question
dict | answers
list | id
stringlengths 1
6
| accepted_answer_id
stringlengths 2
6
⌀ | popular_answer_id
stringlengths 1
6
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51709",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "# Question\n\nI wonder what would be the _better way_ to represent the idea of **\" meeting\nsomeone unplanned / by chance\"**.\n\nOr is it just a matter of one's preference?\n\nI want the sentence to be _**least ambiguous but most accurate in one single\nsentence, and if possible, regardless of context.**_\n\n* * *\n\n# Explanation\n\n> The following sentences should all mean _\" I met him at the street (by\n> chance)\"_\n\nIf I say 街で彼に出会った。 It got a romantic colour that it seems love is about to\nhappen.\n\nI personally belief the most _**neutral**_ way would be 偶然・たまたま街で彼と会った。\n\nBut one could also say 街で彼と遇った・逢った・遭った。The first one feels like if I've met an\nevent instead of a person. The second one feels like some sort of destiny is\nbehind all this。 The third one feels like if I hate the person I've met.\n\nOr is 街で彼に会った good enough？\n\nI wonder what is the best.\n\nPlease provide your answer with explanation / evidence. m( )m\n\nThank you for your help!\n\n* * *\n\nAdded:\n\n> If you are Japanese, which is the most common way and how would you say it?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T15:01:41.973",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51708",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T17:41:34.260",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22397",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances",
"definitions"
],
"title": "What is the better 表現 of meeting someone unplanned / by chance?",
"view_count": 545
} | [
{
"body": "> the better way to represent the idea of \"meeting someone unplanned / by\n> chance\".\n>\n\n>> 偶然・たまたま街で彼と会った。\n\nThis Japanese sentence of yours is perfect. Both 偶然, たまたま works fine. \nI think, as a native speaker, 偶然 is the safest for any occasion. If you want a\nrelaxed feeling to your words, たまたま might be better. Both are commonly used in\ntalks regardless of casual or formal nature.\n\n> Or is 街で彼に会った good enough？\n\nIt could sound like planned. If it's 街で彼に行き会った, this means unplanned. We often\nadd expressions like 偶然 or たまたま to this too, though it seems to be actually\nrepeating the same thing.\n\n> 遇った・逢った・遭った。\n\n遇った is not commonly used, though it seems this is the most accurate one for\nwhat you are looking. 逢った has a nuance of planned, and is also usually seen\nonly on printed literature, avoid it for business letters. 遭った is for events\nnot for people.\n\n> If I say 街で彼に出会った。 It got a romantic colour that it seems love is about to\n> happen.\n\nIt is not necessarily romantic encounter, but 出会う means you come to know\nsomeone or something; ex. 彼は若い頃に天職{てんしょく}に出会った.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T16:18:55.320",
"id": "51709",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T16:18:55.320",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51708",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "There are a couple of ways to express this.\n\n鉢合{はちあ}わせする means exactly what you're asking for: a chance meeting (lit. the\nbumping of heads). Note this is often used in the negative sense.\n\nOn that same note, 出会ってしまう・会ってしまう expresses a negative connotation (not\nwanting to meet).\n\nYou are correct in your use of 偶然・たまたま（出）会う. There is also ばったり（出）会う, which is\nalso very common in everyday conversation.\n\nThere is also 遭遇{そうぐう}する (encounter), but sounds a bit wordy, something I'd\nexpect to hear from a military or news report. (edit: it also tends to be used\nin the bad sense, like \"encountering the enemy\" or \"running into a bear\".)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T17:49:41.840",
"id": "51712",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T17:41:34.260",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T17:41:34.260",
"last_editor_user_id": "9508",
"owner_user_id": "9508",
"parent_id": "51708",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51708 | 51709 | 51712 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51731",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "疲れた= I’m tired\n\n1) Why is 疲れ **た** used to indicate a **present** state? (Is there a logic\nbehind these types of verbs or is it easier to remember these verbs?)\n\n2) What is the difference between 疲れたand 疲れている? Are there situations where one\nwould be preferred over the other?\n\n3) What would 疲れる mean? Would it be \"I will be tired\" or \"I'm getting tired\" ?\n\n4) Japanese also uses time-related words like 毎朝 or 今. Does using these words\nchange the state choice as well? For example: I feel like it should be\n今、疲れている。 And 毎朝、疲れた。when using different time-related words.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T18:00:02.000",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51713",
"last_activity_date": "2018-03-03T11:03:57.467",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-24T21:06:39.990",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10748",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words",
"tense",
"aspect"
],
"title": "Why does 疲れた translate to the present tense",
"view_count": 1417
} | [
{
"body": "Think of the English equivalent of the expression: \"I'm tired.\"\n\n\"Tired\" is not a present-tense verb either. \"I am tired\" is an expression that\nmeans \"I have **become** tired\", of which the present-tense verb is \"to tire,\"\nmeaning \"to reach a level of exhaustion.\"\n\nIn that sense, the Japanese verb 疲れる is \"to tire\" and 疲れた is then \"to have\nbecome tired.\" 疲れている is to be in the state of exhaustion, or \"to be tired\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T18:26:16.170",
"id": "51714",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T18:26:16.170",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "51713",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "疲れる is not an unusual verbal, so there is no need to identify verbals _like_\nit. Rather, understanding how Japanese expressions tend to be expressions of\n_changes of state_ will help with interpreting this and similar future\nencounters with perfective (\"past\") forms.\n\n> 1) Why is 疲れた used to indicate a present state? (Is there a logic behind\n> these types of verbs or is it easier to remember these verbs?)\n\n**た** expresses **_completion_**. We use this _regardless of the tense_. As\n@psosuna says, 疲れた means _I **have** become tired,_ and this form of English\nis called the _present perfect_ ; the tense that this form of the _perfect\naspect_ has is also the **present**. Both are to _talk **about a past event as\na present** state/fact/condition_. (The 'become' after 'have' is the past\nparticiple, which is a non-finite verb.)\n\n> 2) What is the difference between 疲れたand 疲れている? Are there situations where\n> one would be preferred over the other?\n\nWe say 疲れた at the moment we feel like wanting to utter this word, in other\nwords when we _have **just** become tired_ (i.e. a _change of state_ has\noccurred), in reality though we would keep saying 疲れた for any numbers of days.\nWe say 疲れています when _we've **been feeling tired** for a while_, ...maybe we\nstart saying this after getting tired of keeping saying 疲れた.\n\nRemember that forms in -ている refer to an activity or state that something\nis/will be in, which results from a completed occurrence, and which extends\nover a period of time: e.g. 疲れた ( _becoming_ tired) already occurred, and my\nresulting state ( _being_ tired) extends over a period of time when I want to\nsay 疲れている.\n\n> 3) What would 疲れる mean? Would it be \"I will be tired\" or \"I'm getting\n> tired\"?\n\nYes. We say 疲れるからやめて, and here we mean \"Please stop it because I'll be tired.\"\n\"疲れる\" is often used as complaint, meaning it makes me tired or it's making me\ntired.\n\n> 4) Japanese also uses time-related words like 毎朝 or 今. Does using these\n> words change the state choice as well?\n\nI expect so, since Japanese language doesn't differentiate tense by the verb\nforms, these adverbs of time or other additional expressions are very\nimportant. But it seems we understand each other more by the context in\neveryday life situations. For example, no one say 今、疲れちゃった, but we understand\nyou mean now from the context without hearing 今.\n\n> For example: I feel like it should be 今、疲れている。 And 毎朝、疲れた。when using\n> different time-related words.\n\nWhat I can come up with right now are 毎朝、疲れを感じます or 最近、なんだか疲れやすいです or\n今、ちょっと疲れてるから、あとでね.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T02:37:05.640",
"id": "51731",
"last_activity_date": "2018-03-03T11:03:57.467",
"last_edit_date": "2018-03-03T11:03:57.467",
"last_editor_user_id": "27987",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51713",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 51713 | 51731 | 51731 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Do Japanese (pop) songs usually preserve pitch accent (so that the words have\nto be chosen in accordance with the melody, just the words in English songs\nhave to match the meter) or does it get completely overwritten by the melody?\nOr do both pitches interact in some way?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T18:47:14.920",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51715",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T03:17:28.950",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "12239",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"phonology",
"pitch-accent"
],
"title": "Japanese pitch accent in songs",
"view_count": 2688
} | [
{
"body": "As far as I know, pitch accent is less relevant in Japanese pop music than it\nis in English pop music partially because Japanese syllables are more\npercussive than English syllables are (think: one consonant-sound and one\nvowel for (most) Japanese syllables), and so sound less unnatural when pitch\naccent changes for the sake of a melody.\n\nHowever, sometimes, guttural stops such as words with (small) っ are sometimes\npronounced as enunciated extra vowels with stops in between: A word such as\nきっと \"kitto\" might be easily heard as \"ki-i-to\" instead.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T19:00:18.710",
"id": "51717",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-24T19:00:18.710",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "51715",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "The simple answer? No. Japanese completely overwrite pitches in many songs\njust to go with the melody.\n\nBecause Japanese tones vary depending what region you're in (different regions\ncarry different dialects, with varying pitches for the same words), it's not\npractical to put it in a song that would want to be played in all of Japan.\n\nTaken from wiki (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_pitch_accent>): \"For\ninstance, the word for \"now\" is [iꜜma] in the Tokyo dialect, with the accent\non the first mora (or equivalently, with a downstep in pitch between the first\nand second morae), but in the Kansai dialect it is [i.maꜜ]. A final [i] or [ɯ]\nis often devoiced to [i̥] or [ɯ̥] after a downstep and an unvoiced consonant.\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T23:53:02.420",
"id": "51885",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T23:53:02.420",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "51715",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "\"Singing\", as in what people might do with their voices in songs, can vary a\nlot by genre, style, etc. When people say words in different ways, contrasts\nin speech, such duration between long and short vowels (e.g. _o_ vs _ou_ ) may\nbecome harder, if not impossible, to distinguish. As mentioned in some of the\ncomments above, pitch often gets overridden by musical concerns (pitch of\nmelody, and so forth) in many songs.\n\nIt should be noted however, however, that something like \"pitch accent\" is\n_more than just a change in pitch_. Pitch accent might be accompanied by all\nsorts of things, such as voice quality, duration, etc. (I don't know the\nspecifics of this for Japanese pitch). While \"pitch accent\", or some other\nterm, might be a convenient way to talk about the structure of Japanese in\ntheory, these contrasts are natural phenomena which are signaled in many ways\n(not just some +/-HIGH, as a grammar text may describe it).\n\nIn the end, for people proficient in a language, recognizing words even with\nadded musical \"noise\" may not be a problem. More so than with Japanese, I've\nseen this with Chinese. A foreigner would not get very far learning the\ndistinguishing tones for words from some song, but a native speaker or\nexperienced learner would have no issue repeating lyrics in a normal speaking\nvoice, with the \"correct\", expected tones.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T03:17:28.950",
"id": "51921",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T03:17:28.950",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25212",
"parent_id": "51715",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51715 | null | 51885 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51738",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In many languages you can know the etimology of the words, you can trace how\nits meaning evolved and their origins, the meaning of the words usually comes\nfrom other words in Latin, Greek, English, etc, slightly modified. Is there\nsomething like that in japanese but not for the meaning of the words, but for\nthe graphic design of each japanese kanji/compound? For example, it is clear\nand it makes sense than the kanji for \"forest\" is made up of 3 \"trees\"\ncomponents, or than the kanji for hermit is the addition of the \"person\" plus\nthe \"mountain\" kanjis. Can you visually trace any component of a\nkanji/compound like that?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T20:27:48.593",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51718",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T05:37:25.293",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9878",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"kanji"
],
"title": "is it known how each kanji/compound graphic design evolved the way they did?",
"view_count": 293
} | [
{
"body": "# 日本語\n\n質問の趣旨は日本語になっている漢字の表意文字（あるいは象形文字 _pictogram_ ）についての事例紹介だと思われる。\n漢字は日本で発明されたものでないので、各文字の現代における形については例えば[ここ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters)で調べると良い。なお、ＯＰが求めている象形文字に関しては、同じ文献のPictogramsという章で少し説明されている。なお、漢字をまねして日本で独自に作った象形文字として、[和製漢字](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%92%8C%E8%A3%BD%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97)\n_kokuji_\nがある。この文献の英語版はないが、[ドイツ語版](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokuji)、[フランス語版](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokuji)、[スペイン語版](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokuji)があるので言葉が分かれば読むと良い。\n\nなお、漢和辞典を見ると、一般に見出し漢字ごとに、「語源 _etymology_\n」のところに、その漢字の形に関する説明があるので、ＯＰの質問の回答として利用できると思う。\n\n以下に参照すべきいくつかの文献等を紹介する\n\n### - [漢字/漢和/語源辞典](https://okjiten.jp/index.html), where you can see the\norigin of [every]{LLLLL} Kanji\n\n * [Chinese character classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_classification)という文献のpictogram\n * [Chinese pictogram](http://www.chineseonthego.com/write/pictogram.html)\n * Video: [36 CHINESE PICTOGRAM CHARACTERS](http://chinese4kids.net/36-chinese-pictogram-characters/)\n\n# English\n\nI understand that the OP's question is about the etymology of kanji or Chinese\ncharacter. And more, it is about the etymology not about the meaning of them\nbut the graphic design of them, and is also asking for further examples other\nthan 森 or 仙. \nAccording to this article [here](https://okjiten.jp/index.html), kanji's\ncreation is classified in six categories, and their brief explanations are\nfrom [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_characters).\n\n * **象形文字 _Pictograms_** (4% of characters) \nCharacters in this class derive from pictures of the objects they denote.\nExamples include 日 for \"sun\", 月 for \"moon\", 木 for \"tree\" or \"wood\", 山 for\n\"mountain\", and 象 for \"elephant\".\n\n * **指事文字 _Simple ideograms_** \nAlso called _**simple indicatives**_ , this small category contains characters\nthat are direct iconic illustrations. Examples include 上 \"up\" and 下 \"down\",\noriginally a dot above and below a line.\n\n * **会意文字 _Compound ideograms_** (13% of characters) \nAlso translated as _**logical aggregates**_ or _**associative compounds**_ ,\nthese characters have been interpreted as combining two or more pictographic\nor ideographic characters to suggest a third meaning. Commonly cited examples\ninclude 休 \"rest\" (composed of the pictograms 人 \"person\" and 木 \"tree\") and 好\n\"good\" (composed of 女 \"woman\" and 子 \"child\"). \nAs for 森 shown by OP is categorized in this class. 森 \"forest\" is composed of\nthree trees, which means 森 having many trees. 仙 is also categorized in this\nclass.\n\n * **形声文字 _Phono-semantic compounds_** \n_**Semantic-phonetic compounds**_ or _**pictophonetic compounds**_ are by far\nthe most numerous characters. These characters are composed of two parts: one\nof a limited set of characters (the semantic indicator, often graphically\nsimplified) which suggests the general meaning of the compound character, and\nanother character (the phonetic indicator) whose pronunciation suggests the\npronunciation of the compound character. In most cases the semantic indicator\nis also the radical under which the character is listed in dictionaries. \nExamples are 河 \"river\", 湖 \"lake\", 流 \"stream\", 沖 \"surge\", 滑 \"slippery\". All\nthese characters have on the left a radical of three short strokes (氵), which\nis a reduced form of the character 水 meaning \"water\", indicating that the\ncharacter has a semantic connection with water. The right-hand side in each\ncase is a phonetic indicator. For example, in the case of 沖 \"surge\", the\nphonetic indicator is 中, which by itself means \"middle\". In this case it can\nbe seen that the pronunciation of the character is slightly different from\nthat of its phonetic indicator; the effect of historical sound change means\nthat the composition of such characters can sometimes seem arbitrary today. \nXu Shen (c. 100 AD) placed approximately 82% of characters into this category,\nwhile in the Kangxi Dictionary (1716 AD) the number is closer to 90%, due to\nthe extremely productive use of this technique to extend the Chinese\nvocabulary. \nThis method is still sometimes used to form new characters.\n\n * **会意兼形声文字 _Compound ideograms and also Phono-semantic compounds_** \nExamles: 友 for \"friend\", 円 for \"circle\", and 切 for \"cut\", which are from\n[here](https://okjiten.jp/20-kaiikenkeiseimoji.html).\n\n * **国字** _**Kokukji**_ or _**Kanji made in Japan**_ \nExamles: 凧 for \"kite\", 働 for \"work\", and 鰯 for \"sardine\", which are from\n[here](https://okjiten.jp/21-kokuji.html).\n\nLast but not least, [漢字/漢和/語源辞典](https://okjiten.jp/index.html) might be very\nuseful to fulfill your request, where you can get the class of every _kanji_ ,\nthough it is written only in Japanese.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T10:43:03.550",
"id": "51738",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T05:37:25.293",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51718",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51718 | 51738 | 51738 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This is a follow up to this\n[question](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?noredirect=1&lq=1) regarding the difference between てある\nand ている.\n\nSo far I have come across two possible reasons to use てある:\n\nてある and ている can both be used to show states, however with ている there is some\nambiguity with action verbs as to whether it's the state or the action that is\nmeant.\n\n> Would one of the uses of てある be to make clear that it's the state and not\n> the action that is meant ? Does this discard the implication of an actor ?\n\nAnother reason for using てある would be it draws attention to the fact that\nthere is someone who was responsible for the resulting state whereas ている is\nsimply stating the state.\n\n> Why and when would someone want to draw attention to the actor of an action\n> in such ?\n\nWhy is てある used in this case (top left panel):\n\n",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T21:04:27.760",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51719",
"last_activity_date": "2020-08-10T12:04:15.437",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21729",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"て-form"
],
"title": "Further clarification on ~てある",
"view_count": 350
} | [
{
"body": "> てある and ている can both be used to show states,\n>\n> with ている there is some ambiguity with action verbs as to whether it's the\n> state or the action that is meant.\n\nRight.\n\n> Would one of the uses of てある be to make clear that it's the state and not\n> the action that is meant ?\n\nI find you must be right that it seems only action verbs can make the てある\nform; we don't normally say （×）思ってある, nor （×）違ってある.\n\n> Does this（てある） discard the implication of an actor ?\n\nYes, grammatically, but I feel it's not quite that way psychologically.\n\n> Another reason for using てある would be it draws attention to the fact that\n> there is someone who was responsible for the resulting state whereas ている is\n> simply stating the state.\n\nI can't think of every possibility. \n花を[が]生けてある sounds just so right. \n花を生けている sounds more like an action in progress to me.\n\n> Why and when would someone want to draw attention to the actor of an action\n> in such ?\n\nIt's subjective, and I think when both てある and ている are possible, both most\nlikely have the same degree of ability for drawing attention.\n\n> Why is てある used in this case (top left panel):\n>\n\n>> そういや昨日の夜 この位置に はこが置い **てあった** な…\n\nMy native sense tells me that to say ていた in place of the てあった, you have to\nrewrite it to はこ **を** 置い **ていた** な.\n\nThe _grammar doesn't allow_ はこ **が** 置い **てあった** な _to have the action maker_.\nIt doesn't mean that we can think of someone who did that. In fact, I feel\nvery much an existence of someone who put that.\n\nBut はこ **を** 置い **ていた** な sounds more like the subject, or the action maker,\nis being omitted; this is very much expected to state 'who' put the box.",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T01:01:02.900",
"id": "51725",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T11:57:54.310",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51719",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51719 | null | 51725 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51730",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What's a reasonable translation to the following sentence, particularly this\nexpression: **時間のやり方**\n\n> そういう時間の配分、そういう **時間のやり方** が多い、ということですね。普通ということです。\n\nFrom the above sentence, this is what I get, but it does not make much sense:\n\n> \"There are many time distributions, and **many ways to make time**. It is\n> normal.\"\n\nFor contextualization, I took the sentence from this\n[text](https://p14.zdusercontent.com/attachment/479934/f8WoEjVwPC1iXFJjDnDmi9DCI?token=eyJhbGciOiJkaXIiLCJlbmMiOiJBMTI4Q0JDLUhTMjU2In0..kRJLMLTowE-\nB_JxeP7CBRQ.G4m0qNgU4EVpi9u1EHDei4SUyr6CmQ0XdfPaM99iJHzfDs3gXul-\nqkJYFbn8WWpxo8jB9T0pUFOVYGdSMsGUxqg8pTKxbU0xhksfzoCSWnCFOT9gjT2ms0YWmj3BNGjfyzcxfe9rto-\nbUXRIae2wNFTe-f-\nPWDZ97do83WN0VNRru59CmWkOcQ6KoI7mHKzUGo8l8RFuI2UYXlt-d1Mueukgfo0HU7bWPcz3MpWvxXkkXh_P9KmoMyggzJOAo4hslG-\nkklMBlwkatOlpUeb96Q.2nMCBTiIqTjBSWOCxoDUmA), take a look at the last sentence\nfrom the first page.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-24T23:56:51.403",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51722",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T17:28:08.640",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T17:28:08.640",
"last_editor_user_id": "22150",
"owner_user_id": "22150",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"expressions"
],
"title": "What's the meaning of 時間のやり方 in a sentence",
"view_count": 120
} | [
{
"body": "It probably means more like **many ways to spend time** or **many ways to pass\ntime** , but I admit that it does say it in weird way in japanese too. How\nabout **many ways to do time**? Does it make sense??",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T02:29:13.127",
"id": "51730",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T02:29:13.127",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24019",
"parent_id": "51722",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51722 | 51730 | 51730 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 私は家に走りました\n\nIs the る conjugated to become り?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T00:49:30.800",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51723",
"last_activity_date": "2019-05-12T17:02:00.407",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T01:11:19.170",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "25113",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"conjugations"
],
"title": "Saying \"I ran home\" correct?",
"view_count": 525
} | [
{
"body": "Yes. 走る is a godan verb, meaning that it conjugates like this:\n\n走ります \n走って \n走れる \n走らせる \n走られる \netc.\n\nAs compared to an ichidan verb like 食べる, where all its conjugates just add\nsomething to the 食べ stem (食べます, 食べて, etc.).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T01:39:12.840",
"id": "51727",
"last_activity_date": "2018-12-13T16:43:04.057",
"last_edit_date": "2018-12-13T16:43:04.057",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "16022",
"parent_id": "51723",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51723 | null | 51727 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Sorry for using romaji. I'm referring to the sounds made when a word contains\na kana sequence like 「ない」 or 「たい」or 「さい」 「かい」\n\nI've read that the two together sound like the word \"pie\" sounds in English.\nI've also read that both sounds are fully pronounced. This seems like a\ncontradiction to me? Does it vary from word to word? Does it vary from person\nto person?\n\nIn this YouTube video of 「ちいさい」being said by two people the word sounds to me\nlike it rhymes with English \"pie.\"\n\n<https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4-BvtEisTU8>\n\nIn this song video, 「せかい」 sounds like it has two distinct sounds at the end.\n(I've linked to a spot right before the word is sung.)\n\n<https://youtu.be/368lRPMdajw?t=1m30s>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T00:55:48.580",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51724",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T22:44:45.070",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T01:18:08.873",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "19849",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"vowels"
],
"title": "What is the pronunciation of ai?",
"view_count": 4635
} | [
{
"body": "To an unaccustomed English ear, \"ai\" will sound like it should rhyme with\n\"pie\". However, the two values are indeed pronounced separately, each\nconstituting a full _mora_. In rapid speach, this may be difficult to hear,\nbut the longer you immerse yourself in the sounds of the language, the more\nyou'll be able to hear this as not one vowel sound, but two.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T01:08:28.730",
"id": "51726",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T01:08:28.730",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4875",
"parent_id": "51724",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Those examples only sound like \"pie\" if you say \"pie\" in a very brief manner,\nsuch as \"pah-ye.\" You can say \"pieeeeeeeee\" or \"piiiiiiieeeee\" like a\nsoutherner, and it still means pie. Nobody would misunderstand you. If you\ntried stretching Japanese mora like that, you would not be pronouncing\ncorrectly and you would create confusion. On the other hand, when I cannot\nunderstand someone due to background noise (I am old) or unfamiliarity with a\nword that sounds like a known word, the person will often repeat himself by\nemphasizing each mora: \"ku-da-sa-i,\" which is like spelling for a similar\nsituation in English.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T14:20:34.563",
"id": "51773",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T14:20:34.563",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25138",
"parent_id": "51724",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "If you're asking about the vowel sound of two kana/mora in the sense of one\nEnglish vowel sound, you're going about this language the wrong way.\n\nI would strongly suggest that before you continue to study the language, first\nstudy the individual sounds of the vowels in Japanese, in the sense of あ い う え\nお. Once you fully grasp how these vowels sound and can make them individually\nand accurately, proceed in learning the rest of the kana. These vowel sounds\nDO NOT CHANGE.\n\nWith that in mind, the sound \"ai\" あい is \"a-i\", not \"ay\" like \"hay\" or \"ie\"\nlike \"pie\", however close \"ie\" like \"pie\" is.\n\nThe important thing to grasp is that \"ai\" is not one syllable, because\nJapanese uses a \"syllable-like\" system called the \"mora\" もら, which assigns (in\nthe basic sense) one kana, one syllable-length. So, あい is two-mora in length,\nand so you must consider each kana an individual sound.\n\nThen, as you learn the rest of the kana, you will then begin to group them\ncorrectly with this knowledge:\n\n> あい is two-mora, \"a-i\". かい is two-mora, \"ka-i\". さい is two-mora, \"sa-i\". \n> せかい is three-mora, \"se-ka-i\". きいて is three-mora, \"ki-i-te\"\n\n...and so on.\n\nAs you gain fluency, you'll speak words in a way that doesn't sound\ndisjointed, but rather natural.\n\nHope this helps clarify.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T22:44:45.070",
"id": "51787",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T22:44:45.070",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "51724",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51724 | null | 51726 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am currently translating a Japanese text in English and I have trouble\nunderstanding this text.\n\n> 貴族的というのか、イケメンだけどチャラいとは程遠い\n\nI get and can make out some part of the sentence like 'he looks like an\naristocrat' but after the chara ito part starts I don't get it.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T01:53:39.357",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51728",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T04:32:58.847",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T04:32:58.847",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "25114",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "I am trying to understand what chara ito means",
"view_count": 558
} | [
{
"body": "He's more like aristocrat, good looking but far from being flirty.\n\nHard to explain but チャラい contains the meanings of flirtatiousness, gaudiness,\nvulgarness.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T02:18:56.830",
"id": "51729",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T02:18:56.830",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "24019",
"parent_id": "51728",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51728 | null | 51729 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51735",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The sentence in question is the second line of:\n\n> いつもここにいて欲しいくせに… \n> いつもここにいて欲しい心隠した \n> 会えなくなったら淋しいの\n\nI know that ここにいてほしい is I want you to be here but the second part is tricky to\nme\n\n> 心かくした\n\nSounds strange to me it could mean something like \"Hide my heart\", how can you\nlink that second part in to the first one to have any sense. Also is that\ngrammatically correct? (I'm only N4 so I've never seen anything like it)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T05:09:42.227",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51734",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T11:34:58.583",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T05:24:23.610",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "19322",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "How the grammar of this sentence works?",
"view_count": 113
} | [
{
"body": "My guess is that you would have a \"を\" after 心 and it is omitted for metric\npurposes of the song and/or because the register is informal.\n\n> いつもここにいて欲しいくせに… \n> Even though I want you to be always here \n> いつもここにいて欲しい心隠した \n> I hid the heart that wishes so \n> 会えなくなったら淋しいの \n> (and) I'm sad if I can't see you\n\nSo I guess it would be something like （私は）いつもここに居て欲しい心（を）隠した.\n\nTo recap, the point being \"Even though I want you to be always here, I have\nhidden the heart (that part of me) that wishes so (... and now that I can't\nsee you I'm sad)\". This last one of course is not meant to be a literal\ntranslation.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T05:31:33.923",
"id": "51735",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T11:34:58.583",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T11:34:58.583",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"parent_id": "51734",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51734 | 51735 | 51735 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51743",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> ## [Kerning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerning)\n>\n> In typography, **kerning** is the process of **adjusting the spacing between\n> characters** in a proportional font, usually to achieve a visually pleasing\n> result.\n\n* * *\n\nIn English and other languages that use the Latin alphabet, certain characters\nplaced close to each other can be confused with another character that is\nvisually similar to the combination of the merged characters. Some notable\nexamples are rn↔m and cl↔d.\n\nJapanese writing doesn't use spaces between words, so the other type of\nambiguity introduced by bad kerning doesn't apply to it because Japanese\npeople already live with it.\n\n* * *\n\nAre there any characters among ひらがな, カタカナ(ｶﾀｶﾅ), 漢字 and ローマ字 that, when placed\nclose to each other, are **often** confused with characters that look similar\nto their combination? I'm not looking for a comprehensive list, but I'd like\nto know whether this happens in Japanese as well. I'm mostly interested in\ncomputer-displayed and printed text, but examples from handwritten text are\nwelcome, too.\n\nTo clarify, I'm not interested in visually similar characters such as タ\n(katakana _ta_ ) and 夕{ゆう}.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T12:18:47.113",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51739",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T15:40:00.270",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19206",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"handwriting",
"ambiguity",
"typesetting"
],
"title": "Misreading Japanese text due to bad kerning (rn→m, cl→d etc.)",
"view_count": 946
} | [
{
"body": "As you know, most glyphs in Japanese fonts share the same width, so problems\narising from kerning (or variable character widths, broadly speaking) almost\nnever happen in Japanese typography. Well, we can think of some unrealistic\nexamples... hankaku katakana ｲﾑ (i+mu) looks like kanji 仏 (ほとけ), and hankaku\nkatakana ﾉﾚ (no+re) looks like zenkaku katakana ル (ru), and so on. (cf.\n[Halfwidth and fullwidth\nforms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfwidth_and_fullwidth_forms)) Basically\nthese are mere wordplay.\n\nIn handwriting, this can sometimes be problematic. Occasionally people wonder\nwhat they are seeing is a single character or two characters. Clumsily written\n村 can easily look like 木寸, and there are tons of similar examples. Of course\nwe can usually understand what's written with the aid of the context, but\nvertically-written kanji numbers (一, 二, 三) on envelopes can be extremely\ndifficult to read.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ridKq.png) \nA fan with the name of 加藤【かとう】一二三【ひふみ】, a retired professional shogi-player",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T15:40:00.270",
"id": "51743",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T15:40:00.270",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51739",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51739 | 51743 | 51743 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 何かヒーロー友に守られ血を流させて。\n\nI interpret this sentence from the manga 「僕のヒーローアカデミア」to mean \"Some hero I am,\nmaking my friends spill blood to protect me.\" However, I have two questions:\n\nWhat is the use of the te-form of 流させる at the end of the sentence? Usually,\nwhen I see the te-form alone, I assume it's a request (i.e. shortened form of\n〜てください), but I don't see how this quote could be construed as such. It's part\nof a character's inner monologue.\n\nAlso, though not my main question, is it acceptable to drop the る from 守られる as\nis done above?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T13:46:04.513",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51740",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T15:56:46.240",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T14:07:29.140",
"last_editor_user_id": "23869",
"owner_user_id": "23869",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"て-form",
"quotes"
],
"title": "What is the use of て-form at the end of this sentence?",
"view_count": 791
} | [
{
"body": "It seems that the original sentence is:\n\n> 何がヒーロー 友に守られ 血を流させて。\n\nIt's an inversion (倒置) of 「友に守られ血を流させて、何がヒーロー（だ）」\n\nThe te-form at the end means \"while\" \"when\" or \"although\". (≂ 流させておきながら)\n\n友に守られ -- While (I'm) protected by my friends, \n（友に）血を流させて -- and making them shed their blood → and making them bleed, \n何がヒーロー（だ） How can I be / call myself a hero? → Some hero I am.\n\n* * *\n\n> is it acceptable to drop the る from 守られる as is done above?\n\nYes. 守られ is the continuative/connective form (連用形) of 守られる. \n連用形 is used to connect with another verb / verb phrase (which is 流させて here).\n\nYou can rephrase it as follows, using the te-form 守られて:\n\n「友に **守られ** 、血を流させて…」 ≂ 「友に **守られて** 、血を流させて…」\n\nThe former sounds a bit more literary than the latter.\n\nSimilar examples:\n\n> 「警察に **呼ばれ** 、事情を聞かれる」≂「警察に **呼ばれて** 、事情を聞かれる」 \n> 「パーティに **招かれ** 、友人と参加した」≂「パーティに **招かれて** 、友人と参加した」 \n> 「京都へ **行き** 、清水寺を見る」≂「京都へ **行って** 、清水寺を見る」",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T14:31:42.737",
"id": "51742",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T15:56:46.240",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T15:56:46.240",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51740",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51740 | null | 51742 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51752",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Will someone explain the finer points between these two words? With the tragic\ndeath of Linkin Park vocalist Chester Bennington last week, almost every\nJapanese tweet I saw used 死去. Until then, I'd never seen this word (but\nobviously knew what it meant), but then was wondering why it was used instead\nof 死亡.\n\nIs there some different in politeness level? Respect level (although I always\nthought [逝去]{せい・きょ} was used for a high level of respect)? Something else?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T17:14:34.913",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51744",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T00:43:14.297",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words",
"nuances"
],
"title": "What are the nuances between [死亡]{し・ぼう} and [死去]{し・きょ}?",
"view_count": 664
} | [
{
"body": "I think the following is a good answer, and quite detailed. You can find the\noriginal\n[here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1039146025).\n\n> 「死亡」については，「死」を客観的に捉えた表現なので， 仰る通り，「事故・犯罪」で用いる事が多いですね。 それと，ペットなどの動物に使ったりしますね。\n>\n> 「死去」は「死んで現世を去る」という意味ですが， 基本的に人にしか用いません。 一般的には，家族や親類縁者といった身内の人間や，\n> マスコミ関係が著名人の死を伝えるような， 不特定多数の人を伝達対象にする場合に用います。\n\nSo basically, in the word「死亡」, the character 「死」 objectively indicates the\nstatus of death and hence it is used in accidents, crimes, etc, as well as for\npets.\n\nOn the other hand, 「死去」 bears the meaning of \"dying and parting from this\nworld\" hence is basically used only for people. Normally it is used for family\nmembers, relatives, and in mass communication to transmit to a large audience\nthe death of some famous people (so this is probably the case you mentioned\nabout Chester Bennington).\n\nFinally, 「逝去」as you say bears a sense of respect, and hence it is used for\nfriends, acquaintances, or anyone we respected despite his/her being \"great\"\nor not (偉い・偉くないに関わらず). Anyway, it seems that you cannot go wrong in using such\nword even for people outside of your inner circle after all. The full quote\nbelow:\n\n> 「逝去」は亡くなった方に対する敬いの表現なので， 偉い・偉くないに関わらず，友人・知人等といった， 身内以外で関わりのあった方に対して用いる言葉と\n> 捉えていれば間違いがないかと思います。\n>\n> たまにマスコミの報道でも「逝去」を用いる場合がありますが， その場合は，社会的貢献度が非常に高かった方のケースですね。\n\nSo as a last note you can also see that 「逝去」 can be sometimes heard in mass\ncommunication media, but in such case is most likely regarding someone who\ngave great contribution to the society.\n\nTo add more references, you can look as well\n[here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1213213437)\nand [here](http://framgang.net/archives/195.html).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T00:43:14.297",
"id": "51752",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T00:43:14.297",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"parent_id": "51744",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 51744 | 51752 | 51752 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51746",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was wondering what is the difference between 「言い切る」 and 「断言」? To me they\nmean the same thing: \"declare, assert\".\n\nThanks!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T17:15:42.600",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51745",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T18:36:13.107",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T18:16:06.813",
"last_editor_user_id": "22196",
"owner_user_id": "22196",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "断言 and 言い切る difference",
"view_count": 90
} | [
{
"body": "When 言い切る and 断言する mean \"to say something definitively\", they are very similar\nand safely interchangeable. The two words are used both in formal essays and\ncasual conversations, but as a Sino-Japanese word, maybe the latter tends to\nbe preferred in formal sentences.\n\n言い切る has another meaning, \"to say something until the end,\" \"to clearly finish\nthe sentence.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T17:59:24.810",
"id": "51746",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T18:36:13.107",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T18:36:13.107",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51745",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51745 | 51746 | 51746 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51750",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Studying Japanese in a book, I saw this dialogue:\n\n```\n\n A: お名前は？\n B: ペドロです\n A: お国は？\n B: スペインです\n \n```\n\nFrom what I know, the `お` works as an honorific of respect, then, it is used\nonly in formal phrases. But these phrases do not seem to be formal.\n\nWhat is the function of `お`? Is `お名前は？` equivalent to `名前は？` ?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T20:54:52.113",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51748",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T23:46:22.610",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T23:46:22.610",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "19200",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"politeness",
"formality",
"prefixes"
],
"title": "Use of お in the beginning of these question phrases",
"view_count": 3728
} | [
{
"body": "I don't know the specific context from the book but when meeting somebody for\nthe first time, one typically would use formal language.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T20:56:15.823",
"id": "51749",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T20:58:02.060",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-25T20:58:02.060",
"last_editor_user_id": "1805",
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"parent_id": "51748",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> Use o お in begin of these questions phrases\n>\n\n>> A: お名前は？ \n> B: ペドロです \n> A: お国は？ \n> B: スペインです\n>\n> From what I know, the お work as a honorific of respect, then, it is used\n> only in formal phrase. But, this phrases do not seem to be formal.\n\nThese お are meant to be put on the nouns, 名前 and 国, and is nothing to do\nwhether it's interrogative.\n\nThis kind of お (and ご basically for _kango_ , or sometimes it's to do with\ncustomary, likely for the easiness of pronunciation) is for the purpose of\npoliteness. They makes the _standard language to talk to people_ , equivalent\nto です・ます style. They are called 丁寧語{ていねいご}.\n\n> 敬語の一。話し手が聞き手に対し敬意を表して、丁寧にいう言い方。 \n>\n> （[ていねいご【丁寧語】](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/150311/meaning/m1u/%E4%B8%81%E5%AF%A7%E8%AA%9E/)|\n> デジタル大辞泉）\n\nWe also put お to nouns even when there's no need for paying any respect, and\nthese cases are called 美化語{びかご}. All these, now-a-days, are after all about\nhow you want to present yourself; you can create good impression of yourself\nif you choose to use these words.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T23:07:40.627",
"id": "51750",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-25T23:07:40.627",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51748",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51748 | 51750 | 51749 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51753",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I started reading 三人法師 by Tanizaki Junichiro and I came accross this sentence\n:\n\n> 高野の山へ集って来たからにはどうせ世を厭う人々ではありながら、同じ厭離の願いを **遂げるにも** 座禅入定の法もあれば念佛三昧の道もある。\n\nI interpret this sentence as :\n\n> While they are people who will hate the world anyway now that they have\n> gathered at the mountain of Takano, even to achieve (同じ厭離の願い) if there is a\n> 座禅入定の法, there is also a 念佛三昧の道.\n\nSo I have a few questions:\n\n * What is a good translation for 厭う（いとう）? It means \"to hate\" but it also means \"大事にする\" as I saw in the dictionary so I can't put my finger on a good translation, or a good way to interpret this word.\n\n * What does 同じ厭離の願い mean in this sentence ?\n\n * And I see にも as のにも without the の but I am not sure, as I have never seen にも directly after a 連体形 without の. But it reminds me of には which I read somewhere that is a contraction of ためには or のには. Am I correct on this ?\n\n * I think I translated properly but the whole sentence doesn't make much sense, can anyone correct me please ?\n\nThanks!",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-25T23:52:29.373",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51751",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T04:58:19.167",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22196",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"translation",
"word-choice",
"particles"
],
"title": "にも after the 連体形 of a verb and sentence",
"view_count": 164
} | [
{
"body": "> > > 高野の山へ集って来たからにはどうせ世を厭う人々ではありながら、同じ厭離の願いを遂げるにも座禅入定の法もあれば念佛三昧の道もある。\n>>\n\n>> While they are people who will hate the world anyway now that they have\ngathered at the mountain of Takano, even to achieve (同じ厭離の願い) if there is a\n座禅入定の法, there is also a 念佛三昧の道.\n\n>\n> What is a good translation for 厭う（いとう）? It means \"to hate\" but it also means\n> \"大事にする\" as I saw in the dictionary so I can't put my finger on a good\n> translation, or a good way to interpret this word.\n\nI've never noticed they are the same word, but from the context, we naturally\nthink that this 厭う means to hate or dislike.\n\n(In どうせ世を厭う人々, this 厭う isn't necessarily talking about the future; Japanese\nverb forms don't tell tense by itself. The speaker is just presuming.)\n\n> What does 同じ厭離の願い mean in this sentence ?\n>\n> And I see にも as のにも without the の but I am not sure, as I have never seen にも\n> directly after a 連体形 without の. But it reminds me of には which I read\n> somewhere that is a contraction of ためには or のには. Am I correct on this ?\n\n同じ厭離の願いを遂げるにも, without の, it's just a style; it's the same as \n同じ厭離の願いを遂げるのにも or \n同じ厭離の願いを遂げるにしても.\n\nWe often say 同じことをするにしても, and \nseldom say 同じことをするのにしても.\n\nThey are saying, even in (the same) doing[realizing a wish of escaping the\nworldly world] \n--- This is the **_premise_**. \n\nAnd the writer continues to say there are two ways to do it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T02:52:09.467",
"id": "51753",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T02:52:09.467",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51751",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "厭う is not hating something actively or strongly; rather, it's trying to keep\nemotional distance from something. 世を厭う in this context refers to keeping\ndistance from secular life and entering the priesthood to achieve 解脱/悟り, which\nis [a kind of \"liberation\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana). 厭離の願い\nrefers to the same thing. FWIW, I didn't know 厭う can also mean 大事にする. 体を厭う\nmakes little sense at least to me.\n\n * **[AからにはBだ](http://japanesetest4you.com/flashcard/learn-jlpt-n2-grammar-%E3%81%8B%E3%82%89%E3%81%AB%E3%81%AF-kara-niwa/)** : \"Considering the fact A, B\", \"A indicates B\", \"Now that A, B\".\n * **`dictionary-form` + には**: \"In order to ～\". に marks a purpose, and は marks a topic. The nominalizer の is not necessary in this case. And here も is replacing は for emphasis. \n\n> 注文するにはここをクリック \n> Click here to order\n\n * **[～も～ば～も](http://www.jgram.org/pages/viewOne.php?tagE=mo-ba-mo)** : \"not only A but also B.\" Don't use _if_ to translate this pattern.\n\nMy translation attempt:\n\n> Considering the fact that they gathered at Mount Koya, they must be ones who\n> have forsaken the secular world, after all. Still, in order to achieve\n> 厭離の願い, there are not only 座禅入定の法 but also 念佛三昧の道.\n\nWhere 座禅入定の法 refers to achieving 悟り via silent _zazen_ , and 念佛三昧の道 refers to\nachieving 悟り via intensive _nenbutsu_.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T04:58:19.167",
"id": "51760",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T04:58:19.167",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51751",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51751 | 51753 | 51760 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Please consider the sentence highlighted in bold (other text is given for\ncontext):\n\n> 俺、さっきまでゲームして寝てたはずで、 **親丸がかえの高校生だった** んだぞ。\n\nI know that 親丸 means _\"parents circle\"_ and 高校生だったんだぞ means _\"was a high\nschool student\"_ , but how does がかえ transition or connect this sentence\ntogether? が かえ can be inferred as _\"went\"_ but I don't understand how this is\nactually connecting.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T03:17:19.023",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51754",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T02:20:05.310",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-27T17:06:07.853",
"last_editor_user_id": "37",
"owner_user_id": "25114",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "How does がかえ connect this sentence together?",
"view_count": 139
} | [
{
"body": "> 親丸がかえの高校生だったんだぞ。\n\nIt is 親が **丸{まる}抱｛がか｝え** の高校生だった。\n\nAccording to the definition of 丸抱え\n[here](http://jisho.org/search/%E4%B8%B8%E6%8A%B1%E3%81%88), it is:\n\n> Noun \n> 1. completely financed; sponsored; under patronage\n\nThe given sentence means _I was a high school student completely financed by\nmy parents_.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T04:19:31.943",
"id": "51757",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T02:20:05.310",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-28T02:20:05.310",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51754",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51754 | null | 51757 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51762",
"answer_count": 5,
"body": "I'm a beginner.\n\nPeople argue for Kanji being that it helps disambiguate homophones in written\nJapanese, but in spoken Japanese, kanji (or any other visual aid) are not\navailable, yet people seem to know the difference between [話]{はな}す, [離]{はな}す,\n[放]{はな}す, [映]{は}える, 生{は}える, and so forth. So why are Kanji necessary to\ndisambiguate homophones if people know how to disambiguate them in spoken\nJapanese where Kanji aren't available? And can the same thing be applied to\nwritten Japanese?\n\nIn that case, why can't I write 私は学生です as わたしはがくせいです or use spaces like\nわたし_は_がくせい_です ? Or use pitch accent markers in writing like\n[わたしはがくせいです]{LHHLHLHLHL} (I don't know if this pitch accent notation is\ncorrect), or add furigana above particle markers to indicate their\npronunciation (like [は]{わ} and [を]{お}), or a combination of these? In short,\nwhy are Kanji necessary?",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T03:35:31.327",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51756",
"last_activity_date": "2019-03-04T04:13:36.510",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-26T10:25:13.800",
"last_editor_user_id": "25126",
"owner_user_id": "25126",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 49,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"homophonic-kanji",
"furigana",
"pitch-accent",
"written-language"
],
"title": "If Kanji are necessary to disambiguate homophones, how come it's still used, being that Japanese people seem to know the difference when speaking?",
"view_count": 15962
} | [
{
"body": "This is definitely a bit harder for native English speakers to pick up on at\nfirst, but sometimes homophones in Japanese are distinguishable by the pitch\naccent. So some of them aren't an issue at all. But of course some words do\nsound exactly the same. So how do you tell those apart? Easy: context.\n\nKanji aren't \"necessary\" to distinguish between homophones; they just help a\nbit in written text where you don't have pitch accent to help you. In reality,\nyou don't technically need kanji at all. If you wrote a long essay in nothing\nbut kana, everyone would be able to read it, albeit a bit slower. Since\ntraditionally-written Japanese has no spaces, sometimes it can take a bit of\ncloser reading to figure out when one word starts and another stops; but even\nto learners and especially to native speakers, this isn't too hard. In fact,\nit's not even unique to Japanese; back in the day, classical Latin and ancient\nGreek were also written without any spaces between words, and they managed\njust fine.\n\nYou mentioned using spaces as well; this is also something Japanese writers\nwill do if they are writing in all kana. For example, all of the Pokemon games\nare written in nothing but kana because they knew lots of young kids would be\nplaying it (though newer games do have an option to use kanji instead). In\nthese games, words are actually separated by spaces, like you would see in\nWestern writing. Note that in this case, particles like は and を, etc., are\nattached to the word they are modifying, not treated as a separate word or\nanything. Also, I'm not really sure why people would write わ as furigana over\nは when literally everyone knows that's how to read it. Additionally, を isn't\nalways identical to お; there are still times when the pronunciations are\ndistinct.\n\nEDIT: Just to show what I'm talking about, here's Professor Oak asking if\nyou're a boy or a girl.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/j94wY.png)",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T04:40:55.433",
"id": "51759",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T04:48:31.297",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-26T04:48:31.297",
"last_editor_user_id": "9596",
"owner_user_id": "9596",
"parent_id": "51756",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 24
},
{
"body": "Thinking briefly, I think that there is no problem even if we have no kanji in\nJapanese to disambiguate homophones or homonyms as OP thinks , but in fact we\nneed kanji.\n\nIn conversation, not in writing, it is quite natural that people in the\nconversation hope the conversation goes smoothly. Therefore, we usually avoid\nusing words that might cause ambiguities to listeners like homonyms. Also,\njust after a homonym we used, we often complement the ambiguity with another\nword or expression similar to the homonym. In addition, when a listener\nwonders in what meaning of multiple meanings of a homonym, the listener would\nask unknown points to the other party. Furthermore, when speaking, if we think\nthat the partner in the conversaion has misunderstood the homonym we used, we\nwill try to resolve the misunderstanding soon with another expression.\n\nIn this way, there are many advantageous conditions in conversation different\nfrom writing, so homonyms can be used without kanji even in conversation.\n\nAs the conclusion, therefore, it is not possible to discuss whether kanji is\nnecessary or not for homonyms because conversation and writing are not used\nunder the same condition.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T05:19:16.447",
"id": "51761",
"last_activity_date": "2019-03-04T04:13:36.510",
"last_edit_date": "2019-03-04T04:13:36.510",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51756",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "# Kanji aren't necessary to write Japanese\n\nYour rationale is correct; Japanese is a living, spoken language; people are\nable to understand each other by sound only, therefore a writing system based\non sound _has_ to be sufficient.\n\nSome commentators have mentioned that Japanese speakers often allude to kanji\nwhen talking. That's true enough (and it probably reflects something deep\nabout how the mental lexicon is organized¹); but explicit references to kanji\nremain a minor cultural fact, not a necessary feature of the language. There\nexists blind people in Japan, for example; the congenitally blind will never\nhave seen a single kanji, and they're nonetheless fluent Japanese speakers. As\na Brazilian, I've personally met several Japanese-Brazilians who learned the\nlanguage from birth, but who never learned the writing system; they could\ninteract with native Japanese people just fine (who'd often be surprised to\nlearn they were born in Brazil), and I'll go ahead and assert they're native\nspeakers, too. One does not _have_ to know kanji to be a Japanese speaker.\n\nWe also have several types of sound-based, Japanese text works, so we know it\ncan be done. @Kurausukun's example of children-oriented videogames (and\nchildren's books, etc.) is a good point. Other examples would include\nhistorical _kana_ literature of the Heian period; Ishikawa Takuboku's _Rômazi\nNikki_ (written in Latin characters to prevent his wife from reading it – but\neasily readable by any Japanese speaker nowadays); and publications by\nassociations like the various [Rômazi-kai](http://www.age.ne.jp/x/ork/) or\n[Kana-moji-kai](http://www.kanamozi.org/).\n\n# Pitch accent isn't necessary to understand Japanese either\n\n@Kurausukun and others have mentioned the common argument that pitch accent is\nnecessary for sound-based understanding. It's true that standard Tokyo\nJapanese distinguishes many words by accent alone (like the famous three-way\ndistinction between _HÁshì-gà_ = \"the chopsticks\"; _hàSHÍ-gà_ = \"the bridge\";\n_hàSHÍ-GÁ_ = \"the edge\"). And true, it's a damn shame that they aren't usually\nmarked in writing; accented rōmaji is, in my opinion, a severely underrated\ntool for beginning foreign students, and I wish it was the norm.\n\nOne has to keep in mind, however, that the \"homogeneity\" of Japanese is a\nmyth. The country has a large number of distinct dialects, and pitch accent in\nparticular varies a lot between them (I'm doing research on accent, and I'd\nsay the amount of variation from _the same speaker_ is already significant…).\nSome areas, including e.g. most of Fukushima or Miyazaki, feature no pitch\naccent at all (無型アクセント). Given that people from these areas can understand\neach other, and that in general a Tokyoite can understand an Osaka comedian\nwithout much trouble despite their accents being unpredictably different, it\nhas to be the case that pitch accent in writing isn't essential.\n\nThis should come as no surprise, since language is notoriously resilient. Tone\nin Chinese is responsible for a lot more important distinctions than accent in\nJapanese, and yet Chinese people can read _pīnyīn_ (Chinese romaji) without\ntone marks, and often don't bother writing them. Vowels are certainly an\nimportant part of the English language, but yuu cuuld wrutu wuthuut vuwul\ndustunctuns und stull bu undurstuud must uf thu tumu.\n\n# Written Japanese is different than spoken Japanese\n\nThat being said, there are still some reasons why Japanese people feel so\nstrongly that kanji are important.\n\nThe first of them is that the vocabulary of written Japanese isn't the same as\nthe spoken language. To understand this, you have to switch your point of view\ninside out. It's not that Japanese has so many homophones that it needs kanji\nto be written. This is exactly backwards; what happens is that kanji\n**allows** one to write with lots of homophones, and _therefore_ Japanese\nwriting (and only writing) can use more homophones than normal. The same is\ntrue of Literary Chinese, the (artificial, written) language for which kanji\nwere designed.² Chinese, too, is a spoken language (actually a large family of\nspoken languages), and as such is perfectly understandable by sound alone.\nHowever, the Literary version was a kind of super-condensed Chinese that\nrelied on the characters as support. Reading Literary Chinese aloud wouldn't\nalways result in something intelligible (unlike natural, spoken Chinese).\n\nA big source of those Japanese homophones are precisely loanwords from that\nhomophone-heavy Literary Chinese; these Chinese-style words are called _kango_\nin Japan. Typical spoken Japanese has about 23% of _kango_ ; typical written\nJapanese has some 41%—almost double as much.³ The more formal, intellectual or\nspecialized the language, the more it tends to use _kango_.\n\nDue to this difference, if you just blindly convert a text made for kanji into\nkana or rōmaji, the result often feels clunky and hard to read. The proper\nthing to do would be to replace _kango_ vocabulary, bringing the written\nlanguage closer to speech; this is called _iikae_ by Japanese researchers.⁴ If\nthe text is written without using kanji from the outset, the writer will\ninstinctively choose adequate vocabulary, and _iikae_ isn't necessary.\n\n# Kanji can be cool\n\nFinally, I think it's important to keep in mind that, just because kanji are\nnot _necessary_ , it doesn't mean they don't add something. Reading kanji text\n_feels_ different, and there are neurolinguistic reasons for that.⁵ And this\nmeans that the use of kanji has æsthetic, cultural, and subjective value.\n\nThrough their entire history, the tendency of the Japanese as a culture was\nnever to try and make their writing simple and utilitarian, but rather to\nexperiment, play, innovate with it. They could just have used _kana_ or\n_bonji_ phonetic characters for everything since a thousand years ago – indeed\nHeian kana literature was an experiment with this – but opted instead to keep\nusing kanji, and not only that, but to assign multiple readings to them, and\nmix them with kana in many ways. The resulting system has always been explored\ncreatively, to create many effects; not just in fancy works like the\n_Man'yōshū_ (almost a puzzle-set of script play), but also in popular things\nlike Edo-era folk literature or modern-day visual culture.\n\nWhen Natsume Sōseki writes _tonikaku_ as 兎に角, or _yakamashii_ as 八釜しい, for\nexample, he's making a kind of game with the reader, sharing a sort of\nintimacy with them. When Anzai Fuyue writes a poem about a butterfly like\nthis—\n\n> てふてふが一匹韃靼海峡を渡って行った \n> A butterfly is travessing the Strait of Tartar and—gone.\n\n—he's using the cognitive weight of kanji characters to cause an effect\nsimilar to what Western poets usually do with consonants and obstruents.\nNatsuhiko Kyōgoku, a writer of detective fiction, relies heavily on archaic\nkanji and unusual furigana for atmosphere; he'd lose a lot if merely converted\nto kana. All sorts of linguistic and æsthetic effects can be created with the\ninventive interplay of kanji and kana and furigana…\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Aw6Bo.png)\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MJ7VV.png)\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/s1Pbf.png)\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Kj5bs.jpg)\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zSIh9.jpg)\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wPcOD.jpg)\n\n…and this sort of thing is _extremely_ common. It doesn't occur just in\nelevated poems and classical literature, but happens right now in the most\npopular of forms: in manga, in videogames, in advertisements, in song lyrics,\nin baby naming… So I'd claim that the Japanese have a living, thriving culture\nof kanji, and I find it perfectly reasonable that they consistently reject the\nidea of killing it.\n\nReferences:\n\n 1. Terry Joyce, _Modeling the Japanese Mental Lexicon_ (& further research).\n 2. Victor Mair, [_Buddhism and the rise of the written vernacular in East Asia_](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2059728).\n 3. Miyaji and Kai. 「日本語学」特集テーマ別ファイル 語彙３：語種論／和語。\n 4. Sachiko Matsunaga. _The linguistic and psycholinguistic nature of kanji_.\n 5. Zev Handel. _Logography and the classification of writing systems: a response to Unger._",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T07:48:31.990",
"id": "51762",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T14:42:47.260",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-10T14:42:47.260",
"last_editor_user_id": "622",
"owner_user_id": "622",
"parent_id": "51756",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 81
},
{
"body": "Stop signs could also be just the word \"STOP\" written on a white rectangular\nsign, but would you argue the necessity of using a RED octagon? Probably, not,\nbecause human brains recognize shapes faster than words that we have to read\nto our selves and then get the meaning. Native English speakers can skim\nthuorgh lines of text beaucse they are able to recgnoize words by their\ngerneal shapes.\n\nHowever in Japanese language that does not have spaces, they need other forms\nof grouping characters that only represent a certain sound, into something\nwith a context. Conveniently, there is a language that has been doing that for\nquite a long time, hence Chinese. So Japanese borrowed some characters that\nhave similar meaning or pronunciation and assigned the Hiragana to them (hey\nat least that's what I think happened, THIS IS NOT A FACT, CHINESE/JAPANESE\nDON'T KILL ME)\n\nPersonally, as a Chinese that studied Japanese, I find myself reading at least\n5 times slower if I'm reading texts for \"beginners\" or \"kids\", because I would\nhave to read the Hiragana in my head and then recognize the context by the\nsound (PS: not related but Romaji are the worst, I have to translate to\nJapanese then do the things). While with Kanji I can skim though the general\n\"shape\" of the character and know the meaning, just like knowing red light\nmeans stop.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T04:48:21.370",
"id": "51800",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T04:48:21.370",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25151",
"parent_id": "51756",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Most everyone's answers are correct, but I wanted to bring up one useful\naspect of kanji which I don't think has been brought up. It may be limited to\nlearners like me, but many times when I encounter new words in kanji (in\nmanga, online, paper forms at the doctor's office, etc...) I've found that I\ncan understand what is being conveyed even without knowing how to pronounce\nthat word because I know what the kanji mean.\n\nIn a recent example, a native Japanese friend was helping me with\nunderstanding a dentist form, and didn't know the English phrase \"receding gum\nline.\" I had no idea what the word for \"gums\" even was in Japanese, but I saw\n歯肉 (\"tooth\" and \"meat\" or \"flesh\"), and I immediately could understand that we\nwere talking about gums, which helped us figure it out.\n\nIf this had all been written in kana, and I didn't know what しにく meant already\n-- or if I were speaking to someone over the phone and only heard the word --\nit would have taken more time and more explanation, and possibly a dictionary.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T23:49:51.337",
"id": "51942",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T23:49:51.337",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10641",
"parent_id": "51756",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 51756 | 51762 | 51762 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "\"Eyeball analysis of data\" is sort of a slang phrase to mean the act of\nplotting a data set and observing its various peaks and slews and\nunderstanding its general behaviour.\n\nI would be grateful if someone can tell me the Japanese equivalent of this\nexpression.\n\nThanks.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T09:14:11.183",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51763",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T13:48:35.407",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-26T09:20:21.423",
"last_editor_user_id": "22397",
"owner_user_id": "20385",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "\"Eyeball analysis of data\" equivalent japanese word",
"view_count": 152
} | [
{
"body": "I might be wrong but I feel like the term 「目視検査」might be applicable here. If\nanyone else have a better alternative I would welcome your answers.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T09:19:56.310",
"id": "51764",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T09:19:56.310",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20385",
"parent_id": "51763",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "The closest one would be:\n\n[目測]{もくそく}\n\nIt means the act of measuring with the eye.\n_Reference：[英辞郎(dictionary)](https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E7%9B%AE%E6%B8%AC)_\n\nYou can use it like this: 目測で線を引く＝draw line by eyeballing it.\n\nIt is often used in occasions like \"eyeball the distance・height・length・(any\nmeasurable quality)\" etc.\n\nPractical usage proof(Japanese site)：[米倉研究室 | Yonekura\nLab.](http://yard.cis.ibaraki.ac.jp/~yonekura/newpage2.htm)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T09:20:14.120",
"id": "51765",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T13:48:35.407",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-26T13:48:35.407",
"last_editor_user_id": "22397",
"owner_user_id": "22397",
"parent_id": "51763",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51763 | null | 51765 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "On page 33 of the Lonely planet phrasebook for Japanese, 5th edition (ISBN\n978-1-74104-231-3), the phrase given is\n\n> What does 'deguchi' mean?\n>\n> 「出口」はどういう意味ですか？\n\nThe pronunciation guide has\n\n> de-gu-chi wa dō yū i-mi des ka\n\nI thought the いう should be 言う, because neither\n[jisho.org](http://jisho.org/word/%E8%A8%80%E3%81%86) nor the [English edition\nof Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%A8%80%E3%81%86#Japanese)\nmention that kana should be used.\n\nHowever, when I searched for \"はどう意味ですか\" (without いう or 言う to bias the search),\nI found most of the matches were for \"いう\".\n\nShould I use \"言う\" or \"いう\"? Also, is use of \"言う\" or \"いう\" specific to this\nphrase, or is it normally written that way?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T09:25:56.917",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51766",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T11:57:53.123",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"words",
"kanji",
"orthography"
],
"title": "Should I use 言う or いう in \"はどういう意味ですか\"?",
"view_count": 247
} | [
{
"body": "This is really a matter of style rather than any concrete language rule, but\nthe prevalent style is that _generally_ kanji should be used for 'content'\nwords, and kana should be used for 'function' words (though some words, as\nyou've seen, are kana no matter what, even if kanji for them does exist).\n\nSo, in this case, is いう a function word or a content word? It's a function\nword, right? It doesn't add any _meaning_ to the sentence; it just holds the\nsentence together. So kana would be the better choice under the most common\nstyle.\n\n言う _can_ be a content word, of course - for example, when reporting what\nsomeone else has said - and in that case it's better to use kanji. But in this\ncase it is not a content word.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T10:03:07.920",
"id": "51768",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T10:29:03.760",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-26T10:29:03.760",
"last_editor_user_id": "20031",
"owner_user_id": "20031",
"parent_id": "51766",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "どういうmeans what 'sort' not the meaning 言う",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T11:44:32.587",
"id": "51770",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T11:44:32.587",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25135",
"parent_id": "51766",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51766 | null | 51768 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For full context, see this document:\n<https://www.docdroid.net/CAEv4Gb/img-20170726-0001-new.pdf>\n\nThe sentence in question: 赤と白のしまのセーターにジーンズをはいた女の子ですね。\n\n1) Is it necessary to write い-adjective + の here, or would 赤くて白い work as well?\nIs there a difference in meaning?\n\n2) why is there this に? I can’t make any sense of it. To me the sentence says:\n„It is a girl wearing jeans and a sweatshirt in red and white stripes.” What\nfunction does に have in this context? Oo",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T11:20:49.523",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51769",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T13:41:53.070",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Problems with elements of this sentence",
"view_count": 92
} | [
{
"body": "Ｑ１）\n\nNo it is not necessary but still acceptable, but in that case the の in 赤と白\n**の** [縞]{しま} is needed to be dropped as well.\n\nAcceptable forms:\n\n * 赤と白の縞\n * 赤いと白い縞\n * 赤と白縞\n\n_Although it maybe valid in some cases, 白い **の** 縞 is just **very** weird. I\nwould suggest **NOT** to say it that way._\n\n* * *\n\nＱ２）\n\nIt can also mean \"with\".\n\n_Please refer\nto[this](http://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/49038/why-%E3%81%AB-can-\nmean-and) question_\n\n-A.Ellett",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T11:54:10.633",
"id": "51771",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T13:41:53.070",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-26T13:41:53.070",
"last_editor_user_id": "22397",
"owner_user_id": "22397",
"parent_id": "51769",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51769 | null | 51771 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51777",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I was reading [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1543/22352)\nquestion, and realized that I had been told something outlandishly different.\nTo be clear, what I was told didn't change the usage of もしもし to be something\ndifferent.\n\nI was told that the phrase comes from an interesting story. One of my teachers\nclaimed that もしもし is a phrase that Japanese people believed monsters could not\nsay. Therefore, to confirm that the other person on the phone (including door\nintercoms, etc.) is not a monster (赤鬼とかね), and that they are indeed human.\n\nTo my naive mind, this made a lot of sense, and it explained why もしもし is used\nthe way it is. Now, looking back, I'm inclined to disbelieve this claim. It\njust doesn't fit with the other articles I have read on the subject.\n\nSo did my teacher make up the story, or is this a real thing?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T14:06:43.720",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51772",
"last_activity_date": "2020-01-17T17:45:17.820",
"last_edit_date": "2020-01-17T17:45:17.820",
"last_editor_user_id": "22352",
"owner_user_id": "22352",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"false-etymology"
],
"title": "Did my teacher make this etymology for もしもし up?",
"view_count": 686
} | [
{
"body": "He may have read a story similar to this one:\n<https://www.tofugu.com/japanese/moshi-moshi/> (See \"Foxes\" Section on that\npage)\n\nExcerpt: \"The explanation that seems the most plausible because it's actually\nsupported by facts. On 12/16/1890, phones were 1st introduced to 日本. At the\ntime, only rich people were were able to afford telephones. Being rich, they\nwere used to talking down to others. Thus, the standard \"telephone hello\" was\nおいおい or \"hey YOU!\" The person on the other end would respond with はい、良うございます\nor はい、良うござんす. Both of these are humble ways of saying, \"Yes, I'm ready\"\nmeaning the person calling is ready to talk.\n\nOf course, this abrupt \"hey YOU!\" got on people's nerves when telephone\noperators used it. So the \"oi oi\" was changed to 申し上げます.\n\n\"Moushiagemasu\" was eventually shortened to 申す申す for male operators and 申し申し\nfor female operators. Some male operators still used \"oi oi\" for a while\nthough.\n\nThe person who made the change to \"mousu mousu\" or \"moushi moushi\" on the\ntelephone was Shigenori Katougi (加藤木重教). He was an electrician for the\nMinistry of Engineering and went on to work for anaka Seisakusho (田中製作所). He\ntraveled the US in 1889 to study their phone system.\n\nDuring his visit, Katougi-san learned Americans say \"hello\" when answering the\nphone. Katougi's American hosts asked what the telephone greeting was in\nJapan. He wasn't sure what to tell them. It was either \"oi oi,\"\n\"moushiagemasu,\" \"mousu mousu,\" or \"moushi moushi.\" It would have required a\nlot of explanation (about as much as this article). So he just decided to tell\nthe Americans that Japanese people say \"moshi moshi\" and it means \"hello.\"\n\nThis gave him the idea of a standardized \"telephone hello\" which he brought\nback to Japan. Soon after in 1893, the term \"mousu mousu\" was shortened to\n\"mosu mosu\" and \"moushi moushi\" was shortened \"moshi moshi.\"\n\nBut after a while there were fewer male telephone operators than female. So\n\"もすもす\" eventually disappeared and \"もしもし\" became the standard. Historians say\nthis happened in 1902, and both men and women used \"もしもし\" after that.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T17:01:12.363",
"id": "51777",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T18:57:45.060",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-26T18:57:45.060",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "51772",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "This may be a well-known folktale, but it isn't the real etymology at all (and\nsounds much more like a folk etymology than a real one anyway).\n\nもしもし is a contraction of 「申し、申し」, i.e. 'speaking, speaking', said as a way to\nconfirm to the caller that their call had connected. The particular word 申す\nwas chosen to avoid any accidental impoliteness caused by not using a formal\nenough word.\n\nSource: <http://gogen-allguide.com/mo/moshimoshi.html>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T18:49:45.527",
"id": "51782",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T18:49:45.527",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "51772",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51772 | 51777 | 51777 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51799",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "From Jisho.org, both 鋼{はがね} and 鋼鉄{こうてつ} mean steel. Are there any differences\nbetween them?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T16:53:51.877",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51776",
"last_activity_date": "2020-09-27T16:29:28.013",
"last_edit_date": "2018-05-04T22:58:43.143",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "7494",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words",
"nuances",
"wago-and-kango"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 鋼{はがね} and 鋼鉄{こうてつ} (two ways to say \"steel\")?",
"view_count": 684
} | [
{
"body": "Yes there are subtle difference between the two.\n\n鋼 derives from [刃]{は}[金]{がね}, literally \"blade metal\". So it can also mean\n\"the metal that are used to make a sword\", which is steel.\n\n鋼鉄 does not have that other layer of meaning, it just mean \"steel\".",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T17:46:10.040",
"id": "51780",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T17:46:10.040",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22397",
"parent_id": "51776",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "They're different just in scope of \"語彙\":\n\n 1. 鋼{はがね} is wago (和語) form which uses kun-yomi reading of the kanji, it's originally derived from other word with same pronunciation: 刃金 (metal blade). Here is an explanation about 刃金 (note the emphasized sentence part):\n\n> 刃金は、刃物の刃先に用いる金属のこと。かつては刃金もしくは釼の一字で、 **鋼と同じように使われていた。**\n> 刃物の刃先は鋭角になればなるほど切れ味が良くなる。\n\nThe fact behind this is that steel is a commonly used material to make sharp\nblades (used in knives, swords, etc.) in ancient times, due to its sharpness\nas cutting edge. Since 刃金 itself is also read in kun-yomi we can tell that the\nmeaning is associated with 鋼.\n\n 2. 鋼鉄{コウテツ} is kango (漢語) form which uses on-yomi reading for both kanjis, it's derived from the Chinese term \"鋼鐵\". \"鉄\" exists here to give emphasis into meaning by implicitly mentioning \"steel is made of iron\". This is true due to steel being an alloy of iron as base metal & another elements giving a large tensile of strength.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T04:26:44.747",
"id": "51799",
"last_activity_date": "2020-09-27T16:29:28.013",
"last_edit_date": "2020-09-27T16:29:28.013",
"last_editor_user_id": "18772",
"owner_user_id": "18259",
"parent_id": "51776",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 51776 | 51799 | 51799 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51785",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Reading the [lyrics](http://lyrics.jetmute.com/viewlyrics.php?id=2252845) of\nthe song [化粧直し](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezC4ybLJsPM) by 東京事変 the first\nsentence says:\n\n貴方が去ったあとのこの部屋 白く濁っていく\n\nSo I translate that to:\n\nYou left after this room 白く濁っていく\n\nWhat do 白く濁っていく means?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T17:09:01.177",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51778",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T16:44:47.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "23960",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"song-lyrics"
],
"title": "What does 白く濁っていく mean?",
"view_count": 252
} | [
{
"body": "> What does 白く濁っていく mean?\n\nI find 濁っていく is the Japanese way to express progressive aspect.\n\n濁{にご}る is the base form. \n濁っている expresses the **_state_** ; this can't mean progressiveness to us,\nnative speakers. \n濁っていく expresses the **_progression_**.\n\nIt's like clear water gradually gets milky when added with some white paint.\n\n> 貴方が去ったあとのこの部屋 白く濁っていく\n\nThe particle の is making the phrase 貴方が去ったあと an adjective to modify この部屋. It's\na creative expression, and we don't usually say things in this way, but it's\nnicely said as lyrics. So, it's saying \"this room that is (in the condition)\nof after 'you' have left.\"\n\nAlthough it's natural to read the two lines as the former is the subject and\nthe latter is the predicate, without a particle between them, the two lines\nare not really connected to each other. This is possible because of the poetic\nlicense.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T21:04:09.350",
"id": "51785",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T16:44:47.247",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-27T16:44:47.247",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51778",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51778 | 51785 | 51785 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51781",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": ",Hello, this is a question I've been wondering for ages but I can't find\nanything that answers clearly.\n\nSo firstly I have read in \"a dictionary of japanese grammar\" the のに/のには part\non which it is written that when we add the particle は to のに, it is often\ncontracted into には. It made complete sense to me but even then, I still find\nsome cases where のには wouldn't be accepted whereas には is okay. For example I\nsaw in the dictionary :\n\n> 始発に乗るには四時に起きなくてはならない。\n\nThey explain that this には means 「場合には」 or 「時には」 so I believe this is the\ncontraction of のには. But in the following sentence :\n\n> Huluを解約するには、どのようにするのですか？\n\nI don't think のには would be okay. So I searched on the internet and found\nsomewhere that someone was saying には is a contraction of ためには.\n\nSo who should I believe? Maybe には is something completely different that just\nhappened to have almost the same meaning as ためには and のには？\n\nJapanese people don't seem to know either, so I'm hoping to find someone who\nhas a study paper or who has done a diachronic study to find the answer to\nthis question\n\nThank you.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T17:10:20.497",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51779",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T18:35:36.290",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22196",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"particles"
],
"title": "Is には a contraction of のには or ためには and how did it come to be like this ?",
"view_count": 278
} | [
{
"body": "> in \"a dictionary of japanese grammar\" the のに/のには part on which it is written\n> that when we add the particle は to のに, it is often contracted into には.\n>\n\n>> 始発に乗るには四時に起きなくてはならない。\n\n>\n> They explain that this には means 「場合には」 or 「時には」 so I believe this is the\n> contraction of のには.\n\nCorrect. ためには is my preference; 始発に乗るためには ( **\" ため\" is another noun**). \nAlso nothing wrong to say 始発に乗るのには.\n\n> But in the following sentence :\n>\n\n>> Huluを解約するには、どのようにするのですか？\n\nIn this case also, 解約するのには is actually the fully spelled version. Of course,\nyou can switch this nominalizing particle, の, to another noun; 解約するためには.\n\nI feel, to use 場合 or 時, it's more natural to say 解約 **したい場合** （に）は or 解約\n**したいとき** （に）は.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T18:35:36.290",
"id": "51781",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T18:35:36.290",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51779",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51779 | 51781 | 51781 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51784",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I help run a 会話アワーというイベント at school and I'm always boggled by this simple\nquestion: How do I welcome someone inside the room? Do I say ようこそ？ I know\nいっらしゃいませ would only be for a restaurant or shop.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T20:23:02.853",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51783",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T20:49:20.133",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "What do you say to welcome someone into an organization?",
"view_count": 1117
} | [
{
"body": "Inviting someone into a place is more about the specific place that you're\ninviting a party into. If you're inviting them to a general location like,\nsay, a living room, you can use どうぞ or some variant phrase of it:\n\n> こちらへどうぞお願いします。 \n> This way, please.\n\nYou can also use いらっしゃい when welcoming someone into a home or into a room.\n(Thanks ajsmart! I overlooked this.)\n\nIf the location is a shop or restaurant, and you're a part of the\nestablishment, as you've noted, you'd use:\n\n> いらっしゃいませ！ \n> Welcome!\n\nIf you mean to invite someone to a group or organization, you can use the\nphrase X（へ/に）ようこそ。 For example:\n\n> 青山学院大学へようこそ。 \n> Welcome to Aoyama Gakuin University.\n\nOn ajsmart's note, for clarity's sake, you can then say:\n\n> 会話アワーイベントへようこそ。\n\n...to welcome people to your event.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T20:37:59.600",
"id": "51784",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T20:49:20.133",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-26T20:49:20.133",
"last_editor_user_id": "21684",
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "51783",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51783 | 51784 | 51784 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51789",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Most often お is pronounced [ō], however sometimes I hear an [ä] instead. It\nmight be arbitrary, but it sounds so consistent to me, thus I ask, are there?\nAnd if so, what are they?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T23:06:15.130",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51788",
"last_activity_date": "2019-02-16T07:13:30.783",
"last_edit_date": "2019-02-15T21:22:41.760",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17968",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"phonetics"
],
"title": "When is お pronounced「ä」instead of「ō」？",
"view_count": 493
} | [
{
"body": "ä with double dots isn't defined in the english language. What sound do you\nmean?\n\nお is defined as having one pronunciation, like \"Oh\" in english. Any variant is\nregional, or related to accent.",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-26T23:53:41.397",
"id": "51789",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-26T23:53:41.397",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19998",
"parent_id": "51788",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "Japanese is extremely constant which makes it such an easy language to learn.\nEvery sounds are pretty much fixed and never change.\n\nThere are some tiny exceptions like wo -> o, ha -> wa, he -> e and sometimes\nthe ん followed by a vowel makes a weird sound, but never heard of a different\npronunciation for お.\n\nThis stability in the sounds in Japanese is much appreciated, unlike the\nexcruciating randomness of languages like English(like how \"read\" is\npronounced completely differently in the past tense even though it is written\nthe exact same way.)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T00:18:40.063",
"id": "51791",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T00:18:40.063",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18142",
"parent_id": "51788",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I think this is a common misunderstanding. I too thought that there were two\npronunciations of お, so I was very confused when people not only told me it\nwas ONE sound but also gave me negative feedback when I asked.\n\nThis was hard for me to understand, but even tho お in words like 青(あお)\npractically has another sound, that is only because it is outward to say it as\nwritten. If you listen VERY closely to a native speaker saying 青い, you will\nhear a faint \"oh\" sound even tho it's not as clear as you would want to, it's\njust a bit lazy sometimes.\n\nThis is a huge trap for beginners in Japanese languish, so I think it's a\nshame that there is no info about this online.\n\nI hope this clears up some things.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2019-02-15T20:58:35.657",
"id": "65520",
"last_activity_date": "2019-02-16T07:13:30.783",
"last_edit_date": "2019-02-16T07:13:30.783",
"last_editor_user_id": "32643",
"owner_user_id": "32643",
"parent_id": "51788",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51788 | 51789 | 51789 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51795",
"answer_count": 5,
"body": "Would I just use わるい？ Or is there a more specific word for being unskilled at\nsomething?\n\n私の日本語は悪いです。< Would something like this suffice?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T00:17:55.450",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51790",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-11T14:18:41.077",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25146",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"usage",
"word-usage"
],
"title": "What's the most common way to say you are bad at something?",
"view_count": 35752
} | [
{
"body": "I think the most natural would be\n\n私は日本語があまり上手じゃありません。\n\nlit. My japanese is really not very good.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T00:26:14.443",
"id": "51792",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T00:26:14.443",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19998",
"parent_id": "51790",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Actually 下手 (the kanji opposite of 上手) is a common way of saying you are not\nvery good at something.\n\n私の日本語は下手です。\n\nAlc reference here:\n\n[http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%e4%b8%8b%e6%89%8b](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E4%B8%8B%E6%89%8B)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T00:33:56.377",
"id": "51793",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T00:33:56.377",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25147",
"parent_id": "51790",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Well, you could just use 下手｛へた｝ that is basically the opposite of 上手.\n\nSo basically you could say 私は日本語が下手です。\n\nTo add one more you could probably use 苦手{にがて} as well， which means \"poor (at\nsomething), weak, unskilled\" etc. So you would say 私は日本語が苦手です。",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T00:35:01.447",
"id": "51794",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T00:37:08.353",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-27T00:37:08.353",
"last_editor_user_id": "14205",
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"parent_id": "51790",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "You have several ways to say \"I'm bad at Japanese\". The most common (and\ndirect) ways to say it would be:\n\n> * 私は日本語が[下手]{へた}です。( _lit._ As for me, Japanese is poor.)\n> * 私の日本語は下手です。( _lit._ My Japanese is poor.)\n>\n\n悪い is a literal translation of the English \"bad\". In Japanese, you don't use\n悪い to say you're bad/unskillful at something.\n\nYou could also express it as \"I'm not good at Japanese\":\n\n> * 私は日本語が[上手]{じょうず}ではありません。( _lit._ As for me, Japanese is not\n> good/skillful.)\n> * 私は日本語が[上手]{うま}くありません。( _lit_. As for me, Japanese is not good.)\n>\n\nDepending on what you're bad at, you could also use [苦手]{にがて}, which is closer\nto \"weak\":\n\n> * 私は[料理]{りょうり}が苦手です。(≂ 私は料理が下手です。) \n> I'm bad at cooking.\n> * 私は[泳]{およ}ぎが(or[水泳]{すいえい}が)苦手です。(≂ 私は泳ぎが/水泳が下手です。) \n> I'm bad at swimming.\n> * 私は数学が苦手です。(but not 私は数学が下手です。) \n> I'm weak at maths.\n> * 私は英語が苦手です。(When talking about English as a school subject, use 苦手. You\n> don't use 下手 for school subjects.) \n> I'm weak at English.\n>\n\nThis time you can rephrase them as \"not good/strong at~~\" using [得意]{とくい}:\n\n> * 私は料理が得意ではありません。 \n> I'm not good at cooking.\n> * 私は数学が得意ではありません。(but not 私は数学が上手ではありません。) \n> I'm not strong at maths.\n>",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T00:51:29.773",
"id": "51795",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T01:23:20.793",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-27T01:23:20.793",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51790",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "My teacher told me using 上手 with yourself sounds pretty bad. There was another\nexpression but I can't find it anywhere.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-05-11T14:18:41.077",
"id": "58554",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-11T14:18:41.077",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4528",
"parent_id": "51790",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51790 | 51795 | 51795 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51798",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Context: two high school girls talk about an expensive ring.\n\n> Girl A: 花江！そのリングどうしたの？それ 今 全然手に入らなくてネットで **プレミアついて２０万** くらいするんだよ。\n>\n> 花江: 知り合いから転売してもらったんだよね。30万で。\n\nI found on dictionaries that プレミアついて means `at a premium`, `at a higher\nprice`. What I don't understand is: 20万 is the final price or the amount to\nadd to the original price? Thank you for your help!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T02:12:53.260",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51797",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T02:23:03.317",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17797",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"words",
"numbers"
],
"title": "Meaning of プレミアついて２０万",
"view_count": 103
} | [
{
"body": "Parse it as:\n\n> それ、...［プレミア（が）ついて］２０万くらいするんだよ。\n\n\" _lit._ It... [with a premium added,] costs around 200,000 yen.\" \n→ \"It... costs about 200,000 yen [at a premium].\"\n\nSo 20万 is the final price.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T02:23:03.317",
"id": "51798",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T02:23:03.317",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51797",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51797 | 51798 | 51798 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51802",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I translated into google translate and the meaning is casual. What \"casual\"\nthings that suit with this word? Is this word means \"merely\" ?\n\nThanks in advance",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T06:47:11.520",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51801",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T07:30:53.717",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19128",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "Real meaning of nanigenai 「何気ない」?",
"view_count": 731
} | [
{
"body": "It means casual in the sense of.. casual, unconcerned, without much attention.\nHowever, I believe it would not be used for \"casual\" when referring to look or\nclothes.\n\nConsider the following sample sentences:\n\n> 1. 何気なく言った言葉も誰かを傷つけることがある。\n>\n\n_Even a casual remark could hurt someone's feelings._\n\n> 2. 彼女はその本に何気なく目をやった。\n>\n\n_The girl had a casual glance at the book._\n\nDo the above example clarify the meaning?\n\nYou can also check this page on\n[weblio](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E4%BD%95%E6%B0%97%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84)\nfor some other examples.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T07:30:53.717",
"id": "51802",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T07:30:53.717",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"parent_id": "51801",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51801 | 51802 | 51802 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51807",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I bet this two words has the same meaning, and my prediction might be one of\nit are obsolete and the other one are frequently used by japanese people. Not\njust in this case, how to self-crosscheck kanji on a word whether obsolete or\nnot?\n\nThanks in advance",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T07:46:13.580",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51803",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T09:09:25.160",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19128",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words"
],
"title": "How to distinguish 具に with 備に ?",
"view_count": 126
} | [
{
"body": "To check whether kanji are currently in use, you should use a Japanese native\nlanguage dictionary.\n\nI looked your words up in goo's dictionary\n(<https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/147982/meaning/m0u/>), because I was\nunfamiliar with both 具に and 備に.\n\nIf you look at their entry, it's written like this:\n\n> つぶさ‐に【▽具に／▽備に／×悉に】 の意味\n\nThe x means that the character 悉 is not part of Joyo orthography (Government-\nmandated usage).\n\nThe down-triangle means the _reading_ of the character is not approved by Joyo\northography. (Both 具 and 備 are characters in common use, but the reading is\ntechnically not approved).\n\nJoyo doesn't seem to absolute dictate usage on the ground, but as a non-native\nspeaker, I assume unless I frequently see otherwise, that one should not write\nthings with the ▽ and that Japanese people will not even recognize x kanji.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T09:09:25.160",
"id": "51807",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T09:09:25.160",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4091",
"parent_id": "51803",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51803 | 51807 | 51807 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51806",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm not sure how I would write a professional email to a business in Japanese.\nFor example, if I wanted to start out with \"Hello,\" I wouldn't say こんにちは,\nwould I? I know there are polite ways of saying things in Japanese, including\nspecial conjugations for verbs.\n\nBasically I would like to know how to start out an email, ways to write the\nbody professionally, and end politely.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T08:02:31.713",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51804",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T13:12:49.707",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"politeness",
"email",
"business-japanese"
],
"title": "What is the proper way to write a professional email to a business?",
"view_count": 605
} | [
{
"body": "Let's say you're writing to a certain Mr. Tanaka Tarou, who's the\nrepresentative director of the XYZ corporation. I would write the email on the\nfollowing lines, where I put more than one example just to give you some\nideas.\n\n**件名 - object:**\n\n * 【△△社】○○参考資料{さんこうしりょう}のご送付{そうふ}\n * ○月○日のお打ち合わせのお礼\n\n**宛名 - Addressee:**\n\n株式会社{かぶしきがいしゃ}XYZ\n\n代表取締役{だいひょうとりしまりやく} 田中太郎様\n\n**あいさつ文 - greetings:**\n\n * お世話になっております。株式会社YOUR_COMPANYのGabby Quattroneでございます。\n * お世話になっております。株式会社YOUR_COMPANYのGabby Quattroneと申します。\n * ご無沙汰{ぶさた}しております (if you haven't written for some time)\n\n**内容 - contents:**\n\nThis pretty much depends on what you want to say so I will skip it. The\nimportant thing is to maintain throughout this part a formal and polite\nlinguistic register.\n\n**結びの文 - Conclusions:**\n\n * 今後ともどうぞよろしくお願いいたします。\n * 引き続きどうぞよろしくお願いいたします。\n * お手数おかけしますが、何卒{なにとぞ}よろしくお願いいたします。\n\nBelow is a full mock email:\n\n```\n\n ○○会社営業部 部長 \n ××様 \n いつも大変お世話になっております。 \n 株式会社△△の田中です。 \n \n このたびは、お忙しいなか、貴重な時間を割いていただき誠にありがとうございました。 \n 貴社とのお取引開始を、大変喜ばしく思っております。 \n 今後、改めて御社のご要望に十分添った形で、 \n 製品精度を高めていく所存です。 \n \n また、ご不明な点等ございましたらご連絡ください。 \n 今後とも、どうぞよろしくお願いいたします。\n \n```\n\nI put a bit of my own here and there and took some examples and the last email\nfrom [here](https://gakumado.mynavi.jp/freshers/articles/40095).",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T08:31:01.253",
"id": "51806",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T13:12:49.707",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-27T13:12:49.707",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"parent_id": "51804",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51804 | 51806 | 51806 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51810",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am trying to translate some dialogue in which one person calls another\n\"savage\", in the modern sense of 'brutally direct and merciless in criticism,\nhumor, or behavior.' My question is: is there a Japanese word that corresponds\nto this modern usage, and if not, what would be the best way to translate\nthis?\n\nSo far, I have only been able to find words in Japanese corresponding to\n\"savage = barbarian\" (which is a dead end) and \"savage = brutal\" in the\nliteral sense, but I have no idea whether the meaning carries over with any of\nthese terms (source: jisho.org):\n\n * 惨い {むごい} = \"cruel; merciless; pitiless; brutal; atrocious; inhuman\"\n * 残忍酷薄 {ざんにんこくはく} = \"cruel; brutal; atrocious; merciless\"\n * 残忍非道 {ざんにんひじょう} = \"cruel and inhuman; brutal; merciless\"\n * 残忍冷酷 {ざんにんれいこく} = \"atrocious and cold-blooded; cruel; brutal; merciless\"\n * 酷薄 {こくはく} = \"cruel; inhumane; callous; brutal\"\n * 猛悪 {もうあく} = \"savage; ferocious; atrocious\"\n\nAs far as I can tell, these terms all refer to the more violent (original)\nmeaning of the word.\n\nThe closest match that I have been able to find so far (as far as I can tell)\nis 容赦のない {ようしゃのない} \"relentless, stern\" from weblio.jp, but I am not sure\nwhether that is the best translation possible.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T15:41:37.107",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51809",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T03:11:36.103",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-28T00:04:18.227",
"last_editor_user_id": "14205",
"owner_user_id": "21802",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"slang",
"word-requests",
"dictionary"
],
"title": "Japanese word for \"savage\" (modern usage)",
"view_count": 2792
} | [
{
"body": "As you suspect, none of the more literal \"savage\" words you listed would be a\ngood fit for the more figurative usage.\n\nTo call someone \"savage\" in the figurative sense, something along the lines of\n「容赦ねぇな！」 (literally more like \"Damn, you don't hold back!\") would be my first\ninstinct.\n\nThe exact form of the expression will of course depend on the register of the\nspeaker - the standard form would be 容赦がない, but being a distinctly casual\nexpression, it's rarely seen in this form, at least as an exclamation, with\nthe が at least almost always being omitted.\n\nThere are also adjectival forms that may be closer to \"savage\" in some ways,\nsuch as 毒舌(の), which refers to a tendency to be harshly honest or insulting (a\nperson with such a tendency being a 毒舌家, and the act of doing so being 毒舌を吐く),\nbut I don't think such forms would be as likely to appear in an exclamation.\nPerhaps if the context is a more subdued observation, something like\n「お前、いつも毒舌吐くよな…」 might be appropriate.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T17:00:15.343",
"id": "51810",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-27T17:00:15.343",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25107",
"parent_id": "51809",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "If you're looking for a word in Japanese that corresponds to \"savage\" in a\nliteral sense and can be used figuratively, how about [野蛮]{やばん} or\n[野蛮人]{やばんじん}?\n\nYou could use them this way:\n\n> * 「野蛮ね！」/「野蛮だな。」/「野蛮なやつだ。」\n> * 「何よ、この野蛮人！」\n> * あいつは野蛮だからなあ。He is such a beast. / He is a real animal. (プログレッシブ和英中辞典)\n>\n\nThey are often used as a 非難の言葉 (a term of reproach/condemnation).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T02:08:08.257",
"id": "51816",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T03:11:36.103",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-28T03:11:36.103",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51809",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51809 | 51810 | 51810 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "From the contexts in which I have heard it used, and also according to\njisho.org, the word 連中{れんちゅう} appears to be a fairly informal word, on par\nwith the use of the word \"lot\" in British English as a collective noun (\"you\nlot\"). However, it is unclear to me exactly what situations it would be okay\nto use in, and exactly how impolite it is. Furthermore, it doesn't seem like\nthere is any one word that can be used to replace it in situations where it is\ntoo impolite.\n\nThe circumstance I am thinking about is one in which a close group of friends\nis talking to one of their member's older brother, in casual but polite\nsetting; the older brother refers to them collectively, remarking jocularly on\nhow difficult it is to hold a conversation with them because of their\ninclination to 突っ込む.\n\n * > 「君たちはとんでもない連中に違いないです」= \"You guys really are a formidable/difficult bunch\"\n\nIn this context, would 連中 be too strong/impolite a word, or is it appropriate\nfor such a situation? If the former, is there a better way of saying this?\n\nI know that the translation is not 100%, but I am translating from my own\nwords, so the intent is more important than literal accuracy.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-27T20:18:29.727",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51811",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-24T01:31:51.197",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21802",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"slang",
"formality",
"connotation"
],
"title": "In what circumstances is it appropriate to use the word 連中",
"view_count": 352
} | [
{
"body": "\"連中\" is a word addressing people of a certain group collectively **where the\ntalker doesn't belong** or **doesn't want to belong** with a somewhat\ncontemptuous feeling, although not necessarily. \nI think you can understand the nuance of the word with 連中 further if I tell\nyou how we feel when we are addressed by the word.\n\n * The first thing I feel is that those who use/say this word don't have an agreeable or acceptable impression of us.\n\n * I admit their understanding of us, not being agreeable for them, but I don't agree with the way they handle us collectively by ignoring each personality of us; At least I have a point I could proud of by myself, so don't handle/call me as one of the set of people. \n\nExamples:\n\n * あんな連中 _such bastards_\n * こういう連中 _these fellows_\n * そうそうたる連中 _a fine set of men_\n * 金持｛かねも｝ち連中 _rich guys_\n * 愉快｛ゆかい｝な連中 _a merry/jolly group_\n * 仲良｛なかよ｝し連中 _a party/bunch of good friends_\n * 悪｛わる｝い連中と交｛まじ｝わる _to keep contact with a bad lot_\n * 陽気｛ようき｝な連中と交｛まじ｝わる _to keep contact with a merry bunch_\n * あんな連中とつきあうな. _Don't mix with such a set._\n * 一体｛いったい｝あのいやな連中は何｛なに｝をやっているのか _What is that nasty bunch up to?_\n * あんな連中には我慢｛がまん｝がならない。 _I cannot abide such people._\n * あんな連中を見｛み｝るのは我慢｛がまん｝できない。 _I can't abide to see such fellows._\n * インテルの連中は君｛きみ｝を得｛え｝てラッキーだよ。 _The Intel people are lucky to have you!_\n * どうせ日本｛にほん｝文化｛ぶんか｝の粋｛すい｝などは連中には絶対｛ぜったい｝わかるまい。 _The essence of Japanese culture could never be appreciated by them._\n * トムは他｛ほか｝の連中よりはるかにすぐれてトップだ。 _Tom is head and shoulders above others._\n\nOn second thoughts, looking at these example phrases, I think that when people\nare classified into two groups with a certain standard, 連中 is a word used in\nthe conversation with the people who seem to share the same values with you to\naddress the group of people where the talker does not belong, **apart from the\ngood or bad of the attribute of the group**.\n\nLast but least, I clearly understand with what kind of nuances the word with\n連中 is used in a context. But perhaps I've never used this word, because, I\nthink, it sounds indecent. So, I could say that it is the word you need not to\nuse by yourself.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T12:29:06.340",
"id": "51823",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T13:14:30.203",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-28T13:14:30.203",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51811",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> a close group of friends is talking to one of their member's older brother,\n> in casual but polite setting; the _**older brother refers to them\n> collectively, remarking jocularly**_ on how difficult it is to hold a\n> conversation with them because of their inclination to 突っ込む.\n>\n> 「君たちはとんでもない連中に違いないです」= \"You guys really are a formidable/difficult bunch\"\n\nIn your context, the use of 連中 is _**correct for not being used for\nsuperiors;**_ however, we probably don't use it to refer to the second person\nplural, 君たち, but _**it's to refer to the third person plural** ;_ あの連中, この連中,\nその連中. You could say **こいつら** 、とんでもない連中にちがいない face-to-face as if pretending to\ntalk to someone else, with possibly a warm tone.\n\n連中 is standard enough, though not to be used for your superiors.\n\n> れんちゅう【連中】（……）親しみ、あるいは軽蔑 (けいべつ)\n> を込めていう。「クラスの連中を誘ってみる」「こういう連中は度し難い」（出典：[デジタル大辞泉](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/235375/meaning/m0u/)）\n\nTo refer to a group of our superiors or people who we should pay respect,\nあの方々{かたがた} or あの方{かた}たち is the standard. Casually あの人{ひと}たち.\n\n* * *\n\n連中 is a word that doesn't need to be used in formal writing, but is used in\nliterature or spoken language of, might be rather, grown-ups.\n\n> \"どうにでもなるような映画{えいが}会社{がいしゃ}の **連中** の言葉{ことば}だけの空虚{くうきょ}な自我{じが}や、\" \n>\n> (Wikipedia|白痴{はくち}(坂口{さかぐち}安吾{あんご})|[あらすじ](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%99%BD%E7%97%B4_\\(%E5%9D%82%E5%8F%A3%E5%AE%89%E5%90%BE\\)#.E3.81.82.E3.82.89.E3.81.99.E3.81.98))\n\n/\n\n> \"弱虫{よわむし}で、子供の時から同年輩{どうねんぱい}のこの **連中** にいじめられ\" \n> （坂口安吾「明治開化{めいじかいか} 安吾{あんご}捕物帖{とりものちょう} 上{じょう}」1950）\n\n/\n\n> \"だが若{わか}い **連中** は、自分{じぶん}と同年輩の者{もの}とつきあいたがる\" \n> （遠藤周作{えんどうしゅうさく}訳{やく}「愛{あい}の砂漠{さばく}／モーリアック」c.1965?）\n\n/\n\n> \"しかし、その船{ふね}へ乗組{のりく}んでゐ(い)る **連中**\n> は、中々{なかなか}勇{いさ}ましがつてゐる所{ところ}の騒ぎ{さわぎ}ではない。\" \n>\n> （[芥川龍之介{あくたがわりゅうのすけ}「虱{しらみ}」](http://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000879/files/148_15134.html)\n> 1916）",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T14:24:21.257",
"id": "51828",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T04:41:26.053",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51811",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51811 | null | 51823 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I know that both can mean \"correct\". I frequently hear things like \"合ってる？\" to\nmean :\"is it right?\" I don't know much about the use of 正しい, but I know that\nit's also a common word for \"correct\".\n\nWhat would be the difference between the two? Is there a preference for one\nover the other in certain situations and formality levels?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T01:30:47.953",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51815",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T21:32:00.497",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-28T05:20:21.143",
"last_editor_user_id": "14205",
"owner_user_id": "10748",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "what is the difference between 合う and 正しい？",
"view_count": 1212
} | [
{
"body": "I understand your question is \"what is the difference between 合う and 正しい？\" as\nis said by Aeon Akechi.\n\n**合う** means basically **A is equal to B** or **A and B are equal**. So if it\nis used like \"あなたの答｛こた｝えは合っている\", the phrase means \"your answer is equal to the\ncorrect answer\". \nOn the other hand **正しい** means basically \" **right** \" along with the meaning\nof \" **correct** \".\n\nSo, 正 in 正しい is used in both ways. \nFor example, 正解{せいかい} means a correct answer, while 正義｛せいぎ｝ means justice,\nright or righteousness.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T03:14:19.113",
"id": "51817",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T06:44:59.160",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-28T06:44:59.160",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51815",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "合う is a verb, 正しい is an adjective.\n\nI've seen 合う's primary use as an intransitive verb with the meaning of \"to\nfit\" or \"to match\".\n\nExamples: その洋服は彼女の赤い髪に合う。(That dress matches her red hair.)\nこのジャケットはぴったり合う。(This jacket sets well.)\n\n正しい's use as an i-adjective is a little different. 私の意見は大抵において正しい。(My opinion\nis generally correct.) 厳密に言うと、君は正しくない。(Strictly speaking, you're not correct.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T21:32:00.497",
"id": "51835",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T21:32:00.497",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "11369",
"parent_id": "51815",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51815 | null | 51817 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51820",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "When do you omit the い? Is it ungrammatical to use してる?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T05:19:21.527",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51818",
"last_activity_date": "2021-07-20T07:54:01.987",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-28T05:56:01.207",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "25166",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"nuances",
"verbs",
"て-form",
"contractions"
],
"title": "What is the difference between ～してる and ～している?",
"view_count": 2376
} | [
{
"body": "It is technically ungrammatical in written texts (my Japanese teacher back\nthen used to remind us often about that). Technically, it's part of the so-\ncalled \"casual\" style in the Japanese language. That is, い is often (almost\nalways) omitted in casual conversations among friends or same-level people.\n\nHowever, it is quite commonly accepted now in (some) texts as well as it\nreflects as I said the casual conversational style.\n\nMaybe the fact that is so often found in written texts nowadays is a legacy of\nthe IT-revolution (let's call it this way) of the past decades. With the\nadvent of modern technologies and the exponential increase of instant\nmessaging, people just started naturally to \"write the way the speak\" more and\nmore often.\n\nI would say that, in a way, it could be compared to how some kids write texts\nusing abbreviations such as \"idk\", \"ttl\" or.. \"wtf\". :D",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T05:28:52.530",
"id": "51819",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T05:28:52.530",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"parent_id": "51818",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "してる is simply a colloquial contracted form of して **い** る, similarly one has\nしてない contracted from して **い** ない. It is very common in spoken language, but\nungrammatical in \"proper\" (school) grammar.\n\nThis contraction is maybe similar to contractions such as\n\n * _she had/would → she'd_\n * _it is → it's_\n * _I have → I've_.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T05:49:59.313",
"id": "51820",
"last_activity_date": "2021-07-20T07:54:01.987",
"last_edit_date": "2021-07-20T07:54:01.987",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "51818",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 51818 | 51820 | 51820 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51822",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Are the words 保育所 and 幼稚園 synonyms or is there some distinction between them,\neither in meaning or formality?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T10:06:15.590",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51821",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T10:48:40.830",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Difference between 保育所 and 幼稚園",
"view_count": 626
} | [
{
"body": "While there's definitely some significant overlap in the services they\nprovide, the two are considered distinct types of facility, overseen by\ndifferent governmental branches.\n\nA 幼稚園 is a primarily educational institution, officially a type of school, and\nso they require their staff to have teaching qualifications, only accept\nchildren from ages 3 and up, and often have relatively short hours\n(traditionally from around 9 AM to 2 PM, though many institutions will offer\nthe service of taking care of the children for longer).\n\nA 保育園 on the other hand is a childcare institution, whose primary purpose is\nto look after children while their parents are unable to do so. As such they\nhave longer hours (from around 7 AM to 6 PM) and no definite lower age limit\non the children they will accept. They're also required to provide lunches,\nwhich isn't the case for 幼稚園.\n\nDespite the differing focus, both types of institution will of course provide\nsome measure of both educational and care services, and both cater to children\nup to around the age of 6, when they will enter the compulsory education\nsystem by enrolling in a 小学校.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T10:48:40.830",
"id": "51822",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T10:48:40.830",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25107",
"parent_id": "51821",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 51821 | 51822 | 51822 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm not Japanese and I was chatting with my Japanese teenager niece in English\nabout her school life and bullying, and I said, \"Don't worry, things will get\nbetter\".\n\nShe answered in Japanese with \"Shiawase ja nai otona ni settoku ryoku aru mono\nka\" (幸せじゃない大人に説得力あるものか).\n\nWhat does that mean?\n\nI'm a beginner in Japanese, so I don't really get what she said. Did she\ncriticize me or something? Some people started laughing... I'm so confused.\n\nThanks.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T12:33:35.987",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51824",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T01:41:44.817",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25169",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "What does \"幸せじゃない大人に説得力あるものか\" mean?",
"view_count": 182
} | [
{
"body": "> \"Shiawase ja nai otona ni settoku ryoku aru mono ka\" (幸せじゃない大人に説得力あるものか).\n\nWith my poor trial, it could be said like \" ~~ _Words are not persuasive said\nby a not so happy adult like you!_~~ _It's impossible that what is said by an\nunhappy adult like you is persuasive!_ \"\n\nShe is somewhat criticizing you. I'm sure she knows you have not succeeded in\nlife or you are not so happy.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T12:53:29.660",
"id": "51825",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T01:41:44.817",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-29T01:41:44.817",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51824",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51824 | null | 51825 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51838",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "What is the meaning of **何のこともかんのことも**?\n\nWhat does かん stand for here?\n\nIn context:\n\nThe first person says: 「旦那様、それは何のことでやんすか。人ぎきの悪いことだ」, to which the second\nperson answers, beginning with 何のこともかんのことも and continuing by explaining what\nthe matter was.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T14:18:38.610",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51827",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T05:09:13.867",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-28T15:01:41.893",
"last_editor_user_id": "25171",
"owner_user_id": "25171",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What is 何のこともかんのことも?",
"view_count": 256
} | [
{
"body": "(Your story appears to be [傘の絵](http://minwa.fujipan.co.jp/area/iwate_016/))\n\nA millionaire (the second person) has bought a painting of a woman with an\numbrella. The millionaire feels that he has been tricked. When the millionaire\nsees the salesman who sold the painting (the first person), he is angry at\nhim, to which the salesman responds:\n\n> 旦那様、それは **何のこと** でやんすか。人[聞]{ぎ}きの悪いことだ \n> Master, **what** is that all about? It's disgraceful.\n\nThis 何のこと is to what the millionaire answers\n\n> **何のこともかん** のことも、（…）\n\nwhere 「かん」 is \"that\" or \"other\".\n\n「何のこともかんのことも」 could be literally translated to \"what and that\", but this\ntranslation doesn't make much sense in English. Given the context, I would\ntranslate it to \"Oh, I'll tell you what it's all about!\". The important point\nabout this translation is repeating what the salesman said. The function of\n「かんのこと」 in this phrase is to say that \"there is more to it\".\n\nAfter 「、」 the millionaire continues to explain how the painting didn't \"work\"\nas expected.",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T15:37:07.923",
"id": "51832",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T18:46:51.423",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-28T18:46:51.423",
"last_editor_user_id": "19206",
"owner_user_id": "19206",
"parent_id": "51827",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "# 日本語\n\n> 何のこともかんのことも\n\nこれは、「何のことも彼｛か｝のことも」の「音便変化 _euphonic change_ 」したものです。\n\n> 「何｛なん｝の彼｛か｝の」が基本形です。\n\n「何の彼の」は、例えば\n[この辞書｛じしょ｝](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E4%BD%95%E3%81%AE%E5%BD%BC%E3%81%AE-590704)に次｛つぎ｝のような説明｛せつめい｝があります。\n\n> あれこれ。いろいろ。 **なんのかんの** 。\n\nもちろん「かんの＝彼｛か｝の」は英語では that\nに相当｛そうとう｝します。「彼」は三人称｛さんにんしょう｝の「彼｛かれ｝」や「彼女｛かのじょ｝」でも使｛つか｝われています。\n\n# English\n\n> 何のことも **かん** のことも\n\nかん in the phrase is the euphonic change from 彼｛か｝ which means \"that\n(indicating something distant from both speaker and listener (in space, time\nor psychologically), or something understood without naming it directly)\".\n\nSo the given phrase is expressed as:\n\n> 何のことも彼のことも\n\nThis is a set phrase similar to 「何もかも _just about everything_ 」or 「あれもこれも\n_this and that_ 」.\n\nSimilar to this phrase, \"何のかんの\" is more commonly used, which is an euphonic\nchange from \"何の彼{か}の\" that means \" _something or other_ \".\n\nなんだかんだ and なんやかんや shown by siikamiika are also euphonic changes from 何だ彼｛か｝だ\nand 何や彼｛か｝や respectively having the same meaning as 何のかんの or 何の彼の.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T02:34:44.867",
"id": "51838",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T05:09:13.867",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51827",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 51827 | 51838 | 51838 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51833",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "# English\n\nI have heard following sentence in video.\n\n> さっきの手紙に何で書いてあったかな。\n\nI’m not able to understand, why で has been used.\n\nWhy not following statement is correct?\n\n> さっきの手紙になにを書いてあったかな。\n\n# 日本語\n\nビデオで以下の文を聞きました。\n\n> 文：さっきの手紙に何で書いてあったかな。\n\n「で」はどうして使っているのかわかりません。\n\n以下の文は正しいですか？\n\n> さっきの手紙になにを書いてあったかな。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T15:15:21.263",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51831",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T16:10:01.250",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "25172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"particle-で"
],
"title": "Use of で particle over を",
"view_count": 115
} | [
{
"body": "The sentence should be:\n\n> さっきの手紙に[何]{なん} **て** 書いてあったかな。\n\nThe 「て」 is a colloquial variant of the quotative particle 「と」.\n\n> て \n> 〘格助・副助・終助〙 \n> 「って」が「ん」で終わる語に続くときの形。⇒って \n> 「今何 **て** 言った？（格助）」 \n> (from 明鏡国語辞典)\n\n「て」 is used instead of 「って」 when attached to a word ending with ん.\n\nYour sentence can be rephrased as:\n\n> さっきの手紙に[何]{なん} **と** 書いてあったかな。\n\n* * *\n\n> さっきの手紙になに **を** 書いてあったかな。\n\ndoesn't sound natural. You could instead say it as:\n\n> さっきの手紙に[何]{なに} **が** 書いてあったかな。\n\n書いてあった means \"was written (there)\", so probably this is why 何が sounds natural\nand 何を sounds unnatural here.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T16:03:38.253",
"id": "51833",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T16:03:38.253",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51831",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51831 | 51833 | 51833 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51837",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Suppose I want to ask for two pairs of chopsticks for myself and someone I'm\nwith.\n\nDoes `お箸【はし】を二【ふた】つください` mean I'm asking for two chopsticks or two sets of\nchopsticks? (Also, am I using the right counter? I'm learning from Duolingo\nhere..)\n\nCan it change for other objects and their respective counters? Are there maybe\nother words often used to avoid confusion about some x quantities of a thing?\nI see this misunderstanding in English a bit too much, and I'm wondering if it\nhappens in Japanese too.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T22:52:25.933",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51836",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T16:45:51.870",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"counters"
],
"title": "Counters + inherently plural items",
"view_count": 261
} | [
{
"body": "In your sentence お[箸]{はし}を[二]{ふた}つください, you're not using any counter.\n\nぜん is the counter for a set (or pair) of chopsticks. So, you can make clear\nyour meaning by using this counter. Alternatively, let's say you want three\nchopsticks (for whatever reason), then you can use the counter ほん for long\nslender things. Though I imagine if you ask, \"はしを三本ください\" you'll probably get\nquizzical looks--perhaps they'll even think you mean three sets and just got\nthe counter wrong.\n\nNevertheless, if you say \"はしをにほんください\", you'll probably be given two chopsticks\n(assuming they're not the 割{わ}り箸{ばし}). Definitely, if you ask \"はしをにぜんください\"\nyou'll get two pair of chopsticks.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-28T23:33:20.580",
"id": "51837",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-28T23:40:20.033",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-28T23:40:20.033",
"last_editor_user_id": "4875",
"owner_user_id": "4875",
"parent_id": "51836",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "> Does お箸を二つください mean I'm asking for two chopsticks or two sets of chopsticks?\n> (Also, am I using the right counter? I'm learning from Duolingo here..)\n\nWhen we need to specify how many, お箸ふたつ ください／もらえますか／いただけますか is the common way\nto ask for two pairs of chopsticks.\n\nIt's possible to say 六本のおはしはみっつのおはし though we probably never need to say it.\n\nIn Japanese, we take a pair of things that are usually used together as one\nobject.\n\nWe call a pair of shoes 一足{いっそく}のくつ. \nWe have the word, 片方{かたほう} to mean one of a pair of something. \nWe say 一対{いっつい}の, 一組{ひとくみ}の when we want to especially describe a pair of\nsomething as a pair (actually 一組 means a group, and can include any numbers of\nthings or people).\n\nThe whole pair of scissors is one はさみ to us. The whole pair of eyeglasses is\none めがね to us.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T16:45:51.870",
"id": "51851",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T16:45:51.870",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51836",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51836 | 51837 | 51837 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51840",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What are Japanese equivalents to saying that something is a principle,\ndoctrine, or philosophy? You know, things that would be phrased as something\nlike \"The ________ Principle/Doctrine\", or \"The Philosophy of ________\" in\nEnglish?\n\nI've found a couple of ways, using words like 法、理、原理、原則、義、etc. but I'm not\nsure which to use or how to use it as to form normal-sounding phrases with the\nproper nuance.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T03:33:50.820",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51839",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T06:40:25.990",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-29T04:39:05.373",
"last_editor_user_id": "17968",
"owner_user_id": "17968",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"nuances",
"phrases"
],
"title": "How do you say things like \"The ________ Principle\" in Japanese?",
"view_count": 191
} | [
{
"body": "Depending on where you use it, but if you look at famous usages they are\ntranslated into as:\n\n * [Archimedes' principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes%27_principle) [アルキメデスの **原理**](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%AB%E3%82%AD%E3%83%A1%E3%83%87%E3%82%B9%E3%81%AE%E5%8E%9F%E7%90%86)\n * [The uncertainty principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle) [不確定性 **原理**](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%8D%E7%A2%BA%E5%AE%9A%E6%80%A7%E5%8E%9F%E7%90%86)\n * [The Monroe Doctorine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine) [モンロー **主義**](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC%E4%B8%BB%E7%BE%A9)\n * [Philosophy of science](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science) [科学 **哲学**](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A7%91%E5%AD%A6%E5%93%B2%E5%AD%A6)\n * [the Pythagorean theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem) [ピタゴラスの **定理**](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%94%E3%82%BF%E3%82%B4%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B9%E3%81%AE%E5%AE%9A%E7%90%86) or 三平方{さんへいほう}の定理\n * [Theory_of_relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity) [相対性 **理論**](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9B%B8%E5%AF%BE%E6%80%A7%E7%90%86%E8%AB%96)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T06:33:13.657",
"id": "51840",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T06:40:25.990",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-29T06:40:25.990",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51839",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51839 | 51840 | 51840 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51845",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Context: a guy has invited his girlfriend over to study, and the girlfriend\nfinds a dirty magazine. The following exchange takes place:\n\n> 男 : 香奈さん? 今日はテスト勉強しにいらしたのでしょう？ \n> 女 : 何が勉強だし! どうせ千秋はこういうことばかり考えてたんでしょ！ \n> 男 : そんなこと **も** ないけど…\n\nWhy did he say も here instead of saying そんなことないけど or something similar? I\ncan't quite figure out in what sense the particle is being used. It doesn't\nseem to me a case of it being used in the sense of \"even,\" or trying to show\nhow big of a thing something is. It also doesn't immediately make sense to me\nfor it to be in the sense of \"also\"; in that case it would mean \"that's not\nthe case\" (in addition to other things not being the case), but the only way I\ncan make that make sense is if I assume what he means is \"I didn't invite you\nover for that, but I may not have invited you over to study either.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T07:25:42.497",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51841",
"last_activity_date": "2022-03-07T19:19:01.353",
"last_edit_date": "2022-03-07T19:19:01.353",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "9596",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-も"
],
"title": "Usage of も in そんなこともないけど",
"view_count": 777
} | [
{
"body": "The も is used in the sense of...\n\n> も 〘副助〙* \n> ⓬ さりげなく取り立てて、文意をやわらげる。... \n> ㋐《多く、文末表現に使って》一歩引く気持ちで、その判断をやわらげる。... \n> 「その件なら知らなく **も** ない」「そんな感じがしないで **も** ない」 \n> (from 明鏡国語辞典)\n\nThe も softens the statement. 「そんなこと **も** ない」 sounds softer and less\ndecisive/assertive than 「そんなこと **は** ない」.\n\n* 明鏡国語辞典 categorizes 係助詞(binding particles) as 副助詞(adverbial particles).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T12:13:05.423",
"id": "51845",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-07T00:43:03.583",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-07T00:43:03.583",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51841",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
},
{
"body": "I will logically strenghen ǝʇɐןoɔoɥƆ's answer.\n\n * Ａだ。 _It is 100% A._\n * Ａもだ。Ｂもだ。 _It is 50% A._\n * Ａもだ。Ｂもだ。Ｃもだ。 _It is 33% A._\n * Ａもだ。 _It is less than 100% A._\n\nSo, the も softens the statement. \"Ａもだ\" sounds softer and less\ndecisive/assertive than \"Ａだ\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T14:08:15.490",
"id": "51848",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T14:08:15.490",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51841",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 51841 | 51845 | 51845 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51847",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In [one episode](https://youtu.be/X6Uh6yriWG4?t=11m18s) of 「BSマンガ夜話」, a TV\nprogram on comics, one guest used the \"phrase\" 「おいおいまた」 as below:\n\n> あんな美人{びじん}じゃあ、赤名{あかな}リカは務{つと}まらない、っていう様{よう}な印象{いんしょう}が、 **おいおいまた** 。\n\nIt seems to me that 「おいおい、また」 is usually used in the sense of \"what? ...\nagain?\" as in 「おいおいまた言論｛げんろん｝統制｛とうせい｝か」.\n\nBut it is used as a predicate(?) in the context above and the \"what?...again?\"\nreading doesn't seem to fit in that straightforward.\n\nSo, how should one interpret the 「おいおいまた」 here?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T08:29:02.950",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51843",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T03:36:14.080",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5346",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"usage"
],
"title": "On a seemingly peculiar use of 「おいおいまた」",
"view_count": 120
} | [
{
"body": "I'm going straight to the point,\"おいおいまた\" is also written as \"追々{おいおい}また\" that\nimplies \"また追々[話]｛はな｝します。 _I'll explain my impression further if I have\ntime/chance again._ \" \n\"追々また\" is a relatively common expression used when you interrupt your talk\nthough there remains many things to talk about but need not to talk in a hurry\nnow.\n\n日本語が十分｛じゅうぶん｝わかると判断｛はんだん｝しますので、以下｛いか｝、日本語で回答｛かいとう｝します。\n\n質問｛しつもん｝にある以下｛いか｝の文章｛ぶんしょう｝からは「おいおいまた。」の意味｛いみ｝が正確｛せいかく｝には分かりませんでしたが、テレビの録画｛ろくが｝を実際｛じっさい｝に見｛み｝て分かりました。\n\n> あんな美人{びじん}じゃあ、赤名{あかな}リカは務{つと}まらない、っていう様{よう}な印象{いんしょう}が、 **おいおいまた** 。\n\nテレビの録画を見ますと、上の発言｛はつげん｝をした女性｛じょせい｝が、一度｛いちど｝話｛はな｝すのをやめて次｛つぎ｝の人｛ひと｝に話｛はな｝す機会｛きかい｝を与｛あた｝えています。画面｛がめん｝の流｛なが｝れから判断｛はんだん｝しますと、「おいおいまた」は「追々｛おいおい｝また」で、そのあとに次のようなフレーズが省略｛しょうりゃく｝されていると思｛おも｝います。更｛さら｝に、「おいおいまた」の前は「、（読点｛とうてん｝）」ではなく、「あります。」が省略されていると思います。\n\n> （っていう様な印象が） **あります。** （追々また） **時間｛じかん｝があったら私の印象をさらに説明｛せつめい｝します。** _I'll\n> explain my impression further if I have time/chance again_.\n\n「追々また」は、「また追々しゃべります」というような意味で、話｛はな｝すことはまだあるが、緊急性｛きんきゅうせい｝もない内容｛ないよう｝なので、いったん話｛はなし｝を中断｛ちゅうだん｝するときに比較的｛ひかくてき｝普通｛ふつう｝に使｛つか｝われる表現｛ひょうげん｝です。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T12:55:32.210",
"id": "51847",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T03:36:14.080",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T03:36:14.080",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51843",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51843 | 51847 | 51847 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51853",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Can anyone answer the questions above? Because this really confuses me.\n\nAny help is appreciated.\n\nThanks in advance,\n\nBajiru",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T09:55:45.360",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51844",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T21:59:40.257",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"kana",
"kana-usage"
],
"title": "Why do not all かな get dakuten? And why only the は ひ ふ へ ほ へ kana get handakuten?",
"view_count": 1039
} | [
{
"body": "> Why do not all かな get dakuten? And why only the は ひ ふ へ ほ へ kana get\n> handakuten?\n\nThere are sounds first, letters are made to denote them. \n[半濁点]｛handakuten｝ was devised to denote [破裂音]{haretsuon} or _**stop\nconsonant**_.\n\nIf you have enough ways to denote the sounds of your language, you need not\nhave any more.\n\n> ### Stop consonant\n>\n> In phonetics, a **stop** , also known as a **plosive** or **oral occlusive**\n> , is a consonant in which the vocal tract is blocked so that all airflow\n> ceases.\n\nThis explanation is from [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_consonant).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T12:19:36.977",
"id": "51846",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T12:19:36.977",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51844",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Dakuten change the consonant of a kana in a specific way - namely, they add\nvoicing to a voiceless consonant. So さ /sa/ becomes ざ /za/, and so on. But\nwhat about sounds that are already voiced, such as /n/? What in the world\nwould な゛ even mean? You can't make /n/ any more voiced than it already is.\n\nAs for handakuten, they exist specifically to add /p/ back into Japanese. When\nthe kana were originally created, what's now the /h/-row represented *p (or\nrather *ɸ, descended from *p in Old Japanese). This *p changed to modern /h/,\nbut Japanese has since regained /p/ from Chinese loanwords. Thus, they needed\nsome way to write this new /p/, so they modified the old *p kana with a\nhandakuten to make them the new /p/ kana. Since this is an unsystematic change\n- it doesn't affect a _class_ of sounds in any particular way like the dakuten\ndoes - it's not clear what a handakuten added to a different kana would even\nmean.\n\nSo in short, the reason that dakuten and handakuten are restricted to a subset\nof kana is that if you added them to any other kana, there would be no clear\ninterpretation of the resulting combination.\n\nThere are some odd edge cases. Dakuten can be added to vowel kana in manga and\nsimilar environments to indicate something like loudness or intensity (e.g.\nあ゛あ゛あ゛あ゛あ゛！); though this is a bit uncommon. ゔ has been created as a way to\ntranscribe [v], though it's not consistently used (people often just write ぶ).\nAnd k-row kana with a handakuten are sometimes used in linguistic works to\nspecify pronunciation with [ŋ] as opposed to [g] (e.g. か゜is specifically [ŋa],\nnot [ga], when in normal writing が could be either). Those are the only cases\nof unusual combinations, though.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T19:02:59.263",
"id": "51853",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T21:59:40.257",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-29T21:59:40.257",
"last_editor_user_id": "3639",
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "51844",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 51844 | 51853 | 51853 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51899",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I first noticed this odd pronunciation in [the second opening of code\ngeass](https://youtu.be/YBhsDtFUgdM?t=23s). The singer repeatedly pronounces\nthe word かんかく as something that sounds more like かんかう, missing the 'k' sound.\n\nI noticed it again more recently, in the [opening of\nmondaiji](https://youtu.be/Ie2JS4K69xQ?t=35s), in which かすか is pronounced as\nかすあ.\n\nI was aware that vowels could be skipped in pronunciation, but these are the\nonly instances I've seen this happen with consonants. While there don't appear\nto be any other words you could easily mistake these two for when pronounced\nthis way, I'd have thought it'd still cause at least some confusion to\npronounce them like this, even if it may better fit the music.\n\nHow common is it to remove consonants like this? Does it happen with\nconsonants other than 'k', and are there any words in which it's common to\nleave a consonant out (like how it's common to leave out the 'u' in 好き)?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T15:09:40.880",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51850",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T16:40:19.497",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T01:57:10.673",
"last_editor_user_id": "19206",
"owner_user_id": "22689",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"song-lyrics",
"music"
],
"title": "Silent consonants when singing",
"view_count": 311
} | [
{
"body": "Well, as it's been a few days and nobody else has added anything, I guess the\nanswer is simply that I can't hear it. Perhaps that's because of me being used\nto English pronunciation, or perhaps it's just me that can't hear it.\nWhichever it is, it seems that the consonants are indeed there.\n\nSo, short answer is; no, consonants cannot be left out of words.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T16:40:19.497",
"id": "51899",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T16:40:19.497",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22689",
"parent_id": "51850",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51850 | 51899 | 51899 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51856",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Isn't 取る means to pick up?, so you are literally saying \"pick that salt\", so\nhow would you say when you want someone to pick up something instead of\npassing it to you?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T19:21:23.610",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51854",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T23:43:45.277",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19322",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Why \"pass me the salt\" is しおを取って instead of しおをわたして",
"view_count": 1669
} | [
{
"body": "Good observation. You point out a difference between English and Japanese, but\nto Japanese the act of passing something can be made more indirect by asking\nto 'take' instead of 'pass' it. The request to pass something is well\nunderstood when you say 「塩を取ってください」\n\nIf you want to ask someone to pick something up, you can say 「XXXを手で持ってください」or\n「手で掴んで（動詞：つかむ）ください」",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T19:46:13.483",
"id": "51855",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T19:46:13.483",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22736",
"parent_id": "51854",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "> Why “pass me the salt” is しおを取って instead of しおをわたして\n>\n> Isn't 取る means to pick up?, so you are literally saying \"pick that salt\", so\n> how would you say when you want someone to pick up something instead of\n> passing it to you?\n\n取る indeed means 'pick up', but \n**取って** seems to have become to mean \" _ **pick it up for me (and hand it to\nme)**_.\"\n\n渡す{わたす} doesn't have the sense of picking up, and we Japanese want the sense\nof _**picking up for me**_ when we ask someone to pass us the salt at the\ntable.\n\nAt the table, if we need to tell someone, casually, to pick up the salt, we\nwill probably say お塩かけたら？ Now our concern is for the listener to use the salt\nfor themselves and not if they pick it up or not.\n\nYes, I find the thing is that 取って, やって, して are to ask someone to do something\n_**for me/us.**_\n\nWhen it's not for me/us, and for the listener's sake, it's an advice, and we\nsay it differently; 取ったら, やったら, したら, etc.\n\n* * *\n\nConclusion: 渡して says \"pass it for me\" and _**not \"pass it to me\"**_; it's\nasking to pass something to (someone) for me. So, if you say そのお塩を私に渡して, it'll\nbe understood, but we still don't say it this way. We say\n（その）お塩を（私に）ちょうだい／取って／取ってちょうだい etc.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T20:44:27.010",
"id": "51856",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-29T23:43:45.277",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51854",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 51854 | 51856 | 51856 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51858",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I looked it up in online dictionaries and they didn't really prove useful.\n\"Selfish\" or \"convenience\" doesn't seem to fit.\n\nSo this is a quote from [Niji-iro\nTohgarashi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niji-iro_T%C5%8Dgarashi)\n\n> **勝手な** 奴だ。\n\nThis is the sentence a brother said about his sister, after he found out that\nmuch as she hated insects, she seemed to like fireflies (which are insects), a\nlot. I figure what he means is \"she hates insects, yet she likes fireflies\nwhich are insects, so she's kinda self-serving in a way, likes what looks\nbeautiful and hates what doesn't\". But \"selfish\" sounds a bit\nmisleading/confusing, and harsh, and I'm not sure about the connotation of\n\"self-serving\" either.\n\nYet, the same word is used later\n\n> 害虫も雑草も人間の **勝手な** 都合で分類されたもんだろ。\n\nIn this case, it describes the way people classify insects and grasses into\ncategories like pests and weeds to their liking. They like what's good for\nthem, and hate what isn't. In this context, both \"selfish\" and \"self-serving\"\nsound apt.\n\nIf both of these contexts were independent from each other, I would go with\n\"Whatever suits her\" with the former sentence, and \"The selfish means\" with\nthe latter. But they are not independent within the bigger context of the\nmanga. And both sentences use the same word. So I wonder is there a good way\nto describe those similar qualities (\"a little self-serving, but not that\nserious\" and \"it's self-serving and now we're talking seriously\") with the\nsame word(s) in English that will sound natural and soothing for both\nsentences.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-29T22:05:09.590",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51857",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T00:53:00.043",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10168",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"translation",
"na-adjectives"
],
"title": "What quality would 勝手 describe in these contexts?",
"view_count": 155
} | [
{
"body": "勝手 can also be taken to mean **arbitrary**. Instead of directly referencing\nthe definition of 'selfish' with all its English connotations, it's easier to\nthink of it as describing the basic idea of just doing as one pleases; without\napproval, without auxiliary, and with their own judgement.\n\nWhile 'arbitrary' doesn't carry the negative connotation that both sentences\nhave, it is unfortunately the only word I can think of that stays true to the\nmeaning of the original _and_ works in both contexts. Hope this gives you a\nplace to start off in.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T00:53:00.043",
"id": "51858",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T00:53:00.043",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9132",
"parent_id": "51857",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
]
| 51857 | 51858 | 51858 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'd like to know if the word 陰陽 is commonly used to describe Yin and Yang as a\n\"series of words\", or if it's (only) used to describe the combination of Yin\nand Yang as one single term, so to speak. Basically, would it mean \"'Yin' and\n'Yang'\" or \"Yin and Yang\", or perhaps both? I'm aware that the original\nconcept is Chinese, but it also exists in Japanese as 陰陽道, no? What I\nbasically would like to know is if saying 陰陽 is different from saying 陰と陽.\n\nAlso, the word can be read as Onmyō and In'yō, but is there any different in\nthe reading's meaning? I'm aware that the reading of a kanji normally doesn't\nchange its meaning, but it often gives more information, right? For example, 弟\nwith the reading ボブ to denote that the younger brother that is meant is Bob\nand not Jim. Is that the case here?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T01:07:22.883",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51859",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T06:08:50.593",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17828",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"readings"
],
"title": "Meaning/Use of 陰陽 in Japanese and differences in reading (Onmyō/In'yō)",
"view_count": 335
} | [
{
"body": "It might be the difference between **Go-on** (呉音, \"sound from the Wu region\")\nand **Kan-on** (漢音, \"Han sound\").\n\nAccording to [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-on), Go-on is:\n\n> introduced to Japan during the 5th and 6th centuries, when China was divided\n> into separate Northern and Southern dynasties, go-on readings are possibly\n> imported either directly from the Southern dynasty or the Korean Peninsula.\n> This explanation is based mainly on historical reasoning: there was an\n> influx of thinkers from China and Korea to Japan at that time, including\n> both Buddhist and Confucian practitioners. However, there is no historical\n> documentation to conclusively demonstrate that go-on readings are actually\n> based on southern Chinese.\n\nAccording to [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kan-on), Kan-on is:\n\n> one of the sources of pronunciation of Japanese kanji. They were borrowed\n> during the Tang dynasty (7th to 9th century), introduced by, among others,\n> envoys from Japanese missions to Tang China. This period corresponds with\n> the Japanese Nara period.\n>\n> Kan-on is based on the central Chang'an pronunciation. The name Kan could\n> refer to the Han dynasty, which also had Chang'an as its capital\n> city.Furthermore, Kan has also become a description for all things Chinese,\n> e.g., Kanji ('Chinese characters').\n>\n> Kan'on partly **displaced the earlier go'on** , which were \"just imitations\n> of Korean imitations, but Kan-on were imitations of the real things.\"\n\nApart from the explanation of Kan-on above,\n[here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1416422854)\nis an article that the Japanese government at that time often **abolished Go-\non and designated Kan-on as formal pronunciation of _kanji_**. As a result of\nthe policy of the government, we have a lot of Kan-on as _on-yomi_ for _kanji_\nlike [陰陽]{in-yoh}, but Go-on remains a little as _on-yomi_ for _kanji_ like\n[陰陽]{on-myoh} in certain field. \nI quote the whole article in Japanese as follows.\n\n> **陰陽師の読み方って、『おんみょうじ』以外に『いんようし』とも読めるのですか？**\n>\n>\n> 「いん」は漢音（七～八世紀ごろに遣唐使が伝えた中国語音）、「おん（おむ）」は呉音（六世紀ごろ、またはそれ以前におもに仏典を通じて伝わった中国語音）です。「陰」を「おん」と読む例は、仏教の「四苦八苦」の中に、「五陰盛苦（ごおんじょうく）」というのがあります。漢字音については、たびたび、「漢音を正音とし、呉音を廃する」旨のお触れがでました。そういう影響で、現代にいたるまで、漢字音の大半は漢音です。ただし、古くから伝わって、もうそれが漢語だと意識しないぐらい日本語になじんでしまった言葉は、あまり改まりませんでした。「おんみょうじ」もその一つだと思います。ことさらに漢音で「いんようし」と発音する人も時にはいたのかもしれません。それなら、「いんようし」でも正しいということになりますね。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T06:08:50.593",
"id": "51864",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T06:08:50.593",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51859",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51859 | null | 51864 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51874",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "At first I thought that Japanese people pronouncing Qantas as カンタス was an\nurban legend (the start of \"カンタス\" matches a vulgar four letter word in\nEnglish), but I've since found out that it's real, with Qantas' Japanese\nhomepage having \"カンタス航空｜ホームページ｜航空券｜旅行情報 - Qantas\".\n\nBy contrast, there's almost always a \"w\" style sound when Australians\npronounce it. Wiktionary gives an IPA of /ˈkwɒntəs/, and the second sentence\nof the [Japanese edition of Wikipedia's article on the\nairline](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AB%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BF%E3%82%B9%E8%88%AA%E7%A9%BA)\nmentions how Australians pronounce it with three citations.\n\nWhy is Qantas spelt \"カンタス\" in Japanese?\n\nAs far as I can tell, it isn't because it resembles how non-Australian English\nspeakers pronounce the word - in the American movie \"Rain Man\" they pronounce\nit with a \"w\" sound.\n\n\"カンタス\" could be seen as matching a phonetic spelling of \"Qantas\", like how\nEnglish-speakers pronounce \"Qatar\", but I thought katakana was typically based\non how words are actually pronounced.\n\nAlternatively, is it possible that katakana lacks the capability of indicating\nthe \"w\" sound in this scenario?",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T02:08:10.750",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51860",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T14:00:34.703",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"katakana",
"loanwords",
"spelling"
],
"title": "Why is Qantas spelt カンタス?",
"view_count": 500
} | [
{
"body": "It's not impossible to render is as クワンタス but it's not really commercially\nadvantageous to adopt such a peculiar pronunciation. After all, I don't know\nhow they decided their own name since it's a proper noun like mackygoo says.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T14:00:34.703",
"id": "51874",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T14:00:34.703",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "51860",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51860 | 51874 | 51874 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51863",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> それが良{い}いのか悪{わり}ィのか正{ただ}しいことなのか、少し考{かんが}える。\n\nI interpret this clause from 僕のヒーローアカデミア as \"As to whether that is a good\nthing or a bad thing or something correct, I will think about it a little.\"\n\nWhy is 悪{わり}ィ used instead of 悪{わる}い (i.e. why the り syllable after わ rather\nthan the る syllable)? Also, why is the い at the end written in 小さいカタカナ rather\nthan ひらがな?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T05:20:05.520",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51862",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T22:43:26.033",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T05:34:42.027",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "23869",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"colloquial-language",
"katakana",
"contractions"
],
"title": "Use of 悪ィ over 悪い",
"view_count": 402
} | [
{
"body": "As you can see in @Earthliŋ's answer that I linked above, this kind of sound\nchange occurs quite often in colloquial speech.\n\n> /ui/ → /ii/ \n> あつい → あちい・あちぃ・あちー \n> わるい → わりい・わりぃ・わりー \n> だるい → だりい・だりぃ・だりー\n\nThis is informal, and usually sounds masculine.\n\n> why is the い at the end written in 小さいカタカナ rather than ひらがな?\n\nKatakana often look slangy, so I think they wanted to make it look more\nslangy.\n\nEdit: As commented by @Sjiveru, the Kanatana ィ is also working as a cue for\nthe slang pronunciation; 悪ィ with no furigana would still probably be read as\nわりい.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T06:04:14.977",
"id": "51863",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T22:43:26.033",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T22:43:26.033",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51862",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51862 | 51863 | 51863 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51867",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Does 意識してる have a different meaning than \"being aware\" in the following\nsentence?\n\n> この漫画の原作を書く時は自分の中にある１番悪い部分をどれだけ出せるか…ってことを意識してます。\n\nConsidering that the sentence that comes before is a question, it comes\nnatural to me to translate 意識してる as \"I wonder\", but I couldn't find this\nmeaning in dictionaries. Is my interpretation correct? Or I got it completely\nwrong? Thank you for your help!\n\nEDIT: my translation attempt.\n\n> I wonder(?) to what extent I am able to convey the worst part that's inside\n> me when I write the story of this manga.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T07:20:00.037",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51865",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T09:42:49.823",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17797",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"words"
],
"title": "Meaning of 意識してる in this sentence",
"view_count": 795
} | [
{
"body": "I think 意識してる in your sentence means \"pay attention\" \"keep in mind\" (close to\n気にしている, 注意を払っている or 心にとめている).\n\nSo I think it can translate to something like:\n\n\"I (always) pay attention to how much I am able to convey the most evil part\nthat's inside me when I write the story of this manga.\"\n\nby which the author practically means:\n\n\"I always try as much as I can to convey the most evil part that's inside me\nwhen I write the story of this manga.\"",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T08:56:26.103",
"id": "51867",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T09:42:49.823",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T09:42:49.823",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51865",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51865 | 51867 | 51867 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "How acceptable is it to omit \"da\" in casual speech in phrases such as\n\n-- chokoreto ga suki (da) yo\n\n-- boku wa daigakusei (da)\n\nAnd so on..... Do it also depend if it's a male or female talking?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T07:57:42.323",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51866",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T15:32:20.550",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25190",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"particles",
"feminine-speech",
"casual"
],
"title": "Omitting \"da\" in casual speech",
"view_count": 570
} | [
{
"body": "I think omitting \"da\" in casual speech is common.\n\nI feel chokoreto ga suki yo is mainly used by female. If you omit だ in だよ like\nthat, it becomes ladylike manner of speaking.\n\nboku wa daigakusei is no problem. Or rather, that kind of だ is commonly\nomitted in casual speech.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T15:23:27.663",
"id": "51875",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T15:32:20.550",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T15:32:20.550",
"last_editor_user_id": "7320",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "51866",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51866 | null | 51875 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Does anyone know the origin of the verb 茶化す, which translates as 'to tease, to\nmake fun of, to kid'? Is is somehow related to \"breaking teacups\"?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T08:56:37.530",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51868",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T15:21:58.283",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22186",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"history"
],
"title": "Origin of the verb 茶化す？",
"view_count": 240
} | [
{
"body": "[Here](http://senpou.cocolog-nifty.com/sousen/2008/04/post_5cfa.html) is an\narticle on the etymology of 茶化す.\n\nExcerpts from the main line of the article are translated like:\n\n> \"The keyword to understand \"茶化す\" is a China's copper trumpeter called\n> Charmera or **チャルメラ** : Portuguese tyaramela (etymology is _calamus_ meaning\n> reed in Latin). The origin of oboe, one of wind instruments. Although it was\n> used for the accompaniment music of street performing, it seemed that the\n> strange tone that had not been heard in Japan until then sounded\n> irresponsible for the audience. \"茶{ちゃ} _tea_ \" in \"茶化す\" is mere an _ateji_\n> ([当て字]{あてじ}, a Chinese character used as a phonetic symbol rather than for\n> its meaning) and it has been used also in a word like \"ちゃらんぽらん\" that\n> expresses a irresponsible feeling.\n\n[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9dgsjsg_LI) you can hear the sound of\nChalmera that every Japanese knows.\n\n[Here](http://www.nihonjiten.com/data/254221.html) is another article on 茶化す.\nI quote the whole explanation as follows.\n\n> **[茶化す]** \n>\n> 冗談｛じょうだん｝のようにしてからかう、冷｛ひ｝やかす、誤魔化｛ごまか｝すことをいう。「茶化」は当｛あ｝て字｛じ｝で、「ふざける」の意｛い｝の「ちゃる。ちゃり（戯（ザレ）の転｛てん｝）」からとする説｛せつ｝、「茶」に語尾｛ごび｝「かす」を付｛つ｝けて動詞｛どうし｝にしたとする説｛せつ｝などがある。ちなみに、馬鹿｛ばか｝にする、冷｛ひ｝やかすことを「茶（ちゃ）にする」という。なお、「おちゃらかす」は、「おひゃらかす」と「ちゃかす」が合｛あ｝わさってできた語｛ご｝とされる。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T13:46:02.240",
"id": "51873",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T14:16:26.150",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T14:16:26.150",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51868",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51868 | null | 51873 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51871",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am having trouble understanding 体言止め sentences in the book that I am\nreading.\n\nI understand _some_ 体言止め sentences, like the one in [this\npost](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/36793/large-qualifiers-\nbefore-nouns-or-unusual-sentence-orders/36801#36801):\n\n> 来年公開の映画『獣道』でも主演に抜擢されている伊藤。\n\nMy way of understanding this is just to move the 体言 at the end to the start\nand add a が.\n\n> 伊藤が来年公開の映画『獣道』でも主演に抜擢されている。\n\nAnd then the sentence makes a lot of sense and can be easily translated to\nEnglish.\n\nHowever, I failed to understand this 体言止め from 幼女戦記第1巻:\n\n> 建前に従わなければ「悪い子」になってしまうという恐怖感。\n\nAnd here's the context:\n\n>\n> 小学生のころ、誰もが義務教育によって人間とは生まれながらにして平等であると習うだろう。その時、一人一人が平等でかけがえのない大切な存在だと教わるのだ。だが、建前とは裏腹に不平等というのは簡単に見つけられる。\n>\n>\n> どうして、前の席の子は自分よりも身長が高いのだろうか？どうして、クラスにはドッジボールのうまい子と下手な子がいるのだろうか？どうして、隣の席の子はあんな簡単な問題も解けないのだろうか？後ろの席の子は静かに先生の話を聞いていられないのだろうか？\n>\n>\n> だが、小学生は「良い子」であるべきだという環境下にあった。皆違うけれども、皆大切な存在だと言われているのだ。建前に従わなければ「悪い子」になってしまうという恐怖感。\n>\n> だから、「良い子」達は「悪い子」とならないように努力した。\n\nLiterally translated, it's \"The fear that if they don't follow the rules they\nwill be regarded as 'bad children'.\"\n\nAs you can see, in English, that's just a noun phrase and I don't understand\nwhat it means.\n\nI tried to move 恐怖感 to the front and add a が, but I still struggles to\ntranslate it in to a normal English sentence.\n\n> 恐怖感が建前に従わなければ「悪い子」になってしまうという。\n>\n> The fear いう that if they don't follow the rules they will be regarded as\n> \"bad children\".\n\nI don't know what I should translate いう to. And even if it is translated I\nthink the whole thing sounds kind of weird.\n\nHow can I translate 体言止め easily? What I mean is, just like the fact that you\ncan replace \"X + は\" with \"As for X\" and it always makes an understandable\nEnglish sentence, is there something similar for 体言止め?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T09:46:16.433",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51870",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T04:34:54.187",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "18200",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"sentence"
],
"title": "Is there an easy way to translate/understand 体言止め sentences?",
"view_count": 917
} | [
{
"body": "日本語が分かるとして回答します。\n\n体言止めを理解するためには、体言止めの持っている「勢い」を感じとる感性、あるいはこれから生じるであろう現象を想像する豊かな想像力が必要です。\n\n体言止めを感じていただくために、体言止めとはどのようなものであるかを２つ例を挙げてみます。\n\n * 道路を一台の車が走っています。とろこが、あるところで突然道がなくなり、車は空中に放り出されます。でも、その車はまだどこかにぶつかって壊れてはいません。\n\n * 水面が静かな池に石を投げ込みます。投げた石は池の表面に届きました。これからどうなるでしょう。 なお、松尾｛まつお｝芭蕉｛ばしょう｝の有名｛ゆうめい｝な俳句｛はいく｝「古池｛ふるいけ｝や 蛙｛かわず｝飛｛と｝び込｛こ｝む 水｛みず｝の音｛おと｝」はこの類｛たぐい｝です。\n\n質問者の例題に戻ります。\n\n（Ａ）「来年公開の映画『獣道』でも主演に抜擢されている伊藤。」 と （Ｂ）「伊藤が来年公開の映画『獣道』でも主演に抜擢されている。」\nとではその意味するところは静的には同じです。\n\n（Ｂ）は必要な説明はすべて終わっておりますので、それ以上の物語の進展はありません。\n一方（Ａ）は「伊藤」の体言止めで文章は終わっておりますので、読み手の能力に応じていくらでも物語が進展できます。もちろん、読み手の推察する物語の進展部分はそれまでの文脈から判断して書き手の想定したものであることが普通ですが、読み手の想像力が書き手のそれより優れている場合には、全く違う展開を生む可能性があります。\n\n私は、（Ａ）からは、平凡に「来年公開の映画『獣道』でも主演に抜擢されている伊藤、 **これから期待される若手有望株です。** 」のような文脈を想像します。\n\n（Ｂ）では表現できない文章の発展が、文字数が（Ｂ）とほぼ同じ（Ａ）の体言止めによって実現されております。この追加されて推定される部分が体言止めの持っている「勢い」です。\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT\n\n（A）と（B）とを使って、体言止めの文と普通の文とどこが違うのかの本筋を説明します。\n\n普通の文である（B）は、主語が「伊藤」で述語が「抜擢されている」です。 \nしかし、（A）の体言止めでは、主語が「伊藤」でその前の「来年公開の映画『獣道』でも主演に抜擢されている」は、「伊藤」を修飾している形容句であり、「来年公開の映画『獣道』でも主演に抜擢されている伊藤」全体で１つの名詞句です。（A）には、長い名詞句である主語がありますが、この文には述語がありません。従って、読み手は、「伊藤」を修飾している形容句から、記述されていない述語を想像する必要があります。\n従って、（A）と（B）とでは本質的に異なります。すなわち、（B）は完結した文、（A）は読み手による述語の補完を期待する未完成の文、但し補完に必要な情報が形容句に十分書かれた未完の文です。\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT 2\n\n> 建前に従わなければ「悪い子」になってしまうという恐怖感。\n\nこの体言止めの文に続く私が想像で補完するフレーズは次のようなものです。\n\n * こればかりは、避けたい。\n * これが、いつも私にはついてまとった。\n\nこれらのフレーズを追加することで、はじめてこの文に続く「だから、「良い子」達は「悪い子」とならないように努力した。」という文が自然に続くようになります。どうですか。\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT 3\n\n体言止めについてはここでも[回答](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/48811/is-this-\nsentence-gramatically-correct-ano-ko-ga-futteita-makka-na-\nsukaafu/48885#48885)しました。\n\nOPが「Is there an easy way to translate/understand 体言止め sentences?」と書いていますが、たぶん\nto understand は、できると思います。 しかし、 to translate into English は、かなり難しいと思います。\n\n難しい理由を説明します。[ここ](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/48811/is-this-\nsentence-gramatically-correct-ano-ko-ga-futteita-makka-na-\nsukaafu/48885#48885)には、体言止めは that を使った relative clause で表現できることが書かれています。\n\n> To add to psosuna's answer, it's worth noting that the line in question is\n> not a sentence, grammatically speaking. It is a noun phrase, with スカーフ as\n> the main or \"head\" noun and the preceding portions all describing the scarf.\n> English makes use of relative clauses, with \"that\" used to coordinate,\n> whereas Japanese allows modifying phrases to directly modify nouns.\n\n確かに、論理的には、名詞句(noun clause) としてrelative clauseで表現できますが、日本語の体言止めと、英語のrelative\nclauseを使ったnoun clauseとでは、核となる名詞(the main or \"head\"\nnoun)の文章における位置が大変異なり、これが英訳を困難にします。\n\n> 日本語：あの子が振っていた **真っ赤なスカーフ** \n> ano ko ga futte ita *makka na sukāfu**\n>\n> 英語： **the pure-red scarf** that that girl was waving\n\n前にも説明しましたように体言止めでは、文として省略された部分を読者が補完する必要があります。名詞で終わっている不完全な文を完全にするための「核となる名詞」が体言止めの文では文の最後にあり、しかもこれから補完するフレーズの重要な名詞として先頭の位置にありますので、補完作業が物理的にも、気持ちの推移の観点からでも大変スムーズにできます。一方英語では、「核となる名詞（the\nmain or \"head\"\nnoun）」が不完全である文の先頭にあるので、これから補完すべきフレーズと大変遠い位置にあることになります。従って、日本語の体言止めの文がもっている「勢い」を補完時に上手につなげていくことが日本語の場合より難しくなります。\n\n私は、英語は日本語にくらべて上手でないので正解は述べられませんが、日本語の体言止めを英語に翻訳するには、relative clauseを使ったnoun\nclauseに続いて、読者に補完して欲しいフレーズの最初の少しの部分を次のように付け加えて置くという方法があるのでないかと思っています。\n\n * the pure-red scarf that that girl was waving **which I** ...\n * the pure-red scarf that that girl was waving **because she** ...\n\n体言止めの日本語を上手に英訳する方法を考えてください。また、うまくいきましたら発表してください。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T10:45:01.457",
"id": "51871",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T04:34:54.187",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-31T04:34:54.187",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51870",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "> 来年公開の映画『獣道』でも主演に抜擢されている伊藤。 \n> My way of understanding this is just to move the 体言 at the end to the start\n> and add a が. \n> 伊藤が来年公開の映画『獣道』でも主演に抜擢されている。\n\nYou're right. In this case, the whole line is a noun phrase, with a relative\nclause (来年公開の映画『獣道』でも主演に抜擢されている) modifying a noun (伊藤).\n\nAs for your second example:\n\n> 建前に従わなければ「悪い子」になってしまうという恐怖感。\n\nThis time, the noun at the end is not the subject for the preceding part. The\nという here is appositive (同格). In other words, 建前に従わなければ「悪い子」になってしまう is a\ndescription/content of the 恐怖感.\n\nConsidering the context, I think you can read it this way, supplementing the\nomitted/implied (verb) phrase at the end of the sentence:\n\n> 建前に従わなければ「悪い子」になってしまうという恐怖感 **があった** 。\n\nSo in a case like this you'd need to guess from the context what verb/verb\nphrase is being left out or implied.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T11:29:45.280",
"id": "51872",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T13:13:46.957",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T13:13:46.957",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51870",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51870 | 51871 | 51871 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51884",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Dragon Ball Super ending 9 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lRjWkjHKDg>\n\nin a part of the song says\n\n> \"waratteru ka naiteru noka\"\n\nwhich is translated as\n\n> were you laughing or were you crying?\n\nIs there any reason why the first part uses the particle \"ka\" and the second\n\"no ka\"? is there a rule or something for doing so in a case like this?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T19:46:36.870",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51876",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T17:44:00.243",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9878",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-の",
"questions",
"particle-か"
],
"title": "is there any reason why \"waratteru ka naiteru noka\" uses first the ka particle for the first part and no ka for the second?",
"view_count": 740
} | [
{
"body": "Please look at: [What is the meaning of のか and how does it differ from\nか?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/18613/what-is-the-meaning-\nof-%E3%81%AE%E3%81%8B-and-how-does-it-differ-from-%E3%81%8B)\n\nMaybe by parsing, as @psosuna noted, it would sound more like, \"Were you\nlaughing, or could you have been crying?\"\n\nOn the other hand, it could just be added syllables to make the song lyrics\nfit.",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T23:40:17.537",
"id": "51884",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T17:44:00.243",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-01T17:44:00.243",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "51876",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51876 | 51884 | 51884 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The translation I was given for this sentence was: \"The house trembled in the\nearthquake,\" but I'm at a loss for how 「ぐらぐら」and 「揺れる」are connected by 「と」.\n\nMy best guess would be that 「と」functions similarly to \"with\" to connect the\nadverb to the verb? In other words, \"The house shook uneasily,\" or something\nto that effect?\n\nThank you for your insight!",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T20:19:33.313",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51877",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T23:17:36.090",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T22:52:52.710",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "3585",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-と",
"onomatopoeia"
],
"title": "How is 「と」used in the sentence: 「地震で家がぐらぐらと揺れた。」",
"view_count": 122
} | [
{
"body": "> How is 「と」used in the sentence: 「地震で家がぐらぐらと揺れた。」\n\nぐらぐら alone works as an adverb, but we sometimes add と to it for style: そよそよ（と）\n**そよぐ** 風、すやすや（と） **眠る** 子ねこ、ばたばた（と） **走りまわる** 。 \nIt doesn't really change anything, but seems to add slight explanatory sense\nthat it feels like more care has been taken.\n\n> My best guess would be that 「と」functions similarly to \"with\" to connect the\n> adverb to the verb? In other words, \"The house shook uneasily,\" or something\n> to that effect?\n\nThis usage of **と** is to **_describe_** something, _what_ or _how_ something\nis; 「～なんです」と言った。 \nIt indicates the **_content of a quotation or thought or idea_** or the like,\nand \nmakes an _adverb phrase or clause_ ; it's always followed by a verb: と **いう**\n／と **言う** 、と **思って** 、頑{がん}と **して** 言うことを聞かない",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T21:59:27.407",
"id": "51881",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T23:17:36.090",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-30T23:17:36.090",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51877",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51877 | null | 51881 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51880",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 多分俺は、今でもアリスを愛してる。 \n> 多分、世界で一位タイなくらい愛してる。\n\nHe's saying that maybe he still loves Alice.\n\nHow much does he love her? Is it \"maybe\" or \"probably\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T20:48:28.100",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51878",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T18:48:29.660",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-31T18:48:29.660",
"last_editor_user_id": "25196",
"owner_user_id": "25196",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"expressions"
],
"title": "In the following sentence, 多分 indicates maybe or probably?",
"view_count": 702
} | [
{
"body": "> How much does he love her?\n\nYou can't exactly judge that based on these two sentences, but your\ntranslation is missing something important about what is said. Setting aside\nprobably/maybe and using [a dictionary definition of\n多分](http://jisho.org/word/%E5%A4%9A%E5%88%86),\n\n> 多分俺は、今でもアリスを愛してる。 多分、世界で **一位タイなくらい** 愛してる。 \n> I probably still love Alice. I probably love her **as much as the joint\n> winner(s)**.\n\n「一位タイ」 is usually used [when talking about\nsports](https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/3340551.html), but here it's used\nfiguratively to refer to the ones he loves the most in the world. The 「タイ」\ncomes from the English word \"tie\", in this sense:\n\n> **noun** \n> [**5**](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tie) A result in a\n> game or other competitive situation in which two or more competitors or\n> teams have the same score or ranking; a draw. \n> _‘there was a tie for first place’_",
"comment_count": 15,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T21:28:40.287",
"id": "51880",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-30T21:28:40.287",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19206",
"parent_id": "51878",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51878 | 51880 | 51880 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51886",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Tanaka and Ohta are having a conversation about main characters anime. Tanaka\ncomments that it looks really tiring being a main character since they have to\ndo so many things.\n\nOhta replies with 「ま、活躍するのが主人公だからな」\n\nAnd then Tanaka responds with the golden question:\n\n> その点モブはいいよ\n\nWhat is the translation of その点 in this case?\n\nIn that respect? On the other hand?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T21:21:51.933",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51879",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T00:58:43.560",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10587",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of その点 in this context?",
"view_count": 545
} | [
{
"body": "> その点モブはいいよ\n\nその点 literally means \"in that point/respect\" but here it means \"Compared to\nthat, ...\" or \"Contrary to that, ...\" (≂ 「それにひきかえ」「それに比べて」). I feel like その点\nin this sense is used in casual speech rather than in formal speech/writing.\nAnd it's その点 (not その点で, その点において etc.) when used in this sense.\n\n_lit._ \"Compared to _that_ (= 主人公が大変なこと), minor characters are good.\" \n\"Compared to / Contrary to (being) a main character (who is busy), (being) a\nminor character is good (cos it's carefree / not difficult or busy.) / [Thanks\nto @Sjiveru] it's better to be a mob.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T00:05:32.550",
"id": "51886",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T00:58:43.560",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-31T00:58:43.560",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51879",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51879 | 51886 | 51886 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've seen both used to mean \"X ago\", e.g. \"六日前と\" and \"3ヶ月前に\".",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-30T22:55:24.293",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51882",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T02:25:11.927",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-31T01:12:07.003",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "22058",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-に",
"particle-と"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 前と and 前に?",
"view_count": 328
} | [
{
"body": "> What is the difference between 前と and 前に? \n> I've seen both used to been \"X ago\", e.g. \"六日前と\" and \"3ヶ月前に\".\n\nThose you've seen must be both correct, but に is the one to say 'X ago'.\n\nと is used for a different reason such as 六日前と三か月前に, or 六日前と言っていました.\n\n**に** indicates the location of something including **time** or owner of\nthings or ideas or values or etc. \n**と** **connects** nouns or noun-like words, or is used to describe something\nby _indicating the **content** of a quotation or thought or idea,_ and the\nform of the content doesn't matter whether it's a word or phrase or clause;\n六日前 **と** いう話, 六日前の話 **と** いうことです, 「六日前に彼と会った」と言いました, etc.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T00:40:32.377",
"id": "51887",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T00:40:32.377",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51882",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Case examples I guess are as follows.\n\n> -（Ａ）彼｛かれ｝が私｛わたし｝を訪｛たず｝ねて来｛き｝たのは **六日前と** 思｛おも｝う。 _I think it was six days\n> ago when he visited me_. \n> -（Ｂ）彼は **六日前に** 私を訪ねて来た。 _He visited me six days ago_.\n\n(A) makes sense, but it'll become better if you edit it as 彼が私を訪ねて来たのは六日前\n**だ** と思う。or 彼が私を訪ねて来たのは六日前 **である** と思う。 More precisely, it is 彼が私を訪ねて来た\n**日｛ひ｝** は、六日前であると思う。\n\n**と** in this phrase is a particle used for quoting (with speech, thoughts,\netc.); quoting particle. With this particle 六日前 becomes the quoted object of\nthe verb 思う.\n\nOn the other hand, phrase (B) is a very common usage of に, which is a particle\nindicating time.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T02:11:04.683",
"id": "51888",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T02:25:11.927",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-31T02:25:11.927",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51882",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51882 | null | 51887 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51890",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I want to write \"Happy anniversary for my beloved grandmother\" in Japanese,\ncolloquially. But, I don't know if I need to write\n\n> 私の最愛の祖母の **ために** 幸せな記念日\n\nor\n\n> 私の最愛の祖母の **ための** 幸せな記念日\n\nWhat the difference between `ために` and `ための`? Are both phrases correct?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T03:12:41.757",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51889",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T00:59:14.883",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19200",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"syntax"
],
"title": "\"ための x ために\" in this phrases",
"view_count": 1827
} | [
{
"body": "> 私の最愛の祖母のため **に** 幸せな記念日\n>\n> 私の最愛の祖母のため **の** 幸せな記念日\n\nために is adverbial and ための is adjectival. So grammatically speaking you use ための\nhere so that 私の最愛の祖母のための can modify the noun phrase 幸せな記念日. But... as you say\nyou want to write it **colloquially** (since your attempt is quite stiff...\nand actually it doesn't really sound like wishing her a happy anniversary),\nhow about...\n\n> 「[大好]{だいす}きなおばあちゃんへ [記念日]{きねんび}おめでとう！」 \n> or \n> 「大好きなおばあちゃん 記念日おめでとう！」\n\nIf it's her wedding anniversary, you can just replace 記念日 with\n[結婚]{けっこん}[記念日]{きねんび}.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T03:20:10.663",
"id": "51890",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T00:59:14.883",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51889",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "> \"Happy anniversary for my beloved grandmother\" in Japanese, colloquially.\n>\n> 私の最愛の祖母のために幸せな記念日 \n> 私の最愛の祖母のための幸せな記念日\n\nThe latter with の makes it a perfect noun phrase. \nThe former with に feels like not completed.\n\nHow are you going to use it? If it's a message on a card to give your\ngrandmother, the former would work by adding を at the end of it, sounding like\nwishing for a good anniversary, and you can also cheer it up with an\nexclamation mark. It'll make a beautiful message. :)",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T03:52:19.010",
"id": "51891",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T03:52:19.010",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51889",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51889 | 51890 | 51890 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51895",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When is -の used for a question and what is the exact meaning\n\nContext:\n\n(nj) = (Native Japanese speaker)\n\n * (njs): 学校に行くの? \n * (me): いいえ、学校は行きません。 \n * (njs): 自分でやるの？ \n * (me): 自分やります。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T10:53:20.180",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51894",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T11:53:44.353",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "23960",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"usage",
"conversations"
],
"title": "When is -の used for a question",
"view_count": 352
} | [
{
"body": "の is a more casual/friendly way to ask a question when ですか or Vますか would feel\na little bit too polite. You can think of it as ん(の)ですか without the ですか part.\nFor instance:\n\n> 学校に行きますか？ 学校に行くの？\n\nThese sentences have the exact same meaning but the first one is much more\nformal. Note that 学校に行くか is a bit harsher and more rarely used.\n\nAlso, _Nounですか_ becomes _Nounなの？_ You need the な otherwise it means \"the one\nof [Noun]?\". You will also need the な if you are connecting a な-adjective.\n\n> 簡単ですか。 簡単なの？",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T11:53:44.353",
"id": "51895",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T11:53:44.353",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "51894",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 51894 | 51895 | 51895 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm trying to translate an English sentence into Japanese , but i got some\nproblems and confuse which should i use between が or は . So please tell me\nwhich is the correct one .\n\n 1. ジョンさんは休日にいつも東京にいる。\n 2. ジョンさんが休日にいつも東京にいる。\n\nAlso 1. 彼は傷口にそっと触れる。 2. 彼が傷口にそっと触れる。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T16:11:45.167",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51897",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T03:58:59.200",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25205",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-は",
"particle-が",
"english-to-japanese"
],
"title": "What is the difference between these sentences used が and は",
"view_count": 339
} | [
{
"body": "That should be #1,\n\n> ジョンさんは休日にいつも東京にいる。\n\nunless you have more special context. **は** is for **general ideas** like when\nyou say _the store at the corner opens at 8 every morning._\n\n**が** is good for telling a **_happening_** , or this is basically to be used\nin a **_modifying clauses._**\n\n> ジョンさんが休日にいつも東京にいる。\n\nThis needs our imagination, needing context. It could be comparing with other\npeople, but sounds more like talking about a change in John's life style to\nour native sense.\n\n> Also 1. 彼は傷口にそっと触れる。 2. 彼が傷口にそっと触れる。\n\nWe need the context. Why is it in the non-past form? It's sounding poetic. #1\nsounds generic. #2 sounds like a happening.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T17:41:59.037",
"id": "51901",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T17:47:07.880",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-31T17:47:07.880",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51897",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I think one way to see the difference would be...\n\n 1. ジョンさん **は** 休日にいつも東京にいる。 \n_lit._ As for John / Speaking of John, he is usually in Tokyo on holidays.\n(and someone else among the people we're talking about may also be in Tokyo.)\n\n 2. ジョンさん **が** 休日にいつも東京にいる。 \n(Of all the people we are talking about) It is John (not someone else) who is\nusually in Tokyo on holidays. / John is the one who is usually in Tokyo on\nholidays.\n\nThe は is the **topical/[thematic\nは](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_grammar#Thematic_wa)**. Sentence 1\nis usually said when ジョンさん is the topic of the conversation, i.e. ジョンさん has\nalready been mentioned before this sentence is uttered, or the interlocuter(s)\nis/are expecting ジョンさん to be probably mentioned.\n\nThe が is the **[exhaustive\nが](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_grammar#Exhaustive_ga)**. Unlike wa,\nthe subject particle ga nominates its referent as the sole satisfier of the\npredicate ([quoted from\nhere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_grammar#Exhaustive_ga)). So you'd\nusually say like ジョンさん **が** (東京に)いる (It is John who is in Tokyo) as a reply\nto a question 誰が東京にいますか？\n\n* * *\n\n 1. 彼 **は** 傷口にそっと触れる。 \n 2. 彼 **が** 傷口にそっと触れる。 \n\nIf this line is from a story/novel, then the present form 触れる is the\n**historical present** (史的現在). Both sentences are grammatically correct, and\none would be preferred over the other depending on the context. \nYou'd tend to use 彼は when 彼 has just done some other things or has just been\nmentioned, whereas you'd tend to use 彼が when you want to specifically say that\nit's 彼, not someone else, who does that action. (Thanks to @Sjiveru) \nが also tends to be used in relative clauses and subordinate clauses, e.g. 「彼\n**が** 傷口にそっと触れると、彼女は～～」「彼 **が** 傷口に触れた瞬間」 \nThe は can also be the **[contrastive\nは](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_grammar#Exhaustive_ga)**. You can\nuse the は to contrast 彼 (or 彼's action) with someone else (or their action).\nE.g. 「 **彼女は** 治療を拒んだが、 **彼は** (not 彼が)傷口にそっと触れて…」",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T00:24:20.023",
"id": "51916",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T03:58:59.200",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-01T03:58:59.200",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51897",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51897 | null | 51916 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51914",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "売り手 means seller or vendor. Could it also be used in reference to the cashier,\nor perhaps a store clerk? Or would that not be correct because (Example: they\nare just in charge of collecting the money for the book that is being sold at\nthe store?)\n\n> あの売り手にだまされました。 I was cheated by that vendor.\n>\n> その家の売り手は、近所の人が本当にひどいやつなので、家を手放すことにしたんだと私に話した。\n>\n> The guy selling that house told me he’s selling it because his neighbor is a\n> real jerk.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T16:49:22.720",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51900",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T04:35:18.430",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-05T04:35:18.430",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Would 売り手 be the right word for a store clerk? What about cashier?",
"view_count": 245
} | [
{
"body": "Usually you don't refer to a person in charge of cashier as 売り手 but 会計の人, レジの人\nor 売り子 depending on what and how they sell.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T23:37:30.533",
"id": "51914",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T23:37:30.533",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "51900",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51900 | 51914 | 51914 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51911",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "How do you read 早々 in these sentences?\n\nI learned there are two readings: そうそう、and はやばや。\n\nHow do they differ, if at all?\n\n> 早々にごへんじいただきありがとうございます。 Thank you for your prompt reply.\n>\n> 新年早々、借金を催促されるなんてひどすぎる。 It’s too cruel to demand money right after the start\n> of the new year.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T18:39:31.313",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51902",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T21:06:54.390",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"readings",
"multiple-readings"
],
"title": "How should I read 早々？ As そうそう or はやばや？",
"view_count": 1261
} | [
{
"body": "On [WWWJDIC](http://wwwjdic.se/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1E), there are two entries.\n\n```\n\n 早々(P); 早早 【そうそう】 (n-suf,n-adv) (1) as soon as...; just after...; immediately after...; (adv) (2) (usu. as 早々に) hurriedly; in haste; quickly; promptly; early; (P)\n \n 早々(P); 早早 【はやばや】 (adv,adv-to) early; quickly; promptly; (P)\n \n```\n\nAs you can see from the entries above, the parts of speech for each of these\ntwo readings are different.\n\nBased on this part of speech info, this seems right to me:\n\n早々【そうそう】にごへんじいただきありがとうございます。 Thank you for your prompt reply.\n\n新年早々【しんねん・そうそう】、借金を催促されるなんてひどすぎる。 It’s too cruel to demand money right after\nthe start of the new year.\n\nThis is because these both seem to be nounish usages.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T20:48:19.027",
"id": "51908",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T20:48:19.027",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "25212",
"parent_id": "51902",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "There is a good explanation about the two readings at\n[例文.jp](http://%E4%BE%8B%E6%96%87.jp/519_1.html).\n\nTo sum it up:\n\n## 早々{はやばや}\n\n * Nowadays generally used as an adverb with the particle と\n * Means \"early\", \"immediately\", \"quickly\"\n\n> 金曜日は **早々{はやばや}と** 仕事を切り上げ、教室へ直行するのが常であった。 \n> On Fridays, it was usual for me to finish my work **quickly** and go\n> straight to the classroom. \n> Source: 例文.jp\n\n## 早々{そうそう}\n\n * Used adverbially with the particle に; same meaning as 早々{はやばや}と (but they aren't interchangeable grammatically)\n * Can be used as a suffix to nouns with the meaning \"right after ...\" with particles から, に or no particle at all\n * This is apparently also used in formal letters. Please refer to these answers: [What's the appropriate 挨拶 for e-mails to a friend and for e-mails to customer service?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/15637/whats-the-appropriate-%E6%8C%A8%E6%8B%B6-for-e-mails-to-a-friend-and-for-e-mails-to-customer-se/15673)\n\nBased on this information, 早々 should be read そうそう in both your sentences. In\nthe first one the 早々{そうそう} is used with the particle に. In the second sentence\n早々{そうそう} is a suffix to 新年 and 「新年[早々]{そうそう}」 means \"right after the start of\nthe new year\" like it's translated.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T21:06:54.390",
"id": "51911",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T21:06:54.390",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19206",
"parent_id": "51902",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 51902 | 51911 | 51911 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was trying to write something about Osamu Dazai, I know that for mangakas we\nuse 先生, but usually celebrities' names are mentioned without any honorifics.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T19:30:11.497",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51903",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T20:54:14.753",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25209",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"politeness",
"honorifics"
],
"title": "How to refer to a famous writer? （-さん？-先生？）",
"view_count": 678
} | [
{
"body": "You'd have to consider the perspective in which you view this person yourself.\nWikipedia and other such articles will not refer to a person with a suffix\nbecause Wikipedia or encyclopedias in general as neutral sources of\ninformation do not have such a perspective.\n\nIf you yourself met this person, or wanted to describe or talk about this\nperson to someone else, think of it from your point of view.\n\nFor example, the general standard in Japan for respect is to utilize a title\nfor a person if they have it.\n\nIf the person is someone you stand to learn something from, and is essentially\na master of their trade, they are essentially 先生｛せんせい｝. You should also use\nthis if this person is a professor or doctor of some sort.\n\nIf they are someone you respect, use -さん.\n\nIf they are someone you idolize, use -様｛さま｝.\n\nOr, in other words, using these suffixes to refer to these people definitely\nexposes your personal opinion of these people, which is counter-intuitive if\nyour goal is to write something informational about someone. However, if you\ndon't use a suffix when speaking with them, it's not polite at all and implies\na very close and personal relationship with them.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T20:54:14.753",
"id": "51909",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-31T20:54:14.753",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "51903",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 51903 | null | 51909 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm reading a web novel and the author made up a nickname for a very rundown\narea of the city the characters live in:\n\n> 貧困街\n\nThere's no furigana so I'm not sure of the reading, but my guess is\n\"Hinkongai\" (ひんこんがい) so \"gai\" rather than \"Machi\" reading.\n\nIs my assumption correct? If it is does it mean fictional place names using\nthe 街 kanji as a suffix will always be pronounced \"gai\"?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T20:12:15.217",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51905",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T01:34:48.933",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25210",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"readings"
],
"title": "What reading would I use for 街 in fictional place names?",
"view_count": 202
} | [
{
"body": "If the author didn't provide furigana for its reading, it could be pretty\nambiguous.\n\nAccording to Google Translate, it's read as ひんこんまち, but @user4092 has noted it\nwould only be read that way as a proper noun.\n\nHowever, \"ひんこんがい\" goes with all ONYOMI reading, instead of ひんこんまち, which goes\nwith on-on-kun. (Kun short for kunyomi.)\n\nA commenter who seems to be native has noted that your assumption of ひんこんがい\nsounds more natural.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T20:27:39.183",
"id": "51906",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T01:34:48.933",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-04T01:34:48.933",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "51905",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 51905 | null | 51906 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51922",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "> 熱中症にならないように飲み物を買う人が増えていて、飲み物の会社はいつもの年{とし}よりたくさん作っています。 \n> The number of people buying drinks to avoid heat stroke is increasing, and\n> the drinks companies are making a lot more than in usual years.\n\nIt took me a while to determine the true meaning of this sentence. When I\nfirst read it I got to いつもの年{とし}より and thought \"usual old people\". Then I got\nvery confused. Eventually, I realised it must be \"compared to usual years\" and\nthought: Ah, it must be pronounced ねん rather than とし. I turned on the furigana\nand it was indeed とし.\n\nWould you expect to read 年 as とし or ねん in this context? Secondly, would this\nsentence cause even a moments confusion to a fluent speaker?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T20:58:38.363",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51910",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T21:33:11.310",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"readings"
],
"title": "Reading of 年 in いつもの年よりたくさん作っています",
"view_count": 477
} | [
{
"body": "I would expect 年 to be read as とし、specifically because the kanji is alone.\nAlso, in the specific word 年より、which means elderly, it would be read as\nとしより。In most cases, when 年 is combined with another kanji, such as in 光年、or\nlight years, it is read as こうねん。That being said, 毎年 can be read as まいとし with\nno problem.\n\nI cannot answer the \"to a fluent speaker\" question accurately, because I am\nnot one, but I would imagine that it would not cause much trouble for them.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T21:07:55.460",
"id": "51912",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T15:57:32.067",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T15:57:32.067",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "51910",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "The kanji 年 means 'year' on its own. It sometimes takes the meaning of 'old\nage', especially as part of the word 年上｛としうえ｝ (\"years above\").\n\nAs part of a longer composite Chinese-derived word you'd use the 音読{おんよ｝み of\nねん as in 一年生｛いちねんせい｝.\n\nAs its own word it's common to read it with the 訓読{くんよ｝み of とし. In this case,\nbecause the context lends the Kanji's meaning to be closer to 'year' than 'old\nage', I would read it とし because the Kanji does not seem to be part of another\nword, and assume the meaning to be 'year' by the context of いつもの年｛とし｝ \"the\nusual years\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-31T22:26:38.550",
"id": "51913",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T00:46:17.777",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-01T00:46:17.777",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "51910",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "私は、a fluent speaker です。\n\n> ... 飲み物の会社はいつもの **年** よりたくさん作っています。\n\nＯＰの挙｛あ｝げた例文｛れいぶん｝と違｛ちが｝って、普通｛ふつう｝には上記｛じょうき｝のように「年」の上に[振り仮名]{ふりがな}はついていません。ＯＰの質問｛しつもん｝に対｛たい｝して振り仮名がない文｛ぶん｝を見｛っみ｝たときの条件｛じょうけん｝で回答｛かいとう｝します。\n（普段｛ふだん｝、私は「ふりがな」とひらがなで書｛か｝くと思｛おも｝いますが、この回答の文をひらがなで書くと読｛よ｝みにくいことが分かりましたので敢｛あ｝えて漢字で書きなおしました。）\n\n> Would you expect to read 年 as とし or ねん in this context?\n\n例文｛れいぶん｝中｛ちゅう｝の「年」を、その前後｛ぜんご｝の文字と繋｛つな｝げて考｛かんが｝えると、意味｛いみ｝のありそうなフレーズは「いつもの年｛とし｝」と「いつもの年｛とし｝より」です。「いつもの年｛ねん｝」と「いつもの年｛ねん｝より」という読｛よ｝み方｛かた｝は無｛な｝しです（do\nnot make sense）。従｛したが｝って、この文脈｛ぶんみゃく｝では（in this\ncontext）「年」に対する読｛よ｝みは「とし」しかありません。\n\n> Secondly, would this sentence cause even a moments confusion to a fluent\n> speaker?\n\nふりがなのないＯＰの例文を見たとき、「年」という文字が目に飛｛と｝び込｛こ｝んできますので、ＯＰが言うようにほんの瞬間｛しゅんかん｝ですが、どう読もうかと考｛かんが｝えます。この瞬間を\nto cause even a moments confusion と言うならＯＰの質問｛しつもん｝に対｛たい｝する答えは yes\nです。一般｛いっぱん｝にどう読もうかと考えたあと、「年」の字の前後に目を走｛はし｝らせます。前後の文字とつないで意味のありそうなフレーズは「いつもの年」と「年より」あるいは前後をまとめて「いつもの年より」です。いずれも「年｛ねん｝」とは読まないことが瞬間にわかります。この時点で混乱｛こんらん｝（confusion）は終｛お｝わりです。以上｛いじょう｝の作業｛さぎょう｝は、普通｛ふつう｝の人なら文｛ぶん｝を読み進｛すす｝めながら並行｛へいこう｝して行｛おこな｝っており、実際｛じっさい｝にそのフレーズを読んでいるときにはすでに「年｛とし｝」と読むことは決｛き｝まっています。\n\n従って、ＯＰの２番目の質問に対しての答えは yes ですが、実際｛じっさい｝には支障｛ししょう｝はでません (not to cause any\nproblem)。\n\n私は、一般にどのようにしてこの種｛しゅ｝の混乱｛こんらん｝を防｛ふせ｝いでいるか少｛すこ｝しだけ例｛れい｝を挙｛あ｝げて説明｛せつめい｝します。\n\n（１）ＯＰの例では、「いつもの年より」のフレーズを「例年｛れいねん｝より」とします。\n\n（２）「年」には人の年齢｛ねんれい｝を表｛あらわ｝す意味｛いみ｝があります。これは、「平成〇〇年」の「年」とは違｛ちが｝う意味です。また、人の年齢を表現｛ひょうげん｝する単位｛たんい｝（counter）として「歳｛さい｝」という漢字があります。\n\n「歳」は常用漢字｛じょうようかんじ｝であって、その音読｛おんよ｝みは、「サイ」「セイ」となっております。 \n常用漢字では決｛き｝められていないが日常｛にちじょう｝使｛つか｝われている「歳」の読み方｛かた｝として、「とし」「とせ」「よわい」があります。これは[常用漢字表{じょうようかんじひょう}](http://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kijun/naikaku/pdf/joyokanjihyo_20101130.pdf)にない読み方として、「[表外読｛ひょうがいよ｝み](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12111089377)」と呼｛よ｝ばれておりますが、日本語を記述｛きじゅつ｝する上で役｛やく｝に立｛た｝っております。\n\n例えば「年齢｛ねんれい｝は？ _How old are you?_\n」と尋｛たず｝ねるとき、一般｛いっぱん｝に「としは？」と言｛い｝います。これを漢字を使｛つか｝って書き表｛あらわ｝すとき、常用漢字表に従｛したが｝えば「年は？」が正{ただ}しいのですが、この文字列｛もじれつ｝を[読み手]{よみて}が見たとき、ＯＰの質問にあった混乱｛こんらん｝を引｛ひ｝き起｛お｝こす可能性｛かのうせい｝があると判断｛はんだん｝します。そこで、表外読みとは承知｛しょうち｝の上で、敢｛あ｝えて「歳{とし}は？（実際には振り仮名はつけません）」と書いて混乱を防ぐことがあります。\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT\n\nＯＰの次のコメントを見て、少し情報を加える必要があると判断しました。\n\n> That was a real struggle to read for someone who doesn't know the difference\n> between とし and ねん ;)\n\n付け加えようとする情報は２つです。\n\n> 「年」が単独の漢字で使われたとき、 \n> １）「年」をどう読むか。 \n> ２）「年」の意味は何か。\n\n１） **「年」という漢字が単独の単語として使われたときは、「とし」と読みます。**\n例外は必ずありますが、例外を気にすることなく、「とし」と読んでください。その理由は「年｛ねん｝」という単語がないからです。 \n【例外】 \n- この「年」という漢字はどう読むの？ \n- 君はなん年{ねん}？（＝君は何年生ですか？） \n- **年｛ねん｝に** 何回台風が来ると思う？（＝１年に何回台風が来ると思う？）【この表現は多い】\n\n２）「年」という漢字が単独の単語として使われたときの意味は、「１年という時、あるいはその単位」と「ある年齢、あるいは年齢の単位」の２つ。区別は前者は「属時（時に関係する）」、後者は「属人（人に関係する）」です。但し「飼い犬の年｛とし｝」という言い方があるので、「属動物、属生き物」の方が適切な表現かもしれない。\n\nＯＰの例題「飲み物の会社はいつもの年よりたくさん作っています。」に照らすと、漢字単独で使われているので読み方は「とし」、属人・属動物の要素がないので意味は「時に関する\nyear」となります。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T04:56:04.643",
"id": "51922",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T06:55:28.730",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T06:55:28.730",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51910",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51910 | 51922 | 51913 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51918",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "I often get asked about swear words by Japanese people. As I sometimes watch\nNetflix, I can see how other translators approach these phrases and get\nhelpful hints.\n\nSpecifically, I'm curious about the phrase 'f*** yeah', expressing strong\nagreement or satisfaction. Maybe I would try ii ne! Or just tanoshimi! Or\nmaybe yabai! But these translations are probably inadequate.\n\nCan anyone think of a better rendering?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T00:22:17.240",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51915",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-14T07:58:24.470",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21868",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 35,
"tags": [
"translation",
"slang"
],
"title": "How to say f*** yeah in Japanese",
"view_count": 18950
} | [
{
"body": "Here's a good article, although in Japanese: [Japanese Questioning How To Say\nF***\nYeah!](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q119036116)\n\n```\n\n \"F*** yeah!\" は \"F*** you!\" とは全く違い、(absolutely different)\n \n ただ単【たん】に感嘆や同意を表す【あらわす】ために使われます。\n \n \"Oh, yeah!\" （「ああ、その調子だ！良いぞ！」みたいな感じ【かんじ】）をさらに強めたもので、\n \n 場合【ばあい】によって「最高【さいこう】！」「良いぞ！」「その通り【とおり】！」という意味【いみ】になるでしょう。\n \n```\n\nSo you would say, \"saikou!\" (This is the best!), \"ii zo!\" (So good!), or \"sono\ntoori!\" (That exactly!).\n\nThis can give off the same feeling, but still does not directly translate.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T01:18:41.017",
"id": "51917",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T05:13:27.847",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-01T05:13:27.847",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "51915",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 16
},
{
"body": "Seeing as Japanese doesn't really have anything analogous to English 'curse'\nwords, you won't find anything that really feels the same. That particular\nphrase has a sort of punchiness to it that nothing in Japanese really renders\nwell. It's in some ways more of a cultural thing than a linguistic one -\nexpressing that particular emotion looks different when Japanese people do it\nversus people from the Anglosphere. If you're looking to describe it to\nJapanese people, you might want to make use of some copious body language, and\na description like 'it's like this, but more intense (and also censorable)'.\n\nThere are ways to translate it, though, modulo the above situation. It depends\non exactly what's being commented on, though. (To note, these are based off of\nstereotypical Toukyou-area speech, and these examples could sound very\ndifferent to speakers from elsewhere. Other dialects likely would phrase these\nrather differently. Thanks\n[@Will](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/51915/how-to-say-f-yeah-\nin-japanese#comment90149_51918) for pointing this out.)\n\nCelebrating an accomplishment - おおー！やったぜー！ and similar (possibly やるじゃねーか！ for\nsomeone else's accomplishment); or some variant of よっしゃー！ (thank you\n[@Kurausukun](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/51915/how-to-say-f-\nyeah-in-japanese#comment90162_51918))\n\n'Man that's a good idea' - いいじゃねーか、それ！／それいいわ！ and similar\n\n'Yes, indeed, this is the case' - 違いねーぞ／その通りだぜ and similar\n\n'Yes, indeed, I do intend to' - やるぜ！／やるわ！ and similar\n\nI'm sure there's senses I'm missing, as well.",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T01:19:06.703",
"id": "51918",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-14T07:58:24.470",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-14T07:58:24.470",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "51915",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 35
},
{
"body": "Noting that I'm in central Tokyo, the only thing that sounds close to me is a\nsuper-dramatic **やっっったー！** in the way of a celebratory analogue.\n\nThat said, you're looking for the 'agreement' meaning, as in:\n\n_Anyone down for karaoke? / Fuck yeah!_\n\nIn that case, the example conversation playing out in my mind resolves to\n\n**カラオケ行く? / 行こー!**\n\nAnd in other cases...\n\n**飲む？ / 飲もー！**\n\n**帰る？ / 帰ろー！** (as one might say when they want to get out of the office)\n\nOther words of agreement like **是非** or **もちろん** or **いいよ** just don't have\nthe adequate punch. The enthusiastic volitional _-o-!_ is my best suggestion.\n\nIn the case of agreeing with an opinion, rather than a suggested action:\n\n_Trump is the Abe of the West / Fuck yeah!_ (maybe _you're goddamn right_\nwould be a better English response here, but the sentiment remains)\n\n**トランプは欧米の安部 / それ！完全にそれ！**\n\nIn this case, the enthusiasm and immediacy of the response capture the emotion\nmore than the words.\n\nAs for the final possibility, satisfaction, I think [Sjiveru's\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/51918/25217) covers that quite\nwell.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T08:27:34.803",
"id": "51925",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T08:27:34.803",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25217",
"parent_id": "51915",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "Apologies if this should be a comment (don't think I can include photos in\ncomments so putting as an answer), but \"Saikou\" would seem to fit, if this\nsign I photographed at a cat cafe in Harajuku is anything to go by (in\nkatakana, interestingly):\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yfyh4.jpg)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T18:33:07.333",
"id": "51938",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T18:33:07.333",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "42",
"parent_id": "51915",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 16
}
]
| 51915 | 51918 | 51918 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51920",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "i often heard 'ね' or 'な' at the end of word like かわいいな, かわいいね, いいな or いいね.\n\ni also often hear word that ended with よ but i can't recall the example for\nnow.\n\nso my questions are:\n\n 1. what are they (な、ね) called? \n\n 2. how to apply them to another word? i mean are they just for noun or adjective? i think not every noun can be attached with them, correct?\n\n 3. whats the meaning of them?\n\nany link related article about them are very welcome. ありがとうございます。",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T01:51:13.000",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51919",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T16:35:34.080",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18316",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"expressions"
],
"title": "what are な and ね in ごめんね and ごめんな",
"view_count": 1432
} | [
{
"body": "> what are they (な、ね) called?\n\nThey are called sentence-ending particles. **However, な can also come along\nwith what are called な adjective.**\n\n> how to apply them to another word? i mean are they just for noun or\n> adjective? i think not every noun can be attached with them, correct?\n\nTypically they will add on to the end of the sentence, except for な which can\nalso be used with certain adjectives.\n\nHere are some examples.\n\n**For な、you can:**\n\n 1. Indicate emotion. Mostly used by men. \n\n(な, in this usage, is often lengthened to なあ）\n\n> あの人はすばらしいな。That person is really great [something]!\n\n 2. Ask for another person's agreement. Used by men.\n\n> あの車は新車だよな。That's a new car, right?/That's a new car, I bet.\n\n 3. Soften the effect of an assertion.\n\n> この映画は良くなかったな。This movie just wasn't very good.\n\n 4. Soften a command or request (first example, a women speaking with typical くださいな pattern; second example, a man.)\n\n> 成田まで行ってくださいな。Narita [Airport], please [if you please].\n>\n> 明日必ず来いな。Be sure to come tomorrow.\n\n 5. Indicate a prohibition. Used by men.\n\n> 絶対にあいつに会うな。Stay away from that bum, you hear./Keep clear of that guy.\n\n**For ね、you can:**\n\nNote: ね is sometimes pronounced ねえ。\n\n 1. Indicates emotion or feelings of admiration.\n\n> きれいな花ねえ。What a pretty flower!\n\n 2. Indicates agreement with the other person.\n\n> 本当にそうですね。Yes, that's quite true./That's so true.\n\n 3. Softens a request.\n\n> 必ず手紙を下さいね。Be sure to write [me a letter].\n\n 4. Indicates a request for confirmation.\n\n> あの本、持って来て下さったでしょうね。You brought me that book, didn't you [as I asked you\n> to]?/ I suppose you brought that book for me.\n\n 5. Indicates a mild assertion of, or variance in, opinion.\n\n> そうですかね。Oh, is that so?/ I wonder. /You think so?\n\n 6. Indicates a mild assertion.\n\n> 私は北海道の方が寒いと思うんですけどね。I would think that Hokkaido is cooler.\n\n**For よ, you can:**\n\n 1. Urge a course of action.\n\n> もうだいぶ歩いたから、この辺でちょっと休もうよ。\n>\n> Let's take a break about here, guys.\n>\n> We've already walked quite a bit.\n\n 2. Indicate a request (Although other particles can do this too)\n\n> 私の家にも来てくださいよ。Come to _my_ house, too.\n\n 3. Indicates a statement of certainty.\n\n> 今日は金曜日ですよ。Today is Friday, you know. (Stated, for example, after someone has\n> claimed otherwise.)\n\n 4. Indicates scolding or contempt.\n\n> あの人は仕事ができないわよ。He just can't do the work!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T01:59:02.510",
"id": "51920",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T16:35:34.080",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-01T16:35:34.080",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "51919",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 51919 | 51920 | 51920 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "All the dictionaries that I checked translate 象徴 as \"symbol\". However, is it\nalso possible that in certain contexts 象徴 means \"indication\" or \"omen\"? The\nreason I'm asking is because I'm struggling with a sentence that contains this\nword and I'm pretty sure it would make absolutely no sense to translate it as\n\"symbol\".\n\nFor example, the sentence in the link below:\n\n<https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1337988533>\n\nIt seems to me like the author uses 象徴 in the sense of \"indications\" or\n\"signs\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T06:10:31.057",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51923",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T10:02:32.860",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25215",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Can 象徴 also be translated as \"indication\" or \"omen\"?",
"view_count": 117
} | [
{
"body": "> 氷河期の災厄の象徴\n\nSince the questioner of this article does not seem to understand the words 災厄\nand 象徴 so accurately, the OP's interpretation as \"indications\" or \"signs\" for\n象徴 is correct.\n\nI interpret it as \"typical examples\" or \"representative examples\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T06:42:38.330",
"id": "51924",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T07:10:14.737",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-01T07:10:14.737",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51923",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "I think the Chiebukuro question can be straightforwardly translated using\n_symbol_ as \"What is the thing that is considered as the symbol of the\ndisaster of the ice age?\" This 象徴/symbol is used in the same manner as \"The\nlion is a symbol of courage.\"\n\nBy _indicator/sign/omen_ , do you mean \"a precursor that happens **before**\nsome bad event\"? Then, no, that's not what 象徴 means. 象徴 never refers to\nsomething that portends an important event. _Omen_ is usually translated as 予兆\nor 前兆 in Japanese, but not 象徴.\n\nBy the way, I think the correct answer of this chiebukuro question should be\n\"[甲鱗のワーム/Scaled Wurm](http://www.cardkingdom.com/mtg/ice-age/scaled-wurm) from\n_Magic: The Gathering_. In the Japanese version of the flavor text of this\ncard, \"they embodied the worst of the Ice Age\" has been translated as\n氷河期の災厄の象徴だった. Apparently 氷河期の災厄の象徴 is famous among Japanese MTG fans [as a\nnickname of this\ncreature](https://dic.pixiv.net/a/%E6%B0%B7%E6%B2%B3%E6%9C%9F%E3%81%AE%E7%81%BD%E5%8E%84%E3%81%AE%E8%B1%A1%E5%BE%B4).\nThis user has asked some other MTG-related questions.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YlTDf.png)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T10:02:32.860",
"id": "51926",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T10:02:32.860",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51923",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51923 | null | 51926 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51951",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "If reading out a telephone number\n\ne.g. 123-456789\n\nDenwa bangō wa ichi ni san - yon go roku nana hachi kyū desu\n\nWhat is the dash / hyphen called? Is it spoken? If so how is it pronounced or\nhow do you write it?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T10:26:35.783",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51928",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-09T03:17:18.690",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25102",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"pronunciation"
],
"title": "Use of Dash or Hyphen in Telephone Numbers",
"view_count": 1117
} | [
{
"body": "## Examples\n\nTokyo: 03-1234-5678 \nYokohama: 045-123-4567 \nDocomo: 090-1234-5678\n\nAs you know, the first part is used to distinguish the regions you live in or\nthe carrier company of cell phone. The latter two parts are phone numbers for\neach subscriber. The dash or hyphen is used for the convenience to memorizing\nor transcribing them. When you read them, you are supposed to read them with a\nshort pause at the dashes.\n\n* * *\n\n## EDIT\n\n## 【上級編｛じょうきゅうへん｝】\n\n少｛すこ｝し長｛なが｝いですが日本語の勉強だと思って時間｛じかん｝があったらお読｛よ｝みください。\n\nǝʇɐןoɔoɥƆの答えの中に、アナウンサーが電話｛でんわ｝番号｛ばんごう｝の「–」をどう読｛よ｝むかの引用｛いんよう｝がありましたが、気｛き｝になりましたので、EDITします。引用によると「–」をすべて「の」と読むのが正解｛せいかい｝とあります。\n\n私の住｛す｝んでいる横浜｛よこはま｝を例｛れい｝に、回答｛かいとう｝のために作為的{さくいてき}に作｛つく｝った電話番号で説明｛せつめい｝します。\n\n> 045–123–4567\n\nアナウンサーが正解だとする「045 **の** 123–4567」とは私は言いません。後半｛こうはん｝は「123 **の** 4567」あるいは「123\n**pause** 4567」です。なぜ、「045 **の** 」と言わないのでしょうか。\n\n外国｛がいこく｝でもそうでしょうが、日本では携帯｛けいたい｝電話が登場｛とうじょう｝するまでは、今もそうですが、電話番号は、「市外｛しがい｝局番｛きょくばん｝045」と「市内局番\n123」と「加入者｛かにゅうしゃ｝番号\n4567」いう３つの番号[体系]｛たいけい｝で運用｛うんよう｝されてきました。「市内局番」と「加入者番号」とは厳密｛げんみつ｝には全く違う番号ですが、私たち市民｛しみん｝には差｛さ｝が分｛わ｝かりませんので、ここの説明｛せつめい｝では「市内番号」という造語｛ぞうご｝で一括｛いっかつ｝して説明します。ここでの説明では「123–4567」全体で「市内番号」です。「市外局番」とはエリアコード（\n_area code_ 厳密には0を除いた45）のようなものです。厳密ではありませんが、概｛おおむ｝ね行政｛ぎょうせい｝の「市｛し｝ _city_\n」の単位｛たんい｝と同じ区域｛くいき｝を同一エリアコードに割｛わ｝り当｛あ｝てておりますので、「市内」「市外」という用語｛ようご｝が使われております。細｛こま｝かなことは抜｛ぬ｝きにしますと、携帯電話が登場｛とうじょう｝する前は、日本国内の電話は日本[電信電話]{でんしんでんわ}[公社]{こうしゃ}（その後ＮＴＴ＝日本電信電話株式会社）が独占的｛どくせんてき｝に営業｛えいぎょう｝しておりました。日本電信電話公社がエリアコード毎｛ごと｝に電話[交換機]｛こうかんき｝をもった電話[交換局]｛こうかんきょく｝を設置{せっち}し、エリア内外｛ないがい｝の加入｛かにゅう｝電話の接続｛せつぞく｝・交換｛こうかん｝をしておりました。交換局ごとに割り当てられた番号が「市外局番」になります。同一のエリアコード（市外局番）を持った人、大｛おお｝まかに言うと同じ市内に住んでいる人同士｛どうし｝の電話は「市内番号」だけで行われます。当然、市外局番が違｛ちが｝う人同士が（エリアをまたいで）電話するときには、「市外局番\n045」が必要｛ひつよう｝になり「045–123–4567」とダイヤル（懐｛なつ｝かしい言葉｛ことば｝ですね）します。\n\nさて、自分｛じぶん｝の電話番号を他人｛たにん｝に伝｛つた｝えるときはどうするかです。\n相手｛あいて｝も自分も同じエリアに住｛す｝んでいるときには、「市外局番」を伝える必要はありません。単｛たん｝に「市内番号」である「123–4567」を伝えます。その発音｛はつおん｝は、「いちにいさん\nの しいごおろく」か「いちにいさん pause\nしいごおろく」です。2,4,5は１音節｛おんせつ｝ですので聞｛き｝きやすいように母音｛ぼいん｝を伸｛の｝ばして「にい,しい,ごお」のように発音します。相手が自分と同じエリアの人かどうかわからないときと、明｛あき｝らかにエリアが違う人には「市外局番」を含｛ふく｝めて電話番号を伝えます。そのとき、突然｛とつぜん｝言うと市外局番から言ったのか市内番号だけを言ったのかが分かりづらいので、一般｛いっぱん｝に次｛つぎ｝のように言っておりました。「横浜｛よこはま｝045\npause 123–4567」。前半｛ぜんはん｝は、「よこはまぜろよんごお\npause」です。後半｛こうはん｝の「123–4567」の伝え方は、前に述べた「市内番号」だけを伝える方法｛ほうほう｝と同｛おな｝じです。「市外局番」は、横浜[以外]｛いがい｝では、「東京｛とうきょう｝03」「大阪｛おおさか｝06」「京都｛きょうと｝075」などです。\n\nここで携帯電話の登場｛とうじょう｝です。携帯電話は今までの家庭｛かてい｝の電話機｛でんわき｝（色｛いろ｝が黒｛くろ｝かったので、一般に「黒電話｛くろでんわ｝」という）と違｛ちが｝う体系｛たいけい｝の無線｛むせん｝通信網｛つうしんもう｝で通話｛つうわ｝が接続｛せつぞく｝・交換｛こうかん｝されます。当然｛とうぜん｝、黒電話と番号[体系]{たいけい}も異｛こと｝なります。携帯電話は、携帯電話同士で通話｛つうわ｝できるのは当然｛とうぜん｝ですが、技術｛ぎじゅつ｝も進｛すす｝み、そのうち、体系の違う黒電話との通話も自由｛じゆう｝にできるようになりました。そのとき、「黒電話」は「市外局番」として運用｛うんよう｝されます。こうなると、すなわち、携帯電話と黒電話が同居｛どうきょ｝する環境｛かんきょう｝では、一般｛いっぱん｝の人の認識｛にんしき｝も、「市内番号」「市外局番」をそれほど意識｛いしき｝せずに、また、同じエリアコード内の[人]{ひと}同士でも、常｛つね｝に「市外局番」込｛こ｝みで電話番号を管理｛かんり｝し、他人｛たにん｝にも伝｛つた｝え合｛あ｝うようになりました。\n\nこの状況下｛じょうきょうか｝で電話番号を教｛おし｝えるときには、「市外局番」に当｛あ｝たる「横浜｛よこはま｝045」の「横浜」はそろそろ存在｛そんざい｝価値｛かち｝を失｛うしな｝いはじめておりますので、今｛いま｝では、大部分｛だいぶぶん｝の人が、「横浜」という念押｛ねんお｝しの言葉｛ことば｝を外｛はず｝して、「市外局番」込｛こ｝みの「045-123-4567」として伝｛つた｝えるということが一般的｛いっぱんてき｝になってきました。むろん、お[互]｛たが｝いが市内同士と分{わ}かっているときには、今でも、「123-4567」と市内番号だけをを伝える場合｛ばあい｝も併存｛へいぞん｝します。\n\nこの「併存する」状況｛じょうきょう｝がやっかいです。\nもし、例｛れい｝のアナウンサーのように「電話番号は、045の」と言うと、「ぜろよんごおの」と発音｛はつおん｝するのでしょうが、聞｛き｝いている人は「えっ」となります。「045の」か「045?」と、「5」の後｛あと｝になにか聞こえたが「の」なのかそれとも何か別｛べつ｝の番号を言ったのか一瞬｛いっしゅん｝戸惑｛とまど｝います。実際｛じっさい｝に日本人が聞くとわかりますが、ここでは「045pause」の方が「045の」と発音｛はつおん｝するより聞き直｛なお｝しは少｛すく｝ないはずです。\nそれは、「市外局番」と「市内番号」とは本来｛ほんらい｝別物｛べつもの｝であったために、各々｛おのおの｝は分｛わ｝けて伝えるべきものであって、「～の中｛なか｝の/～の内｛うち｝の」という意味｛いみ｝合｛あ｝いでの「の」が登場｛とうじょう｝する場面｛ばめん｝ではないからです。市内番号の「123-4567」の中にある「–」は、本当｛ほんとう｝は「市内局番」と「加入者｛かにゅうしゃ｝番号」を区別｛くべつ｝するものです。しかし、この意味｛いみ｝を知｛し｝っている人はまずいないと思いますので、「123–4567」をどう発音するかは別｛べつ｝の話です。「1234567」と、７桁｛けた｝の数字｛すうじ｝をいっぺんに言う常識｛じょうしき｝[外]｛はず｝れはいないと思います。一般的には、中継｛なかつ｝ぎ的｛てき｝に、「–」のところで、「の」かpauseを入れます。これはどちらも使｛つか｝われているようです。市外局番と違｛ちが｝って、いつも聞きなれているリズムですので、「の」であっても、pauseであっても誤解｛ごかい｝が生｛しょう｝じにくいと思います。\n\nなお、ǝʇɐןoɔoɥƆの答えで気｛き｝づいたのですが、比較的｛ひかくてき｝「の」の使用｛しよう｝を肯定的｛こうていてき｝に扱｛あつか｝っております。これは、たぶん、ǝʇɐןoɔoɥƆが関西｛かんさい｝の人だからだと思います。一本｛いっぽん｝調子｛ちょうし｝で発音される標準的｛ひょうじゅんてき｝な日本語の「ぜろよんごおの」と違｛ちが｝って、関西弁｛かんさいべん｝での「ぜろよんごおの」では「の」の前に独特｛どくとく｝のイントネーションと間｛ま｝（短｛みじか｝い\npause のようなもの）があり、「の」が「–」の意味として使われていることが明瞭｛めいりょう｝に聞き分｛わ｝けられるように思います。\n\n最後｛さいご｝になりますが、「045-123-4567」の正しい発音は、 \n「ぜろよんごお **pause** いちにいさん **pause** しいごおろくしち」 か、 \n「ぜろよんごお **pause** いちにいさん **の** しいごおろくしち」 です。 \n「ぜろよんごお **の** いちにいさん **の** しいごおろくしち」 は、ありません。子供｛こども｝っぽく、調子｛ちょうし｝も悪｛わる｝いですね。",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T12:21:36.747",
"id": "51931",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T13:12:19.360",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51928",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I think you can either pause at a dash or read it as の.\n\nAs you can see in [this page](http://www.tv-\nasahi.co.jp/announcer/nihongo/labo/004/body.html), where two professional\nannouncers are discussing how to correctly read/pronounce numbers, it is also\ncorrect to read a phone number 03-1230-4050 as 「れいさん **の** いちにさんれい **の**\nよんれいごれい」.\n\nAlso [in this TV\ncommercial](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPWziwoOqAw&feature=youtu.be&t=102)\nthey read 0120-999-666 as 「ぜろいちに(い)ぜろ きゅうきゅうきゅう **の** ろくろくろく」, and [in this TV\ncommercial](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQIGm-hWPfY&feature=youtu.be&t=84)\n0120-666-666 as 「ぜろいちに(い)ぜろ **の** ろくろくろく **の** ろくろくろく」.\n\nSo, for example 0123-456-7890 can be read:\n\n> 「れいいちに(い)さん (pause) よんご(お)ろく (pause) ななはちきゅうれい」-- pausing at each dash \n> 「れいいちに(い)さん (pause) よんご(お)ろく **の** ななはちきゅうれい」-- using a pause and の \n> 「れいいちに(い)さん **の** よんご(お)ろく **の** ななはちきゅうれい」-- using の\n\nActually in recent years it has become much more common to read the number \"0\"\nas 「ぜろ」 than as 「れい」 (at least in real life), as in:\n\n> 「ぜろいちに(い)さん (pause) よんご(お)ろく (pause) ななはちきゅうぜろ」 \n> 「ぜろいちに(い)さん (pause) よんご(お)ろく **の** ななはちきゅうぜろ」 \n> 「ぜろいちに(い)さん **の** よんご(お)ろく **の** ななはちきゅうぜろ」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T03:19:31.350",
"id": "51951",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-09T03:17:18.690",
"last_edit_date": "2018-02-09T03:17:18.690",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51928",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 51928 | 51951 | 51951 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51933",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "日本人じゃないけど日本語で書こうと思いました。\n\n[この答](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/51931/22352)のコメント欄にこう書いてあります：\n\n> の is commonly used in reading an address (住所{じゅうしょ}) such as いち-の-に-の-さん for\n> 東京都千代田区内幸町1-2-3\n\n確かにそうです。私も読む時にも、空で読むときにも、「の」と言います。日本人の皆さんが言うんだけど、それはなぜでしょうか？つまり、住所を読む時、ハイフンを「の」って読む理由はなんでしょうか？少し切って読んだら「の」と言わなくても大丈夫ですか？",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T14:12:52.793",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51932",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T14:03:10.137",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-01T15:49:16.453",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "22352",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"reading-comprehension"
],
"title": "住所を読む時、なんで「の」って言うの？",
"view_count": 909
} | [
{
"body": "「の」を入れる１つの理由としては、例えば、1-20-3 だったら、「いちのにじゅうのさん」って言わないと紛らわしいから（もし「いち にじゅう\nさん」って言ったら、 1-20-3 か 1-2-13 か 1-23 かわかりにくいから（もしかしたら 1-2-10-3\nもあるかも？））じゃないかな？と思います。 \n(・・・けど、英語だとどうなるんでしょう？ もし \"one twenty three\" って言ったら 1-20-3 か 1-23\nかわかりにくくなったりしませんか。）\n\n> １丁目のなかの２０とか関係ないですか？\n\nそうですね。この「の」は、「～丁目/番地 **のなかの** ～」「大阪 **の**\n吹田市から来ました。」とか言うときの「～のなかの」「～にある」みたいな気持ちかもしれません。（[デジタル大辞泉](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/171157/meaning/m0u/%E3%81%AE/)「の\n1⃣１㋒ 所在。…にある。」）でも、電話番号なども「0120-333-906」を「ぜろいちにいぜろさんさんさん **の**\nきゅうれいろく」などと読んだりしますので、番地でも特に意味はなく使われているのかもしれません。",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T14:28:00.190",
"id": "51933",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T01:16:47.410",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T01:16:47.410",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51932",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> の is commonly used in reading an address (住所{じゅうしょ}) such as いち-の-に-の-さん for\n> 東京都千代田区内幸町1-2-3\n\n住所の最後の1-2-3は、正式（住民票）には「１丁目２番地３号」と記載されます。 \nしかし、1-2-3と書く方が簡単なのでほとんどの人が「丁目」「番地」「号」という漢字を使わず、dash/hyphenを使って書きます。\n日本中の住所を調べますと、「１丁目２番地３号」のようにきちんとなっていないものも多数あります。現に、私の住所も最後は「◇◇◇番地の２」となっており、「丁目」「号」はありません。\n\n日本人は年賀状を出しますが、筆で上手に字を書けない人が多いので、コンピュータを使って住所（宛名）を印刷するアプリ（application\nsoftware）が発達しています。\n\nそのための[市販されているアプリ](http://www.sourcenext.com/eshop/item/?code=208360&page=print)を紹介します。これを見るとＯＰが話題にしている「dash/hyphen」が実際に「の」「ノ」「～」「ー」で印刷できることが分かります。すなわち、日本人がこのような表記をしていることの証拠であり、「ー」を「の」「ノ」と発音している証拠でもあります。\n\nこの例では７丁目１０－５１、７丁目１０ノ５１、７丁目１０の５１ですが、他のアプリでは、また、私たちが普段使っている表記では７－１０－５１、７ノ１０ノ５１あるいは７の１０の５１のような場合もあります。それでも「ノ」や「の」より「ー」の方がずっと多いように思います。\n\n次に、私の個人情報を通じて日本では住所を表示する該当の箇所に「の」が正式に使われていたことを証明します。\n**すなわち「ー」を便宜的に「の」と発音しているのではなく、実際に「の」が書類として使われているのです** 。\n\n 1. 昭和５４年（１９７９年）の住民票 \n * 本籍：〇〇市△△町◇丁目▽番地 **の** １３\n * 住所：横浜市〇〇区△△町◇◇◇番地 **の** ２\n 2. 平成１８年（２００６年）の住民票\n\n * 本籍： ~~〇〇市△△町◇丁目▽番地 **の** １３~~ \n〇〇市△△町◇丁目▽番地１３ 平成１８年２月２０日 通知により本籍修正\n\n * 住所：横浜市〇〇区△△町◇◇◇番地 **の** ２\n 3. 平成１８年（２００６年）の戸籍抄本\n\n * 本籍：〇〇市△△町◇丁目▽番地１３ \n戸籍改製 【改製日】平成１７年１２月１７日 【改製事由】平成６年法務省令第５１号附則第２条第１項による改製 \nRevision of the Family Register 【Date of Revision】December 17,1999 【Reason of\nRenewal】In Accordance with the 1994 Ministry of Justice Ordinance No. 51,\nSupplementary modification made by the Article 2, Paragraph 1\n\nこれらの書類から判断できることは、私の戸籍も、住民票に記載された住所も、少なくとも１９７９年までは住所の中に正式に「の」が使われていました。そして、戸籍の方は法律により「の」がなくなりましたが、住民票の住所の方は\n**今でも** 「の」があります。 但し私を含めてほとんどの人は「の」の代わりに「ー _dash/hyphen_\n」を用いて次のように書いて運用しており、「ー」の箇所は「の」と発音しております。 \n住民票に記載の住所：横浜市〇〇区△△町◇◇◇番地の２ \n日常使っている住所：横浜市〇〇区△△町◇◇◇番地ー２\n\n「の」とは関係ありませんが戸籍の[翻訳例](http://terribletoadstool.publog.jp/archives/31262778.html)を紹介します。\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lMUdj.jpg)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T06:07:25.443",
"id": "51955",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T14:03:10.137",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T14:03:10.137",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51932",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51932 | 51933 | 51933 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Context - two friends are travelling down a street packed with high end shops\nand buildings. One of the two friends talks about an acquaintance of theirs\nwho's rich and brings up the fact that he's the president of several\nbusinesses in the area that they're travelling through.\n\nHe then says this line:\n\n> まったく、金ってのは金のある奴の所に集まるってのは本当だな\n\nBut I'm unsure how you would parse this. When I try it ends up sounding quite\nunnatural in English (e.g. \"indeed, it's true money gathers where the wealthy\nguys are\" - but this sounds odd to me isn't it obvious money would accumulate\nwhere rich people are? ), so perhaps 金って~の所に集まる is a Japanese expression\nbecause it seems like the speaker is quoting a saying?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T16:01:35.293",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51934",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T23:58:00.357",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T05:43:48.880",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "25230",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"expressions",
"parsing"
],
"title": "How would one parse \"金ってのは金のある[…]\"",
"view_count": 262
} | [
{
"body": "> > まったく、金ってのは金のある奴の所に集まるってのは本当だな\n>\n> When I try it ends up sounding quite unnatural in English (e.g. \"indeed,\n> it's true money gathers were the wealthy guys are\" - but this sounds odd to\n> me isn't it obvious money would accumulate where rich people are? ),\n>\n> so perhaps 金って~の所に集まる is a Japanese expression because it seems like the\n> speaker is quoting a saying?\n\nYou are parsing it correct; ってのは is equal to と言うのは expressing something that\nhas been heard, but the word is just trying to say, in a concise manner, that\nmore money goes to where there's already (maybe more than enough) money.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T17:21:54.437",
"id": "51936",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T17:21:54.437",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51934",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Yes, 金は金のある所に集まる is a well-known irony. It means that wealthy people can\neasily gain more money and become even richer. This is not a fixed proverb\nworth memorizing word-by-word, but we hear similar expressions often.\n\n * お金はお金があるところに集まる\n * 金のあるところに金は集まってくる\n * お金持ちにはお金が集まる\n * 金持ちはより金持ちに、貧乏人はより貧乏になる",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T05:53:26.677",
"id": "51954",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T05:53:26.677",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51934",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "まったく、『お金というものは、金のある奴の所に集まる』というのは本当ですね。 \nI think it's quite true that (what you call) money gathers to those who have\nmoney.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T22:28:48.170",
"id": "51975",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T23:58:00.357",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T23:58:00.357",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "51934",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51934 | null | 51954 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51937",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "This comes out of a discussion in chat; apologies if I'm getting reputation\noff of someone else's idea. I'd like to see an official answer, though.\n\nIn English, we often talk about things as being 'worth it', i.e. worth\nwhatever effort or risk was involved in obtaining or completing them. Japanese\nseems to have no convenient mechanism for expressing the same thought, though.\nA more literal translation, something like やる価値があった, seems 1) like it possibly\nisn't a natural phrasing and 2) like it describes the value in doing the thing\nin general rather than the value in putting in the effort or taking the risk.\nA less literal translation, something as simple as やってよかった for instance,\nsounds more natural, but misses the effort/risk connotation even more\ncompletely.\n\nIs there a good way to phrase this in Japanese? Or is it simply not something\nthat Japanese people would really talk about all that often? Maybe it's just a\ncultural thing rather than even a linguistic one - the concept of 'worth it'\njust might not be a major part of the Japanese worldview. 本物の日本人は答えられるでしょうか？",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T17:15:10.183",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51935",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T03:08:13.707",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "How would you express 'worth it' in Japanese?",
"view_count": 7212
} | [
{
"body": "> How would you express 'worth it' in Japanese?\n>\n> A more literal translation, something like やる価値があった, seems 1) like it\n> possibly isn't a natural phrasing and 2) like it describes the value in\n> doing the thing in general rather than the value in putting in the effort or\n> taking the risk. A less literal translation, something as simple as やってよかった\n> for instance, sounds more natural, but misses the effort/risk connotation\n> even more completely.\n\nやる価値があった is not bad while やってよかった is the plainer expression to us. When we say\nthese, it might be also natural to say やった甲斐{かい}があった. If this doesn't answer\nyour question, then please bring up some contexts.\n\n* * *\n\n[addition] \nI think the things are that やった甲斐があった is very much an idiom to us. We know the\nphrase since our childhood without knowing what 甲斐 really is. 甲斐 is something\ngood that comes after an effort.\n\nAnd in fact, デジタル大辞泉 says:\n\n> [**かい**\n> 【甲斐】](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/35176/meaning/m0u/%E7%94%B2%E6%96%90/) \n> **１** 行動の結果として現れるしるし。努力した効果。「我慢した―があった」\n\nSo, it seems we are just so used to saying 甲斐があった, and when we are talking\nabout a plan, we say これはやってみる価値があります.\n\nやり甲斐がある is also an idiom every one of us, Japanese, knows, and means\n(something) is meaningful, or worthy to do, which we usually associate more\nwith an interesting or enjoyable thing to do because it's meaningful and not\nboring, and we don't really think of the result of it, I think, unless we are\nbusiness freaks. So, 甲斐 is a rather ambiguous thing for us.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T17:44:38.957",
"id": "51937",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T03:08:13.707",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51935",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "From\n[jisho.org](http://jisho.org/search/%E5%89%B2%E3%81%AB%E5%90%88%E3%81%86%20%23sentences)\nI found a few examples, including:\n\n正直【しょうじき】は結局【けっきょく】 **割【わり】に合【あ】う** ものだ。Honesty **will pay** in the long run.\n\nWorth!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-01T20:51:07.887",
"id": "51940",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-01T20:51:07.887",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25212",
"parent_id": "51935",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51935 | 51937 | 51937 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51952",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "I found an interesting word in a box kind of stamina drugs which said 力強い\n(chikaradzuyoi) which means powerful. The interesting thing for me is, I\nnoticed the word may be interchangeable, like with 強力 (kyouryoku) which means\npowerful too, and I mostly use 「強力」rather than「力強い」. Is this a colloquial\nmatter? Or nuance?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T00:41:03.977",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51944",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T15:46:32.773",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T03:28:21.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "19128",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Different between 力強い with 強力",
"view_count": 658
} | [
{
"body": "According to this answer on\n[hinative](https://hinative.com/ja/questions/1271971),「強力な」 focus on the fact\nthat the vigor or power of something is strong. On the other hand, 「力強い」 bears\nthe meaning of something that is robust/strong (丈夫な) and you can rely on.\n\n> 「強力な」は、勢いや力が強いことです。 それに対して「力強い」は、頼れる、丈夫な、という意味です。\n\nSo in the context of a drug it seems 力強い as you found would make sense as it\ncould be interpreted like \"strong and reliable\".\n\nHowever notice that for example if you look on\n[weblio](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E5%BC%B7%E5%8A%9B%E3%81%AA) you find\n強力 in 強力な薬 to describe a \"powerful drug\", so this seems to be the most common\nbetween the two in this case. So either it is strangely used on your drug or\nit's maybe done on purpose to catch the buyer's attention.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T02:36:38.607",
"id": "51949",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T15:46:32.773",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-04T15:46:32.773",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"parent_id": "51944",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> stamina drugs which said 力強い (chikaradzuyoi) which mean powerful. \n> I notice the word in interchangeable way, like 強力 (kyouryoku) which mean\n> powerful too, and I mostly use 「強力」rather than「力強い」. Are this colloquial\n> matters? or nuance?\n\nIt's normally 強力 that we use for the strength of a drug. \n力強い for 強壮剤{きょうそうざい} is an unusual expression, and so it's almost funny but\nambiguous. It's successful for getting the customers' attention.\n\n力強い is more explanatory to me, it's to describe a **_manner_** of something or\nsomeone or a scene.\n\n> デジタル大辞泉 says **きょうりょく【強力】** is\n> 力や作用{さよう}が強いこと。また、そのさま。ごうりき：「強力な味方{みかた}」「運動{うんどう}を強力に推進{すいしん}する」\n\nYou can say 力強い味方, and maybe also 運動を力強く推進する. We say a work of art is 力強い, but\n強力 doesn't work for it.\n\n> **ちからづよい【力強い】** \n> **１** いかにも力がありそうに見えるさま。力がこもっていて頼もしく感じられるさま。「―・い横綱の土俵入り」「―・い演説」 \n> **２** たよりになるさま。安心できるさま。気強い。「彼に来てもらえば―・い」 \n> （デジタル大辞泉）",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T04:00:25.883",
"id": "51952",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T04:00:25.883",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51944",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "It depends on the context and the collocations.\n\n筆跡が強力だ。 (weird) (bad collocation) \n筆跡が力強い。 (OK) (good collocation)\n\n彼のサポートが力強い。 (OK) (His support is helpful/appreciated/trustworthy.)\n\n彼のサポートは強力だ。 (OK) (His support is strong/powerful.)\n\n彼が側にいてくれると力強い。 (OK)\n\n彼が側にいてくれると強力だ。 (weird) (bad collocation, or grammatically wrong)\n\nこの薬の薬効は強力だ。 (OK)\n\nこの薬の薬効は力強い。 (This drug's effect is helpful for me.)\n\nこの薬は強力だ。 (OK)(This medicine has a strong effect.)\n\nこの薬は力強い。(OK, maybe) (I rely on this drug. It's reliable.)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T21:16:31.117",
"id": "51971",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T23:42:13.773",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T23:42:13.773",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "51944",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "It seems to me that a better translation of 強力 is \"with intense force\" and\n力強い, \"sturdy\". 強力 describes how it is good in affecting external objects; 力強い\non the other hand how it is good in being unaffected by external fluctuation.\n\nThey may be able to be used in place of the other, but not generally\ninterchangeable, as we rarely say 強力な演技 and 強力な文体, neither 力強い武器 and 力強い刺激.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T14:57:57.667",
"id": "52012",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T14:57:57.667",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "51944",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51944 | 51952 | 51952 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51953",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I would like to say: \"He never comes to Osaka (no matter what)\"\n\n彼は決して大阪に行かない。\n\nTo express the \"never\" part, I know there are words like 決して、絶対に、全然、全く, but\nwhich sound more natural to the Japanese ear when spoken and when written? And\nare there other words to express this as well?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T01:15:48.020",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51945",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T22:16:13.097",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10587",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Most natural way to say \"absolutely not\"? 決して 絶対に?",
"view_count": 819
} | [
{
"body": "If saying \"no matter what\" is important, 絶対に is the most natural option in\nspeech. Both 絶対に and 決して will work fine in written text, but the latter would\nsound a bit more formal. This is one of the [exceptions where a kango version\nsounds less formal](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/38630/5010). Other\nidiomatic options include:\n\n * 彼は[頑として](http://jisho.org/word/%E9%A0%91%E3%81%A8%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6)大阪に行かない。\n * 彼は何があっても大阪に行かない。\n * 彼は[雨が降ろうが槍が降ろうが](http://jisho.org/word/%E9%9B%A8%E3%81%8C%E9%99%8D%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86%E3%81%8C%E6%A7%8D%E3%81%8C%E9%99%8D%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86%E3%81%8C)大阪に行こうとしない。\n\n全然 and 全く just mean \"at all\", but they do not mean \"no matter what.\" They are\noften used for something you can count or measure. In this context, using\n全く/全然 would imply he is expected to go to Osaka on a regular basis, but don't\ndo so _even once_.\n\n * [全然 {ぜんぜん} with positive adjective / na-adjective](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/794/5010)\n * [全く vs 全然 (formal / casual)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/29271/5010)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T05:33:14.563",
"id": "51953",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T05:33:14.563",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51945",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "> \"He never comes to Osaka (no matter what)\"\n\nどれがnaturalかは状況に応じますので明確に言えません。 \n以下の（ ）の中に、各々に対して私の感じを書きますので参考にしてください。\n\n 1. 彼は決して大阪に行かない。（本人の意志が固い。客観的に見て行かない理由もなんとなく分かる。2より上品な/穏やかな表現）\n 2. 彼は絶対に大阪に行かない。（本人の意志が固い）\n 3. 彼は全然大阪に行かない。（客観的に見て行く気配がない）\n 4. 彼は全く大阪に行かない。（客観的に見て行く気配がない。3より上品な/穏やかな表現）\n 5. 彼は頑として大阪に行かない。(本人の意志が1,2より固い)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T13:58:15.953",
"id": "51964",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T22:16:13.097",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T22:16:13.097",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51945",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51945 | 51953 | 51953 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51956",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I've heard people described as ぬるオタ （ぬるいオタク） \"mild otaku\" as well as 超【ちょう】オタク\n\"super otaku\". My question is whether there is a sort of \"general set\" of\nthese sorts of words (maybe similar to the prefixes like: _super-, ultra-,\nmega-_ etc.), or whether what I have encountered is really just creative\nlanguage use.\n\nAre there some useful terms to describe a kind of \"spectrum\" of enthusiasm?\n\nE.g. Low to high: ぬるオタ, （普通【ふつう】の） オタク, 超【ちょう】オタク , etc.\n\nIt has been suggested that _gachi-_ \"serious/diligent\" may be on par or above\n_chou-_.\n\nEdit: Even phenomena like \"Okatu-dom\" are perhaps best not described as a\nlinear spectrum. We could theorize dimensions like ( _kakko ii_ > _kimoi_ ), (\n_dedicated_ > _casual_ ), etc.\n\nThanks for any help!",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T02:19:18.627",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51948",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T01:48:34.000",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T03:12:31.743",
"last_editor_user_id": "25212",
"owner_user_id": "25212",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Degrees of Otaku",
"view_count": 715
} | [
{
"body": "Here are some types of otaku, but as for degrees, there doesn't seem to be a\ngeneral set.\n\n[Reference](https://www.facebook.com/japanese.urban.dictionary/posts/1123328041042506)\n\n**アニオタ**\n\n * short for アニメオタク, or anime otaku\n\n**ドルオタ**\n\n * short for アイドルオタク, or idol otaku\n * refers to fanatic groupies of Japanese idols such as AKB48\n\n**隠れオタク or リア充オタク**\n\n * hidden otaku\n\n * people who appear to be quite an outgoing person, but actually are engrossed into idol groups or anime & manga. \n\n**キモオタ**\n\n * short for キモいオタク, disgusting otaku\n\n**ぬるヲタ**\n\n * 「ぬるヲタ」とは、「ヌルい」（未熟な事、あるいは物足りない、浅い状態）のおたくの意味です。 \n * 言葉の概念としては、「なんちゃってオタク」（オタクのフリをしている非おたくの 一般人）とか 「ライトオタク」「ちょいオタ」「プチオタ」「ニワカ」 などに近い言葉で、 しばしば本人が自称する言葉となっているのが特徴です。[Source](http://www.paradisearmy.com/doujin/pasok_nuruota.htm)\n\n**ガチオタ**\n\n * お金があったら衣食住生活費より漫画、アニメ、ゲーム、映画などに充てて生活の基準が趣味優先、一般のそれと乖離してる人。\n * これをやってなきゃガチオタじゃないとかは言ってる人の勝手な基準であって意味がない。[Source](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q13121477743)\n\n**超オタく**\n\n * aka, \"huge otaku\", isn't really Japanese to say but can be understood.\n\nOn the other hand, the word オタク can be also used to describe people who have\nan enormous amount of knowledge about something.\n\nFor example, サッカーオタク means “soccer nut/buff”, and ラーメンオタク means “great ramen\nlover/expert”.\n\nHowever, I found a Japanese Quiz that could possibly test your \"type\" of\nOtaku-ness: [Quiz](https://goisu.net/cgi-\nbin/psychology/psychology.cgi?menu=c024)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T03:03:11.097",
"id": "51950",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T06:21:33.887",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T06:21:33.887",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "51948",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "There is no such thing as an established \"general set\" of classifying the\ndegrees of otaku, but both ガチオタ and ヌルオタ are commonly used.\n\nヌル- and ガチ- can be used as prefixes to modify other nouns. ガチゲーマー refers to a\nhardcore gamer, and ヌルゲーマー refers to a casual gamer. Etymologically, ガチ comes\nfrom\n[ガチンコ](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AC%E3%83%81%E3%83%B3%E3%82%B3),\nwhich is originally _sumo_ wrestling jargon. ヌル comes from ぬるい, an adjective\nmeaning \"tepid.\"\n\nNote that ヌル has a negative connotation (i.e., \"He's not ガチ enough\" used by\npeople in the ガチオタ tier). Something like ライトなオタク/ライトゲーマー would sound neutral\nand safe ([if used in the situation where using オタク is\nsafe](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/25686/5010), of course)\n\n超オタク is not something people commonly use. I can safely say someone who uses\n超オタク is not a Japanese otaku :)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T06:11:15.593",
"id": "51956",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T01:48:34.000",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-04T01:48:34.000",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51948",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "I don't know the technical jargon, but in common Japanese expressions, you can\nsay:\n\n## Advanced\n\n * 完全にオタク\n * ドオタク（＝ド・おたく＝the おたく＝マジ・おたく）\n * ２００％オタク\n\n## Slight\n\n * 多少オタクっぽい\n * オタクもどき",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T23:06:50.767",
"id": "51976",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T21:56:43.203",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T21:56:43.203",
"last_editor_user_id": "19206",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "51948",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51948 | 51956 | 51956 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51958",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I came across the following sentence:\n\n> 子供みたい **な** 駄々をこねる\n\nIt felt a bit weird (possibly because I'm not very familiar with either 「駄々」\nor 「こねる」 and think of the expression as a big verb) and made me wonder whether\n「みたい **に** 」 would also work. Google results showed that both 「子供みたい **な**\n駄々をこねる」 and 「子供みたい **に** 駄々をこねる」 are used.\n\nI feel that you can replace 「な」 with 「に」 in the above sentence without\nchanging the meaning very much, but if you compare it to something like\n「嘘をつく」, the meaning changes for some reason.\n\n> 子供みたい **な** 嘘をつく: the lies are childlike \n> 子供みたい **に** 嘘をつく: the way of lying is childlike, but the lies aren't\n> necessarily\n\nWhy does this happen or is my intuition even correct? Either way, what is the\ndifference between using 「な」 and 「に」 in 「子供みたい◯駄々をこねる」 apart from modifying\nthe noun or the verb?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T07:14:05.023",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51957",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T22:23:50.400",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19206",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"expressions",
"na-adjectives"
],
"title": "Modifying fixed expressions such as 「駄々をこねる」 adjectivally and adverbially",
"view_count": 222
} | [
{
"body": "> (A) 子供みたい **な** 嘘をつく \n> (B) 子供みたい **に** 嘘をつく\n\n(A)と(B)とは全く違います。 \n_(A) and (B) are two quite different sentences_.\n\n(A)については、嘘には２種類ある。子供のつく無邪気な嘘。もう一つは大人のつく陰険な嘘。(A)の文章は、彼/彼女は大人なのに子供のような（無邪気な）嘘をつくという意味です。 \n_As for (A), it tells that there are two kinds of lies. An innocent lie told\nby children. And an insidious/crafty lie told by adults_. _(A) implies that\nthe person tells an innocent lie just like being told by a child though he/she\nis an adult_.\n\n(B)については、実際はどうか知りませんが、子供は嘘をつく。しかし、大人は嘘をつかないということを前提にしています。(B)の文章は、彼/彼女は嘘をつかないと思われている大人なのに子供のように嘘をつくという意味です。 \n_As for (B), it is based on, apart from the true fact, that children are\nsupposed to tell a lie while adults are supposed not to tell a lie_. _The\nsentence (B) implies that the person tells a lie like a child though he/she is\nan adult who is supposed not to tell a lie_.\n\n* * *\n\n## EDIT\n\n> ### グループ１\n>\n> (A) 子供みたい **な** 嘘をつく \n> (B) 子供みたい **に** 嘘をつく\n>\n> ### グループ２\n>\n> (C) 子供みたい **な** 駄々をこねる \n> (D) 子供みたい **に** 駄々をこねる\n\nグループ１では「な」と「に」とで意味が明確に異なることはすでに示した。\nそれでは、なぜ、ＯＰが言うようにグループ２では、「な」と「に」の違いで、意味が余り違わない、あるいは意味が違うように感じないのだろうか。 \n_In group 1, I already explained that the meanings clearly differ between (A)\nusing \"な\" and (B) using \"に\"_. _Then, why does group 2 seem that the meaning is\nnot so much different by the difference between \"な\" and \"に\" as OP says?_\n\nそれは、グループ１で明確であった「子供の嘘＝無邪気な嘘」対「大人の嘘＝陰険な嘘」あるいは「子供は嘘をつく」対「大人は嘘をつかない」という対立する概念の構図が、グループ２の「駄々」には描けないからである。 \n_That is because the composition of the opposing concept of \"child's lie =\ninnocent lie\" vs. \"adult's lie = insidious/crafty lie\" or \"childrens tell a\nlie\" vs. \"adults don't tell a lie\" that was clear in group 1 can not be drawn\nabout \"駄々\" in group 2._\n\n「子供みたいな駄々」、「大人みたいな駄々」という表現は存在しても、共通の認識として、各々がどのような「駄々」なのかとイメージすることは簡単でない。 \n_Even though there are expressions of \"子供みたいな駄々\" and \"大人みたいな駄々\", it is not\neasy to imagine what each \"駄々\" is, as a common perception._\n\nこれは、「駄々」に対しては、「子供みたい」あるいは「非子供（＝大人）みたい」という修飾子が機能しないことを意味する。 \n_This means that modifiers such as \"子供みたいな\" or \"non-子供みたいな (= 大人みたいな)\" do not\nfunction to \"駄々\"._\n\n従って、「子供みたいな」であっても「子供みたいに」であっても、「駄々」は「駄々」、「駄々をこねる」は「駄々をこねる」であって、意味をそれほど変えることはできない。 \n_Therefore, even if the modifier is \"子供にみたいな\" or \"子供みたいに\", \"駄々\" is \"駄々\" and\n\"駄々をこねる\" is \"駄々をこねる\" and they could not change the meaning so much._\n\n結論が遅くなりましたが、OPの直観は正しいと言えます。 \n_I'll tell OP the conclusion that your intuition is correct._\n\n* * *\n\n## EDIT 2\n\nグループ１は、「な」と「に」とで意味が変わるが、グループ２ではあまり意味が変わらないように見える理由を別の視点で見てみたい。 \n_In Group 1, the meaning changes with \"な\" and \"ない\", but in Group 2, it seems\nthat the meaning does not change so much_. _I'll examine the reason from\nanother viewpoint apart from my original answer or from EDIT_.\n\n> ### グループ１\n>\n> (A) 子供みたい **な** 嘘をつく _The person tells a childish lie_. \n> (B) 子供みたい **に** 嘘をつく _The person tells like a child_.\n\n(A)については、嘘には２種類ある。子供のつく無邪気な嘘。もう一つは大人のつく陰険な嘘。(A)の文章は、彼/彼女は大人なのに子供のような（無邪気な）嘘をつくという意味です。\n従って、(A)は、文法的にも論理的にも間違いのない文と言える。\n\n_As for (A), it implies that there are two kinds of lies. An innocent lie told\nby children. And an insidious/crafty lie told by adults_. _(A) implies that\nthe person tells an innocent lie just like being told by a child though he/she\nis an adult_. _So, this sentence is grammatically and also logically correct_.\n\n(B)については、子供は嘘をつき、大人は嘘をつかないというように読める。これは、事実に反する。なぜなら、子供も大人も嘘をつく人と、つかない人とがいるからである。従って、(B)は、文法的には間違っていないが、論理的には間違っていることになる。\n\n_As for (B), it implies that children lie and adults do not. This is contrary\nto the true fact, because some children and also adults would lie while others\nwould not_. _So, this sentence is grammatically correct but logically\nincorrect_.\n\n言い換えると、グループ１は、「な」「に」によって、論理的に意味を持つか持たないかで差が出るので、「な」「に」が機能しており、両方の文を読んだ人は、２つの文は違うと感じる。\n\n_In other words, since Group 1 has a difference in logical correctness between\nthe two sentences depending on whether they have \"な\" or \"に\", \"な\" or \"に\"\nfunctions and those who read or hear both sentences feel that they are\ndifferent_.\n\n> ### グループ２\n>\n> (C) 子供みたい **な** 駄々をこねる _The person throws a childish tantrum_. \n> (D) 子供みたい **に** 駄々をこねる _The person throws a tantrum like a child_.\n\n(C)については、「駄々をこねる」は「子供みたいな」という修飾子がなくとも、最初から 子供が切れる状態を意味しているので、この修飾子が冗長である。\n\n_Regarding (C), the modifier of \"子供みたいな **childish** \" is redundant, because\n\"to throw a tantrum\" means \"to display a fit of **childish** anger\" even\nwithout the modifier_.\n\n従って、(C)を読んだ人は、この文が「大人なのに駄々をこねる」あるいは「大人なのに **子供のように**\n駄々をこねる」を意味していると読むことになる。これは、(C)が、(D)と全く同じであることを意味している。すなわち、グループ２の２つの文は、(C)の「な」を含む「子供みたいな」が機能しないことで同じ意味になる。\n\n_Therefore, those who read or hear (C) would take the meaning of the sentence\nfor that \"大人なのに駄々をこねる the person throws a tantrum though he/she is an adult\"\nor \"大人なのに **子供のように** 駄々をこねる the person throws a tantrum like a child though\nhe/she is an adult.\"_ _This means that (C) is exactly the same as (D)_. _That\nis, the two sentences of Group 2 have the same meaning because \"子供みたいな\"\nincluding \"な\" in (C) does not function_.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T10:07:15.027",
"id": "51958",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T22:23:50.400",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51957",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I think your intuition is correct. 子供みたいな駄々をこねる and 子供みたいに駄々をこねる sound almost\nthe same to me, and I can hardly think of a situation where only either of the\ntwo is appropriate. Personally I would prefer 子供みたいに駄々をこねる because I also tend\nto treat 駄々をこねる as one big verbal phrase, but 子供みたいな駄々をこねる is not unnatural at\nall.\n\nIf you say 子供みたいな嘘, the focus is clearly on the content of the 嘘. On the other\nhand, 駄々 on its own means something like _quibbles_ or _trivial claims_ , and\nthe content of 駄々 is unimportant by definition. Even if I heard 子供みたいな駄々, I\nwould not feel what is said is important or focused.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T10:55:48.777",
"id": "51961",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T14:43:57.110",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T14:43:57.110",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51957",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51957 | 51958 | 51961 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51974",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Sorry if this might be too broad, I'm first time on this stackexchange.\n\nSetup: I'm walking around the town. I see a Japanese tourist looking at a city\nmap and trying to find a landmark/restaurant/hotel on it and/or the landmark\nin this town. The problem is, it's the wrong map, the map of the town 100km to\nthe North! Neither of us has smartphone. The tourist has tried to approach\npeople for help but is being rudely ignored by the other people, so back to\nthe (wrong) map he goes. I'd like to help him (being a good Samaritan that I\nam) so I approach.\n\nThe Japanese tourist speaks passable German, but doesn't speak or read English\n(or almost no English). I speak English very well, but do not know any German.\nLuckily for him, I like Japanese culture and know some basic Japanese (lets\nsay, like a first or second grade primary school student) and I have some time\nto spare. The location looked for is not far away.\n\nQuestions:\n\n1) How can I say the following (things in brackets are optional):\n\n\"(Don't worry.) I'll take you there/where you want to go. It is not far away.\nNo payment needed. (I have some time to spare.) Please follow me.\"\n\n2)How do I go with actually giving directions? For example:\n\n\"Go straight/forward until you reach the semaphore/ the end of the street.\nYou'll see red short building on your left side. Then turn right then go\nforward for 100 meters. Then turn left when you reach the tall white building.\nThen go forward for 200 meters. Then turn right and follow the path for 50\nmeters. The blue building on your right, with the number 22, is where you want\nto stop. Right across that building is 'location' you're looking for.\"\n\n3) How would I add \"then go\" or \"then do\" after previous direction in\ngrammatically correct way?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T10:32:07.887",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51960",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T21:48:19.420",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T11:22:17.697",
"last_editor_user_id": "25244",
"owner_user_id": "25244",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"direction"
],
"title": "Explaining directions to a Japanese tourist /useful phrases to know",
"view_count": 354
} | [
{
"body": "1)\n(心配いりません。）あなたが行きたいと思っている場所に連れて行って差し上げます。ここからそれほど遠くありませんので。料金はいただきません。（今、ヒマですので。）どうぞついてきてください。\n\n2)\n信号まで・この通りの最後までまっすぐ歩いて行って下さい。左手に赤いビルが見えて来ますので、右折して１００ｍほど進んで下さい。そこから左折して高い白いビルまで行って下さい。そこからさらに２００ｍ進んでから右に曲がり、小道を５０ｍほど進んでください。右手の青いビル、２２と書かれているビルをすぎれば目的地に着きます。\n\n3) How would I add \"then go\" or \"then do\" after previous direction in\ngrammatically correct way? それから～～へ行って下さい。 それから～～をして下さい。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T21:48:19.420",
"id": "51974",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T21:48:19.420",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "51960",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51960 | 51974 | 51974 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51963",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "世界80か国で行われた **国際調査** の結果が発表された。\n\nI really have problems with some semantics, grammar and parsing here.\n\nFirst: 行われた. Something didn't \"do\" or \"perform\". In the overall sentence, I\ndont know how to meaningfully integrate this. Second: か国で I guess the か could\nbe some kind of suffix for counting countries. で is probably the particle で\nhere? It would somehow make sense at least in the way I understand the\nsentence. Third: 国際調査 \"international investigation\". I don't know what\ninterpretation from a syntactic perspective would be correct. \"The\ninternational investigation which didn't do/perform in 80 countries.\" or \"The\ninternational investigation about: It doesn't do in 80 countries.\"\n\nMy attempt at a full translation would be: \"The results of an international\ninvestigation, which didn't do in 80 countries, were published.\"\n\nEDIT: 行われた is not negative form, as pointed out by lelecteur. Besides I also\nnoticed that its passive, or better said, that I forgot to translate\npassive...^^ Therefore, the attempt at translation should be: \"The results of\nan international investigation, which was performed in 80 countries, were\npublished.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T11:07:10.367",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51962",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T21:24:00.307",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T11:49:02.993",
"last_editor_user_id": "20172",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words",
"syntax",
"parsing"
],
"title": "How to connect the elements of this sentence",
"view_count": 115
} | [
{
"body": "* You've already answered the first question; 行われた is the passive form, not the negative form.\n * ～か国 is a counter for countries. This か is also written as [ヶ (small katakana ケ)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/347/5010), but it's fine to write it using hiragana as it is pronounced. For example, 1ヶ月, 1か月 and 1箇月 mean the same thing, and are pronounced in the same way. See also: [Why small version of katakana ヵ is used in a word 二ヵ国語](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/36149/5010)\n * で right after it is the location marker, as you have correctly guessed.\n * This 国際調査 might be better translated as \"international survey\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T12:10:25.247",
"id": "51963",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T12:10:25.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51962",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "\"The results of an international investigation, which was done in 80\ncountries, were published.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T21:24:00.307",
"id": "51972",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T21:24:00.307",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "51962",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51962 | 51963 | 51963 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51966",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Can anyone please tell me what's the last character in the picture below? I\ncan't recognize, it looks like hiragana but I don't know which one.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wY3lZ.jpg)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T16:13:20.280",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51965",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T20:36:11.440",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T20:36:11.440",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "22126",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"hiragana"
],
"title": "Can't recognize one character",
"view_count": 217
} | [
{
"body": "The character is が. Looking at the stroke order diagram: [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/0Laii.png)\n\nyou can see that the writing tool has touched the writing surface when moving\nbetween the second and the third stroke.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T16:20:52.717",
"id": "51966",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T16:20:52.717",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19206",
"parent_id": "51965",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 51965 | 51966 | 51966 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51970",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I have a translation of a given sentence in English, but the Japanese version\nseems to use a verb that seems a little different than what would be intended,\nso I wanted to ask about it here and double-check on it and maybe have it\nexplained if it is correct. I want to change out a few of the exact noun or\npronoun phrases that were used, but this is otherwise the English form of the\nsentence and the translation that was provided:\n\n> Ms. Tanaka wants him to not be a lawyer.\n\nAnd the translation that was provided took the form:\n\n> 田中さんは、彼が弁護士にならないようにする。\n\nThe interesting thing here is the use of the word \"する\". Why use \"する\"? Why not\nuse \"欲しがる\" or something else?\n\nSo is this the correct translation? If not, what is the right way to say that?\nIf it is, then why is the word \"する\" correct here? Thank you.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T16:55:32.123",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51967",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T21:03:21.643",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T17:01:40.020",
"last_editor_user_id": "1771",
"owner_user_id": "1771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"definitions",
"idioms"
],
"title": "X wants for Y to not be Z",
"view_count": 263
} | [
{
"body": "> 田中さんは、彼が弁護士にならないようにする。\n\nThe translation is correct. Let's first parse the translation and translate a\nbit more directly:\n\n> (田中さんは)、(彼が)([弁護士にならない][ようにする])。 \n> (\"As for Ms. Tanaka\"), (he)([to not become lawyer][to wish onto]).\n\nRecall that the expression **(conjugated)verb+ようにする** is to wish something\nonto a subject. Here, the subject is **彼**. So, what is Ms. Tanaka wishing\nonto him? That is **弁護士にならない**.\n\nIf we put this into a direct English phrase that makes more sense:\n\n> As for Ms. Tanaka, she wishes that he does not become a lawyer.\n\nThe word \"wish\" is a synonym for a \"want\" or a \"desire\" in English, though\nsometimes might not have the same connotation. Here, we can assume directly\nthat her wish for him to not become a lawyer is equivalent to her not wanting\nhim to be a lawyer. Therefore:\n\n> Ms. Tanaka wants him to not be a lawyer.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T17:18:10.773",
"id": "51968",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T17:18:10.773",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "51967",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> > Ms. Tanaka wants him to not be a lawyer.\n>>\n\n>> 田中さんは、彼が弁護士にならないようにする。\n\n>\n> The interesting thing here is the use of the word \"する\". Why use \"する\"? Why\n> not use \"欲しがる\" or something else?\n\nIs there any context? It could be interpreted as 'want' **_only as the\nreason_** of it.\n\nI'm with you. する doesn't say 'want' at all. \nThat is an interpretation that has read into beyond what it actually says. If\nsomeone is telling you to read it that way, I'd say it's misleading.\n\nI think the direct translation of them would be like these:\n\n田中さんは、彼が弁護士にならないようにする。= Ms. Tanaka acts in the way he won't be a lawyer.\n\nMs. Tanaka wants him to not be a lawyer. = 田中さんは彼が弁護士にならないようにしたい。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T17:53:30.090",
"id": "51969",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T20:12:49.733",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-02T20:12:49.733",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51967",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "You're correct. The translation is very weird for me. The natural version\nwould be: 田中さんは彼に弁護士にはならないで欲しいと思っている。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T21:03:21.643",
"id": "51970",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-02T21:03:21.643",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "51967",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51967 | 51970 | 51970 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I was speaking with a friend and at one point in making plans said something\nlike:\n\n> 田中さんに連絡されてもらった後で…\n\nbut was corrected to:\n\n> 連絡してもらった後で.\n\nI understand how the particles and such work with the もらう but it doesn't make\nsense to me to use them with a simple する. If it's me who's receiving the task,\n私は田中さんにもらう seems correct, but looking at the 連絡する separately doesn't make as\nmuch sense: 私は田中さんに連絡する. To make it work with the もらう don't I have to change\nit to させる?\n\nAfter this correction, it spurred a further conversation about using もらう and\nくれる but I feel like I've gotten even more confused.\n\n> 田中さんは私を車に乗せてくれる \n> 私は田中さんに車に乗せてもらう\n\nThese make sense.\n\n> 田中さんは私に車に乗ってもらう\n\nThat one doesn't make any sense to me at all.\n\nI guess what I'm looking for is an in depth explanation as to what forms of\nverbs to use with kureru/morau (transitive? intransitive? passive?) and what\nparticles would need to accompany them.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-02T23:16:31.813",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51977",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-14T09:04:49.037",
"last_edit_date": "2020-02-14T09:04:49.037",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25254",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"usage",
"politeness",
"subsidiary-verbs",
"giving-and-receiving"
],
"title": "What particles and what verb forms to use when attached to もらう or くれる",
"view_count": 646
} | [
{
"body": "So who does the action of 連絡する in this context? AにVしてもらう means \"to have A do\nV\", \"to receive the favor of doing V from A\". The action taker of V is A, and\nthe speaker is grateful to A. You can read lots of examples of `A + に + te-\nform + もらう` [here](http://japanesetest4you.com/flashcard/learn-\njlpt-n4-grammar-%E3%81%A6%E3%82%82%E3%82%89%E3%81%86-te-morau/). The verb (V)\ncan be intransitive or transitive, and a normal verb or a suru-verb.\n\nTherefore 田中さんに連絡してもらった後で basically means \"after Tanaka-san (kindly) has\ninformed (someone of something)...\". I don't know the context, but it probably\nmeans either of the followings.\n\n * (I currently do not have the details of the plan, so) I'll have Tanaka-san give the details to you, and after that ...\n * (We won't directly inform someone (else) of the plan, but instead) we'll have Tanaka-san inform this, and after that...\n\nIn both cases, note that もらう implies the speaker is grateful to Tanaka-san,\nnot you nor \"someone else\". Although you may be the person who receives the\ninformation, Tanaka-san is the person who kindly takes time, writes an email,\nfor example, and informs you of the plan. This もらう refers to such a kind\naction.\n\n私は田中さんに車に乗せてもらう is used when 私 is grateful to Tanaka-san for driving the car\nfor 私.\n\n田中さんに連絡されてもらった後で is grammatical but makes little sense, because 連絡される (\"to be\ninformed\") is usually not something for which one is grateful. You may use the\npassive voice with もらう like this (although it's uncommon):\n\n * 花瓶を壊したのは僕だけど、弟に叱られてもらった。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T03:50:49.343",
"id": "51982",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T04:18:38.437",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T04:18:38.437",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51977",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> （誰か） **に～してもらう** is the base form to say（誰か）に～される as your benefit.\n\nYou are receiving the action; 私は田中さん **に～してもらう.**\n\nSo, it becomes 私は田中さん **に** 連絡 **してもらう.**\n\nLet's reserve the other verb (して) simple for other occasions. (I suspect we\ndon't really have any occasion to say it in passive.)\n\n「田中さんに連絡されてもらった後で…」 \nThis seems to be saying something so complicated like \"After benefitted by\nTanaka-san's being made a contact by someone.\" It has become that Tanaka-san\nis the one receiving the contact.\n\n> 田中さんは私を車に乗せてくれる **_correct_** \n> 私は田中さんに車に乗せてもらう **_correct_**\n\n田中さんは私に車に乗ってもらう **_grammatical_**\n\nWhat it says is that Tanaka-san is going to be benefited by your getting in\nher/his car. I don't know whether such an occasion exists, but this sentence\nis, at least, grammatical.\n\n* * *\n\nAnother formula for you:\n\n> （誰か） **に～させてもらう**\n\nThis is to say you'll be benefitted by being allowed to do something.\n\nWe say 田中さんに連絡 **させて** もらった後で to pay a respect to 田中さん, and, here, 田中さん is the\n_receiver_ of the contact.\n\nEx. 今日はわけあってお隣さん **に** 車を **置かせてもらった。**",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T03:57:40.337",
"id": "51983",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T03:57:40.337",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51977",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51977 | null | 51982 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51980",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I searched jisho and found `整える` but doing a google search for\n\n> メガネを整える\n\ncame up with practically no results so I feel that it's not the appropriate\nverb.\n\n> メガネを繕う\n\ncame up with more hits, is that the right one?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T00:17:57.737",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51978",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T04:51:49.000",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19082",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"verbs"
],
"title": "Verb for \"adjusting\" glasses?",
"view_count": 1830
} | [
{
"body": "> 眼鏡を押し上げる. Pushing up one's glasses.\n\nCredit to @siikamiika.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T00:23:30.307",
"id": "51979",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T04:51:49.000",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-05T04:51:49.000",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "51978",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I would probably say...\n\n> ずり[落]{お}ちたメガネをかけ[直]{なお}す \n> ずり落ちたメガネ（の位置）を[直]{なお}す \n> ずり落ちたメガネを｛[上]{あ}げる / （指で）[押]{お}し上げる｝",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T01:07:59.280",
"id": "51980",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T01:07:59.280",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "51978",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
},
{
"body": "Let me add a couple of phrases: 眼鏡を上げる、眼鏡を押し上げる、and 眼鏡クイッ. The first two are\nfairly common.\n\nThe last one is a slangy (a bit otaku) phrase to describe the motion. Not\nreally useful in normal conversion, but you can use it as 眼鏡をクイッと(かけ)直す仕草 and\neveryone should understand.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T02:31:02.617",
"id": "51981",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T02:40:33.597",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T02:40:33.597",
"last_editor_user_id": "9508",
"owner_user_id": "9508",
"parent_id": "51978",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 51978 | 51980 | 51980 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51988",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For full context, see the following document:\n<https://www.docdroid.net/6ruXJ6r/img-20170802-0002-new.pdf>\n\nThis excerpt was taken from line 1-2:\n\n> 15歳の子供たちを対象に32か国で行われた国際調査では、国によってかなりちがいがあることがわかった。\n\nFirst, my attempt at translation: \"In an international survey that was\nperformed in 32 countries, in which one has made 15 year old children the\ntarget group, one has discovered that there was quite the difference depending\non the country.”\n\nWhat confuses me the most is 対象に. This に seems to me like the に in 音を大きくにします,\nwhere the subject changes the status of an object. The に expressing a decision\ncould also work here, like in ビールにしますか、ビールにしますか。 In any case, the する after に\nisn't there in this case. So I don’t know for sure what function this に has.\n\nWhat also makes me wonder is the では in 国際調査では. I’ve interpreted it as particle\nで + particle は. In a more literal translation, this still works: \"Concerning\nin an international survey…., one has discovered….“ I just wonder why there is\nで at all. At least in the translation, it seems redundant.\n\nUltimately, I’d like to know whether my translation is precise. I usually\nhesitate making use of relative clauses, because one can easily scramble some\nrelations without noticing. But since the attribute for 国際調査 was so complex, I\ndidn’t see another way around it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T07:33:28.793",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51987",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T08:29:16.997",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T08:05:57.753",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What about these particles",
"view_count": 180
} | [
{
"body": "> What confuses me the most is 対象に\n\nIt's part of a very common `A + を + B + に` construction. Most of the time you\ncan use \"using A as B\" or \"with A as/on/in B\" to translate it. You can also\nthink して is omitted after 対象に. See: [Meaning and transitivity of\nゴミ袋を手に立ち上がる](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/20854/5010) and [Two を in a\nsingle sentence - how to understand\nit?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/16288/5010)\n\nIn this case, you can translate 15歳の子供たちを対象に very simply: \"targeted at\n15-year-old children\".\n\n> What also makes me wonder is the では in 国際調査では\n\nThis では is the plain old situation/location marker (で ≒ \"in\"), followed by the\nplain old topic marker (は). で and は play totally different roles, and they are\nnot redundant. Don't worry too much about your \"literal\" translation.\n\nYour translation attempt is okay, but feel free to use more natural wordings\nsuch as \"The survey _revealed_ that ...\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T08:11:56.623",
"id": "51988",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T08:29:16.997",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T08:29:16.997",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51987",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51987 | 51988 | 51988 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "51995",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I would like to say \"I like to draw Doraemon\". Is this correct?\n\nドラえもんを描きますのが好きです。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T09:28:46.343",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51989",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T15:15:33.577",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25259",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How to say \"I like to draw this particular character\"?",
"view_count": 864
} | [
{
"body": "> How to say “I like to draw this particular character”? \n> I would like to say \"I like to draw Doraemon\". Is this correct? \n> ドラえもんを描きますのが好きです。\n\nI find we never put ます in the objective phrase of のが好き.\n\nYou can conjugate the verb to connect to a noun; 描くの, and say ドラえもん\n**を描くのが好き** です。We prefer **～を（～）するのが好きです** though we prefer 描くことが好きです,\nand（する）ことがあります.\n\n料理をするのが好きです。 読書をするのが好きです。 話をするのが好きです。\n\n話すのが好きです。 読むのが好きです。 働くのが好きです。 I find these three feel overly formal with こと.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T13:55:51.180",
"id": "51995",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T15:15:33.577",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T15:15:33.577",
"last_editor_user_id": "22422",
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51989",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 51989 | 51995 | 51995 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "52003",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": ">\n> イギリスの少女はキノコ雲をかき、「科学者は時にダメージを与える」、日本の少年の絵は髪やひげは伸びたままにしている科学者で、「仕事のことばかり考えている」というイメージだ。([source](https://www.docdroid.net/6ruXJ6r/img-20170802-0002-new.pdf)\n> line 8-10)\n\nFirst, my attempt at translation:\n\n> The English girls draw nuclear mushrooms and the image says: “scientists\n> sometimes cause damage”, and the picture of the Japanese boys is a\n> scientist, in whom they made the hair and moustache long (=in which they\n> elongated hair and moustache) and the image says: “In my job I must think\n> all the time”.\n\nBecause the context is rather strong in this sentence, I didn’t have too many\nproblems understanding it. However, the translation required me to make quite\na lot of assumptions about either lacking or seemingly superfluous elements.\nSo I want to ask about them now:\n\nというイメージだ This element could relate to both the first part of the full sentence\n=> イギリスの少女はキノコ雲をかき、「科学者は時にダメージを与える」 And the second part:\n日本の少年の絵は髪やひげは伸びたままにしている科学者で、「仕事のことばかり考えている」\n\nThe problem is that things get _really_ complicated if I wanted to incorporate\nthe というイメージだ in my translation of the full sentence. Just to give an example,\nanother more “bumpy” translation: “The English girls draw a nuclear mushroom\nand it is an image which says: ‘scientists sometimes cause damage’ and the\npicture of the Japanese boys is a scientist, in whom they made the moustache\nand hair long and it is a picture which says: ‘In my job I must think all the\ntime’.\n\nFor that reason, I wanted to know whether my assumptions were correct, because\nthey imply quite far reaching, rather complex relations.\n\nBesides that, another question centered both around this specific sentence,\nbut also touching the whole text: Is the text switching tenses? Line 1-2 and\n3-4 (half) and 6-7 are in past tense. The rest seems to be in present tense. I\ncan’t really make out a contextual reason. For example, as we can see in line\n6-7, whether the text cites the children's drawings or not doesn’t seem to be\nof importance. In line 6-7, the “narrator” ultimately narrates in past tense,\nalthough he always talks to us in present tense when citing the drawings in\nall of the other cases in the text.\n\nDo you see any contextual requirement for this? Or even a grammatical\nrequirement? Or is it just a stylistic phenomenon? For example, in fictional\nliterature this is often used to increase the suspense.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T09:46:52.370",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51990",
"last_activity_date": "2022-02-14T19:28:30.727",
"last_edit_date": "2022-02-14T19:28:30.727",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Syntax and peculiarities of this sentence/text",
"view_count": 307
} | [
{
"body": "1. 仕事のことばかり考えている - Thinks only about his work all the time.\n 2. というイメージ (イメージ = mental image, impression, artist's impression. This word doesn't mean \"a picture\".) doesn't mean something is written in the picture, it's just a description of an impression that the pictures are giving.\n 3. というイメージ relates to both quotes, as they appear in a clear repetative pattern.\n 4. Past and present tense can be used pretty loosely in Japanese. Usually when speaking about past events you use past tense in a few key points, and the rest can use present tense if the correct time can be unambiguously implied.\n\nMy translation would be \"British girl drew a mushroom cloud, which is like\nsaying \"scientists do damage\", and Japanese boy's picture was a scientist with\nlong hair and a beard, as if he only thinks about his work all the time.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T11:13:34.740",
"id": "51993",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T11:21:19.373",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T11:21:19.373",
"last_editor_user_id": "25260",
"owner_user_id": "25260",
"parent_id": "51990",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> >\n> イギリスの少女はキノコ雲をかき、「科学者は時にダメージを与える」、日本の少年の絵は髪やひげは伸びたままにしている科学者で、「仕事のことばかり考えている」というイメージだ。\n>\n> First, my attempt at translation: The English girls draw nuclear mushrooms\n> and the image says: “scientists sometimes cause damage”, and the picture of\n> the japanese boys is a scientist, in whom they made the hair and moustache\n> long (=in which they elongated hair and moustache) and the image says: “In\n> my job I must think all the time”.\n\n「仕事のことばかり考えている」is also the word from the perspective of the students as\n「科学者は時にダメージを与える」and other pictures are.\n\n> 1) というイメージだ This element could relate to both the first part of the full\n> sentence\n\nYou can read it as it is; don't apply the last predicate, というイメージだ, to the\nfirst half of the sentence; that way causes you a confusion. The sentence\nfirst says イギリスの **少女は** ～の絵をかいた, and then it changes the subject from the\ndrawer to the picture, and says 日本の **少年の絵は** ～というイメージだ。We can naturally\nexpect this イメージ to be used as the same sense as the one appears at the\nbeginning of the passage, どんなイメージを持っているのだろうか, though it's a little confusing\nbecuase it's about 絵. I wish it said というイメージを持っている, but then it may have\nsounded a little too redundant.\n\n> Is the text switching tenses? Line 1-2 and 3-4 (half)\n\nI as a native speaker find everything is natural here. 持っているのだろうか is\nquestioning about the current status. 行われた is talking about something has\ndone. 分かった is also talking about something they have come to understand;\nthings that already happened. 子どもたちがかいた says children already drew.\n紹介{しょうかい}しよう says they are going to show us from now, below it. 人々を健康{けんこう}にする\nis talking about a **_present fact_** ; a general idea. 褒{ほ}めている is also\ntreated as a **_present fact/state_** ; we Japanese even say\n彼{かれ}は十年前{じゅうねんまえ}ここで怪我{けが}をしている.\n\n> In line 6-7, the “narrator” ultimately narrates in past tense, although he\n> always talks to us in present tense when citing the drawings in all of the\n> other cases in the text.\n\nThe descriptors of the drawings are not talking about past events, but are\ndescribing what the idea of them or what they are doing in the picture. The\nnarration states past events as past events and present facts as present\nfacts.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T17:36:03.710",
"id": "51999",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T17:36:03.710",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "51990",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I think the biggest problem of your translation attempt is that you tried to\nuse \"say\" to translate という. This type of という is used to describe the noun that\nfollows. I understand you want to translate it as literally as possible, but\nusing \"say\" would usually end up with extremely unnatural English sentence.\n\n> * 地球は丸いという事実 \n> the fact that the earth is round\n> * 美女が野獣に恋をするという物語 \n> a story where a beautiful woman falls in love with a beast\n> * 家族がいるという幸せ \n> the happiness of having a family\n> * 入学試験に遅刻したという思い出 \n> the memory of being late for the entrance exam\n> * 科学者は時にダメージを与えるというイメージの絵 \n> a picture that gives an impression that scientists sometimes cause damage\n>\n\nというイメージだ at the end of the sentence relates to both 科学者は時にダメージを与える and\n仕事のことばかり考えている. This is an example of [right-node\nraising](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/17744/5010). To translate this\nsentence into English, I would not hesitate to split it into two sentences. My\nattempt:\n\n> A British girl draw a mushroom cloud, which gives an impression that\n> scientists are sometimes harmful. What a Japanese boy drew is a scientist\n> who leaves his hair and beard grow, which gives an impression that\n> scientists think only about their jobs.\n\nThe mixture of the present and past tenses comes from the mere fact that\n\"draw\" is a past action but the pictures are things that exist \"now\". (\"This\npicture _is_ beautiful! Picasso _painted_ it!\" It's not unnatural, is it?)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T19:34:50.627",
"id": "52003",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T19:34:50.627",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51990",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 51990 | 52003 | 52003 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 7,
"body": "When writing the kanji for dragon, should I use the simplified or traditional\nor can I use either. My Japanese dictionary tells me that Japanese people\nlearn both character forms in school. I know that the simplified version is\nmore common, but I just think that the traditional versions look better. This\nquestion also applies for kanji that have a similar problem like 国 and 國.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T09:49:26.457",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51991",
"last_activity_date": "2020-04-24T19:46:55.187",
"last_edit_date": "2020-04-24T19:46:55.187",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "19299",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 17,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"kanji-choice",
"kyūjitai-and-shinjitai"
],
"title": "Should I use 竜 or 龍?",
"view_count": 5353
} | [
{
"body": "It does not really matter, most of the cases you should use those that are\n常用漢字, which means you should use 国 or 竜.\n\nAs a matter of fact, although their meaning are exactly the same, 旧字体 like 國\nor 龍 feels more serious and cool to some people.\n\nFor 竜, as the word are used to translate the western word \"dragon\", it feels\nmore evil and dark. 龍 in the other hand feels sacred and royal like how lions\ndo to the western world. \nSo you will see 聖龍＝royal dragon 神龍＝dragon-god but not 竜。\n\n旧字体 are still used in people's names as well, always write the kanji in the\nway that they want you to write.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T10:46:20.940",
"id": "51992",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T11:06:32.183",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T11:06:32.183",
"last_editor_user_id": "22397",
"owner_user_id": "22397",
"parent_id": "51991",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> I just think that the traditional versions look better. This question also\n> applies for kanji that have a similar problem like 国 and 國.\n\nAs for 龍 vs. 竜, I agree that the traditional version looks better. I'm also\nfond of the shape of 龍 than that of 竜.\n\nIf you search for images on the Internet with a keyword of \"凧{たこ} _kite_ \",\nyou'll find that 龍 is more commonly used in the design of kites than 竜.\n\nI think it is because the shape of 龍 is nearly a square, which fits the shape\nof a square kite, and also it seems more solemn than 竜 which has many spaces\nin the shape.\n\nBut as for 国 vs. 國, we rarely see 國 and I've never used 國.\n\nAs a whole, I could say 龍 is one of rare examples that the traditional\nversions are still commonly used.\n\n* * *\n\n## EDIT\n\n「龍」が「竜」の旧字体ではなく、実は「竜」の方が古いという情報は[Wikipedia](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%9C)をはじめ[ここ](http://%E7%9F%A5%E3%81%A3%E5%BE%97%E8%A2%8B.biz/446.html)とか[ここ](https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/479641.html)とか[ここ](http://dictionary.sanseido-\npubl.co.jp/wp/2011/11/08/%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E3%81%AE%E7%8F%BE%E5%9C%A82%E7%A8%AE%E9%A1%9E%E3%81%AE%E3%80%8C%E7%AB%9C%E3%80%8D%E3%81%A8%E3%80%8C%E9%BE%8D%E3%80%8D/)とかいろいろなところで書かれております。それなのに、なぜ「龍」の方が「竜」の旧字体であるかのような現在の一般の認識になっているのか、言い換えると、なぜ、歴史的に「龍」が「竜」より先輩格のような扱いになっているのか、私は、その経緯が[詳]｛つまび｝らかでなかったので、先の私の回答では、「龍」の字は旧字体かもしれないが「凧」の世界で生きていますとごまかしておりました。\n\nしかし、Tommyの回答の中に、「このように考えると、「竜」と「龍」とは、どちらかが親でどちらかが子という関係ではなく、兄弟の関係だということになります。」という表現がありました。これで、私が抱いていた疑問が一気に晴れました。\n\nすなわち、「親子関係」がひっくり返るのは問題ですが、力関係が「兄弟」なら、いずれかが優位に扱われても問題は少ないのかもしれないと思ったのです。\n\n先ほど紹介しました[Wikipedia](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%9C)の説明の中に、「中国の竜は神獣・霊獣であり、『史記』における劉邦出生伝説をはじめとして、中国では皇帝のシンボルとして扱われた。」という表現があります。すなわち、龍（あるいは竜）は中国の最高権威者である皇帝のシンボルです。\n\n更に、[ここ](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%9C%E7%8E%8B)や[ここ](http://Dragon%20King)で「龍王、\n_Dragon King_ 」を見ると、龍が神格化されていたことが分かります。\n\n「竜」と「龍」の文字を見比べたときに明らかに「龍」の方が見た目がきれいであることは明らかです。これは、「凧」のデザインとして「竜」ではなく「龍」が使われる理由とも通じます。「龍」の字形が単に四角だからではないような気がします。\n\n中国において昔、似たような意味を持つ漢字が併存していたのを整理してどれが「正字」であるか定める作業をするときに、文字の形が美しいあるいは端正であるという理由で、皇帝のシンボルとしての位置づけを持つ文字として「親子」ではなく「兄弟」だから、「竜」ではなく「龍」を正字にしたのだと思います。弟がお兄さんより重用｛ちょうよう｝された（\n_to be given an important position_ ）ことになります。\n\nそれ以降は、日本においても、「竜」は「龍」を略して作った文字（後でできた文字）として不当に扱われてきたのだと思います。\n\n経緯はともかくとして「龍」の字が美しいことに違いはなく、また、「凧」上げの文化がつづく限り、他の文字と違って「竜」の旧字とされる「龍」は、日本では使い続けられるように思います。\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HJIYv.jpg)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T05:50:35.410",
"id": "52007",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-08T22:33:43.963",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "51991",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "It seems to me the answers given so far could be improved and I also find them\nto be a bit too much opinion-based. Nobody really gave any insight about the\netymology and origins of those characters.\n\nI found [this interesting article](http://kanjibunka.com/kanji-faq/old-\nfaq/q0336/), that I will report fully below, that addresses exactly this point\nand seems to give some explanations that go beyond \"looks cool to me\".\n\nAccording to that article, although it is true that the general classification\ntoday distinguishes these two kanji by saying that 龍 is the old version of 竜,\nthe truth seems to be that in the past 竜 was the one considered most correct.\n\nLook at the following picture:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/O6XpY.gif)\n\nThe figure on the left is what is found on the 甲骨文字 (the ancient inscriptions\non oracle bones). The one on the right is found on the 金文, that are the most\nancient inscriptions right after the oracle bones. Whichever you look at, it\nseems that 竜 is the closest to the original form.\n\nHowever if you look very closely you could say that on the right side of the\noracle bones inscription, you can see what could be a \"dorsal fin\" and hence\n「龍」 was written in a way to stress out that point.\n\nIn other words 竜 is a direct descendant of the oracle bones while 龍 is a\ndescendant that has been \"exaggerated\".\n\nSo if you see it this way, it's not much a matter of which is the \"parent\nkanji\" and which one is the \"son\" but rather you should see them as siblings.\n\nHowever as I said above it is still true that historically nowadays those two\nare seen as one being the older version than the other.\n\nSo to answer \"which one should you use\", it doesn't really matter as the\nmeaning is the same, it's all about your taste. It's true that it seems that\nthe majority of Japanese people tend to like 龍 better. However, I tried to add\nsome context to explain why moreover not only 竜 certainly isn't wrong, but\nactually it also might not be even true that is just a newer version of 龍.\n\nFull article:\n\n>\n> 「竜」と「龍」というのは、こだわりを持つ人が多い漢字で、「芥川竜之介」などと書こうものなら、「そんなんじゃ芥川じゃない！」と怒り出す人がいるくらいです。しかしこの２つの漢字、いわゆる異体字の関係にあって、「竜」が新字体、「龍」が旧字体であること、ご質問をくださった方がおっしゃるとおりです。\n> 旧字体というからには、当然ながら「龍」の方が古いものと思われます。しかし、最も古い時代の漢字の形を伝えている甲骨文字では、この字は図の左側のような形をしています。さらに、甲骨文字の次に古いとされる金文（きんぶん）では、右側のような形になります。これらの形を見ている限り、どちらかと言えば「竜」の方が本来の形に近いものと思われます。\n> しかしよく見てみると、甲骨文字では、右側に背びれ（？）のようなものが突き出ていることがわかります「龍」という漢字は、この背びれの部分を強調して書いたものだと言われています。つまり、「竜」は甲骨文字の直系の子孫なのに対して、「龍」はかなり誇張された子孫だ、というわけです。なんだか、紅白歌合戦の某歌手の衣装を思わせるほどの誇張のされ方ですよね。\n> このように考えると、「竜」と「龍」とは、どちらかが親でどちらかが子という関係ではなく、兄弟の関係だということになります。にもかかわらず、「竜」が新字体で「龍」が旧字体だというのは、歴史的にはずっと「龍」の方が正字だとされてきたからに他なりません。純朴な長男よりも、派手好きな次男の方が世間の受けはよかった、というわけです。\n> それが第二次世界大戦後の国語改革によって、その書きやすさから、「竜」の方が正字であるとされることになりました。純朴な長男の苦労が、ついに認められるときがやってきたのです。私は実は次男なのですが、この「帰ってきた長男」には、惜しみない拍手を送りたいと思います。\n\n**BONUS:**\n\nSince you mention 「国」and「國」, as far as I know in this case the former is a\nsimplification of the latter that was done just to reduce the number of\nstrokes.\n\nI will tell you more, there is actually also the character 圀, that has the\nsame meaning of country. This comes from the Tang dinasty in China and it\nseems to be due to Empress Wu Zitian (武則天) who didn't like that 或 (which\nrecalls 惑 that bears the meaning of delusion/disappointment) was part of the\ncharacter 國. You can find more\n[here](http://blog.goo.ne.jp/tudukimituo1028/e/3d4b568d8cb637343f0af6e6ff2a93be).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T06:45:31.103",
"id": "52008",
"last_activity_date": "2020-04-24T09:02:47.607",
"last_edit_date": "2020-04-24T09:02:47.607",
"last_editor_user_id": "32952",
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"parent_id": "51991",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "I think 竜 is more common. A native speaker tells me that 龍 immediately evokes,\nfor her, Chinese restaurants and 中華料理.\n\nFor those who think 竜 is somehow ugly or stupid, which seems nonsensical in\nany case (the aesthetic lies in how it's written, not its form): what about\nits use in 滝/たき/waterfall? Do they think that word is ugly and stupid?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-07T03:41:25.377",
"id": "52066",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-07T03:41:25.377",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22186",
"parent_id": "51991",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
},
{
"body": "Putting aside the etymology (I did not know which is older), both 竜 and 龍 are\nvery common today, and are actively used by many people. I don't think one is\n\"essentially more beautiful\" than the other. Basically it's a matter of taste,\nand you should respect the kanji choice used by the person who named it. But\none tendency is that [Western\ndragons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_dragon) are often rendered as\n竜 (or ドラゴン), whereas [Chinese\ndragons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_dragon) are often rendered as\n龍. Nicopedia\n[says](http://dic.nicovideo.jp/a/%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B4%E3%83%B3):\n\n>\n> 簡易な分類として、西洋的な特徴を持つドラゴンを「西洋竜（西洋龍）」或いは新字体の「竜」で表し、東洋的な特徴を持つドラゴンを「東洋竜（東洋龍）」或いは旧字体の「龍」で表すなどとする場合が多い。\n\nFor example...\n\n * 龍 is the default kanji in _Dragon Ball_ , which obviously has a Chinese flavor. Shen-ron (神龍) appears like a \"floating snake\".\n * 竜 is the default kanji in _Dragon Quest_ , whose main motif is the medieval Europe. Dragons in this franchise tend to look like a \"winged lizard\" (although some are wingless). Note that many monsters in _Dragon Quest_ were designed by Akira Toriyama, the author of _Dragon Ball_.\n * _Final Fantasy_ also uses the the kanji 竜 in most places ([竜騎士 is a famous job](http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Dragoon_\\(job\\)) in the franchise).\n * _Monster Hunter_ is a game franchise that effectively uses both 竜 and 龍. In the game, lower-ranked enemies are generally called 〇竜, and they are depicted as extensions of ordinary animals. A few difficult bosses are called 古龍, which is defined in the game as mysterious, god-like species which refuse ordinary biological analyses. Interestingly, many 古龍 are named using the Japanese or Chinese naming convention, which is rather exceptional in _Monster Hunter_.\n * Western dragoons (cavalry units) are almost always translated as 竜騎兵, although this may be a misnomer.\n\nAnyway, don't think of this as an ironclad rule. I understand many people\nprefer the appearance of 龍 just because it's more complicated and thus looks\nstronger.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-08T07:13:17.513",
"id": "52101",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-09T02:17:20.290",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-09T02:17:20.290",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51991",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 15
},
{
"body": "For general purpose or just meaning \"dragon\" you should use the simplified\nKanji. Traditional Kanji are nowadays only used for historic purposes or\nfamily/place names, or calligraphy.\n\nEspecially using 國 in a normal sentence would be really odd, comparable to\nusing \"musicke\" in a normal English sentence (instead of the present day\nspelling \"music\"). It's like an out of time historic spelling.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-04-24T18:21:38.937",
"id": "76796",
"last_activity_date": "2020-04-24T18:21:38.937",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "38684",
"parent_id": "51991",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Just to address the assumption in the question that 竜 would be more common\nthan 龍: corpus data shows that 龍 _is in fact more common than_ 竜.\n\nDisregarding _kana_ spellings we have the following frequencies\n\n * **りゅう** 竜 31% ↔ 龍 56%\n\nFor other _shinjitai_ – _kyūjitai_ pairs we have\n\n * **くに** 国 97% ↔ 國 2%\n * **けん** 剣 100% ↔ 劍 0%\n * **くろ** 黒 91% ↔ 黑 0%\n\nSo, 竜 vs. 龍 is special in this regard. (See the other answers for an\nexplanation.)\n\nInterestingly, this tendency also seems to have bled over to\n\n * **たき** 滝 95% ↔ 瀧 5%\n\nfor which the _kyūjitai_ is much more common than average.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-04-24T19:44:26.240",
"id": "76799",
"last_activity_date": "2020-04-24T19:44:26.240",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "51991",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 51991 | null | 52101 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've been listening to Japanese music a bit lately and, while I do not\nunderstand any of it and even have trouble even making out what syllables are\nbeing used, I sometimes get the impression, that it doesn't really rhyme all\nthat much.\n\nIs that true, or does the very different nature of the language fool my ears?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T12:34:19.323",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51994",
"last_activity_date": "2018-08-24T07:10:42.957",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-04T01:40:43.407",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25262",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"song-lyrics",
"music"
],
"title": "Do song lyrics in Japanese typically rhyme?",
"view_count": 9239
} | [
{
"body": "Lyrics in most Japanese songs do not rhyme at the end of each line. Only some\nJ-pop songs influenced by the western culture actively use rhymes. Japanese\nhip hop songs tend to use rhymes often. For example, lyrics written by\n[Rhymester](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhymester_\\(group\\)) usually contain\na lot of rhymes, as the name suggests :) Listen to [this\nsong](http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm9985291), and I believe you can easily\nfeel the rhymes even if you don't understand Japanese.\n\nSome Japanese songs use other methods to make the lyrics sound nice. One\nexample is 七五調 (\"7-5 rhythm\"), which is the rhythm heard in _haiku_ poems.\nSee: [Is the layout of this text supposed to resemble a style of\npoem?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/30106/5010)\n\n**EDIT** : [Classical Chinese\npoems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Chinese_poetry) typically used\nline-end rhymes, and Japanese people have understood them. But according to\nWikipedia, Western-style rhymes have never been popular among Japanese\npoets/lyricists.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T18:22:43.133",
"id": "52001",
"last_activity_date": "2018-08-24T07:10:42.957",
"last_edit_date": "2018-08-24T07:10:42.957",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "51994",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
},
{
"body": "No. There are only five, six, seven or so vowels in Japanese and most\nsyllables are open. There's little point in rhyming. Imagine a person every\nsentence with あ. That sounds a bit funny, actually. Therefore, most popular\nmusic in Japanese (be it enka, kayokyoku or J-Pop) don't rhyme.\n\nI should mention that many languages do have very few vowels, but Japanese has\nmuch more open syllables, i.e. syllables end in vowels. Also, Japanese\nsyllables are rather scarce. A combination of these factors - not just having\nfew vowels - contribute to the lack of rhyming.\n\nThe 5-7 rhyme, reminiscent of haiku and tanka, is prevalent, thought.\nPerfume's song \"575\" does its lyrics in haiku. I have not paid much attention\nto alliteration, but I remember of seeing some.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T18:29:30.573",
"id": "52002",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T19:57:50.810",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-03T19:57:50.810",
"last_editor_user_id": "19346",
"owner_user_id": "19346",
"parent_id": "51994",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 51994 | null | 52001 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When is ...だと思う and when ...と思う used? Do I understand correctly that the\nformer is used after a noun and na-adjactive only, and the later after a verb\nand i-adjective?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T14:04:23.587",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "51996",
"last_activity_date": "2020-01-15T13:01:20.193",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-09T19:15:59.193",
"last_editor_user_id": "22352",
"owner_user_id": "25265",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage"
],
"title": "....だと思う and ...と思う",
"view_count": 10676
} | [
{
"body": "I like this question a lot, and I think we can answer it with a better\nunderstanding of how the と particle works.\n\nIn this case the「と」particle is actually a quotation particle. The formation\nfor use of this particle is relatively easy:\n\n> (quoted sentence with plain form ending) と (Your verb. i.e. 言う、思う、聞く、etc)\n\nSo really what comes before the end of the と particle in this case is the\nplain form verb. I think that several examples will help you out.\n\n> 彼女｛かのじょ｝は綺麗｛きれい｝です。(She is pretty)\n\n綺麗｛きれい｝is a な adjective. Using it at the end of a sentence, we get です, or in\nplain form だ instead of な。\n\n> 彼女は綺麗だと思います。(I think that she is pretty.)\n\nTaking the first example sentence, and putting it into plain form, we can add\nと思う。 Without any complications.\n\n> あのビルは大きいです。(That building is big.)\n\n大きい is, of course, an い adjective. In the sentence I ended it with です (to be\npolite), but です in this case is unnecessary. I could say `あのビルは大きい` and still\nhave it mean the same thing. Plain form with い adjectives actually end with\nthe adjective, which in this case is 大きい。\n\n> あのビルは大きいと思います。 (I think that building is big.)\n\nI'll give you a few more examples without commentary, to hopefully solidify\nthe point.\n\n> あの人は大学生です。(That person is a college student)\n>\n> あの人は大学生だと思います。(I think that person is a college student.)\n>\n> 彼は十キロ走っています。(He is running 10 kilometers.)\n>\n> 彼は十キロ走ってると思います。(I think that he is running 10 kilometers.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T14:42:32.157",
"id": "51997",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T14:47:51.157",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22352",
"parent_id": "51996",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 51996 | null | 51997 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "52006",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> アメリカのハワイ州ホノルル市では１０月から、道を渡っているときに、スマートフォンやコンピューターなどを見たり **触ったり**\n> することが禁止になります。 \n> In Honolulu in the American state of Hawaii, from October, looking at and\n> _touching_ smart phones while crossing the road will be prohibited. \n> アメリカではほとんどの州で、車を運転しながらスマートフォンを **触る** ことが禁止になっています。 \n> In America, in most states, _touching_ smart phones while driving has been\n> prohibited.\n\nIf the standard translation of 'to touch/feel' is used for 触る in these\nsentences then they sound a bit weird. I think in this context 'to handle'\nwould be a better translation, but I haven't seen this translation in\ndictionaries.\n\nTo what extent, if any, can 触る be used to mean 'handle'? Could you please give\nsome other examples so I can get a feel for its use?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T20:59:03.527",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "52004",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T23:43:21.740",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Can 触る mean 'to handle'?",
"view_count": 221
} | [
{
"body": "> > アメリカのハワイ州ホノルル市では１０月から、道を渡っているときに、スマートフォンやコンピューターなどを見たり **触ったり**\n> することが禁止になります。 \n> In Honolulu in the American state of Hawaii, from October, looking at and\n> _touching_ smart phones while crossing the road will be prohibited. \n> アメリカではほとんどの州で、車を運転しながらスマートフォンを **触る** ことが禁止になっています。 \n> In America, in most states, _touching_ smart phones while driving has been\n> prohibited.\n>\n> If the standard translation of 'to touch/feel' is used for 触る in these\n> sentences then they sound a bit weird. I think in this context 'to handle'\n> would be a better translation, but I haven't seen this translation in\n> dictionaries.\n\nI feel the same way. 携帯{けいたい}を触{さわ}る and 'touching cellphones' are a little\ntoo conversational to my ears. I prefer 扱｛あつか｝う or 使用｛しよう｝する in place of\n見たり触ったり. Well, however, it seems they use 触る in news casting as well. I wonder\nif they have concerns that the expressions like（携帯電話｛けいたいでんわ｝などを）扱う is taken\nto be used for stores selling them and 使用する can be taken as actually use the\nfunctions such as sending messages, but then I think people are doing\nsomething **_using_** the phone all the same.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T23:40:10.180",
"id": "52005",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T23:40:10.180",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22422",
"parent_id": "52004",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Yes, 触る can mean to interact/use devices in general. Some examples:\n\n * 一日中ゲームを触っていても飽きない。\n * (スマホ売り場で) 触っていいですか？／どうぞ触ってみてください。\n * 彼は趣味でギターを触っています。\n * うちのおじいちゃんはタイプライターが触れるよ。\n * 板前の修行中なので、少しでも長く包丁に触るようにしている。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-03T23:43:21.740",
"id": "52006",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-03T23:43:21.740",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "52004",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 52004 | 52006 | 52006 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I read in some sentences やっと has several meanings like 'finally, & just'. I'm\ncurious about the differences between them. Because when I substitute the\nsentence that have 'finally' meaning with 'just' meaning, it makes sense.\n\nFor example from the sentence that I found:\n\n> その仕事はやっと手離れした。 \n> I just finished that work. (The meaning that I found in dictionary in\n> weblio)\n\nBut when I translate it to: I finally finished that work.\n\nIt also makes sense.\n\nDoes anyone know the differences between this and how the Japanese language\nlearner can identify it?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T11:23:43.783",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "52010",
"last_activity_date": "2021-03-12T23:35:54.633",
"last_edit_date": "2021-03-12T23:35:54.633",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "20134",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"nuances",
"adverbs",
"semantics"
],
"title": "The meaning of やっと",
"view_count": 1722
} | [
{
"body": "やっと is an interesting word. It has elements of both finally and just in its\nmeaning. I think there is actually a better translation for it though. やっと\naccording to jisho.org is [translated\nas](http://jisho.org/word/%E3%82%84%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A8) `at last; at length.` I\nlike these translations better because it gives a sense that your task has\ntaken a lot of time, or that it has taken a significant amount of time longer\nthan you expected.\n\n> リポートを書きました。(I wrote my paper)\n>\n> リポートをやっと書きました。(At last, I wrote my paper.)\n\nJisho.org also translates やっと as `barely; narrowly; just; by the skin of one's\nteeth.` In the example sentence above we could also apply that meaning as\nwell, and get something to the effect of:\n\n> I was barely able to write my paper.\n\n* * *\n\nYou will find that the translation will vary with context. I'll give an\nexample.\n\n> A:リポート書いた？ (Did you write your report?)\n>\n> B:うん、先週書くつもりだったけど、昨日、 **やっと** 終わったよ。 (Yes, I was supposed to write it last\n> week, but I was finally able to finish it yesterday.)\n\nPerson B in this case is using the first definition, `at length; at last.` We\ncan tell this because it took longer than he/she expected.\n\nLets continue this interaction between these two people, but two weeks down\nthe road.\n\n**Two weeks later...**\n\n> B: お前もリポート **やっと** 書き始めたんだ？ (#1) (Have you finally started writing your\n> report?)\n>\n> A: いや、まだ。だって、このクラスあんまり好きじゃないし。(Nope. Actually, I really don't like this\n> class.)\n>\n> B: でも、明日までには書かないと。宿題をやらないと、先生に… (But, you have until tomorrow to write it.\n> If you don't do your homework the professor will...)\n>\n> A: 分かってるよ！今晩、書くつもり。(I know, stop reminding me! I'm planning on writing it\n> tonight)\n\n**The next day...**\n\n> A: やばかったけど、おかげで **やっと** 書けた。(#2) (It was tight, but thanks to your help, I\n> barely finished writing the report in the neck of time.)\n>\n> B: よかった。(Good for you.)\n\n(#1) In the example above is still the first definition. `Have you *finally*\nstarted writing your report?` I used finally here because it sounds more\nnatural in English than the direct translation, which is `Have you started\nwriting your report at last?` We use this translation because it has taken\nperson A a long time to get started writing his report.\n\n(#2) In this example, we get the second definition. `I cut it close, but\nthanks to you I was just barely able to finish the report in the neck of\ntime.`\n\n* * *\n\nTo put it simply, you use やっと when something has taken a long time ( _finally_\n), or when you were cutting things close ( _just barely_ ).",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T14:25:52.610",
"id": "52011",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T15:36:26.517",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22352",
"parent_id": "52010",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "I'd like to add something to ajsmart's answer, but I haven't the reputation to\ncomment, and I find that I'm having trouble editing the answer without\nrewriting the whole thing. This is my take on ajsmart's examples.\n\n> A: Bさんは、もうレポートを終わらせましたか? \n> B: うん、先週までに終わらせるつもりだったけど、（ちょっと長引いちゃって、）昨日やっと書き終わったんだ。\n>\n> A: Mr. B, have you finished your report yet? \n> B: Yes, I was planning on having it done last week, (but it took a little\n> longer than expected,) and I finally finished yesterday.\n\nI feel like the portion in the parentheses was left out of ajsmart's example.\nWhile potentially unnecessary, there's a bit of jump between \"I planned on\nfinishing last week\" and \"I finally finished yesterday\" that I feel should be\nbridged.\n\n**Later...**\n\n> B: C君、やっとレポート書き始めたのか？ \n> C: いや、まだ。これは違うやつさ。\n>\n> B: C, you finally started writing your report? \n> C: No, not yet. This is for something else.\n\nHere, it's implied that B sees C doing something that makes B thinks C is\nwriting the paper, to which C responds that he isn't, but once again, I feel\nlike he should address what he is actually doing to fully answer B's question.\n\n> C: やばかったけど、おかげでやっと書けた。 \n> B: おつかれさま。\n>\n> B: It was close, but I finally finished. \n> C: Well done.\n\nAlso, I must say that here やっと still means finally. So then, where does it\nmean \"just barely\"? Well, if we look on google jisho, they give this example:\n\n> 家族を漸と養えるだけの給料 \n> かぞくをやっとやしなえるだけのきゅうりょう \n> Just enough salary to feed his family\n\nUsed with the previous example, you'd have to have something along the lines\nof:\n\n> レポートをやっと終わらせられるだけの時間 \n> Just enough time to finish the report\n\nBasically, the format here is \"やっと (verb phrase with verb in potential form)\n(some resource)\",which comes to mean \"Just enough (resource) to (verb\nphrase)\". \nThis isn't something you'll hear or see all that often, though. As Takahiro\nWaki points out in comments, ギリギリ is more oft-used in popular culture.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T23:38:57.983",
"id": "52020",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T00:47:57.367",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "25280",
"parent_id": "52010",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 52010 | null | 52011 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "I understand a lot of Japanese is not spoken and implicated through context,\nbut don't really understand the culture behind it. What are the implicated\ndifferences between は and が in the following examples?\n\n食べ物がある？ // 食べ物はある？\n\nor\n\nトイレがある？ // トイレはある？\n\nIs one more common, or more polite, or more usual, or offensive to say than\nthe other?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T17:10:07.327",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "52013",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T17:10:07.327",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25278",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"word-choice",
"particle-は",
"particle-が"
],
"title": "implicated differences between は and が",
"view_count": 131
} | []
| 52013 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "52016",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've been practising my Japanese by reading the bible. And I came across a\nusage of 結ばれ that I don't quite understand. More specifically, it's the first\nsentence of Genesis 4:1 from the \"Living Japanese Bible\".\n\n> そののち、アダムは妻エバと結ばれ、エバはカイン〔「私は得た」の意〕を産みました。\n\nWhich is, in the English \"New International Version\" is\n\n> Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to\n> Cain.\n\nWhat is 結ばれ doing here? I get that the use of the stem means it's acting\nsimilar to 結ばれて, but I don't get what exactly it's to mean in this context.\n\nIs it saying Adam made love to her, then she gave birth to Cain? Or is it\nsaying they're married, then by saying she gave birth, imply that Adam did\nher?\n\nBtw, sorry if I'm getting 結ぶ all wrong here.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T19:53:51.880",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "52015",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T20:04:17.700",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17968",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"nuances"
],
"title": "What does 結ばれ mean in this bible verse?",
"view_count": 473
} | [
{
"body": "You are correct, it is the stem of 結ばれる, and since it's the passive voice, it\nmeans \"was joined to/with\". And yes, that's a way of specifically saying \"he\nlay with\", not just \"was married to\".\n\n> After that, Adam was joined with his wife Eve, and (then) Eve gave birth to\n> Cain.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T20:00:32.973",
"id": "52016",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-04T20:04:17.700",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-04T20:04:17.700",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "52015",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 52015 | 52016 | 52016 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "52018",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In an artwork of a pokemon, Lunala in English, it is written ルナアーラ. Why, after\nthe ナ, are there both an ア and a ー? It would just be pronounced as if any of\nthose two were removed, so why are they both there?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T22:29:44.377",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "52017",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T00:56:13.103",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25279",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"katakana",
"long-vowels"
],
"title": "Long vowel AND extension?",
"view_count": 1055
} | [
{
"body": "> It would just be pronounced as if any of those two were removed\n\nNo, that's not true. Japanese people will pronounce ルナラ, ルナーラ and ルナアーラ\n**very** differently. ルナラ is 3\n[morae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_\\(Japanese_prosody\\)) long, ルナーラ is 4\nmorae long, and ルナアーラ is 5 morae long. ルナアーラ would be approximated as \"lunar,\nah, rah.\" Forget how it has been translated in other languages for now.\n\nThis type of \"double-elongated vowel\" is uncommon, but can be seen in compound\nwords whose element happens to contain an elongated vowel. ルナアーラ is probably\netymologically ルナ (lunar, \"moon\") followed by アーラ\n([ala](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ala), \"wing\"), and is pronounced as\nsuch.\n\nA similar example in native Japanese would be 大鬼 (\"big ogre\"), which is\nwritten as おおおに in hiragana. This お is three times as long as normal お. A\ngreat-aunt (parent's aunt) is 大叔母 (おおおば) in Japanese, and is pronounced very\ndifferently from 叔母 (おば, \"aunt\") or 大葉 (おおば, \"big leaf\").\n\n**Bonus:** Some speakers may unconsciously use a [glottal\nstop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glottal_stop) when saying words and\nphrases like ルナアーラ, 大叔母, いい色 or 王を追おう to indicate the second part is a\nseparate component (although the glottal stop is usually not a distinguish\nfeature in Japanese). Instead of a long continuous vowel, you may hear a\nslight \"stop\" between ルナ and アーラ, depending on the speaker.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T23:03:14.993",
"id": "52018",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T00:56:13.103",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-05T00:56:13.103",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "52017",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
}
]
| 52017 | 52018 | 52018 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I sometimes see things like \"野の風\" be digested down into \"野風\" or \"空の色\" into\n\"空色\" both while retaining their meanings. When is this allowed to happen? What\nregisters of speech? What sorta relationships? Is it only allowed for set\nphrases? etc. etc.\n\nWhy is 人権団体 not 人権の団体? Why is 人工言語 not 人工の言語? I'm simply curious, I've seen\nthis so often.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-04T23:18:48.733",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "52019",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T01:13:00.973",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17968",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"nuances",
"particle-の",
"register"
],
"title": "When can \"AのB\" be digested down to \"AB\"?",
"view_count": 119
} | [
{
"body": "I'd comment, but I haven't the reputation.\n\nI believe what we have here is a case of [affirming the\nconsequent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent), rather\nthan any language trouble.\n\nFor the sake of argument, let's assume all cases of AのB can be condensed to\nAB. \nThis doesn't automatically make everything in the form AB something condensed\nfrom AのB, however. It could have been condensed from AはB*, or simply have been\nAB to begin with.\n\nGiven your example, 人権団体 is likely better expanded to 人権を守る団体.\n\n*This is just a example; I do not claim that such cases actually exist, though I wouldn't be surprised if they do.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-05T00:59:40.473",
"id": "52021",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T01:13:00.973",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-05T01:13:00.973",
"last_editor_user_id": "25280",
"owner_user_id": "25280",
"parent_id": "52019",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 52019 | null | 52021 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "52024",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This has been bothering me because I am writing a Memrise course and have been\nimplementing the romaji by hand for cases like these (since the Memrise\nplatform interprets りょう as 'riyou'). Intuitively, I would think that 'ryou'\nwould be correct, yet at the same time I've never seen りょお.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-05T01:52:19.120",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "52023",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T04:03:39.420",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10014",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"rōmaji"
],
"title": "In romaji, is りょう spelled 'ryou' or 'ryoo'?",
"view_count": 757
} | [
{
"body": "There are many different Romanization systems (ways of representing Japanese\nin Latin (\"English\") characters), which may represent the same sounds in\nJapanese differently.\n\n**The \"correct\" spelling of Japanese is determined relative to the system you\nare using.**\n\nTo answer your question for りょう, the most appropriate choice is probably\n**ryou**. This is the standard way to represent this sound without using\nspecial character/diacritics in the Hepburn Romanization system, which is by\nfar the most common Romanization system.\n\nHepburn Romanization has some variants:\n\n * In regular Hepburn, りょう would be **ryou** , with two vowel characters (o, u) put together to indicate the long vowel.\n\n * In Revised Hepburn, it would be **ryō** , with a macron to indicate the long vowel.\n\nHowever, **ryou** is often the preferred variant because it doesn't take\ncharacters which may not display properly with some fonts or may be difficult\nto type (if you are making your own flash cards, for instance).\n\nOther Romanization systems have different conventions. In the **Nihon-siki**\nsystem for example, long vowels are indicated with a circumflex, so as りょう is\nrepresented as **ryô**. In\n[JSL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSL_romanization), which is designed for\nteaching spoken Japanese, it would be **ryoo** , using doubled vowels.\n\nAlso, in reference to Memrise's choice of romanization: [\"riyou\" and \"ryou\"\ncomparison](https://www.tofugu.com/japanese/kana-changes-in-history/)\n\n> _There didn’t used to be small kana, so if you saw a word like りよう, you’d\n> basically just have to guess if it was pronounced riyou or ryou._\n>\n> _Given, you could often guess from context, but anything that gives_\n> _clarity can’t be bad, right?_\n>\n> _After gendai kanazukai, you have りよう for riyou and りょう for ryou._",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-05T02:10:07.443",
"id": "52024",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T04:03:39.420",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-05T04:03:39.420",
"last_editor_user_id": "25212",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "52023",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 52023 | 52024 | 52024 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "52038",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In my textbook, the usage of 「〜あまり」 is described as follows:\n\n> 〜すぎるので、〜すぎるために (so … that)\n\nHowever one of the usage sentences is written as follows:\n\n> 試験の問題は易しかったのに、 _考えすぎたあまり_ 、間違えてしまった。\n\nIn this case, isn't the meaning of \"Doing something so extremely that it\nresults in an abnormal situation\" repeated? So maybe it has to be written in\nthis form:\n\n> 試験の問題は易しかったのに、 _考えたあまり_ 、間違えてしまった。\n\nBut my Japanese friend says that it is quite awkward. Why is it?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-05T04:47:10.473",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "52025",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-06T05:18:52.227",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7440",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage"
],
"title": "The reason of using 「考えすぎたあまり」 instead of 「考えたあまり」",
"view_count": 891
} | [
{
"body": "> In my textbook, the usage of 「〜あまり」 is described as follows: \n> 〜すぎるので、〜すぎるために (so … that)\n\nIn this interpretation you'll certainly get lost in a repeated maze.\n\nThe text should have been as:\n\n> 〜すぎるあまり、〜すぎるあまりに (so … that)\n\nThen, the following sentence will be interpreted without repeating.\n\n> 試験の問題は易しかったのに、考えすぎたあまり、間違えてしまった。\n\n_The question of the exam was easy, but I thought it so much that I made a\nmistake_.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-05T10:23:34.063",
"id": "52027",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-05T10:23:34.063",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "52025",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "According to 明鏡国語辞典:\n\n> あまり【余り】 \n> 〘名詞〙 \n> ➌《感情や動作を表す連体修飾語を受けて、全体で副詞句を作る》 **それが原因となってある結果が引き起こされる**\n> 意を表す。～が過ぎたその結果として。「喜び［苦しさ］の **あまり** 泣き出した」「勢いの **あまり** 転がり落ちた」「成功を急ぐ **あまり**\n> 失敗した」\n\nSo I think you could rather think of this あまり as \"as a result of~~\".\n\n> 考え _すぎた_ **あまり** 、間違えてしまった。 \n> **As a result of** _overthinking / reading too much into it_ , I made a\n> mistake.\n\n「考えすぎる」 ＝ \"to think too much\" \"to read too much into something\"\n\n> 「〜あまり」 is described as follows: \n> 〜すぎるので、〜すぎるために (so … that)\n\nI think that means you could rephrase the sentence as:\n\n> 試験の問題は易しかったのに、考えすぎた **ので** 、間違えてしまった。 \n> 試験の問題は易しかったのに、考えすぎた **ために** 、間違えてしまった。 \n> \"... because I thought too much / read too much into it, I made a mistake.\"\n\nExamples:\n\n「嬉しさの **あまり** 泣き出した」≂「嬉しくて/嬉しすぎて泣き出した」 \n\"started to cry _because of_ joy\" \n「急ぐ **あまり** 失敗した」≂「急いだために/急ぎすぎたために失敗した」 \n\"failed _as a result of_ hurrying\"\n\nBut...\n\n> 考えたあまり、間違えてしまった。\n\nwould mean \"As a result of thinking, I made a mistake.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-06T03:39:22.877",
"id": "52038",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-06T05:18:52.227",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-06T05:18:52.227",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "52025",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 52025 | 52038 | 52038 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "52102",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "My question is simple: what is the equivalent Japanese of the word\n**'clunky'** in Japanese? (possibly in one word, or two/three words at most)\nto convey the sluggishness of something walks/works/operates. (How to say it\nin Japanese and I want to emphasize it).\n\nI looked it up on google, it's translated as **不器用な** = clumsy, awkward.. and\nit's labeled archaic.. \nOn the other translation: **魅力のない** = no appeal/no charm -> I don't think this\nis the correct translation. \nWhen I searched more, I found this> **ぎこちない** -> Can I use this one? \nIs there any word that doesn't have ' **ない** ', and no **難しい** please.\n\nSentence context:\n\n> This translation feels clunky and hard to read. \n> この翻訳は **気難しく** て読みにくいです。 \n> This apps feels clunky and hard to use. \n> このアプリは **使いにくい** と感じます。\n\nIs there anyone that can help to convey it better? \nThank you very much everyone! \n皆さん、よろしくお願いします。",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-05T17:53:51.523",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "52028",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-08T08:00:24.937",
"last_edit_date": "2017-08-06T06:41:10.167",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "10323",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"translation",
"word-choice",
"words"
],
"title": "What is the best word of 'Clunky' as in \"clunky translation, clunky apps\" in Japanese?",
"view_count": 408
} | [
{
"body": "This translation feels clunky and hard to read.\n\n * この翻訳は気難しくて読みにくいです。 （weird)\n * この翻訳はイマイチで読みにくいです。 (OK)\n * この翻訳はイケてなくて、読みにくいです。(OK)\n\nThis apps feels clunky and hard to use.\n\n * このアプリは使いにくいと感じます。（OK）\n\nYou should change the word according to the context. Therefore, there is no\none definite and best word for the translation of \"clunky\" for all the\ncontexts.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-06T06:08:49.083",
"id": "52043",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-06T06:08:49.083",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "52028",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> * この翻訳は（ ）、読みにくい。\n> * このアプリは（ ）、使いにくい。\n>\n\n\"clunky\" is defined [here](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clunky)\nas:\n\n> clumsy in style, form, or execution •a clunky thriller •clunky earrings\n\n「ダサい」、「ぎごちない」、「イケてない」、「不器用な」、「魅力のない」、「気難しい」はどれもだめですね。 \n_None of them are suitable_.\n\n次のいずれも、括弧の中にそのまま入れると日本語として意味を成します。 \n_Any of the following words or phrases will make sense as Japanese when it is\nput in parentheses._ \n「ぶざまで」「様｛さま｝になってなく」「体｛てい｝を成してなく」「体｛てい｝たらくで」「出来{でき}が悪く」「イマイチで」「だめだ」「どうしようもないね」\n\n**注釈** ：最初の４つは、clunky,\nclumsyにぴったりの訳ですが、今は余り使われなくなっており、少し古臭い感じがすると思います。意味としてのピッタリ感は劣りますが、現代風に翻訳すると後の４つでしょうか。これを見ても日本語の表現力が失われている感が否めません。 \n**_Note** : The first four are the perfect translation for clunky, clumsy, but\nnow they are not being used so much and seem to be a bit old-fashioned_. _The\nlatter four words or phrases will be usable if you translate them in\ncontemporary style, though the perfect sense as a meaning is inferior to the\nprevious four_. _Even by examining these words or phrases, I cannot deny that\nthe expressive power of Japanese is being lost_.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-06T07:41:19.903",
"id": "52044",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-06T07:41:19.903",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "52028",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Here is one word: 不格好{ぶかっこう}な\n\n**What does this word mean**\n\nWhen 不格好な is looked up in online Japanese dictionaries, the word describes\nsomething that is awkward, clumsy, poor in appearance, and improper as it\nappears to be.\n\nBasically, 不格好な refers to the negative appearance or condition.\n\nWhen 'clunky' is looked up in bilingual dictionaries, 「不格好な」 was similarly\nfound in Longman English-Japanese Dictionary (2007). This dictionary was the\nonly physical dictionary that I have had those words. If you have this\ndictionary, see page 293.\n\nDespite the words are linked by the dictionary, I feel these words are not\nquite interchangeable between two languages. Additionally, 不格好な is not used\nfor describing slow movements or reactions (sluggish). There is another word\nfor that.\n\nHowever, these words could agree with each other, when referring to awkward or\nunsophisticated appearance.\n\n**Where does the word fit**\n\nThere are at least two instances that the word is used in Japanese articles on\nthe web.\n\n> Walkmanアプリのみフラット化されている **不格好な** 状況ですが、アルバムやムービーなどのアプリもフラット化されるのは時間の問題と思われます。\n>\n> From [Xperiaの「Walkmanアプリ」がロリポップ対応。フラットデザイン化を達成 –\n> すまほん!!](https://smhn.info/201502-xperia-walkman-flat-design)\n>\n> 今までずっと身近にあったものが存続の危機を迎えたときによく見られるパターンが、ここでも繰り返されている。やや **不格好**\n> で単純なこのソフトウェアが、実際にはけっこう便利なものだと、ユーザーがにわかに気付き始めたのである。\n>\n> From [「Windows」PCは死なない--「ペイント」もまたしかり - CNET\n> Japan](https://japan.cnet.com/article/35105069/)\n\nEven without translation text in English, we could tell that both articles use\n不格好 to describe awkward or unsophisticated condition of particular software\n(Xperia, Walkman apps; Windows, Windows Creators Update).\n\nTherefore, 不格好 is compatible with \"clunky apps\".\n\n**What about \"clunky translation\"**\n\nFrom my quick googling, the phrase 不格好な翻訳 did not return any relevant result.\nMoreover, the search engine even misunderstood the query as \"translation for\n不格好な\". So far I have never seen this kind of usage.\n\nTherefore, 不格好 is _not_ compatible with \"clunky translation\".\n\nTo describe \"clunky translation\", I'd suggest to use 不自然{ふしぜん} that means\nunnatural or artificial; or perhaps a simple word, おかしい that means strange,\nweird and possibly awkward.\n\nAs a result, the following are possible:\n\n * 不自然な翻訳 or 翻訳が不自然\n * おかしな翻訳 or 翻訳がおかしい\n\nAnother word besides 「不格好」 is 「ださい」(not to be mistaken by suffix phrase\n-ください). However, 「ださい」 could include the meaning of criticism rather than to\nsimply describe negative appearance or condition itself.\n\nNot quite apt, but 「ださい」 may be compatible with the word \"clunky\" in American\nEnglish that is used as slang - Not stylish or attractive.\n\nYet another word 「イマイチ」 means not very good or something is lacking. This word\nmerely hints something is less satisfactory, but that alone does not\nnecessarily describe the negative appearance or condition itself. Not quite\napt either.\n\n**Summary**\n\nThe following are suggested sentences for \"clunky apps\" and \"clunky\ntranslation\":\n\n * このアプリは 不格好で、 使いにくい・使いづらい。\n * この翻訳は 不自然で、 読みにくい・読みづらい。\n * この翻訳は おかしくて、 読みにくい・読みづらい。\n\nAbove all, this answer suggests to use 不格好(な) for \"clunky apps\" as well as\n不自然(な) and おかしい(おかしな) for \"clunky translation\". There is no single word that\nfits for both use cases.\n\n**References**\n\n 1. Longman English-Japanese Dictionary (2007)\n 2. [不格好な - Weblio辞書](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E4%B8%8D%E6%A0%BC%E5%A5%BD%E3%81%AA)\n 3. [不恰好・不格好(ぶかっこう)とは - コトバンク](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E4%B8%8D%E6%81%B0%E5%A5%BD%E3%83%BB%E4%B8%8D%E6%A0%BC%E5%A5%BD-371722)\n 4. [ぶかっこう【不格好／不恰好】の意味 - goo国語辞書](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/191178/meaning/m0u/)\n 5. [Clunky - Collins English Dictionary](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/clunky)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-08-08T08:00:24.937",
"id": "52102",
"last_activity_date": "2017-08-08T08:00:24.937",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "52028",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 52028 | 52102 | 52043 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.