Datasets:

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider the following:\n\n> * そいつはひどく鼻持ちならないやつで、私をすっかり **うんざりさせる** 。(That guy is so obnoxious that he\n> really turns me off.)\n>\n> * あなたを **うんざりさせる** ものは何ですか？(What turns you off?)\n>\n> * 痛み以上に私を **うんざりさせる** ものはない。(Nothing turns me off more than pain.)\n>\n> * 自分の悩み事で人を **うんざりさせて** はいけないよ。(Don't bore people with your problems.)\n>\n> * 非常に **うんざりさせる** 人 (thundering bore)\n>\n> * **うんざりさせられる** 状況 (irksome situation)\n>\n> * **うんざりさせられる** 試験 (boring exam)\n>\n> * あの子には **うんざりする** 。(The kid is a pain in the neck)\n>\n>\n\nThis may be due to a lack of adequate understanding of Japanese grammar, but\nI'm a bit confused as to how a number of different formations are used with\nthis word to mean the same thing.\n\n> うんざりさせられる状況\n\na situation that makes me bored/turned off\n\n> あの状況にはうんざりさせられる （is this correct?)\n\nThat situation turned me off/irked me.\n\nCould I also say\n\nあの状況にはうんざりする\n\nor\n\nあの状況にはうんざりさせる ?\n\nI apologize if this question is too broad.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-25T20:11:54.803", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3285", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-03T08:49:50.300", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "passive-voice", "causation" ], "title": "How does うんざり work in the Present Indicative, Causative, Passive, and Causative-passive tenses", "view_count": 379 }

[ { "body": "> あの状況にはうんざりする\n\nYes it sounds correct.\n\n> あの状況にはうんざりさせる ?\n\nNo, because it literally sounds like YOU are feeding up something (it should\nbe you who are fed up). \"させる\" is let someone do something, generally.\n\nSo you can say instead\n\nあの状況にはうんざりさせられる\n\nas you mentioned.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-03T08:49:50.300", "id": "4548", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-03T08:49:50.300", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1116", "parent_id": "3285", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3293", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What common Japanese words underwent metathesis (transposition of sounds)?\n\nExamples.\n\n> 新{あたら}しい < あらたしい \n> 秋葉原 {あきはばら} < あきばはら", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-26T11:59:17.053", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3287", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:37:07.397", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:37:07.397", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "words", "etymology", "phonology" ], "title": "Words with metathesis", "view_count": 832 }

[ { "body": "I hate to turn these questions into the sawa and Matt show, but here are a\ncouple of interesting ones that are still \"in progress\":\n\n * 雰囲気 = ふんいき → ふいんき \n\nDictionaries still list the pronunciation as \"ふんいき\", although some will give\n\"ふいんき\" as an alternate version, but spoken Japanese is clearly moving towards\nふいんき. According to 日本国語大辞典, Yamaguchi Nakami reported on an [undated, but\npre-2007] survey finding that 70% of students in the Kansai area used \"ふいんき\"\ninstead of \"ふんいき\".\n\nNevertheless, it remains a shibboleth: people who know that it is originally\nふんいき feel entitled to laugh at those who don't. For example, someone on 2ch\nonce said \"ふいんき（←なぜか変換できない）\", or \"ふいんき (← for some reason my IME software\nwon't recognize this)\", not realizing that their IME software did not\nrecognize it because ふんいき is still the dictionary standard. Everyone found\nthis most amusing and it is a well-known quote now.\n\nAnother interesting thing about 雰囲気 is that you might have expected ふんにき to\nappear as the alternate pronunciation instead, along the lines of しんのう for 親王\nand so on. This may be because ふんいき is a relatively new word, coined during\nthe late Edo period (1800s) to translate the scientific concept of\n\"atmosphere\" [hence the 囲, \"surround\"], only expanding to the metaphorical\nmeaning during the Meiji period. (This info too courtesy of 日本国語大辞典.) The\nprocess that made しんのう out of 親王 might have already become non-productive by\nthen, in which case metathesis would be another good way of dealing with the\nawkward んい combination.\n\n * simulation = シミュレーション → シュミレーション\n\nI am not sure whether this is as widespread as ふいんき, but it is not uncommon in\nnative-speaker idiolects, even those of highly educated people. However, one\nthing about シミュレーション/シュミレーション is that unlike 雰囲気, it is a phonetic loan rather\nthan a translated word. This means that as long as we English speakers keep\nsaying \"simulation\", Japanese language authorities can point to us and say\n\"See? シュミレーション is _objectively_ wrong.\"\n\n(By contrast, for 雰囲気 the authorities can only point to the past, in which\ncase we can ask why they use です instead of なり and so on. Of course, the\ncounterargument to English-as-objective-truth is that once シミュレーション becomes a\nJapanese word, it is perfectly \"entitled\" to change into シュミレーション just as\nEnglish \"hari-kiri\" evolved from 腹切り to suit the phonemic whims of English\nspeakers.)\n\nAs for why the change occurred, this also interests me. Nothing about シミュレ\nseems as \"hard to pronounce\" as んい, but there are still phonemic pressures at\nwork:\n\n * みゅ is an uncommon sound in Japanese. It appears only in loanwords, and in most of those it is lengthened: ミュージック, アミューズメント, etc. The unlengthened ミュ is rare indeed (although not unheard of)\n * Thus, the combination みれ as far more common in Japanese than みゅれ\n * しゅ is also very common in Japanese -- and the fact that し can combine with a small ゅ at all should not be overlooked; it explains why we get シュミレーション but not *コュミニズム\n * The combination しゅみ is homophonous ( _pace_ tones) as the pronunciation for 趣味, a common word that all Japanese speakers are familiar with\n\nAlso, this is pure speculation, but some speakers may be unintentionally or\nintentionally blending 趣味 and シミュレーション for _semantic_ reasons. The two do have\ndistinct meanings, but if you consider a formulation like \"something that is\ndone in place of actual work/performance\", you can see how an overlap is\nconceivable.\n\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9F%B3%E4%BD%8D%E8%BB%A2%E6%8F%9B)\nlists a couple more, including disputed ones (e.g. いちじく, the etymology of\nwhich is not settled but which might involve metathesis).", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-26T23:45:23.033", "id": "3293", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T00:10:55.983", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-27T00:10:55.983", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3287", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3408", "answer_count": 1, "body": "のちほどスタッフは彼女の元を去りました。 This was written on screen at the end of a video skit\nabout a girl at a 女子会 at a restaurant. 元を去りました means the staff left her alone?\nIf anyone could translate this sentence, I would appreciate it.\n\n[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_QQeSdHjqI&feature=BFa&list=WLFF0791364AE7F1A1&lf=feedwll](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_QQeSdHjqI&feature=BFa&list=WLFF0791364AE7F1A1&lf=feedwll)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-26T16:43:34.697", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3289", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-08T01:12:33.693", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-26T16:55:32.140", "last_editor_user_id": "706", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "verbs", "nouns" ], "title": "のちほどスタッフは彼女の元を去りました。 Could someone explain how 元を去りました。works here?", "view_count": 135 }

[ { "body": "What should be analysed is not `元を去りました` but `彼女の元を去りました`.\n\n * 彼女の元: her side\n\n * 去る: to leave\n\nCombining them yields: `彼女の元を去りました`: \"(the staff) left her side\" (no longer\nwith her)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-08T01:12:33.693", "id": "3408", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-08T01:12:33.693", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3289", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3297", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What is the difference in nuance between `きのう、何をしていた。` vs `きのう、何をした。`? To be\nfair, I can't really tell the difference between these two english sentences:\n\n 1. What were you doing yesterday ?\n\n 2. What did you do yesterday ?\n\nIs it true that like their english counterparts, `きのう、何をしていた。` and `きのう、何をした。`\nhas no difference,\n\nOr is it true that there is some kind of hidden difference somewhere?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-26T20:01:29.787", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3290", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-05T00:08:35.980", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-05T00:08:35.980", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "nuances", "tense" ], "title": "\"きのう、何をしていた。\" vs. \"きのう、何をした。\"", "view_count": 356 }

[ { "body": "> To be fair, I can't really tell the difference between these 2 english\n> sentences:\n\nThey are quite different in both English and Japanese, as I'll try to explain\nwith sample situations.\n\n**昨日何をした？** is a very direct and casual question to ask \"what did you do\nyesterday.\" You ask it on Monday morning to your colleagues at work. There is\nno other message than that, you're just asking because you want to know, to be\npolite, whatever.\n\n**昨日何をしていた？** is rather used in scolding situations. I ask you that because I\nwaited for you the whole evening and you never came. Can be used to say \"What\n(the heck) were you doing?\"\n\nIt might not be the best explanation, but I think it's important to see that\nthe difference lies in the usage.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T02:18:26.007", "id": "3297", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T02:18:26.007", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3290", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3296", "answer_count": 1, "body": "人生に生き甲斐を求めてギターを習い始めた。 I started learning guitar to give myself something to do\nwith my life.\n\nIs this translation a little too loose? Can 求める mean give? Or would another\nway of translating this sentence would be: I wanted more out of my life, so I\nbegan to learn the guitar. or I wanted something to do with my life, so I\nbegan to learn the guitar.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-26T23:19:06.623", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3292", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T01:55:42.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "translation", "verbs" ], "title": "人生に生き甲斐を求めてギターを習い始めた。 Can　求める mean give?", "view_count": 189 }

[ { "body": "The kanji character 求 {もと.め} is always used for when requesting or wishing for\nsomething as an input and not for giving something as an output, although when\nloosely translated into English some phrases can look as if they are about\ngiving something. For example, 求人口 which is translated as \"job vacancy\" seems\nlike it's giving job opportunity to job seekers, but actually 求人 which is\nderived from 求人者 refers to job seeker thus the kanji 求 contributes the nuance\nof \"wishing for job\" in that word (while 口 which means \"mouth\" is giving the\nnuance of \"opening\"). So 求人口 is not about giving out jobs, but it's about\nopenings for those people looking for jobs.\n\nI would translate 人生に生き甲斐を求めてギターを習い始めた as follows:\n\n> Seeking/Wishing for a purpose in life, I started learning guitar.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T01:55:42.443", "id": "3296", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T01:55:42.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3292", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3295", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've found learning to speak Japanese in a classroom, rather than being self-\ntaught, is useful because you get feedback on whether what you're saying\nsounds correct. Is the same true about learning to read and write the kana?\nAre there risks in merely self-learning, or is it ok to do so? If the former,\nis it ok to do it in your own time and briefly show your \"homework\" to your\nteacher?\n\nI've got some books for learning the kana including \"Kana can be easy\", which\nincludes the correct stroke order and warning about which kana are similar to\nwhich other kana. And the ubiquitous pictures used as mnemonics!", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-26T23:51:25.217", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3294", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:22:30.770", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:22:30.770", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "learning", "hiragana", "katakana" ], "title": "Are there any risks in self-learning the kana?", "view_count": 836 }

[ { "body": "Simple pictorial information is sufficient for describing the strokes used in\nkana, for most uses. If you were to want to use them in calligraphy however,\nthen there would be merit in training under someone else.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T00:31:51.657", "id": "3295", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T00:31:51.657", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "3294", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Learning to read and write the kana on your own is fine, if your book is\ndecent. But here are some small caveats:\n\n 1. For reasons unknown to me, most books I've come across (rather infuriatingly) seem to write the kana in brush or printed form, where they look slightly different to handwritten. For example, き (ki) tends to be handwritten as four strokes: two horizontal lines, a vertical line, and - completely disconnected from the other three strokes - the bottom of the hook. You will see this printed or brushed differently. When printed, the hook will join up, and it will look like three strokes. When brushed, the hook will either join up very lightly or will not join up at all, but in either case there will normally be a 'flick' coming off the bottom of the vertical line where the printed hook starts. Same is true of さ (sa - three strokes), but not of ち (chi - two strokes) - this one always has a hook.\n 2. Don't forget that Japanese people do not see them as arbitrary shapes - there are important bits and unimportant bits to every kana, and there are some slips you're allowed to make and some you're not, and you don't necessarily know what they are. For example, you may well get accused of writing your ま (ma) like a pound sign if the tail is even slightly flourished, regardless of how straight and un-£-like the top is. (The difference is actually probably best emphasised through some kanji. You might think you know how to write 目, 夭 and 土, until you realise that they have to be distinguishable from 耳, 天 and 士. And not just distinguishable by you. Distinguishable by _natives_!)\n 3. Do not learn to _pronounce_ the kana on your own if you wish to sound convincing. You'll probably get some of the more subtle ones (thinking of ち (chi), つ (tsu), ふ (fu) and し (shi) in particular) wrong. This won't cause anyone to misunderstand you, but it will cause you to sound horrendously non-Japanese.\n\nI give such a long answer mostly because I only _really_ learnt to write the\nkana _properly_ several months after starting to learn Japanese when I wrote\nsomething for one of my Japanese friends and she laughed at my handwriting! :)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T01:04:08.177", "id": "3314", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T01:04:08.177", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "645", "parent_id": "3294", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3312", "answer_count": 1, "body": "At my schools 日本語クラブ, we studied a 昔話 (舌切り雀）, which like most of the others\nI've read, had some nonstandard grammatical constructions. I've heard that\nmany of these constructions are archaic forms that are generally no longer\nused (or used much less often). It also seems that some of the grammar is very\nsimilar to many dialects of Japanese other than Tokyo dialect.\n\nFor example: `申し訳ないことをしてしもうた。` It seems like しもうた is equivalent to しまった. As\nfar as I know, this isn't standard Japanese, but is currently used in kansai\nand chuugoku dialects.\n\nOther than the characters' dialog, this story seems to be written in standard\nJapanese. My conjecture is that rather than being reflective of the Japanese\nlanguage of the past, しもうた may be taken from another dialect to lend itself to\nthe rural, countryside feel. Alternatively, this grammar could be from older\nJapanese, that has managed to persist in other dialects.\n\nWas しもうた ever a part of the standard japanese dialect? Do 昔話 borrow from the\nother current dialects to create their atmosphere or do they generally only\nuse older Japanese forms?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T04:13:00.797", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3299", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T01:01:06.680", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T01:01:06.680", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "581", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "etymology", "history", "dialects" ], "title": "Mukashi-banashi. Do they borrow from other current dialects in addition to older Japanese?", "view_count": 636 }

[ { "body": "> Was しもうた ever a part of the standard japanese dialect? Do 昔話 borrow from the\n> other current dialects to create their atmosphere or do they generally only\n> use older Japanese forms?\n\nIt's hard to generalize about the entire genre, of course, but I think a\ncombination of all of your theories is true. Modern \"mukashibanashi\" (as\nopposed to period novels 時代小説 and so on) are basically written for kids. The\ndilemma there is that you need to create the \"mukashi\" atmosphere, but you\ncan't use actual premodern Japanese, because kids won't understand it (most\nadults wouldn't either). The solution is to use standard modern Japanese with\na few well-known quirks thrown in.\n\nFor example, I think most kids learn that \"なり = old-fashioned です\" at a pretty\nyoung age, and so you can have your samurai saying \"○○なり\" and everyone will\nunderstand (a) what he means, and (b) that he is in the past.\n\nThe -うた ending is another sort of example, but it is a bit more complicated\nbecause, unlike なり, it is preserved in living dialects as you say. (In fact it\nis even preserved in standard Japanese in some cases: the commonly accepted\npast tense of 問う is 問うた, not 問った. Exactly the same phenomenon.)\n\nSpecifically, what we are looking at here is a way of forming the past tense\n(i.e. the -た ending; I will use the term \"past tense\" for reasons of\nsimplicity) by adding -た to the dictionary form (that is, attributive + final\nform) of verbs that end in -ふ/-う (in the time period we are talking about,\nthis is the same thing, so I'll skip the ふ thing in the explanation below).\nThis is combined with the well-known sound change from /au/ to /o:/, so that\neven though they are written \"...あうた\" or, modernized, \"...おうた\", they are\npronounced \"おーた\".\n\n * 問う → 問うた\n * 合う → 合うた\n * 願う → 願うた\n * しまう → しまうた = しもうた\n\nThis is, IIRC, still the standard way of forming the past tense for verbs of\nthis type in Osaka dialect at least (not sure about Kansai dialect as a\nwhole).\n\nAs I understand it, it is a direct descendant via sound change from the -ひた-\nform in classical Japanese, as seen in this example from the Tale of Genji:\n\n * 弾きもの、琵琶、和琴ばかり、笛ども上手の限りして、折に **合ひたる** 調子吹き立つるほど\n\nBut, the standard -った ending for -う verbs _also_ descended from this -ひた-. So\nthe same sound evolved in two different ways. Some speech communities, like\nthe Osaka dialect, came to prefer the -うた version, while others ultimately\ncame to prefer -った, and there was probably a lot of in-betweening and overlap\n(not to mention influence from the other sounds in the verb, interaction\nbetween speech communities, the varying de facto definitions of \"standard\nJapanese\", etc.) I don't know all those details.\n\nBut we can see the -ふた/-うた form in Tokyo/Edo Japanese as recently as, say,\nHiguchi Ichiyo's Nigorie:\n\n * 夫は今の身分に落ぶれては根つから宜いお客ではないけれども思ひ* _合ふた_ *からには仕方がない\n\n... and, as I noted above, the past tense of 問う in standard Japanese is 問うた,\nnot 問った. Same goes for 請う/請うて, etc. So clearly it is not _solely_ a Kansai or\neven \"dialect\" phenomenon.\n\nTo summarize, from the point of view of a Tokyo-based Standard Japanese\nspeaker, the -うた ending is seen in the following contexts:\n\n * Dialects -- notably but not limited to Kansai dialects\n * \"The olden days\"\n\n... and to an extent, these overlap in people's minds. Everyone knows that\npeople spoke differently in Edo than they do in Tokyo, but many people have a\nsort of unspoken assumption that the other dialects are more or less unchanged\nsince the olden days.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T23:52:55.827", "id": "3312", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T23:52:55.827", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3299", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3304", "answer_count": 3, "body": "This is another question that's come from a 昔話。\n\nWe have the following section:\n\n> 大きい箱と小さい箱がありますが、どちらがいいですか。 \n> どちらも結構じゃが、どうしてもと言うのなら、小さいほうでよかろう。\n\nI'm having trouble with the second sentence. My translation is:\n\n * `どちらも結構じゃが` \\- Either one is fine. - Here, I think じゃ is a contraction of では and has the same effect as using です.\n * `どうしてもと言うのなら` \\- If you say I must - の seems like the explanation modality to me.\n * `小さいほうでよかろう` \\- The little one would be better. - I'm guessing that ほうで is a less emphatic version of ほうが. Just going on context for よかろう meaning good.\n\nWhat I'm really interested in is where よかろう came from. At first glance, it\nseemed like some crazy old volitional form (行こう!）, but It seems kind of\nridiculous for there to be a volitional form of an adjective. It really seems\nlike it could be the adjectival form of だろう. (I read something that sounded\nsimilar to this that was the adjectival form of だろう, but cannot find the link\nagain.)\n\n * What does よかろう mean? \n * Is it equivalent to いいだろう? \n * Is this just one of those old fashioned feeling Japanese grammatical forms? \n * Is there a case where I could actually put this to use (other than reading 昔話)?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T04:38:19.023", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3300", "last_activity_date": "2015-12-14T00:10:54.627", "last_edit_date": "2015-12-14T00:10:54.627", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "581", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "translation", "etymology", "conjugations", "volitional-form", "modality" ], "title": "よかろう - What does it mean? Where does it come from?", "view_count": 4254 }

[ { "body": "> What I'm really interested in is where よかろう came from. At first glance, it\n> seemed like some crazy old volitional form (行こう!）, but It seems kind of\n> ridiculous for there to be a volitional form of an adjective.\n\nWhy ridiculous? い-adectives in Japanese have conjugations. よかろう is 良かろう、\nderived from いい or よい. It's rather the \"monologue\" meaning of よかろう, more than\nthe volitional. As if you said \"well, I guess the small one would be better\nthen.\"\n\nI use よかろう almost everyday (or other adjectives, like 寒かろう), and hear it quite\noften too.\n\nいいだろう isn't quite good. It's not unheard, but I don't think it's grammatically\ncorrect.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T05:07:57.900", "id": "3301", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T05:07:57.900", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3300", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "`よかろう` is not so different from `いいだろう`. The crucial part is the same. And\nyour concern about having a volitional form for an adjective is right, but is\nonly half way. If you worry about the volitional form, then why do you not\nworry about the plain ending form, past form, etc. of adjectives? If you\ndecompose the adjectives, you can observe that all these endings are actually\nverb endings. They merely look like adjective endings because they are\ncontracted.\n\n> よかろう < yoku ar-ou \n> (possibility form `ou` attached to the verb `ar`) \n> 'it is probably good'\n>\n> い/よいだろう < i/yoi de ar-ou \n> (possibility form `ou` attached to the verb `ar`) \n> 'it is probably good'\n>\n> い/よいでしょう < i/yoi des-you \n> (possibility form `(y)ou` attached to the verb `des`) \n> 'it is probably good' (polite)\n\n`よかろう` is slightly old fashioned, but is still in use when you either want to\nbe formal or authoritative.\n\n* * *\n\n`じゃ` in `じゃが` is not `では` but is the same as `だ`, which historically comes\nfrom `である`.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T05:34:14.280", "id": "3304", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T05:34:14.280", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3300", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "Since other answers have already covered its meaning.\n\nFormation:\n\n> * Adjective: よい/いい\n>\n> * よい in 連用形: よく\n>\n> * Verb: ある\n>\n> * Verb in Plain Volitional: あろう\n>\n>\n\n>\n> Let's combine them:\n>\n> * `よく` ＋ `あろう` \\+ Sound Contraction（ `く` \\+ `あ` to `か` ) = `よかろう`\n>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T07:00:04.420", "id": "3308", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T07:00:04.420", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3300", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3307", "answer_count": 4, "body": "This is a an example sentence from a [JLPT](http://www.jlpt.jp/e/) textbook to\nexplain the use of `たらしめる`:\n\n> 想像力{そうぞうりょく}こそ作品{さくひん}を芸術{げいじゅつ}たらしめる要素{ようそ}である。\n\nI understand the meaning, which is something like, \"The key element in making\na work of art out of ability is imagination.\"\n\nI have this sentence in my flashcards, and even though I've looked at it\ndozens of times, it still seems awkward to me.\n\nTo make a long story short, it feels like it should be something like:\n\n> 想像力{そうぞうりょく}こそ作品{さくひん}を芸術{げいじゅつ}たらしめる **のは** 要素{ようそ}である。\n\nIs my `のは` version any more or less grammatical? Is it merely wrong? Does it\nchange the meaning?\n\nIf the original sentence is fine, can someone break down for me how the first\npart of the sentence (up to the end of `たらしめる`) connects and relates to the\nend part (`要素{ようそ}である`)?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T05:25:10.150", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3303", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-30T00:32:48.643", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-30T00:13:54.453", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-の", "particle-は" ], "title": "Shouldn't there be a のは in this sentence?", "view_count": 554 }

[ { "body": "I would add \"に\", not のは :)\n\n> 想像力こそ作品を芸術* _に_ *たらしめる要素である。\n```\n\n \"Imagination is the element that turns creations into art.\"\n \n```\n\nBut I'm not very sure, mostly because, I can't parse 芸術 followed by たらしめる.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T05:41:18.980", "id": "3305", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T05:41:18.980", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "芸術たらしめる is the causative form of 芸術たる. This たる is the [たる discussed\nhere](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2191/whats-the-literal-and-\nnatural-translation-of). There are nuances, but basically たらしめる means \"cause\nto be\". (Roughly equivalent to ... にさせる in many cases, I think.)\n\nSo the sentence is complete as it is:\n\n * 想像力こそ = \"Imagination...\" + こそ (こそ is a whole other question)\n * 作品を芸術たらしめる要素 = \"the element that causes 'works' 作品 to be(come) 'art' 芸術\"\n * である = \"... is\" (copula)\n\nPut that way, I think you can see that it is similar to a standard \"A は B である\"\nsentence, albeit with こそ instead of は. All together, it means, in very literal\ntranslation and not attempting to do anything clever with こそ:\n\n * Imagination (想像力) is the element (要素) that turns 'works' (作品) into 'art' (芸術).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T06:00:46.293", "id": "3306", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T06:00:46.293", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "With respect to the meaning of たらしめる, you can just follow what Matt writes,\nbut let me add a few things.\n\n * `こそ` is used to add emphasis to that noun. A literal translation will be `It is ... that is ...`.\n * Your addition of `のは` simply makes it ungrammatical. `作品を芸術たらしめる` is a relative clause that modifies the noun `要素`. And your parsing is wrong; `要素である` does not come together as one.\n\nSo a literal translation will be:\n\n> It is imagination that is the element that enables a piece of work to be an\n> art.\n\nIn the following, the outer brackets represent the noun phrase, and the inner\nbrackets the relative clause.\n\n> 想像力こそ[[作品を芸術たらしめる]要素]である。 \n> It is imagination that is [the element [that enables a piece of work to be\n> an art]].", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T06:13:09.113", "id": "3307", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-30T00:32:48.643", "last_edit_date": "2015-09-30T00:32:48.643", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Very good answers, I see. The only thing I would add is that \"こそ\" adds the\nnuance that an italicized \"the\" has in English. \"Imagination is _the_ element\nthat turns creations into art.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-06T02:22:59.653", "id": "4198", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-06T02:22:59.653", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1027", "parent_id": "3303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3310", "answer_count": 1, "body": "[This book](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0824825837) _(Chap.\n29)_ says that for some verbs which can be unilateral or bilateral (like\n`相談する`, `話す`, `合う`),\n\nThe particle `と` implies that the verb is shared 50/50 between the two\nparticipants (bilateral), whereas the particle `に` implies that the main (or\nonly) person doing the action is the subject (unilateral):\n\n\n\nFor example:\n\n> ジョンがトムに話した。 (John talked to Tom)\n>\n> ジョンがトムと話した。 (John talked with Tom)\n>\n> ジョンがトムに相談した。 (John consulted Tom)\n>\n> ジョンがトムと相談した。 (John consulted with Tom)\n\nI was wondering since `ジョンがトムと話した。` already implies that it is a bilateral\naction, what is the difference in nuance between `ジョンがトムと話した。` and\n`ジョンがトムと話し合った。`?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T14:35:22.057", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3309", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-05T00:03:03.533", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "nuances" ], "title": "\"トムと話した\" vs. \"トムと話し合った\"", "view_count": 379 }

[ { "body": "`A が B に ...` means A did something **to** B (asymmetrically). The verb must\nbe something that one does to another:\n\n> ジョンがトムに相談した。 \n> 'John asked Tom for suggestion.' \n> × ジョンがトムに喧嘩した。 \n> 'John fought (to) Tom.' \n> ジョンがトムに話しかけた。 \n> 'John talked to Tom.' \n> × ジョンがトムに話し合った。 \n> 'John conversed (to) Tom.'\n\n`A と B が ...` or `A が B と ...` means A and B did something **with** each other\n(symmetrically). The verb must be something that a group of people do with one\nanother.\n\n> × ジョンがトムと相談した。 \n> 'John asked with Tom for suggestion.' \n> ジョンがトムと喧嘩した。 \n> 'John fought with Tom.' \n> × ジョンがトムと話しかけた。 \n> 'John talked to with Tom.' \n> ジョンがトムと話し合った。 \n> 'John conversed with Tom.'\n\n`話す` as well as `talk` has two meanings. One includes the meaning of 'start',\nand the other does not. The former is asymmetric and the latter is not. That\nis why both forms can be used.\n\n> ジョンがトムに話した。 \n> 'John talked to Tom.' \n> ジョンがトムと話した。 \n> 'John talked with Tom.'", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T15:20:30.550", "id": "3310", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T16:31:48.210", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-27T16:31:48.210", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3309", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3315", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is this the correct way to ask which of two options is true?\n\n> あの CD は トルコご の ですか えいご の ですか？\n\n(\"Is that CD in Turkish or English?\")", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-27T18:05:19.183", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3311", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T01:49:03.410", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-28T00:20:39.520", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "748", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice" ], "title": "How do I ask about two different possible options?", "view_count": 1960 }

[ { "body": "> あのCDはトルコ語のですか、英語のですか？\n\nIs correct, although\n\n> あのCDはトルコ語ですか、英語ですか？\n\nis more common for asking what language the CD is in. If the content is about\nTurkish/English themselves, then the former is more common.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T00:21:30.277", "id": "3313", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T00:21:30.277", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "3311", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Basically,\n\n> あのCDはトルコ語のですか、英語のですか？\n\nin fact means\n\nあのCDはトルコ語の(CD)ですか、英語の(CD)ですか？\n\nthat is, \"This CD, is it a CD of/about Turkish, or a CD of/about English?\"\n\nIf you say\n\n> あのCDはトルコ語ですか、英語ですか？\n\nthen you mean \"This CD, is it in Turkish, or is it in English?\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T01:49:03.410", "id": "3315", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T01:49:03.410", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3311", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3318", "answer_count": 2, "body": "日本のテレビを見ると、サブタイトルがいつも出てきます。でもサブタイトルじゃなくて。。。何と言いますか？\n\nwhat does one call Japanese \"subtitles\" that constantly appear in Japanese\ntelevision and to a lesser extent movies? I'm referring to a sentence that\nsomeone on TV says, which is then immediately written onscreen to emphasize\nthe expression (often for humor).\n\nOK so I asked my friend, and she said it's called テロップ is this right?\n\nOn a cultural level, any guesses as to why this phenomena is so frequent in\nJapanese media, yet the equivalent is pretty rare in Western countries?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T02:14:01.967", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3316", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:22:13.643", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:22:13.643", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "culture" ], "title": "日本のテレビを見ると、サブタイトルがいつも出てきます。でもサブタイトルじゃなくて。。。何と言いますか？", "view_count": 325 }

[ { "body": "`テロップ` is probably the correct term. The dictionary agrees with you, in any\ncase.\n\nHowever, in my daily experience, people are as much or more likely to just\nrefer to the text you are talking about as `字幕{じまく}(\"subtitles\")`. Yes,\ntechnically subtitles are a different thing in terms of purpose\n(translations), but in terms of how they appear (words on a screen), I guess\npeople don't really differentiate.\n\nFor why... I've talked about this with people before, and the most common\ntheory I've come across that because Japanese has so many homonyms, a little\nkanji helps people along. Or at least, that's how it started out, but then\ntook on a life of it's own and now is just an accepted norm as far as\nemphasizing or dramatizing what people say.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T02:54:41.247", "id": "3317", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T02:54:41.247", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3316", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I think `テロップ` is right. It is also called `スーパー`. As for its extensive use,\nit seems to have started in TV programs in the late 1980s and 1990s such as\n探偵!ナイトスクープ, 進め!電波少年, and 天才・たけしの元気が出るテレビ!!, and became widespread under the\ninfluence of these TV programs. The most typical Japanese comedy style\nconsists of 1. Someone saying/doing a silly thing (ぼけ) and 2. Someone pointing\nthat out (つっこみ). It looks like テロップ has taken over part of つっこみ under certain\noccasions. Or, a more general answer to why such thing developed in Japan\nwould be that Japanese develop technologies over subtle things that other\npeople do not care.\n\nReference: [wikipedia\n1](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%90%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A8%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E7%95%AA%E7%B5%84#.E3.83.86.E3.83.AD.E3.83.83.E3.83.97),\n[wikipedia\n2](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9F%B3%E6%A5%BD%E7%95%AA%E7%B5%84#.E6.AD.8C.E8.A9.9E.E3.83.86.E3.83.AD.E3.83.83.E3.83.97.E3.81.AB.E3.81.A4.E3.81.84.E3.81.A6)\n\n\n\n[日刊ゲンダイ 2010年3月3日](http://www1.axfc.net/uploader/Img/so/74688)", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T03:25:38.607", "id": "3318", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T02:48:44.037", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-30T02:48:44.037", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3316", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> ほんの時々私の中で顔を出し、しばらくすると消えてしまうもの。\n\nMy attempt at translation: \"Every once in a while my inner feelings show\nthemselves, only to disappear again.\"\n\nThe above was taken from the following dialogue:\n\n> けれども時々不満を感じることもある。 それは、いつも感じているわけではない。 **ほんの時々私の中で顔を出し、しばらくすると消えてしまうもの。**\n> けれどこれから長い人生共に歩んでいくためにあなたにも考えてほしい。\n\nTranslation provided by the source: \"It is something that shows its face\noccasionally, and after a while it disappears again.\"\n\nSo 私の中で is a set phrase, followed by 顔を出し, another set phrase.\n\nCould one replace the で with では instead, without changing the meaning, or are\nthere any other connecting words/particles one could use? I am confused\n(unfamiliar) as to how the two set phrases back to back flow naturally, but I\nsuppose this is a common usage?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T04:51:12.360", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3319", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T12:05:39.770", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-28T12:05:39.770", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "vocabulary", "nuances", "particles" ], "title": "ほんの時々私の中で顔を出し、しばらくすると消えてしまうもの。Are there any other options to replace the で here?", "view_count": 438 }

[ { "body": "> ほんの時々私の中で顔を出し、しばらくすると消えてしまうもの。 \n> It is something that shows its face occasionally, and after a while it\n> disappears again.\n>\n> So 私の中で is a set phrase, followed by 顔を出し, another set phrase. Could one\n> replace the で with では instead, without changing the meaning, or are there\n> any other connecting words/particles one could use?\n\nIf you changed で to では, the meaning would change in the same way it usually\ndoes when changing で to では: there would be an implied contrast with things\nthat aren't 私の中. Fairly literal translation from a random contrast:\n\n * ... ポテトチップスというものは当時の私の中では珍しくて、物凄く美味しいものだった。 \n... To me, at the time, potato chips were a rare and unbelievably delicious\nthing.\n\nThe writer is presumably using では because they are aware that potato chips are\nnot exotic or even all that delicious. There is an implied contrast between\ntheir naive past self and more worldly people to whom potato chips aren't such\na big deal.\n\nIn this case, では would be harder to make sense of, since the paragraph is\nabout a 不満 that other people are not aware of and the self spoken of is the\ncurrent self: what would the contrast be with?\n\nI don't think there's anything else you could replace で with that wouldn't\nchange the meaning here, either. Maybe に, but that feels off to me. (However,\nother people may have other intuitions.)\n\n> I am confused (unfamiliar) as to how the two set phrases back to back flow\n> naturally, but I suppose this is a common usage?\n\nI don't think that 私の中で顔を出し itself is such a hugely common phrase, but both\n私の中 and 顔を出す in the metaphorical sense are. Maybe it would be easier to think\nof these not as \"set phrases\" but rather consider the whole thing as a regular\nold phrase, where most of the nouns are metaphorical? Consider:\n\n * [カフェで] [コーヒーを飲む] \n[Drink coffee] [in a cafe]\n\n * [学校で] [試験を受ける] \n[Take a test] [in school]\n\n * [森で] [熊と踊る] \n[Dance with a bear] [in the forest]\n\n * [私の中で] [顔を出す] \n[Show its face] [within me] (metaphorically)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T09:52:17.430", "id": "3320", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T09:52:17.430", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3319", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3323", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Can it cover an entire month? Two?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T09:58:57.430", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3321", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T13:23:55.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "usage", "definitions" ], "title": "How long of a time period does 最近 cover?", "view_count": 348 }

[ { "body": "Yes it can cover an entire month. And yes, it can even cover two.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T11:01:49.450", "id": "3322", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T11:01:49.450", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3321", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Completely context-dependent. Try googling\n\"最近の[年号](http://www.meijigakuin.ac.jp/~watson/ref/nengo.html)\" -- in this\nphrase, 最近 goes back a century or more.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T11:46:04.823", "id": "3323", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T11:46:04.823", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3321", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "People might complain that this answer is offensive, but I feel English-\ncentrism or bias in this question. Have you ever thought of the following\nquestions?: How long of a time period does `recent` cover? What is the\nthreshold of length that divides things being referred to as `this` or as\n`that`?", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T13:23:55.070", "id": "3324", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T13:23:55.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3321", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3575", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> あなたの私生活についてとやかく言うつもりはありません。\n\nI don't give a damn about your personal life.\n\nI have also seen についてとやかく言う translated as \"quibble over\". Could another\ntranslation of this sentence be:\n\n> あなたの私生活についてとやかく言うつもりはありません。\n\nI really don't want to bicker about your private life.\n\nIs についてとやかく言う normally understood as metaphorical rather than literally\n\"bicker\" or \"quibble over\"? There was no other context for this quote, so I am\nalso wondering if とやかく is that harsh of an interjection.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T15:36:20.550", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3326", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-04T08:42:15.863", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-28T15:53:11.967", "last_editor_user_id": "706", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "translation", "slang", "expressions" ], "title": "What is the harshness of についてとやかく言う?", "view_count": 385 }

[ { "body": "Translations depend on context. You can translate literally, use metaphors,\n...etc, but it all depends on context and, especially in Japanese, the\nrelation between the 2 interlocutors (level of speech used)\n\nUsually you take the literal translation to get the general meaning:\n\n> あなたの私生活についてとやかく言うつもりはありません。\n>\n> I have no plan to complain about your private life. (とやかく meaning \"this and\n> that, all kind of things\" here)\n\nThen depending on the context, interlocutors, and situation you can find\nsynonyms for \"complain\" like \"quibble over\", why not. It also depends on who\nyou aim at with your translation.\n\nThe use of the ます/ません form in some cases can be sarcastic so there's nothing\nwrong using \"give a damn\" in English. (although there's あなた at the beginning,\nso this is less likely)\n\n[Tangorin](http://tangorin.com) gives these example sentences:\n\n> * 私個人の生活についてとやかくうるさくいうのはやめてください。\n>\n\n>\n> Get off my back about my personal life!\n>\n> * 細かいことでとやかく言うのはよそう。\n>\n\n>\n> Let's not quibble over trivial matters.\n>\n> * 彼女は私が遅く帰って来たことにとやかくいった。\n>\n\n>\n> She went on at me for coming home late.\n\nNOTE: I realize you say there was no context with the sentence. I personally\nthink this is not a harsh expression and shouldn't be translated as \"give a\ndamn\" or \"get off my back\" unless the level of speech is lowered considerably.\n(あんた、おまえ、つもりない...etc.)\n\nとやかく言う is a metaphor.\n\nとやかく which original characters are 兎や角 shares the same etymology with とにかく and\nともかく that you may have heard more often. (note that 兎耳 {うさぎみみ} is a gossiper\n(or someone with long ears) )\n\nEtymology:\n\nAccording to the following 2 links\n\n<http://gogen-allguide.com/to/tonikaku.html>\n\n<http://gogen-allguide.com/to/tokaku.html>\n\n> とにかくの「と」は「そのように」、「かく」は「このように」で、いずれも副詞。\n\nBoth と and かく are adverbs that can be written using 兎角 or 左右 independently\nfrom the meaning of the characters. (ateji)\n\n```\n\n wrong theory\n \n```\n\nI think the etymology of 兎や角 (and derivatives) comes from the Chinese\nexpression:\n\n龟毛兔角 = Turtles with hair and rabbits with horns = Things that don't exist,\nimpossible\n\nBy stretching things a little, 兎や角言う could literally mean:\n\n\"talking about rabbits and horns\" => gossip, fantasizing, making things up", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T15:58:04.620", "id": "3575", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-04T08:42:15.863", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "793", "parent_id": "3326", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3328", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Taking 2 sentences from [WWWJDIC](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1Q%B7%F6%B2%DE_1_) as examples:\n\n> 1. 見てごらん。２人の男の子がけんかしている。\n>\n> 2. 議論は最後に喧嘩になった。\n>\n>\n\nI was wondering is it true that the 「喧嘩」 in the sentences above may be\ninterpreted both ways (i.e. it may be a physical fight, but it could as well\nhave been a quarrel (verbal fight) instead)?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T18:31:31.183", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3327", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T20:32:32.607", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "vocabulary" ], "title": "Is 「喧嘩」 a verbal fight or a physical fight?", "view_count": 1009 }

[ { "body": "There’s actually a wikipedia article on けんか!\n<http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%96%A7%E5%98%A9>\n\nIt does mention both verbal （口喧嘩） and physical （殴り合い喧嘩、刀剣など） fights. It seems\nthe original meaning was something like “a noisy ruckus”, from which the\npresent uses developed. (Kangorin says the same.)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-28T20:32:32.607", "id": "3328", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-28T20:32:32.607", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "622", "parent_id": "3327", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3332", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've seen the honorific \"o\"/\"go\" (is it called bikago?) being used as\npolitness or reverence: o-cha for non-western tea, o-namae when talking about\nsomeone else's name, o-genki instead of just genki, and o-tera for Buddhist\ntemple.\n\nHowever, I've recently come across (in \"Welcome to Japanese\") o-tearai for\nbathroom, which is presumably a modification of tearai.\n\nGoogle-sensei directed me to <http://www.learnjapanese.com/japanese-o-factor/>\nand <http://www.peterpayne.net/2008/05/useful-japanese-honorific-o.html> ,\nwhich talk about it being used for dirty things, such as a potty, diapers and\nfemale anatomy.\n\nIs it sometimes used to soften things that are somehow \"dirty\", or is it being\nused ironically?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-29T13:11:12.393", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3329", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T14:02:22.443", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-28T14:02:22.443", "last_editor_user_id": "91", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "particles", "politeness", "honorifics", "bikago" ], "title": "Why is the honorific o used for the bathroom?", "view_count": 1605 }

[ { "body": "Do you mean o-cha instead of o-chai?\n\nAlso, 'o' can definitely be used with \"o-tearai\". For the longest time, I had\nonly heard it said that way and didn't realize you could drop the 'o'. In the\ncase of o-tearai, as in other cases, it is being used to make the utterance\nmore polite. The talk about holiness in the first link is kind of distracting\nfrom the fact that 'o' just makes speech sound more polite or refined. It\ncertainly wouldn't mean \"holy-vagina\", and o-manko is still not considered\npolite. Honestly, I'm not sure if people would also just say \"manko\" or if\ndifferentiating between the two would make a difference.\n\nI think you should just rephrase \"Is it sometimes used to soften things that\nare somehow 'dirty'\" to \"It is used to soften things\". Dirty things are no\nexception.\n\nThere's some history behind it that I don't really know enough abuot to get\ninto, so I'll leave that for someone else.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-29T13:37:11.097", "id": "3331", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-29T13:37:11.097", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "581", "parent_id": "3329", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "As you suspect and Nathan writes, softening the nuance may be one factor, but\nthere is another factor. Without `o-`, the underlying form is `te-araw-`,\nwhich ends with a verb stem `araw` (later, the epenthetic vowel `i` is\ninserted, and `wi` changes to `i` , which is not crucial). Even though a verb\nstem can be used as a noun, it is often not stable as a noun. Addition of `o-`\nto an expression ending with a verb stem makes the expression unambiguously a\nnoun, and stabilizes that expression as a noun. Sometimes, there is no version\nof the word without `o-`. This case is one example, and although you can say\n`手を洗う` as an ordinary verb phrase, you cannot say `手洗い` as a noun. Other\nexamples can be found in my answer to [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2292/does-anyone-know-\nof-any-o-words-or-go-words-which-are-absolutely-neutral):\n\n> おむすび \n> おこぼれ 'something positive gained (unexpectedly) from someone else' [Not\n> falling off] \n> お裾分け 'a portion given away' \n> お下がり 'used thing (clothes, etc.) often given from a senior to a junior\n> sibling' [Not going down] \n> おあずけ \n> お手上げ \n> お手付き\n\nAll these expressions require `o-`. The version without it does not exist.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-29T14:54:20.883", "id": "3332", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-01T17:59:26.423", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3329", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3336", "answer_count": 2, "body": "> 彼女は表情が生き生きとしておりとてもかわいい。\n\nwas translated awkwardly on ALC as\n\n> She is very pretty for the liveliness of her expression.\n\nWhich おり is this? I think I know it from the polite しております but is it here\nwielding more expressive meaning?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T01:16:47.877", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3334", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:35:58.113", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:35:58.113", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "politeness", "expressions", "て-form" ], "title": "Does anyone know which おり this is?", "view_count": 3467 }

[ { "body": "It replaces the verb stem `い` (of `いる`) for morpho-phonological reason.\n\nThe construction in your example uses a verb stem to continue another\npredicate after it as in:\n\n> よく食べ、よく寝る。 [Vowel verb stem 'tabe'] \n> 年月が経ち、忘れてしまった。 [Consonant verb stem 'tat' followed by the epenthetic vowel\n> 'i']\n\nWhen you use the verb `いる` in this construction, its stem 'i' is very short\nthat some people don't like it, and may even consider it ungrammatical:\n\n> 生き生きとしてい、とてもかわいい。\n\nThose people replace `i` with a longer verb stem `or`, which can be considered\nin present Japanese a variant of this verb stem:\n\n> 生き生きとしており、とてもかわいい。 [Consonant verb stem 'or' followed by the epenthetic\n> vowel 'i']\n\nWhen it is followed by an affix, the shortness of the stem is compensated by\nthe affix, and it does not sound bad, so both forms are allowed:\n\n> ...しています。 \n> ...しております。\n\n**Translation**\n\nThe translation that you got is a good one for a literal translation.\n\n> 彼女は表情が生き生きとしており、とてもかわいい。 \n> 'As for her, the facial expressions being lively, she is very pretty.'\n> (Literal) \n> 'Her facial expressions are lively, which make her very pretty.' (Natural)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T01:39:25.123", "id": "3335", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T03:02:13.383", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-30T03:02:13.383", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3334", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Let me have a go at this:\n\n> * 彼女{かのじょ}は: She/Her (establishing context)\n>\n> * 表情{ひょうじょう}が: expression (with nominative case marker)\n>\n> * 生{い}き生{い}き: vividly, lively\n>\n> * して: Verb conjunctive form of する\n>\n> * おり： 連用形 of **居る{おる}** (To be/exist for animate things) This should be\n> the verb you're looking for\n>\n> * とても: intensifier\n>\n> * かわいい： pretty\n>\n>\n\n 1. The verb is 生き生きとして居る, the subject is 表情. Combining them yields \"There is a vivid/lively expression\"\n\n 2. Context is 彼女\n\nCombining 1. and 2. yields \"For her, there is a vivid lively expression\"\n\nNow put the verb in 連用形 to get:\n\n> 3.`彼女は表情が生き生きとしており`\n\n**One of the uses of the 連用形 is to join up several sentences as subphrases\ninto a large continuous sentence.** *\n\nOne sentence has been established, which is in 3.`彼女は表情が生き生きとしており`\n\nThe other sentence is `とてもかわいい` ((She) is very pretty)\n\nCombining them yields \"She has a lively expression, she is very pretty\"\n\n* * *\n\nEDIT: Regarding your comment on trying to introduce a \"because\" nuance.\n\nYou can use the て-form of the verb to introduce an implicit sequence of\nevents. (Weak causal relation)(If you want a stronger causal relation, use から)\n\nSee [Verb Grammar - The Verb Conjunctive\nForm](http://www.nihongoresources.com/language/lessons/lesson-03/lesson.html)(You\nhave to scroll down a little bit)\n\nThe difference between linking sentences with て-form and linking with 連用形 is\nthat there is no implicit sequence of events when linking with 連用形.\n\n* * *\n\n*Extracted from [nihongoresources](http://www.nihongoresources.com/language/lessons/lesson-03/lesson.html#grammarv):\n\n> One of the uses of the 連用形 is to join up several sentences as subphrases\n> into a large continuous (which is what 連用 means) sentence, similar to how in\n> English for instance you would join up two sentences by putting a comma\n> between them and if necessary changing the phrasing on the first sentence\n> just a tiny bit. If we look at an example you might get an idea of how this\n> works:\n>\n> 日本語： 花が咲く。 English: Flowers bloom.\n>\n> 日本語： 鳥が鳴く English: Birds are chirping..\n>\n> 日本語： 春が来た。 English: Spring has come.\n>\n> We can combine these into a single sentence:\n>\n> 日本語： 花が咲き鳥が鳴き春が来た。 English: Flowers bloom, birds are chirping; spring has\n> come.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T01:45:45.463", "id": "3336", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T03:52:12.537", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-30T03:52:12.537", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3334", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3340", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In a bizarre and transparently ineffective attempt to try and change the\nculture of Shibuya's central shopping district, the shopowners promotion\nassociation (`商店街{しょうてんがい}振興{しんこう}組合{くみあい}`) has changed the name of the main\nshopping road in front of the station from `センター街{がい}(centre street)` to\n`バスケットボールストリート(basketball street)`.\n\nOr, apparently, if you're as \"hip\" as the geriatric bureaucrats who came up\nwith this, you would call it `バスケ通{どお}り`.\n\nAnyway, in [the article where I read about this](http://www.tokyo-\nnp.co.jp/s/article/2011092790094403.html), a pro basketball player attending\nthe naming ceremony was quoted as follows:\n\n>\n> 千葉{ちば}ジェッツの石田{いしだ}剛規{たけのり}選手{せんしゅ}（２９）は「この有名{ゆうめい}な通{どお}りにふさわしいプレーをしていかなければ」と語{かた}った。\n\nI'm not sure on the reading of the guy's name. Anyway, my rough translation\nis:\n\n> \"Ishida Takenori (29), of the Chiba Jets, said, \"We have to play\n> appropriately (in?/for?) this famous street.\"\n\nI'm confused about the use of `に`, because it seems that he is saying they,\nthe basketball league, need to play appropriately _in_ the street. Which would\nbe kind of a weird thing to do. Despite the new name, I don't think anyone\nintends to actually play there.\n\nIt makes more sense to me, given the overall context, that he would be saying\nsomething more about how the league needs to set a good example _for_ the\nstreet by playing appropriately in general, at their games. I'm not familiar\nwith `に` being used to mean \"for\" in this way, though.\n\nSo it seems from my (poor) understanding of grammar that his statement should\nmean play _in_ the street, but from my understanding of the situation it\nshould mean play _for_ the street.\n\nIs either guess correct? Am I wrong either way? What exactly is he saying?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T02:16:50.583", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3337", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T13:06:55.517", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-30T13:06:55.517", "last_editor_user_id": "94", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation", "particle-に" ], "title": "Does this athlete intend to play in the street or for the street?", "view_count": 228 }

[ { "body": "`にふさわしい` means 'amounts to' or 'deserves'. You can think of the `に` as the\ncounterpart to `to` of `amounts to`. My translation for the quotation part\nwould be:\n\n> We have to keep on playing in such a way that this famous street deserves.\n\nor more literary,\n\n> We have to keep on doing a play that this famous street deserves.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T02:37:14.700", "id": "3340", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T02:51:01.333", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-30T02:51:01.333", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3337", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3339", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Taking [yadokari's sentence](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/3334/542):\n\n> 彼女は表情が生き生きとしておりとてもかわいい。\n\nThe part that I need help understanding is the relation of `生き生きとして` with `表情`\nand `居る`.\n\nLooking up the dictionary entry for `生き生き`, it is \"an adverb taking the `と`\nparticle\"\n\n**(Question 1)** Does the adverb modify `して`? Or is `生き生きとして` treated as an\nadverb as a whole?\n\n**EDIT** : What is the difference between `1. 生き生きとする` and `2. 生き生きとして居る`?\n\n**(Question 2)** Is `2.` the `~ている` construction of `1.`? And what is its\nsignificance when used with an adverb? English parsing would be greatly\nappreciated.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T02:20:14.423", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3338", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T05:50:39.467", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation", "adverbs" ], "title": "Help with adverbs with とする and としている", "view_count": 1765 }

[ { "body": "「生き生きと」 is the adverb. 「して」 is the ～て form of 「する」.\n\n> \"vividly do\"\n\nOf course, you need the 連用形 that follows in order to translate it completely,\nas is given in your other question.\n\n**EDIT:**\n\nYes.\n\n> 居る いる \n> (v1,vi, **uk** ,aux-v) to be (of animate objects); to exist; to stay;\n> (after the -te form of a verb) verb indicating continuing action or state\n> (i.e. to be ..ing, to have been ..ing); (P)\n\nSame as without the adverb. Only with the adverb instead.\n\n> \"be vividly doing\"", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T02:28:49.777", "id": "3339", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T05:50:39.467", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-30T05:50:39.467", "last_editor_user_id": "22", "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "3338", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3342", "answer_count": 1, "body": "There is an Indonesian song with titled \"Aishiteru\" which is fully in\nIndonesian language except for one line in Japanese (and a few \"a a a\naishiteru\" lines).\n\n[YouTube\nlink](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6cHUqP5C_8&feature=player_detailpage#t=158s)\n\nThe one line in Japanese starts at 2:38, which I transcribed below but I have\ndifficulty in deciding the part with question marks:\n\n> 君が遠くにいても \n> [ ??? ] がつながるから \n> 信じてるよ \n> 信じてるよ\n\nAt first I thought it was 昨日思い but dismissed it because it's grammatically\nwrong unless there is a の particle there. So now I'm guessing that it's \"ki no\nomoi\", 気の思い, but I have never seen that phrase before and I couldn't find it\nin dictionaries. What does the phrase mean? Could it be 気の重い instead (also not\nfound in dictionaries)?\n\nHere is the English translation of the stanza that follows after that one\nline, in case it would help set up the context:\n\n> Even though our bodies are far apart, \n> Our hearts are always near, \n> When you miss me just close your eyes, \n> And think of me.\n\nAny idea anyone?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T08:13:30.273", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3341", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T11:48:19.233", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-30T08:43:14.607", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "meaning", "song-lyrics" ], "title": "Lyric in this song: 気の思い?", "view_count": 466 }

[ { "body": "It's 君【きみ】の想【おも】い, and the み is just sung quickly.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T11:48:19.233", "id": "3342", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T11:48:19.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3341", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3344", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 一目ぼれから長持ちする関係は望めません。\n>\n> Falling in love at first sight won't bring you a lasting relationship.\n\nI found this sentence and translation without any other context, and have a\nfew questions about the expressions used here.\n\nFirst off, after studying the sentence, I came up with two alternate\ntranslations:\n\n> You can't hope for a long-lasting relationship from falling in love at first\n> sight.\n>\n> You cant expect a long-lasting relationship from falling in love at first\n> sight.\n\nWhich translation of 望めません do you think is more accurate (if accurate at all)?\n\nSecondly, if 長持ちする is a verb meaning \"to be long-lasting\" or \"to be durable\",\nis 長持 ever used by itself, perhaps as a noun?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T19:09:15.453", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3343", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T20:41:19.150", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "vocabulary", "nuances", "verbs" ], "title": "\"一目ぼれから長持ちする関係は望めません。\" この表現のニュアンスを説明して頂けませんか？", "view_count": 201 }

[ { "body": "As for your second question, [長持]{ながも}ち can mean the fact that something lasts\nlong (長持ちすること). For example, the title of [this\npage](http://www.morinagamilk.co.jp/learn_enjoy/quality_safety/base/secret/)\nis おいしさと長持ちの[秘訣]{ひけつ} (the secret of taste and long life (of the food\nproducts)).\n\n長持ち also means a container with a lid to store cloths and other goods, usually\nmade of wood.\n\nAs for your first question, I still have trouble understanding the difference\namong the three English expressions in the question. My understanding is that\ntheir meanings are the same (although the meanings are different _on surface_\n), and I think that they are equally correct translations. Probably my\nunderstanding of English is insufficient for me to answer this part of your\nquestion.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-30T20:41:19.150", "id": "3344", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-30T20:41:19.150", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3343", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3347", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Technically the word 微妙 means\n\n> as per WWWJDIC:\n>\n> (adj-na,n) (1) delicate; subtle; sensitive; (2) difficult; delicate\n> (situation); complicated; (3) doubtful; questionable; dicey;\n\nHowever, last time I stayed in Tokyo ( about a year ago) most of my Japanese\nfriends (about 25-30 years old) were using 微妙 to mean \"kinda sucky\" or \"boring\nin an annoying way\". I believe I remember a sentence like this:\n\n> 海はどうだった？ まあちょっと微妙。\n>\n> How was the beach? Eh... it kinda sucked.\n\nI also heard it used as an adverb with this meaning but I can't remember an\nexample. When I asked my friends about it, they said they don't really use\nthat word for positive things, though none of the numerous examples I saw on\nALC had this slangy type of meaning. I guess the meaning of subtle mixed with\ndicey and then became \"so either-or that it just sucks\"? If anyone can explain\nthe subtleties of this slang usage, I've been wondering for a while.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-01T21:16:58.887", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3346", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-02T04:26:37.120", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "slang", "colloquial-language", "adjectives" ], "title": "Why does 微妙 become \"sucky\" in slang usage?", "view_count": 1342 }

[ { "body": "`微妙{びみょう}` has been going through an evolution during the time I've been in\nJapan. There was a time, maybe about a decade ago, when it seemed to be one of\nthose popular words that people would over use. Similar to how there was a fad\nfor a time, mostly with younger people, to add `超{ちょう}(\"ultra~\")` to almost\neverything for emphasis.\n\nBeing that slang is, by nature, fluid in its evolution and open to\ninterpretation, I think you'll see a lot of variety in daily use, and the\ndictionaries, like ALC, might not be keeping up.\n\nI don't think it means \"kind of sucky,\" however. To me, \"kind of sucky\" is a\nclear judgment that something is \"sucky\", with the only question being to what\ndegree, answered by appending \"kind of.\" _(Though I'll admit we might just be\ndisagreeing on the definition of \"sucky\", which is itself slang, so I hope you\ncan go along with the spirit of what I'm trying to convey if not the literal\nterms.)_\n\n`微妙{びみょう}` retains its lack of certainty even when it tends to the negative.\nSo I would take your `「まあちょっと微妙{びみょう}」` to be just a little more vague.\nSomething like \"Meh, the beach didn't really do it for me.\" In other words, it\nwasn't that it was clearly bad, maybe there were some things that were okay,\nand maybe other people liked it, but me, I was nonplussed.\n\nUsed in its adjectival form, on example that I hear often is\n`「微妙{びみょう}に違{ちが}う」`, which means something like \"[it's] kind of off\n[somehow]\". I think in this phrase, it's the `違{ちが}う` that's doing more of the\nheavy lifting of conveying the negative than `微妙{びみょう}`.\n\nJust for comparison, similar terms are `中途半端{ちゅうとはんぱ}`, which can go from\n\"half done\" to \"half assed\", or `今一{いまいち}` which is literally \"not quite\" but\ncan mean \"almost but not actually good\".\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-02T04:26:37.120", "id": "3347", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-02T04:26:37.120", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3346", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3350", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I noticed that `ってなわけで` is commonly used as a substitute for `というわけで` in\ncolloquial speeches, but what exactly is the purpose of the な-particle in that\nphrase? Does it make the context that the phrase refers to adjective-ish, like\nsuggested in [this\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1547/using-%E3%81%AA-\nparticle-after-common-nouns-non-na-adjectives/1562#1562)?\n\nOr is it actually the な-particle that is similar in usage to the one in\n`それなのに`? How does the construction work though?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-02T04:50:18.073", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3348", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T16:58:55.847", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "set-phrases", "colloquial-language", "contractions" ], "title": "What is な-particle doing in `ってなわけで`?", "view_count": 852 }

[ { "body": "The crucial part you are asking is `ってな`. As you suggest, it is a colloquial\nversion of `という` that introduces an appositive clause. They are probably\ninterchangable. The noun is not limited to `わけ`, but has to be able to take an\nappositive clause.\n\n> という話, ということ, というわけ, という理由, という記事, という理屈, という説明, という計画, という作戦 \n> ってな話, ってなこと, ってなわけ, ってな理由, ってな記事, ってな理屈, ってな説明, ってな計画, ってな作戦\n\nFurthermore, `って` is a colloquial version of `と` that introduces a subordinate\nclause.\n\n> ...と思う \n> ...って思う\n\nIt can also be a colloquial version of the topic particle `は`.\n\n> あの人はかっこいい。 \n> あの人ってかっこいい。\n\n`な` is probably related to the `な` that introdoces a na-adjective in\nattributive position. But that does not explain why it is used together with\n`って`. Somehow, `とな` is ungrammatical. Maybe you can just consider the whole\n`ってな` as a fixed expression.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-02T06:17:15.110", "id": "3350", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-02T06:17:15.110", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3348", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3685", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 目立つ事を恐れ、一緒でなければいけないという日本人が確実に減ってきているのです。\n>\n> The strong feelings that Japanese have of being afraid of standing out and\n> everybody having to do things together are starting to become less\n> prominent.\n\nTo better understand this sentence, I tried to translate it myself more\nliterally, and came up with this:\n\n> The \"being afraid of standing out, always having to do things together \"\n> kind of Japanese person is definitely starting to decrease.\n\nI am wondering if my interpretation of 確実 is correct. I usually know it as\n\"certainly\" and I guess in the original translation it kind of got spread\ntowards \"prominent\". I'm also wondering if the 減ってきているのです could have been\nwritten as 減ってきています。Does the のです add meaning to the sentence? I'm not sure if\nthese kind of questions are discouraged on this site, so please tell me if I'm\nout of line.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-02T05:14:01.477", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3349", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-01T22:44:40.227", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation", "words", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "How is the \"のです\" working here?", "view_count": 6517 }

[ { "body": "According to Haomi Hanaoka McGloin `んです・のです` functions to mark information as\n_known_ in the context of the discourse. `のです` allows the speaker to present\ninformation _as if_ it were shared information. Depending on the context and\ntype of sentence, the specific meaning varies however. There seem to be at\nleast five different ways it can be used. In this instance I think the\nsentence is stated as an explanation.\n\n 1. Explanation type of usage: \n\n> すみません、でも私たちも急いでいるんです。 \n> Please excuse us. However (it is that) we are in a hurry as well. (T)\n>\n> アップルパイでもどうですか。あなたのために焼いたんです。 \n> Wouldn't you like some apple pie? (It is that) I baked it for you. (T)\n>\n> おれはただ、友達を待ってるんです \n> (It is that) I'm just waiting for a friend. (T)\n\nEspecially if you include the sentences that precede the one of the question\n(which comes from <http://www.alc.co.jp/>), it seems to fit the pattern:\n\n>\n> それでは、ここ数年“イケてる女子高生”が異常発生した背景について説明します。まず日本全体が変わってきているのだと思います。目立つ事を恐れ、一緒でなければいけないという日本人が確実に減ってきているのです。\n>\n> So, I'd like to **explain** the background behind the epidemic of \"stylish\n> high school students\" of these last few years. First of all, I think (it is\n> that) Japan has started to change. (It is that) there are definitely fewer\n> and fewer Japanese who are afraid to stand out and must do things together.\n\nOther forms of usage that Hanaoka McGloin mentions are the following.\n\n 2. Conjecture: used in questions or with `でしょう`. It is used when there is reason to assume that something is the case:\n\n> トナーが切れてるんですか？ \n> (Is it that) we have run out of toner? (T)\n\nHanaoka McGloin gives:\n\n> 雨が降ってるんですか。 \n> Is it that it is raining? (someone thinks it might be raining).\n\nAnd contrasts it with:\n\n> 雨が降っていますか。 \n> Is it raining? (neutral question)\n\nAnd she warns that in neutral information questions with no hint as to what is\nthe case, `ん・のです` is **wrong** :\n\n> 「もしもし、田中さんはいますか。」\n\ncan not be asked as\n\n> *「もしもし、田中さんはいるんですか。」\n\n 3. If there is no explanation, or conjecture, it might be **rapport**. It might resemble English \"you know\" or show an emotional involvement: \n\n> そうなんです。 \n> That's _right_.\n>\n> 電話中なんですよ。 \n> I'm on the phone! (T)\n\n 4. In sentences with から it can have a reproachful tone: \n\n> 彼は、まだ新人なんだから大目に見てやれよ。 \n> Since he is new, do go easy on him. (T)\n\n 5. In `んですが` or `んですけれど` it can be \"back-grounding\" of information, introducing useful information for what follows:\n\n> 最初は別々だったんですがある日一緒行き帰りするようになりました。 \n> At first we used to go separately, but one day we started going and\n> returning together. (T)\n\nFinally Hanaoka McGloin warns that `んです・のです` can be offensive, because of the\npossible suggestion that the other should have known, as in point 4 for\nexample, or in Hanaoka McGloin's example:\n\n> A: 私がやりましょうか。 \n> A: \"Shall I do it?\"\n>\n> B: いえ、私がやるんです。 \n> B: \"No, I am going to do it\" [and you should have known that]\n\nMost examples (T) from <http://tatoeba.org/>. Explanation adapted from Naomi\nHanaoka McCloin's /A students' guide to Japanese Grammar/ (Taishukan\nPublishing Company, 1989).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-09T11:27:30.200", "id": "3685", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-01T22:44:40.227", "last_edit_date": "2012-05-01T22:44:40.227", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "836", "parent_id": "3349", "post_type": "answer", "score": 25 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "What is the difference between `これから` and `いまから`？ Both seem to have the\nmeaning of 'from now on'.\n\n> これから、食べます。 \n> いまから、食べます。\n\nDo the sentences above carry the same meaning?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-02T11:39:38.470", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3351", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T08:11:13.247", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-03T08:11:13.247", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "743", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "adverbs" ], "title": "Difference between これから、いまから", "view_count": 4169 }

[ { "body": "`これから` is saying \"after this\", as in, after the activity or thing you are\ndoing right then. If you're having a coffee with a friend, you're talking\nabout what you'd do after coffee.\n\n`いまから` is saying \"from now\", as in, after this moment of time. If you just\nbumped into a friend on the street, you're talking about what you're going to\ndo soon in terms of time, since there's no specific activity you're engaged\nin.\n\nUsually `いまから` is written in hiragana, but the `いま` refers to the kanji\n`今{いま}(now)`. Which most people probably knew, but I thought I'd be thorough.\n\nIn real life the two overlap so much, that you will find that they are used\ninterchangeably. It's hard to imagine a situation where saying one in place of\nthe other would cause any confusion, though if one thought hard enough, it\nmight be possible.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-02T14:25:05.737", "id": "3353", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-02T14:25:05.737", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3351", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3355", "answer_count": 2, "body": "酔{よ}う and 酔{よ}っ払{ぱら}う both seem to mean \"to get drunk\" but how are they\ndifferent from each other? Does it depend on how drunk you are, and assuming\n酔っ払う is worse than 酔う, exactly how drunk would you need to be to cross from 酔う\nto 酔っ払う? Does the 払う part has any meaning or purpose?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-02T13:44:08.033", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3352", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T08:08:59.003", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-03T08:07:41.500", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances" ], "title": "酔う vs 酔っ払う: does it depend on how drunk you are?", "view_count": 1938 }

[ { "body": "AFAIK, they both include the meaning of getting drunk off of liquor. However,\n`酔う` carries several additional, figurative meanings:\n\n * Be sick/queasy → `船【ふな】酔【よ】い` \"seasick(ness)\", `血に酔う` \"get queasy at the sight of blood\"\n * Be awestruck/taken over by an emotion → `(成功／勝利)に酔う` \"drunk with success/victory\"\n\n~~But as far a getting drunk from alcohol, I don't think there is much of a\ndifference.~~ Removing after seeing @Tsuyoshi Ito's answer.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-02T19:31:41.117", "id": "3354", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T08:08:59.003", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-03T08:08:59.003", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3352", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "[Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%82%88%E3%81%A3%E3%81%B1%E3%82%89%E3%81%86&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0)\ndefines 酔っ払う as ひどく酒に酔う. This clarifies two differences between 酔う and 酔っ払う:\n\n * As istrasci explained, 酔っ払う is used only when one is drunk because of liquor, while 酔う is broader.\n * With 酔っ払う, the degree of being drunk is high. With 酔う, it depends.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-02T23:49:53.080", "id": "3355", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-02T23:49:53.080", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3352", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3360", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I noticed that in [this book on bioinformatics with Ruby (the programming\nlanguage!)](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/4563078093)\n(Rubyではじめるバイオインフォマティクス―生物系のためのプログラミング入門), the authors sometimes used romanized\nJapanese in code examples. For example it sometimes uses `hairetsu_1` for the\nvariable name of an array (that'd translate as `array_1`).\n\nWhen not programming in English, do Japanese programmers use a consistent\nromanization scheme, and if so, which one?", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-03T06:58:08.190", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3357", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T09:26:17.913", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T09:26:17.913", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "orthography", "computing", "rōmaji" ], "title": "What romanization scheme is used by programmers?", "view_count": 735 }

[ { "body": "I don't think that there is an absolute industry standard (\"programmers\" can't\neven agree on the best way of indenting code...), but in my admittedly limited\nexperience, Word-processor-style, influenced by Nihon-shiki, is most common.\nThus, 東京 is \"toukyou\" and \"情報\" is \"zyouhou\", \"普通\" is \"hutuu\".\n\nPure speculation: This might be because if you romanize things this way, it's\nexactly the same as entering the words in your IME (without the IME step, of\ncourse), and so the amount of effort required is minimal.\n\n(Incidentally, I am talking about function and variable names here, in\nlanguages where these can be set relatively freely, like C++ and Ruby.)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-03T08:53:57.200", "id": "3358", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T08:53:57.200", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3357", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I agree with Matt that there's no fixed standard about which romanization\nscheme to use. My guess is that it depends on the project, author, term and\nthe author's swing of mood at the moment, just as in [any other context of\nJapanese\nromanization](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese#Non-\nstandard_romanization).\n\n`[Personal point-of-view]` If _I_ were to use a Japanese variable name, I'd\nuse Hepburn-style romanization, because it feels more phonetically consistent.\nHowever, when typing hiragana/kanji text through an IME, I mostly use Nihon-\nshiki to save keystrokes. `[/Personal point-of-view]`\n\nNow be warned, my point-of-view can be biased, especially the first part,\naccording to my work-partner. Let me share his story here.\n\nI first asked him why his code is entirely in English, although he's not very\nfluent in it. He answered:\n\n> That's because at the first company I worked for, about ten or more years\n> ago, the predominant attitude toward Japanese naming in source code was\n> \"embarrassing.\" (はずかしい)\n>\n> To be precise, there were two groups of programmers in the game industry\n> then: (1) Those who habitually used Japanese. (2) Those who thought it\n> embarrassing. I don't know but there seemed to be a trend going against\n> using Japanese among the younger programmers around that time.\n\nMe: Were there any fixed way to romanize those Japanese variables? Like `tsu`\nvs `tu`?\n\n> Yeah, they used `tu` [Nihon-shiki] exclusively. I think that's all they\n> knew, what they learned at school. [*]\n\nMe: But what about `fuga`, as in `hoge`, `fuga`, `piyo`? (Common\n[metasyntactic\nvariable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasyntactic_variable#Japanese) names\namong Japanese programmers.) Shouldn't it be `huga`, if you want to be\nconsistent?\n\n> Ah, these came from an entirely different class of programmers, those who'd\n> been in the field for ages, near-bilingual, programming-language-lovers.\n> They know English, they're very careful about spelling. We [game\n> programmers] didn't know or care about these meta-vars. We'd just use `a` if\n> we needed a placeholder.\n\nSo to recap, any of the following can affect the choice of romanization\nscheme: perceived phonetical consistency, keystroke efficiency, local culture,\nschool curriculum, or convention. (Again be warned that this nice-looking\nsummary is the result of a survey with a sample count of only 2.)\n\n[*] Kunrei-shiki, a variant of Nihon-shiki, in fact, is the one taught in\nelementary schools. ref:\n[wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Japanese#Kunrei-\nshiki)", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-03T17:26:05.970", "id": "3360", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T17:31:51.373", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-03T17:31:51.373", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "3357", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3367", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> その翼はとても滑らかに動くため、まるでコンピュータ・グラフィックスを見ているようだった。\n>\n> Its wings were moving so smoothly that it almost looked like CGI.\n\nor would a more accurate translation be:\n\n> Its wings were moving so smoothly that it felt like I was looking at a CGI\n> simulation.\n\nI have a few questions about this sentence.\n\nIs 見ているようだった better translated as \"it almost looked like\" or \"felt like I was\nlooking at\"? \nIs this 見ている the act of looking, or is it \"looking like\"?\n\nThirdly is the まるで somewhat superfluous? (I don't say this to be critical of\nthe Japanese language I am just interested in the subtleties)\n\nIf it is meaning \"just like\" in this sentence, is that role not also being\nplayed by the \"ようだった\"? Or is that just an established usage -- まるで ending with\n\"ようだった\"-- that flows naturally without any repetitive quality? ( it sounds\nfine to my ear I was just interested in any clarifications )\n\nLastly, and this question is a bit superfluous, is CGI commonly used in\nJapanese or is コンピュータ・グラフィックス usually used instead? コンピュータ・グラフィックス sounds a\nlittle dated to me, though I found this sentence on Lang8 yesterday. I\napologize for using superfluous twice.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-03T16:54:55.010", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3359", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-04T09:30:37.137", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "vocabulary", "translation" ], "title": "Usage of まるで with 見ているようだった.", "view_count": 353 }

[ { "body": "> Its wings were moving so smoothly that it felt like I was looking at a CGI\n> simulation.\n\n\"ようだ\" is not feeling, it's factual appearance. I'd thus go for\n\n```\n\n …that it looked I was watching CGs\n \n```\n\n> Is 見ているようだった better translated as \"it almost looked like\" or \"felt like I\n> was looking at\"?\n\nSee above.\n\n> Is this 見ている the act of looking, or is it \"looking like\"?\n\nThe act of you _watching_\n\n> Thirdly is the まるで somewhat superfluous?\n\nNatural Japanese is the art of the superfluous. Here, I guess it just adds a\nnuance like \"I was **so** impressed.\" You would agree that \"so\" is\nsuperfluous, but not useless, wouldn't you?\n\n> CGI commonly used in Japanese or is コンピュータ・グラフィックス usually used instead?\n\n<http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Generated_Imagery>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T09:30:37.137", "id": "3367", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-04T09:30:37.137", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3359", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3362", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I saw this sentence and its translation in a textbook\n\n> 彼女は太った猫が好きじゃない。 \n> She doesn't like fat cats\n\nI was under the impression that 「太ってる猫」 means something like “cat that is in\nthe state of becoming fat”, which basically means “fat”, so I was wondering:\n\nWhat's the difference between 「太ってる猫」 and 「太った猫」?\n\n* * *\n\nIf a cat has been fat since birth, is it true that in this situation then, we\ncan only use 「太っている猫」 and not 「太った猫」 since the cat was already fat _right from\nthe start_ and did not “get fat”?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-03T19:19:15.993", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3361", "last_activity_date": "2015-11-30T10:03:28.693", "last_edit_date": "2015-11-30T10:03:28.693", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 27, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "tense", "relative-clauses" ], "title": "\"太ってる猫\" vs \"太った猫\"", "view_count": 2814 }

[ { "body": "`〜ている` can indicate a completed-action state, not just in-progress actions.\n\n> * 結婚している → is (currently) married\n> * 開いているお店 → a store that is open\n> * 太っている → is fat\n>\n\nTo disambiguate these states from in-progress, you can use `〜つつある` for\n\"happening right now\". I've mentioned this in another thread, but don't\nremember which one at the momemt (will update later if I find it).\n\n> * 店が開きつつあります → The store is opening right now (you can see the metal\n> shutters going up, etc.)\n>\n\nBut back to the original question, both `〜ている` and `〜た` can be used for\ndescriptions. It just may seem a little strange to an English speaker at\nfirst.\n\n> * ワイシャツを **着ている** 人 → A person wearing (in-progress) a white-collar shirt.\n> * ワイシャツを **着た** 人 → A person who \"wore\"/put-on (and still has on) a white-\n> collar shirt. \n> \n>\n> * **太っている** 猫 → A cat who is currently fat.\n> * **太った** 猫 → A cat who got/become (and still is) fat.\n>\n\nAFAIK, the two are pretty interchangeable for descriptions. I'm not sure if\neither has any limitations of the other. And as I said, it may seem strange at\nfirst, but eventually it will become second-nature.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-03T19:40:39.493", "id": "3362", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-03T19:40:39.493", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3361", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "In relative clauses, past tense can be neutralized. There is no clear\ndifference in meaning between `太っている猫` and `太った猫`.\n\nTo express that the cat was fat in the past, you say `太っていた猫`. The reason you\ncannot say `太い猫` is because the i-adjective `太い` means 'bold', and does not\nmean '(become) fat' as the verb `太る` does. And if you say `太る猫`, it means 'a\ncat that will become fat', not 'a cat that is fat'.\n\nIf you say `あの人は太い`, it does not directly mean 'that person is fat', but means\n'that person is thick', which can be mentioning the arms, the male genital, or\nwhatever. However, it can be taken as a euphemism of 'that person is fat'.\n\nThe nuance of the euphemism is comparable to the English expression 'that\nperson is horizontally scaled'. It does not exactly mean 'fat'.", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T03:45:07.767", "id": "3364", "last_activity_date": "2015-11-30T10:02:30.930", "last_edit_date": "2015-11-30T10:02:30.930", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3361", "post_type": "answer", "score": 19 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3372", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What would be the interpretation of verbs that have two levels of 'teiru' and\n'rare' in them? I figure that the 'teiru' will be one for stative/perfective\nand the other for progressive, and the 'rare' will be one for\npassive/honorific and one for possibility/ability. Here are a few from Google\nsearch:\n\n```\n\n -神社には何がまつられてられているのだろうか？\n -富士の名水で育ってられてられてます\n -脇道も階段として整えてられてられているのだが　(3 'te'!)\n -調べてられてられないという事情も理解してください\n \n```\n\nThese aren't that common, probably because they're hard to say and a little\ncomplicated to parse (think \"the fish will have been being eaten\"). I'm\nguessing the interpretations would be something like \"have been able to be\nbeing done something to\".\n\nOf course, there's the possibility that this is something that people say\nbecause they think it's funny, or some sort of typo :) If both interpretations\nof both words are actually in the verb, could someone with a native intuition\ntell me which one means which?\n\nEdit:\n\nLots more googling. I searched for two patterns: \"られてられて\" and \"てられてられ\". The\nfirst one got much more hits than the second one, and with more formal and\nprofessional language (though there were exceptions).\n\nAlso, I think, a cool discovery: emphasis via repetition of the passive\nauxiliary. Tell me if it's wrong. Examples:\n\n```\n\n -最近、復職を求められてられてばかりで落ち込み気味。\n -また、マスコミに煽られてられて投資信託を購入しましたが\n -見せられてられて火病を起こしているようにしか見えないぞｗｗ\n \n```", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T01:11:25.770", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3363", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T05:10:17.107", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T05:10:17.107", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "24", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "potential-form", "passive-voice" ], "title": "two levels for teiru and rare", "view_count": 655 }

[ { "body": "They seem entirely ungrammatical to me.\n\nBut, the number of search hits for\n[\"られてられて\"](http://www.google.com/search?q=+%22%E3%82%89%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A6%E3%82%89%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A6%22)\n(94,100,000) verges on the frightening - almost makes me suspect that the\nJapanese language has changed its syntax behind my back.. All the more so when\nyou see that these usage contexts include pretty formal ones which must have\ngone through some kind of proofreading [1].\n\nMy best guess is that since typing in ra-re-te or te-ra-re requires highly\nsophisticated movement of the left hand fingers, if you're on a roman-ji\nkeyboard, all of these 94,100,000 instances of られてられて are results of jumbled\nup fingers or minds. Or mischiefs of overtrained IMEs.\n\nInterestingly, [chakoshi](http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/chakoshi/public.html)\nfails to return any example of られてられて or てられてられ usage in literary text (from\nAozora bunko, a project Gutenberg for Japanese literature) or conversational\nJapanese corpora (from Nagoya University).\n\n[1] For example, \"文科省は [...] 研修に十分な手段が講じられてられており、その質は高いと主張している\"\n([教員の地位勧告の適用に関する ＩＬＯ・ユネスコ共同専門家委員会](http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/kinpyo-\nsaiban/undou/2008CEART-kankoku.pdf), p.5)\n\n**Edit:** I hope someone could point at a grammar rule that disallows such\nrepeated succession of particles. I myself would be nonplussed if someone came\nalong and, without explanation, told me that my idea was out right wrong.\nUnfortunately, I don't have enough explicit knowledge on Japanese grammar to\nprovide that explanation.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T17:20:09.997", "id": "3372", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-05T01:51:59.003", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-05T01:51:59.003", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "3363", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3369", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Recenly, with Facebook's new \"feed\" feature, whatever the heck that is, I've\nbeen seeing this notification coming up a lot:\n\n> [Friend One]さんと[Friend Two]さんがフィード購読{こうどく}を許可{きょか}しています。\n\nI have to admit, even though it's such a simple sentence, it actually confuses\nme a little.\n\nDoes it mean Friend One and Friend Two have given permission to have their\nfeeds be subscribed to by anyone? Or does it mean that they have given each\nother permission to see each other's feed? Something else?\n\nBasically, I'm not sure if the `と` means \"and\", as in \"friend and friend have\ndone X\", or if the `と` means \"with\", as in \"friend has done X with friend.\"\n\nPart of the confusion is that I don't know what the \"feed\" feature does, but I\nthink part of the learning here is that I shouldn't be reliant on that\ninformation to work out what the Japanese means. I don't think I'd necessarily\nneed that information to parse a similar sentence in English.\n\n_(PS: Yes, I could switch my Facebook interface to English and just see what\nthe translation is, but I think parsing the Japanese on its own terms has more\nlearning potential.)_", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T16:49:26.883", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3368", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-04T16:55:32.687", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-と" ], "title": "Does this と mean \"and\" or \"with\"?", "view_count": 443 }

[ { "body": "`許可` 'permit' is not an activity done to each other. A permits B. Asymmetric.\nTherefore, the sentence should be taken as your first interpretation: 'Friend\nOne and Friend Two have given permission to have their feeds be subscribed'.\nIf it is particularly necessary to express mutual activity, the sentence would\nhave been `[Friend One]さんと[Friend Two]さんが(お)互いのフィード\n購{こう}読{どく}を許{きょ}可{か}しています。`.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T16:55:32.687", "id": "3369", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-04T16:55:32.687", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3368", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3373", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Asking [this other\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3368/does-\nthis-%E3%81%A8-mean-and-or-with) has reminded me of another confusion I often\nhave, one of my long standing bad habits that you'd think I'd have sorted\nafter all this time in Japan.\n\nI'm never quite sure how to end a list of two or more things. So, I want to\nsay \"I like apples and oranges.\"\n\nSaying it this way seems weird, because of having `と` and `が` together. It\njust feels weird in my mouth.\n\n> りんごとオレンジとが好{す}きだ。\n\nThis next option also feels weird, though, because it's like saying, \"apples\nand oranges and like\".\n\n> りんごとオレンジと好{す}きだ。\n\nWhich is right? Or are both wrong?\n\nDoes it make a difference if there's more than two items?\n\n> りんごとオレンジとパパイヤと(が)好{す}きだ。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T17:02:01.080", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3370", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-05T02:24:15.173", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-と" ], "title": "Does a list using と end with が?", "view_count": 901 }

[ { "body": "The most usual way is to attach と to all alternatives except for the last one:\n\n> りんごとオレンジが好きだ。 \n> りんごとオレンジとパパイヤが好きだ。\n\n(Unrelated note: “papaya” is usually パパイヤ rather than パパヤ in Japanese.)\n\nAttaching と to all alternatives including the last one is acceptable.\n\n> りんごとオレンジとが好きだ。 \n> りんごとオレンジとパパイヤとが好きだ。\n\nI heard that in older days, と was always attached to all alternatives, but I\ndo not have anything to back up this claim.\n\nThe following are ungrammatical.\n\n> りんごとオレンジと好きだ。 \n> りんごとオレンジとパパイヤと好きだ。", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T17:22:20.870", "id": "3373", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-04T17:30:49.457", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-04T17:30:49.457", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3370", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3376", "answer_count": 3, "body": "What's the real, definite difference between [寝]{ね}る and [眠]{ねむ}る?\n\nI know they both mean \" _sleep_ \", but also that each carries some additional\n(sometimes, figurative) meanings.\n\nWhere do the meanings overlap? In what scenarios are they interchangeable?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-04T19:27:24.127", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3374", "last_activity_date": "2017-03-28T15:30:16.693", "last_edit_date": "2017-03-28T15:30:16.693", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 37, "tags": [ "words", "nuances", "synonyms" ], "title": "寝る vs. 眠る, what's the real difference?", "view_count": 22084 }

[ { "body": "**寝る** means **sleeping.** \nEg. He is sleeping. 彼は寝ている。\n\n**眠る** means **sleepy**. \n**眠い** (adv) means sleepy. \nso.. we usually use \"So sleepy today..\" => 眠いなあ。。\n\nHope this help :)\n\nEdited:\n\n**寝る**\n\n1) 横になる Lie down\n\n彼は草の上に寝ている。 He is lying on the grass.\n\n2) Get to bed\n\n寝る時間だ。 Time to go to bed.\n\n3) Sleep (same with 眠る)\n\nお茶を飲みすぎて寝られなかった。Too much tea kept me awake.\n\n4) Lie idle (things, etc)\n\n銀行に寝ているお金 Money sitting in the bank\n\n5) Sleep (with somebody)\n\nOther usage: \n寝ても覚めても awake or asleep\n\n========================\n\n**眠る**\n\n1) Sleep; have a sleep.\n\nぐっすり眠っている fast asleep\n\n2) Lie buried.\n\n3) Lie idle (things, etc)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-05T08:53:49.500", "id": "3375", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-28T05:33:55.850", "last_edit_date": "2016-03-28T05:33:55.850", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3374", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "> 寝{ね}る\n\ngo to bed, be in bed. \nDoes not imply you sleep, since you could be listening to the radio, watching\nTV… \n毎日11時に寝ます。\n\n> 眠{ねむ}る\n\nto sleep, not be awake. \nPhysiological state. \n毎日何時に眠っているか当然分からない！", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-05T12:02:23.103", "id": "3376", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-28T05:15:49.657", "last_edit_date": "2016-03-28T05:15:49.657", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3374", "post_type": "answer", "score": 30 }, { "body": "* `寝る` 'sleep', 'lie down', 'have sexual intercourse' \n * `眠る` 'fall asleep', 'remain untouched'", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-05T14:38:10.617", "id": "3377", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-05T14:38:10.617", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3374", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I found the sentence:\n\n> 女性の身体は本来美しいもの。 \n> 'The female body is a fundamentally beautiful thing.'\n\nin the following passage:\n\n> 毎食後2錠から3錠、油っこい食事のあとは少し多めに飲むだけと、とっても簡単にダイエットできてしまいます。 \n> 'An effective diet can be achieved simply achieved by taking from two to\n> three pills after each meal, the number increasing with the oil content the\n> cuisine.'\n>\n> 女性の身体は本来美しいもの。 \n> 'The female body is a fundamentally beautiful entity.'\n>\n> 私のお気に入りの『ハーモニー7』は、身体の機能を整えながら自然にバランスの取れたプロポーションに戻してくれる、ダイエットの強－－い味方です。 \n> 'Harmony 7 appeals to me because of its ability to arrange the body's\n> functions while returning to a natural balance of proportions, making it an\n> ideal diet support.'\n\nIs the quoted sentence grammatical? Is the verb hidden? I apologize in advance\nfor my ignorance as this question has probably arisen before and been\nanswered.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-05T16:46:47.050", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3378", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-10T16:36:23.827", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs" ], "title": "女性の身体は本来美しいもの. Is this sentence grammatical?", "view_count": 324 }

[ { "body": "Isn't this just a sentence of the form: X は Y です?\n\nIt's just like saying 私は学生。\n\nIf you are confused be the lack of です, it is very common for it to just be\ndropped when it comes at the end of sentences.\n\nDoes this answer your question?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-05T17:38:26.220", "id": "3379", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-05T17:38:26.220", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "581", "parent_id": "3378", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "My grammar dictionary has this to say about ending a sentence in `もの(だ)`:\n\nThe speaker talks about the situation like some tangible object. This pattern\ntends to be more emotive than without the use of `もの`.\n\nThe following are uses for `もの`:\n\n * emotive excuse\n\n * exclamation\n\n * nostalgic reminiscence\n\n * desire\n\n * indirect command\n\n * conviction", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T01:36:32.320", "id": "3384", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-06T01:36:32.320", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3378", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3390", "answer_count": 4, "body": "In English and most languages I understand, the natural way to tell your phone\nto call someone (when using Bluetooth for example) is: Call .\n\nI was told that in Japanese, it is more natural to say the contact name first.\n\n\\-- Is there a way to mimic in Japanese a similar format, in which the command\nprefixes the contact name? I understand it might be less natural, but would it\nbe _natural enough_ ?\n\n\\-- Is there already a \"standard\" that people expect based on how different\ndevices already work in Japan? Are people expecting to interact with\n\"machines\" in different language than with other humans?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-05T17:48:06.240", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3380", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-08T08:44:09.407", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-08T08:44:09.407", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "765", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "syntax", "imperatives" ], "title": "Natural way to command \"call <someone>\"", "view_count": 5356 }

[ { "body": "It's interesting to note than in a lot of English-language phone user\ninterfaces (non-verbal interfaces at least), you first find the person in your\ncontact list and then specify that you want to call them. In this case, it\ndoesn't reflect that natural order of the English language.\n\nAlthough, this doesn't completely answer the question, imagine using a verbal\nphone interface in English. With this interface, you must first state the\nperson's name before saying that you want to call them. Is this natural? Not\nreally. Is this natural enough to use? Probably. Given the choice would I use\nan interface that allows me to say the command first? Certainly.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-05T18:24:08.037", "id": "3381", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-05T18:24:08.037", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "581", "parent_id": "3380", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "My phone says has just a \"button\" that says `発信`. It really looks like a\ngeneric \"call\", doesn't it? (If you click it, then you get to choose between\n\"電話\", \"Eメール作成\" and others).\n\nNo need to explicitely say who to call, since, well, you're looking at their\nprofile already… I guess the user interface is made to fit the language :)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T04:06:54.337", "id": "3389", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-06T04:06:54.337", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3380", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I'm guessing from your question that what you are aspiring to do is create a\nway for a Japanese user to make an audio command to their phone to initiate a\ncall in a way that a computer can parse it.\n\nIf I understand speech recognition issues, unlike the usual smartphone graphic\ninterface where one can start by selecting the contact name and _then_\nchoosing an action, like \"email\" or \"phone\", a voice command system usually\nneeds to start with the general and work toward the specific.\n\nIn a normal environment which may have competing sounds and other people\ntalking, it's way harder for a computer to listen for countless possible names\nas a starting point. Instead, you want to have a limited set of commands like\n\"phone\" or \"email\", which can prompt action. Thus, in English, \"call Larry,\"\nwhere \"call\" initiates the phone's attentive listening.\n\nJapanese always (insofar as you can make a claim like \"always\") ends sentences\nwith the verb. In Japanese, one says, for example, `「太郎{たろう}に電話{でんわ}をかける」\n(Taro/to/phone/I call)`. If I'm right about your technical challenge, this is\nnot what you want.\n\nTo answer your second specific question first, no, there is no currently\naccepted, or expected, manner of talking to machines. So, on the upside, you\nhave free reign to define your own standards.\n\nThe most direct and simple solution would be to say something like `電話{でんわ}`,\nfollowed by the name. It's equivelent in English to saying \"Phone. Name.\" But\nthat's clunky and no fun.\n\nIf the whole goal of your project is naturalness itself, I think you could do\nthis `「電話{でんわ}を太郎{たろう}に掛{か}けなさい」`. It means \"By phone/Taro/call\". The\n`電話{でんわ}で` could function as the prompt for the machine to listen, as \"call\"\ndoes in English.\n\nIf you wanted to initiate other commands besides calling, you could do similar\nthings like `「メールで太郎{たろう}に連絡{れんらく}しなさい」(\"By email/Taro/contact\")`.\n\nThe key is to use `で`, \"by\", as identifying the vehicle for the action before\nyou give the name.\n\nThe `なさい` at the end makes the sentence a firm command, which I think is\nappropriate given that this is a machine and they have to suck it up as our\nservents until they inevitably become our sentient overlords.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T05:49:28.757", "id": "3390", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-07T01:02:36.507", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-07T01:02:36.507", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3380", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I wouldn't call it a standard, but I would assume there has been time spent\nthinking about it in the case of iPhones. Apple, with their current voice\ncontrol (which by the way, in iOS5 is going to be named Siri and doesn't\nseemed to be localized to Japan: シリ) uses\n[SVO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93verb%E2%80%93object) for\nEnglish users,\n[SOV](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject%E2%80%93object%E2%80%93verb) for\nJapanese, and so on. The seems logical to me.\n\nSo in English you **CALL YAMAMOTO**.\n\nIn Japanese you **YAMAMOTOに電話をかける** or even **YAMAMOTO、かける**\n\nIt doesn't work the other way around in English or Japanese.\n\nI think Apple also answers your first question; in both word orders\n**YAMAMOTO** alone is understood. Which could still be grammatical if you look\nat it from the context and what users want to do, and that of your machine's\nlanguage and vocabulary (commands, names from address book, song titles,\netc.).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T06:19:39.727", "id": "3391", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-06T06:19:39.727", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "3380", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm looking for a website with free audio recordings of Japanese children\nbooks. I found one a long time ago but alas I lost my bookmark to that site.\nI'm planning to go through those books since it'll be easier to follow the\njapanese they speak as opposed to listening to japanese talk shows and such\nfor adults. Is this a good way to work on my listening?\n\nAnyone have a recommendation?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-05T21:09:41.717", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3383", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:16:46.587", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:16:46.587", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "729", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "learning", "resources", "comprehension" ], "title": "Children's audio books good for listening practice?", "view_count": 1998 }

[ { "body": "I would think it would be ok though they sometime use pronunciations that are\neasier for kids to understand, informal japanese, and words typically used by\nkids.\n\nI'm not quite sure what your level is, but watching Love (renai) dramas with\njapanese subtitles would be my recommendation to improve your listening.\n\nAnother option is what is called Shadow books, where you read along with a CD.\nHelps with your japanese reading as well. These books are usually broken up\ninto levels corresponding to the JLPT levels.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T03:28:33.890", "id": "3386", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-06T03:28:33.890", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "3383", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3403", "answer_count": 3, "body": "> 人の目なんて。 気にしてられないと思えるようになる。\n>\n> You can't concern yourself with what other people think.\n\nI saw this on a TV show where the hosts were talking about coming out in\npublic if you are gay. They had both come out of the closet and were saying\nwhat a positive thing this is to do. I'm pretty sure I translated it\naccurately. However, I have some questions on the intricacies of the grammar.\n\nSo\n\n> 気にしてられない\n\nwould mean: \"can't concern\" \"can't be concerned\", and\n\n> と思えるようになる。\n\nmeans: \"come to think that/ come to terms with\"\n\nso put together it literally means:\n\n> be able to come to the point where you aren't concerned with what other\n> people think.\n\nIs this right?\n\nTo further clarify, here is a link to the original clip. The part I quoted is\nfrom 3:00-3:20\n\nThe speaker actually says something extra between と and 思える but I can't make\nit out. If anyone would care to tell me, I'd appreciate it.\n\n[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYNU1LEXWhM&feature=related](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYNU1LEXWhM&feature=related)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T02:25:53.797", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3385", "last_activity_date": "2014-08-28T01:00:31.900", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "706", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation" ], "title": "Is my interpretation of the grammar in 「気にしてられないと思えるようになる。」 correct?", "view_count": 925 }

[ { "body": "Let me try to break it down:\n\n 1. 人の目なんて : Lit: Things like people's eyes. (How people look at you)\n\n 2. 気にする: to mind/care/concern about\n\n * 気にしている: (ongoing state)\n\n * 気にしていられない: (negated potential ongoing state) (Cannot be caring about ~) \n\n 3. ~と思える: to appear/seem ~\n\n 4. ~ようになる: to (gradually) reach the point where ~\n\nLiteral combination yields:\n\n> \"[person] has reached the point where it seems that [person] cannot be\n> caring about things like people's eyes\".\n\nOr naturally parsed as:\n\n> \"I/You have come to the point where it seems that I/you cannot be concerned\n> with how others look at me/you\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T03:30:56.800", "id": "3387", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-06T03:30:56.800", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3385", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "> 気にしてられないと思えるようになる\n\n思えるようになる -> to come to being able to think\n\n気にしてられない -> negative of (passive of 気にする) -> negative of (to stand out) -> not\nstand out\n\nResult: reach the point were you can think people don't look at you like a\nfreak.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T04:01:28.480", "id": "3388", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-06T04:01:28.480", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3385", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "That is one sentence, and られない here is a colloquial contraction of いられない.\nTherefore, the sentence before the contraction is:\n\n> 人の目なんて気にしていられないと思えるようになる。\n\nLet’s consider the first half and the last half separately.\n\n> 人の目なんて気にしていられない。 I can no longer care what people think of me.\n\nAs you correctly interpreted, 人の目を気にする means “to care what people think of\n(the subject).”\n\nなんて signifies that the speaker considers the thing or the person preceding it\nas unimportant. In the English translation above, I did not include any words\nwhich directly correspond to なんて, but I hope that the nuance is clear. If I\nhave to include this part explicitly, I would go with “I can no longer care\nabout nonsense like what people think of me.”\n\nThe phrase ～ていられない means “cannot ～ any longer.”\n\n> ～と思えるようになる。 I reach the point where I can think that ～.\n\nThis is as Axioplase explained. 思える has a few usages, but I think that in this\ncase, it is clear from the other parts of the sentence that 思える is simply the\npotential form (可能動詞) of 思う, meaning “can think.”\n\nSo the whole sentence means…\n\n> 人の目なんて気にしていられないと思えるようになる。 I reach the point where I can think that I can no\n> longer care what people think of me.\n\nOk, I admit that this translation is incomprehensible. A more natural\ntranslation may be:\n\n> I come to succeed in convincing myself that I can no longer care what people\n> think of me.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-07T02:14:38.267", "id": "3403", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-07T02:14:38.267", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3385", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3394", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Japanese for Busy People 1 (lesson 11) mentions when talking about [キス]{kisu}\n([whiting](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiting)) at a [てんぷらや]{tempura-ya}:\n\n> NOTE: Names of fish, fruits and vegetables etc. are sometimes written in\n> katakana.\n\nDoes using katakana only apply when talking about the animal, as opposed to\ntalking about the food? (For an English equivalent, people refer to the animal\nas \"shark\" but sometimes refer to the food as \"flake\")\n\nAssume that it's not gairaigo and therefore would be in katakana anyway.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T12:11:26.773", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3392", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:21:19.303", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:21:19.303", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "food", "katakana", "orthography" ], "title": "Are the names of some food items written in katakana?", "view_count": 1523 }

[ { "body": "Unscientific survey: I looked for きす recipes on Cookpad (cookpad.com). By my\ncount: katakana: 13 hiragana: 8\n\nIn my experience in a cooking context when there aren't set rules (e.g.\noutside something like a newspaper which will presumably have some sort of\nstyle guide), individual usage varies.\n\nI can also confirm that the グルメ section of Yomiuri generally uses katakana in\nthis situation, or sometimes the kanji if appropriate.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T14:30:12.930", "id": "3394", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-06T14:30:12.930", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "3392", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3407", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Expanding on [my previous\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/2910/542),\n\nWhat if the range is not numerical? I encountered these on a book for learning\nJapanese.\n\nThe `初～中級編` book for beginner to intermediate level and `中～上級編` for\nintermediate to advanced level.\n\n**(Question)** If I were to read \"~\" out loud, what would it be? Can I\nsimilarly use `から` and `乃至`?\n\nIn English I can use \"`From` One `to` ten\" and \"`From` beginner `to`\nadvanced\", is it reasonable for me to map this to Japanese? i.e. the use of\n`から` and `まで`?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T13:29:49.187", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3393", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-07T10:58:13.950", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "readings" ], "title": "Reading a non-numerical range", "view_count": 228 }

[ { "body": "This is an interesting question. In library catalogs and similar contexts,\n\"初～中\" tends to be treated as a variant of \"初・中\" (or vice versa), and assigned\nthe pronunciation \"しょちゅう\". I assume the same applies for other non-numeric\nranges. But I'm not sure if this is the result of a conscious decision by a\nhuman being, or just software limitations.\n\nI recall reading that \"～\" should only be pronounced から when it is either\nexplicitly paired with まで (e.g. \"月曜日～水曜日まで\") or, less ideally, not paired with\nanything at all (i.e. just meaning \"From X [to an unspecified end point]\"). In\nother cases, **including** when it is part of a pair that does not have まで\nafter the second item, the rule was that it should not be pronounced at all --\nas described in my first paragraph.\n\nThis is sort of like the pronounced hyphen in \"4-6 mL\" (\"four to six\nmilliliters\") versus the unpronounced hyphen in English phrases like \"the\nBoston-New York route\", I guess. On the other hand, I don't remember exactly\nwhere I read this tidbit, but it was definitely in a prescriptive style guide\nso it could be an artificial rule with no basis in actual spoken Japanese.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-07T10:58:13.950", "id": "3407", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-07T10:58:13.950", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3393", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3397", "answer_count": 2, "body": "”I did some difficult studying last night.\"\n\nCould I say, \"昨夜、難しい勉強しました。”?\n\nBasically, my question is: can an adjective, relative clause, or adjectival\nphrase modify a noun that has する attached, for example 勉強をする or 勉強する? And does\nit make that word or phrase actually adverbial when applied like that?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T17:41:49.320", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3395", "last_activity_date": "2014-08-25T13:27:05.567", "last_edit_date": "2014-08-25T13:27:05.567", "last_editor_user_id": "6840", "owner_user_id": "769", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "adjectives" ], "title": "Can a noun + suru have an adjective modify the noun as well?", "view_count": 2621 }

[ { "body": "(The combination 難しい勉強 sounds slightly off to me, but I put this aside for the\npurpose of this question.)\n\nYou have to distinguish noun+する and noun+をする.\n\n * Noun+する: Once you attach する, what was originally a noun becomes a verb, and you cannot modify it with an adjective.\n * Noun+をする: Attaching をする does not change a noun to a verb, and you can still modify it with an adjective.\n\nFor example, 難しい勉強する is ungrammatical (although this is not unheard of),\nwhereas 難しい勉強をする is grammatical.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T17:58:20.337", "id": "3397", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-06T17:58:20.337", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3395", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "I agree with Tsuyoshi's answer.\n\nHere's [a research paper](http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/tross/shimadaKordoni.pdf)\ndiscussing these する constructions.\n\nThe relevant section states:\n\n> \"In addition, the VN occurring with the light verb suru cannot be modified by\n> an adjectival phrase (subayai ‘quick’ in (5a)), but can be modified by an\n> adverbial modifier such as subayaku ‘quickly’ in (5b)\"\n```\n\n> \n> 5. a. *Taroo-ga piza-o subayai HAITATSU sita.\n> Taro-Nom pizza-Acc quick delivery did\n> b. Taroo-ga piza-o subayaku HAITASU sita.\n> Taro-Nom pizza-Acc quickly delivery did\n> ‘Taro deliveried pizzas quickly\n> \n```\n\nIt's pretty dense reading, but the first chunk of it is pretty understandable.\nYou may be interested in the last part if you're into linguistics at all or\nare just masochistic.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T18:44:52.593", "id": "3400", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-06T18:44:52.593", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "581", "parent_id": "3395", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3398", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Ok. The whole sentence is:\n\nPerson A bandages Person B's arm.\n\nPerson B says: ありがとう。ずいぶん慣れた処置ね？看護婦でもやってたの？\n\nI get what the sentences are saying.\n\nBut! For the life of me I can't parse ずいぶん慣れた処置ね？ into that makes any sense to\nme. All I can come up with is: \"You do very accustomed treatments.\" Which I\nknow barely makes any sense (grammatical or otherwise).\n\nCan someone please break this down for me?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T17:50:59.600", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3396", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-27T06:15:52.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "769", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "learning" ], "title": "How does a noun phrase translate into a verb?", "view_count": 873 }

[ { "body": "`慣れる` can also mean \"become skilled at\", so it's more like \"You've become\nquite skilled at this treatment. Were you a nurse or something?\" More\nliterally, it would be like \"This is a treatment at which you've become quite\nskilled.\" There is a `です` that's omitted before `ね？`; if this wasn't obvious\nto you, that may be the reason you had trouble with it. So there's no \" **do**\n\" in it as you were thinking. It's an \" **is** \".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T18:22:01.440", "id": "3398", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-06T18:22:01.440", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3396", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "`ずいぶん` 'very' is an adverb and an intensifier modifying `慣れた` 'became\naccustomed'. `ずいぶん慣れた` is a relative clause modifying `処置` 'treatment'.\n`ずいぶん慣れた処置` is a nominal predicate. Here, its subject is omitted. The copula\n`だ` is optionally omitted before certain elements including the sentence-final\nparticle `ね`. To reconstruct what is omitted, it would be like this:\n\n> (あなたの処置は)ずいぶん慣れた処置(だ)ね。 \n> '(Your treatment) (is) a very accustomed treatment, isn't it?'", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-06T18:36:57.987", "id": "3399", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-27T01:32:00.830", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-27T01:32:00.830", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3396", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I don't have much to add to the already posted answers, except you might be\ninterested in knowing that omitting the だ before ね is mostly female language,\nand would rarely be used by males.\n\nOf course, this distinction only applies after nouns and na-adjective stems,\nsince verbs and i-adjectives don't have a だ to begin with.\n\nAnother sentence ender that this phenomenon occurs for is よ:\n\n> 好きよ！ I like/love you! (mainly female)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-27T06:15:52.070", "id": "4461", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-27T06:15:52.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "3396", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3402", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I recently came across the term `変{へん}てこ`, which, if I understand it, means\n\"strange\", but is softer than saying `変{へん}な`.\n\nIs it similar to `変{へん}なちょこ`? I think this also means strange, but also in a\nsofter, possibly cute way.\n\nIn short, can someone clarify the different nuances of `変{へん}てこ`, `変{へん}な`,\nand `変{へん}なちょこ`?\n\nAlso, are there other examples of `～てこ`, or is it only used with `変{へん}`?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-07T00:59:40.223", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3401", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-09T08:56:48.850", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-07T02:58:24.373", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "word-choice", "adverbs" ], "title": "What are the different nuances of saying 変{へん}?", "view_count": 560 }

[ { "body": "`変てこ` is a shortened form of `変てこりん`, which seems to have underwent\nphonological change from `変ちくりん`. Not sure about the motivation of the sound\nchange, but does not look unreasonable. The vowels in `ちく` changed:\n\n> [iu] → [eo], which is: \n> [+high, -back][+high, +back] → [-high, -back][-high, +back]\n\nThe origin of `ちくりん` is unknown, but is used with a few na-adjectives such as\n\n> 変ちくりん \n> 珍ちくりん \n> 妙ちくりん\n\nBut be careful because some of them are politically incorrect.\n\n`ちくりん` can be considered as a diminutive, adding cuteness. `変な` does not have\nthat cuteness nuance. `変てこ`, `変てこりん`, and `変ちくりん` imply funny thing that is\nhuman made and cannot be used in a serious situation, whereas `変な` simply\nmeans strange or unusual.\n\n> Scene: A doctor is doing a surgery, and finds an unusual thing in the\n> patients body. \n> In this case, the doctor can say `変なものがある`, but definetely not `変てこなものがある`.\n>\n> Scene: There is a painting on the wall, which is commical and fun but\n> nothing wrong. \n> In this case, although `変な絵がある` is not impossible, `変てこな絵がある` will be a\n> better fit.\n\nAs Tsuyoshi Ito mentions in the comment, `へなちょこ` means poor in quality. It\ndoes not mean strange.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-07T02:13:51.163", "id": "3402", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-09T08:56:48.850", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3401", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3406", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Google spells こんにちは as こんにちは but when I type \"konnnichiwa\" I've got こんにちわ and\nif I do space I've got : コンニチワ ...\n\nmaybe don't need to trust google here ? or there is some another way to write\nit", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-07T07:08:42.670", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3405", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:21:00.863", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:21:00.863", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "559", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "input-method" ], "title": "How to type こんにちは (not こんにちわ) with windows Japanese keyboard", "view_count": 646 }

[ { "body": "「は」 is always entered into an IME as \"ha\", even if it is romanized as \"wa\" due\nto use as a particle.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-07T07:15:42.463", "id": "3406", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-07T07:15:42.463", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "3405", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3410", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I can say 売り場は九時で終わります、 and 三時で帰ります、 which I've learned mean something like,\n\"They'll be trying to close from,\" and, \"I'll be trying to leave from.\" I've\nalso learned that ２月２５日で帰ります is not correct. What are the rules surrounding\nthe use of で in the place of に・から? Is there a more approximate meaning", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-08T03:05:55.300", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3409", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-08T13:55:05.663", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-08T13:55:05.663", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "770", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances", "particles", "particle-で" ], "title": "で終わります: trying to close by? で帰ります, trying to leave by? It depends on the sentence?", "view_count": 336 }

[ { "body": "`で` here is used as a particle to mark a time where an event terminates.\n\n`売り場は九時で終わります` is a correct use of this `で`. (The closing(termination) of the\n売り場).\n\n`三時で行きます` and `２月２５日で行きます` is not correct because it's a start of something.\n\nAnd for cases where `に` and `で` are interchangeable, the nuance is that the\nsentence with `で` indicates that the event lasts up to the point of the time\nmarked by `で`. While the version with に just means it ends at that point.\n\nAbout `~から`, it means \"from the point of ~\". It would be more natural to say\n\"something ends at ~\" than \"something ends from ~ onwards\". That's why `で` is\nused over `から` for an event terminating.\n\nAs a side note, \"trying to ~\" is expressed by `~ようとする`\n\n**EDIT:**\n\nIn the absence of context, `三時で帰る` would mean \"Return (home) by means of 3\nO'clock\", which doesn't make sense. This `で` is different from the first `で`\nwe initially discussed. This is the `で` of \"the condition/state of how the\naction takes place\".\n\n`三時間で帰る` \\- \"Return in 3 hours time (it takes 3 hours to travel back)\" would\nmake sense.\n\nHowever, in the presence of context like \" **ending** office hours\", 三時で帰る is\ngrammatical.\n\nSimilarly, `[２]{に}月{がつ}[２５]{にじゅうご}日{にち}で帰る` would be \"Return (home) by means\nof 25th February\", unless context of something ending is given.\n\n`[２]{に}[ヶ]{か}月{げつ}２５日{にち}` \\- \"Return in 2 months and 25 days (it takes 2\nmonths 25 days to travel back)\" would make sense.\n\nNow if you're trying to convey a time limit, `までに` is used.\n\n> ３時までに帰る - \"Return home by 3 O'clock\"\n\n* * *\n\n**EDIT2:**\n\nAbout 三月で私の国に帰ります. I'm not sure about this but I offer two theories:\n\n> 1. It suffers the same limitation as the example discussed above. If\n> sufficient context is given that something ends at 三月, then 三月で私の国に帰ります is\n> grammatical. If not it becomes the で of means and sounds weird.\n>\n> 2. 三月 is not specific enough a time for で to be used as a marker for the\n> time where something terminates. 三月 lasts from 一日 to 三十一日.\n>\n>", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-08T03:46:52.677", "id": "3410", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-08T13:23:44.567", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3409", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3413", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What are the different ways to make a sentence that ends in なかった polite?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-08T20:47:16.967", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3412", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-09T07:36:27.217", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "politeness" ], "title": "Making a sentence that ends in なかった polite", "view_count": 358 }

[ { "body": "Let's consider it in cases:\n\n * If the 〜なかった is attached to a verb, then the correct polite form is 〜ませんでした (with the appropriate stem, of course).\n\n * If the 〜なかった is attached to a noun or an adjective (both types), then the orthodox polite form is 〜ありませんでした. However, it is also common to see 〜なかったです for this.\n\n * If なかった is being used as the main predicate, the polite form is ありませんでした. As above, 〜なかったです is also common.\n\nFor extra politeness, 〜でございます forms are used: e.g. 〜ございませんでした instead of\n〜ありませんでした. Unlike 〜ありませんでした, it is possible to use 〜ございませんでした with\ni-adjectives, though the u-stem must be used, e.g. おはようございます, not **おはやくございます.\n\nIn the colloquial language, 〜んです is sometimes attached to plain forms to make\nthem polite without necessarily having the usual explanatory connotations.\nThis is regarded as incorrect in formal contexts.\n\nFinally, I'll just note that 〜ないでした is universally regarded as wrong.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-08T22:06:06.520", "id": "3413", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-09T07:36:27.217", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-09T07:36:27.217", "last_editor_user_id": "578", "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "3412", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3415", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In this sentence:\n\n> ゆうむら家の３人は、半年前に **この家を** 購入し、転居してきた。\n\nこの家を is pronounced as \"kono yo\" as opposed to \"kono ie o\".\n\nAnd this phrase\n\n> あんたは一人で **この家** から学校に通っている。\n\nこの家 is pronounced as \"kono ye\" as opposed to \"kono ie\".\n\nSo my question is, is this normal pronunciation for 家 when Japanese people\ntalk normally/colloquially?\n\nNote: sentence from Noir the anime, Episode 1.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-09T02:57:41.403", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3414", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-15T07:14:21.417", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-15T02:34:32.237", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "769", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "learning" ], "title": "Pronunciation of 家", "view_count": 833 }

[ { "body": "I do not know the anime, but 家を is never read as “yo,” and Japanese does not\nhave “ye” sound at all. What you heard as “yo” is probably “ie o” and what you\nheard as “ye” is probably “ie,” both just spoken fast.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-09T03:03:51.503", "id": "3415", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-09T03:03:51.503", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3414", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "家 is read and pronounced as いえ - i-e (yi-eh) or うち - u-chi.\n\nIn comparison, うち sounds to me more informal, psychological, and subjective\nthan いえ, which sounds formal, pysical and objective, like home versus house\njust for an analogy.\n\nI would say:\n\n彼のいえは大きい than 彼のうちは大きい、\n\n(僕の)うちに遊びに来ない？ than (僕の)いえに遊びに来ない？\n\nいえの守り神 than うちの守り神\n\nand,\n\nうちの家内は、うちの人は、not いえの家内は、いえの人は、\n\nBut it depends on your taste.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-08-15T03:29:46.880", "id": "38470", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-15T07:14:21.417", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-15T07:14:21.417", "last_editor_user_id": "12056", "owner_user_id": "12056", "parent_id": "3414", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3417", "answer_count": 1, "body": "My friend and I were having a debate.\n\nBasically, the line 「あんたは一人でこの家から学校に通っている。」 in an anime was translated as \"And\nyou live here alone, attending school.\"\n\nA direct literal translation of the Japanese seems to give a different English\nsentence. However, my question is: XからYに通っている the normal way of saying \"(You)\nattend Y\"? He seems thinks that saying \"You go back and forth from home to\nschool\" is a weird, if not too wordy, way to say \"attending school\".\n\n**(Added after Chris' answer:)**\n\nI'm providing the whole response from the character in the anime (for\ncontext).\n\nゆうむら家の３人は、半年前にこの家を購入し、転居してきた。間もなくあんたの両親はアメリカに赴任し、あんたは一人でこの家から学校に通っている。\n\nThe subtitled translation:\n\nThe Yuumura family of three bought this house half a year ago and moved in.\nSoon after, your parents went to America to their new job posts. And you live\nhere alone, attending school.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-09T04:55:20.887", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3416", "last_activity_date": "2015-08-06T04:20:42.150", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-10T06:35:29.090", "last_editor_user_id": "769", "owner_user_id": "769", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar", "learning" ], "title": "Is this the correct way of saying attending a school?", "view_count": 18442 }

[ { "body": "First of all, note that _attend_ is not equivalent to _enroll._ A quick Google\nsearch on \"define: attend\" reveals the following meanings (emphasis mine).\n\n 1. Be present at (an event, meeting, or function).\n 2. **Go regularly to** : \"all children are required to attend school\".\n\n\"Attend\" emphasizes the act of _going somewhere regularly_ , as does 通{かよ}う.\nIn other words, I would say that **X大学に`通{かよ}`っている normally means \"I _commute_\nto university X\"** (which is in line with the definition of \"attend\" above)\nand **X大学の学生です is the correct way of saying \"I am a student at university\nX.\"**\n\n## Further Information\n\nLet's break down the sentence 「あんたは一人でこの家から学校に通っている」.\n\n 1. Without context, I would probably translate it as \"You are commuting to school from this house by yourself.\"\n 2. Assuming that you're using the verb `通{かよ}う` instead of `通{とお}る`—which is usually used to mean \"passing through\"—I think that this sentence is emphasizing the act of _going_ to school rather than the act of being _enrolled_ in school.\n\nAs stated above, if you want to emphasize the fact that you're _enrolled_ at\nuniversity X, I would use a phrase like \"X大学の学生です.\" If you want to emphasize\nthe fact that you're _commuting_ there every day, I would say \"X大学に通っています.\" In\neither case, あなたは, 一人で, and この家から are all superfluous and can generally be\nimplied from context.\n\nNow that you've made it clear that this line comes from an anime and is not\nintended to be a stand-alone statement, the sentence (and superfluous\ninformation) makes a bit more sense. Remember, **Japanese is an extremely\ncontextual language** and the proper translation will often require a few\nsentences of context. In this case, the sentence is emphasizing\n\n * the change in topic from the Yomura family to \"you\" through the use of あんた (which additionally hints that the speaker is a woman)\n * that \"you\" are commuting to school _alone_ even though other people don't (not enough context to say who \"you\" are being compared with in this case)\n * that \"you\" are commuting from _this house_ instead of another one (again, not enough context to say precisely which other houses \"your\" house is being compared with, but presumably the fact that it's _your_ house is important)\n\nNote that all of this information is added for emphasis but in a normal\nconversation would not be strictly necessary.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-09T05:54:35.970", "id": "3417", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-10T06:47:46.353", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "773", "parent_id": "3416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3471", "answer_count": 2, "body": "While studying Japanese I've met some problems with distinguishing some\nvocabulary.\n\nFor example we have:\n\n> * 赤{あか} = Red (color)\n> * 赤{あか}い = Red (adjective)\n>\n\nBut what about 赤色{あかいろ}? Is there a difference between that and 赤{あか}?\n\nIs the former just there in order to study the Kanji, or are there differences\nin usage (and maybe \"acception\") between the two?\n\nI suspect it's the second, but it would be nice to have a good explanation\nabout it.", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-09T11:07:16.783", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3418", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-01T02:00:04.040", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T17:10:27.613", "last_editor_user_id": "37", "owner_user_id": "37", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "usage", "words" ], "title": "Is there a difference between 赤{あか} and 赤色{あかいろ}?", "view_count": 1404 }

[ { "body": "1. I think the same difference applies in English i.e. \"red\" versus \"red colour\".\n\n\"red colour\" forces you to perceive it as a colour, while \"red\" has no such\nlimitation.\n\nThis means \"red\" can be used symbolically to represent other things. (Much\nlike how \"white\" is to \"purity\", and \"green\" is to \"environment\" etc.)\n\nThis means `赤{あか}` and `赤{あか}い` can be used symbolically, while `赤{あか}色{いろ}`\nforces you to perceive a colour (less likely to be perceived symbolically).\n\n 2. From a grammar standpoint, \n\n * `赤{あか}月{つき}`(red moon) is a noun on its own. \n\n * `赤{あか}い月{つき}` is the noun `月{つき}` modified by the adjective `赤{あか}い`. \n\n * `赤色{あかいろ}の月{つき}` is the noun `月{つき}` modified by the noun `赤色{あかいろ}` via the genitive case1 particle `の\n\nSemantically I see no difference.\n\n 3. This is my conjecture: Using \"red\" means that the object is being inherently red or has \"red\" as an intrinsic quality; and \"red colour\" implying that the object is not inherently red or does not have \"red\" as an intrinsic quality.\n\n**EDIT:** There are compound nouns that are of the form 赤～ such as:\n\n> 赤{あか}狼{おおかみ} - Red wolf\n>\n> 赤{あか}蕪{かぶ} - Red turnip\n>\n> 赤{あか}狩{が}り - Communist hunting, red-baiting (Harassment or persecution (of\n> someone) on account of known or suspected communist sympathies.)\n\nThis leads me to conjecture that things that are inherently red in colour or\nare closely associated with the colour red or the concept of \"red\" (see point\n1.) can have compound nouns that are formed by `赤+[noun]` (First bullet of\npoint 2.) And things that are not take on the `赤い+[noun]` structure (Second\nbullet of point 2.).\n\nAlso consider why \"Red carpet\" takes on the `赤い+[noun]` construction:\n`赤いじゅうたん` even though it feels like a complete noun on its own. Carpets do not\nhave to be inherently red, the colour is incidental.\n\nSo this leads me to conclude that if the colour (or its related symbolic\nconcept) can be incidental, `赤い+[noun]` is used. If it is not incidental then\nit is quite likely that `赤+[noun]` will be an acceptable word.\n\n* * *\n\n1: Genitive Case: It is the grammatical case that marks a noun as modifying\nanother noun. A genitive construction involves two nouns - the head (modified)\nnoun and the modifier noun. The modifier noun modifies the head noun by\nexpressing some property of it.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-14T17:14:34.900", "id": "3471", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-18T15:22:14.910", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-18T15:22:14.910", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3418", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "赤 and 赤色 are both the same. When you start using the first, then other color\nwill be without 色, in conversation with your friends. If you use the second\none, then your friend will or may use 色, with other color as well.\n\nBut it does not matter in general conversation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-01T02:00:04.040", "id": "4139", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-01T02:00:04.040", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1007", "parent_id": "3418", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "Can は mean \"at least\" in some situations?\n\nFor example, 10回は＝\"at least 10 times?\"\n\nHow does this work?\n\nThis is an example:\n\n美味しかったぁ。腹いっぱい。今日のところはジャスミン茶は諦めよう。何回もドリンクバー行くの恥ずかしいし。一人じゃなかったら余裕で10回は行ってやるんだからな！", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-10T02:32:25.007", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3420", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:33:27.643", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:33:27.643", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "particles", "meaning", "numbers", "particle-は" ], "title": "は can mean \"at least?\"", "view_count": 793 }

[ { "body": "一人じゃなかったら余裕で10回は行ってやるんだからな！\n\n\"quantifier+は\" basically expresses \"at least.\"\n\nIt's logic is as follows.\n\n1) a quantifier usually precedes a verb without a particle. [literally\n\"unmarked\"] ex. 10回、行く\n\n2) In general, the particle は is used when a speaker wants to pick a phrase\nout of other similar possible phrases. This function typically appears when a\nspeaker wants to talk about a phrase in contrast to another phrase.\n\n3) When は is added to a quantifier, the quantifier is explained in contrast to\nits double amount. ex. （20回は行かない。しかし、）10回は行く。\n\n4) Thus, it means \"I will go (to the free-drink corner) at least 10 times\n(with a margin of frequency) (if I was not alone).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T01:34:16.057", "id": "3429", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-11T01:34:16.057", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "776", "parent_id": "3420", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "_Note: this was originally a comment. I'm re-posting it as a full answer._\n\nMy sensei in college translated \"Xは\" as \"as far as X is concerned\", which\noften overlaps with \"at least for X\". But this \"at least\" is not referring to\nthe quantity or amount as in \"10 times or more\", but it's more like refining\nthe context as in \"if we are talking about 10 times ...\" or \"as for 10 times\n...\".\n\n`一人じゃなかったら余裕で10回は行ってやるんだからな` can be translated as literally as follows:\n\n> If I was not alone, for 10 times would I go there with ease.\n\nRephrasing it into more comprehensible sentence:\n\n> If I was not alone, I would easily go there for 10 times.\n\nThere is nothing to deduce about \"less than 10 times\" or \"more than 10 times\"\nbecause the topic of the sentence, marked by \"は\" is limiting the theoretical\nsituation to \"10 times\".\n\nBut, if we look at the context, if the speaker could go there 10 times, could\ns/he go there 9 times? Probably yes, because in the context of going to the\ndrink machine to refill drinks, the more often s/he goes the more embarrassing\nit would be, so if s/he thought s/he'd be fine going there 10 times, s/he\nwould be fine going there 9 times or less too, wouldn't s/he? Now, would s/he\nbe fine going there 11 times? We wouldn't be able to deduce that without\nfurther clarification from the speaker. S/he might already turn bright red\nafter 10 times and who knows what would happen if s/he went the 11th times?\nSo, in this context, it's actually \"at most 10 times\", and not \"at least 10\ntimes\". Again, this deduction came from the context, and not from the use of\n\"は\" particle in the sentence.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T09:10:45.633", "id": "3573", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T09:16:00.307", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-25T09:16:00.307", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3420", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3423", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I would like to know how we say taking class or course or lecture in japanese.\n\nI have heard about 「クラスを受ける」 and 「クラスを取る」.\n\nAre there significant difference? And Is there any other verb we can use with?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-10T05:48:12.800", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3422", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-24T23:50:00.997", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:32:56.287", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "730", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "verbs", "words", "idioms", "word-choice" ], "title": "Taking Class, Course, Lecture - Which verb is fit?", "view_count": 14457 }

[ { "body": "Within relevant contexts, `受ける` means 'to attend' whereas `取る` means 'to be\nregistered for'. If you are unofficially attending a class, you should use the\nformer. If you are officially registered but tend to be absent, you should use\nthe latter. Formal ways of saying it are `受講する` 'to be registered for', `聴講する`\n'to be registered as a non-full time student for'.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-10T06:20:38.287", "id": "3423", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-10T06:20:38.287", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3422", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3428", "answer_count": 3, "body": "In one of my study flashcards, I have this sentence:\n\n> 疲{つか}れぎみだけど生{い}きてます。\n\nWhich should translate to something like, \"[He] appears worn out but [he's]\nstill kicking.\"\n\nThe main point is that in this instance, my understanding is that `ぎみ` means\n\"appears to,\" or, \"looks like.\"\n\nThis card just came up in the rotation, and I remembered seeing [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3270/what-is-the-\ndifference-\nbetween-%E3%80%9C%E3%81%8C%E3%82%8B-and-%E3%80%9C%E3%81%8C%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B),\nwhere it is explained that `がる` also means something similar.\n\nSo similar, that I'm wondering what exactly is the difference between `がる` and\n`ぎみ`?\n\nObviously one difference is that `がる` can be modified (\"conjugated\"?) like a\nverb (maybe it is a verb of some kind?) to become `がっている`, and `ぎみ` doesn't\nlook like it can be modified in any way that I'm aware of. So there almost\ncertainly a difference in grammatical usage.\n\nThe definitions still seem to be pretty much the same though.\n\nCan someone explain if they have different implications in meaning, and in\nwhat situations one would apply and the other couldn't?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-10T08:25:25.060", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3424", "last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T07:49:29.380", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice" ], "title": "What is the difference between がる and ぎみ?", "view_count": 1226 }

[ { "body": "No, ぎみ、まみれ and だらけ are roughly words to say \"full of something\".\n\nI translate your sentence like `tiredness got me, but I'm not dead yet.`\n\n疲れぎみ、 風邪ぎみ and friends would translate to \"suffering from exhaustion\" \"having\nthe symptoms of a cold\" or something like that. It's not about appeareance, it\nreally is the state of the persion.\n\nFor nuances in usage of the three words I gave above, any JLPT book for levels\n1-2 will give you samples (or you can ask again)", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-10T09:47:43.807", "id": "3425", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-10T11:57:19.757", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-10T11:57:19.757", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3424", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "Honestly speaking, I do not find the suffixes がる and [気味]{ぎみ} anything similar\nto each other. This may mean that my explanation is not going to help you\nresolve your confusion, but anyway here is my attempt.\n\nThe two suffixes have different grammatical roles and different meanings.\n\nがる is attached to the stem of an i-adjective or a word which conjugates like\nan i-adjective, and forms a verb. It adds the meaning “to act showing ….”\n\n * [痛]{いた}い (i-adjective; aching) → [痛]{いた}がる (verb; to act showing an ache)\n\n気味 ([Progressive Waei Chu\nJiten](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%B0%97%E5%91%B3&dtype=3&dname=2na&stype=1&index=01020900&pagenum=1),\n[New Century Waei\nJiten](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%B0%97%E5%91%B3&dtype=3&dname=2ss&stype=1&index=054080&pagenum=1))\nis attached to a noun or the 連用形 form of a verb, and forms a noun. It adds the\nmeaning “having the tendency of …” or “being slight ….”\n\n * [疲]{つか}れる (verb; to be tired) → [疲]{つか}れ[気味]{ぎみ} (noun; slight feeling of tiredness) \nExample: [最近]{さいきん}疲れ気味だ。 I am a little tired these days.\n\n * [風邪]{かぜ} (noun; a cold) → [風邪気味]{かぜぎみ} (noun; slight feeling of a cold) \nExample: 風邪気味だ have a touch of a cold", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-10T11:59:24.450", "id": "3428", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-10T11:59:24.450", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3424", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "You can't use 「がる」in the following context:\n\n「風邪気味だ」= \"I feel like I'm getting a cold\" (The situation appears as if\nsomeone's getting a cold.)\n\nYou can't use 「気味」in the following context: 「なにか甘いもの食べたがっている」 = \"He looks like\nhe wants something sweet\" (The situation appears as if somebody wants\nsomething sweet to eat.)\n\nThe speaker can use both phrases to express the idea of \"the appearance of\nsomething\", but 「気味」is used to talk about state or feeling whereas 「がる」is used\nto express the desire to do something.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-08-18T07:49:29.380", "id": "18270", "last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T07:49:29.380", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7055", "parent_id": "3424", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3438", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Can you tell me the difference between 壱 and 一, 弐 and 二, 参 and 三?\n\nDo these pairs have the same meaning? If yes, why do we use different Kanji?\nIf no, what is the difference in their meanings?\n\nCan you give example usage in sentences for each of them?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-10T11:37:34.930", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3426", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-11T14:35:01.010", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "667", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "kanji", "meaning", "numbers", "word-choice" ], "title": "壱, 弐, 参 vs 一, 二, 三", "view_count": 5974 }

[ { "body": "The \"difficult\" kanjis are used in legal documents, or for style (in some\ncommercials, e.g. when you have three days of sales).\n\nI guess we don't use them because they're obviously harder, but I don't know\nwhere the \"simple\" ones come from.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-10T11:59:11.483", "id": "3427", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-10T11:59:11.483", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3426", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "The more complex ones are called daiji (`大字【だいじ】`). Find out more here.\n<http://www.jekai.org/entries/aa/00/no/aa00no38.htm>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T10:27:30.223", "id": "3438", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-11T14:35:01.010", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-11T14:35:01.010", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "647", "parent_id": "3426", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I will first state the dictionary entry, and then other formations that also\nyield the dictionary entry.\n\nConsider the following :\n\n 1. 思える - to seem/appear, \n\n * potential form of 思う - can think\n 2. 合わせる - to join together, \n\n * potential form of 合わす - can join together\n\n * causative form of 合う - to let suit/match/agree with\n\n 3. 解ける - to come untied / be solved\n\n * potential form of 解く - can untie/solve\n 4. 空ける - to empty\n\n * potential form of 空く - can become empty\n\nAs above, there are words that in their potential/causative form that already\nhave a dictionary meaning that is different from their conjugated forms.\n\n**(Question)** Were they equal in meaning at some point in time? Or are they\ncompletely different words and should be treated as such?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T01:40:52.473", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3430", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-11T05:30:48.243", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-11T04:16:07.620", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "potential-form", "causation" ], "title": "Dictionary entry and derived forms, were they equal at some point?", "view_count": 290 }

[ { "body": "Not all of what you claim as potential form are potential forms. Actually, all\n`-e-` except for the one in `思える` just switch transitivity.\n\nYou seem to be doing the conjugation wrong. Notice that when the verb stem\nends with a vowel, the potential affix is `-re-` instead of `-e`, which is\nonly for when the verb stem ends with a consonant.\n\n> omow-u → omou (tr.) 'think' \n> omow- **e** -ru → omoeru (tr. potential) 'can think'\n>\n> aw-u → au (it.) 'meet' \n> aw- **e** -ru → aeru (it. potential) 'can meet'\n>\n> aw-ase-ru (tr.) 'meet' \n> aw-ase- **re** -ru (tr. potential) 'can meet'\n>\n> tok-u (tr.) 'solve' \n> tok- **e** -ru (tr. potential) 'can solve'\n>\n> tok-e-ru (it.) 'dissolve' \n> tok-e- **re** -ru (it. potential) 'can dissolve'\n>\n> ak-u (it.) 'open' \n> × ak- **e** -ru (it.) 'can open'\n>\n> ak-e-ru (tr.) 'open' \n> ak-e- **re** -ru (tr. potential) 'can open'", "comment_count": 14, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T02:11:31.630", "id": "3431", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-11T05:30:48.243", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3430", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "All of my Japanese teachers have told me that な-adjectives converted to\nに-ending words and い-adjectives converted to く-ending words, when followed by\na verb, are 'adverbs'. However, sentences sound ridiculous when translated in\nkeeping with this principle:\n\n> 静かにランチが食べたいです。 \n> 'I want to eat lunch quietly.' or \n> 'I want to eat a quiet lunch.'\n>\n> 静かにしなさい。 \n> 'Be quiet!' or \n> 'Be quietly!'\n>\n> 汚いことをいっぱい言ったくせになんなの？ 臭くなりましたか？ \n> 'What's with you saying so many damn dirty things? Are you being stinky?'\n> or \n> 'What's with you saying so many damn dirty things? Are you being stinkily?'\n> (Obviously, stinkily isn't a word... but...)...\n\nIs there any way I can accommodate my academic learning and my true-to-life\nexperience simultaneously, or do I have to surrender one of them for the\nother?\n\nAlso, can you pay especially close attention to the first sentence? I'm a\nlittle sad that I haven't been able to find the words that mean 'a quiet\nlunch'. Alongside the first sentence in this post, `静かな場所でランチが食べたいです` is a\nconsidered alternative, but it means, 'eat lunch in a quiet place'. This\ndoesn't comprise the implied 'peace of mind' that 'a quiet lunch' retains in\nEnglish.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T04:40:44.730", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3432", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-28T09:05:51.520", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-11T08:37:21.637", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "770", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "word-choice", "translation", "etymology", "particle-に", "parts-of-speech" ], "title": "Translation of \"に\" into \"natural\" English", "view_count": 582 }

[ { "body": "You're wrong/doubting because you don't parse/translate correctly the\nsentences.\n\n> 静かにランチを食べたいです。\n\nis 静かに(Adv) + 食べる, i.e., `eat quietly.`\n\n> 静かにしなさい\n\nis 静か(N) + にする, i.e., `make it quiet` \nor alternatively 静かに(Adv) + する, `do quietly.` \nActually, I think both interpretations are possible here, but I'm pretty sure\nthe first one is the \"good\" one.\n\n> 汚いことをいっぱい言ったくせになんなの？ 臭くなりましたか？\n\nい-Adj + naru => くなる. To become Adj \n臭くなります => become stinky. `Have you become stinky/dirty?`", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T05:20:59.027", "id": "3433", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-11T05:20:59.027", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3432", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "You are making a big assumption which turns out to be false. That is, you are\nassuming that\n\n * Word W1 which belongs to part-of-speech P in language L1 will always be translated to another word W2 of **the same part-of-speech P** in language L2.\n\nThis turns out to be clearly false. For example, `before` is a preposition in\nEnglish, but `前` is a noun in Japanese. `like` is a verb in English, but `好き`\nis a na-adjective in Japanese. And so on. In fact, this actually should be\nobvious even when thinking within one language. The sentences below roughly\nexpress the same idea:\n\n> I do **not** read books. \n> I **never** read books. \n> I read **no** books.\n\nHere, the same negation is expressed with different words `not`, `never`, or\n`no`. Are you going to claim that all these words belong to the same parts of\nspeech? You have to realize how ridiculous that idea is.\n\nOnce you are free from your myth, then, you should be able to accept the fact\nthat an adverb in Japanese does not always translate to an adverb in English.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T05:21:50.247", "id": "3434", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-12T14:13:10.070", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-12T14:13:10.070", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3432", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "As far as having a \"quiet lunch\" in the terms that you have it put in,\nwouldn't 私はひまなランチが食べたいです。 Or 私はいそがしくないランチが食べたないです。\n\n\"I want to have a quiet lunch\" or \"I don't want to have a busy lunch\". If\ntranslated word-for-word. Though maybe I should be using にぎやか instead of\nいそがしい.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-12-28T09:05:51.520", "id": "13918", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-28T09:05:51.520", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "769", "parent_id": "3432", "post_type": "answer", "score": -3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "For example:\n\n> * 一日{いちにち} = one day (duration);\n> * 一日{ついたち} = first day of the month.\n>\n\nFirst of all, are the meanings correct? Because I found contradicting answers. \nI suspect the meanings are overlapping in some cases?\n\nThen, after a quick search, I found out that _okurigana_ is efficient to\ndisambiguate them. Didn't the author mean _furigana_ instead? Maybe I didn't\ngrasp something here.\n\nLastly, what are the most important (to know)/most frequent homographic Kanji\nout there?", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T10:00:48.893", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3435", "last_activity_date": "2017-04-08T09:34:47.873", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "37", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "furigana", "okurigana" ], "title": "Homographs: how to deal with them?", "view_count": 1306 }

[ { "body": "> First of all, are the meanings correct?\n\nYes, you are right.\n\n> Then, after a quick search, I found out that okurigana is efficient to\n> disambiguate them. Didn't the author mean furigana instead?\n\nYes, he's wrong.\n\n> Lastly, what are the most important (to know)/most frequent homographic\n> Kanji out there?\n\nErr, all the X中, where 中 is read ちゅう or じゅう. \nAnd also\n\n> 今日 -- こんにち(today, nowadays, or in \"こんにちは\")/きょう(today), \n> 明日 -- あす/あした/みょうにち、 \n> 昨日 -- さくじつ/きのう \n> 今年 -- こんねん/ことし…\n\nBasically, the \"on.yomi\" is more formal than the other readings.\n\nI have no idea how to rank anything (which I can't even remember) by\nimportance… I'd like to say that there aren't that many, and that answering\nwould be vain, barely a useful information (if you ignore proper nouns…)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-12T07:47:20.570", "id": "3444", "last_activity_date": "2017-04-08T09:34:47.873", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-08T09:34:47.873", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3435", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3440", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Is it\n\n> 太陽光線は暖かいけどまぶし **く** 、肌に刺すようです\n\nor\n\n> 太陽光線は暖かいけどまぶし **くて** 、肌に刺すようです\n\nWhat's the difference between くて and く?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T20:01:37.053", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3439", "last_activity_date": "2022-04-01T22:21:39.627", "last_edit_date": "2018-11-20T15:06:19.963", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "778", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "adjectives", "て-form" ], "title": "いAdjective. difference between くて and く", "view_count": 2881 }

[ { "body": "This construction is not limited to i-adjectives. You can have similar pairs\nwith verbs. In general, you can continue a sequence of predicates with either\n\n * The stem of a verb/i-adjective, or\n\n> 彼は階段で転び、泣いた。 \n> 太陽光線は暖かいけどまぶしく、肌に刺すようです\n\n * The て-form.\n\n> 彼は階段で転んで、泣いた。 \n> 太陽光線は暖かいけどまぶしくて、肌に刺すようです\n\nThe stem form is the neutral way of connecting predicates. It just lists\npredicates. On the other hand, the て-form is close to participles in English,\nadds additional meanings, and imposes the following restrictions:\n\n * The volitionality of the predicates connected must match. (Reminiscent of prohibition of dangling participles in English.)\n * The order in which the predicates are connected implies the temporal order.\n\nReference: Kuno, Susumu (1973). _The Structure of the Japanese Language_ MIT\nPress.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T20:13:21.967", "id": "3440", "last_activity_date": "2022-04-01T22:21:39.627", "last_edit_date": "2022-04-01T22:21:39.627", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3439", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 }, { "body": "I think it's no different than English when you use two adjectives to describe\none noun, or one adverb that describes one adjective, that in turn describes\none noun. Ex:\n\n * That is a wonderful, interesting article → Both \"wonderful\" and \"interesting\" are adjectives that describe the article.\n * That is a wonderfully interesting article → \"interesting\" in an adjective describing the article, and \"wonderfully\" is an adverb describing the level/extent of the \"interesting-ness\".\n\nIn this case, the difference in meaning is almost negligible. I think this\nwould translate almost directly to Japanese:\n\n * 素晴らしくて面白い記事です。 vs.\n * 素晴らしく面白い記事です。\n\nAt least this is how I always think of it.\n\nHowever, if it were something like \"unexpected\" and \"interesting\", only\n\"unexpectedly interesting article\" makes sense (\"unexpected, interesting\narticle\" doesn't). This seems to fit with Japanese in that you can't really\nconnect adjectives with 〜くて when the meanings are \"opposite\" or don't really\ncomplement each other.\n\n * × それがおかしくてよいものだ。\n * ○ それがおかしいけど、よいものだ。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-11T22:21:11.827", "id": "3441", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-11T22:21:11.827", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3439", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3443", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've come across this sentence in my manga.\n\n> そ そうか そういう疑いを持っているのか\n\nIt's actually fairly easy, but the particle at the end has confused me. I\nthought it was the two particles `の` and `か`, but then I saw this in a\ndictionary:\n\n> のか - Particle - endorsing and questioning the preceding statement (sentence\n> ending particle); lamenting reflections on the preceding statement (sentence\n> ending particle)\n\nThat seems to fit, because it's at the end of the sentence, and he's\ncommenting on what another character said to themselves. But beyond that, I\nhave little idea of what this means. Is it actually a question particle\nsimilar to か? When would you use this instead?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-12T02:01:56.020", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3442", "last_activity_date": "2014-10-17T14:29:32.993", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:28:14.373", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "452", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "particles", "definitions", "formal-nouns", "particle-か" ], "title": "のか - Particle \"lamenting reflections on the preceding statement\". What?", "view_count": 11213 }

[ { "body": "This `の` is called a formal noun, and has a very general meaning that can be\ntranslated to English as 'the case', 'the fact', or 'the situation', and it\nheads an appositive clause. It is the same `の` used in the `のだ` consruction.\nIt typically implies that the appositive clause is an explanation to the\nprevious context. It has pretty much similar implications that the English\n`the case that ...` implies.\n\n> ... **の** だ \n> 'It is **the case** that ... .'\n>\n> ... **の** で ... \n> 'Things being **the case** that ... , ... .'\n>\n> ... **の** か \n> 'Is it **the case** that ... ?'", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-12T04:17:50.757", "id": "3443", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-12T04:23:20.097", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-12T04:23:20.097", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3442", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "sawa's answer explains the の, but I feel のか _as used in the question_ hasn't\nbeen fully explained.\n\nIt doesn't correspond well in this situation to \"is it the case that...?\",\nbecause that is a question that demands an answer. This particular use of のか\ndoesn't. I doubt it would be said with a questioning tone.\n\n\" **So** you have that/those kind(s) of doubt(s)/suspicion(s)/question(s)\n(about it), **huh**.\"\n\nI believe this is [sense 二[7] of か in\nDaijisen](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%8B-223839#E3.83.87.E3.82.B8.E3.82.BF.E3.83.AB.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.B3.89):\n\n> ７ 引用した句の意味やある事実を確かめ、自分自身に言い聞かせる意を表す。「急がば回れ―」「そろそろ寝るとする―」\n\nand [sense 四[9] of か in\nDaijirin](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%8B-223839#E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.9E.97.20.E7.AC.AC.E4.B8.89.E7.89.88):\n\n> ⑨ 独り合点の気持ちを表す。詠嘆・回想の気持ちが強い。 \n> 「『春はあけぼの』か、いい文句だな」 \n> 「そうか、失敗だったのか」\n\nThe word \"ponder\", which Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams used in a comment to the\noriginal question, seems to fit quite well as a description of what this か is\ndoing.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-12T12:34:50.160", "id": "3446", "last_activity_date": "2014-10-17T14:29:32.993", "last_edit_date": "2014-10-17T14:29:32.993", "last_editor_user_id": "6840", "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3442", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3449", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This one probably needs a Japanese _and_ Mahjong expert to decipher:\n\n> （３）全局を一ハン（飜）しばりとし、二ハン場とする。\n\nThis is the third rule about the basic game setup of (my version of) the\nofficial Japanese Mahjong Tournament rules. A 局 _kyoku_ is one round, a ハン／飜\n_han_ is a type of multiplier used in scoring. So far so good, but I have no\nidea what this rule is trying to convey. There's no further context in the\nimmediately preceding or following rules. Can somebody tell me what this\nmeans?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-12T12:03:08.703", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3445", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:11:22.357", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:11:22.357", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "88", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "terminology" ], "title": "Clarification of hard to understand Japanese Mahjong rule", "view_count": 302 }

[ { "body": "一飜縛り【いーはんしばり】: your hand must be worth one han before you can declare a win.\n\n二ハン場、I think, is a reference to 場【ば】ゾロ which is an additional two han given\nwhen calculating the score (two han is usual, at least).\n\nとし is just the stem form of とする, so it's laying out these two rules, which\napply to every round.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-12T22:46:13.280", "id": "3449", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-12T22:46:13.280", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "3445", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3448", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I don't understand the role of \"な\" when used before \"のに\" as in these two\nsentences (with given translations):\n\n> 朝目がさめて初めて、外が雪 **な** のに気がついた。\n\nHe noticed that there was snow outside only after he woke up in the morning.\n\n> せっかくの日曜日 **な** のに働いた。\n\nAlthough Sunday is precious (to me), I worked (all day long).\n\nI'm similarly confused by the なので pattern, but I assume the principle is the\nsame there. My best guesses so far are that:\n\n 1. There's some relation to な-adjectives, but I don't see how 雪 or 日曜日 would be acting as adjectives here.\n 2. The な has essentially the same role as だ (i.e. a \"copula\"?), but you can't use だ in the middle of a sentence like that.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-12T21:21:31.053", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3447", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:31:46.753", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:31:46.753", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "80", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "formal-nouns", "particle-な" ], "title": "What's the purpose of な in なのに?", "view_count": 3532 }

[ { "body": "You are on the right track. `の` is a formal noun with a general meaning such\nas `the case`, `the fact`, or `the situation`. The sequence `...な` is an\nappositive clause modifying the formal noun `の`.\n\n> 彼は学生だ \n> 'He is a student.'\n>\n> [彼は学生な]のだ \n> 'It is the case [that he is a student].' \n> The appositive clause `彼は学生な` 'that he is a student' modifies the formal\n> noun `の` 'the case'.\n\nAs you suspect, `な` is the form of copula that is used exclusively when it is\nused in a clause that modifies a noun (i.e., relative clause or appositive\nclause).\n\n> 彼は静かだ \n> 'He is quiet.'\n>\n> [静かな]人 \n> 'person [who is quiet]' (relative clause with na-adjective as a predicate)\n\nNa-adjectives are actually very close to nouns, and depending on the\ntheoretical framework, they can be actually considered a subclass of noun. You\ncan usually observe this `な` form used together with na-adjevtives, but with\nnouns, you don't usually see it except for a number of fixed expressions like\nthe one you see here because with nouns, you have the option of using the\ngenitive case particle `の`, and that is preferred.\n\n> 彼は学生だ \n> 'He is a student.'\n>\n> × [学生な]人 \n> 'person [who is a student]' (relative clause with a noun as a predicate;\n> usually considered ungrammatical to use `な`)\n>\n> 学生の人 \n> (Uses genitive case particle)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-12T22:31:39.657", "id": "3448", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-13T03:35:48.847", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-13T03:35:48.847", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3447", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "First, the two のに are completely different.\n\n> 外が雪なのに気がついた。\n\nそとが+雪+な+の+に気づく\n\nの is used to make a noun of the preceding proposition, so as to make the\nproposition the object of 気づく (object indicated by に). \nBut then, a proposition cannot end with a noun, it must end with a verb, and 雪\nis not a verb. The proposition is in fact そとが雪だ。 And when you put だ in\ndeterminant form (so that it determines の) you turn it into な. That's it. \nTo realise [the fact that [outside is snow]]\n\n> 日曜日なのに働いた。\n\nThis is a \"grief\" のに, and also goes with a proposition, not a noun. Your\nproposition is 日曜日だ. You turn だ into な, and you can now stick のに behind it.\n\nSo, your point 1 is wrong. \nYour point 2 is right, and turning だ into な is a solution.\n\nなので will work similarly, and be like the second example (since ので and the\nsecond のに are single grammatical particles).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T01:54:35.033", "id": "3450", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-13T01:54:35.033", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3447", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3457", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In [this question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2886/when-\nwomen-use-%E3%82%8F-at-the-end-of-a-sentence-is-it-different-from-%E3%82%88),\nit seems to me it was clearly established that `わ`, at the end of a sentence,\nis decidedly feminine. There was talk of a [Kansai-\nben](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_dialect) `わ` with slightly different\nimplications, but still within a range of femininity.\n\nSo, I'm reading\n[Tintin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin) in Japanese,\nas I do, and I come across the character [Captain\nHaddock](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Haddock) using `わ`:\n\n\n\nThe situation is that he is on a plane that has dropped altitude suddenly, so\nhis ears were plugged. They just popped, and he feels `スッキリ(\"refreshed\")`.\n\nFor those who don't know Captain Haddock, he is a gruff old sailor, who is not\nat all given to feminine speech. Quite the opposite. This expression really\nstands out.\n\nAlso, to the best of my ability to detect it, he does not use Kansai-ben,\nwhich I only mention because of the discussion of Kansai-ben in the [other\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2886/when-women-\nuse-%E3%82%8F-at-the-end-of-a-sentence-is-it-different-from-%E3%82%88).\n\nSo why did the translator opt to have the Captain use `わ` to end the sentence\nhere? Is it an ironic use of feminine speech? Does it have another use I'm not\naware of?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T05:45:38.313", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3451", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-15T02:06:52.240", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "word-choice", "kansai-ben", "feminine-speech", "particle-わ" ], "title": "What is the implication when a gruff old man ends a sentence with わ?", "view_count": 973 }

[ { "body": "According to [大辞林](http://www.excite.co.jp/world/j_dictionary/ITEM-\nDJR_wa_-090/%E3%82%8F/beginswith/%E3%82%8F/?itemid=DJR_wa_-090), わ can also\nhave a non-feminine meaning of:\n\n> 軽{かる}い詠嘆{えいたん}や驚{おどろ}きなどの気持{きも}ちを表{あらわ}す。 - Expresses mild feelings of\n> admiration, surprise, etc.\n\nSo the idea here is to express that lovely \"oh!\" feeling you get when your\nears pop, as you can see by his smile.\n\nI can't honestly say how prevalent this is, or if you ought to use it.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T12:58:50.083", "id": "3457", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-15T00:29:10.727", "last_edit_date": "2016-04-15T00:29:10.727", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "631", "parent_id": "3451", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "…したわ is a pretty oldish expression equivalent to today’s ……したよ, and it’s not a\nfeminine particle at all.\n\nWe used to hear “(それで) せいせい（がっかり、すっきり、さっぱり）したわ – I feel relieved\n(disappointed, refreshed, clean)” spoken by middle-aged and elderly men quite\noften until a few decades ago, though we probably don’t hear it so often\ntoday.\n\nStill it’s not unusual to hear young men and women say “やっぱり駄目だったわ - I\ncouldn’t make it after all,” instead of “やっぱり駄目だったよ.”", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-04-14T23:58:06.163", "id": "33572", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-15T02:06:52.240", "last_edit_date": "2016-04-15T02:06:52.240", "last_editor_user_id": "12056", "owner_user_id": "12056", "parent_id": "3451", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3493", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I was taught ages ago that the volitional form of a verb means \"let's\" do\nsomething. For example, if you take `行{い}く` and change it to `行{い}こう`, you get\n\"let's go\".\n\nHowever, I feel like I can use the same form to express \"I want to\". For\nexample:\n\n> 行{い}こうかなと思{おも}っている (\"[I'm] thinking maybe I'll go\")\n\nAm I wrong that it can be used this way?\n\nIf it's true that it can mean that, what is the difference between the\nsentence I have above and this one:\n\n> 行{い}くかなと思{おも}っている\n\nMy understandng of the plain form is that it can be used to imply future\ntense, and if so, maybe it also implies intention. If so, then the two\nsentences mean the same thing, don't they?\n\nPerhaps I'm thinking too much in English, though, where \"will go\" can be both\nintention and future tense?\n\nSo, my questions in summary are:\n\nDoes `行{い}こう` mean \"will go\" as well as \"let's go\"?\n\nCan `行{い}こう` and `行{い}く` both be used to mean future tense and/or intention?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T06:01:13.683", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3452", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-06T06:19:05.877", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-06T06:19:05.877", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "volitional-form", "future" ], "title": "Does the volitional form of a verb mean both \"let's\" and \"I want to\"?", "view_count": 6426 }

[ { "body": "> Am I wrong that it can be used this way?\n\nNo. This grammatical form is standard in monologue situations, just like your\nexample: \"Hum, should I go?\" (undecided).\n\nThe other example translates rather like \"I wonder if I'll go\" (answer\nunknown).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T09:57:00.157", "id": "3454", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-13T09:57:00.157", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3452", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Japanese has a clearer distinction between volitional-future and simple-future\nthan English.\n\n\"I think I will go\" can be parsed in two ways, one involving volition, and one\nwithout.\n\n> 私は行こうと思う (Volitional future)\n>\n> 私は行くと思う (Simple future)\n\n* * *\n\n\"Will\" being interpreted without volition when used in the first-person can be\na little counter-intuitive. So here's one way I look at it:\n\n> \"Tomorrow will be Saturday\" \\- Clearly no volition is involved. It is this\n> sense of \"will\" that is used when talking about simple-future.\n\nThis is easy to see since there is nothing that can exert volition.\n\nNow let's bring in something that can exert volition:\n\n> \"Because I did not study, I will fail the test\".\n>\n> ｘ 勉強しなかったから、試験に落ちよう\n>\n> O 勉強しなかったから、試験に落ちる\n\nAlthough there is something that can exert volition, it is however still not\nvolitional since the person is not intentionally exerting his will to fail the\ntest. This is simple-future.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-18T14:46:39.913", "id": "3493", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-18T14:46:39.913", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3452", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3455", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Yep, I'm reading a lot of\n[Tintin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin) in Japanese\nrecently, and he keeps throwing me curve balls with the language. Here's\nanother one.\n\nThe situation is that the car he was in has been run off the road into a small\nlake. A few people have gathered around to see if he's okay, and he asks if\nthere is anyone in the group who can drive him the rest of the way to\n[Nyon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyon) (a small city in Switzerland).\n\nHere's how he asks:\n\n\n\nThe part I'm wondering about is where he says\n`「ところでみなさんの中{なか}にニヨンにつれってくださるかたありません？」`\n\nUnless I'm missing something, he is using `ありません`, the negative form of `ある`,\nto refer to people. I was taught that one should use `いる` for people, and that\nit would be rude to use `ある`, because of the obvious implication that you are\nreferring to them as inanimate objects.\n\nEspecially since he is asking for a considerable favour from strangers,\nshouldn't Tintin use `いる`?\n\nWhy did the translator opt to use `ある`?\n\n**Bonus question:** Could Tintin have used `おりません` in this situation?\n[Keigo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific_speech_in_Japanese) always\ntrips me up, but I thought `おる` was a more polite way of saying `いる`...? I'm\nnot sure if `おる` is humble or not, and if it would imply he was being humble\nor if it would impose humbleness on the people he was talking to (and\ntherefore not fit).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T06:21:03.557", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3453", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-18T13:28:32.197", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-18T13:28:32.197", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "keigo", "copula" ], "title": "What makes using ある for people okay in this context?", "view_count": 579 }

[ { "body": "Ok, so, in \"modern\" Japanese, the _norm_ is \"ある\" for things, and \"いる\" for\nbeings. However, it seems that it's not a mandatory rule to follow.\n\n`〜くださる方がある` has probably survived today as a fixed form from more liberal\ntimes.\n\nYou'll find more such idiosyncrasies around, as in words like 在宅{ざいたく} which\nmeans \"to be home\" but where the root is 在る{ある}.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T10:43:48.400", "id": "3455", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-13T10:43:48.400", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3453", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3458", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I wanted to talk about a board game recently, and realized that I am missing\nall related vocabulary. Before you shout foul and throw dictionaries at me,\nthese expressions are very difficult to look up, because most of them use\nexisting words in new contexts. And I cannot ask the native Japanese I know,\nbecause they don't know the english terminology either. I'll make a list, and\npossibly add more to it if some are suggested. I am basically looking for the\nvocabulary to be able to explain any board game to someone.\n\n**General**\n\n> * Take a turn (\"Your turn!\", ...)\n> * Passing a turn.\n> * Token. (Many games have tokens, be it for money, health, victory points\n> and so on)\n> * Piece, as in Chess.\n> * [Some statistic] meter / counter. (Threat meter?)\n> * Pick a card/miniature/faction/... randomly.\n>\n\n**Words I have seen often, but which are made up to begin with**\n\n> * Victory Point.\n>\n\n**Cards**\n\n> * Draw a card.\n> * Discard a random card.\n> * Discard a card of your choice.\n> * A deck of cards.\n> * The correct expression for \"hand\".\n>\n\n**Dice**\n\n> * Throw dice, or roll dice.\n> * Reroll dice.\n> * Count the sixes. (or any other)\n> * Non-6-sided dice, in english usually called d8, d12 or d20.\n>", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T12:23:15.477", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3456", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:13:51.903", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:13:51.903", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "84", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "words", "terminology" ], "title": "Board / Card game expressions", "view_count": 1680 }

[ { "body": "## General\n\n * Turn (\"Your turn!\", ...) → あなたの番【ばん】 ・ 出番【でばん】 ・ ターン ([俺のターン！](http://d.hatena.ne.jp/keyword/%A4%BA%A4%C3%A4%C8%B2%B6%A4%CE%A5%BF%A1%BC%A5%F3)）\n * Take a turn → （ターンを）行【おこな】う\n * Passing a turn. → パス\n * Token. (Many games have tokens, be it for money, health, victory points and so on) → トークン1 ・ 硬貨【こうか】？\n * Piece, as in Chess. → 駒【こま】\n * [Some statistic] meter / counter. (Threat meter?) → ？\n * Pick a card/miniature/faction/... randomly. → ランダムに（・無作為【むさくい】に）取【と】る ・ 選【えら】ぶ\n\n## Words I have seen often, but which are made up to begin with\n\n * Victory Point. → 点【てん】 ・ 得点【とくてん】 ・ 勝利点【しょうりてん】1\n\n## Cards （カード）\n\n * Draw a card. → カードを（X枚【まい】）取【と】る ・ 引【ひ】く\n * Discard a random card. → カードをランダムに捨【す】てる ・ 捨【す】て札【ふだ】（に）する\n * Discard a card of your choice. → ｛捨【す】てたいだけ ・ 勝手【かって】に ・ 選【えら】んで｝捨【す】てる\n * A deck of cards. → デッキ ・ 山札【やまふだ】\n * A hand of cards. → 手札【てふだ】\n * Discard pile. → 捨【す】て札【ふだ】置【お】き場【ば】 ・ 捨【す】て札【ふだ】の山【やま】\n * Play a card → カードを出す\n\n## Dice （さいころ（賽子・骰子） or ダイス)\n\n( _usually サイコロ in katakana_ )\n\n * Throw dice, or roll dice. → サイコロを振【ふ】る ・ 振【ふ】り出【だ】す ・ 投【な】げる\n * Reroll dice. → 再【ふたた】び（サイコロを）振【ふ】る ・ 振【ふ】り出【だ】す\n * Count the sixes. (or any other) → 6をまとめる ・ 揃【そろ】える ? (educated guess)\n * Non-6-sided dice, in english usually called d8, d12 or d20. → ｎ面【めん】ダイス ( _usu. not サイコロ_ )\n\n## Coins （コイン）\n\n * Flip a coin → コインを投【な】げる\n * Heads → 表【おもて】\n * Tails → 裏【うら】\n\n* * *\n\n1\n[ドミニオン](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%89%E3%83%9F%E3%83%8B%E3%82%AA%E3%83%B3_%28%E3%82%AB%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89%E3%82%B2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0%29)より", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T14:54:31.400", "id": "3458", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-15T23:46:28.387", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-15T23:46:28.387", "last_editor_user_id": "315", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3456", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3460", "answer_count": 2, "body": "_( **Warning** : potentially offensive words. Proceed at your own risk. Also,\napologies for the length.)_\n\nI realize this risks opening up the \"does Japanese actually have swear words\"\ndebate, touched on\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2118/is-there-an-\nequivalent-to-george-carlins-seven-dirty-words-in-japanese), and a little\n[here too](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2080/are-there-words-\nso-bad-that-they-arent-allowed-on-television).\n\nAfter exploring the issue in those other questions, I'm content that there are\nsome words that are definitely always vulgar swear words in Japanese (no need\nto repeat them here), and some words that are merely verbal jabs.\n\nHowever, there is one word that is still hard to nail down: `野郎{やろう}`. It\nseems to cover such a wide range that I just have a hard time accepting most\ntranslations.\n\nI was reminded of the topic when, walking through\n[Ebisu](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebisu,_Shibuya) today, I looked up and\nnoticed this sign for a [mahjong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahjong)\nparlour:\n\n\n\n_(It's a little blurry, so just to be clear, the place is called_\n`麻雀{マージャン}野郎{やろう}` _.)_\n\nLet's say this store expanded to become an international mahjong chain of\nstores, and they wanted an English version of their name. What would we\ntranslate it to?\n\nAccording to [Space\nALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E9%87%8E%E9%83%8E/UTF-8/?ref=sa), `野郎{やろう}` means\n_bloke_ , _dude_ , _fellow_ , and _son of a gun_. Very inoffensive.\n\nBut, in that same entry, it also means the mildly offensive _beggar_ ,\n_bugger_ (some might think this is worse), and _hoser_.\n\nOn top of that, it _also_ means the definitely offensive _mofo_ , _asshole_ ,\nand _son of a bitch_.\n\nAnd, even further, it **_also_** means the inexplicable _cuss_ (isn't that a\nverb?), _gazebo_ (isn't that a kind of patio?), _gazabo_ (what?), _gink_\n(huh?), and _hooer_ (a what-er?).\n\nPutting aside the bizarre words, we have a range that goes from _dude_ to\n_asshole_. That's a hell of a wide range.\n\nClearly, the sign would lean toward the milder, so maybe we'd translate it as\n\"Mahjong Dude\". But if that's true, then I have a hard time believing it could\nmean the stronger terms. After all, this sign stands on it's own, so why _not_\ntranslate it as \"Mahjong Asshole\"?\n\nI get the fact that words in languages can have a wide range. \"Aloha\", in\nHawaiian, apparently means both hello and goodbye.\n\nBut part of the reason I have a hard time accepting the vagueness of this\nparticular potentially offensive word is that, as Japanese learners, we're\nbeaten over the head with the notion that the Japanese hold politeness in high\nregard so that they are sensitive to the slightest mishaps. Not saying `さん`\nafter someone's name in a certain situation, or perhaps addressing someone\nwith `あなた`, would cause offense.\n\nAnd yet at the same time, we can have a word that goes from dude to asshole\nand everyone's cool with that?\n\n\"Aloha\" might mean contrary things, but none of its meanings are potentially\noffensive, so I can see why it wasn't forced into one particular meaning. But\nI can't see how a word with high risk of insult survives in a culture that\notherwise seems quite rigid about how to avoid offense.\n\nSomething doesn't add up in this word, and I suspect it has to do with a great\ndeal of license on the part of most translations. Real offensiveness comes\nfrom the words surrounding `野郎{やろう}`, not `野郎{やろう}` itself.\n\nSo... after all that preamble:\n\nWhat would the most accurate translation of the sign be?\n\nIf my idea that the words around `野郎{やろう}` are what really manipulate it's\noffensiveness level, then let's zero in on what exactly the naked word means\nand what it, and it alone, conveys in offensiveness.\n\nOr show me where and how everything I'm saying is just totally wrong and I'm\njust being a `馬鹿{ばか}野郎{やろう}`.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T15:00:50.800", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3459", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-19T02:33:25.403", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "slang" ], "title": "Can 野郎{やろう} really have that many meanings?", "view_count": 7061 }

[ { "body": "Perhaps you are assuming that `野郎` has a wide variery of levels of politeness,\nand that they are continuous, but they are not. Probably, 野郎 is not used in\nisolation as an insult word. When it is an insult word, it is used in one of\nthe few fixed expressions like この野郎 and 馬鹿野郎.\n\nAlso, when used in isolation, a meaning of an insult word or a counterpart of\n(American) English `guy` _can_ be conveyed with different accents. In the\ninsult usage, the accent is on the second mora ('yaROu'), whereas the guy-\nusage does not have the accent nucleus, so it takes the default flat accent\n(平板{へいばん}アクセント) 'yaROU'. This may indicate that they have actually become\ndifferent words.\n\nI remember commenting on someone's question/answer previously that an\nexpression like `a guy and a girl` is discriminative and it should be replaced\nwith `a boy and a girl` because `guy` does not have the same polite level as\n`girl`. Rather, it connotates some roughness, and using that kind of word only\nfor males is sexual discrimination. `野郎` is the Japanese counterpart to this\nword. It connotates some roughness, and is used usually only for males. Often\n`野郎` is used as opposed to `女の子`, which is as sexually discriminative as the\n(American) English counterpart `a guy and a girl`, but many people do not seem\nto care.\n\nSince there are only two meanings, which meaning is intended should be clear\nenough from the context. The insult usage does not have many variations:\n`この野郎`, `馬鹿野郎`, and perhaps a few more.\n\nThe 'guy'-usage is pretty much productive; it works as an affix. A slight\ndeparture of the meaning of `野郎` from that of `guy` may be that the former\nalso connotates some kind of nerdiness when used as an affix. `麻雀野郎` would\nmean 'Mahjong guy', but it may also be close to something like 'Mahjong nerd'.\nSo the intention of using it as a shop name is to give the image of \"a Mahjong\nnerd's gathering place\". There are common expressions like `トラック野郎` 'truck\nguy', which means long distance truck drivers who spend most of their time on\na (often extremely decorated) truck.\n\nThere are other insult words that have come to mean something similar when\nused as an affix. For example, `馬鹿` 'stupid', when used as an affix, means\n'geek': `釣{つ}り馬鹿{ばか}` 'fishing geek'. The same applies for another word\n`きちがい`, but use of this word should be avoided regardless of its usage because\nof the reasons mentioned in [one of the links given in this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2080).", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T15:31:04.787", "id": "3460", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-19T02:33:25.403", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3459", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "In my opinion 野郎 (やろう) is just a pun meaning \"let's play (mahjong)\"\n\nVerb やる as in fight/play/do\n\nAdditionally, 野郎 (just like baka) as an insult is written in katakana.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T13:13:05.083", "id": "3507", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-19T13:13:05.083", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "793", "parent_id": "3459", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3463", "answer_count": 2, "body": "What's the difference? I got told that 皮膚【ひふ】 only works for mammals (and\nhumans), and 皮【かわ】 for other animals too.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T21:52:14.267", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3461", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-08T14:22:08.607", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-14T09:13:15.520", "last_editor_user_id": "37", "owner_user_id": "84", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "word-choice", "vocabulary" ], "title": "The difference between 皮膚【ひふ】 and 皮【かわ】", "view_count": 1423 }

[ { "body": "I agree that `皮膚` is only for mammals, but `皮` does not even have to be of an\nanimal. It can be any kind of skin, those of: fruits, vegetables, wrapped food\n(dumpling, etc.), etc.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T22:22:32.390", "id": "3462", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-08T14:22:08.607", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-08T14:22:08.607", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3461", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "皮膚{ひふ} is generally a formal word for skin, used in academics, clinics etc.\n(but also frequently in everyday speech).\n\nFor example, some fishes do 皮膚{ひふ} 呼吸{こきゅう}. So it's not really for mammals\nonly.\n\nMy layman definition is that it has to be on an animal, and doesn't include\nextra structures like hairs, feathers, scales etc. (but does include the\nsmooth underlying tissue).\n\n皮{かわ} is more colloquial and can refer to any organic, generally thin\nstructure that can be peeled. For example, 木{き}の皮{かわ}.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-13T23:43:53.940", "id": "3463", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-14T06:15:43.310", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-14T06:15:43.310", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "3461", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3468", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Consider this:\n\n> テスト１, テスト２, テスト３ etc. (Taken from my exercise books. The tests are labelled\n> as such up to 30)\n\n**(Question)** Should numbers that are used with loanwords like `テスト` be read\nwith `いち`, `に`, `さん` etc.? Or read as `ワン`, `ツー`, `スリー` etc.?\n\nI feel that it's more consistent to use \"English derivatives\" all the way,\nthan to have \"English derivative\"+\"Japanese reading\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-14T09:00:54.350", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3464", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-15T02:18:42.637", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "readings", "loanwords", "numbers" ], "title": "How to read words like テスト with ordinal numbers?", "view_count": 399 }

[ { "body": "There is no real anwser to your question: there is no way you **should**\ncount. People around me use both in similar situations. All you need is to be\nconsistent.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-14T09:29:43.287", "id": "3465", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-14T09:36:12.553", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-14T09:36:12.553", "last_editor_user_id": "37", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3464", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I think the most natural and usual way is using Japanese numbers (いち, に,\nさん...). テスト is a loan word, but it's a Japanese word. Think of it this way:\nshould you use German numeral readings when using German loan words?\n\nThe English readings may be used for literary purposes, like chapter titles in\na manga or book, for example, but they would be the exception.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-14T12:42:12.653", "id": "3467", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-14T12:42:12.653", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "782", "parent_id": "3464", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I am not sure why you feel it more consistent to use \"English derivatives\" all\nthe way. Does it mean that, if you have an English-derived word in a sentence,\nthe whole sentence should be made using only English-derived word? I think it\nis much better to read it in Japanese reading.\n\nWhen reading mathematical variables or chemical formulae, often, non-\nspecialists tend to read the subscripted number in English-derived reading if\nthey are small enough. For example:\n\n> t1 (ティーワン) \n> H2O (エイチツーオー)\n\nBut when the number is large enough, or if the reading becomes complex enough,\nthey switch to Japanese reading:\n\n> t60 (ティーろくじゅう) \n> C12H22O11 (シーじゅうにエイチにじゅうにオーじゅういち)\n\nThis is stupid. Probably non-specialists do not have enough knowledge to read\nlarge numbers in the English-derived way, but nevertheless do so for small\nnumbers, and do not think about inconsistency. On the other hand, people with\nenough consideration do not pronounce it in an inconsistent way but read the\nnumbers in the Japanese way regardless of the size of the number.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-14T14:32:37.523", "id": "3468", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-15T02:18:42.637", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-15T02:18:42.637", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3464", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3472", "answer_count": 3, "body": "超{こ}える, 越{こ}える and 過{す}ぎる are said to mean \" _to pass through_ \" in the\n\"edict\" dictionary, but I don't fully understand the difference between the\nthree.\n\nHow does their usage differ please? Can anyone provide any relevant examples?\n\nOne example that I'd like to express, but don't quite know how to, is how to\nsay \" _to pass a peak of a mountain_ \" or \" _to pass a peak point on a graph_\n\", but I'm not even sure these are the right words to do that.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-14T12:15:33.850", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3466", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-28T22:44:42.370", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-14T14:26:20.947", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "usage", "verbs", "word-choice" ], "title": "The difference between 超{こ}える, 越{こ}える and 過{す}ぎる", "view_count": 2237 }

[ { "body": "`過{す}ぎる` implies the process of passing though. `越{こ}える` and `超{こ}える` mean\n'exceed'. In this example:\n\n> × 20kgを過{す}ぎる荷物{にもつ}は機内{きない}に持{も}ち込{こ}めません。 \n> 20kgを超{こ}える荷物{にもつ}は機内{きない}に持{も}ち込{こ}めません。\n\nthe weight of a luggage is a static property, and a luggage does not grow, so\n`過{す}ぎる` cannot be used. In this example:\n\n> 目的{もくてき}地{ち}を過{す}ぎてしまった。 \n> △ 目的{もくてき}地{ち}を超{こ}えてしまった。\n\n`過{す}ぎる` is more appropriate than `超{こ}える` because there is no inherent notion\nof excess among locations (unless a context is set such as to provide the\norigin of measurement). Rather, the process of passing through is the\nintention of this expression.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-15T03:13:04.257", "id": "3472", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-28T22:44:42.370", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-28T22:44:42.370", "last_editor_user_id": "3097", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3466", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Another difference is that 過{す}ぎる is one of the super-useful suffixes, as you\ncan attach it to any verb or adjective. As a suffix I believe it generally\ntakes on the sense of excessivity, but I think there may be other senses for\nit as well.\n\nFor **verbs** you use the 連用形{れんようけい} (i-form):\n\n> 五段{ごだん}：飲{の}む → 飲{の}みすぎる \n> 一段{いちだん}：食{た}べる → 食{た}べ過{す}ぎる \n> サ変{へん}：勉強{べんきょう}する → 勉強{べんきょう}しすぎる\n\nIt attaches directly to **na-adjectives** :\n\n> 変{へん} → 変{へん}すぎる\n\nBut you have to drop the い for **i-adjectives** :\n\n> 怖{こわ}い → 怖{こわ}すぎる", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-15T11:34:34.410", "id": "3475", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-15T11:48:15.370", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-15T11:48:15.370", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "3466", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "sawa gave an excellent post already, but there are a couple of cases where\nI've found exceptions. I'd also like to elaborate on the differences between\n`超{こ}える` and `越{こ}える` a bit using the Microsoft IME as a reference.\n\nOne exception to sawa's post is passing mountains or obstacles seems to use\n`越{こ}える` instead of `過{す}ぎる`. sawa also commented that when `過{す}ぎる` is added\nto verbs and adjectives (e.g. `高{たか}すぎる`) that it means \"exceed\" instead of\n\"pass\" like it would by itself. However, it should be noted that\n`通{とお}り過{す}ぎる` means \"to pass\" or \"pass through\". As istrasci has noted in the\ncomments though, this is not an exception but a separate verb in it's own\nright.\n\n**`越{こ}える` is used for:**\n\n * Passing a mountain: `山{やま}を越{こ}える`\n * Passing obstacles: `障害{しょうがい}を越{こ}える`\n * Exceeding a point: `点{てん}を越{こ}える`\n * Exceeding time: `時{とき}を越{こ}える`\n\n**`超{こ}える` is used for:**\n\n * Exceeding an amount: `数量{すうりょう}を超{こ}える`\n * Exceeding a standard or reference: `基準{きじゅん}を超{こ}える`\n * Exceeding a limit: `限度{げんど}を超{こ}える`\n\n \nAlso, here's some some other words similar to those listed using\n[Daijirin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daijirin) as a reference:\n\n * Passing a place: `場所{ばしょ}を通{とお}る`\n * Passing days or months: `経{た}つ` and `去{さ}る`\n * Passing months or years: `経過{けいか}する`", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-15T23:28:01.807", "id": "3477", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-16T04:00:48.470", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-16T04:00:48.470", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3466", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3470", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This is from a song lyrics (転{ころ}がる石{いし}になれ by AKB48)\n\n孤独{こどく}は いつでも \n自由{じゆう}の代償{だいしょう}に \n言葉{ことば}を失{な}くして \n壁{かべ}は無関心{むかんしん} \n耐{た}えるしかないよ\n\nDoes て here indicate a command, as in \"lose the talk\"?\n\nOr, is it connected to the next phrase? Perhaps as a description of 壁{かべ}?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-14T15:06:31.723", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3469", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-22T03:32:38.550", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-22T03:32:38.550", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "113", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "song-lyrics", "て-form" ], "title": "Understanding て in 言葉{ことば}を失{な}くして 壁{かべ}は無関心{むかんしん}", "view_count": 213 }

[ { "body": "I'm going to try to parse the stanza:\n\n * 孤独{こどく}は - loneliness (establish context)\n\n * いつでも - any time\n\n * 自由{じゆう}の代償{だいしょう}に - price of freedom (dative/locative case?)\n\n * (A pause in the singing)\n\n * 言葉{ことば}を失{な}くして - to get rid of (the) word(s) (requesting)\n\n * 壁{かべ}は- wall/barrier (establish context)\n\n * 無{む}関{かん}心{しん} - indifferent\n\n * 耐{た}えるしかないよ - no choice but to endure\n\n* * *\n\nThere seems to be a lot of elision going on. I'm going to try to put it back\ntogether.\n\n * 孤独はいつでも自由の代償にある - loneliness is always in the price of (our) freedom\n\n * 言葉を失くしてください - please get rid of words*\n\n*(I'm guessing this in the sense of \"actions speak louder than words\" kind of meaning)\n\n * 壁は無関心です - the barrier is indifferent (to attempts at overcoming it)\n\n * 耐えるしかないよ - (we) have no choice but to endure", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-14T16:44:03.240", "id": "3470", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-14T16:44:03.240", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3469", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3474", "answer_count": 3, "body": "[The difference between が and を with the potential form of a\nverb.](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/609/the-difference-\nbetween-%e3%81%8c-and-%e3%82%92-with-the-potential-form-of-a-verb) and [Is it\ntrue that all nouns must be able to accept a が particle and a を\nparticle?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2937/is-it-true-that-\nall-nouns-must-be-able-to-accept-a-%e3%81%8c-particle-\nand-a-%e3%82%92-particle) are noted as possible duplicates; however, I haven't\nseen an analogous structure. The examples I have seen use a verb on the right-\nhand side, rather than an adjectivial noun.\n\nPlease compare two sentences:\n\n```\n\n このかばんが好きです。\n \n```\n\nand\n\n```\n\n このかばんをすきです。\n \n```\n\nBoth are correct, right? Is `このかばん` emphasized in the sooner sentence and `すき`\nemphasized in the latter sentences? Or are these sentences completely the\nsame? Or is there something else going on?\n\nPlease, feel free to just explain the difference. Thank you.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-15T04:49:30.697", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3473", "last_activity_date": "2020-03-02T03:00:24.767", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "770", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "word-choice", "particle-が", "particle-を", "nuances" ], "title": "を vs が with use against 好き?", "view_count": 5268 }

[ { "body": "In this case, `好き` is a na-adjective, and the situation is different from\npotential verbs, which optionally allow accusative case marker `を`. In order\nto have a noun phrase marked as accusative case, there has to be a transitive\nverb. In the expression `このかばんを好きです`, there is no transitive verb that can\nassign accusative case, and so it is ungrammatical.\n\n> × このかばんを好きです \n> このかばんが好きです\n\nHowever, if the relevant part is embedded as a subordinate clause of a\ntransitive verb, then you can use `を`. In the example below, `思う` has the\nability to assign accusative case, and since it does not have its own direct\nobject, and hence has not used up this ability, it can assign accusative case\nto the object `このかばん` of the subordinate clause.\n\n> 僕は[彼がこのかばんを好きだと]思う \n> 僕は[彼がこのかばんが好きだと]思う", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-15T05:08:12.520", "id": "3474", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-04T08:23:43.203", "last_edit_date": "2017-02-04T08:23:43.203", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3473", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "僕は[彼がこのかばんを好きだと]思う\n\nを is used here to avoid repetition of が.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-11-19T00:56:09.433", "id": "29319", "last_activity_date": "2015-11-19T00:56:09.433", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "11740", "parent_id": "3473", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Can't comment yet, so I'll add an answer.\n\n(There are different ways to explain this, and every one will have limits, but\nmaybe this will help.)\n\nIn English, we have verbs which take object complements instead of objects.\n_Be_ and _seem_ are prime examples.\n\nIn Japanese, we have verbs which do not take what we call objects in English,\nand they come in a wider array.\n\nIn the case of 「好」、 the form with an object is 「[好む]{このむ}」、 but it is\ngenerally considered too stuffy for ordinary use. (Explaining why it sounds\nstuffy can get into arguments about perceptions of culture so I won't.)\n\n「好き」 should be considered to mean something more in the sense of \" _is liked_\n\", not grammatically, but in nuance. (Thus, the suggestion from @Wolfpack'08.)\n\nAnd, if you wonder about 「好かれる」、 it should generally be considered a polite\nform rather than a passive form.\n\nOh, and relative to @user11740 mentioning the workaround in 「…を好きだと思う」、 the\n「を」 in that construction attaches to the 「と思う」 rather than to the 「好きだ」.\n\nLast thought ([from the similar question\ntoday](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/48746/why-ga-and-not-o-in-\nmari-wa-neru-koto-ga-suki-desu/48752#48752)), 「…を好く」 has recently begun to\ngain acceptance in near-mainstream Japanese (ca 2017).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-06-26T08:45:28.567", "id": "48760", "last_activity_date": "2017-06-26T08:51:28.023", "last_edit_date": "2017-06-26T08:51:28.023", "last_editor_user_id": "22711", "owner_user_id": "22711", "parent_id": "3473", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "A couple of times I've tried to say \"I agree with...\" or \"he agrees with...\"\nbut I don't know whether I'm using `同意{どうい}する` correctly.\n\nIn what ways should `に同意{どうい}している` be used? Also, which particles should be\nused? Can only `に` be used before `同意{どうい}する` or are there circumstances where\nother particles are used as well, such as `と` and `を`?\n\nIn many examples I've found using `同意{どうい}する`, I've seen `（だ）ということに` or just\n`（な）ことに` (the `だ`/`な` after na adjectives/nouns and without `だ`/`な` after i\nadjectives/verbs it seems.) Is there a specific reason for using one over the\nother, e.g. is the longer `（だ）ということに` more polite, and what do these mean?\n\n \nSome example sentences:\n\n * I agree with his opinion: \n\n> `彼{かれ}の意見{いけん}に同意{どうい}します。`\n\n * I agree with him that oranges are tasty: \n\n> `オレンジはおいしいということ彼{かれ}に同意{どうい}します。`\n\n * He agrees that apples are tasty: \n\n> `彼{かれ}はりんごがおいしいことに同意{どうい}します。`\n\n * Many people agree that brussel sprouts don't taste nice: \n\n> `芽{め}キャベツはおいしくないということに同意{どうい}する人{ひと}が多{おお}い。`\n\n \n**See also:** [What are the different ways of saying to agree or disagree with\na person?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3522/) for other ways\nof agreeing/disagreeing with someone.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-16T02:55:02.817", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3478", "last_activity_date": "2020-07-27T15:53:41.177", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words", "expressions" ], "title": "How to use ～に同意する to agree or disagree with a person?", "view_count": 1525 }

[ { "body": "You can find a lot of examples\n[here](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E5%90%8C%E6%84%8F/UTF-8/?pg=1) (you may want to\ncheck later pages), which will explain a lot.\n\nIt seems that we do use \"に\" for \"同意する\".\n\n\"ということ\" literally means \"the so-called\", which I think is a little more\npolite.\n\nAlso to @sawa, search in the above site with\n\"[いという](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%84%E3%81%A8%E3%81%84%E3%81%86/UTF-8/)\" and\n\"[いだという](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%84%E3%81%A0%E3%81%A8%E3%81%84%E3%81%86/UTF-8/)\"\n(I know they are not words nor phrases ...) gives interesting results. It\nseems that wile i adjectives, \"美味しいだということ\" can be used.\n\nAnd I think \"オレンジはおいしいということ彼に同意します\" is still a little weird, maybe it should\nbe \"オレンジ **が** おいしいだということ **について** 彼に同意します。\". A phrase with nothing in the end\ndoesn't sound natural. (About \"は\" and \"が\", I just feel this way, I am not able\nto explain it in details.)\n\nBTW, I am not native, so correct me if I am wrong.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-02T08:55:48.757", "id": "3891", "last_activity_date": "2020-07-27T15:53:41.177", "last_edit_date": "2020-07-27T15:53:41.177", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3478", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3481", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In the context of restaurants, convenience stores and similar situations, is\nit ok for a customer to ask for something that was said in keigo (or in manual\nkeigo) to be repeated in more \"normal\" Japanese? Or would staff rather speak\nin English rather than non-keigo Japanese?\n\nAssume the customer is not asking because they want to be more intimate, but\nbecause the customer (an obviously non-native speaker) hasn't learnt Japanese\nin its entirety yet.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-16T07:05:13.907", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3480", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-17T02:10:55.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "politeness", "keigo" ], "title": "In customer settings, is it ok to ask for keigo to be repeated in more \"normal\" Japanese?", "view_count": 943 }

[ { "body": "Sure, that's fine. You could say 敬語{けいご}は難{むずか}しいので、タメ語{ご}でしゃべっていただけますか？\nAlthough it's a bit funny when a beginner uses the word タメ語 because it's a bit\nslangy. But I can't think of a better way of saying it.\n\n簡単{かんたん}な日本語{にほんご}でおねがいします should work well too (and has no slangs).", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-16T09:21:24.063", "id": "3481", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-16T09:21:24.063", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "3480", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I think it is OK. I used to do it a lot, but the staff may have trouble not\nusing keigo. It works well at a CD shop, not that well at the bank…\n\nAlso, it's quite impossible to be satisfied over the phone. Indeed, in a shop,\nthe boss will see you're a foreigner having trouble, and maybe let his staff\nuse less formal wordings. However, in a call center, the boss will only\nsee/hear his staff speak badly on the phone, and scold her (hurrah for jobs\nfor women!) harshly later I think…", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-17T02:10:55.233", "id": "3483", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-17T02:10:55.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3480", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3491", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Based off [sawa's comment from this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/3478/542):\n\n> \"you cannot have two ...に phrases. Remove either.\"\n\nAnd using the same verb \"同意する\", I looked up the dictionary and found:\n\n> 1.（人）に同意する - to agree with a person\n>\n> 2.（意見・提案・計画など）に同意する - to agree with an opinion/suggestion/plan/etc.\n\nLet's say I agree with a person about an opinion/suggestion/plan that does not\nnecessarily belong to that person. This way I'm **not** using the genitive-の\nto connect the parts together as in `(人)の(意見・提案・計画)に同意する`. Instead I'm trying\nto express that I agree with a person with something.\n\nDeducing from the above dictionary excerpt, I would form a sentence with two\n`に`s (Which I now know is wrong from sawa's comment).\n\nFlawed (pun not intended) attempts at constructing the sentence:\n\n> ｘ 私は計画に彼に同意します\n>\n> ｘ この計画が彼に同意します (I just realised that this means \"This plan agrees with him\"\n> (Unless sarcasm is taken into consideration, this sentence cannot make any\n> sense))\n\n**(Question)** What would be the proper way to construct this sentence?", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-16T15:02:00.023", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3482", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-13T01:48:48.270", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-に" ], "title": "How to resolve two indirect objects? (Prohibition of two に in a sentence?)", "view_count": 894 }

[ { "body": "After doing some reading up, here's what I learned.\n\nTwo にs in a sentence like `私は計画に彼に同意します` cannot be allowed because `計画` and\n`彼` will share the same thematic role1 if both are assigned に. This causes a\nproblem because `同意する` can only assign two roles - `Agent(私)` and\n`Theme(Either 彼 or 計画)`\n\nBreaking down the sentence \"I agree with him on this plan.\" yields:\n\n> Main verb: agree\n>\n> Agent : I\n>\n> Theme: him\n>\n> Location (Abstract location): plan\n\nNow using the above, I will try to build the Japanese version of the sentence.\n\n> Main verb: 同意する\n>\n> Agent (marked by は in this case): 私\n>\n> Theme (marked by に): 彼\n>\n> Location (marked by で for location of verb action): 計画\n\nPutting them together I'll get `私はこの計画で彼に同意する`.\n\n* * *\n\n1: Here is a list of the major thematic relations extracted from\n[Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_relations):\n\n> **Agent** : deliberately performs the action\n>\n> **Experiencer** : the entity that receives sensory or emotional input.\n>\n> **Theme** : undergoes the action but does not change its state (Sometimes\n> used interchangeably with patient.)\n>\n> **Patient** : undergoes the action and changes its state (Sometimes used\n> interchangeably with theme.)\n>\n> **Instrument** : used to carry out the action\n>\n> **Force or Natural Cause** : mindlessly performs the action\n>\n> **Location** : where the action occurs\n>\n> **Direction or Goal** : where the action is directed towards\n>\n> **Recipient** : a special kind of goal associated with verbs expressing a\n> change in ownership, possession.\n>\n> **Source or Origin** : where the action originated\n>\n> **Time** : the time at which the action occurs\n>\n> **Beneficiary** : the entity for whose benefit the action occurs\n>\n> **Manner** : the way in which an action is carried out\n>\n> **Purpose** : the reason for which an action is performed\n>\n> **Cause** : what caused the action to occur in the first place; not for\n> what, rather because of what", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-18T11:19:20.360", "id": "3491", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-18T11:19:20.360", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3482", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I disagree with premiss as stated - most real written sentences are composed\nof clauses containing verbs. You're going to see lots of \"に\" in a variety of\nroles. Multiple verbs can mean multiple indirect and direct objects. Yes, each\nverb has at most one of each, but good luck determining what goes where.\nDespite my decent vocabulary and grammar knowledge I am frequently stumped by\nwhat are surly ordinary news stories. \"I agreed with Bob when he said that the\nplans we had agreed to last year were obsolete, but I can't agree with his\nattitude\" is more Japanese than English.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-07-12T20:49:19.090", "id": "6111", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-12T20:49:19.090", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1345", "parent_id": "3482", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "Three formulations that, I believe, are natural:\n\nこの計画につき(まして)、彼に同意します。\n\nこの計画の件なのですけれども、彼に同意します。\n\n彼のように、この計画に同意します。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-07-13T01:48:48.270", "id": "6112", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-13T01:48:48.270", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3482", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3485", "answer_count": 1, "body": "A debate came up on the use of `タメ語{ご}` in [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3480/in-customer-\nsettings-is-it-ok-to-ask-for-keigo-to-be-repeated-in-more-normal), and I\nthought it was worth its own analysis.\n\nThe question is, does `タメ語` simply mean \"casual speech\", or does it mean\n\"speech between equals\". Or something else.\n\nThe difference has implications for whether or not it might be rude in some\nsituations. For instance, asking an older or more experienced person to use\n`タメ語` instead of `敬語{けいご}` might be rude if you're implying you are equals,\nbut might be okay if it just means to use everyday language.\n\nThe original debate had two native speakers disagreeing (which should be a\nnote to all those who hold native speaking ability as the be-all-and-end-all\nof authority), so to settle this we'll need convincing references.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-17T03:04:23.283", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3484", "last_activity_date": "2015-10-02T02:35:31.697", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "word-choice", "slang", "definitions", "keigo" ], "title": "Does タメ語{ご} mean \"casual speech\"?", "view_count": 8412 }

[ { "body": "Voting for \"simply casual speech\" (obviously ;)). Here is [one link that shows\nhow using \"タメ語\" sometimes to seniors can better\ncommunication](http://johou.net/syoseki/kirawarerukeigo.html). IMO the writer\nhere is using it to simply mean \"casual speech\". \nOnline definitions such as\n[these](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%82%BF%E3%83%A1%E3%82%B0%E3%83%81/%E3%82%BF%E3%83%A1%E8%AA%9E)\nalso tend to focus on the description of the nature of the speech.\n\nHowever, the etymology of this term is \"speech between equals\" so I'd think\nsome would find the word loaded.\n\nThe word itself is slangy and comes from gambling, and was traditionally used\namong gangs etc. So if you'd use to a nice lady or teachers, or company\nbosses, it would sound weird and rude because it's kinda like saying \"what the\nhell\" or something to such groups. IMO it's not necessarily rude _because_ it\nimplies that the other party is equal (which I think the word doesn't).\n\nFor example, I might ask a senior person タメ語でいいですか？ to become more friendly.\nIf you are sufficiently familiar with the person and the person is \"within\nrange\" you could use タメ語, I find this perfectly ok. Or you could use\nタメ語でお願いします if a senior person is using 敬語 to you. This can even indicate\n_more_ respect, because you are asking the other guy not to use 敬語. Because\nit's a slang though, you have to be a bit careful to whom you can use it. E.g.\nteenager to 20 something-ish senior in バイト setting should be fine.\n\nタメ語 switching is an extremely delicate matter, so I won't recommend anyone to\ntry it too easily. Although if it's clear you are not a native, people would\nbe less likely to be offended when you make wrong moves.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-17T06:26:59.667", "id": "3485", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-17T06:26:59.667", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "3484", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "There seems to be many different ways of saying either to agree or to disagree\nwith a person.\n\nWhich words are there, in what circumstances should they be used, and are\nthere any relevant examples of their usage?\n\nOne example is I'd like to be able to say \"It's OK if you don't agree with me\"\nbut I don't know how to.\n\n(This is a spinoff question as I thought the original was getting too broad.\nFor finer points and examples on using `に同意する` to agree/disagree with a\nperson, see also [How to use ～に同意する to agree or disagree with a\nperson?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3478/))", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-18T02:10:04.357", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3487", "last_activity_date": "2020-07-27T15:42:39.080", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "word-choice", "verbs", "expressions" ], "title": "What are the different ways of saying to agree or disagree with a person?", "view_count": 1305 }

[ { "body": "\"＊\" indicates any one of the particles `に／が／は／で／には／と／を` to save space.\n\nWords which mean \"agree\" (or \"disagree\" if in negative tense):\n\n * `～に同意{どうい}する` \\- Means to have the same opinion with somebody/something, or to agree to something.\n * `（～に）同感{どうかん}` \\- A \"softer\" form of `に同意{どうい}する` which is used to indicate sympathy or having the same feeling about somebody/something. Often used just by itself (e.g. `同感{どうかん}！` \"I agree!\".) \nIs sometimes used with `する` but is more commonly ended with a copula, for\nexample `彼{かれ}に同感{どうかん}だ。`\n\n * `～に賛成{さんせい}する` \\- Means \"to approve\", often used when supporting or endorsing a plan or proposal.\n * `～に賛同{さんどう}する` \\- Has a similar meaning to `～に賛成{さんせい}する`.\n * `～＊納得{なっとく}する` \\- Indicates assent or consent.\n * `～＊納得{なっとく}できる／～＊納得{なっとく}（が）いく` \\- Indicates acceptance or being satisfied. The negative forms can mean \"I'm not convinced\" or \"I'm not satisfied\". `納得{なっとく}いかない！` for instance means \"I can't stand this!\"\n * `～と意見{いけん}が合{あ}う` \\- Used to express agreement with another person's idea or what they're saying.\n\nWords which mean \"disagree\":\n\n * `～と意見{いけん}が異{こと}なる` \\- To differ in opinions or be in disagreement with.\n * `～（に）異論{いろん}がある` \\- A slightly formal form of expressing having a different view with someone.\n * `～と食{く}い違{ちが}う` \\- A strong form of disagreement, meaning clash or differ with.\n\n**Note:** `する`/`しない` is often replaced with `できる`/`できない` to say either I\ncan/can't agree with something.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-18T03:08:54.820", "id": "3488", "last_activity_date": "2020-07-27T15:42:39.080", "last_edit_date": "2020-07-27T15:42:39.080", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3487", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "Wikipedia [says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Japan#Nihon_and_Nippon)\nthat 日本 can be pronounced either [にっぽん]{nippon} or [にほん]{nihon}.\n\nDoes this ambiguity in pronunciation happen with other words? If so, does it\nonly happen with words that originated before\n[handakuten](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakuten) (the circle symbol in ぱ ぴ ぷ\nぺ ぽ) were added to the \"p\" sounding kana? (By Portuguese missionaries,\naccording to the tv series [Nihonjin no Shiranai\nNihongo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irva5iFzqGo&feature=related), at 5:00\nof the link)\n\n(Nihon and nippon has slightly different nuances according to the article, but\nthat's not what I'm interested in)", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-18T11:30:06.257", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3492", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-12T01:06:30.160", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-12T01:06:30.160", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "phonology", "gemination" ], "title": "Are there many words that have the same pronunciation ambiguity as Nihon/Nippon?", "view_count": 885 }

[ { "body": "> The question is ambiguous. Are you looking for a word with two\n> pronunciations, or a word with two pronunciations with slightly different\n> nuances? – Tsuyoshi Ito 5 hours ago\n>\n> @TsuyoshiIto: The former. – Andrew Grimm 5 hours ago\n\nSince it appears from these comments that you are just looking for words with\n2 (or more) pronunciations, then, yes, there are a lot of them. I have a whole\nsection of one of my dictionaries dedicated to this. (To be precise, the\ndictionary is 「続・日本語知識辞典」, subsection 「漢字のいろいろ」＞「読み方によって意味が異なる熟語」).\n\nHere are a couple examples, but I'm not going to go into the meanings of each.\nIn some cases, the meanings are close but subtle, while with others they mean\ncompletely different things. Linguistically, the dictionary does not go into\nwhy the readings are different; instead only focusing on the meanings and\ncontext usages.\n\n * 分別 → ぶんべつ ・ ふんべつ\n * 一時 → いちじ ・ いっとき ・ ひととき\n * 市場 → いちば ・ しじょう\n * 上手 → うわて ・ かみて ・ じょうず\n * 下手 → したて ・ しもて ・ へた (note that 上手 and 下手 were discussed in [this post](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3090/ups-and-downs-%E3%81%8B%E3%81%BF%E3%83%BB%E3%81%97%E3%82%82-vs-%E3%81%86%E3%81%88%E3%83%BB%E3%81%97%E3%81%9F))\n * 目下 → めした ・ もっか", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-18T18:06:23.647", "id": "3495", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-18T18:06:23.647", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3492", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "If we are talking about having pronunciation dictated by social\nsetting/audience, then やはり and やっぱり count as such a pair in such a pattern.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T13:24:18.963", "id": "3508", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-19T13:24:18.963", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "647", "parent_id": "3492", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've seen a lot of 'Top 100 Japanese surnames' sorts of lists, but obviously\nsome names are much more popular in some regions than others. Is there a\nresource (preferably in Japanese!) that would take this into account?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-18T17:22:39.150", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3494", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-22T02:51:39.017", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "790", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "resources" ], "title": "Is there a list of popular surnames organised by region/prefecture?", "view_count": 1180 }

[ { "body": "A telephone directory of that region will give a good approximation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T05:07:35.843", "id": "3504", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-19T05:07:35.843", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3494", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "* [都道{とどう}府県{ふけん}別{べつ}名字{みょうじ}ランキング](http://home.r01.itscom.net/morioka/myoji/best20.html) \\- a top 20 surname list of each prefecture published by Hiroshi Morioka, a Japanese surname researcher\n\n * [同姓{どうせい}同名{どうめい}辞典{じてん}](http://www.douseidoumei.net/) \\- huge rankings of Japanese names generated from telephone directories", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T05:47:10.950", "id": "3505", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-22T02:51:39.017", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-22T02:51:39.017", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "44", "parent_id": "3494", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I came across this expression in my JPLT N2 study materials.\n\nI deciphered the parts as\n\n可哀想{かわいそう} means pitiable, pathetic でならない means can't help feeling\n\nso does it mean \"can't help feeling pathetic\"? How is this used in context?\nDoes it mean \"I feel very pathetic\" or when I look at someone or something,\nI'm thinking \"that person/thing looks so very pathetic\"?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-18T18:33:17.353", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3496", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T06:31:12.433", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-22T03:32:30.467", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "791", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation" ], "title": "what does 可哀想{かわいそう}でならない　mean?", "view_count": 724 }

[ { "body": "`ならない` does not mean 'can't help'. It means 'cannot stand'.\n\n> 彼{かれ}が可哀想{かわいそう}でならない \n> 'WIth him being pitiable/pathetic, I cannot stand.'\n\nSimilar expression are `たまらない`.\n\n> 彼が可哀想でたまらない \n> 彼が可哀想でしかたがない \n> 'With him being pitiable/pathetic, I cannot stand.'", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T04:26:32.023", "id": "3502", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T06:31:12.433", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-23T06:31:12.433", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3496", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3503", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm using Nihongo So-Matome 文法{ぶんぽう} while preparing for JLPT N3, and having\nsome issues with some of the grammar descriptions.\n\nThis StackExchange answer was awesome in clearing up most of my らしい / っぽい /\nみたい questions:\n\n[Contrasting\nっぽい、らしい、みたい](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2391/contrasting-%E3%81%A3%E3%81%BD%E3%81%84%E3%80%81%E3%82%89%E3%81%97%E3%81%84%E3%80%81%E3%81%BF%E3%81%9F%E3%81%84)\n\nHowever, this one remains - why is it OK to say:\n\n逃{に}げたのは **黒{くろ}っぽい** 車{くるま}でした。\n\nBut not:\n\n逃{に}げたのは **黒{くろ}みたいな** 車{くるま}でした。\n\nThanks.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-18T21:59:53.540", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3497", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T18:18:55.463", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "792", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "jlpt" ], "title": "らしい / っぽい / みたい question: Why 黒{くろ}っぽい車{くるま} and not 黒{くろ}みたいな車{くるま}?", "view_count": 844 }

[ { "body": "Axioplase's answer to the question you linked expresses the nuance.\n\n * `っぽい`: '-ish'. Can be used for an attribute, or resemblance.\n\n> 黒っぽい車 [attribute] \n> 'a blackish car'\n>\n> 霊{れい}柩{きゅう}車{しゃ}っぽい車 [resemblance] \n> 'a hearse-ish car'\n\n * `みたい`: 'like'. Can be used for resemblance, but not for an attribute.\n\n> × 黒みたいな車 [attribute] \n> 'a car that is like black'\n>\n> 霊柩車みたいな車 [resemblance] \n> 'a car that is like a hearse'", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T04:44:33.850", "id": "3503", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T18:18:55.463", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-23T18:18:55.463", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3497", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3500", "answer_count": 1, "body": "My friend sent me an email saying her mobile phone is having problems.\nSpecifically, she said this:\n\n> 携帯{けいたい}の電池{でんち}が電話{でんわ}すると5分{ふん}でなくあっちゃうようになった\n\nI get the overall meaning, which is that when she makes a call, the battery\nruns out of power after only 5 minutes.\n\nHowever I can't parse `でなくあっちゃうようになった`, specifically the `あっちゃう` part.\n\nWhat is going on here, and how is it different from\n`携帯{けいたい}の電池{でんち}が電話{でんわ}すると5分{ふん}でなくなる`?\n\n_(Please no overly technical linguistic terms. Thanks!)_", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T03:16:44.853", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3498", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T05:08:22.383", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T05:08:22.383", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice" ], "title": "What is あっちゃう in this sentence?", "view_count": 568 }

[ { "body": "As Flaw comments, this is a typo of `5分でなくなっちゃう`, which is a contracted form\nof `5分でなくなってしまう` 'unfortunately, runs out in five minutes'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T04:16:35.067", "id": "3500", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-19T04:27:56.343", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-19T04:27:56.343", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3498", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3501", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Taken from\n[alc.co.jp](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%AA%E3%81%8B%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6/UTF-8/):\n\n> 家{いえ}の鍵{かぎ}が見{み}つからなくて、玄関{げんかん}のベルを鳴{な}らしたけど、君{きみ}、家{いえ}に居{い} **なかって**\n> し、ここでずっと待{ま}ってたんだよ。\n>\n> (I rang the doorbell because I couldn't find the house key, but you weren't\n> home, so I was waiting for you all this time.)\n\nI've been trying to form the bolded portion but I can't find a way to derive\nit.\n\nThese are the forms that I know, and none of them match the bolded portion\nabove:\n\n> ~ない\n>\n> ~なく\n>\n> ~ないで\n>\n> ~なくて\n>\n> ~なかった\n\nI'm guessing that it comes from なく + あって(て-form of ある) + sound contraction.\nBut I have no idea what it means and how it should be used.\n\n**(Question)** What does ~なかって mean and how should it be used? Where does it\ncome from?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T03:44:16.513", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3499", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T04:48:37.277", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "meaning", "conjugations" ], "title": "What is ~なかって and how is it formed?", "view_count": 594 }

[ { "body": "This is a typo of `居なかったし` 'were not there, and'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T04:20:36.793", "id": "3501", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-19T04:29:14.423", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-19T04:29:14.423", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3499", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "\"何\" is pronounced as \"なん\" before counter-words like in \"何時{なんじ}\", \"何歳{なんさい}\"\netc; or before particles like in \"何で\", \"何とか\" etc.\n\nHowever, it remains to be pronounced as \"なに\" in some words like \"何事{なにごと}\",\n\"何色{なにいろ}\", \"何者{なにもの}\" etc. It can also be pronounced both ways like in \"何か\".\n\nWhat is the logic/origin behind this pronunciation difference?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T11:47:25.550", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3506", "last_activity_date": "2018-07-16T19:59:46.667", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "readings" ], "title": "Pronunciation of \"何\" as \"なん\" or \"なに\"", "view_count": 2090 }

[ { "body": "This isn't a complete answer, but there is a strong tendency to shorten to なん\nwhen 何 is followed by a 'n', 'd' or 't' sound.\n\nThis obviously doesn't address your first two examples, however.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T18:33:52.457", "id": "3511", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-19T18:33:52.457", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "29", "parent_id": "3506", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Usually we use \"なん\" in the following cases : \n\n * when the first syllabe of the next word is part of the lines \"-た\", \"-だ\" and \"-な\",\n * as mentioned by Luckman, when we ask a question about a number like in \"何時{なんじ}\" and \"何分{なんぷん}\".\n\nIn any others cases, we use \"なに\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-20T05:44:42.447", "id": "3517", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-21T11:44:28.427", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-21T11:44:28.427", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "788", "parent_id": "3506", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3512", "answer_count": 2, "body": "(This question started as a dual question about when to drop vowels and\nwhether it matters. The first question is well answered at [What are the rules\nregarding \"mute vowels\" (\"u\" after \"s\" and \"i\" after\n\"sh\")?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1095/what-are-the-rules-\nregarding-mute-vowels-u-after-s-and-i-after-sh).)\n\nI'm just starting to learn Japanese, and one thing I've noticed is that vowel\nsounds--in particular, i and u--are often dropped by Japanese speakers. For\nexample, \"suki\" is usually pronounced like the English word \"ski\", \"desu\"\nusually has the final \"u\" dropped, and I sometimes--but not always--hear\n\"ichi\" pronounced without the final \"i\" sound.\n\nMy question is: how much does it matter whether you drop vowel sounds or not?\nWill native speakers notice either way?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-19T14:58:29.127", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3509", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T04:25:59.830", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "794", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "learning" ], "title": "Does it matter whether you drop vowels in spoken Japanese?", "view_count": 5567 }

[ { "body": "I think I can speak to this because I used to have (maybe still do) trouble\ngetting vowel pronunciation right, and have struggled a lot with it.\n\nJapanese may have situations when they drop vowels, such as the ones you name.\n\nThis is not an indication that it's simply generally applicable, though. There\nis a feel to when it is right that is the kind of thing a native speaker can\ndo without knowing any particular rule.\n\nAs a non-native speaker, though, it's harder to plug into what that rhythm is,\nand when it's right and when it's wrong to do so.\n\nFor me personally, one of my main issues is that I have some trouble with two\nvowel sounds in a row, such as `青{あお}い (blue)`. In the English accent that I\nspeak natively, the tendency is to compress vowel sounds. So, before much\ndeliberation and practice, I would pronounce `青{あお}い` as a two syllable \"ow-\nii\" (something like that, not sure how to spell phonetics). Japanese speakers\nwould not understand me.\n\nIn summary, to answer your question, yes, it does matter a lot whether or not\nyou drop a vowel sound, and you will in fact very likely be not understood if\nyou drop, or change, a vowel sound. Native speakers definitely do notice.\n\nMy recommendation is to try and emulate pronunciation of all vowel sounds as\nclearly accurately as you can for now, and then slowly introduce dropped\nsounds and other variations by copying them as you hear them on a case by case\nbasis.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-20T01:20:50.333", "id": "3512", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-20T01:20:50.333", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "3509", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "First of all, muting wrong vowels can make a speech hard to understand. For\nexample, if a speaker pronounces さくら with the first /a/ omitted or devoiced,\nthe word can become unrecognizable depending on the context.\n\nOn the other hand, I think that vowel muting is optional for comprehension;\nthat is, not muting the vowels that can be muted does not affect whether a\nspeech is understandable or not. I guess that most people do not even notice\nthe difference between a speech with vowel muting and a speech without vowel\nmuting, as long as one does not mute wrong vowels.\n\nNote that vowel muting is a feature of some dialects of Japanese including the\nTokyo dialect (on which the “standard” dialect is based). I think that some of\nthe speakers of the dialects without vowel muting do not mute vowels even when\nthey speak the “standard” dialect.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T04:25:59.830", "id": "3565", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T04:25:59.830", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3509", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3514", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I would like to ask on how to avoid multiple occurrences of the particle ga in\na sentence. For example:\n\n```\n\n 詳細{しょうさい}のクエリは削除{さくじょ}フラグが0がありません。\n \n```\n\nWhat I meant in the sentence: `The Detail query does not contain the condition\nof \"delete-flag equals 0\".`\n\nRight now I would work around this by using equals symbol or change the verb\nlike _fukumemasen_.\n\n```\n\n 詳細{しょうさい}のクエリは削除{さくじょ}フラグ＝0がありません。\n \n```\n\nor\n\n```\n\n 詳細{しょうさい}のクエリは削除{さくじょ}フラグが0を含{ふく}めません。\n \n```\n\nIs the original sentence's grammar correct? If not, are my alternative\nsentences correct?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-20T02:57:10.350", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3513", "last_activity_date": "2015-10-25T14:52:00.783", "last_edit_date": "2015-10-25T14:52:00.783", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "786", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "particle-が" ], "title": "How do you avoid multiple が in a sentence", "view_count": 1726 }

[ { "body": "I'm a little confused because `0がありません` means \"there is no zero\".\n\nPerhaps \"delete-flag equals zero\" should be `ゼロの削除{さくじょ}フラグ` or\n`ゼロと等{ひと}しい削除{さくじょ}フラグ`\n\n* * *\n\nI'm going to interpret your sentence as :\n\n`The Detail query does not contain the condition of \"delete-flag equals 0\"`\n\n> Nouns: `Detail query`, `(the condition of) delete-flag equals 0` (Not really\n> a noun phrase unless interpreted as a condition)\n>\n> Verb: `contain`\n>\n> Negatives: (negates existence of \"condition of delete-flag equals 0\")\n\nThe sentence should be of the forms:\n\n> [Detail Query]には[Condition of delete-flag equals zero]を[not contain]\n>\n> `詳細{しょうさい}のクエリには ゼロと等{ひと}しい削除{さくじょ}フラグの状態{じょうたい}` **`を`**`含{ふく}めない` \\-\n> Condition of delete-flag equals zero is not included in the detail query.\n>\n> `詳細{しょうさい}のクエリは ゼロと等{ひと}しい削除{さくじょ}フラグの状態{じょうたい}` **`が`**`ない` \\- Condition of\n> delete-flag equals zero is not present with respect to the detail query.\n\nAlternatively, I think you can use the `~という` construct. i.e\n`ゼロと等{ひと}しい削除{さくじょ}フラグという`. Using this will turn the sentence into `... does\nnot contain \"delete-flag equals zero\"` (instead of `condition of ~`)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-20T04:22:53.127", "id": "3514", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-21T11:20:26.743", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3513", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "First, you can have several が, for example if you say \"that is Yamada who is\nblind\": `山田{やまだ}さんが目{め}が見{み}えない`.\n\nThen, if you have a choice, I'd suggest you break the sentence or rephrase.\n\nMoreover, there are cases where you can turn が into の. For example\n私{わたし}が飼{か}っている犬{いぬ}が車{くるま}にぶつけられた。 can become\n私{わたし}の飼{か}っている犬{いぬ}が車{くるま}にぶつけられた。\n\nAs for your initial sentence, I couldn't parse it properly, but my suggestion\nin the comment is a way to rephrase.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-21T08:09:10.560", "id": "3521", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-21T11:20:23.983", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-21T11:20:23.983", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3513", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I am having difficulties to make sense of `にすぎない`, which is translated by\nEDICT to mean \"no more than that; just; only\". Is it not simply equivalent to\n`だけ`? Can I use `にすぎない` as substitute for `だけ`?\n\nAlso, since `かぎる` means \"to be restricted\", which is opposite of `すぎる` \\- \"to\ngo beyond\", does it mean that `にすぎない` and `にかぎらない` are opposite of each other?\nCan I use `にかぎらない` as substitute for `だけじゃない`?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-20T04:31:11.443", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3515", "last_activity_date": "2014-02-19T13:10:07.570", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "word-choice", "expressions" ], "title": "\"にすぎない\" vs \"だけ\" and \"にかぎらない\" vs \"だけじゃない\"", "view_count": 681 }

[ { "body": "So we are comparing:\n\n 1. ～にすぎない vs. ～だけ (Test for equal)\n\n 2. ～にすぎない vs. ～にかぎらない (Test for opposite)\n\n 3. ～にかぎらない vs. ～だけじゃない (Test for equal)\n\n* * *\n\nIn 1. we have `not exceeding ~` and `only ~`.\n\nLets say we have a number line from zero to ten.\n\n> `not exceeding 5` are \"0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5\".\n>\n> `only 5` is \"5\".\n\nSo ~にすぎない is not equivalent to ~だけ.\n\n* * *\n\nIn 2. we have `not exceeding ~` and `not limited to ~`\n\nLets have a number line from zero to ten.\n\n> `not exceeding 5` are \"0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5\".\n>\n> `not limited to 5` are \"0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10\"\n>\n> (`limited to 5` are \"0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5\".)\n>\n> Is `not exceeding ~` equal to the opposite of `not limited to ~`? Yes.\n>\n> Is `not limited to ~` equal to the opposite of `not exceeding ~`? No.\n\nNow lets have random data that has no order and unsorted. Lets say I have \"A,\nQ, W, M, D, C, P\"\n\n> `not exceeding M` makes no sense anymore.\n>\n> `limited to M` is not \"A, Q, W, M\". It is instead just \"M\".\n>\n> `not limited to M` are \"A, Q, W, M, D, C, P\".\n>\n> Is `not exceeding ~` equal to the opposite of `not limited to ~`? N/A.\n>\n> Is `not limited to ~` equal to the opposite of `not exceeding ~`? N/A.\n\n* * *\n\nIn 3. we have `not limited to ~` and `not only ~`\n\nLets have a number line from zero to ten.\n\n> `not limited to 5` are \"0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10\"\n>\n> `not only 5` are \"0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10\"\n\nNow lets have random data that has no order and unsorted. Lets say I have \"A,\nQ, W, M, D, C, P\"\n\n> `not limited to M` are \"A, Q, W, M, D, C, P\".\n>\n> `not only M` are \"A, Q, W, M, D, C, P\".\n\nSo ~にかぎらない is equal to ~だけじゃない", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-20T05:44:10.110", "id": "3516", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-20T05:44:10.110", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3515", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I feel にすぎない and にかぎらない are more formal/academic than だけ and だけじゃない.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-02-19T13:10:07.570", "id": "14542", "last_activity_date": "2014-02-19T13:10:07.570", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3515", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3520", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'm preparing a sales presentation; it contains some company data and I want\nto indicate that the entire presentation is confidential. In English, this\nwould likely be accomplished by stamping the corner with \"confidential\".\n\nWhat's the best word to use in Japanese for a similar meaning? I've seen this\nsomewhere in my old company, but I forgot... here are the candidates I know\nof, but the one I think I've seen before isn't there, I'm having trouble\nfinding something where I say \"aha that's it\".\n\n * 内緒 (ないしょ) -- more used as in \"private\", like a small secret between a few people\n * 秘密 (ひみつ -- \"secret\", but not sure if this is the appropriate word\n * 機密 (きみつ）-- don't understand how this is different than 秘密\n * 親展 (しんてん) -- you see this on envelopes of letters, but that's about it", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-21T02:26:01.160", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3518", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-24T03:47:09.807", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "87", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "word-choice", "business-japanese" ], "title": "What's the word to use for \"confidential\", as in a company report?", "view_count": 1787 }

[ { "body": "Generally in Japanese you write 「XXX取扱」to indicate you request special or\nsensitive handling of the materials in question.\n\nThere are some variations you could use. Here are a couple I know / looked up\nwith approximate English equivalents.\n\n 1. 秘密情報取扱 (ひみつじょうほうとりあつかい) - [Handle as] secret or private information\n 2. 機密情報取扱 (きみつじょうほうとりあつかい) - [Handle as] confidential information\n 3. 厳密情報取扱 (げんみつじょうほうとりあつかい) - [Handle as] **strictly** confidential information\n\nAvoid these ones though, unless you're in the military or government:\n\n 1. 最高秘密情報 (さいこうひみつじょうほう) - top secret information\n 2. 極秘情報 (ごくひじょうほう) - classified information\n\nThere are many others that would be more appropriate to use in an email, a\nletter or a report such as:\n\n 1. 内申 (ないしん) - confidential (internal/unofficial) report\n 2. 秘録 (ひろく) - confidential record", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-21T02:43:51.963", "id": "3519", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-21T02:43:51.963", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "168", "parent_id": "3518", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "There is a special symbol printed/stamped on secret documents, which is in red\ncolor with the character `秘` circled. They look like\n[this](http://www.google.co.jp/search?&q=%E3%83%9E%E3%83%AB%E7%A7%98&oe=utf-8&hl=ja&tbm=isch).\nBecause of this symbol, secrets are usually abbreviated as `マル秘{ひ}`. Some\nJapanese font encodings even have this as one of their characters.\n\nFor corporate documents, I think the most orthodox word is `社{しゃ}外{がい}秘{ひ}`\n'to be kept secret from company outsiders', for which\n[stamps](http://www.google.co.jp/search?q=%E7%A4%BE%E5%A4%96%E7%A7%98&hl=ja&tbm=isch)\nalso exist.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-21T03:08:43.267", "id": "3520", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-24T03:47:09.807", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-24T03:47:09.807", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3518", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3523", "answer_count": 1, "body": "There seems to be many different ways of saying either to agree or to disagree\nwith a person.\n\nWhich words are there, in what circumstances should they be used, and are\nthere any relevant examples of their usage?\n\nOne example is I'd like to be able to say \"It's OK if you don't agree with me\"\nbut I don't know how to.\n\n(This is a spinoff question as I thought the original was getting too broad.\nFor finer points and examples on using `に同意する` to agree/disagree with a\nperson, see also [How to use ～に同意する to agree or disagree with a\nperson?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3478/))", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-21T10:03:06.543", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3522", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-21T10:03:32.810", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "word-choice", "expressions" ], "title": "What are the different ways of saying to agree or disagree with a person?", "view_count": 2939 }

[ { "body": "\"＊\" indicates any one of the particles `に／が／は／で／には／と／を` to save space.\n\nWords which mean \"agree\" (or \"disagree\" if in negative tense):\n\n * `～に同意{どうい}する` \\- Means to have the same opinion with somebody/something, or to agree to something.\n * `（～に）同感{どうかん}` \\- A \"softer\" form of `に同意{どうい}する` which is used to indicate sympathy or having the same feeling about somebody/something. Often used just by itself (e.g. `同感{どうかん}！` \"I agree!\".) \nIs sometimes used with `する` but is more commonly ended with a copula, for\nexample `彼{かれ}に同感{どうかん}だ。`\n\n * `～に賛成{さんせい}する` \\- Means \"to approve\", often used when supporting or endorsing a plan or proposal.\n * `～に賛同{さんどう}する` \\- Has a similar meaning to `～に賛成{さんせい}する`. \n * `～＊納得{なっとく}する` \\- Indicates assent or consent. \n * `～＊納得{なっとく}できる／～＊納得{なっとく}（が）いく` \\- Indicates acceptance or being satisfied. The negative forms can mean \"I'm not convinced\" or \"I'm not satisfied\". `納得{なっとく}いかない！` for instance means \"I can't stand this!\"\n * `～と意見{いけん}が合{あ}う` \\- Used to express agreement with another person's idea or what they're saying. \n\nWords which mean \"disagree\":\n\n * `～と意見{いけん}が異{い}なる` \\- To differ in opinions or be in disagreement with.\n * `～（に）異論{いろん}がある` \\- A slightly formal form of expressing having a different view with someone.\n * `～と食{く}い違{ちが}う` \\- A strong form of disagreement, meaning clash or differ with.\n\n**Note:** `する`/`しない` is often replaced with `できる`/`できない` to say either I\ncan/can't agree with something.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-21T10:03:32.810", "id": "3523", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-21T10:03:32.810", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3522", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3528", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Nihonjin no Shiranai Nihongo (The Japanese language the Japanese people don't\nknow) seems to be claiming, at around 6:20 of [this YouTube\nclip](http://youtu.be/z8IwcU6xuuE?t=6m20s) of language-specific portions of\nepisode 4 of the show, that desu and masu were endings geisha originally used,\nbut that during the meiji period, samurai visiting geisha in Edo (nowadays\nTokyo) misinterpreted it as part of Edo's dialect and spread it across the\ncountry.\n\nHowever, googling either for `masu desu geisha`, or `teineigo`\n([apparently](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/882/does-%E6%95%AC%E8%AA%9E-keigo-\njust-mean-politeness-or-is-it-a-technical-term-specifically/890#890) a\n[term](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific_speech_in_Japanese#Polite_language)\nthat covers desu and masu) and `geisha` doesn't get any hits corroborating\nthis claim, apart from pages citing Nihonjin no Shiranai Nihongo. Is this\nclaim more amusing than backed up by factual evidence?\n\n(Sections at or before 6:20 also has Haruko-sensei using terms translated as\n\"standard Japanese\" and \"common Japanese\", but I can't transcribe the original\nwords)", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-21T14:47:03.227", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3525", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-22T07:03:37.200", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "politeness", "history" ], "title": "Was desu and masu originally geisha-speak?", "view_count": 1203 }

[ { "body": "The basic idea is correct but the details are a bit oversimplified (as you\nmight expect for a comic essay become a TV show).\n\nです did indeed originate in the red light districts of Edo (if you like), but\nwe are not only talking about \"geisha\" here. First of all, there were men in\nthat industry as well, and they also used です and ます; so did regular customers\n(if they wanted to be hip). The words even spread to regular townsfolk to a\ncertain extent. But it is correct to say that です was considered lower-class\nand not the kinds of words samurai should use. This was about the 18th\ncentury.\n\nNote that at this point です did not have the conjugations でした and so on, and\nnor was it considered \"the polite version of だ\". This happened in the 19th\ncentury and is really more of a Meiji thing than an Edo thing. This is also\nwhen we see です spreading out to more general usage, including in the upper\nclass. The key driver is not \"mistaken samurai\", but rather the influence of\nwomen's language, including the language of geisha and other \"flower-and-\nwillow world\" workers, on 山{やま}の手言葉{てことば} (the language of upper-class\nEdo→Tokyo society). This is a complex and interesting subject on which entire\nbooks have been written, but basically you see a lot of women with close ties\nto the world of geisha, including ex-geisha themselves coming into the\nhouseholds of the new upper class, as wives and also as \"help\" including\nchild-minders. The makeup of this \"upper class\" was also itself in flux, as\nwas all of Japanese society, really, once the Meiji period got going.\n\nSo it isn't so much that samurai got it wrong and spread the word around the\ncountry (although no doubt there were samurai who did get it wrong, and became\nthe butt of jokes among people who knew better!). It's more that the limited\nset of people, particularly women, who originally used the word found\nthemselves in key positions (wives, mothers, nurses, trendsetters) to\ninfluence the speech of the post-Restoration upper class. It was this upper\nclass who made their speech the \"standard,\" and the rest is history.\n\nます I am less sure about -- I know there are examples from the Muromachi period\nand in some of the Portuguese materials (so, appearing in the speech of or at\nleast familiar to the samurai class), but I don't know if they can be directly\nconnected with the current 丁寧語{ていねいご} \"ます\". (For example, there was an earlier\nです, deriving from でそうろう, but it is not the ancestor of the modern です.)\nHowever, if modern ます does derive from the language of geisha, I would expect\nthat it became \"standard\" via the same processes rather than by samurai making\nmistakes.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-21T22:27:23.730", "id": "3528", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-22T02:03:36.623", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-22T02:03:36.623", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3525", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3530", "answer_count": 1, "body": "This is from the anime Noir, Episode 1 starting at 23:13 at the school:\n\n> [The two characters A and B are leaving the country.] \n> A: 出国{しゅっこく}の手配{てはい}は済{す}ませた。 \n> 'I've made the arrangements to leave the country.' \n> B: ありがとう。\n\nMy question is about the conjugation of `済ませた`. I would have expected to hear:\n`済まして(い)た`. I can't figure out what kind of conjugation that is. It looks like\nthe potential form with `iru`, but I've never seen a past potential form.\nPlus, 'can finished' or 'can have finished' is much different than 'have\nfinished'. So again, what kind of conjugation is `済ませた`? How is it formed?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-21T23:52:30.580", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3529", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-24T15:36:15.667", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-23T06:30:39.017", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "769", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "learning" ], "title": "What kind of conjugation is 済{す}ませた?", "view_count": 342 }

[ { "body": "It is simply the 〜た form of 済ませる, which basically means the same as 済ます.\n\nQuoted from\n[大辞泉](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%B8%88%E3%81%BE%E3%81%9B%E3%82%8B&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0):\n\n> すま・せる【済ませる】 \n> 「済ます」に同じ。\n\nAnd\n[大辞林](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%B8%88%E3%81%BE%E3%81%9B%E3%82%8B&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0):\n\n> すま・せる 【済ませる】 \n> 「すます（済）」に同じ。", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-22T00:35:31.150", "id": "3530", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-24T15:36:15.667", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-24T15:36:15.667", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "3529", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3532", "answer_count": 1, "body": "The other day I came across どうたら and while looking it up I noticed that たら is\nclassified as a particle. どうたら is apparently an abbreviation of どうたらこうたら, so I\nsee that it should work for ああ and そう (by the way, what are these called?),\nbut I'm having a hard time imagining how else it is used.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-22T13:27:29.460", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3531", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-22T16:01:37.293", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "particles" ], "title": "How is たら used as a particle?", "view_count": 417 }

[ { "body": "どう and こう replace verbs here. -たら is a particle that attaches only to verbs\nand i adjectives. It means something like \"do this, do that\".", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-22T16:01:37.293", "id": "3532", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-22T16:01:37.293", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "801", "parent_id": "3531", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3536", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Is it known why a さかや normally has a か, rather than a け like in さけ?\n\nAre there many other -や constructions for stores that change the spelling of\nthe word added to?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T01:07:05.920", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3533", "last_activity_date": "2021-09-06T19:42:44.640", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "etymology", "spelling" ], "title": "Why is a place that sells さけ a さかや?", "view_count": 1107 }

[ { "body": "(Especially in the ancient times,) there were/are bound morphemes (morphemes\nthat cannot be used in isolation as a word) that end with the vowel `a`. The\n`a` at the end of these morphemes cannot appear at a word boundary. These\nforms are known as 被覆形.\n\n> saka- (as in 酒) \n> ama- (as in 雨) \n> puna- (as in 船) \n> ma- (as in 目)\n\nWhen they are used as the first component of a compound noun, the `a`-ending\nis rescued by being attached to the second component:\n\n> sakaya (酒屋), sakagura (酒蔵), sakadaru (酒樽), sakamori (酒盛り), sakazuki (盃) \n> amaoto (雨音), amagasa (雨傘), amagappa (雨合羽), amayadori (雨宿り) \n> funatsukiba (船着き場), funanori (船乗り), funazumi (船積み), funabashi (船橋), funayoi\n> (船酔い) \n> mabuta (目蓋), manako (眼)\n\nThese morphemes cannot be used in isolation, but there were ways to modify\nthem so that they can be used by themselves. One such way was to attach the\nvowel `i` (上代特殊仮名遣い乙類イ) after it, which may be either an epenthetic vowel or a\nderivational morpheme that derives a noun (this part may be controversial).\nWhen such vowel attaches, the `a+i` sequence became `e` due to a phonological\nrule:\n\n> **a-i → e** \n> saka-i → sake (酒) \n> ama-i → ame (雨) \n> puna-i → fune (船) \n> ma-i → me (目)\n\nThese forms derived in this way are called 露出形.\n\n* * *\n\n[A related question][1]", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T03:04:11.197", "id": "3536", "last_activity_date": "2021-09-06T19:42:44.640", "last_edit_date": "2021-09-06T19:42:44.640", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3533", "post_type": "answer", "score": 37 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I need to add a body to submit my question, so I'll just say the Mortal Kombat\nseemed to believe that the term `腹切り` (`はらきり` harakiri) was more appropriate\nfor self slaughter (i.e., throwing a boomerang hat that cuts one's own head\noff); however, I found `切腹` (`せっぷく` seppuku) used in many novels about\nJapanese samurai considering suicide due to some circumstance involving their\nmaster falling from grace. Is the difference between the two whether it is\nover personal loss of face or clan-wide loss of face?", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T02:13:52.900", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3534", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-18T10:51:40.227", "last_edit_date": "2018-05-04T23:01:33.160", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "770", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "word-choice", "synonyms", "wago-and-kango" ], "title": "What's the difference between 腹切り and 切腹?", "view_count": 1677 }

[ { "body": "They have essentially the same literal meaning: suicide by gut-cutting (even\nif the actual killing blow was decapitation by someone else). 切腹 /seppuku/ has\nSino-Japanese pronunciation and word order (not sure if it was actually used\nin Chinese at the time, or if it was invented in Japanese), 腹切り /hara.kiri/\nhas native Japanese pronunciation and word order (and okurigana).\n\nBecause _seppuku_ is Sino-Japanese, that is the word that was used in context\nwhere Sino-Japanese was preferred, notably written documents, and particularly\n\"official\" writing. So when you arrive at Edo times and this act is codified\nas part of the justice system (the least worst death sentence), it was\nofficially called _seppuku_ , not _harakiri_. This doesn't mean that no-one\never used the word \"harakiri\" to refer to it in this context, but official\ndocuments, court records etc. would use \"seppuku\". There is also the fact\nthat, all other things being equal, Sino-Japanese vocabulary tends to connote\na higher \"register\" than native Japanese vocabulary, like Latinate vocabulary\nvs native English vocabulary (\"acquire\"/\"obtain\" vs \"get\", \"utilize\" vs \"use\",\netc.)\n\nImagine if we had the death sentence \"decapitation\" (Latinate vocabulary) in\nthe modern English-speaking world: people might still say \"he got his head cut\noff\" (native English vocabulary), but judges would not say \"I sentence you to\nhave your head cut off\", and newspapers would not report that \"X was sentenced\nto having his head cut off.\" (Some tabloids might say \"Off with his head!\",\nbut you get the idea.)\n\nSo it makes sense for a samurai in a novel, considering grave samurai matters,\nto use the word \"seppuku\" to refer to the act. And, I suppose if you extend\nthe logic and look at it the other way, it makes less sense to apply this\nhighly serious word to a chaotic, hat-related death.\n\nSomething else might also be going on, though: _harakiri_ might be more easily\nextensible, via metaphor, to general \"death by self-inflicted violence,\"\n\"disregard for self-preservation leading to death\" (certainly the English\nword-family derived from _harakiri_ , e.g. _hari-kari_ etc., has this\nmetaphorical extension) -- while _seppuku_ might be more closely tied to its\nspecific formal meaning, in which case razor hats would be right out. I have a\nfeeling that this might be the case, but I have no good evidence to offer,\nsorry.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T22:21:15.263", "id": "3547", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T22:21:15.263", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3534", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "I came across this question while having the same discussion.\n\nThe 大辞林 dictionary (3rd edition) gives 2 meanings for seppuku:\n\n 1. A synonym for harakiri, kappuku, and tofuku, suicide by stomach cutting.\n 2. An Edo-period sentence for a Samurai, where the Samurai cuts their stomach but is beheaded by a second from behind.\n\nSo the difference is in the second meaning.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-02-18T10:51:40.227", "id": "84253", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-18T10:51:40.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "41952", "parent_id": "3534", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3551", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Here's an example.\n\nメイドにはびびった\n\nWho was scared, the speaker, or the maid?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T02:31:05.113", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3535", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-24T07:02:59.323", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": -3, "tags": [ "particles" ], "title": "Who is the subject of Aにはaction?", "view_count": 181 }

[ { "body": "This is context-dependent. It _could_ be the speaker that was frightened, but\nit could just as easily be the most recent subject (e.g. person) being\ndiscussed prior to this sentence. Without more context, it's really impossible\nto say for certain. In any case, though, _someone_ or _something_ was\nfrightened _by_ the maid.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T07:02:59.323", "id": "3551", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-24T07:02:59.323", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "773", "parent_id": "3535", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Here's an example:\n\nみなさんに愛される人。\n\nDoes this mean, \"the person that everyone loves,\" or \"the person that loves\neverybody?\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T03:40:56.477", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3538", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T05:02:46.693", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": -3, "tags": [ "passive-voice" ], "title": "Passive + Noun. Who did what?", "view_count": 253 }

[ { "body": "`The person that is loved by everyone.`\n\nIt's just a basic relative clause, no magic involved.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T05:02:46.693", "id": "3539", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T05:02:46.693", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3538", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3545", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I noticed that in songs, the vowel sounds of the morae that come before\ngeminations are sometimes repeated.\n\nFor example, [the first lyric line of\n“マジカルちょーだいっ”](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2iBy0YxyJ9M#t=38s)\nis sung as `しらんぷりをしたあって` where the line is actually `しらんぷりをしたって`.\n\nAnother example: [in the second lyric line of\n“片道きゃっちぼーる”](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=_RNR6sqfzoA#t=16s),\nthe final `あった` sounds like `ああった`.\n\nAlso, [at the beginning of the song “Gem\nStone”](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=xFZTdwvOBZo#t=15s),\nthe repeated `もってる` is pronounced as `もおってる`.\n\nMy questions are:\n\n 1. Is this way of pronouncing gemination limited to songs, or are there instances where it's used elsewhere?\n\n 2. It seems to be limited to songs with children or children-like voices, so is it by chance the way Japanese children initially pronounce gemination?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T13:22:27.327", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3540", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-13T02:36:33.963", "last_edit_date": "2014-06-13T02:36:33.963", "last_editor_user_id": "3437", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "song-lyrics", "phonetics", "gemination" ], "title": "Repeating the vowel sound of the mora that precedes gemination in songs", "view_count": 809 }

[ { "body": "My first impression is that the only purpose of the extra mora is to create an\nadditional mora for rhythmic reasons. Vowel lengthening does occur for\nexpressive reasons, but I don't think any connection can be drawn to\ngemination. From a phonological perspective, I see no reason a vowel would\nlengthen before a geminate. I don't recall ever seeing such a process in any\nlanguage.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T14:38:26.450", "id": "3544", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T14:38:26.450", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "801", "parent_id": "3540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "It is common in songs, and it is not specific to children’s songs.\n\nIn the first case, the pitch of the lyric line is probably something like:\n\n> し(G) ら(G) ん(G) ぷ(G) り(G) を(F#) し(G) た(E) っ(F#) て(D)\n\nbut if you try to sing this as it is, there is a problem: gemination is not a\nsound but just a pause, and you cannot sing it with any pitch. Therefore, the\nvowel preceding the gemination is prolonged to fill the first part of the mora\nwhich should filled by the gemination:\n\n> し(G) ら(G) ん(G) ぷ(G) り(G) を(F#) し(G) た(E) ーっ(F#) て(D)\n\nI did not check the other two videos, but I guess that they arose for the same\nreason.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T15:01:03.010", "id": "3545", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T15:01:03.010", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "Not hugely confident in this answer, but I'll try.\n\nThe gemination is supposed to be accomplished by a glottal stop in speech, and\nsinging with a glottal stop is awkward at best and would sound strange even\ndone properly. I imagine that the vowel lengthening is done to fill in a mora\nfor rhythm/time purposes, and to indicate the omission. (That is, I know\nexactly what you're talking about, and in the examples I've heard, I don't\neven hear the `っ` in the sung lyric; it's entirely replaced by the vowel\nextension.)\n\nIt seems to me exactly comparable to the phenomenon in English songs of\nminimizing or omitting a final sibilant `s` sound (especially at the end of a\nmusical phrase), which indeed is often combined with an extension of the\npreceding vowel.\n\nArguably it's different in Japanese because such vowel lengthening has much\nmore potential to cause confusion with other words (as if there weren't enough\nhomonyms in the language to begin with!) However, I think a certain amount of\nleeway has to be given here. After all, if I call after 雪【ゆき】ちゃん with a hearty\n「ゆう～き！」, nobody would think her name had suddenly changed to 勇気【ゆうき】, right?\n(I think I got the correct kanji...)", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-26T11:39:39.547", "id": "3580", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-26T11:39:39.547", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "627", "parent_id": "3540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3543", "answer_count": 1, "body": "**_Note:** I understand this question is on the edge of being off topic. I'll\naccept the community assessement if enough people feel that is the case._\n\nI'm reading\n[`脳{のう}は0.1秒{びょう}で恋{こい}をする`](http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E8%84%B3%E3%81%AF0-1%E7%A7%92%E3%81%A7%E6%81%8B%E3%82%92%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B-%E8%8C%82%E6%9C%A8-%E5%81%A5%E4%B8%80%E9%83%8E/dp/4569771033)\nby\n[`茂木{もぎ}健一郎{けんいちろう}`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%8C%82%E6%9C%A8%E5%81%A5%E4%B8%80%E9%83%8E),\nand out of the blue, there's an English word right in the middle of a\nsentence:\n\n\n\nThe sentence reads `人生{じんせい}は「偶有性{ぐうゆうせい}」(contingency)に満{み}ちています。` I think I\nbasically understand it, in that it says life is full of contingencies.\n\nMy question, though, is why is this English word here? The book is written by\nand for Japanese. The way the word is offered, it looks as though it is a\nclarification of `偶有性{ぐうゆうせい}`, where `偶有{ぐうゆう}` means having an accident, and\n`性{せい}` means the suffix _~ness_ , so I guess it's supposed to approximate the\nword \"contingencies\".\n\nI just don't get how this would help a Japanese person reading the book? Does\nMogi San expect that a Japanese person who doesn't know `偶有性{ぐうゆうせい}` would be\nhelped by knowing that it meant \"contingencies\"? That doesn't seem very likely\nto me.\n\nI appreciated it, because it helped me understand what he meant, but I don't\nthink this is for the benefit of Japanese learners.\n\nWhat is going on here?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T13:38:39.643", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3541", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T14:35:49.503", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-23T14:35:49.503", "last_editor_user_id": "23", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "word-choice", "translation" ], "title": "What is this English doing in the middle of my Japanese?", "view_count": 645 }

[ { "body": "Technical subjects usually have a large English-speaking community, and theses\nand books on that subject are often published in English (or some other\ninternational language, but you probably get a wider readership by publishing\nin English).\n\nIt's important to know the English technical terms so you can understand those\nbooks and theses, so even when reading a Japanese technical book that\nintroduces its terms in Japanese, it will often include the corresponding\nEnglish terms in parentheses so that you're not completely confused when you\ntry to read foreign material on the subject.\n\n**Whether or not this particular sentence is actually from a technical work or\nfield,** and even if you are never likely to need to look it up anywhere else,\nthe inclusion of an English word here **reminds the reader of that kind of\ntechnical text** , which does two things:\n\n * emphasizes \"this is an important word to this discussion\" (so important you'd want to learn it in English too)\n * creates a feeling of \"this is a scientific explanation\", and implies the presence of other information published elsewhere on the same subject that corroborates the statement \n\nLooking on Amazon, the cover of this book has a subtitle of 「『赤い糸』の科学」 on it,\nso it seems to fit the context.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T14:31:46.843", "id": "3543", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-23T14:31:46.843", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3541", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3548", "answer_count": 2, "body": "This is an exercise from Genki 1, Chapter 12.\n\nNow the way I would word that sentence is: 私{わたし}は日本{にほん}に勉強{べんきょう}しに行{い}きます。\nHowever, I put that same [English] phrase in Google Translate and got this:\n私は日本に[留学]{りゅうがく}つもりです。 So now I'm not sure which translation is correct. Since\nthe exercise didn't specify, we'll assume that the person is studying the\nJapanese Language.\n\nSo which one is correct? My translation or Google's translation?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-23T20:34:10.067", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3546", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-26T19:12:59.790", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-26T19:12:59.790", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "769", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "How to express: I am going to Japan to study?", "view_count": 9609 }

[ { "body": "I am going to Japan to study: 日本に勉強しに行く\n\nI am going to Japan to study the Japanese language: 日本に[日本語]{にほんご}を勉強しに行く\n\nI **intend** to study in Japan: 日本に留学する **つもり** です (留学 has the added meaning\nof \"overseas study\")", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T00:59:56.893", "id": "3548", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-27T05:07:34.447", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-27T05:07:34.447", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3546", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "`日本に勉強しに行く` simply means \"I'm going to Japan to study\", but lacks any\nspecifics like what you are going to study (though this might be obvious\ndepending on the surrounding context), or how long are you going there (drop\nby for an afternoon, study, then leave? A few days? weeks? etc.)\n\n`私は日本に留学するつもりです` means \"I intend to study abroad in Japan\". Although less is\nsaid, a lot more is implied. First, a lengthy period of time. You don't go\nstudy abroad for a few days or a few weeks (possible, I suppose, but not\ncommon); studying abroad is usually measured in semesters or years. Second,\nwhen studying abroad in a country where the native language is not the same as\nyours, one is most likely studying abroad in this county specifically to study\nthe language. In this case, Japan is the only Japanese-speaking country in the\nworld, so saying you're going to study abroad there implies you're going to\nstudy the language. If it were something else (assuming you were already\nfluent enough in Japanese, and you were going to do collaborative doctoral\nstudies in some field), you'd need to explicitly state what the field was.\nLikewise, if your native language is English and you say you're going to study\nabroad in England, you're not going to study the English language, and saying\n`イギリスに留学する` is ambiguous about your field of study.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T15:10:29.220", "id": "3557", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-27T14:35:36.843", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-27T14:35:36.843", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3546", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "In a comment, I've read 「目が見えないのは誰ですか」.\n\nI remember that, some 10 years ago, I was told that \"の\" could not replace\nhuman beings. But here, since we use 誰, it's clearly a person that の refers\nto.\n\nIs my memory failing, or is the above sentence casual but not correct, so to\nspeak?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T05:00:53.830", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3549", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:27:58.053", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T17:27:58.053", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "の as a substitute for beings", "view_count": 317 }

[ { "body": "の can be a placeholder for many different things, including people and\nabstract concepts. In your sample sentence (\"Who can't see?\" or \"Who is\nblind?\") it refers to a person, but in other contexts it would refer to\nsomething else.\n\nNote that の is often used to serve a similar function as こと, although you\n_cannot_ use こと as a placeholder for a person. In other words, 「目が見えないことは誰ですか」\nwould be grammatically incorrect. However, you _could_ say both\n「目が見えないのは難しいですか」 and 「目が見えないことは難しいですか」 (\"Is it hard to be blind?\"), with the\ndifference being that the former emphasizes personal experience and the latter\nemphasizes the abstract concept of being unable to see.\n\nAnyway, to answer your question directly, 「目が見えないのは誰ですか」 is grammatically\ncorrect and sounds perfectly fine to me if you're trying to pick someone out\nof a crowd. I'm not aware of any particular rule against using の as a\nplaceholder for a person. You could always use 「目が見えない方は誰ですか」 if you want to\nbe more polite, though.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T06:42:45.170", "id": "3550", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-30T07:25:36.913", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-30T07:25:36.913", "last_editor_user_id": "773", "owner_user_id": "773", "parent_id": "3549", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3554", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I was in Bikku Camera earlier today, and I wanted to buy a small kitchen scale\nfor measuring small amounts of food.\n\nI looked up the word \"scale\" in the dictionary, and it said\n[`衡器{こうき}`](http://www.jisho.org/words?jap=&eng=scale&dict=edict). So I found\na shop assistant and asked her for a `食{た}べ物{もの}を量{はか}る用{よう}の衡器{こうき}`. _(I'm\nnot totally confident about my grammar there, so correct me if I'm off.\nHowever, I don't think it changes the main point of this question.)_\n\nShe looked at me quizzically, so I asked again, and this time I said\n`食{た}べ物{もの}を量{はか}る用{よう}のスケール`. This time she understood perfectly, and took me\ndirectly to where the scales were.\n\nI walked away from that interaction a little baffled. I can see how some words\nare more commonly understood in katakana\n[`外来語{がいらいご}`](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gairaigo). For example, how\n`写真機{しゃしんき}` got replaced by `カメラ`, being that it was a concept imported from\nthe west and the English word came with it.\n\nBut surely Japan had scales since forever, and there would be a native word.\nIs it not `衡器{こうき}`? I didn't find any viable alternatives in the dictionary.\n\nIn any case, I'm always a little confused when I have to resort to katakana\nEnglish to be understood. I feel like I'm cheating somehow. And I'm always\nsurprised when it works.\n\nHow, and why, is it that the shop assistant understood `スケール` better than\n`衡器{こうき}`?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T07:07:19.900", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3552", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T14:19:09.017", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-25T00:39:19.167", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "word-choice", "loanwords" ], "title": "What went wrong when I asked for a 衡器{こうき}?", "view_count": 1160 }

[ { "body": "As far as I know, 衡器{こうき} is equivalent in meaning to 天秤{てんびん} and refers to a\n_balance scale_ rather than an _electronic scale._ This would intuitively make\nsense because the balance scale is the older concept and is expressed in\nkanji, whereas the electronic scale is the newer concept and is expressed in\nkatakana.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T07:16:35.973", "id": "3553", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-24T07:21:45.513", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-24T07:21:45.513", "last_editor_user_id": "773", "owner_user_id": "773", "parent_id": "3552", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I have never **heard** of the word `衡器`, although if **written** in kanji, I\ncan imagine what it is. It is a rare word if it ever exist. Maybe you are\nusing some strange/old/too formal dictionary. The most normal word for this\nsituation is `はかり`, whose kanji writings is usually `秤`, `量り`, or `計り`. `スケール`\nis not as usual, but at least it is much more recognizable than `衡器`.\n\nOne general suggestion to you is that, occasionally, but not always, a word\nmade of a few kanjis and is pronounced solely by their on-yomi is somewhat\nartificially created on the spot, and is used in writing, but not in spoken\nlanguage. When kanjis are read in on-yomi, there are often so many homonyms,\nand is hard to identify which kanji is meant. So they are not practical for\nspoken language.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T07:35:18.827", "id": "3554", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T14:19:09.017", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-28T14:19:09.017", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3552", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "It would require serious philological investigation to figure out the exact\nsituation w/r/t to 衡器, スケール and はかり, but there are a few suggestive pieces of\ndata easily available.\n\n日本国語大辞典 has one example sentence for 衡器. It is from 1909, from a weights-and-\nmeasures law ([度量]{どりょう}衡法{こうほう}施行令{しこうれい}):\n\n> 度量衡器の製作の免許を受けたる者は ...\n> 度器{どき}、量器{りょうき}又{また}は衡器の[修覆]{しゅうふく}[及]{および}販売の[業]{ぎょう}を営{いとな}むことを[得]{う}\n\n\"An individual who has received a license to create measuring devices (度量衡器)\n[...] is permitted to run a business making and selling length-measuring\ndevices (度器), volume-measuring devices (量器) and weight-measuring devices\n(衡器).\"\n\nI'm not a legal pro so this may not be a good translation from that\nstandpoint, but what is of interest to us here is that 衡器 is used in\nopposition to 度器 and 量器, which are of the same form except for the first\ncharacter. As far as I can tell, a 度器 is basically a ruler and a 量器 is\nbasically a cup (as in \"2 cups of flour\"), although of course scaling up to\nindustrial sizes and adjusting for cultural norms (the \"cup\" might be square).\nAnd note that all three are joined together at the start in the word (or is it\na phrase?) 度量衡器.\n\nAozora Bunko has [two](http://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000810/card49947.html)\n[hits](http://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000160/card3355.html) for 衡器, both from\nthe first half of the 20th century, and both giving it the furigana はかり.\n\nSo here is my theory. Everything beyond this is speculation.\n\nThe word はかり is a native Japanese word, obviously related to the verb はかる, to\nmeasure. This word suffices for the concept of \"scale\" which, as you note,\nhave been known in Japan for a long time.\n\nHowever, when you are writing in kanbun (Chinese, basically, although often\n\"with Japanese characteristics\") or heavily kanbun-influenced Japanese --\nwhich you are, if you are writing official documents like the Meiji laws --\nyou can't use the word はかり because it is Japanese. You could just assign the\nword はかり to a single kanji like 衡, and this may have been done in some cases.\nBut there is no guarantee that people will know to read it はかり; they may\nconfuse it with one of 衡's many other meanings.\n\nSo you use 衡器 instead: \"device for 衡ing.\" This is much less ambiguous. (I\ndon't know whether the word 衡器 was invented in China or Japan, but either way,\nthe principles are the same.) You now have a word 衡器 that means the same thing\nas はかり, and many people will actually pronounce it はかり. But you can also force\na Chinese pronunciation from the on-yomi of the individual kanji, and that\nwould be こうき. This would make it one of those words \"artificially created on\nthe spot\" as sawa explains.\n\nAnd so the word こうき is introduced into Japanese, but it never really gets\nbeyond the formal contexts it was created for. (It probably doesn't help that\nこう is one of the most common on-yomi in the language; there must be dozens of\nother こうきs out there.) はかり remains the \"default\" word for the concept of a\nscale. Even when popular writers use the spelling 衡器, they still indicate the\npronunciation はかり. As the formal contexts where こうき is required grow rarer and\nrarer, the word fades into further obscurity, although it does live on in\ndictionaries.\n\n(The fact that the word スケール is borrowed from English at some later point is a\nside issue. It might have come along for the ride with some new technology --\na new _type_ of scale, somehow distinguishable from the old はかり mechanism.\nMaybe the electronic scale, as Chris suggests. The point is that スケール does\nbecome fairly common -- enough for a shop assistant to recognize it when you\nused it -- although according to sawa it never displaces はかり.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T08:54:19.173", "id": "3555", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-26T05:45:04.517", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-26T05:45:04.517", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3552", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "What about \"she had no idea whether you meant 光輝, 好機, 後期, 校旗, 綱紀, 香気, 光機, 公器,\n口器, 口気, 好奇, 好期, 好気, 工期, 広軌, 後記, 校紀, 校規, 洪基, 皇紀, 紅旗, 興起, 衡器, 高貴 or 鴻基\"?\n\nAlso, I suggest you use \"ため\" instead of \"よう\" (without kanji, anyway). よう is\nquite different (and unrelated to this question).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T08:58:10.097", "id": "3556", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T05:08:19.247", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-25T05:08:19.247", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "3552", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "3559", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Topic. I've heard/seen somewhere that `被【かぶ】る` was \"gairaigo-fied\" (?) from\nthe English word \"cover\" (similar to `ダブる` or `デモる`), and then presumably\ngiven ateji from `被【おお】う` since the meanings overlap so much. I searched\nseveral dictionaries for some sort of verification but have found nothing so\nfar. Is there any truth to this?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-24T19:26:30.300", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "3558", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T09:42:20.537", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-05T09:42:20.537", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "words", "etymology", "colloquial-language", "loanwords", "folklore" ], "title": "Does 被【かぶ】る have any relation to \"cover\"?", "view_count": 346 }

[ { "body": "As Tsuyoshi says, there is no truth to it. The earliest reference given in the\n[日]{に}[本]{ほん}[国]{こく}[語]{ご}[大]{だい}[辞]{じ}[典]{てん} is from the mid-13th century\n[観]{かん}[智]{じ}[院]{いん}[本]{ぼん} edition of the\n[[類]{るい}[聚]{じゅ}[名]{みょう}[義]{ぎ}[抄]{しょう}](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A1%9E%E8%81%9A%E5%90%8D%E7%BE%A9%E6%8A%84):\n\n> 盖 オホフ カフル\n\nEven English barely had the word\n[cover](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cover) at that point.\n\nAlso, according to the same dictionary, `かぶる` is derived from `かがふる`, which is\neven older--It's in the Man'yōshū (9C):\n\n> [可]{か}[之]{し}[古]{こ}[伎]{き}[夜]{や} / [美]{み}[許]{こ}[等]{と} [加]{か}[我]{が}[布]{ふ}[理]{り}\n> / ...", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-25T00:44:40.233", "id": "3559", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-25T05:14:09.720", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-25T05:14:09.720", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3558", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]