question
dict | answers
list | id
stringlengths 1
6
| accepted_answer_id
stringlengths 2
6
⌀ | popular_answer_id
stringlengths 1
6
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50458",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 考えれば考えるほど、もはや「詰んでいる」としか思えない。\n\ncontext: speaker is fucked\n\n> The more i think about it, the more... hopeless it seems???\n\njust stabbing at the last part based on the context, i did read\n\n[もはや used with\nしか](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/39069/%E3%82%82%E3%81%AF%E3%82%84-used-\nwith-%E3%81%97%E3%81%8B/39070)\n\nbut the explanations for もはや + しかないare very difficult to digest.\n\nThank you",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T05:32:28.913",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50441",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T13:34:57.983",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "use of もはや in this sentence",
"view_count": 300
} | [
{
"body": "\"The more I think about it, the more I realize that, _at this point_ (=もはや),\n_the only possible conclusion_ (=としか思えない) is that it's already a checkmate\n(=詰んでいる).\"\n\nもはや is \"already, already at this point\". You can think of it as a more\ndramatic もう. としか思えない is \"I cannot think of it except as…\", that is, \"the only\npossible conclusion is that…\"\n\nA less clumsy translation would be something like: \"The more I think about it,\nthe more I realize it's already over for me\" (or her/me/them/etc.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T13:34:57.983",
"id": "50458",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T13:34:57.983",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "622",
"parent_id": "50441",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 50441 | 50458 | 50458 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I understand the use and structure of a noun modifier using standard masu\nplain past form, eg たなかさんが かったすしは、... etc. etc. The sushi that Tanaka\nbought... etc. Now it's noun modifier with subject ga, masu verb in plain\npast, modifying the noun, sushi.\n\nI get that in passive it's the object that's being highlighted, that now forms\nthe subject. And I get direct and indirect passive sentences. No worries.\n\nBut what are the rules for using passive to modify a noun and why and when is\nit preferred over plain masu form?\n\n 1. わたしが たべた Pizzaは きのうのばん ともだちに つかいました。 ok all good.\n\n 2. たべられた Pizza は おいしかったです。/ or should I use a noun to finish sentence, よくham and pineapple です、\n\nI am not really understanding why No2 in passive, is wrong.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T06:07:33.753",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50443",
"last_activity_date": "2023-06-22T00:02:55.303",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-27T20:39:57.390",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "19395",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "passive in noun modifier",
"view_count": 623
} | [
{
"body": "It's not about logic, but is more to do with the availability of other\nexpressions.\n\n> **1** わたしが たべた ピザは おいしかったです。 \n> **2** たべられた ピザは おいしかったです。\n\nThe #1 straightforwardly makes sense. \nThe #2 is hard to process what it's saying. :) When you want to say an unusual\nthing and express the pizza as something being eaten, we would try to make it\nclearer and say something like\n\n> **3** わたしに たべられてしまった ピザは おいしかったです。\n\nBut again, this is an unusual thing to say.\n\nWhen you want to say 'a pizza that you were **_able to_** eat,' this could be:\n\n> **4** （やっと）わたしが ありつけた ピザは （それでも）おいしかったです,\n\nIn other words, we usually want more expressions, modifiers, adverbs in the\nsentence. However, if you say わたしに instead of わたしが, it becomes more natural\neven without additional modifiers:\n\n> **5** わたしに たべられた ピザは おいしかったです。\n\nIn this way, it can naturally sound like talking about what you've been\n**_able to_** eat than what has been eaten by you. The reason could be your\nhealth condition.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T16:22:25.110",
"id": "50464",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T16:22:25.110",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50443",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "(1) There are no explicit 'rules' in any language for when to use active and\npassive. You can express a range of concepts using either, or both. Consider\nthe sentences:\n\n\"Stephen King wrote that book\". \n\"That book was written by Stephen King\".\n\nThere is no semantic difference there, only a stylistic one (if any). Both\nsentences are grammatically correct and neither one is better than the other.\nThere are no specific rules which dictate whether you should use one or the\nother. The same is true for Japanese.\n\n(2) Modifying a noun with the passive form depends on what the speaker is\ntrying to express. When the need to use it arises, then it should be used. One\nobvious example would be when the 'doer' of the verb is not known. In that\ncase it might be more difficult to construct an active sentence as it might\nsound somewhat artificial. So a passive construction might sound more natural.\nMaybe something like 昨日発表されたキャンペーン (\"the marketing campaign which was\nannounced yesterday\") if you don't know who actually made the announcement but\nstill want to talk about it.\n\n(3) Care is needed with passive constructions, because as pointed out in other\ncomments, it can be confused with the potential forms - 食べられる could be passive\nor potential, depending on the context and grammar.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-16T14:31:47.943",
"id": "53848",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-16T14:31:47.943",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"parent_id": "50443",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 50443 | null | 50464 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50445",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I want to say the following:\n\n> \"Please excuse if there was too little context.\"\n\nI am wondering about two things now.\n\nFirst, whether `-すぎ` is a suitable means to express **\"too little** \".\n\nBy now, I only encountered cases where it marked that something was _too much_\n, not _too little_.\n\nSecond, it seems to turn a word into a verb.\n\n> 夕べお酒を飲みすぎました。\n\nBut I have no idea what class it enters into. That said, I also don't know how\nto properly bring it into **non-polite past/た-form** to use it in a\nconditional clause with (た)ら.\n\nI have to add that I only know the \"three textbook\" verb classes right now.\n\nI heard that Japanese grammar uses more classes usually, but for foreign\nlanguage learners it's often simplified into three.\n\nSo I know class one, where い based ます stems turn into んだ、った and so on.\n\nThen class two like たべる and finally the third class made up only of する and くる\nwhich inflect very irregularly ^^",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T07:29:47.367",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50444",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-11T22:35:00.363",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-11T22:35:00.363",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"verbs"
],
"title": "How can I apply た form to -すぎ for conditional clause?",
"view_count": 108
} | [
{
"body": "1. Yes, you can just do that by using small 少なすぎた (was too little)\n\n 2. Yes, it does turn the adjective into verb form as you note and you can then use the (た)ら (少なすぎたら）",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T08:37:22.480",
"id": "50445",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T08:37:22.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"parent_id": "50444",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50444 | 50445 | 50445 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50448",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I want to say that B does X while A does Y.\n\n> While I go buying it for us, please wait here.\n\nTwo constructions come to my mind when I try to convey that two things happen\nsimultaneously. Either verbs in て form or ます-stem + ながら.\n\nI don't know whether one of the two methods is more suitable to express what\nis said in the sentence in question. Usually I've only seen ながら being used\nwhen the verb refers to one and the same person. But only rarely do I see ながら\nbeing used in my textbook at all. Here's one sentence with ながら out of my\ntextbook: 音楽を聴きながら食事します。\n\nて-form occurs more frequently for such purposes, and it also often indicates\nthat an **event** happens while an action is being performed, like here:\n\n> ジョギングをして怪我をしてしまった。\n\nHowever, I think that also in these cases, the verbal expressions which were\nlinked this way always referred to the same subject.\n\nIn the sentence in question, the subject changes. Therefore I fear that simply\nsaying: \"私は買って来てくれて、ここで待ってください。\" could be ambiguous/prone to elicit\nmisunderstanding. I thought about using は as a contrastive marker here, but I\ndon't know whether that's legit here or not:\n\n> 私は買って来てくれて、あなたはここで待ってください。\n\nThis becomes even more necessary if I drop the imperative. At least in my\nopinion:\n\n> \"While I go buy it for us, it is okay to just wait here.\" \n> 私は買って来てくれて、(あなたは?)ここで待たなくてもいい。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T08:52:28.627",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50446",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-11T17:04:38.903",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-11T17:04:38.903",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"english-to-japanese"
],
"title": "How do I express \"while\" as in \"While I go buying it for us, please wait here\"?",
"view_count": 139
} | [
{
"body": "You can use している間. Your example would be translated as\n\"私が買い物をしている間、ここで待って(い)てください\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T09:56:48.020",
"id": "50448",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T09:56:48.020",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "50446",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 50446 | 50448 | 50448 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50467",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I want to write a small dialogue. How do I say \" **the other person**\nsays/answers etc.\"?\n\nThen, one said...and **the other** replied...\n\nWhen names are available I usually use those to indicate who says what, but\nwhen there are no names available, what do you do?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T09:04:44.723",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50447",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T17:10:21.490",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"pronouns"
],
"title": "How do I say \"the other person\"?",
"view_count": 1962
} | [
{
"body": "> How do I say \"the other person says/answers etc.\"?\n\n**もう一人の人** が 言い/答え ました is the common way of saying it. \nIn polite language it should be もう一人の方{かた}が おっしゃいました／言われました etc.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T17:10:21.490",
"id": "50467",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T17:10:21.490",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50447",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50447 | 50467 | 50467 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50461",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I want to know what ２浪してるんだ means, also I assume the \"2\" means that the kanji\nis repeated twice, right?\n\nI thought the hiragana at the side is telling me how to read this kanji (へえ)\nbut looking up on romajidesu.com I see that this kanji \"on\" reading is rō\n(ロウrō)\n\nThe sentence that is coming after that is 根性 あるねえ [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7mLDB.png)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T10:38:11.463",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50450",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T14:05:25.997",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-17T11:04:55.127",
"last_editor_user_id": "23960",
"owner_user_id": "23960",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"manga"
],
"title": "Meaning of ２浪してるんだ",
"view_count": 830
} | [
{
"body": "We call the people who can enter university soon after graduating from high\nschool 現役.\n\n一浪 means \"failing college entrance exams in the year of graduating from high\nschool and retaking them a year later\".\n\nSo 二浪 means \"failing college entrance exams which he retook a year after\ngraduating from high school and retaking them another year later\", that is to\nsay, it took him two years to enter university after graduating from high\nschool.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T14:46:58.847",
"id": "50460",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T14:53:24.700",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-17T14:53:24.700",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "50450",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "As for へえ that is at the side of 浪, it is not the _furigana_ that tells how to\nread the kanji as you know, but it is the first part of the sentence. So, the\nwhole sentence should be read like へえ ２浪してるんだ 根性あるねぇ.\n\n**Edit:** As for ２浪, it is also written as 二浪 and both are read as _ni-roh_ or\nにろう. [２浪]{にろう} or [二浪]{にろう} means a person that has been \"浪人｛ろうにん｝ _rohnin_ \"\nfor two consecutive years. The meaning of a **_rohnin_** is\n[here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C5%8Dnin). It is mainly used for the\nhigh school alumni who have failed twice in the entrance examination of the\nuniversity/college that they desired to enter as is explained in another\nanswer. Not so many but it is also used for those who have failed to find a\njob in a desired company. _Rohnin_ seems to be a peculiar custom in Japan, but\nsince it is an ordinary word for Japanese, please understand it as one of\nJapanese words and also Japanese customs to learn.\n\nAs for the manga, when I look at the resume, the person is a man and 27 years\nold. He is going to take the employment exam (in this case, an interview for\njob) in order to get a job at his desired company. \nIn the manga, the interviewer knows that the job seeker failed twice in the\nentrance examination of the university he desired by reading the record of the\nresume, so the interviewer said to the job seeker admiringly that \"2浪してるんだ\n根性あるねぇ. _You experienced rohnin for two years, right? I know you have enough\nguts._ \"\n\nIn general, if we fail in the employment examination of the company or\ngovernment office we want to work for, we will give up them and work for\nanother company and the like. However, if the person can not give up them,\nthey will wait for one year by becoming _rohnin_ s or １浪 and take the\nemployment exam of them again in the next year. If they still fail in the\nexam, they will also become _rohnin_ s or ２浪 and take the exam of them in the\nnext year.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T14:54:31.753",
"id": "50461",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T06:52:46.033",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-18T06:52:46.033",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "50450",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "\"Oh... you took two years to enter university. You are tough.\"\n\nI guess this 根性あるねぇ has two feelings of the interviewer, seeing this situation\nonly.\n\n * You hardly ever give up on your goals.\n * You are not a thoughtful type of person.(Irony)\n\nGenerally speaking, 浪人生 burden their parents in financial or mental aspect. So\nthey study so hard during the year to pass exams, otherwise they change the\ngoal. 二浪 indicates that this person did not care his parents in his deep mind.\n\nTo see his answer はい！ Kaizaki san does not seem to be even worried about the\ninterviewer's irony. I think him to be an actually thoughtless, free-from-\nnervous type of guy.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T02:46:13.930",
"id": "50550",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T14:05:25.997",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-20T14:05:25.997",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "24037",
"parent_id": "50450",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50450 | 50461 | 50460 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50456",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I have come across the phrase 気をつけなければ but I do not understand how it works.\nGoogle translate says that it means \"I have to be careful\" but I can't find\nwhich conjugation it is using. To me it looks like the provisional form but I\ndon't understand how that fits here. The full sentence is\n両親を起こさないように気をつけなければならなかった.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T11:55:12.557",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50452",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T14:19:01.873",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24001",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage",
"conjugations"
],
"title": "気をつけなければ explanation",
"view_count": 504
} | [
{
"body": "_V-nak-ereba_ is an abbreviation of _V-nak-ereba naranai_. The literal\nanalysis of this is \"if _(-ba)_ I don't _(-nai_ ) [verb], it won't do\n_(naranai)_ \":\n\n * 気をつける be careful.\n * 気をつけない not be careful.\n * 気をつけなければ… if they're not careful… (it won't do).\n * 気をつけなければならない if they're not careful, it won't do (=they have to be careful).\n\nThough that's the literal construction, the full expression is just the\ncommon, everyday way of saying \"I have to [verb]\", which is the idiomatic\ntranslation. Native speakers don't usually analyze its parts, just like\nEnglish speakers don't usually think of _breakfast_ as the interruption of\nfasting, etc.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T13:22:54.070",
"id": "50456",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T14:19:01.873",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-17T14:19:01.873",
"last_editor_user_id": "622",
"owner_user_id": "622",
"parent_id": "50452",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "しなければならない is one phrase. It means \"must\",\"have to\". This ば don't have the\nmeaning of supposition. You don't need to separate into 気をつけなければ and ならない.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T13:31:02.480",
"id": "50457",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T13:45:29.017",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-17T13:45:29.017",
"last_editor_user_id": "7320",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "50452",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 50452 | 50456 | 50456 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50462",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The closest that I can see is 出し合う. Is there something better to express doing\nwhat you are expected to do in a pre-arranged situation?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T11:58:34.333",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50453",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T15:08:34.527",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4045",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"definitions"
],
"title": "What is the word for \"play your part\"?",
"view_count": 82
} | [
{
"body": "How about...\n\n「自分の役目を果たす」「自分の役割を果たす」「自分の務めを果たす」",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T15:08:34.527",
"id": "50462",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T15:08:34.527",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "50453",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50453 | 50462 | 50462 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In southern Kyushu, you hear people speak of a biting bug called チックン that\nlurks in shallow water near beaches. Researching the word a bit comes up with\nthe more standard term チングイ, and it appears to be some kind of larval-stage\narthropod. Whatever its biology, it's painful to be bitten by one. Are these\nterms equivalent, the one simply Kyushu-ben? Is anyone aware of any other\nvariants? And can anyone provide a scientifically meaningful translation of\nthe name? The best I've found so far is 'zoea', which is very vague.",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T13:11:41.607",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50455",
"last_activity_date": "2018-07-24T05:56:03.220",
"last_edit_date": "2018-07-23T15:55:28.033",
"last_editor_user_id": "18435",
"owner_user_id": "22186",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"translation",
"words",
"loanwords",
"dialects",
"nouns"
],
"title": "Can anyone confirm チックン is Kyushu-ben for チングイ and give its scientific name?",
"view_count": 229
} | [
{
"body": "I live in Kyushu. Maybe you are referring to チンクイ (not チングイ), also known as\nチンクイムシ. This is the common name given to the larval stage of crustaceans.\nUtterance of which could incite giggles from the ladies. The proper name in\nJapanese is ゾエア, from the English name that you mentioned. (Reference:\n<https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%83%81%E3%83%B3%E9%A3%9F%E3%81%84%E8%99%AB-1465715>)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-07-24T05:56:03.220",
"id": "60345",
"last_activity_date": "2018-07-24T05:56:03.220",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "30554",
"parent_id": "50455",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50455 | null | 60345 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50468",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Looking at the examples on [WWWJDIC](http://www.edrdg.org/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic/wwwjdic?1Q%B0%D9%A4%CB_1_) for using ために in sentences, I've\nnoticed that whenever ために can follow a verb without the の particle, while の\nmust be placed between ために and a preceding noun. For example, 「会社は生活 **するために**\n十分な年金を与えた」does not have the の particle, while 「私達は世界の **平和のために** 働いています」does.\nHowever, why is that the case? What function does の perform there?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T13:44:38.990",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50459",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T18:54:54.373",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "23869",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particle-の"
],
"title": "Use of の in のために?",
"view_count": 382
} | [
{
"body": "> I've noticed that whenever ために can follow a verb without the の particle,\n> while の must be placed between ために and a preceding noun. For example,\n> 「会社は生活するために十分な年金を与えた」does not have the の particle, while\n> 「私達は世界の平和のために働いています」does. However, why is that the case? What function does\n> の perform there?\n\nRight. One usage of the particle **の** is to connect nouns together, very\nsimilar to English 'of'.\n\n> while の must be placed between ために and a preceding noun. \n> 「私達は世界の平和のために働いています」\n\nThis の is connecting two nouns, 平和 and ため. It's just the way we Japanese\nnaturally say things; two nouns cannot be connected without a particle unless\nit can be considered as a compound noun.\n\nLike @Felipe Oliveira is saying up there, in the expressions like 昨日のほうが、風のように\nalso, の is connecting two nouns together: ほう and よう are nouns.\n\n> I've noticed that whenever ために can follow a verb without the の particle, \n> 「会社は生活するために十分な年金を与えた」does not have the の particle,\n\nIf you are ready for other usages of の, here, this ため can be replaced with の;\nの represents a noun, and makes a phrase or clause right before it a noun, just\nlike English 'that'.\n\n> 生活する **の** に十分な年金.\n\nIt might be more formal with ために than the replacement with の, it's not\nnecessarily informal either.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T18:54:54.373",
"id": "50468",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T18:54:54.373",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50459",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 50459 | 50468 | 50468 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm reading a passage from a fictional work, character A has been assigned\nwith a task (publishing a controversial article) from his boss that he has\nmixed feelings about, one of his superiors (character B) later notices the\nuncomfortable look on his face, they have a short conversation about a few\nthings related to the conversation they had with the boss earlier. Character B\nthen takes one of A's older published articles in hand from the tabletop,\nlooks through it and says this;\n\n> B「しかし, 良く引き受けたな？事情が事情だ、断って他の隊に話を回しちまっても良かったと思うぜ？」\n>\n> A responds 「……俺も、迷っちゃいるんすけどね」\n\nHowever, this is where I've hit a snag; I'm not quite sure how one would parse\nthis correctly.\n\nI had a go at it with what I have learned so far and some guess work and came\nup with this:\n\n> \"however, you often accept this sort of thing? Circumstances are\n> circumstances, I think it's good to reject passing the matter around to\n> other units right?\"\n>\n> \"…but I also hesitated [when it came to making a decision(?)].\"\n\nNow this feels like a really shaky translation to me, it doesn't seem to make\ntoo much sense either so that is why I ask for help with how it should be\nparsed.\n\nA lot of confusion stems from 断って I almost feel like a particle should follow\nthis the way I perceived the sentence, but to me a translation of this part\nwould be more likely \"to refuse and~\" because of the te form, of course my\nattempt at a translation says otherwise so I'm confused.\n\nThe 話を回しちまって is also something I haven't come across yet, is it a set phrase?\nI think it probably means \"sending the matter around to~\" some clarification\nwould be awesome.\n\nFinally the ぜ？at the end, does this indicate a rise in intonation here in this\nparticular context? So maybe one could translate it as \"right?\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T16:28:30.543",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50465",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-11T17:02:11.163",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-11T17:02:11.163",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "24006",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"syntax",
"set-phrases",
"parsing"
],
"title": "「しかし, 良く引き受けたな？事情が事情だ、断って他の隊に話を回しちまっても良かったと思うぜ？」",
"view_count": 103
} | [
{
"body": "> B「しかし, 良く引き受けたな？事情が事情だ、断って他の隊に話を回しちまっても良かったと思うぜ？」\n>\n> A responds 「……俺も、迷っちゃいるんすけどね」\n>\n> \"however, you often accept this sort of thing? Circumstances are\n> circumstances, I think it's good to reject passing the matter around to\n> other units right?\"\n>\n> \"…but I also hesitated [when it came to making a decision(?)].\"\n\n* * *\n\n> 断って I almost feel like a particle should follow this the way I perceived the\n> sentence, but to me a translation of this part would be more likely \"to\n> refuse and~\" because of the te form,\n\nYour assumption of \" _ **to refuse and ~**_ \" is correct. I assume you are\nfeeling it's illogical to talk about something that happens after refusing it,\nbut it's just a typical word of an irresponsible remark; they know or expect\nthat it's the logical consequence that someone has to do it if they refuse it.\n\n話を回す, I don't know if this is a set phrase or not, but 回す can mean either pass\naround or pass something to someone. We also often say 仕事を回す, 上司がいい仕事を回してくれた,\netc.\n\nThe ぜ？ in reality doesn't sound very much like a decent word at a work place,\nbut it might be an effort not to offend, and probably that is why it has '？'\nSo, I think ', right?' is a good translation.\n\nWell, by the way, the 良く here means not _often_ but something like _dare (to\ndo something)_ , an intensifier. The speaker is expressing surprise because\nhe's accepted it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T20:55:55.237",
"id": "50470",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T20:55:55.237",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50465",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50465 | null | 50470 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50473",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> こんな状況で、俺は勉学に励んで **なんかいられるのか**\n> ？学費も特例で後払いを認めてもらったが、極悪組をどうにかしないことには、支払いもままならないだろう。\n\n[speaker owes a lot of money to the bad guys, is being harassed]\n\n> In this situation, (how can i ?) try to study? I've been granted special\n> approval to defer my school fees, but if i don't do something about the bad\n> guys, there's no way i can pay it.\n\nI take てなんか as described in [なんか after て- form of a\nverb](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/4431/%e3%81%aa%e3%82%93%e3%81%8b-after-%e3%81%a6-form-\nof-a-verb?noredirect=1&lq=1) ,\n\n俺は勉学に励んでなんかいられるのか ＝ can it be that i (do such a thing like) focus on my\nstudies?\n\nVery awkward to read going directly from なんか into いられる and nominmalizing it.\nIs there a non-contracted form of this phrase?\n\nThank you.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T16:35:15.110",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50466",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T01:42:13.273",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-17T17:12:25.937",
"last_editor_user_id": "22187",
"owner_user_id": "22187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Use of でなんかいられるのか in this sentence",
"view_count": 188
} | [
{
"body": "> > こんな状況で、俺は勉学に励んで **なんかいられるのか** ？\n>\n> can it be that i (do such a thing like) focus on my studies? \n> Is there a non-contracted form of this phrase?\n\nIt could be 勉学に励んで など いられる もの な の か if this could be of any help.\n\nI take this **か** as self-questioning. The words sound like the speaker is\nworrying about his own (near) future.\n\nThe なんか adds a nuance to treat the thing mentioned right before it lightly. In\nthis case, the speaker is degrading the activity of studying because other\nthings he's facing right now are more important or at least taking up too much\ntime and occupying his mind too much.\n\nいられる is continued from 励んで. It's a form made from 勉学に励む, 勉学に励んでいる\n(state/progression), and into 勉学に励んでいられる (potential/ability)\n\n* * *\n\n[Reply to the additional question]\n\n> is that the case when it doesn't end in a negative statement? Compared to\n> \"adds emphasis against an assumption or statement by others and is used only\n> in negative statements\" from [なんか after て- form of a\n> verb](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/4431/%E3%81%AA%E3%82%93%E3%81%8B-after-%E3%81%A6-form-\n> of-a-verb?noredirect=1&lq=1)\n\nI see that the point of the other thread is also degrading. I find the\ndegrading なんか is not limited to negative or questioning sentence:\nうちの子なんか寝てばっかりです. なんか could assume a proud tone while appears to be degrading:\n(I can't really come up with a good example, but for the time being..something\nlike) うちなんかまだこれからです. Also it's good to keep in mind that なんか is more informal\nthan なんて.\n\n> **なんか** \n> **２** ある事物を例示し、それを軽んじていう意を表す。…など。「彼の言うことなんか聞くな」「君になんかわからない」（[デジタル大辞泉 |\n> なんか](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/165619/meaning/m1u/%E3%81%AA%E3%82%93%E3%81%8B/)）\n>\n> **なんて** \n> **１** ある事物を例示して、それを軽んじたり、婉曲 (えんきょく)\n> に言ったりする意を表す。なんか。…などということは。「手伝いなんてできるか」「本気にするなんてばかね」（[デジタル大辞泉 |\n> なんて](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/165854/meaning/m1u/%E3%81%AA%E3%82%93%E3%81%A6/)）",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T22:16:10.040",
"id": "50473",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T01:42:13.273",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50466",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 50466 | 50473 | 50473 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50472",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> ８１歳の **男性が妻の乗った車いすを押して** エスカレーターを利用していたとき、後ろに落ちる事故がありました。 \n> There was an accident where an 81 year old man fell backwards when he\n> pushed the end of the wheel chair he was riding onto the escalator.\n\nI'm a bit confused by the part in bold. Does this mean that the man got out of\nthe wheel chair and pushed it onto the escalator and then stood behind it? Or,\ncan 押す be used to refer to the action of driving the wheel chair, i.e. he\nremained seated in the wheel chair and pushed it onto the escalator using the\nwheels?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T21:37:03.777",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50471",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T21:48:08.723",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"usage"
],
"title": "Meaning of 押す with wheelchairs",
"view_count": 71
} | [
{
"body": "As a non-native Japanese speaker, I would assume the following: That the\nsentence parses as follows\n\n８１歳の男性 - subject (81 year old man)\n\n妻の乗った車いす - object (wheelchiar his wife was riding in)\n\n押して - te form to indicate simultaneous action (while pushing)\n\nin an adjectival sentence, ga can be conjugated to no in order to indicate\nthat the subject is part of the adjectival sentence and not the larger\nsentence. in this case the verb oshite indicates simultaneous action. It\ntherefore translates to:\n\nThere was an accident where an 81 year old man fell backwards after pushing\nhis wife up an escalator in a wheelchair.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-17T21:48:08.723",
"id": "50472",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-17T21:48:08.723",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19998",
"parent_id": "50471",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50471 | 50472 | 50472 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50486",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I was watching 田中君はいつもけだるげ, and in one of the scenes Tanaka explains that in\norder to be lazy as much as possible, he needs to exercise to help his body\nendure whatever sleeping position Tanaka chooses.\n\nOhta responds with this:\n\n> 矛盾してる気がしなくもないが なるほど\n\nSince this is a double negative, Ohta is definitely saying that Tanaka is\ncontradicting himself in a way.\n\nBut what meaning is implied when you use なくもない rather than かもしれない、でしょう or\nstraight up just 気がする？\n\nI've found a couple answers here like\n[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/9689/meaning-\nof-%E3%81%84%E3%81%AA%E3%81%8F%E3%82%82%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84) and this\n[one](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/5446/what-does-it-mean-\nwhen-a-sentence-ends-\nwith-%E3%81%97%E3%81%AA%E3%81%8F%E3%82%82%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84), but they don't\nreally give a clear picture on why it's used in place of かもしれない or でしょう.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T00:30:24.853",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50474",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T14:34:06.737",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10587",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "Question about しなくもない",
"view_count": 1209
} | [
{
"body": "\"しなくもない\" implies the speaker does not completely agree with the idea, while\n\"かもしれない\" or \"でしょう\" don't have such nuance.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T01:55:09.843",
"id": "50477",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T01:55:09.843",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18949",
"parent_id": "50474",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "# 日本語\n\n> しなくもない\n\n[ここ](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/38324/9831)にあるように、二重否定 (a double-\nnegative construction)であって、確信性が低い (to say something less confidently), or\nしぶしぶ認める (to reluctantly admit something)ときの表現で間違いありません。\n\nそれ以外の解釈を加えますと、この表現は会話の中でよく使われます。この表現が比較的よく使われる理由は、この表現は、「確信性が低い」「しぶしぶ認める」という論理的な意味合いで使われる以外に、「持って回った言い方\n_a roundabout expression [way of saying]_ 」あるいは「どうとでも捉｛とら｝えられる _ambiguous_\n」表現であることから、日本人の意思表示の典型的なスタイルである「 **明言を避ける** _to steer clear of definitive\ncommitment_ 」あるいは「 **あらかじめ逃げを打つ** _to (prepare to) run away (from one's\nresponsibilities, etc.)_ 」のに大変便利な言い回しだからだと思います。\n\n# English\n\n> しなくもない\n\nAs is written [here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/38324/9831), it is a\ndouble-negative construction, which can be seen as a set phrase used to say\nsomething less confidently, or to reluctantly admit something.\n\nIf I add another interpretation for the expression, I could say it is often\nused in conversation. \nOther than the reason that this expression is used relatively often with\nlogical meaning like to say something less confidently or reluctantly admit\nsomething written above, it is a very convenient way \"to steer clear of\ndefinitive commitment\" or \"to (prepare to) run away (from one's\nresponsibilities, etc.) which is a typical style of Japanese manifestation of\ntheir intention, because the expression is \"a roundabout way of saying\" or\n\"ambiguous\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T08:09:26.927",
"id": "50486",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T14:34:06.737",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "50474",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50474 | 50486 | 50486 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I just read the word \"筆順\" in an article about linguistics. I'd never seen this\nword before. I've always said \"書き順\" for \"stroke order\".\n\n\"書き順\" is the natural way to say \"stroke order\" in daily conversation? \n\"筆順\" is the natural way to write about \"stroke order\" in a more scientific\ndiscussion about linguistics?\n\nNot a big deal. I am just curious.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T00:38:39.647",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50475",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-17T08:10:04.113",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9509",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "\"筆順\" sounds more scientific / formal than \"書き順\"?",
"view_count": 92
} | [
{
"body": "* 会話では「筆順」ではなく、「書き順」を使います。 同様に「どんな順序で書く」とも言います。「書き順」と「どんな順序で書く」とは大変違うようですが、次のようにいずれも使います。例えば「この字、 **どんな順序で書く** の？ 縦棒が先？ それとも横棒？」⇔「この字の **書き順** は？ 縦棒が先？ それとも横棒？」あるいは、「この字、 **どんな順序で書く** のか教えて。」⇔「この字の **書き順** 教えて。」\n\n * scientific discussionに限らず、文章の中で書くときは基本的に「筆順」を使います。もし、「書き順」と書くと、子供が書いた文章か、教養がない人が書いたように見えます。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T07:33:02.380",
"id": "50484",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T07:33:02.380",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "50475",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50475 | null | 50484 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "An Anki deck I've downloaded is representing a word as \"o-miyage\" and \"おーみやげ\".\nThe deck isn't using any kanji - it's based on JFBP book 1, which doesn't\nteach any kanji. I've hidden the romaji, so I'm only seeing \"おーみやげ\". I know\nthe second character is intended to represent a hyphen, but it looks\nconfusingly similar to the \"ー\" in \"ラーメン\".\n\nIs there any notation used in the context of teaching of Japanese as a non-\nnative language (or even outside that context!) to indicate prefixes such as\nbikago or suffixes such as \"-や\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T01:29:16.020",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50476",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-05T16:52:51.493",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"punctuation",
"symbols"
],
"title": "How to represent prefixes and suffixes in a L2 context",
"view_count": 121
} | [
{
"body": "Such hyphens should be _much_ shorter than Japanese 長音記号 (long vowel marker).\nHere's how おみやげ and ラーメン should look in a dictionary entry (screenshot of\ngoo辞書):\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/v1PIW.png)\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6Qert.png)\n\nIf you are really seeing a long bar as wide as a hiragana character between お\nand みやげ, it means the app you're using is bad. I can't help reading it as\nおおみやげ.\n\nEnglish em-dashes can be sometimes confusing, and Japanese people use a very\nlong dash instead. See: [Is Japanese em dash equal to Latin em\ndash?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/36601/5010)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T05:41:09.233",
"id": "50480",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-05T16:52:51.493",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-05T16:52:51.493",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50476",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50476 | null | 50480 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I was reading page 5 of my 上級へのとびら textbook, and in line 12, the following\nsentence caught my eye:\n\n> 日本は南北 **に** 長いので……\n\nI cannot figure out why the に is used instead of が (南北が長い). Is に the 連用形 of なる\nhere?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T05:50:53.170",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50481",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T10:35:33.947",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-18T08:36:00.980",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "11849",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particles",
"particle-に"
],
"title": "Particle usage of に in 南北に長い?",
"view_count": 280
} | [
{
"body": "Turns a noun 南北 into an adverbial expression, i.e. answers the question \"how?\"\nLet's say ...\"north-south-directionally\".\n\nAnd the expression then modifies the adjective \"long\".\n\nIn English it would translate to \"long in north-south direction\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T05:58:54.027",
"id": "50482",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T05:58:54.027",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "11104",
"parent_id": "50481",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "# 日本語\n\n「日本は南北 **方向** に長い」という意味で「日本は南北に長い」と言います。 「東西に長い」も「東西 **方向**\nに長い」の代わりにごく普通に使います。\n\n# English\n\nWe usually say \"日本は南北に長い\" having a meaning of \"日本は南北 **方向** に長い\". In addition\nto this, it is very common to use \"東西に長い\" in place of \"東西 **方向** に長い\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T06:59:04.550",
"id": "50483",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T10:35:33.947",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "50481",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50481 | null | 50482 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50497",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> A: ぜひ、君にこの仕事をしてもらいたいんだ。 \n> B: わたし **なんか** できませんよ。この会社に入ったばかりですから。\n\nI learned that なんか expresses that one doesn't appreciate the preceding thing\nmuch. In this case, it would be わたし. I could think of contexts where this\nmakes sense, but I feel unsure about what is meant in these sentences. In the\nfollowing sentence, I think ばかり expresses that the subject just entered the\ncompany. In that case, maybe なんか is used because the subject thinks of himself\nas not sufficiently competent?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T07:34:18.197",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50485",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-11T16:59:44.760",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-11T16:59:10.367",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"usage"
],
"title": "なんか in 「わたしなんかできませんよ。」",
"view_count": 231
} | [
{
"body": "You're on the right track with 'I learned that なんか expresses that one doesn't\nappreciate the preceding thing much.' Basically, なんか here expresses a light\nform of self-deprecation. It helps 'soften' their refusal to do the work.\n\n> A: 'Please, I'd like you to do this work.'\n>\n> B: 'There's no way _I_ (of all people) could do it. I've only just entered\n> this company, after all.'",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T12:09:54.867",
"id": "50497",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-11T16:59:44.760",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-11T16:59:44.760",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"parent_id": "50485",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 50485 | 50497 | 50497 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50490",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The following Dialogue:\n\n> A: この本、もう読んだんですか。 \n> B: ええ、とてもよかったですよ。家族の大切さをあらためて **考えさせられました** 。\n\nWith this causative passive, I'd translate it like this:\n\nA: Have you already read this book? \nB: Yes, it was very good. I was made thinking about the value of family over\nand over again.\n\nNow the following question: Would it be possible to change the bold\npredicative into active mood **without changing or adding anything else in the\nsentence?** So that it translates into:\n\nA: Have you already read this book? \nB: Yes, it was very good. **It made me think** about the value of family over\nand over again.\n\nOr would the sentence become ambigious then without any changes/additions?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T08:11:28.267",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50487",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T08:48:03.140",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-18T08:37:26.763",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Is the causative-passive necessary here",
"view_count": 81
} | [
{
"body": "Yes, I think the natural English translation of this sentence would be \"It\nmade me think ...\".\n\nSimply, この本は私に家族の大切さを考えさせました sounds less natural in Japanese, although\nunderstandable, because the Japanese language tends to dislike inanimate\nsubjects. You will see ～(ら)れる used more often than you would use the passive\nvoice in English.\n\nRelated: [In Japanese, can we say an object asks a\nquestion?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/32436/5010)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T08:48:03.140",
"id": "50490",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T08:48:03.140",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50487",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50487 | 50490 | 50490 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50498",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "たら and 時 can be used to say \"when\" expressions. I have learned these\ngrammatical expressions already. In the book みんなの日本語, there is a question that\ngoes...\n\n> 昼ご飯を a.食べた時 b.食べたら、すぐ出かけます。\n\nWhen seeing this, instantly I would pick 'b'. However I can't explain to\nmyself why it had to be 'b' when 'a' doesn't sound grammatically wrong. Is it\nperhaps the すぐ that made it that way?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T08:40:49.227",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50488",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T22:48:19.350",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "15891",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "When is たら or 時 being preferred more than the other?",
"view_count": 185
} | [
{
"body": "Because 時 means \"the time when\" but not \"then\". The word \"when\" seems to mean\nthe both.\n\n昼ご飯を食べたら、すぐ出かけます would be translated as \"After eating breakfast, (then) I will\ngo out soon.\"\n\nDoes 昼ご飯を食べた時、すぐ出かけます(The time when I ate breakfast, I will go out soon.) make\nsense?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T13:35:29.917",
"id": "50498",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T14:02:27.553",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-18T14:02:27.553",
"last_editor_user_id": "7320",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "50488",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> > 昼ご飯を a.食べた時 b.食べたら、すぐ出かけます。\n>\n> Is it perhaps the すぐ that made it that way?\n\nI think you are right. The two words are connected each other very well as\n～したらすぐ to us.\n\nしたときします has a notion that you are just waiting for that occasion. We don't use\nthis expression for things we are up to now.\n\nIt works if it's 昼ご飯を社食で食べたときに（給仕さんに話してみます, etc.) because it says 社食で, and we\nsay this when we don't really know when we eat at the office cafeteria.\nWithout any adverbs like 社食で, 昼ご飯を食べたときに alone is almost like saying you eat\nlunch not everyday.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T14:13:55.623",
"id": "50500",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T15:32:43.017",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50488",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "I guess this is also what @YuuichiTam wanted to say, that ～時 only means\nliterally \"the very moment\" the verb takes place. When you do something a\nbreath after the action, it is no longer in the expression's scope. For\nexample, you _could_ say:\n\n> りんごを食べた時、すぐに腐っていることに気づいた。 \n> _When I ate the apple, I immediately noticed it's rotten._\n>\n> 一口食べた時、すぐ懐かしい記憶が蘇ってきた。 \n> _A bite of it immediately brought me back memories of good old days._\n\nLikewise(?),\n\n> 昼ご飯を食べた時、すぐ出かけます。\n\nwould perhaps mean that when you put the last piece of meal into your mouth,\nyou suddenly find yourself outside the door. That's pretty futuristic. But if\nyou want to follow the traditional method of putting the fork down and walking\nfrom dining table to entrance on your feet, you must say:\n\n> 昼ご飯を食べたら、すぐ出かけます。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T17:38:54.457",
"id": "50508",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T22:48:19.350",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-18T22:48:19.350",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "50488",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 50488 | 50498 | 50498 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50517",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was wondering if anyone could tell me when furigana started being used in\nJapan? I'm writing a research paper, and I've been searching and digging\naround for the answer but can't find it anywhere.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T08:47:01.180",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50489",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-11T16:55:01.327",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-11T16:55:01.327",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "24013",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"history",
"furigana"
],
"title": "At what time did furigana start being used?",
"view_count": 717
} | [
{
"body": "**Short answer** : In the words of Ariga, they're \"as old as writing itself\".¹\n\n**Long answer** :\n\nYou might be surprised to learn that furigana is _older than hiragana_!\n\nTo understand what I mean by that, we'll have to make a digression first into\nwhat kana even _means_. The first thing to keep in mind is that the Japanese\ndidn't invent the use of characters to write sounds. From the very beginning,\nthe Chinese have been using their kanji characters to write sounds, too, just\nlike _kana_. For example, the character 阿 originally denoted the Chinese word\n_\"a\"_ , meaning \"large mound\"; but it was often used to denote the sound _a_\nitself, not just large mounds—for example, when representing the Sanskrit name\nof the Celestial Buddha Amitābha, written in Chinese as 阿弥陀佛 * _a-mi-tuo-but_.\nThe sound \"a\" could also be represented as 安, 亜, 悪 and several others. We call\nthese **phonograms**. A phonogram is a kanji like any other, but it's being\nused to represent the sound only, discarding the meaning. Theoretically any\nkanji could be used as a phonogram, but for reasons that are easy to imagine,\na few hundred kanji (like 阿) became especially associated with phonogram\nusage.\n\nWhen writing was introduced in Japan, at first it was used to write Chinese,\nnot Japanese. But even in this stage, the Japanese had the problem of how to\nwrite down certain Japanese words, such as personal names or place names. What\nthey did was of course to take the already-existing phonograms and use them to\nrepresent Japanese sounds. These days people call these phonograms\n_Man'yōgana_ , after the classical poetic anthology _Man'yōshū_ ; but the\nJapanese already used them way before the _Man'yōgana_ , and it has been\nshown² that they used pretty much the same set of phonograms as their Chinese\nsource, with a few Koreanisms thrown in (which makes sense because, as the\nJapanese themselves tell us in the _Kojiki_ and _Nihon Shoki_ , they learned\nwriting from Korean masters). For example, here's a section from the\n[Inariyama sword](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inariyama_Sword), though to\ndate around 513CE:³\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/M3IM3.png) \n(Credits: [風来香 blog](http://hirohabe.cocolog-\nnifty.com/tiger/2011/12/post-4143.html).)\n\nThough written in Chinese as was the norm, this sword has a long list of\nJapanese names written in phonograms. The section above shows the characters\n獲加多支鹵大王, phonograms for わかたきろ-大王, some Great King Waka Takiro.³ Around the 8th\ncentury, the same technique would be used to record full Japanese poems in the\n_Kojiki_ (written in Chinese but with Japanese quotations), and increasingly\nfor Japanese in general.\n\n(What were phonograms called back then? Well, they were \"borrowed names\", or…\n仮名 _kana_. The word was opposed to \"true names\" 真名 _mana_ , or kanji used for\nmeaning. Note that, at this stage, kana weren't considered to be different\ncharacters than kanji; only different ways of _using_ the same characters.)\n\nLet's look at a page of one of the oldest surviving manuscripts of that\n_Kojiki_ , the oldest text (ca. 712) with Japanese literature in it. This is\nfrom the Dōka copy, ca. 1381 (courtesy of\n[kojiki.org](http://www.kojiki.org/douka/index.htm)):\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OJavr.png)\n\nWe have a normal section in Chinese-style, 次天之常立神; but then comes a curious\nnote in smaller type, 訓常云登許訓立云多知—set in two columns, just like the Chinese did\nin their tradition of commentaries and annotations. This isn't something\ninvented by this manuscript only; all Kojikis we have do this, and the author\ndescribes what's he's doing in the preface, so we know it's part of the\noriginal work. What's going on with it? This sentence starts, like much of the\n_Kojiki_ , introducing a deity: next (次), comes the Heavenly… 天之{あまの}…\nsomething-or-other-no-Kami 神. The author then tells us how to read the hard\npart in the middle, that is, the core name of the god: use a Japanese _kun_ 訓\nreading for ‹常›, 云=pronouncing it as _toko_ (glossed in phonograms, 登 _to_ 許\n_ko_ ). Then use another _kun_ 訓 for ‹立›, 云 pronouncing as _tachi_ (in\nphonograms, 多 _ta_ 知 _chi_ ). We can finally read the god's Japanese name:\n[Ama-no-toko-tachi-no-\nKami](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E4%B9%8B%E5%B8%B8%E7%AB%8B%E7%A5%9E).¹\n\nThis is, in most ways that matter, the first Japanese book, and it has\n_furigana_.\n\nThough the above are the same as _furigana_ in function (they're a phonetic\nnotation on how to read _kanji_ , distinguished from the main text in smaller\ntype), they're still not quite the same in form (they follow the text as\ninstructions, rather than being parallel with it). Modern furigana are a type\nof **interlinear gloss** , a \"writing between the lines\" (or columns). These\nalso have precedent outside Japan, but to avoid even more digressions, let's\nskip to the part where Buddhist priests put two and two together and started\nusing interlinear glosses to help with reading holy texts aloud. Buddhists in\nparticular cared a lot about that, because 1) they wanted to instruct novices\nin Buddhism and spread it as efficiently as possible, and 2) they believed\nthat preserving the proper enunciation of the mantras was important for them\nto be effective.⁴\n\nSo you see, Japanese Buddhist monks studying classics in Chinese had all the\ntools and all the motives to gloss the pronunciation of kanji using\nphonograms, and that's what they did:³\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aWqfu.png)\n\nThis table lists some phonograms used side-by-side with kanji, like modern\nfurigana, in the Buddhist text 阿毘達磨雑集論 _Abidatsuma Zōjūron_ (ca. 800). I'm\nonly quoting the ones with an _-a_ vowel for brevity; see the references for\nmore. (Similar developments in phonogram notation took place in Korea, too⁵).\nDid you spot our friend the phonogram 阿 in the title of the text? _Abidatsuma_\n阿毘達磨 is a transcript of the Sanskrit word\n_[Abhidharma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma)_ , a kind of religious\ntext. And, as we might have expected, 阿 is listed in the table as a furigana\nfor the sound _a_ in the manuscript, too (in a somewhat decayed shape).\nUnfortunately I couldn't find online images of the manuscript (if anyone has\naccess to relevant materials, please post them!).\n\nBut wait: something's off here. Symbols like 和 for _wa_ or 万 for _ma_ are\nclearly phonographic kanji as described, but others look like pretty much like\nmodern katakana. We've seen in the _Kojiki_ that the character 多 was used for\n_ta_ , for example, but here in the _Abidatsuma_ it's been reduced to a single\nタ – our modern katakana for it. And the one for _ya_ looks less like its\nputative kanji, 也, than the modern hiragana や. What happened?\n\nThis is the final piece of the puzzle: **graphical simplification**. If you've\never tried to draw characters with a brush, you know the ungodly amount of\nwork that is to draw a lot of them. If you're writing cute Japanese words like\n_Ama-no-tsune-tachi-no-kami_ with full-blown kanji phonograms, you'll be\nsitting there the entire day (in fact the author of the _Kojiki_ famously\ncomplains about that in the preface; it's the reason he gives for using\nconvoluted _kun_ readings, like writing _ama-_ \"heavenly\" as 天, rather than\njust writing everything as phonograms, like 阿万). But the difficulties of\ndrawing too many strokes didn't afflict just the Japanese, and Chinese writing\nalready had its own solution to draw things more easily: the same we had in\nWestern handwriting, that is, cursive. Here's an extract of a cursive piece by\na celebrated Chinese calligrapher, Wang Xizhi (303–361; image via [the\nmet](http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/39899)):\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/o0ACC.png)\n\nNotice how this piece conveniently portrays one Chinese use of interlinear\nglosses. Does the flowing style feel familiar? I'm sure you must have noticed\nthat あ is just a cursive 安, which had always been a common phonogram for _a_ ,\nand 也→や, too, is clearly recognizable. If you're not convinced of how are\nthese shapes related, watching them [in\nmovement](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlB2JmolzTk) should make it clear.\n\nThese simplified forms lend themselves naturally to phonogram use, because\nthey're so convenient, and phonogram is so verbose. I've been glossing (heh)\nover this, but there's been a tendency from the beginning to use simplified\nshapes for phonograms. One of the Japanese innovations was the gradual\n_specialization_ of ultra-cursive forms to phonogram use, mixing them with\nfuller characters meant to be read by meaning. This is unlike Chinese in that\nnow there was a clear visual indicator of how each character should be read:\nif they're ultra-cursive, read as phonograms. This is hiragana.\n\nAs we said, quick-and-dirty hiragana was a natural fit for furigana glosses,\nas in や in the _Abidatsuma_ table above, or the bottom one in the _ka_ list (;\nit looks like a の with an accent, but it's actually an old cursive version of\nthe phonogram 可 _ka_ ). There emerged also a second method of simplifying\ncharacters, associated with Buddhist glossing: just straightforwardly\nabbreviate them. Draw only the first two strokes of 阿, giving ア, or half of 多\nfor タ, or half of 加 for カ, and so on. Both kinds of simplified characters\nbecame specialized for phonogram use, in no small part thanks to their role as\n_furigana_ glosses for kanji. In fact, you might have spotted a normal\nfurigana ト already in the Dōka Kojiki manuscript shown above—this wouldn't be\nas old as the original Kojiki, but it's still pretty damn old; by the Heian\nperiod modern-style furigana can already be found in manuscripts… about at the\nsame time as one finds modern-style kanji/kana Japanese text.\n\nWhat I wanted to show with all this exposition was that all the ingredients\nwere there from the start: kanji, phonograms, annotations, glosses, simplified\nshapes, all predate the introduction of writing to Japan and have parallels\nelsewhere. And the particular system they formed in Japan evolved organically,\nand organized itself naturally; _furigana_ , _okurigana_ and the very\n_hiragana/katakana_ themselves, all of it happened together as a coherent\nwhole.\n\nReferences:\n\n 1. Ariga, [_The Playful Gloss_](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2384611).\n 2. Bentley, [_The Origin of Man'yogana_](http://www.jstor.org/stable/3657541).\n 3. Seeley, _A History of Writing in Japan_.\n 4. De Boer, [_The Historical Development of Japanese Tone_](http://www.academia.edu/9659321/The_historical_development_of_Japanese_tone_Part_1_From_proto-Japanese_to_the_modern_dialects_Part_2_The_introduction_and_adaptation_of_the_Middle_Chinese_tones_in_Japan).\n 5. Whitman, [_The Ubiquity of the Gloss_](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5f57/484ccebc6c1414d4f94f2fdfc100b4c4d15a.pdf).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T01:16:18.650",
"id": "50517",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T11:22:36.700",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T11:22:36.700",
"last_editor_user_id": "622",
"owner_user_id": "622",
"parent_id": "50489",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 13
}
]
| 50489 | 50517 | 50517 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50495",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "If the ている form of these verbs doesn't mean that they're in a continuing\naction then what do they mean?\n\nQ1 How do I use the ている form of these verbs. \nQ2 What's the difference between using the past tense of these verbs and the\nているform.\n\nDoesn't it mean we already did it? Like if I were to say \nExample 1\n\n> 家に行っている\n\nDoesn't this mean I already went home and I'm there? \nExample 2\n\n> 1.先に行っている \n> 2.先に行った\n\nI ask this question because if the ている form here doesn't mean a continuing\naction but rather a continuing state then what does this state mean?\n\nQ3. How do I conjugate these verbs into their progressive forms",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T09:01:50.487",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50491",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-11T16:54:02.607",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-11T16:54:02.607",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "22413",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"conjugations"
],
"title": "What's the progressive form of 来る, 帰る and 行く",
"view_count": 976
} | [
{
"body": "Pretty sure that ている form is always the state of doing that thing. Not will\ndo, not doing in general, DOING RIGHT NOW. I think you can for the most part\nthink of it as \"ing\" in English (although be careful, because \"ing\" can\nnominalize a verb, and ている cannot.)\n\nFor example,\n\n家に行っている I am going home ペンを持っている I am holding a pen (I have a pen)\n\nNote, I believe you can force this as doing in the future aswell by adding\ntime specification, for example\n\n明日、５時で、働いています。 Tommorow, At 5 o'clock, I will be working.\n\nHope that helped. In short, I don't believe 行く、来る、and 帰る are any exceptions to\nthe rule.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T09:25:27.383",
"id": "50493",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T09:25:27.383",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22318",
"parent_id": "50491",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "The main difference between ている and past tense is that... ている is a state while\nthe past tense is an action.\n\nている is very simple. It's basically the moment when someone did a verb (past\ntense), receive a change in state, and the result can be seen clearly as a\nconsequence of the verb.\n\n> 食べている I am eating\n\nnotice that here the action 'eat' has been done. The speaker is in the state\nof eating as a consequence of doing the verb eat and start on the moment after\nthe speaker bite, chew, and swallow. We regard this as progressive verb\nbecause as you did the verb, it is continuous.\n\n> 落ちている It's on the ground\n\nHere, you don't say that this means it is falling. Now imagine a coin is\nfalling in the air from a table in midair. This coin hasn't done the verb\n'fall', after all if this coin has done it, then we'd say the past tense\n(fell) while it is in the midair (which is weird). Here the coin has fallen\n(and we can see the state : on the ground).\n\nverb + ing doesn't always mean progressive verb because some are instantaneous\nand doesn't possess the continuous manner (like the verb 'fall'). This type of\nverbs then, when changed into + ing, will mean that it is on the progress that\nthe verb is going to be done (but not yet done... it's like on it's way to do\nthe verb). (not the progress after the verb had begun).\n\n> 死んでいる he's dead\n\nHere's another example... we don't say, \"he's dying\". Because if we did, it\nmeans that the guy is still breathing, minutes away for what awaits him, where\nhe'll die sooner or later. And that means the verb \"die\" hasn't been done.\n\nHere's more...\n\n開けている I have opened (door/window) [emphasizes the state of the opened ....]\n\n閉めている I have closed (door/window) [emphasizes the state of the closed ....]\n\n開いている The .... is open.\n\nお腹が空いている My stomach is empty (hungry)\n\n怒っている (I, you) am/are angry\n\n生きている I'm alive\n\n結婚している we are married\n\n作っている I have made ... [Emphasizes the state]\n\nIf you want to say \"dying or falling\" then you can just use the future\ntense... (I think?)\n\n死ぬ I am going to die (I'm dying)\n\nThe motion verbs are included in the latter. When we say \"going\", we haven't\ndone the verb \"go\" (we haven't arrive yet). So if you can say it in the past\ntense... then you can use ている for this class of verbs (I went to Japan --> you\ncan say 日本に行っている). When you use ている, it means you are still in Japan. However\nif you use 行った, you might or might not be on Japan at the moment of saying.\n\nJapanese has a lot of ways to say things. like 終わっているところ and 行く時 or just use\nthe plain form with additional context or time specifications when trying to\nexpress your so \"Progressive form of motion verb\".\n\nRelated [When is Vている the continuation of action and when is it the\ncontinuation of\nstate?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3122/when-\nis-v%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B-the-continuation-of-action-and-when-is-it-the-\ncontinuation-of-state)\n\nto help you differentiate these 2, you may translate ている as 'has/have'.\n家に帰っている --> I have gone home vs 家に帰った --> I went home. 帰った would be used if\nyou already left the house (Like in school/office you say... \"Yesterday I went\nhome.\"). But you will probably see that most of the time ている is not translated\nas 'have/has' because we want to emphasize the change of state. Have/has' is\nmore of an action. 分かっている (I have understand it... and therefore : I\nunderstand (state of understanding the matter). It is often used by the\nspeaker to reassure the listener that the speaker is capable/going to be fine.\n分かった is an expression that is commonly used when one hears something afresh\nand understands that (like when a teacher tell you what you should do, you\nreply in this manner). In English it is typically \"Yes, I understand\" and\n\"Understood.\". So as you can see, as you might wonder what's the difference\nbetween the present tense, past tense, and the progressive/resultant state\n(like 困る、困っている、困った) in the future for some words, take note that sometimes the\ndifferences rest on the type of/special words used which will give special\nexpressions that no other words will give.\n\n> 困る I'm troubled (expressing the speaker's annoyance)\n>\n> 困っている I'm troubled (State of being troubled, especially for over a period of\n> time)\n>\n> 困った I'm troubled (modal た, when the speaker's expectation has matched or\n> failed to matched reality --> this is not past tense!)\n\nSo you shouldn't be that worried. If you cannot differentiate the ている and past\ntense for a word (like 困っている and 困った) and they have the same meaning... it'll\nprobably mean that the differences lies in the way of expressing and nuances.\nFor these words, you will understand them as you receive more experience,\nfamiliarize with the words/sentences, and keep on studying Japanese. For now\nknow that ている is a state (can be translated as 'has/have') and the past tense\nis an action.\n\nHere's more..\n\n> 戻っている have come back (therefore I exist in this location right now)\n>\n> 信じている I believe in ... (I have believed in... therefore I'm in the state of\n> believing)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T10:05:45.047",
"id": "50495",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T13:30:19.860",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "15891",
"parent_id": "50491",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "I'm going to answer only about how to express someone/something is in a\ncontinuing action in Japanese.\n\nTo tell you the truth, how to express it in Japanese is very difficult. I once\nthought we had no **exact way** to express it in Japanese.\n\n> 落ちている \n> This phrase has two meanings: \n> - It is falling. \n> - It's on the ground. \n> We differentiate them by watching the object.\n>\n> 雨が降っている \n> This phrase has only one meaning: \n> - It is raining.\n>\n> 死んでいる \n> This phrase has only one meaning: \n> - He is dead.\n\nI showed that the \"ている\" form of verbs doesn't neccessarily express\nsomeone/something is in a continuing action. \nI'm talking about ている in the standard Japanese. \nApart from the standard Japanese, we have exact ways to enable us to express\nsomeone/something is in a continuing action by using certain dialects of the\nwestern part of Japan. They are よる or ゆう. よる is very popular used in a wide\narea of the western part of Japan from Kansai to Kyushu, while ゆう is only used\nin Kohchi prefecture in Shikoku region.\n\nIn this\n[article](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1142345916)\nthere is a very interesting expression: 生まれも育ちも高知です\n土佐弁はですね、標準語では表現しきれないことが表現できるときがあるんですよ。 _I was born and raised in Kochi\nprefecture of Shikoku. With the dialect (called Tosa dialect) of my birth\nplace, there are times when it is possible to express things that cannot be\nexpressed in the standard Japanese_.\n\nWith using よる or ゆう, we can express someone/something is in a continuing\naction freely like:\n\n> 落ちよる or 落ちゆう \n> This phrase has only one meaning: \n> - It is falling.\n>\n> 雨が降りよる or 雨が降りゆう \n> This phrase has only one meaning: \n> - It is raining.\n>\n> 死による or 死にゆう \n> This phrase has only one meaning: \n> - He is dying.\n\nIsn't it regretful that you cannot express them in the standard Japanese?\nThere is, though it is incomplete. It is not based on the conjugation of a\nverb, but is a method of adding つつ (conjunctive particle) and ある(auxiliary\nverb) to the continuous form of a verb. However, it couldn't express perfectly\nthat someone/something is in a continuing action but has the nuance of\nentering the movement from now on. However, it is effective against \"死んでいる\"\nwhich cannot express someone is in a continuing action to death at all.\n\n> 落ちつつある \n> This phrase has only one meaning: \n> - It is going to fall and has already started.\n>\n> 雨が降りつつある \n> This phrase has only one meaning: \n> - It is going to rain and has already started.\n>\n> 死につつある \n> This phrase has only one meaning: \n> - He is going to die and has already started.\n\n* * *\n\n## EDIT:\n\n> What about 落ちているところだ? Isn't that unambiguous that something is in the middle\n> of falling? – user3856370\n\nAs is shown above, user3856370 gave my answer a good example. So I would like\nto consider the example further.\n\nIndeed when I hear the phrase with 落ちているところだ, I could image that someone or\nsomething is in a continuous action of falling. I admit that an ambiguous\ncondition that 落ちている has is surely resolved, but ところだ in 落ちている **ところだ** makes\nme image something like a frame taken with a camera. So, I have to judge the\nphrase is not sufficent to express that someon or something is in a\ncountinuous action of falling.\n\nInterestingly, \"落ちていたとこだ\" that is a past tense of \"おちているところだ\" does not depict\na moving scene of something but to express a mark made by something or a place\nof something fallen to the ground.\n\nI will express all of the answers by an illustration drawn below, so please\ntake a look and feel the difference.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Av0c8.jpg)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T14:42:53.110",
"id": "50501",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T12:56:18.370",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T12:56:18.370",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "50491",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
]
| 50491 | 50495 | 50501 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50523",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For full context see [this\ndocument](https://www.docdroid.net/rLFVKUN/japanese-text.pdf), Exercise 7.\n\nAccording to my textbook, the brackets have to be filled with:\n\n1 ただ\n\n2 すると\n\n3 つぎつぎに\n\n4 せっかく\n\n5 ぜったいに\n\nThe sentence in question is the one at the very bottom.\n\n> せっかく三十分も早く行ったのに、約束の時間に遅れるし、友人には買いたくないなら、ぜったいにそんなことを言ってはいけないと注意されるし、大変な一日だった。\n\nI'd interprete it as follows:\n\n> \"Because I didn't make it in time even though I went to great pains to be 30\n> minutes early and because I was warned by my husband that I must not say\n> that I don't want to buy anything, it was a horrible day.\"\n\nI feel a bit unsure about my interpretation because there are several clauses\nembedded into each other. Maybe you can confirm whether I did it right or not.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T10:03:08.593",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50494",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-08T22:09:38.837",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-08T22:09:38.837",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"syntax"
],
"title": "Grammar of this sentence",
"view_count": 110
} | [
{
"body": "Let's split it into four parts like this:\n\n 1. せっかく三十分も早く行ったのに、 \nAlthough I went to all the trouble to go to the place 30 minutes earlier,\n\n 2. 約束の時間に遅れるし、 \nI was late for the appointment,\n\n 3. 友人には「買いたくないなら、ぜったいにそんなことを言ってはいけない」と注意されるし、 \nmy friend warned me saying \"If you don't want to buy anything, you must never\nsay such a thing\",\n\n 4. 大変な一日だった。 \n(so) it was a terrible day.\n\nNote:\n\n * 友人 is \"friend\", not \"husband\".\n * 買いたくない **なら** is \" _if_ you don't want to buy\".\n * そんなこと (\"such a thing\") refers to ちょっと贈り物を探しているんです.\n * The two ～し are explained in [this article](http://maggiesensei.com/2014/07/10/how-to-use-%E3%80%9C%E3%81%97-shi/). Using \"because\" is not too far, but usually it can be translated naturally without explicitly saying \"because\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T03:26:41.797",
"id": "50523",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T03:33:33.623",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T03:33:33.623",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50494",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50494 | 50523 | 50523 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50507",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "> Q.1 - **晩御飯はどうだった？**\n>\n> R.1 - **少し美味しくないよ。**\n>\n> R.2 - **少し美味しいけど、美味しすぎないよ。**\n\nSo what I wanna mean is **\" The dinner was kinda good but not that great (it\nwas not bad)\"**.\n\nI feel like R.1 is actually saying **\" It was kinda bad, not awful though\"**.\n\nAnd R.2 is saying **\" It was kinda good, not that good though\"**, what do you\nthink?\n\nThanks.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T14:00:29.703",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50499",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T00:13:51.123",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "16104",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"nuances"
],
"title": "Expressing that something was not bad nor good, it was ok",
"view_count": 2116
} | [
{
"body": "You can use the 〜も〜も〜ない pattern to convey this. In this case, it would be\n\n> おいしく **も** おいしくなく **も** ない → Neither delicious or not delicious\n\nYou could also use まずく **も** (from まずい) in place of おいしくなく **も**.\n\nAnother example:\n\n> * 映画どう？面白かった？ → How was the movie? Good?\n> * まー、好きでも嫌いでもねぇよ → Meh, I didn't like it, but I didn't hate it either.\n>",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T15:01:41.050",
"id": "50502",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T15:01:41.050",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "50499",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "There are a lot of ways around this. First let me respond to your attempts.\n\nA couple notes on your usage. The kanji 御飯 and 美味しい aren't that common in\nJapanese usage. ご飯 and おいしい respectively are more common. (Though it's not\nsomething people will shoot you down for, either).\n\nNote your question asked \"How was dinner?\" so you need to respond using a past\ntense: おいしくなかった\n\nOnto your samples:\n\n> 少し美味しくなかったよ。\n\nThis sounds awkward to a Japanese person. 少し isn't the word to use here; that\nhas more to do with quantitative things (amount, time, etc.) Think if I said\n\"This is a a pinch of horrible.\" It'll get the point through, but not the most\nelegant of answers. Here you would use あまり.\n\n> あまりおいしくなかったよ。\n\nThat will get you your \"Kinda bad, but not awful\" feeling. Maybe more like \"It\nwasn't that good\" feel.\n\n> 少し美味しいけど、美味しすぎないよ。\n\nThis is awkward as well. Again, you can't really use 少し here, and おいしすぎない\nisn't really a phrase that is used. It's literally saying \"This is a pinch of\ndelicious, but not too delicious,\" which doesn't make much sense in English as\nwell. Maybe something like:\n\nおいしかったと言えばおいしかったけど、何かが足りなかったな。I guess you can say it was good, some I felt\nlike something was missing.\n\nOther ways of saying things are OK could be:\n\n> まあまあでしたよ。It was OK. (neither good nor bad) \n> まあまあよかったかな？ It's was well... good. (leaning slightly to good) \n> 微妙だったな。That was meh. (a bit colloquial)\n\nOr you could give it a rating:\n\n> 70点くらいかな？ About 70 points? \n> 及第点ってところ。 It got a passing grade (but just barely). \n> 中の上だと思います。 Top of the middle class.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T16:45:41.997",
"id": "50504",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T16:49:52.627",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-18T16:49:52.627",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9508",
"parent_id": "50499",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "I don't think \"少し美味しくないよ。\" is something we usually say. Generally speaking, we\nare ill-disposed toward the construction \"少し[adjective]ない\". I don't know why,\nbut it sounds a bit too roundabout and hard to process. (And look at all other\ncircuitous dictions we are so fond of using!) So you'll probably come off more\nnatural saying \"少し汚い\" instead of \"少し綺麗じゃない\"; \"少し暑い\" instead of \"少し涼しくない\";\n\"少しまずい\" instead of \"少し美味しくない\", etc.\n\nOne of the phrases we most often have recourse to in order to soften a\nnegative comment is \"あ(ん)まり...ない\": \"あ(ん)まり美味しくなかったよ。\"\n\n\"少し美味しいけど\" and \"美味しすぎないよ\" -- Again, neither sounds too natural in the context\nat hand. There are two words I can think of off the top of my head that\nexpress \"okay\" kind of good: they are \"まあまあ\" and \"そこそこ\". Paired with a\npositive adjective, they will constitute a lukewarm praise.\n(\"そこそこ/まあまあ美味しかったよ。\") Be careful if your listener is the one who made whatever\nyou are passing down the judgement on -- they might not be much flattered,\ndepending on their expectation.\n\nA good alternative to \"美味しすぎないよ\"? Well, if you want to say something is _blah-\nblah_ but not all that _blah-blah_ , you can use \"そこまで...ない\".\n\nFor a conclusion, to rephrase R2:\n\n> まあまあ美味しかったけど、そこまで美味しくもなかったよ。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T17:20:32.283",
"id": "50507",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T23:06:29.420",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-18T23:06:29.420",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "11575",
"parent_id": "50499",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "This is absolutely casual, but in conversation rather than writing you might\nhear someone describe a meal as \"normal\" to mean \"neither good nor bad\".\n\nFor example:\n\n> A: 昨日の晩、吉野家の牛丼を食べた。 \n> B: へえ。変わってるかもしれないけど、吉野家で食べたことがないんだ。どうだった？ \n> A: 普通だった、吉野家だから。なんていうか、アメリカでマックを食べるみたいな感じかな。\n\nSomething to that effect. (Not so) terrible example (anymore, thanks to\nChocolate), and I'm aware that it's not the best answer, but no one's brought\nit up before? Also might be non-standard usage/slang.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T23:47:43.033",
"id": "50515",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T00:13:51.123",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T00:13:51.123",
"last_editor_user_id": "21684",
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "50499",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 50499 | 50507 | 50502 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the English version of 神の子供たちはみな踊る (The Murakami collection of short\nstories with the English title \"After the Quake\") the ending line of the short\nstory \"All God's Children Can Dance\" goes:\n\n> 神様、と善也は口に出して言った。\n\nWhich I (and also the German translation) have always interpreted as: \"God\",\nYoshiya said aloud. However, in the English translation it says:\n\n> \"Oh God\", Yoshiya said aloud.\n\nWhich I (without wanting to bother you with the rundown of the story) find to\ngive the ending quite a different meaning. Can \"kamisama\" be used as an\nexclamation of sort? Because if not, I find the translation to be kind of off.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T16:44:35.850",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50503",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-11T16:58:06.543",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-11T16:58:06.543",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "24014",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"word-choice",
"literature"
],
"title": "Can 神様 also be translated to \"Oh god\"?",
"view_count": 213
} | [
{
"body": "Yes. That utterance of \"神様\" can be interpreted as addressing God (as opposed\nto just making reference to God), in which case the vocative \"Oh\" is justly\nemployed in the translation.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T18:17:47.270",
"id": "50510",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T18:17:47.270",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "11575",
"parent_id": "50503",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50503 | null | 50510 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50514",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 目を強く擦る。俺はひとりなんかじゃないぞ。母さんがいるじゃないか。\n>\n> 母さんとは、連絡はずっと取り合っているが、あえて顔は合わせないようにしていた。あちらは新しい生活を始めているからだ。\n>\n> でももう、身内を相手に遠慮もしていられないか。\n\nInclude prior two sentences for context. Speaker is in a tough situation.\n\n> however (now that it has gotten to this point), I cannot afford to hold back\n> in regards to dealing with my relatives anymore can I?\n\nI assume 遠慮もしていられない = cannot afford to hold back with extra emphasis from も\n\nBut how that interacts with 身内を相手に is very awkward for me. Literally i would\nread it as 身内を遠慮しない, but towards 相手 (one person in particular within the\nfamily, his mom?). But having both 相手 and 身内 is very confusing if 相手 is also\n身内 as well...\n\nTHere's also the possibility of the speaker referring to himself in 3rd person\nas 相手 and using the passive tense, but i feel that has issues as well\n\nWhat's the proper way to digest this sentence?\n\nThanks",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T17:00:17.617",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50506",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T00:08:13.700",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-18T17:22:56.720",
"last_editor_user_id": "22187",
"owner_user_id": "22187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Intrepretation of 遠慮もしていられないか in this sentence structure",
"view_count": 128
} | [
{
"body": "First, let me simplify the sentence to \"身内 を相手に 遠慮する\" for ease of exposition.\n\nI think there's some sense, or at least expedience, in treating this \"...を相手に\"\nas one item, as if it were a (\"phrasal\") particle/postposition. It functions\nmuch like \"...に対して\": \"toward ...\" or \"against ...\".\n\nThe noun \"身内\" (the object, so to speak, of the postposition \"...を相手に\") means a\nclose relative, often a family member, and in this context it indirectly but\nspecifically refers to his mother.\n\nThe verb \"遠慮する\" here is intransitive, with the meaning of \"to act with\nreserve/self-restraint\".\n\nIn sum, therefore, \"身内 を相手に 遠慮する\" can be translated as \"act with reserve\ntoward a family member\".\n\nA letter-oriented translation of the original full sentence would be:\n\n> However, I can no longer afford to act reservedly toward my family member\n> (i.e. his Mom) can I?\n\nTo explain a bit:\n\nHe has been restraining himself from seeing his mother in person, fearing how\nit might affect her in her new life. But given the urgency of the situation he\nis in, he thinks it's no time for such a self-restraint. After all, she's his\nown mother. He can turn to her for help and she will be only happy to help\nhim.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T22:55:44.840",
"id": "50514",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T00:08:13.700",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T00:08:13.700",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "11575",
"parent_id": "50506",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50506 | 50514 | 50514 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50512",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 彼らは決して理解してくれないし、きみがなにを **しよう** とショックを受けるだろう。\n\nWhat's the explanation of this structure?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T18:10:23.437",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50509",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T21:02:32.487",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17380",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"volitional-form"
],
"title": "Why is it in volitional form?",
"view_count": 108
} | [
{
"body": "> Why is it in volitional form?\n>\n\n>> 彼らは決して理解してくれないし、きみがなにを **しよう** とショックを受けるだろう。\n\nMy native sense tells me that I don't find any volitional sense in this しよう\nunless it says しようとしようと, and in this, the first しよう is the one that conveys\nthe volitional sense.\n\nI find in this しよう alone, there is only the sense of **_do_**. \nIt says きみが **なにをしようと** and this means **_whatever_** you **_do._** \nThis is the same as きみが何を **したとしても** ショックを受けるだろう.\n\nIt's [未然形（し）]+[助動詞（よう）] and the よう is used for the **_conditional_** sense.\n\n> **5** （「ものならば」などを伴って）仮定の意を表す。「失敗なんかしようものなら許しませんよ」（[デジタル大辞泉 | よう\n> [助動]](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/226119/meaning/m1u/%E3%82%88%E3%81%86/)）",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T20:48:26.147",
"id": "50512",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-18T21:02:32.487",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-18T21:02:32.487",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50509",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50509 | 50512 | 50512 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50519",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "There appear to be some kanji and other characters such as ①, ②, ③, Ⓐ, ㊄, ㊗,\n㊛, ㊑, and many more, which are enclosed in circles.\n\nThese characters are listed in unicode and there are quite a lot of them, with\nvarious seemingly unrelated kanji, as well as numbers and hiragana and\nkatakana characters.\n\nThere is also a character called 'combining enclosing circle' which appears to\nbe intended to circle the character before it, though this doesn't work in all\nfonts.\n\nFinally, in Microsoft Word, when the Japanese IME is selected, it even offers\na menu option to encircle a character in your document with quite varied\nsettings as to how to display it.\n\nIt appears that there has been a lot of effort put into making these\ncharacters accessible, and yet they don't have any clear usage that I can\nfind, or even a mention of them at all online. Why do these exist?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-18T19:57:49.237",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50511",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T17:28:13.850",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22689",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 14,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"symbols",
"unicode"
],
"title": "Usage of Encircled Kanji",
"view_count": 4738
} | [
{
"body": "These are called 丸囲み文字.\n\n * 丸囲み数字 or 丸数字 (①②③...) are very common, and their purpose is to write a numbered list of items. The equivalent in English is `(1) (2) (3)` or `i. ii. iii.`. Characters ① to ⑳ have been defined long before the introduction of Unicode, and you will see them a lot in Japanese documents.\n * Other 丸囲み文字 are just symbols that means what the enclosed kanji means. ㊊ is \"Monday\", ㊑ is \"corporation\", [㊙ is \"secret\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/43644/5010), ㊞ is \"stamp/seal\", and so on. Although they seem random, they are there because they have been actually used in some fields.\n\nThese characters have been used at least partly because Japanese typography\npreferred characters neatly aligned in a grid. These symbols share the same\nfixed width as kanji and hiragana, and it's easy to align them using the\npoorest word processors. We even have fixed-width versions of Roman numbers\n(Ⅰ, Ⅲ, Ⅷ) and Latin characters enclosed in circles and parentheses.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/AyWeO.png)\n\nDespite the effort of some word processors and Unicode Consortium, the support\nfor 丸囲み文字 has been unsatisfactory, and there were times when even the use of\nsimplest 丸囲み数字 was discouraged in e-mails due to a certain compatibility\nissue. As a result, there characters became relatively unpopular these days.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T02:38:16.830",
"id": "50519",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T17:28:13.850",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T17:28:13.850",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50511",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
]
| 50511 | 50519 | 50519 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50522",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "When I order something in a restaurant, I'd like to ask without spicy.\n\n * I hear I have to use : `辛【から】いのぬきで` or `辛いのなしで`.\n\n * Why `辛くないで` is not correct?\n\nThank you !",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T02:41:21.910",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50520",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T03:05:15.170",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "15674",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Asking without spicy / i-adjective",
"view_count": 212
} | [
{
"body": "I don't think it's incorrect. Whoever serving you would still get your message\nand understand you. If you wanto say `辛くないで`,\n\n`辛くない，で` or `辛くないので` is more accurate.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T02:58:53.120",
"id": "50521",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T02:58:53.120",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24019",
"parent_id": "50520",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "This で is a method/means/condition marker, and it requires a _noun_ before it.\n-抜き and -無し are suffixes that produce _nouns_ which also work as no-\nadjectives. For details, see: [What does 「なし」in 「問題なし」\nmean?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/17896/5010)\n\nGrammatically, 辛くない is not a noun phrase. It either modifies a following noun\n(eg 辛くない料理), or forms a predicate at the end of a sentence/clause (eg\nこの料理は辛い。).\n\nThe easiest fix is to add the pronoun の (\"one\") after 辛くない.\n\n> 辛くないので。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T03:05:15.170",
"id": "50522",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T03:05:15.170",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50520",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 50520 | 50522 | 50522 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The situation (story from Edo period, but in contemporary Japanese, at most\nstylised on old language): three thieves A, B, and C working in a group.\nPickpocket A is caught in a crowd, B disappears from the scene, C appears and\npunishes A (as a staged punishment to let A go without the crowd turning on\nhim). A comes \"home\" and is questioned by B:\n\n> B: 吸口{すいくち}はどうしたんだ。\n>\n> A: 後ろにいるに違いない。間を置いてやってくるだろう。\n\nSo 吸口 clearly seems to refer to the C.\n\n* * *\n\nWhat does 吸口 mean in this context?\n\nThe only explanation I could come up with is that as an analogy to the kiseru\npipe, it describes the second person following, after splitting in two groups.\n\nBut I cannot find this meaning in any dictionary ([for\nexample](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E5%90%B8%E5%8F%A3)).\n\nWould it be understandable for native speakers if used in a similar situation\nin a conversation?\n\nOr is there any other meaning of 吸口 in this situation?\n\nI'm also not sure if A's question makes sense - if that was the meaning of 吸口,\nusing it (instead of C's name) would be sort of tautological (it should be\nobvious that a person following will come later). But then in literary style\nit might be acceptable.\n\nThere was no mention of C being smoker. Which was my other guess.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T03:52:17.003",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50524",
"last_activity_date": "2020-04-07T16:02:20.363",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "11104",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "The meaning of 吸口 in this context",
"view_count": 731
} | [
{
"body": "> What does 吸口 mean in this context?\n\nI have no idea.\n\n> Would it be understandable for native speakers if used in a similar\n> situation in a conversation?\n\nNo. Definitely not!\n\n> Or is there any other meaning of 吸口 in this situation?\n\nYes.\n\n<https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%B8%E5%8F%A3>\n\n<http://japan-word.com/archives/2108365.html>\n\nAccording to this definition, maybe the person C has the nickname because his\nrole was a \"tiny-but-situation-improver\" or something. However, it is only my\nguess and there is no evidence nor confidence. It depends on the context.\nFurthermore, I didn't even know this definition of 吸い口, either.\n\n>\n> 日本のキセルは西洋のパイプと違って「雁首」「羅宇」「吸口」の３つに分かれる構造になっていますが、ヒントになりますか。あだ名をつけるとすると「雁首」が一番強い人。「吸口」が二番目。けむりを通すだけの「羅宇」は一番弱い人。旨い汁を吸う「吸口」が一番強い人かもしれませんが。\n\nI respect this comment, but I have a doubt about this interpretation. If other\ncounterparts, the person A and B, were called 「雁首」and「羅宇」, I could have agreed\nwith this interpretation 100%. However, if A and B weren't called so, it\ndoesn't make sense that only C is called \"suikuchi.\" Don't you think so?\n\n> 吸口 すいくち suikuchi\n\n<http://kanji.reader.bz/more/%E5%8F%A3>\n\nIt seems that 吸口 can be a family name according to this online dictionary,\nalthough I have a doubt about the accuracy of the dictionary when I look at\nother family names which do not seem to be family names.\n\nAnyway, it seems that the word is a proper-noun, a special nickname, an\nobsolete and dead word, or an extremely advanced technical jargon that is\nnever understandable by most of the ordinary modern Japanese people.\n\n\"The part of a Japanese pipe\" and \"a seasoning\" and \"Suikuchi, the family\nname\" are merely \"guess-what\"s after all, in my humble opinion.\n\n(If you want this question leave on the list of \" **UNANSWERED** \" until\nsomebody will answer what exactly you want in the future, just let me know.\nI'll be glad to delete this answer. :) )",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-21T02:49:57.640",
"id": "52551",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-21T04:48:57.247",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-21T04:48:57.247",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "50524",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50524 | null | 52551 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50526",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 俺は **いい匂いのするハンカチ** で、軽く触れる程度に汗を拭いた。/ using the handkerchief with a nice\n> smell....\n\nAlso found\n\n> 妹は何でも姉のするようにした / The younger sister behaved [did everything] just as her\n> older sister did.\n\nWhen would one choose to use this structure? ie, compared to いい匂いをしているハンカチ\nedit: いい匂いをしたハンカチ\n\nedit: this is more in regards to する as a descriptor rather than のｖｓが within\nclauses.\n\nthanks",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T04:37:14.973",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50525",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T19:14:48.080",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T06:10:07.790",
"last_editor_user_id": "22187",
"owner_user_id": "22187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Interpretation of のする",
"view_count": 816
} | [
{
"body": "> いい匂い **のする** ハンカチで、\n>\n> 何でも姉 **のする** ようにした\n\nYou can also switch these の to が. It's the way to indicate the theme of the\nverb _in a modifying phrase or clause_. を doesn't work for these.\n\nOnce seeing 匂いをする and 何でも姉をする don't work, いい匂いをしているハンカチ too much sounds as\nthough the handkerchief is performing a smell, while いい匂い **をさせた** ハンカチ works\nfine.\n\nI've come to notice that the verb forms **ている** and **した** should be being\nused as **_adjectives_** , and it can take the subject and make a non-finite\n(tiny) clause.\n\nStill, as a caution, when it's with する, いい匂いをするハンカチ sounds as though the\nhankerchief performs a smell, and 何でも姉をするようにした is a very unusual thing to say\nand has only the sense of 'perform (a stereotype)' and no sense of 'do as (a\nparticular someone does)'.\n\nI think I can take いい匂いをしているお弁当箱{べんとうばこ} or いい匂いをしているジャスミンの花 all right, but\n_you can always choose to say_ いい匂い **の** しているお弁当箱 or いい匂い **を漂{ただよ}わせている**\nジャスミンの花.\n\nNot to mention, the expressions like 姉をした and 姉をしている can't be used as an\nadjectives.\n\n* * *\n\nYou can say any of these without making much difference in meaning:\n\n> いい匂いの[が]しているハンカチ \n> 何でも姉の[が]しているようにした\n>\n> いい匂いの[が]したハンカチ \n> 何でも姉の[が]したようにした。\n\nJust た starts to assume the sense of the past, I think it's because of の・が.\nThey are no problem, but are better to be used when the sense of the past is\nneeded such as when examining several handkerchieves.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T04:50:37.433",
"id": "50526",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T19:14:48.080",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T19:14:48.080",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50525",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50525 | 50526 | 50526 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50529",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "These are lyrics to a song sung by a brother and sister who have suffered a\ndifficult childhood.\n\n> 今日までずっと Until today\n>\n> どんな時も No matter what\n>\n> 二人で 生きてきた We are two people who lived (?)\n>\n> 俺が凍えたら… If I was freezing …\n>\n> 抱きしめてくれた You hugged me tightly\n>\n> 私がひもじい時 When I was hungry\n>\n> 慰めてくれた You comforted me\n>\n> いつも きれいだった It was always lovely (?)\n>\n> いつも バカばかり Always just fools (??)\n>\n> 肩寄せ合い 泣き明かした夜 Crying all night in each other’s arms\n>\n> 何があっても In spite of everything\n>\n> 手をとり You took my hand\n>\n> 分かち合い Sharing\n>\n> 魂 近く A closeness in spirit (?)\n>\n> 生きた We lived\n>\n> いつも 二人… Always, the two of us\n\nI think I get most of it (corrections are most welcome), but I’m really\nuncertain about the following parts:\n\n> 二人で 生きてきた We are two people who lived (?) – as in survived?\n>\n> いつも きれいだった It was always lovely (?) – is this an appropriate use for きれい?\n>\n> いつも バカばかり Always just fools (??) – totally stumped here!\n>\n> 魂 近く A closeness in spirit (?) – and here!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T06:55:40.363",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50528",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T07:30:05.763",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22593",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -3,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Meaning of song lyrics",
"view_count": 222
} | [
{
"body": "> 二人で 生きてきた We were living together\n>\n> いつも きれいだった you were always lovely\n\nfrom the context, I agree to the word `lovely`\n\n> いつも バカばかり You always make (made) me laugh\n\n`バカばかり` means more like you do something stupid, acting funny or you do things\nexcessively. It depends on the context. I'd go for the laugh...\n\n> 魂 近く our spirits were close together\n>\n> 生きた and lived\n\nI think `魂 近く 生きた` is one sentence.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T07:30:05.763",
"id": "50529",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T07:30:05.763",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24019",
"parent_id": "50528",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50528 | 50529 | 50529 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I just learned some stuff about the use of **だけ** and now I wonder, if I want\nto say\n\n`\"Just me and a friend did this\"` , could I use **だけ** to express this?\n\nIf so, how would I have to use it? And when would I have to refrain to using\n`一人で`?\n\nThis also raises the question whether 一人で could modify a verbal expression\nrelated to a subject which represents multiple persons?\n\n> 1a) これは私と友達がするだけだった。 1b) 私と友達だけはこれをした。\n>\n> 2a) これは私が一人でした。 2b) これは私と友達が一人でした。\n\nI assume that 1b) is pretty ungrammatical, but I wanted to ask about it\nnevertheless because it is stated in my textbook that だけ can be attached to\nnouns.\n\nThis is in different context though, like here: `休みは日曜日だけです。`\n\nI might be digging too deep now, but I wonder whether だけ and 一人で are one of\nthese things which don't modify a specific sentence element, but rather the\nwhole sentence.\n\nUnfortunately I don't know what these are called in English terminology; in my\nGerman linguistics lessons they were called \"partikel\".\n\nI could give an example here:\n\n> \" **Of course** I can do this.\"\n>\n> \" **Eventually** the machine crashed.\"",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T09:18:35.200",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50530",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-11T22:35:33.017",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "The use and placement of だけ",
"view_count": 843
} | [
{
"body": "The best way I have been able to translate 「だけ」 has been to refer to limits.\n\n「一人」 means \"one person\", and you'd probably be best leaving at that.\n\nI think I have heard some people using 「一人で」 in plural, in the sense that the\nEnglish \"alone\" can be used in plural, (clarification) thus\n\n> We did this alone.\n\ncan mean \"We did this by ourselves.\" (It can also mean \"We did this one\nthing.\" That's not really current usage, however.)\n\n(end clarification) But I'm not sure I heard it right, and I'm not sure that\nthe people I heard weren't using it in a non-standard sense.\n\n(afterthought)\n\nWhen there are just two, all alone, you can use the expression 「二人」 or 「二人きり」。\n\n(end afterthought)\n\n(clarification)\n\nI checked with both of my kids (college senior and high school senior) and\nthey agree that 「一人で」 is not used in the plural sense. See my later comments\non the \"individually\" meaning.\n\n(end clarification)\n\n(further afterthought)\n\n\"Of course\" and \"eventually\" can be interpreted to apply to a whole English\nsentence, but you really shouldn't do that. Apply to the verb when in doubt,\nand move it there when you need to be exact. Using your examples,\n\n> I can, of course, do this.\n>\n> The machine eventually crashed.\n\nNow, 「だけ」 does have some uses that may sound odd, but don't go looking too far\naway. In other words, if you think it's modifying the whole sentence, you're\nmisreading it.\n\n(end further afterthought)\n\nTrying to interpret your four sentences,\n\n> 1a) これは私と友達がするだけだった。\n\nThis almost sounds to me like you might have been trying to say\n\n> これは私と友達がやるしかないものだった。\n\nor, \"This was something that my friends and I just had to do.\" You probably\ndid not mean that. Also, consider, 「やるしかなかった」。\n\nInstead, you might have said\n\n> これは私と友達だけがするものだった。\n\n(something we had to do ourselves), or\n\n> これは私と友達だけ **で** するものだった。\n\n(something we had to do **by** ourselves)\n\nYour second sentence,\n\n> 1b) 私と友達だけはこれをした。\n\ncomes out as\n\n> Speaking only of my friends and me, we did this.\n\nI think you wanted to use 「で」 instead of 「は」。\n\n> 私と友達だけでこれをした。\n\nBut I'm also thinking I have heard\n\n> 私が友達とだけでこれをやった。\n\nLet's see what our Japanese friends who hang out around here have to say about\nthat.\n\nContinuing,\n\n> 2a) これは私が一人でした。\n\nOuch. Did you mean past of 「です」 or past of 「する」？\n\n「やる」 is not a perfect replacement for 「する」、 but it comes in handy in places\nlike this. (And it's a bit preferred over plain 「する」 in some dialects.)\n\nUnless I misunderstand my Japanese, 「でした」 in (2a) will be read as the past\ntense of 「です」、 so it will be read,\n\n> In this, I was alone.\n\nHowever, given what that means, it can and is used as a substitute for\n\n> これは私が一人でやった。\n\nso it doesn't seem like a big deal, but misunderstanding what is happening\nthere can trip you up.\n\nAnd, finally,\n\n> 2b) これは私と友達が一人でした。\n\nYou really want to use 「しました」 or 「やった」 when saying it this way.\n\n(further afterthought)\n\nBut you really don't want to use 「一人」 here.\n\n(end further afterthought)\n\n(afterthought)\n\nAnd you want to consider the \"individual\" meaning, as well. 「私たち一人一人」 is \"we,\nindividually\". So, even if the plural sense has become accepted as it has in\nthe English word \"alone\",\n\n> 私たちは一人でやった。\n\nwould more likely be read \"each, individually\" than \"only us\".\n\n(end afterthought)\n\nBut try this on for size:\n\n> これについて私と友達は一致していました。\n\nmeaning\n\n> My friends and I were united in this.\n\nAnd this one:\n\n> これは私と友達 **一人** でやったのです。\n\nmeaning\n\n> This was something I and **a** friend did.\n\nOne friend.\n\nOkay, if you and some friends and some others did \"this\", you can use 「や」 and\nsay,\n\n> 私や友達がこれをやった。\n\nOr\n\n> これは私や友達がしました。\n\nThe limit is actually implicit in 「と」。 In other words,\n\n> 私と友達がやった。\n\nis already read as an exclusive \"and\", so you only use 「だけ」 to emphasize the\nexclusion:\n\n> これは私と友達が自分たちだけで[成し]{なし}[遂げた]{とげた}。",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T11:53:33.963",
"id": "50535",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T15:19:26.690",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22711",
"parent_id": "50530",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
},
{
"body": "We use 1b as the meaning of \"Just me and a friend did this\".\n\nYou said だけ can be attached to nouns but it isn't correct. だけ can be attached\nto other parts of speech.\n\nYou should distinguish だけ and 一人で. だけ means \"only\", \"just\" and 一人で means \"by\noneself\", \"alone\".\n\n2b doesn't make sense because you and your friend are two, so you can say\nこれは私と友達が(で)二人でした.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T15:05:01.660",
"id": "50542",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T15:05:01.660",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "50530",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "To avoid confusion as to whether it's \"you and friend(s)\" or \"you and one\nother friend\", you may want to phrase it this way:\n\n> これは友達と二人 **だけ** でした。 \n> **Only** a friend and I did this.\n\nAssuming the context of you showing that you worked on this directly, you're\nimplicitly stating that you're a part of this group because 友達と = 'with a\nfriend' or 'with friends', but also 二人だけで is explicit about two people, so if\nthere's you, there's only one other person which is your (one) friend. This\nalso probably sounds the most natural.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T23:59:26.033",
"id": "50547",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T00:34:58.083",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-20T00:34:58.083",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "50530",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50530 | null | 50547 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50532",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> お前がいてくれればいい。お前さえ…\n\nFor context: These are words spoken by a woman who is about to move somewhere\nfar away from her brother, whom she’s very close to. Her brother is upset they\nwill be so far apart and told her that their bond is unbreakable just before\nshe spoke the above line.\n\nParsing the sentence:\n\n> お前が – You\n>\n> いて (is this 居て?) – to stay\n>\n> くれれば (is this 暮れれば?) – if in the end\n>\n> いい – does this describe a hope or wish?\n\nDoes it say something like: I hope you continue to stay (here) in the end.\n\n> お前さえ – does さえ mean even as explained in the answers here: [Does さえ mean\n> \"even\" in the following\n> sentence?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/4864/does-%E3%81%95%E3%81%88-mean-\n> even-in-the-following-sentence)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T09:36:51.667",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50531",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-11T16:55:59.943",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-11T16:55:59.943",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "22593",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "「お前がいてくれればいい。お前さえ」",
"view_count": 113
} | [
{
"body": "> お前が – You\n>\n> いて – to be present(by my side)\n>\n> くれれば (くれる(to be given) + ば(conditional)) – if you \"give me the present\" of\n> (being by my side)\n>\n> いい – good\n>\n> さえ - only\n>\n> It would be good enough for you to be by my side. Only you.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T09:48:33.390",
"id": "50532",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T09:48:33.390",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "18142",
"parent_id": "50531",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 50531 | 50532 | 50532 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50543",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Context: a mangaka is talking about the story of the manga she draws and its\nwriter.\n\n> 山口先生の執筆作業を中継で観たいです！\n\nI am not sure what this sentence means, in particular 中継で観たい. I found on\ndictionaries that 中継 has to do with broadcasting. Does she want the manga to\nbe broadcasted on TV? So, in practice, she wants it to become an anime? Thank\nyou for your help!",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T11:03:05.033",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50533",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T18:13:48.523",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17797",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"words",
"expressions"
],
"title": "Meaning of 中継で観る",
"view_count": 179
} | [
{
"body": "中継で is \"live\". The original meaning of 中継 is \"relay\" (i.e., passing\ninformation to another device without modifying it), but many people\nunderstand this word simply as \"live (broadcasting)\". It's very similar to\n生放送, but 中継 refers to live broadcasting of something happening outside of a\nstudio.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/BCwrl.png)\n\nIn this context, this 中継 almost certainly refers to internet live streaming\n(Ustream, YouTube live, etc.). Live-streaming someone drawing a picture\n(usually while chatting) is popular at least among Japanese manga fans. See\n[some of these\nvideos](https://freshlive.tv/tags/%E3%81%8A%E7%B5%B5%E6%8F%8F%E3%81%8D) to get\nthe feeling of what they look like. The object of 観たい is the mangaka's 執筆作業\n(i.e., their drawing process), not their final product.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T16:05:22.233",
"id": "50543",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T18:13:48.523",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T18:13:48.523",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50533",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "> Context: a mangaka is talking about the story of the manga she draws and its\n> writer.\n>\n\n>> 山口先生の執筆作業を中継で観たいです！\n\n>\n> I am not sure what this sentence means, in particular 中継で観たい. \n> Does she want the manga to be broadcasted on TV?\n\n(I don't know whose word it is, but it's ok.) \nIt says 執筆作業を観たい. It's saying the speaker wants to see the writer working on\nher (his?) work.\n\nNow, I believe it doesn't really matter what 中継 is. Do we think this is the\noccasion when we matter how the picture has been brought to us? 中継 alone, we\ncan't really tell what it's saying. Maybe it's a jargon used in the\nbroadcasting industry, but fortunately we don't really need to know what that\nis here.\n\nBut at least we can tell that the speaker is saying s/he wants to see 山口先生\nworking on her/his work through some kind of media. Maybe implying the speaker\ncan't ask for staying at the room where 山口先生 is working.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T16:27:13.707",
"id": "50545",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T16:27:13.707",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50533",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50533 | 50543 | 50543 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "There's new, old and home?? in it. But I've seen multiple translations. If\nanyone could help it'd be appreciated.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T11:39:27.257",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50534",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T22:29:39.730",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24022",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "新しい古いうち. What does this mean?",
"view_count": 1377
} | [
{
"body": "> 新しい古いうち\n\nIt might be written as 新しい古い家{うち}. \nIf my guess is correct, it must be \"古｛ふる｝い建築｛けんちく｝様式｛ようしき｝の新築｛しんちく｝の家｛いえ｝ _a\nhouse of a newly built old architectural style_ \".\n\n* * *\n\n## EDIT:\n\nI admit it was my perfect defeat as Chocolate knew of \"となりのトトロ\" from which the\nOP cited \"新しい古いうち\". I accept that the voting results is not positive because\nof my complete defeat. I do not regret it either. However, I am worried about\nhow this minus evaluation appears on serious people who are studying Japanese.\nThe reason why I prepared this EDIT is to prevent them from misunderstanding\nthat my answer is essentially incorrect and that Chocolate's answer is\ncorrect. The correctness of the answer is only whether the answerers knew the\nunfamiliar or rather strange expression in \"となりのトトロ\" or not.\n\nBy the way, apart from the author and the readers who know the scene of\n\"となりのトトロ\", most of the Japanese who hear \"新しい古いうち\" should think at first as\n\"what?\" When I first saw this strange phrase I thought I have to interpret it\nand answer OP the question somehow. I examined it very hard. And after making\na striving effort I could just reach to the idea of a newly build noted\nJapanese farmhouse with steeply slanted thatched-roofs in _Gassho-zukuri_\nstyle, that I showed in the picture.\n\nTo OP, first of all, please be aware that \"新しい古いうち\" does not make sense\nnormally or sounds strange in Japanese. You can use it without problems if you\nsay like \"新しく **移{うつ}った** 古いうち\" or \"新しく **引｛ひ｝っ越｛こ｝してきた** 古いうち\". Also, it is\nnecessary for \"a newly purchased used car\" written in Pawl Rowe's comment to\nsay as \"新しく **買｛か｝った** 古い車｛くるま｝\" as opposed to \"新しい古い車\".\n\nBy the way if you can say \"新しい古いうち\" for \"the old house you newly moved into\"\nyou can say \"古い古いうち\" for \"the old house you moved out of\".\n\nThere is an expression \"古くて新しい\" similar to that of \"新しい古い something\" useful\nwhen OP learns it. I understand that this is an adjective phrase with a\npositive meaning used in nuances like being re-evaluated in this modern\nsociety highly in the value of the traditional old one or being rather novel,\nwonderful or useful of things that have existed from long ago compared to\ncurrent novelty things.\n\nExample:\n\n * [**古くて新しい** 成功の必須要件「グリット」とは何か](http://business.nikkeibp.co.jp/atcl/opinion/16/112800029/) \n_What is \"grit\" that is said an old but new essential requirement of success?_\n\n * [**古くて新しい** ！ VRダンジョンクローラー『KryptCrawler』トレイラー](https://www.gamespark.jp/article/2017/07/19/74682.html) \n_This work is \"old but new\" because it combines traditional turn-based game\nplay with real-time battle and trap avoidance. VR function provides\nunparalleled dungeon experience._\n[KryptCrawler](https://bigbossbattle.com/kryptcrawler-vr-dungeon-crawler-out-\nnow-release-trailer-within/), VR Dungeon Crawler, Out Now; Release Trailer\nWithin\n\n * [**古くて新しい** 「ネットワーク分離」が“要注目技術”に返り咲いた理由](http://techtarget.itmedia.co.jp/tt/news/1606/16/news04.html) \n_The reason why old and new \"network separation technology that separates the\nInternet from LAN\" has come back as \"attention-requiring technology\"_\n\n### 日本語\n\n「新しい古いうち」をＯＰが引用した出典である「となりのトトロ」を、Chocolateさんもご存知のようでしたので私の完敗です。\n\n完敗して評価がプラスでないのは認めます。また悔しくもありません。しかし、このマイナス評価が、日本語を勉強しているまじめな人にどう映るのかが心配です。私がこのEDITを用意した理由は、偏に、日本語を勉強している人が私の回答が本質的に間違っており、Chocolateさんの回答があっていると誤解することを防ぐためです。回答の正誤は単に「となりのトトロ」の表現を知っていたかどうかだけです。\n\nところで、「となりのトトロ」の作者と情景が分かる読者は別にして、「新しい古いうち」を聞いた日本人の大部分は、たぶん私と同じく「？」と最初は考えるはずです。この奇妙なフレーズを解釈してなんとかＯＰに回答してあげようと私は一所懸命考えました。調べました。そして、合掌造りの建物にたどりついただけでも努力賞（?）ものです。\n\nＯＰさんへ。「新しい古いうち」は、普通には通用しない日本語であることをまず知ってください。「新しく **移った** 古いうち」や「新しく\n**引っ越してきた** 古いうち」なら問題なく使えます。 また、Pawl Roweさんのコメントにある newly purchased used car\nも、「新しい古い車」ではなく「新しく **買った** 古い車」のように言う必要があります。\n\nところで、これがトトロで使われているのなら、「前のうち」は「古い古いうち」と言うこともできますね。トトロの作家さん、おもしろいですね。\n\nこれからは真面目な話ですが、ＯＰが覚えてよい類似の表現に「古くて新しい」というものがあります。これは、この現代社会で伝統ある古いものの価値が見直される、あるいは、出尽くした感のある新規のものに比べて前からあるものがかえって斬新である。あるいは役に立つ。すばらしいというようなニュアンスで用いられる肯定的な形容詞だと理解しております。手許の辞書で見つからないので、自分なりに解釈しているものを書いておりますが、いい言葉だと思っております。「古くて新しい」をうまく説明したものがあればご紹介ください。また、私の解釈が間違っておれば訂正します。\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ISSYC.jpg)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T13:19:05.823",
"id": "50537",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T22:29:39.730",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "50534",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "> 新しい古いうち\n\nThis is from 「となりのトトロ」. サツキ, メイ and their father move into a very old house.\nSo the house is _new_ to them (新しい[家]{うち}, new place, new home), though the\nhouse/building itself is actually very old. Literally \"Our new old house\". So\nI think it means \"Our new home in an old house\" or \"An old house we newly\nmoved in\".",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T13:42:13.257",
"id": "50538",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T22:24:22.647",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T22:24:22.647",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "50534",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 15
}
]
| 50534 | null | 50538 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50540",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've some issues getting through the message of my language correspondence\npartner:\n\n> 日本では、たくさんの花火大会があります。\n>\n> ７月には、神戸の花火大会、大阪の花火大会に **多くに** 人が訪れます。\n>\n> **１万発** _で_ とても迫力がありますよ。\n>\n> あと、 **夏になるとセミがたくさん鳴いて** 、外はとてもうるさいです。\n\nContent-wise, I understand what I'm being told here, but I don't understand\nhow some things work and therefore also have problems determining what exactly\nis being said.\n\n> 1) 多くに\n\nWhy is there a に attached? I think that 多い shall become an adverb here, but い\nadjectives become adverbs solely by replacing い with く.\n\nI could imagine 多くに in context of a sentence like this:\n\n```\n\n 人は多くになりました。\n \n It became a lot of people/The people got numerous.\n \n```\n\nBut first I don't know whether this assumption is correct and second I don't\nsee whether なる and 訪れる could be treated equally concerning this case.\n\n> 2) １万発\n\nWhat does this 発 mean? 万 is まん but the other one I couldn't find a satisfying\nentry on jisho.org, especially not in connection to 発.\n\n> 3) Since I don’t really know 万発 I have trouble interpreting the meaning and\n> function of this で\n>\n> 4) **夏になるとセミがたくさん鳴いて**\n\nI don’t really know about this one. It's something about `“when it becomes\nsummer”` and… `“the half”`???\n\nI think it's about some half which sings loud, but I have trouble integrating\nthe conditional clause meaningfully into the full sentence.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T13:12:56.030",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50536",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-11T22:35:15.527",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-11T22:35:15.527",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of these words/sentences?",
"view_count": 221
} | [
{
"body": "> 1) 多くに in 大阪の花火大会に多く **に** 人が訪れます。\n\nIt is typo. It should be 多く **の** , so 大阪の花火大会に多くの人が訪れます means _A lot of\npeople visit Osaka to see the festival of shooting off fireworks_.\n\n> 2) １万 _発_\n\n発 is a counter to count fireworks. It is also used to count bullets or\ncannonballs. １万発の花火 is 10,000 fireworks.\n\n> 3) since I don’t really know 万発 I have trouble interpreting the meaning and\n> function of this で\n\n１万発で implies **１万発** の花火が上がるの **で** _since there are 10,000 (shooting off)\nfireworks_.\n\n> 4) 夏になるとセミがたくさん鳴いて I don’t\n\nセミ is a cicada, that is written as 蝉 in _kanji_.\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT:\n\nAs for the meaning or function of で in １万発 **で** とても迫力がありますよ, naruto gave me a\ncomment to my answer as \"this で after 1万発 is the te-form of the copula だ\", so\nI'll consider it further.\n\nI quote the explanation of the te-form of the copula だ from\n[here](http://people.uncw.edu/kanoy/practices/desu_te.htm).\n\n> ### **Te-form of copula (-です)**\n>\n> This form let adjectives connect to other adjectives or verbs. \n> **\"です\" changes into \"で\" + another sentence.** \n> In the past, we used these choppy sentences: 名前は、一郎です。 年は１８才です。\n> せんこうはアメリカ文学ぶんがくです。 \n> If we use te-form of desu, these sentences can be connected smoothly as\n> follows: \n> 名前は、一郎 **で** 、年は１８才 **で** 、 せんこうはアメリカ文学（ぶんがく）です。 (lit. My name is Ichiro,\n> age is 18 years old, **and** major is American Literature.)\n\nReading this explanation, \"te-form of copula\" shows that it has a function to\nconnect plural sentences having the same subject simply by \"and\" into one\nsentence. Applying this rule to OP's sentence \"１万発 で とても迫力がありますよ。\", you could\nunderstand that there were two sentences at the beginning as \"１万発です。\" and\n\"とても迫力がありますよ。\" Because their subjects were omitted, by complementing the\nsubject you'll get two senteces like \" **花火は** １万発です。 _The fireworks are\n10,000 shots_ \" and \" **花火は** とても迫力がありますよ。 _Fireworks are very powerful and\nimpressive_.\"; or \" **打ち上げられる花火は** １万発です。 _Fireworks launched are 10,000\nshots_ \" and \" **打ち上げられる花火は** とても迫力がありますよ。 _Fireworks launched are very\npowerful and impressive_.\"\n\nHere we can confirm that the rule of \"the te-form of the copula だ\" functons.\nAlthough this rule fuctions, it certainly seems that the combined sentence is\nmonotonous because we merely joined the two sentences with \"and\".\n\nSo I interpreted the で in \"１万発 **で** とても迫力があります\" as the short form of **なので**\nthat means a conjunction as \" _because_ or _since_ \" in the original answer.\n\nWith this interpretation, the two sentences become a causal relationship that\nmakes the combined sentence lively, which the writer of the letter might have\nthought apart from whether the writer knew the grammatical rule or not.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T14:10:20.287",
"id": "50540",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T05:53:14.463",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-20T05:53:14.463",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "50536",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50536 | 50540 | 50540 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "I was reading the following example sentence:\n\n> お父さんが医者の学生は三人います。\n\nMy first instinct was to parse this as:\n\n> {お父さんが[医者の学生]}は三人います。\n\nBut this led to a slightly non-sensical translation along the lines of 'There\nare three fathers who are students of doctors.'\n\nSince the true translation was 'There are three students whose fathers are\ndoctors', I assume the sentence must be parsed as:\n\n> {[お父さんが医者]の学生}は三人います。\n\nDoes this mean I am wrong to automatically separate NのN constructions as\nhaving a 'priority' over other types of constructions (such as NがN)? Is it\nbest to assume no 'stronger' relationship and to just parse a sentence into\nwhatever makes the most contextual sense?\n\nOr is it parsed as the second way because of the relative clause, thus making\nthis NのN equivalent to NがN to make:\n\n> {[お父さんが医者が]学生}は三人います。",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T16:19:07.150",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50544",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T19:16:41.610",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17667",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"parsing"
],
"title": "Parsing a NがNのNは construction?",
"view_count": 134
} | []
| 50544 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I haven't found an explanation for this expression in my dictionary, but from\na few bits of info I found online I think it has something to do with\n\"bragging\"? Does it have to do with the way someone speaks only or can it\ndescribe actions too? Like \"Acting extravagantly\".\n\nHere's a sentence I've encountered with said expression\n\n> 思ったより大きく出たねぇ……。\n\nContext: Big-shot guy wants a reporter to document his latest achievement of\nascending the ranks of government in various forms of propaganda. He's now one\nof the most powerful men in the universe the story is set in. The reporter and\nhis workmate don't like Mr Big-shot because he's a pretty scummy and corrupt\nguy. It's pretty outrageous of the guy to request the reporter to do this\nspecially for him. The reporter's workmate asks if he'll undertake such a\ntask, the reporter agrees to do so and gives a short speech about how he takes\nhis job seriously, the workmate says \" 思ったより大きく出たねぇ……。\" it depends on the\nmeaning of the sentence but I believe the workmate is talking about Mr. Big-\nshot.\n\nIf so perhaps the speaker is saying \"bragged more than I thought\" or \"acted\nmore extravagantly than I thought\".",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-19T20:47:55.067",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50546",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T03:07:43.247",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T21:57:42.083",
"last_editor_user_id": "24034",
"owner_user_id": "24034",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"expressions",
"idioms"
],
"title": "Meaning of the expression \"大きく出る\"",
"view_count": 186
} | [
{
"body": "The idiom 大きく出る is not bragging, but talking about something exaggeratedly as\nif it were more important than what it actually is. In other words, it's\nrefers to making a mountain out of a molehill.\n\nIn this context, the workmate apparently expected a casual and simple answer\n(something like \"Sure, why not?\") but actually ended up listening to a serious\nspeech about the reporter's philosophy. 大きく出る refers to this fact.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T01:41:54.743",
"id": "50548",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T01:41:54.743",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50546",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> “大きく出る”\n>\n> \"bragging\"? Does it have to do with the way someone speaks only or can it\n> describe actions too? Like \"Acting extravagantly\".\n\nI would put it as _to take a bold step_. It can be used for either a word or\nan action. Bragging can be included, but it doesn't have any negative feel,\nand can be also used for one's own action such as ここは少し大きく出てみてもいいかもしれないですね。 In\nyour context, I think it's a remark expressing the unexpectedness in a good-\nhearted manner.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T03:07:43.247",
"id": "50552",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T03:07:43.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50546",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 50546 | null | 50548 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50558",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> 才能を隠すのにも卓越した才能がいる。\n\nThis is a translation of a quote from _Réflexions ou sentences et maximes\nmorales_. The original text is as follows:\n\n> C'est une grande habilité que de savoir cacher son habileté.\n\nI tried to translate this with the help of jisho.org.\n\n * 才能を隠すの - hiding talents\n * にも - also\n * 卓越した - excellent\n * 才能 - talent\n * いる - ???\n\nSo the whole sentence is something like \"Being able to hide talents is also an\nexcellent talent\".\n\nHowever, I don't understand why いる is used here. I would've just put a だ there\nbecause the sentence is stating that something _is_ something else. If using\nan existence verb here is correct, why isn't ある used? I'm sure talents are\ninanimate.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T02:44:42.440",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50549",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T08:31:35.610",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18200",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"animacy"
],
"title": "Why is いる used with 才能?",
"view_count": 201
} | [
{
"body": "There are several different verbs with the same reading いる. This one is 要る in\nkanji, and it means \"to be necessary\".\n\n * 居る【いる】: to be, to exist (used for animate objects)\n * 要る【いる】: to be required, to be necessary\n * 入る【いる】: to enter (usually read as はいる)\n * 煎る【いる】: to roast\n * 射る【いる】: to shoot (with an arrow)\n\n入る is uncommon and literary, but 居る and 要る are both common and usually written\nin hiragana. So you need to guess from the context which いる is used. It's easy\nin this case because 才能 is not a living thing.\n\nThe whole sentence means \"Talent is needed also to hide your talent.\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T06:06:59.867",
"id": "50558",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T06:48:16.423",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-20T06:48:16.423",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50549",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "I am a Japanese.\n\nAs naruto san answered, いる means \"to be required\" here, not \"to exist.\" So you\ncannot use ある in this sentence.\n\nWe have a proverb 能ある鷹は爪を隠す. The meaning is that talented person hides the\ntalent. Japanese people do not think it to be very nice to show off talent.\n\nI guess that 才能を隠すのにも卓越した才能がいる this sentence follows or indicates the proverb\nabove. The meaning is that Hiding the talent also requires excelled talent.\n\nIf the author of this sentence is not aware of the proverb, he/she might write\nthis as 才能を隠すのはまた卓越した才能だ, as you thought. This is literally correct.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T08:31:35.610",
"id": "50559",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T08:31:35.610",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24037",
"parent_id": "50549",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50549 | 50558 | 50558 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50557",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 授業は粛々と進行している。音 **と** といえば、黒板にチョークを走らせる音や、教科書をめくる音だけ。\n\n音と vs just 音? Feels redundant if followed by といえば.\n\n> A: 『宗教倫理』っていうのが時間割にあるけど、それは初めてだけどね\n>\n> B: それは普通の道徳 **と** 捉えていただいて結構よ。ミッション系としての特色はありますけどね\n\n_Speaker asked about a religious morals class_\n\n> As for the class, if you grasp normal morals (for us/the school) , that\n> would be great ?? , ...\n\n普通の道徳と... vs 普通の道徳が... ? hard to fit it as the quotative particle here.\n\nThe conditional usage feels similarly clunky for both sentences.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T02:53:01.523",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50551",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-11T16:52:51.057",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-11T16:52:51.057",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "22187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"particle-と"
],
"title": "Use of と in 「音とといえば」 and 「普通の道徳と捉えていただいて結構」",
"view_count": 118
} | [
{
"body": "音とといえば is a simple typo. You don't need two と here. The sentence should be:\n\n> 音といえば、黒板にチョークを走らせる音や、教科書をめくる音だけ。\n\n* * *\n\n> それは普通の道徳と捉えていただいて結構よ。 \n> You can think of it as a normal (i.e., not particularly Christianity-\n> related) moral class.\n\n * **～と捉える** : \"to regard (something) as ～\", \"to think of (something) as ～\". This と is just a quotative particle. It's used with many verbs for thinking/regarding/interpreting (～と見なす, ～と解釈する, ...)\n * **(te-form) + 結構です** : \"It's okay to ～\", \"Feel free to ～\".\n * 道徳 here is one of the subjects taught at school, like 算数 (math), 体育 (PE) and 音楽 (music). See: [School subjects in Japan](https://ryohkei.tumblr.com/post/140237115829/school-subjects-in-japan)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T05:46:35.220",
"id": "50557",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T05:46:35.220",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50551",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50551 | 50557 | 50557 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I discovered that the word 成熟{せいじゅく} ( _maturity_ for people, fruit, etc.) has\na little brother which is composed of the exact same kanjis with the same\nprononciation, but in reverse order: 熟成{じゅくせい}. I looked up both words. Though\n熟成 seems rather rare and definitely rarer than 成熟, they seem to have more or\nless the same meaning.\n\nI find this case rather strange and would like to know the difference between\nthe two words, if there is a difference at all.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T03:16:30.527",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50553",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T03:54:34.363",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"words",
"synonyms"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 成熟 and 熟成?",
"view_count": 172
} | [
{
"body": "I am a native speaker of Japanese. Your question is very interesting.\n\nYour recognition of 成熟 is more or less correct. We usually use 熟成 for food. It\nreminds me of good food which is taken a long time to deepen the taste. 熟成\ncannot use for people.\n\n * 成熟した: Grown up, matured\n * 熟成した: The taste deeply brought out (sometimes with a enzyme)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T03:54:34.363",
"id": "50554",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T03:54:34.363",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24037",
"parent_id": "50553",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 50553 | null | 50554 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50562",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I want to ask \"When did you come here?\". Are both of these ways of saying it\ncorrect or are they wrong? Which one would you use and are there differences\nin their meaning? Is there maybe a third way to say it that you would suggest?\n\nいつここに来ましたか\n\nここに来ていつですか",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T09:05:47.563",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50560",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T14:02:58.613",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24001",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "いつここに来ましたか vs ここに来ていつですか",
"view_count": 384
} | [
{
"body": "Literally, They both mean \"When did you come here?\", but there are minor\ndifference.\n\nThis is my personally feeling of the phrases:\n\n 1. I'm surprised that you are here, or complaining that you shouldn't be here, or kind of asking why you are here. It can be tell by tone of the speaker.\n 2. I already know that you have been here for a while, asking for the exact time you reach.\n\nAnd the second is a little wired, following is a better one:\n\n```\n\n ここに来ったのはいつですか\n \n```",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T09:26:12.177",
"id": "50561",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T09:32:21.210",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-20T09:32:21.210",
"last_editor_user_id": "3227",
"owner_user_id": "3227",
"parent_id": "50560",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "×ここに来ていつですか is incorrect.\n\nSo in English you have two different ways to convey this type of information:\n\n> 1. I came here 3 months ago.\n> 2. I've been here for 3 months.\n>\n\nAnd there are two different ways to ask about it:\n\n> 1. **When** did you come here?\n> 2. **How long** have you been here?\n>\n\nNote that you have to choose the correct interrogative. \"When\" obviously does\nnot work in Sentence 2. (×\"When have you been here?\" is ungrammatical.) And\nthis is exactly why ここに来ていつですか is an incorrect Japanese sentence.\n\nApparently, you already know there are also two ways to say this in Japanese:\n\n> 1. 3か月前(に)ここに来ました。 \n> (に can be dropped in casual speech)\n> 2. ここに来て3か月です。 \n> (literally, \"I came here and it's been three months.\")\n>\n\nAs you know, turning them into questions is a simple process in Japanese. Just\nreplace the part being asked with an appropriate interrogative, and add か at\nthe end of the sentence:\n\n> 1. **いつ** ここに来ました **か** 。\n> 2. ここに来て **どのくらい** です **か** 。\n>\n\nBut note that いつ does not work in the second sentence! It's because \"when\" and\n\"how long\" are two different types of questions. To ask about a time span\n(i.e., \"how long\") in Japanese, you have to use\n[どのくらい](http://jisho.org/word/%E3%81%A9%E3%81%AE%E4%BD%8D) or\n[どれくらい](http://jisho.org/word/%E4%BD%95%E3%82%8C%E3%81%8F%E3%82%89%E3%81%84),\nnot いつ. Alternatively, you can use 何か月 (\"how many months\"), 何年 (\"how many\nyears\"), 何時間 (\"how many hours\") and so on.\n\n> ここに来て何年ですか。\n\nThe difference between the two is small, but the latter using どのくらい would\nsound more natural when you focus on the experience during the period.\n\nSee:\n\n * [\"How long\" in Japanese](http://nihongolearner.blogspot.jp/2013/04/how-long-in-japanese.html)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T11:32:54.983",
"id": "50562",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T14:02:58.613",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-20T14:02:58.613",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50560",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 50560 | 50562 | 50562 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50564",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I'm going to Japan in a week, and I'd like to be able to convey the fact that\nI am (very) allergic to coriander. Google Translate gave me:\n\n> 私はコリアンダーにアレルギーがある\n\nto be pronounced as:\n\n> _Watashi wa koriandā ni arerugī ga aru_\n\nbut I'm a bit suspicious of this because the words for coriander and allergy\nseem to be transliterations of the sound of the words in English, and I find\nit hard to believe that the Japanese would not have their own word for\ncoriander and allergy.\n\nSo, is this the best way to inform restaurant staff that I am allergic to\ncoriander (and not just that I don't like it) ?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T13:53:46.750",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50563",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-21T00:45:13.210",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-21T00:45:13.210",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"loanwords"
],
"title": "Is 私はコリアンダーにアレルギーがある an accurate translation?",
"view_count": 1013
} | [
{
"body": "Yup, I should think that would make your allergy clear.\n\nAs a side note, Coriander is often known as パクチー (From Thai “phakchi”) as well\nso you might want to try saying that if the point doesn't seem to be getting\nacross.\n\nEDIT: @Chocolate points out that when it's a spice its コリアンダー and when it's a\nraw leaf it's パクチー. Assuming you are allergic to both you might want to\nmention both.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T13:56:44.480",
"id": "50564",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T14:44:23.767",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-20T14:44:23.767",
"last_editor_user_id": "1805",
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"parent_id": "50563",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "For the sake of understanding what it is you're saying (it sounds like you're\nstill new to Japanese, so forgive me if I'm wrong), 私はコリアンダーにアレルギーがある can be\nbroken down like this:\n\n * 私 (I)\n * は (marks preceding clause as the sentence topic)\n * コリアンダー (Coriander, the spice (thanks @Chocolate))\n * に (to)\n * アレルギー (allergy)\n * が (marks preceding clause to be the subject in regards to the verb)\n * ある (in your case, \"have\")\n\nI would directly translate it back to English as \"I have an allergy to\nCoriander\".\n\nIf you'd like to express that your allergy is severe, try:\n私はコリアンダーに重度のアレルギーがある (watashi wa koriandaa ni **juudo no** arerugii ga aru).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T19:27:51.013",
"id": "50576",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T19:33:20.927",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-20T19:33:20.927",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "50563",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I think the given sentence works. For the sake of politeness, however, you\nmight want to use －ます form instead of standard form for ある. Your sentence\nmight look like this, then:\n\n> 私はコリアンダーにアレルギーが **あります** 。 \n> Watashi wa koriandā ni arerugī ga **arimasu**. \n> I **have** an allergy to Coriander.\n\nI have added bold to the example to show what changed and what part of the\nsentence was affected.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T22:39:40.683",
"id": "50581",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T22:39:40.683",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "50563",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 50563 | 50564 | 50564 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50568",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I came across this sentence in the basic kanji book\n\n> くつ **を** 一足とくつ下を四足買いました\n\nThe sentence has two を particles even though I thought the を particles can\nonly be used once in a sentence. I thought since the と particle connects two\nnouns together it would look like this:\n\n> くつの一足 **と** くつ下の四足を買いました\n\nIs this not possible or is the whole grammar wrong? Why is it like that?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T14:36:00.487",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50565",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T20:30:31.730",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-23T13:38:34.093",
"last_editor_user_id": "22859",
"owner_user_id": "22413",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-と",
"particle-を"
],
"title": "Why is the を particle used twice here",
"view_count": 738
} | [
{
"body": "This を particle does not necessarily represent the object marker. Let's\nexplore why.\n\n> くつを一足 (one pair of shoes)\n\nThis を is used in connection with counters. It does not necessarily indicate a\ndirect object here. According to the answer found\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/8165/22352) (and\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/17832/22352)), when working with\ncounters, you can use the following structure:\n\n> (Noun) (Particle) (Number + Counter) (Verb/Verb Phrase)\n\nBut where is the verb in this case? So far, we have `Noun を Number + Counter`\nbut no Verb. This is because there is yet another noun used in relation to the\nverb. (You aren't just buying a pair of shoes, you're also buying a pair of\nsocks.)\n\nThe key here is the fact that there is a と in this sentence. In this case, と\nis used for making a list--translated to `and` in this case.\n\nI want to make a special note that `くつを一足` is a noun phrase. In other words,\nit acts like a single noun in terms of sentence creation. The same goes with\n`くつ下を四足.` These both combine to be the direct object. This grammar structure\nis not uncommon, as you will see in the other answers above, but a good rule\nof thumb goes like this:\n\n> (Noun) (Particle) (Number + Counter) と (Noun) (Particle) (Number + Counter)\n> (repeat if necessary)+ (Verb/Verb Phrase)\n>\n> くつを一足とくつ下を四足 + Verb Phrase (one pair of shoes and four pairs of socks + verb\n> phrase)\n\nSo what's the direct object? In this case, it's the part of the sentence just\nabove in yellow. `One pair of shoes, and four pairs of socks` is our direct\nobject.\n\nWe are combining two different ideas into one sentence here:\n\n> くつを一足買いました。\n>\n> くつ下を四足買いました。\n\nPutting it together, we can either say:\n\n> くつを一足とくつ下を四足買いました。\n>\n> くつ下を四足とくつを一足買いました。\n\nShould we include the counters as part of the direct object? Well a direct\nobject applies to a noun. The phrase `noun+number+counter` is a noun phrase,\nacting as a noun. So I would say yes.\n\nHope it helps.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T15:27:44.420",
"id": "50568",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-21T13:03:01.537",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-21T13:03:01.537",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "22352",
"parent_id": "50565",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "Your version is possible, but we don't usually say it in that way.\n\n> くつを一足とくつ下を四足買いました。\n>\n> 一足のくつと四足のくつ下を買いました。\n\nThese two are natural.\n\nWhen we say '一足買いました,' this 一足 is an adverb. In other words, we don't buy\nsomething named '一足'.\n\n> くつを **一足** 買いました。[一足 in 一足買う is an **_adverb_** ]\n>\n> **一足の** くつを買いました。[一足の is an **_adjective_** ]\n\n* * *\n\n[Edit to add] \nI've noticed I haven't answered the title question.\n\n> **Why is the を particle used twice here**\n\nThat is because each of these nouns (くつ and くつ下) is needed to be indicated as\nthe object of the verb. \nI parse the sentence as two **_adverb phrases_** connected with と.\n\n> [くつを一足 ( _adv_ )] と [くつ下を四足 ( _adv_ )] 買いました。\n\nWhen we have two items as the subject of a verb, we say\n\n> くつが一足 と くつ下が四足 あります。\n\nくつを一足 or くつが一足 alone doesn't stand very good as a noun to native's ears, and\nis needing a verb.\n\n▶ You can also say it as follows; without the particle in the middle,\nくつ一足、くつ下四足, they become nouns, and you need the particle, を, once, right after\nthe whole phrase.\n\n> くつ一足とくつ下四足(と)を買いました。[the second と is usually omitted]\n\nBut when it's くつを 一足 買いました, this 一足 is an adverb modifying the verb, 買いました.\n\n> _Cf:_ 「子供が３人遊んでいる」「夏休み中に小説を10 冊読んだ」の中の数量名詞も、その働きは副詞的である。 \n> (Source: 日本語教師のページ |\n> [名詞の副詞的用法](http://www.nihongokyoshi.co.jp/manbow/manbow.php?id=930&TAB=1))\n>\n> Also see: [How to say \"a year has 12\n> months\"?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/50292/how-to-say-a-\n> year-has-12-months/50293#50293)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T22:03:08.117",
"id": "50580",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T20:30:31.730",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T20:30:31.730",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50565",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 50565 | 50568 | 50568 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "彼はいった\n\nIs there a better more fluent way to say 'he went'?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T16:09:10.097",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50569",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T17:27:47.540",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24047",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"english-to-japanese"
],
"title": "Saying 'he went' with itta",
"view_count": 226
} | [
{
"body": "> 彼はいった\n>\n> Is there a better more fluent way to say 'he went'?\n\nYes, there are.\n\n彼{かれ}は行{い}った is simply a direct translation of \"He went.\" It could be used as\npart of a dry narrative, but we don't usually say things this way to talk to\nsomeone.\n\nIf it's part of a conversation, it could be like \n彼は行ったよ [for casual talk] \n彼は行きましたよ [standard language to talk to people] \n○○さんは行かれました（よ） [polite language]\n\nIf it's from a novel, it could be like \n彼は行った。[dry and concise] \n彼は行きました。[more accessible / this is the standard to write to people] \n彼は行ったのであった。[dry and explanatory tone]",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T16:55:57.557",
"id": "50571",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T16:55:57.557",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50569",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Adding onto karlalou's answer, you can use different verbs depending on your\ncontext. Generally you can use 行った for 'went' but consider the following as\nwell:\n\n> 彼は[出かけた/出かけました]。 \n> He went (out from home).\n>\n> 彼はXXに[向かった/向かいました]。 \n> He went (towards XX).\n\n行った works here too, but 向かった gives the sense of going towards a very specific\nplace.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T17:27:47.540",
"id": "50573",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T17:27:47.540",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "50569",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 50569 | null | 50571 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Could someone tell me if the phrase 'mono no aware' should be written in a\ncertain way for example hiragana/kanji and if so why? Could you please show me\nthe correct way it should look? Thanks",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T16:51:12.513",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50570",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T17:21:03.763",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24049",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"spelling"
],
"title": "Correct spelling of 'mono no aware'",
"view_count": 1405
} | [
{
"body": "もののあわれ is the modern way of writing it.\n\nもののあはれ is the old way of writing it if you want an old flavor to it. It's a\npoetic word, so we like to see it this way, too.\n\nIt could be 物の哀れ, but I personally find 物 doesn't look very good; this kanji\nletter has a feel of breaking the poetic mood to me. :D I prefer ものの哀れ, but I\nthink the hiragana versions are more common and look friendlier.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T17:21:03.763",
"id": "50572",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T17:21:03.763",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50570",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50570 | null | 50572 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50583",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "So I have these lyrics ([source](http://www.lyrical-\nnonsense.com/lyrics/aimer/kataomoi/)):\n\n> ...君が僕を忘れてしまっても ちょっと辛いけど… それでもいいから\n\nI completely understand that line, but this one is troubling me\n\n> 僕より先に どこか遠くに 旅立つことは 絶対 許さないから\n\nI thought maybe it would parse like this\n\n> 僕より先にどこか - Somewhere before me\n>\n> 遠くに旅立つことは絶対許さないから - The fact that you go away from me is unforgivable\n\nAnd everything would be:\n\n> It's unforgivable that you go away from me, right before my eyes.\n\n(I'm not sure if 先にどこか遠くに should be together or not)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T21:06:59.297",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50577",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-15T18:02:40.983",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-15T18:02:40.983",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "16104",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"parsing"
],
"title": "僕より先に どこか遠くに 旅立つことは 絶対 許さないから",
"view_count": 133
} | [
{
"body": "I would parse it this way:\n\n> ｛僕より先に｝｛どこか遠くに｝旅立つことは｛絶対｝許さないから\n\n僕より先に (before me; before I do) and どこか遠くに (somewhere far away) both modify\n旅立つ.\n\n「Vことは許さない」(を in 「Vことを許さない」 is replaced by は) means \"don't allow (someone) to\ndo~~\"\n\nPut together,\n\n\"I'll never allow you to leave for somewhere far away before I do.\"\n\n... I think 遠くに旅立つ implies \"pass away\" here.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T23:20:37.977",
"id": "50583",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-20T23:20:37.977",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "50577",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50577 | 50583 | 50583 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The second line of the song Umi no Koe/海の声 says:\n\n> 風の声に 耳すませ \n> (kaze no koe ni mimisumase)\n\nIn this sentence, what does it mean when すませ is added at the end of 耳/ear.\n\nThe full verse is this:\n\n> 空の声が 聴きたくて \n> 風の声に **_耳すませ_** \n> 海の声が 知りたくて \n> 君の声を 探してる\n\nThank you!",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-20T21:30:56.433",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50578",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T06:32:15.447",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-21T00:09:10.587",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "24054",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "adding ーすませ to the end of a noun",
"view_count": 433
} | [
{
"body": "> 空の声が 聴きたくて \n> 風の声に 耳 **すませ** \n> 海の声が 知りたくて \n> 君の声を 探してる\n\nGiven phrases are parts of the\n[lyrics](http://utaten.com/lyric/%E6%B5%A6%E5%B3%B6%E5%A4%AA%E9%83%8E%28%E6%A1%90%E8%B0%B7%E5%81%A5%E5%A4%AA%29/%E6%B5%B7%E3%81%AE%E5%A3%B0/)\nof a song \"海｛うみ｝の声｛こえ｝\", but quite a few phrases are omitted. Complementing\nthe omitted parts taking the whole context of the lyrics into account will be\nas follows:\n\n空＜から聞こえそうな君＞の声が 聞きたくて \n＜空を駆け抜ける＞風の ~~声~~ ＜音＞に 耳＜を＞すませ＜て＞ \n＜君の声を 探している＞\n\n海＜から聞こえそうな君＞の声が 知りたくて \n＜波の音に 耳をすませて＞ \n君の声を 探して＜い＞る\n\n> 空から聞こえそうな君の声が 聞きたくて \n> 空を駆{か}け抜｛ぬ｝ける風の音に 耳を **すませて** \n> 君の声を 探している\n>\n> 海から聞こえそうな君の声が 知りたくて \n> 波｛なみ｝の音｛おと｝に 耳を **すませて** \n> 君の声を 探している\n\n**すませ** is a part of the phrase \"風の音に/波の音に 耳をすませて君の声を探している _I'm listening\ncarefully to the sound of the wind/waves in order to catch your voice_ \",\nwhich becomes \"澄ませ\" when written including _kanji_.\n\n* * *\n\n## EDIT:\n\nどうしてこのような解釈｛かいしゃく｝ができるかを解説｛かいせつ｝します。 \nこの解説は日本語学習者の中で上級者を対象｛たいしょう｝としますので、日本語で書きます。\n\n解説にあたって歌詞｛かし｝の全文が必要｛ひつよう｝になりますので、以下に引用｛いんよう｝して掲載｛けいさい｝します。\n\n海の声\n\n作詞：篠原誠 作曲：BEGIN\n\n**空の声が 聴きたくて** \n**風の声に 耳すませ** \n**海の声が 知りたくて** \n**君の声を 探してる**\n\n会えない そう思うほどに \n会いたいが 大きくなってゆく \n**川のつぶやき 山のささやき** \n**君の声のように 感じるんだ**\n\n目を閉じれば 聞こえてくる \n君のコロコロした 笑い声 \n声に出せば 届きそうで 今日も 歌ってる \n海の声にのせて\n\n空の声が 聴きたくて \n風の声に 耳すませ \n海の声が 知りたくて \n君の声を 探してる\n\nたとえ僕が おじいさんになっても \nここで 歌ってる \n君だけを想って\n\n海の声よ 風の声よ \n空の声よ 太陽の声よ \n川の声よ 山の声よ \n**僕の声を 乗せてゆけ**\n\nまず、歌詞｛かし｝の全体｛ぜんたい｝を読｛よ｝むと、この歌｛うた｝を歌う人（「私」でも良いが、この説明｛せつめい｝では仮｛かり｝に「作者｛さくしゃ｝」とする）が、今は会｛あ｝えない恋人｛こいびと｝である「君｛きみ｝」を慕｛した｝った歌｛うた｝であることが分｛わ｝かる。\n\n次に、直接｛ちょくせつ｝「君」に会えなくても、作者は君の声だけでも聞｛き｝きたいことが分かる。\n\n「川のつぶやき」や「山のささやき」を、「君の声のように\n感じるんだ」という歌詞から、この作者は「川の水の流れる音」や「山で聞こえる音」を人の話す声のように想像｛そうぞう｝して聞いていることが分かる。「山の音」とは、山そのものには実際｛じっさい｝に音がないので、山に生｛は｝えている木々｛きぎ｝が風｛かぜ｝で互｛たが｝いに擦｛す｝れて発｛はっ｝する音｛おと｝や、樹木｛じゅもく｝の間｛あいだ｝を吹｛ふ｝き抜｛ぬ｝ける時｛とき｝に発する音を意味していると思う。従｛したが｝って、歌詞全体を通｛つう｝じて、「君の声」以外｛いがい｝で使｛つか｝われている「声」、「つぶやき」や「ささやき」などは、「人間の声」ではなく、「音」という意味で解釈｛かいしゃく｝することが自然｛しぜん｝である。\n\nこの歌詞には、「空」「風」「海」「川」「山」「太陽｛たいよう｝」という自然物｛しぜんぶつ｝がたくさん登場｛とうじょう｝するが、「風」と「川」以外｛いがい｝は直接｛ちょくせつ｝「音」が出｛だ｝ないので、「空の音」「海の音」は、「空」や「海」の辺｛あた｝りに存在｛そんざい｝する実際｛じっさい｝に音が出るものを通じて出る音と解釈するのが妥当｛だとう｝である。すなわち、「山のささやき」→「山の音」→「山に生えている木々が風で互いに擦れて発する音や樹木の間を吹き抜ける時に発する音」と解釈した方法と同じである。\n\n話は若干｛じゃっかん｝脱線｛だっせん｝するが、「風の声→風の音」と解釈するとしたが、「風の音に乗｛の｝せた君の声」「風の音に託｛たく｝した君の声」「風の音に託された君の声」という解釈も十分あり得る。歌詞の最後に「僕の声を\n乗せてゆけ」という表現｛ひょうげん｝がある。日本語の用法｛ようほう｝で、「～に声を乗せる」「～に思｛おも｝いを乗せる」という表現｛ひょうげん｝がある。例えば、「電波｛でんぱ｝に音楽｛おんがく｝を乗せる」や「搬送波｛はんそうは｝に実際の音声｛おんせい｝信号｛しんごう｝を乗せる」のように「実際の信号」とその信号を送る媒体｛ばいたい｝である「搬送波」の関係としてこの作詞家｛さくしか｝が言葉｛ことば｝を使｛つか｝っているように思｛おも｝う。これを「僕の声を\n乗せてゆけ」にあてはめると、「風の音に僕の声を\n乗せてゆけ」となる。従って、「風の声」を「風の音に乗った君の声」と解釈することも可能であるが、話が複雑になるので、ここでは、「風の声＝風の音」と理解することにする。\n\n話は戻｛もど｝って、質問者｛しつもんしゃ｝の提示｛ていじ｝した４行の歌詞に着目｛ちゃくもく｝すると、１行目｛ぎょうめ｝、２行目と最後｛さいご｝の４行目が一まとまりの文章｛ぶんしょう｝になることが分かる。また、３行目と４行目とで別の一まとまりの文章になる。その意味｛いみ｝で「君の声を\n探してる」という４行目は両方｛りょうほう｝の文章｛ぶんしょう｝から使｛つか｝われている。４行目の歌詞を１、２行目の続｛つづ｝きに置｛お｝かなかったのは、歌詞がくどくなるのを防｛ふせ｝ぐためだと思われる。\n\n１行目、２行目と最後の４行目からなる一まとまりの文章である「空の声が 聴きたくて 風の声に 耳（を）すませ（て） 君の声を\n探して（い）る」は、「風に乗っているであろうどうしても聞きたい君の声を探して耳を澄ませて風の音を聴（/聞）いている」という意味であろう。「空の声」は前に説明した「空を吹く風の音」であり、「君が空に向｛む｝かって発｛はっ｝した声」かもしれない。\n\n３行目と４行目の一まとまりの文章を見ると、「海の声」という行は、１つ目のまとまりのある文章にある「空の声」の行と文の形｛かたち｝が同｛おな｝じであり、「海の声」も「空の声」も実際には音を出さない自然物である点からも、同じ役割｛やくわり｝として呼応｛こおう｝関係｛かんけい｝があることが分かる。すると、「空の声」を実際に担｛にな｝う役目｛やくめ｝である音を発する「風の声」に相当｛そうとう｝する部分が「海の声」には無｛な｝いことが分かる。「風の声に\n耳すませ」から類推｛るいすい｝すると、自｛おの｝ずと「波｛なみ｝の声に 耳をすませ」が省略されていることが分かる。\nこれは敢｛あ｝えて省略｛しょうりゃく｝する必要はなく、あった方が自然な日本語であるが、歌詞の全体を４行詩｛ぎょうし｝の組｛く｝み合｛あ｝わせで成｛な｝り立｛た｝たせるために、また、読者｛どくしゃ｝が補｛おぎな｝うことが可能｛かのう｝だと判断｛はんだん｝して省略したものと思われる。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T06:06:00.097",
"id": "50588",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T06:32:15.447",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "50578",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Here, 澄ませ【すませ】 is a verb. The object marker を after 耳 has been omitted.\n(Dropping を makes this part 5 morae long and rhyme with the other lines.)\n\n済ませ is the masu-stem (aka pre-masu form, 連用形) of the causative form of the\ngodan (aka consonant-stem or U-) intransitive verb 澄む.\n\n * [**澄む**](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/120157/meaning/m0u/%E6%BE%84%E3%82%80/): an intransitive godan verb, \"to be/become clean/clear/transparent/keen\"\n * **澄ませる** : the causative form of 澄む, \"to make something clean/clear/keen\". see the conjugation rule [here](https://www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-grammar/japanese-causative-form/).\n * **耳を澄ませる** : (literally \"to make the ears keen\") \"to listen carefully\"\n * **耳を澄ませ** : the masu-stem (pre-masu form) of 耳を澄ませる\n\nThe masu-stem can be used to continue a sentence just like the te-form. (See:\n[て versus combining-form for joining\nclauses](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/23789/5010) ) Therefore, the\nline means \"I listen carefully to the voice of wind (, and ...)\"\n\n* * *\n\nWell, in fact, 澄ませる is an uncommon form, because we have a standalone\ntransitive version of 澄む, namely 澄ます, which is also a godan verb.\n\n * [**澄ます**](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/119957/meaning/m0u/): a transitive godan verb, \"to make something clean/clear/keen\"\n * **耳を澄ます** : (literally \"to make the ears keen\") \"to listen carefully\"\n * **耳を澄まし** : the masu-stem of 耳を澄ます\n\nI think 耳を澄ます is worth memorizing as an idiom, and is far more common than\n耳を澄ませる. But they mean the same thing, anyway.\n\nAll in all, the following four forms will work quite similarly in this\ncontext.\n\n * **耳を澄まして** : the te-form of 澄ます\n * **耳を澄まし** : the masu-stem of 澄ます\n * **耳を澄ませて** : the te-form of the causative form of 澄む (relatively uncommon)\n * **耳を澄ませ** : the masu-stem of the causative form of 澄む (least common among the four)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T07:54:51.887",
"id": "50590",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T03:06:16.913",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T03:06:16.913",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50578",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 50578 | null | 50590 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50585",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "If I were drinking English-style black tea, made by first placing a teabag in\nthe cup, adding sugar, pouring boiling water on to it, stirring, adding milk,\nand stirring again, and a friend asked me, 「何飲んでる？」, would it be odd to reply,\n「お茶だよ」? Would another term like ミルクティー be more appropriate?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T00:50:34.927",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50584",
"last_activity_date": "2019-12-04T13:46:26.150",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 22,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words"
],
"title": "Would it be odd to refer to English-style tea as お茶?",
"view_count": 2094
} | [
{
"body": "Black tea is usually referred to as [紅茶]{こうちゃ}.\n\n> a friend asked me, 「何飲んでる？」, would it be odd to reply, 「お茶だよ」?\n\nお茶 might be understood as Japanese tea (like, 麦茶{むぎちゃ} or 煎茶{せんちゃ}).\n\n> Would another term like ミルクティー be more appropriate?\n\nYes, ミルクティー is also common. So I'd recommend using 紅茶 or ミルクティー to avoid any\nconfusion.\n\n(That said, you'd still say 「お茶しない？」「一緒{いっしょ}にお茶でもどう？」 etc. to invite someone\nout for tea or coffee... here you don't mean you're gonna drink Japanese tea\nat a cafe.)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T00:58:31.110",
"id": "50585",
"last_activity_date": "2019-12-04T13:46:26.150",
"last_edit_date": "2019-12-04T13:46:26.150",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "50584",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 29
}
]
| 50584 | 50585 | 50585 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "i know that \"開ける\" involves subject and object, like :\n\n> \"窓を開けました\"( windows opened, & implied someone did it ),\n\nand \"開く（あく）\" only involves the subject, like :\n\n> \"窓が開きました\" ( windows opened, & implied no one, maybe by wind blow ),\n\nbut i can't make it very clear if \"開く（ひらく）\" is similar or equal to \"開ける（あける）\"\nwhich i found only very few examples says so.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T06:55:14.880",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50589",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-21T07:16:33.253",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-21T07:16:33.253",
"last_editor_user_id": "24057",
"owner_user_id": "24057",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"verbs"
],
"title": "the difference among \"開く（あく）、開く（ひらく）、開ける（あける）\"",
"view_count": 1101
} | []
| 50589 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50594",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "\"ゾハルがデウスの主動力炉\"\n\nAs far as I understand, it says something like \" _(A) Zohar is the power\nsource of Deus' leadership._ \", but \"力炉\" cannot be found in a dictionary.\n\nNow 炉 has only one reading: ろ. But 力 can be read as ちから as well as りょく or りき.\nHow is 力炉 to be read beside its meaning?\n\nゾハル - name of a monolithic object supposed to be the source of all of life and\nexistence.\n\nデウス - name of an AI taking control of the ゾハル for its purposes.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T09:39:33.913",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50591",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-21T10:44:57.910",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24062",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Xenogears Pearfect works p.8 chronological year 4767",
"view_count": 72
} | [
{
"body": "主動力炉 is しゅどうりょくろ, \"main power source\".\n\n * 主【しゅ】: (prefix) main\n * 動力炉【どうりょくろ】: power generator, power source \n * 動力【どうりょく】: driving power, driving force\n * 炉【ろ】: furnace, reactor, generator\n\nPerhaps you mistook it as 主導【しゅどう】 (\"leadership\"). The second kanji is\ndifferent. 導 is \"lead; guide\", 動 is \"move; drive\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T10:44:57.910",
"id": "50594",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-21T10:44:57.910",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50591",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50591 | 50594 | 50594 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50595",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've read a sample sentence that says:\n\nあの みせで [食]{た}べましょう。\n\nApparently it translates to \"Let's eat at that place\", but what is the exact\nusage and meaning of みせで ?\n\n> \" [店]{みせ} is commonly translated as 'shop'. Are there other meanings?\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T10:20:30.483",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50592",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T11:11:28.440",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T11:11:28.440",
"last_editor_user_id": "22397",
"owner_user_id": "23960",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"nuances",
"parsing"
],
"title": "Can みせ（店）be translated to something other than \"shop\"",
"view_count": 283
} | [
{
"body": "It's two words, みせ + で.\n\nみせ (店 in kanji) is a noun meaning _store_ , _shop_ , or sometimes\n_restaurant_. で is a particle which is similar in purpose to _at_ or _in_ in\nEnglish. See: [Japanese Particle で](http://www.punipunijapan.com/japanese-\nparticle-de/)\n\n * あの: that\n * みせ: restaurant\n * で: at\n * 食べましょう: let's eat",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T10:52:08.553",
"id": "50595",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-21T10:52:08.553",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50592",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 50592 | 50595 | 50595 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "The sentence is: まピンクの きのこが 生えた or ma pinku no kinoko ga haeta.\n\n(I think it means \"A pink mushroom grew\".)\n\nWhat does the ま at the beginning of the sentence mean?\n\nThank you!",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T10:21:10.163",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50593",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-21T10:21:10.163",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24063",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of the word \"ma\" in this sentence?",
"view_count": 207
} | []
| 50593 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "As I understand it both にしたら and にとって mean \"~ from the point of view of ~\".\nWhat are the differences and if there is a similarity between either and として\nand is the difference between them ?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T13:25:10.020",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50596",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T06:53:51.013",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21729",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Difference between にしたら /として/にとって",
"view_count": 1429
} | [
{
"body": "> As I understand it both にしたら and にとって mean \"~ from the point of view of ~\".\n> What are the differences and if there is a similarity between either and として\n> and is the difference between them ?\n\nAs @Peri says, each of them means different. \n**として** is basically ' ** _as_** ': 先生{せんせい} **として** 働{はたら}く (work as a\nteacher).\n\n**にしたら** has the sense of conditional. Yes, you have it right; it means\nsomething like \" ** _from someone's perspective._** \" We would say ネコの身{み}\n**にしたら** いい迷惑{めいわく}というものだ. (From the perspective of the cat, it must be an\nannoyance.) We would also say ネコ **にしてみれば** 迷惑な話だろう. Actually, many similar\nexpressions are possible: にすれば, からしたら, の立場に立ってみれば, etc. But all these tend to\nsound rather informal except maybe の立場からすると.\n\n**にとって** is, yes, ' **for/to** ' though we don't use this to mean 'made for'.\nWe use this in, for example, 私 **にとって** 大切{たいせつ}な人です (S/He is important to\nme), or この街{まち} **にとって** 観光産業{かんこうさんぎょう}は重要{じゅうよう}です (Tourism is important\nindustry for this city), わが社 **にとって** (For our company).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T06:53:51.013",
"id": "51613",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T06:53:51.013",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50596",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50596 | null | 51613 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50598",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Someone recently posted a question about お茶 and whether it's correct to use お茶\nto describe something like 紅茶 instead. Knowing that 紅 usually means 'crimson',\nwas wondering what the etymology for 紅茶's usage of 紅 goes for black.\n\nThis might be a case of assuming a translation from what an item is called in\none culture versus another (i.e. in English this is \"Black Tea\" but in\nJapanese this is \"Crimson Tea\", literally speaking) but since I'm not fully\ncertain about the kanji choice for 紅茶 just wanted to know where its origins\nare?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T15:36:20.607",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50597",
"last_activity_date": "2021-04-24T08:30:42.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"etymology"
],
"title": "etymology: 紅 for black as in 紅茶",
"view_count": 329
} | [
{
"body": "Well, black tea isn't exactly black. You might say it isn't red either.\nNevertheless, I wouldn't get hung up on the _color_. It's just a name a kind\nof tea that in English we refer to as **black** and Japanese refers to as\n**紅**.\n\nNext time you pour yourself a cup of \"black\" tea in a white porcelain cup,\njust fill it about a centimeter deep and reflect on the color. It's neither\nblack nor bright red, but it is somewhat ruddy looking. I've always imagined\nthat's where the name of the tea in Japanese came from.\n\nI imagine, but I don't know, that the name of the tea in English comes less\nfrom the color of the liquid tea itself as from the color of the leaves: a\ngood English Breakfast or Earl Gray are, well, _not_ exactly black (in fact,\nrather brown looking to me). But, in English, we tend to see the world in\nblack-and-white.\n\nHere is an [interesting link on the naming\nconvention](http://gingkobay.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-red-tea-is-called-black-\ntea.html) which seems to suggest that \"black\" is derived from the meaning on\nOolong in Chinese. I don't know since, at least in Japanese, Oolong, apart\nfrom being written ウーロン茶 can also be written as 烏龍, both of which I've seen. 烏\nmeans crow (so _black_ because crows are black?). At any rate, there seems to\nbe quite a lot you can find with a google search about the different naming\nconventions used and theorizing about why.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T15:44:09.947",
"id": "50598",
"last_activity_date": "2021-04-24T08:30:42.247",
"last_edit_date": "2021-04-24T08:30:42.247",
"last_editor_user_id": "816",
"owner_user_id": "4875",
"parent_id": "50597",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
]
| 50597 | 50598 | 50598 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50605",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "This sentence translation is given as: He has been asked to sit on the\ncommittee. I can see the meaning, except with the と after ように. Can anyone\nexplain why と is used in here?\n\n彼はその委員会のメンバーになるようにと依頼を受けてきてきた。",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T16:17:52.080",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50599",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T01:03:25.240",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18926",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"particles"
],
"title": "Why is と used in this sentence?",
"view_count": 185
} | [
{
"body": "> > 彼はその委員会のメンバーになるようにと依頼を受けてきてきた。\n>\n> This sentence translation is given as: He has been asked to sit on the\n> committee. \n> Can anyone explain why と is used in here?\n\nThis その委員会のメンバーになるように is the _**content**_ of the request (依頼{いらい}). This\ncould be even clearer if it's メンバーになるように **という** 依頼を受けてきた.\n\nWithout the と, it becomes unclear.\n\n> 彼はその委員会のメンバーになるように 依頼を受けてきていた。\n\nThe ように starts to sound like ために or なれるように. It's vague and hard to process,\nbut could sound like the becoming the member is not the content of the request\nbut is his reason why he's received the request.\n\nThe phrase その委員会のメンバーになるようにと（いう）should be taken as an appositive to 依頼, not\nthe reason of receiving the request.\n\n* * *\n\nI find if it's な **れる** ようにと依頼を受けてきた, the content of quotation becomes a wish,\nand because of the nature of wish, it works with or without と; it can be\nexpressed as either the _reason_ or the _content_ of the wish.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T21:48:26.020",
"id": "50602",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-21T22:52:59.893",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50599",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I think you could parse it this way:\n\n> 彼は『その委員会のメンバーになるように』 **と** 依頼を受けてきていた\n\nThe と is quotative.\n\nように is the continuative form of the auxiliary ようだ. According to\n[デジタル大辞泉](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/226613/meaning/m0u/):\n\n> ようだ［助動］ \n> ５ （「ように」の形で）婉曲 (えんきょく) な命令・希望の意を表す。「開始時刻に遅れない **ように** 」「今後ともよろしくご指導くださいます\n> **ように** 」\n\nように can express 婉曲な(softer/roundabout) 命令・希望(order/command or hope).\n\nSo your sentence can be interpreted as literally saying:\n\n\"He was requested, (saying) 'Be a member of that committee' and was there.\"\n\nHence \"He was there, requested to be a member of that committee.\"\n\n(≂ 彼はその委員会のメンバーになってくださいと依頼を受けてきていた）\n\nExamples:\n\n> * 今日中に報告書を仕上げる **ようにと** 指示を受けた。\n> * 海に近づかない **ようにと** 注意された。\n>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T23:10:55.683",
"id": "50605",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T01:03:25.240",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T01:03:25.240",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "50599",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 50599 | 50605 | 50602 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51610",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "> 小説は連作短編として、色々な土地を旅する作家が、旅行先で怪異にあうという物語にしようと考えているのだ。\n\n_...作家が, (try to?) think of stories that match the mysteries in those\ndestination. ??_\n\ninstead of (よう)とする、can you have (よう)と___verb? Although what is 物語にする in that\ncase. ...\n\nThanks",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T20:51:06.000",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50601",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T05:16:00.580",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-21T21:24:27.347",
"last_editor_user_id": "22187",
"owner_user_id": "22187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Interpretation of 物語にしようと考えている",
"view_count": 193
} | [
{
"body": "I'm a bit perplexed about what the author of this sentence is trying to say.\nIs it a particular novel that he's writing about? If yes, then I can make\nbetter sense of this. And if yes, is it a kind of travelogue?\n\nI would construe 旅行先で怪異にあうという物語にしようと考えている to mean \"he imagines telling the\nstories of the sorts of strange events he'll encounter as he heads out on he\ntrip\".\n\nI'll take the perspective that this is about a particular work.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T21:58:58.337",
"id": "50603",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-21T22:41:35.450",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-21T22:41:35.450",
"last_editor_user_id": "4875",
"owner_user_id": "4875",
"parent_id": "50601",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> Interpretation of 物語にしようと考えている\n>\n\n>> 小説は連作短編として、色々な土地を旅する作家が、旅行先で怪異にあうという物語にしようと考えているのだ。\n\n>\n> ..作家が, (try to?) think of stories that match the mysteries in those\n> destination. ??\n\nIt can be close to 'try,' but it doesn't say so. It's saying\n作家が怪異に遭う、そういう話にしよう、そういうことを考えている。The speaker wants to write a story of a writer\nwho is going to experience strange things during his journey.\n\n> instead of (よう)とする、can you have (よう)と___verb? Although what is 物語にする in that\n> case. ...\n\nYes, **しようとする** means to _**try to do** something_, or to be _**about to do**_\nsomething, and we also say \n**しようと考える** , and this becomes to mean to _**think about doing something**_.\n\n**しよう** expresses ' **will** ' ＝ し[連用形（する）]＋よう[意思の助動詞]（ref: [デジタル大辞泉 |\nよう](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/226119/meaning/m1u/%E3%82%88%E3%81%86/)） \nWe naturally require と to connect this しよう to a verb, in other words, to\nconnect the content of the plan to the verb: しようと思う, しようと企む, しようと計画する, etc.\n\n～という物語にしようと考えている。 \nそういう物語にしようと思う。 \n今夜はおそばにしようと思う。",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T02:03:49.413",
"id": "51609",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T02:03:49.413",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "50601",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> 小説は連作短編として、（『色々な土地を旅する作家が、旅行先で怪異にあう』という→）物語にしようと考えているのだ。 \n> I am ( _or_ He/She is) thinking of making the novel a series of short\n> pieces, with a story where a novelist who travels to various places\n> encounters mysterious events on his trip.\n\n * ～という物語: a story where ～, a story of ～ \n * 「色々な土地を旅する作家が、旅行先で怪異にあう」 is the part this という applies (i.e., the content of the 物語). Note that this 作家 should be a main character in the novel, who is different from the the speaker himself.\n * For example, 美女と野獣が恋に落ちるという物語 means \"a story where a beautiful woman and a beast fall in love\" or \"a story of a beautiful woman and a beast falling in love\".\n * Here あう is \"to encounter\", \"to come across\". (often written as 遭う)\n * ～にする is a very common set phrase which has [several meanings](http://jisho.org/search/%E3%81%AB%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B). In this case, it means \"to decide on ～ (from multiple options)\" or \"to choose\".\n * しよう: the volitional form of する\n * ～しようと考える: to think of doing ～, to plan to do ～\n\nThe simplified version of the sentence is この小説は～という物語にしよう, which literally\nmeans \"As for this novel, I'm going to choose the story where ～\".",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T03:39:36.823",
"id": "51610",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T05:16:00.580",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T05:16:00.580",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "50601",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 50601 | 51610 | 51610 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "50607",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I want to say \"I am not your dad\" in Japanese. Google Translate say that it\nwould be\n\n> 私はあなたのお父さんではない \n> (Watashi wa anata no otōsande wanai)\n\nBut why is it Watashi wa anata no otōsande arimasen",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T23:14:31.697",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "50606",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T04:44:49.550",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-21T23:58:39.087",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24067",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"particle-は",
"negation",
"copula"
],
"title": "Wanai vs Arimasen",
"view_count": 4112
} | [
{
"body": "I think I'll split this answer into two parts. From the comments there are\nobviously technical aspects of grammar that I seem to be glossing over too\nreadily. So, the first part of the answer will be just a general overview and\nthe second part will flesh out the particulars in a manner less glib about\ngrammatical distinctions.\n\n[under **re** construction]\n\nFirst ではない and ではありません only differ by their level of politeness.\n\nIn English we have one verb \"to be\" which you wish to translate into Japanese.\nWhen doing so there are various distinctions made in Japanese that are rather\nless apparent in English: levels of formality and distinctions between the\nliterary and spoken language.\n\nPart I:\n\nThe English verb \"to be\" is translated into Japanese variously as だ\n(informal), です (formal), or である (informal, but literary). Since in Japanese,\nnegative requires inflected forms, the negative forms of each is as follows\n\n> だ (postive) -> ではない (negative) じゃない (negative, spoken form) \n> である (positive) -> ではない (negative) \n> です (positive) -> ではありません (negative)\n\nSo you can translate, \"I am not your father\" variously as\n\n> 私はあなたのお父さんじゃない。 (spoken) \n> 私はあなたのお父さんではない。 (informal) \n> 私はあなたのお父さんではありません。(formal)\n\nPart II:\n\nIn English, the verb \"to be\", which is definitely a verb from the perspective\nof English grammar, exhibits a high degree of _suppletion_ in its inflected\nforms: I _am_ , you _are_ , it _is_ , I _was_ , etc. (another common example\nof such a verb in English is \"to go\" whose past tense is \"went\"). I bring this\nup because perhaps that can help understand the fluidity with which a native\nspeaker can switch between such forms without any thought about it. It's done\nso unconsciously that native speakers sometimes even must be taught this.\n\nIn Japanese the situation is complicated by matters of formality. The forms だ,\nです, and である are not strictly speaking considered verbs. Instead, だ and です are\ntermed 助動詞{じょどし} (auxiliary _verbs_ ) and である is termed 連語{れんご} (compound\nword) composed of で＋ある, hence the ability to insert は into the inflected form\nfor negation.\n\nI think that for someone who's starting off in their studies of Japanese, at\nleast for an English speaker, these finer details can either be helpful or a\nhindrance. It depends on your inclinations for distinctions of grammar.\n\nFinal point regarding thinking about は:\n\nAlso, は, though pronounced \"wa\", is here functioning like the contrastive\nparticle は, but in this context it's almost a fused form. I'm uncertain\nwhether anyone says \"でない\" (though that would actually be easily confused with\n出{で}ない \"isn't poking out/isn't leaving\". But regardless, in this context the\ninformal verb isn't \"わない\" as your title would seem to suggest.",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T23:19:30.500",
"id": "50607",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T01:42:28.353",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T01:42:28.353",
"last_editor_user_id": "4875",
"owner_user_id": "4875",
"parent_id": "50606",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "This has to do with keigo, or polite speech. ーありません is the polite way of\nending that sentence, whereas ーはない would be more informal.\n\nBoth are valid, but it depends on how polite you want to be. Sans context,\nit's tough to say which would be appropriate.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-21T23:20:53.177",
"id": "50608",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T04:44:49.550",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T04:44:49.550",
"last_editor_user_id": "1010",
"owner_user_id": "1010",
"parent_id": "50606",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 50606 | 50607 | 50607 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51612",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "A girl is offending a boy that wears glasses by saying:\n\n> 気持ち悪いんだよ、横分け眼鏡。\n\nI guess 横分け眼鏡 is a kind of offensive thing referring to his glasses or his\neyesight, maybe similar to the English `four-eyes`, but what is its exact\nmeaning? Thank you for your help!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T04:19:36.000",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51611",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T07:51:14.050",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T04:27:30.577",
"last_editor_user_id": "17797",
"owner_user_id": "17797",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"words",
"expressions",
"idioms",
"offensive-words"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of 横分け眼鏡?",
"view_count": 110
} | [
{
"body": "横分け is a word that refers to \"side-parted hair style\", not the type of the\nglasses he wears. 横分け of men's hair is better known as 七三分け【しちさんわけ】 (literally\n\"7:3 parted\").\n\nThe combination of 横分け and 眼鏡 is a stereotype of typical middle-aged Japanese\nbusinessmen like this:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lmN5w.png)\n\n横分け is usually not used as a derogatory term, but some Japanese people find\n横分け as being mediocre or a bit old-fashioned. (And there are also people [who\nfind 横分け眼鏡 cool](https://matome.naver.jp/odai/2138062849037829801)).\n\nAnyway, she seems to dislike 横分け眼鏡. Maybe she thinks it looks too old for his\nage.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T04:36:39.987",
"id": "51612",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T07:51:14.050",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T07:51:14.050",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51611",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51611 | 51612 | 51612 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51617",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've come across several cases of verbs with the suffix ～てくたっとしてしまう, but am\nunsure how to break this suffix down, or what it means exactly. It seems that\nthis is the て-form of the base verb, followed by something that looks like\nくたっ, perhaps followed by the particle と and the verb する in the て-form,\nfollowed by the auxiliary verb しまう, but I'm having no luck finding a\ngrammatical description of the middle part here (くたっとする?).\n\nA quick Google search finds many examples of sentences using this kind of\nstructure, such as:\n\n * きんぴらごぼうなども、そのまま鍋に入れておくと、余熱で火が通ってくたっとしてしまうので同じような処理をする。\n * レザーのクラッチバックというと重くてくたっとしてしまうイメージでしたが、これは全く違う印象でした。\n * 冬はさむくてくたっとしてしまうので、暖かいお部屋に入れてあげるか、いっそ球根（というかイモですね）で越冬させるか。\n\nWould anyone be able to clarify the grammatical function at work here?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T07:57:06.753",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51614",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T11:44:52.487",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25070",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"verbs",
"compounds",
"auxiliaries"
],
"title": "Meaning of verbal suffix ～てくたっとしてしまう",
"view_count": 254
} | [
{
"body": "くたっ is a [mimetic](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/30335/5010) word\nmeaning something like \"floppy\", \"tired\", \"withered\", etc. It's a variation of\n[くたくた / ぐだぐだ](http://jisho.org/word/%E3%81%8F%E3%81%9F%E3%81%8F%E3%81%9F).\nくたっとする means \"to become withered\", etc.\n\nWhen you have seen an unfamiliar mimetic/onomatopoeic word in the form of ～っと,\nit's a good idea to repeat the mimetic/onomatopoeic part and look it up in a\ndictionary. (e.g., look up にょきにょき instead of にょきっと) See: [How are the\ngiongo/gitaigo double form and tto form related (きらきら vs.\nきらっと)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1479/5010)\n\nYou have parsed the remaining part correctly. To clarify, ～てくたっとしてしまう is not a\nset \"suffix\" at all. It's just four words: ～て + くたっと + して + しまう, meaning\nsomething like \"and (it) ends up becoming floppy\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T11:39:31.837",
"id": "51617",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T11:44:52.487",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T11:44:52.487",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51614",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51614 | 51617 | 51617 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51618",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "What differences, if any, are there between the English word \"memo\" and the\nJapanese word \"メモ\"?\n\nDoes the Japanese word \"メモ\" have connotations to do with memorisation or\nmemory that don't exist with the English word \"memo\"? Also, do native speakers\nof Japanese associate the word \"メモ\" with the English word \"memory\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T09:17:12.070",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51615",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-13T05:48:15.320",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"loanwords"
],
"title": "What differences are there between the English word \"memo\" and the Japanese word \"メモ\"?",
"view_count": 1304
} | [
{
"body": "* 以下に示すオックスフォードオンライン辞書のmemory, memorizationあるいはmemorizeの定義を見ると、日本語の「メモ」もしくはそれの動詞である「メモる」には、英語のmemory,memorizationあるいはmemorizeの意味はないと思います。\n\n * 動詞「メモる」は、話などの全部ではなく要点を紙に書き留めるという意味ですが、「紙が無かったら頭にメモっておけ」という言い方もありますので、「記憶する」という意味合いも **ほんのわずか** ですがあるかもしれません。\n\n * [この質問](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1498612594)の回答を見ると「メモ」の語源は英語のmemoryだとありますし、私もそう思っておりました。しかし、大方｛おおかた｝の理解とは違って、語源としてのmemoryの意味は「メモ」にはないまま使われているのだと思います。 **EDIT** :調べを進めるとメモの語源はmemoryではなくmemorandumであるようだが、それについては後で述べる。\n\n[Dictionary](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/memory)\n\nDefinition of memory in English:\n\n> **memory** \n> noun 1 The faculty by which the mind stores and remembers information.\n> [mass noun] ‘the brain regions responsible for memory’\n>\n> 1.1 The mind regarded as a store of things remembered.\n>\n> 2 Something remembered from the past. 2.1 [mass noun] The remembering or\n> commemoration of a dead person.\n>\n> 2.2 [mass noun] The length of time over which a person or event continues to\n> be\n>\n> 3 The part of a computer in which data or program instructions can be stored\n> for 3.1 [mass noun] A computer's capacity for storing information.\n\nDefinition of memorization in English:\n\n> **memorization** \n> noun \n> see memorize\n\nDefinition of memorize in English:\n\n> **memorize** \n> verb \n> Commit to memory; learn by heart.\n\n* * *\n\n## EDIT:\n\nインターネットを見ていたらこの[記事](http://ameblo.jp/221007london/entry-11856420344.html)に出会いました。 \n記事を書いたのは、真偽は不明ですが、たぶんイギリス人で日本語が堪能で、日本語と英語の間の翻訳を仕事としているようです。 \nＯＰの質問である「メモ」と英語の関係が簡単に解説されています。 英語と日本語の両方の言語に通じていると思われる人の記事ですので紹介します。\n\n記事を読んでみて、補足が必要だと私が判断したことを列記します。\n\n * メモは英語ではnoteに当たるという点は納得です。\n * メモは日本語では「覚書」であるという解説には異論があります。「覚」「書」という漢字をみると何も問題がないように見えますが、実際には日本語の「覚書」は普段われわれは使いません、そして次のような意味があります。すなわち、国と国あるいは企業と企業の間で確認のために交わされる（要点だけの内容かもしれませんが、）正式な文書を指す場合に使われます。すなわち「２者間で交わされる」「正式な文書」です。一方日本語の「メモ」は「自分のために」「要点だけを書き留めたもの」です。かなり違います。\n * メモの語源はmemoであるという解説は大変ややこしい。色々調べると英語のmemoはmemorandumの省略でできた単語であると書かれているが、本来のmemorandumが持っていた日本語の「覚書」に近い意味以外にmemorandumが持っていなかった意味（Ａ）を持っており、Ａと「メモ」とは「覚書」と「メモ」よりは近そうである。だから「メモ」はmemoから来たかというと必ずしもそうではないと思う。「メモ」はやはり「memorandum」から来た外来語であって、その意味もその表記もmemorandumからかなりズレて今のものになっているものの、memoがmemorandumの省略からでき、更に、新たに「メモ」に近い意味を獲得したこととは偶然なのではないだろうか。\n * 記事の解説の判断から若干離れるが、メモに対する動詞のことに触れる。「メモを取る」と「メモをする」とはほとんど一緒である。どちらかと言うと「メモを取る」の方が自然に感じる。この２つの表現と似た意味で「メモ」から派生した動詞として「メモする」と「メモる」とがある。「メモする」と「メモる」を比べると、若干違いがある。「メモする」の方は、ほとんど「メモをする」と同じであるが、逆に言うと「メモする」は「メモをする」と同じで「メモをとる」より若干自然さに欠ける。不自然に聞こえるということは、「メモする」が一つの動詞としてまだ十分に確立していないとも言える。一方「メモる」は[ここ](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1133708566)や[ここ](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q103656935)や[ここ](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%93%E3%83%BC%E3%83%88%E3%81%8D%E3%82%88%E3%81%97)に紹介されているように「メモする」よりあとに漫才家が作った動詞だと思われるが、動詞として不自然さがない、また、「メモ」には全くないmemorizeのニュアンスが少しある。これは「紙が無いけど、頭にメモるから大丈夫です」という表現や「頭にメモっておけ！」という表現が通用することでもわかる。ちなみに「頭にメモする」はなんだか不自然に聞こえるが、これは、前に説明した内容と矛盾しない。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T11:23:47.803",
"id": "51616",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T13:20:34.537",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51615",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I don't think that メモ is ever used to mean anything that translates to, or\nrelated to, the English word _memory_. As for me, I have always thought of its\netymology as English _memorandum_ , and every Japanese dictionary I have\nstates it's what メモ derives from. Connection to memory (apart from the\napparent relationship between memorandum and memory) never occurred to me.\n\nThat said, the English word that translates most closely to メモ is often said\nto be _note_. notepad.exe from Windows, for example, is メモ帳 in Japanese. メモ is\na small (, usually personal) piece of paper that you write information you\ndon't want to forget. (or the information you write on it.) If you pass around\na メモ within office, it's most likely a non-official way of communication.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T11:57:06.473",
"id": "51618",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T11:57:06.473",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4223",
"parent_id": "51615",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
},
{
"body": "There is no difference in terms of meaning.\n\nBoth words 「メモ」 and \"memo\" in respective languages have the primary meaning of\na noun for \"short note\" (in general). The other meaning \"memorandum\" (in\nbusiness) however, is _not_ applicable to Japanese and only applicable to\nEnglish counterpart (Details at below).\n\n**Direct answers**\n\n> What differences, if any, are there between the English word \"memo\" and the\n> Japanese word \"メモ\"?\n\nNo difference in terms of meaning.\n\nIn terms of usage however, the Japanese word counterpart could do\n[verbing](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/verbing). So\nthe sentence 「メモを取る」 can be expressed by a single word 「メモる」 to mean \"to take\nnote\", albeit informal. You can look up in Japanese dictionaries (online,\nmight not be found in printed).\n\nNow try verbing with the word \"memo\" in English. Are you \"memoing\"? Even [this\nentry on Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/memoing) suggests that\npossibility, I can't seem to find the word \"memoing\" in English dictionaries\nto this answered date.\n\n> Does the Japanese word \"メモ\" have connotations to do with memorisation or\n> memory that don't exist with the English word \"memo\"?\n\nNo, it doesn't.\n\n> Also, do native speakers of Japanese associate the word \"メモ\" with the\n> English word \"memory\"?\n\nNo. At least I have never heard of any native Japanese using the word in such\nway. Japanese use either 「メモリ」 or 「メモリー」 to translate the English word\n\"memory\".\n\n**Finding related to \"memory\"**\n\nIf the word 「メモ」 has anything to do with \"memory\", there is a suffix-forming\nnoun in Japanese 「メモ化」 that is translated as \"memoization\" according to [this\nentry on Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/memo) and [this article on\nウィキペディア](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A1%E3%83%A2%E5%8C%96).\n\nThe latter is linked to [this article on\nWikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memoization), which briefly explains\nthe origin of word and confusion between \"memo-i-zation\" and \"memo-ri-zation\".\n\n> The term \"memoization\" was coined by Donald Michie in 1968^ and is derived\n> from the Latin word \"memorandum\" (\"to be remembered\"), usually truncated as\n> \"memo\" in American English, and thus carries the meaning of \"turning [the\n> results of] a function into something to be remembered.\" While \"memoization\"\n> might be confused with \"memorization\" (because they are etymological\n> cognates), \"memoization\" has a specialized meaning in computing.\n>\n> ^ Michie, Donald, \"Memo Functions and Machine Learning,\" Nature, No. 218,\n> pp. 19–22, 1968.\n\nAbove all, there is slim chances of OP had misheard or misread the term\n\"memorization\" (for remembering) with \"memoization\" (in computing). The latter\ncould have lead OP to the word 「メモ化」 which does not carry the same meaning as\n「メモ」 despite sharing the same root word.\n\n**Updated 2017.09.13**\n\nApparently, Japanese does not use 「メモ」 but 「覚書{おぼえがき}」 to mean \"memorandum\".\nThis has been noted in [this Japanese\narticle](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A6%9A%E6%9B%B8) on ウィキペディア.\nAlthough the former may be seen when explaining the actual word entry for\n\"memorandum\" i.e. [this\ndefinition](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E8%A6%9A%E6%9B%B8-454304) on コトバンク,\nthese words 「メモ」 and 「覚書」 do not seem to be interchangeable.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T14:56:24.950",
"id": "51620",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-13T05:48:15.320",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "51615",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51615 | 51618 | 51618 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51621",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I especially don't understand the grouping of them. I know what the sentence\nmeans, but all of those words after 言った are a bit confusing to me. thank you!",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T12:34:43.417",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51619",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T18:16:49.187",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T15:43:16.187",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25075",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"particles",
"colloquial-language"
],
"title": "what is the meaning of the particles in the sentence: 言ったじゃねえかよ。",
"view_count": 378
} | [
{
"body": "> > 言った じゃ ねえ か よ\n>\n> ＝言った **では ない か** （よ） （＝言った では ありません か）\n\nねえ in place of ない is a rough word; it should be avoided.\n\nじゃ is a colloquial replacement for では.\n\nThis ～じゃないか（よ） is a negative question used as a _tag question_. \nIt's saying \" _I said, **didn't I?**_ \", and じゃねえかよ is said the same thing in\nquite a rough manner.\n\nじゃないか, on the other hand, is used quite often in casual conversation;\n**じゃないかな** , **じゃないかと思う** , **じゃない？** , etc., even by itself as a reply to\nsomeone's word.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T15:25:10.110",
"id": "51621",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T18:16:49.187",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51619",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51619 | 51621 | 51621 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have an extension name (III) and i have trouble converting my name to\njapanese. Please help.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T15:47:41.653",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51622",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T20:40:35.073",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25076",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"names"
],
"title": "How extension names is handled in Japanese (Sr, Jr, III, IV)",
"view_count": 2314
} | [
{
"body": "II, III, IV... would be 「２世{せい}」「３世{せい}」「４世{せい}」, ... as in:\n\n> Johann Strauss II → 「ヨハン・シュトラウス **２世{せい}** 」\n\nJunior, senior would be 「ジュニア」「シニア」, as in:\n\n> Martin Luther King, Jr. → 「マーティン・ルーサー・キング・ **ジュニア** 」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T16:40:19.380",
"id": "51623",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T20:40:35.073",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T20:40:35.073",
"last_editor_user_id": "9971",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51622",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 51622 | null | 51623 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51627",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> エスカレーターの **上** を歩くと、ほかの人にぶつかって落ちる危険があるため、やめてほしい。 \n> Because there's a risk of bumping in to other people and falling when you\n> walk _along the top_ of the escalator, we want people to stop doing it.\n\nI'm a bit confused about the use of 上 in this sentence. Can't I just say\nエスカレーターを歩く? After all, there's no other part of an escalator you can walk on.\n\nI see the same in thing in: 氷の上を歩く",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T19:13:12.310",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51625",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T20:02:49.313",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"reading-comprehension"
],
"title": "Is の上 required in エスカレーターの上を歩く",
"view_count": 73
} | [
{
"body": "> I'm a bit confused about the use of 上 in this sentence. \n> Can't I just say エスカレーターを歩く? After all, there's no other part of an\n> escalator you can walk on.\n\nI agree with you. In this case, it's not necessary, but nonetheless as a\nJapanese expression, it's not very unusual.\n\n> I see the same in thing in: 氷の上を歩く\n\n氷を歩く becomes unclear and poetic. We don't normally say 土を歩く, but we say\n土の上を歩く, 草の上を歩く, though 砂浜を歩く, 歩道を歩く.\n\nI see that we differentiate 'where' and 'on what'; 氷, 土 and 草 are quality or\nmaterial.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T19:48:53.307",
"id": "51627",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T20:02:49.313",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-22T20:02:49.313",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51625",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51625 | 51627 | 51627 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51629",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm reading a beginner book with short stories and simple sentences. I'm\nhaving trouble understanding the translation of this sentence.\n\nIn the story a girl is walking down the street and then:\n\n> 歩道のわきにタンポポがたくさんさいています。\n\nI understand that:\n\n歩道 - sidewalk \nの - possessive particle \nわき - ? \nに - location particle \nタンポポ - dandelion \nが - subject particle? \nたくさん - lots \nさいています - blooming (from context)\n\nFrom this, I understand that are lots of dandelions blooming 'on someplace' on\nthe sidewalk. My problem is with the わき part, I did find the word 脇 (near,\nby), but my dictionary doesn't says that it is usually written in kana alone.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T20:15:59.963",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51628",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-09T03:09:55.663",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-09T03:09:55.663",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "23906",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"kana-usage"
],
"title": "Translation of わき in this sentence",
"view_count": 155
} | [
{
"body": "> > 歩道のわきにタンポポがたくさんさいています。\n>\n> I understand that: \n> 歩道 - sidewalk の- possessive particle \n> わき - ? に - location particle \n> My problem is with the わき part, I did find the word 脇 (near, by), but my\n> dictionary doesn't says that it is usually written in kana alone.\n\nGenerally, many of us prefer わき in _hiragana_ , but it's the writer's choice. \nわき alone can't function as anything in a sentence, but together with に, わきに\ndescribes a detail.\n\nわき itself is 'side', but with the help of に, わきに means 'by/near'. \nHere we have 歩道の to modify わき, so it's saying \"at the side of the sidewalk\"\n(By the sidewalk).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T21:22:03.763",
"id": "51629",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-22T21:22:03.763",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51628",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 51628 | 51629 | 51629 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51632",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This sentence from a [song](http://www.kasi-time.com/item-35531.html)\n\n> futatsume no kotoba wa kaze \n> yukute wo oshiete\n\nit's translated as\n\n> The second word was \"wind\" \n> directing my journey\n\nWould you translate it the same? What would be the most literal translation?\nWhat I get for the second line is this\n\nThe second word, wind \nshowing my way",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-22T23:28:10.350",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51631",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T03:40:31.063",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-23T01:13:16.723",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9878",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Is this the most accurate translation of 二つめの言葉は風 行くてを教えて?",
"view_count": 97
} | [
{
"body": "Thanks, @virmaior, for linking the page. :)\n\n> > そっと 連れだすの\n>>\n\n>> **ふたつめの言葉は風 \n> 行くてを おしえて** \n> 神様の腕の中へ \n> 翼をあおるの\n>\n> The given translation: The second word was \"wind\" / directing my journey \"\n>\n> The OP's version: The second word, wind / showing my way\n\nThe whole thing is written with the non-past, so I prefer it not with 'was',\nbut we have something called 体言止め{たいげんどめ}, so I believe it's ok to consider\nふたつめの言葉は風 as a complete sentence.\n\nFor 行くてを おしえて, I like yours much better. :)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T01:12:07.747",
"id": "51632",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T03:40:31.063",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-23T03:40:31.063",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51631",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51631 | 51632 | 51632 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51669",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 以前にはなかった、私へのちょっとした好奇心のようなものがあるような気がして、私は胸を高鳴らせた。\n>\n> _Unlike before, having a feeling that there is a slight curiosity towards\n> me, my heart throbs_\n\n_Speaking is currently being teased by a girl._\n\nFeels excessively wordy to me, what the difference between 好奇心のような気がして vs\n好奇心のようなものがあるような気がして ?\n\n> ＧＰＳ機能が、どうにかなってしまったとでもいうのだろうか\n>\n> The gps functions (of the phone) , let's say it somehow became like this. ??\n\nSpeaker is lost in a forest, and his gps on his phone isn't working.\n\nReally not sure about this one.\n\nThank you",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T01:51:58.353",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51635",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T04:59:19.977",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Interpretation of \"～のようなものがある\" and \"どうにかなってしまった\"",
"view_count": 212
} | [
{
"body": "> 好奇心の **ようなものがあるような気がして**\n>\n> どうにかなってしまった **とでもいうのだろうか**\n>\n> Feels excessively wordy to me, what the difference between 好奇心のような気がして vs\n\nTwo totally different expressions, but you felt something is common between\nthe two. That is probably 'excessively wordy.'\n\nThese are subjective expressions. They are not likely to appear in formal\nobjective writings.\n\n> the difference between 好奇心のような気がして vs\n>\n\n>> 以前にはなかった、私へのちょっとした好奇心のようなものがあるような気がして、私は胸を高鳴らせた。\n\nThe core of the statement is 好奇心がある気がする, but our grammar allows us to _express\nour feelings more accurately_ , just as we feel it.\n\nThe speaker is not sure yet if it's really 好奇心, but so far it's just\nちょっとした好奇心のようなもの.\n\nThe speaker is also not sure if it's really there, so the expression becomes\nあるような気がする.\n\nThere might be really not much there yet, and the speaker is either or both\nexpecting too much from nothing or being overly cautious.\n\nThe other one should be actually enough if it's どうにかなってしまったのだろうか, but\nexpressing it as とでもいうのだろうか is a style issue. One might enjoy reading it, the\nother might stop reading it.\n\n* * *\n\n[Replying to additional question]\n\n> i'm actually more curious about the \"どうにかなってしまった\n\nIf it's どうにかなった, it becomes less clear; it can also mean a good news. \nIf it's どうにかなったとでもいうのだろうか, it could also mean that the problem at issue might\nhave been resolved on the contrary to the speaker's expectation.\n\nIf you want to know the structure of it in detail, then I think it needs a\nseparate thread.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T01:50:11.303",
"id": "51669",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T04:59:19.977",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51635",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51635 | 51669 | 51669 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51680",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've read [Meaning and transitivity of\nゴミ袋を手に立ち上がる](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/20854/meaning-and-\ntransitivity-\nof-%e3%82%b4%e3%83%9f%e8%a2%8b%e3%82%92%e6%89%8b%e3%81%ab%e7%ab%8b%e3%81%a1%e4%b8%8a%e3%81%8c%e3%82%8b)\nbefore, but i'm looking to confirm some things where AをBに(して)is not the case.\n\n> 彼女の視線 **を** 一身 **に** 浴びて、私は身が縮む思いだった。\n>\n> basking my body under her gaze, I feel my body shrink.\n\nBasking with 彼女の視線 on 一身?Is there a more intuitive way to read this it\nliterally?\n\n> 突如として、ザーザーと叩きつけるように降り出した雨は、これからの波乱 **を** 、私 **に** 予感させるに充分だった。\n>\n> all of a sudden, the disturbance following the sudden pouring rain,\n> satisfies my premonitions.?\n\nSimplifying as 波乱を、私に予感させるに充分だった... I am fairly sure 波乱を<-予感させる as 予感させる is\nmade to be transitive.\n\nAm I to to interpret 予感させるに充分だった as 予感させるに(は)充分だった (for the purpose of 予感させる,\n充分! ) ?.\n\n波乱を、私に予感させるに充分だった = the disturbance, for me, predicting it(the disturbance) is\nsatisfactory?\n\nThanks for the help.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T04:56:06.843",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51636",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T06:08:47.937",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-に"
],
"title": "Clarifications regarding the AをBに。。。 construction",
"view_count": 172
} | [
{
"body": "> [ゴミ袋を手に(adv phrase)] 立ち上がる (it)\n>\n> [視線を (DirectObject)] [一身に (IndirectObject)] 浴びる (tv)\n>\n> [波乱を (DirectObject)]、[私に (IndirectObject)] 予感させる (tv)\n\nI am not very sure what you mean by saying \"波乱を<-予感させる as 予感させる is made to be\ntransitive.\"\n\nIsn't 予感させる transitive even if it's not in causative form? 波乱を予感する also\nstands. It's in the causative form because it says 私に. \n波乱を **私に予感させる** \n波乱を **私が予感する**\n\n> Am I to to interpret 予感させるに充分だった as 予感させるに(は)充分だった (for the purpose of\n> 予感させる, 充分! ) ?.\n\nYes, 予感させるに（は）充分だった, meaning that it was enough for the purpose of making 'me'\npredict it.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T06:08:47.937",
"id": "51680",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T06:08:47.937",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51636",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51636 | 51680 | 51680 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Vb1jR.png)\n\nI'm confused on this picture. The question is, my teacher told me that\n\n> 来ない時は(約束した日時または時間)\n>\n> 分かっておるであろうな(あなたはどうなるのか分かっているはずだ)\n\nBut I don't understand how can it change into this? I understand about the\ntranslated version from my teacher now but when I was trying on translation on\nthe first time it went like this.\n\n> \"The time that you doesn't come, You're understand?\" It's weird right?\n\nBut from my teacher, I can understand it now.\n\nExcept I don't know how to change `来ぬ時間` into `約束した時間`.\n\nIs it some kind of grammar?\n\nEspecially `分かっておるであろうな` into `あなたはどうなるのか分かっているはずだ`\n\nI can understand that わかっておる can translate into わかっている but It's followed by\nであろうな.\n\nWhat does it mean, and how can it turn into `あなたはどうなるのか分かっているはずだ`?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T06:34:02.327",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51638",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-11T22:36:04.737",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-11T22:36:04.737",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "10010",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"translation",
"manga",
"sentence"
],
"title": "How should I understand 〜ぬ時は?",
"view_count": 552
} | [
{
"body": "It's a good question. :)\n\n> 来ない時は(約束した日時または時間) \n> 分かっておるであろうな(あなたはどうなるのか分かっているはずだ)\n\n来ない時は is actually equivalent to a **_condition/premise_** ; **もし** 来なければ\n**どうなるか**. どうなるか is only _implied_ , and continues to the question,\n分かっているだろうな, which is to remind (you) what follows if (you) don't come, saying\nit in an intimidating tone like an old sage.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T07:46:02.797",
"id": "51639",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T07:51:14.840",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-23T07:51:14.840",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51638",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "It literally says:\n\n「来ぬ時は」 (≂ 来ない時は) -- \"When you don't come / If you don't show up...\" \n「（どうなるか）分かっておるであろうな」 (≂ 分かっているだろうな) -- \"I suppose you know (what will happen).\n/ You know (what will happen), do you not?\"\n\n分かっておるであろうな, or 分かっているだろうな in modern/standard Japanese, is used as a _threat_\nhere: \"You see what happens?\" i.e. \"You better not!\" -- \"You should come! (or\nelse...)\" in this case.\n\nThe way the person speaks (来ぬ for 来ない, おるであろう for いるだろう) is the so-called\n[老人語](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%80%81%E4%BA%BA%E8%AA%9E) / old man's\nspeech in fiction, a kind of\n[役割語](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BD%B9%E5%89%B2%E8%AA%9E) / role\nlanguage in fiction.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T08:36:07.540",
"id": "51640",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T13:42:59.040",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-23T13:42:59.040",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51638",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51638 | null | 51639 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51653",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What's the difference between 退屈 and 飽きる",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T09:00:05.680",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51641",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T13:28:39.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22360",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"questions"
],
"title": "What's the difference between 退屈 and 飽きる?",
"view_count": 124
} | [
{
"body": "* 退屈｛たいくつ}(する） to be boring\n * 飽｛あ｝きる to be come tired of \n\nThere certainly is some overlap but not everything that is boring has one\nbecome tired of (some things are inherently boring) and not all things that\none has become tired of are necessarily boring.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T13:28:39.897",
"id": "51653",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T13:28:39.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"parent_id": "51641",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51641 | 51653 | 51653 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51677",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I can't find the word in my dictionary, and Google Translate translates it as\n'ancestor' but I'm not sure how accurate that is.\n\nI'm trying to translate this sentence:\n\n> この葛葉家の屋敷で働く使用人はほぼ全員が一族の **神祖** であった『お狐様』を讃えるために狐の面をつけている。\n\nHowever I'm not exactly sure what 神祖 means.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T09:16:41.940",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51642",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T03:34:19.230",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-23T14:20:13.857",
"last_editor_user_id": "22859",
"owner_user_id": "25089",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "How would you translate the word 神祖?",
"view_count": 175
} | [
{
"body": "神祖 is a rare word. There is only one instance of 神祖 in\n[BCCWJ](http://pj.ninjal.ac.jp/corpus_center/bccwj/en/). So I won't be\nsurprised if Google Translate and small dictionaries did not recognize this.\n\nThat said, the meaning of this word should be fairly straightforward if you\nknow the meaning of each kanji.\n\n * **神** : god; godly\n * **祖** : ancestor; origin\n\nSo 神祖 refers to great/legendary ancestors in general. In this case it seems to\nliterally refer to godly/divine ancestors, though.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T03:34:19.230",
"id": "51677",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T03:34:19.230",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51642",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51642 | 51677 | 51677 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51648",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": ">\n> 日本政府観光局によると、今年の１月から６月までに日本に旅行に来た外国人は１３７５万７３００人でした。去年より１７．４％増えて、半年の間に来た人の数では今までで最も多くなりました。 \n> According to the tourist board 13.8 million foreigners visited Japan\n> between January and June this year. This is a 17.4% increase on last year\n> and is the highest half year figure to date.\n>\n> この中で最も多かったのは韓国から来た人で、去年より **４３％多い３４０万人** が日本に来ました。 \n> Among these, the most numerous where people from Korea, and compared to\n> last year ???? 3.4 million people came to Japan.\n\nI can't understand how 多い is being used here. My literal translation is\n\"compared to last year, the 43% numerous 3.4 million people...\".\n\nMy first thought was that it referred to the increase in numbers, but 43% more\nKoreans than last year sounds too much. Then I thought maybe Koreans account\nfor 43% of total visitors but the maths tells me it's only around 25%.\n\nI think my first thought is the most likely but I'm far from confident. I'd be\nhappier if it said もっと多い instead. Would this make sense?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T09:54:23.237",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51643",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T14:20:14.680",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"reading-comprehension"
],
"title": "Meaning of 多い in 去年より４３％多い３４０万人",
"view_count": 93
} | [
{
"body": "3.4 million people is the total number of Korean visitors, which is a 43％\nincrease compared with last year. The 43% increase is not too much because the\nrelationship between China and Korea get worse, that is to say, Korean\ntourists are choosing Japan instead of China.\n\nI think もっと isn't necessary.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T12:04:35.687",
"id": "51648",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T14:20:14.680",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-23T14:20:14.680",
"last_editor_user_id": "7320",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "51643",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51643 | 51648 | 51648 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51662",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm trying to denote that an object is \"for\" someone. For example, \"I bought a\ngift for you.\"\n\n\"I bought a gift\" is easy enough.\n\n> ぼくはおみやげをかいます。\n\nHowever, I'm not sure about the \"for you\" part. あなたに doesn't seem to make much\nsense. Should I say あなたのおみやげをかいます。? Google Translate alternatively gives me\nあなたのためにおみやげ。Is this correct?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T10:36:13.187",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51644",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T00:26:07.747",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-23T11:54:09.467",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25090",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How do you say [noun] \"for you\"?",
"view_count": 1692
} | [
{
"body": "You can just say 買ってあげました。 (the あげました。 gives the meaning that it was done for\nthe other part.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T13:25:25.660",
"id": "51651",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T13:25:25.660",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"parent_id": "51644",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> > \"I bought a gift for you.\"\n\nThe text style answer for an exam is either \nあなたにおみやげを買いました, or \nあなたのためにおみやげを買いました。\n\n> I'm not sure about the \"for you\" part. あなたに doesn't seem to make much sense. \n> Should I say あなたのおみやげをかいます。? Google Translate alternatively gives me\n> あなたのためにおみやげ。Is this correct?\n\nあなたのおみやげをかいました doesn't say 'for', but it just says 'your souvenir.'\n\nDon't worry about it, we normally say \nうちの子 **に** 本を買いました。[a little special occasion] \nうちの子 **のために** 本を買いました。[a big event] \nうちの子 **の** 本を買いました。[an ordinary everyday life event]",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T19:40:22.433",
"id": "51662",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T00:26:07.747",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T00:26:07.747",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51644",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51644 | 51662 | 51651 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've occasionally seen native speakers of Japanese refer to a \"crush\" rather\nthan a \"crash\" in English-language bug reports.\n\nIs \"クラッシュ\" the main way of transcribing into katakana not only the English\nword \"crash\", but also to the English word \"crush\"?\n\nA search of jisho.org mentions クラッシュシンドローム, which is mentioned on\n[挫滅症候群](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%8C%AB%E6%BB%85%E7%97%87%E5%80%99%E7%BE%A4),\nbut I don't know if it's an abnormal way of converting \"crush\" to katakana.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T10:43:26.037",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51645",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T02:13:10.217",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"loanwords"
],
"title": "Does \"クラッシュ\" correspond to both the English words \"crash\" and \"crush\"?",
"view_count": 689
} | [
{
"body": "# 日本語\n\n「クラッシュ」と英語の「crash」と「crush」に関するＯＰの質問を先に回答し、そののちに「clash」を含めた「clash, crash,\ncrush」と「クラッシュ」の関係を更に詳しく考えます。\n\n> I've occasionally seen native speakers of Japanese refer to a \"crush\" rather\n> than a \"crash\" in English-language bug reports. Is \"クラッシュ\" the main way of\n> transcribing into katakana not only the English word \"crash\", but also to\n> the English word \"crush\"?\n\nコンピュータの「バグ報告 _bug reports_ 」とありますので、この「クラッシュ」はコンピュータの「クラッシュ _crash_ 」、すなわち \"to\nshut down because of a malfunction of hardware or software\" を指しているものと思われます。 \n一方、日本人が「クラッシュ」と言うと、のちに詳しく述べますが、基本的に「衝突/衝突する _collision/to collide_\n」を指すので、この解釈は英単語ではcrashに相当しますが、コンピュータのクラッシュとは無関係だと思っていました。crushは、「握｛にぎ｝り潰｛つぶ｝す」あるいは「押｛お｝し潰｛つぶ｝す/圧｛お｝し潰す」という意味ですので、日本人はこれまで「クラッシュ」とcrushとは無関係だと思ってきました。ところが、近頃ですが、「アイスクラッシュ\n_crushed ice_ 」や「アイスクラッシャー _ice crusher_\n」という単語が日本の食生活の中に登場してきました。これは、「細かく砕かれた氷」あるいはそのための調理器具です。日本人の感覚では、コンピュータが「クラッシュする」とは、「衝突」ではなく、コンピュータが砕氷された氷や、握り潰された卵か果物のようにグチャグチャになる様子と似ております。従ってＯＰの周りの人が、コンピュータのcrashをcrushと勘違いして使っているものと思われます。\n\n> A search of jisho.org mentions クラッシュシンドローム, which is mentioned on 挫滅症候群, but\n> I don't know if it's an abnormal way of converting \"crush\" to katakana.\n\n「クラッシュシンドローム」も「挫滅症状群」も私は初めて聞いた言葉ですが、その意味を調べると Crush injury is compression of\nextremities or other parts of the body that causes muscle swelling and/or\nneurological disturbances in the affected areas of the body, while crush\nsyndrome is localized crush injury with systemic manifestations.とあります。 \n\"crush\"を「握｛にぎ｝り潰｛つぶ｝す」あるいは「押｛お｝し潰｛つぶ｝す/圧｛お｝し潰す」という意味で理解している日本人には、crush\nsyndromeの意味から判断して、 **crush** syndromeを「 **クラッシュ** シンドローム」と書き表しても問題ないと思います。\n\n「クラッシュ」を考える場合には、日本人泣かせの「clash, crash, crush」の３つを同時に考える必要があります。\n\nこれまでの知識に加え、今回新たに、[この記事](http://talking-english.net/crash-clash-\ncrush/)と[この記事](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1114712436)を参考にして、回答します。\n\n * ３つの英単語とも日本語では「クラッシュ」と発音します。\n * 英語の「clash, crash, crush」は共通的に「ガチャ」という音の擬音語として生まれているように、いずれも音が伴うようですが、日本語のクラッシュは「衝突」という意味を基本としており、必ずしも音が伴う必要はありません。\n * ３つの英単語の意味や用例を調べますと、「衝突」を基本とする「クラッシュ」はclashとcrashに対応しています。但し、clashの意味の一部になっている単純に音がでるシンバル（cymbales）の音には対応していません。その理由として日本語の「クラッシュ」は何らかの損傷が起きるあるいは双方が対立するなど、何か問題が起きる「衝突」に使われますが、問題が起きない衝突（シンバルを演奏した時に音がでるような行為）には使われないようです。\n * 「クラッシュ」がclashとcrashに対応しているもう一つの理由は、「クラッシュ」と「clashとcrash」はいずれも２つのものが対象となる現象ですが、crushは何かを「押し潰｛つぶ｝す/圧｛お｝し潰｛つぶ｝す」ように対象が１つであることにも依ります。\n * 「押し潰す/圧し潰す」という意味が強いcrushは日本語のクラッシュに対応していないと今まで考えていました。しかし、近年アイスクラッシャー(ice crusher)という調理器具（？）が日本にも入って来て、かつ、日本製の製品も出回ってきましたので、「握り潰し」や「圧し潰し/押し潰し」とやや違う「破砕」「粉砕」に近い意味のcrushに対応する意味がクラッシュに加わってきました。\n * 「clash, crash, crush」の互いの相違は更に、次のようなところにもあると判断しております。clashは衝突する（あるいは対立する）けれど、対象物が壊れない。crashとcrushは対象物が壊れるが、crashが中身に及ぶことはあったも基本的に表面的な（あるいは外的な）壊れであるのに対して、clushは必ず中身が出るような壊れ方を前提とする。壊れ方の違いで判断すると、クラッシュはやはりclashとcrashに近いと思われます。 私は、発音ではなく、壊れ方の違いで「c **l** ash, cr **a** sh, cr **u** sh」を区別しております。clashはlなので対立、衝突するが「バー」があるので、壊れない。crashは最も標準的で衝突して壊れる。crushのuは破れているので壊れると中身が表に出る。\n\n私の解釈等に違いがあればどうぞご指摘ください。 また、類似点・相違点等を図で示しましたのでご覧ください。\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WUtIK.jpg)\n\n# English\n\n> I've occasionally seen native speakers of Japanese refer to a \"crush\" rather\n> than a \"crash\" in English-language bug reports. Is \"クラッシュ\" the main way of\n> transcribing into katakana not only the English word \"crash\", but also to\n> the English word \"crush\"?\n\nPartly yes.\n\nSince there is a phrase \"bug reports\", it seems to refer a \"crash\" of a\ncomputer that is defined as \"to shut down because of malfunction of hardware\nor software\". We also use \"クラッシュ/クラッシュする\" in Japanese like \"パソコン死んだ！クラッシュしたよ\n_My computer does not work. It crashed._ \n\"On the other hand, basically, \"クラッシュ/クラッシュする\" refers to \"collision / to\ncollide\" in Japanese, so this understanding seems to be equivalent to a word\n\"crash\" in English and it has been thought unrelated to a computer \"crash\". \nAnd more, \"to crush\" means, I think, \"to press, compress or squeeze something\nto collapse\", so we think \"to crush\" is irrelevant to \"クラッシュ/クラッシュする\". \nHowever, recently, the word \"アイスクラッシュ _crushed ice_ \" and \"アイスクラッシャー _ice\ncrusher_ \" have appeared in a Japanese kitchen. These words mean \"finely\ncrushed ice\" and \"cooking utensils for that\". In the sense of the Japanese,\nthe computer \"クラッシュ _crashing_ \" is not like \"衝突 collision\", but it is similar\nto the state how a computer software becomes ugly like crushed ice, or\nsqueezed eggs or fruits. Therefore it seems that people around OP\nmisunderstand a computer \"crash\" as \"crush\", and misuse the word.\n\n> A search of jisho.org mentions クラッシュシンドローム, which is mentioned on 挫滅症候群, but\n> I don't know if it's an abnormal way of converting \"crush\" to katakana.\n\nIt's a normal way.\n\n\"クラッシュシンドローム _crush syndrome_ \" and \"挫滅症状群\" are the words I heard for the\nfirst time, so I looked them up in a dictionary and I got the meaning as \"\n_Crush injury is compression of extremities or other parts of the body that\ncauses muscle swelling and/or neurological disturbances in the affected areas\nof the body, while crush syndrome is localized crush injury with systemic\nmanifestations_.\"\n\nFor Japanese who understand \"crush\" as the meaning of \"to squeeze or press\nsomething to collapse\", judging from the meaning of crush syndrome, I think it\nis no problem to write it as \"クラッシュシンドローム\" for \"crush syndrome\".\n\n* * *\n\nTaking this opportunity to answer OP's question, I examined the meaning of\n\"クラッシュ/クラッシュする\" and \"crash, crush and also clash\" which have been difficult to\ndistinguish for me. Because these three words are similar in meaning, spelling\nand pronunciation, they seem also difficult for Japanese people to distinguish\nclearly.\n\n * Those who do not mind pronunciation of English or who cannot pronounce English well would pronounce the three English words in almost the same way as the sound similar to a Japanese word \"クラッシュ\". \nThere are two reasons for this. \nAt first, many Japanese cannot distinguish \"a\" sound in _crash_ from \"u\" sound\nin _crush_ well by pronunciation, and also not a few Japanese cannot pronounce\n\"r\" and \"l\" sounds well, therefore all three words \"clash, crash and crush\"\nare pronounced close to a Japanese word \"クラッシュ\". \nSecondly, as for the pronunciation of \"クラッシュ\" in Japanese, クラ-sound in クラッシュ\nis not \"kura\" but it tends to be pronounced as \"kra\" with omitting \" _u_ \"\nsound. Next, since the accent is placed on \"ラ\", the last \"シュ\" is pronounced\nrelatively lightly, so it is pronounced with the sound close to \"sh\" instead\nof \"shu\" with omitting the last sound \" _u_ \". As the result, the Japanese\nword of \"クラッシュ\" is pronounced as if English words clash, crash and crash were\nall mixed.\n\n * Because the English words with \"clash, crash and crush\" were commonly born as onomatopoeic words, some kind of sound is accompanied when each of these verbs actually functions, while \"クラッシュ\" in Japanese is a noun based on the meaning of \"衝突 _collision_ \" or \"対立 _conflict_ \", so it isn't considered necessarily accompanied by sound.\n\n * Examining the meanings and examples of three English words, \"クラッシュ\" based on \"衝突 _collision_ \" corresponds to \"clash\" and \"crash\". However, it does not correspond to clashing cymbals which is a part of the meaning of \"clash\". The reason for this is that \"クラッシュ\" in Japanese is used for \"衝突 _collision_ or 対立 _conflict_ \" when or where something inconvenient happens, namely some kind of damage or conflict between the two parties occurs, but the action of making sounds by striking cymbals against each other does not seem to cause inconvenience.\n\n * Another reason that \"クラッシュ\" corresponds to \"clash\" and \"crash\", not to \"crush\", is that both \"clash\" and \"crash\" are expressed as \"A and B clash with each other\" or \"A and B crash with each other\", so that the number of objects causing the phenomenon is two, but \"crush\" also depends on the fact that there is only one object to be crushed.\n\n * We also find that the differences between \"clash, crash and crush\" lie also in the following points. \"To clash\" describes to collide or to conflict, but the object does not break by this action. On the other hand, \"to crash\" and \"to crush\" destroy objects, although \"to crash\" is basically a superficial or external breakage even if the impact of collision affects internally, whereas \"to crush\" is assumed to destroy objects completely. Judging from the difference in the way of giving damage to the object, クラッシュ that is supposed to mean mainly \"to collide\" is far from \"to crush\".\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/V6XXm.jpg)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T04:20:15.840",
"id": "51679",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T02:13:10.217",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51645",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51645 | null | 51679 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51652",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I came across the English term \"kimono date\" (example\n[1](http://www.okwave.com/en/culturezine/four_panel_comic_strips/53/690/en),\n[2](http://crazyskies.deviantart.com/art/Day-4-On-a-Date-549760570),\n[3](https://kyotokimono-rental.com/en/english-blog/kamakura-kimono-\ndate-%E2%9D%A4.html)), and I assume it's the English translation of a Japanese\nphrase. Is the equivalent Japanese \"着物デート\", and does it mean a romantic date\ndone while wearing a kimono (or a yukata)?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T10:58:58.903",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51646",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-15T18:00:14.433",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Is \"着物デート\" the Japanese for \"kimono date\", and what exactly does it mean?",
"view_count": 1032
} | [
{
"body": "> And does it mean a romantic date done while wearing a kimono (or a yukata)?\n\nYes, it's exactly as you guessed.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T13:26:26.683",
"id": "51652",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-15T18:00:14.433",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-15T18:00:14.433",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"parent_id": "51646",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51646 | 51652 | 51652 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51649",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Recently I have been enjoying the show Chii Sanpou. I expect a few of you have\nseen or heard of it. The former actor walking around parts of Japan. The\nJapanese is a mix of casual and polite.\n\nAnyway in one episode he spots something and the narrator says\n\n```\n\n 何か、 見つけました？\n \n```\n\nwhich to me is an odd pattern. I think it is \"what did you see?\". It appears\nto be polite Japanese but the structure is not what I have been taught. I\nwould have expected\n\n```\n\n 何を見つけましたか？\n \n```\n\nI would like to know more about this other form. Is it appropriate for polite\n/ formal Japanese or is it a bit slangy? Can I use it in business?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T11:21:56.783",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51647",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T13:04:26.010",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4071",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"politeness"
],
"title": "Odd structure - 何か 見つけました？",
"view_count": 126
} | [
{
"body": "なにか means \"something/anything\".\n\n何 **を** 見つけましたか？ -- \"What did you find?\" \n何 **か** 見つけましたか？ -- \"Did you find something/anything?\"\n\nThe narration 「何か、見つけました？」 with a rising tone, with the question particle か\ndropped, can mean \"Did he find anything?\" \n(「何か見つけました。」 with a falling tone would mean \"He found something.\")\n\nIt is the polite form / 丁寧形 and I don't think it's slangy. I think you can use\nit in business (though it might be more appropriate to use the honorific form\n/ 尊敬語 depending on who performs the action).\n\nSimilar examples:\n\n> 誰 **か** いましたか？ (or いました？) -- Was anyone there? \n> 誰 **が** いましたか？ (or いました？) -- Who was there?\n>\n> 何 **か** 食べましたか？ (or 食べました？) -- Did you eat anything? \n> 何 **を** 食べましたか？ (or 食べました？) -- What did you eat?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T12:11:15.057",
"id": "51649",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T13:04:26.010",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-23T13:04:26.010",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51647",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51647 | 51649 | 51649 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "everyone. Just today I was remembering an old videogame, 星を見る人. \"Problem\" is,\nif you look at all official images and such, they write the title as 星をみるひと.\n\nNow, I've been searching about possible explanations for this, but none of the\nones I found sounds quite convincing to me. The two kanji that are replaced by\nhiragana are quite simple and basic-level (much more so than the kanji for\nstar).\n\nCould it be that the people who designed the title were looking to draw\nattention away from \"see\" and \"people\" to focus mainly on the \"stars\" bit? As\nan occidental foreigner I find it odd, since to me one of the most beautiful\naspects of the japanese language is the aesthetic beauty of kanji.\n\nThanks in advance, mates!",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T14:16:43.390",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51654",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T02:34:22.083",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25091",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"spelling"
],
"title": "Choosing hiragana over simple kanji?",
"view_count": 216
} | [
{
"body": "> Just today I was remembering an old videogame, 星を見る人. \"Problem\" is, if you\n> look at all official images and such, they write the title as 星をみるひと.\n>\n> Could it be that the people who designed the title were looking to draw\n> attention away from \"see\" and \"people\" to focus mainly on the \"stars\" bit?\n> As an occidental foreigner I find it odd, since to me one of the most\n> beautiful aspects of the japanese language is the aesthetic beauty of kanji.\n\n星を見る人 is balanced and easier to read, but that must be the result of the\ncreator's effort to satisfy the audience's expectation. They might have\ntechnical or emotional reasoning for it, but the point for them is to have a\ncatchy proper noun; the overall appearance is the most important thing for\nthem over readability. The excess use of hiragana let the audience expect\nsomething extra inviting and friendly.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T16:25:28.030",
"id": "51657",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T16:25:28.030",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51654",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "In this specific case, I think hiragana were chosen to introduce ambiguity. 見る\nsimply means \"to look\", but there are also 観る (to observe), 診る (to examine (a\npatient)), 看る (to take care), etc., which have small difference in meaning and\nimpression. When I see 星をみるひと, I feel it may have some deep and hidden meaning\nin it. This can explain why hiragana was chosen at least for some titles. For\nexample, see: [Why use kana rather than kanji (and vice\nversa)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/37083/5010)\n\nI read the plot of the game, including spoilers, and confirmed my impression\nwas true. This 星をみるひと does not simply refer to some person who likes to see\nstars. This 星をみるひと refers to some \"humanoid\" working as an invisible\n\"caretaker/peacemaker\" of the \"star\", and the main characters in the game\nstrive to find out who is the real ruler of the \"star\", and what their \"star\"\nactually is. At least there are three types of \"humans\" in the game, and\nordinary 人間 is just one of them. Therefore, みる and ひと were intentionally in\nhiragana to imply there is a hidden meaning in it.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T02:34:22.083",
"id": "51672",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T02:34:22.083",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51654",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51654 | null | 51672 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51659",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Both of these words can be used to mean 'new', but one is loaned from English.\nI recall hearing somewhere that ニュー became a loanword because it has a\nslightly different meaning to 新しい, but what exactly is this difference?\n\nThe first thought that would come to mind for me would be that ニュー is slightly\nmore casual-sounding, but that doesn't seem to me to be much of a reason as to\nwhy it'd become a loanword.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T16:38:19.030",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51658",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T18:11:03.907",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22689",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"usage",
"loanwords"
],
"title": "Difference in usage of 新しい and ニュー",
"view_count": 79
} | [
{
"body": "> Difference in usage of 新しい and ニュー \n> The first thought that would come to mind for me would be that ニュー is\n> slightly more casual-sounding, but that doesn't seem to me to be much of a\n> reason as to why it'd become a loanword.\n\nI think it's about the limited usage.\n[デジタル大辞泉](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/168110/meaning/m1u/%E3%83%8B%E3%83%A5%E3%83%BC/)\nhas an entry for ニュー, and the use of おニューの(服 or etc.) was already old in my\nchildhood, but I think most of us don't really consider ニュー as part of\nJapanese, comparing to ニュース that has very much become part of Japanese. I\nthink it's just, as the dictionary page also says (#2), it's also used to\nmodify a katakana word.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T18:11:03.907",
"id": "51659",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T18:11:03.907",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51658",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51658 | 51659 | 51659 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51678",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Back to basics. Sometimes I see something that undoes everything I think I\nknow.\n\n> 私はあなたがいつも忙しい **ことを** 分かっています。 \n> 私はあなたがいつも忙しい **と** 分かっています。 \n> I know that you are always busy.\n\nWhich of the above is correct? I have seen several instances of 分かる used with\nと, but I'm confused because nothing is being quoted, either directly or\nindirectly when using this verb.\n\nWhen/is it ever correct to use と分かっています if there isn't an implied verb like\n思う/言う etc. in between.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T18:19:54.343",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51660",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T22:11:54.663",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-と"
],
"title": "Can particle と be used with 分かる?",
"view_count": 1899
} | [
{
"body": "> 私はあなたがいつも忙しいことを分かっています。 \n> 私はあなたがいつも忙しいと分かっています。\n\nI don't really know why but what I really feel natural is either\n\n> 私はあなた **は** 忙しい **のだということは** 分かっています。 \n> 私はあなた **が** 忙しい **ことは** 分かっています。\n\nHowever, sometimes or some of us would omit things in spoken language. I'm\nsensing though that more people shorten to only と, for example, instead of\nという, and I myself feel somewhat uneasy with these expressions.\n\n* * *\n\n[Edit to add]\n\n分かる is, by the way, one of some verbs that take が to indicate the theme, and,\nin this case, the theme is the object of the verb, 分かる.\n\nWe don't say ~~ものごとを分かる~~ , though we say ものごと **を理解する.** \nThere are some verbs that takes が to indicate the object; 計算 **ができる** , 海\n**が好き** , etc. For some of them, を is barely acceptable, but が sounds just the\nright instead.\n\n> 「物のよしあし **が** 分かる」「言わんとすること **は** よく分かる」「訳 **が** 分からない」 \n> 「身元 **が** 分かる」「答え **が** 分かる」「持ち主 **の** 分からない荷物」 \n> 「話 **の** 分かる人」 \n>\n> （[分かる](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/237767/meaning/m1u/%E5%88%86%E3%81%8B%E3%82%8B/)\n> | デジタル大辞泉）\n>\n> **１-2** 希望・好悪・能力などの対象を示す。「水 **が飲みたい** 」「紅茶 **が好きだ** 」「中国語 **が話せる** 」 \n> （[が](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/34931/meaning/m1u/%E3%81%8C/) | 同上）",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T18:37:55.733",
"id": "51661",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T22:11:54.663",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51660",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> 私はあなたがいつも忙しいことを分かっています。 \n> 私はあなたがいつも忙しいと分かっています。\n\nGrammatically speaking, both are perfectly correct. The quotative particle と\ncan be used with many verbs like 知る, 分かる, 見なす, 認識する and 捉える. Another simpler\nexample:\n\n> 高いことを知っていて買った。 \n> 高いと知っていて買った。 \n> I bought it knowing it's expensive.\n\nIn ordinary conversations, perhaps people prefer ～と simply because it's\nshorter. ～ことを is preferred in formal or complicated sentences. And you can\nomit 私は and topicalize the nominalized こと-part instead:\n\n> あなたがいつも忙しいことは分かっています。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T03:51:45.517",
"id": "51678",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T03:51:45.517",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51660",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51660 | 51678 | 51678 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51665",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Inside of my genki 1 workbook, we're supposed to present questions to the\nanswers Kimura-san gives us.\n\nFor example :\n\n 1. You: _________\n\nKimura-san: よねんせいです\n\nIn this case, the answer key states that the answer is: \"なんねんせいですか\"\n\nThe part that confuses me is for the 2nd question:\n\n 2. You: __________\n\nKimura-san: れきしです\n\nHere, I put \"なんせんこうですか\", but the answer key says that the correct answer is\n\"せんこうはなんですか\"\n\nHow does one know which arrangement to use? If the structure used in the 2nd\nworks, then does that mean that \"ねんせいはなんですか\" is also a viable answer for the\nfirst question? Or could we also say \"なんせんこうですか\" for the 2nd question?\n\nThank you!",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T21:29:08.890",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51663",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T02:40:41.293",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T02:40:41.293",
"last_editor_user_id": "25097",
"owner_user_id": "25097",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "When should you use Nani / nan, as opposed to just finishing with desu ka?",
"view_count": 635
} | [
{
"body": "It's more to do what kind of expressions are available rather than logic. \nThe both set of dialogue are based on the same structure:\n\n## ～は なん です か。\n\n> A: （がくねん **は** ） **なん** ねん せい **です か** 。 \n> B: よ ねん せい です。\n>\n> A: せんこう **は なん です か** 。 \n> B: れきし です。\n\nFor things that have a unit to count (ex. ねんせい/school year), we incorporate it\ninto our question, and because of the use of ねんせい, we feel it's redundant to\nsay がくねんは. This is about customary. It's too apparent for us when we hear\nなんねんせいですか, it's talking about がくねん.\n\nOn the other hand, the study subject is not applicable for any counting unit,\nso it's simply asked by being represented by **なん**.\n\nWhy it's なん instead of なに is said that it's for the easiness of pronouncing\nit, so, for learners, I think it's also something just have to know rather\nthan something you can come up with by logically thinking about it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T22:57:00.927",
"id": "51665",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-23T22:57:00.927",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51663",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51663 | 51665 | 51665 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51666",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I recently came across an example in a text book\n\n```\n\n カラオケは好きですか。\n \n```\n\nand was not sure why `wa` was used here instead of `ga`?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T21:56:37.417",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51664",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T04:18:09.233",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T03:26:55.373",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "17425",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"particle-は",
"questions",
"は-and-が"
],
"title": "Why wa in Karaoke wa suki desu ka?",
"view_count": 1429
} | [
{
"body": "> > カラオケは好きですか。\n>\n> why wa was used here instead of ga?\n\nは is good for talking about _general idea_ , and this is the one to present\nthe subject/theme of the sentence. \nが usually introduces a happening, or is good at indicating the subject/theme\nof _modifying clauses_.\n\nIn Japanese, the action maker is often omitted (because often the verb, or the\ncontext, tells who or what is the action maker), but one of the basic sentence\nstructures is\n\n**～は、～が～です。**\n\n田中さんは、カラオケ **は** お好きですか。[a question about a general preference / we could have\nplural subjects/themes (田中さんは and カラオケは)]\n\nあ、田中さんはカラオケ **が** お好きなんですね。[a remark after finding out the fact]\n\nはい、カラオケは好きです。[a statement about a general preference]\n\nはい、そうなんです。カラオケが好きなんです。[could sound like after having a trouble mixed up as\nthough something else is your preference]\n\nはい、そうなんです。カラオケは好きなんです。[after having a trouble mixed up as though you don't\nlike karaoke]",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-23T23:34:47.703",
"id": "51666",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T04:17:24.270",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51664",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "は is a topic maker, and it can _replace_ some particles including が. Here,\nカラオケ is the main topic of the sentence, and that's why it's marked with は\ninstead of が. See [this\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/17574/5010) for details.\n\nカラオケ would be marked with が in the following two types of situations:\n\n 1. When there is a different topic in the main clause: \n\n> 彼 **は** カラオケ **が** 好きですか。 (Here 彼 is the topic) \n> Does he like _karaoke_?\n\n 2. When this part is inside a [relative clause](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/14550/5010) (because a relative clause is just a modifier and does not serve as the topic of the whole sentence): \n\n> カラオケ **が** 好きな人 **は** 多い。 \n> There are many people who like _karaoke_.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T03:06:03.190",
"id": "51674",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T04:18:09.233",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T04:18:09.233",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51664",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51664 | 51666 | 51674 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51670",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> ただ一つだけ守りたいものを最後まで守り通せばいい。\n\nThis quote comes from episode 9 of the anime _Mahou Shoujo Madoka Magica_ and\nthe English subtitles translate it as \"Protect the thing you want to protect\nuntil the very end.\"\n\nHowever, ただ means \"only\" and だけ means... \"only.\" Why did the character say\n\"only one thing only\"? Wouldn't either ただ or だけ have been sufficient alone?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T01:33:45.307",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51667",
"last_activity_date": "2018-11-19T14:51:00.853",
"last_edit_date": "2018-11-19T14:51:00.853",
"last_editor_user_id": "10323",
"owner_user_id": "23869",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"words",
"quotes"
],
"title": "The use of ただ and だけ together redundant?",
"view_count": 738
} | [
{
"body": "It's not redundant to use ただ (or たった etc.) and だけ (or ばかり, のみ etc.) together.\nIt's perfectly natural to say, for example:\n\n> 「 **ただ** 広い **だけ** の庭」 \n> 「 **ただ** 一人 **だけ** 生き残る」 \n> 「 **ただ** 笑う **ばかり** だ」 \n> 「 **たった** 一度会った **だけ** だ」 \n> (Examples taken from 明鏡国語辞典)\n\n* * *\n\n> **ただ** 一つ **だけ** 守りたいものを最後まで守り通せばいい。 \n> Wouldn't either ただ or だけ have been sufficient alone?\n\nYes, you could rephrase your sentence like this, without changing the meaning:\n\n> ただ一つ、守りたいものを最後まで守り通せばいい。 \n> 一つだけ守りたいものを最後まで守り通せばいい。\n\nBut ただ～～だけ would sound more emphatic (and could sound a bit more emotional,\ntoo).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T01:59:32.030",
"id": "51670",
"last_activity_date": "2018-11-18T23:26:21.713",
"last_edit_date": "2018-11-18T23:26:21.713",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51667",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 51667 | 51670 | 51670 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51675",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The only one I can come up with is 「そうなんですか！」 but even then the meaning and\nfeeling is slightly different than \"I understand/I got it\".\n\nContext: \nSo if my Japanese teacher teaches me something useful, I'd say something like\n\"Ah! I get it now.\", but I think using 「分かりました」 all the time makes me sound\nlike a soldier.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T01:48:24.780",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51668",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T03:16:48.333",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T03:06:16.130",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25100",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"phrases"
],
"title": "Are there any similar words or phrases for「分かりました」",
"view_count": 288
} | [
{
"body": "そうなんですか！ means something like : \"is that so!?\"\n\nYou could use the following 4. Which are used quite frequently.\n\n> 承知{しょうち}しました \n> 了解{りょうかい}しました \n> 了承{りょうしょう}しました \n> かしこまりました\n\nThey all have about the same meaning, but are used in different occasion\nmostly depending on required level of politeness.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T02:02:49.690",
"id": "51671",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T02:11:16.883",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T02:11:16.883",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "18142",
"parent_id": "51668",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "I think you could say...\n\n「なるほど！」 \n「あぁ、そうなんですね！」 \n「あぁ、そうか、わかりました！」 \n「あぁ、そういうことなんですね！」(← This is like \"Oh, that makes sense!\")\n\n* * *\n\nI think it would be alright to repeat わかりました though... Maybe you could use\nsome fillers, like\n「あっ、そうか、わかりました（、ありがとうございます）！」...「あぁ、なるほど！わかりました！」...「あぁ、そうなんですね！わかりました。」...\nthen you wouldn't sound so repetitive.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T03:08:50.970",
"id": "51675",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T03:16:48.333",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T03:16:48.333",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51668",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51668 | 51675 | 51675 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51676",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Looking under terms that include かみ/神, I was interested to find \"八十神\" defined\nas \"many gods; many deities\". Jisho.org lists it as an \"archaism\", though. I\nsee the term appear in [this Japanese Wikipedia\npage](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E5%9B%BD%E4%B8%BB%E3%81%AE%E7%A5%9E%E8%A9%B1)\n(thanks Google!), but I can't start to understand it really, and it appears\nonly else in Chinese. I'm really curious behind the story of this term: why\n80? I'm guessing so Chinese of Japanese legend?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T03:02:35.083",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51673",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T05:16:41.620",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1823",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"etymology"
],
"title": "Why is \"many gods\" (八十神) exactly eighty?",
"view_count": 2611
} | [
{
"body": "In archaic Japanese, the numbers 8, 80, 800, 8000,... were used as vague\npronouns for big numbers. Compare how modern English speakers use \"dozens of\n～\", which usually does not strictly refer to the multiples of 12.\n\nThe word 八十神 is relatively uncommon. The concept of \"many/countless gods\" in\narchaic Japanese mythology is more frequently referred to as 八百万【やおよろず】の神,\nliterally \"8 million gods\". Accoring to Wikipedia:\n\n> ### [Kami](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami)\n>\n> There are considered to be three main variations of kami, amatsu-kami (\"the\n> heavenly deities\"), kunitsu-kami (\"the gods of the earthly realm\"), and ya-\n> o-yorozu no kami (八百万の神, countless kami). (\"八百万\" literally means eight\n> million, but idiomatically it expresses \"uncountably many\" and \"all\n> around\"—like many East Asian cultures, the Japanese often use the number 8,\n> representing the cardinal and ordinal directions, to symbolize ubiquity.)\n> These classifications are not considered strictly divided, due to the fluid\n> and shifting nature of kami, but are instead held as guidelines for grouping\n> kami.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T03:15:59.477",
"id": "51676",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T05:16:41.620",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T05:16:41.620",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51673",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
]
| 51673 | 51676 | 51676 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51683",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "According to [this site](http://ww6.tiki.ne.jp/~tamatsuo/poker.htm), buta\nappears to be the colloquial name of a \"no pair\". Is there such thing as a \"no\npair\"? If not, what is it called in English?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T07:22:52.417",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51681",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T08:39:30.597",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10168",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "What's the English equivalent of ブタ in poker?",
"view_count": 312
} | [
{
"body": "According to [List of poker\nhands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poker_hands), ノーペア is called\n\"High Card\" or \"No Pair\" in English.\n\nNote that you may see some 和製英語 terms in poker and other Western-origin games.\n\"Three of a kind\" and \"Four of a kind\" are usually referred to as スリーカード and\nフォーカード, respectively, in Japanese. (Perhaps \"-of-a-kind\" was grammatically too\ndifficult for Japanese people.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T08:39:30.597",
"id": "51683",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T08:39:30.597",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51681",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51681 | 51683 | 51683 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51720",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "The following examplatory sentence in the grammar section of my textbook:\nどうして医者になりたいんですか。 ...医者は人を **助けるすばらしい** 仕事だからです。\n\nIt translates to (according to my textbook): Why do you want to become a\nmedical doctor? ...Because medical doctor is a great job in which you help\npeople.\n\nWhat confuses me is that in the bold part, there is no connective form like て\nform or ます stem. I know plain form as a way to make a verbal expression an\nattribute to the related noun. In my textbook, it is said that a plain-form-\nsentence + からだ expresses the reason(s) for an event. However, is it necessary\nto omit other grammatical habits like the aforementioned て and ます form for\nchaining verbal expressions inside the respective clause? I just want to avoid\nbeing confused down the road when I'm encountering such constructions in the\nwild :D",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T08:30:28.153",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51682",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T11:13:32.503",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Why is there plain form in this sentence?",
"view_count": 311
} | [
{
"body": "Because 助ける is used as a noun modifier of 仕事. When using a verb as noun\nmodifier, it's always in plain form.\n\nIf you were to use the て form it becomes: \n医者は人を助けて、すばらしい仕事だからです。 Which I think roughly translates into: \"Doctors help\npeople, because it's a great job.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T10:47:33.723",
"id": "51693",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T10:47:33.723",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25103",
"parent_id": "51682",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> > どうして医者になりたいんですか。 \n> ...医者は人を **助けるすばらしい** 仕事だからです。\n>\n> It translates to (according to my textbook): Why do you want to become a\n> medical doctor? ...Because medical doctor is a great job in which you help\n> people.\n>\n> in the bold part, there is no connective form like て form or ます stem. \n> I know _**plain form as a way to make a verbal expression an attribute to\n> the related noun**_.\n\nI think you are talking about 連体形{れんたいけい} here, and this grammar point is the\nanswer to your case. The modifying adjective (すばらしい) might have caused your\nconfusion. The noun that is modified by a relative clause can also take other\nadjectives.\n\n> 医者は〔人を **助ける** 〕〔（すばらしい） **仕事** 〕だからです。\n\n/\n\n> In my textbook, it is said that a plain-form-sentence + からだ expresses the\n> reason(s) for an event. However, is it necessary to omit other grammatical\n> habits like the aforementioned て and ます form for chaining verbal expressions\n> inside the respective clause?\n\nYes, we say 助けるからだ to express a reason, and yes, to connect a verb with the\nparticle て, or a helping verb like ます, た, etc., the verb form is conjugated to\nthe particular form (連用形{れんようけい}): 助けてくれた, 助けます, 助けた, etc. So, this form is\nnot to connect to a noun. It's like the English conjunction 'and':\n彼は小さいころから親{おや}を **助けて働{はたら}いた.**",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T21:32:01.987",
"id": "51720",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T21:32:01.987",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51682",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "It should be parsed as:\n\n> 医者は［人を助ける］［すばらしい］仕事だからです。\n\n人を助ける and すばらしい both modify the noun 仕事. \n人を助ける is a relative clause here.\n\n［人を助ける］仕事 = a job [in which you help people] \n［すばらしい］仕事 = a [wonderful] job\n\nYou could also see it as ［人を助ける（すばらしい仕事）］, the relative clause 人を助ける modifying\nthe noun phrase すばらしい仕事.\n\nHence the translation:\n\n\"Because medical doctor is a [wonderful] job [in which you help people].\"\n\nA few examples with the same structure:\n\n> * ［友達に会える］［楽しい］場所 -- a [pleasant] place [where I can see friends]\n> * ［私の部屋にある］［かわいい］時計 -- a [cute] clock [in my room]\n> * ［あの子が履いている］［赤い］くつ -- [red] shoes [that the girl is wearing]\n>\n\n* * *\n\n> I know plain form as a way to make a verbal expression an attribute to the\n> related noun.\n\nCorrect. The plain form 助ける is the attributive form here and modifies the noun\n仕事.\n\n> In my textbook, it is said that a plain-form-sentence + からだ expresses the\n> reason(s) for an event.\n\nPrecisely. 「医者は（人を助ける）（すばらしい）仕事だ。」 is a plain-form-sentence. ～～からだ/～～からです\nadded at the end means \"Because~~\" \"It's because~~\", indicating that the whole\nsentence is a reason for some event or action.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T23:52:53.333",
"id": "51721",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T11:13:32.503",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T11:13:32.503",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51682",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 51682 | 51720 | 51720 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51686",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "To say **We Learn by Teaching**. Would it be said as:\n\nWatashitachiha, kyoiku de manabimasu.\n\nI don't know if this is correct?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T08:41:29.423",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51684",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T09:18:28.010",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25102",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Translate a sentence, English to Japanese",
"view_count": 300
} | [
{
"body": "The antonym for 学ぶ (manabu) is 教える (oshieru). 教育 is _education_ in general,\nand it includes both teaching and learning. Here, we need a word that only\nmeans _teaching_.\n\n> 私たちは教えることで学びます。 \n> わたしたちはおしえることでまなびます。 \n> Watashitachi wa, oshieru koto de manabimasu.\n\nこと after 教える is a\n[nominalizer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1395/5010) (in a nutshell,\nit turns 'teach' into 'teaching').\n\nNote that is grammatical but still sounds unnatural to the eyes of Japanese\npeople. In particular, 私たち (watashitachi, \"we\") is not something we frequently\nuse in Japanese sentence. To describe this idea, you can use shorter phrases\nlike this.\n\n> 教えることは学ぶこと。 \n> Teaching is learning.\n\nThere is [a proverb using classic Japanese grammar](http://kotowaza-\nallguide.com/o/oshiuruwamanabu.html) that essentially says the same thing, but\nI think you can forget this because it's not very popular.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T09:18:28.010",
"id": "51686",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T09:18:28.010",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51684",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51684 | 51686 | 51686 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I couldn't confirm if these are correct/natural ways to say these...\n\n 1. 待ち行列 : waiting line (queue)\n 2. 行列を待っています : (I'm currently) waiting in the line (queue)\n 3. 行列を待ってください : Please wait in the line\n 4. 行列を作って並んでください : Please make a line and then line up \n\nThank you in advance...",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T09:17:06.433",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51685",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T09:27:06.213",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "13611",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "Natural sentence about line (waiting)",
"view_count": 1706
} | [
{
"body": "1 and 4 are correct, but 待ち行列 looks like a technical term of [queueing\ntheory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queueing_theory). Usually saying 行列 is\nenough.\n\n～を待つ is \"to wait _for_ ～\". Therefore 行列を待っています would mean \"I am waiting for\nthe line,\" which is not what you usually want to say.\n\nTo say \"to wait _in_ the line\", the particle you need is, unsurprisingly, で.\n\n 2. 行列で待っています。\n 3. 行列でお待ちください。 (using the honorific version of 待つ)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T09:27:06.213",
"id": "51689",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T09:27:06.213",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51685",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51685 | null | 51689 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51690",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm currently learning at the JLPT N3 level, so I'm not sure if this is\nsomething I might haven't learned about. I never knew we could put を like\nthis.\n\nThis is a sentence from an e-dict so it should be correct.\n\n> 当たるを幸い、彼は敵をなぎ倒して \n> He struck down every foe that came his way\n\n当たるを幸い is the part which confused me. Normally it would be [[object を verb]].",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T09:22:49.680",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51687",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-22T08:15:12.777",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-22T08:15:12.777",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "13611",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "を before a noun?",
"view_count": 311
} | [
{
"body": "Here [当たるを幸い is an idiomatic set\nphrase](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/4699/meaning/m0u/), and it's one of\nthe [fixed expressions that use classic Japanese\ngrammar](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/42718/5010). It means\n(手に)当たるのを幸いに in modern Japanese, and it describes how \"vigorously and\nindiscriminately\" he struck down enemies.\n\n * 当たる is actually 当たるの/当たること. In archaic Japanese grammar, the attributive form of a verb was used to nominalize a verb.\n * The ～を～に pattern forms an adverbial phrase. See: [Meaning and transitivity of ゴミ袋を手に立ち上がる](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/20854/5010)\n\nSo 当たるのを幸いに literally means \"with hits/encounters as lucky things\", or\n\"whenever someone came his way, he thought it's lucky and...\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T09:57:26.837",
"id": "51690",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T09:57:26.837",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51687",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 51687 | 51690 | 51690 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51861",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I just encountered the following sentence:\n\n> A) 祖父は **生まれてから死ぬまで** 、この町に住んでいました。\n>\n> B) お金を入れてから、このボタンを押してください。\n\nSentence B says \"After you have inserted money, push this button please.\" \nSentence A says \"From when my grandfather was born till he died, he lived in\nthis city.\"\n\nWhat bothers me is that the two sentences are slightly different from a\nconceptual perspective, yet the same grammar seems to be used on them (at\nleast I haven't learned about any other meaning of てから than in sentence B). In\nsentence A, てから marks the beginning of a timespan. This is still just a point\nin time, like in sentence B, but since it requires a slightly different\ntranslation, I wondered if the construction in sentence A can still be\nregarded the same as in sentence B.\n\nBy rearranging the whole sentence, sentence A can be made much more similar to\nsentence B: \"Concerning my grandfather, after he was born he lived in this\ncity till he died.\" So, I might be a bit meticulous on this, but I just wanted\nto be sure I'm not overlooking something.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T09:23:23.910",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51688",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T04:33:48.660",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"て-form",
"particle-から"
],
"title": "Are these -てから the same?",
"view_count": 460
} | [
{
"body": "_Verb_ てから literally means: \"after _Verb_ is completed/finished, then...\"\n\nSo every time you want to say that something happened after another verb, you\nhave to use this format.\n\nYou may be confused since there is also から・まで (from-to) but that requires a\nnoun before から.\n\nI _think_ it would be possible to rephrase sentence A like this:\n\n> 祖父は **生まれたのときから** 死ぬまで、この町に住んでいました。",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T10:35:21.250",
"id": "51692",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T02:46:36.620",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T02:46:36.620",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25103",
"parent_id": "51688",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Perhaps it would help if sentence A were translated a bit differently:\n\n> A) 祖父は生まれてから死ぬまで、この町に住んでいました。 \n> My grandfather lived in this town from birth until death.\n\nPersonally, I think this is the most idiomatic rendering in English. Though\nsome may not like that I rendered what was a verb in Japanese as a noun in\nEnglish, I think it can be helpful at some point to recognize that English\nlikes using nouns where Japanese likes to use verbs. That isn't to say it\ncan't be said the other way around in either language; often it can.\n\nYou could also translate it using the \"after\"\n\n> After he was born up until he died, my grandfather lived in this town.\n\nIt perhaps helps to think of _verb_ てから as the starting point after which\nsomething else happens: in that sense, either \"after\" or \"from\" can be a good\ntranslation.\n\nThe constructions in both sentences **A** and **B** are the same regarding\n_verb_ てから.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T04:33:48.660",
"id": "51861",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T04:33:48.660",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4875",
"parent_id": "51688",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51688 | 51861 | 51861 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51694",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I noticed several times that japanese people use 遊ぶ (play) when talking about\nmeeting someone (usually friends or partners) instead of 会う (meet).\n\nFor example: \n1) 明日、友達と遊ぶ。 \nor \n2) 遊びに来てね。\n\nIs it just a colloquial way of saying \"to meet and enjoy time together\" or\n_can_ (obvioulsy depending on the context) 遊ぶ imply intimate intentions, maybe\nin the second example?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T10:15:03.550",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51691",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T14:14:54.723",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25103",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"word-usage"
],
"title": "Use of 遊ぶ (asobu)",
"view_count": 9781
} | [
{
"body": "遊ぶ still means play and 会う does mean meet.\n\nBut when you use it in a sentence, lets say the one in your first example:\n\n```\n\n 明日、友達と遊ぶ予定だよ。＝ I'm going to play with my friends tomorrow.\n \n```\n\nI would say the best translation for the word 遊ぶ here would be \"hang-out\",\nthat you can kind of picture meeting your friends and have fun together.\n\n> In English it is more common to put more focus on the 'meeting' part but in\n> Japanese the focus is on the latter. The meeting part is assumed to happen\n> before the \"playing\" part, just like how you assumed you'll surely play with\n> your friends after you meet them.\n\nIf you think about it, it is actually quite weird to say _\"I am going to meet\nmy friends tomorrow\"_. \nTo me it feels like you purposely planned to go meet them, say hi then you'll\ndo nothing with them.\n\n* * *\n\n会う does mean \"meet\" but only used when the focus is on meeting someone. It can\nbe used when you meet someone accidentally on the street, perhaps chatted for\na bit but the focus is still on meeting the person when you try to tell others\nabout it.\n\nAnother way to use the word is when you have a formal meeting with someone,\nsuch as in a business occasion which you'll have an appointment with a person\nand chat about each others company or so to get to know about each other.\n\n* * *\n\nRegarding if 遊ぶ could imply intimate intentions, my answer is yes, it can. 遊ぶ\nsimply means \"to play\", one can play games, play tricks on others, or play\nsecret games that only adult would know.\n\nBut technically any word can be used to imply intimate intentions given the\n[right context]{dirty mind}. Examples:\n\n * 今夜俺の部屋にこないか？一緒に遊びましょう〜♡\n * 遊ぼう(΄◔◞౪◟◔`)\n\nIllustrations are supplied to prove my point but if you have a clean mind like\nI think nothing can be used to imply intimate intentions.\n\nIf thats the case, please seek **_[advice]{(´◔౪◔)}_** from your doctor.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T10:47:38.913",
"id": "51694",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T14:14:54.723",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T14:14:54.723",
"last_editor_user_id": "22397",
"owner_user_id": "22397",
"parent_id": "51691",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
]
| 51691 | 51694 | 51694 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51697",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "駅の近くに壊れた自転車がずっと置いてあります。\n\n\"Near the trainstation, there are continuously put broken bikes/there are\nalways broken bikes.\"\n\nFirst, 駅の近くに: Is my interpretation as a local adverbial which doesn't directly\nmodify 自転車 correct?\n\nSecond: Is my interpretation of ずっと correct in this context?\n\nThird: 置く kind of gives me a headache. Since it means \"to put\", I'm not sure\nwether it is said that broken bikes are put/brought there, or that broken\nbikes are \"put\" there, which basically means that they were put there, and\nthen got broken (which I assume is the case, but grammatically it seems\nambiguous to me). Is it very common to express this with 置く in japanese? In\nboth english and german I'd expect solely the copula \"to be\": \"There **are**\nbroken bikes.\" 置く feels kind of redundant to me.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T10:59:42.837",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51695",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-24T00:38:14.820",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-23T13:48:47.210",
"last_editor_user_id": "4091",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How do the elements of 駅の近くに壊れた自転車がずっと置いてあります work together",
"view_count": 156
} | [
{
"body": "In my opinion it means that broken bicycles are constantly put (left) there,\nnot that the bicycles break there.\n\n置く can also mean \"to leave (behind)\"\n\n壊れた自転車 = (already) broken bicycles\n\n置いてあります = are being left (there)\n\n\"Near the station, broken bicycles are constantly being left behind\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T11:10:41.113",
"id": "51697",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-24T00:07:18.510",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-24T00:07:18.510",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25103",
"parent_id": "51695",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I think 置いてある means put with more intention than just put.\n\nMy interpretation:駅の近くに壊れた自転車がずっと置いてあります.\n\nIt normally means that broken bikes were just left and a long time has passed\nsince the first time the writer saw. So, the writer reports it to the\nauthority.\n\nOr highly unlikely but perhaps some people habitually joyride the stolen bikes\nand know the place where they can leave the bikes around the station without\nnotice. And the writer always reported it but they have been successfully\nchanging the place nearby the station.\n\nThere is a slight difference between 置いてある and 置く.\n\n置く simply implies put with slight intention.\n\n鍵をここに置く。I put the key here.\n\n置いてある。implies put with intention.\n\nI intend to put the key here.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-23T13:10:27.993",
"id": "52633",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-24T00:38:14.820",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-24T00:38:14.820",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "51695",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51695 | 51697 | 51697 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51716",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "A: タワポン-さんの部屋はどこですか。 B: あの **カーテンの閉まった** へやです。\n\nI think it translates into this: A: Which is the apartment of tawapon-san? B:\nThat apartment with the closed curtains.\n\nI wondered, why isn't the sentence built like this:\n\nB: あの **閉まったカーテン** の部屋です。\n\nAt least to me, it seems to be less ambiguous than the original version, which\non first sight could also translate into: B: That closed apartment with\ncurtains.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T11:07:49.477",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51696",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T10:59:10.717",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Why aren't these sentence elements placed in a different way?",
"view_count": 150
} | [
{
"body": "# TL;DR:\n\nThe original sentence is correct, yours are not correct.\n\n* * *\n\nThere are many ways to achieve that and one of the way is through the use of\n修飾語 in the form of 〜た＋名詞。\n\nIn your example sentence:\n\nあのカーテンの閉まったへやです。\n\nIf we parse the sentence it would be:\n\nあの-> （カーテンの閉まった：部屋）＋です。＝The curtain-closed room.\n\nWhich successfully points out which room Mr. Tawapon is in.\n\nHowever in your own sentence:\n\nあの-> (閉まったカーテン) の 部屋 ＋です。＝The room of the closed curtain.\n\nIt sounds like if the curtain owned the house, instead of Mr. Tawapon.\n\n* * *\n\nThis may sound better to you : あのカーテン **が** 閉まった部屋\n\nOne more example will be： あのドアの開いた車",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T16:41:09.590",
"id": "51710",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T10:59:10.717",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22397",
"parent_id": "51696",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> > A: タワポン-さんの部屋はどこですか。 \n> B: あのカーテンの閉まったへやです。\n>\n> B: あの閉まったカーテンの部屋です。\n>\n> I think it translates into this: A: Which is the apartment of tawapon-san?\n> B: That apartment with the closed curtains.\n\n閉まったカーテン might be used in some context, but in this case, it's simply an\nunusual thing to hear to our native ears.\n\nI think it's because the closed curtain is not something expected to be always\nthat way. How would you say the same thing in your language?\n\nThe _**state**_ of カーテンが閉まっている is the point that we naturally feel that we\nshould say; we want to describe it as a (small but) clause with the subject\nand the predicate.\n\nあのカーテンの[が] **閉まった** 部屋です。\n\nあのカーテンの[が] **閉まっている** 部屋です。\n\nThese two are natural.\n\nIf it's あの赤いカーテンの部屋です, it works just fine. This is plain natural, but\nあのカーテンの赤い部屋です also works.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T18:48:50.723",
"id": "51716",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T18:48:50.723",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51696",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51696 | 51716 | 51716 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51701",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I found a sentence from my study book.\n\nIt said:\n\n> このマンションは動物を飼ってはいけない規則になっている\n\nWhy is it\n\n> になっている\n\nand not\n\n> がある ?\n\nIs it replaceable?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T11:13:13.347",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51698",
"last_activity_date": "2020-04-01T15:44:36.147",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T14:25:21.043",
"last_editor_user_id": "9971",
"owner_user_id": "10010",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "になっている vs がある ？",
"view_count": 2226
} | [
{
"body": "To answer your question, I think that it would be good to review the V + ている\nconjugation.\n\nA lot of the time we are taught that V + ている means \"verb-ing.\" For many cases\nthat is correct. However, there are some cases where \"verb-ing\" is not 100%\naccurate as far as translation goes. For example, 死{し}んでいる does not mean\n`dying`, but `dead`.\n\nIn my time in Japan, I spent a bit of time going door to door as part of my\nwork. Quite often, the person answering the door would say:\n\n> 主人{しゅじん}は仕事{しごと}に行{い}っています。\n\nIn the morning, translating this as `My husband is going to work` would make\nsense, but it doesn't make as much sense at 4:00PM. This is because\ntranslating 行{い}っている as `going` isn't correct. Rather, you should translate it\nas `has gone to __` or `is at __`. Long story short, you would translate it\nas:\n\n> My husband is at work.\n\nFor more information, please see [this](http://www.punipunijapan.com/japanese-\nte-iru/) webpage. I really like how it describes the meaning of V + ている in\nterms of resultant states. We are dealing with a resultant state in this\nsituation. To use their words:\n\n> If the verb indicates an instantaneous change of state or transfer, then the\n> て- form + いる (iru) will express a resultant state.\n\nLike 行{い}っている (has gone to/is at) or 死{し}んでいる (is dead)。\n\n* * *\n\nBecome (なる) is another one of those cases. You cannot translate it as\nbecoming, as that would not be correct, but rather translate it as `it is\nestablished` or `it is the case that.`\n\n> このマンションは動物{どうぶつ}を飼{か}ってはいけない規則{きそく}になっている\n>\n> It has been established that keeping pets at this mansion is not allowed.\n\nWhy not ～がある？ Well, in terms of overall meaning you _could_ replace ～になっている\nwith ～がある、and have it carry _almost_ the same meaning (I wouldn't do it\nthough). This is not just a question of style/formality, but also a question\nof meaning. It's not as formal to say ～がある, and it means something different.\n\nJust to be clear, this does not mean ～がある ＝ ～になっている。That is false, as _the\nmeanings are different_. It just happens to be the case that you _could_\nrephrase the sentence with ～がある and carry a similar meaning. Here is an\nexample to drive this point home:\n\n> わが家{や}では、お箸{はし}を使{つか}わず、手{て}で食{た}べることになっている。\n>\n> In our home, we don't use chopsticks, we eat with our hands.\n\nSetting aside the peculiarity of this sentence, if we were to replace ～になっている\nwith ～がある、we would have a different sentence. Eating with your hands in that\nhome is an established thing. When I say established, I mean that things are\nalways that way. It's a tradition, not a one-time deal.\n\nIf we were to say:\n\n> わが家{や}では、お箸{はし}を使{つか}わず、手{て}で食{た}べることがある。\n>\n> In our home, there are times when we don't use chopsticks and eat with our\n> hands.\n\nThere is no sense of establishment. This isn't a tradition, it's more of a\nfling.\n\n* * *\n\nSo, bringing it all together, the reason they use ～になっている in your sentence is\nbecause the rule (規則{きそく}) is established. It's not just a thing that happens.\nThere is a sense of permanence and there is an expectation that you will abide\nby that rule.\n\nIf you were to say ～がある、you would get the feeling that there's a rule that\npets aren't allowed, but not everyone follows the rules. So while you would\nget _almost_ the same meaning, they are in fact different.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T13:27:07.847",
"id": "51701",
"last_activity_date": "2020-04-01T15:44:36.147",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22352",
"parent_id": "51698",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
]
| 51698 | 51701 | 51701 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51706",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "There's an exercise in which I shall write short sentences about the\nappearance of a few children displayed in small pictures. I wondered how a\nsentence expressing the following must be constructed:\n\n\"That girl with the beautiful, short dress and the long hair.\"\n\nHere I have two entities in the appearance of this girl which I want to\ndescribe. They both have to be put into nominal phrases. Therefore, I think it\nwould be something along these lines:\n\n\"あの長い髪の\n\n(?)\n\n綺麗で短い身なりの\n\n女の子です。\"\n\nHowever, as indicated by the questionmark, I wonder how these two nominal\nphrases shall be connected. Is there another connective particle or the like\nnecessary?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T11:41:20.037",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51699",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T00:17:40.640",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How can I express this collection of attributes",
"view_count": 130
} | [
{
"body": "> That girl with the beautiful, short dress and the long hair.\n\nAt first, the given phrase is a noun phrase, not a sentence because it has not\na verb, so the interpretation for the phrase in Japanese must end with noun or\n\"女の子 _girl_ \" not \"です\".\n\nthat girl with the beautiful, short dress and the long hair \n= that girl with (the beautiful and short dress + the long hair) \n= that girl with the beautiful and short dress + that girl with the long hair \n= あの綺麗な短いドレスを着た女の子 + あの長い髪の女の子 \n= あの綺麗な短いドレスを着た(?)長い髪の女の子\n\nOf course あの綺麗な短いドレス **の** 女の子 is also good instead of あの綺麗な短いドレスを着た女の子.\n\nAfter filling in the blank indicated by the question mark, possible answers\nare like: \nA: あの綺麗な短いドレスを着た、そして、長い髪の女の子 \nB: あの綺麗な短いドレスを **着た** 長い髪の女の子 (or あの綺麗な短いドレス **の** 長い髪の女の子)\n\nAs for the part where the question mark is placed, そして for _and_ is good like\nphrase A, but we usually connect the two nominal phrases like phrase B without\nusing any connective particle or the like.\n\nAnd, if we read phrase B or speak it aloud as a whole, we usually **pause a\nmoment** just after the first phrase with \"ドレスを着た or ドレスの\" in order to show\nthat the whole phrase is made up of two nominal phrases.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T13:51:56.810",
"id": "51706",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T00:17:40.640",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T00:17:40.640",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51699",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51699 | 51706 | 51706 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "everyone.\n\nMay I know why does different particle is used in the following examples?\n\n> 1. 小林さん **は** 私にチョコをくれた。\n> 2. 友達 **が** 私にチョコをくれた。\n> 3. 姉 **が** 娘におもちゃをくれた。\n>\n\nThanks.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T12:55:17.513",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51700",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T02:54:04.043",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T13:17:36.377",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "16067",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"particle-は",
"particle-が",
"giving-and-receiving"
],
"title": "Usage of「が」and 「は」in ~くれる",
"view_count": 631
} | [
{
"body": "> 小林さんは私にチョコをくれた。\n\nは talks about a _general idea_. This sentence is saying 小林さん is someone who\nhas given 'me' a chocolate. This could sound like _comparing_ with someone\nelse; 田中さんはみかんをくれた。\n\n> 友達が私にチョコをくれた。\n\nが introduces a _happening_. This sentence is talking about the _incident_ that\na friend gave 'me' a chocolate.\n\n> 姉が娘におもちゃをくれた。\n\nIt's talking about the _incident_ that your sister has given your daughter a\ntoy.\n\nが could be rather forcibly explained as it's _excluding_ others when comparing\nto は. We are not really always using が to exclude others, but sometimes the\nfeature becomes significant, for example, where 私は先生です talks about a general\nidea talking about my occupation, and 私が先生です says not others but I am _the_\nteacher here.\n\n* * *\n\nI've just found that in the top rated thread, [What's the difference between\nwa (は) and ga (が)?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/22/whats-the-\ndifference-between-wa-%E3%81%AF-and-ga-%E3%81%8C), \n@jkerian is saying the same thing:\n\n> In Japanese, the thematic は is used with generic noun phrases (\"the brits\")\n> or things that are already in the universe of discourse. It's sometimes\n> tricky to nail down exactly what is there, but the general idea is that you\n> don't introduce things to the conversation using thematic は。 This is why you\n> cannot use question words with は, the non-specified referent cannot be in\n> the universe of discourse. (だれは来ましたか?) <--- BAD! INVALID! DO NOT USE!\n\n* * *\n\nAnother interesting example comes to me.\n\n> くつ **が** 一足 **と** くつ下 **が** 四足 あります[ _or can be_ です]。\n\nThis と can be switched with a comma very well, but\n\n> くつ **は** 一足、くつ下 **は** 四足です[ _or can be_ あります]。\n\nWhen it's は, our native sense simply refuses to use と here, though **で** works\n(あり for あります).\n\nWhy is that so? \nは seems wanting to be a clause while が is fine to be a phrase to modify a\nverb.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T13:47:29.377",
"id": "51704",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T02:54:04.043",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-29T02:54:04.043",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51700",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51700 | null | 51704 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51707",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was having trouble translating this sentence, specifically the last part:\n\n> だが、 **そう** 長く生きていないとはいえ、人生の半分以上をここで暮らし、また言葉を操る『言ノ葉使い』である僕には彼が\n> **まだここに来て日の浅い** 使用人であることが分かった。\n\nI understand that 「長く生きていないとはいえ」 means something along the lines of 'although\nI haven't lived that long', however I'm not sure about the function of 'そう' in\nthat sentence. I translated the next part as 'living here for over half my\nlife', and the next one is about him being able to use 'Kotonoha' to\nmanipulate words. However the last part confuses me a bit, specifically the\nuse of 'まだ', and also the use of te-form in '来て日'.\n\nAlso '浅い' usually translates to 'shallow', but can it be translated to 'young'\nin this context?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T13:34:37.200",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51702",
"last_activity_date": "2020-07-19T00:37:51.527",
"last_edit_date": "2020-07-19T00:37:51.527",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25089",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Sentence translation help (「そう長く生きていない」「まだここに来て日の浅い」)",
"view_count": 113
} | [
{
"body": "* そう corresponds to _that_ in \"that long\". It's interchangeable with そんなに and それほど. \n\n> そう簡単ではない。 = そんなに簡単ではない。 \n> It's not that easy.\n\n * `(te-form) + 日が + 浅い` [is a set phrase](http://jisho.org/word/%E6%97%A5%E3%81%8C%E6%B5%85%E3%81%84) meaning \"it hasn't been long (since ～)\". の is replacing が because this part is in a relative clause. まだ is simply _still_ or _yet_ , and is often used with this set phrase.\n\n> 彼はここに来て日が浅い。 \n> It hasn't been long since he came here.\n\nThe sentence is about the time after he came, not about his age.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T14:09:30.710",
"id": "51707",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T14:09:30.710",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51702",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51702 | 51707 | 51707 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "What is the archaic version of the verb conjugation しても？",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T13:40:53.663",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51703",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T13:40:53.663",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25106",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What is the archaic version of the verb conjugation しても？",
"view_count": 152
} | []
| 51703 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Let's take the は ひ ふ へ ほ (ha hi hu/fu he ho) kana for example. When they get\ndakuten, they become ば び ぶ べ ぼ (ba bi bu be bo). The た ち つ て と (ta chi tsu te\nto) kana become だ ぢ づ で ど (da dji dzu de do).\n\nWhy this transformation happens. And, more important, why the ち (chi) & つ\n(tsu) are like this? They could have been ti, not chi and tu, not tsu. The ち &\nつ kana could also be categorized in the わ & ん category. If they were ti and\ntu, they could easily become di and du with dakuten.\n\nSo why does this happen? Why aren't they ti and tu instead of chi and tsu?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T13:48:25.587",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51705",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T17:49:10.250",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"kana",
"kana-usage"
],
"title": "た ち つ て と -> だ ぢ づ で ど (ta chi tsu te to -> da dji dzu de do) - Why is it different from all the other kana that can get dakuten?",
"view_count": 2242
} | [
{
"body": "The (surprisingly) short answer is: In Japanese, the かな are not out of line.\nThe **romanizations** that approximate these sounds as 'chi', 'tsu', 'dji',\n'dzu', **are the ones out of line** , by virtue of the sounds not existing as\nan easily approximated two-letter consonant-vowel pair.\n\n> ta = た da = だ \n> ti = ち di = ぢ \n> tu = つ du = づ \n> te = て de = で \n> to = と do = ど\n\nBasically, you really ought to be asking the question the OTHER way around:\nWhy are ち ぢ つ づ romanized as 'chi' 'dji' 'tsu' 'dzu'? And in thinking about\nwhy that's the case, you'll have your answer. The order of かな actually makes a\nlot of sense in the 五十音{ごじゅうおん} order.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T17:49:10.250",
"id": "51711",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T17:49:10.250",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "51705",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 51705 | null | 51711 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.