Datasets:

---

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

[ { "body": "These are two different questions. However, I suppose I'll answer them both.\n\nYou have seen 行く because 行っている means something else. The sentence:\n\n> 父はもう仕事に **行っている** んです\n\nMeans Father has already arrived at work. In general, ている with movement verbs\nindicates a _completed_ action.\n\nInstead, say:\n\n> すみません、いま学校に **向かっている** んで、後でかけなおしてもいいですか？\n>\n> \"Sorry, I'm on my way to school, can I call you later?\"\n\nThe root verb is 向かう.\n\nAs for the ている, it can be used to talk about habits. The sentence you provided\nlooks fine.\n\nEDIT: At the request of OP, I've added some sources, and tried to explain a\nbit more:\n\nThe Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar (DBJG), Appendix 2 talks about\ndifferent Japanese verb types. For the purposes of the ている discussion, let's\nfocus on a few:\n\n 1. Stative Verb: Expresses a state, like ある、飲める, does not usually occur with ている。\n\n 2. Continual Verb: A verb that can be considered an action, and can be done repeatedly. For instance, 作る、書く。ている here expresses the progressive aspect, that is \"-ing\", as in 食べている.\n\n 3. Punctual Verb: A verb that expresses something that occurs in a single moment, like 忘れる, 死ぬ or 知る. Here 知っている indicates the state after the action was completed, so 知っている means \"to know\", whereas 知る means something more akin to \"acquire the knowledge\".\n\n 4. Movement Verb: A verb expressing a movement, like 行く or 来る. It's worth nothing that 歩く and 走る are continual verbs.\n\nFinally, note that some verbs can fit into more than one category. For\ninstance, 分かる can be either stative or continual depending on the context, so\nfor instance 分かっている means something like \"I understood before and now\nunderstand\", which is why it can sound harsher if you're explaining to someone\nthat you understand. Instead, 分かった or 分かる is used.\n\nAs for your question about habits, it seems that 走る is also fine. I wasn't\nsure of the differences myself, but I found [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/61542/%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%81%BE%E3%81%99-present-\ncontinuous-form-not-used-in-habitual-action), I hope it helps you.\n\nFurther Reading:\n\nDBJG, Appendix 2\n\nDBJG, page 156:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Ma60Z.png)\n\nYou can also check out this [online grammar\nguide](https://www.guidetojapanese.org/grammar_guide.pdf)'s explanation on\npage 114, though I prefer the previous resource.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-03T00:44:08.987", "id": "93265", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-04T04:14:05.810", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-04T04:14:05.810", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "48969", "parent_id": "93264", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "～まで10分かかります is not necessarily that negative, but it does have the connotation\nof \"require 10 minutes\". If you are implying 10 minutes is short enough, you\nusually have to say something like this:\n\n> バスに乗ればターミナルまで10分で行けます。\n\nIf you want to be very neutral, you can also say:\n\n> ここからターミナルまではバスで10分です。\n\nWhen you want to say \"takes **only** 10 minutes\" explicitly, you can also say:\n\n> バスに乗ればターミナルまで10分しかかかりません。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-03T03:45:14.107", "id": "93270", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-03T03:45:14.107", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93268", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Basically, `～はずでしょう` can only be natural when it is an interrogative.\n\nAssuming the sentence is a question (though the question mark is missing as\nit's lyrics), `試されてゆくはずでしょう？` is meaning \"It must be tested in the future,\nright?\".\n\nIf it's a declarative sentence, its meaning is ambiguous since the usage is\nunusual. However, it might be interpreted as being equivalent to `試されてゆくはずだ`\n(here `でしょう` is considered to be used as a substitute for `だ` to enhance its\nlyricism).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-09T11:19:49.130", "id": "93349", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-09T11:19:49.130", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "48934", "parent_id": "93271", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "試されてゆく means \"it will be put to multiple trials as time goes by\", and はずだ\nmeans \"it must be\". \"でしょう\" is added to enhance the belief or desire of the\nauthor in a feminine way. E.g. if you say 必ずくる vs. 必ずくるでしょう, then they both\nmean \"they will for sure come\", but the former sounds a lot more masculine and\n勇ましい, whereas 必ずくるでしょう sounds feminine.\n\nE.g you can shout 必ずくる! but shouting 必ずくるでしょう! is a bit odd (or at least more\nreserved).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-09T13:14:16.427", "id": "93352", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-09T13:14:16.427", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "93271", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "> 1. どうでした?\n> 2. どうだった?\n>\n\n>\n> How was it? / Did it go well?\n\nYes, Sentence 2 is an informal/casual equivalent of 1. Just saying \"どう?\" would\nchange the meaning (\"How is it? / Is it going well?\") because it lacks the\npast marker (た).\n\n> 1. 見てください。\n> 2. 見て。\n>\n\n>\n> (Please) look!\n\nSentence 1 is a polite request and Sentence 2 is an informal request. However,\nI think \"form\" is not the right word to describe this difference, because this\nください is basically a distinct subsidiary verb added after the main verb. These\nare just two different patterns of making a request in Japanese, and neither\nis a different \"form\" of the other. There are other ways of making a request\nwith different nuances (見な, 見てちょうだい, 見てくれ, 見ていただけませんか, ご覧なさい, ご覧あれ, ...), just\nas English has many ways of making a request with different politeness levels,\nincluding \"Please ...\", \"Would you mind if you...\", \"Can you ...\". (EDIT: You\ncan use \"polite/plain _style_ \" or \"polite/informal _style_ \" to distinguish\nthose two expressions.)", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-04T00:46:44.200", "id": "93278", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-04T03:06:34.520", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-04T03:06:34.520", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93272", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "This の marks the genitive case. You can read more\n[here](https://wildnihongo.com/grammar/no-genitive/).\n\nHere, と is used to list nouns exhaustively. Nouns that are listed by this と\ncreate a noun phrase and can therefore occur in places where nouns can:\n\n * 日本一と世界一 | Noun phrase\n\nNote that 話をします is a verb phrase consisting of a noun, 話. This noun is\nmodified by this other one 日本一と世界一 through の, meaning \"a talk **about**\nJapan's best and the world's best.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-03T16:02:58.783", "id": "93276", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-03T16:02:58.783", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45630", "parent_id": "93273", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I am going to plagiarize my own answer here.:\n\n[Understanding the だけ in this\ncontext](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/92942/30454)\n\nI am not suggesting it as a duplicate because I will explain your phrase at\nthe end.\n\nBroadly speaking most of だけ's usages fall under two general categories: a\nnegative sense and a positive one. I think because the negative sense is\ntaught earlier to us Japanese learners, most people are more familiar with\nthat sense. But the other meaning is also very common and unfortunately easily\nconfusable with the negative sense.\n\nThe negative sense functions to limit a degree, scope, or reference, and is\nexplained as:\n\n> 1. 範囲を限定することを表す。「～ばかり」、「～のみ」。([Wiktionary\n> Japanese](https://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%A0%E3%81%91)) \n> in a negative, limiting sense: only, just, limit ([Wiktionary\n> English](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%A0%E3%81%91))\n>\n\nBut here the other sense is invoked in your text:\n\n> 2. 分量・限度・程度を表す。「～ほど」、「～くらい」、「～かぎり」。 \n> in a positive, non-limiting sense: amount, as much as\n>\n\nAs explained in that Wiktionary entry:\n\n> ある程度は肯定的に評価できることを表す。\n>\n> * おんぼろの中古車だが、走るだけましかな。\n> * タイムはともかく、この悪天候下で完走しただけ立派だ。\n>\n\nSo given that this is \"as much as\", 「ほど」 and 「くらい」 are synonyms that might be\nof help. まじめに取り合うだけの価値 means \"as much value as being seriously considered\"\n\nまじめに取り合うだけの価値がない: not worthy of being seriously considered/not worthy of\nserious consideration/attention", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-03T21:13:57.577", "id": "93277", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-03T21:13:57.577", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "30454", "parent_id": "93274", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "**おと** is the word for \"sound\" in general. You'll be using this most of the\ntime.\n\n**ね** is a literary and/or poetic expression that specifically refers to the\npleasant sound from a musical instrument, a bell, or very occasionally an\ninsect. It's basically a shorter equivalent of [音色]{ねいろ}.\n\n**おん** is a technical term that refers to the reading of a syllable/character\n(in linguistic contexts) or the sound of a musical note (do, re mi, ...). When\npeople are seriously talking about phonology or music using difficult words\nsuch as 濁音, 促音, 破裂音, 和音, 半音 and 倍音, they sometimes feel like using おん, too.\nIt's also a counter for such sounds (e.g., ドミソの[3音]{さんおん}).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-04T02:42:04.533", "id": "93280", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-04T03:30:54.937", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-04T03:30:54.937", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93279", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "The structure of this sentence is:\n\n> この場合の[A]というのは、[B]ということ、そして[C]ということ(だ)。 \n> [A] in this case means that [B] and that [C].\n\nAdding brackets might make it easier to parse it:\n\n> この場合の「できる」というのは、「努力を重ねれば成果が出る」ということ、そして「その継続ができる」ということ。\n>\n> \"(The word)「できる」 in this case means 「努力を重ねれば成果が出る」 and 「その継続ができる」.\" / \"By\n> saying 「できる」 in this case, I mean 「努力を重ねれば成果が出る」 and 「その継続ができる」.\"\n\nIt refers to the use of 「できる」 in 自分が **できる** 人間なのだと... in the previous\nsentence.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-04T15:26:07.800", "id": "93284", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-04T15:26:07.800", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "9831", "parent_id": "93283", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Traditionally a 皇太后 is (roughly) either a mother of emperor or a wife of a\nformer emperor. So the current 上皇后 could be called a 皇太后, but is not due to\nthe law.\n\n[Wikipedia::皇太后](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9A%87%E5%A4%AA%E5%90%8E)\n\n>\n> なお、2017年（平成29年）6月16日に公布され[2]、2019年（平成31年）4月30日に施行された[3]、天皇の退位等に関する皇室典範特例法では、第3条で「前条の規定により退位した天皇は、上皇とする。」、4条で「上皇の后は、上皇后とする。」とそれぞれ規定しており、歴史上、太上天皇の配偶者にも用いられてきた「皇太后」称号を使用せず、歴史上、一度も存在しなかった「上皇后（じょうこうごう）」という称号を定めており、議論を呼んでいる。\n\nSo apparently 上皇后 was coined quite recently.\n\nThe article contains how 皇太后 meant differently in different times. Note that\nuntil the end of 平成, there had been no 上皇(太上天皇) = retired emperor in the first\nplace so that the word was not exactly common outside contexts of premodern\nhistory.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-04T23:14:52.007", "id": "93289", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-04T23:14:52.007", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "93285", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "> バラは甘い香りがする\n\nAs you described in your question, it is more natural than latter one since it\nis the characteristic of roses.\n\n> バラは香りが甘い。\n\nYou do not have to specify the smell of roses as a topic in most cases since\nit is common for everyone know the smell, so it sounds bit unnatural.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-05T05:47:18.463", "id": "93290", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-05T05:47:18.463", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "34735", "parent_id": "93286", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "The phrase ひと月後に is a modifier of 迫っています, indicating when the event will draw\nnear. With the modifier removed, the sentence is:\n\n> 千二百年に一度という彗星の来訪が迫っています。\n\nindicating that it is the arrival of the comet that is drawing near (迫っています).\n\nPutting all this together, one translation might be:\n\n> 千二百年に一度という彗星の来訪が、いよいよひと月後に迫っています。\n>\n> Only one more month to go until the imminent arrival of this comet — an\n> event that occurs once every 1,200 years.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-04T22:43:31.387", "id": "93288", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-05T00:57:22.423", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-05T00:57:22.423", "last_editor_user_id": "816", "owner_user_id": "816", "parent_id": "93287", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This is not the particle のに meaning \"even though\", \"despite\", which is\ncomposed of\n準体助詞「の」＋接続助詞「に」([デジタル大辞泉（小学館）](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AB/))\n\nThis is 準体助詞「の」＋ **格助詞** 「に」. (ibid.) The difference is significant, because\nwith a 格助詞 (case particle) what this のに does is first turn the preceding\nphrase into a noun and semantically connect it with what follows. に being a\n格助詞 signifies the semantic relation between the verb phrase(or adjective\nphrase)-turned-noun and the following phrase.\n\nThis happens to parallel how certain prepositions work in English.\n\n> *The tool is convenient for do searches (ungrammatical)\n\nSo turn the part after the preposition \"for\" into a gerund and we get\n\n> The tool is convenient for doing searches\n\nvoila!\n\n> [検索するの]に便利だ\n\nThis means: \"convenient for doing searches\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-05T07:54:30.657", "id": "93292", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-05T08:10:20.243", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-05T08:10:20.243", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "30454", "parent_id": "93291", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "Short answer: not... really.\n\nAs user3856370 pointed out, this is a particle, and is の being used to connect\nthe nouns, and it's extremely important in Japanese. Here it should probably\nbe translated as \"of\".\n\nLong Answer:\n\nの is used to connect all sorts of nouns. I'm not going to go into too much\ndepth because の is pretty complex, but essentially, in Japanese, usually, we\nhave to use の to attribute two nouns together. I guess you could compare it to\nhow in English we can say \"box of tools\" but \"box tools\" sounds pretty\nstrange. Here \"of\" is required to connect the nouns and describe \"box\"\nproperly.\n\nThe confusion here is probably because it's not out of the question to say\n\"Animal Forest\" in English, and indeed in Japanese, occasionally (and frankly\nI don't know when), の can be omitted, but in general, it has to be used.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-06T01:07:31.147", "id": "93300", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-06T01:07:31.147", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "48969", "parent_id": "93294", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "唇に is fine, but 口元に should be more natural (unless the lip is important in the\ncontext in some way or another).\n\n唇まで (or 口元まで) is not wrong but it's not the first choice. It adds a nuance of\n\"until it reaches the lip\" or something like this. See: [How to use へ (-e), に\n(-ni), まで (made) and の方 (no-hō) with destination and\ndirection?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/275/5010)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T02:58:00.030", "id": "93316", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T02:58:00.030", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93295", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Your understanding is just fine. There is no such thing as \"implicit negation\nwith なら\". (I confirmed the original translation is flagged as \"official\"\n[here](https://vocaloidlyrics.fandom.com/wiki/%E8%9B%8D%E3%81%AF%E3%81%84%E3%81%AA%E3%81%8B%E3%81%A3%E3%81%9F_\\(Hotaru_wa_Inakatta\\)),\nbut I couldn't find anything about how it was translated.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T03:12:49.453", "id": "93317", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T03:12:49.453", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93296", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "> もう少しディスプレイが大きいのはありませんか。 \n> Don't you have one with a slightly larger display?\n\nWord order is quite flexible in Japanese. You could certainly move もう少し to be\nin front of 大きい to get ディスプレイがもう少し大きいのはありませんか, and it would not change the\nmeaning.\n\nもう少し大きいディスプレイのはありませんか is ungrammatical. ディスプレイ is already a noun so the の is\nredundant. If you remove の then you have something grammatical but you are\nasking a different question: \"Don't you have a larger display\". You would be\nasking for the display rather than the object that has a display (TV?).\n\n> However, I imagine that saying もう少し大きいディスプレイのはありませんか would mean: \"Do you\n> have a slightly smaller display?\"\n\nI can't understand why you would think this. It suggests that maybe there is\nsomething else about the sentence structure that is tripping you up. Perhaps\nyou could explain further. I also don't know what you mean by the 'extra が'.\nThere is only one が in the sentence.\n\n**Edit to address comments**\n\nTo reiterate, もう少し大きいディスプレイのはありませんか is not grammatical, and it cannot mean \"Do\nyou have a slightly smaller display?\" To ask for a smaller display you would\ntake your original sentence and replace 大きい with 小さい.\n\nNow what about the が? I hope you will agree that ディスプレイが大きい means \"the display\nis big\" and that the が is an important part of this sentence and marks the\nsubject of the sentence.\n\nNow let us consider ディスプレイが大きいテレビ (A TV where the display is big). This is a\n**relative clause**. If you are not familiar with this concept then look it up\n(I think this concept may be the root cause of your confusion). Basically a\nnoun can be described by the clause that precedes it. You see テレビ and ask\n\"what kind of TV\". The answer is \"a TV **where** ディスプレイが大きい\" i.e. \"A TV\n**where** the display is big. 'where', 'whose' etc 'in which' and so on, do\nnot have equivalent words in Japanese. They are handled by this relative\nclause concept.\n\nFinally ディスプレイが大きいの works the same way as ディスプレイが大きいテレビ but instead of テレビ we\nhave a special noun, の, that means \"one\", i.e. \"the one where the display is\nbig\".", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-05T20:15:37.093", "id": "93298", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-05T21:01:37.503", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-05T21:01:37.503", "last_editor_user_id": "7944", "owner_user_id": "7944", "parent_id": "93297", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "The 「で」 here is a locative marker, 「七年後」 being a noun referring to the point\nin time which is 7 years into the future from the time of utterance.\n\nIt's the same 「で」 as in「駅で待ってます」('I am/will be waiting at the station.') where\nit indicates the location the speaker is/will be waiting.\n\nYou would normally use a 「に」 with time expressions in connection with 「待つ」,\nlike 「一時間後にここで待ってます」('I'll be waiting here one hour from now.'), but with the\nline in question, the speaker uses a 「で」 because they are using the \"time-as-\nspace\" metaphor. It's something a time-traveler, who has good reason to think\nof time as space, might aptly say (the term \"time-traveler\" itself is a\nspecimen of such metaphor) though I'm not sure this person is one.\n\nOn the reading of the 「後」. Although I read it as「ご」, and I think more people\nread it that way than 「あと」, 「あと」 is not incorrect. I can imagine myself\nhearing people saying it that way and not being surprised or peeved by it at\nall.\n\nSee the 使い分け section on [後／後／先\nの解説](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/thsrs/15265/meaning/m0u/) (小学館 類語例解辞典)\n\n>\n> １「後(あと)」は、「事件の三日あと」のように、ある事態が起こった時点を基準とする場合のほか、「あとで電話します」のように、現在を基準にする場合にも用いられる。\n\nand the entry for\n「[後(あと)](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E5%BE%8C_%28%E3%81%82%E3%81%A8%29/#jn-5108)」\non デジタル大辞泉.\n\n> ３ ある時点より前。以前。 \n> 「四五日―、おれが処へ来て何といった」\n\nThat said, I have a sneaking suspicion that the preference and/or (the\nperception of) correctness for each reading might vary depending on the\nparticle (and which use of it) and verb phrase that comes after it...", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-06T22:46:36.783", "id": "93310", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T01:10:56.493", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-07T01:10:56.493", "last_editor_user_id": "11575", "owner_user_id": "11575", "parent_id": "93302", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "The dictionary definitions of 利する seem indeed confusing:\n\n> #### [利する](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E5%88%A9%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B/)\n>\n> １ 利益がある。また、利益を得る。「―・するところの大きい事業」 \n> ２ 利益を与える。「双方を―・する取引」 \n> ３ うまく用いる。巧みに使う。利用する。「地形を―・して公園をつくる」「職権を―・する」\n\nBut the most common usage is 2, or \"to benefit someone/something\". The third\ndefinition is the least common. When the object of 利する is a human or an\norganization, I think it always means \"to benefit\". This includes cases where\nthe object is 他 (\"others; other people\").", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T03:21:16.960", "id": "93318", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T03:21:16.960", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "There isn't any significant difference in meaning between the two expressions,\nexcept maybe in some very unlikely situations.\n\nGenerally speaking, if you have the right conditions, \"[noun]の中に\" can be\nswapped for \"[noun]に\" without affecting the meaning in any important way. Take\nthis example:\n\n> (1) バケツの中に水が入っている \n> (2) バケツに水が入っている\n\nYou can justly say that there isn't any semantic difference of importance\nbetween the (1) and (2), insofar as they both state that there is water in a\nbucket. This is because even without \"の中\", what can conceivably be meant is\nthat there is water _in(side)_ the bucket and not in or on any other part of\nthe bucket (the \"入っている\" having the concept of _in-ness_ built in it). Where\nelse in a bucket could water be contained, except, well, in it, under normal\ncircumstances?\n\nThere are, naturally, cases where the meaning change:\n\n> (3) バケツの中に値札が貼ってある \n> (4) バケツに値札が貼ってある\n\nThere is a difference of significance between the two sentences above. (3)\nsays that there is a price tag stuck on the inside of the bucket, while we\ncan't know from (4) where on the bucket the price tag is stuck (because you\ncan conceivably stick a price tag on any surface of a bucket other than the\ninside).\n\nThough things are a bit vague with \"心の中に浮かぶ\" and \"心に浮かぶ\" because they are\nfigurative language, I think it's not unreasonable to think of them in the\nsame way as the pair (1) and (2).\n\nAll that said, though, we can also just think of \"心の中に浮かぶ\" as 'come up\nin(side) my mind' and \"心に浮かぶ\" as 'comes up _on_ our mind' or 'comes up _to_\nour mind' and it will make little difference.\n\nSo, -- to bring this overlong answer to a conclusion -- the bottom line is\nthat as idiomatic phrases, \"心の中に浮かぶ\" and \"心に浮かぶ\" mean much the same thing and\nused in much the same way, however you interpret their internal semantics.\n\n(You are on point with the translation of \"ように\" as 'as if'.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-08T02:28:39.660", "id": "93335", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-08T02:28:39.660", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "11575", "parent_id": "93304", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "There is no difference in their meanings.\n\nBasically, within a single word, `onyomi` or `kunyomi` should be aligned. `じ`\nis usually used with onyomi-words, `とき` is for kunyomi-words. Of course, there\nare some exceptions...\n\n`送迎時`: Both `送【そう】` and `迎【げい】` are onyomi, so `送迎時` should be`そうげいじ. Other\nexamples: 入店時【にゅうてんじ】, 非常時【ひじょうじ】\n\n`売り時`: `売る【うる】` is kunyomi thus it will be うりどき. Other examples: 潮時【しおどき】,\n飯時【めしどき】\n\n`しょくじどき` is an exceptional pattern.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T04:43:18.453", "id": "93321", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T04:43:18.453", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "48934", "parent_id": "93305", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "よ works to convey strong emotion here. よ + a question works here like the\nEnglish equivalents of !?, ?! etc. These are together called the Interrobang\n(for more information please look at\n<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrobang>)\n\nEdit: I asked an expert and this is their explanation\n\n'This if i remember correctly Is the explanatory particle. の here is making it\nmore like they speaker wants an explanation or are explaining something. Same\nwith ん except for んです and んだ are a less formal. Here's an article on it since\ni had the same question not too long ago this helped me\n<https://www.tofugu.com/japanese-grammar/explanatory-nda-ndesu-noda-nodesu/>\n\nAnd as far as i know that の without です or だ is just s more casual way of\nputting it but the の still applied the same way so it is like a のですor んです And\ni think ね acts to soften the tone'\n\nYou can check that article to clarify your doubt", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-03-23T06:04:17.410", "id": "93803", "last_activity_date": "2022-03-23T12:32:32.690", "last_edit_date": "2022-03-23T12:32:32.690", "last_editor_user_id": "50886", "owner_user_id": "50886", "parent_id": "93306", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "In a strong tone, the one without よ sounds accusative and よ makes it\nbewildered. There’s no much difference in a casual tone, but if at all, the\none without よ leans to sounding curios while the one with it suspicious.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-08-16T14:00:11.087", "id": "100676", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-16T14:00:11.087", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4092", "parent_id": "93306", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "`侵入された` can only be 受身. The latter description in the second link is just\nexplaining 助動詞 `れる` itself.\n\nP.S. I'm not familiar with this content but it seems five girls are characters\nof \"holoX\", and their base(?) was invaded by the man \"YAGOO\", who produced\nthese contents.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T00:55:32.277", "id": "93311", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T00:55:32.277", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "48934", "parent_id": "93307", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This 何といって is an outdated way of saying\n[これといって](https://jisho.org/word/%E3%81%93%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A8%E8%A8%80%E3%81%86)\n(\"(not) in particular\"). It's used with some sort of negation.\n\n> この主人は何といって人に勝れて出来る事もないが、…… \n> = この主人はこれといって人に勝れて出来る事もないが、……\n>\n> There is _nothing_ this master can do better than others _in particular_...\n\nなんということはない (\"There is nothing wrong in particular\"; \"Not particularly\ndifficult\") is still commonly used as a set phrase, but なんといって(～ない) is fairly\nuncommon today. Lastly, this has nothing to do with なんといっても/なんてったって/なんたって,\nwhich is much more common.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T04:02:40.837", "id": "93320", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T04:02:40.837", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93308", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "In the standard dialect,\n\"[どない](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%A9%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84/)\" would\nbe \"どう\", \"どんな(に)\" or \"どのよう(に)\".\n\nAnd \"どないも\" would be\n\"[どうにも](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%A9%E3%81%86%E3%81%AB%E3%82%82/)\",\nmeaning \"no matter what\", \"for one's life\", \"if one's life depended on it\",\netc.\n\nSo the line translates to something like\n\n> Yeah, I'm hearing the president's driver isn't feeling well and no good (for\n> work) if his life depended on it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T02:48:46.170", "id": "93314", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T02:48:46.170", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "11575", "parent_id": "93309", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This ように is \"like\" rather than \"in order to\". In other words, it indicates\nthis gesture of a referee is something that resembles 掲げる but not the most\ntypical 掲げる action. 手を掲げる usually means raising **one** hand **high** over\none's head, as shown in [these image search\nresults](https://search.yahoo.co.jp/image/search?p=%22%E6%89%8B%E3%82%92%E6%8E%B2%E3%81%92%E3%82%8B%22).\nThe gesture described in your sentence should be slightly different from this.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T02:20:23.753", "id": "93313", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T02:20:23.753", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93312", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "攻めた/攻めてる basically means \"aggressive\" _in a positive sense_. It's an antonym\nof \"modest\" or \"conservative\".\n\nWhat is considered 攻めてる格好 largely depends on the context. If someone's outfit\nis relatively more eye-catching or fashionable than usual, that alone can be a\nreason one would say 攻めてる. An otaku might be told \"攻めてる!\" just by dressing\nlike a normal person. And it can be closer to \"outrageous\" if used\nsarcastically and euphemistically. Try an image search for\n[攻めた服装](https://search.yahoo.co.jp/image/search?p=%E6%94%BB%E3%82%81%E3%81%9F%E6%9C%8D%E8%A3%85),\nand you'll find a lot of people dressed in extraordinary ways.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T03:44:13.890", "id": "93319", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T03:49:14.583", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-07T03:49:14.583", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93315", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "IMO 攻める implies someone is intentionally taking additional risk to get a\nbigger reward. In fashion, it would mean someone is choosing something that\ncould backfire in order to look good.\n\nIt's also often used in a sarcastic manner (なかなか攻めてきたね笑 etc.).\n\nI can't agree with @naruto's statement that \"An otaku might be told \"攻めてる!\"\njust by dressing like a normal person.\". IMO if it really is normal clothes it\ncan't be classified as additional risk. Though if an otaku dresses especially\nfashionably then I think that would work.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T17:10:54.023", "id": "93326", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T17:10:54.023", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "93315", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "[デジタル大辞泉](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E6%94%BB%E3%82%81%E3%82%8B/) has\na relevant definition in its entry for the verb \"攻める\".\n\n> ２ 俗に、物事を無難にすませず、積極的な態度をとる。「―・めてるファッション」\n\nSo \"攻めた格好\" would mean a fashion style that is 積極的 -- 'bold', 'daring',\n'enterprising' -- rather than 無難 -- 'tame', 'conservative', 'playing it safe'\n-- though it does not necessarily implicate the sense of extremeness or\nimpropriety as I think \"outrageous\" does.\n\nAnd I'm pretty sure that is the sense in which \"攻めた格好\" is used by the\ncharacter and in which \"攻めた服\" is used by the people who assigned that label to\nthe images you found.\n\nThe problem is that even if the sense or definition of a word/phrase is agreed\nupon, the matter of what things actually fit that definition may be left to\nsubjective judgement. In such cases, trying to figure out the meaning of the\nword/phrase from things it is applied to can be a less-than-ideal way.\n\nEven though people share the same understanding of the meaning of, say,\n\"おいしい食べ物\" ('delicious food') -- 'edible things that are pleasant to the sense\nof taste' -- the set of things that actually fit that description varies\nsomewhat from person to person. Anyone's list will be largely made up of\nthings you do consider are indeed delicious foods, but it is bound to contain\na few that you don't, and if you are not too sure about the meaning of the\nphrase, that can make you think twice.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T21:31:58.073", "id": "93328", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T21:31:58.073", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "11575", "parent_id": "93315", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "適切 is formal and means the action or the thing addresses the situation well.\nExamples are 適切な対応、適切な額、etc.\n\n適当 can be used in a similar manner to 適切, but the \"quality\" of the action or\nthing could be lower than 適切. E.g. one can say\n「適切な対応とまでは言えないが、適当な対応をしたといえる」but not「適当な対応とまでは言えないが、適切な対応をしたといえる」because 適切な対応\nimplies a slightly higher quality. Importantly, 適当 can also be used in a\ndifferent meaning (sometimes written as テキトー) in which case it means \"sloppy\",\n\"halfhearted\" etc.\n\n相応 can imply even lower quality, and means more like \"matches the situation\"\nor \"can satisfy the requirement\". E.g. if someone says 相応の対応をしなさい, then it can\nmean \"do the minimum appropriate\". However the emphasis is on the \"matching\"\npart. Hence, if the corresponding whatever thing has a high quality, then the\nmatching 相応な thing will also have a high quality (e.g. 事業部長の身分に相応な待遇で迎えねば).\n\n相当 has a slightly different flavor and it means \"equivalent\". E.g.\nコウモリの皮膜は鳥の羽に相当する。You can't say 相当な対応 for example. Importantly, it can also be\nused to mean \"considerable amount of\", e.g. 相当な数の人がいる", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T17:46:10.350", "id": "93327", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T17:46:10.350", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "93322", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "僕がすきなのは is the な form of です, modifying の which is a noun that stands in for\nthe 料理... 僕が is the subject of すきです.\n\nThe thing that I like. The one that I like.\n\n\"The food that I like is Thai, not Japanese.\"\n\nYou could say.. \"It is Thai food that I like, not Japanese (food).\"\n\nIf it were 僕がすきな料理は then it is still the subject of すきな. \"The cooking that I\nlike.\"", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-07T15:26:25.733", "id": "93325", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-07T15:36:11.840", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-07T15:36:11.840", "last_editor_user_id": "13941", "owner_user_id": "13941", "parent_id": "93324", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "> But 好き describes the subject as the one being liked. 僕 is not the one we\n> like, right?\n\nIn main clauses, yes, this is true. In \"AはBが好きだ\", B is the one being liked.\nHowever, in relative clauses, you cannot use は, and both A and B can be marked\nwith が:\n\n * AはBが好きだ。 \nA likes B. (literally: As for A, B is a favorite).\n\n * ____Bが好きなA \nA who likes B \n(A has been pulled out)\n\n * A **が** ____好きなB \nB which A likes \n(B has been pulled out, and Aは has been changed to Aが)\n\nSee my previous answers, too:\n\n * [Relative Clause Ambiguous](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/60385/5010)\n * [が in subordinate clauses](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/30171/5010)\n\nYour sentence is a [cleft\nsentence](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/19208/5010), which involves a\ntype of relative clause before the の. This means 僕が好きなのはXだ is indeed an\nambiguous sentence that can technically mean either of the following:\n\n * The thing I like is X. / It's X that I like.\n * The one who likes me is X. / It's X who likes me.\n\nIn your sentence, X corresponds to 日本料理ではなくタイ料理 (\"not Japanese dishes but Thai\ndishes\"), which never loves a person. So the only possible interpretation is\nthe former.\n\nPractically speaking, in more than 90% of the time, 僕が好きなのはXだ should mean\n\"It's X that I like\". But in the following context, 僕が好きなのはXだ clearly means\n\"It's X who like(s) me\".\n\n> この4人の女の子は、みんな太郎と僕のどちらかのことが好きだ。太郎のことが好きなのはAさんとBさんで、 **僕が好きなのは** CさんとDさん **だ**\n> 。 \n> All these four girls like either Taro or me. It's A and B who like Taro,\n> and it's C and D who like me.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-08T01:04:34.553", "id": "93332", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-08T02:21:26.757", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-08T02:21:26.757", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93324", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "You should be a bit more specific in your question, though I understand it's\nhard when you're considering hypotheticals.\n\nI've went ahead and found sentences online:\n\n> 明日買い物して一晩寝たら出発の予定だ\n>\n> We'll go shopping tomorrow and leave after a night's sleep.\n\n[Source](https://ncode.syosetu.com/n1633dr/328/)\n\nHere, note that the して is part of the left side of the たら clause. Note that\nhere たら means \"after\", not \"if\", but it still means something like \"A and B,\nand then after, C\" (the first option you proposed).\n\n> あなたもそんな無理をしてお金を使ったら駄目ですよ。\n>\n> You can't force yourself to spend money like that either.\n\n[Source](https://ncode.syosetu.com/n2617fy/58/)\n\nThis specific construction doesn't seem to be overly popular (or the engines\nI'm using aren't particularly good at finding it). In general, it seems that\nthe て form is the sub-clause inside the たら clause, probably because\nconstructing a reason for it to be interpreted that way is hard. I'd be more\nthan happy to hear a native's opinion though.\n\nI guess, just keep in mind that which clause a part of a sentence is part of\nmight not always be easy to distinguish. It's definitely not out of the\nquestion for it to be parsed the other way.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-08T01:34:19.897", "id": "93333", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-08T01:34:19.897", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "48969", "parent_id": "93331", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "This 持てる is a [set phrase from classical\nJapanese](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/42724/5010) which corresponds\nto 持っている in modern Japanese (\"perfective form\" of 持つ, used attributively,\ni.e., \"which one has gained\" or \"who has gained [things]\"). There is no\npotential sense.\n\n> 持てる力をふりしぼる \n> = 持っている力をふりしぼる\n>\n> to use up all one's strength\n\nGrammatically, it's the realis form (已然形) of 持つ followed by the attributive\nform (連体形) of [り](https://www.hello-school.net/haroajapa009007.htm), an\nauxiliary in classical Japanese.\n\nPractically speaking, you can forget the classical grammar and just remember\nthis as a fixed (or [\"fossil\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_word))\nrentaishi that appears almost exclusively in the following patterns:\n\n * 持てる力, 持てる知識, 持てる能力, 持てる財産, ... \n(all) one's ～; all ～ one has\n\n * 持てる者, 持てる人, 持てる貴族, ... \nhaves (as in \"haves and have-nots\"); wealthy/gifted ～\n\nThese correspond to the fourth and fifth definitions\n[here](https://jisho.org/word/%E6%8C%81%E3%81%A6%E3%82%8B).\n\nSee also: [The meaning of\nモテる](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/91118/5010)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-08T02:37:09.390", "id": "93336", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-08T12:24:36.430", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-08T12:24:36.430", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93334", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "Let me use these labels in this answer:\n\n * **A** : あれは彼 **の** だよ。(の as のもの)\n * **B** : 赤い **の** が欲しい。こんな **の** が欲しい。(の as もの)\n * **C** : 絵を描く **の** が好きだ。(の as a nominalizer)\n * **D** : 彼女は学生な **の** だ。彼は知っている **の** だ。(explanatory-の)\n\n* * *\n\n準体助詞 is not really a widely used term. According to the following links, 準体助詞\ncan be roughly summarized as \"a word which was **originally a 助詞** but has\ngained the role as a (形式)名詞\". Some people believe it's still a special 助詞, and\nsome people believe it's effectively a (形式)名詞 (or a suffix) already.\n\n * [名詞](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%8D%E8%A9%9E) on Wikipedia says **C** is 準体助詞, and says it's called so because it was originally a 助詞.\n\n> 「彼に聞くのがいい」「あちらに着いてからが大事だ」などの「の」「から」も、機能は形式名詞に似るが、 **助詞に由来するので**\n> 準体助詞（準体言助詞）と呼ばれる。\n\n * [助詞](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8A%A9%E8%A9%9E#%E6%BA%96%E4%BD%93%E5%8A%A9%E8%A9%9E) on Wikipedia says **C** is categorized as 格助詞 by some.\n\n>\n> 「彼に聞くのがいい」「あちらに着いてからが大事だ」というときの「の」「から」は、用言の後について体言相当の意味を表す。この機能は形式名詞（「こと」「もの」「ところ」など）と似ているので準体助詞と呼ばれる。\n> **格助詞に含める説と、含めない説がある。**\n\n * [準体助詞](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E6%BA%96%E4%BD%93%E5%8A%A9%E8%A9%9E/) on デジタル大辞泉 says **A** , **B** and **C** are 準体助詞. (But its definition contains ～とする, implying this is not a universally accepted concept.)\n\n> ほとんどが格助詞からの転用。「私のがない」「きれいなのがほしい」「行くのをやめる」の「の」\n\n * [準体助詞](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%BA%96%E4%BD%93%E5%8A%A9%E8%A9%9E-530025) on 精選版日本国語大辞典 says **A** is 準体助詞, but also says many believe it's just a noun.\n\n> これらは、格助詞・係助詞・副助詞、あるいは接尾語としても扱われ、 **形式名詞、あるいは名詞とする説が多い** 。\n\n * [の](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%AE/#jn-171157) and [のだ](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%AE%E3%81%A0/#jn-171961) on デジタル大辞泉 say **A** , **B** , **C** and **D** are all 準体助詞.\n\n * [の](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%AE-596099) and [のだ](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%AE%E3%81%A0-596938) on 精選版日本国語大辞典 say **A** is \"格助詞(準体助詞とする説もある)\", B and C are just 名詞, and D is 格助詞.\n\n * の on 明鏡国語辞典第3版 explains **A** , **B** , **C** and **D** under 助詞, but without using the term 準体助詞 itself.\n\n * Many Wikipedia articles acknowledge **C** and **D** are 準体助詞. See [these search results](https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5:%E6%A4%9C%E7%B4%A2&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=%22%E6%BA%96%E4%BD%93%E5%8A%A9%E8%A9%9E%22).\n\n * Several websites for JSL learners I checked treat の simply as a 形式名詞.\n\nSo all of A, B, C and D might be called (準体)助詞 depending on the writer's\npreference :)\n\nI personally think の in B, C and D can be simply explained as a (形式)名詞. の in A\nis somewhat grammatically special, but it can be explained as a noun-forming\nsuffix, too. Practically speaking, the etymology-based category, 準体助詞, seems\nnot very useful to me. From the standpoint of a modern Japanese speaker, I can\nthink of no practical merit in thiking 寝るのが好き and 寝ることが好き are syntactically\ndifferent, even if this の was etymologically a genitive particle.\n\n(By the way, I personally didn't know の-as-a-nominalizer derived from the\ngenitive case particle の. It's semantically much closer to こと/もの now...)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-09T01:56:30.917", "id": "93346", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-09T17:22:59.937", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-09T17:22:59.937", "last_editor_user_id": "33934", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93338", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Yes, it is. You can explicitly say human relationship with 人間関係.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-08T14:59:10.470", "id": "93341", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-08T14:59:10.470", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "93339", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "なに is a nuance-less \"what\". Anything can fit. どう can be translated as \"what\"\nin some context but usually implies the nuance of a way/path (abstractly\nspeaking) that needs to be taken.\n\n何してるの = What are you doing?\n\nどうしてるの = How are you doing? _This can be both \"How are you?\" and \"What do you\ndo (in this case)?\"_\n\n何しよう = What should we do? _Like you're bored or need to find an activity, and\nwondering what you could do_\n\nどうしよう = What should we do? _There's a situation that needs to be resolved. \"We\nare not making it for the party, what should we do?\"_", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-08T15:03:49.903", "id": "93342", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-08T15:03:49.903", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "93340", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This _is_ って奴か in kanji. [奴【やつ】](https://jisho.org/word/%E5%A5%B4-1) can be a\npronoun for both a person and an inanimate object. 奴 sounds masculine and\nrough. って is short for という here.\n\n> これが夢ってやつか。 \n> ≈ これが夢というものか。\n>\n> This is what people call a dream, huh? \n> This is what dream means, huh?\n\nAnd this これ refers to what has been just mentioned (認められたい 愛したい).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-08T16:04:03.380", "id": "93344", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-08T16:09:43.087", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-08T16:09:43.087", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93343", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "〜がする is used to describe a sound, smell, taste, or certain other sensations\nthat you perceive as coming from a particular thing or place. It is\nessentially about what you perceive at a particular moment rather than a\npermanent quality of whatever evokes that sensation in you. In that sense, it\nis similar in function to 〜が見える and 〜が聞こえる.\n\nSentences like ビールは味が苦い and 納豆は匂いが臭い are redundant and unnatural, where the\nsubject is an abstract noun that refers to a sense and the predicate is an\nadjective that describes what sensation you perceive through that sense. This\nconstruction is closer to 象の鼻は長さが長い than 象は鼻が長い in that the subject is an\nabstract concept rather than a concrete thing like 鼻. This is simply not how\nyou say it. You say ビールは苦い, 納豆は臭い, etc. just as you do 象の鼻は長い.\n\nWhile not exactly redundant, バラは香りが甘い sounds unnatural for a similar reason.\nThe difference is only that you cannot rephrase it to バラは甘い because the\nadjective 甘い is not understood as referring to a smell by itself as 臭い and a\nfew less commonly used adjectives like 芳しい would be. You need a word to make\nit explicit that you are talking about a smell, and バラは甘い香りがする is how you say\nit.\n\nバラは香りがいい sounds natural enough, though. It is understood as focusing on one\nspecific aspect of the topic (バラ) and evaluating it in that aspect in simple\nterms of whether it is good or bad, rather than describing in an open-ended\nmanner what its smell is like as is the case with 甘い. You can also use\nadjectives that describe intensity, such as 強い, in the predicate position like\nthat.\n\nバラは香りが甘い may sound natural as a response to the question “What is sweet about\nroses?,” where the questioner already expects roses to be evaluated in\nsweetness perhaps in comparison with something that is sweet in some other\nsense, most probably taste. Such contexts are not very common.\n\nThough it is hard to answer why, it could be that we don’t see a smell in a\nwhole-part relationship with respect to the thing that emits it so much as we\ndo see a body part as, obviously, part of the owner of the body. I guess a\nsmell is still seen as an ephemeral phenomenon that you perceive at each\ninstance even when you think you are talking about a permanent trait of\nsomething, and this makes バラは甘い香りがする most natural. When the sentence sounds\nnatural with an adjective in the predicate position, the subject (香り) is in a\nway forced to be seen as a part of the topic (バラ), or more precisely as one of\nvarious aspects of it. In other words, the sentence is still more about バラ, as\nseen from a particular aspect, and less about 香り itself. This expected focus\non the topic seems to be distracted if the subject cannot be seen as a part of\nit in the `〜は〜が [Adj]` construction.\n\nバラは甘い香りをしている sounds odd to me, at least if you are talking about roses in\ngeneral. It may be acceptable if you are talking about specific roses with a\nparticularly sweet smell. I would expect the topic to be more specific in that\ncase, like このバラ.\n\n象は長い鼻をしている sounds equally odd to me. 〜をしている is used to describe a natural\ncharacteristic of a particular thing or person as you observe it. For example,\nyou might say something like この象は可愛い目をしている about a particular elephant. When\nyou do so, you are stating your observation. The nose being long is an\nobjective fact about the species, and that is more naturally expressed as\n象は鼻が長い.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-11T07:58:02.477", "id": "93366", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-11T07:58:02.477", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "93345", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "No, this 所 refers to 私大病院. The sentence is the same as the following (bit\nclumsy) sentence:\n\n> 私大病院の研修医の月給は、１０万円以下の病院が約７割を占める。\n\nThat is, among the hospitals attached to private universities, about 70% of\nthem pay less than 100,000 yen per month for residents.\n\nFWIW, junior residents are not assined to a specific section/department yet,\nso residents belonging to the same hospital will be paid equally. 私大病院\n(\"private university hospital\") is very different from 私立病院 (\"private\nhospital\"). The average salary of the latter is usually much higher :)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-09T02:38:06.457", "id": "93348", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-09T02:48:34.813", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-09T02:48:34.813", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93347", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "役目を果たした does imply that the role that was given is now fulfilled, and that it\nwill not be performed anymore. E.g. if you say 役目を果たしたタイヤ then the implication\nis that the tyre has expired and cannot be used anymore.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-09T13:05:36.503", "id": "93351", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-09T13:05:36.503", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "93350", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "In both examples, possessives cannot be omitted.\n\nFirst, in both cases your second sentences are not very natural. Some possible\nalternatives are:\n\n * 1a. (それは)正しい/賢明な判断だね.\n * 1b. (彼の判断は)賢明だね.\n * 2a. (そのパソコンの/は)画質はいい？\n\nAs you can see from 2a, it is sometimes possible to omit possessive phrases.\nEasier examples:\n\n * スマホが壊れた\n * 彼女がパソコンが壊れたと電話してきた\n * 年末にPCを買った。性能はいいが、値段は高かった.\n\nThe first one means _**my** smartphone_, the second _**her** PC_, and the\nthird _**its** specs/price_.\n\nAnother way to look at the examples would be that you can omit the topic when\nit is clear. That is, _(Speaking of his decision to end the relationship with\nher), it is wise_ ; _(As for the PC you bought), is the display good?_ , etc.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-11T23:07:02.543", "id": "93372", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-11T23:48:18.203", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-11T23:48:18.203", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "93353", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I believe this is the 連用形 of\n[惜しむ{をしむ}](https://kobun.weblio.jp/content/%E3%82%92%E3%81%97%E3%82%80) in 古文\n(also called 文語 in some contexts). This is a\n[四段活用](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%9B%E6%AE%B5%E6%B4%BB%E7%94%A8)\nword, so the 活用 table goes something like this:\n\n活用形 | 語形 \n---|--- \n未然形 | をしま \n連用形 | をし **み** \n終止形 | をしむ \n連体形 | をしむ \n已然形 | をしめ \n命令形 | をしめ \n \nThe テ形 then gives 惜しみて. By the same token, 書く's テ形 is 書きて.\n\n* * *\n\n### Why をしむ not おしむ\n\nI was sure this had been explained here on our site, but I unfortunately\ndidn't find a pertinent discussion on this, so I am patching something\ntogether from [Wikipedia](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%92)\n\n([this answer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/18104/is-there-a-\ndifference-between-the-particle-%E3%81%8A-o-and-the-\nparticle-%E3%82%92-wo?noredirect=1) only mentions in passing that the two used\nto be different but merged. Wikipedia presents a much fuller picture)\n\n> **鎌倉時代** \n> ハ行転呼やいくつかの音節の統合により、同じ発音になった仮名が多数生じ、仮名遣いに動揺が見られるようになった。藤原定家（1162年 -\n> 1241年）は仮名遣いを定めるにあたり、『下官集』の「嫌文字事」（文字を嫌ふ事）で60ほどの語について「を・お」「え・へ・ゑ」「ひ・ゐ・い」の仮名遣いの基準を示した。定家の仮名遣いは11世紀後半から12世紀にかけて書写された仮名の文学作品の用例を基準とし、「え・へ・ゑ」「ひ・ゐ・い」のなかには音韻が変化した後の仮名遣いをそのまま採っているものがある。また「を」と「お」の区別は、当時の京都における言葉のアクセントを基準にして「を」が高い音節、「お」が低い音節を表すように仮名遣いを定めた。これは当時「を」と「お」がいずれも\n> /wo/の音になっていたのを、\n> /wo/の音節を含む言葉を仮名で書き分けるための方法として用いたものであった。ただしこのアクセントで以って「を」と「お」を区別することは、11世紀後半に成立した『色葉字類抄』においてすでに見られるものである。\n>\n>\n> しかしアクセントによる区別で仮名を書き分けた結果、定家の仮名遣いでは「を・お」が音韻の変化する以前の仮名遣いとは一致しないものが多く含まれることになった。例えば「置く」（おく）、「送る」（おくる）、「怒る」（おこる）、「音」（おと）、「愚か」（おろか）は本来は「お」であるが、アクセントによる使い分けに従った結果「を」になっており、逆に「荻」（をぎ）、「\n> **惜しむ**\n> 」（をしむ）、「甥」（をひ）、「折る」（をる）も本来は「を」だが「お」になっている。なお「香る」（かをる）、「竿」（さを）、「萎る」（しをる）は本来はいずれも「を」だが、のちの『仮名文字遣』などではいずれも「ほ」の仮名で記されている。\n\nIn short, をしむ became おしむ about 900 years ago as a result of an orthographical\nattempt.\n\n* * *\n\n### 撥音便 (nasal sound change)\n\nAs @Nanigashi points out, this is a 撥音便 (nasal sound change). をし **みて** →をし\n**んで**\n\nFor more, see [this\npage](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9F%B3%E4%BE%BF#%E6%92%A5%E9%9F%B3%E4%BE%BF).\n\n* * *\n\nAnd yes the definition looks apt for the context.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-09T17:21:50.587", "id": "93355", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-15T19:30:48.693", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-15T19:30:48.693", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "30454", "parent_id": "93354", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm a native Japanese speaker, and it sounds like じ to me. It does sound\nslightly \"weaker\" or \"less explosive\" than the first じ (in 人生) if I listen to\nthem carefully, but the second じ (in 踏みにじった) is voiced enough.\n\nIf you heard a clear difference, it may be because じ is pronounced differently\ndepending on its position in a word (i.e.,\n[allophone](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/16272/5010)). じ is typically\npronounced as [d͡ʑi] at the beginning of a word, and [ʑi] in the middle of a\nword. As a native Japanese speaker, [d͡ʑi] and [ʑi] sound almost identical to\nme, but these sound clearly different from unvoiced し ([ɕi]).\n\nRelated (the last one is your question):\n\n * [How to hear the difference between て and で, た and だ, か and が, etc.?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/15776/5010)\n * [Pronunciations of と/ど, た/だ, ち/じ](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/68294/5010)\n * [\"z\" sound, which to choose?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/68584/5010)\n * [When spoken casually, how different do 「た」 and 「だ」 in 「頂きます」 sound to native speakers?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/28487/5010)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-10T02:34:51.933", "id": "93357", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-10T15:14:08.497", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-10T15:14:08.497", "last_editor_user_id": "3097", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93356", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Your ears are picking up on a difference, but strictly speaking it is less\nabout the degree of voicing and more about the degree of sibilance.\n\nI found another sample of a more run-of-the-mill ふみにじった and have created a\naudio file comparing it with your sample:\n\n[Comparison Audio](https://vocaroo.com/1l6AWJaq9s7H)\n\nUsing this audio, I generated a spectrogram with Audacity and manually labeled\nit here:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FucrM.png)\n\nFrom this we can see that your sample is indeed different, in that it has much\nlouder **sibilance** : the higher frequencies normally associated with し,\ngenerated by air moving quickly between a tight passage between your tongue\nand roof of your mouth.\n\nBut, it has nearly equivalent amounts of **voicing** : the lower frequencies\ngenerated from your vocal chords vibrating.\n\n(One note is that the voicing in yours does seem to end a tiny bit earlier in\npreparation for the っ, which also likely contributes to what you are hearing.)\n\nEither way, the presence of voicing throughout the majority of the consonant\nis enough for it to sound like じ as opposed to し to a native speaker in this\ncontext.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-10T16:29:52.637", "id": "93360", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-10T17:28:05.243", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-10T17:28:05.243", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "93356", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "This is an example of a very common pattern in which the 連用形{れんようけい} of a verb\n+ the particle に + a verb of motion like 行くor 来る is used to express the idea\nof **going/coming somewhere in order to do something**. (In case you aren't\nfamiliar with the term 連用形, it's what is sometimes called the \"verb stem\" --\nthat is, the -masu form of the verb, minus the -masu.) You can read about this\npattern and see some other examples\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/54211/usage-of-%E3%81%AB-\nafter-verbs),\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/52693/%E3%81%AB%E8%A1%8C%E3%81%8F-grammar-\nwith-%E8%A1%8C%E3%81%8F-replaced-by-other-verbs.), and\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/80914/why-not-te-form-\nin-%E8%A6%8B%E3%81%AB%E3%81%8F%E3%82%8B).\n\nIn your example, し is the 連用形 of the verb する, as in お使{つか}いをする (to run an\nerrand for someone). And yes, きたら is the 〜たら form of the verb くる, \"to come\"\n(連用形 of くる + たら).\n\nSo\n\n> おじいちゃんにたのまれておつかいをしにこの町にきたら\n\ncould be translated as\n\n> I was asked by my grandfather [or possibly \"by an old man\"] to come to this\n> town on an errand, and when I got here…", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-10T15:06:02.987", "id": "93359", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-10T15:28:02.023", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-10T15:28:02.023", "last_editor_user_id": "33934", "owner_user_id": "33934", "parent_id": "93358", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "\"I was asked by grandpa to run an errand, and when I came to this town an\narrogant crocodile came close...\"\n\nMy best description of しに is probably \"to do\". Since the sentence put together\nis 「おつかいをしに」, you can probably break it down like this:\n\nおつかい- errand を- particle for errand しに- to do\n\n\"To do an errand\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-11T03:17:44.830", "id": "93365", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-11T03:17:44.830", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "40926", "parent_id": "93358", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "The biggest problem of your translation attempt is が. It should never be used\nto introduce a definition of something (or known characteristics of something\nin general). That is to say, the first sentence of a Wikipedia article\nnormally contains は or [とは](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/38576/5010),\nbut never が.\n\n * ミラープロノウンを使用している人 **は** 、話している人の三人称代名詞を使います。\n * ミラープロノウンを使用している人 **とは** 、話している人の三人称代名詞を使う人 **のことです** 。\n\nThe latter sounds better and explicit as an introduction of a new concept.\n\nThere are other minor problems, too. You have no reason to use the teiru-form\nhere. You have ignored \"want\" and \"same\". _Pronoun_ is usually プロ **ナ** ウン if\nyou need to katakanize it, but it's hardly understood by average Japanese\nspeakers.\n\nI suggest something like these:\n\n * ミラープロナウンを使う人は、話している人と同じ三人称代名詞を使って自分のことを指してほしいと思っています。\n * ミラー代名詞を使う人とは、話者と同じ三人称代名詞を使って自分のことを指してほしいと考える人のことです。\n * ミラー代名詞の使用者とは、会話の相手が自らを指すのに使ってほしいものと同一の三人称代名詞を、自分に対しても使ってほしい、と考える人のことです。(free translation, but most comprehensible)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-10T23:09:00.743", "id": "93362", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-10T23:25:37.440", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-10T23:25:37.440", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93361", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "This is enumeration.\n\nIn English we most commonly use ordinal numbers and say \"first/firstly\",\n\"second/secondly\", \"third/thirdly\", \"last/finally\", or we could also use\ncardinal numbers, \"One,...; two,....\" In Japanese informal language, it goes,\n一つ... 一つ...\n\nI took a quick look at your manga page. One fighter is telling the opponent\nwhat they should do/think, based on someone else's teachings. \"First, be happy\nthat you get to meet strong opponents; second, don't think you can't beat the\nopponent and hope to retreat; third, in death find you way to life...\" (really\nrough rendering, since your question is not about the meaning of the lines)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-11T01:32:53.713", "id": "93364", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-11T18:01:03.987", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-11T18:01:03.987", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "30454", "parent_id": "93363", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "There is nothing really special about 話せる. I cannot answer why the dictionary\nyou linked has a separate entry for it. It could be for the second definition,\nwhich is somewhat different from the normal potential sense.\n\nIn general, potential forms (e.g. 話せる), passive forms (e.g. 話される), and\ncausative forms (e.g. 話させる) do have their own inflections. They all conjugate\nas _ru_ -verbs (a.k.a. Group-II or _ichidan_ verbs). You definitely need their\n_ta_ -forms (話せた/話された/話させた) and _te_ -forms (話せて/話されて/話させて) to express tense\nor aspect.\n\nThe potential form of a potential form/verb makes no sense for the very reason\nyou thought 話せられる was strange. As a matter of fact, the following (order-\nsensitive) combinations are all invalid.\n\n * potential-potential (x 話せられる)\n * potential-passive (x 話せられる) [see [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/29727/43676)]\n * potential-causative (x 話せさせる)\n * passive-potential (x 話されられる)\n * passive-passive (x 話されられる)\n * passive-causative (x 話されさせる) [see [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/86605/43676)]\n * causative-causative (x 話させさせる)\n\nThe causative-potential and causative-passive forms are identical. In the case\nof 話す, they are both 話させられる (the causative form being 話させる). This is a valid\nform and usually listed separately as causative-passive in conjugation tables.\nIt has its own _ta_ -form (話させられた) and _te_ -form (話させられて).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-11T15:39:32.103", "id": "93370", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-11T15:39:32.103", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "93368", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Yes, the dictionary breaks out this potential form exactly because it has a\nsecondary meaning (which is derived from the generic potential).\n\nGood monolingual dictionaries also do this. For example:\n\n**Sankoku**\n\n> はな・せ る［話せる］｟自下一｠ \n> **①〈話／わけ〉が よくわかる。 \n> 「あの人は━」** \n> ②「話す」の可能形。\n\n**Daijirin**\n\n> はな・せる[3] 【話せる】 \n> （動サ下一） \n> 〔「話す」の可能動詞形から〕 \n> **話し相手とするに足りる。ものわかりがよい。「うちの親父は━・せる」**\n\n**Shinmeikai**\n\n> はな・せる③ 【話せる】 \n> （自下一） \n> **〔「話す」の可能動詞形〕話や交渉の相手にする値うちがある。 \n> 「話せる〔=思いやりがあり人の気持をよく理解してくれる〕人」**\n\n**Daijisen**\n\n> はな・せる【話せる】 \n> アクセント はなせ↓る \n> **〘動サ下一〙《話すことができる意から》話し相手とするに足りる。物わかりがよい。話が わかる。「うちの校長は―・せる」**\n\n**Meikyo**\n\n> はな・せる【話せる】 \n> ①［自他下一］「話す」の可能形。 \n> 「英語 が／を話せる」 \n> **②［自下一］（①から）話し相手とするに足りる。ものわかりがよい。融通がきく。 \n> 「うちの親は話せる」**\n\n**Nikkoku**\n\n> はな・せる【話】 \n> 〘サ下一〙 （「はなす（話）」の可能動詞） \n> ①話すことができる。 \n> ＊吾輩は猫である（1905−06）〈夏目漱石〉三 \n> 「話せないとすれば〈略〉切角の智識も無用の長物となる」 \n> **②話し相手とするに足りる。物わかりがよく融通がきく。 \n> ＊浄瑠璃・歌枕棣棠花合戦（1746）三 \n> 「コリャ咄せるぞ、面白い」**\n\nIt also occurs for other potential forms that have gained a secondary meaning.\nHere are Sankoku entries for a few such verbs:\n\n> わら・える ［笑える］わらへる｟自下一｠ \n> ①自然に笑ってしまう。 \n> 「ひとりでに笑えてくる」 \n> ②おもしろおかしい。 \n> 「━話」 \n> ☞笑ける。\n\n> な・ける ［泣ける］｟自下一｠ \n> 〔泣くつもりでないのに、自然に〕泣いてしまう。 \n> 「じんと泣けてくる・━話だ」\n\n> い・える ［言える］いへる｟自下一｠ \n> ①〔俗〕そのとおりだ。 \n> 「たしかに それは━」 \n> 〔一九七四年に広まった ことば。「言えてる」の形は一九八〇年代に広まった〕 \n> ②「言う」の可能形。\n\nIt is natural that they would need to make a headword for the potential to be\nable to write the extra meaning somewhere.\n\nHowever, as far as the weird auto-conjugation list in jisho goes, that's just\njunk. These potential-derived verbs are basically intransitive stative verbs,\nmeaning they behave something similar to できる, which you can't add られる or させる\nto either. (Though, I think if you said 社長は話せられる it would borderline work as\nkeigo, though it's an odd thing to say due to the mixing of formality levels.)\nIt's basically just a semantic restriction that it's hard to stack\npotential/passive/etc on top of something already stative, especially when\nthat state is something that is not easily changeable (like being a good\nconversation partner).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-11T16:58:31.330", "id": "93371", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-11T17:10:55.050", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-11T17:10:55.050", "last_editor_user_id": "3097", "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "93368", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Anything is possible since all this is happening in the narrator’s dream. The\nkid might as well have come from the future.\n\nHowever, there is little ambiguity here. The kid specifically says **今から**\nちょうど百年前. It means 100 years before the time of speech, or simply “100 years\nago”. The most natural interpretation would be that the father (the dreamer)\nkilled the kid (a blind man) 100 years ago in their respective earlier lives.\n\nThis interpretation is backed up by facts. 文化五年 is year 1808, and 夢十夜 was\nfirst published in 1908.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-12T00:41:00.387", "id": "93374", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-12T00:41:00.387", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "93373", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "These students didn't know what アップロード and ダウンロード mean. They laughed simply\nbecause アップロード (and by extension, ダウンロード) sounded like a funny nonsense word\nto them.\n\nIn the days of classic\n[ヤンキー](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AD%E3%83%BC_\\(%E4%B8%8D%E8%89%AF%E5%B0%91%E5%B9%B4\\))\nlike the ones depicted in the video, the internet was almost nonexistent. The\nsetting of this video itself is something of a joke.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-12T05:32:53.390", "id": "93377", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-12T05:32:53.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93376", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "The core meaning of this type of `masu-stem + 合う` is \"mutually\". It's\ntypically translated as \"each other\" or \"together\" (4th definition\n[here](https://jisho.org/word/%E5%90%88%E3%81%86)) when the targets are\nhumans, but the targets don't have to be living things. For example, Newton's\nlaw of universal gravitation can be explained as すべての物体は引力を及ぼし **あって** いる.\n\nIn your sentence, 人間や生物 and 環境 are the two things that exert influences\nmutually; humans and animals influence the surrounding environment, and vice\nversa.\n\n * [Usage of 合える with verb stems](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/28012/5010)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-12T15:51:50.103", "id": "93379", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-13T00:16:15.333", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-13T00:16:15.333", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93378", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "> In cases where 日 is productively attached as a suffix to an already complete\n> word, what is the canonical reading of this character?\n\nAssuming the \"canonical reading\" you seek means hiragana, then it's basically\n**び**. This answer is based on my experience, instead of a documented set of\nrules as I couldn't find any.\n\n* * *\n\n> Are there words that are formed this way, but the 日 there would be read e.g.\n> ひ or にち?\n\nYes, the day of blessing - **天赦日** may be read as てんしゃ **にち** , although てんしゃび\nmay work too. I believe this meets your criteria as \"日\" here is indeed\n_productively attached as a suffix, to an already complete word_. From such\npoint of view, 天赦日 is no different from 指定日 you specified as an example.\n\n三が日 ends with にち, but this one doesn't meet your criteria, as it's kind of a\n\"one word\".\n\nBut think about it... according to your criteria, even 翌日 may be applicable.\nYou asked for _\" cases, when a connecting article の is dropped and 日 becomes a\nsuffix, but does not form an entirely new word with its own meaning and\nreading.\"_ so 翌日 (よくじつ) might work depending on how one would interpret your\nrequirement. If you accept this, there are many more possible \"canonical\nreadings\" available.\n\n* * *\n\n> Is there any dictionary that would list this suffix with its reading?\n\nI can't think of one that would provide the output you seek out of the box.\nHowever, any dictionary should suffice if you could manipulate the data. As\nyou're seeking for information on the **trailing** character of a word, one\nmethod would be to fetch all the words, and then filter the results to those\ncontaining a 日 at the end.\n\nThis isn't limited to Japanese, but you may attach 日 to just about any word\nand the result will probably make sense. Some of these made-up words become\npopular among a local group and become a \"standard\" word, but not \"dictionary-\nworthy\". It's similar to slang.\n\nHere is a comparison with practical examples:\n\n**帰社日** I bet many Japanese won't understand this word, let alone a\ndictionary. However in the engineering industry this is a standard word. It's\nthe day an engineer dispatched to a client's office \"returns\" to the direct\nemployer's company to touch base. Clever word, isn't it?\n\n**誕生日** This is definitely in the dictionary as it has established its\nposition as a \"word\".\n\nSo there are countless combinations of \"blah\" + 日 out there, and you can\ncreate one yourself too. But no matter how popular it gets, it's just a pseudo\nword until the scholars approve it.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-13T06:17:24.357", "id": "93384", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-14T00:01:38.510", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-14T00:01:38.510", "last_editor_user_id": "48366", "owner_user_id": "48366", "parent_id": "93380", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "This is a very literary and stilted way of saying 祝福に変える or 祝福へと変える (\"to turn\n(something) _into_ blessing\"). 終わりの鐘 is the subject/topic of the sentence.\n～と変える is not common, but this type of と to mark a \"resultant form/state\" is\nfound in similar expressions:\n\n * [ちりと化すぞ - What is the function of particle と?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/80519/5010)\n * [use of と in 無用の長物と化した](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/61934/5010)\n * [What is the difference between 〜となる and 〜になる?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/108/5010)\n * ～と成す (\"to regard as ～\", \"to use as ～\", \"to turn into ～\")", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-13T10:35:56.740", "id": "93388", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-13T10:44:28.320", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-13T10:44:28.320", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93381", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "いた is the past form of いる, and いった is the past form of 行く. They are Japanese\n[subsidiary verbs](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/18952/5010) with\ncompletely different functions.\n\n * **(-て)いる** : progressive form (\"is V-ing\") or continuation of a resultant state (\"has V-ed\")\n * **(-て)いく** : physically or psychologically going away from the speaker; gradually over time toward the future; do something and leave\n\nWhen used as a subsidiary verb, (-て)いく and (-て)いった are usually written in\nhiragana. See: [Difference between -ていく and\n-てくる](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/676/5010)\n\nFor example:\n\n * 雪は溶けていた。 \nThe snow has (already) melted. \n(Someone only found a wet road and puddles.)\n\n * 雪は溶けていった。 \nThe snow (gradually) melted away. \n(Someone was observing the melting process.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-13T09:48:33.547", "id": "93387", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-13T09:48:33.547", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93383", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "> [こんな(中身のない)詩]を書いてる \n> I write such empty poems\n\n中身のない -- there is no content (this is a の/が replacement)\n\n中身のない詩 -- a poem that has no content, an empty poem\n\nこんな中身のない詩 -- such an empty poem\n\nこんな中身のない詩を書いてる -- I write such empty poems.\n\nI guess from reading you dictionary definition you are thinking that 中身 can\nonly refer to physical content (i.e. a poem with no words), but it can be\nintellectual content, emotional content etc as well.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-13T09:04:29.573", "id": "93386", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-13T09:04:29.573", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7944", "parent_id": "93385", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "It is quotative:\n\n> 「たかが子供」となめてかかる \n> \"think light of (him/her) that '(s/he is) a mere child' \" \n> \"think light of (him/her) as a mere child\"\n\nAlthough technically a sentence adverb, たかが is only used with a nominal\npredicate and never a verb. Thus it is impossible to be parsed as an argument\nof the main verb: なめる or なめてかかる. If you want to say something with a verb\ntogether with たかが, you need to attach ～くらいだ or ～程度だ to make it a noun clause.\n\n> たかがバス停まで走ったくらいで息を切らしてしまった \n> \"got out of breath just by running to the bus stop\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-13T12:10:08.073", "id": "93392", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-13T12:10:08.073", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7810", "parent_id": "93389", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "あたらしいをかえましょう is ungrammatical. あたらしい is an adjective, and the object of a\nsentence (thing marked by を) must be a noun or noun phrase.\n\nあたらしい **の** をかえましょう would be grammatical but it would not have the correct\nmeaning. The の here means 'one' and makes the adjective into a noun phrase.\nThis sentence would mean \"Let's change the new one\". But, you want to change\n**to** the new one, hence に rather than を.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-13T11:55:14.153", "id": "93391", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-13T11:55:14.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7944", "parent_id": "93390", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "A simple way to understand the さすがに would be that it is a synonym for やはり. For\nthe particular example, not to say the joke is expected from the situation.\n\nMore specifically, the following definitions would be relevant.\n\n * 予想・期待したことを、事実として納得するさま。また、その事実に改めて感心するさま。なるほど、やはり。「一人暮らしは―に寂しい」「―（は）ベテランだ」 ([デジタル大辞泉](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E6%B5%81%E7%9F%B3/#jn-88035))\n * しかるべき原因が当然の帰結を生んだこと、本性が発揮されたこと、実力や評判に背かないことについて、改めて感嘆するさま。 ([日本国語大辞典](https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%95%E3%81%99%E3%81%8C))\n\nIn the case of the example, しかるべき原因(the situation) caused 当然の帰結(not to say the\njoke). (Note there is no element of exclamation).\n\nBasically this さすがに means that doing things otherwise (saying a joke, in the\nexample) is inappropriate in the situation.\n\n* * *\n\nExample: An employee is going to quit his job. He has a meeting with his\nsupervisor and is told that he will be promoted. Then the employee would think\nもうすぐ辞めますとはさすがに言えない. (Well, of course he would have to eventually...).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-14T03:22:33.433", "id": "93403", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-14T04:01:59.550", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-14T04:01:59.550", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "93394", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I would usually use `「〇〇の反対」` to express the idea of `'the opposite of 〇〇'`.\n\nLooking at it another way, you can use the word `反対語` to mean `antonym` (e.g.\nif you are using an online thesaurus to search for the same).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-13T15:57:17.407", "id": "93396", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-13T15:57:17.407", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "33435", "parent_id": "93395", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Here's the actual conversation.\n\n> **アツコ** ：クチュル・カテラ・フラーラ！\n>\n> (A furious monster appears)\n>\n> **アツコ** ：なにこれ、さっきの呪文なんだったの？ \n> **スーシィ** ：「馬鹿め、悔しかったら私を食べな」って意味。 \n> **アツコ** ：はぁ？ \n> **スーシィ**\n> ：アルクトゥルスの森にしかいない、伝説のコカトリス。羽には猛毒があると言われている。猛毒コレクターにとっちゃ超レアアイテム。そいつの気を引きつけてー、その間に羽を取るから。 \n> **アツコ** ：はぁ、つまり私たちは囮ってこと？ \n> **スーシィ** ：違う、生け贄！ さっきのもういちど唱えてー！ \n> **アツコ** ：唱えるかぁー！\n\nIn this context, the last line means \"No way\", \"Heck no\", etc. It's basically\na rhetorical question. See: [「知るか」 and variant\nphrases](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/72376/5010)\n\nAs explained in the linked page, 唱えるか can mean both \"Okay let me cast it\" or\n\"No way will I cast it!\" depending on the context and the intonation. We need\nsufficient context or the audio to know which is intended.\n\n唱えるもんか (唱えるものか) also works in this situation, but that doesn't mean 唱えるか is\nits abbreviation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-14T02:48:35.217", "id": "93402", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-14T03:44:51.650", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-14T03:44:51.650", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93397", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "It's an uncommon variant of 終わる. For the background, read this question:\n[What's the difference between 落す and\n落とす?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/36568/5010)\n\nAlthough 終る is officially \"allowed\" (because it was traditionally used in the\npast when the language was not very standardized), it looks outdated, is no\nlonger taught at school, and may be considered wrong in exams. 終わる is always\nsafer in modern Japanese.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-13T22:46:43.710", "id": "93399", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-13T22:52:17.383", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-13T22:52:17.383", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93398", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "It's a question marker か followed by a sentence-final particle よ. This\ncombination does sound masculine, like an informal conversation between two\nyoung male friends, but it's used also by young female speakers in slangy\nspeech.\n\n明鏡国語辞典 defines this as follows:\n\n> ### よ\n>\n> ❸《疑問の語や質問の文に付いて》質問・反問に **詰問・反駁** の意を添える。\n> 「こんなことしたの誰だよ」「一体何考えてるのよ」「おまえなんかにできるかよ」「そんなこと言えた義理かよ」\n>\n> 【使い方】\n> 常体に使うのが普通で、「誰が行きますかよぅ」などと敬体に使うと、皮肉な調子が出る。「誰だよ」「できるかよ」など、「だよ」「かよ」の形は女性にはあまり使われない。\n\nSo basically this type of よ adds a nuance of rebuttal, accusation or\nirritation. The closest equivalent in English I can think of would be \"come\non\" as in \"Come on, are you serious?\"\n\nかよ can form both a genuine question and a rhetorical question, and お前は寂しくないのかよ\nis not a rhetorical question. As compared to お前は寂しくないの(か), it sounds like the\nspeaker is dubious and serious. Note that this is not necessarily rude as long\nas it's used appropriately between friends. Also note that よ outside questions\nare totally different.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-14T05:26:26.360", "id": "93404", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-14T05:32:29.927", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-14T05:32:29.927", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93401", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "No overthinking required, `-たら` defines an accomplished situation. `いいか` is\nsimply asking if the situation is good.\n\n> 友達に何を贈ったらいいですか。\n\nWhat can I give to my friend so that it's good? (What should I give to my\nfriend?)\n\n> 何処で日本円に両替したらいいですか\n\nWhere can I change jpy so that it's good? (Where should I change jpy?)\n\nIt can also be used in open questions like:\n\n> 一緒にお出かけしたらどう？\n\nWhat do you think of the situation of us going out together? (How about we go\nout?)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-14T16:14:28.153", "id": "93408", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-15T01:24:22.523", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-15T01:24:22.523", "last_editor_user_id": "1065", "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "93405", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "They have different meanings. Please look up each word in a dictionary. 能天気な人\n([jisho.org](https://jisho.org/word/%E8%83%BD%E5%A4%A9%E6%B0%97),\n[ALC](https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E8%83%BD%E5%A4%A9%E6%B0%97)) refers to\nsomeone who is carefree or optimistic to a fault, someone who doesn't get\nserious or feel anxious even when they should. おっちょこちょいな人\n([jisho.org](https://jisho.org/word/%E3%81%8A%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A1%E3%82%87%E3%81%93%E3%81%A1%E3%82%87%E3%81%84),\n[ALC](https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E3%81%8A%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A1%E3%82%87%E3%81%93%E3%81%A1%E3%82%87%E3%81%84))\nrefers to someone who is careless and makes many simple (but usually non-\ncritical) mistakes such as forgetting an umbrella or blackening a pancake.\n\n**EDIT** : As Nanigashi pointed out, jisho.org's definition of 能天気 may be\nmisleading. Monolingual dictionaries explicitly say or at least imply 能天気 is\nderogatory (see\n[this](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E8%83%BD%E5%A4%A9%E6%B0%97/) and\n[this](https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E8%83%BD%E5%A4%A9%E6%B0%97)).", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-14T08:10:11.107", "id": "93407", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-15T00:19:51.300", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-15T00:19:51.300", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93406", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "First, please note that the text you have quoted doesn't say かぐや, as in your\ngloss, but かくや. As you can see from [this dictionary\nentry](https://kobun.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%8B%E3%81%8F%E3%82%84), かくや is a\nclassical Japanese collocation that roughly corresponds to modern Japanese\nこんなだろうか. In English, it's something like \"[is/was X] perhaps like this?\"\n\nWith that in mind, a stilted, overly literal, word-by-word translation of the\nphrase you're asking about would be something along the lines of\n\n> my adorableness, about which it was thought \"was the time when Genji was a\n> baby also perhaps like this?\"\n\nOf course, that's more or less incomprehensible in English, so if you were\ntranslating this sentence you'd probably want to go with something more\nidiomatic, like\n\n> my appearance, which was so adorable that it evoked that of the infant\n> Prince Genji himself.\n\nAs for how this phrase relates to the rest of the sentence, your question\nabout whether there might be a \"hidden と\" suggests that you are very much on\nthe right track. This phrase and the one that follows (邪念のかけらもないその笑顔) do in\nfact form a compound subject (or topic, if you prefer) for the phrase\n郷里の山野を愛の光で満たした.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-14T21:45:38.523", "id": "93411", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-14T22:03:27.467", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-14T22:03:27.467", "last_editor_user_id": "33934", "owner_user_id": "33934", "parent_id": "93409", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "In kanji, it's 開けっ放し, not \"開けっぱ + 無し\". Here `っぱなし` is a kind of suffix that\nadds the nuance of \"(do ～ and) leave it\".\n\n * [What is the difference in terms of grammar between ～かける and ～っぱなし?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/5860/5010)\n * [っ放し in 実用日本語表現辞典](https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%A3%E6%94%BE%E3%81%97)\n\n>\n> その動作が持続しているさま、その状態のまま放置されている様子などを意味する表現。行為の後、後始末をせずに置くという意味合いの強いことも多い。「扉を開けっ放しにする」「コンクリートの打ちっぱなし」「投げっぱなしジャーマンスープレックス」「打ちっぱなしゴルフ練習場」など。\n\nThat said, 開けっぱ is occasionally used slangily as an abbreviation of 開けっ放し.\n\n * 窓が開けっ放しになっている。(standard) \n≈ 窓が開けっぱになってる。(slang) \nThe window is left open.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-15T00:12:51.850", "id": "93414", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-15T00:12:51.850", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93413", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "blah **っぱなし** equals blah **っ放し** , which is also equal to blah **放し**.\n\n開け **っぱなし** → 開け **っ放し** → 開け **放し**\n\nSo to answer your question\n\n> What's the grammar of っぱ?\n\n\"〜っぱなし\" is derived from \"〜放し\".\n\nWhen saying the word out loud, definitely the っ kicks in. Literally\npronouncing without the っ will sound weird and may lead to confusion.\n\nGoing the other direction, we may also say 開けっぱ, which is close to slang.\n\ne.g. _冷蔵庫が開けっぱ_", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-15T00:14:50.713", "id": "93415", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-15T00:14:50.713", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "48366", "parent_id": "93413", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "You need to understand (～した)もの and ～になります separately.\n\n(～した)もの is a relative clause modifying もの (\"thing\"). It literally means \"a\nthing/product where someone ～ed\", i.e., \"a thing obtained by ～ing\".\n\n * 野菜を揚げたもの \nfried vegetable (the product made by frying vegetables)\n\n * ペットボトルをリサイクルしたもの \na product made from recycled pet bottles\n\nThis `noun + になります` is a polite (or an \"indirect\") way of saying `noun + です`.\nIn such cases, you need to forget the meaning of \"become\". Store clerks and\nwaiters are typical users of this. See: [What is the difference between 〜となる\nand 〜になる?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/108/5010)\n\n * 彼は弟になります。 \nHe is my brother.\n\n * こちらは1000円になります。 \nThis item costs 1000 yen.\n\n * コーヒーになります。 \nHere's the coffee.\n\n * お手洗いはあちらになります。 \nThe restroom is over there.\n\nTherefore:\n\n> 「私は困っています」をそのまま逐語的に訳したものになります。 \n> It's a literally/verbatim translated version of 私は困っています.\n>\n> 未使用品を買い取りしたものになります。 \n> It's an unused item we purchased (from someone else). \n> (literally: It's a thing (obtained by) buying an unused item.)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-15T05:41:48.633", "id": "93417", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-15T05:41:48.633", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "I think you are right, the grammar rule states that if we are using a noun we\nmust add の. I bet that is a kind of abreviation of that.\n\n<https://jlptsensei.com/learn-japanese-\ngrammar/%E5%BE%8C%E3%81%A7-%E3%81%82%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A7-ato-de-meaning/>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-15T14:04:22.447", "id": "93420", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-15T14:04:22.447", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50575", "parent_id": "93419", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "Generally, the following are possible combinations.\n\n * Noun + [後]{ご} e.g. [食事後]{しょくじご}\n * Noun + の[後]{あと} e.g. 食事の[後]{あと}\n * Verb phrase + [後]{あと} e.g. 食事した[後]{あと}\n\nit depends on each word which of 後 and の後 sounds more natural. 食事後/食事の後 sound\nequally natural to me, but 晩ご飯[後]{ご} does not sound quite idiomatic, at least\nless so than 夕食[後]{ご}.\n\nRoughly speaking, it should be more common to use [後]{ご} with 漢語 and の[後]{あと}\nwith 和語 while there are many that can go with both (like 食事). Also due to this\nnature, [後]{ご} sounds more formal (and thus appropriate for an instruction of\nmedicine).", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-17T04:19:35.933", "id": "93439", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-17T04:19:35.933", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "93419", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "先に literally means _earlier_ and 最初に _first_ although both may be translated\nas _first_ like the examples.\n\nAs for the examples, both mean the same because どっち usually assumes two things\nand what is put earlier is what is put first.\n\nOn the other hand, consider the following when there are three people A, B and\nC.\n\n 1. Aさんが先に来た\n 2. Aさんが最初に来た\n\n2 unambiguously means _A was the first to come_. 1 could mean _A was the\nfirst_ or _A came earlier (than someone the speaker has in mind implicitly)_.\n\n* * *\n\nNote that どれを先にいれるんですか and どれを最初にいれるんですか most probably mean the same even if\nthere are more than two things. I suppose this is just because asking about\nthe second (etc.) thing to put is unlikely.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-15T23:16:05.603", "id": "93430", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-15T23:16:05.603", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "93421", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "まいらす\n([まゐらす](https://kobun.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%BE%E3%82%90%E3%82%89%E3%81%99)\nin historical kana) is an old subsidiary verb that forms a humble expression.\nIt corresponds to お～する or ～申し上げる in modern Japanese. It was originally the\ncausative form of 参る, but it lost its causative meaning just as other\nsubsidiary verbs did. (By the way, this is the direct ancestor of modern ます,\nthe politeness marker.)\n\nまいらせん is まいらす in irrealis form (未然形), followed by [ん/む](https://www.hello-\nschool.net/haroajapa009010.htm), an archaic volitional auxiliary. とて is と思って\nin modern Japanese. 君 was a highly honorific word in those days (see\n[this](https://kobun.weblio.jp/content/%E5%90%9B)).\n\nSo 君を庇ひ参らせんとて is あなた(様)をお守り申し上げようと思って in modern Japanese, or \"thinking I will\nguard you\".", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-15T22:55:09.363", "id": "93429", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-16T00:14:08.900", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-16T00:14:08.900", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93422", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "Short answer: Both Hiragana and Katakana come from kanji, and kanji and its\nstroke order originated in China. So the stroke order for kana mimics that of\nthe kanji. You could make the same argument for ワ, but that's not how its\nkanji origin works.\n\nFor reference, here are the origins:\n\n \n", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-15T20:22:35.197", "id": "93425", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-15T20:32:22.130", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-15T20:32:22.130", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "93423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Unless there is something peculiar to his dialect, it should be read as ながい\n**あいだ**. At least in modern standard Japanese, it's definitely あいだ.\n\n間 read as ま normally means \"pause; interval; break\" or \"timing\", but neither\nof them fits the context. It doesn't refer to a long period of time in\ngeneral.\n\n> #### [ま【間】](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E9%96%93_%28%E3%81%BE%29/)\n>\n> ４ 連続している事と事のあいだの時間。ひま。いとま。「食事をする―もない」 \n> ５ 話の中に適当にとる無言の時間。「話は―が大切だ」 \n> ６ 邦楽・舞踊・演劇などで、拍と拍、動作と動作、せりふとせりふなどのあいだの時間的間隔。転じて、リズムやテンポの意に用いる。「―をとる」「―を外す」\n>\n> ７ ちょうどよい折。しおどき。ころあい。機会。「―を見計らう」", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-15T22:29:30.860", "id": "93428", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-16T00:31:24.417", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-16T00:31:24.417", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93424", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "The first example has 知らんや. It's important to note the ending particle や --\nthis is used in Classical Japanese after a suppositional ～む ending to indicate\na rhetorical question with an implied negative outcome, a bit like English\nconstruction \" _would_ he know that?\" → implying that he wouldn't.\n\nThe あらん examples with ～ん (from older suppositional ～む) are not followed by\nthis same negative-rhetorical particle, so the translations into modern\nJapanese phrasing do not include any negative sense.\n\nSee also:\n\n * [This Q&A](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/28850/origin-of-the-word-%e7%83%8f%e6%9c%89/29148#29148) about the term [烏有]{いずくんぞあらんや}, which includes that same ～むや construction.\n * The Kotobank entries for や, such as [in Daijisen here](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%82%84-647430#E3.83.87.E3.82.B8.E3.82.BF.E3.83.AB.E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.B3.89), specifically sense 六.2.イ: 「2.文末用法。㋑反語を表す。…だろうか（いや、そうではない）。」", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-16T00:13:58.637", "id": "93432", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-16T00:13:58.637", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "93431", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "I believe まえから【HLLL】 is (still) the standard pitch accent. The heiban version,\nまえから【LHHH】, is now common, but it sounds a bit チャラい to me. It's fine in\ninformal conversations, but I may find it unfavorable if someone used the\nheiban version in a job interview.\n\n * [Are there any rules to the intonations they are discussing in this video?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/74609/5010)\n * [Pronunciation of パンツ](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/90404/5010)\n\nYou can listen to exaggerated examples in [this\nvideo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6gr7Ljl0x8). Many words including\n待ってて【LHHH】 and ホール【LHH】 have been heibanified.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-16T02:56:43.273", "id": "93434", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-16T03:05:28.970", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-16T03:05:28.970", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93433", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Personally, I don't find [まえから]{LHHH} in flat accent particularly jarring or\nexcessively informal provided that it is used as a standalone phrase (i.e. not\npreceded by any modifier) **and** 前 is used in the temporal sense, as in this\nexample. This could be because of its similarity in rhythm to other short\ntemporal expressions such as これから, それから and あれから.\n\nIt must be [まえから]{HLLL} if something comes before it, as in 二十年前から, ずっと前から,\netc., **or** 前 is used in the spatial sense.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-16T08:18:57.343", "id": "93437", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-17T14:09:58.010", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-17T14:09:58.010", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "93433", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "Short answer: most probably \"I'm fine\". But it may be used as \"how are you?\"\ntoo, assuming the question mark was omitted.\n\n* * *\n\nYou used the word \"fine\", which is a good translation for \"genki\". So here's\nan example using \"fine\":\n\nDonald: \"Fine?\"\n\nHillary: \"Fine!\"\n\nIn the above scenario, Donald was asking \"(Are you doing) fine?\". Hillary\nanswered \"(Indeed I am doing) fine!\". While not fit for a formal conversation,\nit establishes casual communication. Genki has the same effect:\n\nDonald: \"Genki desu？\" (Are you genki?)\n\nHillary: \"Genki desu！\" (Genki I am!)\n\n* * *\n\nHowever basically the one who asks should add a **\" ka?\"** at the end, to\nclarify that he/she is asking a question: \"Genki desu **ka**?\" verbosely\nexpresses \"Genki **is it**?\" or \"Genki **are you** \"?\n\nTherefore when you see the phrase \"Genki desu\", we can't deny the possibility\nof it being a question, but it probably is a statement saying \"I am fine\".\n\nIf this was a verbal conversation, the pitch accent would help clarify just\nlike how a question mark would.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-17T11:09:09.057", "id": "93443", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-17T23:49:36.897", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-17T23:49:36.897", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "48366", "parent_id": "93441", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Your sentence is perfectly natural. It can be understood as an extension of\nthe \"double-subject\" construction ( **Xは + Yが + predicate** ), which is very\ncommon and natural in Japanese. Xは establishes the topic/scope, and Yが marks\nsome property that belongs to X. In other words, you can think of Yが as \"in\nterms of Y\".\n\n * 私は彼より背が高い。\n * 彼女は僕より頭がいい。\n * 妻は私と性格が似ている。\n * 妹は姉と血液型が違う。\n * LとRは発音が違う。\n\nThe following sentences are also correct, but these are less common in\nJapanese.\n\n * 私の背は彼(の背)より高い。\n * 彼女の頭は僕(の頭)よりいい。\n * 妻の性格は私(の性格)と似ている。\n * 妹の血液型は姉(の血液型)と違う。\n * Lの発音とRの発音は違う。\n\n(The words in parentheses are usually omitted; see [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/77404/5010))\n\nLikewise, in 私は君と意見が違う, 私は君と違う says \"I am different from you\", and 意見が marks\nthe \"properties\" of 私 and 君. 私の意見は君と違う is also perfectly correct but it's not\nreally better than the original. You can also say 私と君とでは意見が違う or 私と君の意見は違う,\nbut 私と君 **と** の意見 makes little sense (it may mean \"the opinion you and I made\ntogether\" in some rare context).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-18T02:29:56.860", "id": "93451", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-18T02:40:20.027", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-18T02:40:20.027", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93442", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Looks like there is no logical reason for this. This is an idiosyncratic\nnotation repeatedly used specifically in the _Higurashi_ franchise (that's\n[why you shouldn't change the context or hide the\ntitle](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2189/5010)). There are native\nspeakers wondering why it's written like that (for example, see [this\nquestion](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1332276568)).\nSome readers may think this weird notation could be a foreshadowing of\nsomething, or some may be reminded of [this suggestive\nlogo](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/37085/5010).\n\nPersonally, I doubt there is something more profound than the [Toys \"R\" Us\nlogo](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_Toys_R_Us.svg). Hardcore\n_Higurashi_ fans may be able to provide a better speculation, but\nunfortunately that is beyond the scope of this site.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-18T01:41:43.863", "id": "93450", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-18T01:57:23.753", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-18T01:57:23.753", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93444", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "It might seem counterintuitive to use this kind of grammatical construction,\nbut wording it like this implies that you want to do the two actions together\nor at the same time. You can certainly say 食べたり飲んだりしたい, but it has the\nimplication of not necessarily doing them at the same time. This expression\nmight be more appropriate if you were talking about, for example, traveling.\n\nメキシコに行って、食べたり飲んだりをしたいです。\n\n\"I want to go to Mexico and eat and drink.\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-17T23:52:13.503", "id": "93448", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-17T23:52:13.503", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50360", "parent_id": "93445", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "食べて飲みたい sounds a bit informal to me, unless what you want to do is perform the\ntwo actions of 食べる and 飲む one after the other in that order. If that’s not\nwhat you mean and you want to be engaged in one activity where eating and\ndrinking are involved, it would be much more natural to say 食べたり飲んだりしたい as you\nsuggest.\n\nThe `V1-て V2-たい` construction sounds completely natural when the order of V1\nand V2 is important. This also includes cases where the association with て\nindicates method or attendant circumstances.\n\n> 居酒屋に行って飲みたい。[sequential actions / means]\n\n> 学校に行って勉強したい。[means]\n\n> 新しい服を着て出かけたい。[attendant circumstances]\n\nRephrasing these with `V1-たり V2-たりしたい` would change their meanings.\n\nWhile it may not be impossible for たい to be associated with only V2 in some\ncontexts, that is much less likely. In most cases, たい works on the whole of\n`V1-て V2`. The semantic link between V1 and V2 tends to be stronger.\n\nEven in the case of 食べて飲みたい, where the two verbs are rather independent from\neach other, most people would still understand it as ［食べて飲み］たい unless context\nstrongly suggests otherwise. I cannot think of a good example for such\ncontexts.\n\nIf V1 is not part of your desire but something you already plan to do, then\nyou should probably consider some other way to say it. For example, the\nfollowing two sentences mean two different things.\n\n> 近くまで行って会いたい。\n>\n> 近くまで行くので会いたい。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-18T05:34:55.360", "id": "93455", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-18T17:11:05.767", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-18T17:11:05.767", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "93445", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "> 眺めてい **た** かった \n> [Someone] **wanted** to keep/stay/be watching it.\n\n眺めていたかった is the past form of 眺めてい **たい** , which is the [tai- (or desire)\nform](https://thetruejapan.com/tai-form-in-japanese/) of 眺めている. There is no\n\"past tense of iru\" in this sentence; the past marker is used only once at the\nend of the sentence.\n\n-たい follows the masu-stem of a verb and conjugates like an i-adjective. Just as the past form of かたい (\"hard\") is かたかった, the past form of -たい is -たかった.\n\n * 食べたい。 \nI want to eat it.\n\n * 食べたかった。 \nI wanted to eat it.\n\n * 食べていたい。 \nI want to be/keep eating it. (progressive)\n\n * 食べていたかった。 \nI wanted to be/keep eating it.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-18T05:01:59.520", "id": "93454", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-18T05:08:13.163", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-18T05:08:13.163", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "93452", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "It means:\n\n\"It's like you're saying 奪ってくれ\"\n\nIn other words, \"You're asking for it.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-18T14:57:18.447", "id": "93456", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-18T15:11:23.383", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-18T15:11:23.383", "last_editor_user_id": "902", "owner_user_id": "902", "parent_id": "93453", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "The verb いる (“to exist” or “to be”) requires a subject and optionally accepts\na location.\n\nIn the case of Japanese such elements can be omitted in the surface sentence\nbut they are inferred. So understanding this sentence requires understanding\nwhat to fill in those two slots.\n\nIn this case, subject = He/She/It (aka クロコ/Croco) , location = Here\n\nSo “He was here”.\n\n“Just” is also sort of implied, so “He was just here”.\n\nBtw if you the read the next sentence 怪しいやつが, that’s actually providing the\nsubject for the first sentence (it’s inverted, aka a piece of grammar called\n倒置法).\n\nSo you could say\n\n“He was just here! That suspicious guy!” (maintain the inversion) or “That\nsuspicious guy was just here!” (collapse the inversion).\n\nAnd finally, in English it’s probably slightly more common to say “I just saw\nthat suspicious guy”, or probably better for this context, “That suspicious\nguy! I just saw him!!” or something like that. The best translation (including\nwhether you use “a” or “that”) would depend on the exact context which I don’t\nremember (it’s been a good two decades since I’ve played this game :)).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-18T20:52:17.377", "id": "93459", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-18T20:52:17.377", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "93458", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "> If it's clear from context that the topic is apples I assume I can omit the\n> object and just say 一個食べた?\n\nTechnically yes, but what's **un** clear is the definition of **clear**. It\ndepends on the time, place, and occasion. There will **always** be people who:\n\n * [complain about being too verbose](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q11227647816)\n\n * complain about being too vague - simply Google \"主語がない\"\n\n * [complain about complaining about being too vague](https://zentoo.hatenablog.com/entry/20130919/1379612426)\n\nThus, it's a brilliant and respectable question which we all benefit from, but\nalso a subjective one.\n\n* * *\n\n> Now suppose that the counter is more explicit about what it counts. 人を一人殺した。\n\nYou're assuming that 一人 is a reserved counter for **people** , but what about\nghosts? Aliens? With such nitpicking aside, yes our common sense tells us it's\nprobably a human being. Then:\n\n> 人を一人殺した。 I killed one person.\n\nyour translation is wrong. Nowhere does is state **I** killed one person. You\nhave just joined the 主語がない people.\n\nBut, if you were to show up to your lawyer's office holding a bloody knife,\nthe **I** is indeed unnecessary. The surrounding atmosphere implicitly\nprovides the 主語.\n\n* * *\n\n**Redundancy of 人を in \"人を一人殺した\"**\n\nYes, it's technically redundant, but it's natural to add the 人を for some\nstrange reason. This is hard to explain, but the nuance is:\n\n**- 一人殺した** \"Killed one (human being)\" - totally natural for a sniper to say\n\n**- 人を一人殺した** \"Killed a person\" - a bit more dramatic\n\nThe 人を doesn't simply clarify that it was a human being. Sometimes a novel\nwould tweak 人を to **ヒト** を to emphasize the fact that it's a person - not just\na Homo Sapiens (or vice versa).\n\n* * *\n\n> So what about with an intransitive verb? Is this natural: 一人だけ残っている。 Only\n> one person remains\n\nHere's my personal opinion:\n\n**Question: \"What's the situation in the battlefield?\"**\n\nAnswer: \"人が一人だけ残っている\" ← Natural\n\nAnswer: \"一人だけ残っている\" ← Vague, better to add 人が\n\n* * *\n\n**Q. \"How many people are left in the battlefield?\"**\n\nAnswer: \"人が一人だけ残っている。\" ← Redundant, no need for 人が\n\nAnswer. \"一人だけ残っている。\" ← Natural\n\n* * *\n\nWe mustn't forget that although we choose the appropriate counter/units, it is\n**not** the counter/unit's job to clarify **what** we're talking about. If I\nwere to say \"I have 16GB in my PC\" obviously I'm talking about RAM and this\nmakes sense, but \"I have 16GB of RAM in my PC\" is appropriate and natural.\nEven if \"GB\" was a reserved unit just for RAM module sticks, I would still say\n\"16GB of RAM\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-19T12:57:31.150", "id": "93466", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-19T13:21:52.813", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-19T13:21:52.813", "last_editor_user_id": "48366", "owner_user_id": "48366", "parent_id": "93462", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "The omission of a subject or an object comes natural when what is being\nreferred to is clear from the background information, or context, against\nwhich the sentence is uttered, NOT because the same sentence contains a\ncounter that just happens to give you a hint on what it may be, however\nspecific that hint might be.\n\n殺す is a transitive verb. The sentence sounds more complete with a direct\nobject unless what is killed is clear from the context. If it's clear from the\ncontext, the sentence often sounds more natural without it. That's true\nregardless of whether the sentence contains a quantifier like 一人. It doesn't\ncount as context. The object determines the counter, not the other way around.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-09-13T19:52:42.777", "id": "96213", "last_activity_date": "2022-09-13T19:52:42.777", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "93462", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "The XをYに doesn't have much to do with the valency of 完成する. Rather 近代...思想を背景に\nmodifies 完成した as an adverbial phrase, meaning _(Novels) was established with\n近代..思想 as background_.\n\nThe following examples should help to see the pattern.\n\n * 彼は貯金を元手に起業した. _He started a company with his savings as the starting capital._\n * 彼は忙しさを盾に家事をさぼっている. _He doesn't do chores, using busyness as an excuse (lit. with busyness as a shield)._\n * 彼は親の地位を後ろ盾に出世した. _He made his career with the support of his parent's status._\n\nI think generally it is a good starting point to think _XをYに = with X as Y_.\n\n* * *\n\nNote the relevant definition of\n[背景](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E8%83%8C%E6%99%AF/#jn-173659) here:\n\n * 物事の背後にある事情。また、裏から支える勢力。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-19T12:13:16.143", "id": "93464", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-19T12:13:16.143", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "93463", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "中上級を教える人のための日本語文法ハンドブック lists the following sentence as an example of neutral\ndescription (中立叙述) with が and an adjective.\n\n> (2) （登山で山頂に着いたとき）あー、空気がうまい。\n\nThe explanations are as follows.\n\n> ◆「が」が中立叙述になるのは次のような場合です。 \n>\n> ◆第一は(1)や(2)のように何かを発見してそのまま述べる場合です。これは基本的に話しことばに限られます。この場合のテンスは基本的に現在ですが、次のようにタ形が来ることもあります。 \n> \n> (7) あっ、バスが来た。\n\n>\n> ◆初級編§27で見たように、述語が形容詞の場合には「は」が使われるのが普通ですが、(2)や(9)のような五官で感じたことをそのまま述べる場合には中立叙述の「が」が使われます。 \n> \n> (9) （真冬に外に出た瞬間）風が冷たい。\n\nYour example of 海がきれい falls in the same category. きれい itself must be an\n“adjective of permanent states,” and therefore, is indeed usually used with は,\nas in 花子はきれいだ.\n\nI don’t know what adjectives truly qualify as “adjectives that represent state\nchange.” This definition seems misleading. The only explanation I can come up\nwith that uses the term \"state change\" is something like the きれい in 海がきれい\nreflects a \"state change\" that has happened in the speaker’s mind, unlike in\n花子はきれいだ.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-22T07:50:45.293", "id": "93506", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-22T07:50:45.293", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "93465", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "There is no such word (AFAIK) in Japanese, for two reasons:\n\n**Reason 1**\n\nExample: half-human + half-cow (bull, ox, etc.):\n\n * If it was a family of Minotaur, it would be a **怪物**\n\n * If it was a family of [Kudan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudan_\\(y%C5%8Dkai\\)), it would be a **妖怪**\n\nWe tend to categorize a group of similar bodies depending on perspective:\nterrorist/holy-warrior, rotting/fermenting. Thus a creature may be: 怪物, 獣, 神,\n神獣, 動物, 知的生命体, etc. for unreasonable reasons. Talk about double standards and\nracism.\n\nTherefore, we have no choice but to describe the creature using appropriate\nterms:\n\n * Mr. Minotaur is a: **半分人、半分牛の姿をした怪物**\n * Mr. Kudan is a: **半分人、半分牛の姿をした妖怪**\n\nIn terms of Sphinx, she's in a totally different league, as she's closer to\ngod.\n\n**Reason 2**\n\nIf I'm correct, I believe you're talking **dualism** , which is a conceptual\nrepresentation of how two components reside among one entity of a system.\nThen, the Egyptian version of Sphinx would fit in, but the Greek version\n(child of Orthrus) with at least three or sometimes four (human + lion + bird\n+ snake/serpent) components would not. It would be blasphemous to include her\nin the example of dualism.\n\nAs mentioned in comments, 半獣 may sound good at first, if we ignore the fact\nsome of those \"creatures\" are not 獣. But there's a bigger problem with the\n**半** :\n\n**半** in **半** 獣 doesn't necessarily mean the system is composed of 1/2 + 1/2.\nThe concept of **半ば** allows interpretation that as long as there is **at\nleast one** component that satisfies 1/2, the requirement is satisfied. Thus:\n\n * ManBearPig = 半獣 (because it is half human)\n * ManBearPig ≠ dualism (because there are three components)\n\nTherefore, 半獣 ≠ dualism. And there is most probably no word that satisfies the\ncriteria you seek.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-21T04:39:14.720", "id": "93483", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-21T04:50:38.977", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-21T04:50:38.977", "last_editor_user_id": "48366", "owner_user_id": "48366", "parent_id": "93468", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Plagiarizing [this chiebukuro\nanswer](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q10244782295?__ysp=5p2%2B),\nthere do exist some theories that both are related etymologically, but it is\nmore likely that 松 derived from 待つ, rather than the two words share some root\nword.\n\nCopying from the answer:\n\n> ■『新明解語源辞典』小松寿雄，鈴木英夫. 三省堂. 2011\n> 語源について、[門松](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%96%80%E6%9D%BE)を飾るように神を「待つ」ことからマツになったという説、葉がまつげに似ているところからという説など種々あるが、不明。\n\n> ■『日本語源広辞苑 増補版』増井金典.ミネルバ書房.2012 まつ【松】\n> 松の語源は、二説あります。説1は、松は「松(別項参照)」が、語源だとする説です。常緑樹なので、長寿、慶賀を表す木とされてきました。(中略)神の降りていらっしゃるところは、清浄な場所であり、そこに生えている木が、不思議に常緑の針葉樹でしたので、その木を、「神の待つ木」と呼んだのです。(中略)説2は、「保つ、モツの音韻変化」語源説です。松の緑が長くモツと言う説ですが、付会のようで疑問です\n\nRoughly, the idea is that the evergreen nature of pine is connected to\ndivinity and the tree is associated with 神が待つ/神を待つ, hence the word 松.\n\n* * *\n\nAlso 松/待つ is a very common pun (e.g.\n[this](https://ogurasansou.jp.net/columns/hyakunin/2017/10/17/1032/)) in\nJapanese traditional poems.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-19T23:47:46.080", "id": "93470", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-19T23:47:46.080", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "93469", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "@[sundowner](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/users/45489/)'s answer is a\ngood one. To add onto that, the entries over at the\n[語源【ごげん】由来【ゆらい】辞典【じてん】](https://gogen-yurai.jp/matsu/) (\"Etymology Derivation\nDictionary\", formerly _Gogen Allguide_ ) and the\n[日本辞典](http://www.nihonjiten.com/data/46442.html) (\"Japan Dictionary\",\nparticularly their 生物【せいぶつ】語源【ごげん】辞典【じてん】 or \"Living Thing Etymology\nDictionary\" section) list some additional theories, to which I add my\ncommentary. I've ordered the theories roughly from least likely to most, based\non my own understanding.\n\n * Shift from まつげ (\"eyelash\"), from the way that pine needles might look like eyelashes ([EDD](https://gogen-yurai.jp/matsu/)).\n\n * Problematic. I personally think the analogy is a bit of a stretch -- I've never looked at pine needles and thought, _\" hmm, those look like eyelashes.\"_ \nMoreover, the term まつげ [is attested since at least\n850](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%9D%AB%E3%83%BB%E7%9D%AB%E6%AF%9B-388019),\nwhen the Old Japanese possessive particle つ was probably still recognized as a\nparticle -- so the compound meaning of 目【ま】つ毛【げ】 or \"eye's hair\" would have\nstill been fully recognized. This makes it extremely unlikely that 目【ま】つ毛【げ】\nwould be shortened to 目【ま】つ or literally \"eye's\", but with a sense of \"pine\ntree\".\n\n * Shift from 真【ま】常【と】の木【き】 (literally \"true eternal tree\"), from the idea of the pine being an evergreen ([JD](http://www.nihonjiten.com/data/46442.html)).\n\n * Problematic. In the oldest compounds, it is found with the possessive particle つ, not の, as in constructions like 常【とこ】つ国【くに】 or 常【とこ】つ御門【みかど】. In addition, 常 appears as とこ or とき in compounds, not just as と: I can find no record of any 真【ま】常【と】 anywhere. Even assuming the existence of 真【ま】常【と】, there is no clear phonological reason for と to shift to つ.\n * Shift from 祭【まつ】る (\"to enshrine; to worship something holy\") ([EDD](https://gogen-yurai.jp/matsu/)).\n\n * Problematic. The //r// in _matsuru_ is an integral part of this word, and that is unlikely to disappear. Indeed, the noun form of this verb is 祭【まつ】り. \nIt would appear more likely for _matsuru_ to derive somehow from _matsu_ --\nbut the pitch accent patterns suggest they aren't related ([まつ]{HL} vs.\n[まつる]{LHH}), and at least some etymologists think the meanings are too\ndivergent (see also [the EDD entry for _matsuru_](https://gogen-\nyurai.jp/matsuri/)).\n\n * Shift from 保【たも】つ, since pines \"keep\" (i.e. live) for a long time ([EDD](https://gogen-yurai.jp/matsu/), [JD](http://www.nihonjiten.com/data/46442.html)).\n\n * Problematic. On the one hand, 保【たも】つ is a compound of た (old combining form of 手【て】 \"hand\") + 持【も】つ (\"to hold, to keep\"), and the morphophonemic (meaning + sound) sense of \"have, hold\" in the _motsu_ portion is quite strong. On the other hand, the phonology is all wrong. There's no reason for that initial た to just vanish. Also, I am not aware of any clear instances of //o// changing into //a// in Japanese verb roots in any way that produces a noun. There do appear to be certain verb clusters in Japanese where we see what might be //o// ↔ //a// correspondence, like とむ・たむ (core idea of \"stopping\" or \"accumulating\") or なす・のす (core idea of \"producing\" or \"putting\"), but these are all verbs.\n * Shift from 叉【また】 (\"split, branching, fork\") from the way that certain pine species have split or doubled needles ([EDD](https://gogen-yurai.jp/matsu/)).\n\n * Problematic. There's no clear reason for the sound shift required to go from また to まつ. \nThere's also no underlying root verb まつ with a meaning of \"to split\", from\nwhich また might be a derivation.\n\n * Perhaps related to the \"keep\" and \"long life\" idea, derived from 待【ま】つ from the idea of \"waiting for the leaves to fall\" ([JD](http://www.nihonjiten.com/data/46442.html)). Or perhaps from the idea of \"waiting for the future\" ([EDD](https://gogen-yurai.jp/matsu/), [JD](http://www.nihonjiten.com/data/46442.html)).\n\n * Interesting, but also problematic. Both seem like a bit of a stretch in terms of the meaning.\n * From 「神【かみ】を待【ま】つ」 (\"awaiting a _kami_ \"), from the idea that pine trees are holy and can be the abode of _kami_ ([EDD](https://gogen-yurai.jp/matsu/), [JD](http://www.nihonjiten.com/data/46442.html)).\n\n * This theory seems to have the fewest problems. However, it is unusual for a noun to derive from a verb where both have the same form.\n\nAll that said, it might be just as (or even more?) likely that the verb \"to\nwait\" and the noun \"pine tree\" are similar only by accident. **Homophones\nhappen.** Consider English _see_ and _sea_ , or _bee_ and _be_ , or (depending\non dialect) _worship_ and _warship_ , _knight_ and _night_ , _horse_ and\n_hoarse_ , _where_ and _wear_ , _here_ and _hear_ , etc. etc. Or, indeed,\nEnglish _pine_ (noun, derived from Latin _pīnus_ ) and _pine_ (verb, derived\nfrom a Proto-Germanic root meaning \"to be in pain\" and ultimately cognate with\n_pain_ ; see also [the Wiktionary\nentry](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pine#English)).\n\n### Addendum\n\nYou mentioned in your question that _\" [t]he radicals look pretty different.\"_\n\nFor completeness' sake, the radicals in the two kanji are indeed different: 彳\nas a radical broadly refers to \"going\" (and was derived as half of the 行\ncharacter), while 木 as a radical refers broadly to \"trees\".\n\nThat said, the radicals in the kanji have nothing to do with the etymologies\nof the Japanese words.\n\nThe reading _matsu_ for both words is regarded as 訓【くん】読【よ】み, literally\n\"meaning reading\", where the pronunciation ( **reading** ) is based on what\nthe kanji **means** in native Japanese vocabulary. This is in contrast to\n音【おん】読【よ】み, literally \"sound reading\", where the pronunciation ( **reading** )\nis based on what the kanji **sounded like** in [Middle\nChinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Chinese), the stage of\ndevelopment of the Chinese language when most kanji were borrowed.\n\nAny time you're looking into the etymology of a _kun'yomi_ word, the kanji are\n(usually) completely irrelevant.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-21T23:55:45.420", "id": "93493", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-22T00:12:25.253", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-22T00:12:25.253", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "93469", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "You don't seem to be parsing the sentence correctly, I'm afraid.\n\n作業 is the object of 進める. 作業 is the topic of the sentence, so it's marked with\nは. This 作業 refers to コレクションの手入れ in the previous sentence.\n\n「銃の開発された」(can be rephrased 銃 **が** 開発された) is a relative clause that modifies\n「年代順」.\n\n「（銃の開発された）年代順を（忠実に）追って」 describes how they conduct(進める) the work(作業).\n\n「忠実に」\"faithfully\" adverbially modifies the verb 「追って」\"following\". (忠実に is the\nadverbial form/連用形 of the na-adjective 忠実な.)\n\n* * *\n\nThe basic structure is:\n\n> 作業は、［年代順を追って］進める. \n> As for the work, we conduct it [following the chronological order]. \n> ⇓ \n> 作業は、［年代順を（忠実に）追って］進める。 \n> As for the work, we conduct it [(faithfully) following the chronological\n> order]. \n> ⇓ \n> 作業は、［（銃の開発された）年代順を（忠実に）追って］進める。 \n> As for the work, we conduct it [(faithfully) following the chronological\n> order (in which the guns were developed)].", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-20T15:50:16.530", "id": "93476", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-21T00:32:35.983", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-21T00:32:35.983", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "9831", "parent_id": "93474", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "There is indeed a nuance to という, in that it can be used to equate two nouns,\nas if in apposition. You can view this as an extension of the \"it is called\"\ntranslation that you have internalized. More specifically,\n\n\"悔という形\"\n\ncan hyper-literally be parsed as \"the form that is called regret\". But in the\nmore nuanced sense, it can be translated as \"the form, regret\", or \"the form\nthat is regret\", or most idiomatically in this context, \"the form of regret\".\n\nAdditionally, if you're having trouble parsing this sentence, it might be\nbecause the nouns that という equates are separated by 切実な:\n\n> 悔という形: \"The form called regret\" \"The form that is regret\" \"The form of\n> regret\"\n\n> 悔という切実な形: \"The serious form of regret\"\n\n> 後悔という切実な形をとることもなく: \"... without taking on the serious form of regret\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-21T03:13:39.007", "id": "93481", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-21T03:13:39.007", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50646", "parent_id": "93475", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Yes, it's very widely used. Hence many [possibly related\nposts](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/search?q=%E3%81%A8%E3%81%84%E3%81%86)\nout there, but since this question is focused on a specific point, here is an\nanswer tailored to this question:\n\n> it means \"saying that\" or \"it is called\"\n\nExactly. And for this question we focused on the \"it is called\" version.\n\n> but sometimes it seems to have another nuance.\n\nIn this case, it's **not** that a third nuance was added. It's more like \"you\nhave to open your eyes to increase the scope of the **it is called** \". The\nkey is, \"called\" can be used for a wide array of nuances. See following\nexample:\n\n* * *\n\n**でも, それは 後悔 という 切実な 形を とる ことも なく**\n\nLet's trim this poetic phrase down to: **後悔 という 切実な形**.\n\nIt's saying: \"切実な形 of which I am talking about 後悔\". Not the best translation,\nbut it may help you notice **talking about** is interchangeable with the word\n**call** in English too:\n\n * You committed a crime **called** robbery\n * You committed a crime **BTW I'm talking about** robbery\n * You committed a robbery **という** crime\n\n* * *\n\nIn conclusion, という here is still basically \"it is called\", and \"called\" has\nmany nuances in its own. They may be interpreted as:\n\n> 後悔という切実な形\n\n * 切実な形 which is called 後悔\n * 切実な形 known as 後悔\n * 切実な形 i.e. 後悔\n * 切実な形 which I describe as 後悔\n * 切実な形 - BTW I'm talking about 後悔", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-21T03:34:41.713", "id": "93482", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-21T06:19:30.133", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-21T06:19:30.133", "last_editor_user_id": "48366", "owner_user_id": "48366", "parent_id": "93475", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "The sentence focuses on a specific span of time, namely the time that runs up\nto the speaker’s arrival in Japan, and also contrasts it, by は, with the time\nthat follows. In addition, the second sentence specifically states the speaker\ndid see the sea after they came to Japan. Then, it would be much more natural\nto describe their earlier lack of experience as a past state using the past\ntense ありませんでした.\n\nIn the examples in the linked\n[question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/30208/43676), the speaker\n_did_ experience something during a time vaguely referred to as “earlier” (以前)\nor more specifically before some event happened in the past (e.g.\n仕事で大阪に引っ越す前). Either way, this necessarily means they do have the experience\nin the current state, too. This reduces the difference between the two tenses\nto that of emphasis as the accepted answer suggests.\n\nThe two tenses are not so interchangeable in your example because of the\ncontrast between the past and current states.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-22T05:53:59.040", "id": "93502", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-22T05:53:59.040", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "93477", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "> But why not 閉まっていた then?\n\nThere is no reason **not** to say \"閉まっていた\".\n\n* * *\n\n> So does this mean “I can’t believe he would do/is going to do such a thing\n> or that he did it already, and now I can’t believe it?\"\n\nMost probably \"would do\" (past) instead of \"is going to do\" (future):\n\n> 彼があんなことを **する** なんて信じられない。\n\n\"I (currently) can't believe he **would do** that (thing he did already)\"\n\n* * *\n\nThe following is essentially the same, and may be easier to process:\n\n> 彼があんなことを **した** なんて信じられない。\n\n\"I (currently) can't believe he **did** that (thing he did already)\"\n\n* * *\n\nNote that there is a subtle difference in the nuance between the above two\nexamples, which may start to get subjective and require a long answer.\n\n* * *\n\nAs you mentioned, there is also a low probability to mean:\n\n> \"I (currently) can’t believe he is **going to do** such a thing\n\nBut in that case, it most probably would be explicitly stated in the sentence:\n\n * \"彼が **今から** あんなことをするなんて信じられない。\"\n * \"彼が **これから** あんなことをするなんて信じられない。\"\n * \"彼が **将来** あんなことをするなんて信じられない。\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-21T14:25:38.970", "id": "93489", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-21T14:25:38.970", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "48366", "parent_id": "93479", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I suspect the difference in the first case may not be a difference in literal\nmeaning as much as a difference in how English vs Japanese speakers tend to\nview and express certain situations, and may be a matter of context. The\nJapanese sentence is saying that _as a general situation_ , it is always\nclosed on Monday nights. However, if the surrounding events that are being\ndescribed are things that happened in the past, it is common for an English\nspeaker to also phrase that sort of situation in a past tense as well, even if\nit may also be true in the present and in general, for example:\n\n> I wanted to go to my favorite restaurant, but on Monday nights it was\n> closed, so I went to the place down the street instead.\n\nThis doesn't mean it isn't also closed on Monday nights now too (it probably\nis, because it's a general condition), and indeed you probably could phrase it\nin the present tense too, but it's just that (at least to many people) it\nsounds better in English when expressed with matching tenses to all of the\nsurrounding text instead. (but this is often not as strong a factor in\nJapanese)\n\nFor the second passage, I think it's important to understand that the する in\nthat sentence is essentially part of _a subclause modifying なんて_ , so it is\nmore a descriptive qualifier than referring to an actual occurrence.\n\nIn this sort of situation where a verb is modifying something that comes after\nit, it is sometimes useful to view the non-past (する) form as somewhat similar\nto the gerund (-ing) form in English, that is:\n\n> 彼があんなことをするなんて信じられない -- \"Something like (なんて) him doing that sort of thing\n> (彼があんなことをする) is unbelievable (信じられない)\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-18T23:40:10.710", "id": "97283", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-18T23:48:13.007", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-18T23:48:13.007", "last_editor_user_id": "35230", "owner_user_id": "35230", "parent_id": "93479", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "[いまごろ](https://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%84%E3%81%BE%E3%81%94%E3%82%8D) has\ntwo senses.\n\n> １ だいたい今と同じ時期や時刻。今時分。「去年の今頃」\n>\n> ２ 時間に遅れたとき、意外なときなどに、あきれた気持ちをこめて用いる語。今時分。今どき。「今頃行っても売り切れだよ」\n\nBasically both mean _this time/now_ , but (1) with some shifting of time or\nplace or (2) with the implication that the speaker thinks it is (too) late.\n\nThe first two sentences in the question use いまごろ in the first sense, the last\nsentence in the second sense, so that it means\n\n * You shouldn't say that _now_ (You should have said earlier).\n\nThis sense of いまごろ is mostly replaceable by いまさら.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-21T05:52:27.243", "id": "93484", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-21T05:52:27.243", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "93480", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "The part means\n\n> プラクテカルな苦しみ ＝ただ、めしを食えたらそれで解決できる苦しみ ＝それ **＝?** 最も強い痛苦で ＝\n> 自分の例の十個の禍いなど、吹っ飛んでしまうほどの、凄惨な阿鼻地獄\n\nThe ? is indicated by なのかもしれない,\n\nしかし、それこそ means _but, precisely that (=hunger) is...._ An implicit feeling of\nthe author/protagonist is that hunger is less significant (or lower or mean)\nas suffering than his own (spiritual?) one because hunger is simply a matter\nof food.\n\nThe following それは、わからない means literally _That, I don't know_. _That_ refers to\nthe whole equation, i.e., it expresses he does not know whether the \"practical\npain\" (= hunger) is something greater than his own suffering.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-21T12:40:16.090", "id": "93487", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-21T12:40:16.090", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "93485", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "There is no **double** information. 何人 is used for a counter - consider it a\nunit of measurement. You are responsible to attach the correct counter, but\nthe **counter is not responsible to explain the subject**.\n\nA. How many **kg** does that **weigh**? (subject + unit of measurement)\n\nB. How many **kg** is it? (without subject)\n\nSome may think A is too much (double) information. Some may think B is too\nless (few) information. Both are correct, neither is wrong.\n\n* * *\n\n * 会議室に人が何人いますか。\n * 会議室に何人いますか。\n\nThey both make sense. Longer sentence is verbose and formal. Shorter sentence\nis lean and casual. Both are correct, neither is wrong.\n\n* * *\n\n> And is it ok to also say : 会議室に何人ですか。\n\nNo :( This one is a grammatical error. It should be:\n\n\"会議室に何人いますか\" or \"会議室にいるのは何人ですか\".\n\n* * *\n\nThe above is the answer considering your question:\n\n> \"is it ok to also **say** \"\n\nIt would be different if we **write**. Because the kanji 何人 can mean:\n\n * how **many** people\n\nor\n\n * what **nationality**\n\nConsidering that:\n\n**会議室に [何人]{なにじん} がいますか** In the meeting room, person of which nationality is\nthere?\n\n**会議室に [何人]{なんにん} いますか** In the meeting room, how many number of people is\nthere?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-21T13:32:48.537", "id": "93488", "last_activity_date": "2022-08-22T23:23:57.503", "last_edit_date": "2022-08-22T23:23:57.503", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "48366", "parent_id": "93486", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "It would mean the same thing, but wrong in terms of grammar.\n\n* * *\n\nおいしくない:\n\n * Question おいしくない？ (Delicious, isn't it?) valid\n * Statement おいしくない (Not delicious) valid\n\n* * *\n\nおいしいじゃありません:\n\n * Question おいしいじゃありません？ (Delicious, isn't it?) valid\n * Statement おいしいじゃありません **Not valid**\n\nThe question \"おいしいじゃありません？\" is a unique edge case, and you might never use it\nin your life.\n\nThe statement \"おいしいじゃありません\" looks/sounds wrong although the message is clear\nyou are not enjoying that meal.\n\n* * *\n\nPossible statements to deny おいしい:\n\n * おいし **く** ありません\n\nFollowing works too:\n\n * おいしいごはんではありません\n * おいしいとは思いません\n\n* * *\n\n**Edit** :\n\nThe above are basics. Hate to add complexity but there is yet another edge\ncase where one is happy with the meal and say:\n\n * Statement おいしいじゃありません (Isn't this delicious)\n * Statement おいしいじゃありませんこと (Isn't this delicious)\n\nThis carries the same logic as the question, but is not a question. It's\nsomewhere between a rhetorical question and a firm statement. These are\nadvanced expressions which may be used with enough context and correct\npronunciation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-02-21T23:05:33.203", "id": "93492", "last_activity_date": "2022-02-21T23:22:03.040", "last_edit_date": "2022-02-21T23:22:03.040", "last_editor_user_id": "48366", "owner_user_id": "48366", "parent_id": "93490", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]