question
dict | answers
list | id
stringlengths 1
6
| accepted_answer_id
stringlengths 2
6
⌀ | popular_answer_id
stringlengths 1
6
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24076",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the video game Recettear, you can buy a book with the title 仲良し姉妹の冒険記. The\nitem description says the following:\n\n> 世界中を旅しているという姉妹に密着した, ノンフィクション作品。ドラゴンに食べられそうになったりと，結構大変な事になってます。\n\nThe part I'm wondering about is this:\n\n> ドラゴンに食べられそうになったりと\n\na.k.a\n\n> [This book] makes you likely to be eaten by a dragon\n\nOr\n\n> [This book] is likely to be eaten by a dragon\n\nOr what?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-01T15:41:12.650",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24070",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-01T19:20:44.947",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-01T17:26:50.873",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9717",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "How to properly translate: \"ドラゴンに食べられそうになったりと\" in this context",
"view_count": 163
}
|
[
{
"body": "As Keigh Rim pointed out, the description summarizes the contents of the book.\nThe most notable event in the book is presumably when the sisters were almost\neaten by a dragon.\n\nThe なったり part carries the implication that there are other events besides this\none that are also described in the book. Since translation is also the art of\nselectively choosing the words that best carry the original meaning in a\nconcise manner, I would translate that last sentence as:\n\n> It tells of the sisters' trials, including the time they were nearly eaten\n> by a dragon.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-01T19:20:44.947",
"id": "24076",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-01T19:20:44.947",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9851",
"parent_id": "24070",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24070
|
24076
|
24076
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I came across a post on this site saying that :\n\n> 私もです\n\nFor example was not correct grammatically, and that instead, we had to use\n\n> 私でもある。\n\nI'm very confused now even though I know 私もです is used a lot, I don't know\nwether it's correct or not.\n\nSaying 私でもある makes me feel like I'm writing a book or a poem because of である.\nAnd on the other hand 私もです sounds very natural and correct to me because です is\nbasically a contraction of であります, so we could say でもあります but not something\nlike でもす so i feel like it's obvious that も comes before です.\n\nSo to me でもある is used just like である, but with the particle も added meaning\n\"also, too\", so mostly used in writing. And もです is used like です, in everydays\nlife just to express a simple \"Me too\"\n\nBut after seeing those posts saying that もです is grammatically not correct, I\nwondered if もである with the particle も being before である is correct.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-01T15:49:51.630",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24071",
"last_activity_date": "2018-12-01T20:39:31.253",
"last_edit_date": "2018-12-01T20:39:31.253",
"last_editor_user_id": "19278",
"owner_user_id": "9539",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-も"
],
"title": "も Particle before です",
"view_count": 329
}
|
[
{
"body": "When talking casually, 私も is extremely common and, depending on the situation,\noften means \"me too\".\n\nI would like to see the full post you mentioned, but I'd guess that whoever\nwrote 私もです was just finding a polite way to say 私も. Either way, 私もですis not\nwrong.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-01T19:02:40.460",
"id": "24075",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-01T19:02:40.460",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9851",
"parent_id": "24071",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24071
| null |
24075
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24074",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Someone was talking about the properties of a charger But i don't understand\nthe meaning of 持てない in:\n\n> 充電中は持てないほど暑くなるんだけど",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-01T17:48:44.383",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24073",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-01T18:04:32.283",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9942",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Meaning of 持てない in 充電中は持てないほど暑くなるんだけど",
"view_count": 102
}
|
[
{
"body": "This is just the \"potential form\" ([可能形]{か・のう・けい}) of 持つ. I means \"can't\nhold\". So your sentence means\n\n> While charging, it will become hot enough that you can't hold it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-01T18:04:32.283",
"id": "24074",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-01T18:04:32.283",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "24073",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24073
|
24074
|
24074
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24083",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I came across this sentence:\n\n> 今後の自分には、そういった社交術が必要なのだと頭ではわかっていても、性に合う合わないというのはあるものだ。\n\nWhats the meaning of \"性に合う合わない\" here? Does it indicate uncertainty or\nsomething like that?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-02T03:54:57.133",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24081",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-02T22:36:55.847",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-02T22:36:55.847",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "The usage of \"性【しょう】に合う合わない\"",
"view_count": 277
}
|
[
{
"body": "[性]{しょう}に[合]{あ}う means \"fit your preference/style\" and [性]{しょう}に[合]{あ}わない\nmeans \"doesn't fit your preference/style\". So [性]{しょう}に[合]{あ}う[合]{あ}わない means\n\"fit your preference/style or not\".\n\nThe whole sentence means \"Even you understand you need people skill from now\non, there is a thing to fit your style or not.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-02T05:45:10.713",
"id": "24082",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-02T05:45:10.713",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9608",
"parent_id": "24081",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "「[性]{しょう}に[合]{あ}う」 means \"to be congenial\", \"to suit one's taste\", etc.\n\n「性に合わない」 means the opposite of that.\n\nIt would, however, be pretty awkward if one tried to translate literally\n「性に合う合わない」 in OP's sentence. Note that the 「の」 in 「というの」 nominalizes\n「性に合う合わない」.\n\nI would simply use \"congeniality\" without hesitation for the whole\n「性に合う合わないというの」 part instead of using something like \"whether or not someone\nwould be congenial to me\".\n\nTherefore, my TL of the whole sentence would be:\n\n**\"Even though my brain knows that I will need to acquire interpersonal skills\nlike that in the future, there is still such thing as congeniality.\"**",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-02T06:29:40.313",
"id": "24083",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-02T06:29:40.313",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24081",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24081
|
24083
|
24083
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "How do you say this in Japanese:\n\n\"Takeshi and I are similar in that we both have 'May sickness.'\"\n\nHere's my best guess: 私は、たけしが「五月病」というものがあるという点で似ています。\n\nThanks!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-02T06:32:16.380",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24084",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-01T07:17:00.133",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9988",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "He and I are similar in that",
"view_count": 356
}
|
[
{
"body": "> 「 [私]{わたし}は、たけし **が** 『[五月病]{ごがつびょう}』というものがあるという[点]{てん}で[似]{に}ています。」\n\nThis is certainly a good try, but it is missing something. As usual, it is the\nparticle choice. If you used 「私は～～～～似ている」, native speakers would expect to\nsee/hear the particle 「に」, and not 「が」.\n\n> 「(Person or Thing) + **に** （or と） + 似ている」\n>\n> = \"to be similar _**to**_ ~~\"\n\nThus, by using as much as you used, the correct sentence would be:\n\n> 「私は、『五月病』というものがあるという点で、たけし **に** 似ています。」\n\nTo avoid sounding wordy for using 「という」 twice, I would recommend the\nfollowing.\n\n> 「私は、『五月病』があるという点で、たけしに似ています。」\n\nOther correct sentences include:\n\n> 「たけしと私 **は** 、『五月病』があるという点で似ています。」\n>\n> 「『五月病』があるという点で、私 **は** たけし **に** （or **と** ）似ています。」\n>\n> 「『五月病』があるという点で、私とたけし **は** 似ています。」",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-02T07:03:34.757",
"id": "24086",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-02T07:03:34.757",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24084",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24084
| null |
24086
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24093",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "does \n_\"たけしみたく、「５月病」にかかっている。\"_ \nmean: \n_\"Just as Takeshi appears to, I have 'May Sickness.'\"_ ?\n\nIn this context, does _\"たけしみたく、...\" mean:\n\n 1. Takeshi may, or may not, have \"May Sickness\". Since I'm not Takeshi I don't know, but he _appears_ to.\n 2. Takeshi _most certainly does_ have \"May Sickness\". I know that I have \"May Sickness\". And Takeshi's looks like how I am feeling. So, he (99% chance) must have it as well.\n\nIf #2 were true, then does \"Takeshi and I are similar\" become implied and\nwould this also be a good translation: \n_\"Takeshi and I are similar in that we both have 'May sickness.'\"_",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-02T16:36:48.587",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24089",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-02T23:13:35.153",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9509",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "meaning of \"たけしみたく、「５月病」にかかっている\"?",
"view_count": 264
}
|
[
{
"body": "First, regarding the word 「みたく」, it is dialectal and fairly slangy. The\nmajority of us native speakers do **_not_** use it actively. Those who do use\nit would tend to be from around Kanto and \"not very old\". If a J-learner\nwanted to use it, I feel s/he should use it knowing it is indeed that type of\nword so that it will not be used at the wrong places.\n\n「みたく」 means 「みたいに」 or 「のように」, and **_not_** 「みたいな」 or 「のような」.\n\n> does \"たけしみたく、「５月病」にかかっている。\" mean: \"Just as Takeshi **appears** to, I have\n> 'May Sickness.'\" ?\n\nStrictly speaking, no, it does not. At least, that is not how the more careful\nspeakers would use 「みたく」.\n\nUnless it was said as a joke, one would need to know **_for sure_** (100%)\nthat Takeshi has it to say that Japanese sentence because not many would\nappreciate being taken for a mental illness patient if they are not. How\nTakeshi apppears to you should not matter. It is different from a situation\nwhere you might be saying \"Just like Takeshi, I have a broken arm.\"\n\n> If #2 were true, then does \"Takeshi and I are similar\" become implied and\n> would this also be a good translation: \"Takeshi and I are similar in that we\n> both have 'May sickness.'\"\n\nI myself would not call that a good translation because it is more a\nparaphrasing than a translation. The subject of the original is definitely the\nunmentioned first person; Takeshi is no part of it. In that \"translation\", it\nis \"Takeshi and I\". It would be a very free translation.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-02T23:13:35.153",
"id": "24093",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-02T23:13:35.153",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24089",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24089
|
24093
|
24093
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24091",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "On jisho.org, 向ける is described as a transitive verb. Logically, 向く would be\nintransitive, but the entry just says:\n\n> Godan verb with ku ending\n\nWiktionary is exactly the same, listing 向ける as intransitive and nothing for\n向く. But what really gets me is that jisho.org lists sentences using 向く that\nlook both transitive and intransitive. E.g.\n\n> 上を向きなさい。 \"Look up\"\n>\n> この仕事は彼に向いている。 \"He is well suited for this job\"\n\nIn the first one, there is an object marker, and the second one, there isn't.\nI thought that transitive verbs always used the object marker を, the second\nsentence looks like an intransitive verb.\n\nCould someone help me clear up this confusion?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-02T16:50:50.700",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24090",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-02T17:39:03.637",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4242",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"transitivity"
],
"title": "Is the verb 向く transitive or intransitive?",
"view_count": 884
}
|
[
{
"body": "From Samuel Martin's _Reference Grammar of Japanese_ (1975), p.191:\n\n> The intransitive verb 向く【むく】 means 'faces, fronts on' or 'is suitable for,\n> suits' with N に; but with N を it is a quasi-intransitive verb of motion\n> meaning 'turn (one's face) toward)' [...]\n\nHe gives these examples:\n\n> 横【よこ】を向いて【むいて】 turn to the side\n>\n> 前【まえ】を向いて【むいて】 turn to the front\n\nThis verb belongs to a class of verbs of motion which take を-arguments, which\nwe nonetheless might want to consider intransitive. Martin uses the term\n\"quasi-intransitive\" to describe this sort of verb. You're probably familiar\nwith examples like:\n\n> 公園【こうえん】を散歩【さんぽ】する take a walk in a park\n>\n> 橋【はし】を渡る【わたる】 cross a bridge\n>\n> 家【いえ】を出る【でる】 leave home\n\nAll of these are subtly different, and none is exactly like 向く, but I think\nthat we can treat all four as examples of Martin's \"quasi-intransitive verbs\nof motion\".\n\nIf you consult monolingual dictionaries, you'll find that they disagree with\none another on how to classify this use. For example, 明鏡国語辞典 calls 向く a\ntransitive verb and treats the directional object as though it's a normal\nobject. But other dictionaries like 広辞苑 call the verb intransitive.\n\nYou can find some previous answers discussing this use of を and the question\nof whether these verbs should be considered transitive if you search\nJapanese.SE. You can also find a description of some of these uses of を in _A\nDictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar_ by Makino and Tsutsui starting on page\n349, though it doesn't cover 向く specifically.\n\nI'm afraid this is one of the sticky points of Japanese grammar where\ndescriptions differ, but hopefully you can look at how the verb is used and\nmake sense of it one way or another :-)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-02T17:39:03.637",
"id": "24091",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-02T17:39:03.637",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24090",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
] |
24090
|
24091
|
24091
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24101",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Recently I've been trying to wrap my head around the Tobira textbook grammar\npoint on というのは and from my understanding [Aというのは Bのことだ/ということだ] essentially\nmeans [A means B]. However, I can't seem to understand the nuances of the\nsentence ending のこと/ということ.\n\n> ｢関東地方」というのは東京のことですか。 \n> Does Kanto Region mean Tokyo?\n\nWhy is 「のことですか。」 used here? Would ｢関東地方」というのは東京ですか。 and ｢関東地方」というのは東京ということですか。\nalso be appropriate? Do all three mean the same thing? When would one form be\nmore appropriate over the other?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-02T20:10:41.820",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24092",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-12T22:34:39.663",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-12T22:34:39.663",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "4385",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"phrases"
],
"title": "Providing definitions/explanations with というのは ～のこと/ということだ",
"view_count": 828
}
|
[
{
"body": "The last example, at least, is very bulky and most people would not bother\nsaying \"という\" twice as it is redundant. The other two seem fine to me.The\nsecond is a bit more concise. I do not see any great difference. If I were to\ntranslate, 1 is By Kanto, are you talking about Tokyo? 2. is roughly By Kanto,\ndo you mean Tokyo? 3. is roughly By Kanto, do you mean the location known as\nTokyo?\n\nEspecially since I doubt anyone has not heard of Tokyo, 3 would feel a little\nless nice. Nonetheless, all would function and serve their purpose.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T03:41:47.990",
"id": "24100",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-03T03:41:47.990",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9995",
"parent_id": "24092",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "AはBのことだ is \"A means B\". Aというの is \"what's called A\".\n\nSo, ｢関東地方」というのは東京のことですか is \"Does what's called Kanto Region mean Tokyo?\".\n(Incidentally, the answer is no)\n\n｢関東地方」というのは東京ということですか can mean the same thing as …東京のこと… but that という(こと) is\nmore likely to denote a clause. It sounds like 東京(にいる)ということ or \"By saying\n'Kanto Region', do you mean you've been to Tokyo?\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T04:40:44.257",
"id": "24101",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-03T04:40:44.257",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24092",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24092
|
24101
|
24101
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24095",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In a manga I found this line:\n\n> よう わからんなんて、こっちの台詞だ。\n\nWhat's that よう at the beginning? Is different from \"you ni\"?\n\nAnd わからんなんて?\n\nSince the character is confused about a phrase another one said, he's talking\nabout it with another, but I'm not sure about the meaning.\n\nIs it correct: \"I don't understand his speech.\" I'm confused...",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T01:11:20.693",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24094",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-03T01:49:02.130",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-03T01:48:58.820",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4299",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"dialects"
],
"title": "help with translation! what's ようわからんなんて?",
"view_count": 668
}
|
[
{
"body": "This is basically, but certainly not exclusively, Western-Japan speech.\n\n「よう」 = 「よく」 = \"well\" or \"very well\" in this context. It can also mean \"often\".\n\nThis has _**nothing**_ to do with 「ように」 or 「ような」, which means \"like ~~\", \"as\n~~\", etc.\n\n「わからん」 = 「わからない」 = \"I don't get it.\", \"I don't understand.\", etc.\n\n「～～なんて」 = \"stuff/thing/something like ~~\". Think of it as an informal\nquotative particle. It has nothing to do with the exclamatory 「[何]{なん}て」.\n\n> ようわからんなんて、こっちの[台詞]{せりふ}だ。\n\nIf it helped one understand this sentence better, one could alter it to:\n\n> 『ようわからん』なんて、こっちの台詞だ。\n>\n> = \"(He said) \"I don't really get it.\", but those are my words!\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T01:40:33.990",
"id": "24095",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-03T01:49:02.130",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24094",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
24094
|
24095
|
24095
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24104",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "It is a situation where a salesperson announces to a group of people to\nattract them to buy his goods.\n\nHere is the full sentence:\n\n> しかもおねだんは半{はん}額{がく}以{い}下{か} **ときている**",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T02:11:35.987",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24096",
"last_activity_date": "2023-08-12T12:55:32.557",
"last_edit_date": "2021-02-25T09:04:03.653",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9559",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "What does 「ときている」 mean?",
"view_count": 2006
}
|
[
{
"body": "It actually is \"to kiteiru\" not tokiteiru. The salesman is trying to say that\nthe sale is upcoming. This website provides a nice response:\n<http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1144370201>\n\n\"漢字表現をどうしても当てはめるなら「来ている」になりますが、 補助的な意味ですので、ひらがなで書いた方が望ましいかと思います。\"\n\nPerhaps rewriting the sentence could be elucidating:\n\n\"しかもお値段は半額以下と来ている\"\n\nWhat's more! The Price will be lower than Half Price! Coming soon! (English\nvers)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T03:33:17.603",
"id": "24099",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-03T04:36:01.177",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-03T04:36:01.177",
"last_editor_user_id": "9995",
"owner_user_id": "9995",
"parent_id": "24096",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
},
{
"body": "Here, と + 来る is an idiomatic expression.\n\n[The デジタル大辞泉\nentry](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/64270/m0u/%E6%9D%A5%E3%82%8B/)\nsays:\n\n> **６** （「…ときたら」「…ときては」「…とくると」などの形で）ある物事を特に取り上げ強調して言う意を表す。特に…の場合は。…について言うと。「酒と\n> **くる** と、からっきしだめだ」「甘い物と **き** たら、目がない」\n\nwhich roughly means \"used to focus on and emphasize a particular matter; when\nit comes to; as for\".\n\nWhile the examples above don't perfectly match your case, you can get the\nspirit and translate it like:\n\n> _...and what's more, **you know what** , it's more than 50% off!_\n\n* * *\n\n**Note** \nI have to say that I'm not completely satisfied with the dictionary definition\nI cited, but I couldn't find any other reliable sources. In my view, \"とくる\nfollowed by conditional\" and \"independent とくる\" are different, and the latter\nis used to point out the surprise when some event strikes you in an unexpected\nway.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T05:09:40.203",
"id": "24102",
"last_activity_date": "2023-08-12T12:55:32.557",
"last_edit_date": "2023-08-12T12:55:32.557",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24096",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "To answer without looking at or copying from anything,\n\n> 「しかも～～～ときている」 means \" **On top of all that, it comes with ~~~.** \"\n>\n> This is an exclamatory expression or at least one of surprise.\n\nIt is difficult to translate 「ときている」 all by itself (and it is not often used\nby itself, either).\n\nThere would have to be other \"advantages\" mentioned in the immediate context\nbesides the over-50% discount.\n\nEdit: In case you are wondering, I did not use the phrase \"to come with\" in my\ntranslation because the original phrase contains 「ときている」. It is just a\ncoincidence and I did not even notice it when I first posted my answer an hour\nor two ago.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T10:42:40.950",
"id": "24104",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-03T12:08:59.280",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24096",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24096
|
24104
|
24102
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24129",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I can't completely understand the second sentence, especially connecting the\nparts in circle brackets with the narration. I tried to make a translation,\ncould somebody please check if I'm understanding something wrong?\n\nFast translation: On the other hand, some part of her mind also felt strangely\nclear (Kei's death)(legend of a witch) (Munakata's family)(this school\nitself)(Aya and group) various thoughts(red...) gave birth to countless\nwheerpools(inside of mine...), merging with each other, and racking her tired\nheart(red...).\n\nDoes by various thoughts speaker means all of the facts before（恵の死）...?\n\n>\n> まだ七時だというのに、眠くて仕方なかった。一方ではしかし、妙に冴えた部分もあって（恵の死）（魔女の伝説）（宗像の家）（この学園そのもの）（綾たちのグループ）さまざまなもの思いが（赤い・・・・・・）いくつもの渦を作り（わたしの中の・・・・・・）お互いに絡み合い、疲れた心を揺り動かしている（緋い・・・・・・）。\n> もう寝てしまおう、と思った。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T09:50:07.407",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24103",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T04:38:01.153",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-03T09:58:08.650",
"last_editor_user_id": "3183",
"owner_user_id": "3183",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "Translation of the sentence and its relation with the text in circle brackets",
"view_count": 130
}
|
[
{
"body": "It seems the words in parentheses are not directly related to the main\nsentence outside of them. And the words in parentheses are not strongly\nrelated with one another, either.\n\nIt must be a very rhetorical expression, simulating random ideas pops one\nafter another in the character's mind, disturbing her sleep. The author\nbasically wanted you to be confused just like the character in the story. Your\ntranslation seems to be fair enough to me.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T04:38:01.153",
"id": "24129",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T04:38:01.153",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24103",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24103
|
24129
|
24129
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24107",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In the book I'm reading I keep seeing constructs where I would expect a verb\nbut get the noun form + する. Here's an example:\n\n> 鬼は、大笑いして、「小さな小僧、お前から食べてやろう。」と言いました。 \n> The ogre laughed loudly and said \"I will eat you first little boy\".\n\nWhy is it 大笑いして rather than 大笑って?\n\nHere's another one:\n\n> 私があなたをお守りします。 \n> I will protect you.\n\nNow I'm assuming the お here is honorific (he's talking to a princess). Why is\nit 守りします and not 守ります?\n\nThanks",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T13:18:12.027",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24105",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-29T03:26:48.280",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-03T19:14:22.427",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"verbs",
"nouns"
],
"title": "verb versus noun + する",
"view_count": 891
}
|
[
{
"body": "# 日本語\n\n「大笑いする」に似た表現に「大いに(or 大きく)笑う」(not 大笑う)がありますが、後者は文字数が多い分「大いに」をあえて強調する印象になります。\n\nまた「お守りする」は「守る」に「お～する」という敬語表現を加えたもので、「守りします」は誤りです。\n\n# English\n\nAs expression similar to 大笑いする one has 大いに (or 大きく) 笑う (not 大笑う), but the\nlatter being rather wordy, it would seem to be overly emphasizing 大いに.\n\nAlso, 「お守りする」 comes from applying the _keigo_ construction 「お～する」 to 「守る」.\n守りします would be a mistake.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T13:58:53.453",
"id": "24106",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-29T03:26:48.280",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "10000",
"parent_id": "24105",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "The two examples have different reasons.\n\n* * *\n\nThe prefix **大{おお} always attaches to a noun** , e.g. see 大辞林\n\n> **おお 【大】**\n>\n> **一** [...]\n>\n> **二** (接頭) \n> 名詞に付く。\n>\n> 1. [...]\n>\n> 2. 程度のはなはだしいことを表す。「—あわて」「—にぎわい」「—騒ぎ」\n>\n> 3. [...]\n>\n>\n\n* * *\n\nIn the second example お守りします you correctly identified that お is honorific. The\nonly thing that's missing is the observation that the **honorific お also only\nattaches to nouns** , so ~~お守ります~~ wouldn't work. This construction お+[masu-\nstem]+する is very common and also lends itself to raising the level of\npoliteness by replacing する with (the proper conjugation of) 致す{いたす}.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T13:59:01.873",
"id": "24107",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-03T13:59:01.873",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24105",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24105
|
24107
|
24107
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24109",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the sentence\n\n> user3856370は鬼のおなかの中を、針の刀でちくちくと刺したものだから、鬼はたいへんです。\n\nWhat is the purpose of ものだ? It seems to me that ...刺したから... (because he\nstabbed) would work on its own. I could also imagine that ...刺したのだから... might\nwork where the のだ is the explanatory-の thing. But I can't make sense out of\nthe whole ...刺したものだから... construction.\n\nPS. I didn't really stab the ogre but I couldn't find the right kanji for the\ncorrect name.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T15:01:58.500",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24108",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-03T16:00:59.103",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"conjunctions"
],
"title": "What is the purpose of もの in this sentence?",
"view_count": 148
}
|
[
{
"body": "In meaning, 「ものだから」＝「ので」 and the two are interchangeable. Both express a\nreason or cause.\n\nI would recommend that you learn 「ものだから」 as a unit, but if you have to parse\nit, it is like this:\n\n「もの」 is a dummy noun. It is needed to connect 「[刺]{さ}した」 and 「だ」grammatically.\n\n「だ」 is an affirmation auxiliary verb.\n\n「から」 is a conjunctive particle.\n\nThus, 「[刺]{さ}したものだから」 means the exact same as 「刺したので」 -- \"because (someone)\nstabbed\".\n\nNeedless to say, 「も **の** だから」 is often pronounced as 「も **ん** だから」 in\ncolloquial speech. Additionally, one might also need to know that 「ものだから」 is\nalready fairly informal to begin with. It is definitely more informal than\n「ので」.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T15:18:28.963",
"id": "24109",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-03T16:00:59.103",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-03T16:00:59.103",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24108",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24108
|
24109
|
24109
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the sentence\n\n> 殺さずに生け捕るってのが面倒でしたがね\n\nis the って being used as quoting? Does this change the function of のが?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T18:55:54.463",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24110",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-04T11:54:03.130",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-03T19:01:01.707",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10003",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"meaning",
"usage",
"nominalization",
"particle-って"
],
"title": "Meaning of って followed by のが?",
"view_count": 637
}
|
[
{
"body": "Both are the same meaning\n\n> 殺さずに生け捕るってのが面倒でしたがね\n>\n> 殺さずに生け捕るのが面倒でしたがね\n\nthe って is a abbreviation of という which is emphasizing 殺さずに生け捕る.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T11:54:03.130",
"id": "24117",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-04T11:54:03.130",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7752",
"parent_id": "24110",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24110
| null |
24117
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "こんにちは！\n\nI was wondering how exactly particles are mentally translated on an\nexpert/native level. When one hears the particle do they quickly associate it\nwith the preceding term, or by that time has it become natural to a point to\nimmediately understand what one is saying? I'd also like to know if there are\nthere any tips for translating sentences without getting overwhelmed by things\nlike particles.\n\nよろしくおねがいします！",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-03T22:33:46.770",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24112",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-03T22:33:46.770",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9794",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particles"
],
"title": "How are particles perceived at an expert level?",
"view_count": 163
}
|
[] |
24112
| null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> これは日本語で言い方ですか\n>\n> kore ha nihongo de iikata desu ka\n\nIs this correct? I want to point to something and ask how do you say that in\nJapanese.\n\nBase 2 + かた means how to.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T06:26:04.940",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24114",
"last_activity_date": "2016-11-08T15:07:28.133",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5237",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"questions"
],
"title": "\"How to say this in Japanese?\"",
"view_count": 8594
}
|
[
{
"body": "> 「これは[日本語]{にほんご}で[言]{い}い[方]{かた}ですか。」\n\nUnfortunately, this makes little sense.\n\nTo ask an information question (as opposed to a yes-no question) like \"How do\nyou say this in Japanese?\", you need to use a question word just like you used\n\"how\" in English.\n\nQuestion words in Japanese are: なに、なん、いつ、どこ、だれ、どう、どんな, etc.\n\nThe most natural way to say it by the native standards would be:\n\n> 「これは日本語で **なんと** 言いますか。」\n\nThat is the question word 「なん」 plus the quotative particle 「と」.\n\nThe problem with 「言い方」 is that it is generally used to refer to how properly a\nphrase or sentence is composed or the mannerism employed in saying a phrase or\nsentence. It is not used to talk about what an object is called.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T07:00:51.740",
"id": "24115",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-04T07:09:55.120",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-04T07:09:55.120",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24114",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "Just to complete an already good answer, there are actually many natural ways\nto ask how something is said:\n\n> 日本語ではどう言いますか。 \n> 日本語では何と言いますか。 \n> 日本語ではなんて言う? (なんて is a casual form of 何と) \n> How is this said in Japanese?\n\nOr, to ask what you just heard means:\n\n> それはどう言う意味ですか。 \n> What does this mean?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-11-08T15:07:28.133",
"id": "40752",
"last_activity_date": "2016-11-08T15:07:28.133",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18582",
"parent_id": "24114",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24114
| null |
24115
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24125",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Two \"textbook\" sentences + attached translations:\n\n> 悔やんで **みた** ところで始まらない。No matter how much you regret it, it won't change a\n> thing.\n>\n> 「私は」彼が言ったことを何度も反芻して **みた** 。 I thought over his remark again and again.\n\nSo far I know of two ways みる auxiliary is used - to signal an attempt to do\nsomething to see what happens, or to see something in the literal sense. This\nhere seems more as if it were a signal to the agent's resignation to doing\nsomething. Is that how one should treat psychological state verb + みる? How\nwould one contrast the 2 above to these 2 below:\n\n> 悔やんだところで始まらない。\n>\n> 彼が言ったことを何度も反芻した。\n\nDo the (immediately) above 2 sentences sound \"right\" to a native/fluent ear?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T11:08:29.833",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24116",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T00:47:44.220",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"auxiliaries"
],
"title": "Psychological state verb + みる auxiliary?",
"view_count": 182
}
|
[
{
"body": "In general, I think it safe to say that the more volitionality the meaning of\nthe main verb includes, the better it goes with the auxiliary verb 「みる」.\n\nIn other words, the main verb's compatibility with 「みる」 depends on how much\nactive effort is needed to perform the action described by the main verb.\n\nTo use the main verbs in your examples for comparison, 「[反芻]{はんすう}する = to\nruminate, to think over」 is at least a slightly more \"volitional\" action than\n「[悔]{く}やむ = to regret」.\n\nThough it is true that we say both 「悔やんでみる」 and 「反芻してみる」, the latter sounds a\nlittle more fitting as far as collocation.\n\nFor the reason above, the sentence:\n\n> 「[彼]{かれ}が[言]{い}ったことを[何度]{なんど}も反芻した。」\n\n, while grammatical, does not sound as natural as the sentence:\n\n> 「悔やんだところで[始]{はじ}まらない。」\n\nThat is because it is slightly more natural to say 「反芻してみた」 than 「反芻した」.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T00:47:44.220",
"id": "24125",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T00:47:44.220",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24116",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
24116
|
24125
|
24125
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 僕独りじゃ生きてけない\n\nI saw this sentence, but, I actually get the meaning. It means \"I can't live\nalone\" right? But how do you translate it? What is \"けない\" grammar?\n\nI tried to search a lot of websites, but I couldn't find any information about\nit.\n\nAlso, what is this じゃ？ I've never seen a sentence like this before. 教えてください！",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T14:46:47.450",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24118",
"last_activity_date": "2019-01-27T14:30:28.687",
"last_edit_date": "2019-01-27T14:30:28.687",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "10010",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"colloquial-language",
"contractions"
],
"title": "I have some question about てけない",
"view_count": 374
}
|
[
{
"body": "Those are common colloquial contractions.\n\n「じゃ」＝「では」 ← An extremely common contraction.\n\n「てけない」＝「ていけない」 ← The 「い」 in subsidiary verbs such as 「いく」 and 「いる」 is often\nomitted in informal speech.\n\nYour translation is good.\n\nExtra:\n\n「[生]{い}きていく」 means \"to go on living\". 「生きていけない」 is the negative potential form\nof 「生きていく」. The affirmative potential form is 「生きていける」.\n\nIn all of these forms, the main verb is 「生きる」 and the subsidiary verb is 「いく」.\n\nTo connect a verb and a subsidiary verb, you need to first change the verb\ninto its continuative form, then place 「て」 and finally place the subsidiary\nverb.\n\nThe continuative form of 「生きる」 is 「生き」, so you will get:\n\n「生き + て + いく」(affirmative)\n\n「生き + て + いけない」(negative)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T14:56:25.887",
"id": "24119",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-04T15:15:42.627",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-04T15:15:42.627",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24118",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24118
| null |
24119
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24123",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I'm looking for the most natural-sounding way to express the general concept\nof blue-green colours (such as cyan or teal) in Japanese. By \"general\nconcept\", I mean _all_ colours that are neither entirely blue nor entirely\ngreen, in shades ranging from dark to light. Here are some examples, taken\nfrom the [CSS3](http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/) specification:\n\n *  Aquamarine\n *  Cyan\n *  Turquoise\n *  Teal\n\nAfter a bit of research, I've come up with four possibilities.\n\n* * *\n\n### 青緑 / あおみどり / aomidori\n\nThis seems to be the best option (it literally translates as \"blue-green\") but\nI'm not sure whether or not it includes darker shades, such as teal.\n\n**Suggested translations:**\n\n * Blue-green - [Wiktionary 1](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/blue-green)\n * Cyan - [Wiktionary 2](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%89%B2#Japanese)\n * Turquoise - Collins English-Japanese Dictionary ([ISBN 0-00-719655-5](https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=!ISBN+0-00-719655-5))\n * Blue green - [Google Translate](https://translate.google.com/#ja/en/%E9%9D%92%E7%B7%91)\n\n* * *\n\n### 水色 / みずいろ / mizuiro\n\nLiterally translates to \"water-colour\", but seems to lean more towards light\nblue than general blue-green. Again, I'm not sure that this would include\ndarker blue-green shades such as teal.\n\n**Suggested translations:**\n\n * Cyan - [Japanese SE](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/675/9212)\n * Light blue, Turquoise - [Wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%B0%B4%E8%89%B2)\n * Light blue - Pocket Kenkyusha Japanese Dictionary ([ISBN 978-0-19-860748-9](https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=!ISBN+978-0-19-860748-9))\n * Light blue - [Google Translate](https://translate.google.com/#ja/en/%E6%B0%B4%E8%89%B2)\n\n* * *\n\n### シアン / shian\n\nLiterally \"Cyan\", so almost certainly doesn't include darker shades, such as\nteal. I couldn't find this in either of my (printed) dictionaries.\n\n**Suggested translations:**\n\n * Cyan - [Wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cyan)\n * Cyan - [Google Translate](https://translate.google.com/#ja/en/%E3%82%B7%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3)\n\n* * *\n\n### ターコイズブルー / taakoizu buruu\n\nLiterally \"Turquoise Blue\", so (again) almost certainly doesn't cover darker\nshades, such as teal, and (again) doesn't exist in either of my printed\ndictionaries.\n\n**Suggested translations:**\n\n * Turquoise - [Wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/turquoise)\n * Turquoise - [Google Translate](https://translate.google.com/#ja/en/%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B3%E3%82%A4%E3%82%BA%E3%83%96%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BC)\n\n* * *\n\n**tl;dr:** Which of the above (if any) is the most suitable translation for\ngeneral \"blue-green\" colours in Japanese?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T18:03:49.687",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24120",
"last_activity_date": "2020-07-16T22:15:17.997",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9212",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"colors"
],
"title": "Is there a word that describes greenish-blue colours (of any shade)?",
"view_count": 6900
}
|
[
{
"body": "I personally would just stick with plain 青い. Dictionaries will probably call\nit plain 'blue', and it does indeed lean more towards blue, but the point\nwhere people stop using it and start saying 緑 is pretty far into the green.\nThe green light on traffic signals is typically called 青. Bananas can be\ncalled 青 before they turn ripe.\n\nJapanese is a pretty broad language to begin with, and on top of that, color\ndefinitions will vary from person to person. This really is true for any\nlanguage- for example, where's the border between red and pink? Each person\nwill have a different answer based on their own experiences and mindset, so I\nwouldn't worry about getting it precise anyway. If you really need to\nemphasize that it's not exclusively blue, 青緑 would probably be okay, but if\nyou're looking for the most natural-sounding option then 青い would definitely\nbe the better choice, especially if you want to convey the \"general concept\".",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T23:17:19.293",
"id": "24122",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-04T23:17:19.293",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9749",
"parent_id": "24120",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "The most generic would be 「[青緑色]{あおみどりいろ}」 or 「[青緑系]{あおみどりけい}の[色]{いろ}」--\nespecially the latter IMHO. It covers a wide range of tints and shades of\ngreenish-blues.\n\n「[水色]{みずいろ}」 is just light blue with absolutely no green in it. It is the name\nof one of the more common colors of crayon, so practically no native speakers\nwould imagine a different color upon hearing the name.\n\n「ターコイスブルー」 is as you said; It does not include a darker shade of green.\nAnother problem is that not everyone would be familiar with the term.\n\n「シアン」, I have never heard of. I am pretty sure most other native speakers\nwould be unfamiliar with the word, too.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T23:17:45.420",
"id": "24123",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-04T23:17:45.420",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24120",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "I remember once I found that saibo also means cyan in Japanese but now I can't\nfind the romaji that is saibo but means cyan.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-07-16T22:15:17.997",
"id": "78615",
"last_activity_date": "2020-07-16T22:15:17.997",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "39698",
"parent_id": "24120",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
24120
|
24123
|
24123
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Is this used ONLY amongst family and close friends or can you use it when\nyou're trying to be rude?\n\nFor example if you use it on someone you don't like such as a stranger, could\nit be understood you're being rude on purpose (in other words unfriendly) or\nwould they misunderstand and think you are on good terms?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T20:37:38.033",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24121",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T04:05:19.890",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"politeness"
],
"title": "くだけた日本語 towards people you dislike?",
"view_count": 630
}
|
[
{
"body": "We **_do not_** use 「くだけた日本語」 with people we do not like because 「くだけた」\nalready includes the meaning of \"friendly\".\n\nUnless one is a great actor or something, it would be extremely rare to see\none using it outside of one's circle of friends and family.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-04T23:26:37.200",
"id": "24124",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-04T23:26:37.200",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24121",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "くだけた日本語 (casual Japanese), by definition, is used when people are trying to\nspeak _friendly_ , not rudely. If you want to keep a distance from someone,\nthe normal way to do so is to keep using the polite language.\n\nMany native speakers use くだけた日本語 even when they meet you for the first time.\nGenerally speaking, elderly people or people living in rural areas tend to\nspeak to you using くだけた日本語. And of course they don't want to be rude.\n\nOf course くだけた日本語 would sound over-friendly or even rude depending on the\nsituation. In very limited circumstances, it may be possible that someone uses\nit because they want to be rude on purpose. For example, one may use くだけた日本語\nagainst their boss and show that they're upset.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T04:05:19.890",
"id": "24127",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T04:05:19.890",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24121",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
24121
| null |
24127
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24128",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am working on a translation and came across this phrase:\n\n> 「お客様は神様」 **というが** 、客からのクレームをニーズとし、それにチャレンジしていく企業家精神は、どの時代にあっても必要である。\n\nI am having trouble following the structure of this sentence – I follow that\n起業家精神 is the subject of the predicate どの時代にあっても必要である, but I really don't\nfollow the first clause 「お客様は神様」 **というが**. Is this a nominalization (i.e.\nwould it be correct to say this as 「お客様は神様」というのが)? Another idea that crossed\nmy mind was that this might be a way to show a quotation/abstract idea (maybe\nsomething like \"The idea that 'the customer is god'\"…).\n\nI am at loss here and I would really appreciate any advice or insight that\nwould point me in the right direction.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T03:49:14.413",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24126",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T07:43:12.183",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-05T07:43:12.183",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10015",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "Translation help please – Meaning of 「〜というが」",
"view_count": 899
}
|
[
{
"body": "This というが consists of the quotative particle と, the verb 言う (say), and the\nconnector が (as/and/although).\n\nThat part literally means \"(they) say お客様は神様だ, and, ...\", where \"they\" refers\nto the general public. In this context, the author says that お客様は神様 is a\ngenerally accepted idea, and then explains the spirit of that proverb.\n\nNote that that \"and\" should be translated as \"but\" depending on what is said\nin the latter half of the sentence.\n\n> よく「お客様は神様」というが、それは違うと思う。 \n> People often say \"the customer is god/king/always-right,\" _but_ I think\n> that's not true.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T04:21:49.443",
"id": "24128",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T04:42:15.680",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-05T04:42:15.680",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24126",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24126
|
24128
|
24128
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24132",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I don't understand the meaning of に in this sentence:\n\n> 切り出すに切り出せず、今日まできてしまいました\n\nIs 切り出すに切り出せず fashioned after some particular grammar? I can't really think of\nan interpretation that sounds natural.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T05:04:28.387",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24130",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T06:22:46.530",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"meaning",
"particle-に"
],
"title": "The meaning of に in [切り出すに切り出せず]",
"view_count": 504
}
|
[
{
"body": "> 「Verb + に（or にも） + **_Same_** Verb in **_potential_** form + ず」\n\nis a very common phrase pattern that expresses one's inability or hesitation\nto perform the action described by the verb.\n\nSee 一-2 in:\n<https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%AB%E3%82%82-592921#E3.83.87.E3.82.B8.E3.82.BF.E3.83.AB.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.B3.89>\n\n> 「[切]{き}り[出]{だ}すに切り出せず、[今日]{きょう}まできてしまいました。」\n\nmeans:\n\n> \"I have not been quite able to bring up (this) topic until today.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T06:19:34.867",
"id": "24132",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T06:19:34.867",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24130",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "This is more of a grammatical construction where you have a verb in base form\nplus に followed by a negative potential form of the same verb. It basically\nmeans that for some prohibiting reason, you couldn't do ~~~ even if you wanted\nto.\n\n終電を逃したから、帰るには帰れない。(Paraphrasing, \"I missed the last train and I have no way to\nget home.\")\n\nIt looks like in the sentence you shared, it would mean something like, \"(No\nmatter how much I wanted to) I had no way to bring it up...\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T06:20:19.530",
"id": "24133",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T06:20:19.530",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10015",
"parent_id": "24130",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Semantically, it means 切り出したかったのに切り出せず. (切り出す = to broach (a topic))\n\n`[dictionary form of a verb] + に + [nai-form] + ない` is an uncommon, emphatic,\nand literary set phrase which means \"want to ～ but can't\", \"too\nbad/extraordinary to ～\", etc.\n\n> * 泣くに泣けない状況 a situation too bad to cry\n> * 笑うに笑えない話 a story too extraordinary to laugh at\n> * この料理は食うに食えない this dish is too bad to eat (tastes awful)\n> * 食うに食えない生活を送る have difficulty to live on (because of poverty)\n>\n\nI think this に corresponds to either of the two definitions of [this\npage](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/166083/m0u/%E3%81%AB/):\n\n> ［格助］名詞、名詞に準じる語、動詞の連用形・連体形などに付く。 \n> 13 （動詞・形容詞を重ねて）強意を表す。「騒ぎ―騒ぐ」 \n> 「風いたう吹き、海の面(おもて)ただあし―あしうなるに」〈枕・三〇六〉\n>\n> ［接助］活用語の連体形に付く。 \n> 3 逆接の確定条件を表す。…けれども。…のに。…だが。 \n> 「日中の照りに乾いて、きょうは道が好かった―、小庭の苔はまだ濡れている」〈鴎外・蛇〉",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T06:22:46.530",
"id": "24134",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T06:22:46.530",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24130",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24130
|
24132
|
24132
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "I'm learning Japanese and one point that confuses me is the use of particles.\nFor this example, if I want to express 'I like you', which one should I use?\n\nGrammatically, 'あなたをすき' seems to be the right one, but some people say they\nwill consider 'あなたはすき' more idiomatic in speech. I understand the latter one\ncould stand for 'for you, I like', but it could also be interpreted as 'you,\nlike (it)' (think of 'あなたはねこをすき'). These two ways of interpreting 'は' seem to\nhave completely different meanings.\n\nIs my understanding of the uses of those particles correct? I'd like to hear\nmore discussion on that.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T09:05:46.757",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24135",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T13:27:53.523",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-05T13:27:53.523",
"last_editor_user_id": "9212",
"owner_user_id": "10017",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-は",
"particle-を"
],
"title": "あなたはすき vs あなたをすき",
"view_count": 124
}
|
[] |
24135
| null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24220",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Is there any semantic difference between the three? Which is used more often?\nIs there any nuance to picking one over another (formality, sounding more\nliterary etc.)?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T10:07:55.080",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24136",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-10T02:34:21.750",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"pronunciation"
],
"title": "燻る｛いぶる｝、燻る｛くすぶる｝、燻る｛くゆる｝ - difference?",
"view_count": 282
}
|
[
{
"body": "* ~~いぶる means to process something with smoke.~~\n * くすぶる means source of heat remains.\n * くゆる means smoke runs.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T11:32:53.373",
"id": "24138",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T01:24:42.247",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-06T01:24:42.247",
"last_editor_user_id": "4092",
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24136",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Main Source: コトバンク\n\n<https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%87%BB%E3%82%8B-435662#E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.9E.97.20.E7.AC.AC.E4.B8.89.E7.89.88>\n\nThe example sentences are my own.\n\n> 「いぶる」\n\nThis would be the simplest of the three in the sense that it only has one\nmeaning. It means \" ** _to smolder without burning properly_** \".\n\n「[暖炉]{だんろ}がいぶってしまって、うまく[燃]{も}えていない。」= \"The fire place is just smoldering and\nnot burning right.\"\n\nThis is one of the meanings of 「くすぶる」 as well.\n\n> 「くゆる」\n\nMain meaning: \" ** _(for smoke) to rise gently_** \". Once again, 「くすぶる」 can\nmean this as well.\n\n「[線香]{せんこう}が[静]{しず}かにくゆる。」= \"The incense burns silently.\"\n\nSecondary meaning: \" ** _to brood on (often in regret)_** \" A highly literary\nusage. You would not only sound weird if you used the word for this meaning in\na casual conversation, but you will also not be even understood by regular\nfolk as myself.\n\n> 「くすぶる」\n\nBy far the most versatile and often-used of the three.\n\nBesides the two meanings it has that I mentioned above, it also has the\nfollowing meanings.\n\n\"To become sooty\"\n\n「[焼肉]{やきにく}で[天井]{てんじょう}がくすぶってしまった。」= \"The (table-top) BBQ has made the ceiling\nsooty!\"\n\n\"To smolder\" (metaphorical)\n\n「[農民]{のうみん}の[間]{あいだ}で[不満]{ふまん}がくすぶっている。」= \"There exists smoldering discontent\namong the farmers.\"\n\n\"To rot away (in one's home or in a remote, non-urban place)\"\n\n「スミスはもう８[年]{ねん}も[家]{いえ}でくすぶっている。」- \"Smith has been staying inside his home for\n8 years already (answering language questions on internet!).\"\n\n\"To remain in a lowly position\"\n\n「[田中]{たなか}はもう２０年も[係長]{かかりちょう}でくすぶっている。」= \"Tanaka has been living the humdrum\nlife of a lowly section chief for 20 years.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T02:34:21.750",
"id": "24220",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-10T02:34:21.750",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24136",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
24136
|
24220
|
24220
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Can girls use だよね in everyday conversations?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T11:47:27.583",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24139",
"last_activity_date": "2015-08-16T07:41:30.997",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-05T12:36:08.267",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "9848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"gender"
],
"title": "Can girls use だよね?",
"view_count": 915
}
|
[
{
"body": "Certainly yes, girls can use だよね, but it may leave a slightly tomboyish\nimpression. The first Japanese hip-hop song which sold one million records was\ncalled [_DA.YO.NE_](https://youtu.be/ZF99pK_go9g) and is mainly performed by a\ngirl.\n\nOn the other hand, boys can use だよね, too, but IMO it's mainly used by boys who\nalways stick to 僕 instead of 俺 as a first-person pronoun. (I mean, it sounds a\nbit gentle or \"pretty.\")",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T13:09:13.183",
"id": "24140",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T13:09:13.183",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24139",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "I can confirm that women in their 20s and 30s say だよね with high frequency in\nTokyo. Personalities in the range of very feminine to slightly boyish in\nbehavior. That particular phrase seems fairly gender-neutral to me, I'd like\nto mention.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-08-16T07:41:30.997",
"id": "27418",
"last_activity_date": "2015-08-16T07:41:30.997",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10907",
"parent_id": "24139",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24139
| null |
24140
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "I often get confused in distinguishing between the handwritten ソ and ン. Is\nthere any hint to do so easily?\n\nI know the stroke order for both in writing so what I want to know is how to\ndistinguish between them in reading.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T13:22:31.713",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24141",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T13:22:31.713",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9896",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"handwriting"
],
"title": "How to distinguish between handwritten ソ and ン?",
"view_count": 219
}
|
[] |
24141
| null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24146",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Which translation of \"Mongolia\" is most suitable for everyday conversation?\n\nThe Japanese edition of Wikipedia's entry on Mongolia has the article title of\n[モンゴル国](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B4%E3%83%AB%E5%9B%BD),\nWiktionary [translates](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Mongolia#English) it as\n\"モンゴル\" and \"蒙古\", and [weblio](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/Mongolia) has\namongst others \"モンゴリア\", which is also what someone suggested I use.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T13:24:58.527",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24142",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T14:10:08.850",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Which translation of \"Mongolia\" is most suitable for everyday use?",
"view_count": 436
}
|
[
{
"body": "For everyday use, it is definitely 「モンゴル」. I would be lying if I answered\notherwise.\n\n「モンゴル[国]{こく}」 sounds too formal for everyday use.\n\n「モンゴリア」 is **_very_** rare despite what you have been told by that someone.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T14:03:44.040",
"id": "24146",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T14:10:08.850",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-05T14:10:08.850",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24142",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24142
|
24146
|
24146
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24147",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've recently heard a number of sentences where でば is used at the end,\nseemingly to convince the listener of something. Google has failed me for the\nmost part, aside from one article about particles in Chinese that mentions\nboth \"de\" and \"ba\" as mid-sentence particles (I'll post a link if i can find\nit again), but naturally I'd rather an explanation that actually applies to\nJapanese.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T13:54:52.240",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24143",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T16:46:48.717",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-05T14:36:27.873",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "7795",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particles",
"spoken-language",
"sentence-final-particles"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of using でば to end a sentence?",
"view_count": 656
}
|
[
{
"body": "You probably heard ってば, which is a contraction of と言えば. From 大辞林:\n\n> **てば** (「と言えば」の転。[...] 「ん」で終わる語に付く場合以外は、すべて「ってば」の形をとる)\n>\n> **一** [...]\n>\n> **二** (終助)\n>\n> 文末にあって種々の語に付く。じれったい気持ちをこめて、呼びかけるのに用いる。「お母さん、はやくっ—」「はやく来ないと、行列が過ぎちゃうっ—」\n\nThe keywords here are じれったい (impatient) and 呼びかける (call out to so.). The\nnuance of trying to \"convince the listener of something\" only comes from\nconveying a sense of urgency with ってば.\n\nNote that this has nothing to do with Chinese.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T14:33:18.643",
"id": "24147",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-05T16:46:48.717",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24143",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24143
|
24147
|
24147
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24168",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I assumed that adverbs modify only verbals (noun + copula, adjectives, verbs,\nhowever blurred their actual distinction). However, today I came across an\nentry in a grammar book [ISBN-13: 978-4789012959] on an adverb さらに （更に） that\ncan (apparently) modify other adverbs, which proves this assumption wrong.\nExample sentence:\n\n> クローバル時代に向けて企業の国際化を **さらに強力に** 押し進める必要がある。In our global age, we must promote\n> the internationalization of businesses even more forcefully.\n\nHere, it is explicitly stated that さらに modifies 強力に and not any of the verbals\nthat follow.\n\nMy question: is there a special name for this class of adverbs (in that entry\nonly さらに、もっと、より、なお、 and 一層 are listed)? Is there a list or some kind of way of\nidentifying this kind of adverbs? Do such adverbs apply only apply to nouns\nthat can take an adjective form (like 強力な)?\n\nEdit: I've thought about it a bit more and it seems indeed some other extent\nadverbs can modify an adverbial if it's formed from na-adjective, e.g.\nそんなに深刻にX. Is that all there is to it, just treat a noun-form na-adjective + に\nas something that an adverb can modify?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T16:04:02.853",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24148",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-18T02:42:06.750",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-05T17:44:29.353",
"last_editor_user_id": "9771",
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"adverbs"
],
"title": "Adverbs that can modify other adverbs / adverbials?",
"view_count": 690
}
|
[
{
"body": "> My question: is there a special name for this class of adverbs (in that\n> entry only さらに、もっと、より、なお、 and 一層 are listed)?\n\nYes, those are commonly called 「[程度副詞]{ていどふくし}」.\n\n> Is there a list or some kind of way of identifying this kind of adverbs?\n\nHere is a rather extensive list of 程度副詞: <http://www.weblio.jp/parts-of-\nspeech/%E5%89%AF%E8%A9%9E(%E7%A8%8B%E5%BA%A6)_1>\n\n> Do such adverbs only apply to nouns that can take an adjective form (like\n> 強力な)?\n\nNo, 程度副詞 can modify all kinds of adjectives and verbs. They can also modify\nother adverbs as long as it makes sense. It does not have to be any particular\ntype of adverbs.\n\nLastly, 「強力に」 is an adjective ([形容動詞]{けいようどうし}), not an adverb ([副詞]{ふくし}). In\nJapanese, any conjugated form of an adjective is still an adjective. It does\nnot matter if 「強力に」 modifies verbs. If it were an adverb, it would have its\nown entry in the dictionary. Since it is only the 連用形 of a na-adjective, it\nwill not be listed in a dictionary.\n\n(This is something I have tried to explain all over internet including S.E.\nbut have failed because English-speaking Japanese-learners tend to apply\nEnglish grammar rules to Japanese, which is pointless to begin with. To them,\na word that modifies a verb is an adverb. Sure, that is fine **_in English_**\n, but the language we talk about here is Japanese.)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T08:52:17.070",
"id": "24168",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-18T02:42:06.750",
"last_edit_date": "2016-06-18T02:42:06.750",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24148",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24148
|
24168
|
24168
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24151",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I read in a haiku written by\n[Bashō/芭蕉](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsuo_Bash%C5%8D)\n([source](http://www.takase.com/JapaneseCalligraphy/Haiku/HaikuSource01.htm) -\nsee my addendum at the end of the post) :\n\n> をちこちに\n>\n> 瀧{たき}の音{おと}聞く{きく}\n>\n> 落{おち}葉{ば}かな\n\nMy translation :\n\n> From far and near, hearing the sounds of the waterfall(s), ah, the fallen\n> leaves...\n\nMy question deals with the word 落{おち}葉{ば}, derived from 落{お}ちる (to drop, to\nlose) ? I noticed the poet played with the sounds /ochi/ in **をち** こちに and in\n**落{おち}** 葉{ば}.\n\nMoreover, I know that Classical Japanese words beginning with を have dropped\nthe initial /w/, giving words beginning with /o/, like をんな > おんな.\n\n**Hence my questions :**\n\n 1. In Classical Japanese, did the verb 落{ちる} start with お (おちる) or with を (をちる). Or did the word 落{おち}葉{ば} begin with お (落{おち}葉{ば}) or with を (落{をち}葉{ば}) ?\n 2. Is there any online dictionary giving this information ?\n\nAny help would be appreciated !\n\n_addendum_ : I read this haiku for the first time in a French anthology :\n\"Bashō, Cent onze haiku\"(=Bashō, 111 haiku), by Joan Titus-Carmel, page 108.\nTitus-Carmel's translation : \"De loin et de près s'entend le bruit des\ncascades - la chute des feuilles !\". The Japanese text given by Titus-Carmel\ncontains the word 落葉. Alas, the author doesn't give any further details about\nhis source : nothing but a simple \"the haikus translated in this book are\ntaken from Bashō's works\" on the last page.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T20:00:35.833",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24149",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T08:15:13.177",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4550",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"orthography",
"classical-japanese",
"phonology",
"haiku"
],
"title": "Classical form of 落{お}ちる",
"view_count": 178
}
|
[
{
"body": "I don't know if @l'électeur's comments were rhetorical or otherwise, but I\nonly find the poem as 若葉 (not 落葉) and written by 蕪村 (not 芭蕉). Here's [a more\nreliable reference from\n青空文庫](http://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000305/files/47985_41579.html)\n\n> 蕪村には直ちに若葉を詠じたるもの十余句あり。皆若葉の趣味を発揮せり。例、\n>\n> [...] \n> をちこちに滝の音聞く若葉かな \n> [...]\n\nIt might not be relevant any longer, but the historical spelling for the お in\nおちる was just お, and not を, as already answered in the comments (e.g. 大辞林: お・ちる\n(動タ上一) [文] タ上二 **お** ・つ or also in 大辞泉, which is accessible via\n<https://kotobank.jp/>).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T02:03:04.643",
"id": "24151",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T02:10:14.240",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24149",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24149
|
24151
|
24151
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I was taught that you must use the plain form of a verb before から. Recently\nI've noticed that I will use the ます form of verbs. Most often I'm saying\n～がありますから instead of ～があるから。 I feel like it's not right but it comes out so\nnaturally. I'm worried that it seems natural because it's become a habit that\nno one has ever corrected.\n\nI know that you can use ～ですから to end a sentence, so is ～ますから also\ngrammatically correct?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-05T22:40:49.813",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24150",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-07T00:42:48.097",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-05T22:55:22.493",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9635",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-から"
],
"title": "Can you use V-ます before から？",
"view_count": 4429
}
|
[
{
"body": "yes ~ますから can also be used as well as ～ですから both mean because",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T08:37:59.487",
"id": "24158",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T08:37:59.487",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10021",
"parent_id": "24150",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "No, at least not always.\n\n**It is correct** to use 「～～ますから」 in stand-alone statements expressing a\nreason-and-result or cause-and-effect relationship.\n\n「[明日]{あす}また[来]{き} **ます** から、このパソコンはここに[置]{お}いておきますね。」\"I am leaving this PC\nhere because I will come back tomorrow again.\"\n\n**It is NOT correct, however,** to use 「～～ますから」 followed by 「です」 in an answer\nstating a reason/cause to a question asking for such.\n\nPerson A:「なんでこういう[音楽]{おんがく}が[好]{す}きなの？」\"Why do you like this kinda music?\"\n\nPerson B:「[心]{こころ}が[落]{お}ち[着]{つ}き **ます** からです。」← **_Incorrect_**\n\nPerson B should have said 「心が落ち着くからです。」\"Because it relaxes me.\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T00:42:48.097",
"id": "24166",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-07T00:42:48.097",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24150",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
24150
| null |
24166
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> I would eat that\n\ntranslates to\n\n> 私はそれを食べるだろう\n\nMy question here is, every conditional + verb has the structure verb + だろう? Or\nis it more complex than this?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T02:18:27.250",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24152",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T04:25:21.293",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10020",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"conditionals"
],
"title": "Conditionals applied to verbs",
"view_count": 84
}
|
[
{
"body": "This kind of conditional — verb + だろう — is a very explicit way to mark a\nconditional. Conditionals in Japanese are generally not explicitly stated as\nsuch, but are rather interpreted based on the surrounding/ongoing context.\n\nI think the sentence you quoted above, in more natural Japanese might be\nsomething like, 「私だったら、(それを)食べる。」, where the conditional is given context by\nthe 「私だったら」clause (\"If it were me\").\n\nI am not one hundred percent confident about this next statement, but I feel\nthat using 「verb + だろう」 as a conditional (in the sense of a \"would\" clause in\nEnglish) to talk about your own actions may sound a bit unnatural in Japanese.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T04:25:21.293",
"id": "24153",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T04:25:21.293",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10015",
"parent_id": "24152",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24152
| null |
24153
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "It is a situation which a salesperson announces to a group of people to\nattract them to buy his goods\n\nHere is the full sentence.\n\nああいう物{もの}の値{ね}うちのわかる決{けつ}断{だん}力{りょく}さえた少{しょう}年{ねん}が日{に}本{ほん}にいるっていうこと **はだ**\n\nActually, there are 3 text bubbles adjacent to each other in the same panel\nand I brought only the sentence from the last bubble into the above line.\n\nBelow here are the 2 first sentences from those bubbles.\n\nFirst bubble: いや おそれ いりました!\n\nSecond bubble: これだけいる おとなどもが買{か}いしぶって いる中{なか}で あんな子{こ}どもが さっと こづかい はたくなんざ じつに\n見{み}上{あ}げた もんですよ",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T06:12:46.160",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24154",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T10:46:10.390",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-06T12:25:31.973",
"last_editor_user_id": "9559",
"owner_user_id": "9559",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "What does 「はだ」 mean?",
"view_count": 596
}
|
[
{
"body": "[@user4092](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/users/4092) is right: だ (助動詞\nused like a filler) + は.\n\nだ[助動] 2. [from デジタル大辞泉](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%A0-556047) :\n\n> 終止形「だ」を間投助詞的に用いて、語調を強める意を表す。「それは **だ** 、お前が悪いんだよ」\n\n日本国語大辞典 adds that in such usage,\n\n> 「ね」「よ」 などを伴うこともある\n\nso \"それはだね\", \"私がだよ\", etc. are also often seen.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T05:04:33.810",
"id": "24245",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T05:20:47.567",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4223",
"parent_id": "24154",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24154
| null |
24245
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "な is generally masculine speech, but in this case you can't replace it with ね\nfor neutral speech of the same meaning. いいね is just 'it's nice', while いいな\nimplies envy or hope. If they can't say いいな, what would they say instead?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T07:02:30.177",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24155",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-07T02:13:03.207",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"feminine-speech"
],
"title": "Can girls say いいな?",
"view_count": 5672
}
|
[
{
"body": "The one, which implies envy or hope is often written `いいなあ`, or even `いいなあ～`\nand is absolutely fine for girls. I would almost say, that (especially in the\nenvy-usage) is more often used by girls than guys, but this is maybe not a\nproblem of speech, but more a problem of displaying envy via speech.\n\nBut there also is a manly `いいな`, but it has a different meaning.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T07:27:57.507",
"id": "24156",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T07:27:57.507",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9538",
"parent_id": "24155",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "In the first place, な is not originally masculine or so.\n\nね is a version of な when you talk to other people, in other words, when you\ntalk to yourself, it's nothing for women to use it. It may sound rough only\nafter you use な in talking to other people.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T02:13:03.207",
"id": "24167",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-07T02:13:03.207",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24155",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
24155
| null |
24156
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24162",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I recently saw a video on greetings in Japan and the guy said something that\nI've never heard before: \"you cannot use こんにちは more then once per day to the\nsame person\". He proceeded to explain that if you meet the same person again\nlater in the same time-frame you have to say something else - you cannot use\nagain こんにちは.\n\nI tried to confirm this from other sources on the net, but simply can't find\nanything else.\n\nI apologize for the noob question - sometimes it is hard to tell the\ndifference between joke and serious.\n\nSo, is he just joking (did not look like that and the rest of what he said\nseems to check out), or is this true?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T08:17:34.533",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24157",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T14:14:22.703",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7958",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"greetings"
],
"title": "こんにちは and こんばんは only once a day per person?",
"view_count": 422
}
|
[
{
"body": "It is no joke.\n\nAmong us native speakers, we generally do not say the same time-of-the-day\ngreeting more than once to the same person per day.\n\nSometimes we do it twice by mistake and when that happens, a fairly awkward\nmoment could pass even though most people would just laugh it off in a\nfriendly way. We actually would sometimes apologize briefly for doing it a\nsecond time by saying something like:\n\n「あっ、すいません、さっきお[会]{あ}いしましたね。」 = \"Oops, excuse me! We just greeted a while ago.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T14:14:22.703",
"id": "24162",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T14:14:22.703",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24157",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
}
] |
24157
|
24162
|
24162
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I once read a Japanese sentence:\n\n> 仮に毎日 **単語を十個** 覚えるとする\n\nCan I say this instead?\n\n> 仮に毎日 **十個単語を** 覚えるとする",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T13:30:39.353",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24161",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-07T00:12:32.480",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-07T00:12:32.480",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9883",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"syntax"
],
"title": "単語を十個 or 十個単語を - quantifiers before or after direct objects",
"view_count": 145
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes you can, the two sentences are equally natural, and identical in meaning.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T18:19:36.247",
"id": "24165",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T18:19:36.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24161",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24161
| null |
24165
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Please look at this sentence:\n\n> あきらめたらそこで試合終了なので、最後まで頑張ります\n\nHow should I understand it? I tried to understand the meaning, and I think it\nmeans, \"if you abandon, the test will be over at once (which means that you\nfail at the point where you choose to give up), so you need to insist on\nstudying hard until the last moment.\" Am I right? Or does it indicate another\nmeaning?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T15:09:47.277",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24163",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T01:40:07.877",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-08T01:40:07.877",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9883",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "Understanding 「あきらめたらそこで試合終了なので、最後まで頑張ります」",
"view_count": 445
}
|
[
{
"body": "Nine times out of ten, this sentence is based on 「あきらめたら、そこで試合終了ですよ」, which is\na famous line from [_SLAM\nDUNK_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slam_Dunk_\\(manga\\)), a manga series\nfeaturing basketball:\n\n\n\nAnd the [\"official\" English translation](http://english-\ncimic.hatenablog.com/entry/2014/06/13/155154) is \"When you give up, that's\nwhen the game is over.\"\n\nThis phrase is almost like a proverb, and used frequently at least by native\nJapanese speakers, even when they're doing something not related to \"games\".",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-06T17:44:51.123",
"id": "24164",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-06T17:44:51.123",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24163",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
24163
| null |
24164
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> 漢字 **の読み方** はおろか\n\nCan I also say\n\n> 漢字 **を読むの** はおろか\n\nDo they have the same meaning?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T11:31:33.343",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24169",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T08:19:02.230",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T08:19:02.230",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9883",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage"
],
"title": "漢字の読み方 versus 漢字を読むの",
"view_count": 313
}
|
[
{
"body": "Basically, 疎{おろ}か is an adjective (形容動詞) so it has to \"decorate\" a noun. In\nJapanese a nominalized sentence just behave like a noun so both of your\nsentences are grammatical and make sense. But their meaning is slighly\ndifferent.\n\n> 漢字{かんじ}の読{よ}み方{かた}はおろか,...\n>\n> Not to mention the way _kanji_ are read, ...\n\nWhereas,\n\n> 漢字{かんじ}を読{よ}むのはおろか,...\n>\n> Not to mention (the fact of) reading _kanji_ , ...\n\nThe provided translations are not deemed to be perfect since the omitted part\n,the part after おろか, is even more important that what comes before in order to\ntranslate properly.\n\nOther examples can be found in the second link (see below).\n\n* * *\n\nReferences:\n\n * [1]: <http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E7%96%8E%E3%81%8B>\n * [2]: <http://www.tanos.co.uk/jlpt/skills/grammar/sentences/?grammarid=358>",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T14:01:40.257",
"id": "24172",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T16:43:50.967",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-11T16:43:50.967",
"last_editor_user_id": "4216",
"owner_user_id": "4216",
"parent_id": "24169",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "Although it may depend on the context, I would basically say 'no'. The two\nphrases mean different things and because of that, one would expect different\ntypes of phrases to follow each. The two would largely be uninterchangeable.\n\n「[漢字]{かんじ}の[読]{よ}み[方]{かた}はおろか」 would mean \"not to mention **_how to_** read\n(the) kanji\", \"not to mention **_how_** (the) kanji are read\", etc.\n\nA phrase like 「カタカナの読み方さえ知らない」 would most naturally (and logically) follow,\nmaking the whole sentence mean:\n\n> \"Not to mention how to read kanji, (someone) does not even know how to read\n> katakana.\"\n\n「漢字を読むのはおろか」 would mean \"not to mention reading kanji\". Unlike the first\nphrase, this one can be followed by a phrase that has nothing to do with\nreading.\n\nA phrase like 「かんたんなフレーズさえ[声]{こえ}に[出]{だ}して[練習]{れんしゅう}しようとしない」 would best\nfollow.\n\n> \"Let alone reading kanji, (someone) does not try to practice even the simple\n> phrases out loud.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T14:29:51.637",
"id": "24173",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-07T14:29:51.637",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24169",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24169
| null |
24172
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24180",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "For most 漢字 with multiple 音読み, there appears to be a fairly reasonable link\nbetween the sounds, and fairly minor drift, such as with 聞 being モン or ブン.\n\nSome 漢字, however, appear to have completely unrelated 読み, the prime example\nbeing 回 with カイ and エ. If it was just that one it could be readily dismissed\nas an historical accident, but the カイ/エ 読み is shared with the also visually\nunrelated 会 and friends.\n\nSo the question is; what's going on here?\n\nUpdate: As l'électeur points out, this might be explained by the size of\nChina, but if so: Why don't more 漢字 have these apparently unrelated 読み?",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T14:33:35.257",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24174",
"last_activity_date": "2016-03-28T18:29:30.343",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-07T14:43:04.323",
"last_editor_user_id": "519",
"owner_user_id": "519",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"multiple-readings"
],
"title": "Apparently unrelated 音読み?",
"view_count": 920
}
|
[
{
"body": "In fact, it is perfectly normal that the 音{おん}読{よ}み of a 漢{かん}字{じ} seem to be\nunrelated. Indeed, the 音{おん}読{よ}み of the 漢{かん}字{じ} were imported from China at\ndifferent period and from different regions.\n\nThere are three kinds of 音{おん}読{よ}み:\n\n * [漢{かん}音{おん}](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%BC%A2%E9%9F%B3): Spread by the monks who studied in Ancient China around the 7th, 8th century.\n\n * [呉{ご}音{おん}](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%91%89%E9%9F%B3): More ancient than the 漢{かん}音{おん}, those readings were imported from the Wu region of China. That lecture is very frequent in buddhist terms.\n\n * [唐{とう}音{おん}](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%94%90%E9%9F%B3): Those lectures were introduced at the end of the Heian period. They are the most recent of the three. During the 室{むろ}町{まち}時{じ}代{だい} this lecture was called (唐{とう})宋{そう}音{おん}.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T15:01:53.107",
"id": "24175",
"last_activity_date": "2016-03-28T04:16:06.783",
"last_edit_date": "2016-03-28T04:16:06.783",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "4216",
"parent_id": "24174",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "Taking up the chance to talk about \"Unrelated readings\" because I get the\nchance to talk about both Japan and China's phonologies in the past.\n\nIt's well known that even amongst 音読み, there are the types from different\nChinese regions and times.\n\n漢音：Hanyin, from the original middle-chinese pronunciations\n\n呉音：Wuyin from SE China (state of Wu)\n\n唐音：Tangyin from Tang China around the late 1500s\n\n慣用音：These are actually Japanese corruptions of Chinese readings, not used\nanywhere in China. コク for 石 is one example, which was corrupted from ジャク (the\napproximation of Hakka's pronunciation, `shak`)\n\nThere are others, usually taking name from the Chinese state that they\noriginate from.\n\n**General sense**\n\nWhen Japanese first borrowed Chinese character sounds （漢音）, Chinese had a\nslightly different phonology to now. Firstly, `/h/` was `/φ/` (same sound as ふ\nnowadays, which never changed). Usually, Chinese's `/x/` (pinyin: `h`) was\nborrowed as `/k/`, but sometimes as `/w/`. Examples of this are 会 (ZH: `hui`\nJP: `kai`, `e`) and 絵 (ZH: `hui` JP: `e`). Tones weren't borrowed at all.\n\nThey also copied more closely the `~ao` vs `~ou` distinctions in Chinese\n(compare 道 and 豆 ZH: `dao`, `dou` JP: `dou`, `tou`). Japanese dictionaries\nkindly list pronunciations of kanji that have changed. Dictionaries tell you\nthat 道's reading of どう actually used to be だう.\n\nThere are too many rules to list all of them out. Common ones are those above,\nand final 〜う instead of `~ng` found in Chinese varieties (such as 同{どう} ZH:\n`tong`).\n\nBoth Japanese and Chinese (taking Chinese as one language) have since changed,\nbut there are enough varieties of Chinese that it's usually clear to see which\nlanguage / dialect is the divergent one (like how Mandarin has no `-p`, `-t`,\n`-k` final consonants anymore)\n\n**In the purest sense**\n\n\"Unrelated\" on'yomi are almost always going to be 慣用音. 良 has a fair few, such\nas ら, which sound nothing like the Chinese `liang` used today. This is because\nthey actually diverged from the Chinese loanwords into something distinctly\nJapanese, and is also why they're so uncommonly used in actual words (I can't\nthink of any examples of 良 as ら other than in names).\n\n**Other reasons**\n\nOne thing to note is that sometimes the Chinese itself was unclear when Japan\nborrowed the sounds, even without different languages or bad transliterations.\nThere are kanji that have readings with `/m/` initials, and some with `/b/`\n(文聞無望亡 to list a few). These are all taken from the same Chinese regions and\ntime, but people probably couldn't say which it sounded more like, and use\nboth /m/ and /b/ readings these days (and Chinese has all 3 starting with\n`/w/`).\n\nSo, the reason why kanji are unclear are usually:\n\n 1. Japanese borrowed them badly in the first place because it didn't have the right sounds to say them properly (eg 花{か} ZH: `hua`)\n 2. Japanese borrowed them properly, but then its phonology changed and now doesn't resemble as much (eg 絵{え} from ゑ ZH: `hui`, said like \"hway\")\n 3. Chinese was in a transitional phase when Japanese borrowed them, so Japan took a few pronunciations all from the same Chinese dialect (eg 聞, read as ぶん and もん)\n 4. Japanese borrowed properly, and just corrupted them (eg 良{りょう} as ら)",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T21:19:29.690",
"id": "24180",
"last_activity_date": "2016-03-28T18:29:30.343",
"last_edit_date": "2016-03-28T18:29:30.343",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24174",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] |
24174
|
24180
|
24180
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24179",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "First off, I understand the use of ～の時 (when). However, with my current\nknowledge, this doesn't make sense if I try to use it with verbs in phrases\nsuch as \"when I woke up\". It's probably quite obvious, but how would I\nstructure \"when [x] did [verb]\" or \"when [event/action] happened\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T18:33:12.600",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24177",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T06:27:30.433",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7692",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"syntax",
"particle-の",
"tense"
],
"title": "How would I say \"when [x] happened\"?",
"view_count": 4063
}
|
[
{
"body": "Just use the past tense of a verb before 時. For example \"When I woke up\" would\nbe 私が起きた時 or \"When the game ended\" would be 試合が終わった時.\n\nVerbs can be used to modify nouns in this way. Like \"the book I read\" would be\n私が読んだ本. The \"when\" issue is essentially the same, I think :)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T18:38:33.247",
"id": "24178",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-07T18:38:33.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10026",
"parent_id": "24177",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "It's not quite so clear cut as you may hope, as with a large portion of\nJapanese which translates badly.\n\nIf you want \"when\" as a general sense, such as \"When I was a student\", append\n頃{ころ} to it at the end.\n\n> 学生{がくせい}の頃{ころ} When (I) was a student.\n\nGenerally, 時{とき} refers to what you want, which you use for verbs. There's no\nneed for a の, just place 〜時{とき} after the verb. The issue comes with present\nor past tense verbs, and when to use which. Your sentence, just to point out\nat this point, is:\n\n> 起{お}きた時{とき} When (I) woke up.\n\n-- _Present vs Past Tense_ --\n\nUse the past tense when you've already done an action. For instance, \"Pay when\nyou get off the bus\" in English is ambiguous in Japanese. Here, there are 2\noptions, each with a different meaning.\n\n> バスを降{お}り **る** 時{とき}払{はら}ってください Pay when you get off the bus (ie, just\n> before you walk out of the bus\n>\n> バスを降{お}り **た** 時{とき}払{はら}ってください Pay when you have gotten off the bus (ie,\n> once you're off the bus)\n\nIn this sense, use the past tense, even when something's happening in the\nfuture, but to show that something's already happened from the point of view\nof you in that frame of reference in the future. Confusing. Take another\nexample:\n\n> 日本へ行く時困りますか？\n\nWhen you're talking about going to Japan, in your head, you're imagining\nyourself at that time. This sentence talks more about that you'll have trouble\nwhen you go to Japan, say at the airport. We can contrast this with\n日本へ行った時困りますか？, which references that you'll have trouble after you've arrived\nin Japan. Even though both of these things from the POV of _now_ are in the\nfuture, you aren't seeing it that way in Japanese, you're seeing it from the\nreference of you at that time.\n\nBack to your sentence.\n\nIt makes no sense to say \"when I woke up\" as 起きる時 unless you're actually\ntalking about the time when you were still asleep but just about to wake up.\nI'm pretty certain you didn't mean this. If you want to say \"when i woke up\nthis morning my cat (who we'll name \"Nyan\") was setting on my bed\", you just\nput yourself into the shoes of your past self, who has already woken up, and\nhas seen Nyan on their bed.\n\n> 今朝起きた時ニャンがベッドに座っていました。",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-07T20:29:04.913",
"id": "24179",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T06:27:30.433",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24177",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "You can use verb-た時 or verb-たら. Both can also be used the same way for future\nevents.\n\nI'd like to add. You often see _past tense_ , _present tense_ but in japanese,\nyou have _accomplished_ and _not-accomplished tense_. \nThis is why it makes sense to say stuff like \"駅に着いた時に連絡する。\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T02:01:03.640",
"id": "24182",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T02:38:29.713",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-08T02:38:29.713",
"last_editor_user_id": "1065",
"owner_user_id": "1065",
"parent_id": "24177",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24177
|
24179
|
24179
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24183",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm trying to read a children's book and have already gotten stumped by the\nfirst sentence. \" _context_ \" The picture shows an autumn day.\n\nIt reads:\n\n> ある つめたい かぜの ふく ひ。\n\nSo far I've got ... (chilly wind blow)...\n\nAt first I thought ある was 'walk' and the grammar made no sense to me, but have\nthen realized walk should instead be あるく. Also, ひ made no sense either. So\nlooking up ある on Jisho I found that together あるひ (ある日) means \"one day\".\n\nIs it correct to assume that ある and 日 can be split apart grammatically?\n\n> **ある** **(** 冷たい 風の 吹く **)** **日** 。\n\nAnd if that's the case would **:** One day, a chilly wind blew. =/= A chilly\nwind blew, one day. **:** be correct?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T01:54:10.853",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24181",
"last_activity_date": "2020-12-27T05:46:39.293",
"last_edit_date": "2020-12-27T05:46:39.293",
"last_editor_user_id": "37097",
"owner_user_id": "10033",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "Need help translating a sentence - あるひ?",
"view_count": 353
}
|
[
{
"body": "You are on the right track.\n\nIn this case, 「ある」 and 「ひ」 should be regarded as two independen words rather\nthan 「あるひ」 split into two parts.\n\n「ある」, all by itself, can mean \"one ~~\" or \"a certain ~~\" (and it is used at\nthe beginning of virtually every children's story.)\n\n「ある つめたい かぜの ふく ひ」 is a relative clause (not a sentence) in which both 「ある」\nand 「つめたいがぜのふく」 modify 「ひ」.\n\n\"One cold and windy day.\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T02:12:51.533",
"id": "24183",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T02:12:51.533",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24181",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "In this case, 「つめたい かぜの ふく」 is a noun\nmodifier[(1)](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/subclause.html)[(2)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/11975/3035)\nfor 日.\n\nBasically, the verb clause the precedes the noun modifies it in a similar way\nto \"that\" in English. For example (from the references above):\n\n> ボブは、いつも勉強する人だ。 \n> = Bob is an always-does-studying person. \n> = Bob is a person who always studies.\n\nIn the same way, 「つめたい かぜの ふく」 is modifying 日.\n\n> つめたい かぜの ふく 日 \n> = cold-wind-blows day \n> = day that a cold wind blew\n\nYou are correct that the phrase is ある日, but the day is qualified by saying\n_what kind of day_ it is. (That is, it is a day when a cold wind is blowing.)\n\n> ある つめたい かぜの ふく ひ \n> = One cold-wind-blowing day\n\nKeep in mind that having a 。 at the end does not translate as a sentence to\nEnglish, but marks the end of a clause. (i.e. In this context you would not\njust say \"One day.\")\n\n> ある つめたい かぜの ふく ひ。・・・ \n> = One cold, windy day, ...",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T02:13:18.357",
"id": "24184",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T02:23:27.933",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3035",
"parent_id": "24181",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24181
|
24183
|
24183
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24186",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "All is in the title, what are the ways to express someone's condolences when\nsomebody died. \nI know お気の毒に but is there something else? \nWhat can/should you say to friends? To collegues? To bosses? etc.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T02:53:26.260",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24185",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T04:51:37.863",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-08T04:28:57.153",
"last_editor_user_id": "1065",
"owner_user_id": "1065",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words",
"expressions"
],
"title": "What are the ways to express someone's condolences?",
"view_count": 3119
}
|
[
{
"body": "There are some fixed expressions such as:\n\n * ご愁傷さまです\n * お悔やみ申し上げます\n\nBoth are formal, and can be used regardless of the relationship; you can say\nthis to friends/colleagues/bosses. \"ご愁傷さま\" is sometimes used when nobody dies\n(e.g. ironically when somebody is disappointed) while \"お悔やみ申し上げます\" is almost\nalways limited to the context of condolences, but both are perfectly fine.\nAdditionally:\n\n * ({at least originally} In Buddhism) ご冥福をお祈り[します/申し上げます]\n\n* * *\n\nお悔やみ（おくやみ） or 弔辞 is the translation for condolence, so if you need something\nmore than fixed expressions, you can search with these words --- many people\ndon't know what to say to somebody experiencing a great loss, and seek for\nguidance. Additionally, it is common to send a telegram of condolence (\"弔電\")\nfor funerals (when one can't attend), and [expressions for\nthese](https://www.ntt-east.co.jp/dmail/okuyami/) might also be worth reading.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T04:51:37.863",
"id": "24186",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T04:51:37.863",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4223",
"parent_id": "24185",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
24185
|
24186
|
24186
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24189",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Here on Japanese.SE, sometimes we see furigana like 司る【つかさどる】, where the\ncharacters beneath the furigana get pushed apart because the furigana doesn't\nquite fit. Sometimes when I'm writing answers I find myself avoiding furigana\nbecause I think it makes it harder to read having things pushed so far apart.\n\nBut I've noticed that even in professional published writing, sometimes\nfurigana seem to push characters apart. For example, I took this picture of a\npage from\n[連環宇宙](http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E9%80%A3%E7%92%B0%E5%AE%87%E5%AE%99-%E5%89%B5%E5%85%83%EF%BC%B3%EF%BC%A6%E6%96%87%E5%BA%AB-%E3%83%AD%E3%83%90%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%E3%83%BB%E3%83%81%E3%83%A3%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB%E3%82%BA%E3%83%BB%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A3%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B9%E3%83%B3/dp/4488706061)\n(the Japanese translation of _Vortex_ ):\n\n\n\nOn this page, 流暢【りゅうちょう】 and 上唇【うわくちびる】 each take up three squares instead of\ntwo because of how tall the furigana are.\n\nI decided to search online to see what native speakers thought about this sort\nof thing, but I couldn't figure out what it might be called!\n\nIs there a special term for this sort of thing?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T06:20:38.507",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24187",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T16:33:21.667",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"furigana"
],
"title": "What's it called when furigana push characters apart because they're so long?",
"view_count": 643
}
|
[
{
"body": "There are several methods of adjustment when the ruby is longer than the\nparent text. Adobe InDesign has a set of options named\n[ルビが親文字より長い時の調整](http://www.incunabula.co.jp/dtp-s/InDesign_DTP/InDesign_danraku/InDesign%20CS2_20.html).\nI don't know the specific term for such adjustments in general.\n\nOne strategy is to allow the ruby to overlap the main text surrounding the\nparent text, which is called 文字かけ(処理).\n\nThe style of ruby in this picture is achieved by InDesign's 文字かけ処理:なし and\n親文字間の調整:両端揃え options (see ④ below). 文字かけなし means the ruby can never overlap\nthe main text surrounding the parent text. 両端揃え means there is no space\n_before_ and _after_ the parent text, but the spaces _between_ the characters\nof the parent text can be large.\n\nOne well-known method of inserting spaces in the main text is called\n[1-2-1ルール](http://www.japanlink.co.jp/dtpjiten/ru/rubyjisrule.html).\n\n**EDIT:** Here are the examples of various ruby settings (created using\nInDesign CC 2014)\n\n * ① 文字かけ：無制限 (Gets less readable when the ruby is really long)\n * ② 文字かけ：なし、親文字間の調整：1-2-1ルール\n * ③ 文字かけ：ルビ1文字分、親文字間の調整：1-2-1ルール (This is my favorite)\n * ④ 文字かけ：なし、親文字間の調整：両端揃え (This is worst IMO)\n\n",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T07:41:19.103",
"id": "24189",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T16:33:21.667",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-08T16:33:21.667",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24187",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24187
|
24189
|
24189
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24192",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> あさっては大雨【おおあめ】が降【ふ】るそうだよ。ハイキングは来週【らいしゅう】（ ）。(source: pg. 55, 新完全マスター)\n\nThe choices available are:\n\n> **a.** 行【い】こうとしようよ\n>\n> **b.** 行【い】くことにしようよ\n>\n> **c.** 行【い】くようになろうよ\n\nAccording to the textbook, the correct answer is **b** , though I am confused\nas to why **a** is invalid.\n\nAs far as I understand, **a** would translate to something like \"let's try to\ngo next week\", where as **b** would translate to \"let's decide to go next\nweek\".\n\nBoth choices seem to make sense, and I am seeking an explanation as to why\n**b** is preferable over **a** , and furthermore, perhaps a more general rule\nfor determining which construct to use.\n\n**c** , on the other hand, does not make much sense to me, though if there is\nsomething I should be aware of (perhaps it makes more sense than I think it\ndoes?), I would also like to know.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T07:54:21.447",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24190",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-01T22:37:31.413",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-01T22:37:31.413",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "9838",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"usage"
],
"title": "Acceptability of 〜ようとしよう vs. 〜ことにしよう",
"view_count": 1421
}
|
[
{
"body": "Even without any context to go with, only [b. 行くことにしようよ] is correct as a\nphrase. We would never say [a. 行こうとしようよ] or [c. 行くようになろうよ] in any situation.\n\nThe problem with [a. 行こうとしようよ] is that it is double-volitional (行こう & しよう) and\nit is ungrammatical. It is grammatical to say 「行くと **しよう** 」 or 「 **行こう** とする」\nin single-volitional, but not 「行こうとしよう」 in double. Though it is ungrammatical,\nit sounds a little \"better\" than [c. 行くようになろうよ].\n\n> As far as I understand, a. would translate to something like \"let's try to\n> go next week\"\n\nYour translation is single-volitional, not double. 「行こうとしようよ」 means something\nlike \"Let's **try** to **try** going next week.\", which is why it is an\nincorrect answer.\n\n[c. 行くようになろうよ] sounds pretty -- for lack of a better word -- \"hilarious\"; it\nis ungrammatical and it makes close to no sense. The 「なろうよ」 part is just out\nof place. One could say 「ともだちになろうよ！」= \"Let's become friends!\", but not\n「行くことになろうよ」.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T08:52:33.553",
"id": "24192",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-01T22:11:41.947",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-01T22:11:41.947",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24190",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24190
|
24192
|
24192
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In ancient times people usually said 'banzai, banzai'. But the kanzi 万歳,\naccording to the context in dictionary, has two different ways of reading,\nbanzai and manzai. So which one is correct in which circumstance or are they\nboth acceptable, I can say either of them?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T08:12:30.367",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24191",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T13:51:32.417",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-08T08:41:34.377",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9883",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"word-usage"
],
"title": "manzai vs banzai",
"view_count": 302
}
|
[
{
"body": "**ばんざい** (banzai)\n\n * An interjection corresponds to \"Hurray! Viva!\". \nIt's said to be an artificially coined reading to translate them after Meiji\nrestoration.\n\n**まんざい** (manzai)\n\n * A kind of traditional performance art. \nThe ancestor of today's two-people stand-up comedy genre, which now only be\nwritten as 漫才, as @Choco refers.\n\n * One of traditional readings of the word means \"ten thousand years\" or \"near-eternity\", which you might only encounter while you're studying Classical Japanese.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T13:51:32.417",
"id": "24198",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T13:51:32.417",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24191",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24191
| null |
24198
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "How do I express the meaning of \"somebody has something\" in Japanese?\n\nIn English the 'there be...' construction means something exists somewhere,\nwhich equals the Japanese 〜〜があります or 〜〜がいます.\n\nFor example, \"There are three people/chairs in my house.\" Its related\ntranslations are:\n\n> 家で三人がいます。 \n> 家で三個の椅子があります。\n\nMy question is how to express the meaning 'somebody has something'. May I use\n私は〜〜を持っている? For example, \"I have three books/sons\" would be:\n\n> 私は三個本をもっている。 \n> 私は三人の男の子をもっている。\n\nIs that right? Besides that, how do I translate the meaning of 'something has\nsomething'? For instance, \"The house has a window\". Can I say:\n\n> 部屋は窓をもっている。\n\nIs that right?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T11:38:18.930",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24193",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-29T12:36:52.977",
"last_edit_date": "2015-06-29T12:36:52.977",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9883",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"possession"
],
"title": "correct usage of 'There be ...' construction and 'somebody has something'",
"view_count": 324
}
|
[
{
"body": "I'm not a native or an expert, but possession in Japanese is so different from\nEnglish in my opinion, that it's better to avoid thinking of possession as an\nactive ownership, like English.\n\nI'm not sure about the sentences you gave, but rather than having an actual\nverb for 'to own', the sentences literally translate to:\n\n> as for (owner), (object) exists.\n>\n> 私は三個本があります。\n\nIt may not make sense in English, but it implies ownership by saying the\nobject is there, when in relation to the owner.\n\nAs for your last sentence, it's more accurate to say\n\n> 部屋に窓があります。 \n> In the room, a window exists.\n\nIt implies the same thing in English: There is a window in the room. I'm not\nsure about using 'ha' instead of 'ni' for places, but you probably could get\naway with it if you meant the room as an object (walls, floor and ceiling)\nrather than the space that's considered the room.\n\nThat reminds me, you can use both particles right after each other, if you\nwant.\n\n> 部屋には窓があります。\n\nThis has the same literal meaning, but is focused on the room having a window,\nrather than the window being inside the room.\n\n* * *\n\nI did a bit of research, but I can't really confirm what I get from google -\nso take this with a hand full of salt - but 持っている is for objects that can be\nlost, while あります is for inherent traits, like having a brother. Regardless of\nwhether or not your brother is dead, he doesn't stop being considered part of\nyour family, therefore you cannot lose a brother through normal methods.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T12:39:54.277",
"id": "24196",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-09T10:56:40.313",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7955",
"parent_id": "24193",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Hey I have lived in Japan for almost 10 years and have been a student of\nJapanese for 15 years.\n\n> Someone has something → (誰か)は(何か)を持っている \n> Someone has someone → (誰か)は(誰か)がいる \n> Something has something → (何か)に(何か)がある\n\nFor the examples you gave, you would say:\n\n> 私は本を3冊持っている \n> 私は息子3人がいる \n> この部屋に窓がある\n\n持つ literally means 'to hold' so when you use it in the context of having\nsomething, the object is usually something physical that isn't living.\nIncidentally you can also use it for abstract things like having an opinion,\ninterest, dream, or desire (意見 興味 夢 欲望)\n\n※If you were to use 持っている for your sons, it's not impossible to say, but it\ngives off the impression that you see your sons as possessions or assets, and\nnot as family. But if you are talking about someone else who is not a\nparticipant in the conversation, you can use 持っている as a way of taking stock of\nthe family.\n\n> Person A: お向かいさん、一人暮らし？ \n> Does the person across the way live alone?\n>\n> Person B: あ、田村ご夫妻? 息子3人持ちの家族よ。 \n> Oh, the Tamuras? They have three sons.\n\nA side note: you use the verb 飼う(かう) for when someone has pets or livestock.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T13:52:36.800",
"id": "24199",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T15:57:04.087",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-08T15:57:04.087",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10040",
"parent_id": "24193",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
24193
| null |
24199
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24195",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This is an example from [the Progressive Japanese-English\nDictionary](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/49868/m1u/%E6%9F%84/):\n\n> 彼は短刀を柄{つか}も **通れ** と男の胸に突き刺した \n> He thrust his dagger home [up to the hilt] into the man's chest.\n\nWhat is the grammar behind this verb form of 通る? Is this a fixed expression?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T11:55:25.693",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24194",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T12:24:56.183",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-08T12:05:09.057",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"verbs"
],
"title": "What is this verb form - 通れ",
"view_count": 155
}
|
[
{
"body": "> [彼]{かれ}は[短刀]{たんとう}を[柄]{つか}も[通]{とお}れと[男]{おとこ}の[胸]{むね}に[突]{つ}き[刺]{さ}した。\n\nin meaning, is equal to:\n\n> 彼は短刀を『柄も通れ！』と男の胸に突き刺した。\n\n「通れ」 is the [命令形]{めいれいけい} (imperative form) the of the verb 「通る」.\n\n「柄も通れ」 is what the guy thought to himself as he stabbed the other guy. He\nwanted to stab deep. = \"Let even the hilt go through!\"\n\nThis is no fixed expression, but you will keep seeing the structure:\n\n> 「Verb A in imperative + と + Verb phrase B」=\n>\n> \"(Someone) did (Verb B) thinking/saying/praying, etc. 'Let (Verb A)\n> happen!'\"\n\nNeedless to say, 「と」 is the quotative particle.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T12:24:56.183",
"id": "24195",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T12:24:56.183",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24194",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24194
|
24195
|
24195
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24219",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the kanji 道, 週 and so on, the ⻌ radical is written last, then the main\nelement. The same for 建 and 延, in which the top-right component is written\nfirst, then the 廴 radical. But in 起, 走 is written first. All three radicals\nare used as \"にょう\" radicals, as far as I can tell, but 走 is written in a\ndifferent order to ⻌ and 廴. Is there any reason why?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T13:49:41.390",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24197",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T05:24:23.873",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-08T15:10:21.603",
"last_editor_user_id": "4242",
"owner_user_id": "4242",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"radicals",
"stroke-order"
],
"title": "Why is the order of bottom-left radicals different for some kanji?",
"view_count": 455
}
|
[
{
"body": "While other L-shaped partials, like @blutorange said in his comment (`走鬼麦風爪`\netc.), are only stylistic alterations when you use these parts in the left\nside of a kanji, **⻌ is inherently L-shaped** , because it originates from the\ncombination of left-sided `⼻` and bottom `⽌`. The fact is widely attested in\npre-Qin inscriptions or bamboo (wooden) slip recordings (third from left in\nthe image below).\n\n (image from\n[here](http://www.vividict.com/WordInfo.aspx?id=3295))\n\nIt becomes known through recent successive discoveries of Warring States\nartifacts that Clerical Script (fifth from left) and Cursive Script (second\nfrom right), which modern writing derives directly from, are not descent of\nSeal Script (fourth from the left), but that of various popular styles\npreexisting Qin's reign. Thus ⻌ didn't come from left-sided 辵 and is an\nexception from the first place.\n\nAs for 廴, it turns out that this radical has multiple origins, most of them\nare deformation or misinterpretation of ⻌ and others. For example, you can see\nthat the bottom-left part of 廷 (\"palace\") was originally L-shaped wall\nsurrounding the court, but later metamorphosed into ⻌ or 廴-ish shapes. So this\nradical could be treated in the essentially same way to ⻌, and Kangxi\nDictionary only contain 10 of kanjis that belong to 廴.\n\n (image from\n[here](http://www.vividict.com/WordInfo.aspx?id=3087))\n\n* * *\n\n**PS** \n⻌ vs 走 series in Shuihudi Qin bamboo text:  ",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T00:15:39.750",
"id": "24219",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T05:24:23.873",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-11T05:24:23.873",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24197",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
24197
|
24219
|
24219
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "\"He must be Japanese\", if translated to idiomatic Japanese according to the\nstandard concept, should be:\n\n> 彼は日本人 **に決まっている** 。\n\nWhat about the following alternatives?\n\n> 彼は **ぜひ** 日本人です。\n>\n> 彼は **きっと** 日本人です。\n>\n> 彼は **必ず** 日本人です。\n\nAre these acceptable as well?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T14:25:07.957",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24200",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T08:31:28.127",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9883",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"expressions",
"modality"
],
"title": "Modal expressions in \"He must be Japanese\" - に決まっている and ぜひ・きっと・必ず",
"view_count": 1810
}
|
[
{
"body": "彼はぜひ日本人です。 is not acceptable, I'm afraid. You use ぜひ this way: \nぜひ参加してください。 'please' (for invitation/request) \nぜひ参加させていただきます。 'by all means' (when accepting offer)\n\n彼はきっと日本人です。 sounds fine. 'I believe he's Japanese' / 'I'm sure he's Japanese'.\n\n彼は必ず日本人です。 is not acceptable. 必ず is used this way: \n必ず来ます。 'without fail' (for future action) \n寝る前に必ず歯を磨く。 'never fail to do, always' (routine) \n人は必ず死ぬ。 'doomed to'\n\nYou can also say 彼は絶対日本人です。\n\nI think 決まっている sounds rather casual and きっと conveys less certainty than 絶対 and\n決まっている.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-09T07:37:27.700",
"id": "24209",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-09T07:42:58.963",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-09T07:42:58.963",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24200",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24200
| null |
24209
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24203",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "一丁 is a cut of tofu or konyaku, so why is it also used for photos? I always\nimagined it as a Polaroid, flat, like もう一枚 but can't find out the original\nreason もう一丁 was used for it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T14:37:08.857",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24201",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T15:46:21.103",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3300",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"counters"
],
"title": "Why is another photo referred to as もう一丁?",
"view_count": 969
}
|
[
{
"body": "**_Formal and Informal Speech_**\n\n「[丁]{ちょう}」, formally, is used like you said -- a counter for tofu, konnyaku,\netc.\n\nIn informal speech (mostly among male speakers), however, it can be used to\ncount many different **_inanimate_** objects. Saying 「[写真]{しゃしん}もう[一丁]{いっちょう}」\nto mean \"one more pic\" is no problem.\n\nI am sure that is not something they would actively teach in Japanese-as-a-\nforeign-language but among native speakers, it is just pretty normal.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T15:06:37.880",
"id": "24202",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T15:06:37.880",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24201",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "Its use is not limited to photos. もう一丁 is an idiomatic phrase which just means\n\"one more try\", \"give it another shot\".\n\n丁 is also used as a counter for dishes (of food), and today もう一丁 is typically\nheard as a vigorous call in some restaurants (「牛丼、並一丁！」「ラーメン大盛り一丁！ もう一丁！」）. I\nthink you can just memorize it as it is.\n\nPhotographers may say もう一丁 to their subjects, but they never use 丁 to actually\ncount the number of photos or trials (e.g. [*]写真が5丁, [*]あと3丁撮ってみましょう).",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T15:46:21.103",
"id": "24203",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T15:46:21.103",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24201",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 18
}
] |
24201
|
24203
|
24203
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24208",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I was watching はじめしゃちょー on youtube, and I noticed that he keeps adding\n\n> だけども / ですけども\n\nat the end of sentences.\n\nI fully understand the usage of けど, however I have never encountered も (or is\nit もう?) attached to it.\n\nThank you!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T22:25:42.087",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24207",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-09T18:20:03.757",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-09T11:44:51.027",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10043",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"spoken-language",
"conjunctions"
],
"title": "Meaning of だけども / ですけども",
"view_count": 3763
}
|
[
{
"body": "けど is the short form of けれども, which could be written け(れ)ど(も), because all of\nけれども, けれど, けども, けど are used.\n\nけども is what, in my experience, is often used in a half formal, half informal\nsetting. It is more refined than けど, but not quite as stiff as けれども.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-08T22:38:39.203",
"id": "24208",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-08T22:38:39.203",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24207",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "けれども is a contradictory conjugation expressing something along the lines of\n\"but\" or \"however.\" The ど/ども part in this expression is the part that\nexpresses the contradiction. By a means of shortening one's speech (through\nlaziness, etc.) the different forms came into usage.\n\nThe shortening is analogous to contractions in English (cannot -> can't). As\nsuch, this changes the formality/politeness of the expression.\n\nThe politeness of けれども gradually degrades in the following order:\n\nけれども → けれど → けども → けど\n\n[Most polite] → [Least polite]\n\nSource: goo辞書\n\n>\n> 【３】「けれども」は、「が」と用法上の違いはなく、ほとんどの場合言い換えが可能である(例文(1)(2)(3)、と用法の対応は「が」に同じ)。話し言葉で「けれども」を用いるほうが丁寧な感じを与えるという程度に過ぎない。一方、文章語としては「けれども」よりも「が」を用いることが多い。なお、「けれども」は「けれど」「けども」「けど」の形でも用いられるが、この順で丁寧さが薄れ、特に後の二つはくだけた話し言葉でしか用いられない。\n\n<http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/thsrs/17237/m0u/>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-09T18:20:03.757",
"id": "24215",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-09T18:20:03.757",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10047",
"parent_id": "24207",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
24207
|
24208
|
24208
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24216",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've been reading the section on viewpoint in A Dictionary of Basic Japanese\nGrammar (DBJG). In it he states that the following sentence is ungrammatical\n\n> 私のむすこは私にしかられた\n>\n> My son was scolded by me\n\nThe claim is that 'the passive construction requires the viewpoint of the\nreferent of the subject'. Now I'm not sure I understand that phrase but I\ninterpret it as follows. The subject is 'my son' and 'my son' is referring to\n'son', therefore, the referent of the subject is 'son'. Is this correct?\n\nIt also references rule B which says 'When a sentence includes the structure,\nA's B, the speaker is taking A's viewpoint rather than B's'. Therefore since\nthe sentence begins 'My son' it is taking 'my' viewpoint rather than the son's\nviewpoint. Applying these two rules results in a contradiction thus rendering\nthe sentence ungrammatical. But here's where it goes wrong. I have an example\nin another book which claims to be perfectly grammatical.\n\n> Mikeさんの手紙がMaryさんに読まれました。\n\nThis sentence contains the same contradiction that according to the first rule\nthe sentence should be from the viewpoint of the 'letter' but according to the\nsecond rule it is from the viewpoint of Mike.\n\nSo, have I completely misinterpreted these rules (I'm sure I must have since\nany passive sentence that began nounのnoun would be incorrect.)? If so how\nshould I interpret these rules? What is it that makes the first sentence\nungrammatical and the second one okay?\n\nI read another rule: 'The speaker usually describes a situation from his own\nviewpoint rather than from others' when he is involved in the situation. So I\nsuppose that might make my first example invalid, but consider this\nconversation in which person B is a teacher at the school:\n\nA) All the children at school got scolded today. My son was scolded by Mrs\nnasty. How about yours?\n\nB) My son was scolded by me\n\nWould 私のむすこは私にしかられた still be incorrect in this scenario?\n\nSorry for the long question. I've looked at all the other material on this\nsite and nothing has eased my confusion so far.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-09T12:49:34.570",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24210",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-09T18:20:30.353",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"passive-voice"
],
"title": "Confusion with passive voice",
"view_count": 664
}
|
[
{
"body": "Sentences in Japanese tend to revolve around the perspective of animate\nobjects rather than inanimate objects. Because passive sentences are seen from\nthe subject's perspective rather than the agent's (which is pretty much the\nmain reason to use passive), it sounds weird to have an inanimate subject and\nan animate agent.\n\nThis is true in English, too. The sentence, \"the door was opened by him\", does\nnot sound natural at all because the subject is inanimate and the agent is\nanimate. A much better choice would be a non-passive construction: \"he opened\nthe door\", because then the viewpoint is the animate object.\n\nWhen both the subject and agent are animate, there is still a preference of\nwhich should be the viewpoint of the sentence. Here is a general order of the\npreferred viewpoint:\n\n 1. Speaker\n 2. Someone from speaker's \"uchi\" (friends, family, etc.)\n 3. Listener\n 4. Anyone else\n\nThe sentence should take the viewpoint of whichever object is higher on the\nlist. In your first given sentence, for example, both objects are animate: 私\nand 私のむすこ. But because 私 is higher on the list than 私のむすこ, it should take\nprecedence and should be the main focus of the sentence. If there is a tie\n(probably either both from \"uchi\" or two people socially distant from the\nspeaker), or both are inanimate objects, then it doesn't matter much who the\nviewpoint is.\n\nThere are gray areas, though, so there could be some exceptions. Just the\nmentioning of Mike in the other example might make the subject seem somewhat\nanimate. I don't know if this is really any grammar rule but determining what\nmakes it animate and what doesn't.\n\nAlso, all of this only really applies to passive constructions where the agent\nis explicitly stated. Removing 私に from the first one would make it a valid\nsentence.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-09T18:20:30.353",
"id": "24216",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-09T18:20:30.353",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9749",
"parent_id": "24210",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24210
|
24216
|
24216
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24213",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Recently I was told about a popular concept among japanese women concerning\nchoice of the future husband. The concept was called '3 高' - three high\npoints, meaning that a good husband should have: 1) high salary; 2) high\nsocial status; 3) and be tall. Later I was told that '3 高' is not valid\nanymore, as is nowadays replaced by '3 低' - three low points. Could someone\nplease tell what these 3 low points are?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-09T13:04:17.320",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24211",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-01T02:05:44.267",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10046",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"culture"
],
"title": "The \"3 highs\" and \"3 lows\" when choosing a husband",
"view_count": 1009
}
|
[
{
"body": "「[三低]{さんてい}」 consists of:\n\n1.「[低姿勢]{ていしせい}」(low profile):\n\nWe now must keep a low profile to be preferred by Japanese women in 21st\ncentury. We must be polite, non-swaggering and sincere.\n\n2.「[低依存]{ていいぞん}」(low reliance):\n\nWe shall not rely on our female partners for all the household chores.\n\n3.「[低]{てい}リスク」(low risk):\n\nWe must choose a career that is relatively stable like that of a government\nemployee, teacher, etc. We must acquire special skills, certifications, etc.\nthat no one can take away from us.\n\nBTW, the 「三高{さんこう}」 mentioned in English by the questioner are\n「高収入{こうしゅうにゅう}」、「高学歴{こうがくれき}」 and 「高身長{こうしんちょう}」 in the original Japanese.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-09T13:49:24.583",
"id": "24213",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-01T02:05:44.267",
"last_edit_date": "2020-02-01T02:05:44.267",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24211",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 14
}
] |
24211
|
24213
|
24213
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24214",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've heard it a few times, and would have assumed it was written ヘイ had I not\nseen it in writing. It seems to be an informal synonym of はい, used mostly in\nmasculine speech. Also, it's generally pronounced as written, rather than as\nへえ like へい usually is. Is my assessment correct?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-09T13:33:04.207",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24212",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-09T14:27:59.133",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "へい as agreement",
"view_count": 134
}
|
[
{
"body": "I only hope that I am thinking of the 「へい」 that you are talking about.\n\nThe 「へい」 I am thinking of is the 「へい」 that is probably more often heard in\ndramas and period dramas than in real life which is used by male speakers (at\nleast in Kanto) who are being humble to their superiors.\n\nIt means the same as 「はい」.\n\n<https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%B8%E3%81%84-623757#E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.9E.97.20.E7.AC.AC.E4.B8.89.E7.89.88>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-09T14:07:09.627",
"id": "24214",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-09T14:27:59.133",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-09T14:27:59.133",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24212",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24212
|
24214
|
24214
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24218",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I already know that it's hardly used anymore, but for sentences such as\n嬉しゅうございます, is this humble? That is to say, is it inappropriate to use the form\nfor someone of higher social standing (provided they have told you)?\n\nAlso, would the past tense be 嬉しゅうございました?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-09T21:41:37.423",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24217",
"last_activity_date": "2017-01-26T15:09:48.670",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-09T23:50:16.527",
"last_editor_user_id": "9185",
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"honorifics",
"keigo"
],
"title": "～うございます construction",
"view_count": 635
}
|
[
{
"body": "This is called 「ウ[音便]{おんびん}」 and it is one type of the 「音便 (euphonic sound\nchanges)」 that took place around Heian period (794 - 1185).\n\n「ウ音便」, in the simplest terms possible, is the dropping of the \"k\" consonant\nfrom the [連用形]{れんようけい} (continuative form) of i-adjectives.\n\nThe 連用形 of 「うれし **い** 」 is 「うれし **く** 」.\n\nDrop the \"k\" from 「うれし **く** 」 and you have 「うれし **う** 」.\n\nTo make 「うれしう」 even easier to say, you will have 「 **うれしゅう** 」.\n\n「うれしゅうございます」 is a very polite form, and not a humble form per se as you\nsuspected. It can be used by anyone when they want to sound polite. The past\ntense is just as you formed it.\n\nLastly, despite a popular belief among J-learners, this sentence pattern is\nstill **_heavily_** used in many parts of Western Japan. Even in Tokyo, the\nolder and more refined speakers still use 「～～しゅうございます」,「～～しゅう[存]{ぞん}じます」, etc.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-09T23:49:06.413",
"id": "24218",
"last_activity_date": "2017-01-26T15:09:48.670",
"last_edit_date": "2017-01-26T15:09:48.670",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24217",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
}
] |
24217
|
24218
|
24218
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24224",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I happened across this in a document:\n\n> これより前の記事は、サイト内検索をご利用ください。\n\nWhy can you say \"ご利用ください\"? 体言止めい? But, I used to hear ご利用ください used frequently\nin the subways...\n\n\"お仕事ください\" // _(As noted in the accepted answer, this is grammatically correct.\nBut, it does not mean \"please work\". Rather, it means \"please give me work\".)_ \n\"お仕事してください\" // ok\n\n\"お勉強ください\" // ? \n\"勉強してください\" // ok\n\nI suspect that there are a few other サ変名詞 that can also have their \"して\"\ndropped when the intended meaning is \"~~~してください\". Is that correct? What are\nother examples?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T02:52:12.173",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24221",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T03:03:00.713",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-10T14:36:01.633",
"last_editor_user_id": "9509",
"owner_user_id": "9509",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"honorifics"
],
"title": "Is \"して\" dropped in this phrase \"ご利用{りよう}ください\"?",
"view_count": 1090
}
|
[
{
"body": "It's because the word 利用 has been beautified (made to sound more refined) by\nadding ご as a sign of respect to the receiver of the message. More commonly\nyou might hear ご注意ください=please take care, which is a more polite way of saying\n注意してください. There's also 電話してください -> お電話ください.\n\nI'm not really sure why it is possible to drop the して, but one theory I have\nis that the structure changes from two verbs to a single verb when the noun is\nbeautified with お or ご, i.e. from 注意する + くださる to simply ご注意くださる.\n\nA similar thing happens with verbs when you politely ask someone to do\nsomething; 待ってください becomes お待ちください.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T03:48:36.990",
"id": "24222",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-10T03:48:36.990",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7760",
"parent_id": "24221",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "「して」 is **_not_** dropped; It was not there in the first place.\n\n「ご利用」 is an honorific noun and all you need to add is 「ください」 to form a polite\nrequest with it. You just **_cannot_** add 「して」; It is not even an option.\n\nOther common examples include:\n\n「ご[覧]{らん}ください。」(Please have a look.),「お[越]{こ}しください。」(Please\ncome.),「お[求]{もと}めください。」(Please purchase.),「お[試]{ため}しください。」(Please try it\nout.), etc.\n\nAgain, you cannot insert 「して」 into any of those phrases. **_It makes no sense\nto_**.\n\nIf you absolutely must use 「して」 for some reason, you will need to drop the\nhonorific 「お/ご」 and say 「利用 **して** ください。」, but you would need to know that it\nwill not sound as polite or \"refined\" as 「 **ご** 利用ください」.\n\nYou mentioned 体言止め but it has nothing to do with it. 「ください」 is not a 体言, so\nyou cannot call it 体言止め.\n\nLastly, I need to point out another mistake you have made. I am really sorry\nbut someone had to. 「お仕事ください。」 makes perfect sense. It means \"Please give me\n(some) work.\", but not \"Please work.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T07:11:02.700",
"id": "24224",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-10T12:06:33.223",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-10T12:06:33.223",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24221",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "The common way to create humble/respectful forms (謙譲語・尊敬語) of verbs of the\nform Sinitic(音読み)-compound-する, e.g. 利用する is\n\n> (ご)利用する・(ご)利用いたす humble forms \n> ご利用になる・ご利用なさる respectful forms\n\n(Let's ignore for now whether the humble form should have ご or not)\n\nYou could argue that ご利用して下さい requests the other person to be humble, so\nprescriptively it is incorrect (but you do sometimes hear forms like this from\n敬語 speakers, although native).\n\nご利用になって下さい・ご利用なさって下さい are correct, so you might say that it's actually \"になって\"\nor \"なさって\" which is dropped.\n\nWhether you treat ご利用 as a noun or (part of) a verb really depends on the\nanalysis. Although it formally looks like a noun, I personally think it makes\nmore sense to think of it as a verb for several reasons:\n\n 1. Semantically, for ご利用ください, \"Please give me usage\" just doesn't make sense. ください is obviously used in its auxiliary verb sense here, not it's full verb sense.\n 2. *ご利用をください is not possible, which you would expect it to be if ご利用 were a full-blown noun.\n\nThis analysis also makes sense when considering お仕事ください. One way of explaining\nwhy this cannot mean \"please work\" is that there is no verb 仕事する. 仕事する is an\nobject-verb construction 仕事をする with a dropped を.\n\nAs for 勉強, googling I do find some examples of お勉強ください・ご勉強ください meaning \"please\nstudy\", although this construction doesn't strike me as common (maybe because\nit sounds condescending). Note that I've never heard ご勉強 as a standalone noun,\nwhich also suggests that there are special rules at play when 勉強する is used as\na verb.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T22:06:53.003",
"id": "24230",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T03:03:00.713",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-13T03:03:00.713",
"last_editor_user_id": "1073",
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "24221",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24221
|
24224
|
24224
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24225",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Here are some natural ways to say \"no\" in English (please forgive the\nlanguage):\n\n * No\n * God no\n * Hell no\n * F*** no\n\nHow to include the English nuances in Japanese?\n\n* * *\n\nBest attempts:\n\n * No - いいえ or ううん\n * God no - 絶対いや\n * Hell no - ありえへん or ありえない\n * F*** no - ??\n\nMotivating examples:\n\n * Wanna eat soba again tonight? **No.**\n * Do you want to travel on Golden Week? **God no.**\n * Should we run another 10 miles? **Hell no.**\n * Want to go to a Justin Bieber concert? **F*** no.**",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T05:45:14.037",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24223",
"last_activity_date": "2019-12-24T06:19:42.317",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-10T09:57:42.367",
"last_editor_user_id": "10052",
"owner_user_id": "10052",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"translation",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Add English nuances to Japanese \"いいえ\"",
"view_count": 813
}
|
[
{
"body": "I will start by saying that Japanese-speakers do not say 「いいえ」 nearly as often\nas English-speakers say \"No\". 「いいえ」 is simply not an everyday word for many of\nus the same way \"No\" is for English-speakers.\n\nAs an average Japanese-speaker, the first time I ever used 「いいえ」 more than a\ncouple times a week in my life was when I started learning English in junior\nhigh school and was \" ** _required_** \" to translate \"No\" to 「いいえ」 every time\nwe saw the word \"No\" as a reply in the textbook. It was painful as I was not\naccustomed to saying 「いいえ」 out loud.\n\n**In Japanese, we answer questions negatively mainly by negating the main\nverb, adjective or noun used in the question itself**.\n\nTo the question \"Wanna eat soba again tonight?\", for instance, practically no\nJapanese-speakers will reply, 「いいえ」, believe it or not. That would be an\nincredibly firm denial if someone actually replied that way.\n\nMild-to-medium negation:\n\n「（ううん）、あまり/イマイチ/そんなに(Verb)たくない/(Na-adjective)じゃない/(I-adjective)くない。」\n\n「（それは and/or ちょっと）ないかも。」、「（それは and/or ちょっと）ありえないかも。」、「（それは and/or ちょっと）ムリかな。」\n\n「それはちょっと・・・」← Kinda versatile, but do not overuse it!\n\nStrong negation:\n\n「いや/いやだ、[絶対]{ぜったい}(Verb)たくない/(Na-adjective)じゃない/(I-adjective)くない。」\n\n「そんなわけねぇだろっ！」、「そんなわけないだろっ！」、 「なわけないっしょ！」、「ありえねえよ！」(そんな＝んな＝な)\n\n「(Verb)はず（or わけ）ねぇだろっ！」、「(Verb)たいわけねぇだろっ！」\n\n「絶対（or 100パー）ムリ！」、「絶対ダメ！」、「絶対ない」, etc.\n\n「100パー～～（たく）ない！」\n\nI count on your ability to conjugate verbs and adjective to fit into these\nexpressions.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T15:29:39.270",
"id": "24225",
"last_activity_date": "2019-12-24T06:19:42.317",
"last_edit_date": "2019-12-24T06:19:42.317",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24223",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 16
}
] |
24223
|
24225
|
24225
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24231",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "How would you say it in Japanese? 「母みたいでよかった」？If not, then how?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T18:07:35.007",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24226",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-10T22:35:50.167",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "'I'm glad I look like my mother'",
"view_count": 227
}
|
[
{
"body": "「[母]{はは}みたいでよかった。」 **_could_** mean \"I am glad I look like my mother.\", but\nwithout any context to explain that you are talking about the physical\nresemblance, it would usually just mean \"I am glad I **am** like my mother.\"\n\nTo express \"I am glad I **look** like my mother.\" in a single sentence all by\nitself, you would say:\n\n「[母親似]{ははおやに}でよかった。」\n\nKids would say 「お[母]{かあ}さん[似]{に}でよかった。」 and they can say it to anyone. Because\nof the word 「お母さん」, adults can say that only when talking to other family\nmembers.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T22:35:50.167",
"id": "24231",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-10T22:35:50.167",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24226",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24226
|
24231
|
24231
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24234",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "According to jisho, when 三分 means three minutes, it is pronounced さんぷん,\nhowever Google Translate mentions it as さんぶ. Are any of these wrong, or is it\ndialect? Are there other pronunciations?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T19:42:58.223",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24227",
"last_activity_date": "2016-08-15T01:34:07.777",
"last_edit_date": "2016-08-15T01:34:07.777",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "9953",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"pronunciation"
],
"title": "Pronunciation of 三分 when it means three minutes",
"view_count": 966
}
|
[
{
"body": "Jisho is correct, you should pronounce it さんぷん.\n\nThere are many way to read kanji and it is impossible to read all the kanji\ncorrect way for machine translation(including Google translate).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T20:39:40.650",
"id": "24228",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-10T20:39:40.650",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9608",
"parent_id": "24227",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "「三分」 can be read in three different ways -- pun, bun, and bu.\n\n\"Three minutes\": 「さん **ぷん** 」\n\n\"One third\": 「さん **ぶん** のいち」（三分の一）\n\n\"Percentage\": 「 **ぶ** 」 \"My batting average is 230.\" =\n「ボクの[打率]{だりつ}は[二割三分]{にわりさんぶ}です。」",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T22:55:42.930",
"id": "24234",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-10T22:55:42.930",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24227",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
24227
|
24234
|
24234
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24241",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When I'm introduced to a new place I often like to figure out the literal\nmeaning of the characters as I find it can be a useful general vocabulary\nbuilding exercise, particularly for things such as birds, trees, flowers. But\noften this is not possible because of seemly abstract or outdated use of a\ncharacter. In particular, 相 is often used as the first character in many place\nnames, e.g. 相武台, 相模原, 相場市 (looking this up in WWWJDIC names will also give\ndozens of results). What's the general story with this character being used at\nthe start of place names? Would it generally be related to some sort of\nadministrative centre from the olden days?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T22:02:57.230",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24229",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T02:37:59.397",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7760",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"kanji"
],
"title": "相 used in names",
"view_count": 263
}
|
[
{
"body": "The very first thing I would like to mention is that names (whether given to\nplaces or people) do not necessarily correspond to a pre-existant precise\nmeaning or pronunciation. See for example this\n[question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/5529/which-readings-\nwould-you-use-to-pronounce-peoples-names) and [this\narticle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan/Place_names_with_unusual_readings).\n\n> Of course, there are also occasions when a placename's reading has no\n> connection whatsoever with the kanji used to write it, and must simply be\n> known or memorized. These names often derive from poetic associations,\n> nicknames, or other pseudonyms that have come to be associated with the\n> place over time. One of the most famous examples of this is Yamato (大和), a\n> word that refers to the earliest Japanese state and culture, and to the\n> Japanese people as a whole, while also being used as the name for a number\n> of places. The characters used to write it would, in other contexts, most\n> usually be read as \"Daiwa\", meaning \"Great Harmony\" or \"Great Japan\".\n\nIn the case you mention, it is maybe easier to answer : both 相武台{そうぶだい} and\n相模原｛さがみはら｝ are related. I could not find 相場市 anywhere, I think it may be a\nmistake.\n\n * 相武台 name was given when the Japanese self-defence forces moved to what was at the time 座間｛ざま｝村｛むら｝, and the name was given by emperor Showa. This was apparently due to the old name of the administrator of the region, 相武国造{さがむのくにのみやつこ}. \n * Same goes for 相模原, which comes from the old 相模国｛さがむのくに｝ that appeared when the territories of 相武国造 and 師長{しなが}国造 were fused.\n\nHowever, the origin of 相武 is controversed and unclear, see the [wikipedia\narticle](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9B%B8%E6%A8%A1%E5%9B%BD) (section\n沿革, third paragraph) for more details. To quickly recapitulate :\n\n * It may come from the name of predecessors : 身狭上{ムサガミ}, 佐斯上{サシガミ}\n * The main produce of the region at the time was 苧{カラムシ} and mispronounced enough, could have turned into what we know today.\n * It may be a corruption of 坂見｛さかみ｝, the land that can be seen from the hill (i.e. Hakone).\n\nSo the origin for your examples is already unclear, I don't think there is a\ndefinitive answer. I encourage you to thumb through the [list of\nplaces](http://www.fallingrain.com/world/JA/a/30456) starting with 相 to check\nif you find a common pattern.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T02:20:18.347",
"id": "24241",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T02:37:59.397",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3614",
"parent_id": "24229",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24229
|
24241
|
24241
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "How would you say \"my experience at X\", e.g. \"my experience at university\". Is\n「私の大学のけいけん」correct for this usage?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T22:37:43.213",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24232",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-10T22:43:43.780",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4503",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"usage"
],
"title": "How to say \"my experience at place X\"?",
"view_count": 1994
}
|
[
{
"body": "It would be 「[私]{わたし}の[大学]{だいがく}での[経験]{けいけん}」 or 「大学での私の経験」.\n\nYou would need to use 「での」 instead of 「の」.\n\n「大学での経験」, without using a pronoun, is just fine as well.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T22:43:43.780",
"id": "24233",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-10T22:43:43.780",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24232",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24232
| null |
24233
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For example, for \"I think I need more teachers\" - would 「私は先生が多いひつようとすると思います」\nbe the correct usage for 「ひつよう」？",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T23:31:23.643",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24235",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T04:39:00.907",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4503",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"usage"
],
"title": "How to say \"I need more of X\"? - usage of 「ひつよう」",
"view_count": 170
}
|
[
{
"body": "\"先生が多い必要とすると思います\" is not valid:\n\n * \"先生が - 必要とする\" means \"The teacher(s) need[s] (something)\". When we need teachers, use either \"先生を必要とする\" or \"先生が必要だ\".\n * If placed like this, the 多い has to work like an adverb : \"先生を多く必要とする\"\n * If one insist on \"多い\" form, it has to modify the noun \"先生\": \"*多い先生を必要とする\" -- and there's one more trap: in such usage, \"多くの先生を必要とする\" is the proper form. (when you need a young teacher, you can just say \"若い先生を必要とする\").\n * (Additionally, \"多い\" is many, more is \"より多い\".)\n\nThe proper ways are:\n\n> 先生をより多く必要とすると思います\n>\n> より多くの先生を必要とすると思います.\n\nOr\n\n> 先生がより多く必要だと思います\n>\n> より多くの先生が必要だと思います.\n\nIn everyday usage, \"もっと\" might sound more smooth, examples for which are\nmentioned in @oldergod 's answer.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T04:39:00.907",
"id": "24244",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T04:39:00.907",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4223",
"parent_id": "24235",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24235
| null |
24244
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Does 「わるいところ」 also have the meaning of \"negative aspect\"? This I heard from a\nJapanese friend. If not, how would one say \"the negative aspect of X\"?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-10T23:54:31.930",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24236",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T02:01:03.013",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4503",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"usage"
],
"title": "Does 「わるいところ」also have the meaning of \"negative aspect of X\"",
"view_count": 118
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes, わるいところ could indeed mean \"negative aspect.\" ところ literally means \"place\",\nand this can be broadly interpreted as an actual place, a point in time, a\ncharacteristic, etc.\n\nSome other examples of ところ used in the broader sense:\n\n> ドレスのシンプルなところが好きだ。\n>\n> I like the simplicity of the dress. (Characteristic)\n>\n> 彼は高慢なところがない。\n>\n> He has no pride. (Characteristic)\n>\n> 列車は出たところだ.\n>\n> The train just left. (Point in time)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T02:01:03.013",
"id": "24240",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T02:01:03.013",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9749",
"parent_id": "24236",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24236
| null |
24240
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "As I use Rosetta Stone to learn Japanese, I only use the Kanji mode (except\nwhen I forget the reading for a kanji and then flip it briefly to furigana\nmode). However, I've found that for some reason there are many words that\nRosetta Stone seems to arbitrarily choose to use hiragana instead of kanji.\n\nExamples:\n\n```\n\n ぼく instead of 僕\n こわれる instead of 壊れる\n かさ instead of 傘\n はしご instead of 梯子\n \n```\n\nand many more.\n\nIs this due to the kanji being to complex accoring to Rosetta Stone or is this\na situation where hiragana is typically used instead of kanji? From what I've\nbeen able to find in online dictionaries, these aren't flagged as \"typically\nwritten as hiragana\". Since we're reading these words and not writing these\nwords, I would have expected them to favor the kanji forms.\n\nWhat further seems to confuse me is when reading manga, I've seen 僕, ぼく, and\nボク used.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T01:59:59.003",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24239",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T03:39:52.317",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-11T02:32:22.620",
"last_editor_user_id": "10056",
"owner_user_id": "10056",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"hiragana"
],
"title": "Rosetta Stone's usage of kana for words instead of kanji",
"view_count": 1012
}
|
[
{
"body": "**僕 and ぼく** \n僕 is more common, but ぼく is also used in casual situation.\n\n**こわれる and 壊れる** \n壊れる is much more common. こわれる is acceptable to use.\n\n**かさ and 傘** \nBoth are common to use.\n\n**はしご and 梯子** \nはしご is much more common. 梯子 could be used, but it is not recommended.\n\nIn general you can refer\n[常用漢字一覧](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B8%B8%E7%94%A8%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7)\nto find out individual kanji is common or not. If [常用漢字]{じょうようかんじ} is a list\nof basic kanji that are recommended to use in everyday life. In other word, if\na kanji is not listed in the [常用漢字一覧]{じょうようかんじいちらん}, the kanji is usually too\ncomplicated to use in everyday life. In that case, you should use Hiragana\ninstead.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T03:39:52.317",
"id": "24242",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T03:39:52.317",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9608",
"parent_id": "24239",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24239
| null |
24242
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24246",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'd like to know how to politely ask someone (as a question, not a statement)\nto do something for me in Japanese. I'm already aware of the basic \"___をください\"\nand \"___をおねがいします\" patterns, but I don't want to use these because they\nactually sound very rude to me.\n\nPersonally, I never say things like \"Give me that book, please\" in English,\nbecause it sounds rather demanding, (since it is a statement) and adding\n\"please\" at the end doesn't do much to make this sound polite, IMO. I would\ninstead say something like \"Could you please give me that book?\" or \"Would you\nmind handing me that book?,\" etc.\n\nThe primary difference to me is that asking for things in question forms\nsounds much more natural to me. I feel uncomfortable saying things like\n\"みずをおねがいします。\" regardless of whether or not this is considered perfectly polite\nin Japanese. I would just prefer another polite way to ask for things.\n\nCould someone give me Japanese sentence patterns similar to: \n\"Could you please ____?\" \n\"Would you mind ____?\" \n\"Could I have you ____, please?\" \n\"If it isn't too much trouble, could I get you to ____ for me?\"\n\nThank you.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T04:10:51.577",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24243",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T07:18:14.237",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-11T04:38:14.120",
"last_editor_user_id": "10057",
"owner_user_id": "10057",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage",
"politeness",
"questions",
"phrase-requests"
],
"title": "How to ask someone to do something for you",
"view_count": 24329
}
|
[
{
"body": "Even though Eric says it is not rude to use ください is japanese, based on your\nquestion, you are looking for a softer way to ask/request things.\n\n・ください is like a formal and cold please but can be a bit straight sometimes.\nYou can use it when you are the customer or the supervisor. Otherwise, to\navoid this straightness, the sentence is often turned the other way around\n_asking_ for the _permission_ of your interlocutor.\n\n * If you want to do something: verb-させてください。\n * If you want something：何かを頂いてもいいですか。or 何かを頂けませんか。\n * If you want someone to do something：あれをやって頂けませんか。etc.\n\nFinally, _Give me that book, please_ would be \"その本を渡して頂けませんか。\".\n\n_ps: there is a million ways to ask stuff like this so I would recommend to\npick something you like first and watch what people around you use to learn\nnew ones._",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T05:52:14.063",
"id": "24246",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T07:18:14.237",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-11T07:18:14.237",
"last_editor_user_id": "1065",
"owner_user_id": "1065",
"parent_id": "24243",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24243
|
24246
|
24246
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24249",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Context before lines: やまだ (a delinquent) explains to his friends the\nunfortunate events that lead to him being hated throughout the school, and\nthen they respond as so:\n\n```\n\n Ａ： なんて悲劇よ やまだのくせに\n Ｂ： さすがにこれは同情するなあ\n やまだ：「くせに」とか「さすがに」は余計だろう\n \n```\n\nWhat does さすがに actually do here? I've looked up the definition and usage but\nit still isn't really that clear to me. Could it be do with how him being\nhated is largely not his fault, but rather his old friend that made him take\nthe blame, and whilst the person who said this wouldn't be sympathetic if it\nwas his fault, but since it isn't then he is. Or what else could it mean?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T07:19:49.340",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24247",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T09:42:05.977",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-11T09:42:05.977",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10059",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "The meaning of さすがにこれは同情する",
"view_count": 489
}
|
[
{
"body": "The nuance of including さすがに is like saying \"(normally I wouldn't sympathize\nwith you, but) this was just so bad that I have to\".\n\nIncidentally, that nuance is already there to some degree with 「これは{LLH}」, but\nthat's not as explicit or as easy to 突っ込む. :)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T08:21:00.477",
"id": "24249",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T08:21:00.477",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3097",
"parent_id": "24247",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24247
|
24249
|
24249
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24263",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "An example phrase from\n[プログレッシブ和英中辞典](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/20383/m0u/%E7%9C%A9%E3%82%80/)\n\n> 目もくらむばかりの宝石の山 a dazzling heap of gems\n\nCan ばかり here be safely replaced by ほど, くらい etc. without changing the meaning?\nIs this how ばかり+の (with ばかり working as a pseudo-noun here, I assume?) preceded\nby a predicative form works, to emphasize the predicate?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T10:54:24.077",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24251",
"last_activity_date": "2016-04-20T18:19:56.660",
"last_edit_date": "2016-04-20T18:19:56.660",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-ばかり"
],
"title": "ばかり usage in 目もくらむばかりの宝石の山",
"view_count": 243
}
|
[
{
"body": "Your assumption is right. That ばかり was originally used in the form of\n目もくらまんばかり, which meant \"so much that you are only escaping being dazzled\" →\n\"so much that you are nearly dazzled\". In that sense, it's interchangeable as\nyou said. And, if there's a difference from ほど・くらい at all, it could be that\nばかり's version is a rhetorical expression and thus, could sound more\nimpressive.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T08:19:01.370",
"id": "24263",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-12T08:19:01.370",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24251",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24251
|
24263
|
24263
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24253",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> たえ子が入っていったのはジュエリーの有名店である。高級店のたたずまいに怖じ気づきつつ、たえ子 **に** 続く。\n\n(from the book\n[おまえじゃなきゃだめなんだ](http://books.bunshun.jp/ud/book/num/9784167902759).)\n\nI understand this sentence as\n\n> The store Taeko entered was a famous jewelry store, and while she was\n> intimidated by the fancy shop, たえ子に続く.\n\nI don't get the last part, whether it means \"she went on\" or something else\nbecause に denotes a place at which something is or a direction towards\nsomething, so shouldn't it be たえ子がつづく？",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T13:40:18.147",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24252",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T14:13:54.727",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-11T14:13:54.727",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"meaning"
],
"title": "Use of に in this sentence",
"view_count": 149
}
|
[
{
"body": "It needs to be 「たえ[子]{こ} **に** [続]{つづ}く」 and not 「たえ子 **が** 続く」.\n\n「たえ子 **に** 続く。」＝「私 **は** たえ子 **に** 続く。」\n\nIt means \"I followed Taeko (into the store).\"\n\n「たえ子 **が** 続く」 makes no sense because Taeko has already entered the store.\nTaeko cannot follow Taeko.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T13:51:59.773",
"id": "24253",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T13:51:59.773",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24252",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24252
|
24253
|
24253
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What is the proper syntax for questions like \"When was this message sent?\" or\n\"When did you receive my message?\". Another example would be \"What time was it\nwhen was this message received?\".\n\nBeyond that I'm having an inordinate amount of trouble with these things:\n\n 1. In the case of IMs would 送信する、送る、or something else used as the verb?\n\n 2. What verb form would be used for sent/received? is it a direct passive?\n\n 3. Which 何時 would it be? Would なんじ, いつ, or something else be used here? \n\nI'm looking for the right syntax as much as or more than the right words. I'm\nnot really sure why this is harder for me than other \"when\" questions.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T18:39:12.370",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24257",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T22:17:53.203",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-11T19:15:03.493",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10064",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"time"
],
"title": "Asking about \"time sent\" and \"time received\"",
"view_count": 224
}
|
[
{
"body": "なんじ refers to a time of day. いつ is a generic \"when\". I see why you're\nconfused, but いつ is going to be the more common in this context. なんじ is more\nof a fixed time of day as opposed to いつ, which is far more general. You\n**can** use なんじ, and it's not unnatural at all, but I think it reflects\nsomething of a \"what time did you receive my text\" rather than a \"when did you\nreceive my text\".\n\n送る and 送信する are both used for messaging. I use 送る as a person because it's\nmore natural. 送信 is just too formal / mechanical.\n\nIt's passive if you need it to be. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Just\nremember that メッセージ is the _noun_ for messages.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-11T22:17:53.203",
"id": "24259",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-11T22:17:53.203",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24257",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24257
| null |
24259
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24261",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Thinking about sentence structure in Japanese. Given that the simplest\nsentence in Japanese is a stand-alone verb, would it be valid to say that the\nrest of the sentence is an adverbial clause, and that the particles simply\ndefine how the rest of the sentence modifies the verb?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T02:07:50.077",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24260",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-12T17:42:02.210",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4314",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Adverbial Clauses",
"view_count": 887
}
|
[
{
"body": "Well, depends on what you mean by \"adverbial clause\". If you try to interpret\nthat term extremely formally in a linguistic sense, no, it's not.\n\nBut, I think you're generally on to something:\n\nPredicates (which can be verbs, i-adjectives, or nouns/na-adjectives + the\ncopula), take:\n\n 1. arguments (parts of the clause that are necessary to understand the predicate), e.g.,\n\n> **ジョンが** 行{い}く。 \n> \" **John** will go.\"\n\n 2. adjuncts (parts of the clause that aren't necessary to understand the predicate), e.g.,\n\n> **早｛はや}く** 行{い}く。 \n> \"_ will go **quickly**.\"\n\nBoth types of things can fundamentally be understood as \"modifying\" the\npredicate, which I think is what you were trying to get across with the usage\nof the word \"adverb\".\n\n* * *\n\nHowever, there are other types of modifications possible which don't really\nfit into that box. For example, relative clauses such as\n\n> ［ **昨日{きのう}行｛い}った** ］店｛みせ} \n> \"the store [ **I went to yesterday** ]\"\n\nare not modifying a predicate (since there is no predicate), they're modifying\na noun phrase (in this case 店/\"store\").\n\nThere are also many other constructions, for example conditionals,\n\n> **学校{がっこう}に行｛い}けば** 、友達{ともだち}と会{あ}える。 \n> \" **If I go to school,** I can see my friends.\"\n\nwhere it's much more of a stretch to understand them as directly modifying the\npredicate (会える).\n\nPerhaps you should consider taking a linguistics course if this sort of thing\ninterests you? :-)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T06:27:21.160",
"id": "24261",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-12T17:42:02.210",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-12T17:42:02.210",
"last_editor_user_id": "3097",
"owner_user_id": "3097",
"parent_id": "24260",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24260
|
24261
|
24261
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24265",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Example sentence from 研究社 新和英大辞典 第５版:\n\n> その詩人の発想はまことに融通無碍｛ゆうずうむげ｝、 操る言葉は自由自在だ The poet has a truly unlimited command\n> of ideas and manipulates words with complete freedom.\n\nAt the moment I can only see it as a compound sentence that could be split\ninto:\n\n> その詩人の発想はまことに融通無碍（だ）\n\nand\n\n> 操る言葉は自由自在だ\n\n融通無碍 is listed as an noun or adjective (形動) by 大辞泉. Therefore, shouldn't it be\nin connective form 融通無碍で～ or ～であり～?\n\n> その詩人の発想はまことに融通無碍で、 操る言葉は自由自在だ。\n>\n> その詩人の発想はまことに融通無碍であり、 操る言葉は自由自在だ。\n\nPlease help me understand the original sentence.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T09:39:24.333",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24264",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-12T10:46:33.077",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"syntax"
],
"title": "Why is connective form missing from this sentence?",
"view_count": 120
}
|
[
{
"body": "The meaning of this sentence is the same as those with で/であり.\n\nOmitting certain verbs such as だ/です makes this sentence sound somewhat more\nrhythmical and crisp. I think this is at least closely related to so-called\n体言【たいげん】止【ど】め, a common rhetorical technique in which a sentence is ended with\na noun.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T10:40:22.937",
"id": "24265",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-12T10:40:22.937",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24264",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "You have pretty much answered your own question.\n\nWhen a sentence consists of multiple clauses where each is about the same\ntopic and each can logically end with the same verb, auxiliary verb or\nadjective, you can omit that word in all of the clauses except for the last.\n\n> 「その[詩人]{しじん}の[発想]{はっそう}はまことに[融通無碍]{ゆうずうむげ}、\n> [操]{あやつ}る[言葉]{ことば}は[自由自在]{じゆうじざい} **だ** 。」\n\nis an example of such a sentence. Here, the auxiliary verb 「だ」 at the end is\nthe key word.\n\nAdd the same 「だ」 to the first clause and you will have a perfect sentence:\n\n> 「その詩人の発想はまことに融通無碍 **だ** 。」\n\nThat means you can drop that 「だ」 because it will be \"saved\" till the end of\nthe whole sentence. What we actually dropped is the 連用形 of 「だ」, which is「で」\nbecause the sentence continues on after that first clause.\n\nRegarding 「であり」, one could only say that it was 「であり」 that was omitted **_ONLY\nIF_** the whole sentence ended with 「である」.\n\nThis time, it is 「だ」 that ends the sentence; therefore, it is its continuative\nform 「で」 that was omitted from the first clause.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T10:46:33.077",
"id": "24266",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-12T10:46:33.077",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24264",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24264
|
24265
|
24265
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24270",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've seen Japanese women address their husbands with the -sama suffix. Would\nit be appropriate for a man do the same in some cases? In which context can\nthis be used?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T13:41:00.057",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24267",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T00:34:10.697",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-13T00:30:43.157",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "7898",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"usage",
"honorifics",
"suffixes"
],
"title": "Can a man address a woman with sama 様【さま】?",
"view_count": 3960
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes.\n\n～様 is an honorific and can be easily thought of as a more respectful version\nof ～さん. It is gender neutral, so it can be used by both men and women when\naddressing either gender.\n\nIt is often used when addressing someone of a higher social position, or\nsomeone for whom you have high regards. On a day-to-day basis, it's commonly\nused to address customers.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T14:09:46.117",
"id": "24270",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T00:34:10.697",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-13T00:34:10.697",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10068",
"parent_id": "24267",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] |
24267
|
24270
|
24270
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "## Background information\n\n(Do point out if I got anything wrong along the way)\n\nSo I'm working through Jay Rubin's Making Sense of Japanese, and I've\nfamiliarized myself with the concept of zero pronouns, and his aversion to the\n\"passivication\" of active sentences.\n\nFrom what I can gather, zero pronouns are used when the context makes it\nclear. Following that, Rubin warns against overlooking a zero pronoun subject,\nand interpreting an active sentence as a passive one.\n\nFor instance, when answering questions about what I had for lunch,\n\n> Original text: 犬｛いぬ｝を食｛た｝べた。\n\nshould be translated actively as\n\n> I ate a dog.\n\nand not passively as\n\n> A dog was eaten.\n>\n> A dog was eaten by me.\n\nBecause that would _shift the focus of the statement from the agent on to the\npatient_ , by changing the subject from 'I' to 'a dog'. (Is this a kind of a\nsemantic loss?)\n\n## Question\n\nConversely, in a English to Japanese translation from an active sentence\n\n> I ate a dog.\n\nto passive sentences such as\n\n> 犬が食べられた。\n>\n> 犬が私に食べられた。\n\nis there a similar loss in emphasis or topic focus along the way?\n\n[According to Earthliŋ\nhere](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/6787/examples-of-when-\npassive-form-in-english-takes-active-non-passive-form-in-japane/6788#6788),\n\"in Japanese, the passive voice leaves the focus of the action on the person\nperforming the action\", which I take to mean that the focus is still on the\nagent of the passive sentence, and not the subject. Is that interpretation\nright?\n\nIf so, does that mean that a passive Japanese → active English translation\nshould be avoided because the initial focus is lost, but an active English →\npassive Japanese translation is alright?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T13:41:01.907",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24268",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T05:52:24.517",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "10068",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"passive-voice"
],
"title": "Emphatic / Focus loss upon translating between active and passive sentences?",
"view_count": 386
}
|
[
{
"body": "(In the first place, I don't think \"in Japanese, the passive voice leaves the\nfocus of the action on the person performing the action\" but on the\nrecipient.)\n\nIt doesn't only change focus or emphasis but also the meaning itself, in other\nwords, 犬が食べられた doesn't mean \"I ate a dog\" or \"a dog was eaten by me\", but\n\"they ate our dog\", more accurately, \"a dog in a closer position in my\nperspective was eaten by someone in a more distant position\".\n\nSo, 犬が私に食べられた sounds as if you are saying it under someone else's perspective.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T05:52:24.517",
"id": "24284",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T05:52:24.517",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24268",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24268
| null |
24284
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24283",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I can't judge the reliability of <http://www.kanjinetworks.com> (and it is\nprobably controversial), but there the speed, movement meaning of 逸 is linked\nto its claimed origins in 兎{うさぎ｝. Hence 逸する, 逸らす and such that involve some\nform of movement.\n\nHowever, there are also words like 逸楽, 安逸 that are linked to pleasure,\nidleness etc. Where does this meaning come from?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T13:55:29.070",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24269",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T05:34:29.803",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-12T14:01:03.937",
"last_editor_user_id": "9771",
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"etymology"
],
"title": "How did 逸 come to feature in pleasure/idleness words?",
"view_count": 292
}
|
[
{
"body": "逸 itself means \"escape\" or \"break loose\". One one hand, this can be used for\nverbs such as 逸する, and on the other hand this \"escape\" has been taken in a\nmore literary sense of \"breaking loose\", which it's not hard to see how it\nbecomes \"relax\" or \"leisure\". This same meaning is present in Chinese.\n\n**Breaking up the character**\n\nAs for the origins, 兔 is the original kanji for ウサギ, with 兎 as a variant.\nStandardization in Japan for some reason picked 兎 for ウサギ rather than the\nfirst one, while leaving 兔 present in 逸. The character is made up of parts for\n\"movement\" and \"rabbit / hare\", both acting to show the meaning of fleeing.\n\n**Kunyomi and finding source of this meaning**\n\nA number of the kunyomi reflect the meaning when it was loaned to Japanese.\nThe kunyomi are: はしる, うしなう, それる\n\nGranted, I've never seen はしる written with this kanji, but it was loaned as a\nreading (showing similar semantic use in Japan when inherited from China).\nHashiru obviously means \"to run\" (written with 走 now), Ushinau means \"to part\nwith\", and soreru means \"to go astray\".\n\n**So where did it come from?**\n\nThe meaning of \"relax\" is used in Chinese compounds, and in none of the\nkunyomi Japan gave the character initially, which suggests that at the time\nJapan started using this kanji it didn't have that meaning, but came to mean\n\"relax\" in China, and so the additional meaning of \"relax\" came along in\ncompounds such as 安逸 and 逸楽 in Japan.\n\ntl;dr came from a development in the Chinese language sometime after kanji\nwere first introduced to Japan.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T14:45:34.287",
"id": "24271",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T05:34:29.803",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-13T05:34:29.803",
"last_editor_user_id": "9185",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24269",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Kanji dictionaries (漢和字典) are what to look up when confronting questions like\nthis. From what I've got from my dictionary:\n\n * My dictionary states 逸 actually is linked to 兎 in origin: \"rabbits run away\" -> to run, to astray.\n * For 安逸 and others, it states that they are used (in modern usage) in substitution for \"佚\", whose phonetic value is also \"いつ\". So 安逸 was originally 安佚．\"佚\" has no kunyomi, and its meanings include \"たのしむ (to enjoy/have fun)\", \"なまける (to be idle)\". 佚 comes from 人+失, and according to the dictionary, the origin is \"まともな生活からそれたひと\", so perhaps it is a good substitute even when considering the meaning.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T04:40:14.420",
"id": "24283",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T04:40:14.420",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4223",
"parent_id": "24269",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24269
|
24283
|
24283
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24280",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I started learning Japanese not long ago and I'm quite confused about two\nnumbers.\n\nSeven and nine, I have learned that seven is shichi and that nine is ku. \nBut I also know that seven is nana, and nine is kyu, actually I cannot\nremember ever hearing anyone use shichi and ku.\n\nSo basically my questions are, why there is more then one word for those\nnumbers in particular and when to use which form.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T18:31:21.277",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24273",
"last_activity_date": "2016-04-30T05:59:57.093",
"last_edit_date": "2016-04-29T16:36:50.013",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9793",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"numbers"
],
"title": "Trying to understand numbers",
"view_count": 5730
}
|
[
{
"body": "The forms derive from two roots: Japanese ones and Chinese ones.\n\nJapanese ones are 1 ひ、2 ふ、3 み、4 よ(ん)、5 い(つ)、6 む、7 _なな_ 、8 や、9 ここの、10 とお etc. \nChinese ones are 1 いち、2 に、3 さん、4 し、5 ご、6 ろく、7 しち、8 はち、9 きゅう (also く)、10 じゅう\n\nGenerally the Chinese ones are more common. They're used for counting objects\nwith counters (if you know what these are), like animals and objects, and even\njust numbers on their own (like 1 + 1 = 2).\n\nThe Japanese ones are used in counting things with a ~つ suffix, which is the\ngeneral counter for objects, and you also see them in some words like ひとり (one\nperson) and ふたり (2 people), as well as in some of the days of the month, and\nin peoples' names.\n\n_Which is more common?_\n\nJapanese ones see much more limited usage, but people will use よん in place of\nし and なな in place of しち to make it clearer which they mean (as they sound\nsimilar). These two are mixed in with Chinese numbers in usage quite a lot.\n\nWhich to use needs to be done on more of a case-by-case basis depending on\nwhat you're talking about, but on the whole Chinese numbers (ichi, ni, san)\nare more commonly used.\n\n**ku**\n\nNot that frequently used, and never on its own. You'll usually hear this one\n(irregularly) instead of きゅう when counting things (September is \"kugatsu\"\nrather than \"kyuugatsu\").",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T19:11:49.573",
"id": "24274",
"last_activity_date": "2016-04-30T05:59:57.093",
"last_edit_date": "2016-04-30T05:59:57.093",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24273",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "To use ku an shichi they are used in different situations one situation is\ntime to say seven o'clock you would say shichi ji. ji indicates hour. It is\nimportant to learn all way of counting when learning the language so that if\nsome one is using the alternate form you can pick up what they are saying.\nExamples ku ji, shichi ji (hours)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T20:45:04.563",
"id": "24277",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T21:14:53.990",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-22T21:14:53.990",
"last_editor_user_id": "9379",
"owner_user_id": "9379",
"parent_id": "24273",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "About pronunciations:\n\n> Shichi/Nana and Kyuu/Ku and Shi/Yon\n\nBoth are all correct, this is a matter of taste, but in some expressions you\nhave to use one in particular.\n\nJapanese will use either _shichi_ or _nana_.\n\nPeople usually use _kyuu_ except in some words like _kugatsu_ as said by\nSqrtbottle.\n\nAlso Japanese would rather not use _shi_ as it has the same pronunciation as\nthe _shi_ in _Shinu_ which means death, but both are perfectly correct and are\na matter of taste. I know several Japanese who use _shi_.\n\nAbout the meaning of numbers:\n\nIt is wrong to say the Chinese root ones are more commonly used. This is just\na different usage. Basically if you start learning Japanese you should start\nby learning:\n\n> いち に さん し/よん ご...\n\nThose are mostly used for mathematics and calculations.\n\nBut for speech, there are a lot of different counting systems. (to count\nthings) The most basic one is like this:\n\n> ひとつ ふたつ みっつ よっつ ...\n\nYou are supposed to use it for counting things, but this is not as simple as\nthat. If you start learning, only knowing both is ok. But to understand daily\nJapanese you need to learn a lot of different counters:\n\n> いっぽん にほん さんぼん (counter for long stuff like bottles, straws etc ...) \n> いちまい にまい さんまい (counter for thin stuff like sheets of paper) \n> いっぱい にはい さんばい (counter for cups of drink) \n>\n\nThere are a lot of those.\n\nSo basically, they all have their own usage. If you don't know the special\ncounters it's ok, just use the basic version (ひとつ ふたつ...), your grammar will\nbe correct. But using special counters is always better, it lets you build\nshorter sentences and will sound more Japanese.\n\nDon't forget, you are not supposed to count stuff with いち に さん.\n\nLet's do some examples:\n\n> いちたすいち : 1 plus 1\n>\n> いっぱいちょうだい : give me one cup\n\nAs you can see in the second one, all you can see is the counter for cups and\n_choudai_ , so implicitly you understand that we are talking about cups. One\nlast example:\n\n３まいたりない : literally means \"I lack 3 thin objects\", but depending on the\ncontext, you could be printing things in the office, people will understand it\nlike: \"I need 3 more sheets of paper to finish my print\", this is how this\nsentence would be translated and how Japanese will understand it. Saying\n[紙]{かみ}がみっつ[足]{た}りない might be grammatically correct but it doesn't sound good.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T20:54:13.303",
"id": "24280",
"last_activity_date": "2016-04-30T05:54:44.483",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7061",
"parent_id": "24273",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24273
|
24280
|
24274
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24279",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "What's the difference between 信じる, 信用する and 信頼する ? How can I know which one to\nuse? According to my dictionary they all mean \"to trust\". Are they\ninterchangeable?\n\nFor example,\n\n> I trust you.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T19:47:51.550",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24275",
"last_activity_date": "2015-07-07T16:38:48.957",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-12T21:13:01.800",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "618",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances",
"verbs"
],
"title": "What's the difference between 信じる, 信用する and 信頼する?",
"view_count": 1122
}
|
[
{
"body": "Off the top of my head I would summarize the differences as follows.\n\n * 信じる is to believe a single fact or statement (or, by extension, believe that something exists or is true)\n * 信用する is to have faith in a source of information\n * 信頼する is to trust a person (or institution)\n\nSo, for example\n\n> 田中さんを信じる。 \n> I believe what Mr. Tanaka said.\n>\n> 田中さんを信用できる。 \n> I can [\"always\"] believe what Mr. Tanaka says.\n>\n> 田中さんを信頼する。 \n> I trust Mr. Tanaka [to always do the right thing].",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T20:52:59.237",
"id": "24279",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-12T21:47:52.967",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24275",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "I understand that 信用 implies trustworthiness based on the past, whereas 信頼\nimplies confidence or reliance on some person/thing for the future.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-07-07T16:38:48.957",
"id": "25562",
"last_activity_date": "2015-07-07T16:38:48.957",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10556",
"parent_id": "24275",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24275
|
24279
|
24279
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24282",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm happy that the following is correct:\n\n> 金曜日にケーキを食べる.\n>\n> I will eat cake on Friday.\n\nBut what about this:\n\n> 今週の金曜日にケーキを食べる\n>\n> I will eat cake (on) this Friday\n\nIn English putting \"on\" in the latter sentence is wrong. Should I use に in\nthis case? Thanks.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T20:51:00.333",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24278",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T11:08:12.320",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-に",
"time"
],
"title": "Does 'this friday' take に",
"view_count": 726
}
|
[
{
"body": "You are making a mistake lots of people make – you are trying to think about\nwhat your sentence will look like in English. You might do this with most\nEuropean languages, but you definitively can't do this with Asian languages.\n\nSo as you said, your first sentence is correct:\n\n> 金曜日にケーキを食べる.\n\nBasically, all you did in your second sentence was indicate that you are\ntalking about this Friday (the Friday of this current week). This is all about\nit, your sentence is, of course, correct:\n\n> 今週の金曜日にケーキを食べる\n\nJapanese is like lego, you basically you do: (something + particle)^n + verb.\nThis is not really true of course since you can have several verbs in a\nsentence, but basically this is like lego so:\n\n> 金曜日に => 今週の金曜日に \n> ケーキを \n> 食べる\n\nSince you kept your sentence structure, you shouldn't ask yourself if your\nsentence is still correct or not. Also, these sentences are also correct:\n\n> ケーキを今週の金曜日に食べる \n> ケーキを金曜日に食べる\n\nI just swapped 2 lego, that's all, so my grammar is still correct.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-12T21:56:35.500",
"id": "24282",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T11:08:12.320",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-13T11:08:12.320",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "7061",
"parent_id": "24278",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24278
|
24282
|
24282
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24287",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Example sentence from\n[プログレッシブ和英中辞典](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/8842/m0u/%E5%A4%A5%E3%81%97%E3%81%84/):\n\n> 彼{かれ}らは騒々{そうぞう}しいことおびただしい They are making a terrible noise [racket].\n\nI don't know if that's 事 or 言, or 殊 (or something else?) so no idea where to\neven start looking...",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T08:15:12.010",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24285",
"last_activity_date": "2020-01-24T04:44:29.217",
"last_edit_date": "2020-01-24T04:44:29.217",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "What does こと mean in 彼らは騒々しいことおびただしい?",
"view_count": 366
}
|
[
{
"body": "I'm fairly sure it's a nominalizer converting the adjective 騒々しい into a noun.\nIn English it would mean \"thing\" with 騒々しいこと meaning the \"noisy thing.\"\n\nIt's not usually written as a kanji, but 事 is the one to pick.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T08:39:46.117",
"id": "24286",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T08:39:46.117",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10045",
"parent_id": "24285",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -2
},
{
"body": "> 「[連体形]{れんたいけい} of Verb or Adjective + **こと** + adjective expressing an\n> extreme degree」\n\nis a fairly common set phrase used to describe an unusually large number or\nhigh frequency. It is used most often when the speaker has a **_negative_**\nopinion of the fact being described.\n\n「連体形」 means the attributive form. 「こと」 nominalizes the preceding verb or\nadjective **_and_** , at the same time, emphasizes its meaning.\n\nこと = 事, but hiragana is preferred for this usage these days.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T09:01:27.370",
"id": "24287",
"last_activity_date": "2018-12-27T16:23:45.863",
"last_edit_date": "2018-12-27T16:23:45.863",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24285",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
24285
|
24287
|
24287
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24289",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Consider the following:\n\n> 良い _yoi_ — 良く _yoku_\n>\n> いい _ii_ — よく _yoku_\n\nWhen typing いい, IME offers 良い in the lookup table. It makes me wonder whether\nいい is just an alias of 良い but it is pronounced differently only in the\ndictionary form.\n\nWhat is the difference between 良い and いい?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T09:42:15.193",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24288",
"last_activity_date": "2019-05-10T20:18:42.907",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9896",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"etymology"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 良い and いい?",
"view_count": 19811
}
|
[
{
"body": "良い can be read as both いい and よい. 良{よ}い is more formal than いい. But they are\nvery similar words, and they are sometimes safely interchangeable. For\nexample, the following words are the same and both mean \"good boy/girl\".\n\nいい子{こ} \n良{よ}い子{こ}\n\nSometimes, いい cannot be replaced with 良い in casual language. For instance, in\nthe Japanese version of Facebook, you call the \"Like\" button, the \"いいね\"\nbutton. If you replace it to \"良いね\", it would be a little bit strange because\nいいね is a casual word, and 良い is somewhat formal. They should go together.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T10:02:06.763",
"id": "24289",
"last_activity_date": "2019-05-10T20:18:42.907",
"last_edit_date": "2019-05-10T20:18:42.907",
"last_editor_user_id": "11670",
"owner_user_id": "9608",
"parent_id": "24288",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 15
}
] |
24288
|
24289
|
24289
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24293",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Somewhere I encountered the following example sentence:\n\n> 小{ちい}さいのより大{おお}きい方{ほう}がいいです。\n\nIt's supposed to mean \"The big (one) is better than the small (one).\" If I\nunderstand correctly, より should directly follow a noun (or a noun-like\nconstruction, ), and 方 shold be attached to a noun using the の particle. So in\nmy opinion, the above sentence should be more like\n\n> 小{ちい}さいより大{おお}きいの方{ほう}がいいです。\n\nor\n\n> 大{おお}きいの方{ほう}が小{ちい}さいよりいいです。\n\nTo make it more confusing, 小さい and 大きい are not nouns, and even as adjectives,\nthey behave specially (sometimes they are treated like い-adjectives, sometimes\nthey require な).\n\nSo my question is, what is the correct way to say \"the big (one) is better\nthan the small (one)\"?\n\nEdit: now that I think about it, 方 and より can be attached to plain-form\nexpressions without the の, so maybe the correct version should not contain の\nat all:\n\n> 大{おお}きい方{ほう}が小{ちい}さいよりいいです。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T10:44:52.123",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24290",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T16:05:20.317",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-13T11:10:19.197",
"last_editor_user_id": "10079",
"owner_user_id": "10079",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"comparative-constructions"
],
"title": "I think it's incorrect: 小さいのより大きい方がいいです。 is it?",
"view_count": 764
}
|
[
{
"body": "First, the の seen in the first sentence is a nominalizer, which converts verbs\nand adjectives into nouns. See [this\npost](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1322/what-is-the-\ndifference-between-%E3%81%AF-and-%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AF) for how it works, but in\nshort, it is の that makes it mean \"small(er) _one_ \" here.\n\nSecond, より (\"than\") doesn't only attach to nouns but to verbs and adjectives\ntoo. It also doesn't change the meaning the former word has.\n\nThird, 方 accepts verbs and adjectives too. It directly attaches to them and\nonly requires の (a different one from the nominalizer mentioned above) before\nit when attached to nouns.\n\nThen you'll know your second and third examples are grammatically wrong, and\nyour last one,\n\n> 大きい方が小さいよりいいです。 _(To be) big is better than (to be) small._\n\nhas a different meaning from what you provided.\n\nLast but not least, 方 has a side effect that it is a nominalizer too! Strictly\nspeaking, 方 is a noun and already means \"the X(-er) side\" (X is what precedes\nit), so you don't need to add an extra equivalent to \"one\" in this part. Now,\nthe original example:\n\n> 小さいのより大きい方がいいです。\n\nis perfectly grammatical for \"The bigger one is better than the smaller one.\"\nor more practically, \"I'd like the bigger one rather than the smaller.\"",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T12:32:35.997",
"id": "24293",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T16:05:20.317",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-14T16:05:20.317",
"last_editor_user_id": "3097",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24290",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] |
24290
|
24293
|
24293
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24298",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "It is a situation that a little girl throwing several raw eggs to two\npolicemen. After that, she was running away and saying the below sentence.\n\nHere is the sentence.\n\n> なっとうもふりかけて **きてやった**",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T10:49:43.643",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24291",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T18:39:35.690",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-13T12:38:44.587",
"last_editor_user_id": "9538",
"owner_user_id": "9559",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "What do the words 「きてやった」 mean?",
"view_count": 1267
}
|
[
{
"body": "きて = くる = come \nやった = やる = do \nきてやった = came and did\n\nSo that's what those two mean by themselves. However, there is also a verb in\nthe て form before that. て + くる form can mean \"come\" in time as well as space:\n\nもってくる = bring \nやってくる = do (until now)\n\nThe second meaning is the opposite of temporal て + いく:\n\nやっていく = do (from now on)\n\nAlso, やった can have a jubilant connotation, like shouting \"I did it!\" \"やった!\"\nWhich still makes sense with the literal translation, but I just thought I\nwould mention it, because it's one of the ways that やる is different from する.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T16:40:03.480",
"id": "24294",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T16:40:03.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9981",
"parent_id": "24291",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "ふりかけてきてやった is composed of three verbs, ふりかける, くる and やる.\n\n振りかける is an ordinary transitive verb meaning _to sprinkle_. くる and やる are\ncalled _subsidiary verbs_ (補助動詞), which are already explained in detail here:\n[What is a subsidiary verb?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/18952/5010)\n\nThe subsidiary verb くる has several roles, some of which can be a bit tricky at\nfirst. From デジタル大辞泉:\n\n> ９ （補助動詞）動詞の連用形に接続助詞「て」が付いた形に付く。 \n>\n> ㋐[少しずつ移行したり、程度が進んだりして、しだいにその状態になる。だんだん…になる。「日増しに暖かくなってきた」「最近太ってきた」](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/676/5010) \n> ㋑ある動作・状態が前から続いている。ずっと…する。…しつづける。「再三、注意してきたことだが」「改良を重ねてきた品種」 \n> ㋒ **ある動作をしてもとに戻る。…しに行って帰る。「買い物に行ってくる」「外国の事情をつぶさに見てこようと思っている」** \n> ㋓ある動作・状態をそのまま続けながら、こちらへ近づく。また、そのようにしてこちらへ至る。「敵が押し寄せてくる」「付き添ってくる」\n\n㋐ is interesting (see the link), but it's not relevant now. The girl used くる\nin the sense of ㋒, because she had done it somewhere else. くる in the sentence\nin question simply means \"go/come and [verb]\", \"[verb] before coming here\",\netc.\n\nAs for the subsidiary verb やる, there are two meanings:\n\n> 15 （補助動詞）動詞の連用形に「て」を添えた形に付く。 \n>\n> ㋐[わざわざあることをしてあげる気持ちや恩着せがましい気持ちをこめて、目下の者のために何かをする。「相談に乗って―・る」「勉強をみて―・る」](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/4464/5010) \n> ㋑ **積極的にそのようにする。ことさらにそのようにしてみせる。「飛び降りて―・る」「舌をかみ切って―・る」**\n\nAgain, ㋐ is common, but the definition ㋑ applies in this sentence. I think it\ncan be translated into English as \"dare to [verb]\", \"[verb] purposely\", \"even\n[verb]\", etc.\n\nAll in all, this sentence means \"I even sprinkled _natto_ (on the policemen,\nbefore I came here)!\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T18:39:35.690",
"id": "24298",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T18:39:35.690",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24291",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24291
|
24298
|
24298
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "> 亜米利加【アメリカ】\n>\n> 伊太利亜【イタリア】\n>\n> 独逸【ドイツ】\n\nI know these spellings are rarely used...\n\nMy question is: Why did they choose exactly these kanji characters for\nspelling these countries' names?\n\nCould they use other kanji characters but with same readings for spelling\nthese countries?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T17:17:32.077",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24295",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-19T10:34:38.583",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3815",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"ateji"
],
"title": "The logic behind kanji choice for country name ateji",
"view_count": 3324
}
|
[
{
"body": "**General phonetic \"rules\"**\n\nFor a lot of words that are now written using Katakana, there was a tiny\namount of logic to it. 亜 transcribed ア virtually exclusively, 伊 is a very\ncommon kanji for transcribing イ, 加 for カ, 利 for リ, and generally the kanji\nfrom which Katakana come is a good rule, though far from perfect (as noted\nwith ア, and in タ which is usually transcribed as 太 (origin of た)) [see image]\n\n\nIn fact, sometimes there aren't even consistent transcriptions for one word.\nアラビア on my IME gives options of 亜拉毘亜 and 亜剌比亜, and even 阿剌比亞 (using the older\nversion of 亜). Nowadays katakana is standard. The website in the comments\nsection of the main post has a much larger list.\n\nSyllables ending with -n tended to be transcribed by syllable (as opposed to\nkana). 芬蘭 (フィンランド) is one example of this.\n\n**Chinese's Influence**\n\nSometimes the transcription was a derivation of the hanzi used to transcribe\nsomething in China. スペイン (西班牙) would by conventional logic be read as\n\"seibanga\", with the most common respective readings of the characters being\nせい、はん、and が. In fact, the origin comes from Chinese, where the word is read as\n\"Xibanya\". Much closer to the pronunciation of \"España\" we're used to! The\nJapanese word is スペイン, obviously a loan from English, but doesn't match these\ncharacters much.\n\n**Meaning**\n\nSometimes a fair few characters are possibilities, and the one chosen doesn't\nfollow any pattern above. One reason for this was the attempt to still keep\nKanji with some semantic (meaning) aspect to the word. フランス、スペイン are both\nexamples of this, with respective characters both containing 西（仏蘭西、西班牙）. This\nmakes the actual transcriptions generally quite messy.\n\n**Other notes**\n\nThere are non-country names that got given kanji to transcribe sounds too,\nincluding 缶{かん}, which was obsolete by the time the Dutch arrived in Japan, so\nwas revived to mean \"can\". 亜細亜 is common for \"Asia\" on wartime post stamps.\n煙草{たばこ} is common, even today, in place of katakana for \"tobacco\" (both chosen\nbecause of meaning purely, and have 0 phonetic relation to the word).\n\nIt's not common to write out entire words like this anymore, with katakana\nlargely replacing it. You'll see it every now and again, but much more\ncommonly these characters are still in frequent use in newspapers as\ncontractions of country names to keep headlines short. Headlines such as\n\n> 独、伊決勝へ！\"Germany and Italy advance to the finals\" (say, in soccer)\n>\n> 米国大統領来日 \"American President Comes to Japan\" (all kanji)\n\nare in the newspaper I have in front of me right now, for example.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T17:45:42.587",
"id": "24296",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T18:34:18.547",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24295",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
},
{
"body": "> _Why did they choose exactly these kanji characters for spelling these\n> countries' names?_\n\nIt's hard to tell _exactly_ why, because these are mixture of various\ntransliterations done by Japanese and Chinese (of course different between\nMandarin or Cantonese or other dialects) speakers that happened to hear the\nsound for the first time.\n\nFor example, there are some old school members which have been known for a\nlong time in fixed Chinese characters: 蒙古{モンゴル}, 西蔵{チベット}, 印度{インド}, 越南{ベトナム},\n希臘{ギリシャ} (funnily the kanji are from endonym _Hellada_ but the reading is from\nPortuguese _Grécia_ ), 埃及{エジプト} etc.\n\nModern (somewhat) systematic namings tend to choose those simple but not-\neveryday-used characters: 伊 (\"yond\"), 亜 (\"minor\"), 尼 (\"nun\") etc.; or those\neuphonious: 英 (\"bright\"), 利 (\"advantage\"), 蘭 (\"orchid\") etc. But there are\nstill many possible options. As you can see in [the WP\npage](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%BD%E5%90%8D%E3%81%AE%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E8%A1%A8%E8%A8%98%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7#.E3.83.A8.E3.83.BC.E3.83.AD.E3.83.83.E3.83.91.E3.81.AE.E5.9B.BD.E3.80.85)\nin @snailboat's comment above, there once was much more arbitrary\ntransliterations, most of which have been gradually thinned down by now.\n\nSome other factors can influence kanji choice, too. 葡萄牙{ポルトガル} is thought to\ncontain 葡萄 (\"grape\") because its main export to Asia was wine. ロシア was\noriginally spelled **魯** 西亜 instead of **露** 西亜 until Russian embassy made a\ncomplaint that 魯 could mean \"obtuse\".\n\n> _Could they use other kanji characters but with same readings for spelling\n> these countries?_\n\nAs for this, _definitely no_. They are already recognized as proper names that\nyou couldn't change them as you wish.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T13:31:15.030",
"id": "24315",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-19T10:34:38.583",
"last_edit_date": "2016-06-19T10:34:38.583",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24295",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "On 独逸 the kanji choice for Germany. It is not phonetic but ideological and\ndeliberately anti-German. This is in accord with the Chinese/East Asian 華夷思想\nHuáyí Sīxiăng (J. Kai Shisô):Thought that the own culture is superior and\ncontempt of others regarded as 夷 ‘retarded Uncivilized’ or ‘animals’ (and\ninsects) below human beings (also 中華思想 Zhōnghuá Sīxiăng (J. Chûka Shisô):\nSuperior Land In The Middle Ideology). Including the 犭 beast classifier here\nis not just the otherwise often relatively harmless pride for the culture of\none’s own realm, but the deliberate despite of others as beasts. Understanding\nthis is a matter of study of East Asian thought. As this is quite\nembarrassing, Japanese will usually avoid admitting this. Certainly, diplomats\nof the German-speaking countries and their counterparts should work towards a\ndecent naming.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-06-19T09:30:45.517",
"id": "36011",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-19T09:30:45.517",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "15818",
"parent_id": "24295",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
24295
| null |
24296
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24305",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Here's the sentence I'm trying to express in Japanese. \"I have changed my\nlife, I've become a cheerful person, all because of him!\"\n\nAnd this is how I would translate it. 僕の人生が変わったのや、明るい人になったのは、全部彼のおかげなんだ！\n\nAm I using the right particles? My intuition says that the sentence is wrong.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T19:10:20.187",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24299",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T21:44:48.667",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10083",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"particles",
"sentence-final-particles",
"english-to-japanese",
"nominalization"
],
"title": "Which particle(s) can be used to list nominalised verbs?",
"view_count": 235
}
|
[
{
"body": "> 「[僕]{ぼく}の[人生]{じんせい}が[変]{か}わったのや、[明]{あか}るい[人]{ひと}になったのは、[全部彼]{ぜんぶかれ}のおかげなんだ！」\n\nis grammatical and even sounds fairly natural.\n\nThe only part that does not quite sound natural is 「明るい **人** 」. We would\nrarely use 「人」 that way to refer to oneself, but again, it is still all\ngrammatical. You could say 「明るくなった」.\n\n> Am I using the right particles?\n\nYes, you are. I would never call anything natural here when there is a\nparticle mistake.\n\nThe third-person pronoun 「彼」 is not something we native speakers use often,\nbut I certainly could not say it is wrong to use it.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T22:54:29.807",
"id": "24305",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T21:44:48.667",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-14T21:44:48.667",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24299",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
24299
|
24305
|
24305
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "It seems too formal for casual use, but too casual for formal use. In what\nsort of situation would anyone use あたくし?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T20:10:37.580",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24300",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T20:55:22.890",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words",
"gender",
"feminine-speech"
],
"title": "Regarding the word あたくし",
"view_count": 79
}
|
[] |
24300
| null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24304",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have ran across these two words being used in some articles and blog sites.\nIt seems they both translate to \"work\", but when and why would you use one\nover the other?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T20:26:12.433",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24301",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-11T08:53:43.110",
"last_edit_date": "2016-02-11T08:53:43.110",
"last_editor_user_id": "11849",
"owner_user_id": "10084",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Are there any differences between 仕事 and 作業",
"view_count": 1739
}
|
[
{
"body": "作業 is closer to _tasks_ or _procedures_ , which can be 'finished' in a few\nminutes or a few days.\n\n仕事 refers to both small tasks and lifelong vocations.\n\nIf you want to ask someone's occupation, you can say \"あなたの仕事は何ですか?\" but not\n\"あなたの作業は何ですか?\" (well, let's forget about honorific expressions for now). When\nyou look at a calendar and want to check what you have to do today, you ask\nyourself, \"今日の仕事は何だろう?\" or \"今日の作業は何だろう?\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T21:16:35.627",
"id": "24304",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T21:16:35.627",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24301",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] |
24301
|
24304
|
24304
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24302",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "A while ago, I discovered that あたし has a more-formal variant: あたくし\n\nThis is obviously very similar to the relationship between わたし and わたくし.\nHowever, there are a couple of details that I'm not too sure about:\n\n### 1. How common is it?\n\nあたくし doesn't seem to be used as much as other personal pronouns; I could only\nfind [two](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/17901/9212)\n[examples](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/14292/9212) of it being used\non JLU SE, neither of them related to [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/74/9212). It's also mentioned\non [this page](http://chromlea.com/japanese/vocabulary/i-my-japanese.php) and\non [Japanese Wiktionary](http://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E7%A7%81), though it's\ncurrently absent from the [English\nversion](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%E3%81%82%E3%81%9F%E3%81%8F%E3%81%97).\n\n### 2. How formal is it?\n\nMy understanding is that あたし is less formal than わたし, which in turn is less\nformal than わたくし. Given that あたくし is more formal than あたし, and (I assume) less\nformal than わたくし, how does it compare with わたし?\n\n**Note:** It seems that わたし, わたくし, あたし, and あたくし are _all_ represented by 私 in\nkanji form, so this question uses hiragana to avoid confusion.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T21:05:32.933",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24303",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T22:56:31.720",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9212",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"first-person-pronouns",
"formality"
],
"title": "How common/formal is あたくし?",
"view_count": 934
}
|
[
{
"body": "Wikipedia\n[says](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%80%E4%BA%BA%E7%A7%B0%E4%BB%A3%E5%90%8D%E8%A9%9E#.E3.81.82.E3.81.9F.E3.81.8F.E3.81.97):\n\n>\n> (あたくしは)あたしのきどった言い方である。一般的には昭和時代の漫画やアニメなどで使用された例があるが、平常的には聞くことはまずない言い方である。特に落語家が使用する。\n\nIn my opinion あたくし (not わたくし) is typically used by Kantō, classy, pompous,\nelder, female celebrities, mainly in fiction. Or by someone who impersonates\nsuch a person.\n\nI confirmed that [黒柳徹子](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetsuko_Kuroyanagi) uses\nあたくし in her TV show 徹子の部屋\n([video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmDqQHgIjZQ)). Someone says that she\nis the only person who regularly uses あたくし on TV (I don't know if it's true).\n\nOther than this, I might have heard this actually used once or twice in real\nlife (in a party or something like that), but my memory is vague.\n\nRegarding the formality, it cannot be used in business/formal _writings_ ,\nwhere we have to almost always stick to 私 anyway. But I also feel that 黒柳徹子\nmay well give a formal speech using あたくし. I guess most people won't regard\nあたくし as impolite, because it sounds similarly enough to わたくし. It will sound\njust funny, if used by a wrong person, for example, me.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-13T20:55:22.890",
"id": "24302",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T22:56:31.720",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-13T22:56:31.720",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24303",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
24303
|
24302
|
24302
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Would u please test this sentence for me？ '図書館でいお（ro）いろな教室でできないことができる' some of\nmy mates said it is wrong while some said it is right",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T07:17:21.777",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24308",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T08:12:11.977",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-14T07:28:33.960",
"last_editor_user_id": "9883",
"owner_user_id": "9883",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"syntax"
],
"title": "Is this sentence correct？",
"view_count": 140
}
|
[
{
"body": "> 図書館でいろいろな教室でできないことができる。\n\nThis is not grammatically wrong, but a little hard to understand.\nいろいろな教室でできないこと sounds like 'things you can't do in various classrooms' (The\nいろいろな looks like modifying 教室). If you mean 'In the library, you can do\nvarious things you can't do in the classroom' then you can say\n\n> 図書館では、教室で(は)できないことがいろいろできる。 \n> or 図書館では、教室で(は)できないいろいろなことができる。\n\nIf you really mean 'In the library, you can do things that you can't do in\nother classrooms' then you can say\n\n> 図書館では、他の教室で(は)できないことができる。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T08:02:44.547",
"id": "24309",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T08:12:11.977",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-14T08:12:11.977",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24308",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24308
| null |
24309
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "When I look at a _kanji_ word I see one, or multiple Hiragana pronunciations\n(or should I call it _translation_?) - sometimes the pronunciations are for\ndifferent _kanji_ s, but that's not the question.\n\nI've been reading [this article on\ntofugu](http://www.tofugu.com/2010/03/23/the-types-of-kanji-in-japanese-\nonyomi-vs-kunyomi/), but there are still some issues I'd like to ask about.\n\nSometimes I see more than 10 different _katakana_ readings for a single\n_kanji_. Why is this?\n\nAlso, why are there some readings given as _katakana_ , even though (if I\nunderstand correctly) _katakana_ is used for non-Japanese (Chinese?) words?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T09:25:29.330",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24310",
"last_activity_date": "2019-06-16T21:35:20.223",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-14T14:44:26.653",
"last_editor_user_id": "3275",
"owner_user_id": "10091",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"katakana",
"hiragana",
"dictionary",
"multiple-readings"
],
"title": "Why are there multiple katakana readings for a single kanji?",
"view_count": 8873
}
|
[
{
"body": "I don't exactly know what you mean by \"translations\", but kanji have different\nreadings, on'yomi readings (which are adapted from the original Chinese) and\nkun'yomi readings (which have nothing to do with the Chinese reading, but map\na native Japanese word to a kanji).\n\nTo distinguish the \"type\" (on'yomi vs. kun'yomi) of these readings, the\non'yomi is usually given in katakana and the kun'yomi in hiragana. The idea is\nloosely that katakana is also used for everything foreign, in this case the\n(Japanified) Chinese reading.\n\nThe same kanji may have multiple on'yomi as kanji, together with their Chinese\nreading, have been imported throughout the history of the Japanese language,\nfrom different areas of China. (Then they are called kan'on, go'on, tōsōon.\nSee more about this\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/24174/apparently-\nunrelated-%E9%9F%B3%E8%AA%AD%E3%81%BF).)\n\nNote that the _readings_ only give a guide of reading this particular kanji in\na given context. They give the _pronunciation_ of the kanji and are not\n\"translations\".",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T10:07:30.207",
"id": "24311",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T10:07:30.207",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24310",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "Hiragana are used for native Japanese words, but also very commonly for kanji,\neven for onyomi.\n\nReadings of kanji can be split up into 3 broad types:\n\n**On'yomi**\n\nThese are readings taken from the Chinese mainland when kanji were imported to\nJapan. The reason why there are so many is that kanji sometimes took readings\nof chinese characters from different regions of China (where different\ndialects exist), and at different time periods. 走, pronounced \"zou\" in\nChinese, was loaned to Japanese as そう, and also as しゅ. There aren't any words\nwith the しゅ reading that I can actually think of. It exists, but it's very\nuncommon, if it's even still used.\n\nI have more info on seemingly \"irregular\" readings of on'yomi here\n[[Apparently unrelated\n音読み?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/24174/apparently-\nunrelated-%E9%9F%B3%E8%AA%AD%E3%81%BF/24180#24180) ] if you want some more\nreading about this.\n\n**Kun'yomi**\n\nThese are Japanese readings of kanji. They were meant to match the meanings of\nthe chinese characters when they were loaned to Japan. For instance, 走 in\nclassical chinese means to walk or run. The japanese word for \"to run\" was\nattached to this character when people started writing with kanji in Japan, so\n走{はし}る, meaning \"to run\" is written with this character.\n\nThe reason why there are sometimes many kun'yomi is that there are many\nJapanese words which are similar in meaning, so take the same kanji, but\ndifferent in pronunciations. 降る is one example. It can mean \"to fall\", or to\nalight / get-off.\n\n> 雨{あめ}が降る{ふる} (It's) raining [literally \"rain is falling\"]\n>\n> バスを降{お}りる Get off a bus\n\nBecause of this, lots of kanji have many kun'yomi too.\n\n**Other readings**\n\nSome kanji are given new readings when in words together. 下手{へた} is one\nexample of this, or even 上手{うま}い meaning \"unskilled / bad\" and \"good /\nskilled\" respectively. Neither of the kanji normally take either of the\npronunciations given here, but when you put the two characters together, it\nmakes this reading.\n\nAnother example is たばこ (a loanword \"tobacco\"). Even though it's a loanword,\nit's often written in hiragana, or even Kanji as 煙草{たばこ}. Here, the loanword\nwas _given_ kanji that match its meaning, even though again, neither of them\nnaturally are pronounced like any part of the word \"たばこ\".\n\nMore recently too, you'll see that Chinese names of places will be accompanied\nby neither on'yomi nor kun'yomi readings. 馬英九, current leader of Taiwan, will\nhave his name written in furigana above these kanji as マー・インチウ, even though\nthey could (and still can) also be read as ば えいきゅう, and the name is even\nChinese, from which kanji were taken.\n\n**Other side points**\n\nYou were talking about other alphabets, and while you're not wrong, that's not\nthe whole story. Katakana is used _mostly_ for loanwords, though not even all\nof them, as we saw with tobacco, and sometimes hiragana will be used\nstylistically by some people or companies. While kanji readings can be written\nin hiragana, I've seen some people use katakana for words like 綺麗{きれい}. It's\nalso used for names of animals and plants in science, such as イチゴ\n(strawberry). But, kanji are also used for names of living things too, and in\nsome cases, so are hiragana. Katakana is used scientifically though.\n\nKnowing which to use is usually down to context, but really needs to be done\non a case-by-case basis. Not even Japanese people know all the time how to\nread somebody's name without being told (and the opposite way round -- knowing\nhow to say it, but not how to write it without being told).\n\nStill, I don't want to discourage you from Kanji. They are my favorite part\nabout Japanese, and they're more helpful than hateful in my experience; really\ngood for figuring out new words, and for memorizing them. Plus, they're a\nbeautiful part of the language. They take patience, but they're the aspect\nthat makes Japanese most enjoyable for me, and their irregularities aren't\nthat bad most of the time (usually one reading is used for ~95% of all words\nwith that character).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T13:32:53.973",
"id": "24316",
"last_activity_date": "2019-06-16T21:35:20.223",
"last_edit_date": "2019-06-16T21:35:20.223",
"last_editor_user_id": "10045",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24310",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] |
24310
| null |
24311
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24314",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "It is a situation which a boy who is carrying some goods after successfully\nescaped from chasing by policemen.\n\n> なあ...わらって **たんじゃ** わからねえよ。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T10:19:28.927",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24312",
"last_activity_date": "2022-06-12T06:06:44.070",
"last_edit_date": "2022-06-12T06:06:44.070",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "9559",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words",
"conjugations",
"contractions",
"explanatory-の"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of the word たんじゃ?",
"view_count": 1034
}
|
[
{
"body": "**_Colloquial form vs. \"dictionary\" form_** :\n\n「わらってた」＝「わらっていた」\n\n「ん」＝「の」\n\n「じゃ」＝「では」\n\nPut together, 「わらっていたのでは」 means \"if you just kept laughing\".\n\n「では」, in this context, is like 「だと」 in meaning -- \"if\".\n\n> 「なあ...わらってたんじゃわからねえよ。」\n\nthus, means:\n\n> \"Y'know, I don't get the picture if you just keep laughing.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T11:41:43.693",
"id": "24314",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T11:52:34.273",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-14T11:52:34.273",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24312",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
24312
|
24314
|
24314
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I find that Japanese is a weird language for its learners, especially for\nthose who've already learned English. In English one usually uses two tenses:\n**present** and **past** , however in Japanese there are **accomplished** and\n**unaccomplished** tenses, and these look strange if literally translated to\nEnglish. For instance:\n\n> わたしは日本に行くとき、ラジオを買いました。 \n> Literally \"When I go to Japan, I bought a radio.\"\n\nHere, the English sentence has two different parts which use two unrelated\ndifferent tenses, so it's obviously logically wrong.\n\nAnother example:\n\n> 私は日本に行ったとき日本製のテレビを買う予定です。 \n> Literally \"When I went to Japan, I decide to buy a TV made in Japan.\"\n\nAnd this sentence also sounds strange.\n\nCan anyone explain how to think about Japanese tenses for sentences like\nthese? I'm really puzzled by it.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T13:57:01.130",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24317",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-14T10:05:58.377",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T09:42:11.573",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "9883",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"tense"
],
"title": "Explaining Tense in Japanese",
"view_count": 1085
}
|
[
{
"body": "Using the present tense in the subordinate clause:\n\n> 私は日本に行くとき、ラジオを買います。\n\nThis would mean 'I (will) buy a radio when I am going to Japan'. You'll\nprobably buy the radio right before you fly to Japan. The past tense for this\nwould be:\n\n> 私は日本に行くとき、ラジオを買いました。\n\nThis means something like 'I bought a radio when I was going to Japan.' Note\nthat the tense doesn't change in the subordinate clause (行く, not 行った).\n\n* * *\n\nUsing the past tense in the subordinate clause:\n\n> 私は日本に行ったとき日本製のテレビを買う予定です。\n\nThis would mean that you'll go to Japan and buy a TV there. The action 'buy a\nTV' happens after the action 'go to Japan', therefore you use the past form\n行った. To convert the whole sentence to the past tense:\n\n> 私は日本に行ったとき日本製のテレビを買いました。\n\nThis is like 'I bought a TV when I went to Japan' (You bought the TV after you\narrived in Japan). You don't change the tense in the subordinate clause (行った),\nregardless of the tense of the verb in the main clause (買う or 買った).",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T00:37:29.197",
"id": "24325",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T00:51:14.150",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T00:51:14.150",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24317",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24317
| null |
24325
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24340",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Specifically talking about ば、なら、たら、and と here.\n\nI just read Derek Schaab's excellent reply to [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/393/differences-\namong-%E3%81%9F%E3%82%89-%E3%81%AA%E3%82%89-%E3%82%93%E3%81%A0%E3%81%A3%E3%81%9F%E3%82%89-%E3%81%88%E3%81%B0-etc)\non when to use the different forms of conditionals -- something I'm really\nstruggling with at the moment. But that is a lot to remember when you're\ntrying to select the correct expression in a conversation. I expect that most\nJapanese aren't even aware of these rules.\n\nSo I was wondering, are there simpler rules that get you the right answer most\nof the time, and, if you do use the wrong word, how much does it actually\nmatter? Will you be completely misunderstood, shown to be the foreigner you\nare, or anything in between?\n\nAny tips on how other people have approached this learning problem would be\nappreciated.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T16:32:56.213",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24318",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T12:28:44.063",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage",
"conditionals"
],
"title": "How much does it matter if I use the wrong 'if'?",
"view_count": 527
}
|
[
{
"body": "People would figure out what you mean and forgive you because you're only a\nlearner of Japanese, but you may get a few strange looks for some sentences.\n\nThe commenter's research study [in your cited\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/1784/4223), attributed to a\nstudy done in 1989 by Shinji Sanada also shows\n\nもっと早く｛起きると／起きれば／起きたら｝よかった。 I should have woken up earlier.\n\n * Tokyo: 4% と; 94% ば; 2% たら \n * Osaka: 0% と; 20% ば; 78% たら\n\n右に｛行くと／行けば／行ったら｝、ポストが見えます。 If you turn right, you can see a mailbox.\n\n * Tokyo: 75% と; 16% ば; 8% たら\n * Osaka: 4% と; 13% ば; 83% たら\n\nThis shows that in some cases, people will view things differently. But, there\nare cases where you'll confuse people by using the wrong one.\n\nIf you're using the Tokyo dialect, which I'll assume you are, note that only\n2% of people use 〜たら in sentence 1. So it's uncommon. If you do interchange\nbetween them, you can generally get by because the sentence means nearly the\nsame thing, but the subtle nuances between the options will exist. And yes,\nmost people in Japan aren't really aware of the rules in my experience.\n\nAnd there are sentences where you can't substitute them at all. It's worth\nusing them as \"normally\" as you can. To do this, all you can do is _hear as\nmany examples as you can_.\n\nAs for how to get used to it yourself, you won't get a sense for it from SE;\ntry listening to radio, or as most people do with Japanese, watch Anime. Every\ntime you're on the bus daydreaming, listen to Japanese. Every time you're\nwashing the car but not doing anything else, listen to Japanese. Every time\nyou've got an hour to spend during the day, listen to Japanese, even if only\nin the background.\n\nThis kind of goes with everything linguistic -- the more you use it, the\nfaster you learn, even intuitively. You don't need to do it as obsessively as\nI described, but if you were to do it that obsessively, you'll learn it\nfaster.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T09:32:25.420",
"id": "24338",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T15:12:54.577",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24318",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Edited in bold font\n\n 1. An action **in non-past tense** in a なら clause is to succeed that of the main clause, and if you use it wrongly, people will misunderstand which happens before and which after. **Past tense in なら clauses stands for if it's true or not**.\n\n 2. As long as you use なら correctly, たら is enough versatile to replace ～と and ～ば.\n\n 3. You can't use たら for actions in realized past by the same subject with consistent volitionality. In short, you can say (a) 車に乗ったら 吐いてしまった (When I get on the car, I vomited), but not (b) * 車に乗ったら 運転した (When I get on the car, I drove it). (edit: If you wrongly use it, people misunderstand it's an imaginary conditional or a habitual past.)\n\n 4. (off topic) Use とき for \"when\".",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T12:03:41.743",
"id": "24340",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T22:16:42.553",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T22:16:42.553",
"last_editor_user_id": "4092",
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24318",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "After posting this question I found [this link](http://www.learn-japanese-\nadventure.com/japanese-conditional-form-to.html). Lessons 24 to 28\nsystematically introduce the conditionals and the reasons for choosing each\none. Here's my attempt at a summary\n\n**〜と**\n\nUse when the main clause is an inevitable or uncontrollable result of the\ncondition\n\n> 電気をつけると、明るくなります.\n>\n> ニューヨークに行くとおもしろい店がたくさんある。\n\n**~ば／なら**\n\nば is used for verbs and い-adjectives, and なら for (adjectival) nouns (the case\nof なら with verbs is covered below). This form allows the main clause to\nexpress commands, requests, volitionality etc.\n\n> 安ければ買います\n\nGrammatically all と sentences can be changed to ば／なら sentences. However, と is\nused more for stating facts and ば／なら is used for emphasising the requirement\ne.g.\n\n> 暗くなると狼が狩に出かける。\n\nIs a statement of fact (wolves go hunting when it is dark). But in response to\nthe question 'When do wolves go hunting?' the answer would be better phrased\nas\n\n> 暗くなれば狼が狩に出かける。\n\nemphasizing the condition under which wolves go hunting.\n\nThese forms have a restriction that they cannot be used if the subject of the\nmain and conditional clauses is the same when conditional clause is an action.\nIf this restriction is a problem then you need...\n\n**~たら**\n\nThe following sentence cannot use either と or ば／なら.\n\n> お酒を飲んだら、運転してはいけません.\n\nAll the forms so far have the restriction that the condition must occur before\nthe result in the main clause. If you need to lift this condition as well then\nyou need to use (verb dict-form)+なら e.g\n\n> 明日うちへ来るなら、電話をしてください\n\nI think I'll stop there, because this is starting to become as long and\nconfusing as anything else I've read. The link has much more detail.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T20:10:10.367",
"id": "24350",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T12:28:44.063",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"parent_id": "24318",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24318
|
24340
|
24340
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24323",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Most textbooks note that using か to mark two noun alternatives, the last one\ncan be omitted. However, what about verbs?\n\nWould a textbook sentence such as\n\n> 今晩の食事はステーキにするか、すしにするかまだ決めていません。\n\nStay grammatical as\n\n> 今晩の食事はステーキにするか、すしにするまだ決めていません。\n\nIn other words, I've been coming across this single か after verb structure and\nI wonder if it serves the same disjunctive purpose or if it's something else?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T17:44:37.140",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24319",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T01:00:21.410",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-14T18:34:31.150",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"verbs",
"syntax",
"particle-か",
"coordination"
],
"title": "Confusion on usage of か marking alternatives with verbs",
"view_count": 1011
}
|
[
{
"body": "> Most textbooks note that using か to mark two noun alternatives, the last one\n> can be omitted.\n\nYou are probably talking about something like this:\n\n> ステーキか、すしにします。 / ステーキか、すしを食べます。 (I'll have either steak or sushi.)\n\nHowever, you cannot omit the second か in a sentence like below, even though か\nmarks two noun alternatives:\n\n> ステーキか、すしか(を)、まだ決めていません。(I haven't decided whether I'll have steak or sushi.) \n> *ステーキか、すし(を)まだ決めていません。\n\nSame goes with verbs; you can say\n\n> 今晩の食事は、ステーキにするか、すしにします。 \n> (either have steak or have sushi) -- You don't need a 2nd か. \n> 今晩の食事はステーキにするか、すしにするかまだ決めていません。 \n> (whether I'll have steak or have sushi) -- The 2nd か cannot be omitted.\n\nbut not\n\n> *今晩の食事はステーキにするか、すしにするまだ決めていません。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T23:20:13.213",
"id": "24323",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T01:00:21.410",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T01:00:21.410",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24319",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24319
|
24323
|
24323
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In attempting to translate an advertising poster, I ran into some\ndifficulties. The poster reads:\n\n第一部 ガールズバンドライブ\n\n第二部 カウントダウンライブ\n\nThe katakana is easy enough: 'Girl Band Live / Countdown Live', but in\nchecking the kanji on jisho, I'm finding the meanings of 'ordinal' and 'club,\ncategory, or magazine counter', none of which seems to mesh together. 'First\nClub / Second Club' are my best guesses, but it doesn't quite seem to fit.\nDoes anyone have an accurate translation?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T20:12:40.450",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24320",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T23:55:03.887",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-14T23:49:57.870",
"last_editor_user_id": "10099",
"owner_user_id": "10099",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of 第ー部",
"view_count": 571
}
|
[
{
"body": "My best guess with the 部 counter for this would be part one, part two, etc.\nAccording to jisho.org, 部 can also mean a \"part; component; element\" so in\nthis context it would make sense to be Part one: girl band live, Part two:\ncountdown live.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T20:17:26.140",
"id": "24321",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T23:55:03.887",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-14T23:55:03.887",
"last_editor_user_id": "10084",
"owner_user_id": "10084",
"parent_id": "24320",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "It is used this way to mean like \"session\", \"period\", or (more limited)\n\"service\". My church (and others) in Japan counted their Sunday worship\nservices this way: `一部礼拝 (1st Service)、二部礼拝 (2nd Service)、三部礼拝 (3rd Service)、\netc.`\n\nBTW, did it really have ガーラズ for \"garage\"? It's usually written ガレージ.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T20:21:57.987",
"id": "24322",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-14T20:21:57.987",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "24320",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
24320
| null |
24321
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24327",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The particle が has a property that implies that, of all items from some group,\nthe sentences applies exclusively to the noun before it. For example, in a\nroom of people from different countries, saying 「私がアメリカ人です」 would imply that\nyou are the _only_ American in the room.\n\nHowever, it is also possible to use a more neutral が without this meaning. For\nexample, 「雨が降る」 is neutral and isn't comparing the rain to anything.\n\nSo how do you know when the particle が carries this exclusive-definition and\nwhen it doesn't?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-14T23:21:51.590",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24324",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T19:16:20.257",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9749",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"particle-が"
],
"title": "Neutral vs. Exhaustive が",
"view_count": 1119
}
|
[
{
"body": "**Warning... this answer presents things differently from the more complex and\naccurate model, which can be found\nhere:[http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~heycock/papers/topic-\ndraft.pdf](http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/%7Eheycock/papers/topic-draft.pdf)**\n\nI can't think of how to summarize the model in that paper to fit in an answer,\nso instead I'm going to present a different model (mostly from my intuition,\nso do take it with a grain of salt) which works for a more limited number of\nsentences, but I think lines up result-wise with the model in that paper.\n\n* * *\n\nTaking a basic `XがY` clause...\n\nThe determiners of the semantics of が are:\n\n 1. whether `Y` is **temporary** or **permanent** ,*\n 2. whether `X` is **new** or **old** information,\n 3. whether the clause is embedded or not\n\n* * *\n\n# Temporary Predicates\n\nWhen you have a temporary predicate, the neutral reading of が becomes\npossible.\n\n> 雨が降っている。 \n> \"Rain is falling.\"\n>\n> 天気が寒い。 \n> \"The weather is cold.\"\n>\n> 牛が草を食べている。 \n> \"A cow is eating grass.\"\n\n(Note: all of these can be made exhaustive by placing stress on the が-marked\nargument.)\n\nHowever, if the が-marked argument is already in discourse, then you would mark\nit by は.\n\n> 「雨はどう？」「雨はまだ降っている。」 (You could, and normally would just drop 雨は entirely,\n> but it's okay to have it, and necessary if you say some other stuff before\n> answering the question. Using 雨が would sound weird, as if you aren't\n> responding to the question but just making a statement.)\n>\n> 「今日の天気は寒いねー。」 (Using が would be exhaustive here)\n>\n> 「あの牛は草を食べている。」 (Using が would be exhaustive here)\n\nThere are some things which are in discourse by construction, such as 私, or\nthings marked by その, あの, 今日の etc. -- so if they are accompanied by が the only\nway to read them is as exhaustive reading despite the possibility introduced\nby a temporary predicate.\n\n* * *\n\n# Permanent Predicates\n\nWhen you have a permanent predicate, it is necessarily the exhaustive reading\nof 「が」:\n\n> 太郎が背が高い。\n>\n> アメリカに生まれた人がアメリカ人だ。\n>\n> 牛が草を食べる。\n\nSo you instead mark these things with は to get a neutral reading.\n\n* * *\n\n# Subordinate Clauses\n\nWhat I've said so far holds true at the top level of the sentence. However, in\n(most) subordinate clauses, the only reading available for は is the\ncontrasitive reading, so instead things fall back to が (regardless of\ntemporary/permanent or old/new distinctions):\n\n> 太郎は私が好きな本を捨てた。\n\n[*] These are called \"stage-level predicate\" and \"individual-level predicate\"\nin the literature.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T02:48:04.223",
"id": "24327",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T19:16:20.257",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3097",
"parent_id": "24324",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
24324
|
24327
|
24327
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24334",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I have almost always added 美化語{びかご} to \"いかが\" (making \"おいかが\"). However, a\nnative speaker just told me that \"おいかが\" sounds unnatural. I'd like to double\ncheck this.\n\nIs it ever natural to add 美化語 to \"いかが\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T03:00:50.693",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24328",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T07:29:41.183",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9509",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"honorifics"
],
"title": "can one ever say \"おいかがですか？\"",
"view_count": 1849
}
|
[
{
"body": "おいかが(ですか) sounds unnatural. いかが(ですか) is already polite so you don't need to\nadd お.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T04:53:33.847",
"id": "24331",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T07:29:41.183",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T07:29:41.183",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24328",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "「 **お** いかがですか？」(\"How are you feeling?\") should probably be avoided even\nthough some native speakers actually say it.\n\nThe reason for that, however, is **_not_** that there is already 「です」 in there\nexpressing politeness. Rather, it is because the word 「いかが」 is already on the\npretty polite and formal side. Adding the honorific 「お」 to it does make it\nsound overly polite. The non-polite forms of 「いかが」 would be\n「どう」、「どのよう」、「どんなふう」, etc.\n\nThis is why it is completely \"correct\" to say 「 **お** いくらですか？」(\"How much is\nit?\") using an 「お」 as, unlike 「いかが」, 「いくら」 is non-polite.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T07:09:31.937",
"id": "24334",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T07:09:31.937",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24328",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 13
}
] |
24328
|
24334
|
24334
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24333",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What's the difference between 復帰{ふっき}, 復元{ふくげん} and 復旧{ふっきゅう}?\n\nThe both seem to mean restore. (I generally use these words in a computer\ncontext as in restoring files or settings.\n\nRelated: [Difference between 回復, 修復, 復旧 and\n復興](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/19603/difference-\nbetween-%E5%9B%9E%E5%BE%A9-%E3%81%8B%E3%81%84%E3%81%B5%E3%81%8F-%E4%BF%AE%E5%BE%A9-%E3%81%97%E3%82%85%E3%81%86%E3%81%B5%E3%81%8F-%E5%BE%A9%E6%97%A7-%E3%81%B5%E3%81%A3%E3%81%8D%E3%82%85%E3%81%86-and-%E5%BE%A9%E8%88%88-%E3%81%B5%E3%81%A3%E3%81%93%E3%81%86)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T04:40:23.803",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24330",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T07:29:20.887",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"usage"
],
"title": "What's the difference between 復帰, 復元 and 復旧",
"view_count": 315
}
|
[
{
"body": "**復帰** ( _intransitive_ )\n\nIt originally means \"back to original location/position\", then figuratively\nrefers to \"back to work\". This word doesn't imply at all the subject was once\nout of order: you put your PC in sleep mode, then press the power button, the\nmachine will 復帰する.\n\n**復元** ( _transitive_ or _intransitive_ )\n\nThis word put stress on \"to reproduce the original shape\". It may or may not\nindicate it was malfunctioning before you 復元, but if you do 復元, it must look\nlike what it had been like. The \"system restore\" of Windows is translated as\nシステムの復元.\n\n**復旧** ( _transitive_ or _intransitive_ )\n\nIt means \"regain original function, which was disrupted by an unexpected\nincident\". This one explicitly tells that it won't work if you don't 復旧. It\nfocuses on function, so if you データを復旧する, the data should be as it was, but if\nパソコンを復旧する you're not guaranteed that data stored in your PC was saved too.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T06:51:44.770",
"id": "24333",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T07:29:20.887",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T07:29:20.887",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24330",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
24330
|
24333
|
24333
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24336",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I know it can't follow だ, but is this possible?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T06:11:05.463",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24332",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T08:11:23.000",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words"
],
"title": "Can か follow である?",
"view_count": 112
}
|
[
{
"body": "か can follow である in subordinate clauses. For example,\n\n> 真実であるかは不明。Whether it is true or not is unknown. \n> (You can also say it as 真実かどうかは不明。)\n\nか can also follow だ in subordinate clauses, as @snailboat says. For example,\n\n> なぜだかわからない。I don't know why.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T08:11:23.000",
"id": "24336",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T08:11:23.000",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24332",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
24332
|
24336
|
24336
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Is it correct to think that the six conjugated forms listed\n[here](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B4%BB%E7%94%A8) encompass a range of\nideas rather than having a inflection form directly linked to them?\n\nFor instance 未然形 is not only the negative/potential/causative that inflects to\na-sound like 食べる->食べられる 言う->言わない but also those that inflect to o-sound and\nattach to the う auxiliary (or add よう, depending on whether it's a gr.1 or gr.2\nverb) with probability and intention (食べよう, 言おう).\n\nHow should one generally go about distinguishing between these \"forms\", is it\nbased on general context rather than anything else (e.g. mizenkei for things\nthat haven't materialized yet)?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T10:12:48.503",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24339",
"last_activity_date": "2015-10-15T04:53:08.377",
"last_edit_date": "2015-07-16T15:22:30.207",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"conjugations",
"morphology"
],
"title": "Making sense of inflections and conjugated forms",
"view_count": 276
}
|
[
{
"body": "It was purely a form of inflection, but because of sound shift (食べむ → 食べよう、言はむ\n→ 言おう) it collapsed.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T14:26:41.727",
"id": "24363",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T14:26:41.727",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24339",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Traditional conjugation chart was devised to explain Classical Japanese\ngrammar, so not optimal for Modern Japanese. The greatest problem is that it\nno longer shows one-to-one mapping between categories and actual forms. I\nthink [this\none](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_verb_conjugation#Summary_of_verb_conjugations)\nis much better for learning purpose.\n\nThe idea 未然形{みぜんけい} comes from Classical Japanese too, named after a usage\nthat you used to attach ば to this form to make hypothetical (yet to happen)\ncondition, in contrast with 已然形{いぜんけい}, described realized situation (the\ncause of a result) with ば. So it's just a label rather than meaning.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-09-15T04:38:06.720",
"id": "28022",
"last_activity_date": "2015-09-15T04:43:38.180",
"last_edit_date": "2015-09-15T04:43:38.180",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24339",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24339
| null |
24363
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24346",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The [literal\ntranslation](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%83%BD%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B%E9%B7%B9%E3%81%AF%E7%88%AA%E3%82%92%E9%9A%A0%E3%81%99)\nof \"能ある鷹は爪を隠す\" is “The wise hawk hides its talons.”\n\nBut what should I understand the proverb as meaning? Is it just about\nhumbleness, or about not letting your adversaries know what you're capable of?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T12:59:25.510",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24341",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T15:47:03.393",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "How should the proverb \"能ある鷹は爪を隠す\" be understood?",
"view_count": 592
}
|
[
{
"body": "Sometimes the moral of a proverb could be vague and ambiguous.\n\nThe author of [this page](http://daibutsuda.blog26.fc2.com/blog-\nentry-654.html) believes that it tells people to \"behave humbly\", while [this\none](http://www.geocities.co.jp/Milkyway-Kaigan/2877/essay/nouarutaka.htm)\nargues that it means \"wise people know how to let others' guard down\", which\nis more or less faithful to what original hawks are said to do. There's also a\n[QA forum\nanswer](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1198878736)\ngives an insight that \"truly talented people don't need to show them off\nbecause they know they can exert it anytime they want\". And [this\nwriter](http://meigen.shiawasehp.net/prov/107.html) is apparently unsure about\nthe true connotation of this idiom:\n\n> 能力を隠すのは、 _They hide their abilities..._ \n> そのほうがカッコいいから？ _because it's cool?_ \n> まわりの人とうまくやっていくため？ _to get along with others?_ \n> 出る杭（は打たれる）にならないため？ _because don't want to be \"the nail sticks out\"?_ \n> 人を油断させるため？ _to let their guards down?_ \n> 人に利用されないため？ _not to be taken advantage of?_ \n> 能力をひけらかす必要などないから？ _because they don't feel a need to show off?_ \n> 人間としての成長を目指すため（謙譲の美徳）？ _for character building (humbleness)?_\n\nAfter all, perhaps it could be concluded that the spirit of a proverb resides\nin how they understand it.\n\nP.S. I can't keep hiding the fact that [I've incidentally used this expression\nrecently](https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/19849769#19849769)\n:D",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T15:36:38.163",
"id": "24346",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T15:47:03.393",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T15:47:03.393",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24341",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
24341
|
24346
|
24346
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24343",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The Wikipedia article [Japanese language education in\nVietnam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_language_education_in_Vietnam),\nsays that during the 1940s, Japanese was taught in Vietnam using either romaji\nor katakana. Is it true that katakana, rather than hiragana, was used?\n\nMy assumption was that if only one set of kana were taught, then it would have\nbeen hiragana. The Wikipedia article on\n[furigana](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furigana) mentions that native\nspeakers of Japanese learn hiragana before katakana, and that furigana is more\ncommonly written in hiragana than katakana. Likewise, Sayo Masuda, a native\nspeaker of Japanese who wrote her autobiography in\n[1957](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_a_Geisha), had learnt\nhiragana (as an adult) but not katakana or kanji.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T13:35:30.250",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24342",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T16:26:52.400",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"katakana"
],
"title": "Was katakana used in the teaching of Japanese as a foreign language?",
"view_count": 289
}
|
[
{
"body": "From this\n[this](http://naosite.lb.nagasaki-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10069/5604/1/KJ00004164897.pdf)\npaper, in an extract authored by one Mr. Sekino (関野) in 1943:\n\n> 普及会に於ては日本語教育の課程を便宜上四期（各期三ヶ月）に分けて \n> 次の要領に依つて教授して居る｡ \n> 第一期 「ローマ」字を用ひて正しき発音を教授し、「カタカナ」を用ひて \n> 「ハナシコトバ」の教授を主眼とし、更に日本語の基礎文型を知らしめる｡ \n> 教材として国際学友会編纂「日本語教科書」基礎篇を使用する｡ \n> 第二期 「ひらがな」を用ひ、教材として前記「日本語教科書」巻一中よ \n> り適宜選択する。 \n> 本期より漸次歴史的仮名遣を教授する。 \n> 第三期及第四期 夫々前記「日本語教科書」巻二、巻三中より教材を選択 \n> して教授する。\n\nIt's a pretty old usage of Japanese. I'd be grateful if somebody other than me\ncould lend a hand in giving a proper translations of things like 用ひ (I assume\n用い?) in this text, but I think it has the answer OP is looking for.\n\nFrom what I understand, they did teach hiragana, but katakana first, and this\nwas used in items such as childrens' books. Katakana was used as a gateway to\nJapanese grammar and pronunciation, and this was followed by the education in\nhiragana and kanji afterwards.\n\nThe reasoning for this could be down to katakana's greater status historically\n(such as being used in treaties with Korea and China in the late 1800s).\nKatakana was once historically the only script, and up until around 1900\nkatakana-kanji was used exclusively (including in treaties with Korea and\nChina), but nowadays hiragana is by far the more useful of the kana\nsyllabaries. Between 1900~1945, I know that hiragana was used informally (in\nletters between friends and in wartime posters), but I'm not sure when it was\naccepted into formal documents, if this was even pre-war.\n\nAs for Sayo Masuda, she never received any education in her youth, and post-\nwar Japanese script reform made (and makes) starting with hiragana a more\nuseful tool; probably why she and Japanese children nowadays learn it first.\nThere's also the viewing of hiragana historically as \"womens' writing\", at\nleast pre-1900s.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T14:52:37.993",
"id": "24343",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T16:26:52.400",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T16:26:52.400",
"last_editor_user_id": "9185",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24342",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
24342
|
24343
|
24343
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.