Datasets:

---

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

[ { "body": "Your interpretation is correct. 確立する is a transitive verb that takes a direct\nobject. As you said, それを refers to manga: _In the past, even in Japan, manga\nwas thought to be for children, but Tezuka etablished it as a way of\nexpressing stories, similar to novels and movies..._\n\nHere's a few other examples\n\n> ルネサンスは人間の尊厳を確立した。 The Renaissance established the dignity of man.\n\n> 保安官は、その町の秩序を確立した。 The sheriff established order in the town.\n\nSee: [Transitive and Intransitive Verbs](https://www.tofugu.com/japanese-\ngrammar/transitivity/)\n\nAnd: [Particle を](https://www.tofugu.com/japanese-grammar/particle-wo/)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-16T16:49:10.097", "id": "97241", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-16T16:49:10.097", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "18145", "parent_id": "97239", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "文系 is one of the two major categories which Japanese high schoolers have to\nchoose from normally at the end of their first year of high school, the other\nbeing 理系. Once a student commits to one of them, the curriculum they take in\nthe following 2 years will follow from that, as well as the subjects they get\ntested on in their university entrance exams. Japanese students have to choose\ntheir major they would like to study in university when they apply. And the\nmajors are put in these two rough categories. For example, 東大 has\n理科一類、二類、三類、文科一類、二類、三類, which correspond to law, engineering, sciences etc.\nWhen people talk about 文系/理系 it is **always** about this separation in high\nschool and by extension the ensuing separation in their higher education. And\nthey are used to talk about students (people).\n\n人文科学 means the humanities referring to the actual disciplines. This term\nmostly applies in the context of post high school higher education\n(university, graduate school, etc.), rather than about people. This is a term\nused in the academia. Mind you, it is not a term without ambiguity. In an\nAmerican academic context, to me at least, the humanities refer to disciplines\nsuch as history, the arts, languages, linguistics, etc. But I think in Japan\nthere is significant overlap between 人文科学 and social sciences and a lot of\npeople use 人文科学 to refer to disciplines that I would consider social sciences\nsuch as political science, sociology, etc.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-16T19:46:28.780", "id": "97246", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-16T19:46:28.780", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "30454", "parent_id": "97240", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "こと: occurrence / verb \nもの: noun\n\nexamples: \n\n> できることならテニスかも。If we're talking about what I can do, playing tennis (verb)\n> might count. \n> できるものならケーキが入る。If we're talking about what I can make, cake (noun) would\n> count.\n\nSo yes, there is a difference, one being used to refer to a noun, the other to\nrefer to a verb. Hope this helps!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-16T18:55:09.533", "id": "97243", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-17T17:09:00.567", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-17T17:09:00.567", "last_editor_user_id": "54981", "owner_user_id": "54981", "parent_id": "97242", "post_type": "answer", "score": -2 }, { "body": "They are practically interchangeable when used as an adverbial phrase meaning\n“if possible” before a clause that expresses a desire that is difficult or\nimpossible to realize with 〜たい.\n\n> できることならやりたい。 \n> できるものならやりたい。 \n> I would like to do it if I could (but I can’t).\n\nThe latter is less ambiguous, and therefore probably preferred as a means to\nexpress impossibility, because できること may also be understood as referring to a\nspecific thing (こと) one is capable of doing.\n\n> できることならやりたい。 \n> I would like to do it if it’s something I can do (within my capabilities).\n\nOnly できるもの can be used in a rhetorical command.\n\n> できるものならやってみろ。 \n> Go ahead and do it if you can.\n\nThe speaker is challenging the listener to do whatever is referred to,\nthinking they will not be able to do it whether for a lack of skills or\ncourage.\n\nIn contrast, the following would be understood literally.\n\n> できることならやってみろ。 \n> Do it if it’s something you can do (within your capabilities).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-17T08:35:48.887", "id": "97255", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-17T08:35:48.887", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "97242", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "できるものなら sounds more emphatic, and it's typically used referring to something\n(nearly) impossible. It's commonly used to mock someone's inability or absurd\nway of thinking. できることなら can be used in similar situations, but it can be\nsimple \"if that's possible\" or \"if I can\", too.\n\n * 声優になりたい？ できるものならやってみろよ。 \n(the speaker thinks this is impossible)\n\n * できるものなら大学に行きたいです。 \n(sounds like the speaker thinks this is nearly impossible in reality)\n\n * できることなら大学に行きたいです。 \n(sounds simply like \"if I can\" or \"if I'm allowed\")", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-17T08:43:05.763", "id": "97256", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-17T08:49:49.337", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-17T08:49:49.337", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97242", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "`verb + がまま` is a [fixed phrase from classical\nJapanese](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/42724/5010). This が is an old\npossessive particle (see [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/88931/5010)). A phrase like\nthis often has a deeper nuance than what's written literally. Here, がまま has a\nsense of \"without any chance of questioning\" or \"at someone's mercy\".\n言われるがまま就活を終了した strongly suggests this person had no control over what he did\nor did not understand what he was doing.\n\n言われたまま is a phrase that follows the standard Japanese grammar and just means\n\"as [I] was told\". If you _voluntarily_ followed someone's instruction\nunderstanding most of it, 言われたまま is better.\n\nFor example, saying 言われたまま発注しました or 言われたとおり発注しました to your boss is usually okay\n(\"I placed an order just as I was told\"). But saying 言われるがまま発注しました to your\nboss sounds like you're either irresponsible or angry.\n\nSee also: [What does ～がままになる\nmean?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/33329/5010)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-17T02:45:54.093", "id": "97252", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-17T13:03:47.403", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-17T13:03:47.403", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97244", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "There are multiple different facets to your question. Let me try to address at\nleast some of them.\n\n# Background\n\nFirst, some background.\n\n### Languages\n\nChinese, Japanese, and Korean are wholly independent languages.\n\nThere is some serious research into the possibility that Korean and Japanese\nmight share distant linguistic ancestry, in part because the grammars of the\ntwo languages are so similar, but nothing conclusive has yet appeared --\ndespite the similarities in structure, there is actually very little\nvocabulary that is shared between the two that isn't demonstrably borrowed.\n\nChinese is entirely linguistically unrelated to either Korean or Japanese.\n\n### Words\n\nDue to historical trends and the fact that China has been a regional\nsuperpower for millenia, China has also been a major cultural influence in the\narea. This means that the Chinese language has been a kind of _lingua franca_\nfor trade and diplomacy for many of the nations in the Far East. In turn, this\nhas meant that Chinese words have been borrowed into many of the other\nregional languages. Consider how the Latin and Greek languages have had high\nprestige in European history, and how vocabulary from these two has been\nborrowed into English (see the _lingua franca_ example in this very\nparagraph).\n\nI've read estimates that something like 65% of the words commonly used in the\nKorean language are borrowings from Chinese, as mentioned in the [\"Korean\nlanguage\" article on\nWikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_language). Likewise, roughly\n60% of the words in a Japanese dictionary are borrowings from Chinese, as\nmentioned in the [\"Sino-Japanese vocabulary\"\narticle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Japanese_vocabulary).\n\nBut, just like English isn't Greek or Latin even though we use a lot of Latin-\nand Greek-derived words in English, neither Japanese nor Korean are Chinese\neven though they contain a lot of Chinese words.\n\n### Spellings\n\nIn western Europe, pretty much all of the languages use the Latin alphabet.\nConsequently, when a word ABC gets borrowed into another language that uses\nthe same Latin alphabet, the spelling often doesn't change, or at least\ndoesn't change that much.\n\nHowever, in Asia, not everyone uses the same scripts. Written Chinese has been\nused a lot by more than just Chinese speakers, but the script is cumbersome,\nwith thousands of characters. Consequently, some East Asian language\ncommunities have come up with other writing systems. Korean's\n[hangul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul) script is one such example.\nHangul is essentially a (mostly) phonetic alphabet, used to spell out the\nsounds of the language, rather than logograms like written Chinese, used to\nspell out the ideas of the words (very loosely speaking; see the [\"Logogram\"\narticle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logogram) for more). Consequently, that\n65% of Korean words that come from Chinese are almost never written in\n[hanja](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanja) (Chinese characters as used in\nKorean) -- they are written in phonetic hangul instead.\n\n### Sound changes\n\nMost of the Chinese vocabulary borrowed into Japanese was borrowed about 1600\nto 1200 years ago. I suspect a roughly similar timeline for Korean terms that\nwere borrowed from Chinese. Much of this was due to regional politics over\nhistory, and to major cultural events like the spread of Buddhism through East\nAsia.\n\nChinese itself has changed a good bit in that intervening time, as has\nJapanese and Korean -- so comparing at modern Mandarin pronunciations with\nmodern Korean and Japanese will very likely result in the kind of confusion\nyou express. When most of the Chinese vocabulary was borrowed into the Korean\nand Japanese languages, Mandarin didn't exist yet -- the language in China at\nthe time was [Middle Chinese](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Chinese)\ninstead. So we need to look at the reconstructed Middle Chinese\npronunciations, and compare those to the reconstructed Old Japanese and Old or\nMiddle Korean pronunciations (where available: Old Korean was primarily a\nspoken language, and there are very few records from that period; also, what\nrecords there are, are written using non-phonetic Chinese characters, making\nthings even more difficult).\n\n# Your question post\n\nNow that we have a conceptual framework in place, we can look more at your\nspecific questions.\n\n### Origins\n\n> I understand the history of Japan's origin coming from China...\n\nJapan did not come from China.\n\nFrom what I recall of recent academic research, here's a rough outline of the\ntheories:\n\n * Humans have been in the Japanese archipelago since around 10,000 BCE, maybe even a bit earlier. These earliest human populations _might_ be related to the modern Ainu people now living mostly in Hokkaidō (the northernmost of the four big Japanese islands). Notably, people then didn't have horses, sheep, or metalwork. They were also primarily hunter-gatherers, leaving behind little evidence of much by way of farming.\n * Starting some time around 1,000 BCE, and really picking up during the period of 200 BCE to 200 CE, we see a sizable migration of people from the Korean peninsula across to the Japanese islands. These newcomers brought over horses, sheep, and metalwork, and their skeletons and genes are also distinct from the people who were already on the islands. They also had different architecture, and introduced intensive farming.\n * These two groups -- the hunter-gatherers, and the farmers -- seem to have mixed mostly where they were in close contact.\n * In some of the earlier records about any nation-state in the Japanese islands, we learn that the Yamato court in Japan had close friendly relations with the Baekje nation-state on the Korean peninsula. There is some scattered linguistic evidence that these two cultures may have also been linguistic cousins. When the Baekje kingdom was conquered by neighbors in the 600s, the Baekje aristocracy moved to Japan and they were accepted as aristocrats in the Yamato court.\n\nAs best we can tell, both genetically and linguistically, neither the\nindigenous hunter-gatherers nor the immigrant farmers were Chinese.\n\n> ... which is why Japanese involves Chinese characters.\n\nWritten Japanese uses Chinese characters for the reasons outlined further\nabove: China was the dominant political and cultural power of the region.\nJapanese uses Chinese characters for basically the same reason that English\nuses Roman characters (i.e. the Latin alphabet) -- neighboring nations adopted\nthe writing systems of their nearby regional powerhouses.\n\n### The word 先輩 / _xiānbèi_ / _seonbae_ / _senpai_\n\n> For example, 先輩(senpai) and Korean's 선배(seonbae) sound more similar in\n> comparison to Mandarin Chinese's 先輩(xiānbèi).\n\nAs noted above, sound changes that have happened in Chinese, Korean, and\nJapanese mean that we cannot compare the modern pronunciations very usefully.\n\nLet's look at a comparison of Middle Chinese, and compare that to what we know\nabout older Korean and Japanese and any sound changes there.\n[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/) has pretty good coverage of Chinese\ncharacters and the Middle and Old Chinese reconstructions, so I use their\nentries as my source here.\n\nLanguage | 先 reading | 輩 reading \n---|---|--- \nMandarin | _xiān_ , //ɕjɛn⁵⁵// | _bèi_ , //peɪ̯⁵¹// \nKorean | _seon_ , //sʰʌ̹n// | _bae_ , //pɛ//, //pe̞// \nJapanese | _sen_ , //sen// | _hai_ , //hai//† \nMiddle Chinese | //sen//, //sien// | //puʌiH//, //puɑ̆iH// \nOld Japanese | _sen_ , //sen// | _pai_ , //pai// \nMiddle Korean | _syeon_ , //sjən// | _poy_ , //pʌi//* \n \n * _†Note: when used in isolation or at the start of a word._\n * _*Note: based on reconstructions for similarly pronounced terms. The[Wiktionary entry for 輩](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%BC%A9#Korean) does not include anything older than Modern Korean._\n\nAs we can see in the older pronunciations, there is less variance between the\nChinese, Japanese, and Korean. The differences in the two Middle Chinese\npronunciations might be due to regional differences as well, which could also\naccount for the differences between the older Japanese and Korean\npronunciations. At any rate, as we travel back in time, the pronunciations of\n先輩 in all three languages converge pretty closely.\n\n### The spellings\n\n> At the same time, the written format of Japanese's 先輩(senpai) is clearly\n> more similar to, or exactly the same as, Mandarin Chinese's 先輩(xiānbèi).\n\nSee above, about spellings and scripts. Japanese continues to use a lot of\nChinese characters in its writing, while Korean has mostly abandoned Chinese\ncharacters in favor of phonetic hangul. This is purely about the written form,\nand has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of the word.\n\nBy way of example, the English word _\" knight\"_ means \"a specific kind of\nwarrior, usually on horseback\". This is cognate with the German term _\"\nKnecht\"_. If we start spelling the English word more like it is pronounced,\nperhaps as _\" nait\"_ or even _\" neyet\"_, that doesn't change the fact that\nthis is still cognate with the German term _\" Knecht\"_. So it is with Korean\n-- the change in how the term is written doesn't alter the fact that Korean 선배\nis, etymologically (in terms of derivations and origins), the same word as\nChinese and Japanese 先輩.\n\n# Afterthoughts\n\nIf you're interested in how similar words in different languages might be\nrelated, read up on the specific languages, in particular with regard to sound\nchanges, and vocabulary and borrowing patterns.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-16T22:18:33.147", "id": "97248", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-16T22:55:57.870", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-16T22:55:57.870", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "97245", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "I assume (from the question) you understand it as a kind of contraction of\n\n> ヒーローとは常にピンチを壊していくもの **だ**!\n\nwhich is correct. It is an instance of 体言止め. E.g., see [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/14524/45489).\n\nPractically, it is better to consider V+ものだ as an idiom, mentioned in [the\nfollowing\ndefinition](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E7%89%A9_%28%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%29/#jn-219726).\n\n> ５ 他の語句を受けて、その語句の内容を体言化する形式名詞。\n>\n> ㋒（「…するものだ」の形で）それが当然であるという気持ちを示す。「先輩の忠告は聞く―だ」「困ったときは助け合う―だ」\n\nThe もの is a nominalizer for the preceding sentence, to mean **_Subj._ is\nsupposed to V**.\n\nThat said, it is not impossible to think もの is an replacement for _someone_\nand translate it as 'A here is someone who...'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-16T22:45:56.827", "id": "97250", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-16T22:45:56.827", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97247", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Your initial guess is correct. This とこ is a colloquial variation of ところ, and\nit just means \"place\" here. It can be safely modified by an adjective; つまらないとこ\nis \"a boring place\".\n\n> 学校なんて つまらないとこ すぐやめられると思ってたけど \n> I was thinking I could quit a boring place like school right away, but...\n\nとこ(ろ) has several derivative usages (like\n[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/27541/5010) and\n[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/23738/5010)), and you seem to have\nrun into some article that describes such derivative usages of the word. But\nとこ(ろ) in your question is a simple noun that just means \"place\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-17T07:39:40.793", "id": "97254", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-17T07:39:40.793", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97253", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "As a recent suffix meaning \"～ board/forum\", according to [this\nsurvey](http://find.razil.jp/enq/result.php/31896) and my personal experience,\nthe majority of people read 板 as いた, but many read it as ばん, too. I probably\nread 野球板 as やきゅういた, but I won't say やきゅうばん is wrong.\n\nAs a standalone noun, 板 is いた. 板違い is always いたちがい. (I don't think this 板 is a\nprefix, although 違い might be called a suffix here).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-17T17:38:28.600", "id": "97261", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-17T17:38:28.600", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97257", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "空気 is normally translated as \"air,\" the kind that you can breathe, or put into\na balloon.\n\n大気 specifically refers to the huge layer of air/gas surrounding the earth (or\nsometimes, another planet). You cannot breathe in 大気, nor can you put 大気 into\na balloon, but you can leave the 大気 with a rocket.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-17T17:23:53.100", "id": "97260", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-17T18:01:49.037", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-17T18:01:49.037", "last_editor_user_id": "1330", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97258", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Both are fine. See the [Wikipedia/77](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/77):\n\n> 77（七十七、ななじゅうなな、ななじゅうしち、しちじゅうしち、ななそじあまりななつ）\n\nExcept ななそじあまりななつ, the other three could be used, but ななじゅうなな is the most\ncommon.\n\nしち is more for specific combinations (7月, 7時, etc.) or sounds a little dated.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-17T22:34:50.700", "id": "97267", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-17T22:34:50.700", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97259", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "There might be some tendency to avoid that, but the construction is not too\nrare either.\n\n[小栗虫太郎『白蟻』](https://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000125/files/666_47253.html)\n\n> 貴方は、私が雷が嫌いなのをご承知でいらっしゃいましょう。\n\n[海野十三『大脳手術』](https://www.aozora.gr.jp/cards/000160/files/3048_20671.html)\n\n> それから幾日経ってか、私が気がついたときは、私は一頭のゴリラになり果てていた。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-10T05:11:41.430", "id": "97574", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-10T05:11:41.430", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "10531", "parent_id": "97264", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "If you mean repeating a noun twice, it is not really possible (サラダサラダ won't\nwork).\n\nBut kind of similar to onomatopoeias/adjectives that contains reduplicates,\nsimilar constructs do exist, at least in recent usage. One common enough\nphrase is 肉肉しい which means _very meaty_. This does not extend a lot, but I\nguess NN-しい is understood with enough contexts, as a kind of one-time word\n(e.g. when talking about high cacao chocolate, チョコチョコしい. I don't mean this is\ncommon).\n\nMore normal phrases would be something like 東京らしい東京 (referring to 新宿, say), or\nN[然{ぜん}](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E7%84%B6_%28%E3%81%9C%E3%82%93%29/#jn-125592)とした.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-17T23:06:16.947", "id": "97269", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-17T23:06:16.947", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97265", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Besides the adjective form `NN-しい` in sundowner's answer, there is also a verb\nform `NN-する`. It's often used in the form of `NN-している` or `NN-した` to modify\nanother noun which may be the same as the repeated one, as in:\n\n> [女女]{おんなおんな}した女 \n> 女の子女の子した女の子\n\nThese particular phrases tend to be used in a negative way, often by women to\ndescribe other women they consider to be \"too girly\" in their choice of\nclothes, their way of behaving, etc., especially when they are with men.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-18T00:22:52.010", "id": "97270", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-18T00:35:14.430", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-18T00:35:14.430", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "97265", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "In addition to the other fine answers already on this thread, I'd like to\npoint out a wrinkle in the English construction that might be confusing the\noriginal poster somewhat.\n\nThe question post includes two examples of kinds of \"salad\" that I'd like to\npoint out:\n\n * _egg salad_\n * _salad salad_\n\nWhat we have here in both cases is a first noun used attributively to indicate\na characteristic or quality of the second noun, the\n[head](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_\\(linguistics\\)) noun. In terms of\nthe syntactics at work here, that first noun functions more as an adjective.\n\nEnglish as a language is more towards the \"analytic\" end of the\n\"[synthetic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_language) ↔\n[analytic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_language)\" spectrum, and as\nsuch, it plays pretty fast and loose with parts of speech.\n\nJapanese is more \"synthetic\" than English, and as such, we cannot do some of\nthe same things as in English and still wind up with a grammatic and\nintelligible utterance.\n\nWhile both languages allow attributive use of nouns in certain cases, such as\n\"egg salad\" / 玉子サラダ or \"tomato salad\" / トマトサラダ, reduplication as in \"salad\nsalad\" is not one of the allowed constructions for Japanese. I suspect this\ncomes down to usage patterns and expectations. This might be due to the\nexistence of reduplication in so many other aspects of Japanese, something\nthat doesn't happen quite so much in standard English.\n\nThe need to be more specific grammatically about the attributive nature of the\nfirst noun in reduplicative constructions is what gives rise to the\nsuggestions in the other answers, such as 東京[ら]{●}[し]{●}[い]{●}東京 (probably the\nmost likely and commonly understood), サラダ[の]{●}サラダ, or possibly\n`[NOUN]`[と]{●}[し]{●}[て]{●}[の]{●}`[NOUN]` or\n`[NOUN]`[な]{●}[り]{●}[の]{●}`[NOUN]`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-18T00:55:02.663", "id": "97271", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-18T00:55:02.663", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "97265", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "A similar pattern does exist. Here are some examples I found on the internet:\n\n> * 机をあまり **仕事仕事した** 空間にしたくなくて… \n> I didn't want to make my desk look like a typical office-ish place...\n> * **学校学校している** カチッとしたところだと、ついていけるか不安でした。 \n> I was worried that I wouldn't be able to keep up at an ordinary strict\n> school.\n> * もっと **筋肉筋肉した** 人が、ミューズの理想なのだ。 \n> Muse's ideal is a stereotypical macho / muscular muscular guy.\n> * すっぱいドレッシングとか **サラダサラダしたもの** が苦手な私 \n> I'm not good at things like sour dressing and typical (green) salad.\n> * **スマホスマホしたスマホ** が欲しいなら… \n> If you want a smartphone smartphone...\n>\n\nNote that:\n\n * This pattern always requires [している/した](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/74972/5010), but you can use サラダサラダしたサラダ or サラダサラダしたもの to say _salad salad_ as a noun.\n * This pattern does not work with verbs. I can't think of an equivalent of \"Do you like-like him?\"\n * This pattern does not necessarily have to work contrastively. If I understand correctly, an expression like _salad salad_ normally works in English when it's clearly contrasted with some atypical salad (hence the name contrastive reduplication), but NNしたN can work on its own.\n\nAlso note that this is a fairly rare pattern. Whenever I encounter this\npattern (say, once in every three years), I recall a certain episode of\n[_Nichijou_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichijou), which goes like this:\n\n> **A** : このコーヒー、あんまりコーヒーコーヒーしてない。 Oh, this coffee isn't being very coffee\n> coffee. \n> **B** : え、コーヒーコーヒーしてない？ 何いってんの？ Not coffee coffee? What are you talking\n> about? \n> **A** : 自分でもよくわかんないんだけど、なんていうか、コーヒーコーヒーしてないんだよ。いいからちょっと飲んでみ、ほれほれ。 I don't\n> really understand what I'm saying, but well, it's \"not coffee coffee\"! Just\n> try it yourself, here you go. \n> **B** : まったく、コーヒーコーヒーしてないってなんなのよ… (drinking) あ……コーヒーコーヒーしてない。 Come on, what\n> the heck is not being coffee coffee! (drinking) Oh...this isn't coffee\n> coffee.\n\nThe fact that this perfectly works as comedy to native Japanese speakers means\nコーヒーコーヒーしてない lies on the narrow borderline between \"funny but understandable\"\nand \"almost incomprehensible\".\n\nThere are a number of fixed expressions like 黒々とした, 寒々とした or みずみずしい, but these\nare words with their own meanings (they do not mean \"prototypical\nblack/coldness/water\") and can be explained as ordinary examples of Japanese\nreduplicated words and phrases.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-18T02:24:45.857", "id": "97272", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-18T04:18:33.303", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-18T04:18:33.303", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97265", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

[ { "body": "First off, the following two are grammatically fine as you guessed.\n\n * 彼が変な気を起こすと困る\n * 彼が変な気を起こしたら困る\n\nIn dictionary terms, the usage of ても should be [the\nfollowing](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%A6%E3%82%82/#jn-152504):\n\n> 多く「にしても」「としても」の形で）ある事柄を仮定条件として認めて、下の文の叙述を起こす意を表す。「自信があるにし―、試験を受けるのはいやな気分だ」\n\nThe difference from と/たら is subtle, but ても makes it explicit that it is a\nhypothesis while と/たら sentences above sounds plain _if..._ that is neutral to\nthe possibility of his getting ideas.\n\nOf the と/たら sentences, と still sounds close enough to ても, but using たら sounds\n(a bit) like the speaker really worried.\n\nIn English, the ても sentence may be closer to \"Suppose he got an idea. Then I\nwouldn't like it\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-17T22:51:30.640", "id": "97268", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-17T23:13:34.703", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-17T23:13:34.703", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97266", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "> 彼が変な気を起こしても困る。 \n> 彼が変な気を起こすと困る。 \n> 彼が変な気を起こしたら困る。\n\nThese are all fine in that context. One difference is that the last two also\ndirectly answer the question 何が困る？ or どうなったら困る？ while the first doesn’t. It’s\nmore about a possible reason why something should not be done. Him getting\n“any ideas” is an unintended, though easily anticipated, effect of her action.\nSince there is that possibility, she should refrain from acting in a certain\nway towards him. も kind of implies it’s one of the things that may happen as a\nresult of the action.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-18T02:52:58.303", "id": "97273", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-18T02:52:58.303", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "97266", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This 存在 is indeed \"being\" or \"existence\", but it substitutes not もの/こと but\n人/人間 here. なんでも話せる存在だ is roughly the same as なんでも話せる人だ, or \"[you] are someone\nwho I can talk about anything with\".\n\nThis type of 存在 commonly appears as a replacement of 人 or 物 when talking about\nthe meaning/significance of that person/thing.\n\n * 彼にとって私はどういう存在なの？ \nWhat do I mean to him? / What kind of person am I to him? \n(存在 = 人間)\n\n * 現代人にとってスマホは欠かせない存在だ。 \nA smartphone is something indispensable for modern people. \n(存在 = もの)\n\nなんでも話せることがある would mean something totally different (\"There are many things I\ncan talk about with you\").", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-18T06:19:23.933", "id": "97275", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-18T06:40:21.287", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-18T06:40:21.287", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97274", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "As idiomatic English, I've sometimes seen (and sometimes used myself) the\ntranslation \"presence\" for when 存在 is used as a noun describing a person.\n\nPer your sample sentence:\n\n> なんでも話せる 存在だし \n> [You] are a presence [in my life] where we could talk about anything\n\nThis isn't a terribly smooth translation -- I'm deliberately trying to\nillustrate how 存在 is used here.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-18T06:26:31.893", "id": "97276", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-18T06:26:31.893", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "97274", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "In 大辞泉, 存在 is defined as 人間や事物が、あること。また、その人間や事物。and in oxford languages it is\ndefined as 事物があること。人物が居ること。また、その、ある（居る）もの。so, it could express the action of\nexisting(人間や事物が、あること。) or the object that is existing(また、その人間や事物。).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-18T23:19:26.443", "id": "97282", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-18T23:19:26.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55001", "parent_id": "97274", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

[ { "body": "No, 新NHK has the following examples for 平板,\n\n> ところにより雨\n>\n> ところ変われば\n\nI think it is generally rarer, and the one in question is そういうところ＼もあ＼る for\nboth figurative ('he is inclined for that') and non-figurative usage ('there\nare such places').", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-18T11:30:04.327", "id": "97278", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-18T11:30:04.327", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97277", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "There are a set of nouns that are either heiban or odaka depending on whether\nthey are modified in front (i.e.: 〜のところ＼、〜のひと＼、〜のうえ＼).\n\nところ is odaka when modified and heiban when it's not. However in certain\nphrases it's still odaka like: ところ＼が and ところ＼で.\n\nIf you look at Shinmeikai it tells you more directly:\n\n> 前に修飾句がない時は０、前に修飾句がある時は３\n\n0 when there is not modifier in front, 3 if there is a modifier in front", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-19T17:26:59.037", "id": "97292", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-19T17:26:59.037", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22638", "parent_id": "97277", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "It is continuative, i.e., so-called 連用中止 (e.g. [here](https://nihongokyoshi-\nnet.com/2018/12/06/jlptn3-grammar-renyoochuushi/)). A general effect is\nusually explained as '余韻を残す' (giving an impression/aftereffect), but here I\nsuppose it can be considered simply for connecting to the third line.\n\nA reason should be metric. Note that the first and the second line use the\nsame number of syllables (hiraganas).\n\n> 叶わぬ願いは (8) 過去のもの (5) \n> 愛する痛みは (8) 傷を閉じ (5)\n\nLooking at the lyrics, other parts seem to have a distinct pattern for the\nnumber of syllables as well (I didn't count, so could be wrong).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-18T22:25:54.290", "id": "97281", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-18T22:25:54.290", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97280", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Presumably it points to the fact that there is something absurd about the\nprevious utterance, particularly around 大盛り. However, what is absurd is\ndifficult to tell from the given context (and frankly, I think that's more of\na story comprehension issue than a language issue, so I'm not sure if\nadditional context will be helpful here without going off-topic.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-19T06:12:26.457", "id": "97285", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-19T06:12:26.457", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "10531", "parent_id": "97284", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "It's similar to something like:\n\nA: Hey, this photograph looks beautiful. \nB: It isn't really \"beautiful\". (or B: What are you talking about.)\n\nIt's not necessarily (although it could be, just not in this case) a sarcastic\nway of reacting to a compliment or statement, but rather them reacting in a\nway like A does not make sense by calling the photograph beautiful.\n\nIn your example's case, A asking about whether it's going to be very\nbeneficial (I'm assuming financially, making B wealthy) makes B react by\nquestioning what A is saying; as if B never had that aspect in mind when\nmaking the decision because it would turn out to not be all that beneficial.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-21T16:33:33.553", "id": "97321", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-21T16:33:33.553", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54981", "parent_id": "97284", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "Yes, it is correct to understand '掬い取る' as 'understand'.\n\nIt is\n[すくう](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%99%E3%81%8F%E3%81%86/#jn-117818)\n+ とる, and すくう is largely synonymous to\n[くむ](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%8F%E3%82%80/#jn-63064), both\nmeaning 'holding up liquid by an apparatus or hands' (so literally, it is\nclose to _grasp_ ).\n\nAnd\n[くみとる](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E6%B1%B2%E3%81%BF%E5%8F%96%E3%82%8B/#jn-63039)\nhas the more explicit meaning as follows:\n\n> ２ 相手の心情や事情を推し量る。理解する。「先方の意図を―・る」", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-19T07:15:00.577", "id": "97288", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-19T07:15:00.577", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97287", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Grammatically it should be the following\n([#5](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%A8/#jn-154670)):\n\n> （副詞に付いて新たな副詞をつくり）ある状態を説明する意を表す。「そろそろ―歩く」「そよそよ―風が吹く」\n\nThat is, it is making (2度)3度 an adverb.\n\nIn both examples, the と is optional. Below are fine as well. (In this sene,\nthe と is redundant.)\n\n> 繰り返し・累加 一人、また一人辞めていった\n>\n> １度だけじゃなく、２度、３度失敗した\n\nSo it is different from the one in the linked question (concrete number+と).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-19T22:51:56.060", "id": "97299", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-19T22:51:56.060", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97290", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "何人ですか is usually read as 何人{なんにん}ですか and means \" **how many people?** \"\ninstead of \"what person are you?\" aka \"where are you from?\" Besides its\nrudeness, this is not the customary way of asking \"what person are you?\"\n\nYes, to say \"what person are you\" in itself is somehow rude in both Japanese\nand English, and it's better to ask \"which country are you from\" which would\nbe どの国{くに}から来{き}ていましたか？ Or even どの国{くに}から来{き}ましたか？", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-19T19:36:58.697", "id": "97294", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-19T19:36:58.697", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "39855", "parent_id": "97291", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I assume you mean 何人{なにじん}ですか.\n\nIt does sound more rude than, for example,\n\n * どちらの国からいらっしゃいましたか\n * どちらの国のご出身ですか.\n\nI suppose this is simply the lack of politeness, and 何人 per se is not\nparticularly rude. As such, if you are in casual conversations (without using\nheavy keigo), you could use it.\n\nTo give some idea, it is like \"If a shop clerk talks to a customer, s/he would\ncertainly need to use the above, but an immigration officer may use なにじん.\"\n\n* * *\n\nJust reminded me of [the following\nepisode](https://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/okirakusho/diary/200810170000/) (which I\nguess was invented):\n\n> [Kakuzo Okakura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okakura_Kakuz%C5%8D) was\n> walking in NY (late 19th century). And a man told him:\n>\n\n>> What sort of -nese are your people ? Are you Chinese, or Japanese, or\nJavanese ?\n\n>\n> Okakura replied:\n>\n\n>> We are Japanese Gentlermen. But what kind of key are you ? Are you a\nYankee, or a donkey, or a monkey ?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-19T22:36:13.163", "id": "97296", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-19T22:36:13.163", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97291", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "As for the sentence in question, 過去形 is simple past.\n\n * I wonder how many years passed (have passed)\n\nIn the same _I wonder_ sense of 過去形+ものか, a past tense can be used for\nsomething that hasn't happened yet, as in the following question and the\nlinked one.\n\n * [どう言い訳したものか. Sentence translation difficulties](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/28794/%E3%81%A9%E3%81%86%E8%A8%80%E3%81%84%E8%A8%B3%E3%81%97%E3%81%9F%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%8B-sentence-translation-difficulties)\n\n(A little superficial, but) It can be considered something like subjunctive in\nEnglish.\n\n * どうやって彼らを誤魔化したものか I wonder how I **could** deceive them?\n * どう言い訳したものか I wonder how I **could** excuse?\n\nTo some extent, this is ambiguous. That is, 過去形＋ものか can mean a thing that\nhappened or haven't happened. For example, どう言い訳したものか in some contexts can\nmean _I wonder how (someone else) explained (in the past)_.\n\n* * *\n\n(added)\n\nAt the bottom, ものか makes the question rhetoric. A J-E dictionary has [the\nfollowing](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/en/%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%8B/#je-75592):\n\n> 1〔思案〕 \n> 行ったものかどうか \n> I wonder whether I should go (or not).\n>\n> 2〔強い反問〕 \n> 二度とあそこに行くものか \n> I will never go there again.／《俗》 I'll be damned if I go there again! \n> そんなこと知るものか \n> How would I know (such a thing)?\n\nI agree that 現在形＋ものか tends to mean 2, but it still depends on context.\n\n * これがうまくいくものか、やってみなくてはわからない.\n\nis #1 above and 'I wonder if it will work; I can't tell unless I actually\ntry'.\n\n * これがうまくいくものか！\n\nis 'How can this work = Never!' and means #2.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-19T22:46:30.610", "id": "97297", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-20T00:55:24.347", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-20T00:55:24.347", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97293", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "の turns an adjective into a noun, taking it from \"amazing\" (すごい) to \"something\namazing\" (すごいの).\n\nIf we take your sentence and simply write it in a more standard way, we get:\nせっかくならもっとすごいのを用意してもらいたいものだ。\n\n_せっかくなら \n_ _If you are going to go out of your way,_\n\n_用意してもらいたいものだ。 \n_ _(then come on...) I'd like you to prepare_\n\n_もっとすごいのを \n_ _something even more amazing!_\n\nSee: [Particle の (Nominalizer)](https://www.tofugu.com/japanese-\ngrammar/particle-no-nominalizer/)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-19T23:00:56.900", "id": "97300", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-19T23:00:56.900", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "18145", "parent_id": "97295", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "As others have mentioned, whether to use だ or not is not fundamentally about\nadding emphasis, that is actually really more a side-effect of various other\nfactors.\n\nIn reality, ending with だ is technically simply the complete form of a full\ncasual sentence, and so arguably should be seen as the \"standard\"\nconstruction. It is what most people are taught in textbooks, etc. However, it\nis the case that in the real world, many speakers, when speaking casually,\nwill just tend to drop the だ in many situations. Because of that, _when people\nwould normally leave off the だ_ but instead choose not to, it can sound more\nforceful or emphatic as a result.\n\nHowever, it's also not the case that everyone always leaves off だ when\nspeaking casually either. Whether someone will choose to leave it off or not\ndepends on the situation, and the sentence. In particular, だ is typically\nomitted most of the time when saying short sentences of only a few words, but\nit is more common to actually leave it on when speaking longer sentences (I\nthink partly because it can serve as a useful \"end of sentence\" marker to help\nthe listener sort out more complex sentence grammars).\n\nSo in the examples you quoted, because they are longer sentences, ending with\nだ does not necessarily sound \"emphatic\", because it's actually more normal to\nkeep it on the end of the sentence in that sort of situation anyway.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-20T18:36:39.767", "id": "97309", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-20T18:36:39.767", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "35230", "parent_id": "97298", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "土産は帰りに買う予定だ is something one might write in their personal diary, but it's not\nsomething an ordinary person actually says out loud in reality. In ordinary\ninformal conversations, we almost never end a sentence with だ; it's usually\ntoo blunt and unfriendly. Instead, we use 買うと思う, 買うつもり, 買う予定, 買おうかな, 買うよ, 買うね,\nand so on.\n\nHowever, since conciseness and \"compliance to standards\" are important for any\ndictionary, we normally see だ as part of example sentences whenever it's\ngrammatically valid, even though people don't usually say 予定だ in informal\nsentences. Even です is not suitable as an example in a dictionary because it's\none character longer. You have to get used to this fact when using a Japanese\ndictionary. There are simply too many variations in the way real Japanese\nsentences can end, and dictionaries have no option but to stick to だ as the\nshortest and most canonical one.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-21T03:36:45.043", "id": "97313", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-21T04:23:08.663", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-21T04:23:08.663", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97298", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Generally speaking, no.\n\nFor the particular case, れんしゅう is already a noun 'practice' and バスケットボールのれんしゅう\nmeans 'basketball practice'.\n\n* * *\n\nFor most suru-verbs, the preceding word works as a noun. So you can simply\ndrop する. E.g., 学習{がくしゅう}する→学習 (learn/study), 勤務{きんむ}する→勤務 (work).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-20T00:49:22.487", "id": "97302", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-20T00:49:22.487", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97301", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "How about thinking of it as \"no matter how hard one may try (to, not to)\" in\ndefinition #5?\n\n> 犬は好きですが、猫はどうも・・・ \n> _Lit._ I like dogs but, speaking of cats, no matter how hard I try (to like\n> them)...", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-20T04:18:23.193", "id": "97304", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-20T04:18:23.193", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "9831", "parent_id": "97303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "The #5 in jisho looks like missing in [the\ndefinition](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%A9%E3%81%86%E3%82%82/#jn-156970)\nof 大辞泉, but I suppose the intention is what Chocolate's answer described.\n\nThat said, it is more proper (in terms of 大辞泉) to understand it as _somehow_.\n大辞泉's def #2 has the following:\n\n> 物事の原因や理由がはっきりわからない気持ちを表す。「―調子がおかしい」「 **理数系は―苦手だ** 」\n\nThe bolded example is exactly the same as 猫はどうも..., where 苦手だ is omitted. That\nis, _but_ comes from the contrast between the preceding 犬は好きです and the omitted\npart.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-20T14:31:09.737", "id": "97305", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-21T09:14:49.750", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-21T09:14:49.750", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "A good way to think about どうも is \"in every way (this way and that way)\". The\nどう is \"how\" and when you add も we essentially get \"every how way\".\n\n> 犬は好きですが、猫はどうも\n>\n> I like dogs, but as for cats, in every way (this way, that way, any way)...\n> [I can't seem to like them.]\n\nThis definition is great when どうも is used to mean \"Thank you\" as well. For\nexample if someone held the door open for you, you literally are saying: \"In\nevery way... [thank you]\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-20T23:12:30.380", "id": "97311", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-20T23:12:30.380", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5128", "parent_id": "97303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Even from a grammatical point of view, 元気 is a perfectly fine Japanese\nsentence.\n\n> From what I remember reading, a sentence in Japanese must either end with an\n> adjective, a copula or a verb, if we exclude sentence ending particles and\n> inflections.\n\nThis is more or less accurate. Here, though, we need to see that 元気 falls into\nthe category of \"ending with a copula\", but with the copula itself omitted.\n\"元気。\" or \"元気？\" in its full version can be\n\n> * 元気だ。\n> * 元気です。\n> * 元気ですか？\n> * 元気です？ (Yes people generally add か but grammatically it's not\n> **NECESSARY** )\n>\n\nIt just happens that だ can be omitted, and です, although not omitted because\nit's respectful language (omitting is considered disrespectful or casual),\nthere is nothing grammatical that stops these copulas from being omitted.\n\nTherefore, \"元気\", whether a statement or a question, is a completely\ngrammatically correct Japanese sentence. If you have time, I suggest reading\n[this chapter of Tae Kim's Guide to Japanese\nGrammar](https://guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/stateofbeing) which does\nexplain on this topic.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-20T17:00:54.453", "id": "97308", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-22T18:38:42.817", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-22T18:38:42.817", "last_editor_user_id": "54297", "owner_user_id": "39855", "parent_id": "97306", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Yes, I believe it's a Japanese sentence (sometimes called a minor sentence or\na [sentence word](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_word)).\n\nLooks like many English speakers were [taught at\nschool](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/48864/5010) that a sentence\n_must_ contain a predicate (a verb or a copula). However, as a native Japanese\nspeaker, I have never heard such a rule from Japanese teachers in schools in\nJapan. Things like `元気。`, `はい。`, `おはよう。` or `わ！` are always perfectly\ngrammatical Japanese sentences to me. Simply, any valid expressions delimited\nby periods (or question/exclamation marks) are grammatically sentences. Some\nconsider these \"incomplete\" sentences, but they are not even incomplete to me;\nthere is no \"full version\" of こんにちは, for example.\n\nIf you look at the [Wikipedia article about\nsentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_\\(linguistics\\)), you can see\nmany linguists think a sentence does not have to contain a predicate.\nSomething like \"Mary!\" or \"Wow!\" are sentences to them.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-21T02:06:11.953", "id": "97312", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-21T02:06:11.953", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97306", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "For the particular sentences, there are little differences, but base on the\nexplanations of [this website](https://cotohajime.net/2021/01/21/naide-vs-\nnakute/),\n\n> ＊「ないで」は行為をしない、ということを言っています。\n>\n> (ないで means _not doing the action_ )\n\nSo,\n\n> べつに勝たないでもよかろう\n\nsounds about the will of the player(?). _You don't have to try to win_.\n\nOn the other hand,\n\n> べつに勝たなくてもよかろう\n\nsounds more about the state/result of winning/losing: _It is ok if you lose_.\n\n* * *\n\nTo give another example,\n\n * お金がなくても新しいiPhoneがほしい I want a new iPhone even if I don't have money\n\nis normal. But\n\n * お金がないでも新しいiPhoneがほしい\n\nsounds a little odd because having money is not an action. (Note that 'お金がない.\nでも新しいiPhoneがほしい' is a perfectly normal sentence where でも is used a\nconjunction).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-20T22:56:31.980", "id": "97310", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-20T22:56:31.980", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97307", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Japanese is a lot about tone. Semantically these two mean the same, but the\nformer is more straight and may sound a bit harsh. However, this depends\nheavily on the context.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-21T04:47:27.533", "id": "97314", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-21T04:47:27.533", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55004", "parent_id": "97307", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "It means more literally _at the place where_ rather than temporal order. But\nthe _place_ is an abstract location/realm.\n\nLiterally speaking, the sentence says _Shinto 'works' at the place where death\nis excluded_. More idiomatically, it says that Shinto's rituals/teachings etc.\nassume absence of death or simply paraphrases that Shito does not treat death\nas claimed in other parts.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-21T09:14:13.990", "id": "97316", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-21T09:14:13.990", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97315", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Literally, _we don't say it this way_ translates to\n\n * このようには言わない\n * こういう風{ふう}には言わない\n\nBoth are fine, but I think it is more common to use\n\n * こういう言い方{かた}はしない\n\nwhich literally means _We don't do this way of saying (it)_.\n\nNote that if you are pointing out error/unnaturalness in conversation\n(referring to the interlocutor's expresion), そういう言い方 would be appropriate.\n\n* * *\n\nOther uses of _this way_ require different translations.\n\n * This way, please. こちらへどうぞ\n * Go this way. この道を行きなさい.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-21T14:24:20.083", "id": "97318", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-21T14:24:20.083", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97317", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "(a) と can be used for enumeration. Cf. [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/96904/45489). In this case, (an\ninterpretation is) it combines objects for 込める. That is, を込めて is taking three\nobjects (1)愛情, (2)尊敬, and (3)人間を超えた才能を持った人という気持ち.\n\n(b) As Eiríkr Útlendi commented, you can think of the た indicating perfect\naspect. Another factor may be that Osamu Tezuka is no longer alive.\n\nIf there were a copula,\n\n * 人間を超えた才能を持った人だった\n * 人間を超える才能を持つ人だった\n\nwould both be fine, but here there is no copula and using present tense sounds\nodd.\n\n(c) という generally is like _that_ which encapsulates the preceding sentence to\nmake a clause. Here it makes a noun modifying clause for 気持ち: the feeling that\nhe was a man with superhuman talents.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-21T23:28:31.573", "id": "97325", "last_activity_date": "2023-05-02T00:41:41.313", "last_edit_date": "2023-05-02T00:41:41.313", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97319", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The past tenses 超えた＝超えている and 持った＝持っている it's just a grammar point, it is just\ndescribing features of things:\n\n人間を超えた才能を持った人という気持ちを込めて、...\n\n人間を超えている才能を持っている人という気持ちを込めます- He is a person with talent that transcends\nhumans, that is the feelings they have for him ( they put into him)。\n\n<https://maggiesensei.com/2020/09/08/%E3%80%9C%E3%82%92%E3%81%97%E3%81%9F%EF%BC%8F%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B-wo-\nshita-shiteiru-describing-ones-featuresshapescolor/>", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-05-01T09:05:05.567", "id": "99492", "last_activity_date": "2023-05-12T14:36:37.117", "last_edit_date": "2023-05-12T14:36:37.117", "last_editor_user_id": "50104", "owner_user_id": "50104", "parent_id": "97319", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "もの is used for tangible objects. 面白いもの could refer to some interesting object.\n\nこと is used for intangible objects such as concepts. 面白いこと could refer to some\ninteresting concept.\n\nの is used to say, for your example \"interesting one.\" Sometimes, こと and の and\ntransposable.\n\nOf course, there is more nuance to all three, but what I said should explain\nyour sentence:\n\n> ”Please tell me the interesting one/‘part.’”", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-21T19:37:47.440", "id": "97322", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-21T23:38:34.497", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-21T23:38:34.497", "last_editor_user_id": "34965", "owner_user_id": "34965", "parent_id": "97320", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "This が is an exhaustive-listing-ga, and whether it's desirable depends on the\nprevious context. You know when to say 私 **が** 英語ができる instead of 私 **は**\n英語ができる, right? The と思う at the end of the sentence does not affect this\nparticle choice.\n\nやっぱり紅茶がコーヒーより美味しい should be used when the speaker is faced with a choice\nbetween the two options (tea vs coffee). For example, if this statement is\nuttered after \"Many people like coffee after lunch, but I don't like it\", then\nが sounds more natural (は is not incorrect, though).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-22T00:33:13.997", "id": "97327", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-22T00:33:13.997", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97326", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "As naruto's answer suggests, that it is a と思う sentence does not matter here.\nAnd if I were correcting, I would say やっぱり紅茶はコーヒーより美味しいと思う is just fine (as a\nstandalone example).\n\nYou can understand the difference by standard difference for は/が. は is a topic\nmarker, so 紅茶は... is a simple statement about 紅茶 while 紅茶が... is 排他 (this\nshould be the same as exhaustive listing), implying 'tea and not something\nelse'.\n\n* * *\n\nOne thing that comes to my mind is the difference may be kind of similar to\nindefinite/definite article in English.\n\n * 物理は難しい Physics is a difficult subject.\n * 物理が難しい Physics is the difficult subject (of the subjects discussed in the context).\n\nSimilarly 紅茶は.. is like 'Tea is a better stuff' and 紅茶が... is like 'Tea is\n**the** better stuff'. Logically speaking, the latter is more correct if the\nsentence talks about just tea and coffee.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-22T08:19:41.193", "id": "97330", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-22T08:34:02.343", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-22T08:34:02.343", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97326", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "In addition to the other answers (which have good points) I think another\nfactor to consider is what the focus of the sentence is supposed to be.\n\nUsing は establishes that thing as the topic (central focus) of the sentence,\nso saying 「紅茶はコーヒーより美味しい」is specifically _making a point about (black) tea_ :\n\"Regarding tea, it is tastier than coffee\"\n\nHowever, using が does the opposite, it puts the focus on\nthe「(コーヒーより)美味しい」part, and just says that _tea is the thing which satisfies\nthat condition_ (i.e. \"tea\" is the answer to a (possibly unspoken) question):\n\"In terms of tastiness, tea is better than coffee.\"\n\nI actually also don't entirely agree that the と思う part is completely\nirrelevant. It's true that is not a major factor, and the other points that\nhave been made apply the same whether it is there or not, but when it is\npresent there is also a slight nuance that applies to と思う as well, depending\non whether は or が is used. This is because the topic (は) always applies to the\nwhole sentence, while the subject (が) usually only applies to a particular\nsub-clause, so if you say 紅茶は that actually makes it the topic of not just\n美味しい, but also the verb 思う too. What this means is that if you say:\n\n> 紅茶はコーヒーより美味しいと思う\n\nThat will be parsed as:\n\n> 紅茶は((コーヒーより美味しい)と思う)\n\nso you are basically saying:\n\n> I am thinking about black tea, and what I think about it is that it is\n> tastier than coffee.\n\nBut if you use 紅茶が then that usually would only apply to the local sub-clause,\nso:\n\n> 紅茶がコーヒーより美味しいと思う\n\nwould be parsed as:\n\n> (紅茶がコーヒーより美味しい)と思う\n\nwhich says basically:\n\n> I am thinking in general, and I think that tea is tastier than coffee.\n\nOf course, none of these are inherently wrong things to say per se, but which\none actually makes sense or feels natural will depend a lot on the particular\nsituation, for obvious reasons.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-22T20:13:36.517", "id": "97334", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-22T20:20:18.400", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-22T20:20:18.400", "last_editor_user_id": "35230", "owner_user_id": "35230", "parent_id": "97326", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Although your understanding is not totally off, those forms do not necessarily\nmean different things. In most dictionaries, the meaning of the ばかり is\ncondensed in the single definition of 'only'.\n\nConsider the following pairs of examples:\n\n 1. その女の子は泣いてばかりで会話にならなかった.\n 2. その女の子は泣くばかりで会話にならなかった.\n\nBoth mean _The girl kept crying and it was impossible to have a conversation_.\n泣く refers to the continuous crying. One thing is 泣くばかり sounds more strongly\n'do nothing but crying'.\n\n 3. その男の子はスマホを見てばかりで勉強しない.\n 4. その男の子はスマホを見るばかりで勉強しない.\n\n見る/見て would be understood as habitual activity. But like above 見るばかり sounds\n'(literally) do nothing but watching smartphone', which is unlikely and thus\nless natural.\n\n 5. 自分は今年90になるのであとは死ぬばかりだ.\n\nHere 死んでばかり is not possible because death is a one-time event.\n\nSo for expressions that talk about the action/event of a particular moment (2\nand 5 above), 辞書形 + ばかり works better meaning 'do nothing else except - ', but\nthis does not necessarily make て+ばかり unnatural (1 above).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-23T02:54:34.887", "id": "97339", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-23T02:54:34.887", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97328", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "You should understand the ほど adverbially, i.e., the same as ほどに.\n\nThe subject of しょげてる should be _he_. Expanding very literally, it is\n\n * (彼は、)(私が)彼を見てるのが(私にとって)気の毒なほど悄気てる。\n\nwhich translates to\n\n * He is dejected to the extent that looking at him makes me sorry.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-22T08:27:46.183", "id": "97331", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-22T08:27:46.183", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97329", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Consider the English verb _relate_. We commonly use the past-tense form as an\nadjective.\n\n> 血液型に **関係した** こと \n> ↓ \n> things **related** to blood type\n\nThis is one of those uncommon areas where the Japanese and English grammar\nline up -- likely due to the shared underlying nature of the concept. The\nrelation itself is something that is _already established_ , so we use the\npast tense (or completed aspect, if we're being more specific).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-22T19:38:42.787", "id": "97333", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-22T19:38:42.787", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "97332", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Strictly speaking, I think you are right about 話せるようになれる, and it does sound\nodd if you think about it. At the same time, it should be the kind of\nredundancy that passes unnoticed in ordinary usage.\n\nIn the first three examples, 話せるようになる is enough and more natural. Also in the\nother three, 話せるようになる works. But, as you suspected, in the last two, it is\nmore like 'the situation/relationship comes to the state such that...' rather\nthan ability, so 話すようになれる sounds less unnatural.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-23T11:43:54.743", "id": "97343", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-23T12:02:49.660", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-23T12:02:49.660", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97335", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Short answer is, 大抵#3 = いい加減#2 and 適当#3 = いい加減#1.\n\nAs asked in [this question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/66021/45489),\nいい加減#1 and #2 are kind of opposite.\n\nRoughly, the literal meaning of いい加減 is 'good degree' and if it is positively\nunderstood as 'within limits', then it means #2 _moderate, to an appropriate\ndegree_. It can be understood negatively as not going as far as one can or\nstop randomly or halfway, resulting in #1 _irresponsible, unreliable_.\n\n適当 has the same ambiguity. Literally it means _to the point_ and _appropriate_\nas such, but again it can mean stopping halfway and _unreliable_.\n\nNow for the sentences,\n\n 1. わがままもたいていにしなさい。\n\nHere 大抵 means いい加減#2. Here も works as limiting the context, so _Be moderate in\nbeing selfish_ or _don't be too selfish_.\n\n 2. 適当なことを言う。\n\nIt is 'unreliable' sense of 適当 and いい加減(#1), so 'to say random things'.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-23T03:12:48.580", "id": "97340", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-23T03:12:48.580", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97336", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "> Could you call the い/i - suffix of adjectives a copula?\n\n## The short answer\n\nNo.\n\n## The longer answer\n\nA \"[copula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copula_\\(linguistics\\))\" is an\nindependent word used to link a subject with its predicate, in an \"X **_is_**\nY\" kind of relationship.\n\nIn Japanese, だ・です does this: it is an independent word, that explicitly states\nthat something **is**.\n\nThe ～い ending of an ''-i'' adjective, however, doesn't do this: it is not an\nindependent word, and it doesn't state that something **is** in general terms,\nso much as that something is **the specific quality of that adjective**.\n\nThe ～い ending has predicative and attributive functions, but it is not a\ncopula.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-23T01:45:28.233", "id": "97338", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-23T01:45:28.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "97337", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "[はからう](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/en/%E8%A8%88%E3%82%89%E3%81%86/#je-60077)\nmeans _to see to it_. It is often used with adverbs, without mentioning\nexplicitly what is done (in this sense, it is close to _to manage_ ).\n\nFrom the linked entry:\n\n> なんとか計らいましょう\n>\n> I'll see to it.／I'll take care of it somehow.\n\nIt can be used also like _to see to it that ..._ , which is the case for the\nsentence in question.\n\nLiterally\n\n> 兄達の休暇が終わるまで、沖野家に戻っていて **いいように、はからってもらおう。**\n\ncan be translated to\n\n> I **will have someone see to it that (I) can (/have the permission to) be\n> back** in Okino's house till the end of the vacation of the brothers.\n\nPractically your understanding is correct, but I made the literal translation\nfor はからってもらう.\n\n* * *\n\nIn grammar terms, understanding ように as _so that_ and はからう as _make\narrangements_ should clarify.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-24T04:12:52.297", "id": "97358", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-24T04:34:13.397", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-24T04:34:13.397", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97344", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "The Japanese language doesn't even have the concept of syllables. If your\nEnglish brain tries to count \"the number of syllables in a Japanese word\",\nyou've already made a fundamental mistake about the Japanese pronunciation\nsystem.\n\nInstead, Japanese is based on morae (see [this reddit\npost](https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/1879x8/comment/c8c8iiu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)\nand [this Wikipedia\narticle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mora_\\(linguistics\\)#Japanese) for the\ndifference), and こい and まい are clearly two morae long. That is, こ, ま and い\nmust be pronounced with the same length of time. しゃしん is three morae long, and\nしゃ, し, ん takes the same amount of time. (Don't call ゃ, ょ and so on \"lowercase\nkana\". See the links below.)\n\nThe table below shows how the \"length\" of the same word is counted in Japanese\nand English:\n\nJapanese | Num of morae | English | Num of syllables \n---|---|---|--- \nまい | 2 | Mai | 1 \n小泉 | 4 | Koizumi | 3 (or 4) \n東京 | 4 | Tokyo | 2 (or 3) \n大阪 | 4 | Osaka | 3 \n広島 | 4 | Hiroshima | 4 \nストライク | 5 | strike | 1 \n \nRelated:\n\n * [Do native speakers think of prolonged vowels as one long vowel, or two vowel sounds following each other?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/30035/5010)\n * [Does Japanese have characters in small size and in capital size?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/87458/5010)\n * [Are there many occurrences of elongated syllables throughout the language?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/65027/5010)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-23T17:05:08.850", "id": "97346", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-23T17:14:00.803", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-23T17:14:00.803", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97345", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Moras may form the base of Japanese but syllables play a part as well.\n\nFor the video in question as stated in the previous answer, in the second\nvideo there are two separate moras. Even if I clapped out the \"syllables\" it\nwould probably sound like: ko-i-zu-mi-kun. This could be in part to the pitch\naccent falling on the い.\n\nAnd on clapping syllables here's a video from a Japanese linguist Shigeto\nKawahara where he demonstrates how his five year old child will clap mostly\nbased on the syllable: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtOju8g2FSI>. It also\nhas an explainer on syllables in Japanese. TLDR for that: There are special\nmoras: っ (consonant gemination), ん (moraic nasal), ー (elongation) and\noccasionally others. Japanese syllables are made up of heavy syllables and\nlight syllables. Heavy syllables have a construction of `normal mora + special\nmora`. Light syllables include all normal moras. There is a connection to\npitch accent in that: you can't place the accent on a special mora, which\nmeans you can only place the accent on the first mora of a syllable. If you\napply this to こいずみ, since the pitch falls on い, then the こ and い must be\nseparate syllables.\n\nTo address your bottom questions:\n\n1.\n\n> So for those consecutive vowels things, do you really have to say them\n> together?\n\nThese kana + smaller kana combinations could collectively be called 拗音\n(youon). There isn't really any separation to begin with, so yes you have to\nsay them together. It helps people learning, to explain the pronunciation as:\nquickly saying these as two separate moras but in terms of the actual sound:\nwhen ゃゅょ are added, you end up using the consonant from the original mora and\nthe vowel from the small mora and merging them. The consonant additionally\nbecomes\n[palatized](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palatalization_\\(sound_change\\))\nwhich makes it sound like you are gliding between vowels when you are in fact\njust pronouncing the consonant at a higher position. Examples of this: きゃ, ぎょ,\nびゅ.\n\nAlso the problem gets more complicated (or easier in another sense) because\nthe 拗音 you picked (しゃ) actually doesn't get palatized like others. It's\nactually the same sound as if you changed **just the vowel** in し to an あ or\nwhatever that smaller mora's vowel is. This is true for し (しゃ, しゅ, しょ) じ (じゃ,\nじゅ, じょ) and ち (ちゃ, ちゅ, ちょ). So when you learn あいうえお you can just add the し\nconsonant to produce しゃ, し, しゅ, しぇ, しょ.\n\n2.\n\n> Why is there like a special thing ゃ for しゃしん but not really for consecutive\n> vowels eg a 'lowercase' い for 'こい' ?\n\nThe first thing (拗音 youon) is a single mora formed of a consonant (sometimes\npalatized) and a vowel. The second thing is two separate vowels that form two\nseparate moras. So the duration of the second would be twice as long. Hence\nwhy the 拗音 isn't just two full size separate kana. Technically speaking, the\ntiming of two consecutive vowels like あい should be the same length as any\nother two moras but in fast speech this isn't the case. As such linguists like\nKawahara refer to these as one syllable. But as you've noticed they don't\nalways act as one. There are a couple influencing factors like speed of\nspeech, pitch accent, idiolects etc...", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-23T20:38:06.033", "id": "97351", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-23T20:38:06.033", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22638", "parent_id": "97345", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "As you may know, Japanese has some common family names just like Chinese has 張\nor 李. So default names like the following are what you see, for example, in\nform templates.\n\n * 鈴木一郎\n * 山田太郎\n * 山田花子\n\n(Actually 山田 is not **the** common family name, but somehow in this kind of\ncontexts, the one seen most often.)\n\nThese names cannot be used pronoun-like as suggested in the comment, and\nanother alternative is\n[名無しの権兵衛](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%8D%E7%84%A1%E3%81%97%E3%81%AE%E6%A8%A9%E5%85%B5%E8%A1%9B),\nwhose wikipedia article explicitly mentions John Doe and 張三李四. As far as I can\nthink of, however, even 名無しの権兵衛 can not be used pronoun-like completely as\nJohn Doe.\n\nUsing 名無しの権兵衛 like _someone_ may be possible in some cases, but\nもし名無しの権兵衛が法定速度30kmの場所で50km出していたら... sounds weird. Since Japanese can omit\nsubjects in most cases, it would be more natural not to mention the subject\n(or to use simply 誰か to mean _someone_ ).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-24T04:31:19.327", "id": "97360", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-24T04:31:19.327", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97348", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "So Google Translate is often wrong, and generally should not be trusted\nregardless, but I do not think that is actually the issue in this case.\n\nI think the fundamental issue here is that in Japanese, なる is usually only\nused for things which happen without (substantial) external influence. 強くなる\nmeans \"to become strong\", but it really means \"to become strong\" _through\none's own efforts or natural development, etc._ Therefore, using the causative\nwith なる just usually doesn't even make logical sense. In Japanese, you\ntechnically cannot be \"made to become something\", because the act of making\nsomething happen to someone else fundamentally makes what occurs not be\n\"becoming\" (なる) anymore.\n\nIn general, when somebody else causes the development to occur instead of it\nhappening on its own, then する is used instead of なる:\n\n * 強くなる - \"to become strong\" (on one's own)\n * 強くする - \"to make (something/someone) strong\"\n\nAnother way of thinking about this is that in practice, the causative form of\nなる effectively turns out to just be する, not ならせる. (This is why, as Eiríkr\nÚtlendi pointed out, ならせる would usually not even be interpreted as a form of\nなる at all, but instead a form of 鳴らす.)\n\nThe difference between する and させる for many types of actions is also kinda\nambiguous, and in cases such as this where する is effectively already\nexpressing a causative action, する and させる can often be somewhat\ninterchangeable.\n\nSo I believe that in this case, 強くさせてくれたこと and 強くしてくれたこと both mean basically\nthe same thing, which is \"the thing that made (someone) strong for me\". The\n\"someone\" here is unstated, so it technically does not _have_ to be the\nspeaker, but unless there's something to suggest otherwise, the general\nassumption, I think, would be that since the speaker was receiving the favor\n(くる) they were also the one who received the strengthening as well.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-24T21:34:28.440", "id": "97368", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-24T21:34:28.440", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "35230", "parent_id": "97349", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "1. Your dictionary is outdated, 見た目 is heiban in modern Japanese.\n\n 2. OJAD is also wrong, it’s parsing it as two separate words 見た+目 (the eye which saw).\n\nIt should be みためよ＼り.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-24T00:51:01.883", "id": "97354", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-24T00:51:01.883", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "97352", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "As you said, 見た目より若く見えます is somewhat nonsensical because it suggests that\nsomeone looks old and young at the same time.(*) I feel like it at least needs\nsome qualifications, like \"his _physical features_ may look old when taken\nindividually but his _overall impression_ is not that of a typical old man\".\n(This is just a made up example, other qualifications are possible.) Perhaps\nthe writer might assume the reader knows the unsaid qualifications so they\ndon't see the need to clarify, though.\n\n* [｢見た目より若く見える｣ - これって日本語がおかしい、というか矛盾してますよね？](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12205369297)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-24T03:21:38.713", "id": "97356", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-24T09:05:37.680", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-24T09:05:37.680", "last_editor_user_id": "10531", "owner_user_id": "10531", "parent_id": "97355", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "It's difficult to use perfect keigo even to many native Japanese adults.\nBookstores sell keigo handbooks with hundreds of pages for native Japanese\nspeakers. Still, if you need to speak Japanese in business settings, you need\nto take the time to master at least some keigo. While the basic rules are not\nthat complicated, the rules are completely new to you. You'll need to learn a\nfew dozen new verbs and expressions, too. For example, 来る is a simple verb\nmeaning \"to come\", but you need to use different verbs while you're talking to\nyour business partner. The correct verb depends on whether you are the subject\nor the partner is the subject.\n\nOn the other hand, if you just want to speak in a way that is not too rude as\na tourist, just being able to use \"desu\" and \"masu\" might be sufficient.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-24T04:23:09.910", "id": "97359", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-24T04:23:09.910", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97357", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "> 1. Where does the notion of \"this bad\" come from?\n>\n\nIt's from この程度, which literally is \"this much\", \"this degree\" or \"this\nextent\". More verbosely, this could have been この程度の悪さ (\"this degree of\nbadness\").\n\n> 2. What nuance is the \"も\" adding to the sentence?\n>\n\nThis is も used to make the sentence sound reserved. See this question:\n[Meaning of く も in this\nsentence](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/65646/5010)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-24T08:19:12.500", "id": "97362", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-24T08:19:12.500", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97361", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "This would be 行く, not 行う. The latter is used to say something was carried\nout/executed.\n\nHere, 行く is actually part of the format of ていく. When you add いく to a て-form of\na verb, it is as if the verb is currently being acted out.\n\n> In your example, the police were likely to begin a process of following him.\n> To say, the police began to actively follow him. It conveys a sense of\n> progression of some event.\n\nThe other used of a directional verb you will see is てくる, which is to say some\nverb arrived at something, or that something was done, and arrived at that\nstate.\n\n> 太くなってきた would be something became fat after some process, to say it arrived\n> at being fat.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-24T17:28:49.340", "id": "97366", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-24T17:28:49.340", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "34965", "parent_id": "97365", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "て in どういたしまして are different from the other two.\n\n[大辞泉](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%A6/#jn-148945) definition only\ngives the meaning as a question marker: 質問や確かめの気持ちを表す。「あなたにもでき―」「いらしたことあっ―」\n(FYI this is normally used by females).\n\n反問的用法 should be a variant of this and interprets どういたしまして as 'What have I done\n(to be thanked)?'. It is not possible to understand 初めまして or あけまして this way.\n\n* * *\n\nThe other two are more simply te-form, indicating the sentence continues\n(初めましてよろしくお願いします).\n\n* * *\n\nEtymology can only be guessed, but all of the above (終助詞 or not) seem to have\nderived from renyo-kei (stem of te-form) of つ, auxiliary verb for perfective\n(roughly modern た): [〘接助〙\n(完了の助動詞「つ」の連用形から)](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%A6-573101).\n\nNote all the expressions can be translated with perfect tense: What _have_ I\n_done_?, Now we _have met_ for the first time, Now the new year _has come_.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-26T04:29:29.667", "id": "97379", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-27T09:43:53.593", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-27T09:43:53.593", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97367", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Besides aguijonazo's comments that 途端に cannot follow non-perfective state\n(like 困っている), there are cases both can be used because ところに _can_ follow a\nperfective.\n\n * 横になった途端に電話がかかってきた The moment I lay down, the phone rang.\n * 横になったところに電話がかかってきた As I lay down, the phone rang.\n\n* * *\n\nI'm not entirely sure, but a similar difference in usage may apply to _as soon\nas/the moment ..._ vs _when_ , where the former only (or at least more\nnaturally) come with a perfective sentence, like 途端に.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-26T04:39:39.583", "id": "97380", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-26T04:39:39.583", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97369", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "You can tell the answer is ところに because of the 通りかかり after it. ところに~通りかかり. The\nmeaning is \"as if coming to the state when I was troubled\". ところへ and ところに are\nvery related to verbs of movement.\n\nThis video lesson explains it very well:\n\n<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfbwUOXyNAc>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-27T01:19:09.710", "id": "97397", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-27T01:19:09.710", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97369", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "In terms of names used in passports today, either **o** or **oh** is fine and\nit is a matter of choice (of the person who applies in case of passport).\n\nE.g., [the guide](https://www.boston.us.emb-\njapan.go.jp/itpr_ja/passport7.html) from the consulate-general of Japan in\nBoston has the following as allowed romanization for passport names.\n\n氏名のフリガナ | ヘボン式ローマ字 | OHによる長音表記 \n---|---|--- \nオオ | O | OH \n例：オオノ | ONO | OHNO \nコオリ | KORI | KOHRI \nオウ | O | OH \n例：コウノ | KONO | KOHNO \nオウギ | OGI | OHGI \n \nAs noted in the guide, originally only _o_ , which is _the_ correct one in\nHepburn romanization, was allowed.\n\nThe following contains how おう/おお are transcribed in other romanization.\n\n * [Wikipedia/ローマ字](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E5%AD%97)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-25T15:39:09.177", "id": "97371", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-25T22:35:31.483", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-25T22:35:31.483", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97370", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "> Does this work with any **一＋名詞** repeated？\n\nIt works with most _counters_. The meaning depends on contexts, but generally\nit is _one by one, one after another, each_ etc.\n\n> Does it make the construction an adverb?\n\nI would say no. The 一N一N phrases behave just like numerical expressions, which\nare noun phrases that can work adverbially. You can see the following\nquestions.\n\n * [Grammatically speaking, what is もう一つ?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/77272/45489)\n * [Placing a quantifier between a noun and particle?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/21549/45489)\n * [Counters with and without の](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/84379/45489)\n\nFor example, 一曲一曲心をこめて歌う can be 一曲一曲 **を** 心を込めて歌う, where 一曲一曲 behaves a noun\nphrase.\n\n> **一分一秒.** Is it the same grammar?\n\nI would say it is the same usage, practically meaning _every second_. (一分一秒 is\nmore idiomatic than 一分一分 or 一秒一秒.)\n\nNote that there are a number of common 四字熟語 following the pattern 一N一N:\n[一期一会](https://jisho.org/word/%E4%B8%80%E6%9C%9F%E4%B8%80%E4%BC%9A),\n[一進一退](https://jisho.org/word/%E4%B8%80%E9%80%B2%E4%B8%80%E9%80%80), etc. 一分一秒\ncould be considered just as an instance of the pattern as well.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-26T02:57:41.630", "id": "97377", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-26T02:57:41.630", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97372", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "The sentence was probably made by two steps.\n\nFirstly, why we use 傷つけ **ては** いないか,not 傷つけていないか. Because ”ては” can emphasis\nthe sentence.\n\nSecondly, why Yonezu uses 傷つけては **しないか** ,not 傷つけてはいないか. This is difficult\nproblem. Although I'm Japanese, I think this expression is a little wrong.\nBut, I guess he wants to give us to a little weird feeling.\n\nI translate them forcibly, あなたを傷つけていないか means ”Am I hurting you?”,\nあなたを傷つけてはいないか means ”Am I even hurting you?”, あなたを傷つけてはしないか means ”Do I even\nhurting you?”.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-27T18:46:56.237", "id": "97824", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-27T18:46:56.237", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55322", "parent_id": "97373", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Semantically both are mostly the same. When I was googling, there was even a\nusage like: [**地中** における **地下** 杭の存在](https://www.dojo-\nlaw.com/case2/page18.html).\n\nI think the difference lies more in usage. When appending directly to another\nnoun to mean _something underground_ , 地下 is more likely to be used.\n\n * 地下鉄 (railway), 地下資源 (resources), 地下水 (water)\n\nIn these, 地中 cannot replace 地下. I realized there is a word\n[地中熱](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9C%B0%E4%B8%AD%E7%86%B1), but this is\nnot very common. In practice, 地中 is most often followed by a particle.\n\nIn terms of nuances, 地下 sounds more substantially underground while 地中 just\nliterally means below the ground however shallow it is. For example,\n\n * 地下に潜る can mean figuratively _(e.g., for a criminal) to hide, escape_ ; it could be used for a mole as well, but 地中に潜る sounds better for animals or insects.\n\n * It is ok to say 地中に埋まった種 _seed in the ground_ (while 地面に埋まった may be more normal); 地下に埋まった種 sounds odd. At best it could mean what was buried deep underground as a treasure or something.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-26T03:22:14.860", "id": "97378", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-26T03:22:14.860", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97374", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "From my experience, 地下 means \"underground\" (as in \"below the surface of the\nearth\"), while 地中 basically means \"buried\".\n\n地下 is much more commonly used, and I believe can really be used pretty much\nanywhere 地中 could be used as well, but can also be used for some things that\n地中 does not apply to.\n\n地中 has a sense of being put in the earth and then covered over, or being\nsurrounded by soil, etc. On the other hand, 地下 can refer to things which are\njust located in an open space which exists below the ground (for example,\ncaves, or cellars, or subway tunnels, etc).\n\nSo, for example, an irrigation pipe might be 地中 (it is buried in the ground,\nwith soil piled in on top of it), but a subway train is not 地中, it is only 地下,\nbecause it is not actually in contact with and surrounded by dirt, it just\nmoves through a space which is below surface-level.\n\nAlso, as was mentioned, 地下 can be used in a figurative way to refer to illicit\nor hidden things, similar to how \"underground\" is used figuratively in\nEnglish, while 地中 cannot.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-26T18:44:31.537", "id": "97386", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-26T18:44:31.537", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "35230", "parent_id": "97374", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "That `など` does not mean etc. It means \"things like\" in the sense of \"looking\ndown\" at your own knowledge. It's a humble way of saying: \"A knowledge like\nmine (that is poor).\n\n```\n\n 先生のそれと\n \n```\n\nThat と is the comparison と. Therefore, it is `それ＋と`(comparison particle) and\nnot `それと`(additive conjunction). \"When comparing to that (knowledge) of the\nteacher\" ... It's a way to avoid repeating 知識 again.\n\n```\n\n 比較にならないほど\n \n```\n\nTo the point it can't be compared. Virtually, when saying \"Something does not\nbecome a comparison\", you're literally saying \"it cannot be compared\". It's\njust a way of conveying this kind of meaning.\n\n```\n\n お粗末なものでございます\n \n```\n\nIs a modest thing.\n\nMore naturaly:\n\nA knowledge like mine is a modest thing that can't even be compared to the\nteacher's (knowledge).", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-26T01:01:33.363", "id": "97376", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-26T09:44:55.400", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-26T09:44:55.400", "last_editor_user_id": "7944", "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97375", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Short answer: those せんと in the question are different from the 関西弁「せんと」 and\nmostly the same as しようと: _try to, about to._\n\n* * *\n\nGrammatically the difficulty comes from different instances of ん.\n\nThose in question is a conjugation of classical む, which is similar to modern\nう・よう.\n\n> [む](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%82%80/#jn-214421)［助動］［（ま）｜○｜\n> **む（ん）** ｜ **む（ん）** ｜め｜○］活用語の未然形に付く。 \n> １ 推量・予想の意を表す。…だろう。\n>\n> ２ 意志・希望の意を表す。…う（よう）。…するつもりだ。\n\nThe ん in 関西弁「せんと」(＝しないと) is a conjugation of negative auxiliary.\n\n> [ぬ](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%AC/#jn-169019)［助動］［〇｜ **ず（ん）**\n> ｜ **ぬ（ん）** ｜ **ぬ（ん）**\n> ｜ね｜〇］《文語の打消しの助動詞「ず」の連体形が口語の終止形となったもの》助動詞「だ」「たい」を除く活用語の未然形に付く。\n\nせ is the 未然形 of する (the same as e.g. 確認せずに). と should be the と in とする, whose\nexact function I'm not sure.\n\nSo せんと in question mean\n\n * The blade approaches, trying/willing/about to cut (it) in two.\n * The light (...) flows all over, as if trying/willing/about to rule everything", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T10:20:35.337", "id": "97430", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T10:20:35.337", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97382", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Referring to someone as 先生 is fine if:\n\n 1. You yourself are a student/disciple/apprentice of that person\n 2. That person is working as a teacher, and you are introducing him/her in the context of teaching their skills\n 3. That person is in a profession where they are traditionally referred to as 先生 (politician, lawyer, physician, professional shogi player, etc).\n\nIf none of the above applies, do not use 先生. For example, if you are simply\npresenting a talented arborist as a talented arborist in contexts unrelated to\neducation/apprenticeship, you cannot use 先生.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T05:01:07.027", "id": "97426", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T05:10:35.117", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-28T05:10:35.117", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97385", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "から expresses the **starting point**. In your case: the mouth. Because the\nmedicine goes **in** coming **from** the mouth. You're not taking intravenous\ninjections, for example.\n\nUsing 口で seems fine, but the emphasis becomes the **way** you do it and not\nthe **spacial position**.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-26T22:41:29.977", "id": "97389", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-26T22:41:29.977", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97387", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "口で飲む would be comically redundant because the act of 飲む always involves the\nmouth. 口から飲む is redundant for the same reason. 日本の会社が初めて作った飲む薬です is just fine.\n口から adds emphasis on the fact that the drug is administered \"from the mouth\"\nas opposed to other possible means. The mouth is seen as an entry point into\nthe body.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-27T00:31:39.420", "id": "97395", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-27T00:31:39.420", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "97387", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Duolingo is not really good for grammar. The course has been a bit abandoned.\nIf you pay attention, compared to other courses, the variety of exercises is\nvery few, etc.\n\nBoth sentences with は or without は mean the same. The thing is that by using\nは, it seems that it is already a known information.\n\nSo, if someone asks about an unkown room:\n\n部屋にテーブルがいくつありますか\n\nYou might say (because you know about the room already):\n\n部屋にはテーブルが一つあります\n\nIt could be also a comparison:\n\n刑務所に部屋がいくつありますか How many rooms exist in the prison?\n\nYou could say:\n\n刑務所(は)知らないが、私の家に(は)三つの部屋があります I don't about the prison, but there are three\nrooms in my house.\n\nThere are MANY other uses for the は particle that will come to see at some\npoint. Many linguists have written many articles about it, so it's kind of\nimpossible to talk about every use.\n\nDuolingo is simply not considering these kind of nuances.\n\nRecommendation of materials:\n\n<https://www.japaneseammo.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-%E3%81%AF-\nvs-%E3%81%8C-the-only-lesson-you-need/>\n\n<https://www.tofugu.com/japanese/wa-and-ga/>\n\n<https://www.wasabi-jpn.com/japanese-grammar/ha-vs-ga-five-points-you-need-to-\nknow/>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-26T22:58:58.640", "id": "97390", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-26T23:11:59.107", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-26T23:11:59.107", "last_editor_user_id": "50324", "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97388", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "This is a specific grammatical construction, where ものの is used after a verb.\nThe basic meaning is \"although, however, even though\".\n\nRelevant bilingual entries:\n\n * WWWJDIC via the Monash University mirror \n<http://nihongo.monash.edu/cgi-bin/wwwjdic?1MUJ%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AE>\n\n * Weblio EJJE \n<https://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AE>\n\n * Eijirō \n<https://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AE>\n\n * Wiktionary \n<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AE>\n\n * Jisho.org \n<https://jisho.org/search/%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AE> \n→ Ignore the sample sentence shown here, it is not correctly illustrating this\nconstruction.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-27T00:05:49.317", "id": "97394", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-27T00:05:49.317", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "97391", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This nuance is quite simple:\n\nLook at the following sentences:\n\n```\n\n I feel that a tornado is coming\n \n I feel as if a tornado is coming\n \n```\n\nThe difference is the strength of the assertion.\n\nよう adds a bit of uncertainty.\n\n```\n\n なぜか彼が僕のことをわからないような気がします\n \n```\n\nI don't know why but I feel as if my boyfriend doesn't understand me.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-27T00:37:57.813", "id": "97396", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-27T00:37:57.813", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97392", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "面目, 顔, 体面, 面子/メンツ - these words are usually used in the context of losing or\nprotecting it, and not in the \"winning\" context, like getting awards. \"Lose\nface\" and \"save face\" can be translated using any of them.\n\n名誉 - I think its usage is broader, one can lose it (名誉を傷つける, 名誉毀損) or win it\n(名誉なこと, 名誉挽回). It's often associated with awards.\n\nI know I'm not getting to the point of which one is \"the most used\", but my\nanswer would be it depends on the context.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-27T07:41:55.857", "id": "97399", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-27T07:41:55.857", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "10531", "parent_id": "97398", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "The sentence is a little vague, but it should be close to 2. 広範 literally\nmeans 広い範囲で=in wide range, so it means the development happens all across the\narea.\n\nAs for Aを前提に, it means that A is a precondition: _assuming A_ , or in this\ncase _with A as background_.\n\n* * *\n\nThe structure of the sentence and a literal transaltion:\n\n * (Aを前提に、(...)動く)経済体制\n * a system of economy that functions .... with A as precondition.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-27T09:39:41.553", "id": "97401", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-27T09:39:41.553", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97400", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Volitional + とする - shows an interruption of your effort to do an action.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-27T23:02:53.567", "id": "97411", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-27T23:02:53.567", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54551", "parent_id": "97404", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "First, you need to understand the concepts of `Verb of volition` and `Verbs\nwithout volition`.\n\nIn general `Verb of volition` corresponds to transitive verbs and `Verbs\nwithout volition` to intransitive verbs.\n\n`Verbs without volition + ようとしている` mean `to be about to`. A bit formal.\n\n```\n\n 授業が始まろうとしている\n \n```\n\nThe class is about to start.\n\nVerbs in the `volitional form ＋というところ／ってところ` and `verbs in the dictionary form\n+ ところだ` are similar in use and also mean `to be about to` regardless of\nvolition.\n\n```\n\n これから友達に説明しに行こうというところです\n \n```\n\nI'm about to go to explain it to my friend from now.\n\n```\n\n これから仕事に行くところだ\n \n```\n\nI'm about to go to work from now.\n\nIf you attach with the 意向形 associated with expressions like `とき`、`ところ` etc,\nThey will usually mean `to be about to`\n\n```\n\n 私もちょうど電話をかけようとしていたところに、その友人から電話が来た\n \n```\n\nWhen I was about to call too, a call from my friend came.\n\nBut not necessarily:\n\n```\n\n 困っていたところに彼女が救いの手を差し伸べてくれた\n \n```\n\nJust when I was troubled, she lent a helping hand.\n\nIn other cases, ようとする means `try to`.\n\nIt's also worth mentioning that ところ emphasizes the \"state\" that is being\ninfluenced. Constructions like ようとしていたところに literally mean \"(right) in the\nmoment when I had volition to do X, Y happens\".", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-27T23:54:38.517", "id": "97412", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T06:48:04.333", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-28T06:48:04.333", "last_editor_user_id": "15674", "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97404", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "That まで in this case means \"even/to the point of\".\n\nFor examples:\n\n> 彼女が好きすぎて、足の匂いまで嗅ぎたくなります\n\n> I like my girlfriend too much that I even started wanting to smell her\n> feet's odor.\n\nAs you can see, it expresses an hyperbole.\n\nにまで is just combining に and まで.\n\nAll in all, your sentence means:\n\n> 海外にまで知られ始める\n\n> To start being known **even** overseas.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-27T19:41:08.900", "id": "97407", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-25T01:16:35.467", "last_edit_date": "2023-08-25T01:16:35.467", "last_editor_user_id": "32952", "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97405", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I think that looking at the kanji and example sentences should probably give\nyou a hint about the meaning.\n\n`正式` the correct/proper form\n\n```\n\n 彼女は夫と正式に離婚した\n \n```\n\nShe divorced from her husband in the correct form (legally/officialy).\n\n彼女のその服は正式なパーティーでは場違いだ\n\nThose clothes of her, in a party in the correct form (formal) are out of\nplace.\n\n`形式` seems more associated with format.\n\n```\n\n 彼はそれを小説の形式で表した\n \n```\n\nHe expressed it in the form of novel.\n\nBut also formality\n\n```\n\n 一般に若者は形式を嫌う\n \n```\n\nIn general, young people dislike formalities.\n\n```\n\n 形式的な文体で書きなさい\n \n```\n\nWrite using a formal literary style.\n\nThis could easily be written using 正式.\n\n`公式` is the form that is for the public. I think you get this one. It's really\nclose to the \"official\" word in english, But it can also be used as \"formula\"\nin the mathematical sense.\n\n`公` seems to lean to the \"public\" meaning in the sense that it's not private.\n\n```\n\n その老人は１０年前に公の生活から引退した。\n \n```\n\nThe old man retired from public life ten years ago.\n\nI hope this helps somehow.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T00:19:01.580", "id": "97414", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T04:03:23.550", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-28T04:03:23.550", "last_editor_user_id": "50324", "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97406", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "At least in postwar Japan, this is a common set phrase that does not\nnecessarily assume the presence of a specific human or deity working behind-\nthe-scenes. In other words, it can be used like either \"thanks to X\" (with a\nspecific X as a supporter in mind) or just unspecific \"thankfully\". There is\nno religious significance at all at least in modern Japanese.\n\nEtymologically, [お陰](https://jisho.org/word/%E3%81%8A%E8%94%AD) has something\nto do with religious beliefs, so some people in the past may have used this in\nconnection with religion.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T04:22:05.270", "id": "97425", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T04:22:05.270", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97408", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "> 若き棟梁はそれはまた改めて話すと言って、決して口を割らなかった\n\nTo me it sounds like \"the young leader said that he would talk that another\ntime but never confessed\". Like \" **said** XXX **and** never confessed\". And\nthat is probably why he talked to the sister **first**. Like a secret.\n\nと言って can mean adversity sometimes.\n\n> 兄の気持ちだと、少女は喜んだ\n\nTo me, that と is the content particle. だ seems to be there because \"she was\nglad that her older brother's feeling **was** that\": telling her.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-27T22:52:13.207", "id": "97410", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T00:17:30.420", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-28T00:17:30.420", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97409", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Everything you linked is pronounced heiban, so you heard it wrong all three\ntimes. And re: your further question, 勝手 is always heiban.\n\nMaybe try using this [word + particle perception\ntest](https://kotu.io/tests/pitchAccent/perception/words?mode=mora&particlesOnly=true)\nto improve your ability to differentiate heiban and odaka.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T00:19:06.770", "id": "97415", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T00:19:06.770", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "97413", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I think you could interpret it in two ways.\n\nIt could be the TE FORM of the copula. Therefore:\n\nI am just forgetting **and**... (that's bad)\n\nOr as the function of the TE particle that expresses the method:\n\n**By** only forgetting ... (my secret will be exposed).\n\nI really don't think it is abbreviated.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T01:37:53.293", "id": "97417", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T01:37:53.293", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97416", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "I don't know the answer for your question, but I can contribute with the\ninformation that I have only seen ほどに with the hyperbole meaning `ほど to\ndemonstrate an \"extreme example\"` and the `ほど to express the more _, the more\n_`\n\n<https://ja.hinative.com/questions/1363574>\n\nThis person has made a similar question and it seems to depend on the use.\n\nMy take is that に is used sometimes to show that ほど is working adverbially in\nthe sentence. The thing is that, even in the most thorough textbooks, they do\nnot talk about that.\n\nほどと on the other hand seems off.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T02:56:37.707", "id": "97419", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T02:56:37.707", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97418", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "`愛すべき野郎` means `bastard you must love` in the sense of duty. It sounds a bit\noff.\n\n愛しいバカ (lovely idiot) sounds more idiomatic I guess? Saying \"baka\", to me,\nsounds a bit more light. You can use the dicionary yourself to check the\nmeaning <https://jisho.org/search/>.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T03:21:10.320", "id": "97421", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T03:21:10.320", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97420", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "The expression you need is 以上で (or 以上です). See: [How to actually order fast\nfood?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/57234/5010)\n\nそれだけ **で** いいです (or それだけで) is also fine, but this contains だけ (\"only/just\"),\nso saying this after buying a dozen donuts and a drink would sound a bit\nfunny.\n\n(それだけいいです (without で) doesn't make sense in this context. Perhaps you\nremembered it incorrectly?)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T03:46:38.373", "id": "97424", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T06:48:51.500", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-28T06:48:51.500", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97422", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Please read that NHK article more carefully; it says 雑誌が売っている is nonstandard\nand should be avoided at least in broadcasting. I am aware that the usage of\n雑誌が売っている is gradually increasing among young speakers, as the graph in that\narticle shows, but it still sounds clearly unnatural at least to my ears.\n明鏡国語辞典 explicitly states this usage is grammatically wrong.\n\n> `使い方` 「イチゴが売っていたよ」のように、物を主語にした「～が売っている」は、文法的には誤り。\n\nStill, if we are to accept 雑誌が売っている as a _new_ correct usage of 売る, it is\nbeing used an intransitive verb meaning \"to be sold\". Although a dictionary\npublished 30 years from now may have this intransitive usage, for now, it is\nalways safer to say 雑誌が売られている.\n\nBy the way, the same can be said for 発売する. I had believed this was _always_\ntransitive (新しい本を発売しました or 新しい本が発売されました), but an intransitive usage\n(新しい本が発売しました) is gradually increasing in the last decade. I personally hate\nthis trend, but word usages change over time...\n\n**EDIT:** As far as I can tell, this nonstandard usage (`thing + が +\ntransitive-verb + ている`) is perhaps unique to 売る, and I am aware of no\nmeaningful pattern here. (After a long discussion, aguijonazo failed to give\nme even one example exactly like this one.) It often happens that a misuse\nbecomes widespread somehow, and you shouldn't try to over-generalize something\nlike this.\n\n**EDIT 2:** @Chocolate found a research article exactly on this topic!\n\n> 大西美穂. **存在表現の適用ー「やる」と「売る」の自動詞用法ー**. 日本語用論学会 第14回大会発表論文集. 2011.\n\nYou can read the entire article [here\n(PDF)](http://pragmatics.gr.jp/content/files/proceedings/Proceedings_07_2012.pdf).\nAccording to this research, the only pattern that is relatively common and\nsimilar to `[物]+が売っている` is `[TV番組]+がやっている`. Although the author gave long\nhypotheses for each of them as to why they came into use, she could find no\nsimilarities between the two verbs. It's more than 10 years after the first\npublication of this research, and we have not found any new verb similar to\nthem. Therefore, ultimately, I think it's best to treat those two verbs merely\nas exceptions.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T06:27:13.960", "id": "97428", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-26T14:44:51.150", "last_edit_date": "2022-12-26T14:44:51.150", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97427", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "What makes が acceptable to a certain degree is the subsidiary verb いる, not the\nintransitivity of the verb 売る. In fact, 雑誌が売る is clearly ungrammatical. In\ngeneral, `[V て-form]- いる` describes a state. It could be either transient or\nnear permanent. The most typical examples of near permanent states include\n住んでいる and 勤めている. In the case of 売っている, it could be either depending on the\ncontext. If it refers to a near permanent state, it could be seen as a\nproperty of the thing being sold. This is why the subject marker が sounds\nsomewhat acceptable. It is similar to why が can be used instead of を to denote\nthe direct object of an action with a potential verb, as in 日本語が話せる. The focus\nshifts from the action to the thing being acted on.\n\n* * *\n\n[Edit]\n\nFor the record, denying the uniqueness of 売る was never my objective. I don’t\neven see the need.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T07:33:50.910", "id": "97429", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-29T12:45:39.123", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-29T12:45:39.123", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "97427", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "The subject of 認める is omitted and it is the person who did the 調査.\n\nI'm not sure to what extent 認める parallels _to recognize_ , but there are two\nslightly different meanings:\n\n 1. _to admit_. E.g., 罪を認める (to concede that s/he is guilty)\n 2. _to find_. E.g., 類似点をみとめる (to find resemblence)\n\nThe usage in question is 2 and に indicates abstract location ('no faults were\nfound in the driver'). If it is 運転手は過失を認めた, it means _The driver admitted his\nown fault_.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-28T12:46:47.810", "id": "97432", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-28T12:46:47.810", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97431", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "愛する (love) + せる (can) + ない (not)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-30T07:07:20.303", "id": "97450", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-30T07:07:20.303", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54823", "parent_id": "97433", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "It's the negative potential form of\n[愛す](https://jisho.org/word/%E6%84%9B%E3%81%99), which is a **godan** verb\nmeaning \"to love (someone)\".\n\n * **愛す** (godan, transitive): \"to love\"\n * **愛せる** (potential form of 愛す): \"can love\"\n * **愛せない** (negative form of 愛せる): \"cannot love\"\n * (Compare) **愛さない** (negative form of 愛す): \"does not love\"\n\nIf you can read 泳げない, 笑えない, 待てない and so on, this is the same conjugation.\n\nNote that 愛す(る) is a tricky verb that conjugates sometimes like a godan verb\nand sometimes like a suru-verb. See [this\nchart](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/46878/5010), [this\ndiscussion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/78047/5010) and [this\ndiscussion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/56257/5010). When a potential\nmeaning is involved, 愛できる doesn't make sense, and you need to say 愛せる (or\n愛することができる).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-30T07:35:36.197", "id": "97451", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-30T07:47:44.110", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-30T07:47:44.110", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97433", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "This is an interesting question, but it has more to do with English and its\nphonology than it does Japanese. I think those Japanese users on Yahoo who\nstate they hear 「アナ」 in the English version of the movie pretty much hit it on\nthe mark.\n\n**tl;dr** : You don't nasalize the first vowel /æ/ when pronouncing that name\nin English, unlike some other languages, thus creating a difference between\ntranslations of that name from various languages, represented by that ン.\n\nEnglish is not a nasal language, as is often said about the language when\ncompared to other similarly widely spoken languages like French or Portuguese.\nYes, it's true English doesn't have fully nasalized vowels as French,\nPortuguese, and some other languages do. But there's a twist: partial\nnasalization of vowels does occur in English. Let me give you a few examples\nto illustrate this point which I think any fluent speaker of English will get.\n\n * ME /mi/ \nWhen you say this word, you simply go from the consonant /m/ to the vowel /i/\nand there is nothing to follow /i/ which brings up the rear. There is no\nnasality involved after /m/. When executing the vowel all air goes through the\nmouth.\n\n * MEAN /min/ \nWhen you say this word, you go from /m/ to /i/, and then conclude with the\nnasal /n/. The magic happens before you go into nasal mode. Most English\nspeakers, when they get ready for the nasal consonant, partially nasalize the\npreceding vowel, which in this case is /i/. The nasal flap in the back of your\nmouth, situated around the soft palate, diverts the air and channels part of\nit to the nasal passage. Try and pronounce it a few times and you will get the\nidea.\n\n * MEANING /ˈminɪŋ/ \nWhen you pronounce this word, the partial nasalization process that happens\nwith \"mean\" doesn't happen here, because of this other phenomenon in English:\npartial nasalization doesn't occur in the same word if the only sound between\nthem is a nasal consonant. So with \"meaning\" you don't nasalize the /i/. In\nfact it is an often heard mistake from English learners to nasalize vowels in\nwords like this.\n\n * PAINTING /ˈpeɪntɪŋ/ \nAgain nasalization is possible here because between /eɪ/ and /ɪ/ there are two\nconsonants now /nt/ and there is a break after the nasal /n/. And thus partial\nnasalization can occur with the diphthong /eɪ/.\n\n* Note: I borrowed Macmillan English Dictionary's phonetic symbols which might deviate ever so slightly from the standard IPA but that's really not important here.\n\nBack to Anna. The pronunciation of the name Anna /ˈænə/ follows the same rules\n(I say rules but these things are descriptive, namely they describe how\nnatural speech is). That tells us you don't nasalize the first vowel and you\nshouldn't add an extra ン when you transcribe it in Japanese, which is exactly\nwhat the translators did here. It is a clear-cut /æ/ + /nə/. And that's why to\na lot of Japanese ears it sounds like アナ, as it should.\n\nIn comparison, the name Anna (Анна) is pronounced differently in Russian with\ndistinct nasalization. Listen to\n[this](https://forvo.com/word/%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0/#ru).\nThat's why the Japanese title of Leo Tolstoy's _«Анна Каренина»_ is アンナ・カレーニナ.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-29T01:43:23.257", "id": "97437", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-29T03:24:58.237", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-29T03:24:58.237", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "30454", "parent_id": "97435", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "The example sentence you provided あとは私達でやります is just treating 私達 as the method\nof the action. Literally: we'll do by \"using\" ourselves\". I can't tell for\nsure if that can be considered the agent of the action in japanese, but it\nbecomes the agent especially when translating to english. You should check if\nthe study you're reading is japanese or western. If we said パソコンでやります the\ncomputer wouldn't be agent nor the subject. But I don't know if japanese\ngrammar considers individuals with the method particle as the agent.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-30T00:06:36.433", "id": "97449", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-30T00:06:36.433", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97436", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "で covers a broad range of circumstances under which some action is taken or\nsome event happens, including but not limited to place, means, and cause. You\ncan understand this で as denoting one concerning the people involved in the\naction (as agents). These are usually a group of people. You can say 私達でする but\nnot 私でする. You can say 私の方でする but this should be understood as \"my side\" as\nopposed to other parties although 私 may be the only constituent of that\n\"side\".\n\nThe difference from が is it's still about a circumstance, or condition,\nsurrounding the action and doesn't answer the question _who does it?_ as\ndirectly. The question it answers is more like _involving whom?_ or _under\nwhose responsibility?_. Probably for this reason it has no sense of exclusion\nunless the existence of an opposing party is assumed as in scenarios where\ndivision of responsibilities is at issue. 私の方でする is one such example, and it\npractically means the same as 私がする (not anyone else). 皆でする excludes no one. In\ncontrast, 皆がする excludes anyone who falls outside of the boundaries of 皆,\nsometimes even 私, because it specifically answers _who does it?_", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-01T04:37:13.363", "id": "97465", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-01T04:37:13.363", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "97436", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "It means tool. The word 駒{こま} comes from 将棋, literally referring to a piece in\nshogi or chess. It is commonly used in everyday life in a figurative sense\nreferring to tools, stepping stones, powers, skills, etc. things that can be\nused to achieve a goal, much like how you use pieces in a chess game to\nachieve victory.\n\nBy extension there are also quite a few compound words with 駒 in them. 捨て駒,\nstepping stone, something you throw away after you use them; 持ち駒,\nthings/people/skills you have at your disposal, things/people you can use.\n\n> 罪滅ぼしの駒にはなりません。 \n> I am not going to be a tool you use to make amends for your past mistakes.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-29T03:40:26.783", "id": "97439", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-29T03:40:26.783", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "30454", "parent_id": "97438", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "I know nothing about this novel, but judging from this quote alone, I got the\nimpression that this person is more likely to be a chatty man who speaks in an\neccentric (childish, frivolous but friendly) manner. But it's not odd at all\nif this person is a chatty woman. ボク written in katakana might serve as a weak\nhint that the use of this personal pronoun is not very traditional, but it\ndoesn't immediately mean the user is a boyish girl. Very few teachers speak\nlike this, and that alone can be an enough reason to katakanize 僕.\n\n**EDIT:** The author of this novel [found _**this**_\nquestion](https://twitter.com/Uchikawa_hiroko/status/1597600967721357314)!\nAccording to the author, ティルノーア is officially male, but looks like there are\nhis fans who did not know his gender :)\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/96XoD.jpg)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-29T10:14:41.470", "id": "97441", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-30T02:34:01.533", "last_edit_date": "2022-11-30T02:34:01.533", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97440", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Both sentences are correct, but they mean different things.\n\n先生の言ったこと **は** 大体正しい is a description of a general fact, \"What your teachers\nsay (every day) is correct most of the time\". On the other hand, 先生の言ったこと\n**が** 大体正しい means \"What the teacher (just) said is correct for the most part\".\nThis is used when the teacher's specific opinion and someone else's opinion\nare at odds right now.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-29T16:11:41.040", "id": "97445", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-29T16:11:41.040", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97443", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "Xになりたい suggests that the subject is not yet X while Xでありたい does not have this\nimplication (much).\n\nSo 自分になりたい sounds like _the subject is trying to be the true self_ and 自分でありたい\nlike _the subject wants to stay (to be) the true self_.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-29T22:16:41.917", "id": "97448", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-29T22:16:41.917", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97447", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "連用中止 and テ形接続 can coexist in one paragraph or in one sentence, and native\nspeakers often use them almost randomly. In general, you should not rely on\nthem to determine how to parse a sentence.\n\nThat said, a te-form meaning \"by/with ～ing\" tends not to be in 連用形 or followed\nby a comma. For example, 歩いて学校に行く and 包丁を使って野菜を切る are usually more common than\n歩き学校に行く and 包丁を使い野菜を切る even in formal documents where 連用中止 is preferred.\n\nIn your case, you seem to know the author (basically) prefers the 連用中止 style,\nand 出して is not followed by a comma. So you may think this 言葉に出して教える tends to\nmean \"to teach orally\" rather than \"to say, and (then) teach\". (Of course, it\nis often the case that the context or your common sense is the only clue.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-30T08:23:26.440", "id": "97453", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-30T08:23:26.440", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97452", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Virtually, both meanings are the same. Let's say you're telling your friend\nhow It is difficult to find a certain book online. Example: \"I could not find\nit online **and then** I went to the library\". That is virtually equivalent to\n\" **because** i could not find it online I went to the library\". Those\nmeanings are separated just for learning sake. They're both the copula.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-30T22:26:54.677", "id": "97460", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-30T22:26:54.677", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97454", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "This で is the \"te-form of だ\", but [a te-form itself can denote a\nreason/cause](https://www.learn-japanese-adventure.com/te-form-cause-\nreason.html). This type of で can be translated either as \"and\" or \"so\".\n\n> 分からないことだらけで、ググって解決してそしてコードを書いている。 \n> There are so many things I don't understand, **and/so** I (always) google,\n> figure them out, and write code (after that).\n\nBy \"cause particle\", do you mean で as a case particle that denotes a cause, as\nin 大雨でイベントが中止になった? However, だらけ is a word that describes a state (existence of\na large amount of something), not one specific event, so it can't be the\ndirect cause of your googling.\n\nSee also:\n\n * [How can I distinguish the particle で from the て form of です?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/94796/5010)\n * [Is the で in というわけで the de-particle or the te-form of だ?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/83727/5010)\n * [Meaning of で in みたいな感じで、その土地の有名な酒を「地酒」と言う。](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/87660/5010)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-01T02:29:59.383", "id": "97464", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-01T02:29:59.383", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97454", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Well, we can all agree that those sentences are just omitting particles. In my\nmother language it's a very a common thing to not say the grammatical words\nespecially when speaking casually and fast simply because when you start to\nspeak, the sentence is not all made in your head yet and instead of saying the\nrest in a wrong way because it won't fit, you just say the words scattered. It\nseems to be the case.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-30T21:40:53.367", "id": "97458", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-30T21:40:53.367", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97455", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I haven't listened to the podcast but from the script\n\n> Naomi: ピーターさん、今日の会話これ意味わかりました？ **ダイアログの中に下駄箱を開けると、手紙が落ちる。**\n>\n> Peter: So I think I understand. In the dialog script it says, he opens the\n> door to his shoe box, and out falls a letter. But shoe box is really shoe\n> box as in ???(00: 07: 22) the English speaker would know it. Such as a box\n> ???(00: 07: 25). It’s more like a little locker that you put your shoes in.\n\n今日の会話これ意味わかりました? means 今日の会話の中 **で/の** これ **の** 意味わかりました?= _In today's\nconversation, did you see the meaning of this?_\n\nこれ refers specifically to the bold part in the above quote. Naomi asks this\nbecause shoeboxes as found in Japan (with doors) is not common abroad.\n\n今日の会話(の)意味わかりました? would mean _Did you understand the whole conversation of\ntoday?_", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-30T23:02:50.040", "id": "97461", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-01T01:02:13.723", "last_edit_date": "2022-12-01T01:02:13.723", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97455", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "It is から(because) + ね(ending particle). The sentence means _Because the child\nhas had lots of hardships, ..._. The omitted '...' should be understood from\ncontext.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-11-30T23:12:14.930", "id": "97462", "last_activity_date": "2022-11-30T23:12:14.930", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97457", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I am assuming that you meant \"牛乳は買ってください\" for the 2nd quote.\n\n* * *\n\nYes, the core meaning of the sentence \"牛乳ぐらいは買ってください\" would still be retained\nif you removed the particle くらい. The sentence would still mean \"At least buy\nmilk, please,\" although the emphasis on the idea of \"at least\" would be less\nstrong without the particle くらい.\n\nThe particle は is used in this sentence to mark the topic of the sentence,\nwhich is the milk (牛乳). The verb 買ってください means \"please buy,\" and it is used to\nexpress the request or suggestion that the listener should buy milk.\n\nThe particle くらい is added to the sentence to express the idea of \"at least\" or\n\"at the minimum.\" It is used to emphasize that, even if the listener is unsure\nabout other things they might buy, they should at least buy milk. This adds a\nstronger emphasis to the request or suggestion to buy milk.\n\nIf you removed the particle くらい from the sentence, the sentence would still\nconvey the basic meaning of \"At least buy milk, please,\" but the emphasis on\nthe idea of \"at least\" would be reduced. The sentence would still be a request\nor suggestion for the listener to buy milk, but without the added emphasis\nprovided by the particle くらい, it might sound less urgent or insistent.\n\nOverall, the presence of the particle くらい in the sentence \"牛乳ぐらいは買ってください\" adds\nemphasis to the request or suggestion to buy milk, but the core meaning of the\nsentence would still be retained if the particle were removed.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-01T07:29:23.277", "id": "97466", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-01T07:29:23.277", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45272", "parent_id": "97463", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "> 1. 牛乳 **は** 買ってください。\n> 2. 牛乳 **ぐらいは** 買ってください。\n>\n\nThe difference of the two sentences is probably bigger than you might imagine.\n\nは is fundamentally a contrast marker that sometimes can be translated as \"at\nleast\" depending on the context. In this context, you can also translate it\nwithout \"at least\", simply like \"But buy _milk_ , please (although all other\ningredients will be prepared for you)\".\n\nOn the other hand, (牛乳)ぐらい can be sometimes translated as \"at least\", too, but\nthis works by marking the preceding word as something trivial. Remember\nくらい/ぐらい is a word used like this:\n\n * こんなことくらい(は)僕にもできる！ \nI can do something as easy as this! \n→ I can do this, at least!\n\n * ありがとうぐらい言えないの？ \nCan't you say something as simple as thank you? \n→ Can't you at least say thank you?\n\n * [What does これくらい mean in this context?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/93069/5010)\n * [Literal translation 様子見くらいいいっしょ](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/77580/5010)\n * [I'm not sure about this くらいで](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/56281/5010)\n\nSo saying 牛乳ぐらいは買ってください implies buying milk is a fairly trivial thing to do\n(either because it is cheap or because it can be found anywhere), and thus\nthis can sound accusatory, like \"Please buy something cheap/common like milk\nby yourself!\" even if you're using polite language. It's not just simply \"more\nemphatic\", so you have to use it carefully.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-03T04:46:17.003", "id": "97483", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-03T08:25:39.527", "last_edit_date": "2022-12-03T08:25:39.527", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97463", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "What would you propose as an alternative sentence?\n\nJust taking out the もの (「この世は誰一人変わらないはいない」) is ungrammatical, because the は\nparticle needs to take a noun, and 変わらない is not a noun.\n\nYou might be thinking that you could put 誰一人 in the place of もの, but 誰一人 is an\nexpression that basically functions adverbially, not as a noun (as you can see\nby the fact that it does not need a particle following it here, etc), so that\ndoesn't actually work either.\n\n誰一人 is often translated as \"no-one\", but since it is essentially an adverb it\nmight be better to think of it more as meaning something more like \"no matter\nwho\" or \"(not even) out of all possible people\". When viewed that way it\nbecomes a bit more clear what is going on and why もの is still needed, I think:\n\n> この世は誰一人変わらないものはいない \n> In this world (この世は), no matter who it is (誰一人), a person (もの) who doesn't\n> change (変わらない) does not exist (いない).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-01T19:27:37.480", "id": "97470", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-01T19:45:25.693", "last_edit_date": "2022-12-01T19:45:25.693", "last_editor_user_id": "35230", "owner_user_id": "35230", "parent_id": "97468", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "も is often glossed as \"also, too, even\".\n\nLooking again at your sample sentence:\n\n> 雨【あめ】はもう[3日]{みっか} **[も]{●}** 降【ふ】っています\n\nThe も is used here as an intensifier, emphasizing that it's been **three\ndays**. It might help to think of this more like:\n\n> It's already been raining for three days, **even**!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-02T03:08:10.657", "id": "97473", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-02T03:08:10.657", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "97469", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "That's not a kanji, which is why you're not finding it in kanji references.\n\nThat is called an \"[iteration\nmark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iteration_mark)\", also known as an\n[[踊り字]{おどりじ}](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B8%8A%E3%82%8A%E5%AD%97) in\nJapanese. It basically means \"repeat the previous character\", like the \"[ditto\nmark](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditto_mark)\" or `〃` in English that means\n\"repeat the previous word(s)\".\n\nThere are multiple iteration marks used in Japanese writing, some of them more\ncommon historically and not used so much today. The specific iteration mark in\nyour screenshot is the most common one in modern usage. This 々 is also called\na _noma_ , from the way that it looks a bit like a katakana ノ ( _no_ )\ncombined with a katakana マ ( _ma_ ). If you enter a word like _iroiro_ or\n_nadonado_ using a Japanese input method editor (IME), you'll usually see this\n々 as the second character in some of the options in the conversion candidate\nlists.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-02T02:46:10.987", "id": "97472", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-02T02:46:10.987", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5229", "parent_id": "97471", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Aside from the \"thing\" meaning, the main function of こと is to work as a\n\"nominalizer\" and making sentences become nouns. You should use websites like\nIMABI or maybe TaeKim in order to understand the uses in a more coherent way.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-02T12:03:46.700", "id": "97478", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-02T12:03:46.700", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50324", "parent_id": "97474", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Your understanding of complementing it with 'the facts' is practically fine.\n\nIn Japanese, 整理する can be intransitive and considering it as on its own is one\npossibility. Another possibility is to assume some implicit object. As I said,\n'the facts' is fine, but in Japanese it is idiomatic to say 問題を整理する, meaning\nanalyzing the problems into factors. So, though virtually the same as your\ntranslation, it more literally means 'we analyze and visualize the\nproblem(s)'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-02T10:23:33.200", "id": "97476", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-02T10:23:33.200", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97475", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "The word 予習 means \"preparatory study\" or \"preparation for a lesson.\" It is\nused to refer to the act of studying or reviewing material in advance in order\nto be better prepared for a lesson or class (or sometimes a business meeting).\nThis can help you understand the material more easily during the actual lesson\nand be more actively engaged in class discussions.\n\nThe opposite of it is 復習. It refers to the act of studying or reviewing\nmaterial after a lesson or class.\n\nIn your case, Sentence 1 is the correct answer. Sentence 2 does not make sense\nbecause what you do after a class is not 予習 but 復習. Sentence 3 seems totally\nirrelevant to studying (and a busy businessperson has no time do 予習 every\nday). Sentence 4 is not correct, either, because we don't usually use 予習 for\nexams (preparation for an exam is 試験勉強).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-03T03:57:27.443", "id": "97482", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-03T03:57:27.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "97477", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Hopefully the following helps clarify some of your doubts although it may not\ndirectly answer your questions.\n\n**still vs. after all**\n\nI think these two are mostly the same\n([大辞泉](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E7%9F%A2%E5%BC%B5%E3%82%8A/#jn-222453)\n#3) and it is a matter of translation (and contexts).\n\n * Apple製品は高価だが、自分はやはり好きだ.\n * Apple products are expensive, but I still like it.\n\nHere I think using _after all_ doesn't change the meaning (or you could even\nsay _I still like it after all_ ).\n\nIf the context suggests:\n\n * The speaker likes Apple despite their ripping off, _still_ may be better;\n * The speaker tried other brands, _after all_ may be more precise.\n\nIt may depend also on the nature/tense/aspect of the verb (好き in this case)\nwhich of _still_ and _after all_ is better.\n\n**as expected**\n\nThis also isn't totally distinct from _still/after all_ , but one thing is\nthat usually the speaker also expects it, so in the case of your example\n\n * If I were in C's position, I would, as one would expect, act that way\n\nis off in a strict sense (at least from my understanding of the translation).\n_I would do it as I expect it_ makes little sense.\n\nA more ordinary example would be:\n\n * 彼は忙しいと言っていたがやはり今日の会合に来なかった\n * He said he was busy and, as expected, he didn't come to today's meeting.\n\nHere it is possible that やはり means _after all_ , e.g. in case the speaker\ndidn't think he was that busy. (Another point: probably using _still_ is\ndifficult here.)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-03T05:40:41.577", "id": "97484", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-03T22:44:12.540", "last_edit_date": "2022-12-03T22:44:12.540", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "97479", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "This そう is a Na-adjective, as [jisho.org's\ndefinition](https://jisho.org/word/%E3%81%9D%E3%81%86) shows. That's why when\nit concludes a sentence it can be followed by だ. I say \"can be\" because the だ\ncan also be omitted. And when it modifies a noun it should take な as the\nintervening particle.\n\nハングリー拗らせて吐きそう modifies 人生 and tells you what kind of 人生 it is. 吐きそう is the\nresult of ハングリー拗らせて.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-12-02T23:14:04.793", "id": "97481", "last_activity_date": "2022-12-02T23:34:32.103", "last_edit_date": "2022-12-02T23:34:32.103", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "30454", "parent_id": "97480", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]