question
dict | answers
list | id
stringlengths 1
6
| accepted_answer_id
stringlengths 2
6
⌀ | popular_answer_id
stringlengths 1
6
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53478",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When doing a bit of research into ~し sentences I've found that sometimes は/が\nis used and sometimes も is used, which is a bit confusing. For example,\n\n> お金もないし、時間もないし、困ったな.\n>\n> お金はないし、時間はないし、困ったな.\n>\n> 私の部屋は狭いし暗いし家賃も高いので、早く引っ越したいです。\n\nThe first two are the same sentence with the particle changed, and the third\none has 部屋 with は but 家賃 with も (why not both with も or with は)\n\nIt's all very confusing :(",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-26T02:30:16.810",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53477",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-26T06:49:23.407",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-26T06:49:23.407",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5423",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-は",
"particle-も",
"particle-し"
],
"title": "Using も or は/が in し sentences",
"view_count": 201
} | [
{
"body": "> 1. お金もないし、時間もないし、困ったな。\n> 2. お金はないし、時間はないし、困ったな。\n>\n\nThese two sentences are almost the same, but IMO the latter (using は) sounds\nslightly more rhythmical and exclamatory.\n\nSometimes は is used to list things with emphasis and emotion (\"not only ～ but\neven also ～\"). It can be used in the ～は～し～は～し construction, but it's\nparticularly common when combined with [sentence-end particle わ for\nexclamation](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/237264/meaning/m0u/):\n\n> * 水 **は** 出ないわ、電気 **は** 止まるわで、さんざんな目にあった。\n> * 私の部屋は、狭い **わ** 暗い **わ** 家賃 **は** 高い **わ** なので、早く引っ越したいです。\n>\n\n>\n> (Note that this type of わ is _not_ feminine.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-26T03:35:36.420",
"id": "53478",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-26T04:57:27.483",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-26T04:57:27.483",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53477",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53477 | 53478 | 53478 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53484",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> どうやったら、この局面でこの指し手になるわけだ？\n\nI'm not sure what this わけ could be. The fact that this is a question bothers\nme a bit.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-26T11:09:19.897",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53483",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T13:35:53.990",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "わけ in this sentence?",
"view_count": 1297
} | [
{
"body": "jisho.org [here](http://jisho.org/search/%E3%82%8F%E3%81%91) defines that\n訳｛わけ｝ is as follows:\n\n> ### 訳｛わけ｝\n>\n> noun \n> conclusion from reasoning, judgement or calculation based on something read\n> or >heard; reason; cause; meaning; circumstances; situation\n\nMy attempt is as follows:\n\n> どうやったら、この局面でこの指し手になる **わけ** だ？ \n> _How could you choose this move in the state of the game?_\n\nMy attempt means that I could not understand the **reason** why you\nchose/decided this move in the state of the game.\n\n* * *\n\n# Bonus\n\n> (0) どうやったら、この局面でこの指し手になるわけだ？\n\nI think that the above-mentioned Japanese sentence of (0) posted by the\nquestioner is not necessarily good, is different from the ordinary way of\nexpressions, or extremely speaking it is a bad sentence, so I will add\nexplanations to (0) and introduce some correct Japanese sentences for those\nwho are studying Japanese.\n\n 1. The sentence of (0) is one said in the following situation. \nThe situation is a scene of a game of 将棋{しょうぎ} _Shogi_ , 囲碁｛いご｝ _Igo_ or チェス\n_Chess_. In the scene of the game, one of the opponents moved a certain piece.\nHowever, the move was considerably out of expectation or unpredictable from\nthe established tactic or usual method generally considered in the situation\nof the game. In this awesome situation, the phrase of (0) was uttered by the\nopponent of the game or by a third party watching this game with surprising\nand/or confused emotions.\n\n 2. Usually \"どうやったら\" could be used in a phrase like \" **どうやったら** この機械を操作できるか？ _How can I manipulate this machine?_ \" or \" **どうやったら** この岩を動かすことができるか？ _How can I move this rock?_ \" \nIn general this phrase is an expression related to concrete behavior so that\nit can be paraphrased like \"どのようにしたら（何かができる） _how to do/behave (to be able to\ndo something)._ \" or \"どういう手段を使ったら _what kind of means to use \"to be able to do\nsomething_\". However, in the sentence of (0), this phrase is used as an\nexpression related to mental or intelligent activity, and I think that it can\nbe paraphrased as \"どのように考えたら _how to think (to do something)_ \" or\n\"どういう理屈があったら _what kind of reasons could lead (to do something)_ \".\n\n 3. \" **局面｛きょくめん｝** \" is generally used as \"situation aspect of an affair; situation\", and it is a word came from a game such as Shogi, Igo or Chess meaning \"position in a game of Shogi, Igo or Chess; state of the game\", so as for the sentence of (0), it is used as the meaning of its origin.\n\n 4. \" **指{さ}し手｛て｝** \" means a certain **move** of a piece (in Shogi, Igo, Chess, etc.). Strictly speaking, \"move\" could be used safely for Shogi and Chess because they are games where players move pre-placed pieces, but as for Igo, they additionally place white or black stones, which are equivalent to pieces in Shogi or Chess, on the surface of a board, so \"指{さ}し手｛て｝\" in Igo means \"placing a stone at a certain place on the surface of the game board\" instead of a \"move of a piece\".\n\nI know that an interrogative use of \"訳｛わけ｝だ？\" is rare in general Japanese.\nTherefore I searched for sentences including \"訳｛わけ｝だ\" in a famous corpus named\n\"[少納言]｛Shounagon｝\", and the result is as follows, where sentences in which\n訳｛わけ｝だ is used with the same meaning are excluded from the result.\n\n① ベガの意識の中では、ゲージはトイレだった事になる。その「ゲージ」で寝かして居た **訳だ** ！ ② 不吉なイメージなのでこの曲には不適切な\n**訳だ** ！と言っていました。 \n③ これで、マリオワールドの世界を一周したことになる **訳だ** ！ \n④ マイク・シーガーもお爺ちゃんになっちゃいました。私も歳を取る **訳だ** ・・・（＾ω＾） \n⑤ 姿が見えなくてもおかしくないと思っている **訳だ** \n⑥ その突堤の先端は、十三号艇の碇泊している箇所にずっと近付ける **訳だ** 。 \n⑦ 大寺さんにはさっぱり判らない。―どう云う **訳だろう？** と大寺さんは細君に云った。 \n⑧ サウナに入り、からっからっに乾いたページをめくりながら、旅の汗を流せ、とでもいう **訳だろうか** 。\n\nAmong more than 290 example sentences, ⑦ and ⑧ are only two interrogative\nsentences. Therefore, it seems that the ending part of the sentence posted by\nthe questioner should be like \"～この指し手になる **わけだろうか？** \" as correct Japanese.\n\nBased on the above analysis, if the sentence of (0) is rewritten to correct\nJapanese that is easy to understand, it becomes like the following (1) to (4).\n\nOriginal:\n\n> (0) どうやったら、この局面でこの指し手になるわけだ？\n\nMy attempts:\n\n> (1) どのように考えたら、この局面でこの指し手になるわけだろうか？ \n> (2) どのように考えたら、この局面でこの指し手が正当であるという理屈になるのだろうか？ \n> (3) どういう理由があって、この局面でこの指し手になるのだろうか？ \n> (4) どういう理屈/理由に基づいて、この局面でこの指し手になるのだろうか？",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-26T12:39:38.950",
"id": "53484",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T13:35:53.990",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53483",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
]
| 53483 | 53484 | 53484 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53492",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am currently studying 日本語 and I am trying to understand the pronunciation\ndifference between **桃** (peach) and **腿** (thigh). Both can be written as\n**もも** in kana and sound practically the same to me when my tutor pronounces\nthem to me, but she tells me that there is a difference in terms of the\npronunciation, though I can't figure out what it is and thus how to say them\nproperly.\n\nSo what is the difference in pronunciation? Is it stress? Accent? And how do I\npronounce them so that a 日本人 can tell which one of them it is that I mean?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-26T21:47:57.227",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53487",
"last_activity_date": "2019-10-20T23:05:53.523",
"last_edit_date": "2019-10-20T23:05:53.523",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"learning",
"pitch-accent"
],
"title": "What is the difference in pronunciation between [桃]{もも} and [腿]{もも}?",
"view_count": 773
} | [
{
"body": "The difference is in the pitch accent.\n\n桃 (peach)：「もも{LH}」 (Low-High)\n\n腿 (thigh)：「もも{HL}」 (High-Low)\n\nThat is a **_huge_** difference to us native speakers because it changes the\nmeanings of the words **_completely_**.\n\nIf there is a musical instrument around you, try doing the following.\n\nHit 'do-mi' as you say 「桃」 and hit 'mi-do' as you try to say 「腿」.\n\nOther examples from simple everyday words:\n\n**Low-High** 「〇〇{LH}」: 「飴{あめ}」= hard candy,「橋{はし}」= bridge,「居間{いま}」= living\nroom\n\n**High-Low** 「〇〇{HL}」:「雨{あめ}」= rain,「箸{はし}」= chopsticks,「今{いま}」= now\n\n(Finally, even at the risk of confusing some, I might mention for the advanced\nlearners that the (feminine) given name 「桃/もも/モモ」 is pronounced the **_same_**\nway as 「腿」 --- 「もも{HL}」, that is. This is an exception but it is a fact, so I\nhad to say it.\n\nSame thing with 「雪{ゆき}」. To mean \"snow\", it is pronounced 「ゆき{LH}」, but for a\npersonal name, it is 「ゆき{HL}」.)\n\nNote: All pronunciations above are naturally based on Standard Japanese.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-26T23:58:41.467",
"id": "53492",
"last_activity_date": "2019-07-02T13:36:39.720",
"last_edit_date": "2019-07-02T13:36:39.720",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53487",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 20
}
]
| 53487 | 53492 | 53492 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53494",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "On [this page](https://kamengshambhala.wordpress.com/2017/04/29/japanese-\nwisdom-quotes/), I see the following listed as a Japanese proverb:\n\n```\n\n クラゲはエビと踊ることは決してありません 。\n The jellyfish never dances with the shrimp.\n Meaning: Enmity is inborn and natural, it can never be eliminated.\n \n```\n\nHowever, doing searches in Japanese for this doesn't yield anything online.\n\nMy theory is that this is either:\n\n1) A very old proverb which is uncommon.\n\n2) Actually from another language which somehow got back-translated into\nJapanese.\n\n3) 'Evolved' from what it was originally.\n\nCan anyone speak to the authenticity of this proverb? If it is authentic, can\nyou confirm the meaning as well?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-26T22:36:19.113",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53489",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T02:18:14.657",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "11825",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"proverbs"
],
"title": "meaning and authenticity of Japanese proverb about shrimp and jellyfish",
"view_count": 494
} | [
{
"body": "I have not seen such a saying. Perhaps 犬猿の仲 or 水と油 would be similar in\nmeaning.\n\nSome \"proverbs\" in the link are real ones, but many are not only unheard but\nalso nonsensical. To list a few, I'm pretty certain that these are machine-\ntranslated gibberish.\n\n> * 決して山を登ることはできません。富士、あなたは馬鹿だし、二度以上登ると、あなたは馬鹿だ。 (although there is a\n> [similar\n> saying](https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=%E7%99%BB%E3%82%89%E3%81%AC%E9%A6%AC%E9%B9%BF%E3%80%81%E4%BA%8C%E5%BA%A6%E7%99%BB%E3%82%8B%E9%A6%AC%E9%B9%BF))\n> * 知恵のない知識は愚か者の本の負荷です。\n> * 風が巨大なオークに落ちるかもしれませんが、竹は地面にも曲がって、嵐の通過後直立しま。\n> * 100マイル走る者は、90点を半分と考えるべきです。\n>\n\nApparently the author doesn't even know mile is not used in Japan :)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T02:05:58.870",
"id": "53494",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T02:18:14.657",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-27T02:18:14.657",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53489",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 53489 | 53494 | 53494 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53491",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am currently revising an essay that I received feedback from my Japanese\nteacher about, and am having trouble working out what word she wanted me to\nuse in a particular spot.\n\n> 日本では自動販売機はかっこよくて便利だと考えられ、一般的に積極的に **見られて** いるような気がする。\n\nThe bold word is the one that she wanted me to fix, and the comment that she\nwrote was \"is put\". I don't necessarily even need the word itself, so much as\na concrete English meaning, as I can't figure out what \"is put\" is referring\nto in terms of Japanese meaning.\n\nIncidentally, I am finishing the revision tonight, but even if I submit it,\nknowing what word fits better would be very helpful.\n\nI have tried to look up \"put\" in various online dictionaries, but have not\nfound any Japanese verb that sounds right in that context, and the other words\nthat I can think of to replace it with (認められ、受け、視され、思われ) don't have a meaning\nthat resembles \"put\" enough to be likely to be what she had in mind.\n\nI may be overthinking it, but I would really appreciate guidance towards a\nbetter search term or the Japanese word itself (though the latter is less\npreferable because I don't get a chance to learn as much that way, and it is\nhomework after all).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-26T22:46:27.977",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53490",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-26T23:33:44.610",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21802",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Word Choice: \"is put\"",
"view_count": 107
} | [
{
"body": "Maybe your teacher means 置かれている, the passive form of the verb 置く (to place,\nput). So the machines are put everywhere and are very visible to passers by.\nJust an idea.\n\nBy the way, I think the reason 見られている was highlighted is because it is the\npassive form of 見る, and it does not go well with the active nature of 積極的に.\nThe object of viewing can't really be intentionally proactively being viewed,\nif that makes sense. It is either viewed or it isn't. But it could work with\nthe passive form 置かれている because the machines are being placed there by\ncompanies in a proactive manner.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-26T23:33:44.610",
"id": "53491",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-26T23:33:44.610",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"parent_id": "53490",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53490 | 53491 | 53491 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "When I read the [story](http://www.douwa-\ndouyou.jp/contents/html/douwastory/douwastory2_05.shtml), I found \"なかれ\"this\nword occurred several times.\n\n> 「若い衆、知らない人を信用するで **なかれ** 。」 \n> 「お前の持っていたお守りのおかげで命拾いしたのじゃ。望みすぎる **なかれ** 。ここに幸 **なかれ** 。」\n\nI looked it up and the sentences my dictionary provide are either Verb+なかれ or\nNoun+なかれ. But the first sentence above has \"で\" with it. Is it grammatically\ncorrect?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T02:38:50.433",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53495",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T15:59:51.730",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-27T15:59:51.730",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22712",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"archaic-language",
"role-language"
],
"title": "Grammar of \"なかれ\"",
"view_count": 664
} | [
{
"body": "It is an archaic form of saying one must not or should not. It comes from 無かる,\nwhich means to not be or to be absent.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T03:03:21.393",
"id": "53498",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T03:03:21.393",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53495",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I believe the followings are okay:\n\n> * 信用するでない。 (explained\n> [here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/33807/5010), somewhat\n> colloquial)\n> * 信用するなかれ。 (orthodox classical grammar, sounds highly archaic)\n> * 信用することなかれ。 (orthodox classical grammar)\n>\n\n信用するでなかれ sounds a little odd at least to me, but my knowledge about classical\nJapanese is limited, and I cannot say it's incorrect with confidence.\n\n* * *\n\n**EDIT:** Of course I'm aware that this 昔話 is not a real archaic document, and\nthe phrase 信用するでなかれ is produced by someone living in the modern era.\nUnsurprisingly, modern Japanese people (including myself) are not very good at\nthe rules of archaic Japanese, and [they sometimes come up with strange\nexpressions](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/40891/5010).\n\nAt any rate, 信用するでなかれ sounds a little weird even as a modern role word, to the\nears of a modern Japanese speaker like me.\n[BCCWJ](http://pj.ninjal.ac.jp/corpus_center/bccwj/en/) has literally zero\nexample of such `verb + でなかれ`, whereas you can easily find lots of `verb + (こと\n+) なかれ` examples such as 言うなかれ, 侮るなかれ, 思い惑うことなかれ, 礼を乱すことなかれ, etc. So it can be\nsafely said that `verb + でなかれ` is at least _rare_ even as role language of\nwise old men, whether or not it's grammatically correct.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T04:38:39.920",
"id": "53499",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T15:45:33.617",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-27T15:45:33.617",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53495",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> 「信用{しんよう}する **で** なかれ」\n\nis not \"grammatical\". No question about it.\n\n**_However, 「なかれ」 in this context is only used as role language for an old\nmale speaker in a children's story_**. A grammatical assessment of role\nlanguage, to me, is sort of like barking up the wrong tree when it is\nimperative that the character must sound like an old man in a speech style\nthat is still understandable to children from all parts of the country.\n\nQuestionable grammar is expected of in the genre. It is just how Japanese\nchildren's stories have developed.\n\nIf you found the phrase 「信用する **で** なかれ」 said by an adult in a writing aimed\nfor other adults, then a discussion on the topic would certainly be productive\nand meaningful.\n\nThis time, however, it is just role language overriding fine grammar.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T10:32:30.143",
"id": "53501",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T10:32:30.143",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53495",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 53495 | null | 53501 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53497",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm fairly new to learning japanese but I have the basic grammar down. The\nmain thing that's confusing is the sentence structure. For instance, I sent\nthis message to my friend who is native to Japan for him to check over it\n`あなたはたべるすし？` I attempted to say \"do you eat sushi?\" In my mind this worked\nperfectly, anata=you, taberu=eat, sushi=sushi. So he responds with this `No,\nit's \"あなたはすしたべる?\"`\n\nThis leads me to wonder if there are any specific rules on where in the\nsentence the subject, verb, direction, direct object, etc have to come. I am\ncurrently learning japanese in addition to full time school work including\nSpanish classes. The only resources I have are the internet and my friends.\n\nPlease explain in simpleton terms, if you need any extra clarity please notify\nme. It's late and I'm typing this on my mobile device. Thank you very much\n\nPart 2(I didn't want to make another question for this simple question):\n\nIf you were to say you like someone, would\n\n`わたしはあなたがすき` Be correct? I don't fully understand when to use the particle だ.\nMy gut is telling me that I should put だ after suki, but I don't know why",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T02:45:35.247",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53496",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T02:56:32.933",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25953",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Concept of using だ and sentence structure",
"view_count": 197
} | [
{
"body": "だ is the dictionary/casual form of です, which in your sentence expresses a\nstate of affairs (e.g. you liking the other).\n\nAs for the sentence order, between\n\n> あなたはすし（を）たべる? Do you eat sushi?\n\nand\n\n> あなたはたべるすし？ Are you an eating sushi?\n\nthe former contains a particle (を) left out in your friend's response that\npoints out an object of your action (e.g. すしをたべる eat what? sushi), while the\nlatter's word order shows a compounded noun (e.g. たべるすし eating sushi, or sushi\nthat eats, which doesn't make sense).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T02:56:32.933",
"id": "53497",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T02:56:32.933",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53496",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53496 | 53497 | 53497 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53518",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Why do Japanese texts/[scientific\narticles](http://www2.yukawa.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~tetsuji.kimura/NOTEs/SCA_UU2.pdf)\nnot use kana/kanji in their equations? For example\n\n```\n\n f(x) = x + 1\n \n```\n\ninstead of\n\n```\n\n f(あ) = あ + 1\n \n```\n\nI don't see the Cyrillic alphabet in equations either. Did someone once decide\nto only use latin letters or has this just happened and people are used to\nthis convention?\n\n* * *\n\nExample: Japanese Wikipedia entry for \"function\" [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VMBGJ.png)",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T04:55:29.733",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53500",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T02:47:34.353",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25955",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"history",
"mathematics"
],
"title": "Why are Japanese characters not used in equations?",
"view_count": 2046
} | [
{
"body": "According to this page(和算における連立代数方程式を解くアルゴリズム:数理解析研究所講究録),\n<http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pdf/1787-04.pdf>\nexplains,\n\nIn Edo Period, Algebraic equations of three unknown variables were stated in\nthe following expressions.\n\n**仮如、 勾股有り。 只云う、 勾再自乗数と弦再自乗数と相井せて共にー百五十二寸。 又云う、 股再自乗数と弦再自乗数と相併せて共にー百八十九寸。\n勾股を問う。**\n\nThere exists a right triangle(勾: x 股: y). Now, 勾再自乗数(x^3)と弦再自乗数(弦: hypotenuse\nz^3)と相井せて共にー百五十二寸(152) (x^3 + z^3 =\n152)。股再自乗数(y^3)と弦再自乗数(z^3)と相併せて共にー百八十九寸(y^3 + z^3 = 189)。勾股を問う(What is x, y?)\n\nAs for the function, I saw some say one of the concept(ex: hit something into\nthe black box and you get some outcome) was imported into Japan in Edo Period\nwith the word(関数）.\n\n**Bonus**\n\nYosh’s answer is very specific. I found japanese mathematician says an\nAmerican mathematcian used **兄** for mathematical\nsymbol.(<https://mobile.twitter.com/FumiharuKato/status/860438562415628288>)\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/EehfM.jpg)\n\nN. KATZ. Nilpotent connections and the monodromy theorem : applications of a\nresult of Turrittin. Publ. math. IHÉS, 39 (1970), p.175-232",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T12:30:54.313",
"id": "53507",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T10:03:03.887",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-28T10:03:03.887",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53500",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "Here are some facts, and my speculations.\n\n## Actual Usuages\n\n### Japanese as Text\n\nIn non-technical context, we can use arbitrary text (just like in English) in\nequations:\n\n> 長方形について， \"面積 = 縦 × 横\"\n\nis a natural way of expressing the idea (so is \"area = length × width\").\n\nElaborating on this,\n\n> 仕事 = ∫ 力・d(位置)\n\nis very rarely seen but would be acceptable by most readers.\n\n### Japanese character as a symbol\n\nInterestingly, I found a rare case where a Japanese character is used in the\nway you are looking for. On [_“The stack of higher internal categories and\nstacks of iterated spans”_](https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.08870), page 13, they\nhave this notation: \"The Yoneda embedding よ : C → P(C)\" (No `\\mathcal` shown\nhere)\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fX5wS.png)\n\nThe author seems to have decided that 「よ」 for 「米田」 is a good choice.\n\n### Other Alphabets\n\nLatin and Greek alphabets are used everywhere. ℵ from Hebrew is a conventional\nnotation in set theory, and ב is used in [similar\ncontexts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_number). I believe what alphabets\nappear in equations mainly depends on conventions, rather than certain rules.\n\n## Why Not?\n\nThis is only my speculations on why Japanese characters aren't popular in\nequations.\n\n * Conventions, across the world. \n * `f` for function. `x` for unknown. `F` for force, `e` for Euler, etc. `g` , being the successor of `f`, for another function. Certain conventions above are universal, and we don't really want to use different notations for discussions in Japanese and English. When you see x = a(f), you'll get slightly confused.\n * No one can read it \n * There's no such thing as mathematics only for certain language community.\n * Latin alphabets are more suitable for notating with a single letter. \n * 「か」 for 函数 really isn't appealing for me because it loses so much information. `函（変）= 正弦(変) + 2` looks interesting, but we can't have two variables (Kanji don't have natural succ/pred). 函(変1, 変2) = 変1× 変22 might be worth discussion. There's no practical benefits, though.\n * I have never been told _not_ to Japanese characters specifically. We just learn from what are widely used and stick with them, because that's the easiest for communication.\n\nSo I believe the answer is\n\n * It's just because it isn't conventional to do so, and there aren't many reasons to do so, actually.\n * If certain conventions are established (I'm hoping 「よ」 for 米田 to be among the first), that character for that usage will be seen everywhere.\n\n* * *\n\n * [Related question in Math.stackexchange](https://math.stackexchange.com/q/165368).\n * My finding on the 「よ」 is attributed to the following tweet:\n\n数学記号として平仮名が使われる時代が既に訪れていたのか...\n[pic.twitter.com/1MENyIDSwC](https://t.co/1MENyIDSwC)\n\n-- ウニ (@unununum_1) [4 May\n2017](https://twitter.com/unununum_1/status/860125300104937472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T05:15:59.033",
"id": "53518",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T02:47:34.353",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-05T02:47:34.353",
"last_editor_user_id": "4223",
"owner_user_id": "4223",
"parent_id": "53500",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
]
| 53500 | 53518 | 53518 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53503",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Sentence:\n\n> それがサングルド山脈のどこかにあるというのだが、ザーレスが滅んで千年、いまだに入り口すら見つかっていないのだ。\n\nIs it \"...after destruction of ザーレス thousand years passed, and even now...\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T10:54:39.580",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53502",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T11:08:10.323",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-27T11:08:10.323",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "18134",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"て-form"
],
"title": "て form and number, what does it mean example: \"ザーレスが滅んで千年\"",
"view_count": 61
} | [
{
"body": "It is precisely as you stated.\n\n> 「Verb in て/で-form + time period」\n\nmeans:\n\n> \"(It has been) N weeks/months/years/centuries **_since_** (event described\n> by the verb phrase)\"\n\n**_Informally_** , you can insert 「から」 between the て/で-form and the time\nperiod.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T11:00:16.703",
"id": "53503",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T11:06:39.120",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-27T11:06:39.120",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53502",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 53502 | 53503 | 53503 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53506",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 思わず、その胸倉に掴みかかるが、彼女の姿をしていたものに触れた途端、それは波間に消える泡のように掻き消えてしまう。\n\nI have no idea whether it is ものに as a whole, or もの by itself followed by に.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T11:38:15.277",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53505",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T11:54:36.413",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "ものに in this sentence",
"view_count": 792
} | [
{
"body": "It is 「もの + に」.\n\n> 「(object) + **に** + 触{ふ}れる」= \"to touch (object)\"\n\nThe sentence thus means:\n\n> \"Without thinking, (I) reach out to seize her by the collar, but the moment\n> (I) touched the **thing that took the shape of the woman** , it disappears\n> like the bubbles disappear between the waves.\"\n\nJapanese is a highly contextual language. From this sentence alone, one could\nnot tell if the action-taker would be the speaker himself or a third person.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T11:54:36.413",
"id": "53506",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T11:54:36.413",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53505",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 53505 | 53506 | 53506 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53509",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Umkpj.png)\n\nI assume that そう here is the そう used for not direct quoting.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T15:27:23.793",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53508",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T12:30:06.867",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-28T12:30:06.867",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "18134",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-を"
],
"title": "why there is an \"を\" in 「運転免許は持っているけれど、車を全然運転しない人たちのことをそう呼ぶんです」",
"view_count": 115
} | [
{
"body": "This を is merely a direct object marker, indicating the object of the verb 呼ぶ.\n\n`AをBと呼ぶ` means \"to call A B\".\n\n> 車を全然運転しない人達のことをペーパードライバーと呼ぶ。 \n> (They) call people who don't drive at all _paper drivers_.\n\nIn this case, the adverbial phrase ペーパードライバーと is replaced by そう, which is like\n\"so\", \"that way\" or \"like that\" in English.\n\n> 車を全然運転しない人達のことを **そう** 呼ぶ。 \n> (They) call people who don't drive at all like that.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T15:57:21.150",
"id": "53509",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T15:57:21.150",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53508",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 53508 | 53509 | 53509 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53515",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "あんたそりゃ「押しかけ女房」ってやつだな I undestand this like: \"Youre that \"Oshikake niyoubou\"\nguy\" (if I'm wrong please tell me) but I cant understand the meaning of って\n\nCan somebody help me? Im sorry for my bad english too.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T17:30:24.553",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53510",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T02:59:18.837",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "23908",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"particle-って"
],
"title": "Whats is the meaning of って in this?",
"view_count": 2929
} | [
{
"body": "The 「～って」 expresses 同格 (apposition). Means 「～という」. According to 明鏡国語辞典:\n\n> って \n> 〘格助詞〙 \n> ❷ **同格** を表す。 **・・・という** 。「エゴン・シーレ **って** 画家、知ってる？」「用 **って**\n> ほどのこともないんだが・・・」「気にしなくてもいい **って** ことよ」\n\nThe って in your example is the appositive case particle. The examples in the\ndictionary can be rewritten as 「エゴン・シーレ **という** 画家は知ってますか？」「用 **という**\nほどのこともないんだが・・・」. 「って」 is more colloquial than 「という」. Your sentence can be\nrephrased as:\n\n> あんたそりゃ「押しかけ女房」 **って** やつだな。 \n> ⇒ あんた、それは「押しかけ女房」 **という** やつだな。/ **という** ものだな。\n\n\"Say, / Hey, that's what's called 押しかけ女房 / that's what you call 押しかけ女房.\"\n\nThe やつ here doesn't mean \"guy\", but \"thing\" or \"what (is called...)\", ≂「もの (in\nthe sense of 物, not 者)」.\n\nAnd the あんた is vocative (呼びかけ). It's not the subject of the sentence. The\nsubject is それ in そりゃ (＝それ+は).\n\n* * *\n\nThe って here is not the quotative particle (=格助詞「と」), nor the topical particle\n(=係助詞「は」「というのは」), which I explained in [this\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/50251/9831).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T01:57:51.470",
"id": "53515",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T02:59:18.837",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-28T02:59:18.837",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "53510",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 53510 | 53515 | 53515 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53513",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm researching the kanji 本 for a blog post. I understand its original meaning\nis \"root\", and the other two senses, \"book\" and \"this,\" are semantic shifts.\nI've found a couple of sources (without citations; one on Japanese\nStackExchange) for its sense of \"book.\"\n\nI'm having more trouble finding its sense of \"this\" as in 本学, 本件, 本状, 本品 and\nso on. Does anyone know how it came to be used in this way?\n\nお手伝いありがとうございます～",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T22:16:27.450",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53512",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T23:43:21.163",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25960",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"kanji",
"etymology"
],
"title": "How did 本 come to mean \"this?\"",
"view_count": 488
} | [
{
"body": "The English rendering of _this_ may be somewhat misleading. :)\n\nThe root (ha!) meaning of 本 includes a sense of _main_ , and it is from this\nsense that the use correlating to English _this_ derives: as in, \"the **main**\nitem under discussion (out of several possible items)\".\n\nShogakukan's 国語大辞典 lists the following sense under the **II〔接頭〕** heading:\n\n>\n> 名詞【めいし】に付【つ】けて、今【いま】、現【げん】に問題【もんだい】にしているもの。当面【とうめん】のものである意【い】を表【あらわ】す語【ご】。当【とう】の。この。「本【ほん】講堂【こうどう】」「本【ほん】事件【じけん】」など。 \n> Attached to a noun, the item now actually at issue. Term expressing a sense\n> that this is the immediate item. The relevant (thing), this (thing). Such\n> as, \"this auditorium\", \"this issue\".",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-27T23:43:21.163",
"id": "53513",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-27T23:43:21.163",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "53512",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53512 | 53513 | 53513 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Does the 目 mean 'eye' in this case? What does Au mean in this case? The pain\nand the 目 coming together to experience the hurt?\n\nIs this a one-off sentence or can I use other variations like 苦しい目にあう (only\nnegative ones?) or 楽しい目にあう?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T03:53:21.947",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53516",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T04:29:52.313",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"proverbs"
],
"title": "痛い目にあう Is this literally meant to mean \"You're gonna get a hurt/black eye?",
"view_count": 401
} | [
{
"body": "「目{め}」 has far more meanings than J-learners tend to think. A decent\ndictionary would give over ten.\n\n> Does the 目 mean 'eye' in this case?\n\nNo, it does not. 「目」 here means \" ** _experience_** \", so 「痛{いた}い目」 means a \"\n** _bitter experience_** \".\n\n> What does Au mean in this case?\n\n「あう」 used in this expression means \" ** _to encounter_** \", \" ** _to go\nthrough_** \", etc.\n\nSo, \"to get a black eye\" is not what this expression means at all. That is\nunless getting a black eye was **_coincidentally_** the end result from your\nbad experience.\n\n> Is this a one-off sentence?\n\nNo, it is not.\n\n「苦{くる}しい目にあう」 is just perfect.\n\n「楽{たの}しい目にあう」 would be less common but still okay.\n\nThe adjectives that are used often in 「～～目にあう」 are:\n\nひどい、散々{さんざん}な、危険{きけん}な、つらい、悲惨{ひさん}な, etc.\n\nIt would mostly be a word with a negative meaning. I think it is safe to say\nthat 「痛{いた}い」 would be the most common adjective.\n\nThe expression that I personally would suggest that J-learners learn would be\n「 **いい目を見{み}る** 」, which means \" ** _to be fortunate/lucky_** \". I say this\nbecause I almost never see a J-learner use that expression.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T04:20:37.557",
"id": "53517",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T04:29:52.313",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-28T04:29:52.313",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53516",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
]
| 53516 | null | 53517 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gwlDs.png)\n\nI stumbled upon this definition in \"tobira\". Is my understanding correct, that\nの is used for \"activities and abstracts\" and \"こと” for more physical things?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T07:48:48.840",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53519",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T07:48:48.840",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18134",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "などということは vs などというのは, is first one used to \"physical things\" and second one to \"activities\"?",
"view_count": 297
} | []
| 53519 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53529",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The sentence is from my textbook みんなの日本語\n\n> 世界広しといえども ...\n\nthat means\n\n> 世界が広いと言っても ...\n\nright?\n\nBut what function has it when you use 広し instead of 広い?\n\nDuring some research I found this [Website/ online\n辞書](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%82%AF%E6%B4%BB%E7%94%A8) but my Japanese\nis not good enough to understand it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T10:40:40.040",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53521",
"last_activity_date": "2018-08-23T12:30:07.390",
"last_edit_date": "2018-08-23T12:30:07.390",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25772",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"i-adjectives",
"classical-japanese"
],
"title": "I know that the word 広し means 広い, but which rule or grammar is included?",
"view_count": 412
} | [
{
"body": "### The basic grammar\n\nThe し ending on adjectives is the Classical Japanese 終止形【しゅうしけい】 or \"terminal\nform\", i.e. the conjugation to use when the word comes at the end of a\nsentence. The Classical Japanese 連体形【れんたいけい】 or \"attributive form\" (the\nconjugation to use when modifying a noun or other substantive) is き. For\nmodern adjective 広い, the 終止形 and 連体形 are the same thing -- both end in い. For\nClassical Japanese, the 終止形 is 広し and the 連体形 is 広き.\n\nClassical Japanese forms still show up, especially when a writer (or more\nrarely, a speaker) is trying to impart an archaic or more-formal feel. This\nmight be vaguely analogous to an English writer or speaker avoiding\ncontractions and restructuring sentences to avoid prepositions on the end\n(such as replacing _\" **who'd** you give it **to**?\"_ with _\" **to whom did**\nyou give it?\"_). The Classical Japanese forms are even more archaic and formal\nthan this English example, but still understandable by modern speakers and\nreaders.\n\n### The grammatical construction in your textbook\n\nLooking at your specific textbook example, it's worth noting that this\nconstruction of `[ADJ ROOT]` + し + といえども is a kind of somewhat-formal set\nconstruction pattern. いえども itself is Classical Japanese for いっても, as you\ncorrectly guess, and this Classical set-construction usage then influences the\nconjugation of the adjective to also use the Classical conjugation. This is\nnot uncommon in written Japanese, but you generally won't hear this in spoken\nJapanese, outside of rare contexts like speeches. In spoken Japanese, the\n`[ADJ ROOT]` + い + といっても construction is much more common.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T17:00:21.943",
"id": "53529",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T17:15:30.913",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-28T17:15:30.913",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "53521",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 53521 | 53529 | 53529 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53524",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I recently heard the phrases \nここ最近 (\"somewhat lately\"/\"these recent days\") and \nここ二日ぐらい（\"these past 2 days or so\").\n\nI had never heard ここ used in this way before, and I was wondering if anyone\nknew of other phrases or examples which use ここ to mark time in this way.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T13:47:10.347",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53522",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T14:13:04.857",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"time"
],
"title": "Any more examples of ここ as a time reference?",
"view_count": 260
} | [
{
"body": "Off the top of my head, there's ここのところ or its casual version ここんとこ, which\nmeans essentially the same as 最近. That's two place words making a time\nexpression(!)\n\n[Goo\nDictionary](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/77801/meaning/m0u/%E3%81%93%E3%81%93/)\ngives this time-related meaning as ここ's third definition, and mentions that it\ndoesn't necessarily refer to the recent past, but can also refer to the near\nfuture - essentially any period of time that's adjacent to the present. The\nphrase it uses an example is ここ数年, which can refer to \"the last few years\" or\n\"the next few years\" depending on context.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T14:05:20.277",
"id": "53523",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T14:05:20.277",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25107",
"parent_id": "53522",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "It is actually a common usage of 「ここ」. Off the top of my head, we say the\nfollowing quite often.\n\n・「ここのところ」(informally,「ここんとこ」) = \"these days\", \"recently\", etc.\n\n・「ここしばらく」 ＝ \"for some time now\", \"for some time to come\", etc.\n\n・「ここ一番{いちばん}」 ＝ \"at the critical moment”\n\n・「ここ（ぞ）という時{とき}」 = \"at a (good) chance\", \"at an important moment\", etc.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T14:06:10.527",
"id": "53524",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T14:13:04.857",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-28T14:13:04.857",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53522",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 53522 | 53524 | 53524 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53535",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I received the following message:\n\n> 無理しないでやるよね。\n\nWhat function やる performs here?\n\nAlso could I say just:\n\n> 無理しないでよね\n\nCan I put the particles like that after a command/request?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T15:11:52.873",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53525",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T01:12:01.570",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "16104",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "what やる after command form means?",
"view_count": 185
} | [
{
"body": "First of all, that 無理しないで is not command but just modifying やる, which is the\nmain verb. So the sentence means \"You will do it without pushing yourself,\nwon't you?\".",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T01:12:01.570",
"id": "53535",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T01:12:01.570",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "53525",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 53525 | 53535 | 53535 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53527",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What does してた in 元気してた means? How it came to being してた? I know that the\noriginal form of し is する, then what does 元気する means? It's really confusing.\nFor context please see the images below:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/izkEu.jpg)\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ERot0.jpg)\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/06SYg.jpg)\n\nThese screenshots contain Chinese and Japanese subtitles. You can see the\nJapanese subtitles.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T15:58:07.113",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53526",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T16:10:39.193",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22126",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particles",
"adjectives",
"particle-し"
],
"title": "What does してた in 元気してた means?",
"view_count": 2057
} | [
{
"body": "> 「元気{げんき}してた？」\n\nis just a more informal/colloquial way of saying:\n\n> 「元気 **に** してた？」\n\nwhich is already fairly informal. **You can only say these to close friends\nand people younger than you**.\n\nBoth expressions mean:\n\n> \"Have you been alright?\"\n\nA more \"textbook\" way of saying this would be:\n\n> 「（お）元気にされていましたか？」 or 「（お）元気でしたか？」\n\nThose can be said to people older than you.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T16:10:39.193",
"id": "53527",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T16:10:39.193",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53526",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53526 | 53527 | 53527 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53551",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "It's from a video game called Xenogears. You can play rock-paper-scissors with\na man and when he loses he says this:\n\n> 負けたのか、この俺が！？ \n> そんなバカな……！？ \n> オー・マイ・ガブリーヌ！\n\nIs it something like \"Oh my God!\"?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T16:44:32.163",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53528",
"last_activity_date": "2019-09-01T16:19:22.290",
"last_edit_date": "2019-09-01T16:19:22.290",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "25396",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"katakana",
"video-games"
],
"title": "What is オー・マイ・ガブリーヌ?",
"view_count": 301
} | [
{
"body": "オー・マイ・ガブリーヌ is obviously a pun on オーマイガー (\"OMG\") and ガブリーヌ, where ガブリーヌ is\nprobably a western surname _Gabreanu_. But according to this, no one seems to\nknow who ガブリーヌ is: [OH MY GABRINO! WHAT DOES THIS XENOGEARS LINE SAY IN\nJAPANESE?](http://legendsoflocalization.com/oh-my-gabrino-what-does-this-\nxenogears-line-say-in-japanese/)\n\n[This character speaks in an idiosyncratic\nmanner](http://xenodd.xxxxxxxx.jp/memory/npc01.html) in the first place, so\nprobably there is no special meaning.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T00:14:21.020",
"id": "53551",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-30T00:14:21.020",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53528",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53528 | 53551 | 53551 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "A comment in some vb.net code is as follows:\n\n> 現在の時刻が設定時間と一致している **か** 確認する\n\nMeaning, (the following bit of code) checks if the current time matches the\nconfigured one.\n\nAccording to what I learnt from textbooks etc, the か in there should be a\nかどうか, because theres no question word in the sentence, making this incorrect\nJapanese. Is that right? I'm confused because this was written by a native\nJapanese speaker.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T22:00:09.747",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53531",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T21:25:32.077",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-29T21:25:32.077",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "16132",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"questions",
"particle-か",
"subordinate-clauses"
],
"title": "\"correct\" formation of questions",
"view_count": 360
} | [
{
"body": "It is the question marker か. Think of it like this, posed as a normal\nquestion:\n\n> 現在の時刻が設定時間と一致している **か** → Does the current time match the configured time?\n\nThen you're just adding 確認する to that, making it\n\n> Check \"does the current time match the configured time?\" → Check\n> if/that/whether the current time matches to configured time.\n\nThis か is very close to かどうか. In fact, there would not be much semantic\ndifference if かどうか were used here. It's equivalent to the difference between\nsaying \"check whether\" and \"check whether or not\" in English.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T22:10:00.617",
"id": "53532",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T22:10:00.617",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "53531",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "That sentence is grammatical and natural-sounding. In fact, all of the\nfollowing patters are grammatical.\n\n> 1) 「Mini-Sentence + か + 確認{かくにん}する」\n>\n> 2) 「Mini-Sentence + か + を + 確認する」\n>\n> 3) 「Mini-Sentence + か + どうか + 確認する」\n>\n> 4) 「Mini-Sentence + か + どうか + を + 確認する」\n\n1) and 2) are used (far) more often than 3) and 4) as using 「どうか」 could at\ntimes make it sound a bit wordy and slightly too conversational in business\nsituations.\n\nVersions using 「を」 would sound a tiny bit more formal than those without it.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T22:33:18.950",
"id": "53533",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-28T22:33:18.950",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53531",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 53531 | null | 53533 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "How do you write \"hacker\" in Japanese?...\n\nFor purposes of this question, here is the definition in English:\n\n_Hacker_ /ˈhækər/ \n1. One who likes to program. \n2. One who utilizes technology to go beyond the limits inherent to the design of an application.\n\nOr in other words; I'm not talking about only Black Hats ( _which is\nunfortunately the public perversion of the word \"hacker\" and has an evil\nconnotation in addition to usually referring incorrectly to mostly script\nkiddies and not true Black Hats anyways_ ☺)... but instead the definition\nabove ( _which may include the entire gambit Black-Grey-White, but is not\nlimited to those subsets_ ).\n\nI am inclined to go with Saito Jiro's definition, as found in @KeithMaxx 's\nanswer; however, perhaps there has been further\ncodification/consensus/adoption surrounding [ハッカー] since 2007 in 2017.\n\nIs [ハッカー] still valid in 2017 given the original definition of hacker above?\n\nThanks! ☺\n\nExpanding what I found in @KeithMaxx 's answer: - [Original Text - [Link]\n](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%82%AF%E3%83%A9%E3%83%83%E3%82%AB%E3%83%BC-2935)ハッカー\n\nハッキングを行う、もしくは行う能力のある人物のこと。ハッキングとは、システムの構造を理解するために解析する行為で、本来悪い意味ではない。しかし、解析の過程でネットワークやコンピューターの不正利用を行うことが多く、そうした不正利用者をハッカーと呼ぶようになってしまった。元来の意味でのハッカーを擁護する立場からは、クラッカー(破壊者)などの呼称が使われるが、定着していない。\n(斎藤幾郎 ライター ／ 西田宗千佳 フリージャーナリスト ／ 2007年)\n\n * [Google Translation] hacker\n\nA person who has the ability to do or hack. Hacking is an act of analyzing to\nunderstand the structure of the system, which is not inherently bad meaning.\nHowever, the network and in the course of the analysis computer often perform\nunauthorized use of the over, it has become such a unauthorized user to call a\nhacker. From the standpoint of defending hackers in the original meaning, the\ndesignation of crackers ( destroyers ) etc is used, but it is not fixed.\n(Saito Jiro writer / Chika Nishida free journalist / 2007)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-28T22:43:25.807",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53534",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-30T04:00:05.840",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-29T12:01:20.083",
"last_editor_user_id": "25970",
"owner_user_id": "25970",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"english-to-japanese",
"computing"
],
"title": "How do you write \"hacker\" in Japanese in 2017?... (where hacker doesn't have an evil connotation)",
"view_count": 423
} | [
{
"body": "By all accounts, the word is written plainly as:\n\n> ハッカー\n\nJust as in English, the Japanese also do understand both the negative\nconnotation of the term and its wider use that includes all sorts of people\nwith deep knowledge and engineering abilities when it comes to computing.\n\nYou can find the general consensus about the word [in this compilation of\ndefinitions](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%83%8F%E3%83%83%E3%82%AB%E3%83%BC-7364).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T03:08:50.920",
"id": "53536",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T03:08:50.920",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53534",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> Hacker /ˈhækər/ \n> 1. One who likes to program. \n> 2. One who utilizes technology to go beyond the limits inherent to the\n> design of an application.\n\nAs for today in 2017, there is not a word in Japanese corresponding to\n\"hacker\" with the definition written above, so we have no way to write it in\nJapanese. \nハッカー is understood in Japan only as a \"cracker\" or a \"Black Hat hacker\", and\nthe meaning has been understood without change since its introduction to Japan\nas a loanword.\n\nIn spite of the effort of those who are familiar with English language or\ncomputer terminologies including Saito Jiro and Chika Nishida, ordinary\nJapanese people uderstand it as I said above not only in 2017 but also in\n2007. So I'm sorry to say, but the definition of ハッカー which is not inherently\nbad meaning by Saito Jiro and Chika Nishida didn't reflect the actual\nunderstanding of common Japanese people.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T14:18:04.180",
"id": "53545",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T14:18:04.180",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53534",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "This heavily depends on your target audience.\n\nIf you write something to IT workers, ハッカー can safely refer to non-evil ones.\nFor example, this\n[ロシアの天才ハッカーによる新人エンジニアサバイバルガイド](https://qiita.com/jacksuzuki/items/b2fa6b44962e73a53d08)\n(with almost 6000 likes from Japanese engineers) obviously uses ハッカー in its\nnon-evil sense. Rest assured, people who may be interested in this article\nwill never think he is a criminal :)\n\nIf you write something to ordinary people, however, ハッカー is still likely to be\nmisunderstood. If you do need the cool nuance of hacker, you can use ハッカー and\nexplain its definition to avoid confusion (unfortunately there is no good\nnative Japanese equivalent). Phrases like\n[ホワイトハッカー](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%83%9B%E3%83%AF%E3%82%A4%E3%83%88%E3%83%8F%E3%83%83%E3%82%AB%E3%83%BC),\n正義のハッカー or 善意のハッカー may be used to help people understand better (even though\nthey're theoretically redundant). Alternatively, if you just want to plainly\nrefer to someone who is very good at coding, a safe approach would be\nスーパープログラマー, 天才プログラマー, etc.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T16:09:15.753",
"id": "53548",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-30T04:00:05.840",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-30T04:00:05.840",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53534",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53534 | null | 53545 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53539",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Purely speculating from the kanji, one could quite naturally think that 多分,\nbeing \"many parts\", could lean towards a likelihood greater than 50% that\nsomething will happen.\n\nI always thought as 多分 being a quite neutral 50% \"maybe\", but I just randomly\ngot to think of the above kanji-based possible interpretation and got curious\nto know if it is just my idea or there is some truth behind it.",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T08:29:41.723",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53537",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-30T04:24:31.490",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-29T16:39:42.553",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"words",
"nuances",
"adverbs",
"modality"
],
"title": "Does 多分 carry a degree of certainty equal to or greater than 50%?",
"view_count": 511
} | [
{
"body": "I'd use 多分 when the probability is more than 80%: \"probably\"\n\nIn my mind, 多分≒おそらく≒十中八九.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T09:16:07.083",
"id": "53538",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T09:16:07.083",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53537",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "「たぶん」は、英語の maybe よりずっと可能性が高いと思います。「たぶん」は probably\nに近いと思います。70～80％くらいの確率（あるいは90％？）かな？と思います。\n\n明鏡国語辞典によると・・・\n\n> たぶん【多分】 \n> 二 〘副詞〙 《多く下に推量を表す語を伴って》断定はできないが、そうである可能性が高いという話し手の気持ちを表す。おそらく。おおかた。たいてい。\n\n\"Will you marry me?\" に \"Maybe.\"\nと返事されたら普通はがっかりしますけど、「結婚してくれる？」に「たぶん。」と言われたらそんなにがっかりしない（どちらかというと嬉しい）と思います。\n\n「たぶん治ります。」と言われた病気が、実は治る可能性は50％だった…とかだったら、きっと怒ってしまいます。治る可能性が低いなら、「治るかもしれない」とか「もしかしたら～～」のような言い方をしてほしいです。\n\n> Purely speculating from the kanji, one could quite naturally think that 多分,\n> being \"many parts\", could lean towards a likelihood greater than 50% that\n> something will happen.\n\nおっしゃる通り、明鏡国語辞典にも「\n〘名・形動〙数量・金額などが多いこと。また、割合・程度が高いこと。」とあるように、割合が高い（多い）とか、大部分、というような意味で「多」+「分」なのだと思います。（「多分」は当て字との情報がネット上にいくつかありますが、複数の辞書を見ても当て字だという根拠は見つかりませんので、正しいかどうかわかりません。）",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T09:25:03.807",
"id": "53539",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T13:37:43.957",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-29T13:37:43.957",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "53537",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
]
| 53537 | 53539 | 53539 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53546",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I just encountered this question:\n\n> **Conversation** :\n>\n> 男の人：森さんに、お伝えいただきたいんですが。 \n> 女の人：はい。\n>\n> It's asking something like 誰が伝えますか and have 3 choices：\n>\n> **Question** ：（男の人 女の人 森さん）が伝えます。\n>\n> **Answer** ： **女の人** が伝えます。\n\nThere's a rule before the question says that:\n\n**AがBにしていただく → Bがする**\n\nAccording to this rule, I think the conversation could be analysed like this:\n\n**森さんに伝えていただく → 森さんが伝える**\n\nI know いただく is the humble form of もらう, so it matches the understanding that\n森さん is the one who gives the favour to do the action(伝える).\n\nHowever, I did a bit research and there's an\n[answer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/11822/question-\nabout-%E3%82%82%E3%82%89%E3%81%86) mentioning that,\n\n**[noun]に＋してもらう**\n\nin some cases, the **noun** before に could be the **receiver** rather than the\ngiver.\n\nSo I'm wondering if it's the reason why the answer is \" **女の子** \" rather than\n\" **森さん** \". But I would like to know in what kind of situation shall we treat\nthe noun before に as a receiver, especially in the question above which is a\nsolitary piece and doesn't have any other context provided.\n\nCould anyone kindly explain this? Thanks in advance.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T10:38:52.947",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53540",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T15:23:47.660",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-29T15:23:47.660",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "19379",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"keigo",
"giving-and-receiving"
],
"title": "Question about もらう／いただく",
"view_count": 611
} | [
{
"body": "に as in 森さんに isn't the marker for （して）もらう but that for 伝える. In other words,\nthe example is synthesis of 男の人が女の人に…してもらう (the man has the woman to do ...)\nand 女の人が森さんに伝える (the woman tells it to Mori-san).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T15:19:56.320",
"id": "53546",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T15:19:56.320",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "53540",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 53540 | 53546 | 53546 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53542",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 必要最小限にお願いします。\n\nI can't translate it at all, what could it mean ? \"Please, do what's\nnecessary\" ?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T11:16:41.880",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53541",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T13:43:47.413",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-29T12:02:13.023",
"last_editor_user_id": "4091",
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does 必要最小限にお願いします。 mean?",
"view_count": 132
} | [
{
"body": "「必要最小限{ひつようさいしょうげん}」 means \"bare minimum\".\n\n> \"Please keep it at a bare minimum.\"\n\nDepending on the context you found this sentence in, you might need to change\nthe \"keep it\" part. Remember that Japanese is an **_extremely_** contextual\nlanguage.\n\nIf I were to borrow your TL \"Please, do what's necessary.\", I would change it\nto:\n\n> \"Please do only what's absolutely necessary.\"",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T11:28:12.417",
"id": "53542",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T13:43:47.413",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-29T13:43:47.413",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53541",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53541 | 53542 | 53542 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "These are all words that have to do with happiness. Aside from their word\nclasses, what difference do they have in nuance?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T12:55:39.500",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53543",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T17:39:20.873",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-29T17:39:20.873",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "20228",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"words",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Difference in Nuance: 嬉しい vs. 喜ぶ , 幸せ vs. 幸い vs. 幸福",
"view_count": 1926
} | [
{
"body": "One difference is that 嬉しい is more an immediate feeling, a kind of spontaneous\nemotion that emerges in certain situations, whereas 幸せ is a deeper kind of\nhappiness which is based on more stable circumstances. When your girlfriend\ngives you a great present, you feel 嬉しい in that moment. When she stays with\nyou and you develop a deep and fulfilling relationship together, you could\nfeel 幸せ.\n\nMy sense is that 幸福 is similar to 幸せ in terms of its meaning, but it is more\nformal as a word (as many 漢語 are), so you would be more likely to encounter it\nin written Japanese.\n\n幸い has more of a 'lucky' or 'fortunate' meaning, usually used to refer to a\nspecific event which was deemed to be somehow fortuitous.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T13:56:14.980",
"id": "53544",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T13:56:14.980",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"parent_id": "53543",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 53543 | null | 53544 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I think I understand the meaning of the following passage, but I'm non really\nsure about the usage of というのに in this case. Can you help me?\n\n環境に影響の大きい自家用車での来場を減らす努力をしないというのに矛盾を感じるんです。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T18:52:45.623",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53549",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T22:59:20.337",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25880",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Usage of というのに in this sentence",
"view_count": 251
} | [
{
"body": "というのに is often used as a [set phrase that works like a\nconjunction](http://www.romajidesu.com/dictionary/meaning-\nof-%E3%81%A8%E3%81%84%E3%81%86%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AB.html) (\"although ～\"), but\nthis というのに is not idiomatic.\n\n * という explains the following noun, see [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/52003/5010).\n * の is a nominalizer (which is technically a formal noun).\n * に is a case particle, \"to\", \"in\", \"against\", etc. \"XにYを感じる\" means \"I feel Y in/for X.\"\n\nSo the sentence means the same thing as 努力をしない(という)ことに矛盾を感じる.\n\n> I feel it contradictory that they do not make efforts to reduce the use of\n> ...",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-29T22:29:51.003",
"id": "53550",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-29T22:59:20.337",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-29T22:59:20.337",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53549",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53549 | null | 53550 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I’m trying to say “asking One’s annual income sounds like you are trying to\nboast.” Would 「 年収を聞いたら、「大口な目的があるでしょう」と思います 」be right?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T05:10:09.600",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53554",
"last_activity_date": "2020-12-04T07:29:15.943",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25978",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"english-to-japanese"
],
"title": "Translation help",
"view_count": 375
} | [
{
"body": "The biggest problem with your sentence:\n\n> 年収{ねんしゅう}を聞{き}いたら、「大口{おおくち}な目的{もくてき}があるでしょう」と思{おも}います。\n\nis none other than the fact that the middle part 「大口な目的があるでしょう」 makes\npractically no sense. The only thing it could possibly mean to native speakers\nwould be \" ** _(Someone) would have a big purpose_**.\", which is not what you\nwant to express this time.\n\nThe word 「大口」 **_cannot mean \"brag\" or \"boast\" all by itself_**. To mean that,\nit needs to be used with the verb 「たたく」 as in 「大口をたたく」. For this reason,\n「大口な目的」 sounds pretty much non-sensical.\n\nEven so, 「大口をたたく」 is not the phrase you would need to use in your sentence\nthis time. I would use 「自慢{じまん}」 and say:\n\n> 「人{ひと}の年収を聞くと、自分{じぶん}の年収を自慢したがっているように思{おも}われてしまうこと（が/も）あります。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T12:23:55.580",
"id": "53558",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-30T12:23:55.580",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53554",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "大口な目的がある (literally \"have a big mouth purpose (?)\") makes very little sense to\nme. [大口](http://jisho.org/word/%E5%A4%A7%E5%8F%A3) usually refers to something\nunrealistically grandiose and big (like \"I'll be the world champion in a year\"\nsaid by a rookie), and it's almost always used in an idiom\n[大口を叩く](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/288610/meaning/m0u/). In this case,\nyou can use 自慢する instead.\n\n> 年収を聞いたら、「自慢している」と思います。\n\nBut this sentence is still very hard to understand, because you have omitted\nthe person pronouns too much. The subject of the sentence switched suddenly in\nthe last half of the sentence; the person who _asked_ (聞く) is not the person\nwho _thought_ (思う) \"you're boasting!\"\n\nUse a consistent subject, and also clarify whose income you're talking about:\n\n> **人の** 年収を聞いたら、 **自分の** 年収を自慢していると **思われ** ます。\n\nHere 思われます is the passive voice, which makes the subject of the whole sentence\nconsistent. 人の in this context is like 他人の (\"someone else's\").",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T02:44:20.483",
"id": "53575",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T02:44:20.483",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53554",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Because of the rather antagonistic way you seem to be expressing your\nstatement, I offer this:\n\n> 人の年収を聞いて、（自分のを）ただ自慢したいだけでしょう？ You asking around other people's annual\n> income, you simply want to boast (about your own) right?\n\nAnd I can imagine you wanted to say this right to the person in question.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T01:50:48.073",
"id": "53592",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T01:50:48.073",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53554",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53554 | null | 53558 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53559",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I have seen sentences 1 and 4, but are sentences 2 and 3 grammatical?\n\nMy question is regarding the use of を/が with the object being compared, in\nsentences with 比べる.\n\n> 1. 植物の世界にも（今年 **を** ）去年 **と比べて** 著しく相違が見えた。\n>\n> 2. 植物の世界にも（今年 **が** ）去年 **と比べて** 著しく相違が見えた。\n>\n> 3. 花をつけた蓮 **に比べて** 白鷺 **を** 大変小さいように描いてある。\n>\n> 4. 花をつけた蓮 **に比べて** 白鷺 **が** 大変小さいように描いてある。\n>\n>\n\nSources for sentences 1 and 4: 寺田寅彦「あひると猿」(sentence 1) and 宮本百合子「蓮花図」(sentence\n4): <https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/8897154.html>",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T09:25:20.950",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53556",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T13:51:44.430",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "11849",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-が",
"particle-を"
],
"title": "When using 比べる, should I use を or が for the object being compared?",
"view_count": 454
} | [
{
"body": "~~1. 植物の世界にも（今年を）去年と比べて著しく相違が見えた。 \n・ I don't think the sentence of 1 is natural, but it could be natural. \n・ Basically there is a lack of the object to be depicted by \"著しく相違が見えた\" in 1.\nIf I add some words to 1 to make it natural, it will be like: \n(A) 植物の世界にも（今年を）去年と比べて著しく相違が **生じているように思わせる兆候** が見えた。 \n(B) 植物の世界にも（今年を）去年と比べて **外来種の花の生育に（おいて）** 著しく相違が見えた。~~\n\n~~2. 植物の世界にも（今年が）去年と比べて著しく相違が見えた。 \n・ I don't think the sentence of 2 is natural, and it couldn't be natural\nbecause of が.~~\n\n 3. 花をつけた蓮に比べて白鷺を大変小さいように描いてある。 \n・ grammatical \n・ 白鷺を小さいように描いてある is not natural, I like it to be written like 白鷺を大変小さく描いてある,\n白鷺を大変小さくなるように描いてある or 白鷺を大変小さく見えるように描いてある.\n\n 4. 花をつけた蓮に比べて白鷺が大変小さいように描いてある。 \n・ grammatical \n・ 白鷺が小さいように描いてある is not natural, I like it to be written like 白鷺が大変小さく描いてある,\n白鷺が大変小さくなるように描いてある or 白鷺が大変小さく見えるように描いてある.\n\nThe difference of nuance between 3 and 4 is, I think, on what the writer\nplaces the point more; the point is placed on the drawer/painter in 3 while 白鷺\nin 4.\n\nIf I make the difference more clear they will be like: \n3'. 花をつけた蓮に比べて **画家は** 白鷺を大変小さく見えるように描いてある。 \n4'. 花をつけた蓮に比べて **画面の中で** 白鷺が大変小さく見えるように描いてある。\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT\n\n> 1. 植物の世界にも（今年を）去年と比べて著しく相違が見えた。\n>\n\n出典が寺田寅彦と追加情報がありましたが、それでも、寺田寅彦氏にしては悪文だなと思っておりました。そして、「今年を」が何故括弧の中に入っているのかが不思議でした。原典の「[あひると猿](https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=bxLGkcF4qrgC&pg=PP6&lpg=PP6&dq=%E6%A4%8D%E7%89%A9%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E3%81%AB%E3%82%82%EF%BC%88%E4%BB%8A%E5%B9%B4%E3%82%92%EF%BC%89%E5%8E%BB%E5%B9%B4%E3%81%A8%E6%AF%94%E3%81%B9%E3%81%A6%E8%91%97%E3%81%97%E3%81%8F%E7%9B%B8%E9%81%95%E3%81%8C%E8%A6%8B%E3%81%88%E3%81%9F%E3%80%82&source=bl&ots=W8CGOF25B1&sig=d1tyme2MdFVZBYBKoZGGkBKiC_Y&hl=ja&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB8pv5rs_WAhUDE7wKHSzyD0UQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=%E6%A4%8D%E7%89%A9%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%E3%81%AB%E3%82%82%EF%BC%88%E4%BB%8A%E5%B9%B4%E3%82%92%EF%BC%89%E5%8E%BB%E5%B9%B4%E3%81%A8%E6%AF%94%E3%81%B9%E3%81%A6%E8%91%97%E3%81%97%E3%81%8F%E7%9B%B8%E9%81%95%E3%81%8C%E8%A6%8B%E3%81%88%E3%81%9F%E3%80%82&f=false)」を見て納得しました。質問者が原文からの引用を間違っていたのでは何ともしようがありませんね。\n\n寺田寅彦との追加情報がある前、「植物の世界にも」とありましたので、「動物の世界」の話が詳しくあり、その続きにこの文があるのかなと思いましたがそのとおりでした。\n\n「動物の世界では、今年は昨年と比べて色々な事象で相違が観測できた。植物の世界に目を転じてみて **も**\n、多くの点で相違が見えた。」が寺田氏の文章の流れです。相違は「今年」と「去年」という時ではなく、それぞれの年の中で生じている、あるいは観察できる\n**動植物の事象** です。「今年の動植物の事象を昨年の同じ動植物の事象と比べると著しく相違がある」です。\n\n３、４に関しては、４は宮本百合子「蓮花図」からの引用と追加情報がありましたが、３と４のいずれが日本語として自然かとか文法的にどうかではなく、私の最初の判断と同じで、白鷺をどう見たかによって自ずといずれかの表現になります。 \n４の文章を書いた宮本百合子さんは「白鷺」に着目しています。一方、「白鷺」が描かれたキャンバスに「白鷺」を含めた絵を描いた画家がこのキャンバスの中で白鷺をどう描こうとしたのかという画家の意図に作者が着目した場合は３の文章でなくては表現できません。 \n試しに４を「花をつけた蓮に比べて白鷺が大変小さいように描かれてある。」と受身形にしてもあまり意味が変わりませんが、３ではニュアンスを含めた意味を変えずに受身形にできません。暗に存在する画家を受身形で処理できないからです。\n\n従って、４は絵そのものに着目がありますので静的ですが、３は画家の意図が文として暗に表現されていますので、動きのある文章として伝わります。違いを感じてください。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T10:53:42.597",
"id": "53557",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T13:51:44.430",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53556",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> 1. 植物の世界にも（今年 **を** ）去年と比べて著しく相違が見えた。\n> 2. 植物の世界にも（今年 **が** ）去年と比べて著しく相違が見えた。\n>\n\nBoth sound unnatural to me. I would rather say:\n\n植物の世界にも今年 **は** 去年と比べて著しく相違が見えた。 or \n今年 **は** 植物の世界にも去年と比べて著しく相違が見えた。\n\n(with 今年は modifying the main clause 相違が見えた)\n\nbecause you say...\n\n今年 **は** 植物の世界にも著しく相違が見えた。 or \n植物の世界にも今年 **は** 著しく相違が見えた。\n\n... with or without 「去年と比べて」.\n\nTo use 今年 **を** , I'd say...\n\n植物の世界にも、今年 **を** 去年と比べ **ると** 著しく相違が見えた。 or \n植物の世界にも、今年 **と** 去年 **を** 比べ **ると** 著しく相違が見えた。\n\n(...with 今年を / 今年と modifying the sub-clause 比べる.)\n\n* * *\n\n> 3. 花をつけた蓮に比べて白鷺 **を** 大変小さいように描いてある。\n> 4. 花をつけた蓮に比べて白鷺 **が** 大変小さいように描いてある。\n>\n\nI think both are fine, because you can say either...\n\n白鷺 **を** 大変小さいように描いてある。 or \n白鷺 **が** 大変小さいように描いてある。\n\n... with or without 「花をつけた蓮に比べて」.\n\nSentence 4 sounds a bit more natural to me, because I think it's more natural\nto interpret 白鷺 as the subject of 大変小さい rather than 描いてある.\n\nAs a side note,「が+transitive verb+てある」 and 「を+transitive verb+てある」 are both\ncorrect. Please see [this\npost](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/53313/9831) if you're interested.\n\n* * *\n\n例えば・・・\n\n> 日本 **は** 、アメリカに比べて面積が小さい。\n\nという文では、日本 **を** アメリカと比べています。でも、「日本 **を** アメリカに比べて面積が小さい。」とは言わないでしょう。「日本 **を**\nアメリカに比べると、日本 **は** 面積が小さい。」「日本 **と** アメリカ **を** 比べると、日本のほう **が**\n面積が小さい。」なら言えそうですが、回りくどいですね。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T15:43:43.590",
"id": "53559",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T00:26:00.150",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-01T00:26:00.150",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "53556",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53556 | 53559 | 53557 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53564",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "On Wanikani I've long since learned \"entrance\" as 入{い}り口{ぐち}. However, in my\ntextbook, I just came across the vocabulary word for \"entrance\" and it writes\nit as 入{いり}口{ぐち}. I note that the pronunciation is the same in both cases\n「いりぐち」 but what's the difference between the two kanji writings?\n\nI looked it up on jisho and only found 入口 (though 入り口点 on jisho uses the い\nreading of 入). Does this mean I should normally be writing this as 入口 and\nwanikani is wrong, or is this a matter of preference?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T17:59:30.190",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53562",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T01:18:03.070",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-30T19:36:28.550",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25116",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"readings",
"okurigana"
],
"title": "Difference between 入口 and 入り口",
"view_count": 2578
} | [
{
"body": "They are both correct. Japanese vocabulary has all sorts of different\nspellings of the same words, it's just that many of them are archaic or simply\nuncommon.\n\n[According to Kanshudo, 入口 is the most common, and 入り口 is the second most\ncommon.](https://www.kanshudo.com/searchq?q=%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8A%E5%8F%A3)\n\nYou will come across words like these constantly, especially if you are\ninteracting with a large variety of Japanese media. It's best to learn each\nreading when you do.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T19:06:37.747",
"id": "53564",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-30T19:06:37.747",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "16049",
"parent_id": "53562",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "The り is called okurigana It is used to ensure the reading. Naturally the\nJapanese people know that 入口 can only be read いりぐち。but in some other cases the\nreading can be ambiguous. therefore they add some time hiragana to help the\nreading. These are just 2 ways of writing but they are similar.\n\n(Here, you could read 入口 as にゅうこう without the り but that just doesn't make\nsense)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T01:12:36.383",
"id": "53572",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T01:18:03.070",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-01T01:18:03.070",
"last_editor_user_id": "10450",
"owner_user_id": "10450",
"parent_id": "53562",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53562 | 53564 | 53564 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53567",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 試験では、ことばを覚えているかどうか **聞く** 問題を減らすように言っています。 \n> (Scientists) are saying to reduce the problem in exams of whether or not\n> you've memorised a word.\n\nI'm not sure I've translated this correctly. I'm confused about the inclusion\nof 聞く. I'm sure the act of **asking** whether or not you've memorised the word\nisn't the problem.\n\nIf I'd been asked to write this sentence I'd have replaced 聞く with either:\n\n1) という \n2) が \n3) nothing\n\nWould any of these options lead to a grammatical, natural sentence? Would my\nsentence have a different meaning?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T18:05:22.020",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53563",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T03:20:29.903",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Confusing use of 聞く in this sentence",
"view_count": 401
} | [
{
"body": "問題 here is not a “problem” in the meaning of a “general issue”, but a problem\nas an “exercise”, a “test item”.\n\nThus ことばを覚えているかどうか聞く問題 are exercises **asking** (verifying) if examinees\nremembered words.\n\nAnd it’s not the problem itself that needs to be reduced, but the number of\nsuch problems (exercises) in exams.\n\n* * *\n\nThat said, I’m not sure if the latter part of the question still remains\nrelevant, but:\n\n> I'd have replaced 聞く with either:\n>\n> 1) という\n\nThis would refer to a direct question: “did you remember the word ...?”\n\n> 2) が\n\nUngrammatical. I’m not even sure what the intention was. A possessive が?\nAnyway, it doesn’t follow an embedded question.\n\n> 3) nothing\n\nPassable, I guess. No change in meaning.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T21:17:31.907",
"id": "53567",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-30T23:36:53.707",
"last_edit_date": "2017-09-30T23:36:53.707",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "11104",
"parent_id": "53563",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53563 | 53567 | 53567 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53574",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Sometimes when I am looking at videos or scripts of Japanese games to practice\nmy translation skills, I occasionally come across unfamiliar kanji usage where\nwords usually written in hiragana are written in Kanji. For example, instead\nof \"ため\", \"為\" or \"あなた\" \"貴方\" and finally \"また\" to \"又\". I don't really understand\nits purpose.\n\nFor the record these Kanji I have found in two games meant for high school age\nreaders. My question is, why are these kanji used when in most settings they\nare not used? What sort of effect on the reader does it produce?\n\nFinally, I noticed in some of these cases, they write in kanji words that are\nnot usually in kanji, but then proceed to write other words that use kanji a\nfair bit such as おまえ or わかる in hiragana. Why would it be written towards one\nextreme but then ignore other words?\n\nI know there are similar questions about Kanji usage but not exactly what I am\nlooking for. So I apologize if this has been answered.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T20:21:05.050",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53566",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T09:54:26.007",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-02T09:54:26.007",
"last_editor_user_id": "4091",
"owner_user_id": "25987",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Why would someone write \"為\" , \"貴方\" and \"又\" rather than use ため、あなた、また?",
"view_count": 749
} | [
{
"body": "According to modern writing guidelines for plain formal text (like news\narticles), ため (a formal noun) and また (a lexicalized adverb/conjunction) should\nbe normally written in hiragana. But a creative writer may use 又 and 為\nintentionally to make the text look stiff, old, dignified, etc. Some novelists\nlike to use these difficult kanji all the time. Sometimes these kanji may be\nused simply to reduce the number of characters so the sentence can be put in\nthe text box. However, there are also times when lazy and untrained writers\nuse these kanji just because their IME happened to produce them. Anyway, these\nkanji are not particularly difficult for high school students who are familiar\nwith creative writings. You don't have to care too much.\n\nRegarding 貴方, it's really common in creative writings and I would say you\nshouldn't care. Most of the times, it's just up to the writer's personal\npreference. If you're really sure someone is using あなた and 貴方 distinctively,\nmaybe the latter may look a bit more courteous, gentle, mature, etc.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T02:17:38.033",
"id": "53574",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T04:44:25.340",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-01T04:44:25.340",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53566",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 53566 | 53574 | 53574 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53569",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Every source I look it says it's called はば AND きん. But in what situation do I\ncall it きん instead of はば?\n\nAlso, it's usually specified as はばへん and きんへん, in my understanding へん radicals\nare always on the left of the kanji. So how do I call 巾 in kanjis such as 市,\n常, and 姉?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T21:27:47.873",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53568",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T03:45:59.817",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "12121",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"readings",
"radicals"
],
"title": "How do I call the 巾 radical?",
"view_count": 239
} | [
{
"body": "> But in what situation do I call it きん instead of はば?\n\nTo refer to the 巾 radical - never.\n\nThere are [rare\ncases](https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AE%8F#.E7.B5.83.28.E7.B3.B8.29) in\nwhich 巾 is pronounced this way as a noun. And of course 巾 is pronounced キン in\nmany compound words.\n\n> 幅\n\nはばへん or less often きんべん\n\n> 市\n\nはば",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T22:00:20.633",
"id": "53569",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T03:45:59.817",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-01T03:45:59.817",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "11104",
"parent_id": "53568",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53568 | 53569 | 53569 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "My question is why is the causative form 言わせる used in this phrase.\n\nI've done some checking, but I haven't found a good answer yet so I thought'd\nI'd ask here. As a set phrase I know the meaning since it is used in a quite\nspecific context. But I don't get why 言わせる is in there. It doesn't seem to\nmake sense. Is it a 'forcing someone to say' 言わせる, or is it a 'letting me say'\n言わせる? Or does it have nothing to do withing saying at all?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-09-30T22:47:02.327",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53571",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T12:11:23.647",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"causation"
],
"title": "Grammar in「ぶいぶい言わせる」",
"view_count": 403
} | [
{
"body": "It's hard to give a definitive answer since the etymology of this phrase seems\nto be fairly uncertain.\n\nSome people believe ブイブイ represents a sound from some external object. [Some\nsay](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1443514199) it\ncame from the sound of a large car/motorcycle engine, the symbol of freedom\nand wealth. [Some even\nsay](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1256688462)\nブイブイ is the sound made during a sexual intercourse. If one of these is true,\nブイブイ言わせる makes sense simply as \"to make a motorcycle/etc sound ブイブイ\".\n\nOther people believe this ブイブイ represents something actually said by the\nperson themselves, whatever it may mean. In this case, ブイブイ言わせる should mean\n\"to allow oneself to say ブイブイ\". As you already know, Japanese \"causative form\"\nis not always forcible, and it can indicate allowance. For example you can say\nキャンセルさせてください (\"please allow me to cancel\" rather than \"please force me to\ncancel\") and お邪魔させてもらいました (\"I received the favor of allowing me to visit\").",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T01:40:25.313",
"id": "53573",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T03:55:59.980",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-01T03:55:59.980",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53571",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> ブイブイ言わせる\n\nThough the definition is not so clearly established, it is believed to implies\nthe behaviors mainly by rascals \"being puffed out\", \"making a show of their\npower\" or \"behave arrogantly\".\n\nThere are various understandings as for the origin of this phrase, but I like\nthe next one because it could answer the question by the questioner asking why\nit has the causative form 言わせる. The origin of it is to idle the engine, and\n\"Buen, Buen\" is the sound of idling.\n\nEvery time you step on the gas pedal strongly, you let the engine generate\n\"Bueeeen, Bueeeen\" sound loudly.\n\nFrom this original meaning, it has changed gradually until it means now to let\nhis mouth say arrogant words freely and loudly.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T12:11:23.647",
"id": "53595",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T12:11:23.647",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53571",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 53571 | null | 53573 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53591",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Trying to say something like this line:\n\n> I am not wanted.\n\nBut for all the Japanese language likes skipping subjects and topics, I can't\nseem to find an equivalent for this case--it seems like the only way to say\nthis is by rephrasing it to \"X doesn't want me\" (Ｘは私をいらない). The closest I can\nthink of is 自分が必要とされていない, but I don't want to say \"I'm not needed\", I want to\nsay \"I'm not _wanted_ \". It doesn't seem like conjugating いる or ほしい is the way\nto go either. How can I say this without adding a topic?\n\n※Disclaimer: This is not related to how I actually feel.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T02:59:50.510",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53576",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T03:39:20.637",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9132",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"phrases",
"phrase-requests"
],
"title": "How to say \"unwanted\" in terms of a person being unwanted",
"view_count": 1113
} | [
{
"body": "I think you're looking for\n\n> 私は求められていない（よう）です。 (It seems) I am not wanted/needed.\n\nThe line between need and want case is a blur (I'd say the same in English),\nbut the word does express a nuance of being unwanted.\n\nThen again, I imagine the Japanese don't say this out loud often because it\nalso expresses some resentment (of being unwanted by the listeners, perhaps).\n\nEdit: To say it more emphatically you could say,\n\n> 私は誰にも求められていません。 Nobody wants/needs me.\n\nOf course you can outright point out just who is making you feel unwelcome or\nunwanted, and that will border on being antagonistic.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T01:25:22.933",
"id": "53591",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T03:39:20.637",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-02T03:39:20.637",
"last_editor_user_id": "25446",
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53576",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 53576 | 53591 | 53591 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was watching a Japanese TV drama and came across this sentence: そのへんのこと\nよ〜く念頭に置いといてね. I think といてね comes from ておいてね. Can anyone please tell me how do\nwe use this ておいてね and when it is conjugates with 置く how it changes it?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T04:53:04.993",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53579",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T08:52:48.317",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22126",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"conjugations",
"て-form",
"contractions"
],
"title": "About ておいてね, what does it mean?",
"view_count": 4099
} | [
{
"body": "You think right, that といて is a shortened, colloquial version of ておいて. In other\nwords, ~とく is a casual version of ~ておく where basically て+お is merged into と.\n\nMore precisely the shortenings work as follows:\n\n * ~ておいて / でおいて --> ~といて / どいて \n * ~ておく / でおく --> ~とく / どく\n\nNote also the negative case:\n\n * ~ておかないで / でおかないで --> ~とかないで / どかないで\n\nIn your example, 置く has nothing special and just follows the above rules.\nHence in a casual setting 置いておいてね becomes 置いといてね.\n\nBriefly, the construction Verb (て-form) + おく is used when you want to prepare\nsomething for future (use) / do something beforehand / go ahead and do\nsomething.\n\nFor example:\n\n * チケット、買っといてね = Buy the ticket (in advance, it will be used later).\n\nAnother use is to \"do something and leave it for a while / let someone do\nsomething for a while\". For example:\n\n * 彼らには言いたいことを言わせておけばいい = Let them say whatever they want.\n\nHave a look\n[here](https://japaneselearningonline.blogspot.jp/2015/11/japanese-grammar-\nlesson-te-oku.html) or [here](http://maggiesensei.com/2017/04/06/new-how-to-\nuse-v%E3%81%A6%E3%81%8A%E3%81%8F-te-oku/) for more info.\n\nFinally, in your case, the meaning is to \"put and keep something well in your\nmind\" (and keep it there for future use. In other words, don't forget!).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T08:52:48.317",
"id": "53594",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T08:52:48.317",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "14205",
"parent_id": "53579",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 53579 | null | 53594 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53581",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> ８８歳の草間彌生さんは水玉の絵などが有名な **芸術家** で、世界でも人気があります。 \n> 88 year old 草間彌生さん ??? and is popular even in (the rest of) the world.\n\nI'm having problems parsing the first clause.\n\n> 草間彌生さんは有名な芸術家で \n> 草間彌生 is a famous artist -- (makes sense) \n> 水玉の絵などが有名な芸術家で \n> things like the water drop picture are famous artists -- (does not make\n> sense)\n\nIt sounds to me like it's saying that the picture is an artist. If 芸術家 was\nreplaced by a word for art work (maybe 芸術品?) rather than artist then I'd be\nhappy. As it stands I can't make any sense out of it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T09:36:37.467",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53580",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-03T11:00:50.240",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-01T14:49:00.167",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-は",
"particle-が",
"relative-clauses",
"reading-comprehension"
],
"title": "Undertstanding ８８歳の草間彌生さんは水玉の絵などが有名な芸術家で",
"view_count": 695
} | [
{
"body": "[～ **で** 有名だ is \"to be famous _for_\n～\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/42342/how-to-get-the-right-\nmeaning-of-particles/42345#42345). You can always say 水玉の絵などで有名な芸術家.\n\n> 草間彌生さんは水玉の絵など **で** 有名な芸術家で、世界でも人気があります。\n\nHowever, this sentence:\n\n> 草間彌生さんは水玉の絵など **が** 有名な芸術家で、世界でも人気があります。\n\n...also makes perfect sense, and has almost the same meaning. In this case,\n水玉の絵などが有名な modifies 芸術家 as a relative clause. Its \"base\" sentence would be\nこの芸術家は水玉の絵が有名だ, which is an example of so-called \"double subject\" sentences\nlike ゾウは鼻が長い.\n\nIn other words, 水玉の絵などが有名な芸術家 is structurally similar to 鼻が長いゾウ, ニンジンが好きなウサギ,\n心が美しい人, etc.\n\n**EDIT:** Strictly speaking, 水玉の絵が有名な芸術家 is an artist whose art is famous; the\nartist himself doesn't necessarily have to be famous. For example, you can say\n「彼は花の絵が有名な画家だが、彼自身の名前はあまり知られていない」.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T10:07:49.267",
"id": "53581",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T10:37:11.870",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-01T10:37:11.870",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53580",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "# English\n\nI think the question is very good because I think even native speakers of\nJapanese don't exactly know the difference of subtle nuance between these two\nparticles **が** and **で** and how to use them properly in an actural\nsituation.\n\nNote: If there is a difference in nuance between Japanese and English in the\nfollowing sentences (1) - (4), Japanese takes precedence.\n\n> （１）８８歳{さい}の草間{くさま}彌生{やよい}さんは水玉{みずたま}の絵{え}など **が**\n> 有名{ゆうめい}な芸術{げいじゅつ}家{か}で、世界{せかい}でも人気{にんき}があります。 \n> _Ms. Yayoi Kusama of 88 years old is a Japanese artist whose polka dot\n> paintings and the like are famous, and is popular not only in Japan but also\n> all over the world._\n>\n> （２）８８歳の草間彌生さんは水玉の絵など **で** 有名な芸術家で、世界でも人気があります。 \n> _Ms.Yayoi Kusama of 88 years old is a Japanese artist famous for polka dot\n> paintings and the like, and is popular not only in Japan but also all over\n> the world._\n\nBoth (1) and (2) are correct grammatically and also as Japanese. But you\nshould explain Ms. Kusama by the sentence with (2) instead of (1) because (1)\nis **rude** to her.\n\nI said (1) is correct grammatically and also as Japanese, but you should write\nit correctly in the actual situation too, because she is a famous artist\ninstead of unknown person.\n\nLet me explain the reason by simpifying (1) and (2) into (3) and (4).\n\n> （３）草間｛くさま｝彌生｛やよい｝さんは水玉｛みずたま｝の絵｛え｝ **が** 有名｛ゆうめい｝な芸術｛げいじゅつ｝家｛か｝です。 \n> _Ms. Yayoi Kusama is an artist whose polka dot paintings are famous_.\n>\n> （４）草間彌生さんは水玉の絵 **で** 有名な芸術家です。 \n> _Ms. Yayoi Kusama is an artist famous for polka dot paintings_.\n\nIn Japanese there is a big difference between (3) and (4), though I don't know\nwhether it is well described in my poor attempt of my English translations. In\n(3), the famous one is \"paintings of polka dots\", while in (4), the famous one\nis \"Ms. Kusama\" herself.\n\nMs. Kusama is a famous painter and/or artist in reality.\n\nThe sentence with (4) briefly shows that she is a famous artist, while (3)\ndoesn't describe whether she is famous or not. \nAs for (3), it is well written in the following explanation in the naroto's\nanswer.\n\n> **EDIT** : Strictly speaking, 水玉の絵が有名な芸術家 is an artist whose art is famous;\n> the artist himself doesn't necessarily have to be famous. For example, you\n> can say 「 **彼は花の絵が有名な画家だが、彼自身の名前はあまり知られていない** 」.\n\nEnglish translation is my attempt.\n\n> **彼｛かれ｝は花｛はな｝の絵｛え｝が有名｛ゆうめい｝な画家｛がか｝だが、彼｛かれ｝自身｛じしん｝の名前｛なまえ｝はあまり知｛し｝られていない** 。 \n> _He is a painter whose paintings of flowers are famous, but his own name is\n> not well known_.\n\nHow do you think Ms. Kazama feels if she is introduced by the words with the\nnuance like what is used for the not well-known painter?\n\nIf you don't understand the nuance of the particles of **が** and **で** in\nthose above examples, I think that most Japanese people can be satisfied with\nthe following explantion using examples (5) and (6).\n\n> （５）タイガーウッズは数々｛かずかず｝の記録｛きろく｝ **が** 有名｛ゆうめい｝なゴルファーです。 \n> _Tiger Woods is a golfer whose record-breaking performance is famous_.\n>\n> （６）タイガーウッズは数々の記録 **で** 有名なゴルファーです。 \n> _Tiger Woods is a golfer famous for his record-breaking performance_.\n\nWhen most Japanese people read (5), they will feel somewhat strange for a\nmoment. And they are not satisfied with it as an introduction of Tiger Woods.\nTiger Woods has a lot of elements other than the \"record-breaking performance\"\nthat made him famous. \nHowever, there is no room to introduce other elements in (5), which focuses\nonly on the theme that \"his record-breaking performance is famous\". Speaking\nof golfers with \"excellent performance\", you can mention players like A, B and\nC, but the topic will branches off from Tiger Woods himself.\n\nOn the other hand, if you read (6), everyone will be satisfied. \nThis sentence focuses on the theme that Tiger is famous. If you want to spice\nup the story, you can add various topics based on Tiger Woods.\n\nFinally, (2) is a sentence that both \"Ms. Kusama\" and \"her works\" can be\ncorrectly introduced to be famous, while if you use (1) to introduce her, it\nbecomes rude to her.\n\n# 日本語\n\n> （１）８８歳の草間彌生さんは水玉の絵など **が** 有名な芸術家で、世界でも人気があります。 _Ms. Yayoi Kusama of 88\n> years old is a Japanese artist whose polka dot paintings and the like are\n> famous, and is popular not only in Japan but also all over the world_.\n\n一般に、この「が」は間違いなく添削されて（２）のようになります。\n\n> （２）８８歳の草間彌生さんは水玉の絵など **で** 有名な芸術家で、世界でも人気があります。 \n> _Ms. Yayoi Kusama of 88 years old is a Japanese artist famous for polka dot\n> paintings and the like, and is popular not only in Japan but also all over\n> the world_.\n\n仮に、誰もが知っている「水玉の絵」が世界でも人気があるが、画家である８８歳の草間彌生さんは有名でないということを想定した文を書く必要がある場合でも、「てにをは」で微妙なニュアンスを伝えられるかもしれないというようなあやふやな選択をせず、次のようにきちんと書くのが普通で間違いも少ないと思います。\n\n> （３）この水玉の絵 **は** 有名で、世界でも人気がありますが、その画家の草間彌生さんは余り知られておりません。因みに８８歳でなお現役です。\n\n「水玉の絵など」の「など」は指すものが不明確ですので「有名」の対象になりませんので、（３）では書き表しません。また、草間彌生さんが有名でないので、この文章とともに参考になる水玉の絵を写真で掲載する必要があります。従って、写真なしの（３）も現実には存在しない文章です。\n\n結論として、（１）ではなく（２）を使うと覚えてください。\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT\n\n> （１）８８歳の草間彌生さんは水玉の絵など **が** 有名な芸術家で、世界でも人気があります。 _Ms. Yayoi Kusama of 88\n> years old is a Japanese artist whose polka dot paintings and the like are\n> famous, and is popular not only in Japan but also all over the world_.\n>\n> （２）８８歳の草間彌生さんは水玉の絵など **で** 有名な芸術家で、世界でも人気があります。 \n> _Ms. Yayoi Kusama of 88 years old is a Japanese artist famous for polka dot\n> paintings and the like, and is popular not only in Japan but also all over\n> the world_.\n\n（１）と（２）はともに文法的にも、日本語としても正しいです。 それでは、私が最初の回答で（１）ではなく（２）とするべきだとした理由を含めて説明します。\n\n桜で有名な〇〇公園の最寄りの駅で尋ねられました。\n\n> （３）「桜 **で** 有名なところはどこですか？」 \n> （４）「桜 **が** 有名なところはどこですか？」\n\n（３）の答えは「〇〇公園です。」 \n（４）の答えは「（４-１）そこの角を曲がって坂を登ったところです/ところにあります。」あるいは、「（４-２）〇〇公園ですね。そこの角を曲がって坂を登ったところにあります。」\n\n（３）は明らかに公園の名前を尋ねています。 \n（４）の場合、公園の名前よりも、その公園の所在を訪ねている雰囲気があります。質問者の意図が正確にわからない場合は（４-２）が親切な回答ですが、取りあえずは（４-１）でも良いでしょう。駅前で（４）として具体的に尋ねられているときに、「〇〇公園です。」だけでは間違いである可能性が高いと思います。きっと「いやいや公園の名前ではありません。どういったら良いか分からないのです。」あるいは「〇〇公園って言うのですね。ありがとうございます。それはこの坂の上ですか？」のような会話が続くでしょう。\n\n（３）は公園が有名なのです。 \n（４）は桜が有名なのです。\n\n（３）の場合は「桜」で有名ですが、「西郷さんの銅像」でも有名な場合ですと、（３）は、「桜でも有名なところはどこですか？」となり、「公園」を中心にいろいろな修飾語が考えられます。\n（４）の場合は、「桜」が有名な中心ですので、「桜が有名なのは〇〇公園以外に△△公園もあります。」という具合に、文章の展開方向が（３）とは異なる可能性が大いにあります。\n\n（３）と（４）の本質的な違いの内、（３）については、nartoさんが答えの中で次のように上手に説明しています。\n\n> EDIT: Strictly speaking, 水玉の絵が有名な芸術家 is an artist whose art is famous; the\n> artist himself doesn't necessarily have to be famous. For example, you can\n> say 「彼は花の絵が有名な画家だが、彼自身の名前はあまり知られていない」.\n\nところで、最初の「草間彌生さんの水玉の絵」に戻りましょう。分かりやすくするために、有名人を登場させます。\n\n> （５）タイガーウッズは数々の記録 **が** 有名なゴルファーです。 \n> （６）タイガーウッズは数々の記録 **で** 有名なゴルファーです。\n\n（５）の文を読んだとき、多くの人が多分「？」、「何か変だな」と一瞬感じるのではないかと思います。そして、これではタイガーウッズを紹介する文としてはまずいなと感じるはずです。何故でしょうか。 \n（５）の表現では、タイガーよりも、「数々の記録が有名」という文言が表にでてきます。本当は、タイガーを世界的に有名にした理由は、「数々の記録」もさることながら、それ以外に沢山あるからです。しかし、（５）の表現では、「数々の記録が有名」と言い切っていますので、タイガーに関してそれ以外の事実や出来事などを追加する余地がないからです。何か追加したくてもう一度（５）を見ますと、「数々の記録で有名なゴルファー」というところに考えが行きます。タイガーに限らず世界的に有名なプレーヤーを考えると、何人かの名前を挙げることはできますし、日本でも松山英樹や石川遼の名前が浮かびます。しかし、それでは、タイガーを有名だと讃｛たた｝えたい話題からは逸｛そ｝れていってしまいます。\n\n一方、（６）の文を見ると、タイガーを紹介する文としては問題ないと皆は感じるはずです。 \nそれは、この文が「タイガーウッズそのものが有名である」と焦点を定めて、有名になった事例を紹介しているからです。この方法なら、いくらでも彼を讃える話題を追加できます。\n\n「が」と「で」の違いだけで、（６）ではタイガーが主役、（５）ではタイガーでなく「数々の記録」が主役になってしまい、これほどまでニュアンスの違いを生じるのです。\n\nさて、草間彌生さんの水玉の絵の記述に本当に戻ります。「が」を使った（１）は基本的に「水玉の絵」が有名だと述べております。確かに草間彌生さんの絵は大変有名です。お名前はタイガーウッズほと有名ではないのかも知れませんが、（２）ではなく（１）の文章を使った（公表する）原稿の場合、「草間さんのことはあまり知られていないが絵は有名である」との印象が残るので、編集上は推敲が入り「が」を「で」に修正するのが穏当です。（１）では、草間さんに失礼になる可能性があるからです。\n\n本当に有名でない人や場所である場合、そして人や場所に興味がない場合は「〇〇が有名」で全く問題ありませんが、それ以外の場合は「〇〇で有名」の表現が穏当です。\n\nnarutoさんが挙げた以下の例はいずれもゴシック体の部分が有名なので、「フリーキックが有名なロベルト・カルロス」を除いて「が」で問題ありません。（５）に近いニュアンスを持つ「カルロス」の文では編集で修正が入りそうです。 \n「 **糸桜** が有名な近衛家の屋敷は…」 \n「 **アンズ** が有名なところってどこですか？」 \n「 **常夏プール** が有名なサマーランド」 \n「 **紅葉** が有名なお寺で…」 \n「フリーキックが有名なロベルト・カルロス」 \n「 **ヨセミテの絵** が有名な画家の名前が思い出せません」",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T13:45:23.750",
"id": "53584",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-03T11:00:50.240",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53580",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 53580 | 53581 | 53581 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53587",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I learned that the particle に is meant to mark the place in a phrase, similar\nto _in, on and at_. But today I was reading Yotsubato and I came across this\nphrase **元気にしてたか** and obviously this rule doesn't apply to 元気.\n\nIt didn't stop me to understand the conversation (at least I think so), I\npresume it meant something like:\n\n> How you doing? Good?\n\nAm I wrong in this? Why use the particle に in this phrase?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T13:20:12.923",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53583",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T21:52:14.780",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25472",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "Why use に in 元気にしてたか？",
"view_count": 462
} | [
{
"body": "元気 is a na adjective\n\nTo describe the verb していた（する), we add に to make 元気an adverb.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T21:52:14.780",
"id": "53587",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-01T21:52:14.780",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25999",
"parent_id": "53583",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53583 | 53587 | 53587 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've come across something and always wondered about it, what is the meaning\nof\n\n> \"なんてこったいこりゃいったい\"?\n\nI assume (but I'm not quite sure) that it's this: to show disbelief or\nsurprise\n\nAlso, is this something actually used? (and if it is, in what context?)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T20:58:19.547",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53586",
"last_activity_date": "2020-12-21T22:04:28.460",
"last_edit_date": "2020-12-21T22:04:28.460",
"last_editor_user_id": "29327",
"owner_user_id": "25998",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"slang"
],
"title": "\"なんてこったい こりゃいったい\" is this some kind of slang?",
"view_count": 1257
} | [
{
"body": "Yes it is, but there your text has two parts:\n\n> なんてこった （い）\n\nwhich is an exclamation that roughly translates to \"oh no\", and\n\n> こりゃいったい\n\nwhich means \"just what (is this)...\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T01:18:36.990",
"id": "53590",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T01:18:36.990",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53586",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "> なんてこったいこりゃいったい\n\nis a colloquial, slurred pronunciation of 「なんてことだい、これはいったい」\n\nwhich is a reversed version (倒置) of 「これはいったい、なんてことだい？」\n\nTo break it down...\n\nなんて -- pronoun [何]{なん} + case particle (っ)て; ≂「なんという」 \nこったい -- noun こと (事) + copula だ + sentence ending particle い (≂よ) \nこりゃ -- pronoun これ + particle は \nいったい -- noun 一体 (used for emphasis in questions; \"on earth\")\n\nSo it _literally_ means... \"What kind of thing on earth is this?\" \"What on\nearth is the matter?\" -- used as an exclamation, like \"What the hell is this?\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T02:11:19.033",
"id": "53593",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T02:21:20.243",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-02T02:21:20.243",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "53586",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 53586 | null | 53593 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "A Japanese Drum (Taiko) band has a motto:\n\n> 希望し 努力し 感謝して生きる\n\nThe band members have intellectual disabilities but strived to become\nprofessional drummers. In a few weeks, they are going to France to play at a\ncultural event for the disabled. They need to bring a business card with this\nmotto in English. I don't know how to translate it other than \"We live our\nlives by hoping, striving and appreciating\" or \"Our life is to hope, strive\nand appreciate.\" Please help to do it better. Thank you.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-01T23:51:18.063",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53588",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-03T23:19:08.197",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-02T01:28:45.447",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "26000",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"quotes"
],
"title": "How to translate \"希望し 努力し 感謝して生きる\" into English?",
"view_count": 131
} | [
{
"body": "I think just something like:\n\n> HOPE \n> EFFORT \n> GRATITUDE\n\nfeels more like a club motto to me in English and captures the spirit of the\noriginal. If you want it to read more like prose:\n\n> Living life with hope, effort, and gratitude\n\ncould work. It really reads better in English with the する verbs rendered as\nnouns rather than verbs IMO.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T00:41:51.940",
"id": "53589",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T01:29:26.657",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-02T01:29:26.657",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25413",
"parent_id": "53588",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53588 | null | 53589 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the sentence,\n\n> これまでの借金を全て帳消し **に出来る** …！！\n\nWhat is に doing here ?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T12:24:15.690",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53596",
"last_activity_date": "2020-12-22T23:07:34.627",
"last_edit_date": "2020-12-22T23:07:34.627",
"last_editor_user_id": "37097",
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Meaning of に in ～にできる",
"view_count": 1445
} | [
{
"body": "帳消し is a noun referring to \"the state of being cancelled out/wiped clean\", and\nits verbal form 帳消しする is not particularly common. The usual verbal expression\nfor \"to wipe the slate clean\" is 帳消しにする, and 帳消しにできる is simply the potential\nequivalent.\n\nIn essence, this is the basic usage of XをYにする to mean \"to make X Y\", which\nitself is essentially a transitive equivalent of XがYになる \"X becomes Y\". So for\ninstance:\n\n> ドラえもんが次の大統領になる。 \n> Doraemon will become the next President.\n>\n> ドラえもんを次の大統領にする。 \n> I will make Doraemon the next President.\n>\n> ドラえもんを次の大統領にできる。 \n> I can make Doraemon the next President.\n\n帳消し follows the same basic pattern, with 帳消し as the indirect object Y:\n\n> 借金が帳消しになる。 \n> The debts will be wiped clean.\n>\n> 借金を帳消しにする。 \n> I will wipe the debts clean.\n>\n> 借金を帳消しにできる。 \n> I can wipe the debts clean.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T12:54:47.827",
"id": "53597",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T12:54:47.827",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25107",
"parent_id": "53596",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 53596 | null | 53597 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "言い訳が また上手くなって **く** 理由の\n\nIs **く** there to connect the sentence? I'm probably overthinking this but it\nbugs me not understanding the purpose of this **く**.\n\nBy the way, this is a lyric from this song;\n<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EejcsaMDduQ>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T17:03:02.423",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53599",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T20:30:05.637",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-02T20:30:05.637",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "26012",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"contractions"
],
"title": "また上手くなってく 理由の Why is there a く after なって?",
"view_count": 152
} | [
{
"body": "~~Without listening to the song, this is simply changing うまい (上手い) into\n\"adverbial\" use to connect with なる (as all イ-\"adjectives\" do).\n\n> うまい → うま **く** なる~~\n\nOops, wrong く. This is just the contracted form of なって **いく** , which is\nmodifying 理由.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T17:15:44.557",
"id": "53600",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-02T17:21:49.547",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-02T17:21:49.547",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "53599",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53599 | null | 53600 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Apart from the standard じゃね, じゃまた and それじゃ (In the \"I'm heading off\" sense)\nfor the different variations of goodbye, and じゃ as an informal inflection of\nでは for 'is not' for じゃない, I have no idea how to use it.\n\nI've seen it in some song lyrics like 「見ているだけじゃ始まらない」, 「足踏みしてるだけじゃ進まない」 and\n「それだけじゃお腹がすくわ」.\n\nI notice it seems like a conditional form. Why can't it be \"Miteiru dake nara\nhajimaranai?\" and \"Ashibumishiteru nara susumanai\"?\n\nI also noticed all of them have a dake preceding the じゃ. So is this a special\ngrammar pattern of \"だけじゃ\"? I almost thought that the following verb is always\nnegative like the classic \"Ja Nai\" except for the fact that this set of lyrics\n「それだけじゃお腹がすくわ」 breaks that theory of mine.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-02T20:21:31.597",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53601",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-24T07:14:54.033",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-03T18:40:26.450",
"last_editor_user_id": "22417",
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "How to use じゃ in grammar?",
"view_count": 7566
} | [
{
"body": "Basically, じゃ is the informal form of では. It can be used in two ways:\n\n 1. で+は (locative particle + topic particle) to indicate the location as the topic of the sentence. \n\n> * ここ **では** VRゲームができます。(VR Games can be played HERE.)\n>\n\n 2. では (conjunction) \"then\"\n\n> * 見ているだけ **じゃ** 始まらない。 (Just looking then nothing will start.)\n>\n\nだけ means \"just\", may imply \"not enough\" in some contexts.\n\n[Reference 1](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%98%E3%82%83#Japanese),\n[Reference 2](https://www.alc.co.jp/jpn/article/faq/03/89.html)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-10T08:24:40.200",
"id": "54404",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T03:35:57.647",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-25T03:35:57.647",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "26438",
"parent_id": "53601",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 53601 | null | 54404 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53603",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "According to the site\n[RomanjiDesu](http://www.romajidesu.com/dictionary/meaning-\nof-%E6%8B%9D%E6%89%BF.html):\n\n> 拝承 means hearing; understanding; learning; being informed\n\nAnother definition from\n[goo辞書](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/173799/meaning/m0u/):\n\n> 聞くこと、承知することをへりくだっていう語。謹んで承ること。「お申し越しの御趣旨拝承いたしました」\n\nThe latter definition is almost the same as the first definition. But it has\nan example. I tried to translate the example using google translate to try to\nunderstand how 拝承 is translated in English when incorporated in a complete\nsentence.\n\nBelow is the Google Translate translation:\n\n> 「お申し越しの御趣旨拝承いたしました」= I wish you the intention of the application.\n\n> お申し越しの御趣旨 = Purpose of application\n\nHonestly, I'm not confident with my own translation. But my own translation is\n\"I was informed of the purpose of the translation.\"\n\nIs my understanding correct?\n\nCan you give me advice on how to interpret the word 拝承 when used in a\nsentence?\n\nThank you.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T00:17:24.400",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53602",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-03T15:47:31.127",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-03T15:47:31.127",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "20375",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words",
"formality"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of 拝承致します?",
"view_count": 451
} | [
{
"body": "From what I understand, 拝承致しました is rarer (and thus probably politer) than\n承知致しました/了解致しました, which is politer than 分かりました. The basic meaning is the same\n-- \"we heard\" or \"okay\".\n\n> お申し越しの御趣旨拝承いたしました ≒ 連絡の趣旨を了解しました。\n\nSome people use 拝承致しました all the time in business emails, whereas I usually use\n了解致しました in business emails. Probably it depends on the culture of each\ncompany.\n\nBy the way,\n[お申し越し](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/218514/meaning/m0u/%E7%94%B3%E3%81%97%E8%B6%8A%E3%81%97/)\nis very rare and Google seems to be confused with this word. I didn't know\nthis word and initially thought お申し越し was a typo for お申し込み (\"application\"). So\nGoogle was somehow reasonable in this case :D",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T03:18:31.600",
"id": "53603",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-03T04:45:52.887",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-03T04:45:52.887",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53602",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53602 | 53603 | 53603 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53605",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've looked up a lot on how to use the feminine 終助詞 \"-わ\", but I still don't\nunderstand concretely grammatically where it is ok and where it is incorrect.\nI do not use it for multiple reasons, but I want to explain to someone how to\ngrammatically use it properly.\n\nMost often the person says \"-くださいわ\" which is incorrect. But why is it\nincorrect?\n\nI've read the imabi page and the jp wikipedia page and they didn't help much.\nIs the -よ in \"待ってくれよ\" (like in a pleading tone) different from -よ in\n\"美味しいですよ\"?\n\n[わ usage at the end of\nsentences](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/244/%E3%82%8F-usage-\nat-the-end-of-sentences) I've read this, but it is different because it asks\nabout the meaning of its usage rather than the grammatical explanation of how\nit is used.\n\nPlease help!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T04:58:33.860",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53604",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-03T07:08:07.810",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-03T06:36:27.170",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20290",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"dialects",
"role-language",
"particle-わ"
],
"title": "How to use 終助詞 -わ",
"view_count": 1414
} | [
{
"body": "Grammatically, わ always follows the dictionary form of a verb/i-adjective or\nだ. It never follows the imperative form and ～ください/～ちょうだい. (～ください is\netymologically an imperative form.) As a feminine sentence-end particle, わ is\nused to state a fact or her own feeling with mild emphasis. Unlike わ, よ safely\nfollows an imperative form.\n\n> * 煙草をやめるわ。 I will quit smoking.\n> * 煙草をやめたわ。 I quit smoking. (past tense)\n> * 煙草をやめたいわ。 I want to quit smoking.\n> * 煙草をやめて欲しいわ。 I want you to quit smoking.\n> * [*]煙草をやめてくださいわ。: (incorrect; やめてくださいよ is okay)\n> * [*]煙草をやめろわ。: (incorrect; やめろよ is okay)\n> * 鳥だわ。: (Oh,) It's a bird.\n> * 綺麗だわ。: It's beautiful.\n>\n\nAlso note that this type of feminine わ is becoming rare in real conversations\nin standard Japanese, although it's still common in fiction. わ is also very\ncommon in Kansai speech and other western dialects regardless of sex.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T05:32:01.473",
"id": "53605",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-03T07:08:07.810",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-03T07:08:07.810",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53604",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53604 | 53605 | 53605 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53607",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Context: Two girls are talking, one compliments the other about being able to\nkill a bear. The complimented one answers with:\n\n> \"「まああたしも今、心身共に鍛え直している最中だからね、あれぐらいはできないと」\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T09:06:38.140",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53606",
"last_activity_date": "2021-07-05T05:00:52.640",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18134",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "Purpose of ができないと in this sentence \"「まああたしも今、心身共に鍛え直している最中だからね、あれぐらいはできないと」\"",
"view_count": 105
} | [
{
"body": "There's a hidden incomplete expression to that,\n\n> あれぐらいはできないと（ダメですね）\n\nmeaning that it will be bad if the person was unable to do that much. It just\nexpresses a possible causality (i.e. if you can't do it, something will\nhappen).\n\nIn the same vein, think of it as like this:\n\n> ここまで運動したんだから、クマくらい倒せないとダメですよ。 \n> After doing all that exercise, I'd die if I can't even beat a bear.\n\nOr in a more practical situation,\n\n> 宿題を今すぐやらないとお母さんに怒られますよ。 \n> If you don't finish your homework now, mom will scold you.\n\nP.S. I find the whole context and conversation amusing.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T09:28:20.923",
"id": "53607",
"last_activity_date": "2021-07-05T05:00:52.640",
"last_edit_date": "2021-07-05T05:00:52.640",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53606",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53606 | 53607 | 53607 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53609",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The sentence is an example taken from the grammar section of my textbook.\n先生が手紙を書いてくださったおかげで、大きい病院で **研修を受けられる** ことになった。 => \"Because the teacher kindly\nsent a letter, it happened that I could absolve an internship in a big\nhospital.\"\n\nIn the section where this sentence comes from \"...おかげで/おかげだ\" is explained and\nhow it puts the positive outcome X into causal relation to Y. However, this\nshall not be the focus of the question here. What confuses me here is the use\nof the bold part 研修を受けられる.\n\nJust before I also learnt about various new applications for the passive mood\nin japanese. I must say now that this part wasn't very well done by my\ntextbook since it felt like it would mix up some grammatical categories or at\nleast it didn't explain its point well. In this section, I was taught two new\nways of using the passive mood:\n\n1) indirect passive (intransitive verbs) 2) indirect passive (transitive\nverbs)\n\nThese are the headings for these two subsections used in the textbook. Now, I\ndidn't really understand these two subsections. One reason therefore is that\nmy textbook showed me examples for\n\n1) indirect passive (intransitive verbs)\n\nwith transitive verbs Oo Here's another example: 部長は私に仕事を頼んだ。-> 私は部長に仕事を頼まれた。\nAccording to jisho, 頼む is a transtive verb. Did I understand something wrong\nabout the category \"intransitive\" here? Do I need to understand this category\nin a different way here?\n\nFurthermore, the translations for these examples didn't make any effort to\ntransport the semantical difference between a \"normal\" sentence and these\npassive constructions. So, while I can definitely still translate and\nunderstand such sentences, the nuances brought in by these constructions are\nlost to me :(",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T10:11:02.220",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53608",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-03T10:29:24.507",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-03T10:29:24.507",
"last_editor_user_id": "20172",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How does the passive function in this sentence",
"view_count": 153
} | [
{
"body": "This 受けられる is the [potential\nform](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/potential) of 受ける. Passive\nvoice is not used in this sentence.\n\nれる/られる has **four** major meanings. See: [Passive usage of 「済まされない」 in\nsentences](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/14065/5010)\n\nRegarding the usage of を, 研修が受けられる and 研修を受けられる are interchangeable here. See:\n[The difference between が and を with the potential form of a\nverb.](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/609/5010)\n\n(This potential れる/られる is a more basic topic than ～おかげで, so I personally don't\nthink the textbook is bad.)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T10:19:45.580",
"id": "53609",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-03T10:24:44.147",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-03T10:24:44.147",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53608",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53608 | 53609 | 53609 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53611",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "資料が届いたようですので、事務室に取りに行ってまいります。 \"Because it looks like the documents have\narrived, I go to the office to fetch them.\"\n\nThis sentence is an example from the grammar section of my textbook. I've\nencountered this 行ってまいります only once before (at least as far as I can\nremember), and I couldn't beat much sense into it. When I search for まいります/まいる\non jisho, I find nothing. I can search for 行ってまいります and find this\n<http://jisho.org/search/ittemairimasu> . But since the result is a set phrase\nwhich has a meaning which doesn't even apply in this case here, it doesn't\nhelp much.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T10:38:00.510",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53610",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T21:41:52.563",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words"
],
"title": "What is this 行ってまいります",
"view_count": 2914
} | [
{
"body": "参る【まいる】 is a **humble** equivalent of 来る and 行く. If you don't know about\nhumble expressions (or _keigo_ in general), refer to your textbook about\nhonorific/humble expressions. 参る is one of the most basic humble verbs. You\ncan find an online article, for example\n[this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific_speech_in_Japanese#Humble_language).\n\nSo 行ってまいります is 行ってきます said in a humble manner.\n\nIf 行ってきます still makes little sense to you, this きます is a subsidiary verb, a\nverb that can follow the te-form of another verb for special purposes. See:\n[What is a subsidiary verb?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/18952/5010)\nand [Meaning of くる in\n鼻の奥まで染みこんでくる](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/33624/5010)\n\nSo 行ってきます/行ってまいります implies you will go to somewhere, do something there, and\n_return here_.\n\n> ロンドンに行ってきました。 \n> ロンドンに行ってまいりました。(humble) \n> I went to London (and already returned from London).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T11:10:06.647",
"id": "53611",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-03T15:11:27.220",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-03T15:11:27.220",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53610",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "From what i always hear from animes, they usually say 行ってまりますor 行って来ますwhen\nthey leave their house (whether going to school or just casually going out)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T16:06:49.070",
"id": "53634",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T16:06:49.070",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26029",
"parent_id": "53610",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "As @naruto says, 参る is the humble form of 行く and 来る. Aside from being a set\nphrase, it is needed in this sentence to account for the fact that the English\nphrase has an implicit corollary. If you tried to translate it word-for-word\n(keeping the same level of formality), you would end up with:\n\n> 「資料が届いたようですので、事務室に取りに ~~行きます~~ 参ります」\n>\n> \"Because the documents seem to have arrived, I will go to the office to grab\n> them (it's anyone's guess what I will do after that)\"\n\nUsing 「行って来ます」→「行って参ります」instead conveys the implicit meaning of the English\nthat you are going there for that purpose, and are (probably) going to come\nback (with the documents).\n\nYou could probably also say something like:\n\n> 事務室に取りに行って、部長に報告を届けて、戻ります\n>\n> \"...go to the office to pick them up, deliver the report to the division\n> leader, and return\"\n\nWhen you separate the going from the returning (and are unable to say 行ってきます),\nyou end up having to use the verb 戻{もど}る, which means \"to return\" without the\nrestrictions of 帰{かえ}る \"to return (home, or to a place where you feel you\nbelong).\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T21:41:52.563",
"id": "53637",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T21:41:52.563",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "21802",
"parent_id": "53610",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 53610 | 53611 | 53611 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53620",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Can someone translate the English phrase, 'the will to live' into accurate\nJapanese? Is there an equivalent phrase in Japanese?\n\nI've tried to translate each component separately: \nComponent 1 = the will = ishi \nComponent 2 = to live/to survive = seizon\n\nSo it becomes 'seizon no ishi'?\n\nCan someone tell me if this is accurate? Or better yet, just give me the best\ntranslation you can come up with.\n\nOh, and it would be extremely helpful if someone can give me romaji version of\nthe translation.\n\nThank you so much.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T13:40:47.790",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53612",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T06:22:18.380",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-03T15:19:43.340",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "26017",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"english-to-japanese"
],
"title": "How do you say 'the will to live' in Japanese?",
"view_count": 1647
} | [
{
"body": "How about the interpretation in this text for \" **a will to live** \"? \nIt says that \" **a will to live** or **the will to live** \" is \"生きる意欲 _**ikiru\niyoku**_ \"\n\n> ### A Will to Live\n>\n> A: My aunt has joined a climbers' group. She is very strong-willed. She\n> wants to climb the Matterhorn with the team.\n>\n> B: Really? But I heard she had lung cancer. When did she leave the hospice?\n>\n> A: She didn't. She hasn't recovered from the disease. It's supposed to be\n> terminal, but the urge to climb the mountain has given her **the will to\n> live**. This treatment is called \"natural therapy\"; no drugs or operations.\n\nSource: 旺文社「英単語・熟語ダイアローグ１２００三訂版」",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T05:31:04.567",
"id": "53620",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T06:22:18.380",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53612",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53612 | 53620 | 53620 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Referring to throwing away old clothes to improve your life:\n\n> この中のいくらかを捨てて、スッキリしてみよう **かな** 。 \n> Maybe I will throw some of them away and try feeling refreshed.\n\nMy translation is a bit silly.\n\n1) Does かな act on the whole sentence or just the second clause, i.e does she\nwonder if throwing clothes away will make her feel refreshed or does she\nwonder about the act of throwing away the clothes too?\n\n2) I don't really understand してみよう here. Presumably this is the volitional\nform of してみる (I will try to doing ...). But, you don't normally 'try to feel\nrefreshed'; it sounds weird.\n\nI'd like to move てみよう to the end of the first clause so that I get \"I will try\nthrowing some of them away, and maybe I'll feel refreshed\", but then I don't\nthink you can add a second clause, because 捨ててみよう can't be turned into て形 can\nit? Is that why it all has to move to the end of the second clause?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-03T21:36:18.183",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53613",
"last_activity_date": "2023-05-20T02:08:05.943",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-03T22:10:31.000",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"sentence-final-particles",
"volitional-form",
"modality"
],
"title": "Position of volitional form and scope of かな ending",
"view_count": 193
} | [
{
"body": "The question you are asking about is only applicable to the English\ntranslation and the original Japanese sentence is free from that doubt because\nthe latter has only one predicate that can form a sentence (i.e みよう) while the\nformer has two of \"throw away\" and \"feel refreshed\".\n\n1) You can't interpret it as \"she wonder if throwing away clothes makes her\nfeel refreshed\" because してみよう stands for her own will, which is questioned\nwith か（な）. In other words, if it was 捨ててスッキリするかな, that interpretation would be\npossible too.\n\n2) Compared with simple してみる, してみよう is more or less motivating yourself to do\nit when it feels reluctant. So, してみようかな sounds a little more uncertain if the\nspeaker does it.\n\np.s I find \"この中のいくらかを\" is a way of thinking that is unique to people whose\nlanguage is developed in the field of number.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T02:14:17.903",
"id": "53615",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T02:14:17.903",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "53613",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 53613 | null | 53615 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53619",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "My understanding is that Japanese was traditionally written in a top-to-\nbottom, right-to-left order (縦書き{たてがき}), and that modern Japanese is sometimes\nwritten in a horizontal left-to-right, top-to-bottom order (横書き{よこがき})\n[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_writing_system#Direction_of_writing).\nBut in the following painting by 白隠慧鶴{はくいんえかく}, the calligraphy appears to be\nin a top-to-bottom, left-to-right order. According to the caption on the\n[Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuin_Ekaku), the calligraphy\nreads `直指人心見性成佛{じきしにんしんけんしょうじょうぶつ}`.\n\n\n\nIs top-to-bottom, left-to-right writing order common in Japanese calligraphy?\nAre there rules governing when you would write in this order, or is it just\nbased on the artist's preference? Or maybe it's a Zen koan, and I'm supposed\nto empty my mind and realize that the order doesn't matter?\n\nPlease enlighten me!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T02:17:18.963",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53616",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T05:49:59.630",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26019",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"orthography",
"calligraphy"
],
"title": "Is top-to-bottom, left-to-right writing order common in Japanese calligraphy?",
"view_count": 1182
} | [
{
"body": "East Asian languages were traditionally written in the top-bottom, right-left\norder as [explained\nhere](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Horizontal_and_vertical_writing_in_East_Asian_scripts)\nand\n[here](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Japanese_writing_system#/Direction_of_writing).\nThe reason it's so common in calligraphy is because it allowed them to write\nthe characters with their brush in the right hand and unroll scrolls with\ntheir left as they proceeded.\n\nThe current horizontal system only came into being during the Meiji Era when\nWestern influences started coming into common usage. By then more people wrote\non pieces of paper rather than scrolls.\n\nAs for rules, [there really aren't\nany](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Japanese/Japanese_writing_system#Vertical_and_horizontal_writing.2C_and_page_order).\nIts usage usually depends on the medium, genre, and subject and\npracticality... many aesthetic scrolls are hanged vertically and thus their\ncharacters are written accordingly. Other than that, you can commonly find\nvertical writing in artistic media (essays, novels, poetry), or reading\nmaterial (newspapers, comics, and Japanese dictionaries) where space can be at\na premium.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T03:31:40.280",
"id": "53617",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T03:46:15.293",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-04T03:46:15.293",
"last_editor_user_id": "25446",
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53616",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "> My understanding is that Japanese was traditionally written in a top-to-\n> bottom, right-to-left order (縦書｛たてがき｝).\n\nYour understanding is perfectly correct.\n\nIt seems to be based on the preference of the author aimed at aesthetic\neffect. However, this work of 掛{か}け軸｛じく｝ _a hanging scroll_ is made of not\nonly the characters of 直指人心見性成佛 but also the portrait of 達磨{だるま} _Dharma_ at\nthe same time, so it should be understood as the aesthetic effect of the\nauthor who considered the balance between the portrait and the arrangement of\nthe characters as a whole.\n\nAs for the order of reading the characters, it seems that no mistake would\nhappen because of the amount/density of black ink and the location of the\nauthor's 落款｛らっかん｝印｛いん｝ _the author's seal_ corresponding to his autograph.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T04:06:23.113",
"id": "53618",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T04:06:23.113",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53616",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "This text is written left-to-right **because the person in the picture is\nfacing to the left**. There was a rule that when you put some text (chinese\npoem, haiku, etc.) in a portrait, the first line must be determined by the\norientation of the face. When the person was facing to the left, the text had\nto be written from left to right. Some sources say this rule was most\nprevalent in the Muromachi period.\n\n> ###\n> [先史時代の右・左](https://www.psych.or.jp/publication/world_pdf/73/73-25-26.pdf)\n> (PDF)\n>\n>\n> 日本では，基本的に右上から始まる縦書きであったが，肖像画の画賛については描かれた人物の顔の向いているほうが先頭行になる，つまり書かれた人物の顔が左向きであれば左から右へ書いていくという規則が存在していた（屋名池,2006）。\n>\n> ### [書字方向― 縦書き・横書き](http://www.chikyukotobamura.org/muse/wr_column_3.html)\n>\n> 左図は，第四代「足利義持像」（右，1414 年賛），第六代「足利義教像」（左，15\n> 世紀後半）の肖像がであるが，違いは人物の向きだけではなく，上部に禅僧の賛があるが，これが逆方向に行移りしてゆくのである。\n> 賛の行の進行方向は，実は人物の顔の向きによって決まっている。この当時，「画賛は描かれた人物の顔の向いている方が先頭行になる」（\n> 顔が左向き：左から右へ読んでゆく，顔が右向き：右から左へ読んで行く）という規則が存在していた。\n\nMost of Ekaku's works available online seem to follow this rule, although\nthere are exceptions.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T05:16:41.013",
"id": "53619",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T05:49:59.630",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53616",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
}
]
| 53616 | 53619 | 53619 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53628",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've found \"might/perhaps\" explanation on stack, and it fitted this sentence:\n\n> 「初めはその指輪も含めて、自虐の趣味があるのではないかと思っていたが……」\n\nBut this explanation doesn't work on this sentence:\n\n> 血が滲む「のではないかという」くらい強く握り締めた拳 .\n\nI was told that the sentence above has the same meaning as:\n\n> 「まるで」血が滲む「ような」くらい強く握り締めた拳\n\nSo what does のではないか actually mean?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T09:08:44.760",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53621",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T14:49:08.030",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-04T10:56:32.703",
"last_editor_user_id": "18134",
"owner_user_id": "18134",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What does 「のではないか」really mean in \"血が滲む「のではないかという」くらい強く握り締めた拳 \"",
"view_count": 1261
} | [
{
"body": "> (1) 血が滲む「のではないかという」くらい強く握り締めた拳 \n> (2)「まるで」血が滲む「ような」くらい強く握り締めた拳\n\n(3) a fist clenched strongly as if blood would bleed \n(3)' 血が流出するかのように強く握った拳\n\nThe phrase with (3) is my attempt for (1) or (2). And (3)' is the result of\ngoogle translation for (3). \nI think (3)' has almost the same meaning as (1) or (2) has.\n\nAs for \"might/perhaps\", I think you can say (3) like (4) or (5). And (4)' and\n(5)' are google translations for (4) and (5) respectively.\n\n### EDIT\n\npersonanongrata gave me a comment as follows, so I edit (4) and (4)'.\n\n> Seeing your answer I thought of this \" a fist clenched so strongly\n> THAT（という）it might「のではないか」 bleed.\n\n~~(4) a fist clenched strongly as if blood **might** bleed~~ \n~~(4)' 血が流出するかのように強く握った拳~~ \n(4) a fist that is clenched so strongly that it **might** bleed \n(4)' 非常に強く握られて出血するかもしれない拳\n\n(5) a fist clenched strongly as if blood **perhaps** bleed \n(5)' 血が流血するかのように強く握る拳\n\nIn conclusion, I think that \"might/perhaps\" can also be used for \"のではないか\" in\n(1).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T13:36:01.923",
"id": "53628",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T14:49:08.030",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53621",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 53621 | 53628 | 53628 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53633",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm using Goukaku Dekiru N5·N4 book, and I'm confused about a question there.\nThis is the question:\n\n> 私が りーさん（ ）あんないしてあげましょう\n\nAnd the possible answers:\n\n> 1. を 2. に 3. から 4. が\n>\n\nSo, I answered number 2, に, but the answer book says is を. Why is this the\ncase? I thought that Lee, in this case, would be the receiving part from the\nguidance that 私 does. With を it seems like 私 is guiding Lee like it'd guide\nParis or New York.\n\nThanks!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T09:22:16.880",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53622",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T16:02:21.847",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-04T13:16:40.720",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "21843",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particles",
"giving-and-receiving"
],
"title": "Particles that goes with 案内 in a ~てあげる sentence",
"view_count": 350
} | [
{
"body": "案内する takes particles as below.\n\n * (person)を 案内する\n * (person)に (place)を 案内する\n\nSo, both を and に are correct in the example question if it's asking for simply\na correct answer. (Actually, I've seen this kind of incomplete questions for\n日本語検定 books several times in this forum.)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T16:02:21.847",
"id": "53633",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T16:02:21.847",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "53622",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 53622 | 53633 | 53633 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "i just learned this grammar from Nikkei News: `\n\n> 2021年度をメドに\n\nmean an action target time is within 2021. Some site use:\n\n> 2021年をめどに\n\nso what is different of them? if i want say: target in 09/2021, how i can say?\n\nand i want to say: i will complete that within 2 year, how i can say?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T11:13:33.883",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53623",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T12:21:49.637",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26025",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"time"
],
"title": "how to use 年をめどに",
"view_count": 322
} | [
{
"body": "First of all, there is an important difference between 「2021年{ねん}」 and\n「2021年度{ねんど}」.\n\n「2021年」 refers to the **_calendar_** year, January 2021 through December 2021.\n\n「2021年度」 refers to the **_fiscal/business_** year, April 2021 through March\n**2022** (for most organizations).\n\nIn other words, those two terms refer to two different 12-month periods. You\nwill need to be aware of the difference for as long as you study Japanese.\n\nMoving on to 「めど」.\n\n**「めど」 roughly means \"aim\", \"goal\", \"outlook\", etc.** in planning and\nexecuting activities. \" **Target deadline** \" may be the better term this\ntime.\n\n> if i want say: target in 09/2021, how i can say?\n\nYou could say:\n\n> 「2021年9月 + **を** + めど + **に** + Verb Phrase」\n\nThe two particles, を and に, are important and are not replacable by others.\n\n> and i want to say: i will complete that within 2 year, how i can say?\n\nYou could say:\n\n> 「2年{ねん}をめどに（完了{かんりょう}する/仕上{しあ}げる）予定{よてい}です。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T11:57:11.387",
"id": "53625",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T12:21:49.637",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-04T12:21:49.637",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53623",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53623 | null | 53625 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53629",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I thought I heard someone use it in this way recently, but it just a\nconversation I overheard so I cannot be sure exactly. A standard use might be: \n「あいつが邪魔しやがった。」\n\nBut can it ever be combined with a passive voice so the speaker can convey\nadditional inconvenience? For example, something like this: \n「あいつに邪魔されやがった。」This might be ungrammatical or not, I don't know.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T13:31:40.650",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53627",
"last_activity_date": "2019-09-23T15:58:29.923",
"last_edit_date": "2019-09-23T15:58:29.923",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"passive-voice"
],
"title": "Can the auxiliary ～やがる be used with passive voice?",
"view_count": 219
} | [
{
"body": "「やがる」 used in conjunction with verbs in passive voice forms is totally\npossible and grammtical. It is so even though one must know that the said\nusage is far less common than with verbs in active voice forms.\n\nOne thing I must mention, however, is the fact that when the above-mentioned\nusage of 「やがる」 takes place, the subject of the sentence would be a third\nperson **_far more often_** than it is the speaker himself. Let us take your\nsentence as an example:\n\n> 「あいつに邪魔{じゃま}されやがった。」\n\nIf given this sentence with absolutely no context, nearly 100% of native\nspeakers would think that the subject of the sentence would be an unmentioned\nthird person.\n\n> \"(Someone) was f***in' bothered by that dude.\"\n\nThough you did not say, I had an impression that you were thinking that the\nperson being bothered was the speaker himself. That is not impossible at all\nbut it would be rare. That would be a case of **_self-degradation_** or just\nplain **_vulgarity_**.\n\n> \"I was f***in' bothered by that dude.\"\n\nTo clarify my point regarding the subject being more often a third person than\nthe speaker, I meant to say you would hear/see sentences like these:\n\n> 「初回{しょかい}にホームラン3本{ぼん}も打{う}たれやがって！」 = \"(The pitcher) allowed 3 damn homeruns\n> in the first inning!\"\n\nThe baseball club manager might say that about his starting pitcher. The\ncontempt is expressed toward the pitcher, not the speaker himself. The subject\n「ピッチャー」 is unmentioned here, which should be nothing new to you.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T14:33:09.380",
"id": "53629",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T14:48:30.083",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-04T14:48:30.083",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53627",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "あいつに邪魔されやがった isn't ungrammatical, but it would be unnatural in the context\nyou're probably thinking of, because やがる indicates negative feeling towards\nthe subject of the verb it's attached to. So in this case the speaker would be\nangry not at the person who did the obstructing, but the person who was\nobstructed.\n\nSo the sentence doesn't really work at all if we assume a first-person\nsubject, because that would mean the speaker is getting angry at _himself_. If\nI hear あいつに邪魔されやがった, I imagine an exchange like:\n\n> で、ブツは持ってるのか？例の邪魔するやろうにはちゃんと気をつけたんだろうな？ \n> \"So, have you got the goods? I hope you made sure not to let you-know-who\n> get in the way again.\"\n>\n> いや…田中のやつ、今回は絶対持ってくるって言ってたのに、結局あいつに邪魔されやがった。 \n> \"No... Tanaka said he'd bring it for sure this time, but in the end he went\n> and let that guy get in his way.\"\n>\n> またかよ！本当に使えねぇな、田中のやつ！ \n> \"Not again! You can't trust that Tanaka with anything!\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T14:38:07.867",
"id": "53630",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T14:38:07.867",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25107",
"parent_id": "53627",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 53627 | 53629 | 53629 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53632",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "So google translator seemly tells me that to express \"When it comes to\" I\nshould use the following structure (I tried finding it on google and this\nforum but could not find it)\n\n> それは ... ことになると\n\nFor instance\n\n> それは歩くことになると **\"When it comes to walking\"**\n\nBut since I don't trust google translator at all, I am asking, what is the\nright way to say that?\n\nThe sentence I am trying to make is the following **\"When it comes to drinking\neveryday, it seems that Japanese people drink more than Brazilian people.\"**\n(refeering to the image that many people go to izakaya after work). My\nattempt:\n\n> それは、毎日飲むことになると、日本人はブラジル人より、飲みそうだと思う\n\nWhat do you think? Thanks in advance!",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T14:58:02.827",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53631",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T15:17:42.767",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "16104",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How to express \"When it comes to\"?",
"view_count": 2196
} | [
{
"body": "「それは ... ことになると」 sounds funny, particularly the 「それは」 part. Looks like Google\n**_forcibly_** translated the word \"it\".\n\nMost naturally, we would say:\n\n・「～～に関{かん}して（言{い}えば/言うと）」\n\n・「～～について言えば」\n\n・「～～にかけては」\n\n・「～～のことになると」\n\nYou could say:\n\n> 「日{ひ}ごろの（アルコールの）飲{の}み方{かた}に関して言えば、日本人はブラジル人よりも飲むような気{き}がする。」\n\nYour sentence, though, would be understood by nearly all native speakers if\nyou just dropped 「それは」.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T15:17:42.767",
"id": "53632",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-04T15:17:42.767",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53631",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 53631 | 53632 | 53632 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "I was trying to translate [this song](http://vocadb.net/S/87131) but the first\ncouple of lines didn't make much sense to me.\n\nThere seem to be a lot of inferred particles or something, because there seem\nto be a bunch of unrelated sentence fragments:\n\n> 触媒{カタリスト} Ocean of foliage\n>\n> 産{う}み落{お}ちた過{あやま}ち故{ゆえ} 佇{たたず}む静寂{せいじゃく} **なら** 縛{しばり}り 付{つ}け\n>\n> 罪{つみ}の十字{じゅうじ}\n\nHere is what I could get from it:\n\n> A catalyst (from) an ocean of foliage;\n>\n> Because it was an error that I was born,\n>\n> **In** the still silence, a cross of sin is tied to me.\n\nBut the **なら** here confuses me. I thought maybe it was more _**\" Concerning\nthe still silence\"**_ which is where I got _**\" in\"**_ from _(since usually if\nyou're talking about silence, you're talking about doing something in\nsilence)_.\n\nBut I don't know if that's correct, **is it really what the なら stands for\nhere?**",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T20:52:59.653",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53635",
"last_activity_date": "2018-10-06T17:44:36.230",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "19870",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "Use of なら in this context - Concerning?",
"view_count": 163
} | []
| 53635 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In Japanese class, we just learned the grammatical form 「〜に関する」and its various\nusages. The conjugation 「〜に関しての」was also brought up, and our teacher said that\nthere was virtually no difference between these two forms when using this\ngrammar to modify nouns. I was wondering whether there was any difference,\npreference, or connotation that these two have that would make the choice of\nwhich one to use different based on context, or the noun being modified. Are\nthey truly 100% interchangeable?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-04T21:20:44.273",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53636",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T06:47:41.667",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-05T06:47:41.667",
"last_editor_user_id": "4091",
"owner_user_id": "21802",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"て-form",
"particle-の",
"relative-clauses",
"academic-japanese"
],
"title": "「〜に関するN」vs 「〜に関してのN」",
"view_count": 588
} | [
{
"body": "The only difference that I could discern would be in the formality level. I\ncould **not** say that there was a difference in meaning between the two.\n\n「～～に関{かん}する」 sounds just **_slightly_** more formal/technical/academic than\n「～～に関しての」. The more formal the occasion, the more often one would expect to\nsee/hear the former, IMHO.\n\nThat is not to say, however, that 「～～に関しての」 is in any way informal or\nconversational because we have 「～～についての」 for use in informal speech.\n\n> Are they **truly 100%** interchangeable?\n\nIn the stricter sense of the word, no, they are not because of the difference\nin their formality levels. Would many people care if you used them\ninterchangeably? Perhaps not too many people would seriously partly because\nthis is not a verb, adjective or noun choice we are discussing.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T01:26:46.707",
"id": "53639",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T01:26:46.707",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53636",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 53636 | null | 53639 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53644",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Context: Bob is angry that event X happened today. A series of unfortunate\nevents throughout his life led up to this crappy day, and thus he thinks to\nhimself, \"if only things were different\". How do I translate this line when\n'things' refer to 'basically everything bad that has ever happened' and is so\nvague and all-encompassing that even Bob doesn't know what specific things\nhe's referring to?\n\n> [things] **さえ** こんなんじゃなかっ **たら**",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T03:15:15.030",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53640",
"last_activity_date": "2021-11-15T00:58:33.453",
"last_edit_date": "2021-11-15T00:58:33.453",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9132",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"phrases",
"phrase-requests"
],
"title": "How do you say \"If only things were different\"?",
"view_count": 2597
} | [
{
"body": "> もし（事情・状況）が違っていたら、 If only circumstances were any different...\n>\n> もしそうでもなかったら、 If only that wasn't so...\n\nshould work, I believe. もし reinforces a \"what-if\" idea or theoretical\nscenario.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T05:36:10.057",
"id": "53641",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T05:36:10.057",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53640",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> Context: Bob is angry that event X happened today. A series of unfortunate\n> events throughout his life led up to this crappy day, and thus he thinks to\n> himself, \"if only things were different\". How do I translate this line when\n> 'things' refer to 'basically everything bad that has ever happened' and is\n> so vague and all-encompassing that even Bob doesn't know what specific\n> things he's referring to?\n\nI'll translate freely the entire given question into natural Japanese by\nreplacing Bob with 恭一｛きょういち｝.\n\n>\n> あらすじ：恭一{きょういち}は「あれ」が今日{きょう}起{お}きたことに憤慨{ふんがい}している。彼{かれ}の人生{じんせい}のいたるところで顔{かお}を出{だ}す「あれ」が、今日{きょう}という日{ひ}を台無{だいな}しにした。恭一{きょういち}は誰{だれ}にも言{い}えない憤懣{ふんまん}を吐{は}き出{だ}すように言{い}った。「あれさえなければ…」。\n> 確{たし}かなことは「あれ」とは恭一{きょういち}にとって「これまでに起{お}きたあらゆる悪{わる}いことの全部{ぜんぶ}」を指{さ}しているということ。しかし、実際{じっさい}には、何{なに}を指{さ}して「あれ」と言{い}っているのか恭一{きょういち}自身{じしん}定{さだ}かでないほどそれは曖昧{あいまい}だがしかし一括{ひとくくり}りに出来{でき}そうでもある\n> とき、\"if only things were different\"を日本語{にほんご}ではどういう風{ふう}に言{い}えるのだろうか。\n\nThe answer to \" **if only things were different** \" in the context is \"\n**あれさえなければ** \" and \" **things** \" in the phrase is \" **あれ** \". \nI think \"あれさえ **違っていたら** \" couldn't express the nuance of \"if only things were\ndifferent\" in this context.\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT\n\nI know あれ means a pronoun indicating something distant from both speaker and\nlistener (in space, time or psychologically), or something understood without\nnaming it directly, but I used あれ for \"things\" in the given context.\n\nI also know the \"things\" is said that even Bob doesn't know what specific\nthings he's referring to. But the \"things\" is defined clearly as \"basically\neverything bad that has ever happened\" in the context. The definition means\nthat not only today the \"things\" happened but also the \"things\" happend\neverytime when bad things happened to Bob.\n\nFrom this fact, I understood that the \"things\" was clear to Bob or **at least\nhe could make what happened to him clear whether it belonged to the \"things\"\nor not**, but he couldn't address it with a proper word just like the\nquestioner couldn't because there was not any exact word to express this\ncomplicated concept.\n\nThe very good interpretations with 「状況が違ってさえいればなあ。」, 「こんなことに(さえ)ならなければなあ。」 or\n「こんなこと(さえ)にならなかったらなあ。」for \"If only things were different\" by Chocolate\ncouldn't cover \"basically everything bad that has ever happened\", so I darely\ninvented あれ for the \"things\".\n\nIf you read my free translation in Japanese, I think you could understand the\nuse of あれ is a somewhat good choice though it is not exactly correct because\nthere is no exact word also in Japanese.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T06:05:19.530",
"id": "53642",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-06T04:31:58.593",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53640",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "\"If only~~.\" is often translated as 「～でさえあればなあ。」「～でありさえすればなあ。」「～さえすればなあ。」 or\n「～ばいいのに(なあ)。」「～たらなあ。」, etc.\n\nFor example...\n\n> * 彼が間に合って来さえすればなあ。If only he comes in time. (Genius E-J Dictionary)\n> * 彼女がもう少し早く来てさえいればなあ。If only she had come earlier. (Genius E-J / J-E\n> Dictionary)\n> * タバコがやめられさえすればなあ。If only I could stop smoking! (Lexis E-J Dictionary)\n>\n\nI think your sentence can translate to something like...\n\n\"If only things were different.\" \n_lit._ 「事態/状況が違ってさえいればなあ。」 \n⇒ or more naturally... \n「こんなこと* に(さえ)ならなければなあ。」 or 「こんなこと* に(さえ)ならなかったらなあ。」\n\n*The 「こと」 is used in the sense of 「[事態]{じたい}」(\"things\" or \"situation\"), as in 「困った **ことになった** 」「まずい **ことになった** 」「大変な **ことになった** 」( _lit._ \"Became bad/difficult situation.\" → \"Things became bad / went wrong.\" \"We're in trouble.\")",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T07:39:57.760",
"id": "53644",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T15:24:39.323",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-05T15:24:39.323",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "53640",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 53640 | 53644 | 53644 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In a book I've learned \"(name) to moushimasu\" as an introduction, but as\njapanese has no spaces, would it be written with hiragana as follows or\nsomething different?\n\n(name)ともうします。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T06:31:52.490",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53643",
"last_activity_date": "2019-12-19T21:08:01.957",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26031",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"names"
],
"title": "How to write \"I am (name)\" using hiragana?",
"view_count": 4404
} | [
{
"body": "If your name Zach is written in Japanese as ザック or ザッハ, you would introduce\nyourself as (1).\n\n> (1) ザックともうします。 or ザッハともうします。\n\nYour guess is perfectly correct. \nAs you know we don't use a space between words, so it is also difficult even\nfor native speakers of Japanese how to parse (1) at first glance. \n\"と\", \"も\" and \"とも\" are all possible particles and \"もう\" could be an adverb in\nJapanese language. In a short time, you have to understand that \"と\" is a\nparticle but \"も\", \"とも\" and \"もう\" do not function as they are, but they are part\nof another word.\n\nTo solve this kind of difficulty, we use _kanji_ if possible. You can rewrite\n(1) into (2) with using kanji.\n\n> (2) ザックと申{もう}します。 or ザッハと申｛もう｝します。\n\nNow you can understand the meaning of (2) at first glance because you can\neasily parse the sentence without getting confused by spurious elements such\nas \"も\", \"とも\" and \"もう\" in (1).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T08:06:00.230",
"id": "53645",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T11:57:26.747",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-05T11:57:26.747",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53643",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "For something as short as \"Xともうします\" you do not need any spaces. Japanese for\nadults is almost never written this way, because most Japanese find it clearer\nto read when the kanji is used: \"Xと申します\"\n\nThe only time I have seen native Japanese written with pure hiragana is in\nbooks for very young children (usually first-graders, who don't know any\nkanji). In these books, _the words are typically separated by spaces_. This\nmakes comprehension easier when the kanji are missing. The spacing is\ndifferent from how Japanese is sometimes written in English-language Japanese\ntextbooks. For example, particles are usually attached to the words they\nfollow (\"それは おもしろい\"), and conjugations that English speakers might interpret\nas compound verbs usually have no space (\"ありませんでした\"). I find these books\ninteresting, because they show that while the Japanese do have a sense of word\nboundaries, it doesn't always match how we think in English.\n\nI have only ever seen spaces in books for very young children. Usually,\nJapanese text contains no spaces.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T05:19:30.160",
"id": "53657",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-06T05:19:30.160",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "820",
"parent_id": "53643",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 53643 | null | 53645 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "So looking it up it translated to 和製 means \"Japanese made\" and 和語 means\n\"Native Japanese\".\n\nBut aren't native Japanese words Japanese made (not taken from Chinese)?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T10:11:12.847",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53647",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T15:44:28.753",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20413",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "和製【わせい】、和語【わご】。。。わt's the diff?",
"view_count": 158
} | [
{
"body": "和製 is typically used in the phrase 和製英語, 'Japanese-made English'. This refers\nto English words and phrases coined in Japan, often with meanings that aren't\nclear to native English speakers. Think of things like 'office lady', '2LDK',\n'jet coaster', and so on.\n\n和語 is, as you say, typically used to mean native Japanese vocabulary. I'm more\nused to seeing that called 大和言葉, but 和語 means mostly the same thing.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T15:44:28.753",
"id": "53653",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T15:44:28.753",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "53647",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53647 | null | 53653 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53654",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "## Context\n\nI saw many times people using 落ちる in a chat followed by 後で. I assumed that the\nuser expressed his intent of temporarily leaving a chat and planned to come\nback later.\n\n## Question\n\n * As the title mentions, is 落ちます an equivalent of \"AFK1\" with the underlying meaning of coming back later on?\n * Is there a way to differentiate **\"I got to go\"** ( _I don't plan to come back_ ) and **\"I'll be back\"** ( _I temporarily leave the chat/game/whatever_ ) \n\n* * *\n\n1 **AFK** : **A** way **F** rom **K** eyboard",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T10:51:58.910",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53648",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-06T06:56:46.107",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-06T06:56:46.107",
"last_editor_user_id": "10260",
"owner_user_id": "10260",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"internet-slang"
],
"title": "Internet vocabulary: Is 落ちる an equivalent of \"being AFK\"?",
"view_count": 1654
} | [
{
"body": "落ちます is closer to \"gotta go now.\" It usually means _not_ returning for the\nday, unless otherwise modified by しばらく, ちょっと, 30分くらい, 飯食ってくるので, etc. A typical\nresponse for 落ちます would be おやすみなさい, また明日, お疲れ様, etc.\n\n後で usually indicates the person who said this somehow knows the other person\nis coming back relatively soon. It's not a typical response for 落ちます modified\nby nothing.\n\nIf you want to explicitly say \"I'll be back\", you can use すぐ戻ります, ちょっと外します,\nしばらく落ちます, etc. Many online gamers will understand \"AFK\", too.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T01:10:10.023",
"id": "53654",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-06T01:16:38.320",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-06T01:16:38.320",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53648",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "落ちる could refer to the Internet connection, meaning the person will leave and\ntherefore the connection will drop.\n\nI'm taking liberties here but you can think of it as\n\n> （今日のところはこれで。ネット接続が）落ちます。（また）後で。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T01:26:19.023",
"id": "53655",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-06T02:28:52.420",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-06T02:28:52.420",
"last_editor_user_id": "25446",
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53648",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53648 | 53654 | 53654 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 5,
"body": "> 傲慢{ごうまん}を語{かた}る男{おとこ}が、それを実現{じつげん}していく様{さま}を見{み}るのは心地{ここち}よいものだ。\n\nWhat could it be ? I don't have the slightest idea, though I would translate\nthe whole sentence as :\n\n> \"Seeing a proud man achieving this is quite pleasant.\"",
"comment_count": 13,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T11:08:54.773",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53649",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-16T05:48:35.120",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-16T05:48:35.120",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does 様 mean here?",
"view_count": 2014
} | [
{
"body": "様{さま} has the meaning like 様子{ようす}, 状態, 姿. I think English words like state\nand scene are close to it.\n\nSo それを実現していく様 would mean \" a scene the man is realizing it\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T14:56:33.633",
"id": "53651",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T14:56:33.633",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "53649",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "It's さま and basically means 'appearance'.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-05T14:56:49.677",
"id": "53652",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-05T14:56:49.677",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"parent_id": "53649",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "I'd verbalize it as さま as you normally read the sentence. But the character\nitself can also sometimes be read as よう.\n\nIf it was written artistically I would write furigana like this:\n\n> それを実現していく[様]{すがた}を見るのは",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T01:30:45.347",
"id": "53656",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-06T01:30:45.347",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53649",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> \"Seeing a proud man achieving this is quite pleasant.\"\n\nI think your interpretation for the sentence with (1) is correct.\n\n> (1) 傲慢を語る男が、それを実現していく様を見るのは心地よいものだ。\n\nIf you add furigana to the given sentecnce it will be as (2).\n\n> (2) 傲慢{ごうまん}を語{かた}る男{おとこ}が、それを実現{じつげん}していく **様{さま}** を見{みる}るのは心地{ここち}よいものだ。\n\nThough the Jisho.org defines **様{さま}** as \"state; situation; appearance\"\n[here](http://jisho.org/search/%E6%A7%98), we don't use it for the state or\nappearance of an ordinary person. If you use it to an ordinary person it is\nrude to him/her, because 様｛さま｝ has a nuance of despising or looking down on\nthe person who is described with this word.\n\n様｛さま｝ is suitable for the use as follows.\n\n> * ふらふらと歩{ある}いているあの酔{よ}っ払{ぱら}いの **様{さま}** はみっともなくて見{み}ていられないね。\n> * _You cannot keep watching the drunk man who is pacing with a swaying,\n> right?_.\n>\n\n傲慢{ごうまん}を語{かた}る男{おとこ} in (1) or (2) could be interpreted like \" _a man talking\nabout arrogance_ \" in English, so 様{さま} is used safely in this sentence\nbecause we usually hate such an arrogant person.\n\nIf we describe the state of an ordinary person we use 様子｛ようす｝ instead of 様｛さま｝\nas follows.\n\n> * 彼{かれ}の **様子{ようす}** は普段｛ふだん｝とちょっと違{ちが}うと思{おも}わないかい。\n> * _Don't you think the state of him is somewhat different from usual?_\n>\n\nJudging from the nuance that 様｛さま｝ has, the sentence with (1) posted by the\nquestioner having the meaning as follows in English is not logically natural.\n\n> (1) _It is pleasant to see a man who talks about arrogance realizes it (or\n> his dream)._.\n\nI would rewrite it into (3).\n\n> * (3) 傲慢{ごうまん}を語{かた}る男{おとこ}が、それを実現｛じつげん｝できない様{さま}を見{み}るのは心地{ここち}よいものだ。\n> * (3) _It is pleasant to see a man who talks about arrogance cannot\n> realize it (or his dream)_.\n>\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT\n\n私の最初の回答に2件down-voteがありました。up-voteはゼロです。\n\n私の最初の回答で、質問にあった文に使われている「様」は「さま」と発音し、\"state; situation; appearance\"\nすなわち「様子や状態」のような意味があると回答した上で、敢えて次の２つの情報を付け加えました。\n\n１つ目は、この「様{さま}」は、質問で提示されたような「傲慢な人」に使う場合は問題ないが、普通の人に使うと「失礼になる」から駄目である。もし、普通の人に使う時には「様子」という表現にするようにという内容です。\n\n２つ目は、与えられた「傲慢を語る男が、それを実現していく様{さま}を見るのは心地よいものだ。」という文は、文脈的に見ておかしい（論理的でない）、もし例文を書き換えるなら、「傲慢を語る男が、それを実現できない様{さま}を見るのは心地よいものだ。」と（揶揄{やゆ}する文脈に）するべきではないかと提案しました。\n\ndown-\nvoteの２件がいずれの意味で「駄目」と言ったのかはコメントがないので定かではありませんが、私は、１つ目の情報に対してだろうと判断しこのEDITを行います。\n\n「様」には上記の「さま」と発音する意味とは別に、「ざまあみろ」「あのざまは」というように「ざま」と発音して、ある人をあざけるあるいはさげすむ時の表現としての意味があることは承知しております。\n\ndown-\nvoteした人の判断に対する私の推察は、私が「様{ざま}」の意味なりニュアンスを「様{さま}」が持っていると勘違いして上記の１つ目の情報を付け加えたと理解し、「あなたの理解は間違いですよ。様{さま}は様{ざま}のようなニュアンスを持っていませんよ。だから普通の人に使っても問題なしですよ」と言うご指導だと思っております。\n\n実際には、私は何ら勘違いすることなく、「様{さま}」は迂闊{うかつ}に普通の人に対して使ってはいけないと思っております。裏打ちできる情報はないかと調べましたが現在のところ見つかっておりません。しかし、私の感性から判断すると日本語を勉強している人に対して何某{なにがし}かの追加説明があってしかるべきテーマだと判断し、説明を試みることにします。\n\n国語辞典ではどうなっているか押さえておきます。\n\n三省堂大辞林で「様{さま}」と「様{ざま}」とは次のように説明されております。\n\n> **さま** 【様・方▽】（▽表外読み） \n> （名詞） \n> ① 物事の様子や状態。ありさま。 「彼女の寂しげな様｛さま｝」 「蝶の群れ飛ぶ様｛さま｝」 「様｛さま｝変わり」\n>\n> **ざま** 【様▽・態▽】 \n> 〔「さま（様）」の転〕 \n> （名詞） \n> 様子や格好などを、ののしったりあざけったりしていう語。 「その様｛ざま｝はなんだ」\n\n確かに「様{さま}」には「様{ざま}」のような意味はありません。\n\n「様{さま}」の用例にある「蝶の群れ飛ぶ様{さま}」 と「様{さま}変わり」は全く問題ありません。 \n「彼女の寂しげな様{さま}」。これも問題ないと思います。但し、小説か何か叙述文の中で使われるとしたらです。 \n次に登場人物を卑近な人に置き換えて考えてみましょう。「町内会長の寂しげな様{さま}に会計担当の者が声を掛けた」、「息子の寂しげな様{さま}が気になる母親」。やはり小説の中ではありそうな表現です。しかし、小説以外で普段こんな表現を使いますか？私は、このような言葉をそばで聞いたらこそばゆいとでも言うのでしょうか、いたたまれない気持ちになります。 \nところが、「町内会長」や「息子」の例文で、「様{さま}」を「様子」に置き換えるとどうでしょう。「町内課長の寂しげな様子」や「息子の寂しげな様子」は、聞きなれた普通の表現になりませんか。こそばゆさは少し解消します。本当は、「寂しげな様子」より「寂しそうな様子」の方がもっと普通ですね。ということは、「寂しげな様{さま}」は、口語（会話文）では余り使われない表現なのだと思います。\n\n一方、例えば、「あいつの偉そうな様{さま}を見ているとムカついてくる」は立派な口語（会話文）であり、「あいつの偉そうな **様子**\nを見ているとムカついてくる」とも言い換えられます。どちらかというと、「あいつの偉そうな様{さま}を見ているとムカついてくる」の方が「偉そうな様子」よりしっくりくるような気が私はします。 \nそれは、「様{ざま}」の影響かなと思って「様{さま}」を「様{ざま}」と言い換えてみますが、「あいつの偉そうな様{ざま}を見ているとムカついてくる」とは言いません。「様{ざま}見ろ！」と字面{じづら}は似ていますが、「...偉そうな様{ざま}...」とは言いません。\n\n次に、誰かが、「町内会長の偉そうな様{さま}を見ているとムカついてくる」と普段の会話で言うと当然喧嘩になりますが、「町内会長の堂々とした様{さま}を見ていると...」と誉めるつもりで言っても、「様{さま}」をわざわざ遣う必要がどこにあるのかと言葉遣いに対する違和感がありますので、「あいつ会長に恨みでもあるのかな」と勘ぐられる可能性なきにしもあらずです。普通に言うなら、「町内会長の堂々とした\n**様子** を見ていると...」が穏当な表現だと思います。「息子の嬉しそうな様{さま}を見ていると」にも同様の違和感があります。\n\n結果、「様｛さま｝」は「彼女」「町内会長」「息子」の例文で「様子」に置き換え可能ですが、逆は必ずしも問題なしで可能とは言えないことになります。すなわち、普通の人に対しては、「様{さま}」と「様子」とは相互に置き換え可能ではありません。 \nところが、「あいつ」を使った例文では、「様子」と「様{さま}」とは相互に置き換え可能です。\n蔑{さげす}んでよい人とそうでない人（＝普通の人）とで、「様{さま}」が安全に使えるかどうかに確かな差があります。\n\n「様{さま}」と「様子」との置き換え可能性に関して、もう一つ別の条件があります。\n\n「彼女の寂しげな様{さま}」と「蝶の群れ飛ぶ様{さま}」は、「彼女の寂しげな様子」と「蝶の群れ飛ぶ様子」と言い換えられます。しかし、「彼女の様子」\n「蝶の様子」とは言えても、「彼女の様{さま}」 「蝶の様{さま}」とは言いません。\n\n「様{さま}」は、上記の国語辞典で「物事の様子や状態。ありさま。」とありますが、単なる「様子」ではなく、「〇〇〇である様子」と言う意味合いになるのだろうと推察できます。 \n従って、仮に「様子」が「様{さま}」に置き換えられると判断される場合、またその逆に「様{さま}」が「様子」に置き換えられると判断される場合でも、「〇〇〇である様子」と「〇〇〇である様{さま}」という一つ大きな単位が対象となって置き換えられると判断し置き換えを実施する必要があります。\n\n２番目の用例である「蝶の群れ飛ぶ様{さま}」 に関しては、「様子」でも「様{さま}」でもほとんど条件はなく相互に置き換え可能です。 \n「蝶」は「人」ではないので、対人関係のような相手に対する感情の働く余地が生じない、従って、辞書の定義通りの意味で「様{さま}」を使っても問題は生じないのでしょう。\n\n国語辞典の用例にあった最後の「様｛さま｝変わり」に関しては、「 **様子**\n変わり」と言い換えられませんので、これは、決まり文句の一部としての「様{さま}」なのだと思います。\n\n以上見ますと、国語辞典の３つの用例の各々の「様{さま}」が全て用途的には違う扱いを受けることが分かります。\n\n結論として、 \n（１）「様{さま}」は、人以外の動植物（主に動物）の様子を表すときには、辞書の定義通りの意味で使える。 \n（２）「様{さま}」は、叙述文（／書き言葉）において人の様子を表すときには、辞書の定義通りの意味で使える。 \n（３）「様{さま}」は、口語（／会話文）において人の様子を表すときには、蔑{さげす}んでよい相手に対しては辞書の定義通りの意味で使えるが、普通の人に対しては、違和感を与えたり相手の感情を傷つける可能性があるので使用を避ける。もし、辞書の定義通りの意味で使いたい場合は、「様子」で置き換える。 \n（４）「様{さま}」は、問題なく「様子」で置き換えられる。 \n（５）「様子」を「様{さま}」で置き換えられる場合はあるが、前提として、置き換える前の文が、「〇〇〇である様子」あるいは同等の表現である必要があり、かつ、置き換え対象の文が（１）～（３）のいずれの条件に相当するか確認の上、（１）～（３）で定める条件を守る必要がある。\n\n結論を見ると何だか契約書みたいになってしまいましたが、ことほど左様に、「様{さま}」は、国語辞典通りの意味で単純には使えないと思います。\n\n契約書のような配慮がいやであるなら、\"state; situation;\nappearance\"の意味として、「様{さま}」ではなく「様子」、場合によっては「状態」と表現することが賢明だと思います。\n\n最後に、上記国語辞典を含め、辞書における「様{さま}」の定義には何らかの（あるいはどのようなときに使えるかという）説明文の追加が必要であると思っております。",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T10:43:19.040",
"id": "53658",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-07T14:24:00.540",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53649",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -2
},
{
"body": "This 様 is read さま, and it basically means _(observable) situation_ ,\n_appearance_ or _state_. It's similar to plain old 様子, but さま is less\ncolloquial and always used with a relative clause or この/あの/etc (i.e., 様子を見る is\nokay but さまを見る is not). In addition, さま often (but not always) has a negative\nconnotation and is preferred in dismissive sentences like this one.\n[ざま](http://jisho.org/word/%E6%A7%98) (or\n[ざまあ](http://jisho.org/word/%E6%A7%98%E3%81%82%E8%A6%8B%E3%82%8D), see the\ndakuten) is a derivative word of this and is always derogatory. So その様子 is\nneutral, そのさま is sometimes derogatory, そのざま is always derogatory.\n\n> 傲慢を語る男が、それを実現していく様を見るのは心地よいものだ。\n\nHere さま is interchangeable with 様子, and it literally means \"It's pleasant to\nsee the situation where a man who talks about arrogance is realizing it\n(=arrogance).\"\n\nIt needs a little more context, but this sentence probably refers to the\nironical situation where a man who always says \"don't be arrogant\" is becoming\narrogant.\n\n* * *\n\n**EDIT:** @chocolate posted the [source\ntext](http://weeaboo.org/Umineko/jscript5.txt) in the comment section. The\noriginal text is as follows:\n\n> 「如何にも。妾こそが、右代宮家顧問錬金術師、黄金の魔女ベアトリーチェである。……妾は奔放にして自由！ 誰の命令も聞かぬ。」 \n> 「それを、世界でたった一人。私だけが支配した。……だからこそ、右代宮家の当主たりえるのだ。」 \n> 「ふっ。その傲慢さこそが右代宮家当主の資格だと言うか。」 \n> 「傲慢とは即ち、自信であり勇気である。そしてそれに見合う力を得ようとする、飽くなき向上心の現われである。…だからこそ、私はお前を支配した。」 \n> 「 **………傲慢を語る男が、それを実現していく様を見るのは心地よいものだ。**\n> 不言実行は強運なる者の言い訳に過ぎぬ。…真の王者は持たぬ物さえも語る。そしてその傲慢を確かに実現して見せるのだ。……妾を支配できる者には、その王者の傲慢が必要だ。」 \n>\n> 「わかるか、夏妃よ。真の王者は、あらゆる苦難を恐れぬ。必ず乗り越えられると公言する。その算段がなくともだ。だから弱者は希望を持つ。集い、崇め、協力を誓う。そこに力が生まれ、有言は実行されるのだ。それを心に刻め。」\n\nSo my interpretation in my original answer turned out to be wrong. (That's why\nwe always need contexts ) What I can tell from this is that these characters\nare exchanging a fairly rhetorical, euphemistic, tricky conversation. 傲慢\n(\"arrogance\") is normally a very negative word; it's far from \"pride\" or\n\"confidence\", which are of course normally positive. But they are somehow\ntreating 傲慢 as if it were an indispensable trait of a leader. In this\nconversation, \"realization of arrogance\" is considered as the the symbol of\nthe power of a lord, and everyone in the conversation is talking as if they\nbelieved in such an idea that \"a true governor must be arrogant.\"\n\nSo the gist of what the sentence is saying is \"A man who believes in the value\nof arrogance is actually behaving arrogantly. I understand it and I'm glad to\nsee that.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-07T04:01:35.223",
"id": "53667",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-07T16:40:04.060",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-07T16:40:04.060",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53649",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53649 | null | 53652 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "We can say `passion for sports` スポーツに対する情熱 or `a mother's love for her\nchildren`, but for some reason we can't replace `for` with `towards`.\n\nBy the same token, `attitude towards someone` 誰かに対する態度, `behavior towards\nsomeone`, we can't switch `towards` with `for`.\n\nThe sentence 誰かに対する考え can't be translated using towards nor for. `thoughts on\nsomeone`, is the most natural, yet for some reason its completely natural to\nuse 対する\n\nI'm aware that maybe there is some distinction between feelings, and\nattitude/behavior, but my brain always likes to automatically translate 対する to\n`towards`, and I'm trying to figure out what it is about the word `towards`\nthat makes it fallacious to associate with that word",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T14:30:29.790",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53659",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-05T16:11:14.017",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26041",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"particles"
],
"title": "why does 対する sometimes translate to `for` and sometimes `towards`",
"view_count": 358
} | [
{
"body": "With the English language, \"towards\" can be ambiguous without context.\n\"Towards\" can mean either \"in the direction of\" or \"in relation to\". に対する\ntypically means \"in relation to\" or \"face or oppose\", so as an alternative to\nスポーツに対する情熱 or `a mother's love for her children`, you could say `a mother's\nlove towards her children` and you can still understand the meaning (even if\nit sounds a little wierd). Same thing with 誰かに対する態度, `behavior towards\nsomeone`, again you could say `behavior \"facing\" someone` and you may still be\nable to get the general meaning.\n\nIn the end, it really just depends on if \"towards\" or \"for\" fits which\nsentance you are constructing. Yes, it may be difficult do de-associate the\nJapanese word 対する exclusively to `towards` and sometimes exchange it for\n`for`, but you'll get there.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T15:14:03.727",
"id": "53660",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-06T15:14:03.727",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "15694",
"parent_id": "53659",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 53659 | null | 53660 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53664",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What is the origin of the contraction では->じゃ? I googled around for a bit, but\nI wasn't able to find any answer at all.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T18:44:23.750",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53662",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-07T03:49:45.150",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26043",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"etymology",
"history"
],
"title": "Origin of じゃ as contraction of では",
"view_count": 323
} | [
{
"body": "The contraction is simply a matter of fast speech and sound shapes. で or\n`/de/` is a front-of-the-mouth sound, where\n[affrication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affricate_consonant#Affrication)\nis not uncommon. Consider how English _don't you_ often becomes _doncha_ in\nfast speech, or how _could you_ becomes _cudja_. So too with では -- `/de wa/` →\n`*/dea/` → `*/d͡ʑea/` → `/d͡ʑa/`.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T20:58:11.970",
"id": "53664",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-07T03:49:45.150",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-07T03:49:45.150",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "53662",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 53662 | 53664 | 53664 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53666",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was trying to translate this song (full lyrics here:\n<http://vocadb.net/S/87131> ) and I'm having a lot of trouble with these two\nlines:\n\n> 混沌に鎖されし 喪服纏った我を 蝕む右手の薔薇 \n> 宿命とし 後罪滲む\n\n\"Trapped by the chaos, having put on my mourning clothes, a rose in my worm-\neaten right hand, I make a decision to blot out my crime (btw 後罪 is pronounced\nクライム)\" is what I could figure out. Mostly I'm confused about とし here. I would\nthink it's a continuative of とする, but the only uses I could find with とする are\nthe typical を~とする and volitional + とする, which doesn't seem to apply here. And\nI'm not sure if 宿命 (which is pronounced 定め) should even be \"decision\" or\n\"fate.\" Literally I could only translate the last line based on context also;\nas you can see, I'm very confused!\n\nAny help would be appreciated!\n\nThanks!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T20:20:29.173",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53663",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-07T03:40:05.113",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-07T01:13:22.873",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "19870",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"song-lyrics"
],
"title": "とし in this sentence, among other problems",
"view_count": 154
} | [
{
"body": "Yes it's the continuative form of とする, and I think it's \"typical を～とする\" you\nalready know, with を omitted because it's already mentioned in the previous\nsentence(?). It just means \"consider something ～\" or \"regard something as ～\".\n\n定め【さだめ】 can mean the same thing as 運命, doom, fate, etc.\n\nSo \"regarding it (=薔薇) as my(?) fate, ...\"\n\nSee:\n\n * [Adjective + とする](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/44656/5010)\n * [what is the meaning of a た形の動詞 ＋ とする](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/47030/5010)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-07T03:40:05.113",
"id": "53666",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-07T03:40:05.113",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53663",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53663 | 53666 | 53666 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "European languages seem to name things after people (or people-like things) on\na very regular basis. We have everything from 'Mount Everest' and 'Washington,\nDC' to 'Robert A Welch Hall'. Places named after people are absolutely\neverywhere.\n\nJapan, on the other hand, seems to do this much less frequently. I've seen\nsome buildings named after people, but rather fewer proportionally than I\nexpect - I think my local university campus here in the US has a person's name\non more than 90% of the buildings, but looking at maps of Japanese campuses, I\nsee one or two here or there. I've never seen a city or a mountain or any\nother sort of actual toponym that I found out or could tell was named after an\nactual person.\n\nAm I right in drawing this conclusion - that naming things after people is\nmuch rarer in Japan, and naming places after people basically never happens?\n\nIs there some other naming strategy that 'makes up the difference', as it\nwere? E.g. Spanish and French have a lot of saint-based or other religion-\nbased placenames (or did historically) when English rarely does (or did) that\n- is there something that Japanese does (or did) instead?\n\n(To be fair, toponyms in Japan are on average a lot older than toponyms in\nNorth America, where a lot of these personal toponyms are, so that might\naffect things significantly.)",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-06T21:54:01.557",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53665",
"last_activity_date": "2018-12-18T06:02:05.410",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"culture"
],
"title": "Naming things after people",
"view_count": 299
} | [
{
"body": "Conglomerating and inferring from the comments, here's my best attempt at a\nunified answer.\n\nNaming things, especially places, after people is quite rare in Japan. Perhaps\nthe largest exception is the fact that companies are typically named after\ntheir founders (e.g. Toyota, Honda, Suzuki, Yamada). Some places as well are\nnamed after people who once owned large mansions there (thank you @Chocolate).\n\nThings named _commemoratively_ after people, to memorialise or honour them,\nare much rarer. There seem to be some university buildings named this way,\nthough proportionally far fewer than on American campuses. The only placename\nI've seen (thank you @kimiTanaka) is Nogizaka, which was renamed in 1912 to\ncommemorate general and national hero Nogi Maresuke.\n\nIn short, naming things after people seems to be rather rare in Japan compared\nat least to America, and possibly also to other European countries.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T00:57:09.900",
"id": "53712",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T00:57:09.900",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "53665",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53665 | null | 53712 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53669",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I came to this colloquial expression 住んでんだ from One Piece.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-07T06:55:09.260",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53668",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-07T07:21:06.877",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25748",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage",
"syntax",
"expressions"
],
"title": "What is the formal expression of 住んでんだ",
"view_count": 243
} | [
{
"body": "It's contracted from 住んでいるのだ:\n\n```\n\n 1. 住んでいるのだ\n 2. 住んでいるんだ (contract の to ん)\n 3. 住んでるんだ (contract ている to てる)\n 4. *住んでんんだ (contract る to ん)\n 5. 住んでんだ (reduce double ん to single ん)\n \n```\n\nStep 4 isn't a valid sequence; the *んん is not allowed here, so you're forced\nto reduce the invalid sequence *んんだ to んだ when you contract る to ん before んだ.\n\nI marked step 4 with a * to show that it's not a valid sequence.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-07T07:21:06.877",
"id": "53669",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-07T07:21:06.877",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53668",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 53668 | 53669 | 53669 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Sometimes I find that \"tanuki\" in anime is used for (or translated as) red\npandas. But technically it should be raccoon dog. Does anyone know why?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-07T13:06:20.890",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53670",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-26T03:10:49.063",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26050",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Tanuki. Red panda or raccoon dog?",
"view_count": 3198
} | [
{
"body": "This is a bad translation. I would imagine this was done as an error or for\nthe translators convenience. (saves having to explain what a Tanuki is to a\nwestern audience)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-26T22:37:28.063",
"id": "54071",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-26T22:37:28.063",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25348",
"parent_id": "53670",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "The correct translation to \"tanuki\" is raccoon dog. If it is translated as\nsomething else, it is most likely that the translator do not fully understood\nthe word and translated to panda for simplicity.\n\nI guess you are referring to the anime, \"umaru\". Your understanding is\ncorrect, tanuki = raccoon.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-26T03:10:49.063",
"id": "55424",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-26T03:10:49.063",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9470",
"parent_id": "53670",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 53670 | null | 54071 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "It seems that they are often interchangeable.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T00:06:53.563",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53673",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T16:12:19.740",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18041",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "What are the differences between わけ and 理由?",
"view_count": 873
} | [
{
"body": "Introduction:\n\nI think **理由** is used when there is a concrete evidence to provide the\nreason. Probably other people also could use the reason(理由） to explain it. On\nthe other hand, **わけ** is used when you want to provide a reason with your\ninterpretation. it's not so necessarily for other people use the reason（わけ） to\nexplain it.\n\nBackground and Appendix:\n\nFor example, when you feel hungry and you want to eat donuts, you can say\nわけがあって、ドーナッツを食べる。(お腹が減って: your interpretation that you are hungry ）\n\nIf your stomach is empty, and that condition urges you to eat donuts （胃の中が空で:\nprobably someone can observe that nothing in the stomach), you can say\n理由があって、ドーナッツを食べる。\n\nOr frogs suddenly began falling from the sky. You can say わけがわからない。since there\nis nothing seems to carry the frogs in the sky, so it's bizarre. However you\nmight find the airplane in the sky, but it can be the reason but is not\nsufficient to explain the phenomena. You can say 理由がわからない since it's no clear\nevidence.\n\nIn conclusion:\n\nYes, I agree with it's interchangeable in some situations as you know. It's\nnot easy to provide the reason to explain the phenomena so long as I analyzed\nthe difference.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T09:41:06.070",
"id": "53681",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-08T09:41:06.070",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53673",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Jisho.org defines them as:\n\n> ### 訳｛わけ｝\n>\n> Noun \n> 1. conclusion from reasoning, judgement or calculation based on something\n> read or heard; reason; cause; meaning; circumstances; situation \n> Usually written using kana alone\n>\n> ### 理由{りゆう}\n>\n> Noun \n> 1. reason; pretext; motive\n\nOther forms\n\n> ### 理由｛わけ｝\n>\n> Notes \n> わけ: Irregular kana usage.\n\nJudging from the definition of the dictionary, the two words are somewhat\nsimilar in their meaning. \nHowever, their actual use or nuance is slightly different, and they are not\nalways interchangeable. This difference is derived from themselves for some\nextent. However, I think that the difference comes mainly from the word where\nthey were born. わけ is [_Yamato\nkotoba_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_kotoba) (大和言葉) or _Wago_ (和語),\nwhich are native Japanese words, while 理由 is _Kango_ (漢語) or [Sino-Japanese\nvocabulary](http://Sino-Japanese%20vocabulary), that refers to that portion of\nthe Japanese vocabulary that originated in Chinese or has been created from\nelements borrowed from Chinese.\n\nThe major difference between _Wago_ and _Kango_ reflected in わけ and 理由, in\ngeneral, is that the former has a comprehensive meaning, is not official,\nsuitable for colloquial use and having an emotional nuance, whereas the latter\nhas a relatively strict meaning, is suitable for official usage and written\nlanguage, and has a descriptive nuance.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T04:48:33.427",
"id": "53690",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T04:48:33.427",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53673",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "理由 only refers to _reason_ as opposed to _result_ or _consequence_. It's\nalways used in relation to a cause-and-effect relationship.\n\n訳【わけ】 has much broader sense than 理由. Etymologically, わけ and 分かる【わかる】 share\nthe same origin, \"to divide/separate\". 分かる now vaguely refers to something\nrelated to \"understanding\", and so does わけ. Today, わけ refers to basically\nanything that can help you understand an issue in front of you, which\nincludes, but not limited to, 理由. わけ is closer to _sense_ as in \"it makes\nsense,\" or _reason_ as in \"that opinion is unreasonable!\"\n\nFor example, as you may already know, 訳が分からない is a set phrase that means\n\"that's nonsense/absurd!\" or \"I don't understand it a bit!\" Another example is\n[訳知り顔](http://jisho.org/word/%E8%A8%B3%E7%9F%A5%E3%82%8A%E9%A1%94) (\"I-know-\nhow-it-is look\").\n\nWhen わけ means the same thing as 理由, they are basically interchangeable. For\nexample 遅刻の理由を教えて and 遅刻のわけを教えて is roughly the same. But unsurprisingly, わけ is\nmore preferred in casual conversations because it's part of the native\nJapanese vocabulary. In addition, わけ tends refer to subjective or emotional\nreasons, whereas 理由 tends refer to objective or technical reasons.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T14:48:20.600",
"id": "53708",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T16:12:19.740",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-09T16:12:19.740",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53673",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53673 | null | 53681 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The sentence is:\n\n> あの 狐ねばばあに 餌付けでも されたか？\n\n餌付け - is a potential form of the verb.\n\nWhat role is でも playing here?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T01:19:34.950",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53674",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-08T06:12:17.433",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-08T02:55:36.330",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25508",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"potential-form",
"particle-でも"
],
"title": "Potential verb + でも: meaning?",
"view_count": 155
} | [
{
"body": "でも is a particle which has several meanings. In this case it roughly means \"～\nor something like that\", \"... for example\" or \"maybe\". See: [Function of \"でも\"\nin \"とでも言うべきであろうか\"?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/21156/5010) and\n[confusing usage of でも](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/34029/5010)\n\n餌付け【えづけ】 is a [**noun** derived from the masu stem of a\nverb](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/32311/5010). It means \"taming an\nanimal by means of feeding it\", and it can work as a suru-verb. There is no\npotential meaning in 餌付け on its own. It's usually not used with a human being,\nbut apparently it's used figuratively here.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T05:52:04.993",
"id": "53678",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-08T06:12:17.433",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-08T06:12:17.433",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53674",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53674 | null | 53678 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53677",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm trying to say \"I do X so that I can do Y\".\n\nFor example: \"I work so that I can enjoy life\".\n\nThe closest I've been able to get is something like:\n\n働【はたら】くから、人生【じんせい】を楽【たの】しめます。 ( _because_ I work, I can enjoy life)\n\nIs there a way of saying this with a closer implication to the original\nEnglish?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T02:54:38.250",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53675",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T10:27:27.813",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-09T10:27:27.813",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "26055",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Saying \"I do X so that I am able to do Y\"",
"view_count": 1040
} | [
{
"body": "働くから人生を楽しめます (\"I can enjoy life because I work\"; 働 **う** should be a typo for\n働 **く** ) makes sense, but there is some difference in meaning.\n\nTo describe your purpose (\"in order to\", \"so that\", ...), you can use ～ように or\n～ために. For the difference, see: [On the interchangeability of ~ように and\n~ために](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/36593/5010)\n\n> * 人生を楽しむために働きます。\n> * 人生を楽しめるように働きます。\n>\n\nReference:\n\n * [Japanese Grammar on Expressing Benefit & Purpose](http://www.learn-japanese-adventure.com/japanese-grammar-tame.html)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T05:35:58.847",
"id": "53677",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-08T05:35:58.847",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53675",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 53675 | 53677 | 53677 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53680",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Is it\n\n> ピアノを弾いてやめました。\n\nor\n\n> ピアノを弾きやめました。\n\nThanks",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T06:03:48.037",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53679",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-08T12:48:24.857",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-08T12:48:24.857",
"last_editor_user_id": "542",
"owner_user_id": "26057",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"verbs"
],
"title": "How do you say \"stopped playing piano\" by using やめる?",
"view_count": 551
} | [
{
"body": "Neither is correct. Unlike 始める or 終える which can follow almost any verb, やめる\ncan _not_ follow the masu-stem of an arbitrary verb. (There are a few fixed\ncompound verbs like\n[取りやめる](http://jisho.org/word/%E5%8F%96%E3%82%8A%E6%AD%A2%E3%82%81%E3%82%8B),\nthough)\n\nYou have to use a nominalizer and say:\n\n> ピアノを弾くのをやめました。\n\nCompare:\n\n> * ピアノを弾き始めました。 I started playing the piano.\n> * ピアノを弾き終えました。 I finished playing the piano.\n>",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T06:17:48.717",
"id": "53680",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-08T06:17:48.717",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53679",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 53679 | 53680 | 53680 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am currently writing a short story, for a text prompt demanding I set my\nplot among medieval Japan's nobility, but I am unfamiliar with older\nhonorifics.\n\nThe main dialogue takes place between **a military commander of high\nnobility** and **his first lieutenant and bodyguard**. The point is that\nalthough they have no hierarchical intermediates, the commander's blood is\nmuch more aristocratic than the other's, which demands immense levels of\nrespect from him.\n\n * If the lord is a samurai, what would be the title of his first lieutenant? How would they address one another, both in terms of particle ( -kimi? -sama? \"O-\"prefix?... ) and of designation (a title, a last name)? Could there be several possibilities? \n\n * Is there a more fitting title than samurai for this type of subordination relationship (for example, is it unrealistic that a samurai would have a first lieutenant serving as body guard)? In which case, does the lieutenant also have a title I should be aware of? \n\n * What could be address variations (for different tones), such as between the English \"my lord\"/\"lord X\"/\"master\"? And, the other way, \"lieutenant\"/\"lieutenant X\"/\"X\" or even a (slightly condescending) \"my friend\"? \n\n * Bonus question, like this wasn't enough yet: raking through even my most guilty references, I looked up the term _taicho_ for captain and only ever found pages about the anime Bleach. Does this rank even exist in real life (along with _fuku-taicho_ )? That's just me being curious however, I believe I can absolutely not use them.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T10:49:47.030",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53682",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T12:14:33.313",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-08T11:49:20.653",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "26060",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"politeness",
"history",
"suffixes",
"honorifics",
"prefixes"
],
"title": "Historically, how would a military lord and his direct subordinate address each other?",
"view_count": 308
} | [
{
"body": "According this page:\n<https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1479861664>, there\nwere some titles or roles but military ranks that correspond with those of\nmodern armies.\n\nSo, we will end up in calling the lord \"との\" and his man \"(his name)\" (both\nwhen the lord addresses him and when he does himself in front of the lord).\n\nPeople from other clans should call the lord \"(his name)-sama\" or \"(his\ntitle)-sama\".\n\n隊長｛たいちょう｝ and 副隊長｛ふくたいちょう｝ are not a military rank but a title or a role.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T12:14:33.313",
"id": "53706",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T12:14:33.313",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "53682",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 53682 | null | 53706 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53685",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "From the start of 星の王子さま:\n\n> 僕が六歳だったときのことだ。「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のことを **書いた** 本で、すごい絵を見た。 \n> It was when I was six years old. I saw an amazing picture in a book called\n> \"Stories that Really Happened\" that (someone) wrote about the primeval\n> forest.\n\nI'm a bit confused about 書いた here. I would have expected this to be in the\npassive form. Since it is not, there must be some implied subject of the verb,\nbut these are the first two sentences of the book so the only subject I can\nimply is \"someone\".\n\nIs this usual in Japanese? Would 原生林のことを書かれた本 be more, or less natural, or\nequally acceptable, and why?\n\nI read [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/43161/difference-\nbetween-%E8%AA%AD%E3%82%93%E3%81%A0%E6%9C%AC-\nand-%E8%AA%AD%E3%81%BE%E3%82%8C%E3%81%9F%E6%9C%AC) but I don't think the\nanswer is applicable in this case.\n\n**Edit:**\n\nI've just realised I'm even more confused, because in my interpretation 本\nwould have been the **object** of 書く before it was made into a relative\nclause. But after making it a relative clause 書く is now taking a second\nobject: 原生林のこと. So if 原生林のこと is the object then wouldn't 本 have to be the\nsubject, so I would get \"a book that wrote about the primeval forest\". But\nbooks don't write things. People write things in books.\n\nIn the active sentence I guess I would have said something like 原生林について本を書いた.\nSo perhaps my alternative should have been 原生林について書かれた本.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T14:58:46.010",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53684",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T16:12:31.490",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-08T17:48:20.543",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"passive-voice",
"relative-clauses"
],
"title": "Difference between ～のことを書いた本 and ～のことを書かれた本",
"view_count": 580
} | [
{
"body": "Both Aのことを書いた本、Aのことが書かれた本 are used.\n\nAs you understood, Aのことを書いた本 is translated as \"a book in which someone wrote\nabout A\" and Aのことが書かれた本 is translated \"a book which was written about A\".\n\n原生林のことを書かれた本 would be unnatural and 原生林について書いた本 would also make sense.\n\nIn the case that you want to refer to a specific writer, it would be usually\nsaid like 村上春樹が戦争のことを書いた本, but not passive(村上春樹によって戦争のことが書かれた本).",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T18:15:50.790",
"id": "53685",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T14:20:33.203",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-09T14:20:33.203",
"last_editor_user_id": "7320",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "53684",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "I think your points are all correct, from my understanding of Japanese, this\nsentence, 「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のことを書いた本, sounds a little bit awkward because there\nshould be a subject, it's omitted. When sentences are passive voice in\nEnglish, it don't necessarily have be followed by **'by subject'** in the\ngrammatical point, it just occurs to this Japanese sentence. As far as a\nformal and precise conversation goes, 書かれた本 would be preferred. I more often\nhear 書かれた本 in media or serious situations, 書いた本 sounds slightly fancier and\nsimpler.\n\nAdditionally, the omitted subject can be inserted into somewhere in that\nsentence, but still it'll result to be wordy and messy.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T18:28:04.383",
"id": "53686",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-08T18:33:54.827",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-08T18:33:54.827",
"last_editor_user_id": "22412",
"owner_user_id": "22412",
"parent_id": "53684",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> (1)「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のことを **書いた** 本で、\n>\n> (2)「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のことが **書かれた** 本で、\n\n(1)も(2)も普通に理解できます。ここの文章で大切なのは、このフレーズに続く「すごい絵を見た」ですから、(1)や(2)の部分は読み飛ばすから気にしないのでしょう。\nでも、読み飛ばさずに気にしてくれと言われると、確かに、(2)の方が良い文かなと思います。 \nそれでは、何故(1)でも理解でき、余り問題にしないのでしょうか。\n無理に考えろと言われると、それは、読者が、（3）のように、「書いた」の主語である「作者が」省略されているからと理解するからでしょう。日本語では分かっていることは明示しないことが普通であり、「作者を」敢えて書くと文がくどくなるからでしょう。\nこういう日本語の習慣から、読者は絶えず隠れた主語を意識して補充することに慣れていますので、(1)で「書いた」となっていても問題にしないのでしょう。ところが、(1)のフレーズの後で「すごい絵を見た」となると、この時点で着目点は「本」に移動しますので、「作者」の存在が邪魔になります。従って、(1)を読み飛ばすことなく何度か丁寧に読むと、着目点が移動しない(2)の方が良いと思えるのでしょう。\n\n> (3)（ **作者が** ）「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のことを **書いた** 本で、すごい絵を見た。\n\nところで、私は、(1)に近い表現ですが、「作者が」登場しない(4),(5)なども自然に読めるので好きです。\n\n> (4)「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のこと **を書いてある** 本で、すごい絵を見た。 \n> (5)「ほんとうにあった話」という原生林のこと **が書いてある** 本で、すごい絵を見た。\n\n(4)と(5)なら、(5)の方が好きです。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T05:45:50.373",
"id": "53691",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T05:45:50.373",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53684",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "In 「原生林のことを書いた本」, the 「本」 is not the object of the verb 「書いた」 (as in 「私が書いた本」:\n\"book I wrote\") since the object slot for 「書いた」 is already occupied by\n「原生林のこと」. (You can say 「本を書いた。」 and 「原生林のことを書いた。」 but not 「本を原生林のことを書いた。」)\n\nThere are two ways I can see of looking at the syntax of 「原生林のことを書いた本」.\n\nIn the first one, it's one of those Japanese relative clauses where, in\ntranslating to English, you have to fill in the semantic gap that results\nbetween the relative clause and the modified noun by some preposition. And the\nrequired preposition in this case would be \"in\". In this analysis, the subject\nof the clause is \"its author\" or the like, but is omitted since it is so\nobvious that mentioning it would be tedious and even silly.\n\n> 「原生林のことを書いた本」:\n>\n> \"book [which] [its author] wrote about the primeval forest\" ← This, though\n> grammatical English in itself, does not reflect the syntax of the original\n> Japanese very well. (In the Japanese, 「本」 is not the object of 「書いた」.)\n>\n> ↓\n>\n> \"book [ _in_ which] [its author] wrote about the primitive forest\" ← Now\n> that's what I'm talking about.\n\nAlternatively, it is possible to think of the 「本」 as the subject. (In fact I'm\nmore partial to this interpretation.):\n\n> 「原生林のことを書いた本」: \"book that wrote about the primitive forest\"\n\nTrue, books don't write their contents, their authors do -- but by virtue of\nmetonymic transfer of the agency of writing from the author to their works,\nyou are well-justified in writing constructions of this kind, as far as\nJapanese is concerned. This practice is more common and commonplace than you\nmight think. Examples from everyday speech and prose abound. Take\n「朝日の記事はこう書いている。」: \"An article in The Asahi has written thus.\" or\n「そこについてもこの本は色々書いてくれている。」: \"Thankfully, on that matter, too, this book has\nwritten plentifully.\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T11:22:06.493",
"id": "53702",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T16:12:31.490",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "11575",
"parent_id": "53684",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53684 | 53685 | 53685 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "55736",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've been reading many questions here about radicals, and it seems there is\nsome confusion over them. My question is:\n\nApart from the 214 radicals of Kangxi, what are the other\ncomponents/elements/primitives which are contained in kanji from the Joyo\nkanji list but not listed as 'official radicals' in the 214? In other words, I\nam looking for a list of sub-elements which are not considered radicals\n(according to Kangxi) but do appear in some kanji on the Joyo kanji list. I'm\nsure there are quite a few, but how are they categorized? I'm trying to make\ntwo lists, comprising (a) 'official' radicals, and (b) all other components\nwhich appear in joyo kanji but not in list (a).\n\nTo give an example, take the sub-element ⺤ which is part of kanji like 受、妥、採,\netc. As far as I know, this is not on the list of 214 kangxi radicals, but\ndoes appear in several joyo kanji. Therefore, it will be on my list (b). Does\nanyone know of a complete list of other such elements?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T19:26:48.743",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53687",
"last_activity_date": "2020-10-02T15:47:33.623",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"radicals"
],
"title": "Radicals - components outside the 214 Kangxi (but in Joyo list)",
"view_count": 1037
} | [
{
"body": "Apologies for not answering this question directly, but for all intents and\npurposes, such a list is not useful. This is especially true with regards to\nthe character forms in Japan after simplification ([\n_shinjitai_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinjitai)).\n\n_Kangxi radicals_ themselves do not serve a purpose outside of being\ndictionary header sections, which is the literal translation of **部首** , and\nonly act as the Chinese character equivalent of an alphabetical order to\norganise dictionaries. While many modern forms of Chinese characters can be\ndecomposed into primitives, many also cannot, as they may have undergone\nextensive graphical changes from the original form.\n\nFor example, the ancient forms of\n[**史**](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian?kaiOrder=212) and\n[**事**](http://xiaoxue.iis.sinica.edu.tw/yanbian?kaiOrder=729) were near\nidentical, and were distinguished by a **V** -shaped mark near the top. They\nboth originally referred to some kind of officer in the imperial court. In\nKangxi, they're grouped under the radicals 口 and 亅, respectively, and the\nmodern form of 史 completely obscures its primitives whereas 事 largely\npreserves it (a shape like **中** , depicting a writing-brush container, and\n**又** morphed into a shape like 彐, depicting a hand holding this container).\n\nNote, ⺤ is just another graphical form of a hand:\n\n * **受** depicts a hand passing a boat (originally **舟** , simplified/corrupted into **冖** ) to another hand 又, indicating the meaning _to receive_ and 舟 doubles as the sound cue;\n * **採** was originally just written **采** , which depicts a hand gathering something from a tree **木** , indicating the meaning _to harvest_.",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-06T16:52:45.047",
"id": "54303",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-06T16:52:45.047",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53687",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Here you go:\n\n * [All primitives (incl. radicals) in the Joyo Kanji list](https://pastebin.com/6E8Jx89N)\n * [Component form radicals in the Joyo Kanji list](https://pastebin.com/75mxy1Q5)\n * [Full Kangxi radicals in the Joyo Kanji list](https://pastebin.com/kYG44dDf)\n * [Full Kangxi radicals **not** in the Joyo Kanji list](https://pastebin.com/9m8JV3xa)\n * [Non-standard primitives ( **not radicals** ) in the Joyo Kanji list](https://pastebin.com/8wf2jzM2)\n\n* * *\n\nData mined from\n\n * <http://www.chise.org/ids/index.html> (IDS sequences)\n * <http://kanji-database.sourceforge.net/> (Joyo Kanji list)\n * <http://www.unicode.org/> (Kangxi radicals list)",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-01-06T22:26:39.423",
"id": "55736",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-06T23:10:39.003",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-06T23:10:39.003",
"last_editor_user_id": "26510",
"owner_user_id": "26510",
"parent_id": "53687",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53687 | 55736 | 55736 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I want to say \"I want to watch a movie with you\"..\n\nCan I say this?\n\nあなたと映画を見るつもりです",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-08T23:32:54.990",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53688",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T17:34:27.547",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-09T23:52:19.783",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "26067",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-と",
"particle-を"
],
"title": "I want to ... With you",
"view_count": 749
} | [
{
"body": "> あなたと映画を見るつもりです。I plan to see a movie with you.\n\nと is the right particle to use with あなた if you want to mean \"with them\",\nhowever, つもり tends to mean \"I plan to\" , and not \"I want to\".\n\n**I think this is better:**\n\n> 一緒に映画を見たいのです。I want to see a movie with you (together).\n\nThe の particle I put in for \"explanation\" towards the listener. You are trying\nto explain to them you want to see a movie with them, correct? The particle\nisn't necessary, it's just my preference.\n\nNote: The sentence I've provided you might not be used if you are asking a\ngood friend (it's kind of formal). In that case you could say:\n\n> 一緒に映画を見たい！I want to see a movie with you!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T01:19:46.367",
"id": "53689",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T17:34:27.547",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-10T17:34:27.547",
"last_editor_user_id": "16159",
"owner_user_id": "16159",
"parent_id": "53688",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Japanese does not usually say あなた when you are talking to another person.\n\n> 一緒に映画を見たいです。I want to watch a movie together with you (politely).\n\nBut, if that person is your friends or family members, you can just use in 辞書形\nby omitting です。\n\n> 一緒に映画を見たい。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T06:57:40.523",
"id": "53692",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T06:57:40.523",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26070",
"parent_id": "53688",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53688 | null | 53689 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53699",
"answer_count": 5,
"body": "電車 has the kanji for \"electric\" in it, but is it more or less ok to use it\neven for non-electric trains, such as steam trains? I saw a steam-powered\ntrain being used as the picture for that word in Duolingo.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T08:13:19.183",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53695",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T06:42:25.457",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 31,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Is it ok to use 電車 for non-electric trains?",
"view_count": 5219
} | [
{
"body": "Steamed powered trains are called 汽車. I've seen it Japanese novel in the old\ntimes.\n\nThere are examples of it\n[here](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/51771/example/m0u/). One of the\nexamples:\n\n> ･･･――「美華禁酒会長ヘンリイ・バレット氏は京漢鉄道の **汽車**\n> 中に頓死したり。同氏は薬罎を手に死しいたるより、自殺の疑いを生ぜしが、罎中の水薬は分析の結果、アルコオル類と判明したるよし。」･･･<芥川竜之介「馬の脚」青空文庫>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T08:19:06.160",
"id": "53696",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T08:19:06.160",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "903",
"parent_id": "53695",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "I was corrected yesterday on this very point when playing [Great Western\nTrail](https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/193738/great-western-trail) in\nJapanese.\n\nThe people I was with most assuredly only use 汽車 for steam locomotives versus\n電車 for modern electric rail trains. They found my periodic use of 電車 humorous\nbut wrong enough that they vocally corrected it twice...\n\nIn the case of the game the trains are 19th steam locomotives, but I've had\nthe same experience riding the\n[ノロッコ号](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%8F%E3%81%97%E3%82%8D%E6%B9%BF%E5%8E%9F%E3%83%8E%E3%83%AD%E3%83%83%E3%82%B3%E5%8F%B7)\nto Furano.\n\nIf you want a universal word for train, there's 列車 and for passenger train 客車",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T10:07:28.333",
"id": "53699",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T11:59:22.123",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-09T11:59:22.123",
"last_editor_user_id": "4091",
"owner_user_id": "4091",
"parent_id": "53695",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 29
},
{
"body": "Not so. As explained [here](https://www.wikiwand.com/ja/%E9%9B%BB%E8%BB%8A),\nthe term 電車 technically refers to an electric train that either:\n\n 1. uses an onboard power storage to run its electric engine, or\n 2. uses a power transfer device that transmits electricity from a power line to the engine\n\nAny train that uses an internal combustion engine to create electricity that\nsubsequently powers an electric motor is not categorized as a 電車 but a 電気式気動車\n(electric-powered combustion engine train) instead.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T10:18:17.917",
"id": "53700",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T10:18:17.917",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53695",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "There are 3 types of train based on the motive power:\n\n1) 蒸気動車 (steam powered train, 汽車 is more often used)\n\n2) [気動車](https://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%B0%97%E5%8B%95%E8%BB%8A) (internal\ncombustion engine powered train, even it has electric traction motors)\n\n3) [電車](https://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%9B%BB%E8%BB%8A) (electric powered\ntrain)\n\nThe difference between those three is trivial as vast majority of Japanese\ntrains still in operation uses electricity as primary power.\n\nMore specifically, as defined by 新明解国語辞典, 電車 refers to any electric-powered\npassenger or freight trains which connected to either overhead wires or other\nconductive devices using current collector (集電装置).\n\n> **電車** : 電力でレールの上を走る装置が付いている車両（から成る列車）。\n\nThere are more general words to refer trains such as 列車 (train set), 客車\n(passenger train, as shortened form of 旅客列車) & 貨車 (freight train, as shortened\nform of 貨物列車).\n\nOn the other hand, \"汽車\" formerly refers to [trains hauled/powered by a steam\nlocomotive\n(蒸気機関車)](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1361047358)\nas it's common for railway lines in the past, but as nowadays all internal\ncombustion engine trains (either self-powered or locomotive-hauled) uses\neither \"汽車\" or \"気動車\" when steam locomotives more often used for excursion or\nhistorical trains.\n\n[This article](http://www.hitachinaka-\nrail.co.jp/journal/2013/04/11/%E9%9B%BB%E8%BB%8A%E3%80%80%E6%B0%97%E5%8B%95%E8%BB%8A%E3%80%80%E6%B1%BD%E8%BB%8A/)\nalso described the problem of \"電車\" to mention any \"passenger trains\"\nregardless of its prime mover for Japanese natives but seems having little\ninfluence.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T01:37:35.113",
"id": "53715",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T02:18:57.043",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-10T02:18:57.043",
"last_editor_user_id": "18259",
"owner_user_id": "18259",
"parent_id": "53695",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> 電車 has the kanji for \"electric\" in it, but is it more or less ok to use it\n> even for non-electric trains, such as steam trains?\n\nNo.\n\nnarutoさんのコメントを見て、徳島の人ではありませんがその地方の過去を含めた公共交通機関の状況がどうであったかで、乗り物の呼び名が違うことを改めて感じました。\n\n実際に徳島の「電車のような」乗り物を見ました。立派に電車に見えますが、電気を取り入れる電線のようなものが見えません。高架線からではなく、地下鉄でよくあるように地上配線から電気をとり入れるのでなければ、何でしょう。一両目の屋根が煤｛すす｝で黒くなっていますので、ディーゼル機関で動くのでしょうか。本当は、この写真から電線が見えないだけで立派に「電車」なのでしょう。\n\n質問者の中にも出て来る蒸気機関車（a steam-powered\ntrain）の次に登場したのはディーゼル機関車です。蒸気機関車の石炭の燃焼で出る煙（お客様には煤｛すす｝）の害を抑えるためです。ディーゼル機関でも、石炭の煙ほどではありませんが、石油系燃料燃焼の排気ガスは出ます。蒸気機関車のように列車を牽引するだけの車両です。ディーゼル機関車と並行して登場したのが、ディーゼルカーと言われるもので、客車とディーゼル機関車が一体になった徳島の写真のようなもので、外見は電車そのものです。お客様への煤の被害は大変少なくなりました。\n\n因みに、日本で最初の海底トンネルである関門トンネルでは、蒸気機関車のまま走ると、長いトンネル内で十分に処理できない煙（お客様には煤｛すす｝）の害を防ぐために、トンネルに入る前と出た後（下関と門司の各々の駅）とで、蒸気機関車と煙の出ない機関車につなぎなおしておりました。そのときの煙の出ない機関車は何だったのでしょうか。ディーゼル機関車なのか、それか電気機関車なのかいずれかだと思います。\n\nところで、「電車」は最初は路面電車を指す簡単な呼び名として使われました。少し大きな都市では、北から南まで、路面電車がありました。今でも少し残っていますね。\n路面電車と国鉄（今のＪＲ）の乗り物とを同時に使える、あるいは、国鉄の乗り物だけを使えるお客様は、路面電車は「電車」、国鉄（今のＪＲ）が運営する軌道を走るものを「汽車」ときちんと区別して使っていました。\n\n最初は、「電車」は正式に電気で走り、「汽車」は蒸気機関で走っておりましたので、言葉と実体とが一致しておりました。\n\n徳島は想像するのに、路面電車はなかったのかもしれません。従って全国統一の「汽車」、いわゆる国鉄（後にＪＲ）の乗り物を指す用語が車両を牽引する動力の変遷にもかかわらず今でも使われているものと思われます。\n\n日本全体では、都会では、路面電車がなくなり、国鉄も公害防止のために、ディーゼル機関車から電気機関車になり、そのうち、機関車の機関部部が小型化され客車の先端部分に電気機関部分が設置されるようになってきました。外観はまるで徳島の汽車です。国鉄と並行して私鉄も普及しました。私鉄は大都市では一部の線路が地下に潜りました。さらに、地下鉄だけの路線もできました。しかも近頃は相互乗り入れと称して地下鉄と地上を走る乗り物もかなりつながってきました。その上を走る乗り物はいずれも「徳島の電車のような姿をした汽車」と同じ姿の電車です。動力源はもちろん電気です。もはや路面電車とＪＲの乗り物との区別が車両の姿で区別できなくなってきました。「電車」が路面電車から卒業です。\n\n実は乗っている人は、今乗っている乗り物の動力源が電気であるのかどうかはほとんど考えていないと思います。要するに、最初は動力源をきちんと区別としておりましたが、今では「電車」と言えばモノレールなどの例外を除けば、一般に、軌道を利用して走る乗り物全てを指しております。私鉄であろうが地下鉄であろうが区別なしです。ＪＲとＪＲ以外を区別して、「電車」にＪＲを含めないという人もいるでしょう。でも、ＪＲを区別するときは、ＪＲに対して地下鉄で行くとか小田急で行くとかいう場合でしょう。しかも、ＪＲのホームで近づいてくるものに対して「電車が来た」といいますので、間違いなく、全部「電車」と呼んでいますで問題なしです。\nその意味では質問者が何でも「電車」というのかという質問は少しは合っていますが、さすがに今は懐かしい蒸気機関車を「電車」とは言いません。\n\nそのうち、「電車」の動力源が電気でなく、水素燃料のようなものに変わっても、人々は徳島の人々のように、昔の用語をそのまま使い続けて、「水素に乗る」とは言わず、「電車に乗る」「というのかも知れません。",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T05:50:19.327",
"id": "53717",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T06:42:25.457",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-10T06:42:25.457",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53695",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 53695 | 53699 | 53699 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53698",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm learning japanese on my own and face a sentence below.\n\nこの子、熱が高くてすごくつらそうだよ。 \"すぐ医者に連れていこう。\"\n\nWhat i don't understand is the grammar in the last sentence. It seems that the\nbook uses a Ving format. it's strange for me as i believe that \"すぐ医者に連れこう\"\nshould also works here.\n\nCan anyone explain why the book uses this sentence structure？ is the one i\nmodified above still correct?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T09:54:22.980",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53697",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T23:51:39.343",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-09T23:51:39.343",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "18471",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"subsidiary-verbs",
"volitional-form"
],
"title": "Grammar of すぐ医者に連れていこう",
"view_count": 173
} | [
{
"body": "連れていこう is the volitional form of 連れていく. 連れていく means \"to take (someone)(to\nsomewhere)\", and is made of the te-form of the verb 連れる (\"accompany\") + a\nsubsidiary verb いく(行く) (\"go\").\n\n> 「すぐ医者に連れていこう。」 \n> \"Let's take him/her to a doctor at once.\"\n\n(連れこう is not a correct conjugation.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T10:07:15.720",
"id": "53698",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T10:12:50.327",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-09T10:12:50.327",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "53697",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53697 | 53698 | 53698 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53705",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 私もその妻として恥ずかしくないよう、微力を尽くします。 As his wife, I will ***\n\nI don't understand the end at all. What my dictionnary says and what the\nsentence says doesn't seem to match.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T11:34:47.043",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53703",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T12:14:14.040",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does 微力を尽くします。mean?",
"view_count": 139
} | [
{
"body": "A somewhat loose translation of the sentence as a whole would go something\nlike,\n\n\"I too will do what little I can, so as to live up to my position as his\nwife.\"\n\n微力 is a humble expression referring to \"one's meagre/limited abilities\". 尽くす\nin this case means \"to use something to their fullest extent\". So when put\ntogether, 微力を尽くす is like saying \"I'm not capable of much, but I'll do\neverything I can with what abilities I do have.\"\n\nThe 妻として恥ずかしくないよう is also something of a set expression; if you are\n[position]として恥ずかしい it means you are an embarrassment to that position; ie.\nyou're not living up to what is expected of someone in that position. So\n妻として恥ずかしくないよう indicates that she's going to put in this effort in order to\navoid being \"an embarrassment as his wife\", the implication being that she\nthinks a lot of her husband and feels she needs to put in an effort to be a\nwife befitting of his status.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T12:14:14.040",
"id": "53705",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T12:14:14.040",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25107",
"parent_id": "53703",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 53703 | 53705 | 53705 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Can について be used in the sense of \"judging from\" and, if so, would the sentence\n\"話し方について、あの男は昔先生だったはずです。\" be correct?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T16:30:35.167",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53709",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T17:02:30.220",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26080",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"usage",
"word-usage"
],
"title": "Can について be used in the sense of \"(judging) from\"?",
"view_count": 202
} | [
{
"body": "No, ～について does not mean \"judging from ～\". (I'm curious how you came up with\nthis idea.)\n\nI assume you want to say \"Judging from his way of speaking, ...\" You can use\n～から判断すると, ～からすると, ～から言って, ～からすれば, ～から察すると, ～から察するに, etc.\n\n> * 話し方から判断すると、あの男は昔先生だったはずです。\n> * 話し方からすると、あの男は昔先生だったはずです。\n> * 話し方から察するに、あの男は昔先生だったはずです。\n>\n\nReference:\n\n * [Learn JLPT N2 Grammar: からすると/からすれば](http://japanesetest4you.com/flashcard/learn-jlpt-n2-grammar-%E3%81%8B%E3%82%89%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E3%81%A8%E3%81%8B%E3%82%89%E3%81%99%E3%82%8C%E3%81%B0-kara-suru-tokara-sureba/)\n * [What does the に do in 表情から察するに?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/29418/5010)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T16:57:04.503",
"id": "53710",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-09T17:02:30.220",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-09T17:02:30.220",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53709",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 53709 | null | 53710 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53713",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "My textbook just taught me about っぱなし and how it indicates that X wasn't\nfollowed by Y as it is usually expected. It also taught me that this expresses\nthat this fact is perceived negatively by the speaker.\n\nWhat it didn't explicitely teach me is how it functions syntactically ^^ So\nfar, I noticed that it is only used in this way:\n\nSubject + が + verbっぱなし\n\nExample: あの家は留守らしい。洗濯物 **が** 4,5日前から **干し** っぱなしだ。\n\nThis pattern even extended into sentences like this one: 1週間前から階段の前にバイク\n**が置き** っぱなしにしてある。\n\nwhere the verb in use 置く confuses me a bit since I only encountered it in the\npattern\n\nsubject + を + 置く\n\nIn addition, whatever rules the things coming AFTER っぱなし follow is still kind\nof a mystery for me. I frequently see っぱなし being followed by the copula as in\nmy first example.\n\nHowever sometimes it is also followed by something like in example 2. I would\nguess now that っぱなし is a noun? In this case, from a grammatical point of view,\nboth the copula and the example 2 case would be viable I guess? If it should\nbe the case that っぱなし is a noun I would expect a fixed set of particles being\nrequired for constructions like in example2 since the\n\nverb+っぱなし\n\ncomplex feels like in the function of an attribute or adverb here, and\ntherefore I'd usually expect something like の or に.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-09T17:43:35.213",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53711",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T02:03:30.667",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particles"
],
"title": "The grammar behind っぱなし",
"view_count": 713
} | [
{
"body": "Simply, ～っぱなし follows a masu-stem and works as a **no-adjective**. You can say\n干しっぱなしの洗濯物 and 置きっぱなしのバイク.\n\nOther examples:\n\n 1. 開けっぱなしの窓を見た。\n 2. その窓は開けっぱなしだ。\n 3. 窓が開けっぱなしにしてある。\n 4. 窓を開けっぱなしにする。\n 5. 窓を開けっぱなしにしてある。\n\nSentences 4 and 5 are also okay. They partially look like ordinary ～を開ける, but\nactually they are using the ～を～にする construction. That is, 窓 is the object of\nする, not 開ける. I believe you are already familiar with this pattern because [you\nhave asked about this\nbefore](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/47282/5010).\n\n 6. バイク **が** 置きっぱなしにしてある。\n 7. (私は)バイク **を** 置きっぱなしにしてある。\n\nSentence 6 focuses on the current status of 置きっぱなし, and thus typically means\n\"there is an automobile left (by someone)\". Remember the most basic meaning of\nが, introducing something into the universe of discourse. Sentence 7 involves\nthe state change because of the ～を～にする pattern. It typically means \"I have\nleft my automobile (somewhere, for a certain purpose)\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T01:18:25.493",
"id": "53713",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T02:03:30.667",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-10T02:03:30.667",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53711",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 53711 | 53713 | 53713 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I tried to look for the description of these Japanese company leave but I\ncan't find any internet site that gives a direct description. (交通遮断休暇, 予防休暇)\n\nI found the meaning of the following words in my electronic dictionary:\n\n * 交通 = traffic\n * 遮断 = cut-off, shut out\n * 予防 = prevention\n\nFrom these, I derived the equivalent English terms as:\n\n * 交通遮断休暇 = Road Blockage Leave\n * 予防休暇 = Preventive Leave\n\nHowever, I still can't grasp the meaning by just the definition alone. Can you\nplease give me a description of these company leaves?\n\nOr are these leaves a unique term, created by a specific company, and not used\nby all companies?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T05:15:45.407",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53716",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T10:20:49.757",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-10T10:20:49.757",
"last_editor_user_id": "18189",
"owner_user_id": "20375",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "What are the description of the following Japanese company leaves? (交通遮断休暇、予防休暇)",
"view_count": 87
} | [
{
"body": "交通遮断休暇 would refer to a situation where one is unable to report to work due to\na public transport strike. I imagine this is quite unheard of in Japan as it\nrarely happens.\n\nI can't offer much explanation for 予防休暇 except that it may be related to a\n(possibly self-imposed) abstention from reporting to work to prevent the\nspread of infection to the workplace, such as in cases of influenza.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T06:09:24.047",
"id": "53718",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T06:09:24.047",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53716",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53716 | null | 53718 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53722",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I wanted to write \"I'll be waiting\" in respectful term.\n\nI found the respectful term of \"wait\" from this site:\n<https://townwork.net/magazine/knowhow/manners/baito_manners/13309/>\n\n待つ = お待ちになる、お待ちくださる\n\nSo, to imply \"I'll be waiting\" in Japanese, I used \"お待ちになっております\".\n\nHowever, I was corrected by a Japanese colleague that for the phrase to sound\nmore like a natural Japanese term it should be, \"待っております\".\n\nI tried using google translate and according to google translate\n\"お待ちになっております\". means \"I will be waiting\".\n\nIs there actually such a phrase as \"お待ちになっております\".?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T09:48:54.310",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53720",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T10:07:14.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20375",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words",
"phrases"
],
"title": "Is the word お待ちになっております not a legit Japanese phrase?",
"view_count": 1594
} | [
{
"body": "If you want to be polite, I think the phrase you're looking for is: お待ちしております。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T09:51:36.073",
"id": "53721",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T09:51:36.073",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53720",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "You should read an introduction to 敬語{けいご}, or honorific language. Wikipedia\nwill do fine.\n\nBriefly, there are two kinds of honorific language: 尊敬語{そんけいご} or \"respect\"\nlanguage to elevate the referent, and 謙譲語{けんじょうご} or \"humble\" language to\ndepreciate the referent. The problem was that you've mixed them up. The basic\nrule is, you **never** use 尊敬語 to refer to yourself or your in-group; that\nwould sound incredibly arrogant, except people don't even do that, so that\nwhen you use 尊敬語 they automatically assume you're talking about someone else,\nto whom you want to show respect. And of course, you **only** use 謙譲語,\nhumble/depreciating language, to talk about yourself or your in-group.\n\nThe grammar おVになる is 尊敬語, respect language. You _can't_ use it to talk about\nyourself. -ておる, on the other hand, is 謙譲語 (well, in the standard dialect at\nleast). So what you said didn't make sense. It's like saying \"I humbly give\nyou the priceless privilege of witnessing me waiting.\"\n\nYou can see this in the website you've linked, where the two grammar forms\nyou've used (おVになる and おる) are in different columns. You can also see that the\n謙譲語 equivalent of おVになる is おVする, so the proper form would be お待ちしています; or, as\nyour friend suggested, 待っております which works just as fine. (You could also\ncombine both as お待ちしております, or even be super mega humble with いたす, the 謙譲語\nequivalent of する、 to make お待ちいたしております, though that's definitely overkill; your\nfriend is correct that 1 single 謙譲語 marker is enough).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T10:07:14.480",
"id": "53722",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-10T10:07:14.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "622",
"parent_id": "53720",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 53720 | 53722 | 53722 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53735",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In Akutagawa Ryuunosuke's \"鼻\" there is one sentence which I don't understand:\n\n> 内供の自尊心は，妻帯というような結果的な事実に左右されるためには、余りにデリケイトに出来ていたのである。\n\nActually it is only the inner sentence I can't translate satisfactorily:\n\n> 妻帯というような結果的な事実に左右されるためには\n\nwith the \"culprit\" `結果的な事実`. My dictonaries tell me `結果的な` can mean\n\"eventual\", \"matter-of-course\", \"concerning the result\". But how can a\nreality/fact/truth (`事実`) be eventual or matter-of-course?\n\nWith a lot of stretching of my linguistic abstraction I would probably come up\nwith something like:\n\n> \"for the sake of being influenced by things such as marriage (and similar)\n> which would result in the fact/reality of getting married\",\n\nBut still, the use of `結果的な事実` sounds for me slightly illogical or at least\nlike a phrase with an undefined reference and the reader/listener needs to\ninfer that it is indeed referring to the marital affairs.\n\nVery likely, I myself wouldn't have even come up with any understanding of\nthis sentence at all, if I hadn't had the english translation by Giles Murray\nwho translates this part as\n\n> ... to be influenced by such practical eventualities as marriage.\n\n(Even in English, I have trouble to assign any logical meaning to `practical\neventualities`, though I am not an English native speaker)\n\nTherefore my question: Is `結果的な事実` somehow a fixed term in Japanese? If not,\nwhat would be the closest translation to that in English? Thanks a lot!",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T13:18:55.407",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53724",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T08:24:17.753",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18895",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"parsing"
],
"title": "Meaning/parsing of 結果的な事実",
"view_count": 159
} | [
{
"body": "First, let's make sure you understand the [あまりに\nconstruction](http://japanesetest4you.com/flashcard/learn-\njlpt-n3-grammar-%E3%81%82%E3%81%BE%E3%82%8A%E3%81%AB-amari-ni/).\n\n> 内供の自尊心は、妻帯と云うような結果的な事実に左右されるためには、余りにデリケイトに出来ていたのである。 \n> Naigu's pride was too delicate to be affected by the \"妻帯と云うような結果的な事実\".\n\nThis can be roughly rephrased as:\n\n> 内供の自尊心はとてもデリケイトだったので、妻帯という結果的な事実には左右されなかった。 \n> Naigu's pride was so delicate, and therefore his pride was not affected by\n> the \"妻帯と云うような結果的な事実\".\n\n結果的な事実 is not a fixed expression. Here 結果的 is used because \"to marry or not to\nmarry\" is a mere result of Naigu's job choice, and not the fundamental problem\nto him. In the story, people in the town rumor that he chose to be a monk\nbecause he cannot marry due to his nose (i.e., \"being unmarried\" is the cause,\n\"being monk\" is the result). But Naigu himself thinks \"being unmarried\" is a\nsimple result, because he chose to be a monk. Perhaps he might have had a\n(small) chance to get married if he had not become a monk. But such a\nspeculation is not really important to him, in spite of the rumor.\n\nHis fundamental source of anxiety is his nose itself, and marriage is only\nsecondary. As long as he has the long nose, even if he married, his pride will\nnot be preserved. I feel \"practical eventuality\" is a fine translation\n(although I'm not a native speaker of English, either).\n\n(Note that 事実 in 妻帯というような事実 is not an actual fact in the story. The true fact\nis that Naigu is an unmarried monk.)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T04:55:02.910",
"id": "53735",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T08:24:17.753",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-11T08:24:17.753",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53724",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 53724 | 53735 | 53735 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53728",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> というわけで、僕は六歳 **にして** 、画家というすばらしい職業をめざすのをあきらめた。 \n> For that reason, at six years old I abandoned my goal of having a wonderful\n> occupation as a painter.\n\nI don't really understand how にして works here. Literally I read \"making into\nsix years old\". So might \"having reached six years old\" be a better\ntranslation than \"at six years old\"?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T20:44:50.667",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53725",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-20T13:25:17.883",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Difference between 六歳にして and 六歳で",
"view_count": 327
} | [
{
"body": "There is a big (and important) difference in meaning and nuance between\n「六歳{ろくさい}で」 and 「六歳にして」.\n\n「六歳 **で** 」 is just **neutral** and **factual**. \" _ **One did something at\nage six**_.\" There is no surprise or any other special feeling expressed\nregarding it happening at that age. For instance, if you moved to London with\nyour family or started learning to play the piano when you were six, that\nwould be 「六歳で」. No one would wonder \"Why so early/late?\", would he?\n\n「六歳で」, therefore, is synonymous to 「六歳の時{とき}に」.\n\n「六歳 **にして** 」 is _much_ different in that it expresses the speaker's feeling\nthat it was (a little) too early for something to occur at age six. Thus, it\nwould mean \" **at as young as (six)** \", \" **at a rather young age of (six)**\n\", etc. One would normally expect that to happen at a later stage in life (if\nit happened).\n\n_**\" For that reason, at a rather (surprisingly/unusually) young age of six, I\n(already) abandoned my goal of having a wonderful occupation as a painter.\"**_\n\nConversely, if one said 「Aさんは70歳にして大学に入学した。」, one would clearly be thinking\nthat it was an unusually late start.\n\nI am afraid that neither \"making into six years old\" nor \"having reached six\nyears old\" would capture the nuance of the phrase.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T23:33:03.550",
"id": "53728",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-20T13:25:17.883",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-20T13:25:17.883",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53725",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
]
| 53725 | 53728 | 53728 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53739",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I was translating this song (lyrics here: <http://vocadb.net/S/87131>) and I\ncame across these lines. I'm mostly having trouble with the last one.\n\n嘆きの堕天使 我が邪気眼（め）に\n\n預言書（アーモス） 孵（かえ）し\n\n羽輝（はてる）聖霊 喘ぐ音 目覚めよ\n\n\"(Hearing) the cries of fallen angels, the prophecies of Amos (this is a book\nin the bible, by the way) are hatched in my (evil) eyes. The holy spirit\nrises(?) with a harsh sound. Wake up!\" is what I got from it. I'm at a loss\nfor はてる - it's pronounced that way in the song, but I couldn't find a meaning\nthat made sense, contextually. But I found out that 羽輝 is a name that means\nwing, so perhaps it could mean that the spirit is flying/rising? I think that\nmay be a bit far-fetched, though, considering its pronunciation. So how would\nはてる be translated in this case?\n\nAny help would be appreciated!\n\nThank you!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T20:48:08.923",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53726",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T08:51:03.460",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19870",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"words"
],
"title": "Strange use of はてる",
"view_count": 156
} | [
{
"body": "羽輝 is not a common word. It may work as a rare person name, but obviously it's\nnot used as a proper noun here.\n\nI may be wrong, but it can be a creative ateji for\n[果てる](http://jisho.org/word/%E6%9E%9C%E3%81%A6%E3%82%8B) (\"to be exhausted\")\nused to intensify the chunibyo-like atmosphere of the song. This reminded me\nof [this question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/15138/5010).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T05:15:42.143",
"id": "53736",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T05:15:42.143",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53726",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "As naruto has already said, the 羽輝 kanji almost certainly have nothing to do\nwith the actual pronunciation or meaning of the word はてる here - they're just\nbeing used as creative ateji. (羽 can be pronounced は and 輝 can be pronounced\nてる, but neither would usually be used for the word はてる, so these were probably\njust chosen as a kind of wordplay, because the kanji looked poetically\nappropriate to the subject of a holy spirit).\n\nAs for the actual meaning of はてる, this is the verb 果てる, which has the basic\nmeaning of \"reaching an end\". It's used to refer to a few different things.\nOne possible interpretation is sexual - 果てる is commonly used to mean \"reach a\nsexual climax\", which would fit with the following phrase using 喘ぐ\n(panting/moaning), which is also commonly used in sexual contexts.\nAlternatively, 果てる can also refer to someone dying, which could also feasibly\nfit with the moaning sounds of 喘ぐ.\n\nIt's not very clear which interpretation is intended here, since the lyrics\nare so poetic and abstract, but I'd perhaps lean towards the death angle - the\nsurrounding lyrics seem to perhaps be talking about the hatching/awakening of\na \"fallen angel\", so perhaps the intended image is of a holy spirit dying and\nbeing reborn into something evil. But it's difficult to say for sure.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T08:51:03.460",
"id": "53739",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T08:51:03.460",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25107",
"parent_id": "53726",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 53726 | 53739 | 53736 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53737",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> **先日、同級生は飼い犬を学校に連れてきました。**\n>\n> 彼の飼い犬はゴールデン・レトリバーで、すごく可愛かったです。\n>\n> 学生達に撫でられたり、甘えられたりすることがとても好きだったので、授業中に教室を走り回っていて、皆を迎えに行きました。\n>\n> 甘えん坊ですね～！\n\nI posted that entry on Lang-8 and someone corrected my use of は to が so\n\n> 先日、同級生 **は** 飼い犬を学校に連れてきました。\n\nto\n\n> 先日、同級生 **が** 飼い犬を学校に連れてきました。\n\nwhile other people said it was fine. I'm confused on which one I should use in\nthis sentence.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-10T22:21:56.807",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53727",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T05:22:59.377",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-10T23:53:05.010",
"last_editor_user_id": "10316",
"owner_user_id": "10316",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"は-and-が"
],
"title": "Should I use は or が here?",
"view_count": 216
} | [
{
"body": "You have to use が if this is the first sentence of your essay. By using が,\nyou're introducing this 同級生 in the universe of discourse. See: [What's the\ndifference between wa (は) and ga\n(が)?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/22/5010)\n\nUsing は sounds fairly awkward to me. In this case, 同級生は is like suddenly\nsaying \" _the_ classmate\". 同級生が is like \" _a_ classmate (of mine)\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T05:22:59.377",
"id": "53737",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T05:22:59.377",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53727",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53727 | 53737 | 53737 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53730",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "A train in japanese is 電車. Precisely an electric train.\n\n電 means electricity and 車 means car/vehicle.\n\nWhich means that the name for fully electrical cars should be 電車 or 自動電車\nright?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T01:50:46.390",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53729",
"last_activity_date": "2021-05-22T15:38:17.490",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17468",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"nouns"
],
"title": "Will fully electric cars be called 電車？",
"view_count": 1142
} | [
{
"body": "Electric cars are called\n[電気自動車](https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9B%BB%E6%B0%97%E8%87%AA%E5%8B%95%E8%BB%8A).\n\nI’m not sure, what you mean by \"will\" (and what the timeframe is), but I guess\nthey will remain to be also called 車{くるま}, just as two-wheeled carts pulled by\noxen.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T01:57:15.937",
"id": "53730",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T03:10:34.103",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-11T03:10:34.103",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "11104",
"parent_id": "53729",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "You just have to be careful about how the motive power is produced or where it\nis coming from. I explained\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/53700/25446) that it can only be\n電車 if it runs on electricity either running from a wire current or an onboard\nbattery.\n\nThe term 電車 itself is an abbrevation for 電動機付き客車 (electric passenger car) and\n電動機付き貨車 (electric freight car). See more about it\n[here](https://www.wikiwand.com/ja/%E9%9B%BB%E8%BB%8A).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T02:41:45.910",
"id": "53732",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T02:41:45.910",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53729",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "There is no such word like 自動電車 (belongs to electric trains which uses\nautomatic/driverless operation like _people mover_ ) for electric road\nvehicles, but 電気自動車 is a general term for all electric-powered road vehicles\nwith electric motors, regardless of their primary power source.\n\nIf the primary power source is considered, there are 2 main variations:\n\n1)\n[燃料電池自動車](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%87%83%E6%96%99%E9%9B%BB%E6%B1%A0%E8%87%AA%E5%8B%95%E8%BB%8A)\n(fuel cell powered electric vehicle) - using chemical fuel cells as primary\npower source (combined with battery or capacitors as power storage).\n\n2) 電池式電気自動車 (battery powered electric vehicle) - using battery as primary\npower source. In nowadays rechargeable battery is more preferred.\n\nThere is another electric road vehicle which uses overhead wire (架線集電) like 電車\nhas, it is trolleybus (トロリーバス).\n\nNote that 電車 specifically refers to electric powered trains which **always**\nrunning on top of rail tracks, not including dual-mode vehicles (vehicles\nwhich can running on both road & rail).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T06:08:20.053",
"id": "53738",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T06:08:20.053",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18259",
"parent_id": "53729",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53729 | 53730 | 53730 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Consider this:\n\n> watashi wa remon wo tabeta\n\nThis is translated as **I ate a lemon**.\n\nHow about this?\n\n> remon wo watashi wa tabeta\n\nThis can be translated 2 ways:\n\n1) A lemon I ate\n\n**However** , it _also_ can be translated as:\n\n2) I ate a lemon\n\nwhich is **the same translation** as in the 1st case (watashi wa remon wo\ntabeta), just the order of the words is different.\n\nHow would you deal with it on practice?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T03:19:54.693",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53733",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T12:07:32.320",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-11T04:22:38.420",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "26104",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-は",
"particle-を",
"word-order"
],
"title": "\"I ate a lemon\" and \"a lemon I ate\"",
"view_count": 396
} | [
{
"body": "> > remon wo watashi wa tabeta\n>\n> This can be translated 2 ways:\n>\n> 1) A lemon I ate\n\nNo it cannot be translated as “a lemon I ate”.\n\nParticle _wo_ indicates a direct object of the verb _tabeta_ , and word order\ndoes not change that.\n\nThe phrase “A lemon I ate” in Japanese is “watashi ga tabeta remon”.\n\n> However, it also can be translated as:\n>\n> 2) I ate a lemon\n\nAnd this is the only way it can be translated although the word order is not\nnatural.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T03:29:55.773",
"id": "53734",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T03:40:36.603",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-11T03:40:36.603",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "11104",
"parent_id": "53733",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "Both phrases you gave mean \"I ate lemon\". I will show you, roughly, how to\nparse the sentences so you can convince yourself of this.\n\n## The verb is in the end of the clause\n\nClauses in Japanese always **end with the verb**. This is very important, and\n(usually) won't change in casual speech, even if there are particles being\nomitted and all that. The verb is always in the end of the clause.\n\nThis means that, when you see:\n\n> watashi wa remon wo tabeta\n\nYou can conclude:\n\n * This is **one** complete **clause**. The verb is \"tabeta\".\n * What is marked with \"wa\"? Answer: \"watashi\". Therefore \"watashi\" is the topic of this clause.\n * What is marked with \"wo\"? Answer: \"remon\". Therefore \"remon\" is the object.\n\nTherefore the translation can only be \"I ate lemon\". Now, if the sentence was,\ninstead:\n\n> remon wo watashi wa tabeta\n\nThe analysis would be **identical** to the one I did above, and the only\npossible translation is still \"I ate lemon\".\n\n## What if particles are omitted?\n\nIn casual speech, it is not uncommon for particles to be omitted. But, you can\nbe sure that **the verb will still be in the end of the clause**. Consider:\n\n> watashi, remon tabeta.\n\nParticles were omitted, this is fine. But as you can see, the verb is still in\nthe end. This won't change in acsual speech. You simply have to guess which\nparticle was attached to \"watashi\" and which particle was attached to \"remon\",\nand you can quickly guess \"wa\" and \"wo\" respectively, and understand the\nsentence. This still means \"I ate lemon\".\n\n## How to say \"Lemon I ate\" then?\n\nFirst of all, note that \"Lemon I ate\" **is not a clause**! \"I ate\" is a\nclause. But \"Lemon I ate\" is well, a lemon with a special property (you ate\nit), so it is a **noun modified by a clause**.\n\nClauses can modify nouns. I don't know if you're familiar with this, so I will\nexplain a bit. Clearly, we can modify a noun with adjectives, such as \"big\nlemon\", \"small lemon\", and so on. In english, we do this by putting the\nadjective on the left of the noun. We can also modify a noun with a clause.\nFor example, \"A lemon _that I ate_ \", or \"A lemon _I ate_ \" for short. In\nJapanese, we can also do this, and to do this, we put the clause in the left\nof the noun. Therefore.\n\n * We want to say \"Lemon I ate\".\n * Step 1: figure out how to say \"I ate\" (the clause). Well, it is \"watashi wa tabeta\" or \"watashi ga tabeta\" (in small sentences it is hard to see a difference between \"wa\" and \"ga\", so let's leave it like this for now...)\n * Step 2: figure out how to say \"Lemon\": that is \"remon\".\n * Put the clause to the left of the noun. Result: \"watashi wa tabeta remon\" **or** \"watashi ga tabeta remon\".\n * Note: It's unfortunate that we stumbled into this \"wa\" versus \"ga\" thing here, but since it's not the focus of your question, I will simply say that \"wa\" is wrong in this case. If you don't understand why, you'll have to look around or ask another question.\n\nConclusion: \"Lemon that I ate\" is \"watashi ga tabeta remon\". Since clauses in\nJapanese end with a verb, it is clear that \"remon\" is not a part of the clause\nhere. Instead, it is being modified by a clause. And no particle omitting will\nchange this.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T12:07:32.320",
"id": "53741",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T12:07:32.320",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7494",
"parent_id": "53733",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53733 | null | 53734 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53749",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I've asked this to several native Japanese speakers, but I've gotten varied\nresponses so I thought I'd put it out here.\n\nWhich feels 'stronger', ie more forceful:\n\n(1) そこに行かないでほしい \n(2) そこに行ってほしくない\n\nTo me, ～ないでほしい feels like it's a little more forceful. Then again, both are\nprobably translated the same way in English. So what's the verdict? \n分からなかったら書かないでほしい。（笑）",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T11:59:36.170",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53740",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T05:56:26.407",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-12T01:34:32.743",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"negation"
],
"title": "Which is stronger, ないでほしい or てほしくない",
"view_count": 1612
} | [
{
"body": "# English\n\n> Which feels 'stronger', ie more forceful: \n> (1) そこに行かないでほしい \n> (2) そこに行ってほしくない\n\nI encountered this kind of question asking \"Which one of the sentences with\n(1) and (2) has a stronger meaning?\" for the first time in my life. \nI read both, but I couldn't distiguish the strength between them in a moment.\nTherefore, it was possible that the native speakers of Japanese you knew made\nvarious responses. \nThinking about them theoretically, as you guessed (1) will be stronger.\nBecause (1) is requesting the opponent \"not going there\" and (2) refuses the\nopponent \"getting to arrive there\". You probably couldn't understand what I'm\ntalking about in this explanation. I'll explain the feeling I received from\nthem in a bit more detail. (1) refuses all of the acts going there from the\nbeginning to the last, in other words it seems to refuse even to leave here.\nHowever, in (2), the speaker cares nothing for the oppornent leaving towards\nthere, but he/she only refuses the opponent to arrive there. This feeling is\nmy personal feeling, so it may be different from person to person.\n\nIf I think about which one I usually use when I want to say more strongly, it\nis probably (1). But in reality, I don't think much about which one to use,\ninstead I would enhance the effect of strength by strengthening the parts of\nthe sentence whichever I chose.\n\n\"Strengthening the parts of the sentence\" is meant to \"pronounce strongly with\na loud voice\". As shown below, boldface is a part that is strengthened by the\nstrong intention.\n\n * 《stronger》そこに **行かない** でほしい ＞ そこに行かないでほしい 《weaker》\n\n * 《stronger》そこに行って **ほしくない** ＞ そこに行ってほしくない 《weaker》 \n\n# 日本語\n\n> 分からなかったら書かないでほしい。（笑）\n\n「(1) と (2) のどちらが強いか」というような質問に初めて出会いました。 \n両方読んでみましたが、一瞬では分かりませんでした。従ってあなたの知っている日本人が異なる回答をしたというのも分かります。\n\n理屈から言うと、あなたの推察通り（１）でしょう。\n何故なら、（１）は、「行かないこと」を要求しており、（２）は「行き着くこと」を拒否しているからです。これでは何だか分からないでしょうが、私の受け取る感じでは、（１）は行って欲しくない地点へ向けて\n**スタートすることすら拒否** しているようですが、（２）では、行って欲しくない地点に向けてスタートすることは問題にしておらず、その地点に\n**到着することを拒否** しているように思います。この感じはあくまでも個人的なもので、人によって違うのかもしれません。\n\nより強く言いたいとき、私は普段どちらを使うかなと考えると、多分（１）ですが、実際には、どちらとは考えず、 **語気**\nを強めることで、強さの効果を高めているように思います。\n「語気」とは、「発言する言葉の勢い」ですが、「語気を強める」とは、「大きな声で強く発音する」ことです。太字 (boldface) は語気を強めた部分です。\n\n * そこに **行かない** でほしい ＞ そこに行かないでほしい\n\n * そこに行って **ほしくない** ＞ そこに行ってほしくない",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T14:52:34.930",
"id": "53744",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T05:56:26.407",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53740",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Both are rather simply using ほしい, and I personally do not think there is a\nclear difference in the level of forcefulness.\n\nThe literal translation of these two sentences are different also in English:\n\n> (1) そこに行かないでほしい。 I want you not to go there. \n> (2) そこに行ってほしくない。 I do not want you to go there.\n\nSentence 2 is theoretically ambiguous; it usually means the same thing as\nSentence 1, but its literal meaning is closer to \"I'm not saying I want you to\ngo there.\" (i.e., if you want to go there, I don't want to stop you, either.)\nTherefore, some people may say Sentence 1 is more direct, explicit, and thus\nsounds a little \"stronger\". But practically, these are almost always safely\ninterchangeable.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T16:33:03.463",
"id": "53749",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T16:33:03.463",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53740",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "明確に(1)の方が強い要求をしています。\nnarutoさんが書かれたように、(2)は「私の望みは伝えるが、どうするかはあなた次第だ」と言う含みを持たせています。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T23:42:04.367",
"id": "53754",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T23:42:04.367",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25777",
"parent_id": "53740",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 53740 | 53749 | 53749 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Recently, in a conversation with my Japanese tutor (a native Japanese speaker)\nI brought up the word 美しい in regards to praising people and its usage in day\nto day language. She mentioned to me that it is not really a word used in\nnormal conversation, as it was rather outdated and a bit too over the top,\nwhich would make some people think you're joking. Other such related terms\nlike 美貌 or 美顔 are also not used frequently either.\n\nShe told to me that キレイ（綺麗）is a much better choice and can even be seen as the\nhighest level of praise in regards to beauty.\n\nWhile I've certainly heard this argument before from online discussions and\nother native Japanese speakers, it still confuses me a bit because I still\nhear native Japanese speakers use 美しい when praising people.\n\nSome phrases I heard recently are:\n\n```\n\n 今日も朝から美しいね。\n \n 食べる姿は美しい。\n \n```\n\nIs this a generational thing? Is the current generation simply bringing back\nan old word? Or am I simply overthinking the problem?\n\nAny insight you can offer me would be greatly appreciated.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T14:47:13.317",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53743",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T23:59:51.103",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26095",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"nuances",
"colloquial-language"
],
"title": "美しい - Uncommon in everyday conversation when describing people?",
"view_count": 616
} | [
{
"body": "I can see your tutor's point, but I think they overstated it a bit. 美しい might\nnot be as popular a term as キレイ, but there are still plenty of people who use\nit. Also, I'm guessing your tutor is older than 30. As far as I can tell, most\nyoung Japanese girls these days would prefer to be called かわいい or 美人 than any\nof those other terms.\n\nIt also raises the question of how to compliment men's looks. Probably most\nguys would like to be called かっこいい or イケメン instead of alternative terms like\nハンサム、男前 or 美男.\n\nBasically, words go in and out of fashion all the time. Right now, 美しい might\nbe somewhat out of vogue, but I think it's going too far to say it's outdated\nor over the top.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T14:55:50.780",
"id": "53745",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T14:55:50.780",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"parent_id": "53743",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "I think the word 美しい is refined, decorous and sophisticated rather than\noutdated, so it may not be often used in daily conversation.\n\nOf course, there would be some people who use it, in particular, gentle and\nrefined people.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T15:44:35.757",
"id": "53746",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T15:44:35.757",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "53743",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "「美しい」という言葉の使い方は、少なくとも現代においては世代間の差異はありません。この言葉は文学的過ぎるので、書き言葉で使われても日常会話で使われることは少ないです。もし日常会話で使った場合には、ふざけているか非常に気取った態度ととられるでしょう。特に音楽や美術作品等に対してではなく目の前の人に対して使った場合には。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T23:59:51.103",
"id": "53755",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T23:59:51.103",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25777",
"parent_id": "53743",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53743 | null | 53745 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53752",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "『新完全マスター(N3)』に出てくる問題「日本で富士山ぐらい＿山はないと思う。」の答えは「きれいな」ですか。\n\n(１・きれいな ２・高い ３・ほかの)\n\nWhy not 高い?\n\nCould you please explain this in detail? \n(I was looking for an answer here but did not find)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T17:10:50.647",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53750",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-26T15:37:29.077",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-12T02:28:21.080",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "25989",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"jlpt"
],
"title": "新完全マスター(N3) ぐらいきれいな vs ぐらい高い",
"view_count": 779
} | [
{
"body": "This might be a context call. However, here's your clue-in:\n\n> 日本で **富士山ぐらい** ＿山はないと思う。\n\nIt sounds to me like we're discussing the aspect of the mountain in of itself,\nnot an attribute like its height (I might be expecting 富士山 **の高さ** ぐらい if we\nwere talking height).\n\nBut, the quickest way to see this as a context call is that, from prior\nknowledge, you know: 1. There are mountains about as tall as 富士山, for example,\n北岳 or 穂高岳, however, both are shorter, and 2. To Japanese people, the most\nbeautiful mountain in Japan is without question 富士山.\n\nRecall that くらい is used for talking about approximation. This can certainly be\nused to talk about the height of something, or something that's calculable,\nbut also certainly about the aesthetic of something. So, if there exist\nmountains that approximate the height of 富士山 but there aren't mountains that\napproximate the beauty of 富士山, this is the clue that completes the phrase.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T18:01:21.683",
"id": "53751",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-11T18:01:21.683",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "53750",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I think No.2 is a bit unnatural because it is a well known fact that Mt. Fuji\nis the highest mountain in Japan. So 思う is a bit unnatural. 日本で富士山ぐらい高い山はない\nwould be natural. For example, it is a bit odd if American people say \"I think\nthe US borders on Mexico\", isn't it? No.1 would be the answer.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T18:25:03.610",
"id": "53752",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-26T15:37:29.077",
"last_edit_date": "2018-05-26T15:37:29.077",
"last_editor_user_id": "7320",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "53750",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "As far as Shin Kanzen Master N3 is concerned, the correct answer comes\ndirectly from their definition of the grammar point:\n\n> ～くらい...はない ～ぐらい...はない ～ほど...はない \n> 「～がいちばん...」客観的な事実ではなくて、話者が主観的に言うときに使う。 \n> ・リーさんぐらい動物好きな人はいない。 \n> ・わたしは料理を作ることぐらい楽しいことはないと思っています。\n\nemphasis: **主観的に言うときに使う**\n\n(1) きれいな：主観的 (subjective)\n\n(2) 高い：客観的 (objective)\n\nTherefore, the answer must be (1).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2018-05-25T22:00:49.773",
"id": "58980",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-26T05:19:16.757",
"last_edit_date": "2018-05-26T05:19:16.757",
"last_editor_user_id": "25859",
"owner_user_id": "25859",
"parent_id": "53750",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53750 | 53752 | 53752 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Listening to the first Pimsleur Japanese audiobook and I'm having a hard time\nrecognizing the words its saying. It says to say \"I want to go shopping\" and\nthen in Japanese says something that sounds like \"kaimonoga shtain desnoga\".\nWhat are the actual words it's saying?\n\nMy best guess after reading some posts is that it's saying shitai desu ga. Are\nthe n sounds just a regional accent? Or do they change the meaning?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-11T22:48:12.280",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53753",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-12T05:14:07.920",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-12T06:27:14.000",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "26110",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"particle-の",
"phonetics",
"listening"
],
"title": "What is pimsleur saying (shtain desnoga)?",
"view_count": 680
} | [
{
"body": "The sentence was simply\n\n> [買]{か}い[物]{もの}がしたいん/のですが\n>\n\n>> Kaimono ga shitai -n/no desu ga\n\nwhich is saying that the speaker explains that he/she wants to go shopping.\n\nThere's no particular accent here.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T07:11:41.933",
"id": "53762",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-13T04:25:56.507",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-13T04:25:56.507",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "53753",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53753 | null | 53762 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "53768",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I want to say \"I was looking for happiness in things that held none\" (in the\ncontext of consumerism), so I'm saying \"幸せがない物に、幸せを探してたんだ。\" Is there a better,\nmore natural sounding way to say this?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T00:12:14.747",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53756",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-14T05:24:35.017",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-12T00:21:39.707",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "26002",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"colloquial-language",
"phrase-requests"
],
"title": "How to make this more natural sounding?",
"view_count": 158
} | [
{
"body": "> \"I was looking for happiness in things that held none\" (in the context of\n> consumerism).\n\nIf you want to place the phrase after you realized that _the era ended when \"I\nwas looking for happiness in things that held everything I wanted\"_ , the\ninterpretation for the phrase would be simply 物の中に幸せはなかった or\n**幸せはモノの中には無かった**.\n\nThough I cannot give an exact answer to the question of the questioner, I will\nintroduce some phrases consepturally similar to the given phrase as follows.\n\n(1) [**知足｛ちそく｝** ; **足{た}るを知{し}る** ;\n**足｛た｝るを知｛し｝る者｛もの｝は富{と}む**](http://kotowaza-\nallguide.com/ta/tarushirumonotomu.html) \nThis is a well-known maxim made by Laozi 老子｛ろうし｝ who was an ancient Chinese\nphilosopher and writer. This means that human desires have no limit. However,\nthose who can be satisfied within their means without becoming greedy are rich\nin spirit.\n\nIt is interpreted in English like:\n\n * _Content is the philosopher's stone, that turns all it touches into gold_.\n * _Content is a kingdom_.\n\n(2)\n[**武士{ぶし}は食｛く｝わねど高楊枝｛たかようじ｝**](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%AD%A6%E5%A3%AB%E3%81%AF%E9%A3%9F%E3%82%8F%E3%81%AD%E3%81%A9%E9%AB%98%E6%A5%8A%E6%9E%9D-617916)\n\nThis is a Japanese proverb. \nThis means that even if a samurai is poor and can not eat, he uses a toothpick\nas if he has eaten. It refers to samurai's poverty and also expresses their\nattitude of the pride being contented with living in honest poverty. It also\nhas a nuance making fun of their pretended endurance for sake of the samurai's\npride.\n\nIt is interpreted in English like:\n\n * _A samurai glories in honorable poverty._\n * _A samurai pretends he has eaten well when he has no food._\n\n(3) **清貧｛せいひん｝に幸｛しあわ｝せ見｛み｝つけたり** \nThis is made by me, which means \" _I found happiness lies in honorable\npoverty._ \"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T14:29:44.027",
"id": "53768",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-14T05:24:35.017",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-14T05:24:35.017",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53756",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 53756 | 53768 | 53768 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Not in the sense of giving money as a patron to an artist or something like\nthat, but the sort of attitude one gives when they superior to someone else.\nAll the examples I can find are super figurative, and the only thing I can\nthink of that I've actually ever heard is 上から見る but I'm wondering if there are\nany alternatives, or even one-word examples that express this.\n\nThanks!!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T00:19:51.733",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53757",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T00:33:09.847",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25254",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words",
"word-requests"
],
"title": "How to express \"patronizing\" in Japanese?",
"view_count": 760
} | [
{
"body": "There are quite a few:\n\n・上{うえ}から目線{めせん}の ← Very common for the last decade or two.\n\n・（人{ひと}を）見下{みくだ}したような\n\n・お高{たか}く留{と}まった\n\n・横柄{おうへい}な\n\n・恩人{おんじん}ぶった\n\n・恩着{おんき}せがましい\n\nThere are more and which one to select would solely depend on the\ncontext/situation.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T00:33:09.847",
"id": "53758",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T00:33:09.847",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53757",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53757 | null | 53758 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "So I'm aware that transcription into Japanese is not always clear-cut, and\nthere are plenty of exceptions. It sort of makes sense that \"Australia\" is\nオーストラリア not *オーストレリア and \"stadium\" is スタジアム not *ステージアム, perhaps because those\nare partial transliteration, not pure transcription. But why is \"studio\" スタジオ?\nShouldn't it be _at least_ be something like *ストジオ? Or are dictionaries wrong\nabout its actual etymology (i.e. from English)?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T01:18:37.807",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53759",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T07:46:01.070",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-12T07:46:01.070",
"last_editor_user_id": "10168",
"owner_user_id": "10168",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"english-to-japanese",
"phonology",
"phonetics",
"transcription"
],
"title": "Why is the English word \"studio\" transcribed as スタジオ?",
"view_count": 1005
} | [
{
"body": "The combination `tu` in some words is rendered as タ. As far as I can remember\nnow, ト is not used.\n\n * bathtub バスタブ\n * study スタディー\n * tuck タック\n * tumbler タンブラー\n\nIn addition, [etymology of _studio_ is the same as that of\n_study_](http://www.etymonline.com/word/studio) (from [Lantin\n_studium_](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/studium#Latin)). To my ears, ストジオ\nand スタジオ are equally bad as the phonetic approximation of _studio_ , but\nsomehow スタジオ is at least understandable for those who already know the facts\nabove. スツジオ might have been another possible option ( _two_ /tu/ is ツー, _tool_\n/tuːl/ is ツール), but I find it hard to pronounce.\n\nMost people today understand the sounds /tu/ and /di/ that appear in loanwords\n(See: [What \"non-standard\" katakana are commonly\nused?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/19201/5010)), but these were not\navailable in the past. Had this word been introduced firstly in the 21\ncentury, it would have been ストゥディオ.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T04:12:30.957",
"id": "53761",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T05:32:26.920",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-12T05:32:26.920",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53759",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53759 | null | 53761 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've seen certain translations where I feels like there's a shift in the\ntenses.\n\nEx: なぜ早く言わない!？ translated to \"Why didn't you say so sooner!?\"\n\nIn fact, I've experienced a lot of cases where a character says the word in\nit's negative present form in Japanese. For example, imagine a scene where a\nsibling fails to wake up the other for some big event. In this case, the other\nsibling would say \"Why didn't you wake me up\"(past) instead of \"Why don't you\nwake me up\"(nonpast). However, what I see instead in Japanese is 起きてくれない\ninstead of 起きてくれなかった.\n\nAny explanation on the system here would be appreciated.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T01:35:53.643",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53760",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T14:30:24.657",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19576",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"tense",
"past",
"negation"
],
"title": "Negative present endings translated as past tense",
"view_count": 435
} | [
{
"body": "oldergod gave an excellent interpretation in the comment as: \n\" **They say as a general** /characteristic **thing** , **not specific to the\nevent itself**.\"\n\nI agree with the above interpretation in boldface, and I'll add some\ninformation to this.\n\nWhen presenting universal truths and facts, and human beings' behavioral\nnorms, the present form is sometimes used rather than a specific tense.\n\nI'll show some examples conforming to the above idea including the example\npresented by the questioner.\n\nThey are phrases expressed in the present tense and the following phrases for\neach of them are possible ones given to proceed the conversation.\n\n * **なぜ早{はや}く言{い}わないの？** おしっこが出{で}るなら出{で}ると。\n * **なぜもっと早｛はや｝く起{お}こしてくれないの？** 学校{がっこう}遅{おく}れるじゃないの。\n * **なぜ嘘{うそ}をつくの？** いつも「嘘{うそ}つきは駄目{だめ}だって」言{い}ってるじゃないの。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T08:04:31.363",
"id": "53763",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T08:04:31.363",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "53760",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "> **A** :「実は3日前から足を怪我していて……」 \n> **B1** :「なぜ(それを)早く言わない！？」 \n> **B2** :「なぜ(それを)早く言わなかった！？」\n\nHere, Sentences B1 and B2 are basically the same. Both refer to the statement\nA just said, and can be translated as \"Why didn't you say it sooner?\" or \"You\nshould've said that earlier!\" The only difference I can feel is that B1 is\nslightly more emotional and/or emphatic than B2. In particular, B1 does not\nimply A is a person who regularly fails to say important things promptly.\n\nI think B1 is probably an example of [_historical\npresent_](http://www.englishcafe.jp/englishcollege/etense2/e1-2-1.html), an\nemployment of present tense to express past things vividly. Despite its\ngrandiose name, it happens in daily conversations, both in Japanese and\nEnglish. But some sources say the Japanese language uses this more often than\nEnglish. Tense in Japanese is somewhat more loose than that of English, and is\naffected by the speaker's mood.\n\nFrom my experience, an emotional complaint like this is often the target of\ntemporary shift in tense. For example, you can say なんでそんなこと言うのかなぁ (\"I wonder\nwhy he said such a thing\") complaining about what was said yesterday. This\ndoes not mean he is a person who always says odd things.\n\nSome articles which may be related:\n\n * [historical present, specifically in japanese](http://linguaphiles.livejournal.com/4925137.html)\n * [Tense and Aspect in Modern Colloquial Japanese](https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=9LqLwiAi1aYC&lpg=PA46&ots=zHXs1aba5P&dq=historical%20present%20japanese&hl=ja&pg=PA46#v=onepage&q=historical%20present%20japanese&f=false)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T14:30:24.657",
"id": "53769",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T14:30:24.657",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53760",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 53760 | null | 53769 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "So, I know that お前 nowadays is used as a rude way of saying \"you\". However,\nduring one of my readings, I came across a strange use of お前 which, from the\ncontext, won't really make any sense if it was meant to be rude.\n\nBasically, this is a \"noblewoman\" talking to her servants : she used お前たち\nalthough she spoke with them in a rather friendly way, always using polite\nforms such as ～です or ～ます.\n\nCould I have more information about this お前 ?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T11:46:49.553",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53764",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-13T00:40:50.413",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Can お前 be used as a polite substitute of あなた?",
"view_count": 1274
} | [
{
"body": "No, it can't. お前 is a rude way of saying \"you\", even if she always uses polite\nforms such as ～です or ～ます. Probably she didn't use the word except to her\nservants , right?\n\nThe author may want to contrast polite forms with a rude way of speaking and\nexpect that the readers will be a bit surprised to hear it just like you were.\n\nAddition: お前 was used as a respect way of saying \"you\" till about 400 years\nago, but it doesn't be used like that now. This is the source. <http://gogen-\nallguide.com/o/omae.html>",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T13:13:47.063",
"id": "53766",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T14:08:26.170",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-12T14:08:26.170",
"last_editor_user_id": "7320",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "53764",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "お前 is clearly rude only when its used to address your boss, a stranger, etc.\nIt's a very common friendly second-person pronoun among close friends,\nespecially young male friends.\n\nBeing able to use お前 is often the sign of friendliness, frankness or a good\nvertical relationship. There is nothing wrong if you used お前 to your children,\nservant, etc., although it sounds more or less \"bossy\" or paternalistic. I\nimagine how this noblewoman can feel at ease with the servants.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T23:38:47.667",
"id": "53775",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-13T00:40:50.413",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-13T00:40:50.413",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "53764",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 53764 | null | 53766 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am writing a short text in Japanese and I would like to say that now I am\ncontinuing with my study of the Japanese language. Is it better to use the\nverb 勉強する or 学ぶ?\n\n日本語を勉強し続けている。\n\n日本語を学び続けている。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T13:12:38.567",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "53765",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T14:49:24.390",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18269",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words"
],
"title": "How to express the idea of \"I continue to study\"",
"view_count": 172
} | [
{
"body": "Not sure what they teach in Japanese-as-a-second-language, but the native\nspeakers' choice would be 「勉強{べんきょう}する」 over 「学{まな}ぶ」 most of the time.\n\nTo express different tenses, it would sound more natural to add external words\nthan to just rely on the verb forms and conjugations. In this case, I would\nsuggest using 「今{いま}でも」 and/or 「まだ」 and say:\n\n> 「（今でも and/or まだ）日本語{にほんご}を勉強しています。」\n\nUsing 「勉強し続{つづ}けています」 instead of 「勉強しています」 here is grammatical, but the\nsentence would sound a little wordy if you used it because 「今でも and/or まだ」\nalready expresses the continuity of the activity.\n\nIf you must use 「続ける」 for some reason, however, you could simply go with your\nfirst sentence.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-10-12T14:10:08.770",
"id": "53767",
"last_activity_date": "2017-10-12T14:49:24.390",
"last_edit_date": "2017-10-12T14:49:24.390",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "53765",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 53765 | null | 53767 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.