が多ければ多いほど楽しい == \"The more the merrier\".\n\nHowever if we look at this from the actual construction it seems like: \"If\nthere are more people, the extent of more is fun.\"\n\nThis may sound weird, but I can't comprehend it in terms of Japanese, am I\nlooking at it incorrectly? Is ほど a particle in this case? A noun?\n\nOf course I can look at it and think in English \"oh that sentence pattern\nmeans 'the more x the more y' and be on my way, but I would like to be able to\nunderstand in terms of Japanese grammar.\n\nAdditionally, it appears in a similar construction:\n\n> 人が多いほど楽しい\n\nIn this construction, does it merely link 多い and 楽しい in a fashion that means\nif one is high, so it the other? Is it a particle in this case?\n\nEdit:\n\nTo clarify, I understand the meaning and logical use of ほど in sentences such\nas:\n\n> 彼ほど日本語がうまくない _kare hodo nihongo ga umakunai_ あいつを殺したいほど嫌いだ _aitsu wo\n> koroshitai hodo kirai da_\n\nThese sentences make logical sense to me. \"I hate him to the **_extent_** of\nwanting to kill him.\", etc.\n\nHowever, when it is used in sentences such as the following, ほど seems closer\nto 方が and I can't see the relation to \"extent\".\n\n> 多いほど楽しい _ooi hodo tanoshii_ ~= The **more** the better.\n>\n> 早いほどいい _hayai hodo ii_ ~= The soon **er** the better.\n\nvs\n\n> 多い方が楽しい _ooi hou ga tanoshii_\n>\n> 早い方がいい _hayai hou ga ii_", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T04:18:07.250", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1522", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-02T08:08:54.277", "last_edit_date": "2021-02-02T08:08:54.277", "last_editor_user_id": "19278", "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles" ], "title": "How does ほど work in the 〜すれば〜するほど construction?", "view_count": 14232 }

[ { "body": "The simplest explanation is that ほど has many related but different usages. The\nbasic meaning of ほど as a noun is the extent or degree of some attribute, and\nthe ほど in your examples is a particle derived from this noun, meaning “the\nmore …, the more ….” I am not sure if any grammatical analysis helps you\nunderstand the meaning of the form …れば…ほど better.\n\nI do not think that knowing that it is a particle instead of a noun helps you\nunderstand the meaning of this form any better, but at least we can say that\nin the sentence 人が多いほど楽しい, no particle is omitted after ほど. On the other hand,\na sentence このゲーム楽しい is informal because a particle は is omitted after ゲーム.\n\n人が多いほど楽しい and 人が多ければ多いほど楽しい mean the same thing. The latter emphasizes the\nrelation between 人が多い and 楽しい by repetition. See also [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/243/can-x-eba-x-hodo-y-\nclause-pattern-be-shortened-to-x-hodo-y).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T05:01:56.337", "id": "1524", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T05:01:56.337", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1522", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "This is easier to explain once you realize many nouns in Japanese can be used\nas adverbs (or just \"verbal complements\" if you prefer, I don't care how you\ncall them). In fact, most of the Japanese words that dictionaries describe as\nadverbs also double as nouns or adjectival nouns (na- and no-adjectives). Take\n普通, for instance: it can either be an adjectival noun meaning \"(being) normal\"\nor an adverb meaning \"normally\", \"usually\".\n\nThis allows Japanese to easily fashion new adverbial constructs out of nouns,\nwhere other languages would require the special class of words called\nconjunctions (which barely exists in Japanese). For instance, to say \"when\",\nwe just use one of the words for \"time\", [時]{とき} in an adverbial role, so we\nget:\n\n> 町に行ったとき、 The time that I went to town **-ADV** \n> 新しい着物を買いました。 I bought a new kimono.\n\nSince とき here is an adverb, it describes the verb, so you could treat it as if\nthe preposition \"at\" was added before it to make its English equivalent\nadverbial: \"At the time I went to town, I bought a new kimono\"\n\nNow, back to ほど: It behaves in the same way. Let's take the sentence:\n\n> 深ければ深いほど暗くなる。\n\nImagine me adding commas here to separate all three parts of the sentence:\n\n> 深ければ、 When/if it's deep, \n> 深いほど、 the extent that it's deep **-ADV** => **to** the extent that it's\n> deep \n> 暗くなる。 gets darker.\n\nI've done the same trick again: I've added a preposition to \"the extent\" to\nindicate it's used adverbially (it describes _how_ things are getting darker,\nand they are getting darker to the extent of it :)).\n\nSo if we look again at the last two parts, we have:\n\n> \"It gets darker to the extent that it's deep.\"\n\nSo why do we need the conditional at the beginning? Well, there's no such\nthing as \"must have\" in a language, and if you want a simple answer, then\nthat's just the way such expression ended up working in Japanese. But there is\na perfectly valid historical reason for this pattern becoming the normal way\nof say \"the more X the more Y\". If you've said 深いほど暗くなる, you'd just imply that\nthere's a consistent link between the extent of deepness and that of darkness.\n\nBut you'd usually want to topicalize one of the linked extents (that is, for\ninstance, to mark it as the one the other guy was talking about, and to which\nyou now link a second extent). For topicalization to work, you make a\ncondition out of it, which boils down to something like this in a chatty\ntranslation.\n\n> \"Well, you were talking about going deeper, right? If we go deeper, the\n> deeper we go the darker it becomes.\"\n\nI think this is the source of the conditional, but now it's pretty much the\nnorm, and there's hardly anything else to contrast it with.\n\n### Edit:\n\nI think I've misunderstood you quite a bit, but I hope my answer is still\nclear: ほど does indeed have meaning of \"extent\" and of \"more\", but when you say\n深いほど暗くなる then you mean that it really gets darker to the extent it gets\ndeeper. If you're very shallow then you'll have very little darkness, but if\nyou get deeper, the extent of depth will be increased and so shall the\ndarkness.\n\nYes, this does seem to be a slightly different meaning than in `殺したいほど嫌いだ`,\nwhere the clause coming before ほど isn't perceived as something measurable but\nrather something that either happens or doesn't happen.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T17:36:33.047", "id": "1537", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T17:44:52.570", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-26T17:44:52.570", "last_editor_user_id": "153", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1522", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "13233", "answer_count": 1, "body": "\n\n> ハイオク： １４８？ \n> レギュラ： １３７？ \n> 軽油： １１５？\n\nWhat meaning do the question marks have?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T07:11:00.520", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1525", "last_activity_date": "2013-10-23T23:00:49.643", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "260", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "numbers", "punctuation" ], "title": "What do the question marks on these gas station signs mean?", "view_count": 597 }

[ { "body": "I traced the photo to [this place](http://gogo.gs/rally/2399000021.html) in\nOkazaki (Aichi prefecture): \n\nOn their web page, they claim to offer the cheapest gas based on a crowd-\nsourced survey of gas prices elsewhere in Japan. The numbers shown on the\nsigns are based on these survey results:\n\n> 一番安いガソリンスタンドはここ！皆さんから投稿された全国のガソリン価格口コミ情報をリアルタイムにお届け！\n\nFurther down the page, it mentions that the prices are rounded up to the\nnearest whole yen, which is why there are question marks displayed instead of\nnumbers:\n\n> 小数点以下を切り上げる\n\nAs you can see, the price at the bottom of the sign is for 18 litres of\nkerosene (灯油). This number has no decimal point, so the last digit hasn't been\nreplaced.\n\nAs Dave suspected, these question marks have very little to do with 日本語 at any\nlevel. But I hope someone finds this useful and/or interesting :-)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-10-23T23:00:49.643", "id": "13233", "last_activity_date": "2013-10-23T23:00:49.643", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4073", "parent_id": "1525", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "both have the similar English of \"answer,\" but when do you use one over the\nother?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T12:12:24.523", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1526", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T14:46:07.663", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-26T14:46:07.663", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "word-choice", "vocabulary" ], "title": "what's the difference between 返事 and 答え？", "view_count": 4688 }

[ { "body": "From goo both\n[答え](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/79626/m0u/%E7%AD%94%E3%81%88/) and\n[返事](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/200324/m0u/%E8%BF%94%E4%BA%8B/) can\nhave the meaning of \"呼びかけに対して答える言葉\", which is what \"answer\" or \"response\" is\nused for in English.\n\nBut 答え has another meaning \"問題・設問などを解いて出される結果\", which what I would summarize\nas equivalent to \"solution\", while 返事 has \"返答の手紙\", which is equivalent to\n\"reply\".\n\nI guess I could say that 答え is answer to a call/address or a question, while\n返事 is answer to a call/address or a letter. Or put it another way, you can use\n答え or 返事 interchangeably when referring to answering a call/address but for a\nsolution to a question or problem 答え should be use, and for answering a letter\n返事 should be used.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T12:34:13.640", "id": "1527", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T12:39:36.493", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-26T12:39:36.493", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "1526", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1612", "answer_count": 3, "body": "In the past few years, reading light novels and the like, I have come across\nmany different terms for _ghosts_ , _spirits_ , _monsters_ , etc. in Japanese,\nand I'm wondering how they relate to each other. What are the differences? Is\nthere some kind of Venn diagram that illustrates this? An article that\ndescribes the differences maybe? Your help is appreciated.\n\nI will list all of the words that I've heard that fit into this category, in\nno particular order. I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones I can\nrecall.\n\n> * 化け物（ばけもの）/ お化け（おばけ）\n> * 妖怪（ようかい）\n> * 怪物（かいぶつ）/ 怪獣（かいじゅう）\n> * 魑魅魍魎（ちみもうりょう） (I particularly liked this one)\n> * 怪異（かいい）\n> * 幽霊（ゆうれい）\n> * 鬼（おに）\n> * 変化（へんげ）\n>\n\n**First Update:** I've grouped synonyms as suggested in the answers below, and\nadded one more.\n\nThe answers below provide quite a bit of information, but also leave quite a\nbit unanswered. In @Kafka Fuura's response, 「怪異」 is defined as 「化け物」 or 「変化」\n-- so is it an umbrella term, or are these all actually synonyms?\n\nAdditionally, 「魑魅魍魎」 are described as 怪物, but then are further defines as\n\"various types of 化物\". Does that mean that 怪物 are a subset of 化け物?\n\nI guess what I was wondering is how these groups inter-relate with each other.\nCan anybody tell me what the taxonomy of these groups is, or at the very least\nprovide some sort of reference which does so (even in Japanese)*?\n\n* One possible such reference is the novel 魍魎の匣, suggested by @Kafka Fuura, but I'd prefer something more detailed.\n\n**Second Update:** Since my last update, I have come across more information\nwhich is relevant to this question, specifically, [The Kaii-Youkai Denshou\nDatabase](http://www.nichibun.ac.jp/YoukaiDB2/index.html).\n\nAccording to their\n[introduction](http://www.nichibun.ac.jp/YoukaiDB2/kwaii.html), 妖怪 are\nsupernatural creatures (examples given include kappa and tengu), while 怪異 are\nessentially unexplained, strange phenomena. They also say earlier in the\nintroduction that the terms もののけ, 化け物, 変化, etc. are words which were used to\nrefer to 妖怪 and 怪異. So is it safe to say that these two are umbrella terms\nwhich encompass everything else?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T13:10:30.300", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1528", "last_activity_date": "2023-03-26T08:22:37.247", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T01:10:01.800", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "post_type": "question", "score": 24, "tags": [ "nuances", "words", "synonyms", "folklore" ], "title": "How are 化け物, 妖怪, 幽霊, etc. related to each other?", "view_count": 2594 }

[ { "body": "* 化け物（ばけもの） and お化け（おばけ）are the same thing. They seem to refer to monsters which are native to Japan, such as Kasa-obake.\n\n * 妖怪（ようかい） I believe these are also similar to お化け.\n\n * 怪物（かいぶつ） are usually monsters with fur, or at least that's the impression I get when I hear it. Large, fur-covered, violent creatures that don't seem to think about anything.\n\n * 怪獣（かいじゅう） Same as above.\n\nThe next two terms I've never heard before, although that's an interesting\ncompilation of kanji there.\n\n * 幽霊（ゆうれい） are, of course, ghosts. Sadako from the Ringu, she's a 幽霊. So are the mother and son from Ju-on. Of course, when you go and visit your grandmother's grave and think you see her there when you're walking to the grave, that's a ghost too. An apparition of someone (something) that was once alive.\n\n * 鬼（おに） are big, muscly creatures with horns. They often wear tiger striped loin cloths, and carry clubs. Or at least that's how Japanese illustrations show them.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T13:24:20.980", "id": "1529", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T13:29:53.030", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-26T13:29:53.030", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "432", "parent_id": "1528", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "怪異 is \"(supernatural) irregularity\"\n\n魑魅魍魎 are the demons of mountains and streams. The book 魍魎の匣 goes more into\ntheir etymology but the general term means a sort of conglomeration of spirits\nand demons of nature.\n\nHere are the definitions in my 旺文社 日本語辞典 if that helps.\n\n怪異（クワイ―） 一（名・形動ダ）不思議であるあやしいこと。また、そのさま。「超自然の―」 二（名）化物。変化（へんげ）。\n\n魑魅魍魎（―マウリヤウ） （「魑魅」は山中の怪物、「魍魎」は水中の怪物）さまざまな化物。\n\n\\--\n\nAlso for interesting side notes:\n\nThe term 鬼 was originally used to describe \"those that resisted the state\" and\nwere demonized and banished. As in the above answer they are often depicted\nwith loin cloths with colored skin and horns and act as messengers and/or\nemploys of hell depending on the story. I suppose it's possible they they\nreferred to the Ainu or other natives or something.\n\n餓鬼 \"gaki\" or \"brat\" is derived from the Buddhist term for \"starving ghosts\"\nwho fell not into hell but into a semi-realm where they were continuously\ntortured by hunger, having their tongues ripped out by demons and such.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T15:16:29.517", "id": "1530", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T15:16:29.517", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "433", "parent_id": "1528", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "The other answers, while containing valid and useful information, are not\nquite what I was looking for, so I continued to research on my own until I\ncame up with the following taxonomy of these terms, with explanations of their\nmeanings as I have come to understand them and examples. Note that the\nmeanings of words and the structure of the classifications below is\nhypothetical as I have tried to divine the \"true\" meanings of words. In\npopular usage, I've found that many of these words are simply interchangeable.\n化け物, for example, can be used for nearly anything, including\nextraterrestrials. Also, note that while this list is not extensive due to the\nbroad nature of material covered, I've tried to cover all the major groupings.\n\n * 怪異（かいい）- As @KafkaFuura stated, **kaii** are irregularities. They are oddities, mysteries, and aberrations. They're strange noises in the night, smells that seem to come from nowhere, and shadows shaped differently than what's casting them. Another example from my personal experience which could possibly be classified as a kaii: have you ever been walking or driving, and _just as you go under a street light_ , it goes out? That's the kind of thing that falls into this category.\n\n * 妖怪（ようかい）- **Youkai** was originally much closer to kaii in meaning, but at some point came to refer specifically to creatures or things which cause odd or irregular phenomena. They are, essentially, the kaii which have been identified as a specific thing. There are many types of youkai.\n\n * 化け物（ばけもの）- **Bakemono** are primarily, as the name suggests, \"things which change.\" They are things which have changed from their rightful form one way or another. Also known as お化け（おばけ）and 大化け（おおばけ）. The following subgroups exist, but caution is advised as their names are often used as synonyms for \"bakemono\".\n\n * 化生（けしょう）- The most common type of bakemono is known as **keshou** , because they \"live in a changed state.\" They can generally not change their appearance, but rather change or are changed from their original state and remain in their new one.\n\n * 怪物（かいぶつ）- **Kaibutsu** are ghastly, paranormal creatures whose true form is unknown.\n\n * 怪獣（かいじゅう）- **Kaijuu** are the subset of kaibutsu which are animals or beasts.\n\n * 魑魅魍魎（ちみもうりょう）- This is actually a group of two subclasses: **chimi** and **mouryou** , or the spirits/monsters of mountains and rivers, respectively. \n\n * 付喪神（つくもがみ）- **Tsukumogami** are items or artifacts, such as swords, sandals, and brooms, which have become alive and aware. This is often said to happen when the item reaches its 100th birthday.\n\n * 変化（へんげ）- The other class of bakemono is that of the **henge**. These are creatures which can change their shape via their own form of magic, including foxes, tanuki, snakes, cats, badgers, and many others.\n\n * 鬼（おに）- **Oni** are a class all to themselves as broad as any of the others, and include the demons of Buddhism, mountain religions, and many other sources. As in the other answers, they are archetypally huge, hideous creatures with horns and claws, wearing a loincloth and carrying a club. Their skin is often red or blue. According to Wikipedia,\n\n> [Oni] were originally invisible spirits or gods which caused disasters,\n> disease, and other unpleasant things. These nebulous beings could also take\n> on a variety of forms to deceive (and often devour) humans. [...] The\n> invisible oni eventually became anthropomorphized and took on its modern,\n> ogre-like form, partly via syncretism with creatures imported by Buddhism,\n> such as the Indian _rakshasa_ and _yaksha_ , the hungry ghosts called _gaki_\n> , and the devilish underlings of Enma-Ō who punish sinners in Jigoku (Hell).\n\n * 幽霊（ゆうれい）－ **Yuurei** are, in the strictest sense, ghosts, as stated in @Anonymous's answer, though there are many different types. To add confusion to the mix, one major type is often known as お化け（おばけ）.\n\n * 妖（あやかし）- Often simply called 妖怪（ようかい）, **ayakashi** include things such as kappa and tengu -- the patently \"Japanese\" creatures, monsters, and goblins of legend.\n\nThis is the answer I was looking for, and only came upon this model after\nmany, many hours of research over the past couple days. However, I also found\nsomething else which is worth noting, and which I mentioned briefly above.\nPopular usage of terms such as 化け物 and 妖怪 are largely interchangeable. Nearly\nanything can be a 化け物, for example. Whether something is a 化け物 or 妖怪 is often\na very confusing issue, and this is why in popular usage, these words can be\nso confusing: there is no real concept of a hierarchy or structural\nclassification at all.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T02:39:44.783", "id": "1612", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T02:39:44.783", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1528", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1535", "answer_count": 2, "body": "When we have a する verb (e.g. 支{し}度{たく}する、案{あん}内{ない}する、心{しん}配{ぱい}する), is it\ntrue that we could optionally insert an を particle in between the noun and the\nする?\n\nBecause in the example sentences\n[here](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E6%94%AF%E5%BA%A6) and\n[here](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E6%A1%88%E5%86%85), we can see this usage (the usage of を\nparticle appearing between the noun and the する).\n\nSo basically am I right to say that for all する verbs, we can optionally\ninclude (or exclude) an を particle in between the noun and the する?\n\nIf not, how exactly should we decide whether or not to include that を? I mean\nI know with a lot of usage we will _just know it_ , but are there any rules\nthat we can apply here?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T16:44:42.930", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1532", "last_activity_date": "2017-04-03T00:44:02.613", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-03T00:32:16.170", "last_editor_user_id": "18852", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 26, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "verbs" ], "title": "Can we optionally include (or exclude) an を particle in between the noun of the する-verb and the する itself?", "view_count": 1512 }

[ { "body": "I can't think of any long and detailed answer for that (sorry), but the short\nanswer is: \nMost of the times, **yes**.\n\nFor most verbs it seems like the choice between ～をする and ～する is entirely\nflexible. I think the actual difference between these forms may be related to\nfocus: adding を puts a greater focus on the specific action described by the\nverb. Then again, I may be utterly wrong here.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T17:02:15.963", "id": "1534", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-26T17:02:15.963", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1532", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Here are the only two exceptions I can think of where you absolutely can't\ninsert \"を\":\n\nIf the construction wasn't based on をする but とする like さっぱりする→◯さっぱりとする ☓さっぱりをする\n\nIf the construction is \"merged\" single character する verbs like\n動｛どう｝じる／動ずる、案｛あん｝じる／案ずる、命｛めい｝じる／命ずる、失｛しっ｝する、課｛か｝する、罰｛ばっ｝する etc.\n\nHowever, it's uncommon to just add を in in many cases - so the result may be\nawkward if it's without precedent. Basically, adding an を adds emphasis on the\nnoun the verb comes from, rather than the action that する notes. Think of 支度をする\nand 支度する as \"to do preparations\" vs. \"to prepare\" - either sound fine, but\n誘{ゆう}拐{かい}をする and T \"to do(?) a kidnapping\" vs. \"to kidnap\" It's not exactly\nlike that, but I guess I'm trying to show how some cases like with 誘拐 it would\nsound awkward.\n\nAlso something to note is that if you're adding a \"を\" for instance with\n掃{そう}除{じ}をする. You can't add another \"を\". 部屋を掃除をする you would write it as\n部屋の掃除をする - however this isn't a problem if you've omitted the を. For instance\nwith 子どもを誘拐する. Again, 子どもの誘拐をする would be grammatically \"correct\" but would\nsound extremely \"off\".", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-26T17:24:06.770", "id": "1535", "last_activity_date": "2017-04-03T00:44:02.613", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-03T00:44:02.613", "last_editor_user_id": "18852", "owner_user_id": "433", "parent_id": "1532", "post_type": "answer", "score": 23 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1542", "answer_count": 9, "body": "I know plenty of Japanese words that came from English and a few from other\nEuropean languages (obviously tons from Chinese), but what about words from\nJapan's indigenous languages such as Ainu? Also if there are any are they all\nwritten in kana like the newer borrowed words?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T00:57:26.843", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1540", "last_activity_date": "2019-11-14T22:47:59.777", "last_edit_date": "2019-08-24T09:40:09.380", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "words", "etymology", "loanwords", "ryukyuan-languages", "ainu" ], "title": "Are there any common Japanese words which were borrowed from Ainu or other indigenous languages?", "view_count": 3802 }

[ { "body": "There are some words in Japanese which were borrowed from the Ainu language,\nand mostly, they are written in katakana. However, they are mostly very\nuncommon words. Likely one of the most common is ラッコ (sea otter) -- I don't\nknow that there is another word for it. Another which you have potentially\nheard is カムイ, which is analogous to the Japanese 神（かみ）.\n\nThere may also be words borrowed from the language(s?) of the Ryukyu Islands\n(e.g. Okinawa), but I am not aware of any specific examples. If there are,\nthey are also likely written (at least mostly) in katakana.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T01:24:36.737", "id": "1541", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T01:24:36.737", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "What I think common from them is\n[トナカイ](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%88%E3%83%8A%E3%82%AB%E3%82%A4)、[ラッコ](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A9%E3%83%83%E3%82%B3)、シシャモ、ノンノ\n\nref:\n[日本語に溶け込んだアイヌ語](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%82%A4%E3%83%8C%E8%AA%9E#.E6.97.A5.E6.9C.AC.E8.AA.9E.E3.81.AB.E6.BA.B6.E3.81.91.E8.BE.BC.E3.82.93.E3.81.A0.E3.82.A2.E3.82.A4.E3.83.8C.E8.AA.9E)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T01:26:37.173", "id": "1542", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T01:26:37.173", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "Japanese has also borrowed some words from Okinawan, generally relating to\nRyukyuan culture, including:\n\n * [ぐすく](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gusuku), from /gusiku/\n * [おもろ](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omoro_S%C5%8Dshi&oldid=375576365#Etymology), from /umuru/\n * [キジムナー](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kijimuna)\n * [シーサー](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shisa), from /siisaa/", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-13T08:07:06.107", "id": "1898", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-13T08:07:06.107", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "501", "parent_id": "1540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "I don't know this for sure, but I believe the word \"Kanata\" meaning roughly\n\"far away\" in Japanese may have come from the Ainu, based on it's homonym by\nNative Americans, who descended from the Ainu.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-09T14:19:11.390", "id": "12312", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-09T14:19:11.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3693", "parent_id": "1540", "post_type": "answer", "score": -5 }, { "body": "Most Ainu loanwords in regular use are names for plants/animals indigenous to\nnorthern Japan, such as reindeer (トナカイ) and sea otter (ラッコ). These loans are\nold enough that there _are_ usually kanji that can be used for them:\n\n * 馴鹿 (トナカイ, also read じゅんろく)\n * 海獺 or 猟虎 (ラッコ)\n\nHowever, many plant/animal names are usually written in katakana in everyday\nuse (e.g. カバ for \"hippopotamus,\" though it can be written 河馬). Due to the Ainu\nwords being borrowed so long ago and the fact that many people don't realize\nthey aren't \"native\" Japanese words, I suspect they are usually written in\nkatakana because of this convention.\n\nI've read in at least a few sources that the word さる \"monkey\" is from Ainu\n_sar'ush_ , literally \"having a tail.\" Can't promise it's not a false cognate\nthough. It's treated as a native Japanese word in writing.\n\nUsing katakana for loanwords was not common practice until after the Meiji\nrestoration (older loans like コーヒー and ガラス can actually be written in kanji,\nalthough they generally aren't; たばこ is still written in hiragana).\n\nAside from that, many place names especially in northern Japan are derived\nfrom Ainu. \"Sapporo\" from _Sat-poro-pet_ and \"Shiretoko\" from _Sir-etok_ are\ntwo off the top of my head. These are generally written in kanji.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-09-09T17:37:21.823", "id": "18621", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-08T19:56:33.527", "last_edit_date": "2016-09-08T19:56:33.527", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "7253", "parent_id": "1540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "Here is a list of all words of Ainu origin listed as such in 大辞林\n\n * アツシ \n * イオマンテ\n * 生馬{いけま}\n * ウタリ\n * 蝦夷{えぞ}\n * エトピリカ\n * オヒョウ\n * カムイ\n * けいまふり\n * コタン\n * 柳葉魚{シシャモ}\n * トナカイ\n * ユーカラ\n * ラッコ\n * ルイベ", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2015-03-09T14:36:35.373", "id": "23146", "last_activity_date": "2019-08-21T08:00:35.957", "last_edit_date": "2019-08-21T08:00:35.957", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "1540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Many of Hokkaido toponymos (and even some on Honshu) are coming from Ainu\nlanguage. It includes the such common ones like 札幌、 小樽 or 石狩.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-09-09T04:37:06.963", "id": "39072", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-09T04:37:06.963", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5047", "parent_id": "1540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I've actually looked into this before. Some of these are actually phrases that\nare not used in regular Japanese. Also this is by no means a complete list.\n\n**Ainu**\n\n * アイヌラックル Okikurumi (Ainu founder god)\n * 昆布{こんぶ} Kombu\n * ユーカラ Yukar (Ainu oral saga)\n * シャモ non-ainu Japanese\n * 古潭 {コタン} Ainu village\n * 生馬 Swallowwort\n * 馴鹿 {トナカイ} Reindeer\n * 海獺 {ラッコ} Otter\n * ワンド Lagoon\n * エトピリカ Tufted Puffin\n * 柳葉魚 {シシャモ} Shishamo smelt\n * ウタリ Human\n * コロポックル Ainu dwarf god\n * オヒョウ Manchurian Elm\n * イオマンテ Ainu brown bear sacrificial ceremony\n * ハスカップ Blue Honeysuckle\n * ムックリ Mouth harp\n * カムイ Ainu god kamuy\n * ウネウ fur seal \n * オショロコマ dolly varden trout\n * イナウ inau wooden sticks used for prayer\n * トンコリ plucked string instrument\n * 厚司 {アツシ} elm bark clothing\n * ウニウ Alaskan fur seal\n * オキクルミ Okikurumi founder god\n * ルイベ salmon cut thin while froze \n * エカシ grandfather, old man\n * チセ traditional ainu house\n * ケイマフリ spectacled guillemot\n * チャランケ dispute settlement through discussion\n\n**Ryuukyuu (Okinawan)**\n\n * 城 {ぐすく} Okinawan Fortress\n * まぶい spirit\n * ゆた shaman\n * 双節棍 {ヌンチャク} Nunchaku\n * サーターアンダギー Sata andagi doughnut\n * あんだーぎー deep fried\n * あんだ oil\n * チャンプルー stir fry dish\n * 沖縄口 {うちなあぐち} Ryuukyuu language\n * ゴーヤ Bitter melon\n * 旋棍 トンフア Tonfa baton\n * ウージ sugar cane\n * めんそーれ welcome\n * ちゅらさん beauty\n * 抱瓶 {ダチビン} Portable ceramic sake cup\n * 高麗胡椒 {コーレーグス} chili pepper\n * 伊集 {イジュ} Chinese guger tree\n * ハイサイ Hello\n * なんくるない Don't worry - be happy\n * ないちゃー Person from mainland Japan\n * 島人 {しまんちゅ} Islanders\n * 尾類 {ズリ} prostitute\n * ソーキ Okinawan skewered spare ribs\n * ラフテー skewered pork cubes\n * ゴーヤチャンプルー Goya champloo\n * 足てびち pig's feet\n * イリチー stir fry then boil in sauce\n * スクガラス salt pickled young mottled spinefood\n * さんぴん茶 Jasmine tea\n * スーチカー Salt pork\n * 人参しりしり carrot egg stir fry\n * 神人 かみんちゅ Shrine maiden\n * ウチナンチュー Okinawan person\n * ヤマトンチュー Japanese mainlander\n * 迎恩 {げいおん} welcoming reception\n * かりゆし happy\n * シーミー tomb sweeping festival\n * アカマチ Queen snapper\n * トントンミー Southern Japanese mudskipper\n * ピパーツ Javanese long pepper\n * ぐすーよー everybody\n * 海人 {ウミンチュ} fisherman\n * 海神祭 {うんじゃみまつり} Festival for the sea gods\n * ヒラヤーチー Okinawan pancake dish\n * 手瓜 {もううり} Yellow cucumber\n * 爬龍 {はありい} Dragon boat race", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-08-24T08:28:57.060", "id": "70304", "last_activity_date": "2019-08-24T08:28:57.060", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "35142", "parent_id": "1540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "In Lakota, \"kana'\" refers to \"those over there\" as a pronoun. In Old Japanese,\n\"kanata\" has this meaning and usage, which is closer to Lakota than Ainu,\nthough there is no reason these peoples could not be related.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-11-14T22:47:59.777", "id": "73087", "last_activity_date": "2019-11-14T22:47:59.777", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "36020", "parent_id": "1540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1546", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Does the term \"もしもし\" (moshimoshi) predate the telephone? Does it have any use\nbesides answering the phone? Where does it come from, is it just a\nreduplication of \"もし\" (moshi) \"if\", and if so how does that work?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T01:47:54.197", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1543", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T16:09:54.277", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 35, "tags": [ "etymology", "history", "spoken-language", "idioms" ], "title": "Where does \"もしもし\" (moshimoshi) for answering the telephone come from?", "view_count": 8641 }

[ { "body": "もしもし is from 申し（もうし） being double and shortened, and at Edo-era people use\nonly もうし without repetition.\n\n申す(もうす) is same meaning with 言う(いう)/話す(はなす), but we use as polite-from\nnowaday.\n\nref: <http://gogen-allguide.com/mo/moshimoshi.html>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T02:12:45.653", "id": "1545", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T02:12:45.653", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1543", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "[もしもし](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E3%82%82%E3%81%97%E3%82%82%E3%81%97&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0ss)\nis used to call for someone’s attention. Although it is often used on the\nphone, the use is not limited to phone calls. もしもし is a repetition of\n[もし](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%82%82%E3%81%97&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=1&index=119377300000&pagenum=1),\nwhich is also used to call for an attention. もし is a variation of [申し\n(もうし)](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%82%82%E3%81%86%E3%81%97&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=1&index=119321000000&pagenum=1),\nwhich was used in the same way in old time. 申し definitely predates telephones,\nand I guess that both もし and もしもし for asking for an attention predate\ntelephones, too.\n\nThe use of 申し in this meaning is archaic. Both もし and もしもし in this meaning\nsound a little old-fashioned to me except for the use of もしもし on the phone.\n\nSome people write on the web that もしもし is a contraction of 申し上げます、申し上げます (“I\nwill speak, I will speak” in a humble and polite form), but I do not know how\nreliable this claim is.\n\nBy the way, one of the most widely known uses of もしもし other than on the phone\nmay be children’s song [うさぎとかめ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2JOlrtj8Cg).\nThe lyric starts with もしもし かめよ かめさんよ.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T02:39:29.010", "id": "1546", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T16:09:54.277", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-27T16:09:54.277", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1543", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1562", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Is な particle allowed to be used after common nouns (i.e non na-adjectives)\nfor whatever reasons, e.g. cuteness, trendy, humor etc?\n\nDictionary@goo website seems to use (normal noun)+な in a couple of the column\nnames:\n\n * [JAPANなニュース](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/study/newsword/wednesday/20110621-01.html)\n * [ニュースな英語](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/study/newsword/monday/20101225-01.html)\n\nIs this kind of ungrammatical usage of な particle allowed in publication?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T03:32:23.170", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1547", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T14:20:22.853", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "particles", "particle-な" ], "title": "Using な particle after common nouns (non na-adjectives)", "view_count": 3460 }

[ { "body": "This may not be the \"standard\" way to use な, but I don't see anything\nparticularly wrong with it, especially considering how it can shorten titles\nand save space. JAPANなニュース and ニュースな英語 sound better than JAPANに関するニュース and\nニュースに出てくる英語, don't they?\n\nFor a more extreme example of this non-standard な, you can look at the way Yui\nHorie signs off of her weekly radio show, 天使のたまご. This is from the June 26th,\n2011 show:\n\n> この時間のお相手は「そんなにたくさん恋愛の石をつけててダメだったらどうしよう？」 **な** 堀江由衣でした。\n\nEverything in the 「」 (which she changes every week) is wrapped up by the な and\nused to modify 堀江由衣. Of course, just because she uses な this way doesn't mean\nyou can start throwing なs around like shurikens in a ninja fight, but it goes\nto show that there are more ways to use な than are in the dictionary.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T14:20:22.853", "id": "1562", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T14:20:22.853", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1547", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1555", "answer_count": 4, "body": "Most particles seem to be postpositions but I'm sure I've seen say a noun\nfollowed by a location particle followed by \"wa\" or \"ga\" or possibly \"wo\" but\nwhen I've tried to use it I've only confused my Japanese friends.\n\nUnder what circumstances can multiple particles end up next to each other and\nwhat's the most that could end up in sequence?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T03:44:33.970", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1548", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T16:13:47.470", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "grammar", "usage", "particles", "syntax" ], "title": "Are there cases when two or more particles will occur next to each other without intervening lexical words?", "view_count": 7410 }

[ { "body": "Although it's sometimes hard to tell whether these are single particles put\ntogether or a different syntactic element made of two kana, I think it can\nhappen:\n\nは will very easily follow a に or a で. For example:\n\n * 日本 **には** 美しい都市が多い。\n\n * 僕 **には** 彼女の言うことが分かった。\n\n * 英日の翻訳と日英の翻訳 **では** 、英日の翻訳を希望する人のほうが多いようです。\n\n(and many cases where it might be hard to decide whether では is really two\nparticles or one, such as ではない etc.)\n\nIntuitively, I wouldn't expect が to follow another particle, but I might be\nwrong.\n\nFinally, not sure if they are the kind of syntactic markers you were\ninterested in, but \"particles\" such as 'よ' and 'ね' can and will follow all\nsorts of other particles.\n\nAs long as your sentence ends with another particle, it should be possible to\ntack a 'ね' or a 'よ' at the end (though I can't think of many cases where it'd\nmake sense with よ):\n\n * ７時にね。 \n * 僕はね。\n\n(of course, these aren't very full-formed sentences, since having a particle\nat the end often requires eliding the verb), but they are valid examples\nnonetheless.\n\nAs for 'よ' + 'ね', counter-intuitive as it is (since you are often taught they\nrepresent the two near-opposite feelings of 'assertion' vs. 'question'), it is\nvery common to hear them together (possibly more in female-speech):\n\n * 今の日本は自滅へのみちを突き進んでいますよね。\n\n * 落ち目って言うけど、まだイケるよね。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T04:53:20.193", "id": "1552", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T14:24:03.053", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-27T14:24:03.053", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1548", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "There are many instances where one particle immediately follows another.\nExamples:\n\n> * アメリカ **では** 何語が話されていますか。\n> * 車 **には** 一人分の空きがあった。\n> * ごめん、僕 **にも** 責任があるんだ。\n> * どんな子供 **でも** そのくらい答えられる。*\n> * 雹が降る **のを** 見たことがありますか。\n> * 彼は走る **のが** 速くないわけではない。\n>\n\nAlthough it is very difficult to exhaustively explain all of the\npossibilities, one thing in particular stands out to me as a rule:\n\nBecause the nominalizing particle 「の」 turns what it follows into a noun, it\ncan generally be followed by anything which can follow a noun (see final two\nexamples with を and が above).\n\n* Although でも is often considered one \"word\", it is actually the particles で and も stuck together.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T04:58:26.323", "id": "1553", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T05:39:04.640", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-27T05:39:04.640", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1548", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "Japanese has many particles (助詞), and they behave in many varying and\ndifferent ways, so it's helpful to categorize them before we can see how they\ncan be combined. The semi-traditional classification you'd find in Japanese\ndictionary usually goes along these lines (note that many particles can fall\ninto more than one of these categories as they have different uses, e.g. から\ncan be used to indicate direction, but also as a conjunction indicating\nreason):\n\n * **格助詞** _Grammatical role particles_ \nThese particles usually follow a noun phrase, and indicate its grammatical\nrole in the sentence or in relation to other phrases. This category include\nparticles such as が (subject marker), を (direct object marker), の (both the\nnominalizer and the genitive relation marker) and markers of\nlocation/direction/time such as で、に、へ、から (in the meaning of from) and まで. It\nalso includes と in the meaning of \"with\" or when used as a quotative particle.\n\n * **並立助詞** _Connective particles_ \nThese particles usually connect two noun phrases. This obviously includes と\n(when used as an \"and\") and や, but also か in the meaning of \"or\".\n\n * **係助詞** _Linking particles_ (I prefer the name _Information structure particles_ ) \nThese particles are perhaps the hardest to describe. They indicate some link\nto contextual information, and usually put different kinds of emphasis on\nwhatever they mark. The best way to describe them, in my opinion, is using\ninformation structure theory, but it's too complex and irrelevant to include\nhere. This category includes は, も、さえ and こそ.\n\n * **終助詞** _Sentence-final particles_ \nThese are the hard-to-translate particles we all know and love. They may come\nonly in the end of the sentence, and they usually indicate\n[pragmatic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics) attitudes (such as \"This\nis a question\" or \"I'm asserting this\") or emotions. This category include the\nquestion marker か、よ、ね、ぞ、かな, etc. Note that さ、よ and ね are also part of the next\ncategory:\n\n * **間投助詞** _Interjectional particles_ \nThese particles are very similar to the sentence-final particles, but they may\nalso appear in the middle of the sentence, usually in the end of a complete\nphrase. ね、さ、よ (when used as a\n[vocative](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocative)) are included here: 「私は\n**ね** 、…」「私って **さ** 、…」「わが友よ、行け！」 (the last one is quite archaic and probably\njocular :)).\n\n * **副助詞** _Adverbial particles_ \nThese particles are usually defined as \"particles that act on the whatever\nthey follow as if you've put an adverb describing it\". I think this definition\nkinda sucks, and this category ends up being quite a mixed bag, usually\nincluding such particles as: だけ、くらい、など、ばかり and ほど.\n\n * **接続助詞** _Conjunctive particles_ \nThese particles are equivalent to conjunctions in English: they connect\nwhatever they follow (which is usually a full clause ending with a verb) to\nthe main sentence. This category includes particles such as から、けど、ので、のに、as\nwell as が when it's used in the meaning of \"but\".\n\nThis classification system of particles is probably far from being perfect,\nand you can make many variations of it or even reform it completely - but it\ngoes to show you that Japanese particles are extremely varied and perform many\ndifferent jobs, so laying out how they may be combined is extremely complex.\n\nUsing this categorization system, you can say that linking particles may\ngenerally follow grammatical role particle when they indicate a role in a\nsentence (this doesn't include the genitive の), but が and を has a strange\nproperty: when you add most linking particles to them, they disappear and are\nreplaced entirely by は、も or whatever linking particle you've added, and you\ncan no longer differentiate between subjects and direct objects. The only\nexception to this rule I can think of right now is こそ, which actually comes\nbefore the grammatical role particle and not after it.\n\nSentence-final particles obviously can't follow grammatical role particles or\nlinking particles, since particles of these classes only come after the parts\nof the sentence that appear before the verb, while sentence particles only\nfollow verbs. They usually intermingle only with other sentence-final\nparticles (or with interjection particles that double as sentence-final such\nas さ and ね).\n\nConnective particles also don't mix very well, since they usually come in the\nmiddle of a list of nouns, where no other article (even an interjection\nparticle) can be placed. They also don't tend to mix with each other.\n\nOther classes of particles don't tell us a lot. The interjection particle ね\ncan generally follow almost any other particle, and really is very flexible,\nwhile the vocative よ usually follows only nouns or names. I think さ is\nsomewhere in the middle.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T08:33:18.403", "id": "1555", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T08:33:18.403", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1548", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 }, { "body": "I'd like to supplement Boaz's excellent answer with some concrete examples,\nfor those members who learn better by example.\n\n_Using this categorization system, you can say that linking particles may\ngenerally follow grammatical role particle when they indicate a role in a\nsentence..._\n\n> 僕 **に** 難しすぎるよ。 _It is too difficult for me._\n>\n> * 僕 **には** 難しすぎるよ。 _[Others may find it easy, but] it is too difficult for\n> me._\n> * 僕 **にも** 難しすぎるよ。 _It is too difficult for me as well._\n> * 僕 **にさえ** 難しすぎるよ。 _It is too difficult even for me._\n>\n\n_...が and を has a strange property: when you add most linking particles to\nthem, they disappear and are replaced entirely by は、も or whatever linking\nparticle you've added, and you can no longer differentiate between subjects\nand direct objects._\n\n> 猫 **が** 犬 **を** 噛んだ。 _The cat bit the dog._\n>\n> * x 猫 **もが** 犬 **をさえ** 噛んだ。\n> * 猫 **も** 犬 **を** 噛んだ。 _The cat bit the dog too [after the dog was bitten\n> by something else]._\n> * 猫 **が** 犬 **さえ** 噛んだ。 _The cat bit even the dog._\n> * 猫 **は** 犬 **しか** 噛まない。 _The cat bites nothing but dogs._\n>\n\n_Sentence-final particles obviously can't follow grammatical role particles or\nlinking particles, since particles of these classes only come after the parts\nof the sentence that appear before the verb, while sentence particles only\nfollow verbs._\n\n> その本 **を** 俺 **に** 渡せ。 _Hand that book over to me._\n>\n> * x その本 **をぞ** 俺 **に** 渡せ。\n> * x その本 **を** 俺 **にな** 渡せ。\n>\n\n_They usually intermingle only with other sentence-final particles (or with\ninterjection particles that double as sentence-final such as さ and ね)._\n\n> それは嘘です。 _That's a lie._\n>\n> * それは嘘です **よね** 。 _[I'm pretty sure] that's a lie [but I'm asking to make\n> sure]._\n> * それは嘘 **かよ** 。 _That can't be lie! [asserting disbelief]_\n>\n\n_Connective particles also don't mix very well, since they usually come in the\nmiddle of a list of nouns, where no other article (even an interjection\nparticle) can be placed. They also don't tend to mix with each other._\n\n> サツキ **と** メイは姉妹です。 _Satsuki and Mei are sisters._\n>\n> * x サツキ **とだけ** メイは姉妹です。 _(It makes no sense to qualify the と because it\n> applies equally to both)_\n>\n\n_The interjection particle ね can generally follow almost any other particle,\nand really is very flexible, while the vocative よ usually follows only nouns\nor names. I think さ is somewhere in the middle._\n\n> 僕 **は** 姉 **と** 映画を見にいった。 _I went to see a movie with my sister._\n>\n> * 僕 **はね、** 姉 **とね、** 映画を見にいった。 _I, um! Went to see a movie! With my\n> sister! (five-year-old boy)_\n> * 僕 **はさ、** 姉 **とさ、** 映画を見にいった。 _I like, went to see a movie with, like,\n> my sister. (thirteen-year-old boy)_\n>\n\nI would add that adverbial particles can link up with grammatical role\nparticles and linking particles.\n\n> 僕 **だけが** 分かる。 _Only I understand._ \n> それ **ほどは** 悲しくないぞ。 _I'm not **that** sad._ \n> リス **なども** いる。 _[In addition to other things,] there are squirrels and\n> other creatures like that._", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T05:33:49.710", "id": "1584", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T16:13:47.470", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "1548", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "**Reasons for omitting titles like 'さん' after names of entertainers,\nperformers and public figures**\n\n「[記者ハンドブック\n新聞用字用語集](http://www.amazon.co.jp./exec/obidos/ASIN/476410475X/)」によると、\n\n> 運動、芸能欄などのスポーツ選手、芸能人には敬称をつけない\n>\n> [[出典](http://www.heartlogic.jp/archives/2005/01/post_278.html)]\n\nそうです。新聞以外のメディアや、日常会話でも上のような公人に敬称を付けないことは普通です。\n\n> 石川遼のような生命保険 (第一生命の商品のキャッチフレーズ)\n\n敬語が重要な一部である日本語において、敬称の省略が許されている理由・考え方は何でしょうか?\n\n個人的な印象では、芸能人やスポーツ選手は日常生活の外で起こっている物語の中の登場人物で、直接性がないために尊敬や丁寧の意をあらわす必要がないからだろうか、という気がします。\n\n信頼のおける本や理論を元にした説明があるとなおよいです。答えは日本語でも英語でもかまいません。\n\n* * *\n\nMeta note: Part of the intention behind this question is to work out how to\nhandle bilingual content. ref: [meta: Do questions have to be in\nEnglish?](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/22/do-questions-\nhave-to-be-in-english)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T04:24:49.137", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1549", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-09T21:14:14.540", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "128", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "honorifics" ], "title": "芸能人・スポーツ選手・公人に「さん」などの敬称を付けなくてもよい理由は?", "view_count": 2142 }

[ { "body": "Well I guess it's the same as any other culture when talking about a public\nperson. You wouldn't call Beckham, Mr Beckham when he scores a goal.\n\nI'm sure there are exceptions to this rule mentioned in that reporter's\nhandbook though. I can't see newspapers omitting the honor title for every\npublic figure.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T11:36:33.597", "id": "1557", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T11:36:33.597", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1549", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "My understanding was that for famous people, adding of \"san\" actually denotes\nfamiliarity with the person. Like having actually met them. When you have\nnever met them you would drop the san. I may be similar to why you don't\ninclude San after titles when referring to people in your own company.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T02:09:01.230", "id": "1577", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T02:09:01.230", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1549", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I think it's a habit, rather than the rule. I didn’t know that there are\nmanuals to regulate the use of honorific title for public figures such as\nsport-players and entertainers like 「記者ハンドブック 新聞用字用語集」. But actually we don’t\nadd “さん” to celebrities in all kinds of fields, not only sports and\nentertainment, but also politics, literature, business, and so on.\n\nWhen we talk about famous celebrities like 長嶋茂雄、王貞治、美空ひばり、川端康成、村上春樹、 孫正義、and\n田中角栄、we don’t add “さん – Mr. Ms”, regardless their reputation and high status\nas an enlisted player in the Hall of Fame, national heroine of singer, Nobel\nPrize winner, Forb’s 500 enlisted businessman and famous politician. We call\nthis practice \"呼び捨て\" meaning to call one's name without 敬称 - honorific\naddressing. But this is permitted in informal statement.\n\nI remember TV media once called baseball players and some other sport game\nplayers by suffixing さん to their family name, like 清原さん during the sport news\ntime at a period a couple of decades ago. But they stopped doing so because it\nsounds so superficial, awkward and odd to audience.\n\nIn a formal statement, we use \"氏\" like 安倍氏、孫氏、高橋氏, or the titles of\npersonalities for examples, 安倍総理、孫社長、高橋監督、not 安倍さん、孫さん、高橋さん.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-03-09T01:23:10.540", "id": "32758", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-09T21:14:14.540", "last_edit_date": "2016-03-09T21:14:14.540", "last_editor_user_id": "12056", "owner_user_id": "12056", "parent_id": "1549", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1576", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Title says it all!\n\nIf somebody called and left a message, when calling them back, is there a set\nexpression for that?\n\nI generally just use \"さっきにお電話頂いた...\", but wondering if there is a more\nidiomatic way to say this.\n\n(this happens a lot more in a business situation, but I'd be interested to\nhear if there are suggestions for casual situations as well)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T04:42:46.347", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1550", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-30T14:23:53.537", "last_edit_date": "2015-06-30T14:23:53.537", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "translation", "business-japanese" ], "title": "How to say: \"I am returning your call\"", "view_count": 16220 }

[ { "body": "May be 折り返し電話しました would be similar sense with \"I am returning (the) call\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T04:47:38.363", "id": "1551", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T04:47:38.363", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "1550", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Mentioning the call you'd received is the most common way, just like you\nalready do.\n\nIn a business situation, 先程 would be more appropriate than さっき:\n\n> 先程お電話頂いたBですが... This is B, I believe you called me earlier...\n\nBy adding そう, you can hint that someone else picked up the phone for you:\n\n> 先程お電話を頂いたそうですが... I was informed that you called me earlier...\n\nThere _are_ ways of directly saying \"I'm returning your call\", but I believe\nthey're rarely used when talking to the original caller and more appropriate\nwhen you're describing your situation to a third party, possibly a\nreceptionist:\n\n> (?) 折り返しお電話しております、Bと申します (To the original caller) This is B. I'm returning\n> your call.\n>\n> そちらのA様からお電話を頂いたそうで、折り返しお電話しております / 掛け直させていただいております。 (To a receptionist) I\n> was informed that A called me. I'm returning his call.\n\nSo, that's that for business situations. I'm not aware of any other idiomatic\nway of putting it.\n\nFor casual situations, you can tweak the politeness of the examples above to\nproduce informal versions for each, except 折り返し; 折り返し is just too formal.\n\n> Bだけど、さっき電話くれたよね。 It's B. Did you just call me?\n>\n> さっき電話くれたって聞いたんだけど... I heard you just called me...\n>\n> Aちゃんから電話があったみたいで、かけ直してます。 (To a mom) I heard A called me and I'm calling\n> back.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T01:03:57.150", "id": "1576", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T01:03:57.150", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1550", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1974", "answer_count": 2, "body": "No I'm not claiming the [Altaic\nhypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic_hypothesis) so try not to\nbring that up in answers.\n\nStill there are grammatical similarities between Japanese and Turkish such as\nagglutination and use of postpositions rather than prepositions. My knowledge\nof Japanese helped me get some basic Korean even though they are not\nestablished to be related either so I am interested in finding some detailed\ncomparison that may help me shoehorn my Japanese knowledge to get me started\nin Turkish too... and for more general understanding of both languages.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T08:30:50.457", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1554", "last_activity_date": "2021-03-26T06:59:28.740", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-16T06:21:49.240", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "grammar", "learning", "syntax", "linguistics", "comparative-linguistics" ], "title": "Is there a study available on the similarities between Japanese and Turkish grammars?", "view_count": 3220 }

[ { "body": "I don't know much (or any) Turkish, but I can tell you this: a long time ago,\nmy linguistics department used to offer a Turkish course, and my Japanese\nprofessor (a native speaker) used to be a student back then. He told us that\nthe course was quite tough, since most \"students\" there were actually Ph.D\nstudents and other professors at the department, but he found Turkish quite\nsimilar to Japanese. So there's probably at least some truth to what people\nsay about the similarity of both these languages. This similarity doesn't have\nto indicate any genetic relation, by the way: I find Quechua strikingly\nresembling Japanese, but it's hard to imagine any contact between the ancient\nInca and the ancient Japanese.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T08:42:01.423", "id": "1556", "last_activity_date": "2021-03-26T06:59:28.740", "last_edit_date": "2021-03-26T06:59:28.740", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1554", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I've done some cursory searching through LLBA and have come up with a number\nof studies comparing the Japanese and Turkish grammars... there are\nundoubtedly many, many more, however. A brief selection of these studies\nfollows (though I'm not sure how useful it will actually be, as many studies\ncan be difficult to find copies of):\n\n> * Allen, S., Ozyurek, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., Ishizuka, T., &\n> Fujii, M. (2007). Language-specific and universal influences in children's\n> syntactic packaging of manner and path: A comparison of english, japanese,\n> and turkish. Cognition, 102(1), 16-48.\n> * Demirci, K. (2006). Japanese compound verbs and their turkish\n> counterparts: Verb+verb. [Japonca'daki Birlesik Fiiller ve Turkcedeki\n> Fiillere Benzerlikleri: fiil+fiil] Bilig - Turk DunyasI Sosyal Bilimler\n> Dergisi, 38(summer), 123-136.\n> * Ido, S. (2002). An alternative description of incomplete sentences in\n> turkish and other agglutinative languages. Turkic Languages, 6(2), 157-191.\n> * Sener, S., & Takahashi, D. (2010). Argument ellipsis in japanese and\n> turkish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 61, [np].\n> * Simpson, A., Hwang, H., & Ipek, C. (2009). The comparative syntax of\n> double object constructions in japanese, korean, and turkish. MIT Working\n> Papers in Linguistics, 58, 41-62.\n>\n\nI've specifically tried to leave out any studies regarding the Altaic\nhypothesis as you requested. As for full comparisons of Japanese and Turkish\ngrammar, I highly doubt that such a thing exists, due to the sheer scope of it\nall.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-16T08:14:04.667", "id": "1974", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-16T08:14:04.667", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1554", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1560", "answer_count": 3, "body": "でしょう can usually be understood to mean \"probably.\" But does it sometimes mean\nthe same thing as ですね? What other meanings can it have? Can it mean \"you\nknow?\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T13:07:06.330", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1558", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T14:12:33.777", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-27T14:07:22.973", "last_editor_user_id": "69", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "meaning" ], "title": "Other meanings of でしょう besides \"probably\"", "view_count": 7647 }

[ { "body": "でしょう is like です, but with less certainty. It's used when someone is pretty\nsure something is that way, but not entirely.\n\nSo yes, it's a bit like 'probably', but that's not actually what it means.\n\nIt's often used when someone wants to see if someone else agrees with them\nbefore committing to it, too.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T13:15:58.230", "id": "1559", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T13:15:58.230", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1558", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Aside from the meaning of \"probably\", I've heard でしょう (だろう) used in the\nfollowing manners:\n\n 1. In polite speech, でしょうか can replace ですか. でしょうか sounds \"softer\" and a little less direct:\n\n> この色【いろ】はいかがですか。 How about this color?\n>\n> この色【いろ】はいかが **でしょう** か。 How about this color? (slightly more polite)\n>\n> ちょっと分【わ】かりにくいですかね。 Do you suppose it's somewhat hard to follow?\n>\n> ちょっと分【わ】かりにくい **でしょう** かね。 Do you suppose it's somewhat hard to follow?\n> (slightly more polite)\n\n 2. でしょう and だろう can be used like ね to form tag questions, primarily when the speaker knows something to be true and is using it to prove a point to or convince the listener of some fact. This use of でしょう often has a rising intonation:\n\n> で、帰【かえ】ったときに携帯【けいたい】はかばんに入【はい】ってなかった **だろう** ？ So when you got back, your\n> cell wasn't in your bag, right?\n>\n> 言【い】った **でしょう** ？明日【あした】、東京【とうきょう】に行【い】くって。 I told you, didn't I? That I'd\n> be going to Tokyo tomorrow.\n\nThe question particle か is omitted in this use. In my experience, you're more\nlikely to find だろう being used by men and でしょう by women here, but the split is\nnot well defined, as both are fairly gender-neutral.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T13:58:34.060", "id": "1560", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T14:12:33.777", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-29T14:12:33.777", "last_editor_user_id": "94", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1558", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 }, { "body": "There is another slightly different use that takes some getting used to.\nWeather reporters frequently use でしょう to indicate likely weather:\n\n明日の朝から雨がふるでしょう。\n\nAt first it always seemed like they were asking me for confirmation:)\n\nTo agree with previous posters, ですね and でしょう are pretty different. The former\nis sort of a neutral comment, but can imply a question, whereas the latter is\nmore implicitly asking for some kind of confirmation.\n\n味が変ですね。-This tastes odd (wouldn't you agree?) 味が変でしょう。 - Doesn't this taste\nodd?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T22:14:44.613", "id": "1574", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T22:14:44.613", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "440", "parent_id": "1558", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1573", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Sometimes I think: \n～とも came from ～と思う \n～かしら came from ～かしらん（知らない）\n\nIt's possible I'm wrong, so I would like to know the real meaning of those\nsuffixes. Also, I'd like to know when I can use them without any problem (when\ntalking about spoken language).\n\nEx:\n\n * もちろんいいとも \n * 明日は雨かしら", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T14:09:23.907", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1561", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-29T22:19:59.157", "last_edit_date": "2012-05-29T22:19:59.157", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "usage", "etymology" ], "title": "What are the meanings of ~とも [tomo] and ~かしら [kashira]?", "view_count": 7914 }

[ { "body": "～とも (in the sense you seem to be talking about) is a rather archaic sentence-\nfinal particle which is used for strongly asserting something that the\nlistener may not be so sure about. That makes it similar to the far more\ncolloquial particle よ, but it's somewhat stronger and more decisive than よ.\n「いいとも」, for instance, would usually come in the context where A asked B\nwhether it's okay to do something, and B wants to firmly reassure A that it's\nokay.\n\nThis とも has no relation whatsoever with ～と思う, but rather comes from combining\nthe particles と and も. かしら, on the other hand, indeed comes from かしらん\n(＝かしらない), as Dave has already indicated.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T21:05:54.780", "id": "1573", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T16:19:58.633", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-28T16:19:58.633", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "153", "parent_id": "1561", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1594", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I understand the grammar point \"Verb (Dictionary Form) + ことはない\" can mean\neither \"There is no need\" or \"There is no possibility\" depending on context.\n\nHowever, what are the differences? Are there any nuances which I should be\naware of? Can they simply be interchanged in any circumstance?\n\n\"There is no need\" example:\n\nわざわざここに来る必要はない \nvs \nわざわざここに来ることはない\n\n\"There is no possibility\" example:\n\n今日の会議を忘れる可能性はない \nvs \n今日の会議を忘れることはない", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T14:43:38.670", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1563", "last_activity_date": "2022-03-11T17:42:11.373", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:15:18.047", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "Difference and nuance between することはない and する必要はない/する可能性はない", "view_count": 1388 }

[ { "body": "I would say that these 3 forms are just different.\n\n**必要** expresses the necessity: it is necessary (or not) to ...\n\n**可能性** expresses the possibility: it is possible (or not) that ...\n\n**ことはない** is more abstract and I would translate it as: \"There's no such thing\nas ...\" or \"there is no way that ...\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T15:05:26.513", "id": "1564", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T15:05:26.513", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1563", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "When ことはない is used to mean “there is no need,” _I think_ that the nuance is\nthat it is not only unnecessary but also should be avoided. 必要はない on the\nsurface just states that it is unnecessary. (I wrote “on the surface” because\nif someone _chooses_ to say that something is unnecessary, it is often because\nhe/she actually thinks that something should not be done. But the phrase 必要はない\nitself does not mean “should avoid.”)\n\nWhen ことはない is used to mean “there is no possibility,” I am not aware of any\ndifference in meaning from 可能性はない. 可能性はない sounds a little more explanatory and\nargumentative than ことはない because of the use of the word 可能性 which is\nsemantically heavier than こと.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T15:44:42.567", "id": "1594", "last_activity_date": "2022-03-11T17:42:11.373", "last_edit_date": "2022-03-11T17:42:11.373", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1563", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1568", "answer_count": 3, "body": "In one of the Japanese classes I attended, I've been taught that while we use\n「何も出来ない」to say \"He cannot do anything\", to say \"He can do anything\" we use\n「何でも出来る」 instead of 「何も出来る」.\n\nWhy is there a grammar rule that says 「何も」 is used before negative predicate\nwhile 「何でも」 is used before positive predicate? Why do we need additional で\nparticle for the positive predicate?\n\nIs the rule still being followed, and are there any exceptions (something like\n[exceptions to the 全然+negative\nrule](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/794/with-positive-\nadjective-na-adjective))?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T16:20:24.103", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1565", "last_activity_date": "2020-02-27T03:07:02.523", "last_edit_date": "2020-02-27T03:07:02.523", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 34, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "negation", "polarity-items" ], "title": "The reason for using 何も+negative, but 何でも+positive", "view_count": 5741 }

[ { "body": "This is not a very helpful answer, but: I think you are needlessly\ncomplicating a fairly simple grammar rule by looking for an \"explanation\".\nThere might be some deep and obscure etymological link between the 'も' and\n'でも' of 何も/誰も/いつも, but knowing it won't further your understanding of the rule\nitself.\n\nIt would be exactly the same as asking \"why is there a grammar rule that says\n'any[thing/one/time]' is used with a negative predicate while\n'some[thing/one/time]' is used with a positive\"...\n\nAs you can see, the analogy even holds up for the similarity between the\nwords.\n\nWhile 何でも出来ない sounds a little strange (but not unthinkable), negative forms\nwith 何でも definitely exist. For example: `何でもないよ。` (\"It's nothing\").\n\n**Note** : 全然+positive that you mention is not a \"grammatical exception\" (at\nleast not yet). As the answers told you, it is a very colloquial use, strongly\ndiscouraged in anything more than casual conversation with friends.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T16:54:07.317", "id": "1566", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T16:54:07.317", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1565", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Rather than memorizing edge cases like this one, I think the key here lies in\nunderstanding the difference between も and でも in this context.\n\nIn **positive** statements using **も** , the grouping is explicit. In other\nwords, when you say 何も, だれも, どれも, and so on, it's clear through context or\nprior statements what \"every\" includes:\n\n> ピアノ、ギター、ドラム…彼はどれ｛○も／×でも｝上手に弾ける。 Piano, guitar, drums…he can play all of them\n> well.\n>\n> 友だちはだれ｛○も／×でも｝DSを持っている。 All my friends have a DS.\n>\n> 私がお店に入ったとき、彼女はいつ｛○も／△でも｝いる。 When I enter the store, she's always there.\n\nIn **negative** statements using **も** , you don't have to worry about\nqualifying the scope of the statement, so 何もできない and だれもいない are sufficient.\n\nWith **でも** , however, the grouping can be left unstated:\n\n> こんな簡単な問題はだれ｛△も／○でも｝解けるよ。 Anyone can solve a simple problem like this.\n>\n> これで本をいつ｛×も／○でも｝読める。 With this I can read a book at any time.\n>\n> 娘は好き嫌いが全然なくて、何｛×も／○でも｝食べてくれる。 My daughter isn't picky at all, and she'll eat\n> anything.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T18:19:50.540", "id": "1568", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-27T18:19:50.540", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1565", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 }, { "body": "## Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) in English\n\nEvery language has lexical items which are restricted, seemingly arbitrarily,\nto specific contexts. Let's start with some English sentences to introduce the\nconcept:\n\n> ​1a. I don't like her **at all**. \n> ​1b. *I like her **at all**.\n\nThe first sentence is fine, but the second sentence doesn't work because _at\nall_ is a [**Negative Polarity Item** (NPI)](http://www-\npersonal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/npi.html)--a lexical item restricted to\nnegative contexts.\n\nSometimes we have pairs of positive and negative polarity items:\n\n> ​2a. I like her, **too**. \n> ​2b. I don't like her, **either**.\n\nHere, _too_ and _either_ are a positive-negative pair. If we swap them, the\nsentences don't work (at least, not with the same meaning):\n\n> ​3a. *I like her, **either**. \n> ​3b. *I don't like her, **too**.\n\nMany NPIs can also appear in interrogative contexts--that is to say, in\nquestions like 4c:\n\n> ​4a. I don't like her **at all**. \n> ​4b. *I like her **at all**. \n> ​4c. Do you like her **at all**?\n\nBut every polarity item has its own requirements, which can be arbitrary,\ncomplex, and context-dependent. For example, _till_ is an NPI in clauses with\na punctual interpretation:\n\n> 5a. We won't leave **till** six o'clock. \n> 5b. ??We will leave **till** six o'clock.\n\nIn 5a we interpret _leave_ as a punctual event, one that takes place in a\nsingle point in time, but _till_ can't appear in positive punctual predicates,\nso we can't interpret 5b the same way. Instead, we interpret 5b as durative--\nit sounds like we're planning on leaving for a while, possibly for hours at a\ntime. This is, of course, nonsense, so 5b is highly questionable.\n\nEnglish is full of examples like these, and unsurprisingly, so is Japanese.\n\n* * *\n\n## Negative Polarity Items (NPIs) in Japanese\n\nJapanese has a number of NPIs. One of the first ones taught to learners is しか,\nwhich is always followed by some form of negation:\n\n> ​6a. ​ 行く **しか** ない！ \n> ​6b. *行く **しか** ある！\n\nThere's no reason in principle why this is true. Positive しか could make sense,\nand indeed 日本国語大辞典 notes that there are rare historical examples of しか\nunaccompanied by negation. But in Japanese as it's spoken today, the negative\nrequirement is more or less an ironclad rule.\n\nUnlike English, Japanese is verb-final, and negation usually comes toward the\nend of a sentence. Many Japanese NPIs appear early, and they're often signals\nthat a negative predicate is coming up:\n\n> ​7a. ​ **決して** 忘れたりしない。 \n> ​7b. * **決して** 忘れたりする。\n\nIn many cases, this signal is strong enough that you can leave out the actual\npart of the predicate containing the negation (as long as it can be inferred\nfrom context):\n\n> ​8a. **ちっとも** 変わらない。 \n> ​8b. **ちっとも** 。\n\nThis is true even for items like 全然 which have an _association with negatives_\nrather than a strict requirement:\n\n> ​9a. **全然** わからない。 \n> ​9b. **全然** 。\n\n(Of course, I haven't supplied any context here; you'll have to imagine the\ncontext that allows the verb to be left out if you want 8b and 9b to make\nsense.)\n\nYour example too is among the Japanese NPIs:\n\n> ​10a. ​ 私は **何も** 食べない。 \n> ​10b. *私は **何も** 食べる。\n\nThere's no reason in principle why 何も shouldn't be possible in positive\ncontexts. It would make sense, just like certain other combinations of\nquestion words plus も. For example, どれも is fine either way:\n\n> ​11a. ​ **どれも** おいしかった。 \n> ​11b. ​ **どれも** おいしくなかった。\n\nSo is いつも:\n\n> ​12a. ​ **いつも** 面白い。 \n> ​12b. ​ **いつも** 面白くない。\n\nSo is 誰も:\n\n> ​13a. ​ **誰もが** 知っている。 \n> ​13b. ​ **誰も** 知らない。\n\nNotice here the arbitrary and quite strong preference for が in 13a. Notice too\nthe arbitrary difference between 知っている and 知らない, using 〜ている only in the\npositive. Every word has its own story to tell, and its own way of being used.\n\nAnd 何も has its own story, too. Unlike these other question words in examples\n11-13, 何も happens to have an arbitrary restriction to the negative, while 何でも\ndoes not--and you'll just have to memorize this difference.\n\nTo convince you that it's truly arbitrary, consider あまり／あんまり. The following\nexamples are borrowed from [a paper by Ai\nMatsui](https://www.msu.edu/~matsuiai/papers/salt21-matsui-anmari.pdf):\n\n> ​14a. *今日は **あんまり** あつい。 \n> ​14b. ​ 今日は **あんまり** あつくない。\n\nIn this particular example, it seems that あんまり requires a negative context.\nHowever, this is not always the case. In the following example, it's licensed\nin a positive context by the presence of から:\n\n> ​14c. ​ 部屋が **あんまり** あつかった **から** エアコンを付けた。\n\nWhy? No reason. That's just how the language is.\n\nSometimes we can speculate as to why. Sometimes we can look at the historical\nevidence and try to find a reason from etymology. For example, some linguists\nsuspect that しか contains a contracted version of the particle は, often\nassociated with negative predicates. And it's true that we have relatively few\ncites for しか in positive contexts, even historically.\n\nBut generally speaking, _why_ is a difficult and possibly unanswerable\nquestion when it comes to polarity items. For us learners, they're just\nsomething we'll have to memorize.\n\n* * *\n\n_In this answer, the * symbol marks a sentence as ungrammatical._", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-05-21T09:01:24.927", "id": "16060", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-21T10:10:28.557", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-21T10:10:28.557", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1565", "post_type": "answer", "score": 37 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1570", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What's the real difference between 天気 and 天候? In at least one of my\ndictionaries, 天候 just redirects to 天気.\n\nI've always thought (read: \"felt\") that 天候 is the general \"concept\" of\nweather, or even climate\n\n> 秋の天候 - \"the [type of] weather in the fall\"; 北海道の天候 - \"the climate of\n> Hokkaido\"\n\nwhereas 天気 seems to be the actual tangible weather.\n\n> 明日の天気は雨です - \"Tomorrow (the actual weather) will be rain\"; 天気予報 - \"weather\n> (not climate) forecast\"\n\nこれ合ってるか教えてください。\n\n**EDIT** : After looking a bit more through the different definitions, it\nseems that **気候** is more closely related to \"climate\" than **天候**.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T19:37:42.313", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1569", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-19T04:13:27.023", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-07T15:01:47.647", "last_editor_user_id": "37", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "nuances", "synonyms" ], "title": "天気 vs. 天候, what's the real difference?", "view_count": 5196 }

[ { "body": "[Daijisen's got you\ncovered](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/153212/m0u/%E5%A4%A9%E6%B0%97/).\nThe usage note under 天気 says that 天気 refers to the atmospheric conditions over\na short period of time (two or three days at most), while 天候 is for describing\nthose conditions over a period of several to several tens of days. And of\ncourse 天気 can be used in the sense of \"good weather\", which is a connotation\n天候 does not have.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-27T19:45:05.333", "id": "1570", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-19T04:13:27.023", "last_edit_date": "2014-12-19T04:13:27.023", "last_editor_user_id": "6840", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1569", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1579", "answer_count": 2, "body": "If [ばかり](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/%7Ejwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E3%81%B0%E3%81%8B%E3%82%8A) could mean **approximately;\nabout;** and could also mean **only; merely; nothing but;** , then how should\nwe know if this sentence **５０００円ばかりもっている。** means:\n\n> 1. I have about 5000 yen.\n>\n\nor\n\n> 2. I have only 5000 yen.\n>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T00:53:13.993", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1575", "last_activity_date": "2021-11-25T19:35:59.923", "last_edit_date": "2021-11-25T19:35:59.923", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-ばかり" ], "title": "How do we tell if ばかり means \"about\" or \"only\"?", "view_count": 1100 }

[ { "body": "If the verb is past tense it means \"just\" happened. If the verb is -te iru it\nmeans only.\n\nThere are about 3 or 4 other uses that arent used as much. bakarini nado...\n\n> × ５０００円ばかりもっている。 doesnt sound right.\n>\n> ○ ５０００円だけ持ってる\n>\n> ○ ５０００円しか持ってない", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T03:31:05.230", "id": "1578", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T05:15:26.220", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-29T05:15:26.220", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "440", "parent_id": "1575", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "1. ばかり after **an amount or a quantity** means 'approximately', 'about':\n\n> ５０００円ばかりもっている。→ I have **about** 5,000 yen.\n>\n> 僕はここ３年ばかりあの人に会わない。→ I haven't seen him for about three years.\n\n 2. The sense of 'only', 'just' works **after a verb** :\n\n> 列車はたった今ついたばかりです。→ The train has just arrived here.\n\nor a **noun/pronoun** (not indicating a quantity):\n\n> あの人は勉強 ばかりしていて... → All he does is study\n\nNote that ばかりに, ばかりか etc. also exist and work differently.\n\nAs @Scott just pointed out, in your example, you would use だけ or しか\n(+negative) to mean \"only\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T03:44:12.380", "id": "1579", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T04:50:41.567", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-28T04:50:41.567", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1575", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1597", "answer_count": 5, "body": "Some Japanese websites have no problem addressing me as Amandaさん, but how\ncommon is this in human-produced Japanese? Under what circumstances would\nsomeone refer to someone else as Amandaさん, בועזくん, or Екатери́наちゃん instead of\nアマンダさん, ボアズくん, or エカテリーナちゃん?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T04:17:20.057", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1580", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:25:19.510", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:25:19.510", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "28", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "honorifics", "names" ], "title": "Using Japanese honorifics with non-kana names", "view_count": 3074 }

[ { "body": "It's used quite normally. My business emails, spam mail, post from the bank or\ngovernment are all normally addressed to `David 様`, or whatever exact name\nthey happen to know me by. The same goes for more informal communication using\n〜さん or other less honorable honorifics. A certain client of mine is addressing\nme as `DAVID SAN` in emails. Non-roman, non-Japanese alphabets probably won't\nbe used that easily though, mostly because few people can understand or write\nthem. If you introduce yourself to people using the katakana spelling of your\nname, people may be more likely to use it instead of rōmaji. It always depends\non the individual author though. Some will try to find out how to spell your\nname in kana, others may be glad for the opportunity to use rōmaji.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T04:30:21.233", "id": "1581", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T04:30:21.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "parent_id": "1580", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Both of my language partners call me William-san all the time on the phone and\nin written communications in both English and Japanese.\n\nI only use 'san' in Japanese when speaking to them, though. (English is my\nnative language.)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T11:02:16.607", "id": "1588", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T11:02:16.607", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1580", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Perhaps unrelated, but my Japanese teacher though told us to learn the\nkatakana version of our names, always calls me by Joseph-さん\n\nwhile taking attendance she calls everyone by [name]-さん so I was thinking the\nkatakana version of our names is just for fun/show", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T15:50:58.867", "id": "1596", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T15:50:58.867", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "parent_id": "1580", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Non-Japanese names are usually written with Japanese letters in Japanese text,\nbut it is not rare to see them written with the original letters, too. I do\nnot think that use of honorifics is related to whether foreign names are\nspelled in kana letters or in the original script.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T15:56:01.863", "id": "1597", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T15:56:01.863", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1580", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I can only speak to my personal experience, but my Japanese coworkers usually\nrefer to us as [English First Name]さん (like Michael さん), even though we\nsometimes sign our emails in Katakana.\n\nPerhaps it's because the Katakana isn't always exact (in fact, some names\nsound completely different in Katakana because the syllables don't exist in\nJapanese). By using the original language, they can write your name as it was\nmeant to be written instead of a foreign adaption of your name.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T18:36:28.143", "id": "1601", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T18:36:28.143", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "162", "parent_id": "1580", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1583", "answer_count": 2, "body": "This is taken from one of the mindless pop songs I shouldn't even be listening\nto:\n\n> なんてったって ラッキー！\n\nI know what なんて and ラッキー mean, of course, but I can't figure out in a way that\nmakes sense to me what the contracted forms after なんて are. Any help?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T04:48:09.657", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1582", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-11T20:10:02.150", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-11T20:10:02.150", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "318", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "slang", "て-form", "colloquial-language", "contractions", "song-lyrics" ], "title": "Colloquial Contraction Confusion", "view_count": 529 }

[ { "body": "In this case, I believe that ったって is a reduction of 言ったって, which combined with\nなんて likely means roughly \"no matter what I say/you say/etc.\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T05:14:31.133", "id": "1583", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T05:29:06.540", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-28T05:29:06.540", "last_editor_user_id": "384", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1582", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Are you sure it's a contraction and not 達て, which would meant it was something\nthey wished for, and they thought the person was lucky? With the little つ in\nthere to represent how it was said?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T10:57:32.803", "id": "1587", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T10:57:32.803", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1582", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1591", "answer_count": 3, "body": "In the Japanese version of \"don't drink and drive\" slogan, 【乗るなら飲むな】 (also\n【飲んだら乗るな】), what part of speech is the な that follows the plain verb 飲む (or 乗る\nin the second variation) to form the negative imperative verb form?\n\nAt first I thought it was a conjugation, but a conjugation modifies the verb\nthat it attaches to, whereas 飲む and 乗る are left unmodified before the な. I am\nthinking maybe it is a special usage of the な particle, but I don't discount\nthe possibility that it is entirely a different species.\n\nAlso, what of its origin? Did it come from abbreviation of longer clauses like\n「飲む無しに(して/しろ)」 etc, or from something else?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T09:33:41.020", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1585", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-22T01:32:05.667", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-08T08:42:44.000", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "conjugations", "negation", "imperatives", "particle-な", "parts-of-speech" ], "title": "About the な part in negative imperative verb form (e.g. 飲むな)", "view_count": 8218 }

[ { "body": "It's the strongest, tersest form of negative. It always follows a plain form\nverb. I have no idea of the origin; it's pretty old though:)\n\nRegarding the origin, it goes back to at least the 8th century in this form:\n\n活用語の終止形に付いて、「～するな」と禁止する意をあらわす。現代口語に継承されている。\n\n大和道は雲隠れたりしかれども吾が振る袖をなめしと思ふ **な** （万葉集、筑紫娘子） こちふかば匂ひおこせよ梅の花あるじなしとて春を忘る **な**\n（拾遺集、菅原道真）\n\nSource: <http://www.asahi-\nnet.or.jp/~sg2h-ymst/yamatouta/intro/josi05.html#ab17>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T13:19:29.943", "id": "1591", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-18T13:44:55.630", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-18T13:44:55.630", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "440", "parent_id": "1585", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "It's the [Prohibition\nparticle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_particles#na_and_naa)\n\nIf na follows a dictionary form verb, it is a negative command (\"Don't... \").\nHowever, if used with a verb stem, it implies the opposite: \"Do...\"", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T15:46:44.530", "id": "1595", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T03:33:30.063", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-30T03:33:30.063", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "264", "parent_id": "1585", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "As others have noted, な following the plain form of a verb is the abrupt\ncommand form for \"don't [verb]\". As far as the origin goes, this is the root\nof modern verb ending and adjective ない \"not\".\n\nNote that this negative な is decidedly **not** the same as the affirmative な\nused after a verb stem in the 連用形{れんようけい} continuative form (ending in _-i_ or\n_-e_ ). That な is actually an abbreviated form of なさい.\n\nAs such, the following two mean almost exactly the opposite:\n\n * XX たべるな\n * XX たべな\n\nThe first one means \"don't eat XX\", while the second means \"do eat XX\". Both\nare command forms, with the first one more abrupt / rude than the second.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-05-18T00:24:26.510", "id": "16009", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-22T01:32:05.667", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-22T01:32:05.667", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "1585", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1627", "answer_count": 4, "body": "わがままはもう言わない gets translated as \"won't say anything selfish anymore.\" However,\nthis doesn't really make sense. If I google \"say anything selfish,\" what I\nfind are sites that have translated わがままはもう言わない into English. It's not a\nphrase that is normally used in English and the phrase itself doesn't even\nseem to really make sense. I don't think that English speakers really\nunderstand what わがまま is since they always translate it directly into something\nthat is grammatically correct but doesn't really make sense.\n\nSo what does わがままはもう言わない actually mean?\n\nCan someone give some example sentences that exhibit わがまま?", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T10:51:26.973", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1586", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T12:01:06.257", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-28T15:36:32.513", "last_editor_user_id": "69", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "translation", "phrases" ], "title": "What are some sentences that exhibit わがまま", "view_count": 1785 }

[ { "body": "How about \"I won't be selfish.\" A more literal translation might be \"I won't\nsay selfish things anymore.\"\n\nIt's one of those phrases that doesn't really translate to anything that is\ncommonly said in English. We'd change the entire thing up and say something\nmore like \"I'm sorry for being selfish.\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T11:19:45.867", "id": "1589", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T11:19:45.867", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1586", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "We will probably need more background.\n\n-わがままを言う can be synonym of 逆らう(さからう) meaning **to disobey or to defy**\n\n-It can also mean \" **to behave like a spoiled child** \"\n\n-わがまま alone meaning \" **selfish** \"", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T11:51:35.883", "id": "1590", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T11:51:35.883", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1586", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "「わがままを言う」 is a kind of Japanese aphorism; like \"That's just my selfishness\nspeaking.\" The phrase above is a play on that.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T14:10:14.813", "id": "1592", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-28T14:10:14.813", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "440", "parent_id": "1586", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "わがままはもう言わない does not mean \"won't say anything selfish anymore.\" This is a form\noften used by parents (mostly mothers) to young children as a gentler form of\nprohibition than ～な. わがままを言う, while literally meaning \"to say [selfish\nthings]*,\" is in usage much closer to \"to be selfish.\"\n\n* This is not exactly on topic, so while I have addressed it, my response is as a note, rather than the main body of the answer. Consider the following additional information.\n\nAs you said, \"say selfish things\" is not really commonly used English. This is\ndue to the nature of the word わがまま. As a na-adjective, it is a class of word\nthat does not exist in English: a noun which is used like an adjective. As\nsuch, the \"true\" meaning of わがまま can probably be considered much closer to\n\"selfishness\" than simply \"selfish.\" However, \"selfishnesses\" is even less\nEnglish than \"selfish things,\" which likely leads to this awkward translation.\n\nAll of that said, the better translation is probably something more along the\nlines of \"Stop being selfish,\" depending, of course, on the context.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T12:01:06.257", "id": "1627", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T12:01:06.257", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1586", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1715", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Hi guys what is the difference in the usage of 成るべく and できるだけ?\n\nDon't they both mean **as [x] as possible**?\n\nE.g.:\n\n1) できるだけ多くの本を読みなさい vs なるべく多くの本を読みなさい\n\n2) できるだけ早くお願いします vs なるべく早くお願いします", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T15:40:54.890", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1593", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-05T18:51:11.950", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-21T07:12:47.080", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "usage", "nuances", "words" ], "title": "what is the difference in the usage of [成]{な}るべく and できるだけ?", "view_count": 4280 }

[ { "body": "なるべく = as ~ as possible;\n\n> なるべく早く: as fast as possible なるべく傷つけず: avoiding injury as much as possible\n\nIt needs a verb or adverb to be a complete phrase...\n\nできるだけ = If I (you) can or as much as possible\n\n> できるだけ日本に住みたい。\n\nBoth are common in conversation.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T17:45:00.440", "id": "1600", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T00:18:57.923", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-29T00:18:57.923", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "440", "parent_id": "1593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I think スコット's answer isn't that off the mark.\n\nIf you take なるべく and できるだけ word for word, they become:\n\n> 成る《なる》 become + 可し 《べし》 must: something must become so-and-so\n>\n> できる is capable + だけ amount: you do so-and-so as best as you can\n\nSee how the subjects are different. なるべく just says that some state should be\nreached, while できるだけ demands you to make maximum effort in achieving the goal.\n\nThis difference isn't much noticeable when used in first person, because the\nspeaker _is_ the one who needs to take action.\n\nHowever, under an imperative context, できるだけ gets all the more demanding for\nrequiring the other person's effort. So なるべく sounds softer and more\nappropriate when you're not in a position to demand effort from the listener.\n\n \n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AS3pu.png)\n\nThis is how I visualize these two adverbs.\n\nAgain, the difference in nuance between the two is very subtle, and they're\ninterchangeable most of the time, if not always.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-03T16:58:05.923", "id": "1715", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-05T18:51:11.950", "last_edit_date": "2017-02-05T18:51:11.950", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1599", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've heard from a Japanese native speaker friend of mine that both 間違う and\n間違える are correct usage, but he wasn't able to explain the difference in nuance\nbetween them. Is there a difference, and if so, what is it?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T16:27:18.380", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1598", "last_activity_date": "2022-03-26T01:11:15.237", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "76", "post_type": "question", "score": 36, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances" ], "title": "What is the difference in nuance between 間違う and 間違える?", "view_count": 10961 }

[ { "body": "When we say that someone makes a mistake about something, we can use both 間違う\nand 間違える and there is no difference in meaning or nuance. For example, 計算を間違えた\nand 計算を間違った mean the same thing.\n\n[ _Added remark_ : As repecmps pointed out in a comment, some people consider\nthis usage of 間違う as incorrect. [Someone\nstates](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1214351857)\nthat this usage of 間違う was originally incorrect, but I do not know if this\nstatement is true or not.]\n\nWhen we say that something is in a wrong state, we can only use 間違う. Examples\nfrom Daijisen with my English translations:\n\n> ○ この[手紙]{てがみ}は[住所]{じゅうしょ}が[間違]{まちが}っている。 This letter has an incorrect\n> address on it. \n> × この手紙は住所が間違えている。\n\n> ○ [間違]{まちが}った[考]{かんが}え[方]{かた} a wrong way of thinking \n> × 間違えた考え方\n\n([○ denotes correct examples and × denotes incorrect\nexamples](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/169/should-we-\nhave-a-standard-notation-for-example-sentences).)", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-28T16:41:10.110", "id": "1599", "last_activity_date": "2022-03-26T01:11:15.237", "last_edit_date": "2022-03-26T01:11:15.237", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1598", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "The answer is a simple point of grammar:\n\n間違う is an [intransitive verb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intransitive_verb).\nWith no direct object, the particle を cannot be used.\n\nー＞私が間違っている\n\n間違える is a [transitive verb](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_verb),\nwith a direct object (use of を possible as well as other particles)\n\nー＞道を間違えた\n\nAccording to the [chat discussion with\nTsuyoshi](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/659) I understand that\nrecent dictionaries allow the use of 間違う with a direct object, making all his\nexamples correct.\n\nMore details in [this\nlink](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1214351857).\n\nBut as a grammar enthusiast, I think that using the rule above, you will\nalways be correct.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T00:52:12.210", "id": "1606", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-11T07:08:43.767", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-11T07:08:43.767", "last_editor_user_id": "159", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1598", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1608", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I'm trying to understand the following three lines from a song:\n\n```\n\n ただ会いたくて 声も無くしそうで\n でも会えなくて 夢さえ恨んだ\n 日々薄れてく 記憶を手探りで 感触をただ愛した\n \n```\n\nEach line is progressively difficult to understand. I can read the words but\ncan't make sense of it. No translation I've found makes sense.\n\nIn the first line it says something like \"I seemed to lose even my voice from\njust wanting to meet you.\" I don't get how wanting to meet someone would cause\nsomeone to lose their voice. Is this a metaphor?\n\nThe second line says something like, \"But I couldn't meet you so I hated\ndreams.\" I don't see the connection. Another metaphor, or is this one of those\ncases where the native Japanese is able to easily fill in the blanks?\n\nThe third line is the weirdest one of all.\n\nCan anyone make sense of this?\n\nThe complete song lyrics are\n[here](http://j-lyric.net/artist/a04d5db/l0231a4.html).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T00:42:21.600", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1605", "last_activity_date": "2017-07-04T17:21:10.997", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "meaning", "song-lyrics" ], "title": "Are there any metaphors in these Japanese sentences?", "view_count": 2076 }

[ { "body": "Now I hurt so bad, I can't speak But not meeting you, even dreams torture me.\nDays grow dim, struggling to remember, I just loved that feeling.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T01:14:14.233", "id": "1607", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T01:14:14.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "440", "parent_id": "1605", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "First of all this isn't a translation, just an explanation, so excuse the\nresult not sounding pretty:\n\n```\n\n ただ会いたくて 声も無くしそうで\n \n```\n\n\"I wanted to meet you so much that I felt I might lose my voice,\"\n\n```\n\n でも会えなくて 夢さえ恨んだ\n \n```\n\n\"But unable to (meet you), I (ended up) hating even my dreams.\" (I would guess\nthis hating dreams would refer to hating dreaming about being together in the\nfuture again which is contrary to reality - as if the dreams were spiting her)\n\n```\n\n 日々薄れてく 記憶を手探りで 感触をただ愛した\n \n```\n\nThe days grow thin (metaphorically as in their meaning, happiness etc. each\nday is less fulfilling than before - also \"dim\" works as well - better\nprobably), and searching through my memories (てさぐり means to search as if\ngroping with hands in the dark), I felt love for even the slightest touch (ただ\nbefore a verb adds emphasis, hence the \"even the slightest\" - and as the\nmetaphor is linked with で this would mean that she felt strong feelings of\nlove through just finding a memory (presumably of them two together).\n\nHopefully that clears up a little of what you want to know. If you have any\nspecific questions, comment? I'm not sure if the metaphors here intrinsically\nhave anything to do with the Japanese language itself though.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T01:14:32.503", "id": "1608", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T01:14:32.503", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "433", "parent_id": "1605", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Maybe the pain is all he has of her, so he revels in it. If he loses the pain,\nhe has nothing, so he enjoys at least that. I think we have all been in that\nspot. >.<", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-25T22:01:45.457", "id": "11048", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-25T22:01:45.457", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3113", "parent_id": "1605", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Sadly, I'm unable to reply to comments, but I can post an answer.\n\n> I have a question about the first part. Why would wanting to meet someone\n> cause a person to feel that they would lose their voice? \n> ～language hacker\n\nIt's like saying, \"when we met, you took my breath away,\" or \"my heart skipped\na beat.\" But the lyrics literally say the singer was left speechless.\n\n> my memories grow thin day by day. \n> ～ento\n\nI agree. The singer is forgetting the actual memories of the person, but still\nremembers the feeling (being held, caressed, perhaps kissed). I interpret\n`手探りで感触をただ愛した`, `I only loved feeling felt`, to mean the singer realizes (or\nis now telling us) that it was the feeling they loved more than the person.\nPlease understand `feeling` as `tactile stimulation`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-07-04T17:21:10.997", "id": "49033", "last_activity_date": "2017-07-04T17:21:10.997", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22781", "parent_id": "1605", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1620", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I think that the both of them mean before, but I have seen that they are\nsometimes use in parent-child metaphors, but I always get confused with these.\nSome examples of ○○先、○○元 words would be appreciated.\n\nどうぞよろしくお願いします。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T02:23:48.600", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1609", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T05:06:14.707", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-29T02:58:10.913", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "79", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "kanji" ], "title": "What is the usage of 先 vs. 元?", "view_count": 409 }

[ { "body": "If anything, they're more like antonyms. 先 denotes 'destination', while 元\ndenotes 'source', or 'beginning', or 'essence'.\n\n先:\n\n * 宛先, 届け先: delivery address\n * 行き先: destination (of a trip)\n\n元:\n\n * 根元: by the root (e.g. of a tree)\n * 元値: \"beginning price\" (original price paid by retailer).\n * 元素： (chemical) element.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T05:06:14.707", "id": "1620", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T05:06:14.707", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "448", "parent_id": "1609", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1618", "answer_count": 3, "body": "One friend of mine told me when she was living in Japan, she liked to end her\nsentences with ん (maybe instead of の).\n\nExamples:\n\n * 明日学校にいくん？\n\n * 明日学校に行かないと思う…風邪引いたん。\n\nActually I've never seen it! But my friend told me they used it! \nI just want to know if it's possible. And if Japanese would think it a little\nstrange if I said ん instead of の.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T02:26:43.140", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1610", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-12T01:22:18.947", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-12T01:22:18.947", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "usage", "colloquial-language", "contractions", "dialects", "sentence-final-particles" ], "title": "Can I end sentences with ん?", "view_count": 806 }

[ { "body": "I can't think of one time I have heard that...Not to say it hasn't happened.\nUsing the whole んです smoothly was stressed at school, as it makes your Japanese\nsound really natural. So I think I would notice if I heard someone end on the\nん...I would stick to the normal usage until you hear a native speaker use it\nthe way your friend did.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T02:49:47.337", "id": "1613", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T02:49:47.337", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "440", "parent_id": "1610", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "if you wanted to end with just ん without the です you should probably just use\nthe informal of んです which is の\n\n```\n\n 明日学校にいくの？\n \n 明日学校に行かないと思う、、、風邪引いたの。\n \n```\n\nん like tsuyoshi said, is a dialect version of の seen in various regions of\nJapan. While it doesn't seem to be used in Aichi, all of my co-workers know of\nit. So it could be said that you can use it and you will be understood, but it\nis definately not standard japanese.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T03:26:01.143", "id": "1615", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T10:42:17.873", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-29T10:42:17.873", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1610", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Your two examples are incorrect in the “standard” dialect.\n\nSome dialects (such as the [Gunma\ndialect](http://www7.plala.or.jp/gunma/joshi.htm) and the [Saitama\ndialect](http://wiki.chakuriki.net/index.php/%E5%9F%BC%E7%8E%89%E3%81%AE%E8%A8%80%E8%91%89))\nuse ん instead of の in a question as in your first example. The second example\nmay also be used in some dialects.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T04:50:43.040", "id": "1618", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T04:50:43.040", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1610", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1619", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I was thinking what things could be described with [草 (3) not genuine;\nsubstandard;)](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E8%8D%89)\n\nCan we describe someone who is a ゴミ as 草? Like say:\n\nアイツはどうおもう？ くさだ！\n\nOr is the \"substandard\" meaning of 草 already \"phased out\" ?\n\nAlso, is the usage of うるさい to mean \"fussy\" archaic / \"phased out\"?\n\nLike let's say I say メシにうるさくするんな！\n\nDoes it simply sound weird (like i'm some old grandpa)?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T03:13:24.383", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1614", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T17:31:59.783", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-29T10:34:55.643", "last_editor_user_id": "264", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "usage", "vocabulary", "archaic-language" ], "title": "are the usage of うるさい to mean \"fussy\" and the usage of 草 to mean \"substandard\" archaic?", "view_count": 275 }

[ { "body": "The title and the body seem to ask two different questions, but I'll answer\nthem both.\n\n「うるさい」 as 'fussy' is not at all archaic. 彼はラーメンにうるさいからいい店を知っている。\n\nOn the other hand, in all my years of speaking with Japanese friends and\nfamily, I have never heard of using 草 as a derogative.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T04:54:26.737", "id": "1619", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T04:54:26.737", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "448", "parent_id": "1614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "As for 草, as a **prefix** it means \"informal\". I suppose that meaning can\noverlap with \"substandard\" but it's not taken to be derogatory.\n\nMy dictionary (旺文社国語辞典) gives these examples: 草競馬、草野球、草芝居、草相撲", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T17:31:59.783", "id": "1634", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T17:31:59.783", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "433", "parent_id": "1614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1621", "answer_count": 2, "body": "For example in this phrase:\n\n> 話すネタはもっていそう\n\nI translate it into \"he might have some stories\", but I have the impression it\nhas many other meanings.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T04:29:00.280", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1616", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T05:15:44.067", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "79", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "usage", "translation" ], "title": "What is the meaning and usage of ネタ?", "view_count": 13679 }

[ { "body": "ネタ alone is a bit vague: \"stories\", but usually in the sense of jokes or funny\nanecdotes. I'd say it has some connotation of \"dirty\" (or at least slightly\noff-colour) jokes/anecdotes, but that's more a matter of usage than intrinsic\nmeaning.\n\nネタ is most often encountered in these two expressions:\n\n * 下ネタ【しもねた】(or 下のネタ): lit. \"jokes about down below\", i.e. \"dirty jokes\"\n\n * ネタばれ: \"spoilers\"...\n\nYou can probably encounter it in other expressions, where it carries the\nmeaning of \"joke\". E.g.:\n\n> いい加減パンツネタはやめとけよな → Quit with the panty jokes!\n\nIn your example, I would translate it by \"He seems to have some funny stories\"\nor \"good stories\" etc.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T04:50:42.350", "id": "1617", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T04:50:42.350", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1616", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "ネタ is a semi-slang term that comes from reversing the characters of \"seed\" タネ.\nIt's a word with many uses, but in all uses it denotes the \"seed\" of the idea\nof a work, it's essential core.\n\nIn cooking, the ネタ of a dish is the key ingredient that makes a particular\ndish interesting. For example, the ネタ of a piece of sushi is the non-rice part\nof the sushi.\n\nIn a magic trick, the ネタ of a trick is the actual trickery that makes the\nillusion work (the part that Penn and Teller reveal).\n\nIn a joke, the ネタ is the core subject and punchline, before you pad them out\nwith a story.\n\nIn news articles, the ネタ is the raw fact being reported (e.g. \"oil rig\nexplodes\") before being fleshed out with prose.\n\nIn your example of 「話すネタ」, ネタ means topic of conversation.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T05:15:44.067", "id": "1621", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T05:15:44.067", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "448", "parent_id": "1616", "post_type": "answer", "score": 21 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "In media like TV and newspapers, it appears certain classes of people can be\nreferred to with the honorific \"様\":\n\nThe Imperial family:\n\n> [皇太子殿下と美智子さま](http://showa.mainichi.jp/news/1959/04/post-da93.html) The\n> Crown Prince and Michiko-sama\n\nCelebrities with avid followers:\n\n>\n> [ヨン様、敗訴](http://www.sponichi.co.jp/entertainment/news/2011/06/22/kiji/K20110622001070020.html)\n> Yong-sama (Bae Yong-joon) loses suit\n>\n> [ガガ様は「一発屋」](http://www.news24.jp/entertainment/news/1617974.html) Gaga-sama\n> (Lady Gaga) is \"a one-hit wonder\"\n\n**My questions are:**\n\n * Do these categories cover all usage of 様 in the mass media?\n * How should I interpret the reporter's intention in using the title? How is the nuance different from the usage of 様 when addressing the recipient of an email?\n\n* * *\n\nRelated:\n[芸能人・スポーツ選手・公人に「さん」などの敬称を付けなくてもよい理由は?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1549/)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T05:46:58.340", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1622", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T13:21:23.633", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "128", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "honorifics" ], "title": "When is a person referred to with 様 in the mass media and what does it signify?", "view_count": 491 }

[ { "body": "Well, if the person is (positively) important and deserves respect (or is\nrelated to the company for which you work), then you can put \"様\" instead of\nthe status (president, CEO, whatever). You don't have to, but it shows that\nthe media you represent bows before the person in question. I guess it's the\nsame (though with less rigorous rules) than the one you use in personal\ncommunications.\n\nAs for the \"others\", a quick google check tells me it's not what I'd call used\nby \"mass media\" (unless they quote-and-translate a someone praising him).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T06:03:08.650", "id": "1623", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T06:03:08.650", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1622", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Most mass media refer to the members of the imperial family with one of the\nhonorifics さま, [陛下\n(へいか)](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E9%99%9B%E4%B8%8B&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=117534000000)\nand [殿下\n(でんか)](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%AE%BF%E4%B8%8B&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&index=113566200000&pagenum=1).\n[Article 23 of the Imperial House\nAct](http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/S22/S22HO003.html#1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002300000000000000000000000000000)\nregulates that the honorific for the emperor, the empress, the empress dowager\nand the grand empress dowager is 陛下 and that the honorific for the other\nmembers of the imperial family is 殿下, so I guess that when mass media use 陛下\nand 殿下, they follow this distinction. I do not know how the mass media decide\nwhen to use さま and when to use 陛下/殿下.\n\nIn the case of celebrities, mass media sometimes refer to them in the way fans\ncall them. This is why mass media sometimes refer to Bae Yong-joon as ヨン様,\nArnold Schwarzenegger as シュワちゃん, Aya Matsuura as あやや, and so on. I do not know\nwhy the fans of Bae Yong-joon call him ヨン様 in the first place.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T06:44:09.940", "id": "1624", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T06:44:09.940", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1622", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Regarding my original statement: actually, I was working entirely from memory\n(from quite a while back) in my comment... and might very possibly be\nmisremembering. ;-)\n\nFirst off, upon further reflection, I don't think it was ever `ビンラデン様`, but\nrather: `ビンラデン氏【ビンラデンし】`, which is still surprising for an avowed mass-\nmurderer. Why was he being referred to with an honorific (し) or even nothing\nat all, when even the most casual petty-fraudster politician gets `容疑者【ようぎしゃ】`\n(e.g. `中村容疑者`).\n\nAfter checking and googling around, I could not find back that article/comment\nI remember reading about this, but the gist of it was: Japanese media are\nstickler for rules and, having not been _formally_ convicted or even indicted\nfor any crime, even a guy like Bin Laden was not eligible for a pejorative\nsuffix.\n\nUnfortunately I do not have any official source to link to. Perhaps somebody\nbetter versed in official media guidelines could enlighten us.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T08:33:09.810", "id": "1625", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T09:04:33.413", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-29T09:04:33.413", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1622", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I think you'll find that use of honorifics by the media will closely follow\nhow normal people refer to the people in question. If in normal conversation,\na stranger would call them なんとか様 then the media will follow suit.\n\nAs Tsuyoshi Ito said, if fans call a celebrity 様 then the news is going to\nfollow suit when reporting on them. It's almost a part of their personality at\nthat point.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T11:34:45.550", "id": "1626", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T11:34:45.550", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1622", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1720", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Is there any particular reason why the noun おなか goes with verb すく while the\nnoun はら goes with the verb へる? Would it be weird if I use おなかへった or はらすいた?\n\nWhile on the same topic, does the 'starving' onomatopoeia ペコペコ go with both\nおなか and はら?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T14:59:36.303", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1630", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T13:56:58.110", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T07:23:37.547", "last_editor_user_id": "903", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "word-choice", "set-phrases", "onomatopoeia", "metaphor" ], "title": "Why is it お[腹]{なか}が[空]{す}いた but [腹]{はら}[減]{へ}った?", "view_count": 1586 }

[ { "body": "Maybe it's a regional thing, but お腹減った [おなかへった] isn't weird at all. In fact, I\nhear and use it a lot. On the other hand, 腹空いた [はらすいた] sounds weird and I\ndon't think I've ever heard it before.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T15:14:46.297", "id": "1631", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T15:14:46.297", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1630", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I don't know who told you that each only went with one, but I don't think\nthat's true.\n\nI have most definitely heard お腹【おなか】used with both verbs. And Google seems to\nagree (100ks hits for either).\n\n腹【はら】is less common in any case, and 腹空いた【はらすいた】 sounds a little unusual, but\nGoogle still gives over 60k results for it, so I doubt it could be considered\n'rare'.\n\nペコペコ describes your feeling of hunger (among other things), not the particular\nemptiness of your stomach/belly, so no reason to use it with either word.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T15:21:31.433", "id": "1632", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-29T15:21:31.433", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1630", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Besides the phrases being idiomatic (fixed), there is a slight difference in\nthe meaning of these words.\n\n```\n\n お腹 (onaka) means stomach, although it can also mean belly\n 腹 (hara) means belly\n \n```\n\nYou can also tell this from the fact that the pronunciation for `お腹` (onaka)\nis related to `中` (naka) 'inside', which implicates stomach. Therefore, even\nwith the same predicate, they mean different things:\n\n```\n\n お腹が痛い 'my stomach hurts' means stomach ache caused by eating too much or poisoned food\n 腹が痛い 'my belly hurts' means laughing to death, (in addition to the meaning above)\n \n```\n\nIn the case in the question, `空く` 'become empty' goes well with stomach rather\nthan belly. `へる` 'lose volume' goes well with belly rather than with stomach\n(stomach is just a wall).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-04T00:53:13.340", "id": "1720", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T13:56:58.110", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T13:56:58.110", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1630", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Both mean \"lonely\" and appear to be valid readings for 寂しい.\n\nIs there a difference in nuance? Is this difference due to dialect?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T18:30:14.590", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1637", "last_activity_date": "2020-06-17T17:15:20.817", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T17:15:20.817", "last_editor_user_id": "33435", "owner_user_id": "451", "post_type": "question", "score": 24, "tags": [ "nuances", "words", "dialects", "readings" ], "title": "Is there a difference between さみしい and さびしい？", "view_count": 4546 }

[ { "body": "According to [an answer to a similar question on Goo's oshiete\nsite](http://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/552702.html):\n\n「さびしい」 is generally used in two ways (roughly equivalent to how the english\n\"lonely\" is used):\n\n 1. an emotional state of emptiness, isolation, or a feeling of lacking \n * Examples: 「さびしい正月を迎える」「ふところがさびしい」\n 2. quiet and empty of people or sounds \n * Example: 「さびしい山道」\n\nThese two meanings are essentially _subjective_ and _objective_ ,\nrespectively, and さびしい can be used in either. さみしい, however, generally tends\nmuch more toward the _subjective/emotional_ meaning of (1).\n\nAs for whether it is dialectal, I do not believe that it is. The answer to the\nquestion linked above suggests that this b→m sound change is not limited to\nさびしい／さみしい alone, and cites other examples such as 煙る（けむる／けぶる）and [目を]つぶる／つむる.\n\n**Update:** Inspired by @Axioplase's comment below, I investigated the b/m\nsound change, specifically regarding 「寒い」.\n\n[Wiktionary](http://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%95%E3%82%80%E3%81%84)\nsuggests that in fact, the origin of さむい is the same as さびしい: **さぶし**. At some\npoint this split into さびし (which later became さびしい and subsequently さみしい),\nwhile さぶし also went on to form さぶい -- and subsequently, the modern さむい which\nwe use today.\n\nUnfortunately, I can't find many other (reputable) sources for the etymology\nof さむい.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-29T19:10:55.990", "id": "1638", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T03:08:47.717", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-30T03:08:47.717", "last_editor_user_id": "384", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1637", "post_type": "answer", "score": 23 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1641", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What is the difference between these 4 words for the definition of\n\"expectation\":\n\n * 予想{よそう}\n * 期待{きたい}\n * 予期{よき}\n * 思惑{おもわく}\n\nSpecifically, which would you use for \"managing customer expectations (for\nproject outcome)\"?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T01:54:12.753", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1640", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-29T22:14:31.737", "last_edit_date": "2012-05-29T22:14:31.737", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "word-choice", "translation" ], "title": "What is the difference between 予想、期待、予期、思惑 for the meaning of \"expectation\"?", "view_count": 3118 }

[ { "body": "\"お客さんの期待\" Customer Expectations.\n\n期待 will be the one you're looking for for \"customer expectations\". It's what\nyou use if you're looking forward to something, what you're \"hoping to see\".\nUsed for \"fulfilling expectations\".\n\n予想 is more \"neutral\" in that it has more to do with a way you predicted\nsomething to turn out. \"I expected it to be this way\". Close in meaning to 推測.\n\n予期 means according to my dictionary to a correct expectation, or a correct\nprediction of something ahead of time. Both examples given were negative:\n「予期せぬ出来事」 (which seems to be a set phrase) \"Something we did not\npredict/expect\", and 「予期に反した結果」 \"A result contrary to expectations\". It\nappears to be more formal and overlaps in meaning with 推測 and 期待.\n\n思惑 refers more to thoughts or perceptions on something, but also specifically\neconomic predictions. \"Speculation\" might be the best word to describe it.\nWhere as the three above can be used as する verbs, it is **very uncommon** to\nuse 思惑する. In fact it is an ateji of an old nominalization grammar structure:\n「ク」, so to turn it into a verb you would just use 思う.\n\nHope this helps.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T03:05:46.390", "id": "1641", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T03:05:46.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "433", "parent_id": "1640", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1644", "answer_count": 2, "body": "The title of a manga I'm slowly working through is 惑星のさみだれ, but there is\nfurigana above the two kanji that says ほし (star) instead. Why did it use both\nkanji, which seems to be normally read as わくせい (planet) when it could have\nused just 星 on it's own?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T03:05:49.730", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1642", "last_activity_date": "2021-07-21T00:36:12.710", "last_edit_date": "2021-07-21T00:36:12.710", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "452", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "furigana", "creative-furigana" ], "title": "Why use the kanji compound 惑星 for ほし?", "view_count": 425 }

[ { "body": "ほし means any heavenly body except the sun and the moon. And while ほし is most\noften heard used with stars, it is also used for \"planet\". This could just be\nrelated to lyrics in that both kanji mean planet, but decided to go with these\nkanji and this pronunciation for a poetic effect.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T03:10:13.110", "id": "1643", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T13:54:18.820", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T13:54:18.820", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "1642", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Japanese often refer to planets as ほし as well when they're being informal, the\nmanga is just specifying that it's a planet and not actually a star.\n\nI guess you could say it's a stylistic choice.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T03:10:27.447", "id": "1644", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T03:10:27.447", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "433", "parent_id": "1642", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1647", "answer_count": 3, "body": "_Feel free to participate to the[meta-discussion on whether this type of\nquestion (relying on buddhist terms) should be allowed on\nJLU](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/348/should-discussions-\nof-buddhist-terms-be-off-topic)._\n\nA while back, looking at a reproduction of some famous zen buddhist scrolls in\na nearby Kyoto temple, I was somewhat surprised to see that the quintessential\nnotion of \"void, emptiness\" is represented by '空', rather than '無', to which\nmy eminently non-scholar mind always gave a more spiritual overtone (beyond\nits everyday prosaic use).\n\nA typical example would be the common sentence:\n\n> 色即是空【しきそくぜくう】→ \"form is emptiness, matter is void\"\n\nCan anybody better versed in Japanese and/or buddhist terms explain to me the\nnuances in meaning between these two kanji/words _in a religious context_?\n\nAre there other cases where \"void, emptiness\" would be translated with '無' in\na buddhist context?\n\n**Edit:** to give a famous example of why '無' would seem a good candidate for\nthe same concept, Yasujiro Ozu's grave in Kamakura [famously bears nothing but\nthe kanji\n'無'](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B0%8F%E6%B4%A5%E5%AE%89%E4%BA%8C%E9%83%8E#.E6.98.A0.E7.94.BB.E4.BA.BA.E7.94.9F),\nostensibly standing for the buddhist concept of 'nothingness'.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T05:02:48.940", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1646", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-27T06:34:35.393", "last_edit_date": "2017-03-16T15:48:25.793", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "kanji", "nuances" ], "title": "Why is 空【くう】, and not 無【む】, used to define \"void\", \"emptiness\" in a buddhist context? What are their nuances?", "view_count": 15860 }

[ { "body": "I have a feeling someone smarter than me will provide an answer with better\nreferences, but I still hope this answer helps.\n\nNot long ago I was out on a walking tour of Aoyama Cemetery and the exact same\nquestion came up. The tour guide, who has studied religion and history offered\nthis explanation:\n\n無 （usually な・い, but the on-yomi ム is used in this Buddhist context) means a\ncomplete absence of anything, which I think in English we would equate with\nvoid, so it would seem like the right choice.\n\n空 （usually から, but the on-yomi クウ is used in this Buddhist context） means an\nemptiness as well, however, and was used to refer to the air from back before\nthe more modern and scientific concept that the air is not in fact empty but\ncontains molecules.\n\nThe difference between them is that the emptiness referred to by 空 is, as our\nguide explained, like the emptiness inside a cup. It is empty, but is\nconceptually bounded by the cup so that it is a space that could hold\nsomething, such as a drink.\n\n無い on the other hand means a complete absence, without even any implication of\npotential. In other words, no cup.\n\nIn the Buddhist use, then, when you see it on the top layer of the five\nelements,\n([地,水、火、風、空](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Pagoda.svg),\nearth, water, fire, air, void), implies an emptiness that has a potential to\ncontain something.\n\nOf course, it gets a little tricky because there is no \"cup\" for the concept\nof all of existence. The void being referred to by 空 doesn't imply that\nanything particular should occupy that space. There is no automatic equivalent\nfor the universe to hold like a drink would seem to be the natural thing to\nfill a cup. Just that the void is a vessel into which existence can happen.\nAnd from here the philosophical discussion takes over from the linguistic one.\n\nSide note: 風 （usually かぜ, but the on-omi フウ is used in this Buddhist context）,\nor wind, in this context actually means \"air\", as back in the day, the \"air\"\nwas only experienced when you could feel the wind. Before I had this\ndiscussion on the tour, I always thought they were simply differentiating wind\nfrom air.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T05:50:01.033", "id": "1647", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-16T03:59:10.697", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-16T03:59:10.697", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "1646", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "無 is taken directly from the Chinese, and is often translated as \"nothing.\" It\nis fundamentally a Daoist concept. You can find it prominently in the _Dao De\nJing_ and the _Zhuangzi_. It has many implications, from metaphysics (the\nopposition of being 有) to linguistics (the inability of language to capture\nall meaning) to the pragmatics of living life (a room is useful because it's\nempty) to the paradox of acting without intention ( _wu wei_ 無為). Zen (Chan)\nBuddhists in China borrowed this concept to help understand related ideas in\nBuddhism (specifically the limitations of language to capture meaning and the\nlack of substantial being in the cosmos). So Mu in Japanese has fundamentally\nthis meaning--there is no substantiality to things, and language does not\ncapture all possible descriptions of reality.\n\n空 is also taken directly from the Chinese and (in a Buddhist context) is a\ntechnical term, a translation of the Sanskrit (Sunyata). It is often\ntranslated into English as \"empty,\" and refers specifically to the belief in\nBuddhism that there is no substantial, persisting, permanent part of anything:\n一切皆空. It is closely related to the concept of _anatman_ which is rendered in\nChinese as 無我. So you can see that 空 and 無 are conceptually related.\n\nTo answer the question: why is 空 used to represent the Buddhist concept of\nemptiness instead of 無, the answer is that 空 was selected very early in the\ntradition as a translation for _sunyata_ , perhaps to distinguish from Daoist\n無. The early translator could just have easily chosen 無 or even 虛. The choice\nhas nothing to do with the basic meanings of the terms 空 and 無 and everything\nto do with a translator's difficult (and probably ultimately arbitrary) choice\nearly in the tradition. 空 at the time the translator chose it, probably around\nthe first century CE, was not a technical philosophical term in Chinese\n(meaning simply empty) and so would have been a good choice to translate a\nforeign term for its lack of conceptual baggage. 虛 and especially 無 would have\nbeen more conceptually laden, and so potentially confusing to the beginning\nstudent of Buddhism.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-10-19T16:16:39.293", "id": "40141", "last_activity_date": "2016-10-19T16:16:39.293", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "18325", "parent_id": "1646", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Essentially both Kanji means emptiness. But in this context Because it\nrepresents, symbolises that the emptiness is just like the vastness of the\ninfinite sky, ether, universe that's unchanging reality, totally beyond the\nreach of ordinary perception. 空 means both sky, emptiness depending on\ncontext. That's the beauty of Kanji it conveys two significant meanings both\nrelevant to each other. Also incidentally 空 is also last character in name of\nSun Wukong 孫悟空 since he was bestowed his name, the great sage equaling the\nheavens, later achieved enlightenment after accompanying Xuanzang in Journey\nto the west.\n\nAs for imprinted on grave, it signifies souls are not material as dead upon\ndeath, in grave, but eternal.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-02-16T16:18:54.160", "id": "56686", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-27T06:34:35.393", "last_edit_date": "2018-05-27T06:34:35.393", "last_editor_user_id": "26901", "owner_user_id": "26901", "parent_id": "1646", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1656", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Is 亡くなる is a polite form of しぬ?\n\nWhat is the difference in nuance between these two sentences:\n\n 1. ディックは１０歳のとき亡くなった。\n\n 2. ディックは１０歳のとき死んだ。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T06:05:44.290", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1648", "last_activity_date": "2021-03-03T09:03:42.303", "last_edit_date": "2021-03-03T09:03:42.303", "last_editor_user_id": "31389", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "words", "nuances" ], "title": "Is 亡くなる a polite form of しぬ?", "view_count": 5527 }

[ { "body": "Yes.\n\n> 死ぬ = too direct, rough and generally rude when talking about a person.\n>\n> 亡くなる = polite way of saying it.\n\nSame exact nuance exists in most languages, English included:\n\n> 死ぬ → to die\n>\n> 亡くなる → to pass away / to pass on / to be deceased (when using past form)\n\nWhile you _could_ say \"I heard that your grandpa **died** \", saying \"I heard\nthat your grandpa **passed away** \" would be consider much better form.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T06:10:50.340", "id": "1649", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T07:43:44.727", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-30T07:43:44.727", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1648", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Being the rudeness level, I think it's also a matter of shock level.\nCharacters in anime and movies are likely to use '死ぬ' because it's very\nshocking to say it like that, where in real life people are a little more\nlikely to have some restraint.\n\nLet's face it, \"お前はもう死んでいる\" has more impact than \"お前はもう亡くなっている\". (Both mean\n\"You are already dead\", but the first is a direct quote from the anime Fist of\nthe North Star's Ken.)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T13:13:07.783", "id": "1653", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-01T11:22:48.257", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-01T11:22:48.257", "last_editor_user_id": "393", "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1648", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "亡くなる is a [euphemism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism) for 死ぬ. 死ぬ means\n“to die” directly, and it is often appropriate to replace it with the less\ndirect 亡くなる when one is talking about the death of a person. As Dave wrote in\nhis answer, euphemisms for death exist in other languages, too.\n\n死ぬ can be used for a person or an animal, but 亡くなる is usually used only for a\nperson.\n\n逝去する, mentioned in Derek’s comment on Dave’s answer, is a 尊敬語 (respectful\nform) of 死ぬ/亡くなる and raises the status of the person who is mentioned. 亡くなる is\n_not_ a 尊敬語. For example, it is correct to use 亡くなる when talking about the\ndeath of a family member to the outside, but it is incorrect to use 逝去する in\nthis case.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T15:05:40.850", "id": "1656", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T15:05:40.850", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1648", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1654", "answer_count": 4, "body": "An English website wrote an apology in Japanese after it took down an image of\ncracked hinomaru (日の丸) — the hinomaru linked to a donation page for the\ndisasters following the March 11 earthquakes.\n\nIt read: 我々が 起こした偉大な犯罪の謝罪 (われわれが おこした いだいな はんざいの しゃざい)\n\nI understand the meaning, but I don't really get how this sentence works.\n\nIt's really tricky for me because no one explicitly apologizes, or there is no\nactual apologizing here. Is something like です dropped, or する? If a です is\ndropped, I see that as saying they are the apology...is that a valid way to\napologize?\n\nAnd is 偉大な犯罪 strange in this context? I thought 偉大 was more along the lines\nmagnificence rather than greatness in terms of magnitude.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T12:27:13.677", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1651", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-03T02:51:31.320", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "word-choice", "grammar" ], "title": "Trouble understanding this apology: 我々が...謝罪", "view_count": 432 }

[ { "body": "They aren't saying they -are- the apology... They've saying the apology refers\nto them. は and が don't actually mean 'is', it's just that sentences using them\nand no verb often get translated that way into English. It's a cultural thing.\n\nHere they are just saying \"We have an apology for the great crime that\noccurred.\" In other words, they are providing an apology for committing a\ngreat crime.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T13:06:22.530", "id": "1652", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T13:06:22.530", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1651", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "This is some very obvious example of Google Translate gone out of hand.\n\nAt the very best, it is missing some bits. But best I can tell, it's mostly\nnonsensical.\n\n* * *\n\n**Edit:** OK, so I was hoping we could swiftly address that: put it under\n\"machine-translated gibberish\" and move on...\n\nBut it seems like some people are not fully convinced that this is absolute\ngibberish. For some reason, they think there is a point in trying to fathom\nwhat the transistors at Google's Data Center were thinking when they came up\nwith that (to be clear: \"What is a good way to give an apology in situation\nX?\" would make a very good _and separate_ question).\n\nOh let me count the ways Google Translate is wrong:\n\n * 我々: is almost certainly not the right word here (but would need context to be sure)\n * 起こす: probably not, either.\n * 偉大な: is pretty much the opposite of what they want to say (\"great\", but in a positive way, i.e.: \"awesome\")\n * 犯罪【はんざい】(crime): is hilariously inappropriate. I suspect an unforgivably literal translation of \"offense\"...\n * that の between 犯罪 and 謝罪 makes no sense, any way you look at it...\n * 謝罪【しゃざい】(apology): probably not the word you want. 謝る【あやまる】 or 詫びる【わびる】: more likely...\n\nAre we satisfied that _no part_ of this sentence makes any sense now?\n\nAnd just before anyone says anything: _no_ , this wasn't a useful exercise in\nany way... Your time and brain cells will be much better used, reading human-\ngenerated Japanese...", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T13:30:49.897", "id": "1654", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T17:04:08.030", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-30T17:04:08.030", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "1651", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Whether or not it was Google translated is one thing. But it just sounds like\na newspaper headline, which often aren't full, grammatically correct\nsentences. Even in English, you'll hear like \"Government Budgets Tighten;\nEconomy in Slump\".\n\nIf it was supposed to be a complete sentence, I think a more polite, correct\napology might be something along this lines of\n\n> 我々が起こした甚だしい犯罪のため、お詫びいたします\n\nAnd yes, 偉大 does not have negative connotations.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T14:58:24.097", "id": "1655", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T14:58:24.097", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1651", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "`我々が起こした偉大な犯罪の謝罪` is not ungrammatical for the reason you mentioned, but is\nnot an apology either. It is just a nominal phrase that points to an apology\n(from the third person perspective). Its translation will be:\n\n```\n\n Apology for the great crime that we committed\n \n```\n\nThis will never mean by itself that they are apologizing.\n\nWhat is more problematic about this phrase is that `偉大` means `great` with\npositive connotation. This phrase can never be used as pointing to a serious\napology. It may be taken as ironical.\n\nThe word `犯罪` may not be appropriate here too. It usually means legally stated\ncrimes. In this context, maybe `罪` 'sin' or `過ち` 'mistake' will be more\nappropriate.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-02T17:25:17.023", "id": "1700", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-03T02:51:31.320", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-03T02:51:31.320", "last_editor_user_id": "276", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1651", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1658", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Someone ended their sentence with やいな. What dialect is this? What does やい\nmean? I assume that な means the same thing as in standard Japanese?\n\n**Update:** the original sentence was 「もう出来あがり？仕事はやいな～」.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T16:19:52.553", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1657", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-20T17:14:12.857", "last_edit_date": "2012-07-20T17:14:12.857", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "meaning", "dialects" ], "title": "What does やい mean?", "view_count": 1544 }

[ { "body": "**Update** : This is not an instance of やい, but rather 速い【はやい】, so the\ninformation in my original answer is not actually applicable in this case.\n\n* * *\n\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%9A%E5%A4%9A%E5%BC%81) suggests\nthat at the very least, this is a feature of **Hakata dialect** (though it is\nalso likely a feature of other dialects as well, as suggested by my comment\nabove). In Hakata dialect, it is used as a light suggestion/command, like the\n～て form of verbs in other dialect:\n\n> * 「やい」(軽い命令) \n> 動詞の連用形に接続。「やれ」の転化したもの。 \n> 例 \n>\n> * 「ちょっとあそこを見て」→「ちいとあすこば見やい」\n>\n\nな would then be the same as in standard Japanese, as you assumed.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T16:52:13.910", "id": "1658", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T23:45:26.510", "last_edit_date": "2011-06-30T23:45:26.510", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "1657", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "When used not as a suffix, but as a stand-alone word, やい is a (rude)\nattention-getter among children, like the British \"Oi\", but specific to kids.\n(Adults would use おい！)\n\nKids: やい、俺のガンダムを勝手にいじるな！ (Hey, don't mess with my Gundam toy!)\n\nAdults: おい、おれの新車に触るんじゃねえ！ (Hey, don't touch my new car!)\n\nI believe the above is the most common usage (標準語) usage of やい, though as\nothers have noted, some dialects have their own uses for the word.\n\nPS: I thought I'd answer the question as asked in the title, ignoring the fact\nthat it was inspired by a mis-parsed \"速い\" :)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-06T23:21:22.213", "id": "1781", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-07T03:36:10.697", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-07T03:36:10.697", "last_editor_user_id": "448", "owner_user_id": "448", "parent_id": "1657", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1667", "answer_count": 10, "body": "Both 知る and わかる get used for \"know\", \"understand\", \"learn\", \"find out\", and\nvarious other concepts. How do you know which to use when? Are there any rules\nto help you decide?\n\nAdditionally, both of these verbs regularly appear in several different forms:\n\n * 知る、知った、知っている\n\n * わかる、わかった、わかっている\n\nIn what situations do you use each form, and how does the meaning change?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T17:40:01.210", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1659", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-13T15:44:45.377", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T09:27:19.430", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "post_type": "question", "score": 107, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "nuances", "verbs" ], "title": "How should I choose between [知]{し}る and わかる?", "view_count": 18453 }

[ { "body": "You can't 'understand' (わかる) a person, place or thing. You can't 'know' (知る) a\nconcept.\n\nThat's a bit of a generalization, but will get you through most of it.\nLearning by context is very important, though, so you should be getting a lot\nof input to help resolve questions like this.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T17:58:24.020", "id": "1660", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T17:58:24.020", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "1659", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "「知る」 is used when you actively learn or learn about something, whereas 「わかる」\nis more for things that have been brought to your awareness regardless of\ninvolvement.\n\n_Consequently_ , 「わからない」 is used when you are not aware of/don't know\nsomething, whereas 「知らない」 is used when you are willfully ignorant of\nsomething. Therefore 「知らない」/「知りません」 should be avoided since it denotes that\nyou are/were not willing to find out about the fact in question.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T23:50:47.497", "id": "1664", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T23:50:47.497", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1659", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "As stated in some of the other answers, the fundamental difference is that\n`分{わ}かる` is \"to understand\", and `知{し}る` is \"to know\", which helps\ndifferentiate the two as concepts. However, I think that doesn't fully answer\nyour question.\n\nMany years ago, early in my Japanese learning, when a Japanese friend asked me\nwhat I was going to do tomorrow, I said `「知{し}らない」`, and my friend laughed.\nShe explained that it would be more common to answer `「分{わ}からない」`.\n\nThis would be opposite to English, where our answer would be that we \"don't\nknow\" what we're going to do tomorrow, which is why I thought to say it that\nway. To say we \"don't understand\" what we're going to do tomorrow could be\nawkward enough to get a laugh.\n\nAfter exploring the reasons why she laughed, I believe the difference comes\ndown to a concept of `内{うち}`, \"inside\", versus `外{そと}`, \"outside\", which is a\nlarge and useful concept to grasp in Japanese culture and language. It's too\nbig to go fully go into here, but a very short description is that in Japanese\nculture there is a high degree of sensitivity to how some people and\ninformation is part of the \"inner circle\" of your life, and other people and\ninformation are not included.\n\nAs it relates to `分{わ}かる` and `知{し}る`, you can think of it like `分{わ}かる` has\nan implication of your personal knowledge, the things that relate to you, the\nthings a person can decide on, etc... Only you can \"know\" what you do\ntomorrow, or decide on it, or reflect on it. It is `「内{うち}のこと」`, so to speak.\nThus, `分{わ}かる` is the appropriate term for such matters.\n\nWhereas `知{し}る` is for the things that are facts independent of you, like the\natomic weight of cesium, what the airspeed velocity of a sparrow is, how\nKorean and Japanese chopsticks differ, etc... `「外{そと}のこと」`.\n\nThat said, it would be a mistake to draw a hard line to separate what is\npersonal knowledge and what is a fact in the universe.\n\nYou could use `分{わ}かる` for the airspeed velocity of a sparrow, if it was\nsomething you studied and knew about. By learning about it, you develop a\nrelationship to the information, and it becomes `内{うち}のこと`. If, for example,\nyou were a professor of ornithology at Tokyo University and had done your\ndissertation on sparrow flight speeds.\n\nIn an opposite situation, you could use `知{し}らない` for something that might\nordinarily be thought of as `内{うち}のこと`. For example, using `知{し}らない` to say\nthat you don't know what your father is doing tomorrow. However, by saying\nthat what your father is doing is `外{そと}のこと`, you are conveying that this is\nsomething external to you, which seems cold since you're talking about your\ndad. It says something about your relationship as well as your knowledge.\n\nAs a result, there can be an implication if \"I don't care\" interwoven into the\nuse of `知{し}らない` in some situations. My friend laughed at me saying `知{し}らない`\nfor what I am going to do tomorrow, because it's as if the next day's schedule\nis some kind of established fact that I have not cared enough to study. Even\nmore extreme than not knowing what my father is going to do, I have a\ndisconnect to my own life.\n\nEven though it might be that what happens tomorrow is contingent on\ncircumstances beyond my control, like my boss calling me in for work or an\nasteroid destroying my city. It's still up to me to react to what happens, to\nown the knowledge, and convey it to you. What will happen tomorrow is\ninformation that flows through me, so it is `内{うち}のこと`.\n\nFurther, `内{うち}のこと` isn't always _your_ `内{うち}のこと`, but it can be somebody's.\nIn the news, they often report information using `分{わ}かる` to convey that the\ninformation comes via someone else, and so responsibility for the information\nis not on the reporter. Similar to how in English we would use terms like\n\"alleged\", \"revealed\", \"reported\", and other terms that pass the buck. The\nnews is often other people's `内{うち}のこと`.\n\nOf course when it comes right down to it, there will be a big, smudgy, greyish\nboundary between the two concepts. No doubt people could come up with a many\nborderline cases where one or the other might equally apply. I think it's the\nkind of thing that native speakers might disagree about which is more correct\nin certain specific circumstances.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T02:07:50.580", "id": "1667", "last_activity_date": "2014-04-05T04:05:12.693", "last_edit_date": "2014-04-05T04:05:12.693", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "1659", "post_type": "answer", "score": 116 }, { "body": "Where did he go?\n\n * 分からない: no idea \n * 知らない: do I look like I know where he went? Go ask someone else, dude!\n\nOh, since we're talking about Japanese,\n\n * 日本語が分かりますか: do you understand Japanese?\n * 日本語は知っていますか: have you ever heard of this language called Japanese?\n\nDon't f*ck with me\n\n * 桜庭を知っているよ！ I know the best Pride FC fighter!\n * もうあんたの目的は分かっている！ I clearly see what you want to do!\n\nAlso,\n\n * これ、初めて知った！ Really? I had never though it would be the case!\n * やっと、分かった! At last, I understand what you meant!\n\nTo sum up: if you don't get the logic, choose what a good speaker would say!\n(Yes, it sounds stupid and obvious, but that's how it works when languages are\nvery different from yours)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T02:18:49.847", "id": "1668", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-25T06:19:18.273", "last_edit_date": "2014-12-25T06:19:18.273", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1659", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "Other people have talked about the difference between 知る and 分かる so I won't\ntouch that one (especially since people far more knowledgeable than myself\nhave already answered), but I did want to make one point about the different\nforms, since I haven't seen that addressed yet.\n\nI was watching a TV show in Japanese once when a this girl and guy each had\ncrushes on each other so they flirted alot, but the guy always did things to\nmake the girl angry. One time she got annoyed but she tried to hide it, but\nthe other guy could tell. He asked her \"haha what are you getting angry\nabout?\" and she responded, simply, 分かる？\n\nIt was then that the light bulb went off in my head. 分かる means \"can tell\". It\n_also_ means \"understand\", but it depends on whether it's in a sentence or a\nquestion. I think the entire list is something like this:\n\n`分かった - Got it.`\n\n`分かったか。 - Got it?`\n\n`分かります。 - I can tell.`\n\n`分かりますか。 - Do you understand? / Can you tell?`\n\n`分かっている。 - I got it, I got it.`\n\nObviously you aren't going to translate these phrases like this every time,\nbut the meaning holds I believe. The important point about the っている form is\nthat it seems to emphasize that this is not new information, which is why I\nrepeated the phrase \"I got it\" twice.\n\nAs for the dictionary / ます form, I've never found a situation where \"can tell\"\ndoes not translate exactly from English into Japanese 分かります.\n\n`I can't tell what the weather will be like tomorrow.`\n\n`Nobody can tell what the future holds.`\n\n`(Looking far away / squinting) Can you tell if that lady is hot?`\n\netc. The same distinction seems to apply to `知る` and `知っている` as well.\n\nNote that this analysis is not backed up by any kind of reference, it's just a\nrealization I came to on my own, so there may be some minor flaws in it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-10T07:14:47.070", "id": "1832", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-10T07:14:47.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "483", "parent_id": "1659", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "When I was in college one of my professors taught us a basic principle for\ntelling when to use each:\n\n分からない: I don't know (generic, but with a sense that it's pertinent to the\nspeaker)\n\n知らない: I don't know, and I have no reason to (not relevant to the speaker)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-03-31T04:59:58.503", "id": "15164", "last_activity_date": "2014-04-02T15:03:10.760", "last_edit_date": "2014-04-02T15:03:10.760", "last_editor_user_id": "4914", "owner_user_id": "4914", "parent_id": "1659", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "To understand the difference, you need to know where 分かる comes from. Pun\nintended. わかる is the intransitive form of 分ける, meaning \"to separate\". If I 分ける\nsomething, I divide it out, but if I わかる something, the dividing would be done\nin me. Another way of translating it would be \"parsing out an idea from all\nthe rest\". In the case of the scenario about knowing what you would do\ntomorrow, you would say 分からない, meaning \"I haven't parsed/figured that out\n[yet].\"\n\nわかっている would thus mean \"parsing\". You might use this if someone is trying to\ndrill something into your head when you already heard them the first time.\nわかっているよ！！ (\"I'm parsing it out already!\")\n\n知る is literally \"to know\", but that specifically means \"to possess [what we\nmight call static] information\" as opposed to making decisions. 知っている would be\n\"knowing\".\n\nI could be wrong about all this, but it's pretty consistent with my\nexperience.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-04-06T05:52:45.207", "id": "15266", "last_activity_date": "2014-04-06T05:52:45.207", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5088", "parent_id": "1659", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "知る is basically used for the new knowledge or idea or thoughts...something\nnew. When you 知る something, it means that you didn't know it before. So, 知った\nimplies that you just heard or seen something new for you, not necessarily\nmeans that you understood it.\n\nWhereas 分かる is not used only for the new things but also something you've\nalready heard or seen. When you 分かる something, whether it's new for you or\nnot, you understand it or at least try to do. When you comfort your friend who\ngot heart-broken, for example, you would say \"その気持ち分かるよ (I know/understand how\nit feels like)\" even you didn't have the same experience. 分かった expresses that\nyou understand/understood it.\n\n知っている and 分かっている are exchangeable in many contexts, however, 知っている is more\nabout the knowledge.\n\nAnswering to the question like \"明日は何をしますか？\" or \"先生はどこにいますか？\", 分かりません/分からない is\npreferred because it impresses to the listener that the speaker made an effort\nto asnwer. You could use 知りません/知らない but it sounds a bit cold.\n\nIt depends on the context but 知る and 分かる are used like below:\n\n知らなかった = I didn't know (hadn't heard/seen it before).\n\n分からなかった = I didn't know/understand it (although I tried).\n\n知っていたけど分かっていなかった = I knew it (and I thought I understood) but didn't\nunderstand.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-04-06T15:53:02.630", "id": "15275", "last_activity_date": "2014-04-06T15:53:02.630", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5090", "parent_id": "1659", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I would like to approach this question from a purely grammatical aspect.\n\n知る is a transitive verb.\n\n分かる is historically the intransitive verb of 分ける. Just like most intransitive\nverbs, it can function like an potential verb or passive verb.\n\nThe main reason you use a intransitive or potential verb is to express:\n\n 1. the result of some activity you want to accomplish\n\nYou want to achieve some kind of result, so you check **what happens** now and\nthen\n\n``` お茶を入れる→お茶が入った\n\n 風呂を沸かす→風呂が沸いた\n 準備をする→準備ができた\n \n 事情を聞く→事情がわかった\n 使い方を調べる→使い方がわかった\n \n```\n\nWhen you have been looking for the answer, わかる is chosen because it's just the\nresult you want. 偶然知った⇔やっとわかった\n\n 2. the **difficulty** of some activity or low probability of some event\n\nJust like 1, if you know something is difficult because someone wants to make\nit happen but fails. It must be something **important or desirable** ,\notherwise people won't try to do it.\n\n``` 日本語を話す→日本語が話せる\n\n 理解する→理解できる\n その言葉の意味を知る→その言葉の意味が分かる\n \n```\n\nUsing intransitive verbs sounds more awesome. It implies not everyone can.\n\nThe main reason you use a intransitive verb or passive verb is to express:\n\n 1. the event without mentioning the actor or there is no actor at all.\n``` 家に死体を見つけた(私は implied)→家に死体が見つかった(誰かに implied)\n\n 原因を明らかにした(私は implied)→原因が明らかになった(誰かに implied)\n \n```\n\n分かった in this case is basically the same as 判明した.\n\nI think it more or less explains the 内/外 difference.\n\nSometimes, わかった is used immediately after you happen to know/realize\nsomething, e.g. それを見て何かわかった. But in Classical Japanese, 知りぬ(知ってしまった) is used.\n(われ朝ごと夕ごとに見る竹の中におはするにて知りぬ) Many verbs about perception tend to be\nintransitive. e.g. 気づく, 見える, 聞こえる, etc, both some else do not: 感じる, etc. I\nhaven't found a good explanation.\n\n* * *\n\nIn modern Japanese, it seems that there is not a exact transitive counterpart\nof 分かる. When わかる means “to understand”, 理解する can used. But 理解する is a little\nliterary and not used for trivial things. So you may often see ～を分かってほしい. 了解した\ncan be used instead of わかった as a response.\n\nOn the other hand 知る is irregular, too. You say 知っている but 知らない. 知れる is almost\nonly used in fixed expressions. わかる is often used instead of 知れる when you want\nto.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-05-02T15:44:59.350", "id": "15707", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-02T16:12:14.407", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-02T16:12:14.407", "last_editor_user_id": "4833", "owner_user_id": "4833", "parent_id": "1659", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I am a native Japanese, and I discussed this today. To be honest, this was\nquite interesting for us. I see many good answers here. The concept of \"inside\nor outside\" in another answer strikes close to a good point. But, I think that\nanswer is a little bit confused because it fails to understand that \"to know\"\nis **a stative verb** but 「知る」is not. A stative verb is a verb which describes\nstate of something. On the other hand,「知る」is **a dynamic word** , which\ndescribes changes.「知る」is \"to get/come to know\" not \"to know.\" \"to know\" is\n「知っている」. This also happens to \"to have\" and 「持つ」.\n\nLet's check some examples.\n\n> 私はその時にそれを知った。(I didn't know it just before that time, and I knew it just\n> after that time.)\n>\n> I knew it at that time. (私はその時それを知っ **てい** た。)\n>\n> 私はその時にそれを持った。(I didn't have it just before that time, and I had it just\n> after that time.)\n>\n> I had it at that time. (私はその時それを持っ **てい** た。)\n\nSo, first of all, there are huge differences between Japanese and English.\nAnd, these lead you to the idea of \"inside or outside.\" 「知る」often happens when\nsomething comes in.\n\nOn the other hand,「分かる」is a stative potential verb. It basically describes\nsomeone's ability.\n\nSometimes, it is possible to use both「知る」and「分かる」. For example, \"Do you know\nthis Kanji?\" can be translated to both「この漢字、知ってる?」and「この漢字、分かる?」 But sometimes\nit is not possible to use them interchangeably or the meaning changes.\n\n「知る」is related to perception and sense. This is the broader concept of hear,\nread, see, learn, etc. which makes someone sure about it. So,「知ってる」means\n\"「知る」has happened and the effect still continues.\"\n\n「分かる」is related to classification and distinguish. If you have an idea, or if\nyou can explain, link or conclude something, you「分かる」.\n\nI guess the best way to know the difference is to make many examples and\ncompare them!\n\n# 1\n\nTaro pointed Jiro, and asked Hanako \"Do you know him?\"\n\n 1. 太郎は次郎を指さして「この人を知ってますか。」と花子に聞いた。\n 2. 太郎は次郎を指さして「この人が分かりますか。」と花子に聞いた。\n\nThe sentence 2 can be natural if 太郎 suspects 花子 loses her memory or if 次郎 is\nin a panda costume or if 次郎 and 花子 have not seen for a long long time or if\n次郎's face has changed. On the other hand, sentence 1 can be natural in more\ngeneral cases. It basically means \"Do you know this person?\"\n\nIn this case,\n\n * 「知ってますか。」=> Have you seen him?\n * 「分かりますか。」=> Can you recognise him?\n\n# 2\n\nSuppose that there was a cake on a table, but it disappeared at night.\n\n 1. 「夜、誰か知らない人に食べられていたよ。」 \n * \"I saw a stranger come in at night and eat the cake.\"\n 2. 「夜、誰か分からない人に食べられていたよ。」 \n * \"I saw someone eating the cake at night, but I did not find out who it was.\"\n\nIn this case,\n\n * 「知らない」=> Someone I haven't seen.\n * 「分からない」=> Someone I could not recognise.\n\n# 3\n\nDo you know what you are going to do tomorrow? No.\n\n 1. 「明日の予定は?」「知りません。」\n 2. 「明日の予定は?」「分かりません。」\n\nActually, the sentence 1 can be natural, for example, if you are a prisoner.\nYou are not going to decide what you are going to do tomorrow, but someone\nwill order you to do something. You can use the sentence 2 in either case.\n\nIn this case,\n\n * 「知りません。」=> I haven't been told.\n * 「分かりません。」=> I have no idea.\n\n# 4\n\n\"I felt that I knew that face, and now I know who he is.\"\n\n 1. 「あの顔、知っていると思っていたけれど、ようやく誰か分かった。」 \n * \"I felt I'd seen that face, and now I identified him.\"\n 2. 「あの顔、分かっていると思っていたけれど、ようやく誰か知った。」 \n * This sounds a little bit strange because it is natural only in a strange case. For example, \"Alice was in disguise. I thought it was Bob. But now you tell me that it was Alice. And, now I know that it was Alice.\"\n\n# 5\n\n「あれ、Alice と Bob ってどういう間柄か知ってるよね?」\"Wait, do you know the relationship between\nAlice and Bob?\"\n\n「知らない。」\"No, I do not know.\"\n\n「Bob のお母さんが Catharine っていうの知ってる?」\"Do you know that Bob's mother is Catharine?\"\n\n「知ってる。」\"I know.\"\n\n「Catharine と Alice は双子の姉妹なんだよ。」\"Catharine and Alice are twins.\"\n\n「へえ、はじめて知った。」\"Huh, this is the first time I know of that.\"\n\n「よく見ると、顔がそっくりでしょう?」\"They look so alike if you look them carefully.\"\n\n「たしかにそう思っていたけれども、姉妹だとは分からなかったなあ。」\"Yeah, I've noticed that, but I did not know\nthat they are sisters.\"\n\n「Alice と Bob ってどういう間柄か、分かった?」\"Do you know the relationship between Alice and\nBob?\"\n\n「うん、分かった。ありがとう。」\"Now I know. Thanks.\"\n\n次の日。next day.\n\n「Alice は Bob のおばさんだって、昨日知ったよ。」\"Yesterday I knew that Alice is Bob's aunt.\"\n\n# 6\n\n 1. 「あの電車の今のスピードは?」\n\n「だいたいなら知ってるよ。このあたりは、いつも時速90キロくらいで走るんだ。」\n\n 2. 「あの電車の今のスピードは?」\n\n「だいたいなら分かるよ。電柱の間隔が 100 m おきだから、この時計を参考にすると、時速90キロくらいだね。」\n\nIn this case,\n\n * 「知ってる。」=> I've heard of it from the authority.\n * 「分かる。」=> I can calculate it.\n\n# 7\n\n 1. メルトダウンの原因をしった。 \n * If someone told me the reason.\n * If I went close to the atomic furnace and found an alien ship!\n 2. メルトダウンの原因がわかった。 \n * If we studied the reason for the meltdown and now we are sure.\n\nIn this case,\n\n * 「知った。」=> I heard of it. / I saw the CAUSE!\n * 「分かった。」=> Now I got the reason.\n\n# 8\n\n 1. （ある人が）これから何をするかはだれも分からない。 \n * No one can guess.\n 2. （ある人が）これから何をするかはだれも知らない。 \n * No one is told.\n\nIn this case,\n\n * 「知らない。」=> Have not heard.\n * 「分からない。」=> Have no idea.\n\nBy the way, you can say \"誰にも分からない\" but not \"誰にも知らない.\" But, you can say\n\"誰にも知られていない.\"\n\n# 9\n\n 1. コピー機の使い方がよくわからない。\n 2. コピー機の使い方をよくしらない。\n\nThese two are almost the same.\n\nIn this case,\n\n * 「知らない。」=> Have not learned.\n * 「分からない。」=> Cannot use.\n\n# 10\n\n 1. 「それ食べちゃ駄目だよ。」「分かったよ。」 \n * \"You should not eat it.\" \"I see.\"\n 2. 「それ食べちゃ駄目だよ。」「今知ったよ。」 \n * \"You should not eat it.\" \"Now I understand that.\"\n\nI feel slight accusation from the second one because it sounds like \"This is\nthe very first time you tell me that.\" or \"Why didn't you told me earlier?\"\nAlso,「今分かったよ」and「知ったよ。」are not natural responses.\n\n * 「分かった。」=> I changed my state to \"understood.\"\n * 「知った。」=> A certain fact comes into me.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-12-24T18:04:07.237", "id": "21016", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-13T15:44:45.377", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "8010", "parent_id": "1659", "post_type": "answer", "score": 74 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1887", "answer_count": 3, "body": "The word 【くら】 can be written with any of the kanji 蔵, 倉, or 庫. However,\n[WWWJDIC](http://wwwjdic.mygengo.com/cgi-data/wwwjdic?1MDJ%C1%D2) lists them\nall under one entry, defined as:\n\n> (n) warehouse; cellar; magazine; granary; godown; depository; treasury;\n> elevator;\n\nIs there a difference in nuance or usage between these three kanji, and if so,\nwhat?\n\n**Update:** @istrasci points out that:\n\n> [When] 蔵 is used as【〜ぞう】in compounds, it's used to denote ownership or\n> possession.\n>\n> Whereas compounds with 庫 seem to refer more to a physical storage facility.\n\nDoes anybody know about different nuances of the word 【くら】 itself?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T19:09:47.480", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1661", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-25T19:22:20.663", "last_edit_date": "2014-06-25T03:57:47.410", "last_editor_user_id": "3437", "owner_user_id": "384", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words", "nuances", "kanji", "kanji-choice" ], "title": "What is the difference between 蔵, 倉, and 庫?", "view_count": 1579 }

[ { "body": "As far as using them strictly for the word 【くら】, I'm not sure of any nuances.\nBut when 蔵 is used as【〜ぞう】in compounds, it's used to denote ownership or\npossession.\n\n> 私蔵 【しぞう】 → Private collection \n> 家蔵 【かぞう】 → Household collections \n> 所蔵 【しょぞう】→ To have in your possession (== 所有) \n> 蔵書 【ぞうしょ】→ Collection of books / a library\n\nWhereas compounds with 庫 seem to refer more to a physical storage facility.\n\n> 車庫 【しゃこ】 → Garage \n> 金庫 【きんこ／かねぐら】 → Vault/treasury \n> 武器庫【ぶきこ】 → Armory\n\nStill the meanings seem to overlap even in a lot of compound words.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-06-30T22:39:27.223", "id": "1663", "last_activity_date": "2011-06-30T22:39:27.223", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "1661", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Here's what a person who's been immersed in the Japanese culture for 22 years\nimagine when she sees them without much context.\n\n## 蔵\n\n\n\n * Where it can be found: In the estate of an old family, or as a cellar of a sake brewery. Usually in a place crowded with other buildings (hence the backside of the kura is blurred in the picture).\n * What's inside: Something valuable, treasures, or simply old and unused things for special occassions.\n * Height: 2-3 stories.\n\n## 倉\n\n\n\n * Where: In the rural districts.\n * What's inside: Farming tools, stored rice and unused things (of everyday use).\n * Height: 1-2 stories.\n\n## 庫\n\n\n\nNote: I didn't know 庫 can be read as くら. These are the impressions I have\nabout the kanji itself.\n\n * Where: In a house or any other building, or as a part of one.\n * What's inside: Something valuable, or other trinkets. Usually contains a single type of things.\n * Height: Can vary in size. Usually box-shaped and smaller than 倉.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-12T18:45:55.993", "id": "1887", "last_activity_date": "2014-03-30T19:50:39.910", "last_edit_date": "2014-03-30T19:50:39.910", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "1661", "post_type": "answer", "score": 25 }, { "body": "**新選漢和辞典第六版付録同訓異義要覧八七頁**\n\n> # 【くら】\n>\n> **〔倉〕**\n>\n> 米【こめ】ぐら。穀物【こくもつ】ぐら。\n>\n> **〔蔵〕**\n>\n> 大切【たいせつ】なものをしまっておく所【ところ】。\n>\n> **〔庫〕**\n>\n> 武器【ぶき】や車【くるま】をおさめる所【ところ】。\n>\n> **〔府〕**\n>\n> 金【かね】や品物【しなもの】をしまう所【ところ】。\n>\n> **〔廩〕**\n>\n> 米【こめ】ぐら。屋根【やね】のあるくら。\n\nI still think it should be called 同義異訓要覧.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-06-25T09:44:16.043", "id": "17568", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-25T19:22:20.663", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "1661", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1666", "answer_count": 1, "body": "All of the following words and kanji (and a few more obscure ones) seem to be\nused in Japanese, to describe a bird that is translated by \"Phoenix\" in\nEnglish:\n\n * 不死鳥【ふしちょう】\n * 鳳凰【ほうおう】\n * 鳳【おおとり】/鵬【おおとり】\n * フェニックス and even:\n * [火の鳥](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A7%E3%83%8B%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9) (thought this one seems to be more of an attempt at a description than a word used on its own)\n\n不死鳥 is rather self-explanatory (\"bird that doesn't die\"), 鳳凰 is used in the\nname of the famous \"phoenix hall\" (鳳凰堂【ほうおうどう】) at the [Byodoin (平等院【びょうどういん】)\ntemple in Uji near Kyoto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By%C5%8Dd%C5%8D-in)\nand, to my surprise, the katakana word does not refer only to the city, but\nalso [the\nbird](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A7%E3%83%8B%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9).\n\nIt seems clear that there might be some entanglement between different\nmythical creatures (some Western, some Asian) that share some properties\n(immortality, relation with fire etc)...\n\nCould anybody draw a clear taxonomy of all these birds and the relations\nbetween these Japanese names for me?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T00:06:32.480", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1665", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-11T07:08:04.077", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-01T03:19:31.920", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "nuances", "folklore" ], "title": "Phoenix: 不死鳥【ふしちょう】, 鳳凰【ほうおう】, 鳳/鵬【おおとり】, フェニックス... How many lives does this bird have!?", "view_count": 1138 }

[ { "body": "-As Ignacio said, 鳳凰 is the mythical bird from Asian cultures. (fènghuáng in Chinese)\n\n-In the mythology, 鳳 is the male _\"asian phoenix\"_ and 凰 is the female.\n\n-不死鳥 is the Phoenix from the Greek mythology\n\n-火の鳥 is the name regrouping \"fire birds\":\n\n * Bennu, Egypt\n * Huma and Simurgh, Persia\n * Phoenix, Greece and others\n * Firebird, Russia\n\n-フェニックス (used for proper names) The US city and the constellation. For the constellation of the phoenix, 鳳凰 is mostly used, but since it's been discovered by Netherlands navigators and originally named \"phoenix\", the Japanese name should be フェニックス\n\n-鵬 is another mythical bird (not associated with fire) that transforms from a giant fish (called 鯤 Kun)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T01:27:45.430", "id": "1666", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-11T07:08:04.077", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-11T07:08:04.077", "last_editor_user_id": "159", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1665", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1671", "answer_count": 4, "body": "In many beginning Japanese classes, 来る【くる】 and 行く【いく】 are presented as \"to\ncome\" and \"to go,\" respectively. Dictionaries generally also define them this\nway. However, every once in a while in more advanced classes, teachers will\nmention that this is not actually the case; these words are used differently\nin Japanese than their English (pseudo-)counterparts.\n\nI cannot for the life of me remember the proper way to understand the\ndifferentiation between these verbs, past \"come\" and \"go,\" a fact which is\nmost embarassing.\n\nCan someone please explain how these words are different than the English\n\"come\" and \"go\" in their usage?\n\nRelated question: [Difference between -ていく and\n-てくる](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/676/384)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T05:10:50.213", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1669", "last_activity_date": "2020-12-01T17:07:46.763", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "384", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "vocabulary" ], "title": "What is the *proper* differentiation between 来る and 行く?", "view_count": 7123 }

[ { "body": "「来る」 implies motion or action towards or ending at the speaker or the\nspeaker's current situation, whereas 「行く」 implies motion or action away from\nor beginning at the speaker or the speaker's situation.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T05:46:19.607", "id": "1670", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-01T05:46:19.607", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "1669", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "As usual, I'll _go_ for examples which should _come_ in handy. Check the\nemphasized words. (The translations are not natural, but it's not the point\nhere.)\n\n**_Sample 1_**\n\n> Won't you come visit _me_ in France? \n> フランスに来ませんか？待っていますよ！\n>\n> Yes, I will go _to France_. We will go see the Arc de Triomphe. \n> はい、フランスに行きますよ。一緒に凱旋門を見に行きましょう。\n>\n> Great. Mark came last summer already. \n> 良かった。去年の夏はマークさんが来たよ。\n\n**_Sample 2_**\n\n> Will you come/go to _John_ 's party tonight? \n> 今晩、ジョンさんのパーティに行きますか？\n>\n> No, I won't go to _John_ 's. \n> いいえ、行きません。\n>\n> Paul is not coming/going either. \n> ポールさんも行きません。\n\n**_Sample 3_**\n\n> Come here! \n> 来てください!\n>\n> Yes sir! I'm coming right away. \n> はい、すぐ行きます。\n\n**_Summary_**\n\nTarou is at place A, Jun is at place B. Tarou calls motions towards A as \"来る\".\nTarou calls motions away from A as \"行く\". Tarou calls motions towards Jun as\n\"行く\".\n\n行く/来る is from-here/to-here relatively to the person who uses the verb now. (I\nsuddenly have a doubt for a situation like \"will you visit me at my new home\n_when I moved to France_ \". I think \"来る\" would still be good, because it's\nstill about the narrator being reached.)", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T08:23:19.157", "id": "1671", "last_activity_date": "2019-08-27T02:25:58.693", "last_edit_date": "2019-08-27T02:25:58.693", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1669", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "As Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams says, the key is the difference in point of\nreference. So when the first and the second person's perspective are the same,\nJapanese and English have the same distinction for these words. Difference\nbetween Japanese and English appears when the first and the second person's\nperspective are different. That is typical when someone is calling another. A\ndifferent famous example is the words said at sexual climax. In English,\npeople say `I'm coming`. This is in second person's perspective. In Japanese,\npeople say `行く`. This is in first person's perspective.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-02T15:52:22.813", "id": "1693", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-02T15:52:22.813", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1669", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "There are many cases where the Japanese \"KURU/KIMASU\" really means the same as\nthe English \"come\", and the Japanese \"IKU/IKIMASU\" really means the same as\nthe English \"go\", but there's a certain case where it's used differently.\nLet's look at the following 4 scenarios.\n\nThis video explains with animations: [I'll come or I'll\ngo?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpKPOrjuMcg&ab_channel=ShiroNekoJapanese)\n\nBasically,\n\n> KURU/KIMASU - Someone or something is moving toward you or whoever the\n> speaker is\n>\n> IKU/IKIMASU - Someone or something is moving AWAY from you or whoever the\n> speaker is. When you are the speaker, you will still be moving away from\n> yourself(the speaker) or your current position by \"going somehwere\"\n\n## Scenario 1:\n\nIn this scenario, you are talking with A about \"B coming\" to you (B moving\ntoward you). In English, you'd say \"B comes\" because B is moving toward the\nspeaker, which is you, the white cat in the picture. It's the same thing in\nJapanese, so you'd call B's action as \"KIMASU\" because B is moving toward the\nspeaker. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zHccd.jpg)\n\n## Scenario 2:\n\nIn this scenario, you are talking with A about A's action. In English, you'd\nask \"Will you come?\" because you want to know whether A will be coming toward\nyou, the speaker (the white cat in the picture). It's the same thing in\nJapanese, so you'd call A's action as \"KIMASU\" because A is moving toward the\nspeaker. [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/DBVuM.jpg)\n\n## Scenario 3:\n\nIn this scenario, you are talking with A about you going to the third person,\nB. You are moving away, so you'd tell A \"I'll go (to B)\" in English. Again,\nit's the same thing in Japanese, you are moving away from the speaker, which\nis yourself, the white cat in the picture, so you'd call your own action as\n\"IKIMASU\" [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/liADF.jpg)\n\n## Scenario 4:\n\nIn this scenario, you are talking with A about you going to A. In English,\n\"come\" is used when you are moving toward the person you are talking to, so\nyou'd say \"I'll come (to you)\". BUT, in Japanese, it doesn't matter where you\nare moving to. It doesn't matter that you are moving toward the person you are\ntalking to. `As long as you are moving away from the speaker, which is\nyourself, the white cat in the picture, you'd call your action as \"IKIMASU\"`.\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Lvz4x.jpg)\n\nHope this helps.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2020-12-01T17:00:08.890", "id": "82898", "last_activity_date": "2020-12-01T17:07:46.763", "last_edit_date": "2020-12-01T17:07:46.763", "last_editor_user_id": "17476", "owner_user_id": "17476", "parent_id": "1669", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1675", "answer_count": 2, "body": "What's the difference between the に祈る and を祈る forms?\n\nLike what's the difference between (1.) and (2.):\n\n 1. うまく行くのに祈ってくださいね。\n 2. うまく行くのを祈ってくださいね。\n\n**EDIT** : What's the difference between the ように祈る and のを祈る forms?\n\nLike if what I want to say is \"I pray that he will recover quickly\", what's\nthe difference between (1.) and (2.):\n\n 1. 早く治るように祈ります。\n\n 2. 早く治るのを祈ります。", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T10:47:33.277", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1672", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-25T21:28:23.600", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-25T21:28:23.600", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "words", "usage", "religion" ], "title": "What's the difference between the に祈る【いのる】 and を祈る【いのる】 forms?", "view_count": 1530 }

[ { "body": "1) Pray so that it goes well \n2) Pray that it goes well.\n\nThis quite direct grammatically speaking. Nothing fancy here. に is the aim of\nthe prayer, and を is the content of the prayer.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T12:21:04.897", "id": "1674", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-01T12:21:04.897", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "1672", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "**1)** うまく行くのに祈ってくださいね。\n\nThis looks strange. I'm not sure where you found it. のに means \"although\"\nmaking the sentence sound like: \"Although it goes well, please pray.\"\n\nI think you're confused with **ように** indicating a goal.\n\nMost prayers are formed like this: うまく行くように（祈る）。\n\n**2)** うまく行くのを祈ってくださいね\n\nThis is the correct form for the transitive verb 祈る\n\nCan also replace の with こと\n\n**EDIT:**\n\n**1-** ように indicates the goal. You pray so that things goes well. Prayers in\ntemples are formed like this and many people before an exam for example or\nbefore a speech will address a prayer like this. (no need to be in a temple)\nThe verb 祈る is sometimes omitted.\n\n**2-** Vb + の/ことを祈る\n\nThis is more of an everyday hope expression, a wish for luck. (second meaning\nof 祈る is \"to wish\")\n\nMost people will translate うまく行くことを祈りましょう as \"Let's cross our fingers\"\n\nYou can also say: 成功を祈ってね -> \"'pray' for my success\" or \"wish me success\" Or\nsomething like:\n\n頑張って！成功を祈るよ！\n\n**3-** And thanks to istrasci for pointing out that using only に indicates to\nwhom you address the prayer: 神様に祈る", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T13:01:46.747", "id": "1675", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-02T10:43:48.277", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-02T10:43:48.277", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "1672", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "1677", "answer_count": 2, "body": "My basic understanding of より to compare things or ending letters, is failing\nme when there's a で or での in front of it.\n\nAs I write this, I'm wondering, can read でより as \"with, more\", \"in, more\"?\n\n> さらに低い給料 **でより** 多くの責任を引き受ける \n> accept more responsibilities for less money\n>\n> その地域 **でより** 快適なインターネット接続が可能になる \n> provide the area with a better Internet connection\n>\n> より安い賃金 **でより** 長く働く \n> to work longer hours for less money\n>\n> みんな **でより** 良い地球を創っていけるでしょう。 \n> together we can create a better world.\n\n* * *\n\nでのより is really tripping me up. I'm not understanding how this functions at\nall.\n\n> 日本語 **でのより** 一般的な漢字表記は亜米利加であり \n> In Japanese, a typical way to write [America] with kanji is 亜米利加. [?]\n>\n> 勤務時間が長いほど、職場 **でのより** 多くの事故につながるのではないかと、長い間思われてきた。 \n> It has long been suspected that longer working hours result in more\n> accidents in the work place.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T15:46:24.957", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "1676", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:31:02.813", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:31:02.813", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "particles", "particle-で", "particle-の", "formal-nouns", "particle-より" ], "title": "How should I view でより and でのより?", "view_count": 992 }

[ { "body": "より, when preceding an adjective as in your examples, means \"more\" or \"-er\":\n\n> より多くの more [numerous]\n>\n> より快適な more pleasant, smoother\n>\n> より長い longer\n>\n> より良い better\n>\n> より一般的な more common, more typical\n\nAs such, でより and でのより should not be considered together. で and での go with the\npreceding word, and より goes with the succeeding word.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-01T16:03:43.330", "id": "1677", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-01T16:03:43.330", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "1676", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "Derek already answered the question well, but let me add an important\ndifference between English and Japanese about comparisons. While “より X” means\n“more X,” simple “X” can also mean “more X.” In other words, unlike English,\nthe comparative degree does not have to be made explicit in Japanese. The\nadverb より clarifies or emphasizes that it is about a comparison.\n\nFor example, suppose that Shun and Takumi are comparing their heights. ([○\nbefore an example means that it is correct, × means that it is incorrect, and\n? means that it is\nquestionable.](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/169/should-\nwe-have-a-standard-notation-for-example-sentences))\n\n> ○ 駿の方が背が高い。 (しゅんのほうがせがたかい。) Shun is taller. \n> ○ 駿の方が背がより高い。 (しゅんのほうがせがよりたかい。) Shun is taller. (with emphasis on the\n> comparison)\n>\n> ○ 駿は拓海に比べて背が高い。 (しゅんはたくみにくらべてせがたかい。) Shun is taller than Takumi. \n> ○ 駿は拓海に比べて背がより高い。 (しゅんはたくみにくらべてせがよりたかい。) Shun is taller than Takumi. (with\n> emphasis on the comparison)\n\nWhen the particle ～より is used to signify the second member of the comparison,\nthe adverb より sounds weird because of the repetition of the same form より.\n\n> ○ 駿は拓海より背が高い。 (しゅんはたくみよりせがたかい。) Shun is taller than Takumi. (より in this\n> example is the particle.) \n> ? 駿は拓海より背がより高い。 (しゅんはたくみよりせがよりたかい。)\n\nI do not think that the adverb より can be used with the amount of the\ndifference:\n\n> ○ 駿の方が 5 センチ背が高い。 (しゅんのほうがごセンチせがたかい。) Shun is taller by 5 centimeters. \n> × 駿の方が 5 センチ背がより高い。 (しゅんのほうがごセンチせがよりたかい。)\n\nHistorically, the adverb より arose from the particle より, and the adverb より was\nfirst used in translations from European languages in [Meiji\nera](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period) (according to\n[Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%82%88%E3%82%8A&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&index=120232900000&pagenum=1)).\nTherefore, excessive use of the adverb より may result in\n[translationese](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/translationese).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-02T05:49:39.703", "id": "1686", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-03T23:09:19.920", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "1676", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]