Datasets:

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2399", "answer_count": 1, "body": "since 受ける is the same verb associated with \"sustaining damage\", \"incurring\nlosses\", \"suffering injury\", all 3 seemingly have _negative_ nuances, I'm\nwondering when we use it (受ける) with 試験, does 受ける imply anything on the 試験? are\nthere any clues to the listener what kind of 試験 it is?\n\nOr is it the case that we cannot derive any traits of the 試験 just by the\nphrase 試験を受ける because by itself the phrase is a neutral one?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T20:51:01.483", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2398", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T21:07:31.530", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "nuances" ], "title": " just by the phrase 試験を受ける, can we imply anything on the 試験?", "view_count": 156 }

[ { "body": "受ける does not by itself imply a negative outcome:\n\n> 注文を受ける receive an order\n>\n> 援助を受ける receive aid\n>\n> ボールを手で受ける catch a ball in the hand\n\nTherefore 試験を受ける does not tell you anything about the type of exam or whether\nit is a difficult or easy exam. It simply means to \"undergo (take) an exam\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T21:07:31.530", "id": "2399", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T21:07:31.530", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2398", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2403", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Looking for a phrase that has the same meaning as \"May I?\" in English. One\nthat would work in situations that would indicate I would like to try to solve\na problem at hand, or receive control over something. For example, if someone\nis stuck with a Rubik's cube, or maybe I want a user to get up from a\nworkstation so I can sit down and try a solution.\n\nI know I can use words in a sentence to say what I want, but is there a phrase\nthat accomplishes the same?\n\nI'm thinking よろしいですか？ could work, but is it enough alone?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T00:33:22.787", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2402", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T04:56:28.063", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "set-phrases" ], "title": "Is there a polite saying like \"May I?\"", "view_count": 4911 }

[ { "body": "Like pretty much anything in Japanese, it entirely depends on context and your\nrelation with the person you are addressing.\n\n`よろしいですか？` or `いいですか？` sound perfectly fine for most situations.\n\nIf you are offering your help to someone of higher status, the kenjōgo\nconstruct `させていただきます` is a good start. E.g.:\n\n> パソコンを見させていただけませんか\n>\n> お手伝いさせていただきましょうか\n\nTo anybody else, `○て[も]いい？`/`○て[も]よろしい?` might also do...", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T00:45:32.627", "id": "2403", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T04:56:28.063", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "2402", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "\"ちょっといいですか\" seems the more common way to say \"may I\" with nothing around. It\nmeans you want to intervene.\n\nThe problems with よろしいですか is that you're asking for the other to give you\nsomething (the rubik cube). You cannot really say that in a situation like\n\"may I? I have a question for you\", or \"stop talking, and let me pass through;\nI'd like to get of the bus now!\"\n\nJust \"いいですか\" may be a bit rude.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T01:58:12.687", "id": "2406", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T01:58:12.687", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2402", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "`させていただけますか` means `してよろしいですか`, and people use the latter more commonly.\n`いただけますか` is thought to be more polite, but it's also thought to be overly\ncomplicated.\n\n`させてよろしいですか` is the common way to say something. It involves a third person.\nIt's like what you would say if you wanted to ask, \"Can I let my son play\nhere?\" -> `息子をここで遊ばせてもよろしいですか?` It's kind of a way of saying `させてもいいですか`. In\nas much, you can also say: `息子をここで遊ばせても良いですか？` Probably most common of all is,\n`させてもいいですか`, which is used amongst friends, and it's also usually used with\nchildren. Sometimes people use it with foreigners, thinking `よろしいですか` is too\nmuch more difficult, as compared to `いいですか`.\n\n`させていただきましょうか` is kind of like `させていただきませんか`, which means, \"Shouldn't I check\nit,\" but it's not a good parallel.\n\nYou should think of it more like this, to avoid confusion: `見させていただきましょうか` =\nBoss to employee: \"I should check your work...\" `みていただけませんか` = Employee to\nboss: \"Shouldn't I show you my work?\"\n\n`ませんか` is more polite, and you should use it when speaking to your boss.\nBosses use `ましょう` to sound kind because they don't want their workers to feel\nlike they are under the gun, when everyone should be happy in their workplace.\nIt just makes things worse for everyone. Your boss would ask if he could check\nyour work, but you wouldn't ask your boss if you should check his work, under\nordinary circumstances. So, `ましょう` to `ません` isn't good for a transformation\ndrill unless you also transform `させる` and `する`, respectively. Then, you could\nkeep the same mental context while practicing.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T01:59:54.033", "id": "2407", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T01:59:54.033", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2402", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2412", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I have only found 行 being pronounced as いく, ゆく and おこなう for kun'yomi and as コウ\nand ギョウ for on'yomi, but my dictionary software also lists down なみ, なめ, みち and\nアン as the other pronunciations of this kanji.\n\n\n\nIn which words is the kanji 行 pronounced as なみ, なめ, みち or アン?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T08:17:58.513", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2408", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T13:17:49.303", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "kanji", "pronunciation" ], "title": "Kanji 行 with なみ, なめ, みち and アン pronunciations", "view_count": 451 }

[ { "body": "Names, mostly. Hence most of them being\n[nanori](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanori) readings. But [a few as\n「アン」](http://dic.search.yahoo.co.jp/search?ei=UTF-8&p=%E8%A1%8C%20%E3%81%82%E3%82%93&fr=dic&stype=prefix)\nas well.\n\n * 行火 (あんか) - foot warmer\n * 行脚 (あんぎゃ) - pilgrimage\n * 行宮 (あんぐう) - temporary lodging built for an imperial visit\n * 行灯 (あんどん) - a lamp with a paper shade", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T09:31:54.807", "id": "2412", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T09:31:54.807", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "2408", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Probably in family names for the kun.\n\nFor the on, there is 行脚 (angya), pilgrimage that I know.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T09:33:15.447", "id": "2413", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T09:33:15.447", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2408", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "As the others have already said, most of those are nanori readings. The アン\nreading, however, is what is called a Tō-on (唐音) reading. These are Chinese\nreadings from a later period than the usual Go-on (呉音) and Kan-on (漢音)\nreadings.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T10:31:58.403", "id": "2414", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T10:31:58.403", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2408", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "For the nanori reading(s):\n\n * 行方 ( **なめ** がた, **なめ** かた) : a place name in the Kanto area <- 行細（なめくわし＝並べ詳しき） ([source](http://inu.imagines.jp/yamato/hudoki.html))\n\nExtra:\n\n * 行縢 ( **むか** ばき) : certain type of legwear used by samurais in the middle ages, still worn as part of formal attire for horseback archery\n * 行幸 ( **み** ゆき) : the Emperor's visit <- probably from a synonym: 御幸 (みゆき)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T13:17:49.303", "id": "2418", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T13:17:49.303", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2408", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2415", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Are there any other verbs than 死ぬ whose plain forms end with ぬ? Why are they\nso rare? Is it because the verb 死ぬ itself has special etymology why it ended\nup having the ぬ ending?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T08:37:18.670", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2409", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T00:22:04.400", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "verbs" ], "title": "Plain verbs that end with ぬ other than 死ぬ", "view_count": 3283 }

[ { "body": "Tough one!\n\nI think that 去ぬ/往ぬ (いぬ) is the only other such verb, and is not standard\nJapanese. It survived in dialects only, according to\n[http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ナ行変格活用](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8A%E8%A1%8C%E5%A4%89%E6%A0%BC%E6%B4%BB%E7%94%A8)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T09:29:11.410", "id": "2411", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T00:22:04.400", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-04T00:22:04.400", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2409", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "As Axioplase has indicated, the verb 死ぬ was originally a n-stem irregular verb\n(ナ行変格活用動詞). There was only one other such verb, namely 去ぬ. It survives in\nmodern standard Japanese in derived forms such as 古 （いにしえ, from the stem of 去ぬ\n+ the stem of the past tense auxiliary き + the particle へ). It is also thought\nthat the noun 西 is derived from 去ぬ. (The main evidence for this, as I\nunderstand it, are Ryūkyū languages in which /nisi/ means north instead of\nwest, indicating a migration from the mainland spreading southwards into the\nRyūkyū islands and eastward into Honshū.)\n\nThere are also auxiliary verbs which end in -ぬ, the most well known of which\nis the negative verb. It survives in modern Japanese as the -ん in -ません. (-ず is\nanother form of this auxiliary.) The other one, which does not survive into\nmodern Japanese, is the perfect auxiliary -ぬ, also derived from 去ぬ.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T10:40:52.517", "id": "2415", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T12:58:22.773", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-03T12:58:22.773", "last_editor_user_id": "578", "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2409", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 4, "body": "In Japanese mathematics, the word\n‘[functor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functor)’ is translated as\n[関手【かんしゅ】](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%96%A2%E6%89%8B). What is the\netymology of this word?\n\nI suspect that it is a pun on\n[関数](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%96%A2%E6%95%B0_%28%E6%95%B0%E5%AD%A6%29)\n(function). This leads to two further questions:\n\n 1. Why 関手 and not 函手? According to Wikipedia 函数 was standard until the late 1950s. Category theory (圏論) was invented in the late 1940s, and was certainly known in Japan in the 1950s, c.f. Nobuo Yoneda's (米田信夫) work.\n 2. Why -手? It _seems_ to be the same agentive morpheme -手 as in 運転手、歌手、選手 etc., but these are words referring to _people_. Moreover (to my knowledge) -手 is not as productive as, say, -者. Either way, it seems unnatural to calque _-or_ like this.\n\nTo ward off any confusion, I _do not_ mean 関手 as in せきて.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T11:19:29.520", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2416", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-02T02:26:13.947", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "etymology", "mathematics" ], "title": "The etymology of 関手【かんしゅ】", "view_count": 635 }

[ { "body": "I do not have a definitive answer to either of your questions, but let me post\nmy thoughts anyway because definitive answers may be hard to obtain.\n\nAs for 1, kanji 函手 is also used, for example, in 圏論の基礎, the Japanese\ntranslation of _Categories for the Working Mathematician_ written by Saunders\nMac Lane and translated by 三好博之 and 高木理 (translation published from Springer\nin 2005). I do not know which of 関手 and 函手 is more common among\nmathematicians, or how it compares to 関数 vs 函数.\n\nAs for 2, I can only speculate. I feel that -者 is associated with the notion\nof physical people more closely than -手, and that using -者 to a non-human\nobject is a clear personification, which sounds unprofessional. But I am not\nsure about this.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T12:31:41.570", "id": "2417", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T12:31:41.570", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "1. Well, the 関 in 関数, 関手 is a replacement for 函, chosen to simplify the character set in usage. How logical would it be to simplify half of the vocabulary? Especially closely related vocab…\n\n 2. I'm not sure it's a pun. 手 has the meaning of 取る, and a functor is actually a map from a category (a box, 函, since the Japanese word for function comes from a \"box for numbers\") to another. It is possible that 関手 thus means that it \"takes a box('s contents)\" to another box.\n\nHowever, now that I think about it, \"functor\" is very close to \"function\" too…", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T02:04:08.920", "id": "2424", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-05T06:36:45.423", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-05T06:36:45.423", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "This is a great question. I searched the Iwanami mathematical dictionary\n『岩波数学辞典』 and Sasahara's 当て字 dictionary, 『当て字・当て読み 漢字表現辞典』, and did not find a\ndefinitive answer. Here's what I did find, though:\n\nThe word 函数 was invented in China, not Japan. The characters were chosen for\nphonetic value as well as meaning. It's possible that \"box that numbers go\ninto\" was the intended interpretation, but we can't know for sure. What we can\nknow is that it was the closest the translators involved could get to the\n\"fun-\" sound. [Edit: If I had bothered to read the Wikipedia article, I would\nknow that it said that 函 was chosen as the /han/ sound for its meaning of\n\"enclose, contain\", and is apparently used in the sense that that the\nindependent variable (x) is included within the dependent one (y). The \"black\nbox\" interpretation is specifically rejected.]\n\nThe spelling 関数 was created in Japan once the postwar kanji and vocab lists\n([tōyō kanji](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji),\n[学術用語集](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AD%A6%E8%A1%93%E7%94%A8%E8%AA%9E%E9%9B%86))\nwere created without 函 on them. 関数 is ateji upon ateji. The two forms would\nhave coexisted for a while before 関数 became dominant. As Tsuyoshi's answer\nsays, this means that we can basically ignore the question of 関 vs 函; official\nkanji lists aren't able to cause sudden and discrete changes in everyone's\nusage, so it's no big deal if we see some inconsistency and overlap.\n\nWhat follows is pure speculation.\n\n * If \"functor\" was coined in the 1940s, then 関手 was probably coined in Japan, because by that period Western science was not absorbed via China.\n * The English word is the root of \"function\" plus the Latinate suffix -or which means \"(male) person who performs a task.\" Actor, director, operator, etc.\n * So maybe whoever coined the word 関手 took the first half of 関数 and added the 手 of 運転手, 歌手, etc., by specific analogy with -or.\n\nBasically I am in agreement with your theory and offering a reason why a\nsuffix normally associated with people would have been chosen: because that's\nhow the English breaks down, too. It may have been the very fact that 手 is no\nlonger productive that made it the choice for calquing -or: as Tsuyoshi says,\nusing a productive suffix like 者 might have carried too strong an implication\nof \"(actual) person.\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T11:21:45.493", "id": "2431", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T21:35:52.710", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-04T21:35:52.710", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "> 2. Why -手 ?\n>\n\nI can't think of -手 used in this way for other math, physics, ... terms.\n\nIn terms of consistency, 関子 or 函子 is (would have been) probably better.\n\n演算子 論理演算子 比較演算子 モナド変換子 (monad transformer) 拡張子 変換指定子 変換子 変換修飾子 z変換演算子 ラプラス変換子\nラプラス変換演算子 フーリエ変換演算子 座標変換演算子 微分演算子\n\n> <https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AD%90>\n>\n> 西洋語の翻訳語の一部。\n>\n> * 生物学の用語。遺伝子（gene）、精子（sperm）、配偶子（gamete）、胞子（spore）、卵子（ovum）など。\n>\n> * ギリシア語由来の接尾辞 -on や動作主体を指す -or\n> に相当する語。電子（electron）、重力子（graviton）、接続子（connector）、演算子（operator）、など。\n>\n>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-09-02T02:11:53.553", "id": "38898", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-02T02:26:13.947", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "16344", "parent_id": "2416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2422", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Sometimes a Japanese person will say to me:\n\n> そんなに丁寧な言葉を使わなくてもいいんですよ。\n\nThis is an invitation to be less formal. But how much less formal? As I have\nexperienced, sometimes [unintentional\ngaffes](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/94/how-rude-is-it-to-say)\ncan be committed blithely as one learns to navigate the treacherous waters of\nthe politeness hierarchy. Note that the expression itself uses です even though\nit is a request to use less formal speech, and that is the level of politeness\nI would normally be using. So I find the whole matter confusing. The eternal\npoliteness dance ...\n\nNow, here's the catch: I feel it would be rude to ask something like \"What\nlevel of politeness do you suggest I use?\" That might come off as sarcastic\nor, worse, a rebuke. Any advice?\n\n**Edit to add more detail**\n\nAn example of this kind of occurrence: At a lunch after a business meeting, I\nwas using standard TV keigo: _desu_ , - _masu_ , plus _o-_ and _go-_ where\nappropriate, plus a bit of _nasaimasu_ and _itashimasu_ to senior people. The\ngentleman seated across from me (on about the same level as me), said this\nrather matter-of-factly. Honestly, I really wish he hadn't said this. It was\nlike saying \"Don't worry about the snakes, just stick your hand in there.\"", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T14:22:21.150", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2420", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T09:09:41.843", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "85", "post_type": "question", "score": 25, "tags": [ "politeness" ], "title": "\"You don't have to be so polite.\" Really?", "view_count": 8498 }

[ { "body": "As others have said, this is a really hard question to answer because it is\nalways so context-dependent. This is the sort of thing that Japanese people\nthemselves struggle with, to an extent, especially when people from different\ngenerations or backgrounds (Tokyo vs Osaka etc.) are speaking with each other.\nAll those \"introduction to keigo\" books in the bookstore aren't just there for\nlight reading.\n\nHere's an analogy: You grow up playing classical piano. In your 20s, you get\ninto jazz. Your fundamentals and technique are fine, but you don't yet have\nyour own _sound_. One day, you're at a jam session playing standards. A\nsaxophone player who also part-owns the place comes over to you in a break and\nsays, \"You know, you don't have to play so _in_ all the time.\" How do you\nchange your playing style?\n\nYour options are pretty similar as a language learner and a musician:\n\n * Listen. Pay close attention to how others around you talk, both on your side and the other side, higher status and lower status, very familiar to each other and recently introduced. If you hear differences than you think you can adopt...\n * Experiment. Take it one step at a time: Try dialing back some of the less common honorific and humble forms first, especially if others on your side and in your position are too.\n * Observe. People probably won't react in immediate, visually obvious ways unless you do something really bad. But they might react in more subtle ways, by engaging with what you say more deeply, and asking you more direct questions -- or the opposite.\n * Woodshed. Practice as much as you can. If you haven't got a tutor or anything, or friends/family who'll let you practice on them, buy books and do the exercises. There are good books and bad books, but even a bad book should give you a better idea of how to make fine-grained changes. And...\n * Find a mentor. If you can enlist someone in your company to help you out, great. If they are your supervisor, even better! Ask them after the meeting how you went. (Ask them questions like this!) Copy what they do. You'll find your own style eventually.\n\nAnd one final meta-point: Be aware that sometimes people don't say exactly\nwhat they mean. Some people really do want to speak more casually (I have\nseen, in a business context, Customer A specifically ask if Supplier B\nwouldn't mind using \"san\" rather than \"sama\", and I believe they meant it).\nOthers think they do but don't like the results. Others may want to speak very\ncasually at lunch but very formally in the meeting room. It all comes down to\nobservation and experience.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T22:39:12.887", "id": "2422", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T23:11:19.717", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-03T23:11:19.717", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2420", "post_type": "answer", "score": 27 }, { "body": "Matt's answer is a good practical approach for learning _how_ to deal with\nthis issue, but I thought it might be helpful to offer a suggestion about\n_why_ this is happening to you.\n\nI attended a lecture at Temple University on this very topic, and the\nprofessor giving the lecture had the theory that not only are politeness and\ncloseness inversely correlated, but also that perception of your Japanese\nability was matched to how familiar you are with casual forms of speech.\n\nThose of us learning Japanese are often beaten over the head with the premise\nthat Japan is a society that holds politeness, formality, and ritual in high\nregard, and so we must conform not only to grammatical rules, but also to\nstrictly defined behaviours. There is, of course, some truths in that.\n\nHowever, I fear a lot of the time we Japanese learners over compensate by\nstaying polite and/or formal for fear of making a small verbal mistake that\nwill result in everyone in a thirty yard radius committing ritual suicide.\n\nWhat a Japanese person is trying to tell you by being \"less polite\" is not\nthat the rules for polite ritual interaction are different from what you\nthought.\n\nThe Japanese person is trying to tell you that you can relax and take on a\nmore friendly tone, as your politeness makes you sound like you're keeping a\ndistance.\n\nIt's also an encouragement, because (according to the aforementioned\nprofessor's theory) it means they believe you might be holding onto a textbook\napproach even though your Japanese is good enough to support more natural\nconversation.\n\nAs a result, asking how polite you should be defeats the purpose because the\nquestion itself asserts to your listeners that you do not know them well\nenough to ease into the right mode. If someone asked me in English \"Hey man,\nhow rude can I be to you?\" I'm not sure how I would answer, but I would know\nthat the person asking doesn't seem to know me.\n\nThe key is to let go of your worry that there is a rule book that has a\ndiagram covering each kind of personal and business relationship and what\nlevel of formality and politeness to use. And I say that knowing full well\nthere are keigo manuals and books for Japanese learners that make it seem like\nthere are. Those are guides to start the uninitiated.\n\nMore importantly, there is no snake pit. In general I think we have to dispell\nthis notion that Japanese are fragile and will shatter at impoliteness. Trust\nthem that they have a feel for the language that is good enough that they can\ndetect that you tried and missed, and did not mean a genuine offense.\n\nIt's an art, not a science, and you will be able to roll with it if you go by\nfeel. In English, you know when to say \"Excuse me, would you mind terribly if\nI ask you the time?\" and \"Dude, what time is it?\" The ability to make such\ndistinctions in Japanese, and in fine gradients, comes with experience.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T10:06:28.117", "id": "2429", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T10:06:28.117", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2420", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 }, { "body": "\"Sometimes?\" This happens to you often? Sounds like you are forgetting to\nslack off the polite form after a while to show familiarity. Ease into that\n俺とお前の関係. But if someone is your superior at work, I think you should keep it\ngoing.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-24T14:34:19.127", "id": "2828", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T09:09:41.843", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T09:09:41.843", "last_editor_user_id": "647", "owner_user_id": "647", "parent_id": "2420", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2425", "answer_count": 2, "body": "So ワンコイン refers to a 500円 coin, but is there other names for the other coins?\n\nAlso in conversation does ワンコイン refer to any specific currency or only to 500\nyen (as in the sense of being a default).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T00:47:26.403", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2423", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T06:00:10.937", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-08T06:00:10.937", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "slang", "culture" ], "title": "Are there names like ワンコイン for the other coins?", "view_count": 346 }

[ { "body": "I'm not sure how SE works and why there are only comments with answers and no\nactual answers...\n\nHowever, ワンコイン, as mentioned by Dave and others in the comments, is not a term\nfor any particular coin, but just a sales practice by any shop. Whenever they\nsell items where you can pay using just one coin, then it's a sales point\nthey'll put on signs.\n\nIt could apply to any of the coins. So if a shop had everything for 100 yen,\nor 10 yen, 5 yen, or 1 yen, then they could say ワンコイン.\n\nI have never heard the term used in conversation, at least not in reference to\ncurrency. It would only be used when talking about a shop or sale.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T02:07:29.423", "id": "2425", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T02:07:29.423", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I agree with Dave M G. There are only 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, and 500 yen coins,\nand among them, probably 100 and 500 yen are the only price that will be\npractical for selling thing under a unified price. So you will probably not\nsee anything other than 100 or 500 yen being referred to as `ワンコイン`, but it\nshould mean any coin. I don't agree, but if you do feel that `ワンコイン` does not\nrefer to 100 yen, then it is probably because there is term `100円ショップ`, and\n'hyakuen' (4 mora, 3 syllable) is shorter and more precise than 'wankoin' (5\nmora, 4 syllable).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T02:08:14.057", "id": "2426", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T02:08:14.057", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2435", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I am familiar with contraction of の to ん before です (and variants で, だ, でした\netc) but I noticed that の is also contracted before 家 in spoken set-phrases\nlike あたしんち and おれんち.\n\nAre there any other instances where の is contracted before some particular\nnouns? I remember hearing おれんとこ in some anime/jdrama but I might have\nmisheard.\n\nAlso, are there any dialects that utilize these types of contractions more\nfrequently than the other colloquial dialects?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T02:58:04.840", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2427", "last_activity_date": "2019-06-17T14:45:44.187", "last_edit_date": "2019-06-17T14:45:44.187", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "set-phrases", "colloquial-language", "particle-の", "contractions" ], "title": "Contraction of particle の to ん before nouns in colloquial Japanese", "view_count": 536 }

[ { "body": "[Chakoshi](http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/chakoshi/public.html) to the rescue!\n(Chakoshi is a tool for searching both the Aozora and conversational Japanese\ncorpora at Nagoya University.)\n\nA quick search for a \"[noun]ん[noun]\" pattern in the conversational corpus\ngives 262 results, most of which are what you are asking about. Broken down,\nthere's actually not much variety in the nouns that follow ん:\n\n> とき (99): 高校 **ん** とき, 研修 **ん** とき, 外出 **ん** とき, …\n>\n> とこ(ろ) (78): そこ **ん** とこ, こっち **ん** とこ, 今 **ん** とこ, ほか **ん** とこ, …\n>\n> 中 (62): 頭 **ん** 中, 山 **ん** 中, 電車 **ん** 中, …\n>\n> ち (11): おれ **ん** ち, おまえ **ん** ち, 人 **ん** ち, …\n\nThis contraction is present in both masculine and feminine speech. I can't\nthink of any other phrases offhand that use ん this way, but I can't say that\nmeans they're not out there. If you can think of some, please put in a\ncomment.\n\nAs far as dialectical variation goes, the Chakoshi corpus [covers a fairly\nwide range of speakers](http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/chakoshi/meidai-\nchuui.html), but I would have to do a deeper analysis on the results to find\nout if there are any trends.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T12:48:33.313", "id": "2435", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T12:48:33.313", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2427", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2432", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Look at this conversation from Twitter. Do you know what dialect it is?\n\n> shohei110h: やっとdead stock手に入りました(´ω`)田舎にはなかなか無くて東京で購入しやしま \n> mao_sid: おれもど田舎だったから気持ちわかるなぁ。ありがとう。\n\nThe part I don't understand is しやしま at the end of the first sentence. What\ndoes that mean?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T06:45:57.650", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2428", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-20T16:57:58.650", "last_edit_date": "2012-07-20T16:57:58.650", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "particles", "dialects" ], "title": "Meaning of しやしま as sentence ender", "view_count": 333 }

[ { "body": "My guess is that it's a typo of either しやした or しました.\n\nAt first glance, た looks pretty hard to mistype as ま, but on second thought,\nit's likely to happen on mobile phones. Considering that most Japanese mobile\nphones have keypads like:\n\n> `あ``か``さ`\n>\n> `**た**`` な``は`\n>\n> `**ま**`` **や**`` ら`\n\nit's quite easy to mistype た, ま and や, which are arranged next to each other.\n\nしやした can be a loosely pronounced slang for しました, or the author may be writing\nin the Edo dialect, either genuinely or for a comical effect (しやした is often\nheard in Jidaigeki/samurai dramas).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T12:00:36.990", "id": "2432", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T12:00:36.990", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2428", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2436", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I found this particular proverb on WWWJDIC when I looked up for なんじ :\n[艱難]{かんなん}[汝]{なんじ}を[玉]{たま}にす. It is translated into English as: Hardship makes\nthe man.\n\nHow do we parse the proverb? I know 艱難 {かんなん} means \"hardship\". But 汝 {なんじ}\nmeans \"thou\" (archaic 'you') so what nuance does it contribute when suffixed\nto 艱難? And does 玉 {たま} mean jewel or actually refer to the [family\njewels](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=family%20jewels)? And\nwhat about にす, is it an archaic verb, or simply abbreviation of にする? How are\nall these in the end summed up as \"hardship makes the man\"?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T12:40:38.543", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2434", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-09T13:54:34.153", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-09T13:54:34.153", "last_editor_user_id": "903", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "set-phrases" ], "title": "How to parse the proverb [艱難]{かんなん}[汝]{なんじ}を[玉]{たま}にす?", "view_count": 536 }

[ { "body": "The sentence is classical Japanese, not modern Japanese, and should be parsed\nas such. I analyse it as follows:\n\n> 艱難 汝を 玉に す \n> kannan nandi-wo tama-ni su \n> hardship thou-ACC jewel-LOC make \n> _Hardship will make you into a jewel._\n\nIn classical Japanese, the subject of a main clause is usually not indicated\nby a particle. In a typical sentence, the main verb will be in the terminative\nform (終止形); the classical form of the modern verb する is an s-stem irregular\nverb (サ行変格活用動詞) and its terminative form is just す. する is its attributive form\n(連体形).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T12:49:58.460", "id": "2436", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T12:49:58.460", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2434", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2438", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is it true that the べつに when used to mean \"nothing particularly\" is pronounced\ndifferently from when it is used to mean \"separately / apart\" ?\n\nLike am I right to say that these 3 examples belong to the same \"sound\":\n\n 1. たまに朝飯を抜いたって別に悪いことじゃない。\n\n 2. 「何を考えてるの？」「別に・・・」\n\n 3. べつにいがみあっている敵同士ではあるまいし。\n\nand these other 3 belong to a different \"sound\":\n\n 1. ニンジンは別にして、彼が食べないものはない。\n\n 2. ソースを別にください。\n\n 3. 別にサービス料を申し受けます。\n\nAlso I was wondering whether this sentence _私は別に怪しい者ではありません。_ will belong to\nthe first category or the second one?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T14:35:42.100", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2437", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-17T04:43:31.333", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-17T04:43:31.333", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "pitch-accent" ], "title": "Is it true that the べつに when used to mean \"nothing particularly\" is pronounced differently from when it is used to mean \"separately / apart\"?", "view_count": 3756 }

[ { "body": "The difference does not appear on `別に`, but appears on the part following it.\nIn the first usage ('nothing particularly'), the word following `別に` maintains\nits own accent nucleus, so the tone lowers at the beginning:\n\n> **Capital = High tone, Lower case = Low tone** \n> \n> beTSUNI waRUi koto \n> beTSUNI _[end of accent nucleus]_ \n> beTSUNI iGAMIATte iru\n\nIn the second usage ('separately/apart'), `別に` is accently compounded with the\npart that follows (the accent nucleus is removed from the following part), so\nthe high tone sustains into the word following:\n\n> beTSUNI SHITE \n> beTSUNI KUDASAi \n> beTSUNI SAABISUryoo o\n\n`私は別に怪しい者ではありません。` belongs to the first category:\n\n> beTSUNI aYASHII MONO de wa\n\nThis can be explained by the fact that in the first usage ('nothing\nparticularly'), `別に` is a sentence modifier, so its bonding with the following\nword is weak. In the second usage ('separately/apart'), `別に` is either part of\na predicate or is a verb-phrase modifier, so its bonding with the following\nword is strong.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T14:53:41.897", "id": "2438", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T03:09:25.480", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-05T03:09:25.480", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2437", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "I think pronunciation is the same. But emphasis / intonation for #2 could be\ndifferent, depending on the situation. Another example that might illustrate\nit better is\n\n「怒っているの？」「べつに。。。」\n\nWhere the second person really is upset, even though he is responding with\n'not particularly'. In which case this person may respond with added emphasis\nas if they are offended they would be asked such a question.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T16:49:40.910", "id": "2444", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T00:38:44.987", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-05T00:38:44.987", "last_editor_user_id": "580", "owner_user_id": "580", "parent_id": "2437", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2442", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'm not familiar with either word, but just looking at the characters, 達人\nwould seem to indicate 'accomplished' (ie an accomplished pianist). While 名人\nseems more like 'renowned'. Is that a valid assessment?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T15:46:23.413", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2440", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-06T21:41:08.233", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-06T02:12:40.567", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "580", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "vocabulary" ], "title": "I've seen 達人and 名人used to indicate master or expert. What's the difference?", "view_count": 570 }

[ { "body": "Consider the following:\n\n> 達 as a kanji has the meaning \"accomplish\", \"(to) reach\"\n>\n> 名 as a kanji has the meaning \"name\" or \"reputation\"\n\nKanji compounds:\n\n> 達成 : \"achievement\"\n>\n> 名高い : \"famous, celebrated\"\n>\n> 威名 : \"fame, prestige\"\n\nAnd in Chinese, `名人(míng rén)` has no connotations of skill as far as I know,\nit simply means \"famous person\". `達人(dá rén)` however means \"expert\" and does\nnot imply fame.\n\nI would say your assessment is a reasonable one.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T16:06:05.863", "id": "2442", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T16:06:05.863", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2440", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Both 達人 and 名人 are usually associated with skills in Japanese.\n\n達人 means a person who has mastered everything about something by long-time\nexperience.\n\n名人 usually means a person who has excellent skills.\n[Daijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E5%90%8D%E4%BA%BA&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0)\nalso lists another meaning “評判の高い人” (person who is spoken well of), but I\nthink that the usage without connotation with high skills is rare.\n[Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E5%90%8D%E4%BA%BA&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0)\ndoes not state the latter meaning.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-06T15:51:35.710", "id": "2493", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-06T21:41:08.233", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-06T21:41:08.233", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2440", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2443", "answer_count": 3, "body": "For example, 'a tennis master'?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T15:51:53.627", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2441", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-22T14:50:35.550", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-22T14:45:48.337", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "580", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "phrase-requests", "sports" ], "title": "What would be the best way to express the term 'master', as in a master of some sport?", "view_count": 507 }

[ { "body": "If you are looking for adjectives to describe skill here's a few:\n\n> 上手【じょうず】 (generally speaking) _good at_ ~\n>\n> 巧妙【こうみょう】 _mysteriously skillful at_ ~\n>\n> ～の天才【てんさい】 _a genius in_ ~\n>\n> 熟練した【じゅくれんした】 This one is my favourite, it has the meaning of _practised to\n> perfection_.\n\nSome examples:\n\n> 私はテニスが上手です。 \n> I am good at tennis.\n>\n> あのテニス選手は巧妙です。 \n> That tennis player is skillful.\n>\n> テニスの天才 \n> a genius in tennis\n>\n> テニスの熟練者 \n> an expert at tennis\n>\n> 熟練したテニス選手 \n> an expert tennis player", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T16:27:59.450", "id": "2443", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-22T14:50:35.550", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2441", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I think for sports, the word `プロ` 'professional' is usually used to refer to a\nskilled player, even if that person is not actually a professional. For\nJapanese sports like judo or sumo, there are specific words that describe what\nlevel the player is at.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T17:15:57.547", "id": "2445", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T17:15:57.547", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2441", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "At least for the taiko video game it is 達人 (たつじん) meaning \"master / expert\"\nnot sure if this carries over to sports", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T19:55:42.063", "id": "2448", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T19:55:42.063", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "171", "parent_id": "2441", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2447", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Lately ふう has been on my mind. Often it seems interchangeable with よう:\n\n> 1. これを｛こんな **ふう** ／この **よう** ｝にしてください。 Please make it like this.\n>\n> 2. あれを｛どういう **ふう** ／どの **よう** ｝に解釈しますか。 In what way do you interpret that?\n>\n> 3. 家を出るとき、帰りにケーキを買ってきてという｛ **ふう** ／ **よう** ｝に言われました。 When I was about to\n> leave, I was told to pick up some cake on the way back.\n>\n>\n\n### Questions\n\nWhen ふう and よう are used in this way to mean \"manner\" or \"like\":\n\n 1. Are they always interchangeable?\n 2. Is there any difference in nuance?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T18:04:54.310", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2446", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T06:02:08.667", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "When are ふう and よう interchangeable?", "view_count": 975 }

[ { "body": "First of all, as you already implicitly show in your examples, their modifiers\nare not interchangable.\n\n> {こ/そ/あ/ど}んなふうに \n> × {こ/そ/あ/ど}のふうに \n> △ {こ/そ/あ/ど}んなように \n> {こ/そ/あ/ど}のように\n\nI think `ふう` means some manner freely picked out, whereas `よう` is a manner\nchosen from the possibilities set by the context. This difference parallels\nthe English `what` vs. `which`.\n\n> In what way did you do it? \n> In which way did you do it?\n>\n> What kind of music do you like? \n> Which kind of music do you like?\n\nEnglish `what` does not presuppose the possibilities whereas `which` requires\na contextually specified set from which one is chosen (i.e., in linguistic\nterms, _discourse-linked_ ).\n\nOn top of that difference, `ふう` is less approximate than `よう`. To reflect the\ndifference, I would translate your examples like this:\n\n> これをこんなふうにしてください。 \n> 'Please make this kind of like this. \n> これをこのようにしてください。 \n> 'Please make this (look) this way.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T19:52:18.600", "id": "2447", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T03:12:57.660", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2446", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "When I wrote my graduation thesis, I used このふうに. A friend corrected my\nJapanese, but told me he had left in all the ふう's as a nod to my personal\nstyle. He also said that ふう was inappropriate in a serious written style -- I\nshould have used よう. By the time he told me this it was too late...", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T10:12:18.453", "id": "2467", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T10:12:18.453", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "586", "parent_id": "2446", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "For someone who has studied standard Japanese, how hard is it to learn Kansai\ndialect? Is there a lot to learn, or not much? What are the basic things to\nlearn in order to speak in this dialect? All I know so far is that the\nsentence ending particles are different.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T00:39:58.777", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2449", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-18T18:43:00.133", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-18T18:43:00.133", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "learning", "dialects", "kansai-ben" ], "title": "How to speak in Kansai dialect", "view_count": 2107 }

[ { "body": "> For someone who has studied standard Japanese, how hard is it to learn\n> Kansai dialect?\n\nMany people who spent years studying a language something not being able to\nlearn anything. Your question's logic is not well formed.\n\n> Is there a lot to learn, or not much?\n\nRe-learn bits of grammar, vocabulary, and change completely your intonation.\n\n> What are the basic things to learn in order to speak in this dialect?\n\nなんでやねん！ もうかりまっか？ おおきに！ And fluency in standard Japanese too, because unless\nyou're Daniel Kahl or someone like him, you'd better be able speak in standard\nJapanese when you're not with your friends anymore…\n\n> All I know so far is that the sentence ending particles are different.\n\nThere's a lot more… If you want to have an idea of what it's like, read any\nvolume of ナニワ金融道", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T01:35:47.707", "id": "2451", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T01:35:47.707", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2449", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "'Is there a lot to learn?' is a pretty subjective question. You can learn as\nmuch or as little as you like, and different Kansai folks speak different\nlevels of the dialect. My wife is from Kansai, so I picked it up from her and\nher family. I think that that would be the best way to go - find someone from\nKansai and learn from them. Books are available, but I think it would be\ndifficult to learn Kansaiben solely from a book.\n\nJust to get you started, here's a little morsel:\n\nあかん is used in place of だめ. My kids know this one well.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T02:08:37.327", "id": "2452", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T02:08:37.327", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "580", "parent_id": "2449", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Apart from the fact that particles and verb/adjective endings differ, and the\nfact that vocabulary and usage also often differ -- both of which are not that\nhard to acquire and lots of information can be found online -- the single most\ndifficult part will be to get the pitch accent right. It's one thing to have\nan accent in a Standard language, something people are used to, but you'll\nhave to do fairly well for people to not find it annoying to hear you speak in\nanother dialect. The tolerance level is much lower, unless you are with very\nclose friends.\n\nVery few foreigners bother to try to get pitch accent right in Standard\nJapanese to begin with, and info on Kansai-ben accent is much harder to find;\nI don't know of any definitive source on Kansai pitch like the Shinmeikai or\nNHK accent dictionaries for Standard. I don't think it would be reasonable to\nthink you could learn to speak Kansai-ben correctly until you've got a good\ngrasp on Standard pitch.\n\nHowever, once you've got the basic grammar and common words down,\nunderstanding Kansai-ben is not that hard, provided your Standard Japanese\nlevel is already fairly advanced.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-18T16:00:37.200", "id": "4328", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-18T16:00:37.200", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "801", "parent_id": "2449", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2510", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'm writing a short (3-5 page) business plan in Japanese. I'd like to include\nan \"estimate\" of the sales for the next 3 years.\n\nThe question: what would you choose for the graph titled:\n\n> 2012 Fiscal Year Sales Projections\n>\n> 2012年度の売上高の_ ** ___ __ ___ ___**\n\n?\n\nI've seen words like 目標 and ノルマ used to refer to a sales target/sales \"budget\"\n-- e.g. how much sales a company expects a person, team, or division to\nachieve.\n\nI use 予算 more frequently to discuss a client's budget (i.e. for spending, not\nfor earning) for a project, as in the construct:\n\n> ご予算はどのぐらいをお考えですか。\n>\n> About how much are you thinking to budget for this project?\n\nBut I've also heard 予算 used to discuss the \"budget\" that a company must\nachieve in terms of sales.\n\nThat said, something like 推計 translates nicely in English as \"estimate\" or\n\"estimation\", and given that I'm trying to plan a business sales plan for 2.5\nyears from now, I'd say \"estimate\" in English is a pretty good sense of what\nI'm doing -- it's just a few stages short of a \"SWAG\" :).\n\nAny feedback is appreciated.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T02:36:02.130", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2453", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-07T16:36:29.330", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-06T04:13:19.577", "last_editor_user_id": "87", "owner_user_id": "87", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "word-choice", "business-japanese" ], "title": "Which is better for a sales budget: 予算, 推計, or something I haven't even thought of yet?", "view_count": 253 }

[ { "body": "Hopefully someone with experience in the financial industry will chime in on\nthis, but in the meantime, after poking and prodding some dictionaries and\nGoogle, it looks like you have these options:\n\n> 売上高の予測 sales predictions/projections _(seems to be the most common)_\n>\n> 見積売上高 estimated sales\n\nI'm not familiar enough with 予算 to say whether you can use it in the context\nyou're referring to, but I personally can't recall hearing it in connection\nwith 売上高.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T21:09:35.300", "id": "2477", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T21:09:35.300", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2453", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "As a lay reader of news articles with a general interest in businesses and a\nlittle more interest in the field of business I'm in, my candidates are:\n\n * 予測: projection, forecast - based on some grounds/numbers\n * 予想: estimate - may or may not be based on actual calculation, or you just don't want to go into the details\n * 試算: calculation based on hypothetical formula/numbers to test assumptions, expectations, etc.\n * 希望的観測: wishful thinking - (handle with care)\n\nFrom what I understand about [\"SWAG\"\nguesses](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swag%20%28s.w.a.g.%29),\n**予想** seems to be the one that fills your bill.\n\nRegarding 推計: Personally I've seen 推計 mostly in the context of making guesses\nabout _past or current_ figures, as in \"人口推計\" (current population estimates).\n\nRegarding 予算: I'm not familiar with the usage of 予算 on the earning side of the\nequation, but a quick web search gives me the impression that it's best suited\nfor accounting, sales and/or project management people, who get the work\nrolling in earnest [1].\n\n[1] Case in point, this person is asking about what 予算 means as a salesperson\njargon: <http://questionbox.jp.msn.com/qa880337.html>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T16:36:29.330", "id": "2510", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-07T16:36:29.330", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2453", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2456", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I came across this sentence in a manga:\n\n> なにすんじゃこんガキャ―――！！\n\nThere is no kanji use in that speech-bubble, making it hard to work out the\nmeaning. In fact, I haven't been able to find the meaning of anything past なに\n(which I already knew means \"what\").\n\nWhat does it mean when the whole sentence is in kana?\n\n(And, as a side question that I hope is related, all-kana doesn't seem like it\nshould make the sentence _that_ much harder to translate, but I can't seem to\nfind any of the combinations characters aside from なに and possibly すんじ (which\nignores the ゃ and doesn't seem to fit the context anyway). So is there\nsomething that I'm missing here?)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T03:15:46.573", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2454", "last_activity_date": "2016-12-09T02:05:39.670", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "452", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "kana-usage" ], "title": "What does it mean if a sentence is in all-kana?", "view_count": 1794 }

[ { "body": "I believe the sentence, as written in more conventional Japanese, would be:\n\n> なにするのだ、このガキは？\n\nWhere:\n\n> なにすん = なにするの (の here makes it a question)\n>\n> じゃ = だ\n>\n> こん = この\n>\n> ガキャーーー = ガキは\n\nThe ーーー at the end is just an extension of the last vowel, probably because\nthe speaker is screaming in typically histrionic manga fashion.\n\nThe sentence means something like:\n\n> What the hell are you doing you fucking brat!\n\nYou could change up \"brat\" to \"punk\" or \"asshole\", or other things. I put in\n\"fucking\" because I felt that it was needed to convey the real sentiment of\nthe sentence, but you would be right to point out that there is no direct\nequivalent in the original Japanese. My goal here was to give you a working\nunderstanding of what is happening to carry with you for general use, not to\nprovide a perfect translation of this particular sentence.\n\nI believe the reason dialogue in manga, like this one, are mostly done in kana\nand not kanji is because it is meant to reflect spoken speech (is that\nredundant?), not written text, and so it conveys inflections and\npronunciations that would be hard to do with fixed kanji.\n\nThe only way to learn this kind of thing is with practise. The way people play\nwith abbreviating words and changing the way they are said is by definition\nbeyond textbooks. Think of it like how in English you could see \"whassup?\", or\neven \"'sup\", in a comic, and only by familiarity would you know it's actually\n\"what's up?\".", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T03:27:34.327", "id": "2456", "last_activity_date": "2016-12-09T02:05:39.670", "last_edit_date": "2016-12-09T02:05:39.670", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2454", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2469", "answer_count": 4, "body": "[This question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2423/are-there-\nnames-like-for-the-other-coins) about alternate terms for coins focused on the\nuse of ワンコイン, but it got me thinking about slang terms for money in general.\n\nIn all the years I've been in Japan, I don't think I've regularly heard people\nuse slang terms for money they way they do in, say, North America.\n\nIn Canada, everyone routinely uses \"loonies\" to refer to the one dollar coin.\n\nA guy from the US recently said to me, \"it's all about the Benjamins.\" Bucks,\ngreenbacks, cheddar, and more are a matter of regular conversation.\n\nI could probably say, \"it's all about the Fukuzawas,\" but I think they would\nsee it more as me at play than using a commonly accepted slang.\n\nOn the coin level, in North American English, we almost exclusively use\nnickels and pennies in place of \"5 cent coins\" and \"1 cent coins\", for\nexample.\n\nBy contrast, I can't think of anyone referring to a hundred yen coin in any\nway except its value, `百円{ひゃくえん}`.\n\nAm I right in thinking that Japanese on the whole don't really feel a\ncompulsion to give nicknames to their units of currency? A little web\nsearching hasn't turned up a wealth of terms that I was unaware of, but my\nGoogle-fu is always a little lacking in Japanese.\n\nBy the way, bonus karma points for anyone who can translate \"it's all about\nthe Fukuzawas.\" I can't figure out how to convey the vague \"it\" part which\nrefers in a vague way to life or living or \"the reason to do stuff\".", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T03:20:09.497", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2455", "last_activity_date": "2022-06-13T09:12:31.697", "last_edit_date": "2022-06-13T09:12:31.697", "last_editor_user_id": "6860", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 22, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words", "slang" ], "title": "What are slang terms for Japanese money?", "view_count": 7071 }

[ { "body": "My Google-fu isn't doing any better, so the best I can do is throw my single\ndata point into the ring and say that I have heard, on multiple occasions,\n\"Yukichi\" (not \"Fukuzawa\") used in colloquial conversation to refer to a\n10,000-yen note. So if you really wanted to, I suppose you could say something\nlike:\n\n> 大事なのは財布に諭吉がいるかいないかってことさ。 The important thing is whether you've got the\n> Yukichis in your wallet.\n\nAt which point you take one last draw on your cigarette before flicking it\naway and riding off into the Tokyo sunset on your tricked-out Vespa.\n\nHistorically, we have to remember that ~~all throughout the Tokugawa period~~\ntraditionally, the merchant class was at or near the low end of the totem pole\n(see note), and so the enshrinement of capitalism we see in many Western\ncountries never really found its way to Japan. This may account for the\nrelative lack of \"colorful\" terms for referring to money in Japanese.\n(Warning: this is all armchair historian talk and highly speculative.)\n\n* * *\n\n※ sawa brought an undefended claim against this statement, so I will attempt\nto clarify here. The idea that the merchant class was regarded as one of the\nlowest feudal classes derives from Confucian philosophy, which played a large\npart in the formation of Japanese culture. The merchant profession, being one\nin which money was gained without producing any goods or (seemingly)\ncontributing any value to society, was often looked on less than favorably by\nthe rest of the populace. (For more information, see _The Making of Modern\nJapan_ by Marius Jansen or _Japan: A Modern History_ by James McClain.) This\nis not to say that all merchants were corrupt (only some were, as in every\nsociety), nor is it to say that they did not play an important role in the\nformation of modern Japan (they certainly and emphatically did). As with many\ntraditional ideas, this view of merchants faded with time, and is entirely\nabsent in today's Japan.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T13:23:32.340", "id": "2469", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T16:10:19.077", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-05T16:10:19.077", "last_editor_user_id": "94", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2455", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Although not a word, the only \"slang\" I've ever \"heard\" for money is to rub\nyour thumb back and forth across the tips of your middle and index fingers;\noften accompanied by これ (\"money\") or どうですか？ (\"Are you making money?\").", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T14:15:46.350", "id": "2471", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T14:15:46.350", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2455", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Most of these may be more colloquialism than slang but for what it's worth:\n\n[文]{もん} as in the word [文無]{もんな}し、[万札]{まんさつ} for 一万円札、ピン[札]{さつ} for \"a brand-\nnew bill\"、ドル[箱]{ばこ} means \"gold mine\", \"money tree\", etc.、 おあし（御足） is slang\nfor money.\n\nThere should be more if not a whole lot more. Just listing off the top of my\nhead the ones that I rarely, if ever, hear/see Japanese learners use.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-10-19T03:32:38.090", "id": "13198", "last_activity_date": "2013-10-19T04:34:21.030", "last_edit_date": "2013-10-19T04:34:21.030", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2455", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I saw a tweet that led me here. The person is a doctor and Japanese translator\nliving in Austria. He made me wonder if it was true so I checked Google like a\ngood millennial who speaks and reads, writes, breathes North American\nEnglish... Google Translator is no way my failsafe but since I didn't feel\nlike emailing my college professor for East Asian History from 8 years ago I\ndecided to check. The tool can be quite accurate at times. Looks like money\ndid mean something with Yukichi as stated years ago here by a commentor. But\nthe Satoshi thing was also interesting given that its 2022. And well... enough\nsaid. The tweet was claiming that \"Satoshi\" is slang for 10000-yen in Japanese\nwriting.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/oUWYO.png)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-02T03:36:28.427", "id": "93259", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-02T03:36:28.427", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50433", "parent_id": "2455", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2498", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I understand that 適当【てきとう】 can mean both \"appropriate\" and \"whatever/vague\".\nHow do you know 適当な人を教えてください means \"please inform me of the appropriate\nperson\" as opposed to \"please tell me about whatever kind of person you want\"?\nIs this determined entirely by context?\n\nBecause 加減【かげん】 means \"condition\", いい加減 seems to be \"good condition\" -> only\nthe \"reasonable\" definition comes naturally. Yet using it to mean\n\"irresponsible\" is standard (いい加減に仕事をするな), except when you tell people\nいい加減にしなさい. Where did that come from?\n\nI saw this question in 日本人の知らない日本語 but no explanation was given. I am living\nin Japan but none of my Japanese friends can explain it either.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T04:02:44.047", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2457", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-07T04:25:27.403", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-05T04:43:59.843", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "583", "post_type": "question", "score": 30, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage" ], "title": "Why do 適当 and いい加減 refer to both considerate and inconsiderate things?", "view_count": 3808 }

[ { "body": "You can sometimes explicitly differentiate between them.\n\nIn case of 適当, if you write or pronounce it テキトー (colloquial) then it will\nexplicitly mean \"whatever\". If you put strong accent on てき and pronounce とう\nshort (i.e. as opposed to トー), it will explicitly mean appropriate. In a\nformal written document, 適当 will almost always mean appropriate. In less\nformal documents, you have to rely on context.\n\nIn case of いい加減, if you pronounce it with strong いい and soft 加減, it will mean\ngood condition. If you pronounce it with more accent on 加減, it will mean\nirresponsible. When it's written, using いい加減 as \"good condition\" is a bit\narchaic now. So chances are that it means \"irresponsible\".\n\nIt's also true that in many cases you have to rely on context though.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T06:12:52.957", "id": "2462", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T06:12:52.957", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2457", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "Since no-one has tackled the question in the heading, let me give it a try.\nThis is speculation on my part, so if someone can knock it down or back it up\nwith evidence, please do.\n\nConsider a similar sort of construction, 都合が良い:\n\n * 都合の良い日 = a convenient day.\n * \"都合の良いことを言うな\" = \"Don't say things that are convenient to you!\" (translation intentionally unnatural to lay bare the contrast)\n\nThat is, while sometimes 都合の良い can mean \"convenient for everyone\", at other\ntimes it can mean \"convenient for one party at the expense of the other\", a\nsubjective rather than objective concept.\n\nBy analogy, the meaning of \"いい加減な仕事をするな\" might have an original interpretation\nsomething like \"Don't do 'just enough' work! [Do more! Do the best you can!]\"\nSimilarly for 適当: \"just right\" in the sense that it is exactly what Person X\nwants, or \"just right\" in the sense that it is the result of Person Y doing\nexactly the minimum amount of work to get by.\n\nIncidentally even if this is how we got the apparently opposite results from\nthe same basic meaning, I think that the process is fossilized now so that the\nphrases just have multiple meanings.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T04:25:27.403", "id": "2498", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-07T04:25:27.403", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2457", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2466", "answer_count": 1, "body": "[This question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2288/historical-\ndifferences-between-colors-that-are-i-adjectives-and-those-that-are-si) about\ncolours got me thinking:\n\nWhy, and how, did `オレンジ` come to replace `橙【だいだい】` to refer to the colour\norange?\n\nIt seems weird to me that a word taken from a foreign language became adopted\nas the norm when there seem to already have been a perfectly good local word\nfor the same thing.\n\nI've seen `橙` used very occasionally, but it seems to be reserved for\ndeliberately attaching a Japanese style, or `和風【わふう】`, context beyond just\ndescribing the colour.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T05:14:16.670", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2459", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-01T01:58:32.840", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "word-choice", "etymology", "loanwords", "colors" ], "title": "Why did オレンジ replace 橙【だいだい】?", "view_count": 1427 }

[ { "body": "Ah, I found something on this particular example...\n\n>\n> 支那の色名である「橙色（とうしょく）」が日本語になったと考えられている。[...]橙色は、英語のオレンジに対応する日本語の色名として用いられたが、橙色も元々は借入語であり、英語より橙色の方が借り入れたのが早かったに過ぎない。なお、「橙」の漢字が教育用漢字に採用されなかったために、赤と黄との中間色相は日本でもオレンジ色と呼ばれることが多くなった。\n\nsource: <http://www.7key.jp/data/design/color/orange/daidaiiro.html> \nNot sure from what source this information is in turn, though.\n\nLooks like Japan didn't have a name for the color orange (see\n[here](http://www2s.biglobe.ne.jp/~sakamaki/yurai.html) for what color they\nhad). So the Japanese borrowed 橙色 from China, and オレンジ from English. The kanji\n橙 was not one of the kanji that is taught in compulsory education, thus オレンジ\nbecame more common.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T09:50:04.680", "id": "2466", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T09:50:04.680", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2459", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "What conjugation rules are applied in 恥ずかしながら?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T05:30:18.157", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2460", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T22:02:06.890", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "359", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar", "conjugations" ], "title": "What conjugation is included in 恥ずかしながら?", "view_count": 384 }

[ { "body": "The particle ながら attaches to the continuative form (連用形) of a verb or directly\nto the stem adjective. 恥ずかしい is an adjective with step 恥ずかし, so this is a\nregular formation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T05:43:06.923", "id": "2461", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T05:43:06.923", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2460", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "As Zhen Lin explained, 恥ずかしながら is formed by attaching the particle ながら (which\nmeans something close to “although”) to 恥ずかし, which is the stem of the\ni-adjective 恥ずかしい. However, this is _not_ the regular pattern of ながら in modern\nJapanese.\n\nThe regular pattern is that when ながら is attached to an i-adjective, the\nadjective takes the dictionary form. Web search shows many examples of 美しいながら,\n弱いながら, and so on.\n\nSo if the phrase followed the regular pattern, it would be 恥ずかしいながら. This form\nis not unseen but less common than 恥ずかしながら. I do not know why it is. It might\nbe the case that the two vowels _ii_ were contracted to one vowel _i_ because\nthe phrase is used very often.\n\n[Daijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%AA%E3%81%8C%E3%82%89&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=114545400000)\n(sense [2]) states that this ながら was attached to the stem of an i-adjective in\nold time. However, I do not know how “old” this “old time” refers to, and I do\nnot know if it explains the reason why 恥ずかしながら is more common.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T22:02:06.890", "id": "2479", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T22:02:06.890", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2460", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "Can it be 不倫の原因で家庭が崩壊したり？ What's the main clause and what is a subordinate\nclause?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T07:06:48.560", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2463", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T14:03:30.873", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "359", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "clause-pattern" ], "title": "What is the subject of this following sentence:実際問題として、不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る例も少なくないです。", "view_count": 258 }

[ { "body": "The subject is\n\n> 不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る例(も)\n\nThe main clause is your whole citation.\n\nThe subordinate clause is:\n\n> 不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る\n\nwhich is an object/complement of `例`.\n\n> 不倫が原因で\n\nis further a subordinate clause of this clause.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T07:26:06.910", "id": "2464", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T07:32:59.183", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-05T07:32:59.183", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2463", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I break it down like this:\n\n> 実際問題として、不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る例も少なくないです。\n\n * Clause: 実際問題として\n\nThis is just setting the scene.\n\n * Topic phrase: 不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る例も\n\n * The head of the noun phrase is 例. (Technically も is the head of the topic phrase, but we will ignore that to simplify matters.)\n\n * Complement clause: 不倫が原因で家庭が崩壊したり、離婚に至る\n\n * Clause: 不倫が原因で\n\n * Clause: 家庭が崩壊したり\n\n * Main verb phrase: 離婚に至る\n\n * Main predicate: 少なくないです\n\nI think this is a nice example of a quintessentially Japanese pattern of\nsentence construction: the bulk of the sentence is a large topic phrase\ncontaining a complex relative clause modifying a noun, and the actual comment\nis just a simple verb.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T07:31:01.073", "id": "2465", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T14:03:30.873", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-05T14:03:30.873", "last_editor_user_id": "578", "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2463", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "My question is how is the concept of \"getting to know\" or \"knowing\" someone\nconveyed? How do you invite someone to get to know you better? I was posting a\nmessage on mixi and could not figure out what the phrase for this was.\n\nSentence example so you can understand contextually...\n\nIf I sound nice, then don't be scared to get to know me. or I'd prefer not to\ntalk about that until I know you better.\n\nHow do I express this in japanese? Are there stock phrases? Any help is\nappreciated.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T14:31:58.970", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2472", "last_activity_date": "2017-01-20T16:13:57.947", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "556", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "phrases" ], "title": "What is the phrase for \"getting to know\" someone or something?", "view_count": 7280 }

[ { "body": "知{し}り合{あ}う is used for \"getting to know\"; with the noun 知り合い being used to\nmean \"an acquaintance\" or \"someone you know a little (less that a close\nfriend)\".\n\n* * *\n\n**Examples**\n\n> * 留学の時、ほかの留学生と **知り合った** のに、親しい関係だとは言えない。 → During my time as an exchange\n> student, even though I got to know some of the other exchange students, I\n> wouldn't (can't) really say I was close with any of them. \n>\n> * 最近通っているラーメン屋さんと **知り合い** になっている。 → I've been getting to know the\n> owner(s) of the ramen shop (that) I've been going to lately. \n>\n> * あの子はほんの **知り合い** にすぎません。 → That girl is nothing more than an\n> acquaintance. (Not sure if the ほんの here is derogatory or not ー I feel like\n> it might be).\n>", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T15:03:24.283", "id": "2473", "last_activity_date": "2017-01-20T16:13:57.947", "last_edit_date": "2017-01-20T16:13:57.947", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2472", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "for peeps: 知り合う or as it was covered above: 近く・ as in literally get close to\nsomeone. XXさんと近くなりたい. Depending on the context it isn't always sexual.\n\nIn a letter from my Mother in law I once saw 懇意になる but that's my only\nencounter with it.\n\nFor inanimate stuff you'd probably be best using なれる which i often use in the\nfollowing sentence.\n\n英語のキーは人気だけど、使ったことなければなれるのはちょっと時間がかかる可能性があります。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-01-19T23:35:46.653", "id": "42696", "last_activity_date": "2017-01-19T23:35:46.653", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "19367", "parent_id": "2472", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2485", "answer_count": 2, "body": "To say something is a 見物, does it have a derogatory nuance like we are making\nfun of that person / that thing?\n\nIf so, is it derogatory to the extent that even if I intended it as a fun joke\nit seems a bit too much, or is it just _a bit_ derogatory and fine to use in\ninformal situations?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T17:34:35.713", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2474", "last_activity_date": "2012-11-25T21:51:15.317", "last_edit_date": "2012-11-25T21:51:15.317", "last_editor_user_id": "37", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "words", "nuances", "politeness" ], "title": "Is 見物{みもの} derogatory?", "view_count": 393 }

[ { "body": "I don't think it's derogatory per se. My dictionary defines it as \"a\nsight/attraction/something worth seeing\".\n\nBut if used sarcastically I guess it would be.\n\nFor everything in general, it's not just what you say, but how you say it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T19:26:52.277", "id": "2475", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T19:26:52.277", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2474", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "It can be. The most common usage of this term is as follows:\n\n```\n\n A) Hey, I'm going skiing with Jack, together with his brand new girlfriend.\n 今度ジャックと、ジャックの新カノとスキーに行くんだよ。\n B) Why? He has never been skiing and he sucks at sport.\n なんでスキーなの？あいつスキーやったことないし運動おんちじゃん。\n A) Yeah! It will be a 見物! hahaha\n だから見物なんじゃんｗ\n \n```\n\nWhen you say 見物, it implies that you are looking forward and will enjoy seeing\nhow he/she will fail. So you risk to be seen as an asshole. If you are really\nclose with the conversation partner and you fully understand the nuance of\nthis term, you could use it to joke, but my advice is to stay away unless you\nare really confident.\n\nUsage of 見物 as simply something worth seeing is rather archaic now and is not\ncommonly used.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-06T00:50:48.707", "id": "2485", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-06T17:11:26.497", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-06T17:11:26.497", "last_editor_user_id": "499", "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2474", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2481", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What does the phrase 乞うご期待 mean in English? Can you show some example\nsentences?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T20:28:20.463", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2476", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T22:34:50.963", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-05T22:01:52.720", "last_editor_user_id": "69", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "set-phrases" ], "title": "The phrase 乞うご期待", "view_count": 543 }

[ { "body": "I was reading this\n[chiebukuro](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q144975334),\nI think the gist of it is that movie theaters would give a preview of what\nthey had coming to the screen, and a big **乞うご期待** would be written on the\ntrailer. I guess this is like the **Coming Soon** in the U.S.\n\nI can't translate it to English, but perhaps something along the lines of \"for\nyour anticipation.\"\n\nTo give the meaning, the same chiebukuro rewords it:\n\n> [どうぞ]期待してください。 \n> Please look forward to this.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T22:34:50.963", "id": "2481", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T22:34:50.963", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "2476", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2480", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In Final Fantasy VIII, Bahamut has a little speech:\n\n> …G.F.とは我らのことか \n> 我らを力として使うとは… \n> **恐るる** べきは人間どもよ\n\nI'd never seen two るs doubled up like that. Which conjugation is this? It\nseems to have plenty of Google hits so it's not a typo, as far as I can tell.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T22:00:45.093", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2478", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T20:56:00.603", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-09T20:56:00.603", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "38", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "conjugations", "archaic-language" ], "title": "What form is 恐るる?", "view_count": 1005 }

[ { "body": "A short answer: the form 恐るる (おそるる) is the attributive form (連体形; れんたいけい) of\nthe verb 恐る (おそる) in classical Japanese.\n\nA long answer is as follows.\n\nClassical Japanese has different conjugation rules from modern Japanese. The\nverb 恐れる (おそれる; to fear) in modern Japanese was 恐る (おそる) in classical\nJapanese, and its attributive form was 恐るる (おそるる).\n\nIf I understand your example correctly, the speaker is a mythological\ncreature, and mixing classical Japanese in its words is probably meant to show\nthat the speaker is very, very old.\n\nHowever, 恐るるべき is actually incorrect even in classical Japanese. The correct\nconjugation in classical Japanese is 恐るべき. I do not know why the writer of the\nvideo game used the grammatically incorrect 恐るるべき instead of 恐るべき, but here\nare some speculations.\n\n 1. Although 恐るべき follows the classical grammar, it is in the usual vocabulary in modern Japanese and is not an archaic word. The corresponding phrase in the modern Japanese grammar would be 恐れるべき, but I guess that 恐るべき is much more common than 恐れるべき today. It is possible that the writer of the game chose the form 恐るるべき because it sounded differently from the common expression today and it emphasized that the speaker was archaic.\n 2. 恐るるに足らず (“not worth fearing”) is another common fixed phrase which follows the classical grammar, which would be 恐れるに足らない in modern Japanese. It is possible that because of this phrase, the writer incorrectly assumed that 恐れる in modern Japanese should be always translated to 恐るる in classical Japanese.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T22:16:57.690", "id": "2480", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-06T21:55:26.630", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-06T21:55:26.630", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2478", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "If you look in the dictionary for the definition of 氏 you'll find it defined\nas: family name; lineage; birth.\n\nHowever I have seen it used in such a way that it is doubtful that it means\nany of those things in certain contexts.\n\nHere's an example sentence:\n\n今日はマオ氏のアーバンカーで送ってもらった♪(´ε｀ )\n\nWhat does 氏 mean here?\n\nNote: Mao is a very famous Japanese singer.", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T22:36:22.753", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2482", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-11T19:30:30.340", "last_edit_date": "2021-02-11T19:30:30.340", "last_editor_user_id": "19278", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "meaning", "names", "honorifics" ], "title": "What does 氏 mean after a name, how is it different from さん or 様?", "view_count": 6895 }

[ { "body": "The list of respectful honorifics, with more respectful at the top, goes like\nthis:\n\n 1. 殿{どの}\n 2. 氏{し} \n 3. 様{さま}\n 4. さん\n 5. チャン、くん\n 6. (not putting an honorific)\n\nThere are more, with obscurities like `刀自{とうじ}`, and you can see a [full list\nhere (in\nJapanese)](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%95%AC%E7%A7%B0#.E6.8E.A5.E5.B0.BE.E8.A9.9E.E5.9E.8B).\n\n`殿{どの}` means \"lord\", which you might use in a sense like \"[Lord\nByron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Byron)\". Items 2 down to 4 can, and\noften are, all translated as variants of \"Mr\", or \"Mrs/Ms\".\n\nHowever, this is one of those situations where the English is only a starting\nguide for the learner, but the translation breaks down pretty quickly.\n\nThe first notable differences is that the Japanese is not gender specific,\nexcept for number 5, where `ちゃん` is _usually_ female and `君{くん}` is _usually_\nmale. But not always.\n\nAnother difference is that they can be applied to first names as well, which\noften trips English learners of Japanese. There are giggles at the thought\nthat someone might call you \"Mr Bob\", but they **don't mean** \"Mr\", it's just\na respectful way of addressing someone. `ボブさん` is fine, so the sooner you can\nget away from the \"Mr\" correlate, the better.\n\n_(Note that it's pretty rare for a Japanese person to refer to another\nJapanese person by attaching`さん` to what English speakers would call a \"first\"\nname, but it's not because it's necessarily wrong to do so, just that it's\nusually it's more proper and respectful to use the family name.)_\n\nAnother difference is that they aren't really used on their own. So, for\nexample, in English, you might say to someone \"Hey mister!\", you wouldn't call\nout in Japanese `「おい、さん！」`.\n\nOkay, so, all that said, what does it imply if you use `氏{し}` with someone's\nname instead of `さん`? Well, since we can throw out trying to translate it to\nEnglish, we can simply say this: it's just _more respectful_ than `さん`. If you\nlook at it like that, you can't go wrong.\n\nThere are some circumstances, like work or other places, where `氏{し}` might be\nstandard as part of the keigo used. However, in the sentence in the question,\nit's a matter of a fan adoring a pop star. Using `氏{し}` conveys that higher\nrespect, and also smacks just a little of old-school hierarchy. It's like\nreferring to David Bowie as something like [Master\nBowie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie), if you happened to be a fan\nof his.\n\nPart of the confusion in the question is that `氏{し}` also has other\ndefinitions, like \"lineage\" and so on. That's just a function of the kanji\ncarrying a meaning, as kanji characters do. The kanji `様{さま}` also has various\nmeanings, like \"manner, kind, appearance\", but that doesn't impact that it's\nused as an honorific, although it might have factored into why that kanji got\nused in the first place. But don't take the kanji definitions too far. `様{さま}`\nalso means \"mess, sorry state, plight\", which are definitions that have\nnothing to do with its use as an honorific.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-05-19T01:15:52.743", "id": "5568", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-19T06:34:49.830", "last_edit_date": "2012-05-19T06:34:49.830", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2482", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2484", "answer_count": 1, "body": "My impression is that 町 tends to be used for smaller cities and 街 tends to be\nused for larger ones. Is this correct? If not, what _is_ the difference?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-06T00:11:03.220", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2483", "last_activity_date": "2016-10-31T10:22:38.180", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "224", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "homophonic-kanji" ], "title": "まち: what's the difference between 町 and 街?", "view_count": 11720 }

[ { "body": "That is correct. According to 文化庁, 町 is similar to `town` whereas 街 is similar\nto `street` or `avenue`. 街 can also refer to a developed town with lots of\nstreets and avenues, so to say.\n\nFor example, you can say センター街 (center-gai), but not センター町 (center-cho). This\nis because センター街 refers to \"streets with small businesses\". If there was a\nセンター町, hypothetically speaking, a Japanese would imagine some area where small\nbusinesses are scattered here and there, rather than an area with a few\nstreets with small businesses packed together.\n\nHence the different usage.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-06T00:36:32.307", "id": "2484", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-06T00:36:32.307", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2483", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2488", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Take this example:\n\nAったらB\n\nCould this mean, \"After doing A, B happened?\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-06T05:22:49.873", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2487", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-06T05:43:36.083", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "verbs", "conjugations" ], "title": "Can the ったら form of a verb be used to mean \"after?\"", "view_count": 286 }

[ { "body": "Yes, if B is in the past tense. This adds a flavor of surprise at the results\nto the sentence.\n\n> 「食事できた」といったら、ぼくらが食べなかった！\n\nSource: [Tae Kim](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/conditionals)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-06T05:43:36.083", "id": "2488", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-06T05:43:36.083", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "38", "parent_id": "2487", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2490", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I would like to know what's the difference of じゃん and だろう／でしょう.\n\nthe meaning I know it's similar, but when I should use each of them?\n\nIs it same to say:\n\n> これはすごいじゃん！ ＝ これはすごいでしょう！ ＝ これはすごいだろう！\n>\n> 昨日、楽しかったじゃん？ ＝ 昨日、楽しかったでしょう？ ＝ 昨日、楽しかっただろう？\n>\n> できるじゃん！ ＝ できるでしょう！\n\nthanks", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-06T07:10:34.260", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2489", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T16:56:21.557", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "usage", "dialects" ], "title": "the difference between じゃん (jan) and だろう/でしょう (darou/desho)", "view_count": 13382 }

[ { "body": "じゃん is じゃないか, i.e., ではありませんか\n\nWhen you say \"すごいじゃん\", you actually _affirm_ \"that's great, isn't it?\", you\ngive your opinion, and don't care about any one else. The intonation is that\nof a strong affirmation.\n\nだろう/でしょう is rather an introspective form, or an \"open to suggestions\"\naffirmation. When you say \"すごいでしょう\", you say \"that's great, isn't it\" and you\nlook at the people around you, expecting an agreement, a reaction. The\nintonation is that of a question.\n\nできるじゃん! is something you say while doing it: \"see, I can do it!\". Though more\nnaturally, I'd say \"できたじゃん\" or \"できているじゃん\". \nできるでしょう is something you say before he does it: \"I'm pretty sure he can do it,\ncan't he?\" \n(If I were to say \"I'm pretty sure I can do it\", I'd say it differently,\nthat's why the subject changes in my example.)\n\nAlso, grammar dictates that you can't say すごいだろう, so usage has it like\n\"すごいんだろう\", when you want to leave politeness apart (even though でしょう as in the\nexample above is perfectly ok in informal conversations).", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-06T07:58:46.667", "id": "2490", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-06T07:58:46.667", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2489", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2518", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Consider the sentence:\n\n> 今度の旅行は **全部で** 何人行きますか。\n\nI would roughly translate it literally to:\n\n> For this trip, **in the domain of \"total\"**(abstract location), how many\n> people will be going?\"\n\nAnd then more naturally as:\n\n> How many people in total are going on this trip?\n\n**My conjecture:** で is taking on the role of \"location where a verb/event\noccurs\".\n\n**(Question 1)** What is the role of で for this type of usage?\n\n* * *\n\nOther things for your consideration:\n\nJMDict and WWWJDIC categorises 全部 as:\n\n> Adverbial Noun (副詞的名詞) **(Q1.1)** ,\n>\n> noun (temporal) (jisoumeishi) **(Q1.2)**\n\n**(Q1.1)** But I don't think 全部で acts adverbially to modify the verb 行く. Am I\nright? (Please correct me if I'm wrong)\n\n**(Q1.2)** I don't think this part is relevant right? (Again please correct me\nif I'm wrong)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T02:42:56.470", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2494", "last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T02:43:01.847", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "particle-で" ], "title": "で　used for abstract location?", "view_count": 281 }

[ { "body": "Another definition of the particle `で` is _\"the condition/state of how the\naction takes place\"_. This is the definition that your example fits in to. I\nsuppose if it helps you to think of it as an \"abstract location\", then feel\nfree to do so (as I firmly believe each individual has the right to do\nwhatever helps them learn best), but I'd suggest just memorizing this as one\nof the \"atomic\" definitions of `で` and not trying to relate it to one of the\nothers.\n\nHere are some examples sentences for this definition of `で`:\n\n> * 一人で行きました → I went _by myself_.\n> * 土足で部屋に入ってはいけない → You can't enter the room _with your shoes on_.\n> * 大きな声で話す → Speak very loudly (\"Speak with a big/loud voice\")\n>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T03:30:52.943", "id": "2496", "last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T02:43:01.847", "last_edit_date": "2015-05-25T02:43:01.847", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2494", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "> 全部で\n\nis an expression meaning \"in total\", and is strongly related to the fixed way\nto say \"N of us went to X\" (XにN人で行きました). Rather than an abstract location,\nit's closer to the \"mean\" で, the one you use to say \"I went by car\".\n\nSo, it's like \"By what did you go there\" (なにで行きましたか？), \"By what number did you\ngo there\" (なんにんで行きましたか？), and so on.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T02:57:28.857", "id": "2518", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T02:57:28.857", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2494", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2619", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Sitting in a restaurant yesterday I saw a sign advertising a mango flavoured\nbagel. It was described as `トロピカルな味`.\n\nThat just got me wondering... whenever a `外来語【がいらいご】(word taken from a foreign\nlanguage / \"loan word\")` is used as an adjective, is it always a `な`\nadjective?\n\nAre there any examples of loanword `い` adjectives?\n\nAre there any general guidelines as to how loan words are made to conform to\nJapanese adjective rules.\n\n_(Please note I'm not familiar with linguistics, so even though I'm asking a\nfairly technical grammatical question, please dumb it down for me as much as\npossible. Thanks!)_", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T03:54:26.083", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2497", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T07:18:24.863", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-07T04:53:01.633", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "loanwords", "adjectives" ], "title": "Are foreign adjectives always な adjectives?", "view_count": 1677 }

[ { "body": "Reading up on sound symbolism, I found this\n\n> Nasal consonants like n and m convey warmth, tactuality, softness, and sound\n> more personal and subjective.\n>\n\n>> e.g. むちむち (plump)\n\nThe な in な-adjectives is a nasal sound. I conject that they are subjective\ndescriptions.\n\n* * *\n\nAlso consider the comparison between adjectives ending in ~しい and those ending\nin ~い:\n\n> For ~しい type adjectives,\n>\n\n>> 悲しい\n\n>>\n\n>> 寂しい\n\n>>\n\n>> 楽しい\n\n>\n> These are adjectives that cannot be objectively measured, hence subjective.\n> (And also a large majority of them describe psychological states)\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> For ~い type adjectives,\n>\n\n>> 重い\n\n>>\n\n>> 広い\n\n>>\n\n>> 暑い\n\n>\n> These are objectively described; they can be measured.\n\n* * *\n\n**Conjecture:**\n\nFor `トロピカル` there is no objective scale for \"tropical-ness\" hence it takes on\nな. It does not take on ～しい since it is not a psychological description (as\nmost ～しい adjectives are).\n\nFor `エロ` my dictionary shows both `エロな` and `エロい`.\n\nSo depending on whether subjectivity/objectivity is conveyed, it corresponds\nto the use of な or い.\n\nSee also [\"i-adjectives used as na-adjectives: is there a difference? (e.g.\n大きい versus\n大きな)\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1853/i-adjectives-used-as-\nna-adjectives-is-there-a-difference-e-g-versus)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T14:48:34.007", "id": "2506", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-07T14:48:34.007", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2497", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "If you're OK with エロい (as discussed in comments), there are examples like:\n\n * エロい\n * グロい\n * ナウい\n\nBut note that these are directly derived from エロ(チシズム), グロ(テスク), and ナウ\n(\"now\"). They were not borrowed into the language as -i adjectives; they were\nborrowed into the language as nouns and/or na adjectives, and then THOSE\nborrowings were turned into -i adjectives. Ultimately, this is a form of\nslang/language play along the lines of the verbs タクる for \"take a taxi\", マクる\nfor \"eat at McDonalds\", etc.\n\nSo, to get back to the original question, yes. Foreign adjectives always start\nout as な adjectives. This is a clear rule in Japanese dating from the days of\nstrong Chinese influence. Even when the borrowed word actually ends in an -i\nsound (e.g. ファジー, セクシー), it is still treated as a な adjective when it first\narrives in Japanese. But, once they are in the language, they _can_ be broken\ndown and then reborn as -i adjectives, a la グロい.\n\nThe interesting issue, I think, is: how \"real\" are these 二世 -i adjectives? On\none end of the scale, I think that エロい and グロい are completely unremarkable now\nin colloquial Japanese. No-one thinks of them as wordplay. At the other end of\nthe scale, I have heard things like セクシくない, but _only_ as a joke. Treating\nセクシー is if it were セクシい, an -i adjective, even though both speaker and\nlistener know that it is not, is unexpected and therefore amusing. Sort of\nlike how in English we might say \"You think that's amazing? I can show you\nsomething even amazinger!\" even though we know that \"amazing\" doesn't take the\n\"-er\" ending.\n\n(Tangent: Note that セクシい is structurally different from グロい: instead of taking\nthe first two morae and making a new stem, it just reinterprets (intentionally\nmisinterprets) the existing sounds of the word セクシー. This may be one reason\nwhy セクシい remains at gag level while グロい is already a regular word. Maybe the\n_only_ way to create unremarkable adjectives/verbs from gairaigo in Japanese\nis to create a two-mora stem and build on that, and any other method will\nalways remain at the humorous level. I haven't looked into this too deeply. It\nwould be especially interesting to look at perceptions of these words among\npeople born before and after they were created.)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T07:18:24.863", "id": "2619", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T07:18:24.863", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2497", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2501", "answer_count": 5, "body": "In modern Japanese, the kana ゑ/ヱ (we) and ゐ/ヰ (wi) are largely obsolete. Words\nformerly containing them now are pronounced with /e/ and /i/, so they were\nreplaced by え and い, respectively.\n\nBut when referring to the letters themselves, it would be ambiguous to\npronounce them like that. So what are the names of ゑ and ゐ currently? That is,\nhow do you refer to those letters in speech?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T05:36:41.797", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2499", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T22:20:12.890", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-08T05:33:32.593", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "501", "post_type": "question", "score": 21, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "obsolete-kana", "language-change" ], "title": "Modern names of the obsolete kana ゑ and ゐ", "view_count": 2453 }

[ { "body": "**_Update:** I originally said these characters were obliterated from the\nlanguage. I was wrong about that, as shown in the accompanying picture._\n\n\n\nAs you can see in the picture above, the character does pop up now and again.\nI've probably passed by this place in Shinjuku countless times, but never took\nnotice of it until recently when this question had the issue of archaic\ncharacters on my mind. So I took a picture with the intent of seeing how\npeople reacted to it.\n\nFirst, interestingly, it seems from [looking up the restaurant on the\nweb](http://www.hotpepper.jp/strJ000853137/) (look at the grey furigana above\nthe restaurant name on the linked site), they intend for the middle character,\n`ヰ`, to be pronounced as `イ`, to form `ワイン`, as in \"wine\".\n\nSo the restaurant is called `新宿ワヰン酒場` and read `しんじゅく ワイン さかば`. \"Shinjuku Wine\nBar\".\n\nHowever, this is obviously done for very deliberate effect, and only by the\ncontext of obviously being a wine bar does the reading deviate from its\noriginal pronunciation and take on a modern one.\n\nSo it is _not_ read `ウィ`, as I would have assumed. When I first saw it, I\nthought it would be read `ワウィン`, which is a torturous word to pronounce. I\nthink without context like this restaurant, the characters would _usually_ be\nread `ウィ` and `ウェ`, respectively, but their official removal from the language\nmeans they are subject to individual play.\n\nI asked some Japanese people around me (some of them strangers in the\nStarbucks I happen to be writing this at) how they would tell a friend over\nthe phone about this restaurant so that the listener would know the middle\ncharacter was not `イ` but `ヰ`.\n\nSome people at first said that it was simply not possible to describe it over\nthe phone, that it had to be shown. One suggested it might be similar enough\nto a Korean character to use that as a way to explain it, which is obviously\nnot really a viable method but gives a sense of how unfamiliar these\ncharacters have become.\n\nHowever, after a little while and some group consensus, one description\nemerged as a clear winner:\n\n> 昔のカタカナの「イ」\n\nEven the people who at first didn't know how they would describe it said that\nif someone said that to them, they would know what was being described, even\nif they might have to look it up to confirm its exact shape.\n\nThus, I think if you really wanted to be understood among people who weren't\n[オタク](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otaku) about writing and characters, saying\n`「昔の...」` would be the description of choice.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T05:58:32.993", "id": "2501", "last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T23:52:32.293", "last_edit_date": "2015-05-11T23:52:32.293", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2499", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "Although as Dave M G already explained these characters do not have an\nindependent pronunciation anymore, when spelling something through a\ntelephone, they can be explained as \"かぎのあるヱ\" and \"ゐどのヰ\". (Source: [Wikipedia\nゑ](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%91) and [Wikipedia\nゐ](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%90))\n\nYou can also refer to them by their position in one of the ordering systems of\nthe Japanese syllables. (ゑ is 第46位 in the 五十音順 ordering system, but saying\n\"わ行え段\" is certainly easier to remember! ゐ is 第45位 and would be わ行い段). (Again,\nthis is from the Wikipedia article linked above.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T08:29:14.420", "id": "2502", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T22:20:12.890", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T22:20:12.890", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "558", "parent_id": "2499", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "If I talk about the letters ゐ/ヰ and ゑ/ヱ, I would call them ワ行の「ゐ」 (pronounced\nas わぎょうのい) and ワ行の「ゑ」 (わぎょうのえ), or explain the letters in some way (昔の仮名の「ゐ」\nand so on). I may or may not pronounce them as ウィ and ウェ, but I will probably\ntry to avoid relying solely on pronunciation. The same also applies to を/ヲ.\n\nAs David M. R. writes, 和文通話表 (the Japanese version of the [spelling\nalphabet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelling_alphabet)) regulates the name\nof these letters as ゐどのヰ and かぎのあるヱ. However, I would not expect that average\nnative speakers of Japanese know 和文通話表 or that they understand which\ncharacters ゐどのヰ and かぎのあるヱ refer to.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T16:35:28.397", "id": "2509", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T00:22:08.147", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-08T00:22:08.147", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2499", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "Since there is no way to unambiguously pronounce these letters in modern\nJapanese, as Dave M G explains in his answer, I'd name them with:\n\n * わうぃうぅうぇうぉ の うぃ/うぇ\n * 「ヰタ・セクスアリス」[1] のヰ (いたせくすありす の い / うぃたせくすありす の うぃ)\n * ニッカウヰスキー [2] のヰ (にっかうぃすきーの い/うぃ)\n * ヱビスビール [3] のヱ (えびすびーる の え / いぇびすびーる の いぇ[4])\n\nIncidentally, I would name \"を\" as \"難しい方の「を」\", or \"わをんの「を」\". And apparently\nthere are [several other\nnicknames](http://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/2153035.html#a9) for this letter,\nincluding \"わ行の「を」\", \"くっつきの「を」\".\n\n* * *\n\n[1] [A novel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita_Sexualis) by Mori Ogai\n\n[2] [A whisky producer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikka_Whisky_Distilling)\n\n[3] [A beer brand](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapporo_Brewery#Yebisu)\n\n[4] いぇびすびーる is not a standard pronunciation of ヱビスビール. See comments below.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T17:04:29.737", "id": "2512", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T16:18:46.847", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-09T16:18:46.847", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2499", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "> But when referring to the letters themselves, it would be ambiguous to\n> pronounce them like that. So how are the letters ゑ and ゐ currently\n> pronounced?\n\n\"Whiskyのゐ\" and \"Ebisuビールのゑ\".\n\nConcise and unambiguous.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T03:30:01.427", "id": "2522", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T03:30:01.427", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2499", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2519", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What are the differences when using ～なければならない and ～なくてはいけない, or their\ncolloquial contracted forms ～なきゃ and ～なくちゃ when saying \"must do\"?\n\nFor example, what is the difference in the nuance and usage of the following\n\"must eat\" statements:\n\n * 食べなければならないよ。 \n * 食べなくてはいけないよ。\n\nAlso, I found that ～なければいけない and ～なくてはならない also exist when searched on Google\nbut are they also as commonly used as the first two? What are the differences?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T05:43:49.747", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2500", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T03:36:40.370", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 37, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances", "set-phrases" ], "title": "Must do : ～なければならない vs ～なくてはいけない", "view_count": 18611 }

[ { "body": "I had learnt the difference ages ago, but ha forgotten it since. I asked my\nfriend\n[Chie](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1019084605),\nand she said:\n\nしなければいけない -> when _you_ think that there's no other choice \nしなければならない -> when you've been told to do it, or when it's rather a burden to\nyou.\n\nI think (as often) that looking at words can help. In the いけない proposition,\nyou say basically that \"you can't go forward\", and that's quite subjective. In\nthe ならない case, it rather seems that \"it cannot be\", which is independent from\nyour will. There is a slight shift that may be a worthy nuance. However, I\nreally doubt the average Japanese person distinguishes them in practice.\n\nAlso, しなければならない seems less colloquial than しなければいけない according to\n[this](http://coffeejp.com/article/yufa/2007-06-05/article_1125.html), and\nother sources say that it is more used in legal documents.\n\n**Edit:**\n\nFor the difference between なければ and なくては, I'd just use basic grammatical\ninference.\n\nIn the なくては, it's just a suspensive form (with a は for contrast, because you\nhave a negation coming behind). Think of the positive version: \"してよい\",\nliterally \"I do this and it's good\". You'd have a similar nuance: \"I don't do\nthat, it's bad\". Quite a weak causal relation.\n\nOn the other hand, the えば form enforces a stronger relation, an \"if\" or a\n\"when\" that means that has this stronger implication nuance.\n\nAt least, that's how I understand it.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T03:08:46.580", "id": "2519", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T03:36:40.370", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-08T03:36:40.370", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2500", "post_type": "answer", "score": 27 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2520", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Excerpt from a JLPT practice question:\n\n> Background information: the writer was looking for rental apartments.\n>\n> 次に行ったところは小さい会社ですが、そこの人は大変優しい人でした。 それにいいアパートもたくさんありました。 私は **その中[Blank]**\n> 好きな家を借りました。 今、住んでいるアパートより少し高いですが、新しくきれいなアパートです。\n>\n> The answer is given as `から`. (but it's not as important why `から` is correct\n> than why `で` and `に` is wrong)\n\n**(Question 1)** Why can't I use `で` to fill the blank?\n\n**(Question 2)** Why can't I use `に` to fill the blank either?\n\n* * *\n\nMy thoughts leading up to choosing `で`：\n\n> `その中`(in the 会社) is a place where the verb `借りる` occurs.\n\n* * *\n\nMy thoughts leading up to choosing `に`:\n\n> `その中` is the place where the writer is. Hence `その中に`.\n\n* * *\n\nMy thoughts trying to justify the use of `から`:\n\n> The demonstrative `その中` is referring to \"the choice of apartments\" rather\n> than \"the office where the choice is being offered\"\n>\n> Hence `その中から` would mean \"from the choice of apartments\" rather than \"from\n> the office where the choice is being offered\"\n>\n> (My initial thoughts were `その中` referred to \"the office where the choice is\n> being offered)\n\n**(Clarification Point)** What is the demonstrative `その中` referring to?\n\n* * *", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T10:20:19.750", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2503", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T03:16:09.033", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-に", "particle-で", "demonstratives" ], "title": "その中( に / で / から ) What is the correct choice of particles?", "view_count": 4424 }

[ { "body": "`その中に` would mean \" _to_ within that [selection of apartments]\". Kind of\nnonsensical.\n\n`その中で` would mean \" _at_ within that [selection of apartments]\". Also kind of\nnonsensical.\n\n`その中から` means \" _from_ within that [selection of apartments]\". Clunky because\nliteral translations are clunky, but the logic is there.\n\nThe whole sentence:\n\n> 私はその中から好きな家を借りました。\n>\n> \"I rented an apartment I liked _from_ [within] that selection.\"\n\nI don't think we'd usually include \"within\" when speaking English, but it's\ngrammatical and conforms to the Japanese better.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T11:35:28.810", "id": "2504", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-07T11:35:28.810", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2503", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "> 私はその中から好きな家を借りました\n\nI chose a house I liked from this set.\n\n> 私はその中に好きな家を借りました\n\nI chose a house I liked, and rented it from this middle (i.e., the set is the\nowner, because Aに借りる means you're borrowing from A). It's nonsensical, because\n中 is not even something singular you can borrow from.\n\n> 私はその中で好きな家を借りました\n\nAnd when I was inside it, I picked up a house I liked. Because で would be the\nplace of the action.\n\nYou seem to do a lot of mistakes/misinterpretations because you overlook the\nrelation between particles and verbs. The verb dictates the particles you will\nuse. What's important is not really what goes after その中, it is what goes with\n借りる。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T03:16:09.033", "id": "2520", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T03:16:09.033", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2503", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2515", "answer_count": 5, "body": "From what I understand, `は` is the topic marker, `が` is the subject marker,\nand `を` is the object marker.\n\nOne of the first sentences I learned doesn't seem to fit the rules I described\nabove. The sentence is:\n\n> わたしは日本語がわかります. \n> watashi wa nihongo ga wakarimasu \n> I topic Japanese subject understand \n> 'I understand Japanese.'\n\nIn this sentence, why does `日本語` have the subject marker attached to it?\nShouldn't `日本語` be the object of the sentence?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T14:24:23.683", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2505", "last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T00:07:59.820", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-21T00:39:29.583", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "219", "post_type": "question", "score": 30, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "particle-を", "particle-が" ], "title": "Why is it 日本語がわかります instead of 日本語をわかります?", "view_count": 15092 }

[ { "body": "There is a class of Japanese verbs (and more generally, predicates) whose\nsubjects _and_ objects take が.[1] For example:\n\n * あの学生がその本が要る。( _Ano gakusei ga sono hon ga iru._ \"That student needs your book.\")\n * 猫が魚が好きだ。( _Neko ga sakana ga suki da._ \"Cats like fish.\")\n * 私が日本語が分かる。 ( _Watashi ga nihongo ga wakaru._ \"I understand Japanese.\")\n\n(Of couse, these がs can be replaced with は, も, etc. depending on the\nsentence.)\n\nWhat is the difference between these verbs and verbs whose objects are marked\nby を? Volition. From my textbook:\n\n> These relate to conditions or occurences which come about apart from human\n> decision, will, or volition, such as understanding, needing, or being able.\n\nYou cannot help understanding Japanese — you just do. Thus, 「日本語」 is not\nsomething you are doing something to, and does not take を.\n\nEdit: I should add that in modern colloquial Japanese, sometimes the object of\nthese verbs takes を, which changes the focus of the sentence a little. See [my\nanswer to this question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/609/the-\ndifference-between-and-with-the-potential-form-of-a-verb/614#614).\n\n[1] My textbook ( _Japanese: The Spoken Language_ ) calls these \"double-ga\npredicates\" or \"affective predicates,\" contrasted with \"operational\npredicates.\" I am not sure what other names they go by.", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T19:32:47.373", "id": "2515", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-21T17:56:04.797", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "2505", "post_type": "answer", "score": 25 }, { "body": "Because 分かる is an intransitive verb meaning \"to be understood\". If you wanted\nto keep the structure as close as possible to the original, you could\nliterally translate 私は日本語がわかります as \"regarding me, Japanese is understood\".\nBut, as you may have noticed, English and Japanese seldom share the same\nsentence structure; in English the same concept is expressed by the transitive\nverb \"understand\", so you have \"I understand Japanese\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T20:19:53.603", "id": "2516", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-07T20:19:53.603", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "404", "parent_id": "2505", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "I found this interesting page about the etymology of 分かる\n\n<http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1228751687>\n\nAccording to this, 分かる, an archaic intransitive form of 分ける, meant (the\nintransitive) \"split\" or \"divide\", similar to the modern 分かれる. And\nfiguratively also meant \"be categorizable, be understood\".\n\nEventually, the figurative meaning was the only one that survived, keeping its\nintransitive syntax. Even when used in a forced transitive context the verb\nwould keep its intransitive form, e.g.\n\n相手の気持ちを分かってあげてください\n\nnot\n\n相手の気持ちを分けてあげてください ← WRONG!!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-20T05:46:56.993", "id": "4352", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-20T15:23:41.850", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-20T15:23:41.850", "last_editor_user_id": "1073", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "2505", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Something I just noticed, while writing it.\n\nI don't know why but in this case, it's not が but を\n\n「やりたかったことをわかってくれる人」\n\nI remembered then this question on SE and got confused but a native confirmed\nme the を was correct (and not the が) here. Crazy japanese.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-20T07:18:28.677", "id": "4353", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-20T07:18:28.677", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "2505", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "\"Understand\" is a poor rendering of \"分かる\", because the English verb is base on\nthe transitive schema, where the agent performs an action on the target. 分かる\nis grammatically intransitive. The syntax sits better if you translate 分かる as\n\"makes sense\" with other parts (e.g. topic) providing context, e.g. it makes\nsense to me.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-03-08T04:05:54.867", "id": "32728", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-08T04:05:54.867", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "13792", "parent_id": "2505", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've heard sometimes that イコール is used sometimes to imply that things are\nsimilar. What would be a correct expression to use イコール? Furthermore, how is\nit different from using 同じ to say that things are similar?\n\n以上、どうぞよろしくお願い致します。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T15:29:19.367", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2508", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T03:27:15.817", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "79", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "usage", "synonyms" ], "title": "How to use イコール to compare things? How is it different from 同じ?", "view_count": 346 }

[ { "body": "イコール is \"equals\", and 同じ【おなじ】 is \"same\".\n\nThe terms have exactly the same implications as they do in English. You could\neven say they are _equal_ to their English counterparts. ;)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T01:09:32.373", "id": "2517", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T01:09:32.373", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2508", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "AとBは同じです means that A and B are similar. They are two different things.\n\nAイコールB means that A and B are a unique thing, with two names.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T03:27:15.817", "id": "2521", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T03:27:15.817", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2508", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2514", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Is it true that all verbs have a corresponding noun form (which is formed by\nmaking the -masu form and removing the -masu)?\n\nLike 遊び and 遊びます 飲み and 飲みます 生き and 生きます 死に and 死にます", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T17:05:14.620", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2513", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-07T18:48:10.247", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "nouns" ], "title": "Is it true that all verbs have a corresponding noun form?", "view_count": 606 }

[ { "body": "For the most part, yes. There are a few outliers that don't though. Most 尊敬語\nand 謙譲語 verbs don't form nouns with their 連用形. And some 連用形, such as 「なり」, are\nspecialized almost to the point of uselessness.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-07T18:06:06.010", "id": "2514", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-07T18:48:10.247", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-07T18:48:10.247", "last_editor_user_id": "22", "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "2513", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2531", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I noticed that some i-adjectives have specific prefixes that can be used to\nintensify the quality of the states that are described by the adjectives,\nsimilar to \"flaming hot\", \"freezing cold\" etc in English. Some examples:\n\n> 物{もの}凄{すご}い\n>\n> 蒸{む}し暑{あつ}い\n>\n> 膚{はだ}寒{さむ}い\n>\n> [容易]{たやす}い\n>\n> 手{て}厳{きび}しい\n>\n> 真{ま}新{あたら}しい\n\nWith color adjectives, there is 真 which intensifies as well as makes the\ni-adjectives into na-adjectives:\n\n> 真{ま}っ白{しろ}\n>\n> 真{ま}っ黒{くろ}\n>\n> 真{ま}っ赤{か}\n>\n> 真{ま}っ青{さお}\n\nHowever, there are prefixes that focus rather than intensify the i-adjectives.\nExamples for 苦しい {くるしい}:\n\n> 重{おも}苦{くる}しい = gloomy, heavy (focus on the atmosphere)\n>\n> 息{いき}苦{ぐる}しい = choking, suffocating (focus on the air)\n>\n> 寝{ね}苦{ぐる}しい = unable to sleep well (focus on the sleeping/rest)\n>\n> 見{み}苦{ぐる}しい = ugly (focus on the look)\n>\n> 狭{せま}苦{くる}しい = cramped (focus on the space)\n>\n> 堅{かた}苦{ぐる}しい = strict (focus on the flexibility)\n\nSo my questions are:\n\n 1. Is there special categories and treatment for these prefixes in Japanese language?\n\n 2. Are there websites/resources/lists where I can look up if a particular i-adjective has an intensifier or not?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T04:42:05.323", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2523", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-14T21:30:32.760", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-14T21:30:32.760", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "resources", "i-adjectives" ], "title": "i-adjective specific intensifiers/qualifiers? e.g. 物凄い {ものすごい}", "view_count": 470 }

[ { "body": "複合形容詞 appears to be the generic term for a compound adjective.\n\n<http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/metadb/up/kiyo/AN10281005/Hiroshima-\nIntStudentCenter-kiyo_16_13.pdf> \\- this article covers the various types, and\ngives many examples.\n\nI don't know of any particular lists of these words, but some dictionaries\nallow you to do a search for words by ending (で終わる) which should bring them\nup.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T11:23:57.300", "id": "2531", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T11:23:57.300", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "2523", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2538", "answer_count": 3, "body": "When does one use 欲しがる instead of 欲しい? For example, in phrases like:\n\n> 先生は野菜を食べて欲し​｛いです・がっています｝。\n\nMy incomplete understanding is that the がる form is more formal/polite, but it\ncan only be used when the subject is not currently present in the room. The\n\"subject in the room part\" is the part I'm most unsure about, as it doesn't\nseem right.\n\nCould I say this to my teacher?\n\n> 先生は野菜を食べて欲しがっていますか?\n\nTo clarify the above sentence: what I'm trying to say is \"Sensei, do you want\nme to eat vegetables?\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T06:34:31.033", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2524", "last_activity_date": "2022-04-26T06:02:53.973", "last_edit_date": "2022-04-26T06:02:53.973", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "97", "post_type": "question", "score": 29, "tags": [ "grammar", "politeness", "i-adjectives" ], "title": "When to use 欲しがる instead of 欲しい", "view_count": 19893 }

[ { "body": "Quoting [an answer from rintaun to one of my own\nquestions](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1520/is-suffix-\nlimited-to-specific-adjectives-only/1523#1523):\n\n> ～がる is a suffix for representing a third party's apparent emotion.\n\nSo I would say the major difference between 欲しがる and 欲しい is that while 欲しい is\nthe state of having desire, 欲しがる is the act of expressing it and making it\napparent, like making intense face, licking your drooling lips etc.\n\nEDIT: To address the example sentence `先生は野菜を食べて欲しがっていますか?`, casting the lack\nof keigo aside, I would say the question is only okay to ask a third person,\nlike for example when your teacher is visiting your home and you ask your\nwife, \"Does Mr. Smith look like he wants to eat vegetables?\". You wouldn't ask\nthat same question of the actual person, \"do you look like you want to eat\nvegetable?\" because that would seem like asking him to look at a mirror (i.e.\nsarcasm). You would simply ask \"do you want to eat vegetables?\",\n`先生は野菜を食べて欲しいですか?` However, considering how Japanese respects teachers, that\nwould still be too blunt, so you would need a more considerately crafted\nquestion like \"Would vegetable be fine with you?\", `先生は野菜でよろしいでしょうか?`", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T06:41:32.103", "id": "2525", "last_activity_date": "2022-04-26T06:02:17.173", "last_edit_date": "2022-04-26T06:02:17.173", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2524", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Japanese has a curious unwritten rule which states, in essence, that you\ncannot presume to know the intimate details of a third person's mental state.\nThis is quite an unfamiliar concept in English-land:\n\n> ○ 私【わたし】はDSが欲【ほ】しいです。 I want a DS.\n>\n> × 息子【むすこ】はDSが欲【ほ】しいです。 My son wants a DS. _(OK in English, NG in Japanese)_\n\nEven if your son has been begging you for the last six weeks straight to buy\nhim one of them newfangled DS things (because all his friends have one, even\nKentarō, and his parents never buy him anything) and even if you're 100%\ncertain he wants a DS, you can't say this directly. The ～がる suffix is for\ngetting around this problem.\n\n> 息子【むすこ】はDS **を** 欲【ほ】しがっています。 My son wants a DS. _(note the particle\n> change!)_\n\nThere are other ways to escape this problem without resorting to ～がる, each\nwith slightly different nuances.\n\n> 息子【むすこ】はDSが欲【ほ】しい **と言【い】っています** 。 My son **is saying** he wants a DS.\n>\n> 息子【むすこ】はDSが欲【ほ】しい **ようです** 。 **It would seem** my son wants a DS.\n\nNow for your example:\n\n> Could I say this to my teacher?\n>\n\n>> 先生【せんせい】は野菜【やさい】を食【た】べて欲【ほ】しがっていますか?\n\nNo. ～がる is for a third person's emotions, so you cannot use it when you are\ntalking directly to someone as here. But if we remove ～がる, we end up with\nthis:\n\n> 先生【せんせい】は野菜【やさい】を食【た】べて欲【ほ】しいですか。 Do you want (someone) to eat their\n> vegetables?\n\nI'm guessing this is not what you wanted to say. Remember that the ～て欲【ほ】しい\nconstruction refers not to something the subject (in this case, 先生【せんせい】)\nwants to do, but something the subject wants _someone else_ to do _for_\nhim/her. The agent (the entity actually performing the action) can be marked\nby に:\n\n> 先生【せんせい】は生徒【せいと】に野菜【やさい】を食【た】べて欲【ほ】しいですか。 Do you want the students to eat\n> their vegetables?\n\nBut I'm guessing you wanted to ask your teacher if he/she wants to eat some\nvegetables. In that case, you could use the ～たい form (again without ～がる).\n\n> 先生【せんせい】は野菜【やさい】を食【た】べたいですか。 Do you want to eat some vegetables?\n\nAlthough this is grammatically correct, in this case it is _socially_\nincorrect. It's inappropriate in Japanese to directly inquire as to the\ndesires someone of a higher status like this. A better way to phrase this\nwould be:\n\n> 先生【せんせい】は野菜【やさい】はいかがでしょうか。 Would you like some vegetables?\n>\n> 先生【せんせい】は野菜【やさい】でよろしいでしょうか。 Would vegetables be OK? _(suggested by Lukman;\n> implies alternate choices besides vegetables)_", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T15:30:33.490", "id": "2538", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T13:18:38.737", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2524", "post_type": "answer", "score": 45 }, { "body": "Whenever you're talking about someone else's internal feelings, you use\n欲しがっている rather than 欲しい, as Derek Schaab beautifully described in his answer.\nTo add a little more background, there are other words that this is done for\nother than 欲しい:\n\n> [verb]-たがる (want to do some verb) \n> 痛がる hurt/painful \n> 嬉しがる happy/glad", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2012-09-14T02:27:11.907", "id": "6804", "last_activity_date": "2022-04-26T06:01:21.220", "last_edit_date": "2022-04-26T06:01:21.220", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "1575", "parent_id": "2524", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2529", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Examples first.\n\n 1. **空 {そら}**. \nAlmost all compound nouns for which 空 is the second component pronounce it as\n**ぞ** ら **_zo** ra_:\n\n * 青空 {あおぞら}\n * 夜空 {よぞら}\n * 星空 {ほしぞら}.\n\nThere is at least one exception though: 美空 {みそら}.\n\n* * *\n\n 2. **蕎麦 {そば}**. \nAll compound nouns I found so far retain the そ _so_ syllable as unvoiced:\n\n * 狸蕎麦 {たぬきそば}\n * 月見蕎麦 {つきみそば}\n * 焼そば {やきそば}.\n\n* * *\n\n 3. **心 {こころ}**. \nMany change it to **ご** _go_ :\n\n * 物心 {ものごころ}\n * 乙女心 {おとめごころ}\n\nBut some can be pronounced both ways:\n\n * 恋心 = こいこころ / こいごころ\n * 真心 = まこころ / まごころ\n\nThis also extends to the _on'yomi_ : 用心 {ようじん} vs 欲心 {よくしん}.\n\nFinally, the question: **what are the criteria that determine whether the\nsecond component's first syllables get voiced or remain unvoiced in compound\nwords?**", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T07:18:57.397", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2526", "last_activity_date": "2021-07-09T19:00:19.733", "last_edit_date": "2015-11-27T09:09:09.607", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 30, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "compounds", "rendaku" ], "title": "Rules or criteria for 連濁: Voiced or unvoiced syllables in compound words", "view_count": 3844 }

[ { "body": "The phenomenon that the beginning of the first consonant of the latter\ncomponent of a compound word is often altered as k→g, s→z, t→d, and h→b\n(sometimes h→p) is called [rendaku](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendaku)\n(連濁). I explained it a little in [another\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/816/what-is-the-\ndifference-between-tori-vs-dori/835#835), but here is a more detailed\nexplanation.\n\nThere are no firm rules to tell when it happens completely. However, as the\nWikipedia article explains, there are some general rules which almost always\napply. Below is some of these rules:\n\n * Most [Sino-Japanese words](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Japanese_vocabulary) tends to resist rendaku. 保安 (ほあん; safety-keeping) + 検査 (けんさ; inspection) = 保安検査 (ほあんけんさ; safety inspection), not ほあんげんさ. (But some words accept rendaku. 株式 (かぶしき; stock) + 会社 (かいしゃ; company) = 株式会社 (かぶしきがいしゃ; roughly corresponds to “business corporation”).)\n * If the latter component is a gairaigo, rendaku does not occur. アイス + コーヒー = アイスコーヒー, not アイスゴーヒー.\n * If the latter component already contains a voiced consonant, the word usually resists rendaku. 山 (やま; mountain) + 火事 (かじ; fire) = 山火事 (やまかじ; mountain fire), not やまがじ.\n * If the compound word of A and B means “A and B” (as opposed to “B of A” and so on), the word usually resists rendaku. 山 (やま; mountain) + 川 (かわ; river, stream) becomes 山川 (やまがわ) when it means a stream in a mountain and 山川 (やまかわ) when it means mountains and rivers.\n * If the latter component is already a compound word, the word usually resists rendaku. 紋 (もん; crest) + シロチョウ (literally “white butterfly”; meaning [Pieridae](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieridae)) = モンシロチョウ (literally “white butterfly with crest”; meaning [_Pieris rapae_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieris_rapae)), not モンジロチョウ.\n\n蕎麦 (そば; soba; buckwheat noodles) resists rendaku because of the third bullet.\n\nI do not think that 恋心 (こいごころ) and 真心 (まごころ) are ever read as こいこころ or まこころ.\n\nThe only word 美空 (みそら) that I know is the stage name of the singer\n[美空ひばり](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibari_Misora). I do not know why it is\nnot みぞら, but I will not be surprised if a name (especially an invented name)\ndoes not follow the regular pattern, and the “regular” pattern is not very\nregular after all.\n\n用心 and 欲心 are not really compound words because 心 (しん) is not a word on its\nown. I do not know if the fact that 用心 is read as ようじん instead of ようしん is also\ncategorized as rendaku or not, and I do not know if there is any explanation\nwhen it happens.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T10:18:10.497", "id": "2529", "last_activity_date": "2012-10-27T15:49:57.967", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2526", "post_type": "answer", "score": 29 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2537", "answer_count": 2, "body": "How do I form a sentence pattern for:\n\n> The more/less X happens, the more/less Y happens\n>\n\n>> E.g. The more you stir, the faster the salt dissolves.\n\n>>\n\n>> The colder the weather, the more time it takes for snow to melt.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T09:58:24.927", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2528", "last_activity_date": "2015-01-24T18:05:28.337", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-09T02:56:07.453", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "phrase-requests" ], "title": "Proportion and Rate", "view_count": 489 }

[ { "body": "Anyone who took formal courses on Japanese would have learned this pattern:\nX-eba X hodo Y.\n\n> The more you stir, the faster the salt dissolves. \n> 混ぜれば混ぜるほど塩が混ざるのは早いです。\n>\n> The colder the weather, the more time it takes for snow to melt. \n> 雪が解けるのは寒ければ寒いほど時間がかかります。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T10:25:24.730", "id": "2530", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T10:49:23.193", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-08T10:49:23.193", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2528", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "There are also several other grammar patterns that express \"as one thing\nchanges (grows/increases/decreases/etc.) another thing changes with it\" (the\nkey is that both things are **changing** ).\n\n 1. 名詞 (noun)\n 2. 動詞の辞書形 (verb in dictionary form)\n 3. する動詞の名詞 (the noun of a suru-verb)\n\n> * (2 or 3) + につれて (cannot express volition or intention, but the rest\n> can).\n> * アニメが[流行]{≪はや≫}る **につれて** 、日本語を学ぶ人が増えてきています。→ As anime is becoming more\n> popular, the number of people learning Japanese is growing.\n> * (2 or 3) + にしたがって\n> * 警察の調べが進む **にしたがって** 、次々と新しい疑問点が出てきた。→ The-more/As the police\n> investigation progressed, new questions kept arising (one after another).\n> * (1 or 2) + に伴って【ともなって】\n> * 病気の回復 **に伴って** 、少しずつ働く時間を伸ばしていくつもりだ。→ As I continue to recover from my\n> illness, little-by-little I intend to work longer (and longer) hours.\n> * (1 or 2) + とともに\n> * 技術の拡大 **とともに** 、手紙を書くことが衰えていくでしょう。→ As technology continues to expand,\n> writing letters (by hand) will surely decline.\n>\n\nThese used to be JLPT ２級 patterns, but since they changed it to the new N1-N5\nsystem, I don't know which level they are anymore.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T14:35:38.550", "id": "2537", "last_activity_date": "2015-01-24T18:05:28.337", "last_edit_date": "2015-01-24T18:05:28.337", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2528", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 5, "body": "What is the learning curve like for learning Japanese writing?\n\nAre you able to use what you've learnt as you're progressing, or are you only\nrealistically able to start reading real text once you've learnt about two or\nthree thousand kanji?\n\nRelated question: [What are the advantages/disadvantages of writing in romaji\ninstead of in kanji and\nkana?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/354/what-are-the-\nadvantages-disadvantages-of-writing-in-romaji-instead-of-kanji-hira) has a few\nanswers on the merits of learning Japanese writing.\n\n**Edit:** By \"real text\", I meant text you'd encounter in real life, not\nlearning text that has had its grammar artificially dumbed down. As an example\nof \"dumbing down\", I've heard that texts deliberately made up entirely of kana\nis only for children too young to know the kanji. By contrast, signs and\nmenus, even if they're not literary masterpieces, haven't had their grammar\nartificially changed. Would learning the kana be enough to identify a few\ngairaigo items in a fast food restaurant menu, for example?", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T12:10:19.840", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2532", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T22:19:26.840", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "learning", "orthography" ], "title": "What is the learning curve for learning Japanese writing?", "view_count": 2461 }

[ { "body": "First, I think you would agree with me if I say that there is no silver bullet\nfor learning Japanese writing. It takes practice and determination. There is\nalso the factor of individual; different people may need different amount and\nkind of efforts to be invested to achieve the desired fluency in reading and\nwriting in Japanese. That said, here I share some methods I used to improve\nreading/writing:\n\n 1. First and foremost, don't be afraid to read Japanese texts, whatever they are. If you have a set of choices, pick from the one with the most difficult-looking kanji, and later downgrade to the one with less kanji if you get tired. But try to not get tired too fast!\n\n 2. Just like learning any foreign languages, dictionary is your friend. Especially now that we have dictionary softwares and websites, looking up kanji words you do not know won't probably take long. Take special note when looking up verbs whether they are transitive or not, nouns if they are na-adjectives or not etc.\n\n 3. Write them down! I found it easier to remember the shapes and strokes of kanji if I copy them down. Some kanji characters differ just by small radicals, so having your body memorize the strokes makes it easier to detect the difference.\n\n 4. Know the grammar. Of course if you don't know the grammar, words are just words. There won't be any meaning unless if you know how the words relate to each other; how the verbs describe the nouns with the help of particles etc.\n\nI guess my points (1) and (2) above answer your question \"or are you only\nrealistically able to start reading real text once you've learnt about two or\nthree thousand kanji\", which is no. **You don't have to wait till you remember\nthousands kanji before you start reading, because how are you going to\nremember those thousands kanji if you don't start reading?**", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T14:03:33.970", "id": "2536", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T14:03:33.970", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2532", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "> What is the learning curve like for learning Japanese writing?\n\nAbout the same as English. Chances are you didn't start learning to read\nEnglish by pedaling your five-speed Schwinn (with the baseball card in the\nback tire) to the local library and checking out _Pride and Prejudice_ with\nyour shiny new card. You had to start with the Easy Readers, wherein you\ndiscovered, I hope, Dr. Seuss stories with all those wonderfully rhyming\nmonosyllables. Along the way you learned that the letter C is a mystical\nletter of many sounds, and someone had to tell you that the Cs in _cake_ ,\n_cell_ , and _cello_ all sound different. You also learned about heteronyms,\nthose quizzical words which have identical spellings and different meanings.\nEventually you reached the point where you can pick up the latest _New York\nTimes_ and understand every sentence (even if you don't understand the story\nbehind the sentences).\n\nJapanese is no different. You start with the kana and gradually tunnel through\nKanji Mountain. As you go you pick up on the rules of the game: this kanji is\npronounced this way when it's part of a compound and that way when it's alone,\nor this compound looks like an _onyomi_ compound but it's really _kunyomi_ ,\nand so on. For a long time the dictionary is your closest companion, but the\nlonger you study the more your reading range expands, and the less you need to\nrely on your trusty indexed friend. If you stick with it, you'll eventually be\nable to comfortably read a letter from your electric service provider or\nbrowse the new fiction in the bookstore without immediately needing a\ndictionary. It takes years of study, but so did English, and it's highly\nrewarding.\n\n> Are you able to use what you've learnt as you're progressing, or are you\n> only realistically able to start reading real text once you've learnt about\n> two or three thousand kanji?\n\nWhat is \"real text\" to you? A newspaper? A Murakami novel? A graduation\nthesis? If you restrict yourself to these \"grown-up\" materials, you will\nlikely end in frustration. Nothing is stopping you from reading anything, but\nthe lower your reading ability, the more of a grind it will be to slog through\nthe unfamiliar kanji and grammar in high-level texts. Progress always depends\non studying things that are _just above_ your level. If you're working on\ngrade school kanji, read material targeted at grade schoolers: the kids'\nsection of newspapers, manga for kids, and so on. (This is why I personally\nrecommend studying kanji in the same order used in Japan.) When the material\nyou're reading becomes too easy, move on to something more difficult. It's all\n\"real text\", and everything is a stepping stone to get you to what you really\nwant to read.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T16:34:34.960", "id": "2540", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T16:34:34.960", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2532", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "I'd like to add to Derek and Lukman's excellent answers my usual plug for\nyoung adult manga as a learning resource. Since all but the most basic kanji\nhave furigana next to them, you don't have to know hundreds of kanji to read\nthem, and it's easy to look up the meanings of new words and learn the\nreadings of new kanji. While the content of most young adult manga may not be\non the level of _Pride and Prejudice_ , there are some diamonds in the rough,\nand you can end up learning a lot of language from even the most vapid text.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T00:33:16.393", "id": "2546", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T00:33:16.393", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "2532", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "My learning resource was Karaoke. Like Amandas answer, most of the kanji have\nfurigana which makes it great to read.\n\nOne plus to karaoke is that it will also improve your listening,\nspeaking/pronunciation, reading speed and speaking speed.\n\nThe downside is that music is poetry in a sense and thus you'll find outdated\ngrammatical structures, not correct furigana over kanji (there is a question\nalready on this), and the words that you learn will be limited to the kind of\nmusic you like. I ended up learning all the different ways and kanji to say\nlove and meet (not really useful).\n\nAs an aside, by doing this, you can impress Japanese people by being able to\nsing along and sing your own songs in karaoke. I also had weird after-effect\nof remembering a lot of the songs where I learned words. Like ダブダブ from\nMorning Musume, ~ぬ grammatical form from Aqua Times, etc.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T02:31:45.553", "id": "2547", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T22:19:26.840", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T22:19:26.840", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "2532", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Having picked up about 2,000+ characters from Chinese, I feel like I am\nsometimes working in the opposite direction to most students of Japanese.\nOften I can get the gist of a text just by looking at the kanji. So while it\nmay sound circuitous, don't be afraid to do as I did and study a good deal of\nChinese first off. Personally, I found hiragana and katakana really boring and\ncouldn't see any other way to do it. As it stands, I can and do learn by\nreading 'mature'-level texts like the translated/recorded stories by Akutagawa\nand Soseki, and Japanese RPGs.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-05T13:29:00.580", "id": "3014", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-05T13:29:00.580", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "350", "parent_id": "2532", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2535", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Was nihonshu (what English refers to as \"sake\") always called nihonshu, or was\nit only called that once western alcoholic beverages were introduced to Japan?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T12:45:19.093", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2533", "last_activity_date": "2018-08-02T08:37:47.067", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "etymology" ], "title": "Was sake always called nihonshu?", "view_count": 1231 }

[ { "body": "The 日本国語大辞典's earliest cite for 日本酒 (nihonshu) is 1886, in Tsubouchi Shoyo's\n内地雑居 未来之夢, which is to judge from the title a book about foreigners in Japan.\nI'd say the chances are good that 日本酒 (nihonshu) is a recent coinage, and\nbefore that, the drink was simply called 酒 (sake).\n\nIncidentally, again according to the 日本国語大辞典, the word 葡萄酒 (budōshu) for\n\"[grape] wine\" has been around for at least 500 years.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T13:51:28.917", "id": "2535", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T01:58:00.420", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-09T01:58:00.420", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2533", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "As mentioned above, all alcohol in Japan is 酒 (sake). When it is completely\nunambiguous, that word is sufficient to convey which form of alcohol you\ndesire.\n\nIf you go into a London pub and say, \"Give me a drink,\" you will likely get a\npint of bitter. If you go into an inn in Dublin, you may just as likely get a\nshot of whisky. If you want to be unambiguous, you specify what you want.\n\nFor the record, in decades of visiting and living in Japan, I have never heard\nanybody order \"sake\" in a restaurant or pub. On the other hand, \"sake\" is\noften used to represent all alcohol, as in a store: \"酒はどこですか。\", or \"Where is\nyour alcohol?\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-08-02T08:37:47.067", "id": "60626", "last_activity_date": "2018-08-02T08:37:47.067", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "30856", "parent_id": "2533", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "There are a number of Japanese words which have distinct compounding forms:\n\n * -a/-e alternation: 天・雨、酒、上、風、目 — many examples.\n * -u/-i alternation: 神（[神]{かむ}[集]{つど}ふ）、月（[月]{つく}[読]{よみ}）\n * -o/-i alternation: 木（[木]{こ}の[葉]{は}）、火（炎【ほのほ】）\n * -a/-o alternation: 白（[白]{しら}[雪]{ゆき}）\n\n[This BBS\npost](http://jbbs.livedoor.jp/bbs/read.cgi/study/10958/1283085223/18) has more\nexamples. There is also another kind of alternation I know of, even rarer:\n\n * s-insertion: 雨（[春]{はる}[雨]{さめ}）、青（[真]{ま}っ[青]{さを})\n\nI have three questions:\n\n 1. Are there any other alternations I have missed?\n 2. Is there an exhaustive listing of words with exceptional compound forms somewhere?\n 3. To what extent is this process still alive? For instance, [風]{かざ}[車]{ぐるま} is a comparatively recent coinage.", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T13:42:09.743", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2534", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-22T01:23:13.870", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-22T01:23:13.870", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "578", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "etymology", "history", "phonology", "compounds", "irregularities-exceptions" ], "title": "Exceptional compounding forms", "view_count": 684 }

[ { "body": "1) I don't think that you have missed anything or that you should really be\nconcerned about it too much. Even without exhaustive research, people who know\na lot about kanji know that these readings stand out as being special. Perhaps\none of the readings is used in two, rather than just one word, but the sound\nwould still seem unique in comparison to the variety of words used with the\nother readings. So, I hope my 90%-sure \"yes\" can set your mind at ease?\n\n2) [This\nlink](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%86%9F%E5%AD%97%E8%A8%93#.E4.BE.8B) goes\ndirectly to a page with a list of kanji with readings that appear exclusively\nin one word.\n\n3) Are words like this still being created? Yes. To what extent? That's a more\ndifficult question. People are still doing it quite often for names, and I\nimagine it happens with some frequency as new words are created to describe\nthings (e.g., in science). It's hard to quantify, especially because I wasn't\nable to uncover a list of 'new words' in Japanese.\n日本語の新しい言葉/日本語のつぐに作った言葉とか.... These google keywords don't turn much up, but\nI'll try to be more creative for your cause and do a little more searching....\nAnyway, I hope it's sufficient to say 'it's not a dead practice'.\n\nIt seems to me, the reason people use these \"distinct\" readings is because\nthey're easier to say. I think some strange English sentences are thought of\nin the same way. You can tell by saying tongue twisters. They force your\ncheeks to go in-and-out, or your tongue to thrash to-and-fro in such a\nmeticulous manner. For strange English sentences, saying them normally has the\nsame effect. In Japanese, try saying \"MOkuNOha\", then \"KInoHA\", and then try\nsaying \"konoHA\". The upper-case indicate open cheeks, and the lower-case\nindicate closed cheeks. It's easier to move your cheeks from in to out, rather\nthan out, to in, to out, to in, so I think we just elect this simple\nvariation.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T03:24:38.550", "id": "2589", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-11T03:24:38.550", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2534", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "As I commented earlier, I am pretty sure that much of these alternations are\ndue to phonological rules. I realized that, among your patterns,\na/e-alternation and u/i-alternation follow naturally from assuming:\n\n 1. 露出形 vs. 被覆形 alternation hypothesis (which you also mention) as in my answer in [Why is a place that sells さけ a さかや?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3533)\n 2. The phonological rule described in my answer in [What does こまけー mean?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3746)\n 3. The long vowel mentioned in 2. above was shortened.\n\nHowever, this does not explain your o/i-alternation and a/o-alternation. This\nfact suggest two possibilities: (1) the underlying verb is of somewhat\ndifferent quality, and assuming an appropriate underlying vowel, these\nalternation actually fit the rule mentioned in 2, or (2) there is another rule\nin addition to the one mentioned in (2).\n\nTo the extent that this theory is correct, it predicts that there can be\no/e-alternation such that in compound forms, ends with [o], and in isolated\nforms, ends with [e].", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-17T07:24:25.593", "id": "3753", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-17T07:42:52.140", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2534", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2541", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Is it true that 寂しい can be used to describe someone as \"pathetic\" ? (pathetic\nin the sense like someone is cheating in a game: pathetic. and like someone is\nrobbing a grandma: pathetic. and like someone who doesn't wish to work and\njust wanted to live off others: pathetic)\n\nThe dictionaries I use only list them as \"lonely, lonesome, solitary,\ndesolate\" so I'm wondering if the \"pathetic\" meaning of 寂しい is widely used (or\nused at all)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T16:31:15.367", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2539", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T16:49:31.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "vocabulary" ], "title": "寂しい can mean \"pathetic\"?", "view_count": 2496 }

[ { "body": "I hear 寂しい used as a derogatory word, usually in the form 寂しいやつ. The literal\nmeaning of 寂しいやつ would be “lonely person,” but it means more like “a person\nwithout friends.” So calling someone as 寂しいやつ is equivalent to claiming that\nthe person has no friends, and it could be an insult.\n\nI consider 寂しいやつ simply as yet another phrase used to insult someone, mostly\nindependent of whether the speaker really thinks that the referent deserves no\nfriends or not. I do not know if it is similar to “pathetic” in usage.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T16:49:31.153", "id": "2541", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T16:49:31.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2539", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2545", "answer_count": 6, "body": "I saw 火信 tattooed on a gentleman's neck. I looked up the words, but couldn't\nmake sense of their combination... \nWhat does it mean?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T19:39:51.847", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2542", "last_activity_date": "2012-04-17T00:47:54.113", "last_edit_date": "2012-04-12T10:02:00.653", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "246", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "translation", "kanji" ], "title": "What Does 火信 Mean?", "view_count": 1363 }

[ { "body": "Firewire (火-fire, 信-communication/transmission)??? Nothing in Japanese anyway.\nNot to say it doesn't mean something in Chinese. Maybe 当て字 for his name or\nsomething. But chances are it's just one of those tattoos that's supposed to\nlook cool, but doesn't mean a dang thing and ends up looking stupid.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T19:58:49.810", "id": "2543", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T19:58:49.810", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2542", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "```\n\n 火 (hi,ka) = fire\n 信　(shin) = trust, faith\n \n```\n\nI don't find them combined as 1 word in Japanese dictionaries I referenced,\nbut if you google them you get many hits on Chinese sites. So I assume it\nmeans \"burning faith\", but it's Chinese, not Japanese.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T20:04:04.640", "id": "2544", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T20:13:44.550", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-08T20:13:44.550", "last_editor_user_id": "580", "owner_user_id": "580", "parent_id": "2542", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "_**Update:** It seems that it is most likely that the person who created it\nwas intending a Chinese word. However, since the kanji is valid Japanese\nkanji, and since this is a forum about learning Japanese, I'm going to form my\nanswer based on the perspective of \" **what if** they meant it to be\nJapanese?\"_\n\nIt is not a standard Japanese compound. However, that doesn't mean it\ntherefore can not be Japanese, and must be Chinese, or a mistake by the person\nwho wrote it.\n\nIf the two kanji were incorrect in the way they were drawn, or had extra\nstrokes only found in Chinese, then it could not be considered Japanese in any\nway. However, both those kanji are standard [Joyo\nkanji](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyo_kanji).\n\nJapanese kanji can be combined to make new words, and is done frequently as a\npart of the evolution of the language. People who are native or fluent enough\nhave the freedom to create new words, and when done right, people who have\nnever seen it before can catch the meaning. We do this all the time in English\nwith prefixes, suffixes,\n[portmanteau](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau), and other ways.\n\nOr, in this case, one could import the word from its Chinese origins, maybe\nbecause they thought it was a cool concept that the Japanese language didn't\nhave yet.\n\nSo, that said, assuming someone wants the word to be Japanese, forget the fact\nthat this isn't in the dictionary. It's a new word, but still can be a\nJapanese word nonetheless.\n\nThe kanji mean \"fire\" and \"belief\", respectively, and from there we can\nextrapolate that it means something like \"burning faith\". We're factoring a\nbit of poetic license in, because of the context of a tattoo, where that kind\nof sentiment is expressed.\n\nAfter testing it on some Japanese friends, it would definitely be read かしん,\nand half I tested on guessed what I think is the intended meaning of \"burning\nfaith\". The others guessed \"belief _in_ fire\". No one guessed \"firewire\", or\nanything to do with the \"transmission\" definition of 信.\n\nBut that's what happens when you make up new words. You don't necessarily get\nperfect comprehension right off the bat. So you have to say \"well, to me it\nmeans...\". Which is also a pretty common conversation people have when they\nare talking about their tattoos.\n\nSo, in short, I think the consensus is that this is probably a Chinese word\nthat happens to use kanji that are commonly used in Japanese. However, if we\n_wanted_ it to be a Japanese word, that would be perfectly valid.\n\n* * *\n\n_**Cultural observation:_** I believe that if the gentleman with the tattoo\nwas visibly identifiable as non-Japanese, it's very likely a lot of Japanese\nwould probably tell him his tattoo was not a real word, assuming he made a\nmistake. If the gentleman was Japanese, then it would be assumed he was at\nplay with the language.\n\nIt's an extension of the unfortunate belief held by many Japanese that the\nJapanese language is particularly inaccessible to non-Japanese people.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T00:19:28.607", "id": "2545", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-10T06:30:42.293", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-10T06:30:42.293", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2542", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "May be, you could be reading it reverse.\n\nThat could be **信火** from Buddish word **信火** 行煙, which means\n\n> 信心の火がともれば、必ず行という煙が上がるという意味ですが、「教えが身につけば(信)、それが生活の上で実践(行)されるものだ」ということなのです。\n\nref:\n\n * <http://www.koumyouji.com/houwa/15.htm>\n * <http://iss.ndl.go.jp/books/R000000004-I5217956-00>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-10T06:58:22.960", "id": "2573", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-10T07:04:37.290", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-10T07:04:37.290", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "2542", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "It is not Chinese either. 火信 doesn't make any sense in Chinese. But we Chinese\nhave a phrase 火蛇吐信.\n\n火:Fire\n\n蛇:snake\n\n吐:spitting\n\n信:tongue\n\nBut 火信 won't mean \"Fire tongue\", 信 will only mean \"tongue\" in limited cases\nsuch as 火蛇吐信.\n\nSo 火信 doesn't make any sense in Chinese. You guys can discussion the other\npossibilities.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T09:47:39.770", "id": "2644", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T09:47:39.770", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "615", "parent_id": "2542", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Some years ago there used to be a web site called \"hanzismatter.com\". (Hanzi\nis Chinese for kanji.)\n\nThis site was a blog where there were regular postings of photographs of\npeople's really dumb Chinese character tattoos.\n\nFor instance, one guy wanted to have the word \"tank\" (probably a military\nman). But the kanji that were used actually gave rise to a meaning more like\n\"septic tank\", not the armored vehicle.\n\nAnother guy ended up with something that meant \"fried chicken\".\n\nTattoos are often wrong. Some are plain incorrect, like missing or incorrect\nstrokes, or outright mirror-image reversals. Some have silly meanings pulled\nfrom some literal translation, or a juxtaposition of characters that\nindividually mean something, but accidentally create a bad compound.\n\nSo the point is, there isn't always a meaning.\n\nThis person probably just pulled two nice characters out of the tattoo\nartist's \"catalog\", which probably had some possibly incorrect meanings next\nto them. That person liked the meanings, and was probably given a \"2 for 1\"\nspecial, so had two characters \"done\".\n\n**Oh, look that blog is up again, on blogspot:**\n\n<http://hanzismatter.blogspot.ca/>\n\nWow, this could be the world's first post of a blogspot link that isn't spam.\n:)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-04-17T00:47:54.113", "id": "5224", "last_activity_date": "2012-04-17T00:47:54.113", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1266", "parent_id": "2542", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Is there a term that describes multiple foreign words sharing the same\nJapanese-language loanword?\n\nFor example, Wikipedia's disambiguation page for フォーク (Romaji: foku) covers\nboth the English word \"fork\" and the English word \"folk\", because Japanese-\nspeakers don't have \"r\" and \"l\" different.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T03:37:43.427", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2548", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T05:53:10.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "loanwords", "terminology" ], "title": "Term for multiple foreign words sharing the same loanword in Japanese?", "view_count": 423 }

[ { "body": "The term you're looking for could be \"homonym\". Or perhaps it could be a\n\"homophone\" - words that share the same pronunciation but different in\nmeaning. The term for this in Japanese should be 同音異議語 (どうおんいぎご)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T04:23:47.960", "id": "2552", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T05:53:10.233", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-09T05:53:10.233", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2548", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2551", "answer_count": 1, "body": "The textbook I'm currently using defines both of these grammar points as:\n〜のだから、絶対にする／しないのが当然だ\n\nWhat is the difference between the two grammar points, can they be used\ninterchangeably like the following:\n\n自分でやると言った **からには** 、最後まで責任を持ってやってください。 \nvs \n自分でやると言った **以上は** 、最後まで責任を持ってやってください。\n\nIf they can be used interchangeably, is there any nuance I should be aware of?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T03:52:46.860", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2549", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T04:19:37.620", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "What's the difference between 〜以上は and 〜からには", "view_count": 1794 }

[ { "body": "They're basically the same. It means, \"Hold onto your responsibilities until\nthe bitter end because your word is your bond.\"\n\nIf there's some slight difference in nuance, then the second sentence would be\nmore officious. If two people, a boss and his or her subordinate were talking,\nit would be kind of an unfriendly admonishment of the worker's poor\nperformance. If two people know one another as friends, then maybe they would\nsay 'kara'. It would still be said in a strict tone, though. So, just the\nsetting: friendly vs business setting.\n\nYou could say `以上は` with friends, but if you use that then the atmosphere\nwould become very serious. If you used `からには`, it's not serious. You know, you\nmight say it to a child who played a video game but didn't clean, and he\ndidn't do the cleaning part. So, it still sounds like you're talking down, a\nlittle, if you say `からには`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T04:19:37.620", "id": "2551", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T04:19:37.620", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2549", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2554", "answer_count": 3, "body": "There is female Japanese name \"Midori,\" and I want to know the ways I can\nwrite it. I know it means \"green,\" but maybe the name and \"green\" are\ndifferent words sometimes.\n\nI used google-translator to get variants. I want to know if all of those\nvariants are used to write the name Midori. Otherwise I am interested in what\nthey mean.\n\n * 緑\n * 翠\n\nAs far as I can understand, the first variants are kanji and next ones are\nhiragana:\n\n * ミドリ\n * みどり and みどりの\n\nWhat is the difference between these? What does the \"no\" mean?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T04:52:14.083", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2553", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-30T02:13:29.807", "last_edit_date": "2012-06-10T07:05:56.627", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "559", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "kanji", "hiragana", "katakana", "orthography", "names" ], "title": "Can I write Japanese name \"Midori\" this way - 緑?", "view_count": 13746 }

[ { "body": "Searching on a name dictionary you'll get a [long long list (93) of \"midori\"\nas a girl's given\nname](http://www.nihongoresources.com/nbrowse/midori?action=names&section=dictionaries&page=names&sub=&type=start&search=midori&nametype=0&submit=+search%3E+).\nThis excludes \"midori\" being used as a family name or a place name.\n\n\"Midori\" is not limited to the kanji for green though. It can be made up of\nother kanji having `名乗り` (nanori - name reading) of \"mi\", \"do\", \"ri\", \"mido\",\n\"dori\" compounded to form \"midori\".\n\nAnd yes you can use `緑` or `翠` as a standalone kanji for the name Midori.\n\nFor brevity I will not list all 93:\n\n> Kana and Kanji mix:\n>\n\n>> みど梨\n\n>>\n\n>> みど理\n\n>>\n\n>> みど里\n\n>>\n\n>> み外里\n\n>>\n\n>> み登り\n\n>\n> 3 Kanji compounds:\n>\n\n>> 三十里\n\n>>\n\n>> 三都里\n\n>>\n\n>> 光巴里\n\n>>\n\n>> 光都里\n\n>>\n\n>> 妙登利\n\n>\n> 2 Kanji compounds:\n>\n\n>> 三彩\n\n>>\n\n>> 光鳥\n\n>>\n\n>> 実酉\n\n>>\n\n>> 常緑\n\n>>\n\n>> 碧里\n\nThere is also the possibility that a name is spelled purely in Hiragana:\n\n> みどり\n\nIn this case, writing that person's name using Kanji would be wrong.\n\nFor Midorino:\n\n> `緑野 [みどりの]` (Don't worry about the meaning of \"no\" it's just the way the\n> name sounds) it can be both a girl's name and a family name.\n>\n> `緑埜 [みどりの]` is a family name instead of a girl's name.\n\nAlternatively it could be Midori + Genitive case marker の.\n\n> i.e. `みどりの本` to mean \"Midori's book\"\n>\n> or `緑の本` to mean \"a green (coloured) book\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T05:12:43.607", "id": "2554", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-30T02:13:29.807", "last_edit_date": "2013-12-30T02:13:29.807", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2553", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "I'm sorry to inform you that there are many, many different ways to write the\nJapanese name Midori, as you can see from [this search of a name\ndictionary](http://www.jisho.org/words?jap=%E3%81%BF%E3%81%A9%E3%82%8A&eng=&dict=enamdic&romaji=on).\nIf you need to know how to write a specific woman's name, you probably need to\nask her.\n\nAs for your other question about みどりの, the の is a word that comes between a\nword and the word it's describing. みどりの湯飲み ( _midori no yunomi_ ), for\ninstance, means \"a green teacup\" (or \"Midori's teacup\").", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T05:18:04.287", "id": "2555", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T05:18:04.287", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "2553", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "緑 just means 'the color green'.\n\n翠, imagine a bird has green, beautiful wings. It's like the 'clean, beautiful,\nincredible color green'. So, this kanji is often used for a given name. You\ncan find かわせみ, which is a bird that lives around the river. It has beautiful\nwings. The kanji 翠 is read `せみ` or `み` in 翡翠. Not really sure which.... But it\nmeans 'that lovely green color'. 翡's first kanji also means 'beautiful green',\nbut it's for male birds. 翠 means 'that lovely green color', but it's for\nfemale birds.\n\nミドリ is for anime/manga, if someone is being emotional, you use katakana to\nexpress emotion. 緑の is a の-adjective, like `The green (something).`. 緑 is a\nnoun, as in `緑が好きです。`.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T06:11:59.913", "id": "2556", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T06:11:59.913", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2553", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2558", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is there an expression in Japanese that is equivalent to \"as far/long as I/you\nX\", for example \"as far as I know\", \"as far as I'm concerned\", \"as much as you\nwant\", \"as long as he is still alive\" etc? Or perhaps are all those English\nexpressions expressed differently in Japanese?\n\nSome example sentences:\n\n 1. As far as I know, it only takes 15 minutes to travel from Kyoto to Osaka by bullet train.\n\n 2. As far as I'm concerned, that kind of questions is not suitable to be asked here.\n\n 3. Please take as much as you want. \n\n 4. He is working hard to achieve that golden dream of his as long as he is alive.\n\nEDIT: One more expression: \"as soon as possible\"", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T06:34:36.110", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2557", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T13:23:35.350", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-09T13:23:35.350", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "translation", "phrase-requests" ], "title": "Expression equivalent to \"as far/long/much as I/you X\"", "view_count": 4273 }

[ { "body": "Usually that construction is achieved by using 「限り」.\n\n> * 知る限り (as far as one knows)\n> * できる限り (as far as possible)\n> * 生きている限り (as long as one lives)\n> * 私に関する限り (as far as I'm concerned, i.e. \"for my part [but I won't speak\n> for others, because they disagree with me]\")\n>\n\nThe construction in your second sentence (\"as far as I'm concerned\") is\nusually expressed with other expressions like 「私にとっては」or 「自分としては」.\n\nEdit: \"As much as one wants\" is usually expressed as 「好きなだけ」. That だけ can be\nused in other phrases, like 「必要なだけ」 (as much as one needs)", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T06:50:44.967", "id": "2558", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T06:50:44.967", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "2557", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "> As far as I know,\n\n知っている限り(では)\n\n> As far as I'm concerned\n\n私にとっては\n\n> Please take as much as you want.\n\n御自由におとりになってください。 \n好きなだけおとりになってください。\n\n> as long he is alive.\n\n生きているうちに\n\n> as soon as possible\n\nできるだけ早く", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T07:03:23.367", "id": "2559", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T09:41:27.803", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-09T09:41:27.803", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2557", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2567", "answer_count": 4, "body": "In the context of a personality quizz, what does 共同志向性 means?\n\nI feel it is something like the quality of being a good team-player, but not\nsure.\n\n[Google does not\nknow](https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22%E5%85%B1%E5%90%8C%E5%BF%97%E5%90%91%22)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T08:06:00.377", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2561", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T15:52:37.037", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "meaning" ], "title": "Meaning of 共同志向性", "view_count": 256 }

[ { "body": "`共同` \\- doing together, cooperation\n\n`志向` \\- intention\n\n`性` \\- characteristic (-ity, -ness)\n\nI would say combining them would yield \"the characteristic of the willingness\n(of an individual) to cooperate\" or the \"cooperativeness\" of the person.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T08:19:22.017", "id": "2563", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T08:19:22.017", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2561", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I'd say \"Common aspiration\" or \"dessein commun\" (if you pardon my French :P),\nas a perk, or as a thing you have/share.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T09:43:53.197", "id": "2564", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T09:43:53.197", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2561", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I think being a good team player is a pretty good assessment of the meaning -\na \"spirit of cooperation\" - very similar to the answer Flaw posted.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T13:27:54.827", "id": "2565", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T13:27:54.827", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "580", "parent_id": "2561", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I think Google actually knows part of the answer.. at least _my_ Google.\nAccording to her, there are two possible meanings, both of which are (social)\npsychology terms.\n\ncommunal orientation: \"desire to give and receive benefits in response to the\nneeds of and out of concern for others\"\n\n * The first Google result is an academic paper ([Google Quick View](https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache%3aizjkwO0HHWoJ%3awww.wdc-jp.biz/jssp/archive/paper_download.php%3Fs%3D2005-E-0364+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgMMekqdjnGXr481tJ2tQAmepRruPb7In8n-x7LrS66wOL1ioxjX9iUywRv5soVlTNWPlO5GspJAsJ3zP932SHPYd4am9HIQ1ZAWlA3urQsVV4gRm9r-_U7_9XupPQzPX_7oD3I&sig=AHIEtbQHteAzbW1ZVm82ICwYh1JvphpYtA)), which cites \"Clark, Ouellette, Powell, & Milberg, 1987\" as its source for the methodology of measuring communal orientation (\"共同志向尺度\")\n * The definition above is given by [another paper](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01534.x/abstract) which cites the same 1987 paper.\n\nco-orientation: \"[the process of] lining up of attitudinal orientations\n[toward shared topics] in a compatible way\"\n\n * The [8th result](http://www.d2.dion.ne.jp/~pfriends/syakai.html) explains that 共同志向 is a term from a social psychology model, namely T. M. Newcomb's A-B-X system.\n * The definition above is given by [an encyclopedia](http://books.google.com/books?id=2veMwywplPUC&lpg=PA203&ots=7B8pKmYTLu&dq=%22co-orientation%22%20a-b-x%20system&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q=%22co-orientation%22%20a-b-x%20system&f=false) of communication theory that explains the A-B-X system.\n\nSince the question context is about personality and the latter term is about\nan objective process in a relationship, I guess \"communal orientation\" is the\nsource word for 共同志向性. So, the quiz can be asking how much you're willing to\ngive without expecting anything in exchange.\n\nSome of the other Google results show usages outside the context of academic\npsychology, like corporate mottos, but they're very few.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T15:17:27.343", "id": "2567", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T15:52:37.037", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-09T15:52:37.037", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2561", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2577", "answer_count": 4, "body": "Text books normally teach that the negative of です is じゃありません. However it seems\nvery common to hear native Japanese use じゃないです.\n\nIs this slang or somehow less correct than じゃありません? Would it be marked as\nincorrect in a JLPT exam?\n\nIf they are both equally correct why is じゃありません taught to beginners? (To me\nじゃないです seems simpler for a beginner to remember.)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-10T12:15:47.987", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2574", "last_activity_date": "2023-04-05T21:45:39.897", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-10T16:09:01.807", "last_editor_user_id": "74", "owner_user_id": "74", "post_type": "question", "score": 74, "tags": [ "word-choice", "negation", "formality" ], "title": "Is じゃないです equally correct as じゃありません?", "view_count": 36811 }

[ { "body": "`じゃないです` is a colloquial, uneducated way of saying `じゃありません`. It is not\ntotally ungrammatical, but is not totally correct either.\n\nMy reasoning for this is because it is not the shortest way of saying it.\nAssuming that `ない` results from obligatory deletion of `ara` in Tokyo dialect\nand that the `i`-ending of an i-adjective is an obligatorily replaced form of\n`ku aru`, the fully expanded form of the two expressions are:\n\n> ないです (7 morphemes) \n> ar-ana-ku ar-u des-u \n> DUMMYVERB-NEG-ADJECTIVE DUMMYVERB-NONPAST POLITE-NONPAST \n>\n>\n> ありません (4 morphemes) \n> ar-imas-en-u \n> DUMMYVERB-POLITE-NEG-NONPAST\n\nUsing `ありません` is much shorter. For those people who do not use `じゃありません`, the\nnegative morpheme `en`, which is conditioned to be used only with politeness,\nis either blocked temporarily or is not known by the speaker.\n\nI am interested in hearing other accounts of this contrast.\n\n**To answer ento's question:**\n\nIn general (in any language), a well phrased (correct) sentence has to be the\nshortest among the alternative strategies that have the exact same meaning\n(including connotation, naunce, etc.). This is a genaral, basic fact about\nlanguage, and is observed at various levels (word, sentence, discourse). For\nexample, in English, it is not fully appropriate, unless there is a special\nconnotation or purpose, to say sentences like\n\n> I am doing eating of a sandwich \n> I am feeling sadness \n> It is the case that it is sunny today [As a main sentence]\n\nbecause there are shorter ways of saying them with the same meaning:\n\n> I am eating a sandwich \n> I am sad \n> It is sunny today\n\nMy explanation above handles `ないです` vs. `ありません` in relation to this basic\nprinciple. This is about awkardness, appropriateness, consiceness, and\ncorrectness, but is not directly related to formality.\n\nAs for the measure of shortness, there can be several possibilities, but for\nsymplicity, I used the number of morphemes.", "comment_count": 16, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-10T12:59:56.020", "id": "2575", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-10T17:41:44.107", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2574", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "_Disclaimer: I'm neither a native speaker nor a linguist so this answer of\nmine is entirely my opinion and theory as a beginner, which may not be\nappropriate here but I wanted to share it anyway._\n\nTo me ではないです or じゃないです is like turning a negation statement into polite:\n\n> Xではない (a negation statement) + です (make it polite)\n\nWhile ではありません or じゃありません is like a polite negation of a statement:\n\n> X (a statement) + ではありません (politely negate it)\n\nI'm not sure how it actually affects the quality of politeness of the\nsentences, but my guts feeling is that ではないです is slightly less elegant than\nではありません due to the following reason: Making a plain negative statement polite\ngives off the feeling of not thinking about being polite from the beginning.\nIt is like being forced to be polite due to the circumstances, unlike politely\nnegating the statement which gives off the feeling that you are already\nthinking about being polite before being negative.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-10T13:13:55.943", "id": "2576", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-10T13:42:30.170", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-10T13:42:30.170", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2574", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I read an interesting paper on this very topic a few months ago. Let's see…ah,\nhere it is:\n\n[A Discussion of the Polite Negative Verb Forms _masen_ and _nai\ndesu_](http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/nichigen/menu7_folder/symposium/pdf/8/10.pdf)\n(PDF, Japanese)\n\nThis paper by Kayoko Tanaka was presented at the eighth annual conference on\nJapanese language education research at Nagoya University in 2010. Ms. Tanaka,\nusing sentences drawn from a survey of _spoken Japanese_ , draws the following\ncontrast:\n\n### ～ません (in spoken Japanese)\n\n>\n> 「ません」はフォーマルであるという意識【いしき】が強【つよ】く、話者【わしゃ】の強【つよ】い否定【ひてい】が現【あらわ】れやすい。また、断定【だんてい】の意味【いみ】や、言【い】い切【き】りの形【かたち】が多【おお】い。それは、丁寧【ていねい】さより否定【ひてい】の意志【いし】が強【つよ】く現【あらわ】れる（丁寧【ていねい】（ませ）＋否定【ひてい】（ん）の順序【じゅんじょ】で現【あらわ】れる）という言語【げんご】形式【けいしき】が影響【えいきょう】していると考【かんが】える。これにより、話【はな】し手【て】は聞【き】き手【て】に否定【ひてい】の機能【きのう】を強調【きょうちょう】できる。より文末【ぶんまつ】に近【ちか】い位置【いち】に来【く】る表現【ひょうげん】が強【つよ】い印象【いんしょう】を与【あた】えるとすると、「ません」は否定【ひてい】の機能【きのう】が強【つよ】い印象【いんしょう】を与【あた】えている。\n>\n> `masen` has a strong sense of formality, and often expresses the speaker's\n> firm denial. Also, it is often used to add a **sense of assertion** or in\n> **emphatic constructions**. This is thought to arise from the influence of\n> the linguistic form (where the order is polite `mase` \\+ negation `n`), in\n> which **the intent of negation appears stronger than the politeness**. From\n> this the speaker can draw the listener's attention to the negating function.\n> If we assume that expressions which appear nearer to the end of the sentence\n> leave stronger impressions, the negating function of `masen` leaves a strong\n> impression. _(emphasis mine)_\n\n### ～ないです (in spoken Japanese)\n\n>\n> 「ないです」は、口語【こうご】で多【おお】く使用【しよう】される。野田【のだ】（2004）の指摘【してき】通【どお】り、終助詞【しゅうじょし】を伴【ともな】いやすく、動詞【どうし】＋「シテイル形【けい】」と結【むす】びつきやすいという結果【こうか】を得【え】た。それは、否定【ひてい】の機能【きのう】より、丁寧【ていねい】さが強【つよ】く現【あらわ】れる（否定【ひてい】（ない）＋丁寧【ていねい】（です）の順序【じゅんじょ】で現【あらわ】れる）という言語【げんご】形式【けいしき】が影響【えいきょう】していると考【かんが】える。これにより、話【はな】し手【て】は聞【き】き手【て】に丁寧【ていねい】さを強調【きょうちょう】できる。より文末【ぶんまつ】に近【ちか】い位置【いち】に来【く】る表現【ひょうげん】が強【つよ】い印象【いんしょう】を与【あた】えるとすると、「ないです」は丁寧【ていねい】さが強【つよ】い印象【いんしょう】を与【あた】えている。また、さらに否定【ひてい】表現【ひょうげん】という話者【わしゃ】本人【ほんにん】の強【つよ】い主張【しゅちょう】を和【やわ】らげる効果【こうか】があるのではないかと考【かんが】える。\n>\n> `nai desu` is often used in spoken Japanese. As indicated by Noda (2004),\n> the effects of this construction are such that it is often used in concert\n> with sentence-ending particles, and that it is easily joined with the\n> `(verb) + shiteiru` form. This is thought to arise from the influence of the\n> linguistic form (where the order is negation `nai` \\+ polite `desu`), in\n> which **the level of politeness appears stronger than the negating\n> function**. From this the speaker can draw the listener's attention to the\n> level of politeness. If we assume that expressions which appear nearer to\n> the end of the sentence leave stronger impressions, the politeness of `nai\n> desu` leaves a stronger impression. Also, it is further thought that this\n> may have the effect of **softening the speaker's strong assertion of a\n> negative expression**. _(emphasis mine)_\n\n### So basically…\n\n～ません and ～ないです are semantically equivalent, but ～ないです is softer and less\ninsistent. If you need to give a firm denial with no wiggle room, go with\n～ません. But since this level of bluntness can be inappropriate in _some_\nsituations, ～ないです is there if you need it.\n\nAlso, this applies to every negative sentence (not just those ending in a form\nof です):\n\n> 好【す】きじゃないです／好【す】きじゃありません\n>\n> 楽【たの】しくないです／楽【たの】しくありません\n>\n> 飲【の】まないです／飲【の】みません", "comment_count": 14, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-10T15:25:36.977", "id": "2577", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-29T13:19:36.893", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2574", "post_type": "answer", "score": 75 }, { "body": "As per my Sensei (who is a native speaker of Japanese and grew up in Tokyo),\nthere is absolutely no grammatical difference between ～ないです and ～ません.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T22:36:30.597", "id": "2612", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T02:26:51.263", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-30T02:26:51.263", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "608", "parent_id": "2574", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2581", "answer_count": 4, "body": "Well, 以上 is used after a speech to indicate that the speech has been concluded\n(i.e., 'Everything before this has been said.'). 以上 is used in numbers to mean\n'or more', as in `八十%以上` (as in, 'Everything after this is included.'). If you\nwant to say, \"80% or less\", you say `八十%以下` or `八十％以外` for \"anything but 80%\".\nAre 以上 and 以上 only homonyms and homophones, or are the words somehow\nsynonymous, by definition?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-10T16:17:01.257", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2578", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:19:27.193", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:19:27.193", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "numbers", "mathematics" ], "title": "以上 vs 以上 for numbers vs words: half full/half empty?", "view_count": 770 }

[ { "body": "I thought about it a little. Maybe 以上です means, \"Everything up until now has\nbeen included,\" and, \"８０％以上\" means, \"Everything up until now has been\ndiscarded.\" So 以上 could just mean, 'Everything up until now has been {some\nverb for 'excluded'}'. You can't really say '上から', either, I think.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-10T16:19:14.140", "id": "2579", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-10T16:19:14.140", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2578", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Don't they both refer to a range measured from a point on a scale? For\nnumbers:\n\n> 80％以上 80% and every percentage above\n>\n> 80％以下 80% and every percentage below\n\nFor text:\n\n> 以上略 everything above this point has been cut out\n>\n> （文章はここから始まる） (the text starts here)\n>\n> 以下略 everything below this point has been cut out\n\nSo when you say 以上です, it's like a shortcut for saying 私が言いたいのは以上です。 (\"The\nthings I want to say are above (before) this point.\").", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-10T17:50:39.710", "id": "2580", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-10T17:50:39.710", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2578", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "In both examples, `上` means 'above'. When you are talking about something that\nalready has a scale, that naturally applies. Towards the higher end will be\n'above' and the lower end will be 'below'. In case of speach or writing, there\nis no inherent scale, so a scale has to be added. And the normal habit is\nthat, in writing, the flow goes from the top of the page to the bottom, so if\nyou refer to something previously mentioned, that corresponds to 'above'. That\nis carried over to speech.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-10T17:53:01.430", "id": "2581", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-10T17:53:01.430", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2578", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I always think of it like this. `以上` means \"more than\", so with numbers it's\nthe obvious definition as you pointed out. When meaning \"finished\" or \"that's\nall\", I like to think that it's an abbreviation of `これ以上はない` which would mean\n\"there's nothing more (than this)\". I don't know if this is true or not, but\nmaybe it would help to think of it this way.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-10T17:53:46.343", "id": "2582", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-10T17:53:46.343", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2578", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2585", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Soon I am leaving my job and I would like to leave an e-mail for future\ncorrespondence with my colleagues. How do I write in Japanese something like\n\"Please direct all your future correspondence to **my private email** \"?\n\nI could go with some simple expression like: 今からメールをemailへ書いていただけますか, but\nthere probably exist better ways to express it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T00:22:57.670", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2584", "last_activity_date": "2021-05-14T19:08:18.903", "last_edit_date": "2021-05-14T18:10:24.350", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "601", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "translation", "business-japanese" ], "title": "How to say \"Please direct all your future correspondence to email\"?", "view_count": 117351 }

[ { "body": "> 今後何かありましたら、my email のほうにメールをお願いします。", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T01:03:15.297", "id": "2585", "last_activity_date": "2021-05-14T19:08:07.343", "last_edit_date": "2021-05-14T19:08:07.343", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "601", "parent_id": "2584", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The following should suffice:\n\n> これからはこのアドレスにメールを送ってください。\n>\n> アドレス：[email protected]", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-09-05T18:20:08.430", "id": "61352", "last_activity_date": "2021-05-14T19:08:18.903", "last_edit_date": "2021-05-14T19:08:18.903", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "22594", "parent_id": "2584", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2591", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I am aware that the phrase 「おかわり」 that is used when asking for second helping\n(of meals especially) is an idiomatic expression, so its usage is understood\nas it is. But, I'm curious about the origin of this phrase because it seems to\nbe derived from 替わる / 代わる(P) / 換わる, which means \"to be exchanged/switched\".\nHow did this phrase come into the usage? Is it the case that in the past when\npeople asked for second helping, something was exchanged (bowl, chopsticks\netc)?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T03:07:44.223", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2587", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-11T04:09:16.967", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "etymology", "idioms" ], "title": "Saying 「おかわり」 when requesting second helping: what is being exchanged?", "view_count": 1739 }

[ { "body": "I always assumed it was exchanging an empty bowl/beverage for a full one.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T03:17:03.910", "id": "2588", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-11T03:17:03.910", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "440", "parent_id": "2587", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "It means 'replacement'. What is being replaced is the content, not the\ncontainer. You can use a related expression `替え` in a wide variety of\nreplacements. Mostly in Kyusyu area, when you go to a noodle shop, you can ask\nfor `替え玉`, which is (a ball of) replacement noodle that fills in your empty\nbowl still with leftover soup. `替え芯` means a replacement lead for a mechanical\npencil or replacement staples for a stapler.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T04:04:05.350", "id": "2591", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-11T04:09:16.967", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-11T04:09:16.967", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2587", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2592", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Apart from using verb-specific humble and honorific versions (e.g. 参る < 行く <\nいらっしゃる), the general method of turning a verb into humble is by using お+[verb\nstem aka 連用形]+する while the general method of turning a verb into honorific is\nby using お+[verb stem aka 連用形]+になる. For example:\n\n> Neutral: 泊まります \n> Humble: お泊まりします \n> Honorific: お泊まりになります\n\nLinguistically, how do the two constructions respectively introduce the\nhonorific and humble nuances to the verb, i.e +になる introduces honorific-ness\nwhile +する introduces humbleness? What are their origins?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T04:03:14.163", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2590", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T00:57:08.630", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T00:57:08.630", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "etymology", "honorifics" ], "title": "Usage of お+[verb stem]+する for humble form and お+[verb stem]+になる for honorific form", "view_count": 2703 }

[ { "body": "In both forms, the `お + [verb stem]` is acting like a noun. The humble form is\nanalogous to the `[verbal noun] + する` construction like `勉強する` and the `お +\n[verb stem]` in an honorific form is followed by `に` which indicates that this\npart is a noun. Verb stems often can be used as a noun, but that does not seem\nto be the case with these constructions as you cannot create the forms without\n`お`.\n\n> × 泊まりします \n> × 泊まりになります\n\nSo what `お` is doing, besides introducing politeness, is somehow enforcing\nthat `お + [verb stem]` will be handled as nominal, allowing it to be used\nwithin these constructions.\n\nAs for the honorific form, one strategy often used in Japanese is to somehow\nremove the agentivity from the person to be honorified. For example, a way to\nrefer to a person with honor is to use directional/locational demonstratives\n`こちら`, `そちら`, `あちら`, `どちら` rather than the ordinary personal pronouns `彼`,\n`彼女`. One way of honorifying the subject is to handle that subject as a place\nrather than a person:\n\n> 天皇におかれましては、... \n> 'At (the location of) the emperor, ...'\n\nWith the use of the verb `なる` 'become', the agentivity is removed; becoming\nsomething is not volitional. That is presumably the origin of this honorific\nform. The reason why removing agentivity counts as honorifying is probably\nbecause it frees the agent from responsibility occuring from the action.\n\nI have no idea why the humble form is like that.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T04:53:44.367", "id": "2592", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T01:30:17.157", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-12T01:30:17.157", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2590", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2605", "answer_count": 5, "body": "皆さんこんにちは、\n\n日本語で質問を聞かせていただきますので、ご協力ください。 回答やコメントなどは、日本語か英語、どちらの言語でも喜んで読みます。\n\nでは。 \n此間友達と喋っていて好みの話をしていた時一人が「ホラー映画やB級映画が大好き」と言うやいなや「あなた安いな〜」ともう一人が反応しました。\n\nその「安い」は、英語に「cheap」と直訳すれば同じ意味が通じるそうなので、もしかしたら英語からきた表現じゃないかと思ってきました。(その逆もありえるのですが、あんまり想像できません)。JLUの皆さん、どう思いますか？偶然に意味も言葉も合うか、または英語とかから日本語に導入された表現でしょうか？\n\n宜しくお願いします。", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T09:11:38.433", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2593", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:59:09.727", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:59:09.727", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "translation", "words", "metaphor" ], "title": "「安い」って英語からきた表現？", "view_count": 1204 }

[ { "body": "私の理解では、その「安い」は相手の予想通り **簡単に** 入り込んでしまう、信じてしまう、騙されやすいなどの意味だと思います。似たような言い方で、「あたた\n**単純** だね」とか「あなた **天然** だね」とかあると思います。\n\nあとホラー映画は他の映画よりシーンが少なく屋内で作成できるのが多いため制作費がかなり低いと言われていますので、金額が安いという意味で、安物で満足出来ているという意味もあるかもしれません。\n\nで、個人的には英語からきた表現ではないと思います。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T09:39:54.493", "id": "2594", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-11T09:59:28.167", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-11T09:59:28.167", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "2593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "日本語で答えるのはちょっと恥ずかしい…\n\nYOUの答えと同じくて、この「安い」の意味は「単純」と似ている。\n\nだから、僕が「あなた安いな〜」を英語に翻訳したら、`\"You're easy to please\"`、になると思う。略して、`\"You're\neasy\"`も大丈夫だと思う。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T10:40:10.707", "id": "2595", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-11T10:40:10.707", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "「あなた安いね」っていう表現はあまり聞いたことないですね。ひょっとすると聞きまちがいかも知れません。「分かりやすい」ならしっくりきますが、これを「やすい」と略することはないと思います。ちなみに、この時のやすいは安いではなくて「易い」です。\nもし「分かりやすい」の聞き間違いだったとすれば、ここでは「あなたの考え方や趣味が予測し易い」という意味になり、転じて「趣味のレベルが低い」というニュアンスも持ち得ます。\n\nもし本当に「安い」とだけ言ってcheapに近い意味で使っているなら、そのコミュニティで最近できた言葉なのかも。その場合は英語由来の可能性は高いのではないでしょうか。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T11:34:03.353", "id": "2597", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-11T11:34:03.353", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I agree with Enno Shioji that the use of the expression あなた安いな for “You are so\ncheap (= You are so easily satisfied)” is uncommon in Japanese. I do not think\nthat it has been used in Japanese for a long time. However, this usage\ndefinitely exists; we can see several webpages which contain this usage of 安い\n(I searched “安い人だ” in Google and chose suitable usages from the search\nresults).\n\n * [おれって安い人だなー](http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Gaius_Petronius/20110412)\n * [たかだかハワイでそう思える僕は安い人だ](http://brst.jp/?day=20110722)\n * [大臣ならともかくあと何日続くかわからない政務官で買われるとは随分安い人だ](http://kashiwataro.iza.ne.jp/blog/entry/2342830/allcmt/)\n\n(The third example above may or may not be in the same category because it may\nbe regarded as a metaphor which describes a person as a commercial product.)\n\nIt may be the case that this usage of 安い was derived from the usual meaning\n“costing little” of the word 安い by the metaphor, independently of English,\njust in the same way as the English word “cheap” acquired its “easily\nsatisfied” meaning. Or it may be the case that the expression in Japanese\noriginates from the literal translation of the English expression “You are\ncheap.” I do not know how to tell which is true.\n\n安い has a different but perhaps related usage:\n[Daijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E5%AE%89%E3%81%84&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0)\n(sense 2) lists the meaning “insignificant” with an example 安く見られる (considered\ninsignificant, underestimated), and\n[Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E5%AE%89%E3%81%8F%E8%A6%8B%E3%82%89%E3%82%8C%E3%82%8B&stype=0&dtype=0&dname=0ss)\nhas a separate entry for 安く見られる. My impression is that 安く見られたものだ (literally “I\nam considered insignificant”) is a common expression in Japanese to express\ndissatisfaction or anger of the speaker. This is similar to your example in\nthat 安い is used to describe a person, but different because your example does\nnot mean “You are insignificant.”", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T14:53:17.913", "id": "2605", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-13T13:35:48.247", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-13T13:35:48.247", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "英語も日本語もそれぞれ独立にこの使い方にたどり着いた可能性もあるから、英語に影響されたとは言いきれませんね。ただ、日本語においてはかなり現代的な使い方だと否めません。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T08:49:46.430", "id": "2725", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T08:49:46.430", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "154", "parent_id": "2593", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2601", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm wondering what does 食べやすい mean exactly? \"easily-eaten\" doesn't seem to\nmake any sense at all.. Does 食べやすい mean that something is soft and easy to\nswallow, or does it mean that something tastes nice?\n\nDoes 食べにくい mean something that is hard to bite/swallow ?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T11:51:35.400", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2598", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-11T13:24:47.090", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "vocabulary" ], "title": "食べやすい and 食べにくい", "view_count": 349 }

[ { "body": "Lukman gives a good answer in the comment. If Lukman turns it into an answer,\nI will remove this answer.\n\n`やすい`, `にくい` respectively mean 'easy to' and 'difficult to'. Reason can vary\ndepending on the context.\n\n * It may be so because it tastes good/bad\n * It may be at the right temperature or too hot/cold.\n * It may be the right/wrong size to swallow\n * It may be the right hardness or is too hard/soft\n * It may be reasonable price or expensive\n * ...", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T13:24:47.090", "id": "2601", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-11T13:24:47.090", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2598", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2602", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> **Possible Duplicate:** \n> [～うございます - keigo\n> い-adjectives](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/765/keigo-\n> adjectives)\n\nI still remember the introductory lecture of the first Japanese course I took\nin college, my sensei told the class that おはようございます does not mean \"good\nmorning\" but it is actually derived from はやいです which simply means \"it is\nearly\".\n\nSome time later, I've been told that this honorific formation of i-adjectives\nis not restricted to はやい only, but can be applied to any i-adjectives. I've\nnot been told how though.\n\nI'm assuming that for any i-adjectives that end with X-ai, they become o-X-ou:\n\n> はやい → おはよう \n> たかい → おたこう\n\nBut what about adjectives that end with -ui, -ii etc? Turning them into -ou\ndoes not sound right. For example:\n\n> さむい → おさもう? \n> たのしい → おたのしょう? \n> おおきい → おおおこう? [triple お]\n\nWhat are the rules for turning i-adjectives into honorific form? And also, are\nthis honorific still in use today and in what kind of scenarios?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T13:02:42.903", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2600", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-14T10:03:11.460", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "honorifics", "i-adjectives" ], "title": "Honorific form of i-adjectives (e.g. はやい → おはよう)", "view_count": 2420 }

[ { "body": "These forms are archaic in Tokyo except for a few fixed expressions like\n`おやようございます`, but may be observed in Kyoto. You attach `-u ございます` to the\nadjective root. The polite prefix `お` is optional. As you wondered, it is\nprobably unnatural to attach `お` for `おおきい` because of so may consecutive\n`お`s.\n\n> * [adjective root] + u gozaimasu \n> さむうございます\n>\n\nDepending on the final vowel of the adjective root, there is a sound change.\n\n> * au → ou (→ oo) \n> はようございます, たこうございます \n>\n> * iu → yuu \n> たのしゅうございます, おおきゅうございます \n>\n>", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T13:49:22.020", "id": "2602", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-11T15:24:28.780", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-11T15:24:28.780", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2600", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "There seems to be a tendency to have a heading (or emphasized text) in\nEnglish, but the body of the text in Japanese.\n\nFor example, Tokyo train stations have posters with [Saving\nElectricity](http://urbanbrat.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/2011%E5%B9%B406%E6%9C%8830%E6%97%A5-at-\nthe-train-station/) in English, and the body in Japanese, and [this anti-\ngroping poster](https://i.stack.imgur.com/A3djh.jpg) only has \"NO\" in English\n(which would only make sense if it's adding emphasis rather than informing an\nEnglish-only reader), and [this is an apparent\nexample](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tCZGW.jpg) of English being used as a\nheading or for emphasis.\n\nAssuming that the English isn't for the benefit of foreigners, is there a term\n(either Japanese or English) for such English text?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T14:03:45.433", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2603", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T06:57:06.607", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "terminology" ], "title": "Term for English heading and Japanese body", "view_count": 228 }

[ { "body": "I think there are three variants of this. 1. Translation or summary for the\nbenefit of foreigners. 2. \"Copy\" which is there just to make things look\npretty. 3. Words that pretty much became part of Japanese and are used as part\nof the Japanese text (words like no, yes, on, off, hello, world etc.).\n\nIn the second category, you have 2 sub categories IMO. a) text for the looks,\ni.e. lorem ipsum, b) text that is still intended to be read and understand,\nand the writer decided to use English for artistic reason.\n\n2-a would be called 文字柄, and 2-b would be コピー or 英語のコピー. Maybe the design\nindustry has a jargon for this, but I've never heard one before and don't\nthink there is a word that is commonly used among the general population.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T06:57:06.607", "id": "2618", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T06:57:06.607", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2603", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2611", "answer_count": 1, "body": "皆さんこんにちは、 日本語で質問がお聞きしてみたいのですが、言葉や文法を間違えたらお許しください。\n\nでは、「かしこまりました」とは誰かに命令や注文を頼まれた場合などの返事とすることもよくありますが、「かしこまる」と言う自動詞がこの表現以外で使われる場合はありますか？\n\n\"kashikomarimashita\" is usually used as a response to somebody's order or\nrequest, but are there places where the verb \"kashikomaru\" is used other than\nin this expression?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T14:41:17.203", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2604", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-19T04:58:33.303", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "verbs", "set-phrases" ], "title": "「かしこまる」と言う自動詞について / About the verb \"kashikomaru\"", "view_count": 863 }

[ { "body": "Yes. かしこまる\n([Daijirin](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E3%81%8B%E3%81%97%E3%81%93%E3%81%BE%E3%82%8B&match=beginswith&itemid=DJR_kasikomaru_-010),\n[Daijisen](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/40482/m0u/%E3%81%8B%E3%81%97%E3%81%93%E3%81%BE%E3%82%8B/))\nhas three usages which are commonly seen. The examples below are from\nDaijisen:\n\n 1. To behave humbly to show the respect to the other party. Ex. かしこまってあいさつする。\n 2. To sit up straight in the [正座](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seiza) style. Ex. かしこまっていないで、ひざをお崩しなさい。\n 3. (As you wrote in the question,) かしこまりました is a humble expression used when the speaker accepts a request from an honorified person.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T16:34:49.270", "id": "2611", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-19T04:58:33.303", "last_edit_date": "2014-12-19T04:58:33.303", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2604", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2616", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider the two sentences below:\n\n> (1) 私の **`ほう`** が田中さん **`より`** よく飲む。(I drink more than Mr. Tanaka.)\n>\n> (2) 私はビール **`より`** 酒の **`ほう`** をよく飲む。(I drink more sake than beer.)\n\nI think the pattern for the second one is a reverse of the first to put the\ndirect object in closer proximity to the verb so the sentence feels smoother.\n\nEDIT: By \"reverse\" I meant \"reverse of each other\" as opposed to \"reverse of\nthe \"correct\" construction\". And I also learned that ほう precedes より by default\nin sentences involving comparison except when there is a direct object marked\nby を. (I may be wrong so please don't hesitate to correct me)\n\n**(Question)** But if it is not a direct object, does it have any difference\nin meaning or nuance?\n\ni.e. Instead of (1), I change the sentence to:\n\n> (1') 田中さん **より** 私の **ほう** がよく飲む。", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T15:49:17.813", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2606", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T04:19:36.527", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "nuances", "meaning", "clause-pattern" ], "title": "Reversing the clause pattern \"～ほう～より\"", "view_count": 336 }

[ { "body": "Depending on whether you put の方 or より before, you emphasise on one or the\nother. It's natural to say first the most important thing, so:\n\nIn (1) you are the topic of the sentence, _you_ are the one who drinks most.\n\nIn (1') Tanaka is the topic. As far as Kobayashi is concerned, no one knows.\nBut at least for now, what's important is that Tanaka drinks less than you,\nand that's why you said より first.\n\nIn (2), it's often natural (in Japanese) to have your object not too far from\nyour verb. So you start by saying you're comparing (より), and then you have \"I\ndrink\" + near object \"sake\". By creating a (2'), you could have a nuance too\n(as above), but I think that this order in (2) is the most natural for proper\ncommunication.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T04:19:36.527", "id": "2616", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T04:19:36.527", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2606", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2614", "answer_count": 1, "body": "**(Question 1)**\n\nAre there any differences in nuance and usage of conjunctive form of verb\n(連用形) + をする compared to the plain form of [those verbs whose conjunctive forms\ncan be used as nouns](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2513/is-it-\ntrue-that-all-verbs-have-a-corresponding-noun-form)?\n\nFor example:\n\n 1. 間違える vs 間違えをする\n\n 2. 考える vs 考えをする\n\n 3. 逃げる vs 逃げをする\n\n**(Question 2)**\n\nDoes (連用形) + をする follow the plain form in term of transitive or intransitive?\nE.g 逃げる is intransitive; is 逃げをする intransitive too?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T02:45:03.803", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2613", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T03:33:43.037", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "verbs", "conjugations", "nuances" ], "title": "Plain verbs vs [conjunctive form 連用形]+をする (e.g. 間違える vs 間違えをする)", "view_count": 939 }

[ { "body": "**Q_1** I find those forms very unnatural, and even though some seem to be\nsomehow used, it might be a mistake…\n\n間違え as a name has no occurrence in ALC, so I find this name suspicious.\n\n考え as a name is quite common. I found many occurrences preceded by a な-adj,\nlike \"否定的な考えをする\", and also expressions \"そんな時には、ヘタに考えをするよりも\" and\n\"というような考えをする人\".\n\nFor 逃げ, it's mostly compound nouns: 売り逃げ、 勝ち逃げ、 飲み逃げ, where there seems to be\nno related existing compound verb.\n\nI remark that 間違え is the only of those which comes from a verb that has an\nintransitive version too, and which seems not to be correct as a noun. This\nmight be an important point in the validity of the derivation of a noun.\n\nAs for the nuance, I'd say there's one as in English, when you say something\nlike \"to escape\" and \"to do a (daring) escape\". Making a noun from the verb by\nusing its radix allows you to give a finer description by using adjectives,\nwithout the grammatically heavy use of \"こと/もの\".\n\nAlso, there's a nuance between \"he did an audacious tentative of escape\n(noun)\" and \"he audaciously attempted to escape (verb)\", which may be renderer\nsimilarly as you suggest.\n\n**Q_2**\n\nI don't understand very well your question. 連用形 becomes a noun, and it is the\nobject complement of transitive verb する, whose subject is marked by が。 逃げをする\ncould not be transitive. What would be its object?", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T03:33:43.037", "id": "2614", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T03:33:43.037", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2613", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2617", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I came across the sentence `混乱する気持ちもよーくわかる` in my manga. I have translated it,\nbut the use of the dash (which was vertical in the actual vertical text)\nstumped me for a bit (I thought it was よう at first, not よお). I was under the\nimpression that a dash like that is only used in katakana, and in hirigana\nthey use the character of the sound they want to extend. But that's not the\ncase here.\n\nSo what does it mean when this happens? Is is a special case or exception, or\nis there some rule?\n\nBy the way, I ended up with `よーくわかる` all together meaning \"I know you...\"\n(thanks, Google Translate, for being more useful than a dictionary for once),\nwhich seems to be right in this context (In this case, \"I know you're feeling\nconfused\"). That's why I think it might be a special case. (Searching よお on\nit's own ended up with \"trouble brought on by sins of forebears\"...)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-11T22:13:13.847", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2615", "last_activity_date": "2021-05-07T10:58:53.817", "last_edit_date": "2017-02-15T16:03:00.637", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "452", "post_type": "question", "score": 30, "tags": [ "kana", "punctuation", "long-vowels" ], "title": "What does the use of a dash (instead of a character) to extend a sound mean?", "view_count": 92888 }

[ { "body": "In Katakana, we use ー for some long vowels indeed. But words with it, like ユーロ\nare spelt this way!\n\nHowever, in your case, there is no such word よーく、 ようく nor よおく. What this dash\nmeans is that the _sound_ is lengthened. The word is just \"よく\". So, when the\nauthor wrote \"よーくわかる\" he meant \"I reaaaaally understand\".\n\nThat's it!", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T04:23:55.663", "id": "2617", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T04:23:55.663", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2615", "post_type": "answer", "score": 46 }, { "body": "I understand, In Japanese, the long dash (ー) means the sound is lengthened,\njust as Axioplase said. Like this:\n\nbiiru \nビール (beer)\n\nkeeki \nケーキ (cake) \nSometimes, when writing in Romaji, (the English style of writing Japanese),\nthe 'dash' is substituted with the letter and a small line over it. Like this:\n\nKēki\n\nBīru", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-05-24T11:16:41.373", "id": "24497", "last_activity_date": "2017-01-02T17:51:35.747", "last_edit_date": "2017-01-02T17:51:35.747", "last_editor_user_id": "9841", "owner_user_id": "10166", "parent_id": "2615", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Japanese call cellphones Kei Tai Denwa (literally portable phone) but they\ndon't use the kanji for keitai 携帯, they don't use the hiragana, けいたい, they use\nkatakana ケータイ, which uses a hyphen when clearly it should use ケイタイ.\n\nIt just makes it look cool and international to use it like that.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-02-28T02:08:13.803", "id": "65752", "last_activity_date": "2019-02-28T12:01:16.317", "last_edit_date": "2019-02-28T12:01:16.317", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "33115", "parent_id": "2615", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2621", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Both 間 {あいだ} and 内 {うち} can be used to describe time span relative to specific\nsituations, similar to \"while\" in English. But are they interchangeable all\nthe time? Are there any scenarios where one can use one of them but not the\nother? Are there differences in nuances?\n\nExample sentences of my own (I'm not sure if they are correct or not so if\nthey sound wrong please point out why):\n\n> 先生が見てない間に逃げよう\n>\n> 先生が見てない内に逃げよう", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T08:13:34.730", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2620", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-04T16:41:43.860", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "nuances" ], "title": "When describing time span, are 間 {あいだ} and 内 {うち} interchangeable?", "view_count": 5339 }

[ { "body": "**Edited to replace the word \"measure\" with a better concept.**\n\n`間` refers to the time space between two points; speaker feels he has the\nability to determine a start and end point at the moment of making the\nstatement. (間 has explicit time boundary)\n\n`内` however refers to \"time space within\"; for when it is difficult for the\nspeaker to determine a start and end point. It refers to the general time\nduring which an event/state is occuring. (No explicit time boundary for 内)\n\nThat is why it seems strange to say (though not totally unacceptable)[1]:\n\n> 雨が降らない間にテニスをする。\n\nBut is okay to say:\n\n> 雨が降らない内にテニスをする。\n\nBecause one cannot assess the start and end point of the duration within \"not\nrain\"\n\n* * *\n\nIn your example `先生が見てない(間に/内に)逃げよう`, the time during \"teacher is not looking\"\nisn't a predictable or planned event (No explicit time boundary). Therefore\n`内に` would be more appropriate for your example sentence.\n\n* * *\n\n**Edited** : To try to explain the apparent contradiction with Tsuyoshi's\nexample using `晴れている`:\n\n> 晴れている［○間に］［○うちに］作業を終わらせよう。\n>\n> Versus,\n>\n> 雨が降らない［×間に］［○うちに］作業を終わらせよう。\n\nIt should have something to do with the speaker's expectation of future\ncircumstances:\n\nThe speaker takes the default standpoint of \"clear weather\" as a default\nweather.\n\nWe normally do not worry \"when the duration of `[clear weather]` ends\". But\nrather we would think in the manner of \"when does `[other weather]` begin?\".\nIt becomes unimportant to assess a start and end point for a default\nstandpoint. Since it's a default standpoint, both 間 and 内 can be used and will\nnot sound unnatural or not smooth.\n\nFor `[other weather]` there is a start and end point, but the speaker expects\n`[other weather]` (e.g. rainy) to behave in a way that he cannot determine a\nstart and end point for it.\n\n* * *\n\nNow for the case of `\"teacher is not looking\"`, the speaker takes the default\nstandpoint of `\"teacher is always paying attention\"` because that is how he\nwould expect the teacher to behave. The alternative: duration of `\"teacher is\nnot looking\"` becomes hard for the speaker to determine a start and end point.\n\n* * *\n\nReferences:\n\n * [1] Makino, S., & Tsutsui, M. (2010). _A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar_. pg. 512-515 entry for _uchi ni_", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T08:46:51.317", "id": "2621", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-04T16:41:43.860", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-04T16:41:43.860", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2620", "post_type": "answer", "score": 23 }, { "body": "In the example you give and similar constructions, I think they are pretty\nmuch interchangeable.\n\nI however found some interesting Q&A on a\n[bbs](http://nihon5ch.net/contents/bbs-study/old/mie-bbs.cgi?s=128):\n\n * 若い［×間に］［○うちに］いろいろなことを経験したい。\n * 忘れない［×間に］［○うちに］メモしておこう。\n * 全部見終わらない［×間に］［○うちに］出て行ってしまった。\n * つきあっている［○間に］［○うちに］好きになってきた。\n\nThe conclusion of this link is 間 is a span of time between two points, 内 is\nthe \"inside\" of a \"time frontier\". 内 seems thus used with a change of state\n(with the frontier distinguishing the two states), until that change happens.\n\n[Chie](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1320719978)\nsuggests a chance in 内 that isn't implied in 間。\n\n * 子供が寝ているうちに電話する (now or never!)\n * 東京に旅行しているうちにいろんなところへショッピングに行く (I may not be able to do that much shopping before a while!)\n\nHope that helps!", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T08:48:51.930", "id": "2622", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T08:48:51.930", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2620", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "I do not fully understand the difference between 間に and うちに and the following\nis based on my impression, but let me write it in the hope that it may help in\nsome way.\n\nThe difference is subtle. I think that both your examples work, and neither of\nthem hits me as odd.\n\nLet me focus on the case where the duration is of the form ～ない. _I think_ that\nin this case, うちに is usually more natural than 間に. The following examples by\nOyanagi on the [page](http://nihon5ch.net/contents/bbs-study/old/mie-\nbbs.cgi?s=128) which Axioplase linked to are very interesting:\n\n> （６）晴れている［○間に］［○うちに］作業を終わらせよう。 \n> （７）雨が降らない［×間に］［○うちに］作業を終わらせよう。\n\nI do not agree with Oyanagi that 雨が降らない間に is completely incorrect, but I share\nthe feeling that it is less natural than the other three combinations.\n\nBut _I think_ that this tendency is weakened when the duration is of the form\n～ていない (or its colloquial contraction ～てない, as in your example).\n\nAlso, 知らないうちに and 知らない間に both sound correct and natural to me, and I know that\nI am contradicting myself. That is why I cannot write anything definite here.\n\n(By the way, 間に is sometimes read as まに instead of あいだに, for example in 知らぬ間に\nand the idiom\n[鬼の居ぬ間に洗濯](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E9%AC%BC%E3%81%AE%E5%B1%85%E3%81%AC%E9%96%93%E3%81%AB%E6%B4%97%E6%BF%AF&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0),\nbut I ignored the reading まに for the purpose of this answer because the\ndifference between あいだに and うちに seems already complicated.)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T19:25:11.017", "id": "2624", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-12T19:25:11.017", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2620", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2643", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Explain the differences in the following vocabulary. They all essentially mean\nsome form of investigation, inspection, etc. Please don't just write the\ndefinitions; I'm lost on how they differ, when to use one over others, what\nthey apply to, and so on. After much study, a lot of them still seem to\noverlap in my mind (and maybe they do). Here they are. Good luck!\n\n 1. 監査【かんさ】\n 2. 鑑査【かんさ】\n 3. 検査【けんさ】\n 4. 検討【けんとう】\n 5. 審査【しんさ】\n 6. 捜査【そうさ】\n 7. 探査【たんさ】\n 8. 調査【ちょうさ】\n 9. 査察【ささつ】\n 10. 視察【しさつ】\n 11. 監察【かんさつ】", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-12T23:18:02.213", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2625", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T07:21:28.397", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "usage", "vocabulary", "nuances", "synonyms" ], "title": "Fun with synonyms - \"evaluation/investigation/etc.\"", "view_count": 213 }

[ { "body": "Here are a few I can tell without hesitation. I'd see ALC to get example\nsentences for the others…\n\n 1. 検査【けんさ】 -> The nuclear safety agency _inspected_ the people from Fukusima as well as their luggage.\n 2. 検討【けんとう】 -> We _consider_ adding another wheel to our latest unicycle.\n 3. 審査【しんさ】-> The pre-doctoral _examination_ will be held in December\n 4. 探査【たんさ】\n 5. 調査【ちょうさ】 -> There has been a _poll_ to see how many people liked nattô on toasts.\n 6. 監察【かんさつ】-> We _observed_ a color change when adding marmelade to coke.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T07:21:28.397", "id": "2643", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T07:21:28.397", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2625", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2627", "answer_count": 1, "body": "My friend recently said to me:\n\n> 眠くなってきた 【ねむくなってきた】\n\nWhich, I think means \"I became sleepy\".\n\nBut it seems to me that it is the same as saying:\n\n> 眠くなった\n\nHow does the addition of `きた` change this phrase?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-13T04:17:41.220", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2626", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-13T05:40:53.963", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-13T05:32:46.517", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "grammar" ], "title": "なった versus なってきた", "view_count": 4034 }

[ { "body": "phirru's comment is almost correct: Addition of `くる` in this case means that\nit happened gradually. It also means that it might not yet be complete.\nHowever, the one without `くる` does not necessarily mean suddenly. It just does\nnot mention the process. It may or may not have happened suddenly. `いく` can be\nused with similar meaning, but the perspective will be different.\n\n> 眠くなってきた \n> 'I am becoming sleepy.' \n> 'I have (gradually) become sleepy.'\n>\n> 眠くなった \n> 'I became sleepy.'", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-13T05:35:27.423", "id": "2627", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-13T05:40:53.963", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2626", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2629", "answer_count": 2, "body": "WWWJDIC states that 「だらしない」 can be written with kanji as 「だらし無い」, which\nsuggests that the phrase is a negative construction that uses 「無い」, unlike\nwords like 「すくない」 and 「あぶない」. Furthermore, 「だらしが無い」 and 「だらしの無い」 are listed as\nthe other two variants of the phrase, which imply that the phrase is using\n「だらし」 as a noun, instead of being derived from the negative of non-existent\nverb 「だらしる」. However there is no dictionary entry on 「だらし」 other than as\n\"dalasi\", the currency of the country of Gambia, and \"だらしない\" variants.\n\nSo, what exactly is 「だらし」? Or was there a verb 「だらしる」 which is now extinct?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-13T16:43:53.693", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2628", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-28T21:45:30.253", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-28T21:45:30.253", "last_editor_user_id": "1454", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "kanji", "etymology", "set-phrases" ], "title": "What exactly is 「だらし」?", "view_count": 555 }

[ { "body": "Interesting question. The 日本国語大辞典 says that だらしない appears to be an inversion\nof しだらない, quite possibly a self-conscious thing like せるき for きせる (the Edo-\nperiod book Ukiyoburo explicitly claims this).\n\nThe roots of しだらない are murkier. しだら has negative connotations on its own, and\nmay come from Buddhist jargon, the mimetic しどろ, or somewhere else. But if しだら\nis negative on its own, then the ない is probably the adjective suffix ない, like\nin 汚い etc., not the negative 無い.\n\nSo: etymologically, there is no such thing as a だらし. しだらない became だらしない, and\nthis was then reanalyzed as だらし + ない. So a phrase like だらしがない is sort of like\n\"Are you _being have_?\" in English: a later reanalysis of a word that didn't\noriginally break down that way.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-13T20:32:30.983", "id": "2629", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-13T20:32:30.983", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2628", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "As for `だらし`, it seems like Matt gives a good answer. As far as you look the\nsyntax in present Japanese, `だらし` is a noun (perhaps as a result of reanalysis\nas Matt notes). Once you accept the reanalysis, the underlying form of this\nphrase will be `だらしがない`. It is not uncommon in general that the particle `が`\nis omitted, and `だらしない` will be reanalyzed as the result of this. It is also a\ngeneral fact that, in relative clauses or appositive clauses, the `が` can be\noptionally replaced by `の`, so `だらしのない人` is just an example of this general\nfact.\n\nLikewise, `だらし` is not a verb, and there is no such form as `だらしる`.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-13T20:32:50.157", "id": "2630", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T00:08:17.363", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-14T00:08:17.363", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2628", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2635", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I always know that 歩く is the verb to use when talking about walking. But I'm\naware the kanji 歩 has another verb 歩む. In WWWJDIC, the example sentence given\nis:\n\n> ビルはあの会社の社長になるまで成功への道を歩み続けた。 \n> Bill climbed the ladder of success until he became the president of the\n> company.\n\nThere is also this one line from the lyrics of the song 「未来へ」 by KIRORO:\n\n> これがあなたの歩む道。\n\nIt seems to me from these usage examples that 歩む is better suited to refer to\nthe abstract type of walking, like walking down the path of life, while 歩く is\nused when referring to the actual act of walking on foot. Is this always true?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-13T22:33:00.697", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2631", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-10T10:38:34.770", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-10T10:38:34.770", "last_editor_user_id": "37", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "verbs" ], "title": "歩{ある}く vs 歩{あゆ}む", "view_count": 3279 }

[ { "body": "Let's look at what the dictionaries say.\n[Daijirin](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E6%AD%A9%E3%82%80&match=beginswith&itemid=00591000):\n\n> **あゆむ** 【歩む】\n>\n> (1)あるく。 「本道を―・む」\n>\n> (2)経て来る。経験する。過ごす。 「父の―・んだ人生」\n\nThis seems to support your hypothesis that 歩む has a more abstract meaning.\n[But](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E6%AD%A9%E3%81%8F&match=beginswith&itemid=00661200):\n\n> **あるく** 【歩く】\n>\n> (1)人や動物が普通の足どりで、体を前方に移動させる。歩行する。あゆむ。 「駅まで―・く」\n>\n> (2)徒歩や乗り物で行く。 「世界の各地を―・く」\n>\n> (3)経過する。進む。生きる。 「まじめに人生を―・く」\n>\n> (4)野球で、打者が四死球などで一塁に行く。\n>\n> (5)（多く、他の動詞の下に付けて）…してまわる。 「製品を売り―・く」「孫の自慢をして―・く」\n>\n> 〔上代、歩行の意味では「あゆむ」が使われ、「あるく」は主に移動する意に用いられた〕\n\nSense (3) is very similar to sense (2) of 歩む above. And the footnote says that\n_formerly_ , 歩む was used to mean walking on foot, while 歩く was used to mean\nmovement! But the situation is reversed now, I think. Indeed, the\n[thesaurus](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/thsrs/1303/m0u/%E3%81%82%E3%82%86%E3%82%80/)\nsupports this view:\n\n> [使い分け]\n>\n> 【１】「歩く」は、足を使って前に進む意。具体的な動作を表わす。\n>\n> 【２】「歩む」は、物事が進行する意。具体的な動作を表わすよりは、抽象的な意味で用いられるのが普通。\n\nThere's also a nice table comparing possible usages.\n\nBeing more speculative now, I think the role reversal is simply due to 歩む\nbecoming more rarely used. To me it has a somewhat literary or poetic flavour.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T00:57:32.987", "id": "2635", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T00:57:32.987", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2631", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2642", "answer_count": 3, "body": "1. What's the difference between 言わないでほしい and 言ってほしくない ?\n\n 2. If the intended message is \"I don't want you to say it\" which of the two above would be more suitable?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-13T23:23:22.347", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2632", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:57:55.983", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:57:55.983", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "conjugations", "て-form", "negation" ], "title": "What's the difference between 言わないでほしい and 言ってほしくない", "view_count": 1610 }

[ { "body": "This is a question of whether the predicate presupposes the excluded middle.\nIn principle, there should be three possibilities:\n\n> 1. I want [the proposition] to happen \n>\n> 2. I want [the proposition] to not happen \n>\n> 3. I do not have particular preference for whether [the proposition] to\n> happen or not\n>\n\nWhen the three possibilities exist, the sentence negation of 1 should mean\neither 2 or 3. When there is a presupposition that 3 is excluded from the\npossibilities, then the negation of 1 would mean 2, which is the negation of\nthe proposition. In that case, negating 1 is usually preferred over using 2.\nWIth English `think`, there is such presupposition, so the negation of the\ncounterpart to 1:\n\n> I do not think that he will say it\n\nmeans the same as\n\n> × I think that he will not say it\n\nand the former is considered the correct form. With English `want`, it may be\ndebatable. My intuition with Japanese `ほしい` is that, both forms are correct,\nand that there is no such presupposition, which means that `言ってほしくない` leaves\nthe possibility of 3 but `言わないでほしい` does not.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-13T23:57:41.853", "id": "2633", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-13T23:57:41.853", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2632", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I can think of one situation where you use 言わないでほしい instead of 言ってほしくない, when\nyou use the phrase as a request:\n\n> Please don't tell anyone about this matter. \n> ○ このことを誰にも言わないでほしい。 \n> ？ このことを誰にも言ってほしくない。\n\nThe first sentence above is a common way to say \"please don't\" and is parallel\nto 「言わないでください」 while if the second sentence is used as a request it would\nsound indirect like \"I don't want this told to anyone.\" It sounds like a\nstatement but you can imagine what's being implied if it is said straight on\nyour face.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-13T23:58:46.187", "id": "2634", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-13T23:58:46.187", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2632", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "You can use these sentences in two ways. One is to use it as in \"I don't want\nyou to say x (literary)\". Another is to use it as in \"I resent what you\nalready said\".\n\nSo, what's the difference? In the first case, 言わないでほしい is an explicit request.\n言ってほしくない merely states that you _don't want_ the other guy to tell anybody,\nand the request is only implied. As a consequence, the latter is softer, as it\nwould be in English.\n\nIn the second case, 言わないでほしい focuses on the fact that _you_ don't like to hear\nx. Hence it is possible to use this expression when you think the speaker is\nsaying something legitimate, but _you_ just don't want to be told that for\npersonal reason etc.\n\nFor example, you may say わかってるから言わないで when you are told something that you\nknow you can't defend, but nevertheless want the other person to stop saying\nit. [Here](http://wizco.jp/president/2011/03/post-646.html) is an example of\nthis usage. The author doesn't disapprove the motivation itself, but he is\nexplaining that one should not say 頑張って. Note however that you _can_ use\n言わないでほしい to express disapproval/disagreement. It's just that you can also use\nit when you don't want to.\n\n言ってほしくない is much less suitable in this situation because it implies that you\nbelieve the speaker is saying something unjustifiable in your opinion. For\nexample, if you'd say わかってるから言ってほしくない, the listener will sense a frustration\nor disagreement, and that he/she doesn't really mean わかってる. More natural use\nof 言ってほしくない can be seen\n[here](http://iwama.books.officelive.com/watakushi03.aspx). The author uses\n言ってほしくない because he pretty much disapproves the word ヤバイ itself.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T07:08:20.903", "id": "2642", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T07:14:26.323", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-14T07:14:26.323", "last_editor_user_id": "499", "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2632", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2645", "answer_count": 4, "body": "i was taught that verbs are either transitive or intransitive.\n\nbut what kind of verb is 分かる ?\n\n[WWWJDIC lists it as intransitive.](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E3%82%8F%E3%81%8B%E3%82%8B)\n\nYet the replies/comments from this thread [Why is it 日本語がわかります instead of\n日本語をわかります?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2505/why-is-it-\nnihongo-ga-wakarimasu-instead-of?newsletter=1&nlcode=6357|e104) argues that を\ncan be used with 分かる.\n\nso is 分かる both a transitive verb _and_ an intransitive verb at the same time?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T02:38:50.903", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2636", "last_activity_date": "2018-07-10T12:01:22.947", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "transitivity" ], "title": "Are there verbs that are neither intransitive nor transitive?", "view_count": 2608 }

[ { "body": "A general answer: The definition of intransitive is the negation of\ntransitive. Logically, a verb is either intransitive or transitive; there is\nno other possibility. You may say that a verb becomes either of them depending\non its usage, but a verb is never \"neither intransitive nor transitive\".\n\nIn this particular case, `を` is not allowed in the kind of construction\nmentioned in standard way of speaking. If you actually see it, then it is\neither wrong, or the speaker has a different lexical entry for the verb. These\nare called idiolect. Simply put, those people are speaking a \"different\nlanguage\". In that case, you can say that the verb in question is either\nintransitive or transitive depending on the idiolect.\n\nTo answer Lukman's question: Many transitive verbs can be used intransitively\nwith a specifically implied object. For example, Japanese `飲む` or English\n`drink` is a transitive verb:\n\n> ジュースを飲んだ。 \n> I drank juice.\n\nBut you can turn it into an intransitive verb by omitting the object and\nimplying a specific object, in this case 'alcohol':\n\n> 昨日は朝まで飲んだ。 \n> I drank overnight yesterday.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T03:21:10.717", "id": "2637", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T03:51:21.123", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-14T03:51:21.123", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2636", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "So, we have two classes of verbs, 自動詞 and 他動詞, the so-called intransitive and\ntransitive.\n\nThe problem lies in the absence of mapping between the grammatical notions in\nboth languages. I believe that you can be transitive _and_ 自動詞. The only\ndifference is that the particle used for the object will be が instead of を.\n\nFor me, the verb 分かる is a transitive 自動詞, the verb 開く is an intransitive 自動詞,\nand the verb 食べる is a transitive 他動詞. I can't think of any intransitive 他動詞.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T07:05:37.473", "id": "2641", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T07:05:37.473", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2636", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "> i was taught that verbs are either transitive or intransitive.\n\nThat is unfortunate, because the claim is misleading as long as Japanese is\nconcerned.\n\nUnlike English, Japanese does not have a strict distinction between transitive\nand intransitive verbs. Although some people categorize the verbs which can be\nused with ～を as transitive verbs and the other verbs as intransitive verbs, ～を\nis just one of the modifiers of a verb in the same way as ～に and ～から, and\nthese modifiers are optional.\n\n * ケーキが冷蔵庫に入っているけど、食べないでね。 There is a cake in the fridge, but do not eat it.\n * 昨日は朝まで飲んだ。 I drank overnight yesterday. (From sawa’s answer)\n\nIn these sentences, are 食べる and 飲む transitive verbs with ～を modifiers omitted,\nor intransitive verbs? I cannot see any point distinguishing these two.\n\nSo in Japanese, classifying all verbs to either transitive and intransitive\ndoes not have much use.\n\nWhat is useful is the transitive-intransitive correspondence such as 動かす and\n動く. Note that even in this case, 動かす can be used without an ～を modifier.\n\nわかる usually takes ～が when specifying what is understood, but ～を is also used\nin some contexts, as stated in the page which you linked to. One can describe\nthis as “わかる is usually used as an intransitive verb, but can sometimes also\nbe used as a transitive verb,” but I do not think that this explanation makes\nthe situation any easier to understand.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T12:24:08.550", "id": "2645", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T19:08:14.190", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-14T19:08:14.190", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2636", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "The following analysis is a paraphrase of the discussion in \"Japanese: A\nlinguistic introduction\", Hasegawa, 2015\n\nOne can consider three classes of predicates when it comes to transitivity.\nOne class is verbs that come in clear transitive / intransitive pairs:\n\nミドリが扉を開けた。 midori opened the door.\n\n扉が開いた。 the door opened.\n\nin these pairs, the patient (the noun that something happens to) is marked by\nを with the transitive verb, (it is marked as the object of the sentence), and\nが with the intransitive verb, (it is marked as the subject of the sentence).\nThis is the vast majority of Japanese verbs. Note that even if the が marked NP\nis omitted from a sentence containing a transitive verb it is still understood\nto be there.\n\nビールを飲んだ。 X drank the beer. / NOT: the beer was drunk.\n\nThere is also a small class of verbs that, like most english verbs, can be\nused transitively or intransitively:\n\nミドリが扉を開いた。 midori opened the door.\n\n扉が開いた。 the door opened.\n\n(note this verb is not aku /akeru, but hiraku and is in the same form in both\nthe above sentences)\n\nThe third situation (the one that 分かる) falls under, is the situation of low\ntransitivity. This is the situation in which the patient is not really\naffected by the action (the analysis is more complicated than that, they list\n10 things that affect transitivity, but thats the main thing). So the answer\nto your question is that different Japanese linguists have analyzed the\nsituations differently.\n\nOne camp says that が absolutely marks the subject of any sentence so a\nsentence like:\n\n日本語が分かる。 = Japanese (subject) is understandable.\n\nThis analysis is compelling because it keeps the particle usage consistent (が\nmarks subject). But that would mean that 分かる would behave like an intransitive\nverb (not taking an object in its normal usage). But the problem with this is\nas you have noted, there are times that 分かる does take を, and additionally,\nmost people's perception is that \"to understand\" is a transitive action, i.e.\nThere is an \"agent\" \"understanding\" something.\n\nOthers (most notably Kuno \"The structure of the Japanese Language\", 1973) have\nargued that in \"日本語が分かる\", が marks the direct object. He goes on to argue that\na certain class of predicates (sensory perception, want-to-do verbs, can-do-\nverbs) can mark their object with が instead of を. This interpretation analyzes\n分かる as a transitive verb, but one that has a non-standard particle usage\n(marking it's object with が). The advantage of this analysis is that it\nmaintains our perception of the transitivity of \"to understand\", it also\naccounts for the ability of the verb to mark it's object in the \"normal\" way\nin addition to が.\n\nBoth analyses have their advantages and disadvantages.\n\nHasegawa argues that the core issue is the perceived (by the speaker)\ntransitivity of these verbs. The lower the transitivity, the more likely their\n\"object\" (in the Kuno analysis) is to be marked by が.\n\nAs an example she offers the following:\n\nわたしは ビール が/を 飲みたい。 I want to drink beer.\n\nわたしは 部長 が/を 殺したい。 I want to kill (my) section chief.\n\nShe says that most native speakers would prefer が in the first case, but in\nthe case of a very highly transitive verb (to kill), the preference for を\nmarking increases and that most native speakers would prefer を in the second\nsentence.\n\nIt is important to note though that what is going on here is that there are\nsome verbs (sensory perception, want to, can do, to say, to meet) that don't\nfit neatly into the transitive/intransitive framework. All these verbs share\nthe characteristic of being \"low transitivity\".\n\nWhat is absolutely not true, though, is the notion that transitivity is not a\nsemantic feature of Japanese. The transitive / intransitive distinction is\ntaught in 国語文法 (the school grammar that Japanese kids are taught).\nAdditionally, Old Japanese is analyzed as having transitivity (and\ntransitivity reversing) morphemes as part of the verb structure (that is why\nthe transitive/intransitive pairs follow patterns). And those transitivity\ndistinctions have been traced through the language to middle japanese, then\nlate, then modern, to arrive at the currently used verb forms.\n\nJapanese kids are taught about transitivity using the same trick that they\nteach english speaking kids. \"can you ask the question 何を?\".\n\nEven with pro-drop, if some one says:\n\nわたしは 飲みました。\n\nyou can ask:\n\n何を飲みました？。\n\nnot stating objects doesn't change the valence of the verb. It is still\nunderstood to have an object (i.e. you can ask about it).\n\nBy the same token the sentence:\n\n何を開いた？\n\nwould be rejected by native speakers as being ungrammatical.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-07-10T10:56:33.070", "id": "59999", "last_activity_date": "2018-07-10T12:01:22.947", "last_edit_date": "2018-07-10T12:01:22.947", "last_editor_user_id": "30558", "owner_user_id": "30558", "parent_id": "2636", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2640", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I noticed that verb ending syllables cover all of -u syllables (る,く,ぐ,す,つ etc)\nexcept ず,づ, ふ, ぷ, しゅう, ちゅう and じゅう.\n\nI suspect that ず is reserved for the negative conjugation thus no plain form\nverb is allowed. しゅう, ちゅう and じゅう were mostly reserved for on-yomi\npronunciation, I think, so no verbs for them either.\n\nNot sure about づ.\n\nふ and ぷ is a curious case because there are verbs that end with ぶ but not the\nother two.\n\nI'm not saying that there should always be verbs that cover each of the -u\nsyllables but I'm just curious why there are no verbs that end with some of\nthem. Maybe there are some historical reasons behind the gap?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T03:29:02.493", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2638", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T07:03:47.930", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "verbs", "etymology" ], "title": "Are there verbs that end with ず,づ, ふ, ぷ, しゅう, ちゅう and じゅう? Why not?", "view_count": 2244 }

[ { "body": "I agree with Ignacio. You can also find some old words that ended with づ. I\nthink--am actually pretty sure--the chances were for pronunciation. As you\nknow, much of Japanese's pronunciation guidelines were derived from Chinese\nlanguage. Well, there are also derivatives of Korean words and original\nJapanese words, and there is thought to be some impact from other parts of the\nworld as well, such as Russia, due to the grammatical structures.\n\nAnyway, Chinese pronunciation is fine and well varied when compared to\nhiragana. People had different ways of pronouncing things. It was difficult to\nadapt the language, and the language was difficult to speak. Hiragana didn't\ncover all of the possible character pronunciations Chinese language\naccommodated. Also, Japanese language was kind of bulky, when you stack the\ninflux from multiple countries on top of the complicated grammar. Some reforms\nwere made to deal with all of these issues. The number of kanji taught to\nschool children, the pronunciation of words, the way verbs were conjugated,\nstandardization of characters, etc.--all done in Japanese language reforms.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T05:21:43.777", "id": "2639", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T05:21:43.777", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2638", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Actually, there _were_ verbs ending in some of the syllables you listed, but\nthey have changed to different forms in modern Japanese.\n\n * ず\n\nMost verbs ending in ず were サ変 verbs; they became regularised as 〜じる verbs,\ne.g. 感じる、生じる、命じる etc. Note that these examples are all derived from Chinese\nwords which originally had nasal endings. Sometimes these also show up with\nthe ending 〜ずる instead of 〜じる.\n\n * づ\n\nThere were a few verbs ending in づ, but the ones I know are all 下二段 verbs; in\nmodern Japanese they are the 一段 verbs ending in 〜でる, e.g.\n出る（←いづ）、撫でる（←なづ）、愛でる（←めづ） etc.\n\n * ふ\n\nMost of these verbs were 四段 verbs became 五段 verbs in modern Japanese. Fairly\nearly on (early 2nd millennium if I remember correctly), /f/ between vowels\nbecame /w/; of course, /wu/ simplified to /u/, and later, the diphthongs /au\niu eu ou/ shifted as well. But here history becomes a bit messy. If all the\nsound changes were regular, the verb 笑う we know today should have become\nわろう—indeed, if I'm not mistaken there is evidence that it _was_ that for a\nwhile, in the _Nippo Jisho_ (日葡辞書). Yet, with the exception of certain forms\nin western dialects (e.g. 笑うた), most of these 四段 verbs ending in ふ just became\nthe obvious 五段 verbs ending in う. This is probably due to analogical\nreformation. (However, 言う is still frequently pronounced as if it were ゆう.)\n\nA few verbs ending in ふ were 二段 verbs; these became 一段 verbs in modern\nJapanese. Examples: 変える（←かふ）、終える（←をふ）、強いる（←しふ） etc.\n\n * ぷ\n\nEven earlier on (1st millennium) in Japanese, /p/ between vowels became /f/.\nSo it's not very surprising that /p/ is rare in native vocabulary. The\nJapanese Wikipedia has some discussion about this: see\n[は行](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8F%E8%A1%8C) and\n[ハ行転呼](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8F%E8%A1%8C%E8%BB%A2%E5%91%BC).\n\n * しゅう、ちゅう、じゅう\n\nSyllables like しゃ、しゅ、しょ were not originally present in Japanese–words with\nthese sounds are either onomatopoeic, imported from foreign languages\n(including Chinese), or have undergone some sound change.\n\nAllowing for sound change, any 五段 verbs that end in しゅう、ちゅう、じゅう must have\ndeveloped from verbs ending in しふ、ちふ、じふ, but because of the analogical\nreformation I mentioned earlier, these would now be verbs ending in しう、ちう、じう.\nBut looking at the dictionary there are very few of these verbs—in fact, I can\nonly find one (癈ふ as a 四段 verb), and it's listed as an alternative for 癈ふ (as\na 上二段 verb). This is something I don't have an explanation for.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-14T06:56:20.323", "id": "2640", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-14T07:03:47.930", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-14T07:03:47.930", "last_editor_user_id": "578", "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2638", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2648", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I am wondering what the reading and meaning of 公け is in the following\nsentence: \n彼女のことが公けになることを好まず、ひそかに離縁しようと決心した。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T03:11:55.600", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2646", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T03:33:16.363", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "translation", "readings" ], "title": "What does 公け mean?", "view_count": 323 }

[ { "body": "The reading is `おおやけ`. The meaning is 'public'. In this context, the person\ndoes not want (the existence of) her / girlfriend to become public.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T03:32:47.703", "id": "2647", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T03:32:47.703", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2646", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "It is pronounced おおやけ (although I've never seen it with け as okurigana --\nusually just 公). It means \"publicly/openly\", similar to 公的 【こうてき】.\n\nThat sentence would translate as \"Not wanting it to be made publicly known to\neveryone, He/I decided to break up with her in private.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T03:33:16.363", "id": "2648", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T03:33:16.363", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2646", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I see 対応（たいおう） quite often, but I can't seem to grasp exactly what this word\nmeans or how to use it properly.\n\nChecking a dictionary I get about 5 different definitions, all quite different\nfrom one another.\n\nMy question is, what does this word actually mean and what are the most common\nways it is used? Are there any good example sentences which show the usage of\nthis word clearly?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T04:50:31.427", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2649", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-19T11:57:57.413", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "words" ], "title": "How to use 対応 correctly", "view_count": 406 }

[ { "body": "In my opinion, the notion of 対応 that you will most likely run into in the wild\nis as follows:\n\n_showing a draft of a document for example_\n\n```\n\n A: Hey, you forgot to add X thing to the document\n B: すみませんでした、今すぐ対応します。\n \n```\n\nwhich means something like, \"Sorry, I'll deal with it right away.\"\n\nI'd think that for most of the times, 対応 is something you say when you want\nsomebody to deal with a task.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T05:42:57.333", "id": "2650", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T05:42:57.333", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "79", "parent_id": "2649", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Another meaning is 'correspondence'. If each element in set _A_ has some kind\nof relation with one or more element(s) in set _B_ , then that relation can be\nconsidered a `対応` 'correspondence'. `関数` 'function' is a special case of\ncorrespondence. if each element in _A_ has relation with exactly one element\nin _B_ , then that relation is a function.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T06:12:16.177", "id": "2651", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T06:12:16.177", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2649", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2659", "answer_count": 2, "body": "1) What is the difference between 言うな！ and 言ってんじゃねぇぞ!, in other words can we\nuse them interchangeably at all times?\n\n2) which is ruder?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T07:23:22.737", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2652", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:57:31.693", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:57:31.693", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar", "negation", "nuances" ], "title": "What is the difference between 言うな！ and 言ってんじゃねぇぞ?", "view_count": 1810 }

[ { "body": "1. The answer to this question is almost always no. (Why have more than one way to say the same thing, if there really is no difference?)\n\nIn technical terms, 言うな is an imperative form, whereas 言ってんじゃねえぞ is a slightly\nindirect request, of a similar form as 行くんだ (except in the negative). There's\nalso some subtle difference between, say, 言うんじゃない and 言ってんじゃない, I think, but I\ndon't know what it is.\n\nIt is also possible that 言ってんじゃねえぞ is _not_ an order. Depending on the\ncontext, it could also be translated like ‘I'm not saying that [...], you\nknow!’ Whereas 言うな is pretty much unambiguously an order: ‘Don't say it!’\n\n 2. It's hard to say which is ‘ruder’. There are complicating factors: ぞ is emphatic, and the slurring of ない to ねえ is also characteristic of ‘rough’ speech. On the other hand, 言うな is a perfectly well-formed order, according to traditional grammar rules. The connotations are, accordingly, different. If I had to choose one way or the other, I would say 言うな, being more direct, is the ‘ruder’ one. (But see the comments below.)", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T10:26:06.663", "id": "2654", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T13:39:11.510", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-15T13:39:11.510", "last_editor_user_id": "578", "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2652", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "`言ってんじゃねぇぞ` is definitely ruder than `言うな`. The former has contractions, which\nonly happen in casual speech:\n\n> iru no → n \n> de wa → jya\n\nThe following contraction is casual, mascline, and rough:\n\n> ai → ee\n\nThe sentence final particle `ぞ` is emphatic, mascline, and rough. With all\nthese factors, the former will only be used in casual situation mainly by\nmale, usually in an insulting situation.\n\nThe latter is simply an imperative. It has no connotation about roughness. It\ncan be used as a formal order from a commander to a soldier, an advice from a\ncoach to a sport player, an instruction from a teacher to a student etc.\nwithout any nuance of insult (but still showing social rank).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T13:47:32.900", "id": "2659", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T14:12:10.097", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-15T14:12:10.097", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2652", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2657", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'm unsure of the difference between these four words. They all seem to\nindicate some type of \"condition\" or \"circumstances\".\n\n(1) Are they interchangeable? \n(2) What are some example sentences which show their differences.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T08:15:37.673", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2653", "last_activity_date": "2020-03-09T14:33:06.773", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 25, "tags": [ "word-choice" ], "title": "What is the difference between 様子、状況、状態、and 事情", "view_count": 12210 }

[ { "body": "* `状況` Situation\n\n> この状況からして、式は中止になるだろう。 \n> 'Judging from this situation, the ceremony will probably be canceled.'\n\n * `状態` State (mostly of a thing)\n\n> 散らかった状態の部屋 \n> 'room in a messy condition'\n>\n> 物質には4つの状態がある。固体、液体、気体、プラズマである。 \n> 'Mass has four states: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma.'\n\n * `様子` Condition (mostly of an animate thing)\n\n> 彼の様子がおかしい \n> 'His condition is not good/suspicious'\n\n * `事情` Circumstance\n\n> この様な事情で遅刻しました。 \n> 'I was late for such reason.'\n\nIn some cases, they are interchangable. For example, `部屋` 'room' can predicate\n`様子`. A person can predicate `状況`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T13:28:35.193", "id": "2657", "last_activity_date": "2020-03-09T14:33:06.773", "last_edit_date": "2020-03-09T14:33:06.773", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2653", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 }, { "body": "Hm. Let's try...\n\n * 様子 : Most informal, most 'soft'. Most heavily used in colloquial situations. Suitable for insignificant things (as in 焼き芋の様子はどうだ？), but also for significant things (as in 洋子の手術後の様子はどうだ？). \n\n * 状況 : A bit formal, but also frequently used in colloquial situation. Mostly used for things that can be observed externally (as opposed to a person's feelings etc.). For example, 事故の状況. If you say 洋子の手術後の状況, the listener will think of heart beat, blood pressure, breath rate, the doctor's assessment etc. If you say 洋子の手術後の様子, the listener will think of how she feels now, whether she is feeling pain etc. \n\n * 状態 : Similarly to 状況, it's used to signal objectivity. However, it can also be used for things that cannot be observed from outside like feelings. For example, if you'd say 洋子の手術後の心の状態, the speaker is indicating that he/she is making an objective observation rather than just expressing empathy. If you'd say 洋子の手術後の心の様子, there is much more empathy. Also, more formal than 様子 but is also used heavily in colloquial situation. Also mostly used for static things. 状況 or 様子 can be used for things that are changing right now, but 状態 is more suitable for static things. For example, if you'd say 株価の状況, the listener will think of the prices changing minute by minute. If you say 株価の状態, he/she will think of a more long timespan like this year, or this month. At minimum the image they get will be a more static price rather than actively changing prices. \n\n * 事情 : Mostly to talk about reasons, as in 風邪で動けなかったという事情を酌んでいただき、許しては頂けないでしょうか？ However, can also be used similarly to 状況, as in 経済事情. There is a difference between 状況 and 事情 though. If there is a report about 経済状況, the listener would think of a summary of the current situation or something. If you talk about 経済事情, it kinda sound more deep and the listener would anticipate a more deep report/analysis than 経済状況.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T13:36:30.640", "id": "2658", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T13:36:30.640", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2653", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2656", "answer_count": 2, "body": "What nuance does \"ことなく\" have?\n\nIf we compare the following two sentences:\n\n(For example, at a footrace:)\n\n最後まで、あきらめ **ないで** 走ります！ \nvs \n最後まで、あきらめる **ことなく** 、走ります！\n\nIs ことなく stronger than simply saying ないで? Does ことなく show will and volition\n**more** than the ないで version?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T10:57:19.530", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2655", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:57:12.503", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:57:12.503", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "grammar", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "The nuance of ことなく compared with ないで", "view_count": 1283 }

[ { "body": "I think both conveys the same meaning. ことなく is though a bit more formal. For\nexample, you'd be a bit surprised if a 10 year old would say ことなく, whereas ないで\nwould be very common.\n\nHowever, ことなく can be used in colloquial usage, especially if you are using 敬語.\nEven when you are talking in non 敬語, you can still use it.\n\nTo summarize, ことなく is a tiny bit more formal than ないで.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T13:09:53.403", "id": "2656", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T13:09:53.403", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2655", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "They mean the same thing, but my book says that `ことなく` shouldn't be used for\n\"everyday/habitual actions\". Ex.\n\n> × うっかりして、切手をはる **ことなく** ポストに入れてしまった。 \n> ○ うっかりして、切手をはらないでポストに入れてしまった。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T14:29:17.143", "id": "2660", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T14:29:17.143", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2655", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2664", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I can't find this in any dictionary, but it seems to mean something like\npicture. Is that right?\n\nI don't have an example sentence, because that word was the whole sentence.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T15:32:27.050", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2661", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-30T13:41:16.603", "last_edit_date": "2012-05-30T13:41:16.603", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": -2, "tags": [ "meaning", "register", "phonology", "diminutives" ], "title": "What does さちゅえい mean?", "view_count": 517 }

[ { "body": "I think it comes from 撮影【さつえい】 where つ becomes ちゅ for some reason (slang?). A\nbit like おやちゅみなさい.\n\nSeems to me that さちゅえい refers to\n[撮影会](http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E6%92%AE%E5%BD%B1%E4%BC%9A&oldid=38536575)\nevents. There are many types of 撮影会 but the main ones are for amateur\nphotographers to meet, to take a picture with a character or model, to create\npublicity with an open photoshoot, or to recruit new models. They are\ndiscussed in more detail on Wikipedia.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T20:19:44.050", "id": "2664", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T20:19:44.050", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "2661", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2663", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider this phrase:\n\n> 今は(event)二十分前です。\n\nDeconstruction of the above phrase yields:\n\n> Now is twenty minutes before (event).\n\n**(Q1)** Can I reconstruct the statement using 後 in this manner?:\n\n> 今は後で(event)に二十分がある。(I'm not sure if I used に correctly here)\n>\n> (There are twenty minutes from now to (event)).\n\n**(Q2)** Can `今は` and (event) be elided once the context is set? That is to\nsay `二十分前です` and `後二十分がある` are acceptable phrases?\n\nI think that (event) cannot be elided to form `二十分前です` and yet retain the\nmeaning. By itself the phrase would mean \"(it was) twenty minutes ago\" and\nwould be too vague to be useful to specify (event) in relation to \"now\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T15:57:32.977", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2662", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T16:17:34.463", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "word-choice", "phrase-requests", "ellipsis" ], "title": "前 or 後 when placing an event in temporal reference to \"now\"", "view_count": 171 }

[ { "body": "Notice that `は`is a topic marker, and there is often a corresponding form\nwithout the use of such particle. In this case, the correct standard form will\nbe using `から`\n\n> 今 **から** その式まで時間が後二十分ある。\n\n 1. When you topicalize a modifier (as opposed to an argument), the postposition cannot be omitted, so it has to be `今からは`, not `今は` (except when you use `今` adverbially).\n 2. The subject `時間が` is omittable. But note that `二十分` is adverbial, and does not take `が`.\n\nSo the form closer to your example is\n\n> 今からはその式まで後二十分ある。\n\nYou can elide `今からは`\n\n> 二十分前です。 \n> その式まで後二十分ある。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-15T16:17:34.463", "id": "2663", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-15T16:17:34.463", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2662", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2680", "answer_count": 2, "body": "There are several adjectives that are formed by attaching 「手」 to more common\nadjectives:\n\n * 手厳しい\n * 手堅い\n * 手早い\n * 手広い\n * 手短い\n\nBut most of the time this does not seem to change the meaning of the adjective\nvery much.\n\n * 厳しい _severe; strict; rigid_ \n手厳しい _severe; harsh_\n\n * 堅い _hard; solid_ \n手堅い _steady; firm_\n\n * 早い _fast; quick_ \n手早い _nimble; quick; agile_\n\n * 広い _spacious; vast_ \n手広い _spacious; roomy_\n\n * 短い _short_ \n手短い _short; brief_\n\nCan these adjectives be used interchangeably? What does the 手 prefix mean, and\nhow does it change the meaning of the adjective?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T05:05:47.110", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2665", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-16T23:26:52.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "28", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "word-choice", "adjectives" ], "title": "How does adding 手 to the beginning of an adjective change its meaning?", "view_count": 398 }

[ { "body": "It is an intensifier that attaches to a gradable adjective/adjectival noun.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T07:15:44.040", "id": "2669", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-16T07:15:44.040", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2665", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "To expand on sawa's answer a bit (and sawa/anyone else, do correct me if I am\nwrong about any of this; it is mostly based on observation, not hard\nresearch)...\n\nThis 手 originally conveyed a nuance of \"handling,\" \"doing,\" \"dealing with\",\netc. and only later started to take on a more general meaning. So, speaking\ngenerally, the plain adjective might have many meanings, including gross\nphysical ones, but the 手- version tends to refer to _behavior_ or at least\nsome implied \"use case.\"\n\n * 堅い = hard, solid, rigid, tough, firm, stubborn (of objects and people, physical and metaphorical) vs 手堅い = sure, firm (of behavior/attitude)\n * ぬるい = lukewarm, tepid, sluggish (of things and people, physical and metaphorical) vs てぬるい = lenient, non-harsh (of behavior/attitude)\n * 狭い = narrow, restricted (of places/viewpoints/etc., physical and metaphorical) vs 手狭 = narrow (of places, when considered in the context of some [implied] _behavior_ )\n * 短い = short (physical, metaphorical) vs 手短か = brief, concise (of a text, etc.)\n\nAnother example: in Nishiwaki Junzaburo's translation of Shakespeare's 18th\nsonnet, the \"rough windes\" that \"shake the darling buds of Maie\" are 手荒い:\n\"手荒い風は五月の蕾をふるわし...\" The winds are active, they have _behavior_. (There may be\nsome anthropomorphizing going on here too.)\n\nAs a related observation to the above, note that there are no 手 words for\nadjectives conveying purely emotional states (e.g. no 手楽しい or 手悲しい) or\ncharacteristics that are observed rather than \"received\" as behavior (e.g. no\n手美しい or 手明るい).\n\nI don't claim that this is a hard-and-fast distinction, or even a completely\nreliable rule of thumb -- and as noted the prefix did slide towards a more\ngeneral intensifying meaning -- but it might be helpful when considering how\nthese adjectives differ from their unprefixed versions.\n\nSome other observations:\n\n * 手- is not \"productive\" in Modern Japanese. That is, you can use 手- words that are already in the language, but you can't attach 手 to any adjective you like (not without thereby coining a new word, anyway).\n * 手- does not combine with Sino-Japanese words or other loanwords. There is no 手丁寧な or 手ハードな.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T23:26:52.070", "id": "2680", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-16T23:26:52.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2665", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2670", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Consider these two sentences:\n\n> (1) 母はついてくるようにアリスに合図した (Mother signaled to Alice to follow her)\n>\n> (2) 父は手で私に部屋を出ていくように **`と`** 合図した。 (Father gestured to me to go out of the\n> room)\n\nAnd another sentence which I suspect has the same use of と as (2) but I cannot\nexactly say what it does:\n\n> (3) この本は子供を対象 **`と`** した本です。(Unnatural: This book is a book that is done in\n> order for children to be targets) (Natural: This is a book for children)\n\nNow I deconstruct the use of `AをBとC` in (3) to mean \"Do verb C to achieve\nstate B in direct object A\"\n\n**(Question)** How would I understand the use of `と` in (2)? Since (1) does\nnot require `と` yet has a similar structure involving `ように`. But `XようにY` means\n\"to do Y so that X can happen\". What happens when `と` is added to the mix as\nin (2)?\n\n(Example sentences taken from WWWJDIC)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T05:54:17.443", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2666", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T16:15:10.570", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "particle-と" ], "title": "What is the function of と when it's not quoting, or doing exhaustive listing?", "view_count": 784 }

[ { "body": "The `と` in (1, 2) is the same `と` as used in quoting. It leads a subordinate\nclause. Unlike predicates like `言う` 'say', which can take direct or indirect\nquotation, predicates like `合図する` 'signal' cannot take quotation. It expresses\nan accompanied message. Without `と`, it is ambiguous. It may be a purposive\nclause or a clause expressing the accompanied message.\n\n> 母はついてくるようにアリスに合図した \n> 'Mother signaled Alice to follow her' \n> 'Mother signaled Alice so that she will follow her'\n\nWith `と`, it is unambiguously a clause expressing the accompanied message.\n\n> 母はついてくるようにとアリスに合図した \n> 'Mother signaled Alice to follow her'\n\nThe `と` in (3) is completely different. Note that the `と` in (3) is attached\nto a noun rather than a clause. In this sentence, the noun is the main\npredicate. When a noun is a predicate, it takes either `に` or `と`.\n\n**Nominal predicate**\n\n> 対象に/となる \n> 対象である [Underlyingly `にてある`] \n> 対象に/とする", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T06:49:08.650", "id": "2667", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T16:15:10.570", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-17T16:15:10.570", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2666", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Francis Drohan's _A handbook of Japanese usage_ has four whole pages on the\nusages of と, so I don't think a comprehensive answer is appropriate here. But\na few key points:\n\n * There are two kinds of と: one is a case particle (格助詞), and another is a conjunctive particle (接続助詞). In both your examples, と is being used as a case particle.\n\n * According to Drohan, there are 7 main uses for the case particle と: Listing, accompaniment, target of comparison, result of change, adverbialisation, quotation, and simile.\n\n * と in your example (2) is being used to denote quotation. ‘Father signalled to me with his hand, “get out of the room.”’\n\n * と in your example (3) is being used to denote the result of change. (In fact, Drohan gives the following example: 学生を対象とする。 It is meant for students.) The construction 〜とする here has the connotation of a decision being made: the target audience was _set_ to be students.\n\nDrohan gives some other examples of this usage:\n\n> 塵も積もれば山となる。 Many a little makes a mickle.\n>\n> 夜となく昼となく働く。 They work morning, noon and night.\n\n * However, the collocation 〜とする also has other uses, e.g. 学生として ‘as a student’, なかったとしたら ‘supposing there were none’, etc.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T07:57:28.463", "id": "2670", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-16T07:57:28.463", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2666", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2672", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm wondering whether it makes sense to say [v]ませんでしたら instead of [v]なかったら.\n\nWhen I googled for that conjugation there were very few results, but since\nthere _were_ results, I wonder if people actually use [v]ませんでしたら.\n\nFor example <http://homepage3.nifty.com/floatingbugs/fishing070216.htm>:\n\n> お名前を **聞きませんでしたら** また。。\n\n<http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1150782366>\n\n> 二回目は私達は帰りに焼肉を食べたので **食べませんでしたら** 以後作らなくなりました。\n\n<http://blog.zaq.ne.jp/lemongrass/article/707/>\n\n> いつまでもアップ **しませんでしたら** 、失敗したんやなって思っといてください。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T08:49:39.910", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2671", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T14:38:23.810", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-17T14:38:23.810", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "word-choice", "grammar", "conjugations", "negation" ], "title": "Does it make sense to say [v]ませんでしたら instead of [v]なかったら?", "view_count": 373 }

[ { "body": "First of all, the person probably intended to write\n\n> お名前を聞きませんでしたからまた\n\nwhich is still wrong. It should not be in polite form, or `ので` should be used\ninstead.\n\n> お名前を聞かなかったから \n> お名前を聞きませんでしたので", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T13:28:31.750", "id": "2672", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-16T13:28:31.750", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2671", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "I've been meaning to ask this for a while.\n\nWhat is the difference between these 3 words. I was taught they all mean\n\"why\", but obviously, being different words they convey different nuance and\nwould be used in different situations.\n\nWhat would be the difference between these 3 sentences and in what situations\nwould they be used?\n\n**なぜ** ここにいるのですか？ \n**どうして** ここにいるのですか？ \n**なんで** ここにいるのですか？", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T15:01:35.247", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2673", "last_activity_date": "2021-04-30T04:27:59.183", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 52, "tags": [ "word-choice", "grammar" ], "title": "What's the difference between なぜ、どうして and なんで when meaning 'why'?", "view_count": 35601 }

[ { "body": "From dictionary@goo:\n\n * [なぜ](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/164059/m0u/%E3%81%AA%E3%81%9C/) is for asking 理由 (reason/motive) and 原因 (cause).\n\n * [どうして](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/srch/jn/%E3%81%A9%E3%81%86%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6/m0u/) covers なぜ usage, plus 方法 (method/process). Also, there is additional usage as a strong way to refuse.\n\n * [なんで](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/srch/jn/%E3%81%AA%E3%82%93%E3%81%A7/m0u/) covers なぜ and どうして usage, including the usage as a strong way to refuse.\n\nSo I guess どうして and なんで are interchangeable while なぜ has a smaller scope than\nthe two. As for the nuance differences between どうして and なんで, my theory is by\nlooking at the literal meaning of the word, どうして focuses on \"how it is done\"\nwhile なんで focuses on \"by what means\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T15:43:30.420", "id": "2674", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-16T15:48:48.617", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-16T15:48:48.617", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2673", "post_type": "answer", "score": 26 }, { "body": "For `なぜ`:\n\n> Very very directly asks for a reason. (Which is why なぜ appears the rudest)\n>\n> For when you really intend to be direct. \"No bullshit, tell me the reason\n> now\".\n\n* * *\n\nFor `どうして`:\n\n> Deconstructing `どうして` yields `どう`(which way/manner) + `して`(Verb conjunctive\n> form of する)\n>\n> 1. どうする (Which way/manner of doing?)\n>\n> 2. どうして[X] (Which way/manner of doing did X come to be?) Which is\n> functionally equivalent to \"why\" since you indirectly ask for a cause of\n> [X]. Also functions as a \"how\" since you ask for the way/manner of doing it.\n>\n>\n\n* * *\n\nFor `何で`:\n\n> 1. 何 (What)\n>\n> 2. で (Instrumental particle)\n>\n> 3. 何で (By what means) Which is functionally equivalent to \"how\"\n>\n>\n\n* * *\n\n\"how\" is a specific concept separate from \"why\" but share some similarities:\n\n> Question: Why? - Type of Response: `Reason`, `Cause`, `Use of Method`(is a\n> subset of `Cause`)\n>\n> Question: How? - Type of Response: `Method`\n\nSimple illustration of the slight overlap:\n\n> Why does it work? - It works because this method is being used.\n>\n> How does it work? - It works through this method.\n\n* * *\n\nInterchangeability:\n\nFollowing my above assessment of `どうして` performing both functions of \"why\" and\n\"how\" and `何で` for a functionally equivalent \"how\",\n\nI would say that `何で` may be replaced with `どうして` but `どうして` may not always be\nreplaced by `何で`. (However I do not know enough about the difference in nuance\nbetween them.)\n\nNone of them does the exact same thing as `なぜ` though, `なぜ`'s nuance is its\ndirectness.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T11:36:09.843", "id": "2703", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T11:36:09.843", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2673", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "たまたま通りかかった日本人です。\n\nええっとですね皆様、気持ちよくわかります。なぜ、どうして、なんで の話。\n\n【どれを使ってもいい例】 [examples you can use them interchangeably]\nなぜそうなるの？どうしてそうなるの？なんでそうなるの？\n\n【きちんと使い分ける例】[examples where one is clearly better than others] \"being here\nsomehow lets me calm down for some reasons.\"\n\nGOOD! ここにいると、なぜか自然と気持ちが落ち着く。\n\nokay ここにいると、どうしてか自然と気持ちが落ち着く。\n\nweird ここにいると、なんでか自然と気持ちが落ち着く。\n\nまた、漢字で書くと由来が分かります。 なぜ、は、昔の「なにゆえ」という表現の現代語です。\n\nなにゆえ 何故\n\nなぜ 何故\n\nね、同じでしょ？何がwhat, 故がcause, reason,だから、まとめて for what reason,\nっていう感じ。ナニユエは古風で侍とかが言う感じ、ナゼは現代風。\n\nなんで、はちょっと口語的で、子供も使う。\n\nこども：ねーねー今日、どうぶつえんいこーよー I wanna go to the zoo today....can we? can we?\n\nおとな：今日いそがしーからだめ～！！ Naw....I'm busy today...\n\nGood! こども：なんでーなんでーなんでー why why why!!\n\nOkay こども：どうしてどうしてどうしてー\n\nweird こども：なぜなぜなぜー\n\nここが なぜー だとちょっと変。そういう言い方する子供いない。 どうしてー どうしてー は、ＯＫだけど１０さいより大きい感じ。９歳よし下の小さい子は\nなんでー", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-04-30T04:23:09.460", "id": "86393", "last_activity_date": "2021-04-30T04:27:59.183", "last_edit_date": "2021-04-30T04:27:59.183", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "14444", "parent_id": "2673", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2679", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I found quite a few website tables and software conversors, but none that was\nboth complete and authoritative. Is there any place I can find such a list in\ndigital format?\n\n拡張新字体 would be a nice bonus, but what I’m really interested is the official\nlist.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T18:14:43.450", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2676", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-20T10:24:21.547", "last_edit_date": "2014-03-10T14:04:40.970", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "622", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "kanji", "kyūjitai-and-shinjitai" ], "title": "What’s an authoritative source for a complete list of official shinjitai kanji?", "view_count": 2409 }

[ { "body": "The official list of [jōyō\nkanji](http://kokugo.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/joho/kijun/naikaku/kanji/joyokanjisakuin/)\n常用漢字 contains simplification information (e.g. 悪（惡） means \"悪, which is the\nshinjitai of 惡\").\n\nThe list of [jinmeiyō kanji](http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000058122.pdf) (PDF)\n人名用漢字 also contains some info about simplification, in the opposite format,\nbecause here the meaning is \"you can use 惡, which is the kyūjitai of 悪, in\nnames.\"\n\nThese are probably the closest to an _official_ list as you are going to get,\nif by \"official\" you mean \"formally codified by the government of Japan.\"\nThere may be websites who have rearranged the information so that it is in the\nsort of 旧字体:新字体 list you are after, but if they're privately run sites then\nthey're one step away from officialdom.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T20:38:09.313", "id": "2679", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-20T10:24:21.547", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-20T10:24:21.547", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2676", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2678", "answer_count": 1, "body": "According to\n[jisho.org](http://jisho.org/words?jap=tsukuru&eng=&dict=edict&common=on) they\nhave the same meaning. How to know which to use?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T19:32:39.063", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2677", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T22:20:53.730", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-16T20:09:15.807", "last_editor_user_id": "618", "owner_user_id": "618", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "homophonic-kanji" ], "title": "What's the difference between 作る、造る、創る？", "view_count": 1242 }

[ { "body": "This is one of the many cases where ancient Chinese had finer distinctions for\na single concept in ancient Japanese, which lead to the same pronunciation and\nvaried ways of writing in Japanese. As usual, there is a general one, in this\ncase `作る` 'make'. Then, there are the specific ones: `造る` 'craft', and `創る`\n'create'. Usually, the specific ones can be replaced by the general one, but\nnot vice versa.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-16T19:45:17.457", "id": "2678", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T22:20:53.730", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T22:20:53.730", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2677", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2685", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I learnt:\n\n * 食べるところ：about to eat.\n * 食べているところ：in the middle of eating.\n * 食べたところ：just ate.\n * 食べたばかり：just ate.\n\nI would like to know if I can change ところ for とこ in spoken language.\n\nand if there is any difference between 食べたところ and 食べたばかり. which one is more\nrude, or more polite; and if I can use both in any situation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T02:28:38.793", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2681", "last_activity_date": "2018-03-12T16:53:19.473", "last_edit_date": "2016-04-20T18:18:44.527", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "usage", "formal-nouns", "particle-ばかり" ], "title": "Verbs + ところ / Verbs + とこ / Verbs + ばかり", "view_count": 3801 }

[ { "body": "…したところ can be changed to …したとこ in informal speech.\n\n…したところ and …したばかり are almost synonymous. I feel that …したばかり has a stronger\nemphasis on how recent the event took place, and I am not very sure. There is\nno difference in politeness.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T03:14:32.023", "id": "2683", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T03:14:32.023", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2681", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "`～たところ` and `～たばかり` both mean \"just did X\". I was always taught that `～たところ`\nmeans \"I just did X and haven't done anything else\", whereas `～たばかり` means \"I\njust did X (but could've been a little while ago).\" The \"scope\" of the event\ncan determine the recentness.\n\n## 例文\n\n> * 昼食を食べたところだ。 → I just ate lunch (right now). \n>\n>\n> * （午後３：００) 昼食食べたばかりなんで、眠たい。 → (At 3:00pm) I just ate lunch (even though it\n> was several hours ago), so now I'm sleepy.\n>\n> * (隣の人に車を見せながら） 新しい車買ったところやで！ → (Show his neighbor) I just bought this new\n> car (as in just came home from the dealership)! \n>\n>\n> * （電車の改札口で） 森内さん、回数券多いね。新しい車買ったばかりじゃない？ → (At the ticket gate for the\n> train) Moriuchi, you sure do have a lot of commuter (train) tickets. Didn't\n> you just buy a new car? (could have been several days or even a few weeks\n> ago).\n>\n>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T03:29:26.893", "id": "2685", "last_activity_date": "2018-03-12T16:53:19.473", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2681", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "Each of those phrases looks like a part of sentence made with correlative\nadverbs of 呼応の副詞.\n\nTheir meanings and ending phrases are decided from adverbs preceding, and in\nthe case of a very short sentence with an adverb omitted like those, I guess\nthat those meanings just depend on the native speaker's sense after all.\n\n```\n\n as an example:\n これから...するところ from now on\n 今...しているところ 　now\n たった今...したところ just now\n さっき...したばかり 　a little while ago\n \n```\n\nしたところ is similar to したばかり. \nとこ is abbreviated from ところ, and it is a little bit rude.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-05-16T15:12:02.833", "id": "34173", "last_activity_date": "2016-05-16T15:12:02.833", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "13598", "parent_id": "2681", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "ばかり \"implies the situation is too precarious or unstable to warrant further\naction\" or bad timing\n\nところ either factual or good timing\n\nSource: Intermediate Japanese by Tsujioka and Hamano", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2018-03-06T01:57:54.943", "id": "57092", "last_activity_date": "2018-03-06T01:57:54.943", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "28023", "parent_id": "2681", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "# Japanese\n\n以下の文を比較すると、\n\n> でき得るならば、独立して事業を始めたい。\n>\n> できれば、独立して事業を始めたい。\n\n意味が同じですか？どう違いますか？すみませんが、説明して頂けませんか？\n\n# English\n\nIf we compare the following two sentences:\n\n> でき得るならば、独立して事業を始めたい。\n>\n> できれば、独立して事業を始めたい。\n\nIs the meaning the same? How do they differ? Could someone explain it?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T02:34:42.027", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2682", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-24T08:31:22.613", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-23T00:04:20.503", "last_editor_user_id": "4091", "owner_user_id": "619", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "nuances" ], "title": "The nuance of 得る compared with ~ば", "view_count": 426 }

[ { "body": "はい。同じ意味です。でも、\"できれば、独立して事業を始めたい\" はもっといいと思います。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T03:18:08.050", "id": "2684", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T04:30:39.030", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-17T04:30:39.030", "last_editor_user_id": "623", "owner_user_id": "623", "parent_id": "2682", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "The `～得る` construction already implies possibility, so `でき得る` sounds redundant\nto me, like \"if it's possible to be possible\" (unless you were using できる to\nmean that something is finished, but your examples aren't).\n\nAnother possibility would be `～ものなら` to indicate that achieving what you want\nmight be difficult.\n\n> * できれば、独立して事業を始めたい。 → Just a regular \"if I can\"\n> * できるものなら、…… → \"If I _really_ could (but I think it would improbable),\n> ...\"\n>", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T03:54:17.307", "id": "2690", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-24T08:31:22.613", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-24T08:31:22.613", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2682", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Almost same meaning but でき得るものならば one shows lower chance, close 0, of\nachieving the goal. So I think でき得るものならば frequently used with past tence, for\nexample, でき得るものならば、独立して事業を始めたかった. So in this way, he wanted to start his own\nbusiness but it is too late.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-08-24T03:08:31.677", "id": "38668", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-24T03:08:31.677", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "17630", "parent_id": "2682", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2688", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I agree that ～たら is one practical tool that could express lots of meanings.\nbut sometimes it became one problem for students of japanese.\n\nIf I say:\n\n * 日本に行ったら、友達を訪ねます。\n\nit's : If I go to Japan, I will visit my friend.(?) \nor: When I get to Japan, I will visit my friend.(?)\n\n * 卒業したら、旅行したいと思います。\n\nit's : If I graduate (it's a possibility), I want to travel. \nor: After graduating (it's certain), I'm think of traveling.\n\n.\n\nDoes the meaning depend on the context? or Is there a better way to say that\nsentences?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T03:37:22.733", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2686", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T03:51:38.667", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-17T03:51:38.667", "last_editor_user_id": "422", "owner_user_id": "422", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "usage" ], "title": "「Verb + たら」always have ambiguous meanings?", "view_count": 624 }

[ { "body": "These examples sound more like \"when\" to me. If you wanted to emphasize an\n\"if\", you could add もし to the beginning.\n\n * もし日本に行ったら、．．．\n * もし卒業したら、．．．\n\nHowever, \"when\" may also carry a bit of uncertainty to it, so it's a little\nambiguous. \"When I go to Japan...\" You might be certain that you're going and\nit's just in the future at this point, or you may be speculating, as in \"If I\never go.\"\n\nYou could also use a different construct to force this. Refer to [this\nimportant post](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/393/differences-\namong-etc) for more options and their rules.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T03:45:25.340", "id": "2688", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T03:45:25.340", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2686", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2708", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm a little confused on the difference between [凍る]{こおる} and [凍える]{こごえる}.\n\nFrom what I've researched, it seems like 凍る focuses more on the physical\nprocess of something freezing, and the result being ice or frozen solid. Like\nwater freezing into ice, or a steak freezing and becoming solid after it's\nbeen in the freezer for a while.\n\nWhereas 凍える seems to be the more abstract concept of freezing, or the physical\nsensation of freezing. Like freezing toes/fingers when you're walking outside\nin the winter, or a \"frozen wasteland\".\n\nIs this correct thinking, or am I off???", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T03:38:03.277", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2687", "last_activity_date": "2018-01-22T15:43:50.290", "last_edit_date": "2018-01-22T15:43:50.290", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "words", "usage", "nuances", "synonyms" ], "title": "Fun with synonyms - \"freeze\"", "view_count": 617 }

[ { "body": "I would agree with your general description: 凍る is physical freezing - usually\nof water or other liquid - or freezing cold. It is more objective (you can\nmeasure a freezing point). Exception: when used metaphorically as in 血{ち}も凍る\nwhich is probably close to the English \"blood-curdling\".\n\nIt can also be sometimes used when ice covers something e.g. 凍った[道]{みち} - a\nroad that has iced over.\n\n凍える is freezing in terms of feeling/your body's response as in \"it's so cold I\ncan't feel my fingers\". It is more subjective. It can also be used to refer to\nparts of the body, e.g. 凍えた[指]{ゆび} - fingers stiff with cold.\n\nSo it makes more sense to talk about \"凍る[温度]{おんど}\" than \"凍える温度\", and I think\nit's possible to say 凍えるほど[寒]{さむ}い when the temperature isn't actually below\nfreezing.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T14:58:53.050", "id": "2708", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-08T03:32:46.037", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-08T03:32:46.037", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "2687", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2719", "answer_count": 4, "body": "Way back in the day when I was first learning Japanese, I learned that you\ncould add `ことができる` to a verb to indicate potential. Like so:\n\n> 食{た}べることができる\n>\n> _(I) can eat (something)_\n\nIt became my habitual way of expressing possibilities.\n\nThen later, I learned that you could just modify the verb and get the same\nthing:\n\n> 食{た}べられる\n>\n> _(I) can eat (something)_\n\nI know that this is also the passive voice, but, unless I'm mistaken, it can\nbe used strictly as a way of expressing potential.\n\nI still tend to habitually say `ことができる`, though. It tends to jump out of my\nmouth before I realize that I could have probably modified the verb. I think\nbecause my brain thinks they are the same thing, so I just go with the usual.\n\nSo... are they different?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T03:49:12.670", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2689", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-19T06:04:21.257", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-12T06:59:26.080", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 63, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "potential-form" ], "title": "ことができる versus V~える form", "view_count": 15400 }

[ { "body": "I think `～ことができる` has more to do with the potentiality (real word?) of things\nout of your control and `～（ら）れる` has more to do with your abilities or things\nyou can control.\n\n> * 雨が止んだら、テニスにいくことができるよ！ → After the rain stops, we'll be able to go play\n> tennis (can't control the rain).\n> * こつこつ日本語勉強するなら、難しい漢字も読めるようになる。 → If you keep up with your Japanese\n> studies, you'll be able to read even difficult kanji. (can control this)\n>\n\nOf course, this is a slight nuance, and I think the two forms overlap a great\namount.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T04:06:10.390", "id": "2692", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-11T22:30:33.387", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-11T22:30:33.387", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2689", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "I'm not entirely sure, but ことができる I think is more 固い表現 than using the\npotential verb. And is usually taught before the potential form because\ngrammatically structures are easier for students to pick up.\n\nhere is a forum with the same exact question btw\n\n<http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=135581>", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T06:41:49.177", "id": "2696", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T08:43:52.583", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-18T08:43:52.583", "last_editor_user_id": "97", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "2689", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Very simply :\n\n * 食べることができる\n\nI am technically able to eat. I have a mouth, a stomach, and so on. When you\nask \"can you do this for me\" and your witty friend replies \"yes, I can\" but\ndoesn't do it, that's this meaning of potentiality that he chose to\nunderstand. You'd use this form to say \"I cannot time travel\" or \"I cannot\nfly\". You cannot do anything about it, you're not responsible (which is a very\nJapanese way to say things).\n\n * 食べられる\n\nI can eat, in the other meanings :)\n\nFor example, \"I can't go with you because I have some work to finish\".\nTechnically, you can go, but for some reason, you must abstain from going. You\ncan do something about it, you're responsible for not going/doing.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T06:51:19.960", "id": "2719", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-18T03:02:33.723", "last_edit_date": "2016-09-18T03:02:33.723", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2689", "post_type": "answer", "score": 46 }, { "body": "I'm a native speaker. The expressions of ことができる and ～られる are almost the same\nmeaning. Don't think so difficult. You can use the expression you prefer.\n\nExamples:\n\n> 雨が止んだら、テニスに行くことができるよ！ \n> 雨が止んだら、テニスに行けるよ！ \n>\n\nThey have the same meaning. Both of them are used in daily life conversations.\nThere is not the difference between the two sentences in my linguistic sense. \nことができる does not depend on in particular saying about the technical potential\nor saying something in the context about uncontrollable things.\n\n> こつこつ日本語勉強するなら、難しい漢字も読めるようになるよ。 \n> こつこつ日本語勉強するなら、難しい漢字も読むことができるようになるよ。 \n>\n\nThe same meaning !!\n\n> これが終われば、寝られるよ。 \n> これが終われば、寝ることができるよ。 \n> You finish this, then you may go to bed. \n>\n\nThose sentences are also in the same meaning. \nAnd furthermore, in the linguistic sense, ことができる and られる don't have any\ndifferences whether being polite or impolite. Both of them are used in\nconversations of family, friends, lover, business situations, polite\nsituations, and so on.\n\nWhen I want to emphasize the potential or capability in the context, I tend to\nuse ことができる. But they basically have the same meaning.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-09-19T05:57:35.327", "id": "39307", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-19T06:04:21.257", "last_edit_date": "2016-09-19T06:04:21.257", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "17943", "parent_id": "2689", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2697", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Of course `来る` is most often read as `くる`. However, it can also be read as\n`きたる`. Is `きたる` mostly an archaic reading? Does it carry a different, or any\nadditional meanings?? When are \"appropriate\" (socially, grammatically, etc.)\ntimes to use it?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T04:13:49.460", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2693", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T07:06:55.207", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "usage", "vocabulary", "readings", "archaic-language" ], "title": "When and how to use 来る 【きたる】", "view_count": 1219 }

[ { "body": "Basically, it is literary (and archaic), but there are some situations when it\nis still appropriate to use it in a modern context.\n\n * In the sense of \"the coming [time or event]\" e.g. 来【きた】る土曜日 = \"the coming Saturday\"\n * Related to the above, in the form 来【きた】るべき, meaning \"the coming [thing]\", \"the [thing] that is sure to come\", e.g. the title of Tezuka Osamu's manga \"来【きた】るべき世界\", translated as \"Next World\" in English I believe\n * In the imperative form, as an invitation. For example, junior high and high school clubs often promote themselves at the start of the year with signs saying things like \"来【き】たれ！野球部\" or whatever. This is not an order but an attempt to entice people to come and check the club out. \n * In set phrases like \"来【きた】る者拒まず\", which means that anyone who comes will be accepted (often paired with \"去る者追わず\", \"... and anyone who leaves will not be pursued\")\n\nOutside of these usages, it has a literary flavor, sort of like \"is come\" or\n\"cometh\" (rather than \"has come\") in modern English.\n\nIncidentally, I learned that although it looks like 来る + past/perfect aux. たる,\nit is actually a separate word derived from 来る + 至る; I just checked the 広辞苑\nand 日本国語大辞典, and they agree with this (although obviously, sometimes the word\nきたる will in fact be 来る + たる). Special bonus trivia: the 来る + 至る /kitaru/ got\nits big break in the world of kanbun 漢文, as a pinch hitter for 来(る). (And it\nis true that the character 来 is generally rendered /kitaru/ in kanbun.) I\ncan't find a reliable source for why kanbun kundoku doesn't just use /ku(ru)/,\nbut some (e.g. [fontomanie at\nChiebukuro](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1012977490))\nsuggest that it was because /ku(ru)/ didn't have enough syllables for\nconvenient okurigana affixation (cf /nasu/ instead of /su(ru)/ for 為).\n\nSo, the specific literary flavor is that of kanbun or heavily Chinese-\ninfluenced Japanese, not \"pure\" classical Japanese.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T06:57:51.830", "id": "2697", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T07:06:55.207", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-17T07:06:55.207", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2693", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2763", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I came across the phrase `言ったりしたら【いったりしたら】` in one of the\n[Tintin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin) books I'm\nreading. It means something like \"if I say [it]\".\n\nWhat I can't figure out is how it's different from simply saying `言ったら`.\n\nHere it is in context:\n\n\n\nMy rough translation:\n\n**_Tintin:** So, what is that boss's name?_\n\n**_Doctor:** I... I can't say that! **If I say it** , they'll do something\nterrible to me!_\n\nWhat is the difference in nuance or meaning between `言ったりしたら` and `言ったら`?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T05:56:19.577", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2694", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-20T04:51:39.300", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-17T07:39:11.077", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances" ], "title": "言ったりしたら versus 言ったら", "view_count": 354 }

[ { "body": "I think there is an implication that there could have been other things done\nor showing lack of sequence that you get with 言ったりしたら but not 言ったら.\n\nMy geuss is that he is saying there where other things that could have been\ndone, but all tintin could think of was saying something.\n\nI couldn't translate this well but to me this seems like it would be similar\nto the following in english \"At least he could have kept his mouth shut (out\nof possible other things he could have done)\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T06:36:14.157", "id": "2695", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T03:24:25.430", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-19T03:24:25.430", "last_editor_user_id": "97", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "2694", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I'm not a Japanese native speaker, but it sounds to me like \"if I go around\nsaying (his name) ...\", or more idiomatically,\"if I go throwing his name\naround, I'll be in big trouble with the gang!\", would be passable\ntranslations.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-20T03:34:28.967", "id": "2763", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-20T04:51:39.300", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-20T04:51:39.300", "last_editor_user_id": "634", "owner_user_id": "634", "parent_id": "2694", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2699", "answer_count": 4, "body": "Is wasei-eigo or wasei-kango looked down upon by Japanese language purists (as\nopposed to English or Chinese purists!) as informal, inauthentic, incorrect or\nthe like?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T08:40:11.897", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2698", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-04T15:50:53.850", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-18T04:15:50.313", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "loanwords", "wasei-eigo" ], "title": "Are wasei-eigo and wasei-kango looked down upon?", "view_count": 1832 }

[ { "body": "I think most people don't even know whether a word is wasei-eigo. Just to give\nyou a sense, there are plenty of people who think `パン`, `バイト`, and `アベック` come\nfrom English. I think most won't care if they find that out (which they do\nbecause sometimes the TV discusses this. For most people it's just another\ntrivia). Just think about how popular ルー大柴 was ;)\n\nI'm sure there are \"purists\" who somehow look down on wasei-eigo, but you can\nfind extremists for everything. It's certainly no where common.\n\nI heard some teachers argue that the use of wasei-eigo is detrimental to\nlearning English, but that's not \"looking down\" IMO.", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T10:41:40.993", "id": "2699", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-04T15:50:53.850", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-04T15:50:53.850", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2698", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "I agree with Enno Shioji that wasei-eigo is looked down upon by some people\njust as anything is looked down upon by someone. I just want to add that in\nsome cases, the standard way to express some notion is by using wasei-eigo,\nand avoiding wasei-eigo is impossible.\n\nFor example, baseball terminology in Japanese is full of wasei-eigo:\n[フォアボール](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E3%83%95%E3%82%A9%E3%82%A2%E3%83%9C%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0ss)\n(base on balls),\n[デッドボール](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E3%83%87%E3%83%83%E3%83%89%E3%83%9C%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0ss)\n(hit by pitch),\n[タッチアウト](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E3%82%BF%E3%83%83%E3%83%81%E3%82%A2%E3%82%A6%E3%83%88&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0ss)\n(tag out),\n[ランニングホームラン](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E3%83%A9%E3%83%B3%E3%83%8B%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B0%E3%83%9B%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0%E3%83%A9%E3%83%B3&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0na)\n(inside-the-park home run), and so on. If someone tries to avoid wasei-eigo\nand replaces, say, ランニングホームラン with “インサイドパークホームラン” or “インサイドザパークホームラン,” the\nword would mean nothing to most Japanese speakers.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-23T01:25:40.060", "id": "2802", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-23T01:25:40.060", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2698", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I think they look down on loanwords which replace the local words which were\nin normal usage. I don't think think they'd have anything against words like\nパン or バス (the vehicle one). Rather it's words like バス (the bathtub. 風呂) or\nマイカー (自分の車. 我が車? 我車?). It makes you want to exclaim \"Why the heck are you\nusing such fancy words when there is already a word to describe that? You want\nto look ナウい huh?\"\n\nIf one is too exposed to such words to the extent it causes repugnance, it\nleads to extremism, rejecting even loanwords with no viable replacements,\nwhere they will create the replacement using local words. Thus, 「外来語」言い換え提案 (\n_Gairaigo Iikae Teian_ ) was born. Ooohhh, I'm so gonna get flak from them for\nlabeling them extremists!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-25T07:13:08.467", "id": "2843", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-25T07:27:45.020", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-25T07:27:45.020", "last_editor_user_id": "154", "owner_user_id": "154", "parent_id": "2698", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I look down on non-Japanese native people learning Japanese who think that,\nwhenever they don't know how to say something in Japanese, they can transcribe\nthe English word in katakana and will work. Sometimes it may work, but they\nshould not rely on that.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-29T19:28:37.207", "id": "3854", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-02T16:29:37.553", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-02T16:29:37.553", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2698", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 焼き鳥屋さんで集まった **のですが** 、とても楽しい、かつ有意義な時間を過ごしました。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T10:49:19.867", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2700", "last_activity_date": "2020-12-24T17:08:57.577", "last_edit_date": "2020-12-24T17:08:57.577", "last_editor_user_id": "37097", "owner_user_id": "359", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "grammar", "formal-nouns", "conjunctions" ], "title": "What does のですが mean in the following sentence?", "view_count": 7375 }

[ { "body": "～のですが (or ～のですけれども, or ～んだけど, or any of a number of variants) is often used in\nthis way to \"set the stage\" and provide a context for a succeeding clause or\nsentence. Here, the purpose of ～のですが is to mark information that will help the\nlistener understand the second half of the sentence. As such, the が here is\nbest translated into English as \"and\", not \"but\".\n\nThis is one of the many [uses of ～のだ to provide supporting\ninformation](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1859/what-\nconnotation-does-add/1863#1863) for other statements.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T12:34:16.617", "id": "2705", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T12:34:16.617", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2700", "post_type": "answer", "score": 21 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2704", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Is it true that only girls will use うち to refer to themselves?\n\nSo when a guy say うち he is referring to his in-group / company / family, and\nnot referring to himself, right?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T11:01:53.710", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2701", "last_activity_date": "2013-05-16T03:01:54.597", "last_edit_date": "2013-05-16T03:01:54.597", "last_editor_user_id": "29", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "usage", "register", "first-person-pronouns", "kansai-ben", "feminine-speech" ], "title": "Is it true that only girls use うち to refer to themselves?", "view_count": 543 }

[ { "body": "うち is mostly used by girls to refer to themselves, but this usage is only\ncommon in Kansai-ben and perhaps other regional dialects as well, and it is\ngenerally not considered to be part of standard Japanese. See\n<http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q148192694>\n\nSo to answer your question, yes if a guy says うち, he is probably most likely\nreferring to his family. (Assuming he is speaking standard Japanese, usage in\nregional dialects may vary, but I know in Kansai-ben it is generally used only\nby females)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T12:31:22.597", "id": "2704", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T15:26:23.450", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-17T15:26:23.450", "last_editor_user_id": "23", "owner_user_id": "23", "parent_id": "2701", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2784", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Initially I wanted to compare the rudeness level of `[v]ないでくれ。` and`[v]な。` but\nsince that may be a rather vague question:\n\n 1. In what situation is it appropriate to use `[v]ないでくれ。` but not `[v]な。` ?\n\n 2. In what situation is it appropriate to use `[v]な。` but not `[v]ないでくれ。` ?\n\nI mean I'm not asking for a list of examples when it is appropriate to use 1)\nor 2), but rather one example on when it is appropriate to use `[v]ないでくれ。` but\nnot `[v]な。` and explanation on why it is so, and another example on when it is\nappropriate to use `[v]な。` but not `[v]ないでくれ。` \\+ explanation.\n\nPS: as for the くれ i'm referring to the short / abrupt / manly くれ and not the\nくれ in 勘弁してくれよ~", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T11:11:26.340", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2702", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-30T04:15:38.187", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T04:15:38.187", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "conjugations", "politeness", "negation", "perspective" ], "title": "When is it appropriate to use [v] ないでくれ instead of [v] な?", "view_count": 566 }

[ { "body": "* [v]な is an order, in plain imperative form: \"Don't [v].\"\n * [v]ないでくれ is a request/plea: \"Please don't [v].\" (It is basically the plain form of [v]ないでください, since 〜てくださる is the respectful form 尊敬語 of 〜てくれる.)\n\nBoth [v]な and [v]ないでくれ are in plain form and cannot be used in situations\nwhere respectful (尊敬語) and/or polite (丁寧語) forms are required (e.g. talking to\nsuperiors or people you are not close to). So that is the baseline of\nappropriateness: you can't be in a position where 〜ます is required, or any form\nof keigo. So the difference between [v]な and [v]ないでくれ is not \"politeness\" but\nrather whether you are _ordering_ someone not to do something, or\n_asking/pleading with_ them not to do it.\n\n[There may also be another difference: My feeling is that [v]ないでくれ is a bit\nold-fashioned, even \"theatrical,\" and therefore no longer really \"colloquial\"\nas such in the speech of young people in particular. Anyone with a bigger data\nset or native intuition want to comment on this?]\n\nSo if you are not in a position to give orders, or you are but want to flatter\nthe person you are speaking to, you would not use [v]な, and you might choose\n[v]ないでくれ instead. (You also might combine it with 頼むよ or something, which\nmakes the \"throwing myself at your mercy\" part more explicit.)\n\nOn the other hand, if you _are_ in a position to give orders, and don't want\nto be delicate (perhaps because you want to make it clear who is boss, or\nperhaps because it is appropriate to give orders in that situation and\nphrasing it in the form of a request would be odd), or if you share\ncamaraderie with someone so close that [v]な is allowed in friendly (if\nboisterous) conversation, you might use [v]な.\n\nStandard disclaimer: It is obviously impossible to make a list of situations\nwhere X is appropriate and X′ is not, because so much is dependent on context;\nand even in the above situations, there might be other considerations blocking\n[v]な and/or [v]ないでくれ, or making other options more appealing (e.g. [v]ないで(よ)\netc.).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-21T13:44:56.680", "id": "2784", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-21T23:53:30.647", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-21T23:53:30.647", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2702", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2709", "answer_count": 2, "body": "[An entry of Tae Kim's\nblog](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/blog/2008/07/26/on-the-possible-origin-\nof-%E3%80%8C%E5%87%BA%E6%9D%A5%E3%82%8B%E3%80%8D/) suggested that 出来る came\nfrom Chinese word 出来 that does have the nuance of potentiality, but the most\nrecent visitor's comment claimed that the usage of 出来 in Chinese to show\npotentiality is fairly recent, so the usage of 出来る in Japanese might be\nunrelated to the Chinese word after all.\n\nIf this Japanese verb really did not come from the Chinese, how do the kanji\ncharacters for \"to go out\" and \"to come\" end up giving the nuance of\npotentiality in Japanese?\n\nCan anyone find out authoritative sources on the actual etymology of 出来る?\n\nEDIT: Also, is the origin of 出来る somehow related to 出来 {しゅったい} (meaning:\noccurrence) or 出来 {でき} (meaning: workmanship, execution etc)?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T14:06:26.343", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2706", "last_activity_date": "2014-07-31T22:43:34.027", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-17T14:36:09.010", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "kanji", "etymology" ], "title": "Etymology of 出来る dekiru", "view_count": 3705 }

[ { "body": "First, a general comment: one must always remember that there are two major\ncategories of ‘native’ Japanese words, namely the true native vocabulary\ninherited from the prehistoric Japanese language, and the nativised vocabulary\nimported from Chinese. Although there are some words whose classification is\nunclear (うめ（梅）、うま（馬） etc.), by and large it is obvious from the ‘sound’ which\nclass a word falls into. 出来る is of the first category. The strongest evidence\nfor this is that the reading is _not_ what we would expect from an imported\nChinese word spelled with those kanji: indeed, the word しゅったい is much closer\nto the expected reading しゅつらい.\n\nI admit this isn't conclusive: it could well be a calque (i.e. a direct\ntranslation) from Chinese, or even a direct borrowing of some Chinese word\n(but not 出来) which was turned into a native verb. But I personally believe the\nlatter is unlikely, and I am not in a position to say one way or another about\nthe former. A solid answer would require knowledge of both languages and their\nhistories.\n\nHowever, after a little search, it seems that the theory that できる was really\noriginally a compound of 出る and 来る does have some evidence. According to\n[Daijisen](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/151118/m0u/%E3%81%A7%E3%81%8D%E3%82%8B/),\nit's from the カ変 verb でく, and\n[Daijirin](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E5%87%BA%E6%9D%A5&match=beginswith&itemid=13889500)\nsays でく is a contraction of いでく, which is consistent with the theory that it's\na compound of 出る (classical: いづ) and 来る (classical: く). Moreover, Daijirin\ngives the following definition for\n[いでく](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E3%81%84%E3%81%A7%E3%81%8F&match=beginswith&itemid=01215200):\n\n> (1)出て、ここに来る。 \n> 「大君の命かしこみ―・来れば/万葉 4358」\n>\n> (2)現れる。 \n> 「象―・きてその山をこしつ/宇津保（俊蔭）」\n>\n> (3)発生する。生まれる。 \n> 「国高安の郡に、いきかよふ所―・きにけり/伊勢 23」\n>\n> (4)出くわす。巡り合う。 \n> 「風も吹かずよき日―・きて漕ぎゆく/土左」\n>\n> (5)可能である。うまくできる。 \n> 「もし能よく―・れば、勝つ事は治定あるべし/風姿花伝」\n\nSense (5) is precisely the ‘potentiality’ we're interested in, and sense (1)\nis exactly what you would expect from the kanji: ‘to leave and come here’.\n\nBut, I'm still a little suspicious: the example Daijirin gives for sense (5)\ncomes from a 15th century text, whereas the example for sense (1) comes from\nthe Man'yōshū—a 7th/8th century text. And Daijisen doesn't even give\n‘potentiality’ as a possible meaning in its definition of\n[いでく](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/13835/m0u/%E3%81%84%E3%81%A7%E3%81%8F/).\n\nAs for your additional question: The word でき is clearly obtained from the stem\nof できる, and the meaning is more or less what you would expect from such a\nderivation.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T15:08:49.063", "id": "2709", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-17T15:08:49.063", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2706", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "I'd like to add some more detail onto Zhen Lin's answer. My source is\nprimarily Shogakukan's 1988 version of their _Kokugo Dai Jiten Dictionary,\nShinsou-ban (Revised edition)_.\n\n### Morphology and Phonology\n\nModern 出{で}来{き}る comes from older 出{で}来{く}る, comes from older 出{で}来{く}, comes\nfrom older 出{い}で来{く}. The oldest form is clearly a compound of 出{い}づ + 来{く}.\n\n * 出{い}づ _idzu_ (usually reconstructed as _idu_ for Old Japanese) was the original form of modern 出{で}る _deru_. This belonged to a class of verbs that conjugated a certain way, called a 下{しも}二段{にだん}活用{かつよう}動詞{どうし}, literally _lower two-step conjugation verb_.\n\n * The _lower_ part referred to the vowel that the stem ended in. _Upper_ verbs ended in _-i_ , and _lower_ verbs ended in _-e_.\n * The _two-step_ portion is more officially translated as _bigrade_ in many English-language references. This means that the stem vowel only has two forms. For a _lower_ verb, those vowels are _-u_ and _-e_.\n\nSo when _idu_ is conjugated into the 連体形{れんたいけい} or \"attributive form\", it\nbecomes _ideru_ -- stem of _ide-_ + attributive ending _-ru_. The _ide-_ part\nis what we see in the historical development of 出{で}来{き}る. Over time, the low-\npitched initial _i-_ sound was lost (vaguely similar to how unstressed\nsyllables sometimes fall out in English), producing modern stem form _de-_.\n\n * 来{く} _ku_ was the original form of modern 来{く}る _kuru_. Much as happened with _nidan_ verbs, the attributive form replaced the previous 終止形{しゅうしけい} or \"terminal form\", adding that extra る that disappears in other conjugated forms. This same kind of development happened in verbs like 食{た}べる and 起{お}きる, which similarly have disappearing final る.\n\n### Semantics\n\nThe original meaning was just what we would expect from this compound: 出{い}づ\n\"go out\" + 来{く} \"come\" == \"to come out\". This was used literally, as well as\nfiguratively in the senses of \"to appear, to become manifest\".\n\nThe figurative sense then extended to express the general sense \"to come into\nexistence anew\", with more specific senses of \"to occur, to happen, to be\nborn; to be created, to be made, to be set up; to be produced, to come to\nfruition\", and then \"to be completed, to be finished (generally with positive\novertones)\".\n\nThis idea of latent existence was further extended to mean one has the ability\nto make or do something.\n\nIn slang contexts, it was even used to mean \"to have sex\", perhaps similar to\nthe development of the English phrases \"to get it on, to get some\".\n\n### Timing\n\nAs to when the various senses developed, I have less information than I'd\nlike. The earliest citation in Shogakukan for the \"able\" sense is a quote from\nthe 鹿{しか}の巻筆{まきふで} published in 1686. The earliest citation for the \"appear\"\nsense is from around the mid-1400s. However, these are all using the _dekiru_\nform.\n\nLooking at the older _dekuru_ form, Shogakukan provides a quote from around\nthe 1420s, using the \"appear, happen\" sense.\n\nFor the oldest _ideku_ form, we get quotes from the _Man'yōshū_ , all the way\nfrom the very beginning of Japanese literature in any form, dating from\nroughly the 300s through 700s. At the earliest stages of the term, the meaning\nwas apparently limited to \"come out; appear\". The \"newly arise, happen, occur\"\nsenses are cited to quotes from the early 900s ( _Tales of Ise_ ) and early\n1000s ( _Tale of Genji_ ).\n\nDigging through what I have here, it looks like the \"able\" sense is relatively\nrecent, appearing only from the early [Edo\nperiod](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_period). The extension of meanings\nover time, though, seems to be reasonably clear, and is consistently native to\nJapanese -- 出来る did not derive from Chinese.\n\n### Conclusion\n\n * _If this Japanese verb really did not come from the Chinese, how do the kanji characters for \"to go out\" and \"to come\" end up giving the nuance of potentiality in Japanese?_ \nI hope the above answers this. Please comment with questions if things aren't\nclear, and I can edit as needed.\n\n * _Can anyone find out authoritative sources on the actual etymology of_ 出来る? \nShogakukan is reasonably authoritative, similar in ways to the reputation of\nthe _Oxford English Dictionary_ as a resource for English.\n\n * _Also, is the origin of_ 出来る _somehow related to_ 出来{しゅったい} _(meaning: occurrence) or_ 出来{でき} _(meaning: workmanship, execution etc)?_ \n出来{しゅったい} originated as a phonetic shift from the expected _on'yomi_ of しゅつらい.\nBoth しゅったい and しゅつらい, as _on'yomi_ , are borrowings from Chinese. (Note that\nnot all _on'yomi_ terms are borrowings from Chinese, but most are.) Both terms\nexpress meanings of \"appear, occur\", and \"creation, completion\" similar to\nnative-Japanese できる. \nThe meanings for 出来{でき} derived in a similar fashion to the native Japanese\nverb. _Dekiru_ == \"to appear\" > \"to be created, to be finished\", and from\nthis, noun _deki_ == \"creation, finish\" > \"workmanship\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-07-31T21:54:39.130", "id": "18068", "last_activity_date": "2014-07-31T22:43:34.027", "last_edit_date": "2014-07-31T22:43:34.027", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "2706", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2741", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Putting な after a plain verb turns it into [negative\nimperative](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1585/about-the-part-\nin-negative-imperative-verb-form-e-g).\n\nBut I noticed that in spoken Japanese, putting な after conjunctive form (連用形)\nturns it into positive imperative. For example:\n\n> 遊びに行きなよ。\n\nIs this usage standard or colloquial? Also, it seems that it's usually used by\nelders towards younger people so does it have special nuances, for example\nmaybe like patronizing?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T14:56:04.093", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2707", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-25T22:15:14.143", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "nuances", "imperatives", "particle-な" ], "title": "Using な in positive instead of negative imperative (e.g. 行きな)", "view_count": 3274 }

[ { "body": "By popular demand:\n\nThat's not the negative imperative particle. Rather, it's an abbreviation of\nなさい, probably via the elided form なはい or なあ. See\n[here](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E3%81%AA&match=beginswith&itemid=14953500).\nIt's colloquial _and_ standard (meaning everyone understands what it means).\n\nYour observation that it's a bit patronising is probably correct—notice that\nなさい has similar connotations—but I'm not a usage expert, so I'll let someone\nelse answer that part of your question.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T02:37:02.390", "id": "2741", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T02:37:02.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "2707", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "Using な in negative imperative \n\n辞書形 + な \n行く + な -> 行くな = don't go \n食べる + な -> 食べるな = don't eat\n\n遊びに行きなよ。(遊びに行きなさいという意味です) = let's go to play \nケーキを食べなさいの意味はケーキを食べましょうと同じと思います。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T04:45:46.090", "id": "2743", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-25T10:14:03.503", "last_edit_date": "2016-03-25T10:14:03.503", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "619", "parent_id": "2707", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "“な” (and its variation “なよ”) is a suffix to the verb used in imperative form.\nIt's a colloquial version of \"...しなさい.\"\n\nIt has a bit of patronizing tone, but sounds much softer, familiar, and\namicable than blunt imperative forms of saying, like “行け,” “食べろ,” “読め,” and\n“言え,” instead of saying “(気を付けて)行きな,” “(ゆっくり)食べな,” “(最後まで)読みな,” and\n“(はっきり)言いな.”.\n\n“な/なよ” is used often to a child by his / her parents, to a youth by an\nelderly, to a junior by a senior (in school, in workshop) , or among peers.\nYou mustn’t use “な” to your parents, seniors, teachers, police and those whom\nyou are not familiar with.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-03-25T22:04:00.650", "id": "33137", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-25T22:15:14.143", "last_edit_date": "2016-03-25T22:15:14.143", "last_editor_user_id": "12056", "owner_user_id": "12056", "parent_id": "2707", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2736", "answer_count": 1, "body": "**In a professional setting, would two professors/doctors/lawyers—who would\nnormally be addressed as \"sensei\"—refer to _each other_ (as peers) using\n\"sensei\"?**\n\nNote: This question used to be asking about Japanese formality in English. Now\nI'm just interested on how sensei would be used in this context in spoken\nJapanese.", "comment_count": 15, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-17T15:39:46.317", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2710", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T15:46:24.687", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-18T11:51:08.163", "last_editor_user_id": "625", "owner_user_id": "625", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "nuances", "formality" ], "title": "Usage of \"sensei\"/\"先生\" when the recipient is a peer?", "view_count": 2260 }

[ { "body": "_(now that the question is finally on-topic, I am happy to contribute my 2\nyens ;-)_\n\nThe general use of 先生 (sensei) when addressing a professor/doctor/etc. is\nalready [discussed elsewhere on\nJLU](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/423/is-the-use-of-and-\nsimilar-titles-context-sensitive)... As for the particular case of writing to\nsomeone who is your peer (in rank _and_ range of age), the answer is:\n\n**No you do not have to use it.**\n\nMy colleagues/bosses (themselves Drs. and/or Profs.) usually do not use\n'sensei' (only 'san') when mentioning or talking to another Dr./Prof.\n\nOf course, if the professor in question is some famous old professor (or\nsimply an authority figure to the speaker), 'sensei' is used as a form of\npoliteness.\n\nThe bottom line is that you use 'sensei' just the same as you would 'Prof.' in\nEnglish: you would probably call your (possibly tenured) lab neighbour \"John\",\nbut your advisor or some visiting professor will get \"Prof. Smith\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-18T15:46:24.687", "id": "2736", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-18T15:46:24.687", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "2710", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]