question
dict | answers
list | id
stringlengths 1
6
| accepted_answer_id
stringlengths 2
6
⌀ | popular_answer_id
stringlengths 1
6
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54650",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "This might be a fairly easy question. But I am new in learning Japanese and I\ndidn't see this question anywhere (although there are some about writing\nvertically).\n\nIs there any difference between writing kanji symbols in vertical or\nhorizontal direction?\n\nE.g.: According to Google Translate the world **Family** is written like this\n家族. Would be wrong to write like this: \n家 \n族\n\nWould be ok to write full sentences in the vertical direction too?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T10:14:47.597",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54649",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T12:39:44.153",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26498",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"syntax",
"katakana",
"written-language"
],
"title": "Is there any difference between vertical and horizontal writing?",
"view_count": 7919
} | [
{
"body": "There is no difference in meaning between vertical writings and horizontal\nwritings. Only the style is different.\n\nTraditionally, Japanese sentences are written vertically. So most of the\nJapanese newspapers and novels are written vertically. If you have a chance to\nlook at a Japanese novel by Kindle, you will know that all the sentences are\nwritten vertically.\n\nTo the contrary, most web sites, SNSs adopt the horizontal writings. There are\nseveral advantages for the horizontal writings.\n\nIn horizontal writings, it is easy to type numbers or alphabets. For example,\nthe height of Mt. Fuji is 3,776 meters: 3,776メートル. However, it should be\nwritten as 三千七百七十六 メートル if we write it vertically.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T10:59:56.663",
"id": "54650",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T12:05:23.323",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-22T12:05:23.323",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54649",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "The katakana long vowel mark (the one in ロープ) is horizontal in horizontal\nwriting, but vertical in vertical writing. [Here\nis](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MhN3Y.png) an example. Also, as you can see on\nthe picture, latin letters are often written sideways.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T12:39:44.153",
"id": "54680",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T12:39:44.153",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "12271",
"parent_id": "54649",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54649 | 54650 | 54650 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54660",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I think both mean \"Even so\" or \"nevertheless\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T14:05:36.277",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54659",
"last_activity_date": "2021-01-24T01:24:58.610",
"last_edit_date": "2021-01-24T01:24:58.610",
"last_editor_user_id": "19278",
"owner_user_id": "26566",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"conjugations"
],
"title": "What is the difference between それでも and ところが?",
"view_count": 1295
} | [
{
"body": "The difference is rather **huge** even though the two words do overlap in\nmeaning to an extent. When a bilingual dictionary gives you the same English\n\"definitions\" to two Japanese words, the best thing to do is go to a\nmonolingual dictionary.\n\n> 「それでも」 is a **_contradictory_** conjunction.\n\n「雨{あめ}も風{かぜ}も強{つよ}かった。それでもピクニックに行{い}った。」= \"It was really rainy and windy. We,\nhowever, still went on the picnic. \"\n\n「毎日{まいにち}１２時間勉強{じかんべんきょう}したが、それでもテストに受{う}からなかった。」 = \"I studied 12 hours a day,\nbut I still did not pass the test.\"\n\n> 「ところが」 is used to talk about an **_unexpected result_**.\n\n「その映画{えいが}の評判{ひょうばん}は良{よ}くなかった。ところが実際{じっさい}に観{み}に行{い}ったらとてもよかった。」 = \"That film\nhad bad reviews. Even so, I loved it when I actually went see it.\"\n\n「8回{かい}まで5対{たい}0で勝{か}っていた。ところが9回に6点取{てんと}られ、負{ま}けてしまった。」 = \"We were leading\n5-to-0 at the end of the 8th inning, however, we gave up 6 runs in the 9th\ninning and lost the game.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T14:38:44.840",
"id": "54660",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-21T17:00:03.410",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-21T17:00:03.410",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54659",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 54659 | 54660 | 54660 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "<http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10011229751000/k10011229751000.html>\n\nThe sentence containing the 役に立つ in question: お年寄りや体に障害がある人の **介護などの役に立つ**\n新しい機械の展示会が **東京ビッグサイト** で始まりました。\n\nFirst, my attempt at translation: \"On a Tokyo-big-website(???) the exhibition\nof a new machine, which is useful for nursing the elderly and physically\nimpeded, has begun.\"\n\nFirst, I don't really know what to make of this 東京ビッグサイト. It is not the focus\nof this question, but unfortunately I couldn't make much sense of it (is this\nreally just a \"websiteexhibition\"???) and therefore its translation is really\nbotched...\n\nSo now, let's turn to the thing that really matters: 役に立つ. At first, when I\nlooked at 介護などの役に立つ I wondered about the の connecting the \"verb\" 役に立つ and the\nnominal phrase. Then I thought about the fact that 役に立つ, although usually just\ntranslated as some kind of special copula \"being useful\", is actually a phrase\nconsisting of the noun 役 and the verb 立つ. So, if I literally translated this\npart in isolation 介護などの役に立つ the result would be => \"it stands in service of\nelderly care\".\n\nDoes 役に立つ work that way? If it did, it would make perfect sense to me because\nA it expresses the meaning „being of use“ and B it would perfectly suit the\nusual function of の to make the preceding noun the attributing of the\nfollowing noun.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T19:05:08.960",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54662",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-21T23:02:57.750",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-21T22:17:12.567",
"last_editor_user_id": "20172",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Understanding 役に立つ",
"view_count": 303
} | [
{
"body": "You'd really want to look at this form of parsing instead. I'm grabbing the\nentirety of the noun phrase so that you can make sense of the parsing:\n\n> 介護などの役に立つ新しい機械の展示会\n\n介護 = nursing, caregiving, or, elderly care \nなど = \"or other\", \"et cetera\" \n役に立つ = to be useful \n新しい = new \n機械 = machine \n展示会 = exhibition \n\nSo here, we're talking about \"the exhibition of new machines useful for care-\ngiving and other (related) uses,\" right?\n\nI might translate the entirety of the sentence to say:\n\n> お年寄りや体に障害がある人の介護などの役に立つ新しい機械の展示会が東京ビッグサイトで始まりました。 \n> The exhibition of new machines useful for care-giving etc. of the elderly\n> and disabled individuals has begun at Tokyo Big Sight.\n\n...and with a little leisure:\n\n> The exhibition of new technology designed for aiding in elderly and\n> handicapped care-giving has begun at the Tokyo Big Sight exhibition center.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T23:02:57.750",
"id": "54668",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-21T23:02:57.750",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "54662",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54662 | null | 54668 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "For full context:\n<http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10011229751000/k10011229751000.html>\n\nThe sentence in question: この中には、人と同じように手が動いて、物を持つことができるロボットがあります。\n\nMy attempt at translation: \"Out of these, there are roboters which can hold\nthings and\n\nVariant A: ...there are hands which can move like human (hands).\" Variant B:\n...move their hands the same like humans.\"\n\nI think that Variant B is more likely to be correct than variant A. Variant A\nmakes 人と同じように like a simple attribute to て, which is too far off from the\nadverbial character this 人と同じように has judging by it's grammatical elements.\n\nHowever, the problem with Variant B is that I translate \"動いて\" in a transitive\nfashion, while 動く is clearly listed as intransitive on jisho\n<http://jisho.org/search/%E3%81%86%E3%81%94%E3%81%8F> also, が instead of を\nsuggests an intransitive meaning. If it was a potential verb then I wouldn't\nmind implying a \"transitive\" meaning combined with \"can (do)\", but 動く doesn't\nhave any potential properties by default, does it? I also tried to search for\nan answer here <http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/in-transitive>\nbut it wasn't really helpful for this particular case.\n\nEDIT: I think I got a bit closer to resolving the question on my own. I\ncompletely overlooked that 動いて is of course also directly connected to ことができる.\nIn this case, 手が動く would fit perfectly well. The only thing which still makes\nme a bit skeptical is that 動く is intransitive by default. It probably\nperfectly normal for japanese, but since I usually only encountered transitive\nverbs being transformed into potential forms, it feels a bit estranging to see\nan intransitive verb take a pseudo-transitive meaning in a potential\nconstruction...^^",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T19:42:58.430",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54663",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T13:31:19.397",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-21T20:24:57.707",
"last_editor_user_id": "20172",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "why does this intransitive verb use が?",
"view_count": 327
} | [
{
"body": "Perhaps you're confused by the comma. 「人と同じように手が動いて、物を持つことができる」 as a whole\nforms a big relative clause and modifies the following noun, ロボット. Remember\nthe [usage rule of commas is fairly loose in\nJapanese](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/23782/5010).\n\nThe main structure of the sentence is:\n\n> この中には、ロボットがあります。 \n> Among these, there are robots.\n\nAfter partially restoring the relative clause:\n\n> この中には、人と同じように手が動くロボットがあります。 \n> Among these, there are robots whose arms can move like humans. \n> Among these, there are robots that can move their arms like humans.\n\nIf you're not sure why this relative clause is possible, remember that you can\nalways say 「このロボットは手が動く」 in Japanese, using both は and が. (literally \"as for\nthis robot, arms can move\" → \"this robot can move its arms\") Maybe [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/53580/5010) will help, too.\n\n> この中には、人と同じように手が動いて、物を持つことができるロボットがあります。 \n> Among these, there are robots that can move their arms like humans and hold\n> things.\n\nFinally, as you expect, this sentence can be safely rephrased using 動かす, the\ntransitive version of 動く:\n\n> この中には、人と同じように **手を動かして** 物を持つことができるロボットがあります。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T01:38:13.663",
"id": "54673",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T01:48:33.267",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-22T01:48:33.267",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54663",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> 人と同じように手が動いて、物を持つことができるロボットがあります。\n\n日本語として説明するべきことが２点あります。\n\n 1. 「手」は、「腕 _arm_ 」と「手首から先 _hand_ 」のいずれの意味でも使います。 質問者が挙げた文では、「手を動かして物を持つ」というときは、「手首から先 hand」を意味していると思います。更に詳細には、操作者が自分の「指を動かす」ことでロボットの指が「物を持つ」のだと思います。\n\n 2. 「動いて」と自動詞を使っている理由は、操作者の操作に基づく「ロボットの手（＝指）」の動きを客観的に記述しているからです。 \n操作者がロボットの手を操作することで、「ロボットの手（＝指）が動く」、そして「その手（＝指）が物を持つ（＝握る _grip_\n）」という一連の事象を記述していますので、自動詞で問題ありません。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T02:37:27.540",
"id": "54674",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T13:31:19.397",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-22T13:31:19.397",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "54663",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54663 | null | 54673 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54672",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Other than one being to lick, any difference between the 2 for\nunderestimating?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T20:03:25.933",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54664",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T01:26:43.847",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"word-choice",
"nuances",
"definitions",
"dictionary"
],
"title": "To Underestimate: Nameru vs Anadoru 舐める vs 侮る",
"view_count": 3061
} | [
{
"body": "舐める is slangy and should be avoided in very formal contexts. Its meaning is\ncloser to \"to look down\" rather than \"to underestimate.\" 舐める often also has a\nconnotation of behaving disrespectfully/insolently to someone/something.\n\n侮る is a relatively literary word and typically used in a set phrase \"侮るなかれ\" or\n\"侮ることなかれ\". It's probably safer than 舐める, but still has a connotation of making\nlight of something/someone.\n\n過小評価する is a neutral and politically safer word for \"to underestimate,\" which\ndoes not imply any disrespectful attitude.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T01:26:43.847",
"id": "54672",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T01:26:43.847",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54664",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54664 | 54672 | 54672 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54677",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": ">\n> このほか、体につけると普通の３０％ぐらいの力で重い物を持つことができる機械もあります。([source](http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10011229751000/k10011229751000.html)) \n> In addition, there were also machines which could lift/hold heavy things\n> with about 30% of the regular strength, when you wear them on your body.\n\nMy main issue with this sentence is that my translation ACTUALLY wants to say\n\"robots which can MAKE (it so that) you use only 30% of the strength you\nusually need...\".\n\nHowever, \"to make X to Y\" and \"strength (case X) compared to strength\n(default)\" are components which aren't represented by anything I could\nidentify as a suitable equivalent in the Japanese original sentence. Well, at\nleast 普通 **の** could hint at an implicit reference to the default case, but\nI'm not sure about it.\n\n体につけると普通の３０％ぐらいの力で重い物を持つことができる seems to modify 機械. But then, the reference\npoint of ３０％ぐらいの力で seems to be the machine itself, at least from a syntactical\nperspective. And this wouldn't make much sense, as a machine can't lift\nsomething with only 30% of the power required to lift it. It can help YOU to\nuse only 30% of your strength, because the machine takes on the other 70%. But\nit can't meddle with physics itself, can it?\n\nSince 体につける definitely must refer to the person wearing the machine, there is\nindeed something hinting that the subject of 持つことができる is a person. But there\nisn't much besides that, and I still wonder whether there any other explicit\nsyntactical elements showing us that the subject of 持つことができる is a person, and\nnot the machine to which the full block 体につけると普通の３０％ぐらいの力で重い物を持つことができる is\nattributed.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T21:23:48.937",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54666",
"last_activity_date": "2021-11-24T03:34:29.600",
"last_edit_date": "2021-11-24T03:34:29.600",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "このほか、体につけると普通の３０％ぐらいの力で重い物を持つことができる機械もあります",
"view_count": 437
} | [
{
"body": "The syntax seems explained in the comment. Other than syntax, I think a\nmachine is this kind of thing.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ktHCa.jpg)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T23:13:04.820",
"id": "54670",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-21T23:13:04.820",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54666",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "kimi Tanaka, cool! I'll elevate my comment to an answer.\n\nThe subject of the subclause is absent. It's not the machine; it's the user of\nthe machine or \"you.\" To keep the English as close to the Japanese as\npossible, it's an \"attach-it-to-your-body-and-you-can-lift-heavy-things-\nwith-30%-of-your-usual-strength machine.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T23:14:18.770",
"id": "54671",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-21T23:14:18.770",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25413",
"parent_id": "54666",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Japanese relative clauses lack relative pronouns such as \"which\", \"that\", etc.\nSo before you get fully used to them, they can look fairly ambiguous. What\nyou're seeing here is an \"adverbial head\" type relative clause, which is\ndiscussed [here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/39551/5010).\n\nHere are some simpler examples. Haven't you seen similar expressions?\n\n> * 寿司が楽しめるレストラン \n> a restaurant {at which / where} people can enjoy sushi \n> (× a restaurant that can enjoy sushi)\n> * ビーチが見える部屋 \n> a room from which you can see the beach \n> a room which allows you to see the beach \n> (× a room which can see the beach)\n> * 手紙を書くペン \n> a pen with which you write a letter \n> a pen to write a letter with \n> (× a pen which is writing a letter)\n> * 食べると頭が良くなるパン \n> bread with which you get smarter upon eating \n> bread which makes you smarter when you eat it \n> (× bread that eats something and gets smarter)\n>\n\nAs you can see, in each example, the subject of the relative clause is omitted\n(\"you\", \"I\", \"he\", \"people\" or whatever depending on the context). The\nmodified noun at the end works neither as the subject nor the object of the\nrelative clause; instead, it plays an adverbial role (レストラン **で** 寿司が楽しめる, 部屋\n**から** ビーチが見える, **ペンで** 字を書く). The interpretations marked with × are\n\"technically\" possible, but we know they are wrong because we have common\nsense.\n\n体につけると重い物を持つことができる機械 is almost the same as the last example above. A literal\ntranslation is \"a machine with which one can carry heavy things upon wearing\",\nbut I think \"a wearable machine which enables you to carry heavy things\" is\none of the good translation approaches.\n\nOf course this sentence is referring to a so-called [powered\nexoskeleton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_exoskeleton).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T03:58:12.097",
"id": "54677",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T13:01:18.457",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-22T13:01:18.457",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54666",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 54666 | 54677 | 54677 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54669",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Is it:\n\n> AはBに変わる。\n\nIf I want to say A changes to B\n\nThanks",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T23:01:17.820",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54667",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-21T23:09:43.700",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26057",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"verbs"
],
"title": "How to say change from A to B",
"view_count": 1711
} | [
{
"body": "The usual phrase would be:\n\n> 「A + **から** + B + **に** + 変{か}わる」\n\nif you are talking about a change from an old state to a new state.\n\nYour phrase:\n\n> 「A + **は** + B + **に** + 変わる」\n\nmeans more like:\n\n> \"A changes into B.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-21T23:09:43.700",
"id": "54669",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-21T23:09:43.700",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54667",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 54667 | 54669 | 54669 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54676",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> お前{まえ}も **どうせ** 暇{ひま}だろうから誘{さそ}ってやろうと思{おも}ってよ\n\nThe dictionary tells me this means either:\n\n> Adverb\n>\n> 1. anyhow; in any case; at any rate; after all; at all; no matter what\n> 2. at best; at most\n>\n\nSo which is it in this context and how would you translate the sentence? I\nknow this is something like \"I figured you'd be free so I thought I'd invite\nyou\" but I'm not sure about the nuance introduced by どうせ.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T02:49:09.307",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54675",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-16T05:53:21.700",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "13634",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does どうせ mean in this context?",
"view_count": 719
} | [
{
"body": "From the definitions you gave, I'd say \"anyhow\" or \"in any case\" fits this\nparticular usage best. Personally, I think of どうせ as \"anyway\" as well.\n\nI would translate it as:\n\n> I thought I'd invite you since you're probably free _anyway_.\n\nYou might also want to see [this related\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/5899/how-to-decide-to-\nuse-%E3%81%A9%E3%81%86%E3%81%9B-or-%E3%81%97%E3%82%87%E3%81%9B%E3%82%93).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T03:03:45.853",
"id": "54676",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T03:03:45.853",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17571",
"parent_id": "54675",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> お前も **どうせ** 暇だろうから誘ってやろうと思ってよ\n\n上記の文章の「どうせ」は次の意味です。 \n1. anyhow; in any case; at any rate; after all; at all; no matter what\n\n~~2.at best; at most \nの意味での用例は次のような場合です \nどうせ一所懸命勉強しても東大には合格しないよ。 \nどうせ助からない命だ。ベッドにごろごろしていても仕方がない。冥途の土産にでも富士山に登ろうか。 \nnote:「冥途の土産」is a set phrase that means \"pleasant memory to take to the\nafterlife\"~~\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT\n\njisho.org には質問者が示したように、確かに「どうせ」の定義が次のように記載されています。\n\n> **どうせ** \n> Adverb \n> 1. anyhow; in any case; at any rate; after all; at all; no matter what \n> 2. at best; at most\n\nしかし、以下に示す３つの辞書の定義によると、jisho.org に記載されている２番目の意味を「どうせ」は持っていないように推察できます。\n\n>\n> [**デジタル大辞泉の解説**](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%A9%E3%81%86%E3%81%9B-580712)\n> どう‐せ ［副］《副詞「どう」＋動詞「す」の命令形「せよ」の音変化から》 \n> １ 経過がどうであろうと、結果は明らかだと認める気持ちを表す語。 **いずれにせよ** 。 **結局は** 。\n> 「どうせ勝つんだ、気楽にやろう」「どうせやるなら、はでにやろう」 \n> ２ あきらめや、すてばちな気持ちを表す語。 **所詮(しょせん)** 。「どうせ私は下っ端(ぱ)ですよ」\n>\n> [**大辞林\n> 第三版の解説**](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%A9%E3%81%86%E3%81%9B-580712) \n> どうせ \n> （ 副 ） \n> 〔副詞「どう」に動詞「す」の命令形「せよ」の転である「せ」が付いたもの〕 \n> ① \n> ある状態や結果を、初めから定まったものとして認める気持ちを表す。 **いずれにしても** 。 **しょせん** 。 「 －負けるにきまってる」 「\n> －ろくな物は作れないだろう」 〔多く、投げやりなあきらめや、軽蔑の気持ちを込めて使う〕 \n> ② \n> ある事態を受け入れるしかないのなら、むしろその機会を積極的に利用しようとするさま。 **いっそ** 。 「 －作るならいいものを作ろう」 「\n> －なら三人分作ろう」 「 －のことだから、頂上まで行ってみよう」\n>\n> **広辞苑 第四版** \n> 〘副詞〙（断定的な気持または投げやりな気持を伴う）どのようにしたところで、 **いずれにしても** 、つまりは。 **所詮**\n> 。「どうせ二人はこの世では花の咲かない枯れ芒（すすき）」\n\njisho.org\nを除く３つの辞書を概括的に見ると、「どうせ」の意味は、以下のＡ、Ｂで示す２つに分類でき、更に、Ａは、のちほど用例で示すようにＡ-１とＡ-２に細分化できます。\nいずれにせよ、「どうせ」には、jisho.orgの２番目の定義は含まれないように思います。\n\n> A: ある状態や結果を、初めから定まったものとして認める気持ちを表す副詞。多くの場合、あきらめや、軽蔑の気持ちを伴って使う \n> _It is an adverb that expresses a feeling of recognizing a certain state or\n> result as being fixed from the beginning. In many cases, it is used\n> accompanying feelings of giving up or contempt._\n>\n> B: ある事態を受け入れるしかないのなら、むしろその機会を積極的に利用しようとする様子を表す副詞。 \n> An adverb that expresses \"If we have no choice but to accept a situation,\n> we would rather actively use that opportunity.\"\n\n「どうせ」の持っている意味を別の言葉に言い換えると、概ね次の３つになります。\n\n * 所詮{しょせん｝： after all, anyway\n * 結局は： after all; in the end\n * いっそ： rather; sooner; preferably, or better yet\n\n日本語コーパスである「[少納言](http://www.kotonoha.gr.jp/shonagon/)」や上記辞書の用例を上記３つの言い換えた言葉で分類すると以下のようになります。\n\n### A-1「所詮」に言い換えられる用例\n\n> * **どうせ** 私は下っ端(ぱ)ですよ。\n> * **どうせ** そんなことだろうと思ったよ。\n> * 人がいたにしても、 **どうせ** 死人ばかりである。\n> * **どうせ** 僕なんて… **どうせ** ！\n> * 「いいんだよ。富美子さん。 **どうせ** 寺の食事。たいしたものは出ませんよ。」\n>\n\n### A-2「結局は」に言い換えられる用例\n\n> * **どうせ** 負けるに決まってる。\n> * **どうせ** 勝つんだ、気楽にやろう。\n> * あの人は、 **どうせ** 死ぬのだ。\n> * **どうせ** ろくな物は作れないだろう。\n> * きっとどこかで、 **どうせ** 辞｛や｝めるんだという気持ちが出てきます。\n> * **どうせ** 、わたしよりあの負け犬のことのほうが好きなんでしょ。\n>\n\n### B「いっそ」に言い換えられる用例\n\n> * **どうせ** 作る **なら** いいものを作ろう。\n> * **どうせ** **なら** 三人分作ろう。\n> * **どうせ** やる **なら** 、はでにやろう\n> * **どうせ** 着る **なら** 、よりよく見えたい、よりよい気分で過ごしたい。\n> * **どうせ** **なら** 今から風になってみよう。\n> * **どうせ** 行く **なら** 北太平洋最大のアカウミガメ産卵地、永田の浜に海がめを見に行くのもいいと思う。\n> * **どうせ** 受ける **なら** 、偏差値の高いところを受けておこうと思ったが、受験勉強はほとんど...\n>\n\n**上記用例を見ますと、次のような特徴が見つかります。**\n\n * A-2「結局は」に言い換えられる用例の文は、「どうせ + 動詞」の形で成り立つ。 \n * B「いっそ」に言い換えられる用例の文は、「どうせ + （動詞） + なら」の形で成り立つ。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T14:03:57.973",
"id": "54682",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T14:02:35.920",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-23T14:02:35.920",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "54675",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
}
]
| 54675 | 54676 | 54676 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54679",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Let us take two sentences\n\n水を出しっぱなしにしないでください\n\n窓をあけっぱなしでかけてしまった\n\nIs that correct to conclude that ～っぱなし is as just as ～まま?\n\nWhat is the difference in and logic behind using the particles に and で here?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T10:44:28.703",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54678",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T16:26:27.097",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19276",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "に vs で with ～っぱなし",
"view_count": 548
} | [
{
"body": "Whether to use 「に」 or 「で」 depends on the verb that follows.\n\n> 1)「～～っぱなし + **に** + **する** 」\n>\n> 2)「～～っぱなし + **で** + **other verbs** 」\n\nThus, your two sentences follow the rules above.\n\n> 1) 「水を出しっぱなし + **に** + **しない** + でください。」\n\n「しない」 is the negative form of 「する」.\n\n\" ** _Please do not leave the water running_**.\"\n\n> 2) 「窓をあけっぱなし + **で** + **でかけて** + しまった。」\n\nThe verb following the 「で」 is 「でかける」.\n\n\" ** _I (accidentally) went out with my windows open_**.\"\n\n> Is that correct to conclude that ～っぱなし is as just as ～まま?\n\nYes. Thus, you can also say:\n\n1) 「水を出しっぱなしの **まま** にしないでください。」\n\n2) 「窓を開けっぱなしの **まま** でかけてしまった。」\n\nwithout changing the meanings.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T11:50:06.193",
"id": "54679",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T11:55:09.630",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-22T11:55:09.630",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54678",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> （Ａ）水を出しっぱなしにしないでください （Ｂ）水を出したままにしないでください\n>\n> （Ａ）窓をあけっぱなしで出かけてしまった （Ｂ）窓をあけっぱなしのまま出かけてしまった\n\n（Ａ）と（Ｂ）との違いは、誰が最初の行為をしたかと言う点です。 最初の行為とは、 \n「水が出ていない状態から水を出した人」です。 次の文章では、「窓が閉まった状態から開けた人」です。\n\n（Ａ）は、最初の行為をした人と、その後の状態を放置した人が同一人物です。\n（Ｂ）は、最初の行為をした人と、その後の状態を放置した人が同一人物かどうか不明です。\n\nすなわち、「（Ａ）水を出しっぱなしにしないでください」の場合、水道の栓をひねって水を出した人に対して、用が済んだら、水道の栓をきちんと閉めるようにお願いしています。 \n一方、「（Ｂ）水を出したままにしないでください」の場合、勧告者が見たときには既に水が出ています。誰が水道の栓を開いたかは問題にしていません。ともかく、今水道の水を使っている人に向かって勧告者は水道の水を使い終わったら栓を閉めるようにお願いしています。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T13:52:53.553",
"id": "54681",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T13:52:53.553",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "54678",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Each of に and で has it's own set of meanings, and so naturally whether to use\nに or で after ～っぱなし depends on which particle is fitting given the idea or\nevent you want to describe in words.\n\nIn the case of 水を出しっぱなし **に** する, which I provisionally translate to \" _make\nthe water left running_ \", the に marks a resulting state. The する\n(corresponding to _make_ in the prov translation ) is a verb with the meaning\n\"put [ _something into some state_ ]\". Matching this paradigm with the example\nphrase: _something_ corresponds to _水/the water_ ; _some state_ to\n_出しっぱなし/left running_ ; and _into_ to に/(No corresponding word in the\ntranslation).\n\nAs for 窓をあけっぱなし **で** でかける ( _leave with the window left open_ ), the particle\nで (corresponding to _with_ in the translation) is used to mark a circumstance\nthat accompanies an action or event. The circumstance in this example is\n_窓をあけっぱなし/the window left open_ , and the action is _でかける/leave_.\n\nRelevant sections at\n[東京外国語大学言語モジュール](http://www.coelang.tufs.ac.jp/mt/ja/gmod/contents/explanation/053.html)\n:\n\n(for the に)\n\n> Ⅲ 「に」：６ 変化の結果を表わします。 (39)氷が水になりました。 (40)山田さんは子どもを政治家にしました。\n\n(for the で)\n\n> Ⅷ 「で」：７ 状態を表わす名詞について、状態を表わします。 (91)子どもがはだしで歩いています。 (92)子どもがはだかで走っています。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T16:26:27.097",
"id": "54683",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T16:26:27.097",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "11575",
"parent_id": "54678",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54678 | 54679 | 54679 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54691",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Such a simple sentence. So much confusion:\n\n> 自分がすごく年 **おいて** 感じます。 \n> I feel so old!\n\n\"I feel so old\" is not my own translation. I have two problems (at least) with\nthis sentence:\n\n 1. What is おいて? I assume it is て形 of おく but that doesn't help me at all.\n 2. Why 自分? Perhaps if I understand おいて this will become clear.\n 3. Maybe three problems. I'm not at all sure about the 'verb phrase-て感じる' construction. Could you give a couple of simple examples to help me understand this better?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T18:49:38.030",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54684",
"last_activity_date": "2019-08-04T14:58:11.243",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"parsing",
"reading-comprehension"
],
"title": "Meaning of おいて in 自分がすごく年おいて感じます",
"view_count": 223
} | [
{
"body": "A few things need to be explained first.\n\n 1. 自分 is used to refer to oneself. Sometimes the meaning is closer to \"on my own\" or \"by myself\", but in this case it's a form of saying \"I\", \"me\" or \"myself\".\n 2. -て感じます is exactly what you'd expect, which is a linked verb and \"to feel\".\n 3. すごく is an amplifying word that can mean \"very\" or \"a lot\".\n\nSo here, the part that doesn't make immediate sense is 年おいて.\n\nHere, おいて is not the て-form of おく, but of 老｛お｝いる, which means \"to grow old\".\nPut together with 年 as 年老｛としお｝いる, it's a sort of set phrase that means \"to\nage\".\n\nSo, putting it back together:\n\n> 自分がすごく年おいて感じます。 \n> I feel so old. (lit. [I/myself] feel like I have aged [so much/a lot].)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T19:09:19.237",
"id": "54686",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-22T19:09:19.237",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "21684",
"parent_id": "54684",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> 「自分{じぶん}がすごく年{とし}おいて感{かん}じます。」\n\n\"I feel so old.\" is a valid translation of that.\n\n> 1. What is おいて? I assume it is て形 of おく but that doesn't help me at all.\n>\n\nThe verb used there is 「年老{としお}いる」(\"to grow old\") and not 「おく」(\"to place,\nput\").\n\n> 2. Why 自分? Perhaps if I understand おいて this will become clear.\n>\n\n「自分{じぶん}」 is very often used to talk about oneself instead of the \"actual\"\npersonal pronouns. Recently, I said to a waiter at my favorite restaurant:\n\n「最近{さいきん}、 **自分** の家{いえ}よりも、ここで食事{しょくじ}する回数{かいすう}の方{ほう}が多{おお}いかもしれない。」\n\n= \"Recently, I probably eat here more often than (I eat) at home.\"\n\nYou would sound very unnatural if you used 「わたし」, 「ボク」, etc. instead of 「自分」\nthere.\n\n> 3. Maybe three problems. I'm not at all sure about the 'verb phrase-て感じる'\n> construction. Could you give a couple of simple examples to help me\n> understand this better?\n>\n\nI think others will thank you for asking this. This construct needs some\ngetting used to.\n\n> 「Verb in て-form + Sensory Verbs」\n\nis the structure here. Being a complete amateur in linguistics or anything\nlanguage-related, I am not sure if \"sensory verbs\" is the correct term. I am\nreferring to verbs such as 「感じる」、「見える」、「聞こえる」, etc.\n\n「年おい **て感じる** 」 = \"to feel (pretty) old\"\n\n「５時間{じかん}しか寝{ね}ていないので、今朝{けさ}は疲{つか}れ **て感じる** 。」 = \"Because I only slept 5\nhours, I feel tired this morning.\"\n\n「あの人は黒{くろ}い服{ふく}を着{き}るとやせ **て見える** 。」 = \"S/he looks slimmer in black clothes.\"\n\n「この部屋{へや}は音{おと}が響{ひび}い **て聞こえる** 。」 = \"In this room, I feel sounds are\nechoed.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T00:53:42.260",
"id": "54691",
"last_activity_date": "2019-08-04T14:58:11.243",
"last_edit_date": "2019-08-04T14:58:11.243",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54684",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 54684 | 54691 | 54691 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For full context:\n<http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10011231671000/k10011231671000.html>\n\nThe sentence in question: 来年は、今年より約１９％多い２万８２００ｔのクロマグロを取ってもいいことが決まりました。\n\nFirst, my attempt at translation: \"Concerning the next year, it was decided\nthat fishing about 19% from this years...\"\n\nI didn't finish the sentence because when I include this 多い into my\ntranslation, it becomes gibberish. Judging from the context, I would say that\nthis sentence tells us that it was decided that fishing about 19% of this\nyears amount of fished pacific bluefin tuna would be okay. This years amount\nof fished p.b.t was ２万８２００ｔ or 28200 tonnes. However, I'm also guessing a bit\nat this point because I just don't know what function this 多い fulfills here\nand wether it means something like \"amount\" here instead of \"many\".",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T18:49:44.283",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54685",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T07:06:14.523",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What does this 多い do?",
"view_count": 170
} | [
{
"body": "In this context, 来年 は 今年より...多い implies \"Next year, the fishery amount of\nbluefin tuna is guaranteed as 28200 tonnes which is more than this year by\napprox 19%.\" or using the comment above \"...which is up by approx 19% from\nthis year.\" or like the other answer \"...which is up by approx 119% as many as\nthis year.\".\n\nAs for \"A より B は ... 多い/少ない\" or \"Bは Aより ... 多い/少ない\", \"より... 多い/少ない\" implies\n\"more...than\" or \"less/fewer...than\" in English comparative. \"A より Bは\" or \"Bは\nAより\" implies B is the subject in comparison to A.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T22:59:22.237",
"id": "54688",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T07:06:14.523",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-23T07:06:14.523",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54685",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54685 | null | 54688 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54693",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm confused about「は」vs「が」 in subordinate clauses. Here are a few examples\nfrom (very basic) grammar books:\n\n> 1. 僕 **が** 電話したとき、ナツミ **は** もういなかった。When I called, Natsumi had already\n> left.\n>\n> 2. 弟 **が** 日本に来たら、私 **は** 日光に連れて行きたい。When my brother comes to Japan, I\n> want to take him to Nikkou.\n>\n> 3. 地震 **は** 私 **が** 結婚した年に起こった。The earthquake happened the year that I got\n> married.\n>\n> 4. 東野さん **が** 薦めてくれた本 **は** 何でしたか。What was the book that Mr. Higashino\n> recommended?\n>\n> 5. 武 **が** 昨夜見た映画 **は** 楽しかったですか。Did you (Takeshi) enjoy the movie that\n> you saw last night?\n>\n> 6. 私 **が** それを見た場所 **は** そこにあります。The place where I saw it happen is over\n> there.\n>\n>\n\nI am aware that you can't use the same particle in a subordinate clause that\nyou used in the main clause, but how do you know which one should be は, and\nwhich one が? Does it simply depend on which part of the sentence you want to\nemphasize? Does it matter whether the subordinate clause is a noun, adjective\nor adverb?\n\nIf the instances of は and が in the above examples were reversed (each は in\nplace of each が) would this be incorrect, or would it simply change the\nnuance?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-22T23:29:41.033",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54689",
"last_activity_date": "2022-03-10T06:39:36.177",
"last_edit_date": "2021-12-27T05:35:55.390",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "26575",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"nuances",
"particle-は",
"particle-が",
"は-and-が",
"subordinate-clauses"
],
"title": "「は」vs 「が」 in subordinate clauses",
"view_count": 2289
} | [
{
"body": "は serves as the topic marker of the _main_ clause. In subordinate clauses,\nbasically you cannot use は. You have to use が to mark a subject in subordinate\nclauses. (There are exceptions, which I will mention later, but all your\nexamples are simple ones that can be explained without knowing the\nexceptions.)\n\nIt appears to me that you are confused because you don't understand which part\nof your examples actually belongs to a subordinate clause. So here are the\nsubordinate clauses in your example sentences:\n\n * 1: 僕 **が** 電話した is a relative clause that modifies the noun とき. (This construction is usually translated into English as \"when ～\" without using an English relative clause.)\n * 2: 弟 **が** 日本に来たら is a subordinate clause which is not a relative clause.\n * 3: 私 **が** 結婚した is a relative clause that modifies 年.\n * 4: 東野さん **が** 薦めてくれた is a relative clause that modifies 本.\n * 5: 武 **が** 昨夜見た is a relative clause that modifies 映画.\n * 6: 私 **が** それを見た is a relative clause that modifies 場所.\n\n(A relative clause is a type of subordinate clause that works like an\nadjective. They \"adjectivally\" modifies the following noun. In your example,\nall but Sentence 2 are using relative clauses. There is [a good answer about\nrelative clauses](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/14550/5010).)\n\nAs you can see, the basic rule is very simple: が is consistently used in\nsubordinate clauses regardless of the type.\n\nIf you are still confused, remember that a subordinate clause can appear\nanywhere in a sentence to modify something. The word marked with は is the\ntopic of the main clause, at least in your examples. No emphasis/contrast is\nconcerned.\n\n* * *\n\nThere are a few exceptions you will encounter sooner or later. You can forget\nthese for now if you feel these are too difficult.\n\n * In _relative_ clauses, の can be alternatively used instead of が to mark a subject in many cases. See: [How does the の work in 「日本人の知らない日本語」?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/12825/5010) Among your examples, の can be used instead of が in Sentences 1, 3, 4 and 5. (But not は!)\n * は can be used anyway in subordinate clauses if it's used as a contrast marker. See: [Is saying 「XはYは…」 acceptable?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/19461/5010)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T01:54:02.433",
"id": "54693",
"last_activity_date": "2022-03-10T06:39:36.177",
"last_edit_date": "2022-03-10T06:39:36.177",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54689",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 54689 | 54693 | 54693 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54692",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I don't understand this whatsoever:\n\n> やれやれ\n>\n> だから **言わんこっちゃない**\n\nespecially the bolded part. What real words does that come from?\n\nContext is that the main character got a cold from staying outside all night;\nhis friend then tells him this.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T00:47:29.963",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54690",
"last_activity_date": "2019-12-30T08:02:38.617",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "13634",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"spoken-language",
"contractions"
],
"title": "Help me understand 言わんこっちゃない",
"view_count": 491
} | [
{
"body": "> 「言{い}わん **こっちゃ** ない」\n\nis the common colloquial form of:\n\n> 「言わない **ことでは** ない」\n\nwhich is a set phrase meaning:\n\n> \" **I told you so**.\", \" **Didn't I tell you?** \", \" **That's why I told\n> you**.\", etc.\n\n「やれやれ」 just means \"Oh dear!\" or something along those lines.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T01:13:12.013",
"id": "54692",
"last_activity_date": "2019-12-27T12:52:49.240",
"last_edit_date": "2019-12-27T12:52:49.240",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54690",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 13
}
]
| 54690 | 54692 | 54692 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54761",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "Following up on my earlier question, I want to check if I've got a feel for\nthis subordinate clause particle use correct. This is probably a duplicate,\nbut it really helps me understand things better if I'm posing the question\nmyself. If this infringes any rules, though, I'll happily remove it.\n\nIn the sentence\n\n> 私 ( **が**? **は**?) 朝起きるとき、鳥 ( **が**? **は**?) いつも歌います。\n\nwhich instance uses が, and which は? I get the feeling the first instance is が,\nand the second, は, but I could be wrong.\n\nAny help is much appreciated.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T02:52:26.727",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54694",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T04:48:34.113",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26575",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"nuances",
"は-and-が",
"subordinate-clauses"
],
"title": "は or が in the example \"朝起きるとき、鳥 ( ) いつも歌います\"?",
"view_count": 265
} | [
{
"body": "(First, 起きるとき means when someone is about to get up from bed, not just when\nsomeone gets up.)\n\nAll the combinations are possible and each of them changes the meaning or the\nstructure of the sentence.\n\nWhat's important is that topic phrases and conditional clauses are independent\nfrom each other and both of them functions as topic parts in a sentence.\n\n 1. 私は 朝起きるとき 鳥は いつも歌う\n\nThe structure of this sentence goes this way.\n\ntopic comment\n\n私は … （いつも歌う）\n\n朝起きるとき … （いつも歌う）\n\n鳥は … （いつも歌う）\n\nSince it has too many topics, it's ambiguous who is the agent to sing or the\none who gets up. For example, if 私 is the one who sings, it naturally leads to\n鳥を歌う (an obscure expression, though) with 鳥 topicalised and the one who wakes\nup is probably the same 私. As for the reason why 鳥 is topicalized here, it may\nbe shared information between the listener (in this case, 鳥は is often omitted)\nor convey contrastive nuance depending on stress in pronunciation or\ninterpretation from context, or because of the both factors.\n\nIf 鳥 is the one who sings, it's probably conversation among pet owners. In\nthis case, it's unsure who is the one to get up.\n\n 2. 私が 朝起きるとき 鳥がいつも歌う\n\nThis time, it's like this.\n\ntopic comment\n\n私が朝起きるとき … 鳥がいつも歌う\n\nThis can only translate to \"everytime I'm getting up, birds sing\". When the\nfact that birds always sing is new information or feels unexpected, it's\nexpressed without being topicalized. If you use 鳥は instead, the issue behind\nit is parallel to the above.\n\nEdit; In reality, it should be a little more complicated because we have to\nconsider difference between とき and ときは, and the topic-comment model shouldn't\nbe flat.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T06:57:47.190",
"id": "54698",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T07:34:57.953",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-23T07:34:57.953",
"last_editor_user_id": "4092",
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "54694",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "In your example, \"私は\" sounds unnatural because it gives too much emphasis on\n\"私\", while actually it's so much unimportant that most of native Japanese\nspeakers would omit it at all.\n\nYou have also to note that the verb \"歌う\" is only used when talking about human\nbeings. When talking about birds, you have to use \"鳴く\" instead.\n\nAnd as you're talking about a natural phenomena which is still occurring in\npresent, it's definitely better to use continuous form.\n\nSo the correct sentence is:\n\n> 朝起きるときはいつも鳥が鳴いています。",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T06:57:56.317",
"id": "54699",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T07:45:53.263",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-25T07:45:53.263",
"last_editor_user_id": "5047",
"owner_user_id": "5047",
"parent_id": "54694",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "It's clearly the speaker who is the one getting up, and that is when the birds\nare always singing. 朝（私が）起きる時、鳥（が/は）いつも鳴いている。\n\nFor the second part, both が and は are possible. が would be normal just be\nstating the fact that the birds are always singing. は would be shifting the\nfocus of the sentence to the birds. It would be more of you dwelling and\ncommenting on the birds, rather than your experience waking up. A good way to\nthink of Xは... is \"About X...\" or \"As for X...\"\n\nが is normal, but there is a context where it can have the effect of\nemphasizing. That is when you are specifying which thing/person out of a bunch\nof possibilities. It depends on the sentence and how you say it, whether or to\nwhat degree the が sounds emphasizing.\n\n彼が言った。 (Who said that?) **He** said that.\n\nあいつらがやった。 (Who did it?) **They** did it.\n\n彼女がここの担任。 She is the teacher in charge of this class.\n\n私が毎日学校に行く。 Everyday I go to school.\n\nBack to 私（は・が）, if you were to say 私は, then that would be like drawing the\nfocus towards you ie. \"As for me...\". That would sound unnatural, because\nthere's no reason to center the subject of the sentence so much around\nyourself when you're just saying that there always are birds singing when you\nwake up. At least that's how the sentence sounds by itself. A specific example\nof a situation where it might make sense to use 私は is if you were discussing\nwith other people, and the topic was \"What it is like at your place in the\nmorning.\" Then, it would be natural to use 私は, to the effect of \"As for\nme...\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T06:51:34.887",
"id": "54740",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T11:43:37.110",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-25T11:43:37.110",
"last_editor_user_id": "3360",
"owner_user_id": "3360",
"parent_id": "54694",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "It actually depends on the context, but the \"usual\" way to say this is:\n\n> 私 **が** 朝起きるとき、鳥 **が** いつも **歌っています** 。 \n> When I wake up, (I find) birds are always singing.\n\n * が should be used after 私 because 私 is in a subordinate clause (私が朝起きる時 is the subordinate clause.) This is the basic rule. As an exception, in rare contexts where you're comparing 私's mornings with someone else's mornings, は can be used.\n * が should be used after 鳥 because the word 鳥 [has probably not been introduced into \"the universe of discourse\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/22/5010). If you have already mentioned these 鳥 before this sentence in some way or another, は should be used. In other words, 鳥は is \" _the_ bird(s)\", 鳥が is \"bird(s)\" without \"the\".\n * I replaced 歌います (\"birds (will) sing\") with 歌っています (progressive form, \"birds are singing\"). Saying 歌います sounds like these birds are waiting for 私 to wake up and start singing only after the wake-up.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T04:48:34.113",
"id": "54761",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T04:48:34.113",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54694",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54694 | 54761 | 54699 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Both are used to mean equip right?\n\nAny difference in meaning or are they interchangeable.\n\nI noticed Japanese superhero shows seem to use both interchangeably, with\nJustirisers using 装着 and others like Gogov and Tomica Hero Rescue force use\n着装.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T03:29:26.750",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54695",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T07:00:44.027",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"word-choice",
"kanji",
"nuances",
"kanji-choice"
],
"title": "装着 vs 着装? Souchaku vs Chakusou",
"view_count": 376
} | [
{
"body": "「装着{そうちゃく}」 and 「着装{ちゃくそう}」 should be interchangeable most of the time. If I\nsaid otherwise, I would be fairly nitpicky.\n\nIf anything, 「着装」 is probably more often used to focus on the **_state_** of\nsomething attached to the main and/or larger object while 「装着」 may tend to\nfocus more on the **_action_** of attaching something. If you, however, asked\nme if this difference were of utmost importance, I would reply somewhat\nnegatively.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T03:47:29.533",
"id": "54696",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T03:47:29.533",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54695",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "One obvious difference is that 装着 is far more common than 着装. On\n[BCCWJ](http://pj.ninjal.ac.jp/corpus_center/bccwj/en/), there are 1,186 hits\nfor 装着 and only 41 hits for 着装 (including false-positive results such as 蒸着装置\n\"vapor disposition device\"). Personally I am only familiar with 装着.\n\nJudging from the results above and the dictionary definition, 着装 seems to be\nsafely used with ordinary clothes and dresses at least in formal/academic\ncontexts. In particular, 着物 (Japanese _kimono_ ) and 着装 seem to be often used\ntogether (for example\n[this](http://zenwasai.com/index.php?%E7%9D%80%E8%A3%85%E8%AA%8D%E5%AE%9A%E8%A9%A6%E9%A8%93)).\nOn the other hand, from what I understand, 装着 is usually used with armors,\nprotectors, seat belts, etc. Anyway, in superhero contexts, I guess they are\nbasically interchangeable.\n\nSome similar examples are found\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/44246/5010). [There is even a\nbook](https://www.kinokuniya.co.jp/f/dsg-01-9784873022680) written by a\nJapanese amateur kanji fan.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T07:00:44.027",
"id": "54700",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T07:00:44.027",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54695",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54695 | null | 54696 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "Originally, i had thought that you could only put an onyomi and an onyomi\ntogether to form a word and use kunyomi with hiragana..that was all i knew\nabout using kanji until i asked someone and they told me that you can use kun\nand on together and on and kana together. Is this true?I need a second answer,\nplease. Can you use kun and kun together too? Thanks.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T03:51:26.070",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54697",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T03:51:26.070",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26576",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"kana"
],
"title": "Kanji combinations",
"view_count": 128
} | []
| 54697 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54702",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "In Fluent Forever's Awesome Word List, マネージャー is used to describe a manager in\na bank or similar organisation.\n\nHowever, doing a search with the basic version of google image search mainly\ngot middle-aged women wearing sporting gear. jisho.org gave me a couple of\nmeanings, a manager of a business, an idol, etc, or someone who does boring\nwork for a sports team. The Wikipedia article\n[マネージャー](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9E%E3%83%8D%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A3%E3%83%BC)\nmainly emphasised meanings outside of a manager at a large organisation. For\nexample, some of the meanings corresponded to an individual who managed a\nsingle person in entertainment or sport.\n\nHowever, the word hasn't been mentioned by anyone in a [forum thread about the\nAwesome Word List and suspected errors](https://fluent-\nforever.com/forums/topic/japanese-word-list/).\n\nIs マネージャー a suitable word to describe a manager in a large business?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T08:45:53.627",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54701",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T12:45:10.940",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"loanwords"
],
"title": "Is マネージャー suitable when describing a manager working in a large business?",
"view_count": 1578
} | [
{
"body": "I don't see why not, but there are also other titles in a business as with any\nother organization. Particularly in Japanese organizations there are simply\nmany levels in management, and each level could have its own title for\n\"manager\".\n\nThe more commonly used ones could be:\n\n * 社長 company president, manager, director\n * 局長 office/bureau chief\n * 部長 department head\n * 課長 section head\n * 係長 supervisor",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T09:04:26.657",
"id": "54702",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T10:05:38.070",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-23T10:05:38.070",
"last_editor_user_id": "25446",
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "54701",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "\"マネージャー\" has various connotations in Japanese. If you are high school student\nand doing club activities especially in sports, \"マネージャー\" implies a\nperson(normally a girl) who does a work for school sports team such as\nrecording scores for the team's accomplishments, making sure the schedules for\nteams, handing sports drink and so on so forth.\n\nIf you worked at a foreign affiliate company or Japanese company which often\ndoes business with foreign countries, \"マネージャー\" might be close to \"manager\". I\nthink it depends on the cohorts. I have a strong connotation in the\nword\"マネージャー\" with entertainment or sport as you described.\n\nAs keithmaxx explained, I think 部長, 課長, ...長 are still common.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T09:24:37.003",
"id": "54703",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T09:32:34.410",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-23T09:32:34.410",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54701",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "> Is マネージャー a suitable word to describe a manager in a large business?\n\nNo. I don't think so.\n\nFor example, in case of a bank, they should be called:\n\n頭取 or 支店長.\n\nThe direct translation of \"manager\", マネージャー, cannot be used in that context.\n\nマネージャー in Japan often refers to **the private secretaries** of TV comedians,\nsingers, actors or professional athletes.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T09:34:29.037",
"id": "54704",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T09:40:07.293",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-23T09:40:07.293",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54701",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 54701 | 54702 | 54703 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm not sure how to formulate this question, but some words bother me. Here's\na sentence for you :\n\n> 彼女はまだ **ぶつぶつ** と呟いている。\n\nI often see these kinds of words and sometimes, like this one, I can't find\nwhat it could mean. My dictionary says \"grumble, mutter\" and so on, but isn't\nthat what 呟く means? Then, how do you use these words? Can these type of words\nbe translated or are they just part of the Japanese language without being\nable to translate them into English? I feel like they can't be translated at\nall.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T14:07:51.340",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54710",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-03T19:39:28.867",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-05T13:01:53.063",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"onomatopoeia"
],
"title": "Meaning of ぶつぶつ",
"view_count": 681
} | [
{
"body": "\"She was muttering to herself\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-05T18:33:36.927",
"id": "54967",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-05T18:33:36.927",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"parent_id": "54710",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
}
]
| 54710 | null | 54967 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm filling in my CV in Japanese.\n\nAs the title mentioned, I've got some troubles how to give it a word into\nJapanese. \"多言語話者【たげんごわしゃ】\" or \"優れた【すぐれた】言語能力【げんごのうりょく】\" is what I've got so\nfar.\n\nCan someone help me describe it into a short paragraph? As for my case, I can\nspeak five languages such as **Mandarin** ( _15-year learning so far_ ) ,\n**Cantonese** ( _mother tongue_ ), **Malaysia** ( _mother tongue_ ),\n**Japanese** ( _1.5-year learning so far_ ), **English** ( _daily\nconversation_ ). And I wanna tell the interviewer that this is the most\nconfident part of my CV.\n\nI'll be very grateful for any help. Thank you.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T15:50:19.197",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54711",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T22:56:15.517",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-23T20:25:50.570",
"last_editor_user_id": "7944",
"owner_user_id": "19758",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "\"I have multi-lingual ability\" or \"I'm a multi-lingual\",how to say it?",
"view_count": 1170
} | [
{
"body": "Using Elimination method, I think polyglot(ポリグロット） does not work. Other than\nthat, I think it depends on the industry which you want to apply for. \"多言語話者\"\nor \"優れた言語能力\" sound safe to me in CV. \"マルチリンガル\" might work if \"バイリンガル\" would\nwork in the industry.\n\nI am not working at human resource department. So, it's my pure speculation.\nMaybe some people only see the score of proficiency test of the language.\n\nIt might not be common in CV, they sometimes also say being fluent in multiple\nlanguages 多言語に堪能{たんのう}/流暢{りゅうちょう}.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T22:44:53.993",
"id": "54716",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T22:56:15.517",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-23T22:56:15.517",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54711",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54711 | null | 54716 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What is the use and/or meaning when adding つく to the -ます form of a verb?\n\nHere is a sample sentence ...\n\nたぬきは なんとか 浜辺に 泳ぎつくと、 すたこら さっさと 逃げていました。\n\n”Tanuki somehow swam?? to the beach (then) helter-skelter quickly escaped.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T16:18:06.330",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54712",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T17:21:26.347",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26585",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"verbs"
],
"title": "Use (or meaning) of masu form of verb plus つく",
"view_count": 296
} | [
{
"body": "As you might expect from the verb 着く on its own meaning \"to arrive\", compound\nverbs that end in つく generally mean \"to X until you arrive\", \"to reach\n(somewhere) by X-ing\".\n\nSo in this case なんとか浜辺に泳ぎ着く means \"just about managed to reach the shore\" or\n\"just about managed to swim to the shore\". (It doesn't seem very natural to\ninclude both \"reach\" and \"swim\" in the English translation, but 泳ぎ着く of course\ncontains elements of both.)\n\nなんとか浜辺に泳ぐ on its own would convey the same situation, but puts the emphasis on\nthe whole swimming action rather than the moment where they made it to the\nshore. なんとか浜辺 **まで** 泳ぐ would be perhaps a little closer in nuance, since it\nplaces a similar increased emphasis on the destination being reached.\n\nSome common つく compounds include:\n\n * 追いつく (\"to catch up with\", literally \"reach by pursuing\")\n * 行き着く (simply \"reach\", notably used in the common expression 行き着くところまで行く which means \"to see something through to its conclusion\")\n * たどりつく (another expression that would usually be translated just as \"reach\" or \"make it to\" in English - here the implication is that the journey was somewhat long or difficult, since the base verb たどる refers to \"following\" something like a trail, and so implies some effort finding one's way to the destination).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T17:21:26.347",
"id": "54713",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-23T17:21:26.347",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25107",
"parent_id": "54712",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54712 | null | 54713 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What is the difference between どうやって and どうやったら?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T18:16:41.600",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54714",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-21T05:19:45.700",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-21T05:19:45.700",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "26576",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words"
],
"title": "The difference between どうやって and どうやったら",
"view_count": 926
} | [
{
"body": "As in the other answer, it can be the same in some cases. However, they may\nhave the different nuance. My analysis is the following:\n\nIf you say どうやって大阪に行けますか？ at the tourist agency. You might be asking what kind\nof choice I have for going to Osaka? By overnight bus? By train? By ship? It's\nsimply asking about choices.\n\nIf you say どうやったら大阪に行けますか? at the tourist agency, It can be semantically the\nsame. You are asking the choices. However this time, you are more of saying\nyou do want to go to Osaka in addition to simply asking choices.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T13:28:12.273",
"id": "54728",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T13:28:12.273",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54714",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54714 | null | 54728 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "In the sentence オタクの俺の弟がこんなに友達が少ない訳が(ry (which is the name of the third\nepisode of 旦那が何を言っているかわからない件), does the \"otaku\" refer to boku or otouto?\n\nIn general is AのBのC、always interpretable as （AのB)のC as well as Aの（BのC) and one\nhas to infer the intended meaning by the context? Furthermore, can these\npossibilities be distinguished by intonation (as in English)?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T18:17:02.083",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54715",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T01:04:13.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "12239",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"syntax",
"particle-の"
],
"title": "オタクの僕の弟 - Does the \"otaku\" refer to me or my brother?",
"view_count": 351
} | [
{
"body": "『オタクの僕』 の弟\n\nオタクの、『僕の弟』\n\nI can't decide which without more context and background.\n\nYou can distinguish them by the intonation and the pause.\n\nTherefore, the answers to your questions are both \"yes.\"\n\nHope this helps!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T22:52:32.180",
"id": "54717",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T05:29:10.880",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-24T05:29:10.880",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54715",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Both interpretations are possible, but I think this title probably means \"my\nlittle brother must have many friends since _he is_ an otaku\" rather than \"my\nlittle brother must have many friends since _I am_ an otaku.\" It's just\nbecause the former makes much more sense to me. `(ry` is a slangy symbol used\nby otaku to make something left unsaid. It's from `(略)`, and the implication\nis \"even if i don't say this, of course you know what i wanna say here, huh?\"\n\nIntonation or a pause may help to distinguish, but only when someone reads\nthis out loud slowly and carefully. Basically the context is more important.\n\n**EDIT:** This title is obviously a parody of\n[_Oreimo_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oreimo), where a young otaku sibling\n(Kirino) gains many otaku friends with the aid of her not-so-otaku-ish older\nbrother. I suppose `(ry` is used jokingly to mask part of the original title.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-23T23:28:19.730",
"id": "54719",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T01:44:37.930",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-24T01:44:37.930",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54715",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "Let's try to parse that a bit:\n\n> A:（オタクの俺）の弟がこんなに友達が少ない My otaku self's little brother has few friends.\n>\n> B: オタクの（俺の弟）がこんなに友達が少ない My otaku little brother has few friends.\n\nIn this case it'd be outright easy, albeit probably discriminatory, to imagine\nin B why the little brother has few friends (likely because he has very niche\ninterests).\n\nFor A, the little brother may have few friends for various reasons (maybe put\noff by his otaku of a big brother) but without more details it's just plain\nvague.\n\nSo to answer your question I'm likely to think B in this example. But the\nAのBのC interpretations could vary as the others have answered.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T02:53:33.557",
"id": "54721",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T02:53:33.557",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "54715",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "> オタクの俺の弟\n\n~~論理的には、自分のことを「オタク」と形容することは可能ですが、「オタク」は第三者に対して用いるのが普通です。~~\n論理的には、自分のことを「オタク」と形容することは可能ですが、二重の修飾がある上記のフレーズでは、「オタク」は「俺＝自分」ではなく、「第三者＝その場にいない弟」に対して用いるのが普通です。更に詳細な理由はEDITで述べます。\n\n従って、「my brother who is オタク」と理解するのが自然です。\n\n* * *\n\n# EDIT\n\n> (A) オタクの俺の弟\n\n(A) は質問者が提示したフレーズです。\n\n> (B) (オタクの俺) の弟: オタク ＝ 俺 \n> (C) オタクの (俺の弟): オタク ＝ 弟\n\n質問者の質問は(A)が、(B) と (C) のいずれかということです。\n\n> (D) 俺の弟\n\n(D)は、「オタク」という修飾語を除いた (A) の基本形です。\n\nこのサイトは日本語学習者のものですが、私がこれから説明する内容は、日本語に限定された問題ではありません。他の言語でも同じことが言える論理の問題です。 \nすなわち、(D) において「俺」と「弟」のいずれを「オタク」で修飾する（あるいは限定する）必要があるかという問題です。\n\n(D) において「オタク」で「俺」を修飾しても、このフレーズ以降に続く主語である「弟」の意味が「普通」には強化されません。従って\n**「俺」を「オタク」で修飾する必然性が無い** と言えます。\n\n「普通」でない場合とは、「俺はオタク」だが、「弟はオタクでない」あるいは「弟もオタクである」のように、\n**「俺」を修飾している「オタク」という形容詞が後続の文において、「弟」の性質を表現する上で必要性がある場合** です。\n実際には、質問者から与えられた文を見ると、俺の「オタク性」が弟に作用しているとは思えません。\n\n例えば「背の高い俺の弟」という文における「背の高い」でも同じことが言えます。 ここで、「背の高いのは俺」とします。 \n「俺」を修飾している「背の高い」という形容詞が「弟」の性質を表現する上で必要がある次のような場合は自然な日本語と言えます。\n\n> 「背が高い俺の弟も背が高い」あるいは、「背が高い俺の弟は背が低い」\n\n従って、単に、「背が高い俺の弟」と言った場合で、後続する文で俺の背の高さが弟に何ら作用しない普通の日本語では、「背が高い俺の弟」を「背が高いのは弟」と解釈するのはごく自然です。\n\n仮に、背が高いのが俺であって、引き続く文で「弟」の背の高さに関係しない話題である (E)\nのような文があった場合は非常に不自然さを感じます。また、何故「俺」を「背の高い」という形容詞で修飾したのかの理由を理解するのに困ります。多分第三者からは、「\n**お前の背の高いことと弟さんの友達の多いことは関係ないだろう** 」と言われます。\n\n> (E) 「背の高い俺」の弟が友達が多いのが不思議だ。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T06:52:18.653",
"id": "54724",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T01:04:13.897",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "54715",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 54715 | null | 54719 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "From my understanding, 気づく is more \"to realise\" and 分かる is more to\n\"understand\" right?\n\nWhere does 悟る fall in comparison to these 2? Is it more towards \"realising\" or\n\"understanding\"? Or is it completely different with some nuance I'm missing?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T02:38:17.017",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54720",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T11:10:53.007",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"word-choice",
"kanji",
"nuances",
"kanji-choice"
],
"title": "悟る vs 気づく vs 分かる Satoru vs Kizuku vs Wakaru",
"view_count": 544
} | [
{
"body": "> From my understanding, 気{き}づく is more \"to realise\" and 分{わ}かる is more to\n> \"understand\" right?\n\nRight, at least basically so.\n\n> Where does 悟る fall in comparison to these 2? Is it more towards \"realising\"\n> or \"understanding\"? Or is it completely different with some nuance I'm\n> missing?\n\nLooking at the way you phrase your question, I would say you are missing\nsomething important.\n\n「悟{さと}る」, when used correctly, would always carry a religious and/or\nphilosophical overtone. Unlike 「気づく」 and 「分かる」, 「悟る」 is in no way a word that\none would use on a daily basis. It is simply a much bigger and nuanced word\nthan the other two.\n\n「悟る」 has the meanings of **_\"to become spiritually aware of\", \"to be\nphilosophically awakened\", \"to have an epiphany\"_** , etc.\n\nYou need to realize and/or understand something pretty much life-changing to\nuse 「悟る」 unless you use it, as some people do, for exaggeration.\n\nIn case you did not know, the noun form \"satori\" has already made its way into\nmany foreign languages including English.\n\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori>\n\nThat is not going to happen with \"kizuki\" or \"wakari\" in our lifetime. Why\nnot? Because every language would already have its counterparts for those.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T03:39:53.927",
"id": "54722",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T04:32:15.393",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-24T04:32:15.393",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54720",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "悟る is much more nuanced and much less common than 気づく/分かる, but it still can be\nused safely in day-to-day conversations of ordinary people. Outside\nreligious/philosophical contexts, 悟る is basically closer to \"to realize (some\nimportant fact/truth)\". Its object is usually something out of control of the\nspeaker, something that initially seemed vague or hidden. The realized fact is\noften (but not always) unpleasant to the speaker. 悟る usually involves a\ncertain amount of reasoning process (in this sense, \"to understand\" is not too\nfar, either).\n\n> * その写真を見て夫が浮気していると悟った。 \n> I saw the photo and realized my husband was cheating.\n> * 彼の死期が近いと悟った。 \n> I realized he was close to death.\n> * そのスピーチを聞いて、もう故郷には帰れないことを悟った。 \n> After listening to the speech, I realized we could never return to our home\n> town.\n>\n\n気づく can mean \"to realize\", but its basic meaning is more like \"to notice.\" The\nobject of 気づく can be any (unimportant) event which is directly perceivable and\ndoes not require reasoning (e.g., 床にごみが落ちているのに気づいた).\n\nAs l'électeur said, 悟る also has a religious/spiritual meaning, \"to be\nenlightened/awakened\". Check the actual usages of this verb in a corpus and\n[all these entries on ALC](https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E6%82%9F%E3%82%8B).\nNote that [悟り](https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E6%82%9F%E3%82%8A) is an\nestablished religious concept which almost always means enlightenment (and\n[that's how masu-stem\nworks](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/32311/5010)).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T07:37:48.583",
"id": "54726",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T10:48:29.640",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-24T10:48:29.640",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54720",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "I think 悟る、気づく are close to epiphanic moment. You are working on something\nreally hard and all of sudden discover how to do it. However I think 悟る is\noften used for an attainment after putting huge amount of effort and almost\ngiving up the effort. I think the attainment is often made when you are\nexhausted.\n\nOn the other hand 気づく is more of so-called eureka/aha moment such as\nArchimedes realized that the displacement of the volume of water must be equal\nto the volume of the part of his body he had overflowed when his bathing. It's\nmore relaxed.\n\n悟る might be preferred to use for getting the essence of something accompanied\nwith your body feel whereas 気づく occurs in your mind.\n\n分かる is a neutral and versatile word for realizing.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T11:10:53.007",
"id": "54727",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T11:10:53.007",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54720",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 54720 | null | 54726 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When I hear bisuketto pronounced I hear bisket-to. I don't hear bisuket-to. Is\nit my ears or do you just not say su? If not, why not? Is there a\npronunciation rule I'm not aware of maybe?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T04:50:01.807",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54723",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-24T23:05:23.800",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26590",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"pronunciation"
],
"title": "Pronunciation question: bisuketto ビスケット",
"view_count": 238
} | [
{
"body": "There isn't a rule about this like you shouldn't pronounce u at the end of\nます.It is just that when it is pronounced fast it sounds like bisketto and they\ndon't especially try to pronounce the letter u there.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T22:13:44.767",
"id": "54752",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T22:13:44.767",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26604",
"parent_id": "54723",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 54723 | null | 54752 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54730",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Consider the following sentences.\n\n * 警察官が免許を没収した。The police officer seized (my) license.\n * 免許が警察官に没収された。(My) license was confiscated by the police officer.\n\nIf I want to use 「免許が没収になった。」, how can I insert 警察官 into it?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T14:31:05.687",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54729",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T14:46:37.913",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "11192",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "～になった versus ～された",
"view_count": 170
} | [
{
"body": "You can use [～によって](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/37097/5010) and say\n免許が警察官によって没収になった. 免許が警察官に没収になった would also be understood, but many people\nwould say this is clumsy due to the duplication of に.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T14:39:40.943",
"id": "54730",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T14:46:33.287",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-24T14:46:33.287",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54729",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "You can put 警察官 in the beginning. 警察官により免許が没収になった。. It sounds bit awkward but\nI think it works in the same way.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T14:46:37.913",
"id": "54731",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-24T14:46:37.913",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54729",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54729 | 54730 | 54730 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54738",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Consider the following sentences.\n\n### Case 1\n\n> speaker: 私たちは毎日野菜を食べないといけない。(We must eat vegetables everyday.)\n>\n> listener: そうですよね。(I agree.)\n\nIn this case, 私たち includes the listener in the group.\n\n### Case 2\n\n> speaker: 私たちはアメリカから来ました。(We came from US.)\n>\n> listener: 日本へようこそ。(Welcome to Japan.)\n\nIn this case, 私たち excludes the listener in the group.\n\n### Question\n\nFrom both cases, 私たち can include and exclude the listener in the group. Is\nthere any special Japanese pronoun to replace 私たち in the second case?",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-24T23:06:33.100",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54733",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T02:43:49.633",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "11192",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Is there a pronoun for plural speaker but not including the listeners?",
"view_count": 214
} | [
{
"body": "I don't think there is a special Japanese pronoun in order to distinguish your\nsecond case. I don't think there is a special English pronoun, either.\n\n私たちは, 私どもは, 我々は or \"we\" basically includes the two possibilities you\nmentioned.\n\nThere isn't such a pronoun, but we can distinguish them by some other\ntechniques.\n\nIn a scientific paper, when the authors are plural, a strict reviewer/editor\nmay dislike the pronoun, \"we.\" They would proofread it to \"our team\" or\nsomething, because they want to exclude the listeners or readers from \"we\" and\nmake it clearer.\n\nLikewise, in order to exclude the listeners/readers, we can change them, for\nexample:\n\n> 私たちは ---> 弊社では (our company, in case that the listeners are the customers)\n>\n> 私たちは ---> 我々従業員一同は (all of our staff members, in case that the listeners are\n> customers)\n>\n> 我々は ---> 私どもスタッフは (our staff members)\n>\n> 私たちは ---> 私たち日本人は (in case that the listeners are not Japanese people).\n\nIf you want to include the listeners,\n\n> 私たちは ---> 私たちは皆様と共に\n>\n> 私たち ---> 私たち日本人は (in case that the listeners are all Japanese people)\n>\n> 我々 ---> 我々国民は in case that the listeners are citizens).\n\nWe can avoid the confusion by using specific expressions, but answering to\nyour question, there is no such special pronoun. No.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T03:54:30.253",
"id": "54738",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T02:43:49.633",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54733",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54733 | 54738 | 54738 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54735",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "This question has probably been asked to death, but better to ask than not to.\n\nI'm currently using \"Basic Kanji Book 1\" and this is one of the sentences in\nit. I can work out the meaning, but not intuitively and visually.\n\ne.g. If I say 'as the water flows from the top to the bottom', I can visualize\nand interpret the meaning as the sentence is spoken..\n\n水は高いところから低いところへながれる\n\nwater, high と here from, と low here flows\n\nIs it simply a lack of understanding of the と particle itself?\n\nI think this step is kinda important as it may effect how I interpret and\ncontinue to learn in the future.\n\nThanks for your time.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T00:31:52.470",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54734",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T02:11:08.727",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-25T02:11:08.727",
"last_editor_user_id": "17571",
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"particle-と"
],
"title": "trying to think about what part of the sentence is attached to what... i think",
"view_count": 194
} | [
{
"body": "> 「水{みず}は高{たか}いところから低{ひく}いところへながれる。」\n\nThere is no particle と used in this sentence, I am afraid to say.\n\n「ところ」 is one word meaning \"place\". It is not 「と + ころ」 as you seem to have\nanalyzed it.\n\n> \"Water flows from a high place to a low place.\"\n\nis the literal translation of the sentence.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T00:51:41.143",
"id": "54735",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T00:51:41.143",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54734",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "I don't think that's the particle と. It is the word ところ meaning place or\nlocation.\n\nYou can break the sentence down as follows: \n水 - water \nは - particle wa \n高い - high \nところ - place \nから - from \n低い - low \nところ - place \nへ - to \nながれる - flow\n\n高いところ can then be understood to mean a place above, or an elevated area. \n低いところ similarly can be understood to mean place below, or a lower area. \n高い and 低い are the adjectives modifying the noun ところ.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T00:52:14.227",
"id": "54736",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T00:56:22.197",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-25T00:56:22.197",
"last_editor_user_id": "17571",
"owner_user_id": "17571",
"parent_id": "54734",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54734 | 54735 | 54735 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54742",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For full context: <https://www.satorireader.com/articles/sanzu-no-kawa-\nepisode-1-edition-m>\n\nThe sentence in question: その日の朝は、いつもと全く変わらない、平凡な朝だった。\n\nMy attempt at translation: \"This days morning, really as always nothing\nchanged and it was an ordinary morning.\"\n\nI usually would expect 変わらない to be either て or ます form to formally connect to\nthe noun 朝 which it modifies. But instead, it's just plain form. Did I miss\nout on something, or is this just a question of style?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T10:14:58.630",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54741",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T10:33:11.787",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Why is neither て nor ます form used here?",
"view_count": 126
} | [
{
"body": "This is simply because いつもと全く変わらない is a _relative clause_ that modifies 平凡な朝.\nOf course a relative clause does not end with て/で/ます. Don't be misguided by\nthe comma :D (Alternatively, you can think いつもと全く変わらない and 平凡な independently\nmodify 朝.)\n\n> その日の朝は、いつもと全く変わらない、平凡な朝だった。 \n> It was an ordinary morning that was no different than usual.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T10:33:11.787",
"id": "54742",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T10:33:11.787",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54741",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 54741 | 54742 | 54742 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54754",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "私は私のまちにやすめから、「name of town」がすきです.\n\nI like my hometown because I can relax here.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T13:18:31.047",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54744",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T22:41:58.947",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26600",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-から"
],
"title": "Is this usage of から correct?",
"view_count": 110
} | [
{
"body": "休むことができるから would compensate the translation better i think.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T21:56:46.047",
"id": "54751",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T21:56:46.047",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26604",
"parent_id": "54744",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> くつろげるから「name of town」がすきです.\n\nor\n\n> くつろぐことができるから「name of town」がすきです.\n\nsounds right to my ears.\n\n休むことができるから seems more like \"because I can take a rest\" or \"because I don't\nhave to go to work here.\"\n\nAs for the usage of \"から\" itself, your sentence was correct.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T22:41:58.947",
"id": "54754",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T22:41:58.947",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54744",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 54744 | 54754 | 54751 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54756",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For full context: <https://www.satorireader.com/articles/sanzu-no-kawa-\nepisode-1-edition-m?sentenceID=SrOvSLFfSOyCJFzmEmFt>\n\nSentence in question: そこを、対向車線を走る車が、もうスピードですれちがっていく\n\n=> \"vehicles, which drive there (=this road) on the opposite lane, pass by\nwith extreme speed.\"\n\nThere are 2 を which both connect the noun to an intransitive verb expressing\nmovement. This use of を is always a bit confusing to me, So I just wanted to\nask for confirmation wether I got it right or not. Especially the first を in\nそこを gives me a headache. そこ clearly refers to the 高速道路 from before, but I'm\nnot so sure wether the first を attaches to すれちがっていく or 走る? I think a relation\nto 走る would make more sense.\n\nFurthermore, I'm not sure about why in ちがっていく , 行く or 来る should be used at\nall? AFAIK they usually indicate that something is moving towards or away from\nthe speaker. If the verb is used in this function here, then I wonder why 行く\nshould be preferred over 来る in this context. After all, the object passing by\nfirst needs to approach you and then move away from you again.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T13:44:20.167",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54745",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T01:27:01.413",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How do these two を relate to the respective verbs?",
"view_count": 126
} | [
{
"body": "* Yes this そこ refers to the 高速道路.\n * Both of the two を are [location markers used with intransitive verbs](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/3243/5010). そこを modifies the main verb すれ違っていく. 対向車線を modifies 走る in a relative clause that modifies 車. As far as I understand, one verb can never take more than one を.\n * すれ違っていく is [すれ違う](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/3243/5010) followed by a [subsidiary verb 行く](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/676/5010) that describes some physical/emotional movement away from the speaker. In this case, 行く is a neutral choice that simply expresses cars going away from the speaker after the action of すれ違う. すれ違ってくる (\"coming close to pass me\") focuses on the approaching cars, and it would sound as if the speaker is scared by every car on the opposite lane. I know this paragraph is about the anxiety of the speaker, but すれ違っていく itself is used to describe an objective fact.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T01:27:01.413",
"id": "54756",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T01:27:01.413",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54745",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54745 | 54756 | 54756 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Sentence in question: \n万が一、事故に巻き込まれたりしたら、確実に勝ち目はないだろうなぁと、いつも不安になった。\n\nFor full context: \n<https://www.satorireader.com/articles/sanzu-no-kawa-\nepisode-1-edition-m?sentenceID=SrOvSLFfSOyCJFzmEmFt>\n\nMy attempt at translation: \n\"I was (=became?) anxious that in the unlikely event that I would have gotten\ninvolved into an accident, I wouldn't have a chance.\"\n\nFirst, I'm not sure why たり is used here. Usually I see たり when multiple\nexamples are given, but here it is only one thing. I guess it is because the\nspeaker wants to express that this is just one of the (bad) things that\ncould've happened?\n\nSecond, the usage of と. Thanks to the aids provided SatoriReader, I could\ncheck for the function of と here myself. I usually encountered と in the\nquotative function only when followed by a verb expressing thought (e.g. 思う)\nor speech (e.g. 言う). In this case, the thought is kind of indicated by だろう.\nHowever, I wanted to ask wether this is a common phenomenon in japanese, that\nthought or speech isn't explicitely indicated through the respective verbs\nwhen と is used in a quotative function.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T14:20:47.553",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54747",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T00:31:43.973",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-25T20:03:35.290",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-と",
"quotes"
],
"title": "Implicit grammar in this sentence",
"view_count": 122
} | [
{
"body": "Two resources were kindly introduced in the comment. I adopt this method: [Use\nof quote marker と before unusual\nverbs](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/24583/use-of-quote-\nmarker-%E3%81%A8-before-unusual-verbs). It explains you can use an italic font\nfor a quotation. So, you might try to express \"確実に勝ち目はないだろうなぁと\" using an\nitalic font in English writing.\n\nProbably going like this, \"If I were to get involved in the accident, _it's\npretty sure that I could not win_ , I was getting nervous like that\".\n\nAs for \"たり\", in the following sentence, other good things for having a small\nvehicle are explicitly stated \"燃費もいいし、駐車するのも楽だから\". I think your guess is\ncorrect for \"たり\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T23:45:11.007",
"id": "54755",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T00:31:43.973",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-26T00:31:43.973",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54747",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54747 | null | 54755 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "For full context: <https://www.satorireader.com/articles/sanzu-no-kawa-\nepisode-1-edition-m?sentenceID=SrOvSLFfSOyCJFzmEmFt>\n\nThe sentence in question: 朝のまぶしい日差しを受けて、道路わきの林がキラキラとかがやいていた。\n\nMy attempt at translation: \"While I was taking the uncomfortable lightrays of\nthe morning, the forest alongside the road did sparkle with sparkling.\"\n\nWhat surprises me is that と is used to express a means. I'd usually expect で\nfor this purpose. Are there any conditions to be met so that と can express\nthis?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T16:14:38.520",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54748",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T20:04:27.453",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-25T20:04:27.453",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-と",
"onomatopoeia"
],
"title": "Can と express a means as well?",
"view_count": 57
} | []
| 54748 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "The sentence in question: しばらく行くと、道路が急カーブになる所で、がけの下に川が見えてきた。\n\nFor full context: <https://www.satorireader.com/articles/sanzu-no-kawa-\nepisode-1-edition-m?sentenceID=SrOvSLFfSOyCJFzmEmFt>\n\nMy attempt at translation: \"When I drive a little while, in a place where the\nroad becomes a steep curve, the river beneath the cliffs comes into sight.\"\n\nIn my textbook, I learnt that when と is used in a conditional phrase, what\nfollows after is an \"inevitable consequence/something that MUST happen after\nthe condition in the phrase has been met\". This does indeed somehow fit the\ncontext, because when I continue driving along the road, I will inevitably\nencounter all the places this road leads to. However, I still find that using\na conditional phrase at all sounds odd here.\n\nしばらく confers a temporal semantics, and it also implies that what is described\nafterwards also happens afterwards. So I'd rather expect something along the\nlines of \"て-form + から\" or at least a \"時\" to fit into the temporal context. Why\nis と used instead?",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T16:47:21.280",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54749",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-25T20:04:06.690",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-25T20:04:06.690",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"conditionals"
],
"title": "Why is と used here?",
"view_count": 80
} | []
| 54749 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the anime [Haruhi Suzumiya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haruhi_Suzumiya)\nthere is a main character called Kyon [キョン].\n\nThe wiki page for [Kyon](http://haruhi.wikia.com/wiki/Kyon) mentions:\n\n> His nickname, Kyon, was created for him by his aunt and then spread by his\n> little sister. **This is an \"unwelcome twist\" on his real name.**\n\nOriginally I thought it would be Kyou [杏], with the u replaced with a N to\nmake it sound like a female nickname. Although the [answer\nhere](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/30497) describes that'd be ん and\nnot ン.\n\nLeaving me curious as to what キョン could unravel to as a normal boys name.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T18:43:09.927",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54750",
"last_activity_date": "2021-11-26T15:07:55.807",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-26T01:18:09.217",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "26602",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-requests",
"names"
],
"title": "What could キョン untwist to?",
"view_count": 260
} | [
{
"body": "I read 涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱.\n\n\"ハルヒ\" isn't a popular name for a Japanese woman, and \"キョン\" isn't a popular\nnickname, either. They are probably the author's own creation, so if you\nreally want to get the correct answer, you should ask him.\n\nGenerally speaking, however, I can think of キョン as the nickname for:\n\n> 恭一郎・京一郎・響一郎（kyou ichi rou) (man)\n>\n> 恭子・今日子・京子・ **杏子** ・響子 (kyou ko) (woman)\n>\n> 京太郎・姜太郎・京太朗 (kyou ta rou) (man)\n>\n> 恭介・恭輔・享佑・ **杏輔** (kyou suke) (man)\n\nAny woman and man's real names that start with \"kyou\" can be called キョン as\ntheir nickname.\n\nFor example, 響一郎 is rather a long and \"heavy\" name. But キョン is a very \"light\"\nname. The man doesn't like the nickname, so he said, \"This is an 'unwelcome\ntwist' on my real name,\" I believe.\n\nAs for the difference between ん and ン, I don't agree with you.\n\n”Kyon\" can be written as either ”きょん” or \"キョン.\"\n\nきょン or キョん looks very weird to my eyes.\n\n> Although the answer here describes that be ん and not ン.\n\nI don't think so.\n\nOne more thing to note: 小泉今日子 is a singer and actress in Japan, and her\nnickname is キョンキョン, not キョン.\n\nWhy キョンキョン, not キョン?\n\nI think キョン is too \"light.\" And it might resemble \"チョン\" which is a very dirty\nword in Japanese history.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-25T22:14:16.033",
"id": "54753",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T06:39:36.023",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54750",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54750 | null | 54753 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54758",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "It is only a word but every time I look it up they give me a different meaning\n\nHere are some pictures with the meanings that I found:\n\nThis is from the book \"The preparatory course for the japanese language\nproficiency test N4 読む\":\n\n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QIAXt.png)\n\nThis is from the book \"はじめての日本語能力試験 N4単語1500\":\n\n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ppRV1.jpg)\n\nThis one is from Jisho.org:\n\n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5Tzcp.png)\n\nCan you give me the meaning you think it have and some examples? please",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T01:32:34.140",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54757",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T02:54:57.483",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-26T01:43:58.133",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "19322",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"words"
],
"title": "What does 行う (おこなう) mean?",
"view_count": 2075
} | [
{
"body": "行う is a transitive verb that takes を. (I don't understand why the first\npicture used \"to occur\" which is intransitive.)\n\nIt is basically similar to する (\"to do\"), but 行う sounds more formal and stiff.\nThe more formal or the bigger the situation is, the more likely 行う is chosen.\n\n> * 製品の発表会をする ≒ 製品の発表会を行う\n> * 映画の撮影をする ≒ 映画の撮影を行う\n> * 結婚式をする ≒ 結婚式を行う\n>\n\nThe following sentences usually sound a little funny because 行う is too\ngrandiose:\n\n> * [?] 学校の宿題を行う\n> * [?] 友達とバスケットボールを行う\n>\n\nOn the other hand, the following sentences are too casual in news articles,\nformal greetings or such, but it can appear in casual conversations.\n\n> * オリンピックをする\n> * 株主総会をする\n>\n\nThere is also a verb\n[執り行う](http://jisho.org/word/%E5%9F%B7%E3%82%8A%E8%A1%8C%E3%81%86) which\nsounds even stiffer and is only used with big ceremonies like wedding\nceremonies.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T02:11:18.450",
"id": "54758",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T02:54:57.483",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-26T02:54:57.483",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54757",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 54757 | 54758 | 54758 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54760",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Looking at an old world war two map, I know there is a mountain/hill/ridge\nwhich was nicknamed \"lion\" by the Japanese. The old map has a Japanese symbol\nwritten on the spot of that mountain/hill/ridge.\n\nBecause I don't know Japanese (can't recognize and understand the characters),\nI don't know which one of the following characters it might be:\n\nEither:\n\n> シ\n\nor\n\n> ツ\n\nCould someone with knowledge of Japanese give me a definite answer on which\none it might likely be, and why.\n\nDrawing from my knowledge of Chinese, my best guess is it will be\n\n> シ\n\nbecause it seems that this Japanese character is pronounced \" **shi** \", which\nmight be coming from the Chinese \" **獅** 子\" ( **shi** zi).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T03:54:35.900",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54759",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T04:09:49.553",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-26T04:09:49.553",
"last_editor_user_id": "19054",
"owner_user_id": "19054",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Could the animal \"lion\" be represented by シ or by ツ",
"view_count": 94
} | [
{
"body": "[獅子](http://jisho.org/word/%E7%8D%85%E5%AD%90) is a dated word that means\n_lion_ in Japanese. This can also be written as しし in hiragana and シシ (shi-\nshi) in katakana.\n\nシ can ツ can be distinguished [like\nthis](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/33579/5010).\n[ツツ/つつ/筒](http://jisho.org/word/%E7%AD%92) means _pipe_ , by the way.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T04:08:00.520",
"id": "54760",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T04:08:00.520",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54759",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54759 | 54760 | 54760 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54763",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Is it\n\n> みたことがない\n\nor\n\n> みたことはない ?\n\nI'm not sure about the particle for this. Can both be used? Or which is\nbetter? (And why is it so?)\n\nThanks!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T05:32:01.620",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54762",
"last_activity_date": "2020-12-31T08:14:10.953",
"last_edit_date": "2020-12-31T08:14:10.953",
"last_editor_user_id": "37097",
"owner_user_id": "26609",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "たform+こと が/は(particle) ない?",
"view_count": 230
} | [
{
"body": "This is a good question because quite a few Japanese-learners do use the two\nas if they were completely interchangeable. They are not.\n\n> 「みたこと **が** ない」\n\nmakes a simple and neutral statement saying you have not seen something. You\njust do not have the experience. If I said:\n\n> 「パイプオルガンを見{み}たこと **が** ない。」\n\nall it means is that I have not seen a pipe organ. Plain and simple. I am not\nimplying anything.\n\n> 「みたこと **は** ない」\n\n, however, **_implies_** either:\n\n1) you have not seen A, but you have B (or C)\n\nor\n\n2) you have not seen something, but have done something else (other than\nseeing) with/about it.\n\nThis is all made possible by the use of the **_contrastive_** **は**.\n\nThus, if I said:\n\n> 「パイプオルガンを見たこと **は** ない。」\n\nI would be implying either:\n\n1) I have never seen a pipe organ, but have seen another instrument.\n\nor, for instance,\n\n2) I have not **seen** a pipe organ but I have **listened** to pipe organ\nmusic.\n\nThe smallest words are often the most important words in Japanese. I am, of\ncourse, referring to our particles.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T06:10:50.063",
"id": "54763",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T06:10:50.063",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54762",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "～をみたことはない CAN carry contrastive nuance, but it is the same as ～をみたことがない in,\nsay, 50% of the cases. This is because は is used commonly in negative\nsentences without any contrastive connotation. See: [Why is the topic marker\noften used in negative statements (ではない,\n～とは思わない)?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1077/5010)\n\n> originally, the pattern ～ではない was used to only mark a strong contrast of the\n> entire predication to something else (e.g. something that was said or\n> implied before by someone else), but later became more and more popularized\n> until what originally was a contrast marker became an almost necessary\n> feature of the negative form.\n\n* * *\n\nFor example, this [this news\narticle](https://news.nifty.com/article/sports/soccer/12192-653971/) uses both\nexpressions:\n\n> * (私の就任から)こんなに悪い試合は見たことはない。\n> * (長年、監督を続けていますけど、)こんなに内容の悪い試合は見たことがない。\n>\n\n...both of which (neutrally) mean \"I have never seen such a bad game.\" I can\nsee no significant difference between the two here. ～は見たことがない MAY imply\ncontrastive nuance depending on the context, but it's often quite neutral and\nis safely interchangeable with こんなに悪い試合を見たことがない。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T03:27:42.990",
"id": "54789",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T03:27:42.990",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54762",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54762 | 54763 | 54763 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54766",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "So I learned about させる, that it's like to influence someone to do something.\nThen we found this sentence on hunter x hunter. ミトさんは （ゴンさんに）ハンター （を）受けさせたくない\nんだよ。\n\nA bit of context, Mito don't want Gone to take the hunter exam. Now I would\ntranslate 受けさせたくない as \"not want to force him to take it\", but my teacher told\nme it was wrong. For a half hour, he tried to explain it to me but I still\ndidn't get it.\n\nCan you guys help me? Thanks, Or",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T06:29:45.877",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54764",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T06:17:51.187",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-27T06:17:51.187",
"last_editor_user_id": "11679",
"owner_user_id": "11679",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"conjugations",
"causation"
],
"title": "Please help me understand the させたくない form",
"view_count": 243
} | [
{
"body": "～させる can also mean \"to let (someone) do~~\" \"to allow (someone) to do~~\". See\ndefinition #2 in\n[プログレッシブ和英中辞典](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/je/29075/meaning/m0u/):\n\n> させる \n> ・・・ \n> ２ 〔望みどおりにさせる〕let ((a person do))，allow ((a person to do)) \n> お前には好きなようにさせてやろう \n> I will _let_ you do as you wish. \n> 一言述べさせていただきます \n> _Let_ me [ _Allow_ me to] say one thing.／I'd like to say one thing, if I\n> may.\n\nso how about translating it as...\n\n> ミトさんは（ゴンさんに）ハンター（を）受けさせたくないんだよ。 \n> \"Mito-san doesn't want to _let_ Gon-san take the hunter exam.\"",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T09:15:19.650",
"id": "54766",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T09:29:43.130",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-26T09:29:43.130",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "54764",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54764 | 54766 | 54766 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54769",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What's the difference between あまり and ほど when saying 'so much...that'?\n\nFor example:\n\n> トムは驚きのあまり何も言えなかった。 \n> Tom was so surprised that he was speechless.\n>\n> トムは驚くほど何も言えなかった。 \n> (Tom was so surprised that he was speechless.）？\n\nOr:\n\n> ピンが落ちた音が聞こえるあまり、静かだった。 \n> (It was so quiet that you could hear a pin drop.) ？\n>\n> ピンが落ちた音が聞こえるほど、静かだった。 \n> It was so quiet that you could hear a pin drop.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T10:19:03.207",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54767",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T16:46:51.627",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-29T16:46:51.627",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "26566",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What's the difference between あまり and ほど when saying 'so much...that'?",
"view_count": 329
} | [
{
"body": "Basically, the main difference lies on whether the focus is placed on the\n**cause or effect** in a given situation.\n\nThough you will need to change the sentence structure around, you can describe\na cause-and-effect situation by using either 「あまり」 or 「ほど」.\n\n> 「( **cause + あまり** ) + effect」 places (at least slightly) more focus on the\n> **_effect_**.\n\n「トムは驚{おどろ}きの **あまり** 何{なに}も言{い}えなかった。」= \"Tom was so surprised that he was\nspeechless.\"\n\n「静{しず}かな **あまり** 、ピンが落{お}ちる音{おと}(が/さえ/さえも)聞{き}こえた。」 = \"It was so quiet that\nyou could hear a pin drop.\"\n\n> 「 **(effect + ほど** ) + cause」 places (at least slightly) more focus on the\n> **_cause_**.\n\n「トムは何も言えない **ほど** 驚いた。」 = \"Tom was surprised to the extent that he became\nspeechless.\"\n\n「ピンが落ちる音が聞こえる **ほど** 静かだった。」 = \"It was quiet to the extent that you could hear\na pin drop.\"\n\nYou will need to form/read/hear hundreds of sentences like these to get a feel\nof the usages.\n\nThus, two of your four sentences sound quite awkward and make little sense to\nus native speakers. Those are:\n\n「トムは驚くほど何も言えなかった。」\n\nand\n\n「ピンが落ちた音が聞こえるあまり、静かだった。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T11:20:49.233",
"id": "54769",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T11:20:49.233",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54767",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 54767 | 54769 | 54769 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54770",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Referring to the tuna fishing quota:\n\n> 今年より約５２％多くなります。 (from a news article) \n> 今年より約５２％増える。 (made up by me) \n> (This) will increase by around 52% compared to this year.\n\nIs there any difference in meaning/feeling between the above two sentences?\n\nHow would I say increase **to** X% rather than increase **by** X%? Is it just\nfrom context? Would the following be correct:\n\n> フォークの生産はtotal outputの５０%増える \n> Production of forks will increase **to** 50% of total output.\n\n(sorry, I don't know how to say 'total output')\n\nBut if I just said:\n\n> フォークの生産は５０%増える\n\nWould that mean **to** 50% or **by** 50% or is it ambiguous?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T11:20:41.117",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54768",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T12:58:24.663",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Increase to X% or increase by X%?",
"view_count": 788
} | [
{
"body": "> 今年より約５２％多くなります。 (from a news article)\n>\n> 今年より約５２％増える。 (made up by me)\n>\n> Is there any difference in meaning/feeling between the above two sentences?\n\nNo, not really. The first one sounds just a little politer for using 「ます」, but\nthat is about it. If you wanted to use a big kanji word, that would be\n「増加{ぞうか}する」.\n\n> How would I say increase **to** X% rather than increase **by** X%? Is it\n> just from context? Would the following be correct:\n>\n> フォークの生産はtotal outputの５０%増える\n>\n> Production of forks will increase to 50% of total output.\n\nNo, that will not work. 「50％増える」 **always** means \"to increase **by** 50%\".\n\nTo say \"to increase **to** 50%\", you need to say:\n\n> 「50％( **に or にまで** )増える」\n\nParticles are everything. To describe a move/change from A to B, you usually\nmust use a に or へ. Increases and decreases (from A to B) are no exceptions.\n\n> フォークの生産は５０%増える\n>\n> Would that mean **to 50%** or **by 50%** or is it ambiguous?\n\nIt can only mean \" **by** 50%\". It is not ambiguous.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T11:50:57.913",
"id": "54770",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T12:58:24.663",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54768",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "If you mean \"the production of forks is estimated to account for 50% of the\ntotal output\" (フォークの生産は、総生産量の50%を占める見込みです。）, it should be\n\"フォークの生産は総生産量の５０%に上昇する/に増える\"(The production of forks will rise to 50% of the\ntotal output.).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T11:54:50.247",
"id": "54771",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T11:54:50.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54768",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54768 | 54770 | 54770 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54784",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Continuation from my other question: if we were asking as a question,\n'みたことがありますか。' Can we use the question はparticle interchangeably? Or which to\nuse under which circumstances? Thanks!",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T14:40:33.783",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54772",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T23:49:57.957",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-26T19:43:10.230",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "26609",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"は-and-が"
],
"title": "たform+こと が/は(particle) ありますか?",
"view_count": 116
} | [
{
"body": "I think the question is clear enough, although there is no specific context.\n\nI don't know whether all the questions about は/が should be regarded as\n\"duplicated questions.\" If so, I had better not write this. But anyway, I will\ntry to answer it.\n\nNow I think that the both of は and が are almost completely interchangeable and\nhave the same meaning, in general.\n\nThe choice depends on each concrete context. It depends on other grammatical\nrules.\n\nFor example:\n\n> 日本に行ったことはありますか？ a\n>\n> 日本に行ったことがありますか？ b\n\na and b are completely the same and it depends only on the speaker's\npreference.\n\n> あなた **は** 日本に行ったこと **は** ありますか? c\n>\n> あなた **は** 日本に行ったこと **が** ありますか? d\n\nI believe not a few Japanese would choose d, because c includes the double \"は\"\ns which seem less natural to native-Japanese speakers' ears.\n\nHope this helps!",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T23:44:18.780",
"id": "54784",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T23:49:57.957",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54772",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54772 | 54784 | 54784 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54774",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Which meaning of って is used in this case and what is its purpose?\n\n> 「そうねぇ、私も考えていたのよ。捨ててしまうんなら取っておいたらどうかしら **って** 。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T14:43:05.043",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54773",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T14:57:13.910",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26613",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What is って in どうかしらって?",
"view_count": 243
} | [
{
"body": "> 「そうねぇ、私{わたし}も考{かんが}えていたのよ。捨{す}ててしまうんなら取{と}っておいたらどうかしら **って** 。」\n\n≒\n\n> 「そうねぇ。捨ててしまうんなら取っておいたらどうかしら **って** 、私も考えていたのよ。」\n\n≒\n\n> 「そうねぇ。『捨ててしまうんなら取っておいたらどうかしら』 **って** 、私も考えていたのよ。」\n\nThe 「って」 is clearly the quotative particle.\n\n**「～～って/と考える」** is the bare form.\n\n> \"Yeah, right. I , too, was thinking that it would (probably) be just as good\n> to keep it as to throw it away.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T14:57:13.910",
"id": "54774",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T14:57:13.910",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54773",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54773 | 54774 | 54774 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54786",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Sentence taken from [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/54773/what-\nis-%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6-in-%E3%81%A9%E3%81%86%E3%81%8B%E3%81%97%E3%82%89%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6)：\n\n> 「そうねぇ、私も考えていたのよ。 **捨ててしまうんなら取っておいたらどうかしら** って。」 \n> \"Yeah, right. I , too, was thinking that it would (probably) be just as\n> good to keep it as to throw it away.\" (translation thanks to l'electeur)\n\nI'm more interested in the part in bold. I'm very confused by this double\nconditional construction AならBたらどうかしら. Literally I'd translate this as \"If you\nwere to end up throwing it away, I wonder how it would be if you kept hold of\nit\". Whilst my translation is clearly gibberish, I can see how it might turn\ninto the good translation, but only because I've seen the good translation. I\ncertainly couldn't have worked that out for myself.\n\nCould you provide some clarification (perhaps with simpler examples) on how to\nparse this sentence and on how the grammar works here?",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T15:18:29.103",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54775",
"last_activity_date": "2022-03-10T02:09:18.470",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"conditionals"
],
"title": "Understanding AならBたらどうかしら",
"view_count": 247
} | [
{
"body": "> 「捨{す}ててしまうん **なら** 取{と}っておい **たら** どうかしら」\n\nIn the original question, only one sentence was given without further context,\nwhich was all good because the question was about the usage of the 「って」.\n\nI added my translation only as an extra service, so I did not explain anything\nabout the construct in question.\n\nThe situation I had in mind was one in which someone, possibly the speaker\nherself, had originally decided to throw away or at least leaned toward\nthrowing away an object, but its owner (again, possibly the speaker herself)\nis now leaning toward keeping it instead.\n\nAssuming that that is what is happening, this 「なら」 would actually be closer to\n\" _ **rather than**_ \" in meaning and nuance than pure conditional. What I\nmean by this is that 「捨ててしまうんなら」 would be synonymous to 「捨ててしまう **くらいなら** 」.\n\n「A + くらいなら + B」 means \"B rather than A\". Thus, this person is saying that\n「取っておく」 might even be a better option than to 「捨ててしまう」. Thus, the speaker is\nmaking the suggestion of \"how about keeping it\" to herself or another person.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T02:21:54.270",
"id": "54786",
"last_activity_date": "2022-03-10T02:09:18.470",
"last_edit_date": "2022-03-10T02:09:18.470",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54775",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54775 | 54786 | 54786 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54785",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I recently learned about iteration marks, especially `々`. After reading the\nwikipedia article of iteration marks, I found the following text: \" _Further,\nif okurigana is present, then no iteration mark should be used, as in 休み休み.\nThis is prescribed by the Japanese Ministry of Education in its 1981 Cabinet\nnotification prescribes, rule #6—see okurigana article for elaboration._ \"\n\nnow going to the wikipedia page of okurigana, the only thing that I can find\nabout iteration marks is the following sentence: _The 1981 Cabinet\nnotification prescribes (通則6) the okurigana usage 次々 (iteration mark), but\n休み休み (no iteration mark if okurigana is present)._\n\nHere it only gives an example, however it does not explain as why I am not\nallowed to use it.\n\nSo I wondered why it is not allowed to use iteration marks in okurigana. Why\nis `休み々ゝ` not allowed?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T15:36:32.440",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54776",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T02:55:26.687",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17921",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"okurigana"
],
"title": "Why is it not allowed to use iteration marks in okurigana?",
"view_count": 197
} | [
{
"body": "I have never seen something like `休み々ゝ`. If okurigana is present, くの字点 (`〱`)\nis obviously more concise. At least in the old days, it was possible to use\nくの字点 to repeat kana-kanji combinations, like this:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tKSrN.png)\n\n\"1981 Cabinet notification, rule #6\" is probably\n[this](http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/k19730618001/k19730618001.html),\nbut this document is about okurigana, and says nothing explicitly about when\nto use or when not to use iteration marks. This is understandable to me,\nbecause `ゝ` and `〱` were virtually already dead in 1981.\n\nIn general, these iteration marks have been regarded as informal/nonstandard\nconventions. As far as I know, `〱` has never been officially recommended nor\nbanned by the Japanese government, except for [this \"draft\" back in\n1946](http://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kijun/sanko/pdf/kurikahesi.pdf).\n\nAs a matter of fact, iteration marks fell out of use long ago, except for 々,\nwhich is somehow still regarded as part of the \"standard\" Japanese\northography. Most Japanese people still understand the meaning of `ゝ` and `〱`\nbecause they occasionally see them in old documents, but people today almost\nnever use these marks themselves. `々` is the only iteration mark taught at\nJapanese elementary school today.\n\nI don't know why only `々` survived and became virtually official. Anyway, `々`\nis clearly more useful than `ゝ` because hiragana are simple.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T01:56:00.040",
"id": "54785",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T02:55:26.687",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-27T02:55:26.687",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54776",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54776 | 54785 | 54785 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54782",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I know that when answering a question, the topic + は is implied and left out\nof the response because it's redundant. Is the same true for the direct object\nof the verb + を?\n\nAs an example, take the question\n\nロバート: ボブさんは、昨日映画を見ましたか。\n\nWould the response be\n\nボブ: はい、映画を見ました。\n\nOr could it just be\n\nボブ： はい、見ました。\n\nThanks for your help.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T18:53:26.760",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54780",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T21:05:36.897",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-26T19:28:48.933",
"last_editor_user_id": "26544",
"owner_user_id": "26544",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"particle-を"
],
"title": "Do I need to repeat the object + を in the response to a question?",
"view_count": 132
} | [
{
"body": "> I know that when answering a question, the topic + は is implied and left out\n> of the response because it's redundant. Is the same true for the direct\n> object of the verb + を?\n\nYes, it is the same.\n\nIn a Japanese language class, however, the teacher might expect you to give\nthe full answer 「はい、映画{えいが}を観{み}ました。」.\n\nIn a real-life situation, native speakers often just reply\n「観た。」、「うん、観た。」、「観たよ。」 , etc. to tell you the truth, but that does not mean\nthat the beginning students should speak like that as well.\n\nThe verb is 「観る」 and not 「見る」 for watching something appreciatively. But then\nagain, if you are being taught that it is 「見る」 in a beginning class, just use\nit for now.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T21:05:36.897",
"id": "54782",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T21:05:36.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54780",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 54780 | 54782 | 54782 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54783",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Could someone enlighten me on how to say: \"I think I understand (it) right\nnow, but I'm not entirely sure (I will understand it) in future\"? The speaker\nfeels their understanding could go either way: either they'll remember, or\nthey won't. 50/50.\n\nMy (laughably poor) attempt would be:\n\n> せめて今の所は分かるけど、未来は分かるのかどうか分からない。\n\nAgain, I'm sure that's probably riddle with errors. Yikes!\n\nMany thanks in advance!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T19:06:07.083",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54781",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T21:44:52.430",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26575",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"meaning",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Expressing 50% uncertainty",
"view_count": 217
} | [
{
"body": "> 「せめて今{いま}の所{ところ}は分{わ}かるけど、未来{みらい}は分かるのかどうか分からない。」\n\nJust by the look of it, at least, I know that you tried very hard and that is\nwhat counts.\n\n「せめて」 , when correctly used, expresses one's minimum hope as in wanting \"at\nleast this much\". It is used to express a desire. Thus, it feels out of place\nin this context. Incidentally, 「今のところ」, all by itself, covers what you want to\nsay here.\n\n「未来」 is a bigger word than Japanese-learners tend to think. That I know for\nsure after having dealt with J-learners for a few decades. A good word to\nknow, of course, but it is too big here.\n\nYou used 「分かる」 three times in a short sentence and that is a little too many.\nThis is, however, a minor thing compared to the two items I mentioned above.\n\nSo, how could we say this more naturally? We could say:\n\n「今（のところ）は分かるけど、先{さき}のことは分からない。」\n\n「今は分かったつもりだけど、（いつまでも/ずっと）覚{おぼ}えていられるかどうか分からない。」\n\n「今は分かったつもりでいるけど、すぐに忘{わす}れてしまうかもしれない。」\n\nI personally recommend the last two even though they look quite different from\nyour original sentence. I would be lying if I said otherwise.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-26T21:44:52.430",
"id": "54783",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-26T21:44:52.430",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54781",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 54781 | 54783 | 54783 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54790",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "`一二三` in Japanese is read as `ichi ni san` to mean, `one two three`.\n\nBut it can also be read as `hifumi`. What does `hifumi` mean?\n\nFrom <http://quest-for-japan.com/others/one-to-ten-in-japanese-2/> , it says\nit could be a name.\n\nThere are also manga characters which abbreviated to `hi-fu-mi` too\n(<http://change-123.wikia.com/wiki/HiFuMi>)\n\nBut what does `hifumi` actually mean? Where does it come from?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T03:09:42.567",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54787",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T04:30:00.690",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3576",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"words",
"etymology",
"numbers"
],
"title": "Hifumi vs Ichi Ni San",
"view_count": 10360
} | [
{
"body": "So do you know ひとつ, ふたつ, みっつ and so on, the \"traditional Japanese\" version of\ncounting one to ten? \"ひ, ふ, み, ...\" (or \"ひい, ふう, みい, ...\") is just an\nabbreviated version of this, and is occasionally used by some (older) people\nto count things with fingers.\n\nToday, ひふみ is also known as a rare Japanese person name (both as a first name\nand a last name). [Hifumi\nKato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hifumi_Kat%C5%8D) is the only real example\nI knew, but there is [a real baseball player whose last name is\nHifumi](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%80%E4%BA%8C%E4%B8%89%E6%85%8E%E5%A4%AA).\nHifumi is probably more commonly found in fiction, for example [Hifumi\nYamada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Danganronpa_characters#Danganronpa:_Trigger_Happy_Havoc.5B1.5D)\nand [Hifumi Takimoto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Game!#Characters) are\nrelatively recent examples. Its \"meaning\" is nothing but \"one-two-three\", but\nsince this is an established proper noun, its meaning is no longer important.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T04:05:08.523",
"id": "54790",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T04:30:00.690",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-27T04:30:00.690",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54787",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
]
| 54787 | 54790 | 54790 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have a question about the following sentence:\n\n> お母さんが、八百屋で長いこと、 **何を買うか** 決まらず迷っています。\n\nIs it possible to replace \"か\" with \"のか\" without misunderstanding in this\nsentence? Namely,\n\n> お母さんが、八百屋で長いこと、 **何を買うのか** 決まらず迷っています。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T06:10:06.287",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54792",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T12:45:01.107",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22712",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-か"
],
"title": "Word choose between か and のか",
"view_count": 542
} | [
{
"body": "This の is called \"explanatory-no\". Its basic role is to provide an explanation\nfor the current background context. When it's used with the question marker か,\nのか seeks clarification or explanation for the current context.\n\n * [Explanatory のだ （んだ）](https://www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-grammar/explanatory-noda/)\n * [Question Markers: か and の](https://www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-grammar/question-markers/)\n * [What is the meaning of ～んです/～のだ/etc?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/5398/5010)\n * [How is the \"のです\" working here?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/3349/5010)\n\nAs described in the second link, の can form a casual question even without か,\nalthough in this case か is required since it's in an [embedded\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/13038/5010).\n\nThat said, in this specific case, I think both sentences are almost completely\ninterchangeable, with or without の. Maybe the latter sounds slightly more\nemphatic or emotional.\n\nOn the other hand, の is almost mandatory in the following context:\n\n> お母さんは八百屋で30分も買い物をしていた。何を買った **の** か知りたい。\n\nThis is a typical case where の is used to seek clarification.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T12:45:01.107",
"id": "54795",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T12:45:01.107",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54792",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 54792 | null | 54795 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54794",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "There is this sentence.\n\n> たたみとかしょうじと（ ）日本的なものに興味があります。\n\nFrom といった and といって, which suits better here? Why?\n\nAlong with that can someone please explain what difference is made when といって\nchanges to といった?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T10:40:29.623",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54793",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T11:32:16.610",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-27T11:32:16.610",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "19276",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "といった vs といって. What is correct? Why?",
"view_count": 2673
} | [
{
"body": "Only using 「といっ **た** 」 would be correct. Use 「といっ **て** 」 and the sentence\nwill **_not_** make much sense. It is not even a question of which one is\n\"better\".\n\n> 「Enumerated items + といった + Noun」\n\nshould be remembered almost as a set phrase meaning:\n\n> \"(Noun) such as (enumerated items)\"\n\nThus,\n\n> 「たたみとかしょうじ **といった** 日本的{にほんてき}なもの」\n\nmeans:\n\n> \"Japanese things such as tatami and shouji\"\n\n「～～といっ **た** 」, therefore, is used to introduce actual examples of what one is\ntalking about.\n\n「～～といっ **て** 」, however, is very different. It is used to tell the\nlistener/reader what certain items are called **_and then_** to make an\nexplanatory statement about those items. I am sure that **you have learned to\nuse the てｰform of a verb as a conjunction**.\n\nFor instance, you can say by pointing your finger to the items:\n\n> 「これらは、それぞれ『たたみ』、『しょうじ』といっ **て** 、日本で家{いえ}を建{た}てる時{とき}に使{つか}われるものです。」\n>\n> \"These are called 'tatami' and 'shouji', respectively, and they are items\n> used in building houses in Japan.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T11:30:09.143",
"id": "54794",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T11:30:09.143",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54793",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 54793 | 54794 | 54794 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54798",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The following line is from the movie 仁義なき戦い. Near the beginning of the movie,\na yakuza guy (上田) was collecting protection money on another guy's turf (土井).\nA moment later 土井 found this out and yelled:\n\n「上田ァ!!われぇボンクラのくらんたぁのクセして、ここらのカスリ取っとるようなの!ここは元から土井のシマじゃ!!」\n\nI have no idea how to parse \"くらんたぁのクセして.\" Is this somehow a yakuza slang or\nHiroshima dialect? (this scene took place in Kure city, Hiroshima by the way).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T13:21:17.177",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54797",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T16:10:56.320",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4295",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"slang"
],
"title": "What is くらんたぁのクセして?",
"view_count": 219
} | [
{
"body": "* ～のクセして is the same as ～のくせに explained [in this article](http://www.jgram.org/pages/viewOne.php?tagE=kuseni). くせして is less common.\n * As for \"くらんたぁ\", this word is actually [愚連隊【ぐれんたい】](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%84%9A%E9%80%A3%E9%9A%8A) (a form of postwar street gangs) said with an accent ([source](http://jingi.hakata21.com/6-colum/1003wakasugi.html)). I don't know if it's in a real Hiroshima accent, though.\n * われ in this context is vocative \"you\", or お前／貴様. It sounds very rough and offensive (at least to speakers of modern standard Japanese). \n\n> 《二人称の人代名詞》〔俗〕同等以下の相手をさげすんで指し示す語。おまえ。 \n> 「━は年はいくつだ」[明鏡国語辞典 第二版]\n\n * ボンクラ is just another derogatory word similar to \"dummy\" or \"idiot\".\n\nわれぇボンクラの愚連隊のクセして = \"Yo, you're a damn 愚連隊 member and/but...\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T13:48:31.743",
"id": "54798",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-27T16:10:56.320",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-27T16:10:56.320",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54797",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 54797 | 54798 | 54798 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54801",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am aware that \"言われる\" means \"to be told\". My impression would be that\n\"私に言われても\" means \"Even if I told you...\" while \"私が言われても\" means \"Even if I am\ntold...\".\n\nBut [this site answer](http://eikaiwa-phrase.com/2802.html) seems to suggest\nthat another interpretation of \"私に言われても\" is \"Even if I am told...\"\n\nIs that a correct interpretation, and, if possible to explain, why?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T22:07:56.040",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54800",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T03:50:23.667",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-27T22:12:57.153",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "14033",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-に",
"passive-voice",
"ambiguity"
],
"title": "私に言われても versus 私が言われても",
"view_count": 1600
} | [
{
"body": "私 **に** 言われても is Suffering Passive (迷惑の受身), a kind of Indirect Passive\nStructure (間接受身構文), and 私 **が** 言われても is Direct Passive Structure (直接受身構文).\n\n「（あなたが）私に言う」 (Active/能動) \"You tell me.\" \n→ Direct Passive: 「私が（あなたに）言われる」 \"I am told (by you).\" \n→ Indirect Passive: 「（私が）（あなたに）私に*言われる」 \"You tell me (and it affects me in\nsome way).\" This means \"You do the action 私 **に** 言う (you tell me) and it\naffects me or I am suffered/annoyed, etc.\" *The に marks the indirect object of\n言う.\n\nSo... yes, that is a correct interpretation, and 「私 **に** 言われても（困る）...」 is\nactually far more natural and more common than 「私 **が** 言われても...」 for saying\n\"Even if I'm told / Even if you tell me (I can't do anything)...\"\n\nFor more about Indirect Passive, you could refer to:\n\n * [How to interpret indirect passives?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/15933/9831)\n * [直接受身・間接受身・持ち主の受身の文法](http://www.tomojuku.com/blog/passive/passive-4/)\n * [Wikipedia 間接受身ー迷惑の受身](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%97%E5%8B%95%E6%85%8B#.E9.96.93.E6.8E.A5.E5.8F.97.E8.BA.AB)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-27T22:56:10.983",
"id": "54801",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T03:50:23.667",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-28T03:50:23.667",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "54800",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
]
| 54800 | 54801 | 54801 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54805",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Many of us non-native japanese speakers have experienced the difficult of\nkatakana 外来語. In this case I am having trouble translating the word **シュート** 。\nGoogling it, it seems that it means \"shoot\" but it does not make sense. So\nthen I thought, maybe it means \"shooter\" (which to me sounds シューター)\n\nWhat do you think? Is there any other way to translate シュート?\n\n(the word refers to a machine parts that redirects things from one part of a\nmachine to a particular place of that machine)",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T04:14:50.040",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54803",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T21:41:43.327",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26207",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"katakana"
],
"title": "Difficult Katakana Gairaigo シュート",
"view_count": 214
} | [
{
"body": "> シュート\n\nshootではなく、Leeboさんのコメントにあるchuteだと思います。 \n飛行機のemergency escape chute などで使われます。\n\n> the word refers to a machine parts that redirects things from one part of a\n> machine to a particular place of that machine\n\n専門｛せんもん｝用語｛ようご｝ですので、分野｛ぶんや｝によっていろいろな言い方があります。\n傾斜台｛けいしゃだい｝、落｛お｝とし樋｛ひ｝、滑降｛かっこう｝斜面路｛しゃめんろ｝、郵便｛ゆうびん｝投下｛とうか｝装置｛そうち｝/レターシュート\n_letter chute_ 、降｛お｝ろし樋｛どい｝、荷｛に｝滑｛すべ｝らし、．．．\n\n多分、上記にない場合は、\"chute シュート\" ではなく、\"chuter シューター\" と言うことが多いと思います。\n\n# EDIT\n\n日本語訳｛にほんごやく｝を見｛み｝ていますと、質問者｛しつもんしゃ｝が提示｛ていじ｝した定義｛ていぎ｝に加｛くわ｝えて「傾斜路｛けいしゃろ｝あるいは重力｛じゅうりょく｝を利用｛りよう｝して\n_utilizing inclined paths or gravity_ 」があると一層｛いっそう｝明確｛めいかく｝になると思｛おも｝います。\n\n> the word refers to a machine parts that redirects things from one part of a\n> machine to a particular place of that machine **by utilizing inclined paths\n> or gravity**",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T05:10:10.123",
"id": "54805",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T11:34:34.900",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "54803",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "シュート is a term used in soccer too, meaning \"a shot on goal\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T21:41:43.327",
"id": "54837",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T21:41:43.327",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"parent_id": "54803",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54803 | 54805 | 54805 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54809",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Some context (this is from a Doraemon episode):\n\n> 2人の人間の間でこのスイッチを押すとそのあとの人生のコースが入れ替わる。\n>\n> でも言っとくけど… 人の人生のコースを進んでもいいことなんてないよ\n\nSo, this is something like:\n\n> If you press this switch between two people, their life paths will be\n> exchanged.\n>\n> But, for your information... It's not that (?) you may continue the life\n> path of a person (?)\n\nI don't understand the \"ことなんてない\" bit.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T09:06:16.907",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54808",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T09:26:55.873",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "13634",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "meaning of ことなんてない",
"view_count": 762
} | [
{
"body": "> 「～～なんて」＝「～～なんか」.\n\nIt is used to **make light of a thing (~~)**.\n\n> = \"a thing like ~~\", \"something/anything such as ~~\"\n\nThus,\n\n> 「いいことなんてない」 means:\n>\n> \"there is nothing good (whatsoever)\"\n\n「人{ひと}」 does _**not**_ mean a \"person\" in this context. **It means \"another\nperson\" or \"others\"**. This is a very common mistake among Japanese-learners.\n\n> \"There wouldn't be anything good (whatsoever) if you lived the life of\n> another person.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T09:26:55.873",
"id": "54809",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T09:26:55.873",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54808",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 54808 | 54809 | 54809 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 5,
"body": "[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/aSHyC.png)\n\nHi\n\nCan anyone assist by shedding light on the way that hiragana/kanji characters\nhave been historically used in this 1850’s title cartouche? The catalogue\nraisonné for the artist simply records the work as: _Rokuhara han Tōji\nkwaisen_ , and it is usually seen translated as _The Fight at the Eastern\nTemple, Rokuhara in Kyōto_ , though there is no actual mention of the word\nKyōto in the title.\n\nMight the title translate as _The Battle at Tōji in the Domain of Rokuhara_?\nMy best transcription of the Japanese characters is 六波羅坂東寺会戦, or\n六はら坂とち[とぢ/とじ?]会戦. My inclusion of alternative hiragana in square brackets will\nbe obvious in a moment (see point no.4).\n\nIn trying to make sense of the characters I have a few observations and\nquestions.\n\n 1. It is difficult for me to read because characters are written in a calligraphic form that is--as I would describe it--an ‘intermediate’ style between hiragana and kanji. For instance, the second character _ha_ は is derived from 波, and the third character _ra_ ら is derived from 羅, constituting part of the word “Rokuhara.” Likewise, I think the fifth character _to_ と is derived from 東, written in an intermediate form, forming part of the word _Tōji_ (東寺).\n\n 2. The first three characters of the title can be read as “Rokuhara”; two of these are in sōsho, if my understanding of that word is correct. Rokuhara (六はら or 六波羅) was a south-eastern district in Kyōto that functioned as the Kyōto headquarters for deputies of the Kamakura shogunate.\n\n 3. The fourth character appears to be a cursive form of the kanji _han_ 坂. The usual kun reading of 坂 is _saka_ , meaning a “hill” or “slope.” References seem to indicate that the Goon reading is _ben_ べん or _hon_ ほん; the Kan’on reading is _han_ はん; the Kan’yōon reading is _ban_ ばん; and the Kun reading is _saka_ さか. The title does not appear to make sense if the meaning is “slope,” so I wonder if _han_ 坂 is being used phonetically in substitution for the character _han_ 藩, a Daimyo’s “domain” in the Edo Period; a precursor to current prefectures. This is why I questioned whether part of the title would be read as “the domain of Rokuhara.” Does anyone have observations on _han_ being read phonetically (in the context of ateji or man'yōgana)? Is this far-fetched?\n\n 4. My big question is in relation to the word _Tōji_ (東寺). The fifth character _to_ と is derived from 東, and is written in an intermediate form, however, it looks like the sixth character is a ち hiragana character, which would be pronounced _chi_. For it to be pronounced _ji_ it should, I'd have thought, be written as ぢ or じ. The kanji 寺 can have a Goon reading _ji_ じ, a Kan’on reading of _shi_ し, and a Kun reading of _tera_ てら; chiefly, a Buddhist temple. I have not been able to find an old cursive form of じ that looks anything similar to the form ち as written in this cartouche. Can anyone shed light on this? I’m confused by this, as Tōji (東寺, literally \"East Temple\", first known as Kyō-ō-gokoku-ji, 教王護国寺, “The Temple for the Defense of the Nation by Means of the King of Doctrines”) makes absolute sense in the context of the image, and being in Rokuhara.\n\n 5. Finally, there are the characters 会戦, read as _kaisen_ for “battle,” but also written in an older form as _kwaisen_. I assume I have these right?\n\nAny observations appreciated.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ANvck.jpg)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T09:38:26.970",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54810",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-10T11:57:06.743",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-01T15:25:28.157",
"last_editor_user_id": "26637",
"owner_user_id": "26637",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"readings"
],
"title": "How do I make sense of the calligraphic characters for 六波羅坂東寺会戦?",
"view_count": 711
} | [
{
"body": "写真の掛け軸（？）は「六波羅坂東寺 **合** 戦」と書かれています。「会戦」ではなく「合戦（かっせん/がっせん）」です。\n\n * 全て ~~草書~~ 行書に近い ~~行書~~ 草書の漢字で書かれており、平仮名はありません。 \n * 「六波羅」は京都の鴨川東岸の五条大路から七条大路一帯の地名。現在の京都市東山区松原通り付近の地名です。\n * ~~「六波羅坂東寺合戦」は「六波羅合戦」と言われているもので、平安時代末期の平治元年12月9日（1160年1月19日）に発生した後に平治の乱（へいじのらん）と呼ばれる政変の中の代表的な合戦です。~~\n * 「東寺」が「教王護国寺」を指すかどうか定かではありませんが、「坂」は、松原通りを東に進んで東山通りを横切ると清水寺辺りに向かうことになり、結局東山の裾野｛すその｝として坂になっておりますので、その辺りの地形を指しているのかも知れません。\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Yu9Qu.jpg)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T11:04:20.847",
"id": "54811",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T16:04:36.707",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-28T16:04:36.707",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "54810",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Thanks @mackygoo. (Couldn't fit a reply into the comments section.) From what\nyou have said (and my Japanese is really poor, my apologies), I need to change\n会戦 to 合戦. It is interesting that you write \"there is no hiragana\" in the\ncartouche... Perhaps you or another poster might be able to shed light on the\nuse of these cursive forms. Perhaps I misunderstand how these cursive forms\nare best described, and if they are closer to kanji or to hiragana, etc.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CSStR.png)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hbljt.png)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6y4HK.png)\n\nIn terms of the actual battle and reference to Tōji, the image does not\nrepresent a skirmish at Rokuhara as part of the 1160 Heiji Rebellion that\nbegan with the siege of Sanjō Palace and concluded with Minamoto Yoshitomo's\nfailed attack on the Rokuhara mansion, rather, the image I am looking at\nalludes to the Battle of Rokuhara on the twentieth day of June 1333—which was\none of the decisive battles of the Genkō War—where Ashikaga Takauji turned on\nhis former allies, sided with the Emperor Go-Daigo and drove the forces of the\nShogunate out of their headquarters in Rokuhara. The print shows Mega\nMagosaburō Nagamune, Banshi Norisuke, and Ashikaga Takauji amongst others, so\nI know it is definitely the 1333 battle. The Taiheiki (太平記) makes specific\nreference to the battle of Rokuhara and Akamatsu Novice Enshin advancing on\nTōji Temple with 3,000 horsemen. The army reached the the two-storied gate...\nThe temple was protected by a solid wall made of excellent timbers five to\nnine inches square in size [...] extending from the Rashōmon foundation on the\nwest to the hachijō riverbed on the east... etc. So I am confident that Tōji\nshould be part of the title, only that I don't understand how to read the\n'ji'. I am still a little confused about the 'saka'/slope reference, since\nmost sources indicate that 'Han' should be part of the title. That said, your\nnotes made me do some more checking and I note that the British Museum\nindicates the title should be written as 'Rokuhara-zaka Toji gosen'.",
"comment_count": 15,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T13:03:53.983",
"id": "54812",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T17:03:40.440",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-01T17:03:40.440",
"last_editor_user_id": "26637",
"owner_user_id": "26637",
"parent_id": "54810",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Speaking purely from the view from Chinese calligraphy, these are all valid\nways to write Chinese characters, and thus the title indeed contains no\nhiragana as the other answer mentioned. I'll list some of the more difficult-\nto-comprehend ones:\n\n 1. **波** , example from Tang Dynasty 懷仁's《集王羲之聖教序》\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/2OTM1.png)\n\n 2. **羅** , two examples: First from Sui Dynasty 智永's《真草千字文》, second from Song Dynasty 黃庭堅's《李白憶舊遊詩卷》:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/WV0YA.png)\n\n 3. と is not derived from **東** , as this Gyosho/Sosho style of writing 東 has been around for centuries in East Asia. Simplified Chinese even made the Gyosho/Sosho version official: **东**\n\n 4. **寺** , example from Ming Dynasty 韓道亨's《草訣百韻歌》:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/txm9j.png)\n\n 5. As the other answer mentioned, you should interpret the 7th character as **合**. **会** is actually _already_ a Gyosho/Sosho form codified into Kaisho, and was actually properly written as the Kyujitai form **會** before the Japanese promulgation of the Toyo Kanji list in 1946. Note that the bottom portion of the 7th character doesn't look like **云** anyway; a calligraphic example of 会/會 would look more like example on the left, taken from Ming Dynasty 祝允明's《行草牡丹賦》, while 合 looks more like something on the right, taken again from Tang Dynasty 懷仁's《集王羲之聖教序》:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/sixrV.png)\n\nAs a final note, **と** comes from a cursive version of **止** , and **ち** comes\nfrom a cursive version of **知** ; see\n[this](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B9%B3%E4%BB%AE%E5%90%8D#.E6.AD.B4.E5.8F.B2).",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T14:28:05.543",
"id": "54813",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T14:28:05.543",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26510",
"parent_id": "54810",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Sōsho-tai examples of semeru versus saka, per @droooze comments:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/OL25h.png)\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4oNKD.png)\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jnquO.png)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T12:14:20.700",
"id": "54858",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T12:14:20.700",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26637",
"parent_id": "54810",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "# English\n\nWhat is the character at the part of \"?\" in \"六波羅？東寺合戦\" written in a cursive or\nsemi-cursive style that is considered to be the title of the battle picture\nplaced on the upper right of the picture presented by the questioner? \nAnd, what is the meaning of the entire title, if the character becomes\nobvious?\n\nSince droooze's comment as \"there is the remaining problem that the right side\nof the character looks more like「攵」 than 「反」. Have another look at all the\ncalligraphic examples of 「坂」 given on this page; in all cases, the component\n「厂」 is clearly written\" became a valid inspiration, I challenged to solve the\nabove two questions again.\n\nAs a result of my investigation, I obtained certain results, so I'm going to\npost a new answer here.\n\nIn the result of examination by those people participating in this question\nincluding \"me\", \"?\" has been supposed to be a kanji \"坂 _slope_ or _hill_ \" or\n\"攻 _attack_ \" so far.\n\nIn order to clarify the character of \"?\" I did the work of the procedure shown\nbelow. \n(1) At first, I collected kanjis having the same \"偏 (へん) _the part of the left\nside of a kanji_ \" as that 坂 or 攻 has. \nNext I collected kanjis having the same \"旁 (つくり) _the part of the right side\nof a kanji_ \" as that they have. \nThe 偏 of them are \"土\" and \"工\", and the 旁 of them are \"反\" and \"攵\".\n\nThe kanjis collected as a result of the above work are as follows. \n「土」：増、地、壇、均、坑、坪、塚、埋、坂 \n「工」：攻、巧、功、項、恐 （Note: Though \"工\" in \"恐\" is not 偏 of the kanji, I collected it\nbecause there are few kanjis that have \"工\" as 偏.） \n「反」：飯、版、板、阪、販、坂 \n「攵」：攻、放、枚、教、牧、数、敷\n\nI examined the shape in a cursive or semi-cursive style of each collected\nkanji. \nI used \"Stroke Order / Writing Character Dictionary for Writing Beautiful\nCharacters\" written by Kenji Emori, Published by Sanseido in order to examine\nthe shapes.\n\nThe summarizing result of shapes in a cursive or semi-cursive style of the\ncollected kanjis is shown in the figure below. \nLooking at the figure, I could see the following things about the character\nexpressed by \"?\"\n\n * Judging about \"土\" and \"工\" as 偏 （へん） or the part of the left side of a kanji, it is \"土\". The reasons for this judgment are as follows. \nBasically, the first stroke (horizontal line), the second stroke (vertical\nline) and the third stroke (horizontal line) of \"工\" are continued in a cursive\nor semi-cursive style, which makes the shape like \"乙 (おつ)\" in kanji or \"Z\" in\nEnglish. In this case, there is no protrusion on the first stroke (horizontal\nline), while when you see 偏 or the part of the left side of the character\nshown by \"? \", the first and second strokes are separated, and the tip of the\nsecond stroke is popping out on the first stroke as you can see well.\n\n * Judging about \"反\" and \"攵\" as 旁 (つくり) or the part of the right side of a kanji, it is \"攵\" judging from the collected shapes shown in the figure below.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LVQxS.jpg)\n\nIf you deduce the character of \"?\" based on the above survey results, it will\nbe neither \"坂\" nor \"攻\" which had originally been thought, but \" **坆** \"\ncomposed of \"土\" as 偏 (へん) and \"攵\" as 旁 (つくり).\n\nHere, many Japanese including me are in great trouble. That's because the word\n\"坆\" is a simple character at the first sight but we have never seen it before\nso we don't even know how to read it. \nTherefore, I looked up the character of \"坆\" on the Internet. As a result, the\nfollowing facts were found out.\n\n[Dictionary 1：ウイキまとめ](https://wikimatome.org/wiki/%E5%9D%86)\n\n> **坆** \n> 《音読み》 \n> （１）バイ《ピンイン》(méi) \n> （２）フン《ピンイン》(fén) \n> 《意味》 \n> （一）梅に同じ。 \n> （二）墳に同じ。 \n> **《日本語での特別な意味》せめる。▽攻の誤字。**\n\n[Dictionary\n2：【辞典・用語】［漢字林］「土部」](http://ksbookshelf.com/DW/Kanjirin/Kanjirin33.html)\n\n> **【坆】** \n> 土3+4=総画数7 U+5746 [フン、ブン、ホン、ボン/] 【墳坟】［土ノ一メ又攵坆］ \n> ①土を丸く盛り上げて造った墓。ほぼ平らか比較的低い土盛りのものは「墓」 \n> ②土を高く盛り上げたところ、堤防 \n> ③丸く盛り上がった土 \n> ④「三坆（さんぷん）」、伏羲・神農・黄帝の書、但し異説あり \n> 注解：いずれも「丸く盛り上がったさま（賁）」をいう\n\n[Dictionary 3：漢典](http://www.zdic.net/z/17/js/5746.htm)\n\n> ● **坆** \n> méi \n> ◎ 古同“梅”。\n>\n> ● **坆** \n> fén \n> ◎ 古同“[坟(⇐墳)](http://www.zdic.net/z/17/js/575F.htm)”。 \n> English \n> a grave, tomb\n\nComprehensively looking at the definitions of three dictionaries, we can see\nthe following things about \"坆\".\n\n * Although there is a possibility that it is used in Japanese, it is basically a Chinese character.\n * It has two kinds of meanings: an old character representing \"梅 _plum_ \" and an old character representing \"墳 _mound_ \".\n * The meaning of 墳 is a grave or a tomb in English, but it is not a tomb in the plain graveyard but a grave with mound. It may be good to image the old tumulus or 古墳 (こふん).\n * There is a difference in pronunciation depending on meanings: the pronunciation in the case of \"梅\" is バイ (méi), and the pronunciation in case of \"墳\" is フン (fén).\n * In Chinese there are only two meanings of \"坆\" written above, but in Japan there is a case where it is wrongly used by making a mistake in writing \"土\" in place of \"工\" when writing \"攻\" meaning \"to attack\". \nMoreover, having a clear description like what is written in Dictionary 1 can\nbe inferred that there have been quite a few mistakes of this kind in\nJapanese.\n\nLet's go back to the original subject of \"六波羅？東寺合戦\". If you apply \"坆\" to the\npart of \"?\", the title becomes \"六波羅 **坆** 東寺合戦\". \nBased on the meanings of the Dictionaries on \"坆\", there seems to be no\ninterpretation of \"梅 _plum_ \" here, so the following two interpretations are\npossible.\n\n> (A) 六波羅 **攻** 東寺合戦 \n> (B) 六波羅 **墳** 東寺合戦\n\nFor (A), there are three possible interpretations: \n(A-1) A battle where The Rokuhara Army (= Kamakura Shogunate Army) attacked\nToji-temple \n(A-2) A battle, the battlefield was the area around Toji-temple, where The\nanti-Shogunate Army was attacked by The Rokuhara Army (= Kamakura Shogunate\nArmy) \n(A-3) A battle, the battlefield was the area around Toji-temple, where The\nRokuhara Army (= Kamakura Shogunate Army) was attacked by The anti-Shogunate\nArmy\n\nWe can easily understand that (A-1) is not a correct interpretation, because\nToji-temple was one of the bases of Rokuhara-Tandai or 六波羅探題 that was the\nadministrative agency established in Kyoto by the Kamakura Shogunate. \nThe next, we have to select the correct interpretation from (A-2) and (A-3).\nIf this battle was the part of decisive ones of The Genkō War (元弘の乱 Genkō no\nRan) that was a civil war in Japan which marked the fall of the Kamakura\nShogunate, the answer is definitely (A-3).\n\n> As the result, \"六波羅攻東寺合戦\" is read as \"六波羅[攻]｛ぜ｝（め）東寺（之）合戦{かっせん}\" meaning \"A\n> battle at Toji-temple attacking The Rokuhara Army (by The anti-Shogunate\n> Army)\".\n\nAs for (B), I would conclude that it is not the title of the picture of the\nbattle presented by the questioner. \nApart from the conclusion for (B), the location of Rokuhara had been very\nclosely related to \"墳 _grave_ or _tomb_ \" before the \"Rokuhara-Tandai 六波羅探題\"\nwas established by Kamakura Shogunate there. \nI'll omit the further explanation here, but if you are interested in the\ninformation about it, I recommend you to read the answer in Japanese.\n\n# 日本語\n\n質問者が提示した合戦の絵の右上に記載された絵の題名と思われる行書体あるいは草書体で書かれた「六波羅？東寺合戦」の内、「？」の部分の文字は何であるか、また、その文字が明白になった場合、題名全体の意味は何かというテーマに再度挑戦し、調査の結果、一定の成果が出たので新たに回答を提示する。\n\n「？」の部分はこれまでの検討の結果では、「坂」あるいは「攻」という漢字ではないかということになっている。\n\n「？」の文字を明確にするために以下に示す作業を行った。 \n（１） \n「坂」または「攻」の「偏（へん：漢字の左側の部分）」と「旁（つくり：漢字の右側の部分）」の内、「土（つちへん）」と「工（たくみへん）」を「偏（へん）」として持っている漢字を調べる。次に「反（部首としての名称はない）」と「攵（のぼく\n/ ぼくづくり）」を「旁（つくり）」として持っている漢字を調べる。 \n調べた漢字は以下のとおりである。\n\n * 「土」：増、地、壇、均、坑、坪、塚、埋、坂\n * 「工」：攻、巧、功、項、恐（なお「恐」の「工」は「たくみつくり」ではないが「工（たくみつくり）」の漢字が少ないので加えた）\n * 「反」：飯、版、板、阪、販、坂\n * 「攵」：攻、放、枚、教、牧、数、敷\n\n（２） \n調べた漢字の行書体および草書体の字形を調べる。 \n書体の字形には「きれいな字を書く 筆順・書き文字字典」江守賢治著（三省堂）を用いる。 \n字形を調べた結果をまとめたものを下図に示す。 \n図を見ると「？」の文字に関して次のことが分かる。\n\n * 「へん」の「土」と「工」については「土」である。 \n「工」は行書体、草書体ともに基本的に一画目（横棒）、二画目（縦棒）から三画目（横棒）までが続いた字形になり、漢字の「乙｛おつ｝」あるいは英語の「Z」のような形になる。従って、最初の横棒の上に突起が出ない。実際に「？」の文字の「へん」を見ると、一画目と二画目とが離れており、二画目の縦棒の先端が一画目の横棒の上に飛び出していることがよくわかる。\n\n * 「つくり」の「反」と「攵」については「攵」である。 これについては、列記した書体の「つくり（漢字の右側の部分）」を見ると明白である。\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/LVQxS.jpg)\n\n以上の調査結果に基づいて「？」の文字を推論すると、当初思っていた「坂」でも「攻」でもなく「土（つちへん）」に「攵（のぼく / ぼくづくり）」で構成された「\n**坆** 」という文字であることが分かる\n\nここで、私を含めた多くの日本人は大変困ることになる。それは、「坆」という文字は見た目には簡単な文字であるが、これまで見たことも、またどう読むのかも知らないからである。\n\nそこで、「坆」という文字をインターネットで調べた。その結果、以下に示すようなことが分かった。\n\n[文献１：ウイキまとめ](https://wikimatome.org/wiki/%E5%9D%86)\n\n> **坆** \n> 《音読み》 \n> （１）バイ《ピンイン》(méi) \n> （２）フン《ピンイン》(fén) \n> 《意味》 \n> （一）梅に同じ。 \n> （二）墳に同じ。 \n> 《日本語での特別な意味》せめる。▽攻の誤字。\n\n[文献２：【辞典・用語】［漢字林］「土部」](http://ksbookshelf.com/DW/Kanjirin/Kanjirin33.html)\n\n> **【坆】** \n> 土3+4=総画数7 U+5746 [フン、ブン、ホン、ボン/] 【墳坟】［土ノ一メ又攵坆］ \n> ①土を丸く盛り上げて造った墓。ほぼ平らか比較的低い土盛りのものは「墓」 \n> ②土を高く盛り上げたところ、堤防 \n> ③丸く盛り上がった土 \n> ④「三坆（さんぷん）」、伏羲・神農・黄帝の書、但し異説あり \n> 注解：いずれも「丸く盛り上がったさま（賁）」をいう\n\n[文献３：漢典](http://www.zdic.net/z/17/js/5746.htm)\n\n> ● **坆** \n> méi \n> ◎ 古同“梅”。\n>\n> ● **坆** \n> fén \n> ◎ 古同“[坟(⇐墳)](http://www.zdic.net/z/17/js/575F.htm)”。 \n> English \n> a grave, tomb\n\n以上の３つの文献から「坆」について次のことが分かる。\n\n * 一部日本語で使われている可能性はあるが基本的に中国の文字である。\n * 「梅」を表わす古い文字と「墳」を表わす古い文字の２種類の意味がある。\n * 「墳」の意味は墓（英語ではgrave あるいは tomb）だが、平地の墓ではなく、土を盛った墓である。古墳をイメージすると良いのかも知れない。\n * 発音に違いがあり、「梅」の場合の発音はバイ(méi)、「墳」を場合の発音はフン(fén)。\n * 中国では「坆」の意味は以上の２つしかないが、日本では「攻める」の意味の漢字「攻」の「工（たくみへん）」の部分を誤って「土（つちへん）」にしてこの字になった例があるように読み取れる。しかも[文献１](https://wikimatome.org/wiki/%E5%9D%86)のような明確な記述があるということは、この誤字が結構あるものと推察できる。\n\n質問者の提示した「六波羅？東寺合戦」に話を戻すと、「？」の部分に「坆」を当てはめて「六波羅 **坆** 東寺合戦」となる。\n\n「坆」に関する文献の意味に基づくと、ここでは「梅」の解釈はないと思われるので、次の２つの解釈ができる。\n\n> (A) 六波羅 **攻** 東寺合戦 \n> (B) 六波羅 **墳** 東寺合戦\n\n(A)については、 \n(A-1)「六波羅軍（＝鎌倉幕府軍）」が「東寺」を攻める「合戦」という意味と、 \n(A-2)「六波羅軍（＝鎌倉幕府軍）」が攻めた「東寺の辺りを戦場とする合戦」、更に \n(A-3)「六波羅軍（＝鎌倉幕府軍）」を攻めた「東寺の辺りを戦場とする合戦」 \nという３通りの解釈ができるように思う。 \n私は、(A-1)ではないと思う。その理由はこの合戦（1333年に後醍醐天皇による討幕運動「元弘の乱」）は「六波羅探題軍（すなわち鎌倉幕府軍）」と「後醍醐天皇を擁立する倒幕軍」との間の合戦ではあるが、「六波羅」と「東寺」との合戦ではない。何故なら、「東寺」は「六波羅探題が管理する拠点の一つ」であり、六波羅探題から見た「敵軍」ではないからである。従って、「東寺」はあくまでも「戦場」であって「倒幕軍」を意味するような「東寺軍」ではない。 \n次に、(A-2)と(A-3)とであるが、この合戦ではいずれがいずれを攻めたのかと考えると、明らかに(A-3)の「倒幕軍」が「六波羅軍（すなわち鎌倉幕府軍）」を攻めたである。\n\n> 結果として、「六波羅 **攻** 東寺合戦」の読みは、「六波羅[攻]｛ぜ｝め東寺の合戦」となる。\n\n(B)については、結論として質問者の提示した合戦の絵の標題ではないと判断する。以下に示すいくつかの資料から、「六波羅」の地が鎌倉幕府による「六波羅探題」が置かれる以前から「墳＝墓」と大変関係が深いことが分かる。仮に六波羅の地が「死者」、「葬場」あるいは「墓地」と関係が深いといえども、「墳」の意味で日本語の文字として認知されていない「坆」という文字を敢えて用いる理由もない。\n\n[資料１：六波羅](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E6%B3%A2%E7%BE%85)\n\n> 六波羅（ろくはら）は、京都の鴨川東岸の五条大路から七条大路一帯の地名。 \n> 《歴史》 \n>\n> 天暦5年（951年）空也がこの地に西光寺を創建し、後に中信がこの寺を六波羅蜜寺（ろくはらみつじ）と改名したことから「六波羅」と呼ばれるようになったという。\n> この地は洛中（京都の市街地の意味。東は高野川・鴨川から、西は西大路通までの地域）から京都の住民の **葬地であった鳥辺野（とりべの）**\n> に入る際の入口にあたる事から、この他にも六道珍皇寺など沢山の寺院が建てられ、信仰の地として栄えた。\n\n資料１にあるとおり、六波羅探題の置かれていた辺りは鴨川の東側であり、「鳥辺野あるいは鳥部野（とりべの）」と呼ばれる火葬場、古くは鳥葬・風葬場そして墓地へと続く入り口の土地であった。\n\n[資料２：鳥辺野（鳥部野）](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%B3%A5%E8%BE%BA%E9%87%8E)\n\n>\n> 鳥辺野（とりべの）は、京都市の一地域を指す地域名。鳥部野、鳥戸野とも書く。平安時代以来の墓所として、北の蓮台野（れんだいの）、西の化野（あだしの）とともに京都の三大墳墓地をなしている。\n\n資料２によると、鳥辺野の位置は明確でないと書かれているが、挙がっている候補地を見ると、清水寺から東大路通（東山通）の間の丘陵地帯と思われる。六波羅探題跡（ろくはらたんだいあと）に近い六波羅蜜寺の北を通る松原通を東に進んで東大路通を越えると清水寺に到着するので、六波羅は鳥辺野へ続く地域であったと推察できる。\n\n[資料３：六波羅蜜寺、六道の辻](http://skipio.sakura.ne.jp/04Kyoto/Rokuharamitsu-ji.html)\n\n> ＜六波羅蜜寺の創建＞ \n> 六波羅蜜寺は平家全盛をさかのぼること200年前、天暦5年（951年）醍醐天皇の第二皇子・空也上人（903～972）によって開創された天台宗寺院。 \n> 平安遷都以降の歴史のなかで幾多の戦乱は殺戮を繰り返し、また度重なる飢饉は弱者を餓死させ、京都は常におびただしい死者の巣窟でもあった。\n>\n> ＜六道之辻＞ \n> 六波羅蜜寺に向かう角（西福寺の角）に「六道之辻」という石塔が立っている。六道とは、生前の善悪の行いによって導かれる冥界で、天上、人間、修羅、\n> 鬼畜（畜生）、餓鬼、地獄のこと。 \n>\n> その昔、「六道の辻」は鳥辺野の無常所（墓場、墓地のこと）の入口にあたり、現世と冥途（めいど。死者が行く暗黒の世界。あの世）との境の地であり、亡骸（なきがら。死体）はこの辻の向こう側に捨てられた。金のない民衆は埋められもせず、弔（とむら）われることもなく放置され、穏亡（おんぼう。火葬場において死者を荼毘（だび）に付（ふ）し、遺骨にする仕事に従事する作業員）たちによって運び捨て去られた。その死せる肉体は風雨に曝され、髑髏（ドクロ）となって\n> **六波羅の野辺に転がっていた** 。 \n> その骨を拾い、さまよえる魂を供養したのが六波羅蜜寺創建の空也上人。\n\n[資料４：京都の三大風葬地「化野」「 **鳥部野** 」「蓮台野」](http://www.syasin.biz/page/heianhusoti/)\n\n> ２、鳥部野（とりべの） \n>\n> 京都から山科大津へ向かう際に五条坂（東大路通から清水寺へ向かう参道の一つ）を上がっていくと左手に大きな墓地が見えます。かなり大きい墓地で子供の頃からちょっと不気味に思っていたのだが、その墓地一体は平安時代は鳥辺野（とりべの）と呼ばれる、化野（あだしの）、蓮台野（れんだいの）と並ぶ京都三大風葬地でした。当時庶民がお墓に埋葬されるという事はなく、死者は木に吊るしその肉を鳥に喰らわせる鳥葬・風葬を行っていました。「鳥」という字がついているのは鳥葬の地、「野」というのは野原、場所を意味しました。 \n> 化野の記事でも書いたように徒然草の七段でもここが火葬の地であった事が書かれています。 \n> （※徒然草は鎌倉時代でありそのころには火葬が一般的になっていました。） \n>\n> 今は京都一の観光名所となっている清水寺もその鳥辺野という風葬の地にあたる地で、清水寺は宝亀９年（778年）それらの霊を供養する為に音羽の滝の近くに社を建てたのが始まりという説もあります。本殿が高い所にあるのは、死者の匂いがあまりにも強い為であったといわれています。また「清水の舞台」が突き出しているのは死体を投げ捨てるためだったという説もあります。\n\n資料４の中の墓地の写真は圧巻ですので是非ご覧ください。京都市内の夜景が見渡せ、遠くに京都タワーも見えます。",
"comment_count": 12,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-09T07:20:29.950",
"id": "55054",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-10T11:57:06.743",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "54810",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 54810 | null | 55054 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54815",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This might be a difficult question but let me give it a try here.\n\nI have trouble understanding this poem by 小野小町:\n\n> 花の色は うつりにけりな いたづらに わが身世にふる ながめせし間に\n\nI understand that the words 「ふる」 and 「ながめ」 are 掛詞, which means that they have\ntwo-folded meanings. In particular 「ふる」 can mean 「降る」 and 「経る」, and 「ながめ」 can\nmean 「眺め」 or 「長雨」. But I am not sure how to put them together in a\ngrammatically correct way. In particular, I want to ask the following:\n\n 1. Is 「身世」 a single word, or are they two different words?\n 2. If they are two different words, then which verb goes with 「わが身」? Is it 「ふる」 or 「せし」?\n 3. Is it correct that I understand 「せし」 as 「していた」 in modern Japanese?\n 4. When 掛詞 are present, is it okay to expect the poem to be grammatically \"correct\" for both of its meanings?\n\nP.S. I asked a similar question on a Japanese website. If you feel like\nanswering it in Japanese, please follow [this\nlink](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12182653642).\n\n* * *\n\n**Problem solved:** Based on @l'électeur and other people's answers, I'd say\nthat this problem has been solved. Please let me summarize what I've learned:\n\n 1. 「身」and「世」belong to separate words.\n 2. 「我が身」goes with the word 「ふる」. When 「ふる」 is interpreted as 「経る」, which is the 連体形 of the 下二段 verb 「経（ふ）」 meaning \"pass by\" or \"get old\", the whole phrase 「我が身世にふる」 serves as a noun phrase. And it can be expanded into 「我が身 **が** 世にふる **のを** 」. I failed to see this because **のを** is absent from the poem.\n 3. 「眺め」is a noun, which becomes 「眺めす」, a サ変 verb, when combined with 「す」. This verb means to absent-mindedly gaze at things. The form 「眺めせし」can be understood as 「眺めていた」 in modern Japanese. (This was pointed out by a guy at the Japanese site that I alluded to in my question.)\n 4. It is generally not reasonable to expect complete grammatical correctness for both meanings of the 掛詞. For example, when 「ふる」 and 「ながめ」are interpreted as 「降る」 and 「長雨」, the grammar becomes pretty sloppy here.\n\n**P.S.** Any further points are still welcome through the comments.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T15:16:18.713",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54814",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T13:58:40.817",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-29T13:58:40.817",
"last_editor_user_id": "14333",
"owner_user_id": "14333",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"classical-japanese",
"poetry"
],
"title": "How do I understand 「わが身世にふる ながめせし間に」",
"view_count": 275
} | [
{
"body": "> 1) Is 「身世」 a single word, or are they two different words?\n\nTwo separate words.\n\n「わが身{み}」 is the first-person pronoun.\n\n「世{よ}」 means \"the/this world\".\n\n> 2) If they are two different words, then which verb goes with 「わが身」? Is it\n> 「ふる」 or 「せし」?\n\nIt goes primarily with 「ふる」 and secondarily with 「ながめせし」.\n\n\"got old while gazing\"\n\n> 3) Is it correct that I understand 「せし」as 「していた」 in modern Japanese?\n\nYes, it is 「した」 or 「していた」 depending on the context.\n\n> 4) When 掛詞{かけことば} are present, is it okay to expect the poem to be\n> grammatically \"correct\" for both of its meanings?\n\nNo, it is not okay. 掛詞 are only word plays. You would need to be just playful\nand imaginative with them. You would often wind up getting disappointed if you\nanalyzed the grammar used around 掛詞 too seriously.",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T16:56:52.840",
"id": "54815",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T16:56:52.840",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54814",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54814 | 54815 | 54815 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54818",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This question is to confirm that the two verbs (to buy and to have) are\nhomophones.\n\n> わたしはねこをかっています。\n\nCould the above sentence be translated to \"I have a cat\" as well as \"I am\nbuying a cat\"? Are there other ways to phrase the above sentence that are more\nspecific to \"buying\" vs \"having\"?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T20:10:55.693",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54816",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T16:42:02.837",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-29T16:42:02.837",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "22403",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"homonyms"
],
"title": "Translation of \"to buy a cat\" vs \"to own a cat\"",
"view_count": 711
} | [
{
"body": "Yes, they are homophones, and this is why kanji is important.\n\n * [買]{か}う → to buy\n * [飼]{か}う → to keep/raise\n\nI guess it _could_ technically be used to say \"I'm buying a cat\", but no one\nwould ever think that if they heard you say it. If you really wanted to convey\nthe fact that the action you're currently doing is buying a cat, you'd be\nbetter off using [購入]{こう・にゅう}している or 買いつつある.\n\n> * 今は猫を購入しているところです。 \n> OR\n> * 今は猫を買いつつあります。\n>\n\nEven then, the latter is kind of suspect and could be ambiguous.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T20:55:43.747",
"id": "54818",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-28T20:55:43.747",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "54816",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54816 | 54818 | 54818 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm studying for the N4 of the JLPT and in the 尊敬語 lesson is the verb おっしゃる\n\nおっしゃる is the respectful form of 言う. When in the textbook they change the verb\nto the ます形 it changes in a way that I can not understand.\n\nHow I understand it should be\n\n> おっしゃる ► Ends in \"る\" so the \"い\" sound of that character is \"り\" ► おっしゃり ► and\n> then we add the ます ► **おっしゃります**\n\nHow it is in the textbook:\n\n> おっしゃる ► おっしゃいます\n\nThe same happens with\n\n> くださる ► くださいます\n>\n> なさる ► なさいます\n>\n> いらっしゃる ► いらっしゃいます\n\nDoes someone knows why it is like this?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-28T20:24:41.280",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54817",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T15:31:47.593",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-28T20:30:02.413",
"last_editor_user_id": "19322",
"owner_user_id": "19322",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words",
"conjugations"
],
"title": "Why the ます形 of おっしゃる is おっしゃいます?",
"view_count": 727
} | [
{
"body": "Simple enough, 仰有る【おっしゃる】/ 仰る 【おっしゃる】 is an irregular verb :) there is a bit\nmore irregular verbs in Japanese than the classicals する or 来る。\n\nThere is a nice [list of irregular\nverbs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_irregular_verbs) on Wikipedia",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T15:20:38.643",
"id": "54827",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T15:31:47.593",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-29T15:31:47.593",
"last_editor_user_id": "20342",
"owner_user_id": "20342",
"parent_id": "54817",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54817 | null | 54827 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54820",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Just like the title stated, I'm wondering how Japanese say quote or famous\nquote, since 見積もり isn't the right translation for that meaning.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T03:28:59.987",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54819",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T16:34:42.867",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-29T03:58:16.813",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "26454",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-requests"
],
"title": "How to say \"famous quote\" in Japanese?",
"view_count": 2379
} | [
{
"body": "Most commonly, we would use:\n\n・「名言{めいげん}」 or 「偉人{いじん}の名言」\n\n・「有名{ゆうめい}な引用」 or「[Name] からの引用{いんよう}」\n\n「見積{みつ}もり」 is way off. It is used only in business for \"quoting\" a price.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T03:50:57.200",
"id": "54820",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T16:34:42.867",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-29T16:34:42.867",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54819",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 54819 | 54820 | 54820 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Can they both be interchangeable?\n\nFor e.g. 殺す気でやったんです vs 殺す積もりでやったんです、",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T04:25:57.773",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54821",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T15:07:07.633",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-29T06:27:37.340",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "する気 vs 積もり Suru verb + Ki vs Tsumori",
"view_count": 271
} | [
{
"body": "In that particular sentence, 「気{き}」 and 「つもり」 would be interchangeable; That's\na given.\n\n> \"I did it with an intention to kill him/her/them.\"\n\nThe two words would be mostly interchangeable when talking about events in the\npast, present and near future.\n\nI would, however, feel somewhat awkward about using 「気」 to talk about events\nin the far future. Using 「つもり」 would be more natural.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T15:07:07.633",
"id": "54826",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T15:07:07.633",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54821",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54821 | null | 54826 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm wondering if 「~していれば」is not only a conditional verb form.\n\nBecause I once encountered a sentence; 「別担当者であれば...」.\n\nI thought this sentence means \"If there is a different person-in-charge...\".\n\nHowever, I learned that it means \"There is a different person-in-charge...\"\n\nSo, for the sentence 「１か月の出勤日数が何日出勤していれば交通費が出るのですか。」、I'm not sure if my\nunderstanding is correct that it means \"If I go work for a certain number of\ndays within a month, would I receive a fee for that number of days I went to\nwork?\".\n\nCan anyone please explain the definition of 「~していれば」?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T04:42:20.590",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54823",
"last_activity_date": "2023-05-17T12:08:01.163",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-29T10:54:35.273",
"last_editor_user_id": "4216",
"owner_user_id": "20375",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"conditionals"
],
"title": "Is 「~していれば」a conditional verb form?",
"view_count": 785
} | [
{
"body": "Combination of interrogative words and conditional clauses can translate in\nEnglish to \"what/how .... should ...?\". e.g どうすればいい : What should I do?\n\n１か月の出勤日数が何日出勤していれば交通費が出るのですか means \"How many days per month do I need to\nattend (the work place) to receive transportation fee?\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T07:41:38.480",
"id": "54855",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T07:41:38.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "54823",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 54823 | null | 54855 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54852",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In English, it is common to [count beats of\nmusic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting_\\(music\\)) using numbers for the\nbeats and certain filler syllables for further subdivisions. What is the most\ncommon way to count beats in Japanese?\n\nAdding some clarification from my comment below: For example, the bottom staff\nin this image shows sixteenth notes with the words \"1 e & ah\", and English\nspeakers would chant \"one e and ah, two e and ah...\" along with the beat of\nthe music. Is there a comparable set of syllables Japanese speakers say when\ncounting, like \"一 e and ah, 二 e and ah...\"?\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uQY7e.gif)\n\n(Image from <http://www.tigerbill.com/graphics/da000814notes5.gif>)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T08:05:13.690",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54824",
"last_activity_date": "2018-08-16T12:22:57.263",
"last_edit_date": "2018-08-16T12:22:57.263",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "26652",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"translation",
"music"
],
"title": "How are musical beats counted?",
"view_count": 1354
} | [
{
"body": "* ターアー()・タン(♩)・タ(♪)・タカ(♫) is arguably the most widely-used system for describing rhythms, and this particularly goes well with percussion instruments. I think this is basically a simplified version of \"takatiki\" in the article you linked.\n * Japanese is mora-based, and some teachers [take advantage of the fact](https://togetter.com/li/1061625).\n * いち・に・さん・し is very common for [ラジオ体操](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_calisthenics) and such where you don't have to express anything complicated. [Video](https://youtu.be/xS92XkVKM0Q).\n * ワン・ツー・スリー・フォー is equally common when practicing modern dance.\n * If I understand correctly, アン・ドゥ・トロワ is used by ballerinas, [チン・トン・シャン](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%83%81%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A3%E3%83%B3-1369129) by _shamisen_ players, and ドン・ドコ by _taiko_ players.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T04:17:47.873",
"id": "54852",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T04:26:18.453",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-30T04:26:18.453",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54824",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 54824 | 54852 | 54852 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54830",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "One of the [dictionary\ndefinitions](http://jisho.org/search/%E3%81%88%E3%81%90%E3%81%84) for えぐい is\n\"amazing\".\n\nI've never actually come across this sense of the word in any sentences. Does\nanyone have examples of where native writers have used えぐい to mean something\nlike \"amazing\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T15:42:22.780",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54829",
"last_activity_date": "2019-08-08T06:20:15.693",
"last_edit_date": "2019-08-08T06:20:15.693",
"last_editor_user_id": "19278",
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"slang"
],
"title": "Alternate meaning for えぐい",
"view_count": 6611
} | [
{
"body": "That is why I don't like Jisho. It does not explain things; It just throws\ndefinitions at you.\n\n\"Amazing\", or rather 「すごい」, is a new and slangy meaning of 「えぐい」. It is used\nquite heavily among the younger generations nowadays. It is used far more\noften than you seem to think, too. Even I, who is not so young, used the word\nfor that meaning to describe the excellent quality of the pizza served at my\nfavorite pizzeria in Nagoya the other day.\n\nWe use the word 「やばい」 for the same kind of new meaning these days as well. For\nboth 「えぐい」 and 「やばい」, the new meaning is **_positive_** , which is the\nopposite of what Japanese-learners might think.\n\nThis video is all about homeruns, but you might want to check its title at\nleast.\n\n<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgOe6mfrs9Y>",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T16:03:19.407",
"id": "54830",
"last_activity_date": "2019-01-30T13:01:17.760",
"last_edit_date": "2019-01-30T13:01:17.760",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54829",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
},
{
"body": "使い方としては日本語の「ヤバい」、英語の \"crazy\", \"insane\"\nなどと似ており、状況によって良い意味にも悪い意味にもなります。ただし、個人的には、肯定的な意味で使われる頻度は「ヤバい」よりかなり低い気がします。私は「エグい」をほめ言葉として自分で使うことはまずありません。個人差や地域差は大きいと思います。\n\nまた、「ヤバい」や \"amazing\"\nは比較的素直な賞賛の言葉として使えますが、「エグい」は個性的・衝撃的・異質な物に対して使われることが多い気がするので、誤解を受けないよう注意をする必要があると思います。嬉しそうな顔で「あの映画マジでヤバかった」と言われたら単純に褒めているのだろうと感じますが、「あの映画マジでエグかった」と言われたら、個人的には「どういう意味で？」と聞き返したくなります。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T17:16:04.267",
"id": "54834",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T17:16:04.267",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54829",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "It gets used in a way very similar to the way \"gnarly\" is used in American\nslang.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T19:50:41.903",
"id": "54835",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T19:50:41.903",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26673",
"parent_id": "54829",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 54829 | 54830 | 54830 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54833",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Can 「私は妹と日本に行きます。」Be written in 「私と妹は日本に行きます。」？",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T16:11:08.443",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54832",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T16:43:02.587",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26664",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"particle-と"
],
"title": "Question about と",
"view_count": 76
} | [
{
"body": "Both sentences are grammatical, but there's a small difference in meaning.\n\n> * 私は妹と日本に行きます。 \n> I (will) go to Japan with my sister.\n> * 私と妹は日本に行きます。 \n> My sister and I (will) go to Japan.\n>\n\nDepending on the context, one can be more natural than the other.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T16:43:02.587",
"id": "54833",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-29T16:43:02.587",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54832",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54832 | 54833 | 54833 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54848",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "謳\n\nI saw this character in a manga today and it was the first time I'd seen it.\nIs this kanji something most native speakers would recognize?",
"comment_count": 15,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T21:09:30.973",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54836",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T08:29:02.357",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-30T08:29:02.357",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25875",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"kanji"
],
"title": "Native speakers, do you recognize the kanji 謳?",
"view_count": 633
} | [
{
"body": "I would say many would partly because 「青春{せいしゅん}を謳歌{おうか}する」(\"to really enjoy\none's youth\") is such a common set phrase.\n\nLiterally, that means \"to sing the praises of youth\".",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T00:33:31.017",
"id": "54840",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T00:33:31.017",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54836",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I think virtually every adult native speaker knows this kanji (well, at least\nhow to read it). The two _formal_ meanings of 謳う listed in any dictionary are\n\"to openly celebrate/praise/glorify/enjoy\" and \"to publicly declare\". See:\n[jisho.org](http://jisho.org/word/%E8%AC%B3%E3%81%86) and [this\nentry](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/je/5448/meaning/m0u/%E8%AC%B3%E3%81%86/).\nIn these senses, using 歌う is absolutely incorrect.\n\n> * この世の平和を謳う。\n> * クレオパトラは絶世の美女だと謳われている。\n> * それは頭痛に効くと謳われている薬です。\n> * アメリカ合衆国憲法修正第2条は国民が武器を持つ権利を謳っている。\n>\n\nBut you can always avoid using difficult kanji and stick to hiragana うたう. See\n[this discussion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/17460/5010), too.\n\nIn addition, this is one of those kanji used in aesthetic writings to add some\nliterary/poetic flavor (like\n[護る](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/16155/5010) vs 守る, 哭く vs 泣く). うたう\nmeaning \"to sing\" has many variations including 歌う, 謳う, 唄う, 謡う and 唱う. In\nlyrics, 謳 is used somewhat arbitrarily, and the difference may not be very\nimportant.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T02:37:37.797",
"id": "54848",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T03:12:28.543",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-30T03:12:28.543",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54836",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
]
| 54836 | 54848 | 54848 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "How would you go about saying you \"stopped wearing\" something? I'm trying to\nsay \"I stopped wearing uniforms at X high school.\" and I'm incredibly tripped\nup by how to put verbs into this sentence.\n\nI know how to say I was wearing something (「...きました。」) and that I wasn't\nwearing something (「...きませんでした。」), but I cant quite figure out how to say\n\"stopped wearing\".\n\nIs 「Xこうこうでユニフォームをきるのをとまりました。」 correct?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T22:41:25.273",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54838",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T05:17:33.343",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26676",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"compound-verbs"
],
"title": "How would you say you \"stopped wearing\" something?",
"view_count": 142
} | [
{
"body": "> Is 「Xこうこうでユニフォームをきるのを **とまりました** 。」 correct?\n\nNo, it is not though it was a nice try. Why not?\n\nMostly because you used 「とまる」, which is an intransitive verb. You can never\nsay 「～～ **を** とまる」. (You must say 「～～をと **め** る」 as 「とめる」 is transitive.)\n\nIn this context, however, 「やめる」 would be a far more natural verb choice than\n「とめる」. You can say:\n\n> 「Xこうこう **では** ユニフォームをきるのを **やめました** 。」\n\nMore naturally, we would use 「制服{せいふく}」 over 「ユニフォーム」, but that has nothing to\ndo with grammar.\n\nAdvanced learners would need to know to say:\n\n> 「X高校{こうこう}では制服を廃止{はいし}しました。」",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T00:45:23.557",
"id": "54841",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T00:45:23.557",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54838",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> I stopped wearing uniforms at X high school.\n\nAlthough the above sentence given by the questioner should have only one\nmeaning, since my understanding of English is insufficient, I understand it as\nthe following two possible meanings.\n\nApart from the intention of the questioner, I'll try to present natural\nJapanese for each of these two interpretations.\n\n### Interpretation 1:\n\nI am an authoritative person who can change the rules of this high school like\nthe principal. So, I decided to change school rules and abolish the students'\nuniforms or teachers' uniforms. \n私｛わたし｝はＸ高校｛こうこう｝の（生徒｛せいと｝または教職員｛きょうしょくいん｝の）制服｛せいふく｝着用｛ちゃくよう｝を廃止｛はいし｝した。\n\n### Interpretation 2:\n\nI am a student of X High School. In school rules, you are free to wear\nuniforms or wear plain clothes or casual clothes at school. I had been wearing\nuniforms until recently, but I decided to go to school with plain clothes. \n私{わたし}はＸ高校｛こうこう｝に制服｛せいふく｝で行｛い｝くことをやめた。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T05:17:33.343",
"id": "54865",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T05:17:33.343",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "54838",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54838 | null | 54841 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54850",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Attempting to make some flashcards from the dialogue in _Dad of Light_ on\nNetflix.\n\nNear the very beginning of Ep1, we have the following:\n\n**夏休みにやることもなく** フローリングの床に寝そべって足の力でクルクル回るという\n\nEnglish subtitles read:\n\n_I had nothing else better to do during summer vacation than lie on the\nkitchen floor and turn in circles using my legs._\n\nmy question is about やることもなく -- I can think of two ways this could be:\n\n\"During summer vacation I did nothing. I was lying on the floor, turning in\ncircles using my legs.\"\n\n--or--\n\n\"During summer vaction I did nothing _except_ lie on the floor, turning in\ncircles using my legs.\"\n\nCan anyone point me toward a resource to understand this usage? I found\nsomething close from user\n[Chocolate](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/users/9831/chocolate)\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/47800/correct-translation-\nof-%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84-in-this-\nsentence/47870#47870).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-29T23:26:27.237",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54839",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T15:44:19.473",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-29T23:59:23.053",
"last_editor_user_id": "26677",
"owner_user_id": "26677",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "やることもなく ; \"doing nothing\" or \"doing nothing but/except\"",
"view_count": 522
} | [
{
"body": "> (1) 夏休みにやることもない。そして、フローリングの床に寝そべって \n> (2) 夏休みにやることも **なく** フローリングの床に寝そべって \n> \"During summer vacation I did nothing. I was lying on the floor, turning in\n> circles using my legs.\"\n\n\"point me toward a resource\"は出来ませんが、質問者が考えた１番目の案は、(2) ではなく、(1) に対するものです。 (2) は\n(1) と違って、「やることも **なく** 」と連用形で終わっていますので、例えば「やることもなく **～する** 」のように用言が続く必要があります。\n\n(2) の例では、「～する」に相当する部分は「（床に）寝そべる」です。\n\n従って、(2) の解釈は質問者が提示した２番目の案だけです。\n\n> \"During summer vaction I did nothing except lie on the floor, turning in\n> circles using my legs.\"\n\n因みに、質問者が提示した下記の例は、(1) と同じく終止形「ない」で終わっています。\n\n> (3) ベルが人を突き飛ばすこともない。-- The bell wouldn't ever push people away, either. /\n> Nor would it ever push people away.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T01:24:06.423",
"id": "54845",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T01:24:06.423",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "54839",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "I think なく is close to \"without\". \nSo やることもなく is \"without even something I want to do.\"\n\nI interpret the く as a word expressing a state or a circumstance of\nsomeone/something.\n\nfor example\n\n> 彼は朝食を食べることなく家を出て行った\n\nIf translating it into English, it would be like\n\n> \"He left home without having breakfast.\"\n\nAnd く is a conjunction. it make us feel a connection to the following clause. \nYour two sentences are very good, but you shouldn't punctuate after く. If I\ntranslate that sentence into English, it would be like this:\n\n> During summer vacation, without even something I want to do I was lying on\n> the floor, turning in circles using my legs.\n\nSo I mean, く expresses a state in pallarel rather than a cause and result in\norder.\n\nI'm so sorry for my bad English.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T02:41:58.147",
"id": "54849",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T02:41:58.147",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54839",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "> 夏休みにやることもなく...\n\nmeans \"During summer vacation I _had nothing to do_ , and/so...\"\n\n「やること」 → \"things to do\" \"something to do\" \n「やることがない」 → \"have nothing do to\" (≂ 「ヒマだ」 in your context)\n\ncf: \n「話すこと」 → \"things to talk about\" \n「話すことがない」 → \"have nothing to talk about\" \n「書くこと」 → \"things to write about\" \n「書くことがない」 → \"have nothing to write about\" \n「見るもの」 → \"things to see\" \n「見るものがない」 → \"there's nothing to see\"\n\nThe continuative form (連用形) な **く** is used here to connect two clauses, like\na conjunction \"and\" or \"so\".\n\n* * *\n\nAs for the も replacing the が, it's used to indicate...\n\n> も 〘副助*〙 \n> ⓬ さりげなくとりたてて、文意をやわらげる。 \n> 「お腹 **も** すいたし、食事にするか」「天気 **も** いいから、散歩でもしよう」 \n> -- from 明鏡国語辞典 (*明鏡 categorizes 係助詞/binding particle as 副助詞/adverbial\n> particle)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T02:49:53.503",
"id": "54850",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-28T15:44:19.473",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-28T15:44:19.473",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "54839",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54839 | 54850 | 54850 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54843",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "As mentioned in the title, I want to ask the nuance of \"こと\" in this sentence：\n\n> まもなく雪が降ってくる **こと** でしょう。\n\nand the possible conditions or reasons that people won't just simply put it\nas:\n\n> まもなく雪が降ってくるでしょう。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T00:51:58.853",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54842",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-01T15:19:09.827",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22712",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"particle-こと"
],
"title": "The nuance of \"こと\" in \"まもなく雪が降ってくることでしょう\"",
"view_count": 143
} | [
{
"body": "Great question.\n\n> 「まもなく雪{ゆき}が降{ふ}ってくるでしょう。」\n\nsounds **objective** and factual. You will hear that in **weather forecast**.\n\n> 「まもなく雪が降ってくる **こと** でしょう。」\n\nsounds more **subjective** than the first sentence. It carries within an\n_**emotion**_ of a sort. You would tend to hear that in some type of prose,\npoetry, personal letters, etc.\n\nWithout further context, we could not say what kind of feeling, anticipation,\nexcitement or uneasiness the speaker is trying to imply, but we know that the\ncoming of the snow is of some personal importance to the speaker. Perhaps, the\nspeaker has a special kind of memory regarding snow. Only the context and/or\nthe background story would tell us the significance of it.\n\nSince the 「こと」 makes it subjective, it can sound somewhat poetic as well,\nwhich is why you do not want to hear the second sentence in weather forecast.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T01:14:08.440",
"id": "54843",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-01T15:19:09.827",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-01T15:19:09.827",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54842",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
]
| 54842 | 54843 | 54843 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54847",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I want to say\n\n> The shop will close on the last day of every month.\n\nWhich is the correct one in Japanese?\n\nA: 毎月の月末にはその店が閉まる。\n\nB: 毎月末にはその店が閉まる。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T01:16:27.470",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54844",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T02:04:58.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "11192",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "毎月の月末 or 毎月末 to represent the last day of every month",
"view_count": 1161
} | [
{
"body": "B is fine. You can see examples of it\n[here](https://ejje.weblio.jp/sentence/content/%E6%AF%8E%E6%9C%88%E6%9C%AB).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T01:29:56.897",
"id": "54846",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T01:29:56.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25446",
"parent_id": "54844",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Both sentences are fine, but 毎月の月末には sounds a little redundant to me. You may\nwant to rephrase it as 毎月末に, 毎月の終わりに, 毎月最後に, いつも月末に, etc.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T02:04:58.897",
"id": "54847",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T02:04:58.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54844",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54844 | 54847 | 54846 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In Japanese class, when you are confused about vocab or grammar or sentence\nstructure, you ask the professor in English. But if you live in Japan and are\ncommunicating with Japanese natives who barely speak English, how would you\nask about the language in Japanese?\n\nFor example, I already know some things like 「Aはどういう意味ですか？」to ask about the\nmeaning of \"A\" and 「AとBの違いは何ですか？」to ask about the difference between A and B\nand 「Aっていう文例のもっと自然な言い方は何ですか？」to ask about a more natural way to say A.\n\nBut what about the more complicated questions, such as:\n\n * \"In which situations would A be better to use instead of B, and vice versa?\" \n\n * \"What kind of nuances are emphasized with this choice of vocabulary usage?\" \n\n * \"So I can't use A here because B is a type of (preposition, transitive verb, gerund form, etc.) right?\"\n\n * \"How can I modify this sentence if I want sarcasm to be obvious to the listener?\"\n\nAnd what would be the natural way to inquire about these kind of topics? i.e.\nHow would a Japanese person ask another Japanese person these questions?\n\nAny example Japanese questions you can think of that can be used specifically\nto ask about how the language works would be greatly appreciated! I would\nideally like to compile a list that anyone can use when they get confused\nwhile speaking with natives.\n\nLearning more about Japanese by asking in Japanese and learning from Japanese\nexplanations is so much better for true understanding than simply training\nyour brain to mentally translate. よろしくお願いします！",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T04:29:43.750",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54853",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T13:16:19.643",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26692",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"questions",
"learning",
"linguistics",
"parts-of-speech"
],
"title": "How do the Japanese ask questions about language?",
"view_count": 398
} | [
{
"body": "# English\n\nSince the question seems asking for Japanese translation, I know that pure\ntranslation is a violation of the rules of this site, but I dare to answer the\nquestion because I would like to tell the questioner what would be a natural\nJapanese language.\n\n 1. Before answering the question, I'll explain the background of Japanese language and how Japanese people feel. \nAt first I would like to say that in conversation between Japanese people,\nthere would be no such formal question. The reason is that if you make such a\nformal question, you may be deemed somewhat strange. Japanese people who are\nafraid of being thought to be strange in their interpersonal relationships\nwill not dare to ask this kind of questions in exchange for being considered\nto be a strange person even if they want to ask questions about Japanese\nlanguage. \nFor other reasons, unless it is a question asked to a person with a difference\nin Japanese ability so much (for example, to a professor of Japanese\nlinguistics at the university), there is a possibility that the questioner is\nregarded as a stupid person not understanding Japanese language well. Everyone\nthinks it would be better not to ask questions like this, if this kind of\nmisunderstanding would possibly occur when he/she asks questions about\nJapanese language. Even so, if we want to resolve questions about Japanese\nlanguage, we would think to look it up in the dictionaries by ourselves or\ncheck them on the Internet. When asking questions on the Internet, the\nexpressions posted by the questioner seem to safely exist.\n\n 2. I'll tell the appropriate expressions that would be used when asking on the Internet. There are two kinds of expressions: one is literal translation for given English and the other is natural Japanese.\n\n * \"In which situations would A be better to use instead of B, and vice versa?\" \n【literal translation】 どのようなときにＢよりＡの方が良い使われ方でしょうか。逆に、Ｂの方がいい場合はどのようなときですか。 \n【natural Japanese】\n私は「〇〇〇〇〇」のようなときＢよりＡを使った方が良いと思うのですが如何ですか。私の例に関わらずＢよりＡを使った方が良いと思われる例があったら教えてください。また、逆にＢの方が良いと思われる例もお願いします。\n\n * \"What kind of nuances are emphasized with this choice of vocabulary usage?\" \n【literal translation】 この言葉を使った場合、どのようなニュアンスが強調されますか。 \n【natural Japanese】\n私は「〇〇〇◆◆◆〇〇〇〇」と言う文で「◆◆◆」を使って「★★★★」というニュアンスを強く伝えたいのですが、「◆◆◆」の使い方としてそれで合っていますか。それとも「◆◆◆」では何か別のニュアンスが伝わってしまいますか。\n\n * \"So I can't use A here because B is a type of (preposition, transitive verb, gerund form, etc.) right?\" \n【literal translation】 Ｂは（ ）なので、ここではＡを使えないのですね。 \n【natural Japanese】 same as the literal translation\n\n * \"How can I modify this sentence if I want sarcasm to be obvious to the listener?\" \n【literal translation】 聞き手に皮肉さを明確に示したいのですがこの文をどのように修正すればいいですか。 \n【natural Japanese】\n次のような文を書いています。皮肉さがもっとストレートに伝わるように表現を変えたいのですがうまくいきません。アイデアをよろしくお願いします。\n\nnote: I'll introduce the following things that I noticed when I was\nconsidering the translation in \"natural Japanese\". Before asking questions\nstraightly, you are better to present your own attempt at first. If you do so,\nrespondents could understand the purpose of the question well and they are\neasy to answer properly.\n\n# 日本語\n\n日本語翻訳を尋ねているような質問ですので、このサイトのルール違反のような気もしますが、自然な日本語を理解いただくために敢えて回答します。\n\n 1. 回答に先立って前提条件を言います。 \n日本人同士の「会話」ではこのような改{あらた}まった質問はまずないでしょう。\nその理由は、もしこのような改まった質問をすると、質問者自身が何か変な人だと思われる恐れがあるからです。対人関係で変に思われることを恐れる日本人は、例え日本語の中で聞きたいことがあっても、変な人だと思われるぐらいなら敢えて質問しないと思います。 \nそれ以外の理由として、余程日本語能力に差がある人との間での質問でない限り、質問した人が質問された人に、「この人、日本語が良く分かっていない」と思われる可能性もあります。このように思われるぐらいなら質問しない方がましだと誰もが思います。 \nそれでも問題を解決したい場合には、自分で辞書で調べるかインターネットで調べると思います。 \nインターネットで質問する場合には質問者が挙げたような質問表現は十分あり得ます。\n\n 2. インターネットで尋ねるとして回答します。 回答には２種類あります。英語の逐語訳的なものと自然な日本語の２種類です。\n\n * \"In which situations would A be better to use instead of B, and vice versa?\" \n【逐語訳】どのようなときにＢよりＡの方が良い使われ方でしょうか。逆に、Ｂの方がいい場合はどのようなときですか。 \n【自然な日本語】私は「〇〇〇〇〇」のようなときＢよりＡを使った方が良いと思うのですが如何ですか。私の例に関わらずＢよりＡを使った方が良いと思われる例があったら教えてください。また、逆にＢの方が良いと思われる例もお願いします。\n\n * \"What kind of nuances are emphasized with this choice of vocabulary usage?\" \n【逐語訳】この言葉を使った場合、どのようなニュアンスが強調されますか。 \n【自然な日本語】私は「〇〇〇◆◆◆〇〇〇〇」と言う文で「◆◆◆」を使って「★★★★」というニュアンスを強く伝えたいのですが、「◆◆◆」の使い方としてそれで合っていますか。それとも「◆◆◆」では何か別のニュアンスが伝わってしまいますか。\n\n * \"So I can't use A here because B is a type of (preposition, transitive verb, gerund form, etc.) right?\" \n【逐語訳】Ｂは（）なので、ここではＡを使えないのですね。 \n【自然な日本語】逐語訳で十分。\n\n * \"How can I modify this sentence if I want sarcasm to be obvious to the listener?\" \n【逐語訳】聞き手に皮肉さを明確に示したいのですがこの文をどのように修正すればいいですか。 \n【自然な日本語】次のような文を書いています。皮肉さがもっとストレートに伝わるように表現を変えたいのですがうまくいきません。アイデアをよろしくお願いします。\n\n**note** : 【自然な日本語】を書いているときに感じたことですが、ストレートに質問するより、まず自分としての回答（my\nattempt）を提示した後で質問する方が、回答者は質問の趣旨も良く分かりますし、回答もしやすいように思います。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T07:24:18.387",
"id": "54854",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T13:16:19.643",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-01T13:16:19.643",
"last_editor_user_id": "20624",
"owner_user_id": "20624",
"parent_id": "54853",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 54853 | null | 54854 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54857",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 根本的なところから変えようとしっかり睡眠をとったり、食生活を見直したりといろいろ取り組んでいます\n\nShould I interpret といろいろ取り組んでいます as \"doing various activities like a and b\" or\n\"doing things like a, b, and working on various activities\".\n\nI'm not sure if と is quotative or is just an \"and\".\n\nI ask this because the translation I have is: \"I've tried to make some changes\non a fundamental level by trying to sleep properly, look over my eating\nhabits, as well as making other various efforts\", which goes along with \"doing\nthings like a, b, and working on various activities\" instead of \"doing various\nactivities like a and b\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T11:20:49.650",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54856",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T12:05:50.003",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "17515",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"particle-と",
"parsing"
],
"title": "と after listing things with たり",
"view_count": 178
} | [
{
"body": "> I'm not sure if と is quotative or is just an \"and\".\n\nI will start by saying that 「と」 does **_not_** mean \" **and** \" nearly as\noften as Japanese-learners seem to think it does. \"And\" simply happens to be\nthe first meaning of 「と」 that they learn, so it kind of sticks with them for\nlong.\n\n**The golden rule is that 「と」 can only connect nouns**. You can say 「パン **と**\nバター」、「日本 **と** アメリカ」, etc. It is utterly incorrect to use it to connect\nadjectives, verbs, etc. I have seen quite a few J-learners use it to connect\neven sentences.\n\nLet us look at the words that come immediately before and after the 「と」 in:\n\n> 「しっかり睡眠{すいみん}をとったり、食生活{しょくせいかつ}を見直{みなお}したり **と** いろいろ取{と}り組{く}んでいます 」\n\nNeither 「たり」 nor 「いろいろ」 is a noun. Those are a particle and an adverb,\nrespectively.\n\nSo, what is this 「と」? It is **_quotative_**.\n\nThe speaker has been trying to fundamentally change his/her life. S/He is\nmaking efforts in a variety of areas of his/her life and the two concrete\nexamples that s/he gives are 「しっかり睡眠をとる」(\"sleeping well\") and 「食生活を見直す」(\"re-\nexamining my dietary habits\").\n\nThus, between the two translations you listed, \"doing various activities like\na and b\" is closer to the original as far as literal TL goes. It is not that\nthe other TL is so off. I am only saying which one is closer to the original\nin sentence structure.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T12:05:50.003",
"id": "54857",
"last_activity_date": "2017-11-30T12:05:50.003",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54856",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 54856 | 54857 | 54857 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54862",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 専門家などは、このミサイルはアメリカに届く **ぐらい遠くまで** 飛ぶと考えています。 \n> Experts think that this missile will fly _far enough to reach_ America.\n\nI've never seen まで used with an adverb before. This translation is my best\nguess. Extrapolating from my guess I made this sentence:\n\n> レースに勝つぐらい速くまで走る。 \n> I will run fast enough to win the race.\n\nIs this a natural sentence and does it mean what I think it means? Would this\nconstruction be used in everyday speech? If not, how would I express the same\nidea?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-11-30T23:32:32.097",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54860",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T01:13:18.037",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-まで"
],
"title": "Meaning of adverb followed by まで",
"view_count": 184
} | [
{
"body": "> 「専門家{せんもんか}などは、このミサイルはアメリカに届{とど}くぐらい遠{とお}く **まで** 飛{と}ぶと考{かんが}えています。」\n>\n> Experts think that this missile will fly far enough to reach America.\n\nYour translation is just plain good here if not literal.\n\nIt is, however, incorrect to translate:\n\n> I will run fast enough to win the race.\n\nto\n\n> 「レースに勝{か}つぐらい速{はや}く **まで** 走{はし}る。」\n\nThe use of 「まで」 is incorrect here.\n\n「まで」 can only describe a _**physical distance**_ when combined with 「遠く」 and\nfollowed by a verb like 「走る」, but this sentence is all about a _**velocity**_\nand not about a distance.\n\nThus, the correct way to say this would be:\n\n> 「レースに勝つ(or 勝てる)ぐらい速く走る。」\n\nUsing 「勝てる」 would be slightly more natural.\n\nFinally, you stated:\n\n> \"I've never seen まで used with an adverb before. \"\n\n「遠く」 here is a _**noun**_ meaning 「遠いところ」.\n\n<https://kotobank.jp/word/%E9%81%A0%E3%81%8F-581820#E3.83.87.E3.82.B8.E3.82.BF.E3.83.AB.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.B3.89>\n\n「名{めい}」 is short for 「名詞{めいし}」, which means a \"noun\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T00:53:07.207",
"id": "54862",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T01:13:18.037",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54860",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 54860 | 54862 | 54862 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54864",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "<https://vocaroo.com/i/s0l7Cryl5rih>\n\nI'm trying to transcribe this sentence, what I have is the following but none\nof the characters seem to line up with words when looked up in a dictionary\nwith the exception of `きょう`.\n\n```\n\n きょうのことしかできないかわいそなひとよね\n \n```",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T02:02:47.090",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54863",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-21T16:41:03.523",
"last_edit_date": "2018-05-21T16:41:03.523",
"last_editor_user_id": "26719",
"owner_user_id": "26719",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -2,
"tags": [
"transcription"
],
"title": "Help transcribing a sentence",
"view_count": 180
} | [
{
"body": "Not sure if this is on-topic, but here is what she says:\n\n> 「卑怯{ひきょう}なことしかできない、かわいそうな人{ひと}よね。」\n\nmeaning:\n\n> \"(Someone is)/(You are) a pitiful soul who cannot do anything except for\n> unfair things.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T03:40:49.540",
"id": "54864",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T03:40:49.540",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54863",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54863 | 54864 | 54864 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54867",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "It seems like both ボウル and ボール are valid Japanese words. The general\nimpression I get is that using long vowel marks (\"ー\") are the norm for words\nwritten in katakana.\n\nIn [Why are long vowels represented differently in hiragana and\nkatakana?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/21272/why-are-long-\nvowels-represented-differently-in-hiragana-and-katakana) , explanations of\nvowel kanas being used instead include words that have kanji, or breaking up\nthe sound. Maybe I'm just ignorant of how \"bowl\" is pronounced in either\nBritish English or American English, but neither explanation seems plausible.\nWhy is ボウル spelt using a vowel kana?\n\nNeither the [Japanese Wikipedia article on\nボウル](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%9C%E3%82%A6%E3%83%AB), the [Japanese\nedition of\nWiktionary](https://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%83%9C%E3%82%A6%E3%83%AB), or\nthe [English\nedition](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%83%9C%E3%82%A6%E3%83%AB) have an\nexplanation for this particular word.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T10:26:16.643",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54866",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T11:37:11.010",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"loanwords",
"long-vowels"
],
"title": "Why does ボウル use a vowel kana rather than a long vowel mark?",
"view_count": 345
} | [
{
"body": "「ボウル」(\"bowl\") is still often written 「ボール」 as very few people (loanword\npronunciation nazi types), actually pronounce the two differently. 「ボウル」 is\npronounced 「ボール」 by the rest of the nation.\n\n(I never even knew that a sound like 「オウ」 existed in this world until I\nstarted learning English in junior high school. I am sure you have heard\nJapanese-speakers pronounce \"Oh, no!\" as 「オーノー」.)\n\nOne major reason that some prefer the spelling 「ボウル」 would be that 「ボール」 is\nalready reserved for \"ball\". The former would just look a bit cooler to\ncertain people, but as native Japanese-speakers, we all know that to pronounce\n「ボウル」 in 3 syllables is highly counterintuitive. It will simply make you stick\nout in the Japanese-speaking world.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T10:56:10.120",
"id": "54867",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T11:37:11.010",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-01T11:37:11.010",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54866",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 54866 | 54867 | 54867 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm a little confused about some Japanese forms which seem rather similar to\nme and I'd like to understand the difference between them.\n\n> 大人であれ\\であろうと 子供であれ\\であろうと 、 信号を無視してはいけない。it doesn't matter if it is an adult\n> or a child, the signal must not be ignored.\n\nThis seems similar to the following sentences in meaning and usage:\n\n> * 世田谷学校の生徒であろうが生徒じゃなかろうが、この授業を受けることができる。\n> * 犬だろうが猫だろうが、母はペットを飼うことを許してくれない。\n> * 合格の見込みがあろうがあるまいが、今はただ頑張るだけだ。\n> * 私達は、持ちつ持たれつの関係だ。\n>",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T14:18:53.287",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54869",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-28T05:18:22.647",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-28T05:18:22.647",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "25880",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "大人であれ\\であろうと 子供であれ\\であろうと",
"view_count": 393
} | [
{
"body": "I feel a little different nuance.\n\nAであれ\\であろうと\\だろうが、 Bであれ\\であろうと\\だろうが means \"even if it would be A or B\" and it\nwould be close to \"whatever it would be\".\n\nAであろうがあるまいが\\Aであろうがなかろうが means \"whether A or not\".\n\n持ちつ持たれつ is an idiom which means \"give‐and‐take\".",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T17:21:32.100",
"id": "54878",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T17:21:32.100",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "54869",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54869 | null | 54878 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54873",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> Once I have thrown an opponent to the ground and if I push his elbow\n> outward, he will automatically lie face down to counter his pain.\n>\n> 相手は投げられてから、外側に肘を押されると、痛くならないように自動にうつ伏す。\n\nIs it OK to promote an object as the topic and change all relevant verbs to\npassive forms?\n\n## Edit\n\nThe reason I promote the object as the topic is to make it easier for me to\nwrite this long sentence without having to repeat the pronoun \"he/his\". The\nsubject in this example is the writer who is implicitly specified.\n\nOr is it possible to promote the object as the topic but keep the verbs in\nactive forms as follows? For me it is unclear who are the subject and object\nin this case.\n\n> 相手は投げてから、外側に肘を押すと、痛くならないように自動にうつ伏す。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T14:58:02.260",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54871",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T16:27:08.727",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "11192",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"particle-は",
"passive-voice"
],
"title": "Is it OK to promote an object as the topic and change all relevant verbs to passive forms?",
"view_count": 76
} | [
{
"body": "> Is it OK to promote an object as the topic and change all relevant verbs to\n> passive forms?\n\nYes, it is OK as long as the new sentence using passive-voice verb forms\nsounds natural.\n\nWith the sentence:\n\n> \"Once I have thrown an opponent to the ground and if I push his elbow\n> outward, he will automatically lie face down to counter his pain.\"\n\nit would be perfectly natural to make the above-mentioned changes and say:\n\n>\n> 「相手{あいて}は、投{な}げられてから、外側{そとがわ}に肘{ひじ}を押{お}されると、痛{いた}みを避{さ}けるために自動的{じどうてき}にうつ伏{ぶ}せになる。」\n\nI will skip the explanations of the alterations I made as I do not think that\nis the main purpose of your question.\n\n> Or is it possible to promote the object as the topic but keep the verbs in\n> active forms as follows? For me it is unclear who are the subject and object\n> in this case.\n>\n> 「相手 **は** 投げてから、外側に肘を押すと、痛くならないように自動にうつ伏す。」\n\nIt is not too bad in this case if you are speaking to or writing for those who\nare already somewhat familiar with martial arts in general.\n\nIf, however, you are speaking to or writing for those without any knowledge of\nthe sport/art, it might be fairly confusing and therefore, the writing\ntechnique in question should be avoided.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T16:25:07.043",
"id": "54873",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T16:25:07.043",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54871",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "It's fine to use passive forms, as you say, (though 自動に doesn't mean\n\"automatically\" and うつ伏す is not an actual word, so I'd recommend 自然と/おのずから and\nうつ伏せになる).\n\nHowever, you can save pronouns with active voice too. It's fine with\n相手を投げて外側に肘を押してやれば、痛くならないように自然とうつ伏せになる or so. This example is enough to judge\nwho throws and who rolls over. (The structure of \"A やれば/やると B\" expresses that\nA is efficient for B.)\n\nYour sentence: 相手は、投げてから…押すと…うつ伏せになる is fine too, though it could be confusing\ndepending on how you use comma.\n\nEdit: Ninja-ed :D",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T16:27:08.727",
"id": "54874",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T16:27:08.727",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "54871",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54871 | 54873 | 54873 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54876",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> ゲストハウスの当番だということで、郷田さんと熊沢さんがゲストハウスまで案内してくれることになった\n\nI'm often troubled when I see ということで in the middle of a sentence. Looking at\nthis sentence makes me wonder if there isn't some kind of \"because\" or \"since\"\nmeaning implied with ということで, but as I'm not sure I'd like your opinion on it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T16:27:56.247",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54875",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T16:40:32.590",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "20501",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "ということで in this sentence?",
"view_count": 3119
} | [
{
"body": "You are thinking in the right direction.\n\n> 「～～だということで」\n\nmeans:\n\n> \"Since/Because/As ~~ (is the case)\"\n\nThus, the sentence:\n\n> 「ゲストハウスの当番{とうばん}だということで、郷田{ごうだ}さんと熊沢{くまざわ}さんがゲストハウスまで案内{あんない}してくれることになった。」\n\nmeans:\n\n> \"Since Gouda and Kumazawa were in charge (of the chore) at the guest house,\n> it was arranged that they would show me to the guest house.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T16:40:32.590",
"id": "54876",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T16:40:32.590",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54875",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 54875 | 54876 | 54876 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54887",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I noticed there are certain nouns that can be used in 名詞になる, 名詞する, and 名詞だ\nforms.\n\nFor example:\n\n彼女が・妊娠・うんざり・怪我・看護師・うつ伏せ・している。\n\n彼女が・妊娠・うんざり・怪我・看護師・うつ伏せ・になっている。\n\n彼女が・妊娠・うんざり・怪我・看護師・うつ伏せ・だ。\n\nShe is pregnant/bored/injured/a nurse/lying face down.\n\nI seem to me that the nouns in this case must represent physical states.\nCorrect me if I am wrong.\n\nIs there any difference?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T17:22:23.617",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54879",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T05:06:47.940",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "11192",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "名詞になる versus 名詞する versus 名詞だ",
"view_count": 137
} | [
{
"body": "Are you sure you have seen all of these combinations? They don't even belong\nto the same word class.\n\n看護師 is a plain noun that can be used with する/やる/なる. It's not a suru-verb:\n\n> * 彼女は看護師(を)している。 She works as a nurse. (を can be dropped only in a very\n> casual sentence)\n> * 彼女が看護師になっている。 She has become a nurse.\n> * 彼女が看護師だ。 She is a/the nurse. (exhaustive-listing _ga_ )\n>\n\n妊娠/うんざり/怪我 is a suru-verb. 妊娠/怪我 [optionally takes\nを](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/4006/5010).\n\n> * 彼女が妊娠している。 She is pregnant.\n> * 彼女が妊娠になっている。 (makes little sense to me unless you want to say \"she's got\n> a pregnant/disgusted/injured condition\" in a game context, etc)\n> * 彼女が妊娠だ。 (not entirely impossible, but sounds blunt or clumsy)\n>\n\nうつ伏せ is a no-adjective.\n\n> * 彼女がうつ伏せしている。 (ungrammatical)\n> * 彼女がうつ伏せになっている。 She is lying face down.\n> * 彼女がうつ伏せだ。 She is lying face down.\n>\n\nSee: [Replacing になっている with\nだ](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/13077/5010)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T05:00:55.760",
"id": "54887",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T05:06:47.940",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-02T05:06:47.940",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54879",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54879 | 54887 | 54887 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54884",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've had this question for several months now, and haven't been able to find a\nsatisfactory answer online.\n\nThe Japanese し and the Mandarin \"xi\", as in 西, are listed equivalently as [[ɕ]\nin the IPA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_sibilant).\n\nHowever, my girlfriend and I can fairly clearly tell the difference between\nthese two sounds, even after trying to isolate the consonant in the above\nwords. (She is a native Japanese speaker learning Mandarin, and I am the\nopposite.)\n\nAre we imagining things, or is there actually a slight difference in [ɕ]\nbetween languages? If the latter, are they marked as identical in the IPA\nbecause no single language differentiates between the Mandarin [ɕ] and the\nJapanese [ɕ]?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T18:18:20.600",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54880",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T22:46:39.653",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "12216",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"phonology",
"phonetics"
],
"title": "Are the Japanese し and the Mandarin \"xi\" really both [ɕ]?",
"view_count": 606
} | [
{
"body": "As with all IPA transcriptions, for a consonant to be regarded as the\n[voiceless alveolo-palatal sibilant\nɕ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_sibilant), it only\nneeds to fulfil certain conditions (which are listed under the 'Features'\nsection in that Wikipedia link). This does not mean that the set of conditions\nreduce to a unique phoneme; it is highly possible that the variety of actual\nsounds fulfilled by the transcription ɕ can be differentiated by someone with\nmore sensitive hearing abilities. The following is a comparison between\nMandarin **xī** and Japanese **し** :\n\n * [xī](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Zh-x%C4%AB.ogg)\n * [し](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Ja-Shi.oga)\n\nAs a native speaker of Mandarin, I cannot tell the difference between the\nconsonants, but if you **can** tell the difference, I suspect that you may\nhear subtle differences in the pronunciation of ɕ in the other language audio\nexamples in that Wikipedia link.",
"comment_count": 12,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T22:46:39.653",
"id": "54884",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T22:46:39.653",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26510",
"parent_id": "54880",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54880 | 54884 | 54884 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I wondered about this. I know the first name can be written in Hiragana,\nKatakata, Kanji (and maybe a mix of it?) but how is it with family names? I\nthink I've never seen one which was mixed, Hiragana or Katakana unless it was\na stage or foreign name. Do surnames not only with Kanji exist?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T20:23:51.517",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54882",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T00:09:29.087",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26738",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"katakana",
"names",
"hiragana"
],
"title": "Are surnames only written with kanji?",
"view_count": 1194
} | [
{
"body": "Quite a few **_family names_** contain kana in them. There is no law\nrestricting the use of kana in family names, either.\n\nI have personally met people with family names like:\n\n[一ノ瀬]{いちのせ}、[二ノ宮]{にのみや}、[一ツ松]{ひとつまつ}、[藤ヶ崎]{ふじがさき}, [城ケ崎]{じょうがさき}, etc.\n\nA quick search on the internet will give you these as well:\n\n<https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1441711159?__ysp=44Kr44OK44KS5L2%2F44Gj44Gf6IuX5a2X>\n\n<https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q13144926323?__ysp=44Gy44KJ44GM44GqIOOCq%2BOCv%2BOCq%2BODiiDlhaXjgaPjgZ%2Flp5M%3D>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T00:09:29.087",
"id": "54886",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T00:09:29.087",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54882",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 54882 | null | 54886 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am going to attempt to translate an English sentence to Japanese. Where do I\nput the word ’覚えて’ in the sentence?\n\n> I just remember that there is a convenient store that sells sushi\n\nTranslation: _私はコンビニですしをうります_",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T21:40:33.390",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54883",
"last_activity_date": "2022-05-26T18:00:20.893",
"last_edit_date": "2022-05-26T18:00:20.893",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "17638",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Where do I put 覚えて in 私はコンビニですしをうります?",
"view_count": 144
} | [
{
"body": "I'll take a stab at this, although I suspect my translation will be slightly\nwordy or unnatural. But hey, 頑張ろう。\n\nThe sentence you offered:\n\n> 私はコンビニですしをうります\n\nMeans \"I sell sushi at a convenience store.\"\n\n> a convenience store that sells sushi\n\nis expressed as:\n\n> すしを売るコンビニ\n\nAnd to put it together:\n\n> 寿司を売るコンビニがあることを思い出しました。\n\nIf you want to literally emphasize \" **just** remembered\", make it 思い出したばかりです.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-01T23:36:14.930",
"id": "54885",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-01T23:36:14.930",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25413",
"parent_id": "54883",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54883 | null | 54885 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54889",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I tried Google Translate and just get チェストアウト. Other dictionaries do not\nprovide any meaningful results. This is a common phrase used in sports\ntraining. I cannot believe there is no Japanese equivalent.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T05:29:42.297",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54888",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T13:54:45.903",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10476",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "How to stay \"chest out\"",
"view_count": 162
} | [
{
"body": "As an imperative: 「胸{むね}を張{は}れ！」 or 「胸を張って！」\n\nName of a pose: 「胸を張るポーズ」、「胸を反{そ}らすポーズ」、「胸を突{つ}き出{だ}すポーズ」, etc.\n\nDrop the 「ポーズ」 from the expressions above and you will have the verb phrases.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T05:44:57.937",
"id": "54889",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T13:54:45.903",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-02T13:54:45.903",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54888",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 54888 | 54889 | 54889 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I came across the dialog and was puzzling over the sentence \"したことのないことばかり\"\n\n> （中野さんと大和さんがおみあいをしています。）\n>\n> 中野：大和さんは、お休みの日はなにをされていますか。\n>\n> 大和：ゴルフをしたり美術館を見学したりして、それに絵を書いたり裁縫したりするのです。\n>\n> 中野：わあ、すごいですね。\n>\n> 大和：中野さんは？\n>\n> 中野：私は、パチンコやカラオケをしたりして、時々軽くお酒を飲むのも好きです。\n>\n> 大和：フフフ、 **私がしたことのないことばかり** です。面白いでしょうね。\n\nI think I understand bold part, but is it possible that 大和 replies this\nsentence instead?\n\n> 大和：フフフ、 **私がしなかったことばかり** です。面白いでしょうね。\n\nIs there any change in meaning compared to the original sentence?\n\n(The reason why I ask such question is because I think the original sentence\nuses two \"こと\", won't that be a little bit redundant?)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T05:56:10.437",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54890",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T09:59:17.940",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22712",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"particle-こと"
],
"title": "Question about \"したことのないことばかり\"",
"view_count": 220
} | [
{
"body": "The meaning is quite different. Roughly:\n\n私がしたことのないことばかりです - Those are things I've never tried doing.\n\nvs\n\n私がしなかったことばかりです - Those are things I never did.\n\nThe second sentence leaves the impression that the speaker wanted or was\nsupposed to do those things at some point.\n\nThe first sentence is just saying that the speaker have never done those\nthings in his life.\n\nTwo こと are not redundant, as they refer to different verbs (したこと and ないこと).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T07:55:35.303",
"id": "54891",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T07:55:35.303",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25260",
"parent_id": "54890",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I will start by briefly explaining what 「お見合{みあ}い」 is for those unfamiliar\nwith the custom and/or the term. It is a formal kind of meeting for a man and\nwoman with a view to marriage. The conversation above is taking place at such\na meeting.\n\nFrom the convo, 中野{なかの} is the man and 大和{やまと}, the woman. As anyone would\nexpect, \"hobbies\" is a common topic at お見合い and that is exactly what is being\ntalked about here.\n\nAs seen in the convo, however, the two people might not share a favorite\npastime. So, the woman says:\n\n> 「私がした **こと** のない **こと** ばかりです。」\n>\n> = \"I have no experience in doing any of those things.\"\n\nThis is said upon finding out what the man's hobbies are.\n\n_**The first こと means \"experience\" (～ことがある/～ことがない) and the second こと means\n\"things\".**_ Thus, using こと twice is not at all redundant. The sentence is\nperfectly correct and natural-sounding.\n\nFinally, could 大和 have instead said:\n\n> 「私が **しなかった** ことばかりです。」?\n\nNo, no chance at all. Why not?\n\nThe two are discussing their **hobbies**. They are not discussing the actions\nthey performed on a particular occasion in the past. They are talking about\nwhat they like to do **habitually**. This is why you cannot use the past tense\n「した」 or 「しなかった」. Hope you are following this logic.\n\nLet us suppose that you went to Hawaii last year and I went there just\nrecently and we are talking about what we did while in Hawaii. You did\nactivities A, B, C and D and I did X, Y and Z.\n\nUpon finding out about what I did, you might say:\n\n> 「私がしなかったことばかりです。」\n>\n> = \"I didn't do any of those things.\" Or more literally, \"All of those are\n> the things that I didn't do.\"\n\nThat will be a very natural reply.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T17:01:40.187",
"id": "54916",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-03T17:12:26.087",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54890",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 54890 | null | 54916 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54897",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In an episode on Crayon Shin-Chan, Shin-Chan says\n\n> 開けて！\n\nIn this situation, he was knocking the door (For the second time he was\nknocking. His mom has already told him that he should properly say \"I'm home\",\nas he didn't use the proper greeting. Shin-Chan replied that \"You should not\ntake a child's words too seriously\".)\n\nShin-Chan's mom replies from inside the house\n\n> 開けません！\n\nShe was angry on him for returning home late.\n\nJisho says there is this verb 開ける, which may mean\n\n> to open (a door, etc.)\n\nBut why Shin-Chan uses the te-form of the verb? He could at most use the\nimperative form of the verb, which is 開けろ.\n\nAnother question, why Shin-Chan's mom uses the polite masu-form of the verb\nwith her kid, while Shin-Chan didn't use it with her mom?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T13:29:48.017",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54894",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T14:54:15.767",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-02T13:49:53.680",
"last_editor_user_id": "26516",
"owner_user_id": "26516",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"て-form"
],
"title": "Why the te-form 開けて is used here",
"view_count": 240
} | [
{
"body": "Technically speaking, 「開{あ}けて！」 in this context/situation is **_not_** in the\nte-form.\n\nRather, the 「て」 here is a sentence-ending particle that is used to form a\n**_request_** or a **_light kind of imperative_**. This usage of 「て」 is\n_extremely_ common in informal Japanese.\n\nThus, 「開けて！」 means the same thing as 「開けてください。」 or 「開けてくれ。」, meaning \"(Please)\nopen (the door)!\". Shin-chan is not using the te-form even though it is\nphysically the same as the te-form. The grammar and meaning/usage is\ncompletely different from the te-form.\n\n> Another question, why Shin-Chan's mom uses the polite masu-form of the verb\n> with her kid, while Shin-Chan didn't use it with her mom?\n\nIt is not uncommon for Japanese moms to use the masu-form with their kids and\nhusbands. This may sound weird to you, but not to us native speakers.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T14:54:15.767",
"id": "54897",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T14:54:15.767",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54894",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 54894 | 54897 | 54897 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "so umm.. let's say that you're asking your partner on what he think about\nyourself. Somethings like \"What do you like about me?\" Does this sentence\nsounds right?: 「私について何が好きですか?」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T13:40:11.457",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54895",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T13:49:21.813",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26749",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"word-choice",
"word-usage"
],
"title": "What do you like about me?",
"view_count": 1026
} | [
{
"body": "The most common way to ask that would be...\n\n> 私のどこが好き？♡",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T13:49:21.813",
"id": "54896",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-02T13:49:21.813",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "54895",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54895 | null | 54896 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Both seem very similar. In terms of explaining the previous line in the\nmeaning of \"namely\" or \"in the sense of\" right?\n\nStatement blabla ... tsumari/sunawachi, blabla.\n\nAny particular difference to choose between either?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T16:26:01.653",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54899",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-03T07:07:19.187",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"meaning",
"word-choice",
"words",
"nuances"
],
"title": "詰まり vs 即ち? Tsumari vs Sunawachi?",
"view_count": 1501
} | [
{
"body": "Both can mean \"namely\" or \"that is to say\", but すなわち is clearly more formal\nand stiff. If an elementary school children used it in a casual conversation,\nprobably I can't help laughing. つまり is a more common word that can be used in\nalmost any situation.\n\nYou should usually write these in hiragana unless you intentionally want to\nmake a stilted and old-fashioned sentence.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T07:07:19.187",
"id": "54908",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-03T07:07:19.187",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54899",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 54899 | null | 54908 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For the passage of time are both of these interchangeable?\n\nWhat nuances does using either over the other have?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T17:06:26.030",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54900",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T13:35:27.483",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-04T13:35:27.483",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances",
"verbs"
],
"title": "経つｖｓ過ごす/過ぎる Tatsu vs Sugiru/sugosu?",
"view_count": 1294
} | [
{
"body": "過ごす is clearly different from the other two. Its subject is usually a person\n(私は東京で1日を過ごした). It never takes a time length as a subject. (× 5か月が過ごす).\n\n経つ and 過ぎる are very similar and usually interchangeable when the subject is a\ndirect time length like 3日, 半年, 50年. In this case, 経つ is more objective,\nwhereas 過ぎる may be slightly more emotional or nostalgic. When the subject is a\nnoun that represents an event or a season, you can only use 過ぎる. For example\nyou can say 夏休みが過ぎる／クリスマスが過ぎる but not 夏休みが経つ／クリスマスが経つ.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T06:53:35.663",
"id": "54907",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T03:51:35.820",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-04T03:51:35.820",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54900",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 54900 | null | 54907 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54904",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Regarding videos made by some Taiwanese organisations about the plight of the\npeople of 福島県:\n\n> ビデオの中では、事故のあと、前にいた町にまた住むことができるようになった人や、津波で夫が亡くなったお年寄りの女性に話を **聞いています** 。 \n> In the videos _we are hearing/ have heard_ stories, after the accident,\n> from a person who has again become able to live in the town she once lived\n> in, and from an old lady whose husband died in the tsunami.\n\nThe [full\ntext](http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10011241491000/k10011241491000.html)\nmay be helpful here.\n\nI'm confused about either the meaning or the conjugation of 聞く in this\nsentence and who the subject of the verb is. I would expect it to translate as\neither \"You/one will hear... \" or \"You/one can hear...\", where the implied\nsubject is the reader of the article, but that would be either 話を聞きます or\n話を聞くことができます wouldn't it? Neither \"You are hearing\" nor \"You have heard\" really\nseem to fit the sentence well at all.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T17:47:05.213",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54901",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-03T02:12:36.873",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"conjugations"
],
"title": "Meaning of 聞いています in this sentence",
"view_count": 950
} | [
{
"body": "An insightful question, this is (and you know I do not say that very often).\n\nFirst, the implied subject. It is the people who have produced this video; It\nis **_not_** the viewers.\n\nSo, in English, it would be \"they\" as it is the news reporter that is speaking\nhere. It is not \"you\" the audience.\n\nMoving on to the tense and the meaning...\n\nThe meaning of the expression 「話{はなし}を聞{き}く」 in its dictionary form is \" **to\nlisten to someone's story\", \"to listen to what someone has to say\", \"to\ninterview someone** \", etc.\n\nFinally, the tense of 「聞いています」. It is the equivalent of \" **(they) have\ninterviewed** \".\n\nIt is **_not_** the same tense (present progressive) as in\n「今{いま}、ラジオを聴{き}いています。」(\"Someone is listening to the radio now.\")\n\nContext is everything in Japanese.\n\nEDIT: You yourself answered a question regarding the very same tense here:\n\n[Difference between \"verb(past) + こと + ある\" and \"verb +\nている\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/44595/difference-between-\nverbpast-%e3%81%93%e3%81%a8-%e3%81%82%e3%82%8b-and-\nverb-%e3%81%a6%e3%81%84%e3%82%8b)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T21:54:54.537",
"id": "54904",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-03T02:12:36.873",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-03T02:12:36.873",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54901",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
]
| 54901 | 54904 | 54904 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This form is usually translated as \"regardless\"; however its meaning seems to\nbe pretty similar to をよそに and to をものともせず. Is their usage different?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-02T18:41:43.910",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54902",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-03T07:19:06.727",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25880",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What is the usage of にも構わず？",
"view_count": 142
} | [
{
"body": "Grammatically, ～をよそに, ～をものともせず and ～にも構わず work similarly. However there is a\ndifference in meaning.\n\n * 構う can mean \"to worry about\", \"to look after\", etc. Thus ～に構わず tends to be used for something/someone people should normally care about, such as a dying ally and an advice of your friend. も adds the nuance of \"even\".\n * When you use ～をものともせず, the target is normally a direct obstacle or hardship you should endure, such as a storm, an enemy attack and a torture. It's used to describe the strength or boldness of the subject.\n * 余所【よそ】 means \"other (irrelevant) places\". ～をよそに means the speaker is not interested in something at all in the first place.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T06:39:09.893",
"id": "54906",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-03T07:19:06.727",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-03T07:19:06.727",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54902",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54902 | null | 54906 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "55469",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm reading a beginner book and noticed that the author uses a lot of\ndifferent words that translate to suddenly or abruptly which is interesting,\nso I have been trying to figure out the differences in between them.\n\nI have included some words I looked up and their supposed nuances but I'm not\n100% sure they are correct so confirmation would be appreciated.\n\nふっと, ? \nひょっこり, ? \nどっと, ? \nふと, Focuses on the aspect that something was unintentional \n不意に、ふいに、? \nさっさ, ? \n唐突, とうとつ, Only of human behavior \n突然, とつぜん, Spontaneously / Instantly \n急に, きゅうに, Fast paced change of events. (no surprise element, not instant) \nいきなり, Immediately / Without Warning*\n\n*: In the sense of immediately being/doing something with no intermediate, such as: \nI got stuck on the first question. (No in-between step) \nHe jumped in the pool and immediately began drowning. (No in-between step)\n\nIf anyone can elaborate or confirm it would be much appreciated. ^_^\n\nEdit: Added ふっと, 不意に, ひょっこり, どっと, さっさ.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T08:30:25.217",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54909",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-28T03:46:22.080",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-05T07:53:12.183",
"last_editor_user_id": "26767",
"owner_user_id": "26767",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 15,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"usage",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Nuances of: ふっと、ふと、ひょっこり、 どっと、 さっさ、不意に、唐突、突然、急に and いきなり。",
"view_count": 1113
} | [
{
"body": "I hope someone else will elaborate this. My attempt is the following:\n\nふっと is like onomatopoeia expression. Something appears or goes away as the\nbreeze.e.g. You feel like start backpacking to somewhere with a whiff.\n\nふと is used when something suddenly pops up into your head.e.g. your friends\nyou haven't seen for some time.\n\n不意に is used when you are unprepared something suddenly coming. e.g you are\ncalled in your back.\n\n唐突に is used when a course of expected action is suddenly changed. e.g. your\nschedule is suddenly asked to change.\n\nI think 急に and 突然 are interchangeable in most case.\n\n急に is often used with your subject feeling when something suddenly changes\ngreatly. e.g. your height is suddenly getting taller.\n\n突然 is used when something changes for a very short time. e.g. It's suddenly\nraining cats and dogs.\n\nI guess your interpretation of いきなり is correct.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T13:31:34.353",
"id": "54915",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-28T03:46:22.080",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-28T03:46:22.080",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54909",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "I think that this is a very interesting question, and I will try to line out\nthe results of what I found out in this answer.\n\nI think that it is important that we first differentiate between what is\nonomatopoeia and what is still written or was originally derived from kanji.\nThe former have more of a _feeling_ -like explanation and the latter have some\ninterpretation room. Lastly, I will cover the words on your list that do not\nimmediately carry the meaning of abruptness or unexpectedness (i.e. words I\nfeel should not be in this list). Note, not all words have clear distinctions\nthere are overlaps between their use cases.\n\n**Disclaimer:** I will mostly aggregate information and mostly trust my\nsources if I think they make sense (i.e. I do not require any academic degree\nbehind claims). Additionally I will add personal opinion and disclaim this\nappropriately, so read with this in mind since I am no native. **Furhermore**\n, note that your (and my) list is not extensive with respect to words that you\nlisted, but you probably listed most of the important ones already.\n**Finally** , do not forget that there are worlds between spoken and written\nJapanese, I will outline the things as researched and exemplified by written\nJapanese. For spoken Japanese the explanations of Kimi Tanaka are certainly\nenough.\n\n## Onomatopoeia\n\nLet us first tackle the words that (probably) originate from a feeling with\nrespect to the pronunciation. Some of the nuances in this section might be\nharder to understand, since this is mostly dependent on your feeling for the\nlanguage.\n\n * ひょっこり - the ひょ transmits a certain aloofness or lightness that is [implicit in the pronunctiation](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1031688530). So a certain event came up in a ひょっと light way, without you expecting it. Let us consider some example sentences (all from [here](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/188202/example/m0u/), emphasis theirs):\n\n> [...] **ひょっこり** 訪ねて来た小学時代の同級生[...] (太宰治「嘘」青空文庫)\n>\n> すると、八ヵ月目かにです、娘が **ひょっこり** 戻ってきました。(小林多喜二「疵」青空文庫)\n>\n> そこへ兄きが **ひょっこり** 帰って来た。(森鴎外「里芋の芽と不動の目」青空文庫)\n\nwe see that the word is mostly associated to people or objects appearing\nunexpectedly on visiting terms, i.e. they just lightly come over without any\npretext or anything (the lightness is important for nuance).\n\n * ふっと - This word carries the notion of breeziness that Kimi Tanaka outlined in his answer and is also well explained [here](https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/8593271.html). It is used for things that suddenly disappear and appear without reason. Like the movement of air. Not many good example sentences exist, but consider those from [here](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/193737/meaning/m0u/) (emphasis mine)\n\n> 夜中に **ふっと** 目が覚める\n>\n> **ふっと** 名案が浮かんだ\n>\n> **ふっと** 見えなくなる (from [here](https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/8593271.html))\n\nI think it is apparent why ふっと fits well here.\n\n## Meanings stemming from 漢字\n\nLet us now get to the words that can be rewritten in 漢字 and try to derive\ntheir nuance from the signs used and confirm our findings in example\nsentences. Note, that not all words have their meaning that are still in\ndirect relation with the signs, in these cases I just leave out the\nexplanation as it is purely historical and unrelated to the question.\n\n * 不図{ふと} - the second character is [usually used to hint at a meaning like planning or thinking over something](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/116070/meaning/m0u/). Thus by extension it just is used in relation to something one [doesn't particularly feel the need to think over and thus comes to mind without one expecting it.](https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/8593271.html) This is exactly the notion Kimi Tanaka explained\n\n> ところが今朝は如何なる吉日か、私は **不図** 四十年前に、金博士から聞いた疑問の民族の名を思い出したのであった。(海野十三, from\n> [here](https://furigana.info/w/%E4%B8%8D%E5%9B%B3), emphasis mine)\n>\n> **ふと** 灯りが消える (from [here](https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/8593271.html),\n> emphasis mine)\n\nThey are not events that come and go like a breeze, but also not events that\nyou expected to happen anytime soon or ever.\n\n * 不意{ふい}に - you probably already know 意 from 意味, 意識 or others. It always has this meaning of _in mind_ or in general something connected to you being mentally prepared for something as expressed by Kimi Tanaka. Consider the following examples from [here (emphasis theirs)](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/189807/example/m0u/)\n\n> それが今 **不意** に目の前へ、日の光りを透かした雲のような、あるいは猫柳の花のような銀鼠の姿を現したのである。(芥川竜之介「お時儀」青空文庫)\n>\n> 私が茶の間で夕刊を読んでいたら、 **不意** にあなたのお名前が放送せられ、つづいてあなたのお声が。(太宰治「きりぎりす」青空文庫)\n\nPersonally, I would say that there is a slight difference between 不意 and 不図 in\nthat the former feels like the event that happened is more lightweight and the\nlatter is a more important event. Like while I was reading the evening\nnewspaper I suddenly heard your name read out on the radio (that is the\nexample sentence for 不意). While the sudden turning off of the lights (as in\nthe example sentence for 不図) is of more direct personal consequence. This\nmight just be me, most people would probably use them interchangeably.\n\n * 唐突{とうとつ} - the description from Kimi Tanaka is again mostly correct it seems, as is supported [here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1272656352) and [here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1414504039). It is used when there was a certain flow to a speech or movement of an object which is suddenly interrupted and changed. I think this needs to be more or less active, so a light cannot 唐突に go dark as it can ふと go dark, even though it is a continuous action. Let's look at some examples from [here](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/156544/example/m0u/) (emphasis theirs):\n\n> Ｍは **唐突** とこんなことを尋ねた。(芥川竜之介「海のほとり」青空文庫)\n>\n> 爺は、彫刻のように堅くなったが、「あッはッはッ。」 **唐突** に笑出した。(泉鏡花「燈明之巻」青空文庫)\n\nThis should be straightforward to get a feeling for.\n\n * 突然{とつぜん} - this describes the unexpected starting of motion or flow of speech (i.e. in general some action). The difference to 唐突 is that this does not require that some flow is broken, but that a new one starts. The example given [here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1414504039) illustrates this well: You would say a parked car 突然 dashes off, but wouldn't say 唐突, as it just starts movement. Let's again look at some examples of usage from [here](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/159381/example/m0u/%E7%AA%81%E7%84%B6/) (emphasis theirs)\n\n> 誰か外へ来たと見えて、戸を叩く音が、 **突然** 荒々しく聞え始めました。 (芥川竜之介「アグニの神」青空文庫)\n>\n> それは女の姿がその明るい電灯の光を **突然** 遮ったためだった。(梶井基次郎「ある崖上の感情」青空文庫)\n\nIt shall be noted that I think that 突然 is the most widely used _suddenly_\n-word and that it probably is misused a lot if you want to go hard-core on the\ndefinitions and origins of the words.\n\n * 急{きゅう}に - I fear I will disagree with Kimi Tanaka here (at least on the literary side). [This answer explains really well how I feel about the difference between 急に and 突然](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q14132926279). It basically says that 急に is used for more normal surprising things, like ''急に I have become hungry'' or ''急に I have gotten another appointment and need to leave''. On the other hand, 突然 is used for really surprising things like ''突然に it started raining men''. You cannot interchange those two words in these 3 examples. Some easy examples are given on [the nlpt preparation site](https://j-nihongo.com/kyuni/)\n\n> 授業中に、急に眠くなりました。\n\n * 行{い}き成{な}り - This is very close in meaning to 急に and 突然 and for all intents and purposes it is used interchangeably and Japanese people will not be able to tell you what the differences between them is. Apart from the one outlined above there is a [research paper from Nagoya University](http://www.lang.nagoya-u.ac.jp/bugai/kokugen/nichigen/menu7_folder/symposium/pdf/5/06.pdf) researching exactly the difference of these three words. It's very detailed and giving examples for very detailed nuances. As this answer is already long enough, I am not going to paraphrase it into this answer here, but be my guest and read it through, it is interesting to see all the example sentences.\n\n * 突如{とつじょ} - is very similar to the previous 3 but mostly literary (i.e. you will probably _never_ hear this word in spoken Japanese). You cannot use it interchangeably though, as something like 突如の出来事 just sounds weird while 突然の出来事 is fine. In books you will mostly see it as 突如として, as documented [here](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/thsrs/15102/meaning/m0u/%E7%AA%81%E5%A6%82/) and [here](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q14103723219). Furthermore, [one can argue that 突如](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q14103723219) is more for encounters the narrator didn't expect but somebody prepared while 突然 can also be used for more random things like rain.\n\n### Examples that shouldn't be in the list (in my opinion)\n\n * どっと - I think you meant とっとと [which derives from 「疾疾と」（とくとくと）](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1062209705) and means (as the characters indicate) something like quick.\n * さっさと - This [derives from 「颯々」（さつさつ](https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/6885280.html) and basically signifies the blowing of the wind (which makes さーさー sounds in the trees). So you use it to say somebody should hurry (like the wind). Both this and the previous word are similar, their difference being elucidated in the link and not subject of this question.\n\nOkay, sorry for this long answer. I got carried away, if this is too much\nwritten text just tell me, I'll mend it as good as I can. I just want you to\nknow that for most situations these nuances are not important in spoken\nJapanese. And the examples I gave you are from over 50 years ago mostly\n(mostly the big Japanese writers). Japanese people today think that Japanese\nis _very_ old-fashioned. So don't go learning these nuances and words\nexpecting everybody to understand them. Even in written Japanese these Nuances\ncome fairly naturally, so don't worry too much.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-27T23:58:34.237",
"id": "55469",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-27T23:58:34.237",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26242",
"parent_id": "54909",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 54909 | 55469 | 54915 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Usually you use 浴びる for showering or bathing (not too sure about bathing)\nright? And you use 洗う for washing in general right? Can you ever use 洗う in a\nshower/bath scenario like my example below?\n\n例：シャワーをあびた時、下の所が特に洗った。(disclaimer: sentence might contain errors)\n\nWhile I was showering, I especially washed my nether regions.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T08:59:10.800",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54910",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T13:34:51.403",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-04T13:34:51.403",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"nuances",
"verbs"
],
"title": "Can you use 洗うwhile talking about a specific part you are washing while showering?",
"view_count": 341
} | [
{
"body": "In that situation, you could use 「洗{あら}う」 quite naturally if you inserted\n「特{とく}によく」 or 「よく」 and say:\n\n> 「シャワーをあびた時{とき}、下{した}の方{ほう}を特によく洗{あら}った。」.\n\nIt would sound more natural to use 「方」 over 「所{ところ}」.\n\nTo further intensify the adverb, you could use 「集中的{しゅうちゅうてき}\nに」(\"intensively\") and say:\n\n> 「シャワーをあびた時、（特に）下の方を集中的に洗った。」\n\nFinally, as we all know, Japanese has an onomatopoeia for every human action\nand for \"washing hard\", it is 「ゴシゴシ（と）」. With that, you could say:\n\n> 「シャワーをあびた時、下の方を特にゴシゴシと洗った。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T10:22:34.570",
"id": "54911",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-03T10:33:22.870",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-03T10:33:22.870",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54910",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
]
| 54910 | null | 54911 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Person A: どんな ときに しゅくだいを する ことが できませんか?\n\nPerson B: きょうしつで とか かいしゃでは できません。\n\nI understand what 「で」is doing (indicating the place) but what about 'wa' in\nthis case?\n\nthanks in advance",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T11:33:42.980",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54912",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T02:06:58.113",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"particle-は"
],
"title": "What is the purpose of では in this context",
"view_count": 156
} | [
{
"body": "Indicating the topic. 会社では as for at the company, I can't study.\n\nWhy do I need to input 30 characters?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T00:56:31.433",
"id": "54924",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T00:56:31.433",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22363",
"parent_id": "54912",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Like Fireheart said, は is indicating the topic, but I'd like to expand a\nlittle bit to explain why it's there.\n\nFirst, let's go back to the question that was asked:\n\n> どんな ときに しゅくだいを する ことが できませんか？\n\nThough there isn't a は in the sentence, the gist of the question can be\nunderstood as \" **When/In what situations** can you not do your homework?\" As\nSpeaker B (and presumably you) understand, the answer to the question is going\nto primarily consist of times/places - they will be the _topic_ of the answer.\nAs such, Speaker B replies:\n\n> きょうしつで とか かいしゃでは できません。\n\nとか here is acting like や to indicate an incomplete list of situations, so for\nsimplicity's sake let's think of きょうしつで とか かいしゃでは as one unit (I'll use\nかいしゃでは), but remember that you generally need to add で to the end of each\nentry.\n\n> かいしゃでは できません。\" **When you're at work** you can't do [your homework].\"\n\nIs what we end up with. It might seem like は isn't doing a ton here, but\nconsider the nuance of the alternative:\n\n> かいしゃで できません。 \"You can't do [your homework] at work.\"\n\nThough this isn't _wrong_ per se, it's not responding directly to the question\nthat was asked (\"When can't you do your homework?\") by marking the answer's\nsalient information.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T02:06:58.113",
"id": "54926",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T02:06:58.113",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18701",
"parent_id": "54912",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
]
| 54912 | null | 54924 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54932",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "友達申請をしてくださって、ありがとうございます。\n\n=>\"Thank you **that** you have given the favor of doing a friend request.\"\n\nWhat I expressed in my translation is something which usually gives me a lot\nof trouble when I try to express it in japanese. Until now, I wasn't aware\nthat て-form is suitable in japanese for the phrase which is expressed through\nthe \"that-clause\" in my translation. However, is the construction in the\nsentence in question always appropriate? For example: 車の修理をしてくださって、一万円をはらいます。\n\nIs it formal/colloquial? Is it used in both written and oral communication?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T12:39:01.433",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54913",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T04:35:46.010",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-03T14:23:19.490",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "20172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"て-form",
"conjunctions"
],
"title": "Why is て form used here?",
"view_count": 164
} | [
{
"body": "Do you know about the structure, してくれて ありがとう? It's how you thank someone for\ndoing something for you. くださる is just the higher form of くれる so the speaker is\ntrying to be more respectful. I don't think it equates to \"that\", more like\n\"for\". Thanks for being my friend, thanks for sending me a friend request. No,\nyou can't use it like in your sentence. This is practically a set phrase.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T00:50:29.140",
"id": "54923",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T00:50:29.140",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22363",
"parent_id": "54913",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Yes, `te-form + くれて/くださって/していただいて + ありがとう(ございます)` is basically `Thank you for\n～`. In general, this te-form is denoting a reason, and this is explained in\n[this article](https://www.learn-japanese-adventure.com/te-form-cause-\nreason.html). It's not particularly formal nor casual, but in very formal\nsituations, you need more formal wordings (something that corresponds to \"I\nwould like to express my deepest gratitude\" rather than \"Thank you\"), anyway.\n\n「車の修理をしてくださって、一万円をはらいます」 is wrong, and the reason is explained in the article\nabove, too. It's wrong because it contains the speaker's will in the latter\nhalf of the sentence.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T04:35:46.010",
"id": "54932",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T04:35:46.010",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "54913",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54913 | 54932 | 54932 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54928",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "> 東京都はインフルエンザになった人の数を４１９の病院で調べています。１１月２０日からの１週間にインフルエンザになって病院に来た人の\n> **平均は、１つの病院で１．８６人でした** 。平均が１人以上になると、流行が始まったと考えます。 \n> The Tokyo metropolitan area is investigating the number of people who got\n> influenza in 419 hospitals. In the week beginning the 11th of November the\n> average number of people who got influenza and went to hospital was 1.86 in\n> one hospital. When the average exceeds 1 person an epidemic is considered to\n> have started.\n\nAs a scientist, I see mathematics being butchered all the time in the media.\nI'm wondering if this is another example, or whether my Japanese is wrong.\n\nWhat is the average taken over? I would assume it is the average over the 419\nhospitals, but then 平均は、 **１つの** 病院で１．８６人でした makes no sense to me. Why are\nthey talking about one specific hospital? Perhaps １つの means 'each' in this\ncase? I'm not aware of this as a valid translation though.\n\nIf I interpret this correctly then an average of 1.86 people per hospital per\nweek doesn't sound worth reporting to me. Maybe I also misunderstood 流行.\n\nIn summary, I'd be happy if １つの病院で wasn't there, but the numbers still sound\ntoo small to be interesting, which makes me think I've misunderstood.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T18:35:08.340",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54917",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T04:39:19.067",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"reading-comprehension"
],
"title": "Bad maths or my bad Japanese?",
"view_count": 304
} | [
{
"body": "Thanks to nkjt in the comment\nmetro.tokyo.jp/tosei/hodohappyo/press/2017/11/30/11.html.\n\nIf it goes exponentially, the number avg.1.86 per hospitals/through each\nhospital might be the sign of epidemic. 一つの here should imply for each in this\ncase.\n\nAs from the article (Total report number / 419 fixed points for observation) =\n1.86, the number is the average value for each hospital. Therefore, \"1.86\"\nshould be a representative value for the data.\n\n流行 normally implies something gets popular in a group.e.g. Pokémon go,\nhairstyle, songs, etc. The word is used when a widespread phenomenon is\nobserved. So, this time, influenza gets epidemic or pandemic in some area.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T03:35:18.630",
"id": "54927",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T03:35:18.630",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54917",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "1. About \"1つの病院で\"\n\nThis means \"per one hospital\", as you suspected, not \"in one hospital\". I\nthink this is a bit of bad writing; this would be clearer if it were written,\n\"1つの病院 **あたり** （で）\". I think the source is [this\nnews](http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10011241291000/k10011241291000.html)\nfrom NHK news easy version, and the [corresponding\nversion](http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20171130/k10011241291000.html) says,\n'インフルエンザの患者は１つの医療機関当たり１．８６人'. (Note that, although a bit confusing, as a\nnative speaker I had no problem interpreting the sentence. Although it is\ndependent on the context)\n\n 2. Isn't 1.86 too low?\n\nAgain, you are making a correct observation. 1.86 does seem to be too low, but\n\"流行が始まる\" means something other than you (and I, initially,) first imagine.\n\n[This\ngraph](http://www.metro.tokyo.jp/tosei/hodohappyo/press/2017/11/30/11.html)\nshows the past statistics of the influenza epidemic. Each year, the peak lies\nat 30-40 /定点, so that's the amount we'll be dealing with in real epidemic.\nWhat values > 1 signifies, on the other hand, is the _start_ of the annual\nepidemic; \"Hey guys, this season has come. We are beginning to be infected by\ninfluenza, and soon it'll be more widespread\" (Influenza is a disease that is\nfairly rare in seasons other than winter). I haven't been able to find any\nacademic source that supports the threshold, but I think now we have the idea.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T03:40:29.913",
"id": "54928",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T03:47:07.627",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-04T03:47:07.627",
"last_editor_user_id": "4223",
"owner_user_id": "4223",
"parent_id": "54917",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "> 平均は、１つの病院で１．８６人でした\n\nPutting aside whether it's an unambiguous writing style for journalism or not,\nI must say that I didn't even notice slight weirdness when I read this\nparagraph. If we consult a dictionary:\n\n> [**で**](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/148951/meaning/m0u/%E3%81%A7/)\n>\n> **４** 期限・限度・基準を表す。「一日で仕上げる」「五つで二〇〇円」 \n> _(indicates a limit in time, space, and amount; or a standard)_\n\nAs you see in the second example, 五つで二〇〇円 means \"¥200 per five pieces\" or\n\"five for ¥200\" (not only this five but generally), and this phrase likewise,\nas \"1.86 per hospital\" or \"1.86 a hospital\". I think it's a normal\ninterpretation when で follows a number.\n\nIf they really wanted to say \"in a **certain** hospital\", I suppose they'd use\n**ある** 病院 instead of １つの.\n\nFor the low number of infected people, just see @Yosh's answer.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T04:33:34.890",
"id": "54931",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T04:39:19.067",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "54917",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 54917 | 54928 | 54928 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54925",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For context, I'm writing an essay in English on a Japanese movie about a\nparticular family that goes by the name of Sasaki. In the movie, the\ncharacters are mostly referred to by their family name. The husband in\nparticular is exclusively referred to as Sasaki, though he does in fact have a\ngiven name, Ryûhei.\n\nFirstly, my question is, how do you generally refer to Japanese people when\nwriting in English? Do you use just their family name, just their given name,\nor both?\n\nSecond, if you use just their family name, is it appropriate to use both names\nto distinguish between members of the same family? If so, is it okay to\nshorten their distinguishable names to just their given name after referring\nto them by their full name at least once? For example, the first time I refer\nto the husband I might say \"Ryûhei Sasaki\", but each time afterwards is it\nokay for me to simply refer to him as \"Ryûhei\"?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T19:42:41.030",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54918",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T01:37:07.727",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26783",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"names"
],
"title": "How do you refer to Japanese people with the same last name in English writing?",
"view_count": 1402
} | [
{
"body": "I think the answer to your question depends almost entirely on the English\ncontext in which you're writing. If it's an essay for a class then clarity\nshould probably take precedence over anything else. If you're submitting an\narticle to a journal, then there is likely a style guide that you should\nreference. What's \"appropriate\" is going to vary based on the expectations of\nyour audience.\n\nTo more directly answer your questions, though:\n\n 1. I tend to refer to characters in the same way as the text in which they appear. If the text calls them largely uses \"Sasaki,\" then I'll generally use \"Sasaki.\" As in your case, when there are multiple characters with the same last name, you'll need to distinguish between them by using their first name. I'd probably introduce them using their full name (to inform the reader that they're part of the family) and afterwards use their only first name. Writing \"Ryuhei Sasaki\" every time is just adding unnecessary words to your text.\n\n 2. I answered this in part in #1, but absolutely! Think about how grating it'd be to read a paragraph on the husband and wife's relationship in which you read \"Sasaki\" fifteen times. At that point it isn't giving the reader any useful information.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T01:37:07.727",
"id": "54925",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T01:37:07.727",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18701",
"parent_id": "54918",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
]
| 54918 | 54925 | 54925 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54929",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "あとな、わしの名はバルタザールだ。\n\nIs it \"And my name is Balthazar\" or \"My last name is Balthazar\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T20:46:14.250",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54919",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T10:54:54.563",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "25396",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "What does あとな mean here?",
"view_count": 278
} | [
{
"body": "Edit: l'électeur is more correct on this one. It really sounds like he is\ncorrecting the other person. I didn't think about that.\n\nIt means \"And, my name is Balthazar\"/\"Also, my name is Balthazar\".\n\nYou can find the exact definition of 「あと」\n[here](http://jisho.org/word/%E5%BE%8C) (the 7th one). It is not written in\nkanji, because in novels the writers often chose to write some common kanjis\nin hiragana in order to not convolute the text (if wanted, most things in\nJapanese can be written in kanji).\n\n「な」 is one of the colloquial endings (I'm unsure how this is called in\nEnglish) such as 「よ」,「さ」etc. 「な」 is exclusively used by males and in this\ncontext it sounds rowdy. I don't know the novel you are reading, but Balthazar\nseems to be a self-confident warrior/bandit type.\n\nIf the writer wanted the sentence to mean \"My last name is Balthazar\", he'd\nhave written 「わしの名字はバルタザールだ」 or some form of that.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T21:33:43.273",
"id": "54921",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T10:54:54.563",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-04T10:54:54.563",
"last_editor_user_id": "26787",
"owner_user_id": "26787",
"parent_id": "54919",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "「 **あとな** 」 is a light and informal way of saying \" **in addition** \" and it\nhas the same kind of nuance as \" **Oh, before I forget,** ~~\".\n\nThink of 「な」 as a variant of 「ね」, the sentence-ending particle.\n\nYou can say just 「あと」 without a sentence-ender in informal speech. Or rather,\nI should say that 「あと」 is not used in formal speech. In formal speech, you\nwould use 「 **それから** 」.\n\nSeems to me like someone had mispronounced バルタザール's name and バルタザール is now\ncorrecting it, but if that is not the case, please forget this comment.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T04:19:36.123",
"id": "54929",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T04:19:36.123",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54919",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
]
| 54919 | 54929 | 54929 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54934",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am translating a personal statement and when talking about his work\nexperience, the writer has stated\n私は、役所の人事としては稀な公募によって、広く民間企業からの採用を行うこととした。しかし、同時に、公募を行うと、採用実績のない民間企業から採用する可能性もあり、能力の低い職員を採用してしまう危険性もあった。\n\nIs it saying that 'he implemented a system by which people from the wider\nprivate sector are recruited in selective public recruitment'. Does this mean\nthe job is advertised widely?\n\nAlso I don't understand 採用実績のない民間企業. How can a company have no record of\nhiring people?\n\nPlease help!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T20:46:23.783",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54920",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T09:33:11.060",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26784",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"nuances",
"set-phrases",
"business-japanese"
],
"title": "What does 稀な公募 mean?",
"view_count": 166
} | [
{
"body": "私は、役所の人事としては稀な公募によって、広く民間企業からの採用を行うこととした。しかし、同時に、公募を行うと、採用実績のない民間企業から採用する可能性もあり、能力の低い職員を採用してしまう危険性もあった。\n\n役所 is a bit ambiguous in the sentence. I adopted government office. So, he\ndecided to implement unusual/rare job offer for government office to recruit a\npersonnel from private sector.\n\n稀な公募 is the job offering to private sector is uncommon for the office.\n\n採用実績のない民間企業. implies recruiting personnels from private companies which has no\ntrack records for the goverment office.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-03T23:09:46.237",
"id": "54922",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-03T23:09:46.237",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54920",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "There seems to be a parsing issue here.\n\nIt is not 「（稀{まれ}な公募{こうぼ}）によって」.\n\nIt is 「役所{やくしょ}の人事{じんじ}としては稀な（、）『公募』によって」.\n\n≒ 「『公募』という方法{ほうほう}によって」\n\n> Does this mean the job is advertised widely?\n\nAt least \"publicly\" so, if not so \"widely\". How widely, we could not tell from\nthis passage alone.\n\nThe speaker utilized a method that was 稀な (\"rare, uncommon\") for the city hall\nto recruit.\n\n> Also I don't understand 採用実績{さいようじっせき}のない民間企業{みんかんきぎょう}. How can a company\n> have no record of hiring people?\n\nAgain, a parsing error.\n\nIt means \" **the private companies from which the city hall has never\nrecruited people** \". It is saying (or implying) that if you advertize the\nposition openings too widely, you might end up hiring untalented people.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T04:50:42.283",
"id": "54934",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T09:33:11.060",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-04T09:33:11.060",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54920",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
]
| 54920 | 54934 | 54934 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54933",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Always loved the \"Battle royale\" anime, but am curious about why in the\nJapanese title it's「ロワイアル」.\n\nShouldn't it be something like「ローヤル」, if you wanted to match the French\npronunciation? Why the「ワ」?\n\n(I know royal is「ロイヤル」)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T04:26:49.700",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54930",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-05T07:40:37.750",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-05T07:40:37.750",
"last_editor_user_id": "20413",
"owner_user_id": "20413",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 21,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"katakana"
],
"title": "Why is it 「ロワイアル」?",
"view_count": 3669
} | [
{
"body": "Pretty simply, because there's a /w/ in the French _royale_ /rwajal/. The\nonset cluster /rw/ is not allowed in Japanese phonotactics, so one of two\nrepair strategies must be used:\n\n 1. Epenthesis (inserting a sound to break up the consonant cluster)\n 2. Deletion (removing a sound to eliminate the consonant cluster)\n\nIn Japanese loanword phonology, both strategies are used, but epenthesis is\nmuch more common. The vowel /o/ is inserted between /rw/ and the result is ロワ.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T04:37:00.513",
"id": "54933",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T04:37:00.513",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54930",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 39
}
]
| 54930 | 54933 | 54933 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "As far as I know, both of these have a similar meaning. Are both\ninterchangeable? In what situations would 変 be preferable over おかしい?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T06:07:42.823",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54935",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-08T03:21:36.990",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26307",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Are 変 and おかしい interchangable?",
"view_count": 629
} | [
{
"body": "They are not as interchangeable as you might expect. I recommend sticking to 変\nwhen you are going to express general \"weirdness\". 変 is somewhat broader to\nmean \"inappropriately unusual\", while おかしい is when the strangeness reminds of\ndysfunction of some sort.\n\n> この式は **変だ** \n> この式は **おかしい** \n> _This formula is..._\n\nEven when you can use both, 変 here means giving impression of strangeness or\ncounterintuitivity, but doesn't (necessarily) imply logically wrong\n(=dysfunctional), while おかしい does.\n\n> ○ **変** なことするな \n> × **おかしい** ことするな \n> \"Don't do anything I wouldn't do.\"\n\nIn this case, what they advice against to do probably has some bad effect, but\nnot necessarily out of insanity (maybe they just intend to do), thus おかしい is\nnot likely used.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-08T03:21:36.990",
"id": "55024",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-08T03:21:36.990",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "54935",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
]
| 54935 | null | 55024 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "54938",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What's the meaning of 私たち三人? Does that make sense in japanese? I found the\ntranslation \"the three of us\" on Google Translate. However, I want to know if\nthat make sense in japanese. If not, What would be the best translation for\n\"the three of us\"?\n\nE.g.: In Spanish the direct trasnlation using Google Translate would be\n\"nosotros tres\" and in Portuguese \"nós os três\". The Spanish translation is\nok, it would work. But for Portuguese I guess the best translation would be\n\"nós três\", since \"nós os três\" doesn't make sense in Portuguese.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T09:48:38.870",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54937",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T11:09:54.323",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-04T09:58:39.983",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "26498",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "What's the meaning of 私たち三人? Does it make sense?",
"view_count": 329
} | [
{
"body": "「私{わたし}たち三人{さんにん}」 makes perfect sense. In fact, it is probably the most\ncommon way of saying \"the three of us\" in Japanese.\n\nSince Japanese has many pronouns for \"we\" as I hope you know, you will also be\nseeing/hearing:\n\n・「われわれ三人」\n\n・「オレたち三人」\n\n・「ボクたち三人」\n\n・「アタシたち三人」\n\n, etc.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T10:45:26.213",
"id": "54938",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T10:45:26.213",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54937",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 54937 | 54938 | 54938 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I understand 一緒 cannot be substituted with 共に given how flexible 共に is and how\npeople-specific 一緒 is.\n\nBut can the reverse be true since 共に can also be used with people?\n\n例：友と共にパーティに行った。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T12:49:42.623",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "54940",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T13:49:01.497",
"last_edit_date": "2017-12-04T13:33:51.867",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22417",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Can 共に be used as a substitute for 一緒?",
"view_count": 239
} | [
{
"body": "「共{とも}に」 and 「一緒{いっしょ}に」 certainly share the meaning of \" ** _with ~~_** \".\n\nThe important difference, however, is in the formality levels of the two\nphrases. While 「共に」 sounds formal and slightly stiff, 「一緒に」 sounds informal\nand conversational.\n\nIn our informal daily conversations with family members, coworkers, friends,\netc. the vast majority of us would almost exclusively use 「一緒に」. 「共に」 simply\nsounds too serious for daily use.\n\nWhat this means is that if you used the two interchangeably, your \"new\"\nsentence is bound to sound awkward because that is what inevitably happens if\nyou change just one word out of a whole sentence to another with a different\nlevel of formality. Your new sentence will just lack the good balance with one\nof the words sticking out as a poor word choice.\n\nYour sentence:\n\n> 「友{とも}と共にパーティに行{い}った。」\n\nsounds borderline okay because 「友」is already stiff compared with 「友だち」. Stiff-\non-stiff is alright.\n\nIf you asked me, however, if any native speaker would utter that sentence\nverbatim in real life, I would honestly reply that the chances would be very\nclose zilch. It is **_far_** more natural to say:\n\n> 「友だちと一緒にパーティーに行った。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-12-04T13:49:01.497",
"id": "54941",
"last_activity_date": "2017-12-04T13:49:01.497",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "54940",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
]
| 54940 | null | 54941 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.