question
dict | answers
list | id
stringlengths 1
6
| accepted_answer_id
stringlengths 2
6
⌀ | popular_answer_id
stringlengths 1
6
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12683",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "`ゟ` is a digraph that is read より. Where does it originate from?\n\nIs it a ligature, like `& <\\- et`, or German `ß <\\- ſs -> ss`? (Wikipedia\nclaims this, citing no source.) Also, if it _is_ a ligature, what did the\nligation process look like (e.g. what are the intermediate forms between `より`\nand `ゟ`)?\n\nAlternatively, could it be a derivative of `与` or another kanji? (Another non-\nauthoritative source which I have now lost track of claims this.)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-08-30T20:52:37.977",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12680",
"last_activity_date": "2019-08-07T19:14:22.933",
"last_edit_date": "2019-08-07T19:14:22.933",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "3437",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"orthography",
"hiragana",
"calligraphy"
],
"title": "What is the origin of ゟ (より)?",
"view_count": 678
} | [
{
"body": "There are quite a few old (17th century) letters on [this\npage](https://web.archive.org/web/20150924092851/http://tor.jp/komonjo/collection.html)\nwhich use the digraph ゟ as ligature of よ and り. For example see the fifth line\nfrom the left of the following letter, which reads 「家来之者方ゟ可申」.\n\n\n\nAs @ZhenLin points out, it is not too far a stretch of your imagination that ゟ\ncomes from joining よ and り in vertical writing. All that is really lost is the\nloop of the よ.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2013-08-31T01:20:43.943",
"id": "12683",
"last_activity_date": "2019-08-07T19:13:33.547",
"last_edit_date": "2019-08-07T19:13:33.547",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12680",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
] | 12680 | 12683 | 12683 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12736",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've come across these words which can all mean \"finally\". What I'd like to\nknow is how they differ in usage [nuance and formality]. Below are their\nrespective entries in the 研究社 新和英大辞典 第5版. \n**いよいよ** \n1 〔ますます〕 still [even, ever] more; more and more; all the more; more than ever;\nincreasingly; steadily. \n2 〔ついに･とうとう〕 at (long) last; finally. \n3 〔さしせまった状態〕\n\n**やっと** \n1 〔ようやく〕 at (long) last; at length; ultimately; finally; 〔苦難の末に〕 with\ndifficulty; with [after] much [painstaking] effort. \n2 〔かろうじて〕 barely; narrowly; by the skin of one's teeth; 〔ぎりぎりで〕 just; only;\n〔ひどい苦難の末にようやく〕 with [after] much [painstaking] effort; with difficulty;\nlaboriously.\n\n**ようやく** \n〔次第に〕 gradually; little by little; by degrees [inches]; 〔ついに〕 at (long) last;\nfinally; at length; 〔かろうじて〕 barely; hardly; narrowly; 〔骨折って〕 with (much)\ndifficulty; with a great deal of trouble; 〔わずかに〕 (only) just. [=やっと]\n\n**ついに** \n〔肯定文で〕 at (long) last; at length; finally; in the end; in the long run; in\ntime; ultimately; 〔否定文で〕 after all. [=とうとう1]\n\n**とうとう** \nat last; at length; finally; in the end; ultimately; 〔結局…しない〕 after all.\n\nAs I understand it, いよいよ and やっと carry some anticipation; ようやく implies\ndifficulty, effort involved and it's more formal; ついに has some negative\nconnotation, and とうとう is mostly neutral. However, I'm not quite sure.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2013-08-30T22:08:39.903",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12682",
"last_activity_date": "2021-12-18T05:56:12.830",
"last_edit_date": "2021-12-18T05:38:48.547",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "3903",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 27,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Differences between いよいよ / やっと / ようやく / ついに and とうとう",
"view_count": 23555
} | [
{
"body": "Long post, so there's a summary in the TL;DR section at the end.\n\nIf you are wanting to dive into some details; sometimes, I find that looking\nfor words with the same (often rarely used) kanji can help to get a handle on\nnuance differences.\n\n**愈愈【いよいよ】** : The kanji here are perhaps the least helpful of the bunch as\nthey are almost exclusively used, if ever, for this word and its antiquated\nforms.\n\nHowever, note that there is another usage that means\n\n```\n\n more and more; all the more; increasingly.\n \n```\n\nExamples of this usage can be seen in sentences such as\n\n> 試合もいよいよ大詰め、9回の裏です。 \n> The game is coming to a close, and it's the bottom of the 9th.\n\nThat nuance gets mixed in with the \"finally\" meaning in the sense that your\nexpectations have built up and _finally_ you get some closure:\n\n> 決勝戦の前、私たちのコーチは「いよいよ本番だ！」と言った。 \n> Before the long-awaited final game, our coach said, \"This is it!\"\n\n**漸と【やっと】** : Words with related kanji are\n\n```\n\n 漸次【ぜんじ】ー gradually; slowly; little by little; incrementally \n 漸進【ぜんしん】ー gradual progress; steady advance \n \n```\n\nin which the word \"gradual\" stands out. This is probably close to what an\nEnglish intuition of \"finally\" is--a gradual build up to a \"final\" conclusion.\n\n> 俺と小沢まりあ、やっと結婚するぞ！ \n> Maria Ozawa and I are finally getting married!\n\nNote how, as compared to いよいよ, the buildup isn't necessarily of expectations.\nIn the above example it could be hinting that everyone else was waiting for us\nto get married.\n\n**漸く【ようやく】** : The character here is the same as for やっと, and in fact the\n\"gradual\" nuance pretty much carries over. However, you tend to see ようやく more\noften in a stiffer/more business context.\n\n> その2社はようやく条件付きの合意に達しました。 \n> The two companies finally reached a conditional agreement.\n\nWhich sounds like they have been deliberating for quite a while.\n\n**遂に【ついに】** : Probably the most common word to see this character in is with\n\n```\n\n 遂げる【とげる】ー to accomplish; to achieve; to carry out\n \n```\n\nFrom this we would expect ついに to be used commonly in instances where, perhaps\nafter much effort, you _finally_ reach some sought after conclusion.\n\n> 長年の努力がついに報われて、彼らは金持ちになった。 \n> Their years of effort finally paid off and now they're rich.\n\nThough sometimes it's not always that cut and dry, and instead of \"accomplish\"\nwe get something more like \"working steadily toward an end\".\n\n> 長年続いたそのテレビ・シリーズが、ついに終わる。 The long-running TV series finally came to and end.\n\n**到頭【とうとう】** : The first character here is seen often in\n\n```\n\n 到着【とうちゃく】ー arrival \n 到達【とうたつ】ー reaching; attaining; arrival \n \n```\n\nAnd, of course, you recognize the second character as\n\n```\n\n 頭【あたま】ー head; top\n \n```\n\nThese two indicate more of a focus on the destination instead of the\nprocess/buildup of getting there. The situation came to a head and you _\n_finally_ reached the end.\n\n> 彼はとうとう身を固めて、家庭を持った。 \n> He finally settled down and started a family.\n\n**TL;DR:** \nいよいよ ー Finally, after a build up of expectation. \nやっと ー Finally, after some gradual build up (not necessarily expectation). \nようやく ー Finally, like やっと, but more business-y or formal \nついに ー Finally, after working to accomplish something or toward some end. \nとうとう ー Finally, having arrived at some end.\n\n**Disclaimer:** Naturally, here I'm picking example sentences here that are\npretty clear, and in actual usage you don't see such stark meaning boundaries.\nHowever, hopefully, the stuff above gives a start into building your own\nintuition on how these words _feel_.\n\n**References:** Several of these examples were pulled off\n[www.alc.co.jp](http://www.alc.co.jp), though I tweaked the translations a\nbit. The definitions were pulled almost verbatim from EDICT on WWWJDIC.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T08:31:17.277",
"id": "12736",
"last_activity_date": "2021-12-18T05:56:12.830",
"last_edit_date": "2021-12-18T05:56:12.830",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "1565",
"parent_id": "12682",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 23
}
] | 12682 | 12736 | 12736 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12797",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I've [heard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Taiwan#Japanese) that\nJapanese is spoken by some Taiwanese people who were old enough to have lived\nduring Japanese rule, along with some people who've learnt it for other\nreasons. For younger people, I've been told Mandarin or English would be the\nbest means of communication, but I have a tendency to socialize a lot with\nretirees.\n\nHow similar is the Japanese spoken in Taiwan by native speakers to the\nJapanese used in Japan? Did the two diverge after 1945? Are words that entered\nJapanese after 1945 also used in the Japanese spoken in Taiwan?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-08-31T05:44:44.907",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12684",
"last_activity_date": "2021-04-18T14:40:49.350",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 14,
"tags": [
"dialects"
],
"title": "How similar is the Japanese spoken in Taiwan to the Japanese spoken in Japan?",
"view_count": 1823
} | [
{
"body": "As far as I know, there is no difference, because Japanese is mainly used as a\nlanguage to talk to people in Japan which is right close by, and to enjoy\nmedia and products from Japan. Japanese is still widely studied in Korea for\nthe same reasons. [Japanese textbooks in\nTaiwan](http://www.nkg.or.jp/kenkyu/kenkyushukai/2011/kk-11-04yoshi.pdf) seem\nto demonstrate an eagerness for fluency and avoiding confusion in business\nconversation.\n\nTaiwan was under Japanese administration until 1945 and the language has not\nchanged significantly since then.\n\nOn the other hand, the Japanese used in Hawaii and Brazil, among the lower-\nclass immigrant Japanese communities there, may preserve some older forms.\nThat immigration happened around 1900.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-12T20:03:18.867",
"id": "12797",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-12T20:03:18.867",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "583",
"parent_id": "12684",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
},
{
"body": "I've heard that Japanese spoken by old Taiwanese people would sounds more like\nthe dialects from Kyushu and surrounded areas. It's partially because people\nfrom these areas was a major makeup of the ethnic Japanese population in the\npre-war Taiwan.\n\nBut for younger people who've learnt Japanese after 1970s or the old people\nwho've got higher education levels (in Japanese speaking environment) would\nspeak with standard Tokyo accent.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-03-18T09:47:30.543",
"id": "32965",
"last_activity_date": "2016-03-18T12:23:17.710",
"last_edit_date": "2016-03-18T12:23:17.710",
"last_editor_user_id": "7524",
"owner_user_id": "7524",
"parent_id": "12684",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "My grandma, who was born in Taiwan around the 1930s, speaks Japanese as her\nfirst language. Apparently she says that although the language hasn’t changed\nmuch, there has been many new colloquial words introduced which she doesn’t\nunderstand. But still, it’s probably just like talking to any Japanese\ngrandmas. As to accents, I don’t know.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2021-04-18T14:40:49.350",
"id": "86211",
"last_activity_date": "2021-04-18T14:40:49.350",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "43625",
"parent_id": "12684",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12684 | 12797 | 12797 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12686",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I would like to ask for help with translating the following sentence:\n\n```\n\n 今日は、「練習していないことは嘘をつかない」という悲しいセリフを実感しました。練習も嘘をつかないんだけど、その逆も然り。\n \n```\n\nI understand parts of it for example\n\n```\n\n 練習していないことは嘘をつかない\n 悲しい\n セリフ\n 実感する\n \n```\n\nBut my problem is putting them together in translation of the sentence above.\nAlso, I found out that 実感する means \"have a feeling\", \"my actual feeling\" is or\n\"to realize\", but I can't make it out which one is the right one here.\n\nSo basically, I have problem with the use of the verb 実感する, furthermore with\nthe translation of the whole sentence.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-08-31T10:36:51.633",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12685",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-02T14:06:55.863",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2931",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words",
"syntax"
],
"title": "the use and the meaning of the verb 実感する in the given example",
"view_count": 225
} | [
{
"body": "Something like\n\n> 今日は、「練習していないことは嘘をつかない」という悲しいセリフを実感しました。 \n> Today I experienced the sad line \"the fact of not having practised doesn't\n> lie\" for myself.\n\nIf you gave some context there might be a more fitting translation.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-08-31T10:56:57.270",
"id": "12686",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-02T14:06:55.863",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-02T14:06:55.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12685",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "It's something along the lines of:\n\n> Today I realized what is really meant by the woeful words, \"it shows when\n> you have not practiced\". I know it shows when one has practiced; but, the\n> opposite is also very true.\n\nBasically, 実感 means that one has \"actually (実) experienced/felt (感)\"\nsomething.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-08-31T13:27:49.170",
"id": "12688",
"last_activity_date": "2013-08-31T13:48:12.960",
"last_edit_date": "2013-08-31T13:48:12.960",
"last_editor_user_id": "3835",
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12685",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 12685 | 12686 | 12688 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12696",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "This may be my Chinese getting in the way of my Japanese again, but doesn't 体育\nand スポーツ both mean \"sport\"? \nWhat are the differences between them, and when is one used over the other?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-08-31T13:34:03.260",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12689",
"last_activity_date": "2015-09-22T14:43:57.390",
"last_edit_date": "2015-09-22T14:43:57.390",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1497",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"sports"
],
"title": "What's the difference between 体育 and スポーツ?",
"view_count": 178
} | [
{
"body": "体育 ＝ Physical education\n\nスポーツ = sports\n\n(I don't know Chinese but I am curious, is your Chinese getting in the way?)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-08-31T15:12:56.393",
"id": "12690",
"last_activity_date": "2013-08-31T15:12:56.393",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "12689",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "体育 is physical education, a class taken at school where students exercise and\nplay sports.\n\nスポーツ is sports in general, including professional sports or sports played as a\nhobby.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T02:31:46.573",
"id": "12696",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-01T02:31:46.573",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3908",
"parent_id": "12689",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12689 | 12696 | 12696 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12695",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I can remember hearing this combination of sounds several times, and the way\nit's used makes me think that it's a part of a common phase or saying.\nParticularly I can point to two cases where it was used in Ergo Proxy episode\n1. In one case, it had the following usage, with the meaning that two events\nthat were just mentioned are probably connected.\n\n> てんとてん は せい に なる\n\nI'm not writing that with any kanji because this was just heard, and I can't\nclaim to know any of the meanings with total confidence.\n\nI know there was another place てんとてん was used, and I think it was within a\nrepeated phrase. It went something like this:\n\n> てんとてん を 結ぶ ...\n\nI'm trying to locate where this was said. The next word might have been そうな\nand then something else, but I'm less sure about that part.\n\nIt's not in the Jim Breen dictionary, nor is any other similar pronunciation I\ncan think of. I also don't see very much particularly on Google. Still, I'm\nsure about this usage and I hope that a native speaker will see these\nsentences and know right away what it's saying.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T01:29:33.807",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12694",
"last_activity_date": "2014-02-20T23:53:46.930",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "199",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words",
"definitions"
],
"title": "Trying to lookup word or expression てんとてん",
"view_count": 358
} | [
{
"body": "てんとてん is not one word.\n\nIt is `[点]{てん}と[点]{てん}は[線]{せん}になる`, or, \"two points make a line\", or even\n\"dots form/make a line\".\n\n`[点]{てん}と[点]{てん}を[結]{むす}ぶ` means \"to connect two points\", or even \"connect the\ndots\".\n\n* * *\n\n**UPDATE 1**\n\nI think you are just hearing `せんになる` as `せぃになる`, because `んに` isn't always\nenunciated when people are speaking (kind of like American English \"wanted to\"\nis \"wanitoo\", or British English \"isn't it\" is \"innit\"). If you could provide\nthe times at which the phrases appear in Ergo Proxy ep.1, then context can\nalso be used for reference.\n\n* * *\n\n**UPDATE 2**\n\nOkay, so she lists some events, then says:\n\n> どれもが[化物]{ばけもの}につながり、[点]{てん}と[点]{てん}は[線]{せん}になる\n\nPutting it in context, it kind of means:\n\n> All of these events together lead back to the monster.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T01:36:42.970",
"id": "12695",
"last_activity_date": "2014-02-20T23:53:46.930",
"last_edit_date": "2014-02-20T23:53:46.930",
"last_editor_user_id": "3835",
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12694",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] | 12694 | 12695 | 12695 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12957",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "`背負う` is pronounced `せおう`, but many dictionaries also list a second\npronunciation as `しょう`.\n\n 1. I've never heard it pronounced as `しょう` in practice. In what situations does it have this pronunciation? Is that only an archaic pronunciation, or is it still in use? Is it a regional/dialectical thing? Is one free to pronounce it with either way, unrestricted?\n\n 2. `せおう` (or `おう`, rather) conjugates as a `五段`. Does `しょう` also conjugate as a `五段`?\n\n> * ます形 → しょいます\n> * ない形 → しょわない\n> * ～て･た形 → しょって・た\n> * 命令形 → しょえ\n> * 仮定形 → しょえば\n> * 可能形 → しょえる\n> * 意志形 → しょおう\n>",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T04:56:21.083",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12697",
"last_activity_date": "2022-07-13T20:58:23.737",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"words",
"usage",
"conjugations",
"dialects",
"homophonic-kanji"
],
"title": "Questions about 背負う",
"view_count": 453
} | [
{
"body": "One can hear しょって used often when talking about rucksacks or backpacks.\n\n> リュックサックを[背負]{しょ}って[歩]{ある}く\n\nThere isn't really much difference (しょう pronunciation is from せおう anyway),\nthough, and people use them quite interchangeably. Though, sometimes the\nnuance of しょう can be such that it is [迷惑]{めいわく}...\n\nHowever, there is one situation, when one's talking about someone being vain\nor full of themselves, where one can use しょってる and not せおってる. One hears this\nusage often in [落語]{らくご}...",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T06:12:35.320",
"id": "12698",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-01T06:21:18.453",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-01T06:21:18.453",
"last_editor_user_id": "3835",
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12697",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "The only difference I perceive is that しょう sounds slightly more \"intimate\" as\nif it's a regional dialect. But this doesn't mean せおう is less of everyday\nlanguage. Probably I feel this way because the pronunciation is a naturally\nslurred version of せおう (i.e., /seo/ -> /syo/), which is most likely the result\nof a natural sound shift like\n[音便](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9F%B3%E4%BE%BF).\n\nThe tricky thing is that しょう here is not a homonym of しょう as in 賞, 章, and 小.\nWhile they look exactly the same in kana, しょう as 背負う does not have the double\nmora お. It's しょ as one mora plus う as another mora, i.e., it's not the same\npronunciation as しょー.\n\nAs for its conjugation, it's 五段 as you guessed.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T12:20:01.540",
"id": "12957",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:54.920",
"last_edit_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:54.920",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12697",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "## Addendum: Pronunciation\n\nThe verb 背負う has two modern pronunciations: せおう, and しょう. From a modern\nperspective, it's a little befuddling how these two interrelate. If we look at\nthe past, however, the story comes clear.\n\nThe version starting with し is sometimes analyzed by modern speakers as the し\nbeing a slurred or otherwise shifted pronunciation of せ. However,\nhistorically, it is worth noting that せ was itself formerly pronounced more\nlike //ʃe// (as in English _shed_ ). The non-fricative sibilant //se// version\nappears some time after the 1603 日葡辞書 ( _Nippo Jisho_ , \"Japanese-Portuguese\nDictionary\"), where all of the せ sounds are spelled ⟨xe⟩ instead -- and where\nthat ⟨x⟩ was the Portuguese spelling at the time of the \"sh\" sound in modern\nEnglish (more or less -- for strict phonologists, I'm uncertain if that was\nthe [voiceless postalveolar\nfricative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_postalveolar_fricative)\n[[ʃ]], the [voiceless alveolo-palatal\nfricative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolo-palatal_fricative)\n[[ɕ]] as in modern Tokyo Japanese, the [voiceless retroflex\nfricative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_retroflex_fricative) [[ʂ]]\n(unlikely, I think), or some other specific phone). Note all of the entries in\nthe _X antes do E_ section (\"X before E\") [starting from the bottom right of\nthis\npage](https://books.google.com/books?id=TFJAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA292-IA1#v=onepage&q&f=false),\nincluding such otherwise-familiar terms as \"Xecai. _Mundo._ \" (Sekai. _World._\n)\n\nSo the difference in reading between せおう and しょう is not a seemingly arbitrary\nrearrangement of consonant and vowel values, but instead the unsurprising\nresult of a contraction, as //ʃeou// shifted to just //ʃou//.\n\nAccording to the 日本国語大辞典【にほんこくごだいじてん】 entry [here at\nKotobank](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E8%83%8C%E8%B2%A0-2049668), the shorter\nしょう reading appears first in 1278, well within the time period when せ was\nstill pronounced as a fricative //ʃe//, and thus a contraction from //ʃeou//\nto //ʃou// would not have been all that exceptional.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2022-07-13T20:58:23.737",
"id": "95394",
"last_activity_date": "2022-07-13T20:58:23.737",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "12697",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12697 | 12957 | 12698 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "この歌：http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEwycsmfACg\n\n最初の歌詞はこれです：\n\n「またビートを打ってリリック書く だってそうじゃなきゃ俺が俺じゃない」\n\nでも意味が分かんない。 英語で説明していい。\n\n\"(I'm) writing lyrics for another beat ... ... If I'm not, then it's not\nme\"と思いますけど、確かめたいです。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T09:16:52.420",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12702",
"last_activity_date": "2021-02-15T16:37:13.387",
"last_edit_date": "2021-02-15T16:37:13.387",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "3909",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"song-lyrics"
],
"title": "How is '打って' being used in this context?",
"view_count": 232
} | [
{
"body": "ここの「ビートを打つ」は「to pump beats」のような英訳が良かろうと思います。\n\n下手ではありますが・・・ラップ風に訳してみます。\n\n> [At it again]{また}, [writin' new lyrics]{リリック書く} [and pumpin' out\n> beats]{ビートを打って}\n>\n> [I just can't stop]{だってそうじゃなきゃ}, ['cuz this who I be]{俺が俺じゃない}\n\n「beats」と「be」とで韻を踏んでみたんだけど、どうですかね(・・?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T10:23:24.443",
"id": "12703",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-01T10:23:24.443",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12702",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12702 | null | 12703 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12705",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've come across two similar examples of a usage of の I am not familiar with.\n\n彼は運のいい男だ 意志の強い人だ\n\nI kinda understand how it is supposed to work but feel like I could parse it\nbetter if I were to hear how they are supposed to be broken up mentally.\n\nLike this （運のいい）男 OR like this 運の(いい男)\n\nIn other words... I want to know if it is saying that he is a man of good\nfortune or saying that is is a man good of fortune.\n\nALSO: How often does this come up? Is it any different in meaning to 運がいい男だ?\nIs it more polite or something?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T10:31:11.833",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12704",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-01T11:42:18.737",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3754",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-の"
],
"title": "Alternate の particle usage",
"view_count": 178
} | [
{
"body": "I think it carries the technical name \"が・の conversion\" and both 運がいい男 and\n運のいい男 mean the same thing. The conversion occurs when a phrase modifies a\nnoun. The subject of the modifying phrase is then marked by の instead of が. It\nshould be parsed as (運のいい)男. This construction works not only with\n\"i-adjectives\", but also with verbs, for example:\n\n> 勇気のある人 \n> a man of courage / a brave man\n>\n> 肌の綺麗な人 \n> a person with beautiful skin",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T11:42:18.737",
"id": "12705",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-01T11:42:18.737",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12704",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12704 | 12705 | 12705 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12708",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> 初めて[山奥]{やまおく}から町に出てきた村の人たちは見るものすべてに[驚]{おどろ}いた。\n\nIn this instance, does 山奥から町に出てきた mean \"left the mountains and came to the\ncity\" (町)? Also, I would normally interpret 出てくる as \"leave and come back\", but\nmaybe from the viewpoint of someone in the city it makes sense.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T14:19:23.953",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12706",
"last_activity_date": "2021-12-02T04:44:51.560",
"last_edit_date": "2021-12-02T04:44:51.560",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-に",
"particle-から"
],
"title": "Usage of particles with 出てくる",
"view_count": 357
} | [
{
"body": "verb-てくる means doing the verb and come (not necesseraly back). badly\ntranslated, 出てくる means to get out and come.\n\nThe first time the members of the village got out from the mountain and came\nto the city, they were surprised by everything they saw.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T16:24:08.113",
"id": "12707",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-01T16:24:08.113",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1065",
"parent_id": "12706",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
},
{
"body": "* 出る means simply \"to go out/leave/exit\" with no sense of direction with respect to the speaker\n * 出ていく means \"to go out [away from the speaker]\"\n * 出てくる means \"to come out [toward the speaker]\"\n\nIn other words, the sentence is written from the point of view of someone in\nthe city.\n\n> 初めて山奥から町に出てきた村の人たちは見るものすべてに驚いた。 \n> The villagers, coming out of the mountains for the first time, were\n> surprised about everything they saw.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-01T19:21:36.793",
"id": "12708",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-01T19:21:36.793",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12706",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12706 | 12708 | 12708 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12711",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "近所のバーは友達とお酒を飲むのにちょうどいい場所だ。 The neighbourhood bar is a great place to have a\ndrink with friends.\n\nDoes one think of the dependent clause 友達とお酒を飲むのに as modifying the い-adjective\nちょうどいい (which then modifies 場所), or does it modify the main clause ちょうどいい場所だ ?\nI'm aware that nouns can be modified by putting a clause in front (e.g.\nぼくが食べたりんご), but to my knowledge this doesn't apply to い-adjectives. Perhaps\nI'm overthinking this.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-02T05:24:22.237",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12709",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-02T16:59:03.670",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Usage of a clause to modify an い-adjective?",
"view_count": 265
} | [
{
"body": "I think the whole main clause is, as if it were a noun, modified by what\nprecedes it. Within the main clause, ちょうどいい場所だ, ちょうど modifies いい, which,\nmodified, in its turn modifies 場所.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-02T06:09:51.970",
"id": "12710",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-02T06:09:51.970",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3910",
"parent_id": "12709",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "First of all, feel free to think of it however you want, as long as it helps\nyou understand how the sentence works. Secondly, this may not be a question\nwith an objective answer. What follows are several considerations concerning\nthe structure of _飲むのに良い場所だ_ , shortened for briefness' sake.\n\n【A】→【B】 means that B is modified by A.\n\nTo address one of your concerns, i-adjectives cannot be modified by a 連体形-\nclause the way a noun can be modified. Thus, a sentence like *\n_【酒を飲む→良い】→【場所だ】_ is wrong, you need the particle(s) _のに_. However, it can be\nparsed as _【酒を飲む】→【良い→場所だ】_ , with _飲む_ modifying _場所_ , but it means\nsomething different: _A great place, where one drinks Sake._\n\nWe could translate the sentence as _A place that is great for drinking_ ,\nwhich we could choose to interpret either as _(A place that is great.)(For\ndrinking.)_ or equally plausibly as _(A place that is:)(Great for drinking.)_\n\nIn a sense, many particles work like grammatical cases (or some prepositions)\nin that they establish the relationship of a noun to the sentence. So _for\ndrinking_ marks drinking as the goal of the sentence's verb action; and that\nis how I think about _するのに甲だ_.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-02T06:19:43.850",
"id": "12711",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-02T16:59:03.670",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-02T16:59:03.670",
"last_editor_user_id": "3275",
"owner_user_id": "3275",
"parent_id": "12709",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 12709 | 12711 | 12711 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12713",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "A sentence from JapanesePod 101:\n\n> 北米とヨーロッパでは通常スカートは女性がはくものと思われているが、世界的には多くの男性がスカートをはく。\n>\n> In North America and Europe a skirt is thought of as something a woman\n> wears, but in many countries men wear skirts.\n\nI don't see why it's 世界的には rather than 世界的では, especially when では is used in\nthe first clause. で seems to fit both clauses (location of action).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-02T14:33:42.073",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12712",
"last_activity_date": "2019-08-22T23:14:25.383",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"particle-に",
"adverbs",
"particle-で",
"na-adjectives",
"に-and-で"
],
"title": "Usage of particles で and に with ~的",
"view_count": 1076
} | [
{
"body": "的 makes 世界 into a 形容動詞 (\"na-adjective\"), which, when functioning as adverb,\nturns into ～的に. ～的では is simply ungrammatical.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-02T14:55:11.047",
"id": "12713",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-04T14:53:32.063",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-04T14:53:32.063",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12712",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 14
},
{
"body": "世界的には is being translated as \"in many countries\", but this is just the natural\nEnglish translation.\n\n\"世界的\" means \"global\" or \"worldwide\", and functions as an adverb when に is\nattached as Earthling explains. So \"世界的には\" here is kinda hard to translate\nliterally but means something closer to \"globally\" or \"on a global scale\".\n\n> 世界的には Looking at the world as a whole \n> 多くの男性が many men \n> スカートをはく。wear skirts.\n\nOr in more natural English: \"In many countries men wear skirts.\"",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-02T19:52:13.463",
"id": "12718",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-02T23:49:35.667",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-02T23:49:35.667",
"last_editor_user_id": "3010",
"owner_user_id": "3010",
"parent_id": "12712",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 12712 | 12713 | 12713 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12717",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "First off I know zero Japanese, so sorry if this is a stupid question. I seem\nto remember hearing a while back that all Japanese words, when transliterated\nto the Latin alphabet, will end in a vowel. From the few Japanese words/names\nI've seen this seems possible.\n\nIs there any truth to this? If true, does anyone know why that is?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-02T17:40:10.580",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12714",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-03T00:50:41.153",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-03T00:50:41.153",
"last_editor_user_id": "1742",
"owner_user_id": "3911",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"words",
"vowels"
],
"title": "Is it true that all Japanese words end in a vowel when transliterated to English?",
"view_count": 34084
} | [
{
"body": "No, it's not true.\n\n> **Counterexample** \n> 剣 translates to \"sword\", which does not end in a vowel.\n\nEven when Japanese is transliterated into English, it's not true.\n\n> **Counterexample** \n> [剣]{けん} is transliterated as \"ken\" or \"kenn\", which does not end in a\n> vowel.\n\nWhat is true, is that many Japanese words, when _transliterated_ into ローマ字\n(Latin alphabet) do end in a vowel, because the Japanese writing system is\nbased on syllables (the Japanese \"alphabet\" thus carries the technical name\n\"syllabary\"). A syllable is in all but six cases (the five vowels あいうえお and\nthe \"consonant\" ん) made up from a consonant followed by a vowel. Any word\nending in any other syllable would, in its transliteration into the Latin\nalphabet, thus end in a vowel. Exception being the \"syllable\" ん, which is\nusually transliterated n (or in rare systems nn). That said, historically ん\nderives from む \"mu\", which _is_ a proper syllable (ending in a vowel).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-02T18:13:06.960",
"id": "12715",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-02T18:13:06.960",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12714",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "First off, by 'translate' I assume you mean 'transliterate', to convert text\nfrom one script to another. I apologize if this is not what you meant to ask.\n\"猫 = cat\" would be a translation; \"猫 = neko\" would be a transliteration.\n\nTo answer the question, Japanese is made up of syllables, all but one of which\nare vowels (a, i, u, e, o) or a combination of a consonant and a vowel (ka,\nki, ku, ke, ko, sa, si, su, se, so, etc.) Check\n[here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goj%C5%ABon#Table) for a table of the\nsounds of Japanese.\n\nThe one sound which is irregular is the [nasal \"n\"\nsound](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_phonology#The_moraic_nasal_.2F.C9.B4.2F).\n\nSo, while the vast majority of Japanese words transliterated into the English\nalphabet will end in a vowel, those which end in \"n\" will not. Examples of\nsuch words include ミカン/mikan (an orange), 画面/gamen (screen) and 来年/rainen\n(next year).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-02T18:24:45.037",
"id": "12716",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-02T18:24:45.037",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3010",
"parent_id": "12714",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "(See the other answers for translate vs. transliterate.)\n\nIt's due to Japanese's syllable structure. English allows some spectacularly\ncomplicated syllables ( _strengths_ being a good maximal example*), but\nJapanese doesn't - its allowed syllable structure is (C)V(N/Q), where C is any\nconsonant, V is any vowel, N is the nasal ん (which can vary in pronunciation\ndepending on what follows it), and Q is the っ consonant-length-extension-\nphoneme-thing (which can't occur unless it's before a consonant that can be\nlengthened).\n\nSo you can have words that end in /N/, but most of the time you're going to\nhave a vowel. Primarily this is because almost without exception /N/ only\noccurs in Chinese loanwords (though a few native Japanese words (especially\nverb forms) have gained an /N/ since its introduction) - so most native words\nend in vowels. Indeed, most native words will alternate between consonants and\nvowels (partly due to Old Japanese not liking adjacent vowels - the most\ncommon word shape by -far- is (C)VCV).\n\nThere are languages (e.g. most Polynesian ones) which cannot, under any\ncircumstances, have syllables that end in consonants. Japanese used to be that\nway, but under the influence of Chinese, it has gained two syllable-final\nconsonant phonemes. So you will get words that end in /N/, but mostly words\nwill only end in vowels.\n\n*(English's syllable structure works out to something like (s)(C)(L)V(N/L)(C)(s), where L is either l or r and N is any nasal (n, m, ng) - there are some further rules on which consonants can occur next to each other in certain positions (so trV is okay, but tlV isn't), but that description's mostly accurate. _Strengths_ is pretty much the biggest you can have.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-02T18:44:21.297",
"id": "12717",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-02T18:44:21.297",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "12714",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 15
}
] | 12714 | 12717 | 12717 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've been searching up words like '～の近く' (near), '～の裏側' (behind), '～より先'\n(further away). Basically words related to the position of an object or thing.\nThe term I've been using is 前置詞 in Japanese, but I'm not sure this is right.\n\nThe thing is, even though I search up '前置詞', I'm always given a list of\nwebsites of foreign language prepositions translated to Japanese. So my\nquestion is, are grammar-related terms such as 前置詞, 動詞, 名詞, something that was\ncreated because of the influx of foreign languages study in Japan or did these\nterms already exist natively in the Japanese language?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-03T07:38:43.757",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12719",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-03T08:23:51.373",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-03T08:01:59.510",
"last_editor_user_id": "3916",
"owner_user_id": "3916",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"terminology"
],
"title": "Etymology of grammar-related terms in Japanese",
"view_count": 173
} | [
{
"body": "You're right that these terms were added to describe linguistic phenomena in\ngeneral that are not necessarily in Japanese. It seems you were taking the\nconcept of an English and translating it to Japanese, but this does not work\nbecause they are approximations of the same meaning without being the same\ngrammatically. So something like 前置詞 refers to a word (such as \"in\" or \"to\" or\n\"on\") that comes at the start of a phrase to modify it. This doesn't exist in\nJapanese. This also, as you seem to believe, does _not_ refer explicitly to\nwords that show \"where something is.\" It can describe spatial relationships\n(on the table) or temporal relationships (at 3:00) or reasons (for no reason\nat all) or anything really. The point is that it comes before a phrase and\nmodifies it.\n\nThings like に and で can help to approach the same meaning as a preposition in\nEnglish, but grammatically they are not the same. They are particles, and I\n_think_ that they are, by definition, postpositional rather than\nprepositional. The fact that they can express location is irrelevant.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-03T08:23:51.373",
"id": "12721",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-03T08:23:51.373",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1797",
"parent_id": "12719",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12719 | null | 12721 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12723",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was looking at the [heisei wiki\npage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisei_period) and I wondered how you would\nrefer to future dates in the japanese calendar?\n\nFor example would 'The 2020 olympics' be '[平成]{へいせい}３２[年]{ねん}のオリンピック'? Is\nthere some standard?\n\nIf this was on a web page and an era change occurred would you need to update\nit?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-03T08:09:02.853",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12720",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-03T14:21:59.290",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-03T12:32:26.297",
"last_editor_user_id": "3528",
"owner_user_id": "3528",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"time",
"future"
],
"title": "Future dates in the Japanese calendar",
"view_count": 228
} | [
{
"body": "平成 will last until the Emperor's death. So, until that happens, every future\nyear is stated as 平成. If he were to pass away, then there would be a new name\ndecided upon, and that year would be the final year of 平成 (up to day of his\ndeath) and the [元年]{がんねん} of the next era (starting from the day after his\ndeath). Once the change happens, obviously any dates that go past the end of\n平成 would have to be updated.\n\nFor international events, though, there is a tendency to use [西暦]{せいれき}...",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-03T12:34:05.653",
"id": "12723",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-03T14:21:59.290",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-03T14:21:59.290",
"last_editor_user_id": "3835",
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12720",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 12720 | 12723 | 12723 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12725",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In English, we have constructions like \"Let freedom ring from the mighty\nmountains of New York\" (MLK's _I Have A Dream_ speech) and \"Let there be\nlight\" (Genesis 1:3, KJV and other versions).\n\nIs there an idiomatic Japanese equivalent of this construction? I can imagine\ncircumlocuting around it with something like ニューヨークの偉大なる山から自由が響くようにあろう, but\nI'm not sure if that's idiomatic (or even correct) Japanese.\n\nThe [Japanese Living Bible](http://www.biblica.com/bibles/japanese/) seems to\ntranslate \"Let there be light\" as 「光よ、輝け」, but that seems to me to mean\n\"Shine, light\", which is not really the same thing.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-03T20:51:17.630",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12724",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T04:39:16.853",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-04T03:21:09.403",
"last_editor_user_id": "3437",
"owner_user_id": "3437",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"verbs"
],
"title": "Is there an idiomatic Japanese equivalent of the construction \"Let [infinitive verb]\"?",
"view_count": 686
} | [
{
"body": "I don't think they're idiomatic at all, but you've touched on both of them.\n\"Let\" in these cases translates to either a command, or to what basically\namounts to \"may\". With the former, you would use the `命令形` as you noted. In my\nJapanese Bible (`新共同訳`), that verse in Genesis simply says `光あれ！`. With the\nlatter, you're essentially describing a \"wish\" or some desire that is more-or-\nless out of your control. In this case, you use `～ように` (\"may it be (such)\nthat...\"). Refer to the following topic for more info on this usage.\n\n* * *\n\nxref: [How does this ように work?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/4155/78)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-03T21:16:19.380",
"id": "12725",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-03T21:16:19.380",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "12724",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "One of Maaya Sakamoto's songs is called 「光あれ」 which seems to mean \"Let there\nbe light\". [Lyrics](http://www.kasi-time.com/item-246.html).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T04:39:16.853",
"id": "12733",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T04:39:16.853",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3295",
"parent_id": "12724",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12724 | 12725 | 12725 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12727",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm learning Japanese and I just finished learning Hiragana and Katakana and\nnow I'm moving to Kanji. In my studies I found that 午前8時 means 8 a.m Ok,\nthat's cool but I would like to know how to pronunciate it.\n\nShould I just combine the sounds? I mean 午 is ご, 前 is まえ and 時とき so 午前8時 would\nbe ごまえ8とき?\n\nThank you very much!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-04T01:53:14.613",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12726",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-04T02:18:10.633",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3918",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"kanji"
],
"title": "question about 午前n時",
"view_count": 162
} | [
{
"body": "Kanji have kun and on-yomi. In this case, the correct pronunciation would be\nごぜん はち じ",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-04T02:18:10.633",
"id": "12727",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-04T02:18:10.633",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1392",
"parent_id": "12726",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12726 | 12727 | 12727 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12738",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Quoting from page 292 of _A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar_ (DBJG),\nentry for に, note 2:\n\n\"Any transitive verb used in the V-てあげる or V-てくれる construction can take に, if\nthe verb does not take a human direct object.\"\n\n\"...ほめる, which takes a human object, cannot take に...\"\n\nThe (only) example they give for the second quote is\n\n> 先生は私( **を** / ***に** )ほめてくださいました。 \n> My teacher praised me.\n\nMy issue is that since the indirect object (the one receiving the favour) and\ndirect object (the one praised) are the same (私), one would normally leave out\nthe indirect object anyway. i.e. you wouldn't say\n\n> ☓先生は私に私をほめてくださいました。\n\nBut DBJG seem to be saying that a transitive verb in てあげる form with a human\ndirect object cannot take an indirect object under any circumstances.\n\nSo let's construct a sentence where the indirect object and direct object are\ntwo different people (me and Tanaka respectively). Is the following sentence\nallowed?\n\n> 先生は私に田中を叱ってくださいました。 \n> The teacher scolded Tanaka (for my sake).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-04T04:09:42.523",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12728",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T15:04:52.310",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-05T07:11:47.953",
"last_editor_user_id": "3848",
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-に"
],
"title": "Use of に with -てあげる/-てくれる with a human direct object",
"view_count": 521
} | [
{
"body": "Viridian, I think you missunderstood what the dictionary said about the\nconstruction. What the book said is that, if the direct object of a verb is\nthe same person who is receiving the benefit of the action, then it's\nincorrect to use に.\n\nEx: みちおは私をなぐさめてくれた。 \"I\" is the direct object of the verb, but \"I\" ALSO is the\nperson receiving the action, that's why you mark it by を.\n\nIn the sentence you gave\n\n先生は私に田中を叱ってくださいました。\n\nThe person who is receiving the benefit of the action (私) is DIFFERENT from\nthe direct object of the verb (田中), therefore it's okay to mark 私 by に,\nalthough I'm not sure if this is a valid sentence in japanese, since I'm no\nnative japanese speaker. Maybe in a context where Tanaka has been bothering\nyou and then your teacher scolds him, I guess you could say 田中を叱ってくださいました, but\nI'm not sure.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T02:11:24.200",
"id": "12732",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T02:11:24.200",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1392",
"parent_id": "12728",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "先生は私に田中を叱ってくださいました is an extremely odd sentence; no Japanese native speaker\nwould ever say this. **If the verb of the sentence takes a human direct\nobject, or if the verb doesn't normally take the particle に** , one can\nreplace the に marking the benefactor with ために in order to create a natural\nsentence:\n\n先生は私のために田中さんを叱ってくださいました。\n\n彼女は俺にあの女を殺してくれた ---> Odd since the verb 殺す doesn't normally take the particle\nに。\n\nThis sentence can be rewritten as:\n\n彼女は俺のためにあの女を殺してくれた。 ---> A correct sentence.\n\nIt's really not more difficult than this.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T14:29:37.663",
"id": "12738",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T15:04:52.310",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-05T15:04:52.310",
"last_editor_user_id": "3841",
"owner_user_id": "3841",
"parent_id": "12728",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12728 | 12738 | 12738 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12739",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "今日、[この歌](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1awua0YrSRs)を聞きました。\n\n最初の歌詞はこれです：\n\n> アイデンティティがない 生まれない らららら\n\nでも意味が分かりません。英訳するができない。\n\n「(If you) have no identity, (you) haven't been born」と思いますが、確かめたいです。\n\n日本語で説明していい。",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-04T19:41:24.657",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12730",
"last_activity_date": "2021-02-15T16:38:01.510",
"last_edit_date": "2021-02-15T16:38:01.510",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "3909",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words",
"song-lyrics"
],
"title": "How does 生まれ translate in this context?",
"view_count": 463
} | [
{
"body": "下手ではありますが... Not a strict translation.\n\n>\n```\n\n> アイデンティティがない 生まれない? ららら\n> アイデンティティがない 生まれない ららら\n> \n> I have no identity.\n> Can I have such an identity? la-la-la.\n> \n> 好きな服はなんですか?好きな本は?好きな食べ物は何?\n> そう そんな物差しを持ち合わせてる僕は凡人だ\n> \n> What kind of clothes do you like?\n> What is your favorite book and food?\n> \n> What a featureless man I am,\n> who think that everyone can be distinguishable from others by such\n> questions.\n> \n> 映し鏡 ショーウィンドー 隣の人と自分を見比べる\n> そう それが真っ当と思い込んで生きていた\n> どうして 今になって 今になって そう僕は考えたんだろう?\n> \n> Comparing me and my neibourghs through the reflecting image of show\n> windows,\n> I lived till now that to think such way was very natural.\n> \n> I become to think that the favorite book, foods nor clothes are not\n> the essaential part of my identity.\n> I had never such a thought till now, why?\n> \n> どうして まだ見えない 自分らしさってやつに 朝は来るのか?\n> \n> How can it be happen that the identity which I have never seen\n> be born and it sees the sun shine of morning.\n> \n```",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T17:11:58.180",
"id": "12739",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T17:11:58.180",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3849",
"parent_id": "12730",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 12730 | 12739 | 12739 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Jisho says [渡る is an intransitive\nverb](http://jisho.org/words?jap=%E6%B8%A1%E3%82%8B&eng=&dict=edict), and ALC\nsays [it is sometimes 自動 and sometimes\n他動](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E6%B8%A1%E3%82%8B).\n\nIn either case, the particle を can be used. What's going on here?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T05:48:52.773",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12734",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T07:26:44.467",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-14T21:23:04.970",
"last_editor_user_id": "6840",
"owner_user_id": "3242",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"particle-を",
"transitivity"
],
"title": "It seems that 渡る is categorized as 自動詞 (intransitive verb), yet it is frequently used with を. Why?",
"view_count": 1432
} | [
{
"body": "This is one of those instances where we as English speakers encounter a term\nand assume that it matches its English equivalent perfectly, but actually the\ndistinction between transitive and intransitive verbs is a little bit fuzzier\nthan you may have been led to believe. As such this answer may not be very\nintuitive.\n\nThe basic point is that taking a direct object _doesn't necessarily mean a\nverb is transitive_. In this [dictionary entry for\n他動詞](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E4%BB%96%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E):\n\n>\n> 〔英語などでは目的語をとり、主語・目的語を転換して受け身表現にすることができるなど、他動詞とはっきり認定することができる。しかし、日本語では、目的語の表示が必ずしも明らかでなく、また、目的語をとらない「泣く」が「子供に泣かれる」のように受け身に使われたりして、自動詞と他動詞の区別を明確にしにくい面がある〕\n\nAnd the [entry for\n自動詞](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E8%87%AA%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E):\n\n> 西欧語では目的語をとらない・とるなど、自他の別がはっきりと表れるが、日本語では必ずしも明確でない。\n\nBasically it's saying that the line is fuzzy in Japanese while there are some\nclear rules in Western languages.\n\nSo what about 渡る, specifically? Why does this fall into that fuzzy category?\n\nCheck out [this\ndiscussion](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1037449360).\nExamining the definitions a little closer we see that for a verb to be\ntransitive it must be on operation _on_ that object. When you cook rice you\nare acting on the rice. When you kick a ball you are acting on the ball. But\nwhen you cross a bridge, are you acting on the bridge? Are you doing something\nto it? Not really; the bridge just happens to be where you're walking.\n\nAnother way to look at it is to say that the を isn't marking an _object_ but a\n_path_. You can find the same kind of misunderstanding with 歩く. When you say\n道を歩く, does 歩く become a transitive verb? No, and [this\nsite](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1268761667) can\nsupport that. At the end of the day the operating phrase seems to be\n\"自他の対応がない.\"",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T07:02:09.840",
"id": "12735",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T07:02:09.840",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1797",
"parent_id": "12734",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
},
{
"body": "You are correct that 渡る is intransitive, 渡す is transitive but it seems you are\nnot familiar with the different uses of the particle を： In addition to being a\ndirect object marker for \"handing over things\":\n\n拳銃を渡す −hand over a gun\n\nThe particle を can also act as a \"spatial object marker\" for the intransitive\nforms such as crossing things like bridges:\n\n橋を渡る\n\nor as in the sentence\n\n> 「飛行機が空を飛ぶ」| The plane flies across the sky.\n\n( 飛ぶ also being an intransitive verb)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T11:55:29.377",
"id": "12745",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-06T18:48:43.603",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-06T18:48:43.603",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "12734",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "It might help to think about how many words in English can be used both\ntransitively and intransitively.\n\nLike \"open\",\n\n> \"I opened the door\" vs. \"The door opened\"\n\nOr \"eat\",\n\n> \"I already ate\" vs. \"I already ate a sandwich\"\n\nNow think of the difference in Japanese between a verb taking 「を」 and that\nsame verb taking 「に」 or possibly 「へ」.\n\n> 「森を歩く」and 「森に歩く」（森へ歩く） \n> \"Walk in the woods\" vs. \"Walk to the woods\"\n>\n> 「アメリカを渡る」 and 「アメリカに渡る」（アメリカへ渡る） \n> \"Cross America\" vs. \"Cross over to America\"\n\nThere's also interesting Chinese-derived words （漢語） like 「渡米する」, meaning \"to\ncross over to America\" or \"go to America\" and 「渡海する」, meaning \"to go out on\nthe ocean\".\n\nOr 「上京する」 and 「上洛する」, meaning \"to go up to the capital/Tokyo\" and \"to go up to\nthe capital/Kyoto\" respectively.\n\n> 渡米する = 米（アメリカ） **に・へ** 渡る 渡海 = 海 **を** 渡る\n\nBoth「渡米する」 and 「渡海する」 are generally used as intransitive 自動詞, but 「渡米」 has an\nunderlying meaning of 「アメリカ **へ** 」, whereas 「渡海」 has an underlying meaning of\n「海 **を** 」\n\nContrast this with the more similar 「上京」 and 「上洛」\n\n> 上京 = 京（東京） **を** 上る \n> 上洛 = 洛（京都） **を** 上る\n\nIn summary, the case of 自動詞 + を also exists for some verbs (especially those\nthat indicate a change in location like 歩く・走る・出る・渡る・散歩する) to express _**where\nthe action is done**_ (as in 「森を歩く」) or _**at what location the action\nbegins**_ (as in 「家を出る」).\n\nSee the 大辞林 entry for 「を」, definitions 3 and 5 here:\n<http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%82%92>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T06:55:25.050",
"id": "18295",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T07:26:44.467",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7055",
"parent_id": "12734",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12734 | null | 12735 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12740",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I noticed that both 死ぬ and the 音読み of 死 share a し sound. Is this a huge\ncoincidence between Japanese and Chinese, or is there some sort of relation? I\nguess the former, because I don't know any function ぬ may have after a\nborrowed noun, but I don't know much about etymology.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T13:26:56.543",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12737",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T19:03:12.737",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2960",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"readings",
"history"
],
"title": "Is there any relationship between the verb 死{し}ぬ and the 音読み 死{し}?",
"view_count": 295
} | [
{
"body": "It is a tempting identification, but the 〜ぬ suffix is inexplicable. In fact,\nthere are only two n-stem verbs in Old Japanese – 死ぬ and 去【い】ぬ – plus one\nauxiliary (the perfective 〜ぬ), all of which are conjecturally related.\n[Linguistic coincidences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_cognate) are not\nunheard of: one well-known example concerns the word \"dog\" in English and in\nMbabaram.\n\nFor what it's worth, the 日本語国語大辞典 records the following etymological theories:\n\n> 【語源説】\n>\n> (1)息がなくなる意のシイヌ（息去）の義〔日本語原学＝林甕臣〕。シイヌル（息逝）の義〔松屋棟梁集〕。\n>\n> (2)サリヌルの反〔名語記〕。\n>\n> (3)スギイヌル（過往）の義〔名言通〕。\n>\n> (4)シヲルル、シボム、シヒルの義と通じる〔国語の語根とその分類＝大島正健〕。\n>\n> (5)シは〆領る、ヌは歇了る義〔国語本義〕。\n\nBy contrast, it is generally accepted that words like 馬【うま】 and 梅【うめ】 are\nancient loanwords from Chinese.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T18:27:24.873",
"id": "12740",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T19:03:12.737",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-05T19:03:12.737",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "578",
"parent_id": "12737",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 12737 | 12740 | 12740 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12743",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm looking at JLPT4/5 grammar list and see such grammar point. But I can't\nfind any information about it (truthfully I don't know how to).\n\nThough I found some examples: 1 shuukan ni ikkai - once a week 1 nen ni 3 kai\n- 3 times a year\n\nCan someone explain this or point me to where I can get that information?\nThanks.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T23:05:40.770",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12741",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T23:13:40.003",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3924",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Period + に + frequency",
"view_count": 3170
} | [
{
"body": "Are you asking for help on the pattern, or just other explanations and\nmaterials? Because there's not much to it really. You know that `に` has\nmultiple meanings, including \"in\" or \"within\". So it's a pretty straight\ntranslation.\n\n<Period> + に + <frequency> → \"Within <period>, <frequency> times.\" or\n\"<frequency> times in <Period>\"\n\n> * １年に３回 → 3 times within 1 year\n> * 一週間に１回 → Once per week\n>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T23:13:40.003",
"id": "12743",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-05T23:13:40.003",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "12741",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12741 | 12743 | 12743 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12753",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Could somebody tell me the meaning/use of both もs in bold in the following\nsentence? It is the background explanation for the essay titled 「さよなら、ゴジラ先生」\nin the magazine, [中上級のにほんご](http://www.ssnihongo.com/).\n\nAlso, I am not sure about the use of こんな in the second sentence; again what is\nit referring to? I think it means \"this kind of doctor\" but what kind? Should\nI be able to infer the adjective, or is this an invitation to read on and find\nout?\n\n> 日本の大きな病院は、診察してもらうに **も** 時間がかかります。そして、なんだか怖い感じ。でも、こんな先生 **も**\n> いるのですね。今月は、大病院の診察室を舞台にしたエッセーです。\n\nThe answer must surely relate to context but I should appreciate an\nexplanation from someone who understands.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-05T23:08:15.013",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12742",
"last_activity_date": "2015-01-12T06:08:54.843",
"last_edit_date": "2015-01-12T06:08:54.843",
"last_editor_user_id": "3437",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-も"
],
"title": "The use of も; spotting if it is comparison/contrast, or for emphasis",
"view_count": 622
} | [
{
"body": "> 日本の大きな病院は、診察してもらうに **も** 時間がかかります。\n\nThis も means something like \"even\"; that everything else also takes a lot of\ntime.\n\n> そして、なんだか怖い感じ。でも、こんな先生 **も** いるのですね。\n\nThis も means \"in the world\", kind of... I think this sentence is referring not\nonly to the doctors themselves, but also the place where they work, or how\nthey treat their patients. I guess they want to say something along the lines\nof: \"everyone's so scary; it's hard to believe that there could be doctors who\nwould work in such a place\". However, this is just speculation. There needs to\nbe more context (i.e., the whole article) to get a good grip on what they mean\nhere...\n\n* * *\n\n_(See comment to get complete answer to question - Tim)_\n\n* * *\n\n**Update**\n\nThinking about it again, maybe it's more like this:\n\n> Even just getting an examination at a big hospital in Japan takes so long.\n> It can be dreadful.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T14:31:25.993",
"id": "12753",
"last_activity_date": "2015-01-12T06:04:42.040",
"last_edit_date": "2015-01-12T06:04:42.040",
"last_editor_user_id": "3437",
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12742",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12742 | 12753 | 12753 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12747",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am aware of the generic English translation: In this case, \"device\" or \"to\ndevise\" in English, but this does not really help me out. In what context\nwould you use this word? 例文 would really be appreciated. Thank you!",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T11:37:06.500",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12744",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T01:32:52.977",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-07T01:32:52.977",
"last_editor_user_id": "3927",
"owner_user_id": "3927",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"words",
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does 工夫（する） mean?",
"view_count": 2097
} | [
{
"body": "Usually used when ingenuity is involved. Example sentences (with translations)\nare available on [Space\nALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E5%B7%A5%E5%A4%AB&ref=sa), for example\n\n> その映画には、新しい工夫が無数にこらされている。 \n> There is an enormous amount of invention in the film.\n>\n> ちょっとした工夫を必要とする \n> require a little ingenuity",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T12:02:12.380",
"id": "12746",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-06T12:02:12.380",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12744",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "It is not an intuitively obvious word but if you look at the following\nexamples you should be able to work out how to use it as verb to devise,\ncontrive or invent:\n\n> 「新しい方法を—する」｜To come up with a new way\n>\n> これは私が工夫したのです｜This is my own invention. / I thought this up myself.\n>\n> 何とか工夫してみましょう｜I'll see if I can't come up with something.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T12:04:27.883",
"id": "12747",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-06T13:57:00.360",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "12744",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12744 | 12747 | 12746 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12749",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "\"Premature optimization is the root of all evil\"\n\nI would like to translate this quote into Japanese for a personal project. For\nfurther understanding of the meaning, Donald Knuth wrote this phrase in 1974,\nsee <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_optimization>, context:\n\n> We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time:\n> premature optimization is the root of all evil\n\nGoogle translate gave me 時期尚早な最適化は諸悪の根源である but I'm not confident on it's\ncorrectness, and it seems a bit long?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T12:27:14.103",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12748",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T00:08:12.027",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-06T12:48:38.450",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "3928",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Premature optimization is the root of all evil",
"view_count": 249
} | [
{
"body": "I think in this rare case, Google translate provides a spot-on translation. I\nwould translate the whole sentence as\n\n> We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time:\n> premature optimization is the root of all evil. \n> 細かな効率については、約97%の場合忘れれば良い。なぜなら、時期尚早の最適化は諸悪の根源だからだ。\n\n_Translation notes:_ I just translated \"say about\" as 約. The \"say\" here should\nreally be something like まあ or, as Hyperworm suggested, そうだね, but I thought\nthat the resulting tone would be a bit too conversational, which is not really\nthe case in English.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T12:54:59.003",
"id": "12749",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T00:08:12.027",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-08T00:08:12.027",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12748",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "On the [Wikipedia page for Tony\nHoare](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88%E3%83%8B%E3%83%BC%E3%83%BB%E3%83%9B%E3%83%BC%E3%82%A2)\nit's translated as:\n\n> 小さな効率は忘れよう。時間の97%について語ろう。早まった最適化は諸悪の根源だ。\n\nAnd on the [page for\noptimization](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9C%80%E9%81%A9%E5%8C%96_%28%E6%83%85%E5%A0%B1%E5%B7%A5%E5%AD%A6%29)\nit's:\n\n>\n> ほんとうの問題点は、プログラマたちが誤った場所と誤った時点での効率について苦労して、多くの時間を浪費してしまったということにあります。プログラミングでは、時を得ない最適化は諸悪の根源なのであります。（すべてではないにしても、少なくとも悪の大部分と言えるでしょう。）\n\nand also:\n\n> 未熟な最適化は諸悪の根源である\n\nand also:\n\n> 細かい効率のことは忘れて、時間の97%について考えよう。時期尚早な最適化は諸悪の根源だ。それでも残り3%についても機会を逃すべきではない",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T13:53:21.620",
"id": "12750",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-06T13:53:21.620",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12748",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 12748 | 12749 | 12749 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12752",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "> その帽子に赤いマフラーが似合いそうだ。 \n> A red muffler seems to go well with that hat.\n\nIs there a difference in nuance between the above sentence and the following\none?\n\n> その帽子に **は** 赤いマフラーが似合いそうだ。\n\nI get that it's emphasised that the hat is the topic in the second sentence,\nbut really it's hard to think about the first sentence as not necessarily\nbeing about the hat.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T14:03:17.390",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12751",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T17:10:09.783",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-06T15:37:58.257",
"last_editor_user_id": "3848",
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-は"
],
"title": "Nuance due to absence of は",
"view_count": 144
} | [
{
"body": "`その帽子に` sounds pretty matter-of-fact.\n\n`その帽子には` sounds more like picking-and-choosing. Also, it kind of feels as\nthough there is more to come—e.g., \"but this green scarf does not\", or \"but a\nyellow scarf would go with this other hat\".\n\nBut, I feel like I kind of overly analyzed it ;)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T14:19:16.987",
"id": "12752",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-06T14:19:16.987",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12751",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "> * その帽子に赤いマフラーが似合いそうだ。 → A red scarf seems to goes well with that hat.\n> * その帽子に **は** 赤いマフラーが似合いそうだ。 → A red scarf seems to goes well with\n> **that** hat.; With that hat, a red scarf seems to go well.\n>",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T14:36:55.973",
"id": "12754",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-06T14:36:55.973",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "12751",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "The second sentence introduces the hat (as a target of comparison) as a topic.\n\nBut just because the first sentence doesn't, it doesn't mean that the sentence\nisn't about the hat.\n\nThe grammatical topic is more than just what a sentence is about.\n\nThe topic is a lasting effect which a sentence has on sentences or\nconversation which follows. For example, when we introduce a topic, then the\nnext sentence can implicitly be about the same thing without mentioning it.\n\nその帽子には赤いマフラーが似合いそうだ。\n\n(Topic is now その帽子に: the hat as a basis of comparison)\n\nそのジーンズも似合うね。\n\n(From the lingering topic, the jeans go with the hat, and not the scarf or\nsomething else in the speaker's and listener's environment.)\n\nMoreover, **just because there is no topic marking particle doesn't mean that\nthe sentence does not introduce a topic.** It just does so perhaps less\nfirmly. In Japanese, elision of particles is possible, and they can be\nunderstood as being \"still there\" but replaced by a \"null particle\". For\ninstance [see this\npaper](https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/24213/Aamodt.pdf) which\ndiscusses some possible rules and circumstances under which wa can be dropped.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-07T17:10:09.783",
"id": "12765",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T17:10:09.783",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1266",
"parent_id": "12751",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12751 | 12752 | 12752 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12756",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I apologize if this is a basic question, but it's something I've never been\nentirely clear on. When using the verb 言う (to say), I can never figure out\nwhether to use the particle -と or the particle -を for the thing being said. I\nknow that -と is used for quotations, but what about when the thing being said\nis not a direct quotation? For example, is it acceptable to say:\n\n> 彼女は何と言いましたか。 \n> What did she say?\n\nor\n\n> 先生が宿題の締切りと言いましたか。 \n> Did the teacher say what the deadline on the homework is?\n\nIn these two situations, I'm not sure whether to use を or と. Can anyone tell\nme what the difference between is?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T19:22:08.960",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12755",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T17:58:12.767",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1575",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 14,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"particles",
"particle-を",
"particle-と"
],
"title": "What is the difference between using を and と with the verb 言う?",
"view_count": 1235
} | [
{
"body": "I feel like this has been asked before, but I can't find it if it has. You've\ngot it spot on with `と` being the quotation marker; that is `Xと言う` means that\n**X** was literally (more or less) what was said. Using `を` is more about the\nmeaning/gist/essence of what is said. Here's a pair that I always remember to\nhelp distinguish them.\n\n> * なにを言ってるのか？ → \"What are you saying?\" meaning \"I don't understand what\n> you're talking about\"\n> * なんと言ってるのか？ → \"What are you saying?\" meaning \"I don't/can't understand\n> the words you're speaking\" (maybe they are mumbling; phone conversation\n> static-y and breaking up; etc.)\n>\n\nOr this set\n\n> * なにを言ったらいいか？ → \"What/How should I say (this)?\" meaning \"What's the best\n> _way_ for me to explain this?\"\n> * なんと言ったらいいか？ → \"What should I say?\" meaning \"What's the best wording for\n> what I want to say?\"\n>\n\nWith your examples, the first one could be either - `彼女は何を／と言いました？` - but\nagain, the meaning would change slightly (the meaning or exact wording of what\nshe said) as I mentioned above. With the second one, `を` is more correct for\nthe context.\n\n> * 先生が宿題の締切を言いましたか。 → Did the teacher tell us the deadline for the\n> homework? → The meaning of \"the homework's deadline\" would be an exact\n> date/time.\n> * 先生が宿題の締切といいましたか。 → Did the teacher say \"the homework's deadline\"? → Not\n> likely that the teacher would have said that exact phrase.\n>",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T19:55:46.960",
"id": "12756",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T17:58:12.767",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-07T17:58:12.767",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "12755",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 14
}
] | 12755 | 12756 | 12756 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12758",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Or is it just a neutral term for tidal waves?\n\n(I'm considering naming a JavaScript library `tsunami.js` – would it be\noffensive?)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T21:16:56.560",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12757",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T01:55:33.377",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1841",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words",
"culture"
],
"title": "Does the word 津波 (tsunami) have negative connotations?",
"view_count": 494
} | [
{
"body": "I would say \"not necessarily\"; but, it definitely doesn't have _positive_\nconnotations...\n\nOne might think of it as `<= 0`.\n\n* * *\n\n**Update**\n\nHmm, evidence? Well, the word \"earthquake\" is definitely not a positive word\nby itself, right? It has more neutral or negative connotations (i.e.,`<= 0`).\nBut, I don't know how to provide evidence of that...\n\nThere is a word, アクセス津波 (access tsunami), which is when there are a lot of\nsite views/accesses in a short period. When used in this sense, I guess the\nblog owner would be happy :)\n\nAt any rate, I don't think you'll realistically be offending many people by\nusing \"tsunami\" (unless your project is destructive, obviously).\n\nBy the way, what will your project be doing?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-06T22:29:56.657",
"id": "12758",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T01:55:33.377",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-07T01:55:33.377",
"last_editor_user_id": "3835",
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12757",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12757 | 12758 | 12758 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12760",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "勉強しなさいよ！\n\ni know what this means.. but what is the origin of しなさい ?\n\nDoes it come from する (to do verb) ??\n\nIs it short form of something? or what?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-07T12:51:27.547",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12759",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T20:10:30.873",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-07T12:58:55.833",
"last_editor_user_id": "3815",
"owner_user_id": "3815",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"verbs"
],
"title": "The origin of しなさい",
"view_count": 5529
} | [
{
"body": "しなさい is a verb conjugation that turns the verb する into a command (imperative\nform). There are a number of imperative forms, but this one in particular\ngives the nuance of \"talking down\" or giving advice that you feel is helpful\nto the listener (but keep in mind, it carries the connotation that you know\nbetter than the listener). This is generally how a parent would speak to his\nor her child, or a teacher would talk to students.\n\nIf you're not sure whether or not it's appropriate to use in a given\nsituation, imagine saying it in English with the phrase \"You had better\". e.g:\n\n> 勉強しなさい \n> (You had better) study.\n>\n> [図書館]{としょかん}で[静]{しず}かに[喋]{しゃべ}りなさい。 \n> (You had better) talk quietly in the library.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-07T13:14:47.597",
"id": "12760",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T13:29:34.027",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1575",
"parent_id": "12759",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "The ーし part comes from する, indeed. It is the infinitive form, or what some\ngrammarians like Seiichi Makino call the \"masu stem\": the form of the verb\nthat takes －ます.\n\nする → し → します\n\nなさい is the imperative form of なさる, which is a honorific word which means the\nsame as する.\n\nInfinitives combine with なさい to form firm, but polite orders.\n\nFor instance, telling children to sit down:\n\n座る → 座り（ます） → 座りなさい （すわりなさい）\n\nOr encourage them to eat:\n\n食べる → 食べます → 食べなさい\n\nThe し arises when the verb is any one of those formed by -する, or anything else\nwhose masu form ends in し. For instance, 押す → 押し（ます）\n\nボタンを押しなさい\n\nHere, definitely there is no しなさい as a unit; since 押し is a unit!\n\nYou have probably heard しなさい by itself, though (when し is from する):\n\nあなたも、そうしなさい。 (You too, do the same!)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-07T16:22:39.923",
"id": "12762",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T20:10:30.873",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-07T20:10:30.873",
"last_editor_user_id": "1266",
"owner_user_id": "1266",
"parent_id": "12759",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
}
] | 12759 | 12760 | 12762 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12764",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Here is a piece of text from 「ノルウェイの森」by Haruki Murakami:\n\n>\n> この寮の唯一の問題点はその根本的なうさん臭さにあった。寮はあるきわめて右翼的な人物を中心とする正体不明の財団法人によって運営されており、その運営方針は――もちろん僕の目から見ればということだが――かなり奇妙に歪んだものだった。\n\nHow are these things before `もちろん` and `かなり` called and what function they\nserve? \nIs it a mark equal to `、` or something informal like `~~~` and expressing a\nshort speech pause in a middle of the sentence? In any case, what is its name?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-07T13:56:26.550",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12761",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T16:54:39.027",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1640",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"punctuation"
],
"title": "What is this dash-like punctuation mark?",
"view_count": 803
} | [
{
"body": "In English typography, there is a practice to substitute two short dashes in\norder to simulate a long one -- like this -- with or without surrounding\nspaces, when the stock character is not available in the given typesetting\nsystem.\n\nWhat you have there looks like an imitation of the practice, using kanji style\ndashes. The writer probably thought, \"I want to use this neat thing seen in\nWestern writing, in my native writing\".\n\nIt looks like a Western influence, akin to the main stream use of roman\nnumerals, or punctuation like exclamations and question marks.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-07T16:33:56.260",
"id": "12763",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T16:33:56.260",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1266",
"parent_id": "12761",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "It is called a \"dash\", ダッシュ in Japanese, according to this\n[wikipage](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%80%E3%83%83%E3%82%B7%E3%83%A5_%28%E8%A8%98%E5%8F%B7%29).\n\nSeveral usages of the symbol are listed in the page. The usage here is to\ninsert an extra explanation to the sentence (or word before the first dash).\nYou can see that if you take off everything between the two dashes, the\nsentence is perfectly correct and meaningful. The portion between the two\ndashes is only to add an extra explanation that the statement is purely the\nwriter's own opinion. You can treat it as a pair as bracket \"()\" here.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-07T16:54:39.027",
"id": "12764",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-07T16:54:39.027",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "903",
"parent_id": "12761",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12761 | 12764 | 12763 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12777",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've seen all three used in somewhat similar situations. What are the\ndifferences between them, and in which cases should i use one over another?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-07T18:37:27.383",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12766",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T20:39:17.753",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2982",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "What's the difference between 学科, 教科 and 科目",
"view_count": 1499
} | [
{
"body": "They all mean group of studies in the context of education (as opposed to\nresearch).\n\n科目 is the most fine grained of those and corresponds to what constitutes a\nclass (e.g. \"Biology\", \"Physics\" in high school).\n\n教科 refer to a group of studies comprised by a few 科目 that belong together\n(e.g. 理数科 will contain math and science etc.). However it can also be used as\nsynonym for 科目, or more generally refer to class of studies.\n\n学科 usually refers to a department in a university (which would teach multiple\n教科s) or what is taught in departments.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-08T20:39:17.753",
"id": "12777",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T20:39:17.753",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "499",
"parent_id": "12766",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 12766 | 12777 | 12777 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12771",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Are the names of new political parties, especially in English-speaking\ncountries, typically translated, or transliterated?\n\nI looked at the Japanese language Wikipedia template for Australian political\nparties, and saw that Family First seemed to be translated (家族優先党), while the\nAustralian Sex Party and One Nation seemed to be transliterated (オーストラリアセックス党\nand ワン・ネイション) apart from the \"党\".\n\n**Background:** Australia's Liberal Democratic Party looks like it might win a\nseat, and I'm curious whether it'd be called \"自由民主党\", as is claimed by the\nJapanese edition of Wikipedia\n[here](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%87%AA%E7%94%B1%E6%B0%91%E4%B8%BB%E5%85%9A_%28%E6%9B%96%E6%98%A7%E3%81%95%E5%9B%9E%E9%81%BF%29).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-08T05:03:50.243",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12767",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T09:08:41.873",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"loanwords"
],
"title": "Are non-Japanese political party names translated, or transliterated?",
"view_count": 267
} | [
{
"body": "Typically they are translated. For American parties, as an example, Japanese\nnewspapers always write 民主党 for the Democrats and 共和党 for the Republicans.\nCommunist parties everywhere are 共産党. You will refer to a Labo(u)r Party as\n労働党. Even the Green Party gets a 緑の党 designation. There are exceptions, of\ncourse. For example, the Libertarian Party is just called リバタリアン党 rather than\n自由党 (which is already claimed as the \"liberal party\").\n\nTake a look\n[here](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%A1%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AB%E3%81%AE%E6%94%BF%E5%85%9A).\nIt's a list of American parties only but it should give you a big enough list\nto get a feel for how party names are translated.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-08T09:08:41.873",
"id": "12771",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T09:08:41.873",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1797",
"parent_id": "12767",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12767 | 12771 | 12771 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12775",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> この仕事はあと一部を残すだけだ。 \n> Only one part of the job remains.\n\nDoes one think of あと (remainder) as a noun (and object of 残す) and 一部 as a\ncounter/adverb, or is あと the adverb and 一部 the noun here?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-08T06:30:05.667",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12768",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T18:28:48.513",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"adverbs",
"nouns"
],
"title": "Confusion between nouns and adverbs in あと一部",
"view_count": 199
} | [
{
"body": "To my ears あと sounds like an adverb - it's not 'one bit of remainder', it's\n'one remaining bit'. あと is kind of in a weird place between noun and adverb,\nsince a lot of the time it requires a particle, but a phrase like あとどれくらい may\nmake this situation a bit more obvious - you can't quite do the same thing\nwith a noun where あと is unless you use a particle (so 女は何人いる, not *女何人いる).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-08T18:28:48.513",
"id": "12775",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T18:28:48.513",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "12768",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12768 | 12775 | 12775 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12789",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "> 人間に[上下]{じょうげ}はない。 \n> People are equal.\n\nWhy the use of に after 人間? Are we treating 人間 as a \"location\" where 上下 is\nabsent?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-08T06:53:56.720",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12769",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-12T03:37:54.880",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"particle-に"
],
"title": "Use of に in 人間に",
"view_count": 223
} | [
{
"body": "It most likely means \"for\" in this context. One might think of it as `において`.\nAnd 上下 is probably 上下関係.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-08T08:02:43.270",
"id": "12770",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T08:02:43.270",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12769",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I actually think \"among(st)\" sounds better than \"for\". It could be replaced by\n`の間に` or `の中で`. But pick your poison.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-08T17:41:23.243",
"id": "12774",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T17:41:23.243",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "12769",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I think there are several ways to analyze this construction, so this answer\nisn't supposed to be in contrast to the other answers.\n\nOne way that ある and ない (and いる and いない respectively) can sometimes be\ntranslated is \"have\" and \"not have\" with the subject of \"have\" being marked\nwith に\n\n> 彼には家がある \n> he has a house\n>\n> あの人に子供はいない \n> That person doesn't have kids\n\nSimilarly for the example sentence:\n\n> 人間に上下はない \n> Humans do not have hierarchy\n\nEDIT:\n\nThis seems to be called a [dative\nconstruction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dative_construction) and is\nfeatured in several languages. Thanks to snailboat for the info.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-12T00:55:04.217",
"id": "12789",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-12T03:37:54.880",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "12769",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12769 | 12789 | 12789 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12776",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Consider the following sentence (emphasis mine):\n\n> ひょっとしたら僕が **圧力の一つや二つをかけられて** いることも知っているのかもしれない。\n\nThe bolded part is kind of confusing me. I get that 圧力をかけられる means \"to be\npressured\" or \"to have pressure applied [to one]\", but I don't understand how\nyou can have 一つや二つの圧力, since 圧力 seems like an uncountable noun.\n\nIs this just an unusal way of saying 僕が一度や二度圧力をかけられた (\"[someone] pressured me\nonce or twice\")?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-08T11:50:41.073",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12772",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T20:22:25.857",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3437",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"counters",
"nouns"
],
"title": "Is 圧力 countable?",
"view_count": 196
} | [
{
"body": "圧力 here means \"pressure to do something (or not do something)\". E.g.:\n論文を発表しないよう圧力を受けた (I was pressured to not publish my paper).\n\nThere could be multiple, distinct ways of applying such pressure, like\nfreezing one's account AND threatening to kill him, etc. That's why he says\n「一つや二つ」.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-08T20:22:25.857",
"id": "12776",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-08T20:22:25.857",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "499",
"parent_id": "12772",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12772 | 12776 | 12776 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12781",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "What's a nice way to express any of the following -\n\n * \"Let's keep our fingers crossed\"\n\n * \"I'll keep my fingers crossed!\"\n\n * (We / I) (are / am) keeping (our / my ) fingers crossed\"",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-09T06:03:41.427",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12778",
"last_activity_date": "2015-03-07T14:35:26.603",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2994",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "What's a nice way to say \"fingers crossed\"?",
"view_count": 12565
} | [
{
"body": "Of course not all cultures cross fingers when wishing for something. As far as\nI know crossed fingers don't signify anything in Japan.\n\nThe phrase \"fingers crossed\" would probably expressed using うまくいく \"to go\nwell\", e.g.\n\n> うまくいきますように \n> うまくいくといい(ね)\n\nwhere the former is more formal and the second more conversational.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-09T09:55:08.240",
"id": "12781",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-09T09:55:08.240",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12778",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "As the other comments say, there is not really a literal translation but you\ncan get a some mileage using the verb \"to pray\", 祈る。 The exact form will vary\ndepending on context but following would work:\n\n> Let's hope so. |そう祈ろう。\n>\n> Let's keep our fingers crossed. |みんなで幸運を祈りましょう。\n\nMy apple dictionary gives the following, which may help composing a longer\nsentence:\n\n> keep ［have］ one's fingers crossed|\n>\n> （人さし指の上に中指を交差させて）願いがかなうことを祈る；\n>\n> （…になるよう）願う, 祈る｟that節｠.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-09T13:22:35.467",
"id": "12783",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-09T13:22:35.467",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "12778",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Not so strong in Japanese yet, but wouldn't simple 頑張って （がんばって） do, in this\ncase?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-03-07T14:35:26.603",
"id": "23099",
"last_activity_date": "2015-03-07T14:35:26.603",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9534",
"parent_id": "12778",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12778 | 12781 | 12781 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I've been teaching ESL for over 30 years, but for the last three I've had\nalmost exclusively Japanese students (I teach mostly 1-on-1 classes over\nSkype, to students from High School to Business Executives.) I'm also a\nprofessional linguist and somewhat of a hyperglot, but very much still a\ndilettante when it comes to Japanese. My question is this:\n\nIs there any way using _kana_ to represent the unpalatalized /s/ before /i/ or\n/ɪ/? When Japanese students read /si/, most of them invariably pronounce /ʃi/\nbecause... well, you know why. I have many workarounds and ways of\ndemonstrating the difference, but I thought it might be a truckload easier if\nthere were a way of demonstrating this unequivocally so that when they saw it,\nthe light would go on immediately.\n\n事前にありがとうございます!",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-09T07:43:37.747",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12779",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-10T03:19:04.977",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3931",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"phonetics"
],
"title": "Teaching the difference between \"see\" and \"she\" in English",
"view_count": 1209
} | [
{
"body": "\"she\" と \"see\" の発音が違うということが、日本人にはわからないので、書き分ける方法はありません。 \n\"シ\" が \"see\" ではなく、\"she\" になるのは、palatalization という現象です。 \npalatalization は、日本語においては、「イ」を発音するときの口の形に近くなる、ということです。 \n「シー」「シィ」「スィ」「セィ」の中で、一番 palatalization が起こっていないのは「スィ」だと思います。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-09T07:50:10.650",
"id": "12780",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-09T08:13:35.113",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-09T08:13:35.113",
"last_editor_user_id": "1065",
"owner_user_id": "1065",
"parent_id": "12779",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> Is there any way using kana to represent the unpalatalized /s/ before /i/ or\n> /ɪ/?\n\nNo, there isn't.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-09T11:01:56.650",
"id": "12782",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-09T11:01:56.650",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "12779",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "Not perfect but you could point out that in \"see\" the S sound is very similar\nto the S sound in さ [sa] but different from the S sound in しゃ [sha] or し\n[shi], and that the EE sound is very similar to the Japanese い [i]. That's how\nI have introduced it to students in the past. They almost certainly would have\nnever noticed that the beginning S sound of し [shi] is different to the other\nsounds in the \"S\" row (さ・す・せ・そ [sa][su][se][so]).\n\nTry and show them the comparison of these two sets of Japanese syllables:\n\n(さ・しゃ) (す・しゅ) (そ・しょ)\n\nThey should then be able to distinguish the different \"types\" of S.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-10T03:19:04.977",
"id": "12786",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-10T03:19:04.977",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1480",
"parent_id": "12779",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 12779 | null | 12786 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12788",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have started to read a novel for practice. I came across these sentences. I\ncan't make sense of the part _通って中に_.\n\n> 少年はあそこ一夜過ごすことに決めた。彼は羊の群れが、壊れかけた門を **通って中に**\n> 、入るのを見届けてから、夜中に羊が迷い出さないように、何本かの棒を門にわたした。\n\nI cannot find an explanation for the use of the combination of the verb in te-\nform and _chuu ni_. Figuring out this part would help me a lot to put together\nwhat the sentence says.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-10T18:23:52.877",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12787",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-11T10:43:20.803",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-11T10:43:20.803",
"last_editor_user_id": "3437",
"owner_user_id": "2931",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Verb in te-form with 中に, as in \"通って中に\"",
"view_count": 530
} | [
{
"body": "中 does not belong to the te-form 通って. The right way to parse this sentence is\n\n> 羊が門を通って、[中]{なか}に入るのを見届けてから\n>\n> After [he] made sure that the sheep had passed the gate and got inside\n\nIn this case, the te-form simply joins multiple verb actions.\n\nThe comma between 通って and 中 may have confused you, however, when I google for\nthe given phrase, I find it without the comma.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-10T18:58:06.720",
"id": "12788",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-10T18:58:06.720",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3275",
"parent_id": "12787",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 12787 | 12788 | 12788 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12791",
"answer_count": 5,
"body": "I've often seen 'read the air' (literal translation) or 'read between the\nlines' but is there a better rendition of this concept in English? Or does it\njust not exist?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-12T03:20:13.143",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12790",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-17T05:02:48.177",
"last_edit_date": "2020-02-17T05:02:48.177",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "3916",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"translation",
"word-requests",
"idioms"
],
"title": "How is 空気を読む translated into English?",
"view_count": 10360
} | [
{
"body": "I don't think \"read between the lines\" accurately conveys the intended meaning\nof `空気{くうき}を読{よ}む`. Reading between the lines is usually if you are given a\nspecific phrase, written or spoken, and you are expected to understand an\nimplied, and intended, meaning that is not directly stated. Whereas reading\nthe air, as far as I know, is about understanding a situational context, which\nmay have no verbal component, that might ensue whether or not anyone intended\nit to be that way. Reading the air is much more ethereal than reading between\nthe lines.\n\nThere is no one-to-one match in English for \"reading the air\", but the concept\ndefinitely exists. Never mistake not having a set phrase for not grasping a\nreality. People talk about that kind of thing all the time, it's just that\nthey will have to construct descriptions from words and grammar suited to the\nsituation, not easily refer to a preset.\n\nIf someone had no ability to read the air, I would simply say that person was\n\"oblivious\". If someone did have the ability to read the air, I would say that\nperson was \"intuitive\", \"perceptive\", or \"sensitive\".\n\nSensitive to what? The \"atmosphere\", the \"mood\", or the \"situation\". Or, to be\neven more ethereal, I might just use \"it\" to encompass the things I feel I\ncan't encompass, like when we say, \"don't you get it?\".\n\nSo, for situations of not successfully reading the air, I might say, \"That guy\nis oblivious to the situation\". For successful reads, \"that guy really gets\nit.\" If I wanted to push someone, I might say, \"dude, can't you see what's\ngoing on here?\"\n\nOther _related_ phrases that might give you a sense of how English applies in\nsimilar situations are _(note these are just my own constructions, easily\nunderstood but not conventional)_ :\n\n * \"Do I have to spell it out for you?\"\n\n * \"There's more going on here than meets the eye.\"\n\n * \"Get with it.\"\n\nIn short, to describe reading the air in English, you'll have to successfully\nread the air to the point where you can apply the most suitable English\nphrasing.\n\nAs a last note, I think \"read the air\" has a high potential for transfer into\nEnglish. I believe that if one person told another to \"read the air\", and even\nif they had no knowledge of the Japanese phrase, the meaning would very likely\nbe understood. It sounds a little poetic, but well within the bounds of\neveryday usability.\n\nIn fact, I think I'm going to start using it in English, as I feel like it\ncloses a lexical gap. We have the idea, but not the phrase. So if you ever\nhear someone in English refer to \"reading the air\" as a part of their\ndiscourse, you'll know where it started. `;)`.",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-12T04:18:51.633",
"id": "12791",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-12T04:24:52.257",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-12T04:24:52.257",
"last_editor_user_id": "119",
"owner_user_id": "119",
"parent_id": "12790",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 14
},
{
"body": "In this particular case 空気 is similar to 雰囲気.\n\nSo 雰囲気を読む or 場の雰囲気を読む has a pretty similar meaning to 空気を読む.\n\nI'd translate 空気 as the \"mood\" or \"feel\", in this particular case.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-09-06T10:59:36.747",
"id": "27854",
"last_activity_date": "2015-09-06T10:59:36.747",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12790",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "I think it would most closely be something along the lines of \"read the mood\"\nin English, because it's talking about something that isn't spoken but rather\nfelt in the way someone is talking to you. To 'read the air' could be to enter\na room and immediately feel as mood difference from the people in the room, or\nto understand what a person is telling you at a higher level than just what\nwords they are saying, but rather understanding what the specific person is\neither implying or what emotions are being felt at the time. the 'air' is\nseemingly not tangible just like the 'mood' of someone or multiple people, yet\nsome people can feel when somethings off, while more clueless people can't\n'read' it at all.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-01-02T22:40:17.300",
"id": "73694",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-14T21:29:13.607",
"last_edit_date": "2020-02-14T21:29:13.607",
"last_editor_user_id": "36463",
"owner_user_id": "36463",
"parent_id": "12790",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Not a literal translation but “read the room” or “feel the atmosphere” have\nsimilar idiomatic usage in English.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-02-15T12:24:30.597",
"id": "74417",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-15T12:24:30.597",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "14608",
"parent_id": "12790",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Being emotionally intelligent is somewhat of a similar expression, though not\nexactly.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-02-17T03:31:50.967",
"id": "74451",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-17T03:31:50.967",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "36786",
"parent_id": "12790",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12790 | 12791 | 12791 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "what is the difference beween おんなみたい、おんならしい and おんなっぽい。 could any one please\nclear the difference between them with example.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-12T09:05:08.600",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12792",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-12T09:05:08.600",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3622",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words"
],
"title": "what is the difference beween おんなみたい、おんならしい and おんなっぽい。",
"view_count": 52
} | [] | 12792 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12794",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was at a Japanese class and saw what I thought was a mistake, or at best\nshorthand for the character [傘]{かさ} -> 仐 I thought the four ([人]{ひと}) had been\nforgotten but my Japanese teacher told me this was regular Japanese like how\nother archaic characters get simplified (國 -> [国]{こく}, see [Wiki page\nhere](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinjitai)). I am not convinced so if\nanyone could share more solid evidence on the validity of the character or\nyour own opinions?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-12T14:09:08.403",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12793",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-12T15:16:45.393",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-12T15:08:40.387",
"last_editor_user_id": "3528",
"owner_user_id": "3528",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"kanji"
],
"title": "Shorthand for [傘]{kasa} or normal use? 仐",
"view_count": 622
} | [
{
"body": "It isn't a 新字体{しんじたい} (\"new kanji form\"). Strictly speaking, 新字体 refers to a\nspecific set of official simplifications which you can find in the\n[常用漢字表](http://www.bunka.go.jp/bunkashingikai/soukai/pdf/kaitei_kanji_toushin.pdf).\nFor example, the 新字体 of 鬪 is 闘, replacing the _broken gate_ radical 鬥（とうがまえ）\nwith the _gate_ radical 門（もんがまえ）.\n\nIn contrast, this is an _unofficial_ simplification. This sort of\nsimplification is usually called a 略字（りゃくじ）, meaning _abbreviated character_.\nYou can see other examples of 略字 on\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%95%A5%E5%AD%97), which has the\nfollowing chart:\n\n\n\nSince none of these simplifications are official, you won't find them in\nofficial materials such as the 常用漢字表, and they don't count as 新字体. You may see\nthem in handwriting, or you may even see them in fonts or other printed\nmaterial. And since they're unofficial, there is no complete list; people may\ninvent new non-standard forms whenever they wish.\n\nHowever, you may be able to find some resources which identify these\nsimplifications as 略字. In this case, you may consult the Japanese\n[Wiktionary](http://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%82%98), which helpfully lists 仐\nas a 略字; or the English [Wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E4%BB%90),\nwhich tells you that it's a non-standard form; or, you may consult\n[Unicode](http://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetUnihanData.pl?codepoint=4ED0),\nwhich defines it as \"(J) non-standard form of 傘 U+5098 傘, umbrella, parasol,\nparachute\".\n\nThe biggest difference, perhaps, is that official 新字体 simplifications are\nconsidered the standard form of a character, so you'll find them used most of\nthe time. Unofficial 略字, on the other hand, are not considered standard forms.\nWhile they're not uncommon, you'll probably see them quite a bit less often\nthan the official forms.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-12T15:16:45.393",
"id": "12794",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-12T15:16:45.393",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12793",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 13
}
] | 12793 | 12794 | 12794 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12798",
"answer_count": 5,
"body": "During the past month I've been addicted to Japanese. I've listened to about\n10 online tutorial video courses and read about as much printed lessons. I am\ndetermined to learn Japanese, but I am really a newbie so my question may be\nvery basic, but please bear with me.\n\nIf I understand correctly, both _-ga_ and _-o_ particles designate a direct\nobject. For example, I've heard:\n\n> Watashi wa ongaku-ga suki desu. = I like music\n>\n> Watashi wa ongaku-o kiku (or kikimasu, I'm not sure) = I am listening to\n> music\n\nSo why is it _ga_ in one case and _o_ in the other? Is it specific to the verb\nor the object or what?\n\nP.S. I don't know hiragana yet, so I'd appreciate if you could keep your\nexamples, if any, in romaji.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-12T16:08:44.667",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12795",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-22T17:45:04.553",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3941",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 16,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-は",
"particle-を",
"particle-が"
],
"title": "What's the difference between -ga and -o when they are used to designate a direct object?",
"view_count": 46127
} | [
{
"body": "It depends not only on the verb, but on the form of the verb.\n\nThe general rule is that static verbs and adjectives take \"ga\" and \"action\nverbs\" take \"o\" on the direct object.\n\n> piano-o hiku \n> play the piano\n>\n> piano-ga hikeru \n> can play the piano\n\nHere, playing the piano is an action, thus \"o\" is used. Being able to play the\npiano is a state, thus \"ga\" is used.\n\n> ringo-ga hoshii \n> want an apple\n>\n> ringo-o hoshigaru \n> act like you want an apple\n\nAgain, to want an apple is a state, so use \"ga\", to act like you want it is an\naction, so use \"o\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-12T23:18:01.310",
"id": "12798",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-12T23:18:01.310",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "12795",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 17
},
{
"body": "This is not as much of a newbie question as you might think. [dainichi gave a\ngood general rule-of-thumb](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/12798/3794),\nbut at the risk of confusing you, I'd like to point out that there are many\ncases when `を` and `が` are actually interchangeable. For example, the sentence\n\"I can play the piano\" can be written either\n\n> ピアノが弾【ひ】ける \n> piano ga hikeru\n\nor\n\n> ピアノを弾【ひ】ける \n> piano wo hikeru\n\nA psychology professor from Ritsumeikan University in Kyoto conducted a study\non the interchangeability of `を` and `が` in 2006. Although [the paper he\nwrote](http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/cg/lt/rb/599/599pdf/higasiya.pdf) is\nmostly in Japanese, there is a good summary in English at the beginning. He\nfound that when presented with the sentence\n\n> ピアノ __ 弾【ひ】ける \n> piano __ hikeru\n\ncollege students were split almost 50/50 on filling in the blank with `を` vs.\n`が`, while older people more strongly favored `が`.\n\nThe main point the author makes is that in sentences where the predicate is an\naction, e.g.\n\n> ほしがる \n> hoshigaru \n> to want (or as dainichi more aptly put it, to act like you want)\n\nthe use of `を` is overwhelmingly favored over `が`; while in sentences where\nthe predicate describes a state, `を` and `が` are either interchangeable, like\nwith\n\n> 弾【ひ】ける \n> hikeru \n> to be able to play (an instrument)\n\nor `が` is strongly favored, like with\n\n> 好【す】き \n> suki \n> to like\n\nThe author also points out that context is important. Even though `を` and `が`\nare more or less interchangeable in the sentence\n\n> ピアノ __ 弾【ひ】ける\n\n`を` was heavily favored in the sentence\n\n> 練習【れんしゅう】して，彼【かれ】はピアノ __ 弾【ひ】けるようにした \n> renshuu shite, kare ha piano __ hikeru you ni shita \n> He practiced and tried to become able to play the piano. (awkward\n> translation but you get the gist)\n\nHowever, even with this sentence, roughly one-third of the older respondents\nchose `が`, so you're unlikely to go wrong if you always select `が` when the\npredicate describes a state rather than an action.\n\nThis is just a slightly more nuanced version of the rule that dainichi gave. I\nsimply wanted to point out that most rules have exceptions, and in the case of\n`を` versus `が`, even native speakers do not always reach a consensus.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-14T18:01:40.393",
"id": "12823",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-14T18:01:40.393",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3794",
"parent_id": "12795",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 15
},
{
"body": "hiku is a dictionary form of verb which means play [for instruments, e.g.\npiano, guitar etc.] verb ending in ku can be changed to potential form by\nchanging u to e and add eru so that hiku becomes hikeru [can play]. Watashi wa\npiano ga hikeru.[I can play the piano.] I think the appropriate particle here\nis ga.Watashi wa piano ga hikeru koto ga dekimasu.[in other potential form]",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-10-24T06:38:29.657",
"id": "19242",
"last_activity_date": "2014-10-24T06:38:29.657",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7582",
"parent_id": "12795",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -2
},
{
"body": "Isn't there also a difference depending on whether the verb is transitive or\nintransitive?\n\neg.\n\n電気 **を** 消す。\n\nTurn off the lights.\n\n電気 **が** 消える。\n\nLights turn off.\n\nIntransitive verbs tend to follow ga while wo preceeds transitive.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-01-09T04:02:04.537",
"id": "21219",
"last_activity_date": "2015-01-09T04:02:04.537",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9113",
"parent_id": "12795",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Althouh a (rare?) verb 好く (suku) exists, \"suki\" is an **adjective** (borrowed\nfrom Austronesian, therefore uses -na instead of -i: \"suki- _na_ hito\" instead\nof \"suki- _i_ hito\"), and \"suki\" can also be a noun (\"fondness\"). By they way,\nsuki derives from suku according to Wiktionary.\n\nWatashi-wa | ongaku-ga | suki | desu. \n---|---|---|--- \nI-TopicMarker | music-SUBJ | pleasing | be \n \nis literally\n\n\"As for me (wa=set the context), music ( **SUBJECT** ) is\nliked/likable/lovable/pleasing (adjective)\". The only verb here is _desu_.\n\nWhen we translate, we need to find the most similar word. But if a word is an\nadjective in English, then it doesn't mean that the most similar word in an\nother language is also an adjective.\n\nFor example, word \"like\" is used differently in other languages:\n\n * in English the **transitive verb** is used ([subject=liker] likes [object of liking]). Also could be a **noun** : \"You are my love\"... well, love≠like, but the meanings are similar.\n * in Russian it's a **reflexive verb** and in Spanish it's an **intrasitive verb** , for both the (kinda) order is reversed:\n\nla música | me | gusta \n---|---|--- \nSUBJ | INDIR.OBJ | VERB.INTR \n \nmusic | pleases | me \n---|---|--- \nSUBJ | VERB.TR | DIR.OBJ \n \nmusic | is | pleasing | to me \n---|---|---|--- \nSUBJ | VERB | ADJ | INDIR.OBJ \n \n * rarely in colloquial Russian an **adverb** is used (although I never use this \"по нраву\"):\n\nmuzyka | mne | po nravu \n---|---|--- \nSUBJ | INDIR.OBJ | ADV \n \n * in Japanese it's an **adjective** , therefore use が (of course sometimes you need は instead).\n\nSame with hoshi-i (it is actually \"desirable\" instead of \"to want\"; from\nobsolete verb \"hor-u\") and kira-i (\"disliked\"/\"hated\"; from kira-u).\n\nAlthough if you add suffix -garu to an adjective, you would get a verb (as\nit's done in two accepted answers), so since it's a verb now you should use を.\nI said \"should\" insead of \"must\" because according to the answer that mentions\nthe paper, a minority prefers が with -garu (maybe they still feel it's an\nadjective?).\n\nTL;DR: Use only _Japanese_ (not English) grammar to find out whether it's a\nverb or an adjective, and to find the direct object in a Japanese sentence.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2022-01-22T17:45:04.553",
"id": "93070",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-22T17:45:04.553",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "50330",
"parent_id": "12795",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12795 | 12798 | 12798 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12871",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "_A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar_ (ADoBJG) lists more than one を\nparticle. In particular:\n\n * On page 347, it lists **o** 1, _a particle which marks a direct object_.\n * On page 349, it lists **o** 2, _a particle which indicates a space in / on / across / through / along which s.o. or s.t. moves_.\n\nThe second particle, which I'll call **_directional を_** , appears to be used\nquite differently from the **_direct object を_**. According to ADoBJG, the\ndirectional を is used only with verbs of motion, which I think are generally\nintransitive. For example, directional を appears in the phrase `空を飛ぶ`,\ncombining the intransitive verb of motion `飛ぶ` with an を-marked noun.\n\nSince it's listed as a separate particle in ADoBJG, and since it behaves so\ndifferently, and since it appears in different contexts from the other を, I've\nalways thought of directional を as a _separate particle_ which happens to be\n_written and pronounced the same way_. However, in 国語辞典s such as [大辞林 and\n大辞泉](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%82%92), both usages are listed under the same\nentry. So I'm wondering how independent the two really are.\n\nIt seems to me that, because directional を appears with intransitive verbs,\nand because direct object を appears with transitive verbs, the two occupy\nseparate syntactic slots. That makes me wonder if it's possible to take a\nconstruction such as 空を飛ぶ, which uses the directional を, and turn it into a\ntransitive construction which _also_ takes the direct object を, such as\n`◯◯を空を飛ばす`.\n\nMy thought is this: if they don't really occupy different slots, then this is\nungrammatical because of the _double-o constraint_ , which says that a single\nverb phrase may have no more than one を-marked noun phrase. But if they _do_\noccupy different slots, and they're really different particles, then you\nshould be able to create a single verb phrase containing both.\n\nI'm not sure my `◯◯を空を飛ばす` example is very good. (It's supposed to mean _\"send\n◯◯ flying through the air\"_.) But if it's possible to create a grammatical\nexample combining both directional を and direct object を, I would like to\nknow, regardless of whether my particular example is very good.\n\n**Is it possible to create such a construction?**",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T03:31:50.327",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12799",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-22T16:26:04.653",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-を"
],
"title": "Do \"direct object を\" and \"directional を\" occupy the same slot?",
"view_count": 1199
} | [
{
"body": "I posed this question to a native Japanese speaker. Her response was that even\nthough to an English speaker the `を` in\n\n> ボールを投げる\n\nand the `を` in\n\n> 道を歩く\n\nmay seem different, to a Japanese speaker they are exactly the same. In both\ncases, `を` marks the direct object, not in some vague grammatical sense of the\nterm, but in the very tangible sense that the object is _directly acted upon_\nby the subject.\n\nFor a Japanese speaker, the `道` in\n\n> 道を歩く\n\nis not a piece of background scenery that the subject of the sentence simply\nfloats past on their way from point A to point B; rather, it is tread on,\npushed, even kicked, by the subject's feet.\n\nFor an English speaker, this is a rather alien concept, but for a Japanese\nspeaker, to walk along a road is to _act on_ the road. `を` serves one\nfunction: marking the direct object.\n\n* * *\n\n**Update:** Searching the web, I find\n[results](http://questionbox.jp.msn.com/qa1532140.html) that\n[contradict](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1268761667)\nmy original answer. 「投げる」 is a transitive verb (他動詞) while 「歩く」 is\nintransitive (自動詞), _even when used with 「を」_ (as an aside, this is unlike the\nverb \"walk\" in English, which can be either transitive or intransitive).\nAccording to these sources, when 「を」 is used with a 自動詞, it does _not_ mark\nthe direct object, as a 自動詞 cannot take a direct object.\n\nI found an entire [100-page paper on the subject of\n「を+自動詞」](http://ir.lib.pccu.edu.tw/retrieve/48248/3664_gsweb.pdf) which looks\nfascinating, but I have yet to read. Today I also intend to ask the opinion of\ntwo more native speakers, both Japanese teachers.\n\nFinally, the Japanese [wiktionary\npage](http://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%82%92) on `を` **directly answers your\nquestion** :\n\n> 用法 \n> 一つの単文の中で、をは一つしか使われない。従って目的語と経路のをは共存できない。 \n> 馬（うま）を通（とお）す。 \n> 門（もん）を通す。 \n> *馬を門を通す。 (誤り)",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-19T04:58:51.573",
"id": "12871",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-22T16:26:04.653",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-22T16:26:04.653",
"last_editor_user_id": "3794",
"owner_user_id": "3794",
"parent_id": "12799",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "First, I agree with the answer given by\n[ThisSuitIsBlackNot](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/users/3794/thissuitisblacknot)\nin that people do not distinguish between the two uses of を.\n\nNow back to the original question:\n\n> Is it possible to create such a construction?\n\nNo.\n\n道を走る is OK. 人を走らせる is OK. 人を道を走らせる is not OK, because it is not clear who is\nbeing compelled to run.\n\nBoth 人に道を走らせる and 道で人を走らせる make sense though.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-19T09:13:58.673",
"id": "12872",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T02:44:06.437",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3957",
"parent_id": "12799",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 12799 | 12871 | 12871 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "13244",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In [this answer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/12605/1478), nkjt gives\nthe following example of **なんか** insertion:\n\n```\n\n 待ってないんだから → 待って **なんか** ないんだから\n```\n\nOn the left-hand side, it appears that 〜ていない is contracted to 〜てない. This is\nvery common, of course, but as I understand it, contractions of いる to る **only\nhappen after 〜て** , as in the following examples:\n\n```\n\n 持っている → 持ってる\n 持っていない → 持ってない\n 持っています → 持ってます\n \n```\n\nIn the example with **なんか** inserted, it seems that いない is contracted to ない,\neven though it follows something other than 〜て!\n\n**Is this possible?**\n\nIf it is, I'm forced to wonder about the いません version, as well:\n\n```\n\n 持っていない → 持って **なんか** ない\n 持っていません → 持って **なんか** ません\n```\n\nIf they _are_ acceptable, how do you explain it? Is my \"only after 〜て\" rule\nincorrect?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T10:06:58.617",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12802",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-26T04:08:34.080",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"contractions"
],
"title": "Can 〜てなんかいない contract to 〜てなんかない?",
"view_count": 454
} | [
{
"body": "～てなんかない is a valid contraction of ～てなんかいない in spoken Japanese. I personally\nhear ～てなんかません as unnatural, but a Google search suggests that this is also\ntechnically valid, though significantly less common. (Incidentally, I find it\na bit humorous that the seemingly overwhelming majority of results for\n\"てなんかない\" are 「泣いてなんかない」.)\n\nI would say that your intuition that いない can only contract to ない after ～て is\nvery close, and possibly exactly right... but it's likely not the ～て, but\nrather that it's being used as a kind of helper to another verb, which even\nafter inserting なんか, is still the case. That's just my own guess, though.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-10-25T15:30:04.093",
"id": "13244",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-25T15:30:04.093",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "384",
"parent_id": "12802",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12802 | 13244 | 13244 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12818",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "First, I'd like to mention that I've seen [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/11000/how-is-\ndetermined-whether-a-sound-should-be-romanized-into-an-l-versus-an-r), which\nis related but doesn't quite seem to be a duplicate.\n\nI've covered some Hiragana lessons and it seems there is no L in Japanese. The\nJapanese R seems to be a bit closer to L than the English R, but still, the\nJapanese accent stereotype doesn't seem to be far fetched. For example, the\nnice lady in [this tutorial](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGrBHiuPlT0)(at\nthe very beginning) says:\n\n> Konnichiwa, let's start(u) tuday's reson.\n\nBut on the other hand, [when she speaks about\nnumbers](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOUqVC4XkOY)(0:38), she pronounces the\nnumber 6 with a clear L sound: /lok(u)/, although [the romaji spelling seems\nto be](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_numerals) _roku_\n\nFrom the linked question I understood that the difference between L and R\nsounds in Japanese is not clearcut. My question is: what exactly does \"not\nclearcut\" mean? Does it mean that certain words are pronounced with r (such as\n_suru_ ) and others with l (such as _roku_ )? Or is it a dialect thing? Or is\nit personal preference, i.e. some people from the same region will say\n/rok(u)/ while others will say /lok(u)/?\n\nI actually have a similar question about /dz/ and /j/ sounds (in particular, I\ncan't understand how is 10 supposed to be pronounced). If the answer is\nsimilar, please mention that, otherwise I'll ask a separate question.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T11:55:30.777",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12803",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-15T07:07:10.613",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3941",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"pronunciation"
],
"title": "R sound vs L sound",
"view_count": 9720
} | [
{
"body": "First of all, let's make a distinction between romaji (which only has r) and\nactual pronunciation, which alternates between l and r.\n\nThe truth is that l and r are in free distribution in Japanese, ie. both\nsounds are possible surface realizations of the same underlying sound (similar\nto how t in top and in stop are different in English but are considered to be\nthe same sound by native speakers).\n\nIn general, the sound is a flapped r, but you will find an increasing rate of\noccurrence of l: 1) in woman, 2) in slower speech, 3) at the beginning of\nwords. If dialectal or regional considerations come into play, I haven't heard\nor noticed anything to that effect.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T20:23:35.477",
"id": "12817",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-15T07:07:10.613",
"last_edit_date": "2016-02-15T07:07:10.613",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "801",
"parent_id": "12803",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "The sound called /r/ in Japanese is not quite the same sound as the L or R\nsounds of English. And as you've correctly observed, there's more than one way\nto pronounce /r/ in Japanese. There are a couple technical terms from\nlinguistics that might help:\n\n * /r/ is considered a **_phoneme_**. That means it's considered a single sound, even if it's technically pronounced a little bit differently sometimes.\n * The individual pronunciations are called **_allophones_**.\n\nWith the /r/ sound, there are two main allophones to consider. (The following\nis based on _The Sounds of Japanese_ by Timothy Vance, page 89):\n\n 1. The first one is the one described in the answer istrasci links to; it's called an [**_apico-alveolar tap_**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_tap), and it's written with the IPA symbol [ɾ]. This sound involves quickly tapping the tongue on the roof of the mouth, specifically on the [**_alveolar ridge_**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_ridge) (the ridge located behind the teeth). The **_apico-_** part of the name means that you use specifically the tip of your tongue, not the blade. \n\n 2. The second one is what Timothy Vance refers to as a **_non-tap allophone_**. In this version of /r/, the tongue is _already resting on the roof of the mouth_ , so all you do is pull your tongue off instead of tapping. And this is the allophone you heard in _roku_. (For whatever reason, Vance chooses not to give this allophone a separate symbol, so I'll refer to it by name instead.)\n\nThis **_non-tap allophone_** occurs when it's the first sound you say (called\n**_utterance-initial position_** ). And that's why you heard it in _roku_ ,\nbecause she wasn't saying anything before she started to say the /r/ sound.\nThe non-tap allophone also occurs **_immediately after an /N/ sound_** , as in\nthe words _benri_ or _jinrui_.\n\nThe **_tap allophone_** occurs in any other position, which in Japanese\namounts to **_intervocalic position_** (meaning between vowel sounds).\n\n* * *\n\nUnderstanding the two allophones described above is important, but there's\nalso some personal variation in exactly how the /r/ sound is pronounced. It\nvaries from speaker to speaker, and it may vary a bit even for a single\nspeaker. Although I described a [**_central\ntap_**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_tap) above, which is written\n[ɾ], the Japanese /r/ isn't specifically central. It can instead be a\n[**_lateral tap_**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_lateral_flap), which\nis written [ɺ]. I think it's possible that you may perceive the lateral tap as\nsounding more like an English L sound.\n\nUnfortunately, I've been unable to find any references that describe exactly\nwhen [ɾ] is used and when [ɺ] is used. They're described as being in [**_free\nvariation_**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_variation) in Japanese, which\nmeans that speakers can use either central or lateral versions of /r/ in any\ncontext without it being considered strange or in error. However, it's often\ntrue that sounds described as being in \"free variation\" are [**_not actually\nselected at random_**](http://dialectblog.com/2011/10/29/free-variation-isnt-\nso-free/), and I suspect this may be true of Japanese as well.\n\nIt's possible that these or other variations in the Japanese /r/ may lead you\nto think that sometimes it sounds more like L, and sometimes it sounds more\nlike R. That's fine, of course, but it's important that you realize all these\nsounds are simply **_one phoneme_** in Japanese. That is, no matter how you\npronounce /r/, it's still mentally /r/ to a native speaker of Japanese. And\nthe more you study Japanese, the more you're likely to feel the same way.\n\nIn my opinion, you should focus on learning when to use the tap allophone, and\nwhen to use the non-tap allophone. I wouldn't worry as much about the other\nsorts of variation. If you do that, then I think the idea of an L versus R\ncontrast in Japanese will disappear for you, and before long, it'll just be\n/r/ to you, too.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T21:53:38.653",
"id": "12818",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T23:08:58.723",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-13T23:08:58.723",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12803",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 25
}
] | 12803 | 12818 | 12818 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12812",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Now, we have lots of resources for learning Japanese - tons of textbooks,\ndictionaries, audio and video recordings, educational software etc.\n\nBut in the past - How did Europeans first approach Japanese language? (They\ndidn't have any of these resources..)\n\nHow did they start learning it for the first time?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T12:38:14.073",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12804",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T16:04:00.407",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3815",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"history",
"learning"
],
"title": "history of learning japanese",
"view_count": 242
} | [
{
"body": "When the Jesuits first came to Japan, they needed a word for God. They\ndescribed the qualities of God to local priests, and the priests came back\nwith 大日様. When the Jesuits went around preaching 大日様, though, they were\nconcerned to find that the Shingon monks seemed unusually happy about this,\nand eventually learned that they had chosen a sectarian term. They wound up\ngoing with 神 which is just as bad.\n\nGenerally the Jesuits would learn the grammar of a language as they wrote down\nvocabulary. Project Gutenberg has a [Portugese-Latin-Japanese\ngrammar](http://www.gutenberg.org/files/21197/21197-h/21197-h.htm) which may\ninterest you. The attempt to fit Japanese into Latin grammatical terms is a\nlittle clumsy, but the problems they dealt with are exactly the same as ours\ntoday:\n\n> There are two ways to count in Japanese. The first is with the ordinary\n> numerals which are called iomi. With these one is able to count to ten;\n> e.g., fitotçu means 'one,' which is also used to say 'a little,' as in saqe\n> fitotçu nomaxite tamǒre 'give me a little sake to drink.' Futatçu means\n> 'two,' mitçu 'three,' iotçu 'four,' itçutçu 'five,' mutçu 'six,' nanatçu\n> 'seven,' iatçu 'eight,' coconotçu 'nine,' and tovo 'ten.' Icutçu means\n> 'what?' and is used when one does not have the proper number.\n>\n> The second way of counting is with the coie vocables which are borrowed from\n> Chinese. These numbers are not used by themselves to count to ten; but are\n> rather used when counting things which are represented by Chinese, and not\n> Japanese vocables. These bound numerals (termini numerales) are: ichi 'one,'\n> ni 'two,' san 'three,' xi 'four,' go 'five,' rocu 'six,' xichi 'seven,'\n> fachi 'eight,' cu 'nine,' jú 'ten.' The numbers eleven and above are made by\n> joining these numbers together. Thus, 'eleven' is jǔichi; júni is 'twelve,'\n> júsan 'thirteen,' júcu 'ninteen.' The tens are obtained by placing one of\n> the numbers in front of ten; e.g., nijú 'twenty,' sanjú 'thirty,' sanjǔichi\n> 'thirty-one,' cujǔ 'ninety.' Fiacu means 'hundred,' fiacu ichi 'one hundred\n> and one,' fiacu jǔ 'one hundred and ten,' fiacu sanjǔ 'one hundred and\n> thirty,' ni fiacu 'two hundred,' sambiacu 'three hundred.' Xen means\n> 'thousand,' and xen roppiacu sanjǔ ichi is 'sixteen thirty-one.'\n>\n> When enumerating sermons, homilies (tractatus), or repetitions of things,\n> fen is placed after the numeral; e.g., ippen 'one sermon,' nifen 'two,'\n> sanben 'three,' ave maria fiacu gojippen 'one hundred and fifty Hail\n> Mary's.'\n>\n> The enumeration of masses and congregations of men is done by placing za\n> after the numeral; e.g., ichiza 'one congregation,' niza 'two,' sanza\n> 'three,' jǔza, or better toza 'ten.'\n\nAnd so on for many lines.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T16:04:00.407",
"id": "12812",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T16:04:00.407",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "583",
"parent_id": "12804",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 12804 | 12812 | 12812 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12815",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "*disclaimer:*I'am still learning hiragana, so forgive me for any wrong spelling\n\nI've learnt that _normally_ only males use ぼく (boku). What about ぼくたち\n(bokutachi)? Should it _normally_ be reserved for male-only groups or can it\nbe used by a male to refer to a mixed-gender group of \"we\"? Can a female use\nit to refer to a mixed-gender group?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T14:01:28.143",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12805",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T19:35:06.690",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3941",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"pronouns",
"gender"
],
"title": "Can ぼくたち (bokutachi) be used for mixed-gender group?",
"view_count": 1733
} | [
{
"body": "It is perfectly normal for ぼくたち to refer to mixed-gender groups. For example,\nwhen I talk to a third person about something my wife and I are going to do\ntogether, I say ぼくたち. Generally, when referring to groups of single _or_ mixed\ngender of which they are a member, males use ぼくたち (or some other masculine\nvariant like おれたち) and females use わたしたち (or another feminine variant like\nあたしたち). However, this is not a hard-and-fast rule and there are many, many\nexceptions (my favorite example being the female character 九兵衛【きゅうべえ】 from the\nmanga/anime 銀魂【ぎんたま】 who always refers to herself as ぼく and therefore also\nfrequently uses ぼくたち).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T15:10:00.930",
"id": "12808",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T16:11:08.427",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-13T16:11:08.427",
"last_editor_user_id": "3794",
"owner_user_id": "3794",
"parent_id": "12805",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "〜たち is a suffix which means more or less \"the group to which _< someone>_\nbelongs\". So ぼくたち refers to the speaker as ぼく, but it _also_ refers to the\ngroup to which they belong, and it can be used as long as ぼく is appropriate\nfor that _one_ person.\n\nIn other words, it's **not** a \"plural\" marker, so it doesn't matter whether\nthe group is mixed-gender or not. They're not all being identified as ぼく. Only\none person is.\n\nOf course, the same thing is true if you attach 〜たち to a name. If I write\n田中{たなか}さんたち, I'm not referring to a bunch of 田中さんs. I'm referring to _one\nperson_ as 田中さん, and I'm also referring to the group to which 田中さん belongs.\n\nAnd finally, the other similar suffixes in Japanese, such as 〜ら and 〜がた,\nfunction the same way. 彼{かれ}ら refers to 彼, but also to the group to which that\nperson belongs. So it can be used for mixed-gender groups too, as long as it's\nokay referring to the person in question as 彼. And so on.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T19:35:06.690",
"id": "12815",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T19:35:06.690",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12805",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] | 12805 | 12815 | 12815 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12821",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "What's the female equivalent for the informal ぼく? I've heard that females will\ntend to use わたし, but then it's said to be formal. Doesn't there exist a female\ninformal \"I\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T14:06:32.183",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12806",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-14T00:28:32.297",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3941",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"pronouns",
"gender"
],
"title": "What's the female equivalent for the informal ぼく?",
"view_count": 1585
} | [
{
"body": "わたし is used by women and girls in both formal _and_ informal contexts; it is\nnot strictly reserved for formal or polite speech. In addition to わたし, younger\nwomen often use the variant あたし in informal situations.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T15:43:40.897",
"id": "12810",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T15:43:40.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3794",
"parent_id": "12806",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Another informal personal pronoun that women use is `うち`. This may be limited\nto younger women (if I had to guess, I'd say from teenagers up through women\nin their 40's) and/or a regional dialects (Kansai is where I know of it).",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T16:02:41.880",
"id": "12811",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T16:02:41.880",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "12806",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Yes, there are several.\n\n> あたし\n\nThis is just a casual form of わたし used very commonly by young women. However,\nit has a more \"adult\" feel to it then うち, as I feel women between 20 to 40 yrs\nold use it more.\n\n> うち\n\nThis would be second on the list of most common, especially with young\nteenagers. I wouldn't expect a women past 30 yrs+ to use this form. It\noriginated in Kansai-dialect, but has spread around among teenagers. There is\na phenomenon were dialectical expressions become incorporated into slang of\nteenagers.\n\n> 自分{じぶん}\n\nThis is much rarer for women, but I've heard it used by women who are into\nsports and that are more masculine.\n\n> オラ\n\nThis one originated from the Tohoku area in Honshu. It is more dialectical,\nbut there are women who use it.\n\n> わたし\n\nThe most common of them all. It can be used in many situations.\n\n> Referring to yourself by your own first name\n> ([Illeism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeism))\n\nThis is more common in children, but some women use it to sound cute (although\nsome people despise it).\n\nA mother or grandmother might also refer to themselves as おかあさん ・おばあさん also\nwhen talking to there children.\n\nYou should keep in mind that each of these forms give off different nuances.\nFor example, some people feel うち and あたし are used by \"unintelligent people\",\nand shouldn't be used. Also, I might missed some that are used in regional\ndialects that I'm unaware of.\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%80%E4%BA%BA%E7%A7%B0%E4%BB%A3%E5%90%8D%E8%A9%9E)\nhas a huge list. Japanese pronouns are very complex!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-14T00:19:42.520",
"id": "12821",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-14T00:28:32.297",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-14T00:28:32.297",
"last_editor_user_id": "1217",
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "12806",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 12806 | 12821 | 12821 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I found the following in a book I'm reading:\n\n\n\nAs far as I'm aware, 窘める is read たしなめる and means \"to scold, rebuke, admonish\".\n宥める, on the other hand, is read なだめる and means \"to soothe, placate\".\n\nAre there any situations in which 窘める could be read なだめる? Or would this have\nto be some sort of publishing error (possibly caused by how similar 宥める and\n窘める look)?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T15:07:50.923",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12807",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T20:18:21.500",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3437",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"readings"
],
"title": "Is 窘める ever read なだめる?",
"view_count": 194
} | [
{
"body": "Using ruby with a different reading (or even different kanji) to add nuance or\nclarify the meaning is a pretty common device in manga, books and lyrics.\n\n* * *\n\nMost often the words used are synonymous or closely related, e.g.: `宇宙{そら}`,\n`地球{ほし}`, or `瞳{め}`. (Usually the furigana is the _actual_ reading and the\nkanji gives the nuance or selects one meaning from several possibilities.)\n\n[「i ~crossin' the\nstar~」](http://users.skynet.be/roxfan/lyrics/i_crossing_the_star_album.html)\nby 木村{きむら}由姫{ゆき} has quite a few examples of this:\n\n> おとぎ話で覚悟を決めさせて ダレカじゃないこの想い[i]{愛}が聴こえる？ \n> 「天{あま}の河{がわ}で心揺れて 流れるまま[永久]{とわ}に触れて 瞬間{とき}の内{なか}で甘く熟れて」 \n> 星が描く場所に二人出会えたなら生まれ変わる\n\nIn some cases concrete words under placeholders help the reader grasp the\ncontext which is obvious to the speaker (e.g. `「学校{ここ}はプールがないから。」` or\n`「田中{あいつ}は来なかった。」`).\n\nSometimes even more elaborate schemes appear like the one in the 『星界の紋章』 (\n_Crest of the Stars_ ) books where the words written with Japanese kanji are\ngiven readings in the fictional [[アーヴ語]{Barohn\nlanguage}](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baronh): `帝国{フリューバル}`, `士族{リューク}`.\n_Scrapped Princess_ is another offender, except there the readings are English\nwords: `竜機神{ドラグーン}`, `第五特務部隊{オブスティネート・アロウ}`. A recent example is the _Toaru_\nseries (`とある魔術の[禁書目録]{インデックス}` and `とある科学の[超電磁砲]{レールガン}`).\n\n* * *\n\nIn your case it seems the author is hinting that the meaning is used in\nfigurative or ironical sense. It's somewhat difficult to tell more without\ncontext.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T20:18:21.500",
"id": "12816",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T20:18:21.500",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3295",
"parent_id": "12807",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 12807 | null | 12816 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12814",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I'm confused about how と is used in this sentence (乗るとすぐメールを・・・). What purpose\ndoes it serve?\n\n> 電車の中では携帯で話すことはできませんが、みんな電車に乗る **と** すぐメールを熱心に打っているのにびっくりしました。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T16:59:29.670",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12813",
"last_activity_date": "2021-09-05T16:24:55.317",
"last_edit_date": "2021-09-05T16:22:26.377",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "3585",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-と"
],
"title": "Use of と in this sentence: 電車に乗るとすぐメールを熱心に打っている",
"view_count": 529
} | [
{
"body": "English speaking learners of Japanese are usually first exposed to `と` as\nbeing _something like_ \"and\" (though it's not _technically_ \"and\"), as in\n`りんごとオレンジとバナナ`. However, that's just one use, and you can see some more\nexplanation of `と` and it's implications of _consequence_ at [the top of this\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/1784/119).\n\n`乗るとすぐメールを・・・` means roughly something like, \" **when** they get on the\ntrain...\". Given the context of the longer sentence, it's saying, \" **when**\nthey get on the train, they soon start mailing with their phone...\"\n\nIt might be tempting to translate your sentence as \"they get on the train\n**and then** they soon mail,\" because that makes a certain sense in connecting\nthe kind of `と` in `りんごとオレンジとバナナ` with the kind of `と` in your sentence. Which\nI say because that was a mistake I was making. However, \"and then\" would be\n`そして`. In this case, this `と` in your sentence isn't a variation on the `と`\nused to list things. It's just \"when\", as in \" **when** _X_ happens, then _Y_\n\".\n\nHope that helps.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-13T17:20:14.290",
"id": "12814",
"last_activity_date": "2014-05-10T03:28:48.113",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "119",
"parent_id": "12813",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "This と means \"when\", not \"and\".\n\nThat it might make sense \"in English\" if you use \"and\" when translating the\nsentence into English is of little importance as we are discussing Japanese\nhere.\n\n「 (Verb phrase A) + **と + すぐ** + (Verb phrase B)」 =\n\n\"(B happens) **as soon as** (A happens).\" or\n\n\"(B happens) **in no time when/whenever** (A happens).\"\n\nI am sure some of you have seen this と when it means \"if\". Its usage as \"when\"\nis actually very similar to that.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-02-12T04:36:52.643",
"id": "14465",
"last_activity_date": "2021-09-05T16:24:55.317",
"last_edit_date": "2021-09-05T16:24:55.317",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12813",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "@Dave M G's comment:\n\nTechnically,\n\n * \"they get on and soon they mail\" = 乗る、そしてすぐにメールを打つ\n * \"they soon mail when they get on\" = 乗るとすぐにメールを・・\n\nAnd yes バナナとりんご is a \"case\".\n\nEnglish has ~~two~~ three categories of cases, [banana], [bananas] and\n[banana's], and you can say (1)\"I buy a banana and an apple\" as well as (2)\"I\nbuy a banana\". In both sentences, the 'banana' appears as it is in common, but\nyou have to say \"mom's apple\" instead of \"mom apple\".\n\nIn Japanese, you have to use different noun forms even between (1) and (2),\nand say \"I buy a bananato and an appleto\" instead of \"I buy a banana and an\napple\". But some parts are optional and you can reduce it into \"I buy (a)\nbananato (and) (an) apple/appleto\". i.e. バナナと、そして、りんごとを買う → バナナと（そして）りんご（と）を買う\n\nLikewise, although you have to say \"I bought it yesterday\" instead of \"I buy\nit yesterday\", you can say (3)\"if they board\" as well as (4)\"They board.\" But\nin Japanese you have to use differnt verb forms even between (3) and (4), like\n\"if they boardto\". (Japanese doesn't have any words that REALLY match 'if')\n\nSuffix [s] as in 'thinks' and the one as in 'things' are different though they\nare both [s].",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-05-09T06:54:38.787",
"id": "15827",
"last_activity_date": "2014-05-09T07:07:27.683",
"last_edit_date": "2014-05-09T07:07:27.683",
"last_editor_user_id": "4092",
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "12813",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12813 | 12814 | 12814 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12824",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Is it okay to use に to mark the caller when using 電話がかかる? i.e. A received a\ncall from B would be\n\n> AはBに電話がかかった。\n\nGoogle seems to indicate that から is a much more popular choice than に. I find\nit a bit strange, since I thought (whenever both に and から are viable options)\nに was preferred for agents and から for sources, and receiving a phone call\nseems more like the former case.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-14T15:11:51.570",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12822",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-15T11:38:17.343",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"particle-に",
"particle-から"
],
"title": "Use of に to mark the caller of 電話がかかる",
"view_count": 234
} | [
{
"body": "In the sentence\n\n> ◯◯に電話がかかった\n\nに indicates the _recipient_ of the phone call. It would be very confusing if\nyou suddenly tried to indicate the _caller_ with に as well. に and から are not\nboth viable options to indicate the caller, because に is already used to\nindicate the recipient.\n\nIf you used に to indicate the caller, it would be like trying to say \"I got a\npackage from him\" this way:\n\n> 彼に荷物が届いた\n\nwhich actually means \"he received a package.\"\n\nYou can say \"A got a call from B\" like this:\n\n> AにBから電話がかかった\n\nor more commonly\n\n> AにBから電話がかかってきた\n\nIf you are the recipient of the call, you can omit the に part and it will be\nunderstood:\n\n> Bから電話がかかってきた \n> I got a call from B",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-14T20:41:16.243",
"id": "12824",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-14T21:09:49.813",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-14T21:09:49.813",
"last_editor_user_id": "3794",
"owner_user_id": "3794",
"parent_id": "12822",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "I think you need to look at the nature and type of verb.\n\nかかる is an intransitive verb of direction (\"virtual motion\" in cyber space) and\nthe sentence describes the direction of the subject, the telephone call: It is\nnatural to describe the starting and finishing points with から and に.\n\nIt would be different if this were a transitive verb, or an action being done\nby one person for/to another. In such cases に might be preferred to から,\nparticularly with a 〜てもらう（etc) type of construction.\n\nRead \"ThisSuitisBlackNot\"'s answer with this in mind.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-15T01:28:32.093",
"id": "12827",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-15T11:38:17.343",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-15T11:38:17.343",
"last_editor_user_id": "1556",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "12822",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12822 | 12824 | 12824 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12829",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've read that 日本人の知らない日本語 translates to: \"Japanese (language) that Japanese\n(people) don't know\". But I don't understand how or what the の does in that\nsentence. If I'm not mistaken 知らない日本語 could mean \"Japanese language that (x)\ndon't know\" or \"even unknown Japanese\". But I don't get how the 日本人の fits into\nthe translation.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-14T22:14:20.507",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12825",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-21T06:25:14.823",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-21T06:25:14.823",
"last_editor_user_id": "6840",
"owner_user_id": "769",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 48,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-の",
"phrases",
"relative-clauses"
],
"title": "How does the の work in 「日本人の知らない日本語」?",
"view_count": 7508
} | [
{
"body": "It's just standard GA-NO conversion.\n\n> ［日本人が知らない］日本語 \n> 'Japanese that [Japanese don't know]'",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-14T22:34:09.743",
"id": "12826",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-14T22:34:09.743",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3097",
"parent_id": "12825",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 18
},
{
"body": "In your example, 日本人の知らない is a relative clause, equivalent in meaning to\n日本人が知らない. This clause as a whole modifies 日本語, so it means _the Japanese that\nJapanese people don't know_.\n\n* * *\n\nIn relative clauses, the subject particle が can be replaced with の:\n\n> 1. ジョン **が** 買った本\n> 2. ジョン **の** 買った本\n>\n\n>\n> _The book John bought_\n\nThis is true in _double-subject constructions_ as well:\n\n> 1. ジョン **が** 背 **が** 高い理由\n> 2. ジョン **が** 背 **の** 高い理由\n> 3. ジョン **の** 背 **が** 高い理由\n> 4. ジョン **の** 背 **の** 高い理由\n>\n\n>\n> _The reason John is tall_\n\nBut you can't replace が with の if there's a direct object marked with を:\n\n> 1. ジョン **が** 本 **を** 買った店\n> 2. *ジョン **の** 本 **を** 買った店 _(ungrammatical)_\n>\n\n>\n> _The store where John bought the book_",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-15T05:13:26.693",
"id": "12829",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-15T08:44:47.967",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-15T08:44:47.967",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12825",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 61
}
] | 12825 | 12829 | 12829 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12913",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Is there any difference between お腹を空かす and お腹を空かせる? I get they both mean to\nbecome hungry (literally empty the stomach). 空かせる is the potential form of\n空かす, but that doesn't make sense here. Dictionaries don't seem to indicate any\ndifference.\n\n> お腹を空かせたその男は、食物をむさぼり食った。 \n> The hungry man devoured the food. \n> 彼は１日中何も食べてなく、お腹を空かしていた。 \n> He hadn't eaten all day and was hungry.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-15T05:12:21.900",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12828",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-24T00:26:55.323",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-18T08:08:36.350",
"last_editor_user_id": "3848",
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Difference between お腹を空かす and お腹を空かせる",
"view_count": 369
} | [
{
"body": "**Edit:** I just realized you picked some tricky sentences there. It's not a\ngood example of す v.s. せる I meant in my original post. It's true that す is the\n[文語 (i.e., the language register mainly for\nwriting)](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%87%E8%AA%9E) version of せる. But\nthere's much more to it when it comes to 〜す v.s. 〜せる.\n\nApparently, the verb in the latter example sentence you chose is a 五段活用 one\nbecause it uses し with its 連用形 to connect it to て (i.e., 空か->\"し\"->て). This is\nconsidered an equivalent, colloquial form of the normal 〜せる version (except\nthat the 五段活用 〜す version can't be used as a honorific language as in あらせられる.).\nSo it's simply a 五段活用 version of a verb in causative form. (If you haven't\nlearned causative yet, read the revised version of my first post below. 〜せる is\nan auxiliary verb that adds the sense of \"causative\" with a variety of\nnuances). Between the two, there isn't that big of a difference in nuance\nexcept that the 五段活用 version is more of spoken language and sounds rather\ndirect. Also, I feel it's more common in the Western part of Japan, though I\ndon't have any concrete data to back this up.\n\nI revised the original post below so it can read as a correct answer to your\nquestion. I'm sorry for the confusion.\n\n* * *\n\nIn general, せる is an auxiliary verb that can add various meanings and is\ntypically classified as\n[causative](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causative#Japanese). Here, せる is\nadding the sense that something is put in an undesirable situation, although\nif I were you, I'd simply accept the meaning and usage of the whole chunk of\n(お腹を)空かせる without parsing it into grammatical pieces; I'm a native speaker,\nand it took me a good minute to figure out what that auxiliary verb is doing\nthere.\n\nSo, 空かせる is _not_ the potential form of 空かす. If you really want to learn the\nvarious meanings and usages of せる as a tiny grammatical portion in a word,\n明鏡国語辞典 seems to be very good at explaining them in this way if you're ok with\na monolingual dictionary for native speakers. (And this dictionary does\nmention the colloquial 五段活用 version in a grammar note in the entry for せる\ntoo.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-23T22:54:30.607",
"id": "12913",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-24T00:26:55.323",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-24T00:26:55.323",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12828",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12828 | 12913 | 12913 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Are there any words or phrases in Japanese more specific than イングリッシュ, but\nstill used in normal Japanese conversation, to describe native speakers of\nJapanese either mis-typing or mis-pronouncing an \"R\" for \"L\" or vice versa\nwhen they are typing or speaking English?\n\nA term that covers all consonant-related issues is fine.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-15T05:47:00.033",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12830",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-24T06:47:09.007",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-18T12:26:23.447",
"last_editor_user_id": "91",
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-requests"
],
"title": "Term for native Japanese speakers misspelling \"R\" and \"L\"",
"view_count": 485
} | [
{
"body": "I think that's what we call the Japanese accent. If you speak/write English as\nyou would do Japanese in some way or another, your English is 日本語訛りの英語 and\nvice versa. It may not be as common to call it a foreign accent if it's\nwriting. But it is a quintessential example of foreign accent as a result of\ninfluence from your native language.\n\nI tend to doubt that L vs. R is so special in this regard it deserves its own\nterm in a colloquial everyday language. I never heard of such a specialized\nterm myself, although accent trainers, linguists specializing in L2\nacquisition, and other professionals might have come up with one. But if they\ndid, I still highly doubt it became part of the Japanese vernacular.\n\nFWIW, I'm a native Japanese speaker who is interested in human language and\nlanguage learning in general, and have never heard my fellow countrymen use\nsuch a specialized term that only refers to one specific aspect of the typical\nJapanese accent that only manifests when we speak one particular foreign\nlanguage called English. If anything, it's quite rare for your average\nJapanese guy on the street to talk about a foreign language in the first\nplace.\n\nWould the word \"日本語訛り\" be too general of a term for your purpose?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T06:47:09.007",
"id": "12918",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-24T06:47:09.007",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12830",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 12830 | null | 12918 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12836",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The following paragraph is from page 20 of 涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱:\n\n>\n> ところで今教室に涼宮ハルヒはいない。いたらこんな話も出来ないだろうが、たとえいたとしてもまったく気にしないような気もする。その涼宮ハルヒだが、四時間目が終わるとすぐ教室を出て行って五時間目が始まる直前にならないと戻ってこないのが常だ。弁当を持ってきた様子はないから食堂を利用しているんだろう。しかし昼飯に一時間もかけないだろうし、そういや授業の合間の休み時間にも必ずと言っていいほど教室にはいない奴で、\n> **いったいどこをうろついているんだか。**\n\nMy question is about the end of the last sentence, which I've put in bold. It\nends with だか, but as I understand it, the sentence-final particle か is\nungrammatical after だ in standard Japanese. Therefore, I was thinking that one\nof two possibilities must be true:\n\n 1. It _is_ grammatical, but only in non-standard Japanese;\n 2. It's grammatical because it's _not_ a sentence-final use of か; it's a different use of か.\n\nFor example, I know that だか appears in 何だか, and that's not ungrammatical\nbecause it's not a sentence-final use of か. So, I thought perhaps the same\nthing might apply here.\n\nBut in order for it to be a non-sentence-final use of か, the sentence would\nhave to continue, and so, I would have to conclude that **the rest of the\nsentence here is omitted**. That's exactly what @Matt talks about in [this\ncomment](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3063/can-%E3%81%A0-ever-\nbe-used-in-a-question/3067#3067):\n\n> There are utterances like どうだか (\"I wonder!\" -- expressing doubt) but I\n> suppose they are better viewed as fragments of an implied larger whole (e.g.\n> どうだか知らないけど) where か is functioning slightly differently.\n\nIs that how I should interpret this sentence, as well? I'm not sure what would\nfollow, exactly, but perhaps I could use something like the ending Matt\nsuggests:\n\n> いったいどこをうろついているんだか **知らない** 。\n\nAm I interpreting the sentence correctly?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-15T09:06:25.847",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12831",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-15T18:44:48.613",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"ellipsis",
"particle-か"
],
"title": "Is there something omitted after だか in this sentence?",
"view_count": 675
} | [
{
"body": "Yes, you're interpreting the sentence correctly. My understanding is that this\nis possible because there is the \"question word\" of どこ in there, which makes\nthe か（知らない） reading possible.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-15T18:44:48.613",
"id": "12836",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-15T18:44:48.613",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3097",
"parent_id": "12831",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12831 | 12836 | 12836 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12833",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I want to say \"I saw 10 episodes\", but I can't find the appropriate counter.\n\nI may use \"つ\" counter (十エピソードを見ました), but it's not very classy.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-15T11:02:28.147",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12832",
"last_activity_date": "2019-04-03T01:42:57.327",
"last_edit_date": "2016-02-11T08:57:00.137",
"last_editor_user_id": "11849",
"owner_user_id": "3950",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"counters"
],
"title": "Which counter do you use for counting TV series episodes?",
"view_count": 8862
} | [
{
"body": "I believe that the usual counter is 話{わ}, literally meaning _stories_ , so\nyou'd say 10話 for ten episodes, and 第10話 or 10話目 for the tenth episode.\n\nOccasionally I've seen shows that used different counters for their own title\ncards. For example, ふしぎの海のナディア numbered all its episodes using 回, so for\ninstance the tenth episode was 第10回. And 神秘の世界エルハザード numbered its episodes\nwith 夜 instead, possibly in reference to _1,001 Nights_ (千夜一夜物語).\n\nBut of course you can always use 話 as the counter when _you_ talk about these\nshows, no matter how they number their own episodes.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-15T11:33:06.170",
"id": "12833",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-15T11:51:17.440",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-15T11:51:17.440",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12832",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 16
}
] | 12832 | 12833 | 12833 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12835",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I know that most of \"why\" questions don't make much sense as far as\nlinguistics are concerned but I'll ask anyway.\n\nI know that き means a tree. いろ means color. It doesn't take a genius to guess\nthat きいろ (lit. tree color) should mean green. But it means yellow. Is there\nany reason for this?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-15T12:51:02.583",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12834",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-15T13:54:49.530",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3941",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"etymology",
"colors"
],
"title": "Why does きいろ mean yellow rather than green?",
"view_count": 831
} | [
{
"body": "There was a word, 木色【きいろ】 \"the colour of trees\", recorded in the _Vocabulário\nda Língua do Japão_. But actually, 黄【き】 on its own already means \"yellow\".\n\n木 and 黄 are most likely _not_ etymologically related. We know that 木 had a\ntype-2 (乙類) /ki/ in Old Japanese. If we knew that 黄 had a type-1 (甲類) /ki/,\nthen we could definitively say that the two are etymologically unrelated. This\ndiagnostic is the reason why we say that 神【かみ】 and 上【かみ】 are unrelated words:\nthe former has a type-2 /mi/, while the latter has a type-1 /mi/. However, we\n_do_ know the modern accentuation patterns of 木 and 黄, and they are different:\n\n * 木 is accented in modern standard Japanese, 黄 is not.\n * 木【きい】 is low register unaccented (→ LH) in modern Kyoto dialect, 黄【きい】 is high register unaccented (→ HH).\n\nAssuming these continue a historical distinction, it seems safe to conclude\nthat 木 and 黄 were not the same word in Old Japanese as well.",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-15T13:32:36.417",
"id": "12835",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-15T13:54:49.530",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-15T13:54:49.530",
"last_editor_user_id": "578",
"owner_user_id": "578",
"parent_id": "12834",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 15
}
] | 12834 | 12835 | 12835 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I thought this had been asked before (possibly by me), but I couldn't find it.\nI'm wondering why for certain verbs/words, instead of just a `自他` pair, there\nis a triplet (or possibly more) where two of the verbs are one type (`自` or\n`他`) and the third is the other type. Some examples:\n\n> * 他 → 縮【ちぢ】める ： 自 → 縮【ちぢ】まる ： 縮【ちぢ】む → both?\n> * see @snailboat comment below - dictionary confirms. Exs.\n> * 自 → 寿命が縮む ： 他 → 「ちぢめるの文語形」in dictionary def.\n> * 他 → 繋【つな】ぐ ・ 繋【つな】げる ： 自 → 繋【つな】がる\n> * 他 → 緩【ゆる】める ： 自 → 緩【ゆる】まる ： 緩【ゆる】む → both? (same as above)\n> * 他 → 滅【ほろ】ぶ ・ 滅【ほろ】びる ： 自 → 滅【ほろ】ぼす\n> * [他 → 含【ふく】む ・ 含【ふく】める ： 自 →\n> 含【ふく】まる](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/14103/78)\n>\n\nWhat's the deal with these triplets? Why are there two accepted verbs of one\nform for the same meaning? Are they somehow different? Is one of the two a\nclassic/obsolete form like [I talked about\nhere](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/5506/78)? Does one of the two\nsomehow rise to dominance over the other? I admit that I encounter `繋【つな】ぐ` a\nlot less than `繋【つな】げる`, but `縮【ちぢ】む` seems just as frequent as `縮【ちぢ】まる` to\nme.\n\nAny other examples would be great to list too.",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-16T04:24:06.437",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12837",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T21:23:57.053",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"words",
"meaning",
"usage",
"verbs",
"transitivity"
],
"title": "How do 自他 triplets of related verbs work?",
"view_count": 879
} | [
{
"body": "```\n\n What's the deal with these triplets?\n Why are there two accepted verbs of one form for the same meaning? \n Are they somehow different? \n \n```\n\nYes, their usage is slightly different. A web article below well answers your\nquestion:\n\n**Coexistent transitive verbs : \"Tsunagu\" and\n\"Tsunageru\"<http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110004672022>**\n\nFor '繋げる/繋ぐ' case:\n\n'繋ぐ' refers to connecting something that are meant to be connected, or are\nnaturally connected, or are desired to be connected.\n\n切れたひもをつなぐ/鎖とロープをつないだ/多くの塔をつないだ高い城壁が (from the article）\n\nOn the other hand '繋げる' is to connect something that are not naturally\nconnected, so there should be some external force for them to be connected.\n\n6台のテレビをつなげ、GT3を複数画面で同時プレイ可能に.../短いひもをつなげて長くする (from the article)\n\nSometimes it may be hard to determine whether the connected state is natural /\nunnnatural: In such cases, either is OK. For example,\n\n```\n\n ひもをつなげて長くする/ひもをつないで長くする\n \n```\n\nusually both are accepted.\n\n```\n\n Is one of the two a classic/obsolete form like I talked about here? \n \n```\n\nIn your another question [Rare/Obsolete verb\nforms](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/5506/rare-obsolete-verb-\nforms) for example, 'ほむべきお方' is not usually used in modern Japanese. Therefore\nout of 'ほむ/ほめる', 'ほむ' is obsolete. But '繋ぐ/繋げる' are both frequently used\nexpressions. It depends on the word. As far as the examples you have mentioned\nin your question here, all expressions are currently widely used.\n\n```\n\n Does one of the two somehow rise to dominance over the other? \n I admit that I encounter 繋つなぐ a lot less than 繋つなげる, \n but 縮ちぢむ seems just as frequent as 縮ちぢまる to me.\n \n```\n\nMaybe you are encountering a lot of naturally connected things than\nunnaturally connected things. And you are seeing naturally shrunk/contracted\nthings as frequently as artificially shrunk/contracted things.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-11-06T16:48:46.327",
"id": "13360",
"last_activity_date": "2013-11-06T16:55:59.023",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4146",
"parent_id": "12837",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 12837 | null | 13360 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12842",
"answer_count": 5,
"body": "Am I correct assuming that both おお and おう are homophones in Japanese - both\nbeing pronounced as long o? I suspect I am, since that's what I'm indirectly\nreading in various tutorials. If so, are there any (non necessarily\nexhaustive) rules to guess the correct spelling of the words with long o? I\nspeak several languages where there are no strict spelling rules, but still\nthere are some hints that help guess the right spelling most of the time. Is\nthere such a rule for おお vs おう in Japanese?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-16T13:35:44.253",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12838",
"last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T13:56:28.697",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3941",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 14,
"tags": [
"spelling"
],
"title": "Are there any rules for choosing between おお and おう?",
"view_count": 2977
} | [
{
"body": "Unfortunately, there is no particular rule. The only way to know it is to\nlearn it...\n\nRegarding pronunciation, I would say that they are slightly different, even if\nthe difference is barely audible... I would not say they are strict\nhomophones...",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-16T13:56:50.997",
"id": "12839",
"last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T13:56:28.697",
"last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T13:56:28.697",
"last_editor_user_id": "11104",
"owner_user_id": "3954",
"parent_id": "12838",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Basically it is something to learn, be aware of and not dwell on too much.\n\nThe pronunciation can be different. I have one example from my notes:\n\n種類が多い\n\n欧米のメーカー\n\n大幅な変更\n\nSpelling:\n\nしゅるいがおおい\n\nおうべいのメーカー\n\nおおはばなへんこう\n\nYou might be able to look these up on a modern work tank, the NHK dictionary\nfor pronunciation or, the only place I have found this tested (using the above\nexpressions), Nihongo Somatome N1 Choukai, p13, practice question 2",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-16T15:01:55.583",
"id": "12840",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-16T15:01:55.583",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "12838",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "It reflects old kana usage. Basically, where there's おお, the second お used to\nbe either ほ or を。 There's some discussion\n[here](http://www.tt.rim.or.jp/~rudyard/hirago003.html), with the example of\n通り (used to be とほり、now とおり) vs 党利 (used to be たうり, now とうり).\n\nReading that site also suggests that they're not strict homophones, but the\nmodern pronunciation is close enough that writing そのとうり instead of そのとおり is a\ncommon error (it seems to be the classic example used whenever I've seen this\nissue discussed).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-16T15:13:01.920",
"id": "12841",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-16T15:13:01.920",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "571",
"parent_id": "12838",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "Etymology. おお comes from an earlier おほ or おを, while おう can come from any of\nおう、あう、おふ、or あふ (and potentially えう、えふ、ゑう、ゑふ if it's now よう). This is due to\nsound change - originally all of these were distinct pronunciations, but they\nhave since been reduced to a single sound ([o:]).\n\nTypically you can guess that [o:] in Chinese loanwords will be spelled with おう\n(since neither おほ nor おを ever occurred in any Chinese loanwords), and that in\nnative Japanese words it will be spelled with おお (since the combinations that\nled to おう were fairly rare compared to おほ and おを, though they do occur).",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-16T16:57:21.840",
"id": "12842",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-16T19:48:53.967",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-16T19:48:53.967",
"last_editor_user_id": "3639",
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "12838",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 13
},
{
"body": "Both おお and おう spell the same sound in modern Japanese, namely the long vowel\n/oː/.\n\nThe choice of spelling is etymological, but there is one rule of thumb: /oː/\nspelled as おお can only occur _inside_ a native Japanese word or be split\nbetween two morphemes. Unfortunately, the converse is not true: /oː/ inside a\nnative Japanese word can be spelled おう, e.g. 扇【おうぎ】, and it is possible for\n/oː/ split between two morphemes to be spelled おう as well, e.g. 小道【こうじ】. It\nshould go without saying that two /o/ in a row, i.e. /o.o/, is always spelled\nおお.\n\nIn terms of history, modern おお can only come from old おお, おほ, or おを; all\nothers (e.g. あう, あふ, おふ) became おう. There are some irregular derivations as\nwell, e.g. 妹【いもうと】 ← いもひと, 小道【こうじ】 ← こみち, 申【もう】す ← まをす, and even こうぶり ← かがふり!\n\nIt is worth noting that Christian sources show that Late Middle Japanese had a\nphonemic distinction between おお・おほ・おを /owo/ and おう・おふ /oː/ (including えう・えふ\n/joː/) and あう・あふ /ɔː/ (including やう・やふ /jɔː/); for instance, 十【とを】 is recorded\nas _touo_. All three have merged in modern Japanese.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-16T19:41:19.710",
"id": "12843",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-16T20:04:52.907",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-16T20:04:52.907",
"last_editor_user_id": "578",
"owner_user_id": "578",
"parent_id": "12838",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 12838 | 12842 | 12842 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The kanji version 付き合う contains only elementary characters with their usual\nreadings. Is there a reason why it's still usually written in kana? Is there a\ndifference in nuance when written in kanji?\n\n* * *\n\n**EDIT** As to why I think that it's typically written in kana, I just\nobserved the following:\n\n * My textbook (イラストでわかる日本語表現) writes it in kana.\n * My dictionary (ウィズダム英和・和英辞典) writes it in kana in all example sentences.\n * ことえり (Apple's OS X input method) suggests to use kana when I write it.\n\nOf course that's not necessarily representative of contemporary use by native\nspeakers, but it appears that there are some writers who strongly prefer kana.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-16T21:12:13.300",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12844",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-16T14:40:16.517",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-17T00:00:57.900",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2964",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"kana-usage"
],
"title": "Why is つきあう typically written in kana?",
"view_count": 207
} | [
{
"body": "It's not. It's often written in kanji and what you are seeing may just be\ncoincidences. Of course it doesn't have to be, and there are times when it's\nnot, but this doesn't mean that it's \"typically\" written without kanji. I do\nnot believe that there is any difference in nuance between choosing to use\nkanji and choosing not to. It's possible that using only kana has kind of a\n'softer' feel to it, I suppose, but I don't feel that enough of a distinction\nis made in practical use to say that there's a stark difference between the\ntwo.\n\n[http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E4%BB%98%E3%81%8D%E5%90%88&ref=sa](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E4%BB%98%E3%81%8D%E5%90%88&ref=sa)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T01:46:18.230",
"id": "12847",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-17T01:46:18.230",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1797",
"parent_id": "12844",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12844 | null | 12847 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12848",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I tried to say \"I'm not a high school student\". But I read you can use じゃない to\n'deny' something. In this case which one should I use? ではありません or じゃない?\n\n私{わたし}はこうこうの学生{がくせい}ではありません。or 私{わたし}はこうこうの学生{がくせい}じゃないです。?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T01:31:56.140",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12846",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-02T05:40:21.643",
"last_edit_date": "2017-11-24T07:53:03.543",
"last_editor_user_id": "26391",
"owner_user_id": "3918",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Negation with ではありません vs. じゃない",
"view_count": 29376
} | [
{
"body": "First of all, you would use で **は** , not で **わ**. It's the particle `は`, the\nsame one as `私は` at the beginning of your sentence.\n\nSecond, you have many options here. `じゃ` is just a contraction of `では`, and\n`ない` is just the informal form of `ありません`. So you have four choices that are\nall correct.\n\n> * じゃない → most informal\n> * ではない\n> * じゃありません\n> * ではありません → most formal\n>\n\nSo it really depends on the context, who you're speaking to, and how formal\nyou want to be. Whether or not you want to say `では・じゃないです` instead of just\n`では・じゃない` is another issue, but you may want to [look at this\ntopic](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/2574/78) regarding that.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T02:31:50.867",
"id": "12848",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-17T02:31:50.867",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "12846",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 25
}
] | 12846 | 12848 | 12848 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12859",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "My understanding is that 思われる, in addition to being the passive form of 思う,\ncan also be used in the sense of \"to spontaneously think; to appear\".\n\n> 北米では通常スカートは女性がはくものと思われている。 \n> In North America a skirt is thought of as something a woman wears.\n\nIn which sense is 思われる being used here? Both seem reasonable: \nSpontaneous: In North America, people spontaneously think a skirt is something\na woman wears. Passive: A skirt is thought of by North Americans as something\na woman wears.\n\nI lean more towards the first one, since a passive sentence would normally\nmark the agent with に i.e.\n\n> スカートは北米人には女性がはくものと思われている。",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T04:10:29.720",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12849",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-18T23:30:39.427",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Interpretation of 思われる (spontaneous or passive?)",
"view_count": 1790
} | [
{
"body": "From your last comment (emphasis added):\n\n> a verb that indicates what the **speaker/writer** feels spontaneously\n\nThis does not match the translation you give for \"spontaneous:\"\n\n> In North America, **people** spontaneously think a skirt is something a\n> woman wears.\n\nDo you see the difference? If `思われる` were supposed to indicate the _author's_\nthoughts or feelings, a better translation would be\n\n> It seems that in North America skirts are usually worn by women.\n\nHowever, with no other context, there is nothing to indicate that this is a\npersonal observation of the author, so the translation\n\n> In North America a skirt is thought of as something a woman wears.\n\nseems most appropriate to me.\n\nAlso note that it is quite common to leave out the agent in passive sentences.\nJust a few examples:\n\n> 今日学校でいじめられた。 \n> I got bullied at school today.\n>\n> 政府は倒された。 \n> The government was overthrown.\n>\n> 彼は殺された。 \n> He was killed.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T19:59:35.477",
"id": "12859",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-17T19:59:35.477",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3794",
"parent_id": "12849",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "The 自発 (spontaneous) 思われる is a static verb (like いる and ある) and cannot take\nthe ている form. So the 思われている in the example is definitely a passive.\n\nThe passive 思われる can take the 思われている form based on tense/aspect.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-18T23:30:39.427",
"id": "12868",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-18T23:30:39.427",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "12849",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12849 | 12859 | 12859 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12851",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have learned in school that じゃ ありましん is the \"non-past negative\" conjugation\nof です.\n\nExample:\n\n> 私は日本人じゃありません。\n>\n> \"I am not Japanese.\"\n\nI have noticed that じゃ ありません contains the pronunciation of the negative form\nof あります.\n\nFrom a strictly grammatical point of view, does じゃ ありません say that something\ndoesn't exist? If so, what is the grammatical purpose of attaching じゃ to the\nproceeding word?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T06:17:04.130",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12850",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-17T14:36:56.593",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3741",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"conjugations"
],
"title": "What is the grammatical interpretation of じゃ ありません?",
"view_count": 250
} | [
{
"body": "Firstly, じゃ is a contraction of では, where は is the topic particle. The\nconstruct ではありません is then seen to be the negative form of であります with a は\ninserted, and であります is a formal version of です.\n\nSo perhaps the real question is, what is the purpose of で? It carries most of\nthe semantic load: there a few other constructions meaning \"to be\" of the\npattern で + (verb of existence), e.g. である, でございます, でござる. So you could say that\nで means \"to be\", with the caveat that it is not itself a verb. Of course, by\n\"to be\" here I only mean the sense of the linking verb and _not_ the\nexistential verb.\n\nMy own preference is to say that で means something like \"as\". Then 〜である etc.\ntranslate as \"to exist as ...\", or in short, \"to be ...\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T07:23:53.000",
"id": "12851",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-17T07:23:53.000",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "578",
"parent_id": "12850",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 12850 | 12851 | 12851 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12853",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 人と比べるのではなく、過去の自分と比べる。 \n> Do not compare yourself to other people, compare yourself to your past\n> self.\n\nWithout any change in meaning, (though I guess it would be less formal in\ntone), could the writer have just used the -ない form of 比べる instead of\nnominalising it and then negating the nominalisation?\n\n> 人と比べなく、過去の自分と比べる。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T09:28:33.577",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12852",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-17T10:43:19.217",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Replacing a negative nominalised verb with a ない-form",
"view_count": 313
} | [
{
"body": "人と比べなく sounds a bit strange...\n\nThe negation is not the act of comparing, but the whole action of comparing to\nothers.\n\nIn this sentence のではなく also gives an impression of strong advice or\nsuggestion, as well as introducing an alternative. Perhaps 人と比べることをせず, 人と比べずに,\nor 人と比べないで might have been used instead.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T10:43:19.217",
"id": "12853",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-17T10:43:19.217",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3835",
"parent_id": "12852",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 12852 | 12853 | 12853 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12855",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "A sentence from Kanji in Context:\n\n> 人にはそれぞれ長短があって、それで世の中はうまくいくようにできているのです。\n\nI get that it means something like everyone has individual strengths and\nweaknesses, and thus the world can go smoothly. But what does ようにできる mean\nhere? Is it being used as the potential form of ようにする, i.e. the world can be\nmade to go smoothly?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T15:42:03.767",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12854",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-18T11:46:32.273",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3848",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Meaning of ようにできる",
"view_count": 1234
} | [
{
"body": "From my intuition, ように binds stronger to the left, and できている means\n\"accomplished\". So ようにできる falls apart into these two.\n\n人には People - それぞれ every one of them - 長短があって have strengths (and weaknesses) -\nそれで therefore - 世の中は the world - うまくいく smooth-going - ように like such - できている\nbecome - therefore のです.\n\n\"Various people each have their strengths (and weaknesses), and this is what\nmakes the world keep on turning.\"\n\nThe できている I put into \"makes\" here.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T16:22:26.733",
"id": "12855",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-18T11:46:32.273",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-18T11:46:32.273",
"last_editor_user_id": "1537",
"owner_user_id": "1537",
"parent_id": "12854",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> うまくいくようにできている\n\nmeans something like \"[thus] manages to go smoothly\".\n\n> But what does ようにできる mean here?\n\nIt would be more logical to view ように as connected with うまくいく, not with できている.\nうまくいくように is just \"[in order] to go smoothly\". できている means that the world\nactually manages to \"go smoothly\". できる would sound more like potential \"the\nwould can go smoothly\" not specifying whether it actually does so.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-18T03:24:46.380",
"id": "12860",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-18T03:24:46.380",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3957",
"parent_id": "12854",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12854 | 12855 | 12855 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12857",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "what are the Japanese, and English, technical terms for these verb transforms:\n\n読める、買える、書ける、...\n\nand this: 読まれる、買われる、書かれる、...\n\nand this: 読ませる、買わせる、書かせる、...\n\nIs there a standard term that textbooks use to call the changing of verb stems\ninto those 3 different forms? \"Verb conjugation\" sounds natural, however\n\"conjugate\" does not sound correct in the context.\n\nWhat do Japanese students call the changing of verbs into those 3 different\nforms?\n\nthanks.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T16:51:26.000",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12856",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-17T17:15:57.287",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3962",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"verbs"
],
"title": "which are the technical names for these verb transforms?",
"view_count": 219
} | [
{
"body": "> 読める、買える、書ける、... → **Potential Form (可能形)**\n>\n> and this: 読まれる、買われる、書かれる、... → **Passive form (受け身形)**\n>\n> and this: 読ませる、買わせる、書かせる、... → **Causative form (使役【しえき】形)**\n\n\"Conjugation\" is correct, and you can say `動詞の活用（形）`.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T17:15:57.287",
"id": "12857",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-17T17:15:57.287",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "12856",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12856 | 12857 | 12857 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12861",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Dictionaries have 「たくさん」 listed as being either a noun or 形容動詞。Googling\n\"たくさんな\" returns only 190,000 hits; none of the top 20 pages are professional\nwebsites. Rather, they are only blogs.\n\nMy impression is that, practically speaking, 「たくさん」 is used only as a noun?\nFor some idiosyncratic reason, it's also listed as 形容動詞? Can anyone shed some\nlight as to what's going on? Is this issue related to the meaning of 形容動詞、or\njust about that the word, 「たくさん」, is exceptional。?\n\nthanks.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-17T19:41:32.200",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12858",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-18T14:02:17.387",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-17T20:05:34.097",
"last_editor_user_id": "3962",
"owner_user_id": "3962",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"na-adjectives"
],
"title": "「たくさん」 is technically, but not practically, a na-nominal (形容動詞) , right?",
"view_count": 519
} | [
{
"body": "> My impression is that, practically speaking, 「たくさん」 is used only as a noun?\n\nUnless you belong to the school who believes that 形容動詞 are really nouns, I\ndon't think it's a noun, e.g. you cannot say *たくさんを食べる. And I don't see any\nexamples in the goo dictionary that suggest it's more of a noun than any other\n形容動詞.\n\n> Is this issue related to the meaning of 形容動詞、or just about that the word,\n> 「たくさん」, is exceptional?\n\nI don't see anything exceptional about it. Some 形容動詞 use な, some use の. This\none usually uses の, like e.g. 普通.\n\nI'm not sure why the goo dictionary doesn't list たくさん as an adverb, although\nit lists examples of adverbial use. This is quite common for 形容動詞 of quantity\nand classifiers to be used adverbially\n\n> 少しのご飯を食べる ～ ご飯を少し食べる \n> ３杯のご飯を食べる ～ ご飯を３杯食べる",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-18T05:53:05.633",
"id": "12861",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-18T05:53:05.633",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "12858",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I cannot present a linguist's arguement on this but surely たくさん can be\nregarded as both grammatically and in meaning as equivalent to \"plenty\": It is\na noun describing a state （数や量が大きい様子）which can also be used as a counter\nrepresenting an unspecified amount:\n\n> There is plenty of N = Nがたくさんあります。\n>\n> cf: We have two N. = Nが 二つあります",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-18T14:02:17.387",
"id": "12863",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-18T14:02:17.387",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "12858",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12858 | 12861 | 12861 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12870",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've always compared な adjectives to some abstract harder type of adjective,\nand I think I learned formally what the difference is, kind of, but I've\nforgotten. In any case, I know there are nouns that can act as adjectives, but\nwhat is the reason for why な adjectives are used in forms like 大切だと思う, similar\nto nouns? With other adjectives だ is omitted, so what exactly does the だ mean\nin this case? What part of speech is it?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-18T23:11:44.890",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12867",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-19T01:46:40.543",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"na-adjectives"
],
"title": "Why is だ used for な adjectives?",
"view_count": 2423
} | [
{
"body": "In traditional grammar, words that inflect, called 用言{ようげん}, are given six\ninflected forms, called 活用形{かつようけい}:\n\n * 未然形（みぜんけい） _irrealis form_\n * 連用形（れんようけい） _continuative form_\n * 終止形（しゅうしけい） _terminal form_\n * 連体形（れんたいけい） _adnominal form_\n * 仮定形（かていけい） _hypothetical form_ (see note 1)\n * 命令形（めいれいけい） _imperative form_\n\nAnd in traditional grammar, だ is considered a type of 助動詞{じょどうし}. That's a\nseparate part of speech which I'll translate _inflectable suffix_ here. And\nsince that's a type of inflectable word, it too has forms that fit into the\nsix categories above. The two forms you've asked about are the 終止形 and the\n連体形, and I'll being focusing on those two only in this answer:\n\n * The 終止形 is the form that can come at the end of a sentence.\n * The 連体形 is the form that can come before a noun as a modifier.\n\nConsider the following:\n\n> _Example 1:_ 海{うみ}が綺麗{きれい}だ\n\nHere, だ is in its sentence final form (終止形), ending a sentence (see note 2).\nHere, 綺麗だ is a predicate. But what happens if we instead use 綺麗だ as a\nmodifier, putting the noun 海 after it?\n\n> _Example 2:_ 綺麗な海だ\n\nIt has to take the adnominal form (連体形) instead, because that's the form that\ncan come before a noun. And the 連体形 of だ is な, so that's what you have to use\nhere.\n\nNow I want to address your question about 大切だと思う. Here's what you asked:\n\n> With other adjectives だ is omitted, so what exactly does the だ mean in this\n> case?\n\nWell, _i_ -adjectives, called 形容詞（けいようし）in traditional grammar, are also a\ntype of inflecting word. They too have a 終止形 and can end a sentence:\n\n> _Example 3:_ 海が美しい\n>\n> _Example 4:_ 美しい海だ\n\nAgain, the first example shows the 終止形, which can end a sentence. The second\nexample shows the 連体形, modifying a noun. The weird thing here is that both\nforms look the same! That's because modern Japanese no longer distinguishes\nthe two forms for this kind of adjective. Still, we can say that 美しい is a 終止形\nin example 3.\n\nSo what we can see here is that 美しい forms a complete predicate and can end a\nsentence. And so can 綺麗だ, as we saw in example 1.\n\nAnd what about と? It can come after a 終止形, turning a clause into the\ncomplement of another verb, such as 思う. In modern analysis, some linguists\ncall this a _complementizer_ (see note 3). Take a look at the following\nexamples:\n\n> Example 5a: 綺麗だ \n> Example 5b: 綺麗だ **と思う** \n> Example 6a: 美しい \n> Example 6b: 美しい **と思う**\n\nAs you can see, you need だ in example 5 because without it, you don't have a\ncomplete sentence for と to act on. You don't need it in example 6 because you\nalready have a complete sentence with just 美しい. (Of course, *美しいだ is\nungrammatical.) In other words, だ isn't _omitted_ with other adjectives. It\nwasn't present in the first place.\n\nFinally, I'll point out that だ and な are etymologically close to being the\nsame thing, so there's some historical justification for calling them forms of\nthe same thing. The former comes ultimately from にてあり, while the latter comes\nfrom にあり. These are almost the same thing; the only difference is that な is\nmissing the て.\n\n* * *\n\n_Note 1_ : The 仮定形{かていけい} was called the 已然形{いぜんけい} ( _realis form_ ) in\nclassical Japanese grammar. It's usually called 仮定形 instead when analyzing\nmodern Japanese because it has fewer uses, being essentially limited to\nforming hypotheticals.\n\n_Note 2_ : Actually, in traditional grammar, you wouldn't say that this is 綺麗\nfollowed by だ. You'd say it's a single word, 綺麗だ, and you'd say that 綺麗な is a\nform of 綺麗だ. That's a little strange, since etymologically speaking, it's the\nsame だ or な you use in any other situation. In any case, my answer departs\nfrom traditional grammar on this point.\n\n_Note 3_ : There's some debate over whether what exactly the function of と is.\n[This\npaper](http://www.ic.nanzan-u.ac.jp/LINGUISTICS/staff/munakata_takashi/pdf/munakata_fajl4_complementizer.pdf)\nsums up multiple positions and seems to give a pretty reasonable analysis, but\nI'm still learning, so I'm not exactly sure :-)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-19T01:46:40.543",
"id": "12870",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-19T01:46:40.543",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12867",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
] | 12867 | 12870 | 12870 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "A friend of mine recently translated a Japanese article from Japan's October\nissue of An An magazine and sent her a tweet in English telling her that it\nwas completed. The author replied with the following tweet: (^з^)-☆ ば\n\nI have only been studying Japanese online for less than a year, and can't make\nany sense of her response. When I look it up in the Japanese to English\ndictionary, it refers to location, which doesn't make sense.\n\nCan anyone help?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-19T19:17:27.993",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12873",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T15:30:35.947",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3973",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words",
"translation",
"meaning",
"pronunciation"
],
"title": "I am wondering if someone can shed light on this tweet from Japan?",
"view_count": 440
} | [
{
"body": "You won't find this in a standard dictionary. What you need is a \"dictionary\"\nof Japanese emoticons, for example:\n\n<http://www.japaneseemoticons.net/all-japanese-emoticons/>\n\nIt seems `(^з^)-☆` is an air kiss. As for `ば` (reads \"ba\"), this is probably\nthe sound for \"smooch\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-19T23:24:09.440",
"id": "12874",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-19T23:24:09.440",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3295",
"parent_id": "12873",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Apparently `ば` is Yoshimoto Banana's signature on Twitter (`ば` is for `ばなな`).\nA couple of other examples of her tweets:\n\n> ψ(｀∇´)ψ ば\n>\n> ですね^ ^ ば\n\nSometimes members of her staff will write tweets using her account and sign\nthem `スタッフ` so you can tell that Yoshimoto Banana herself didn't write them.\n\n* * *\n\n**EDIT:** I wrote this up quickly last night, but I have this nagging feeling\nthat I need to give credit where it's due: my wife is a huge Yoshimoto Banana\nfan and as soon as she saw that tweet and \"an an magazine\" (which she insists\nshould be all lowercase, by the way) she said \"Oh, that's Yoshimoto Banana.\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T04:28:38.227",
"id": "12877",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T15:30:35.947",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-20T15:30:35.947",
"last_editor_user_id": "3794",
"owner_user_id": "3794",
"parent_id": "12873",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
] | 12873 | null | 12877 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12876",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm currently listening to 「愛国行進曲」, which is apparently a Shōwa-era patriotic\nsong. It is written in a rather confusing mix of modern and Classical\nJapanese, but I think I can understand most of it except for\n「往{ゆ}け八紘を宇{いえ}となし」. What is となし? Is it と無し? That doesn't seem to make any\nsense...",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T00:19:05.920",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12875",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T02:09:43.203",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2960",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"words",
"song-lyrics"
],
"title": "となし in 「往{ゆ}け八紘を宇{いえ}となし」",
"view_count": 205
} | [
{
"body": "I think it might be the 連用形 of 為す, so that the meaning is roughly\n\n> 八紘を宇となし \n> make the whole world our home\n\nAlso, ん is most likely む, which carries the meaning of ～う・～よう, giving\n\n> 正しき平和打ちたてん \n> let us establish true peace",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T00:47:38.307",
"id": "12876",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T02:09:43.203",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-20T02:09:43.203",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12875",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12875 | 12876 | 12876 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12940",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "When using そばから in the sense of \"as soon as\", everything I find says that you\ncan use either た form/past tense before it, or dictionary form, but not what\nthe difference is. Sometimes people even use both forms in the same sentence:\n\n> 我が家もそうなのだけれど、片付けるそばから散らかすし拭いたそばからこぼされる。\n\nSo is there any difference in nuance between these?\n\n 1. 片付けるそばから散らかす\n 2. 片付けたそばから散らかす\n 3. 片付けてるそばから散らかす",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T11:44:37.410",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12878",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:12.417",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "571",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Choice of tense with そばから",
"view_count": 662
} | [
{
"body": "From what I know, そばから is used to describe two events that take place soon\nafter each other. Apparently, both the dictionary form and the た-form are\nperfectly acceptable, and the only difference is that た-form is used if the\nbreak between the two events is [subjectively] longer.\n\nI personally have never seen/heard そばから accompanied by a verb in continuous\ntense (ている), but based on the native speakers' account, in this context (片付\ntakes a lot of time) the dictionary form and the continuous tense can be used\ninterchangeably.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T07:02:56.960",
"id": "12919",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-24T07:10:36.897",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-24T07:10:36.897",
"last_editor_user_id": "3957",
"owner_user_id": "3957",
"parent_id": "12878",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "AそばからB is one of the many set phrases that connect two verbs A and B to\nexpress the sense of (near) simultaneity. Those phrases, while similar in\nmeaning, have their own specific usages, grammatical restrictions, and\nconnotations. For instance, やいなや always follows [連体形 (or the dictionary\nform/present tense if you\nwill)](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%80%A3%E4%BD%93%E5%BD%A2) of a verb\nwhile the perfect auxiliary verb た always precedes とたん (so, in short, it only\ntakes the ta-form of a verb for A).\n\nThe important characteristics of そばから that set this phrase apart from others\nare that\n\n 1. verb A can be either present (the dictionary form) or with the perfect auxiliary verb た (ta-form) (or more like there is no restriction except semantics),\n\n 2. the described near simultaneous actions are typically being repeated and not a single event by one person, and\n\n 3. typically there is an implied sense that the speaker is negative, disapproving, or frustrated about the repeated near simultaneous actions.\n\nA quintessential context is that whenever the speaker finishes task A, a\nperson they know does the kind of thing that nullifies the completion of A,\ne.g., you tidy up a room, and lo and behold, your kid is already making a huge\nmess behind you. You clean up the room again, and your little one is about to\ndrop food on the floor. Rinse and Repeat. Everyday. (And I think this is also\nthe kind of context the example in the question is taken from.)\n\nThe choice of the verb form is up to the speaker; if you want to emphasize the\nconnotation of repetition, the dictionary form is arguably better because it\nhas this habitual semantics on its own, while inserting the perfect auxiliary\nverb (i.e., ta-form) would be more suited if you want to emphasize the fact\nthat action B happens once action A has completed because the ta-form can add\nthe sense of completion on its own.\n\nI looked for information about whether there is a bias of some sort regarding\nwhich type is more frequently used for each verb, to no avail. Also, there\nseems to be my _personal_ preference when it comes to some verbs. For\ninstance, I seem to use 聞いたそばから忘れる far more often than 聞くそばから忘れる regardless of\nwhich sense (repetition or completion) I think is more important in a given\nsituation. So I tend to resort to throwing in another word like いつも if I want\nto emphasize this sense even though this word is technically redundant. But I\nwouldn't say the latter (聞くそばから忘れる) is ungrammatical. And there seem many\ngoogle hits for this type that seem to be written by native speakers, albeit\nsomewhat fewer than the former.\n\nThe ている (or てる) version is the same. Some people seem to think this is not\ncommon. But this is not the case. So, for example, if you think the repeated\nchain actions are best described by this form because of the complete\nsimultaneity between actions A and B, nothing prevents you from using this\nauxiliary verb, although your teacher may not like it if your textbook doesn't\nsay it's ok; somehow no webpages for learners I just checked mentioned this\nversion as a valid construction. But in reality, whatever they say, this\nversion is prevalent and doesn't sound unnatural unless it is semantically\nunusual. If someone says you can't use ている/てる, just ask if\n\"とか言ってるそばから自分で「〜してるそばから」って言っちゃったりしないですよね？\" sounds unnatural. (It means \"And\nyou won't use '〜してるそばから' yourself like during this conversation, right?\")\n\nOh, by the way, \"〜\" in the above sentence is pronounced 何々{なになに} if you're\nwondering.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T11:04:39.980",
"id": "12940",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:12.417",
"last_edit_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:12.417",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12878",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] | 12878 | 12940 | 12940 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12883",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've heard a friend say that the Ainu word for every part of the human body is\nmonosyllabic, and that all words in Ainu are made up of the syllables from\nthose words. Is either claim true?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T11:48:49.227",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12879",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T12:47:10.407",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"ainu"
],
"title": "Is the Ainu name for every part of the body monosyllabic?",
"view_count": 220
} | [
{
"body": "I know nothing about Ainu, but according to [\"A talking dictionary of\nAinu\"](http://lah.soas.ac.uk/projects/ainu/intro.html) there are a number of\nmultisyllabic words for parts of the body, including\n\n> leg \n> [Kema; chikiri.](http://lah.soas.ac.uk/projects/ainu/mp3/0042.mp3)\n>\n> toe \n> [Urepet.](http://lah.soas.ac.uk/projects/ainu/mp3/0047.mp3)\n\nThe dictionary includes audio files for the pronunciation of each word, which\nI have linked to in the words above.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T12:47:10.407",
"id": "12883",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T12:47:10.407",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3794",
"parent_id": "12879",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 12879 | 12883 | 12883 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12884",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am just learning about the も particle and the textbook has examples like\nthis:\n\n> やまださんはがくせいです。わたしもがくせいです。 Yamada is a student. I am also a student.\n\nI am wondering whether the repetition of がくせいです is really necessary. Can I say\nsomething like:\n\n> やまださんはがくせいです。わたしもです。\n\nor maybe\n\n> やまださんはがくせいです。わたしも。\n\nThe other question is whether も works with negative statements too. I.e. will\nthe following be grammatical?\n\n> やまださんはせんせいではありません。わたしもせんせいではありません。\n\nAnd the similar question of the possible contraction of this. Can I say\n\n> やまださんはせんせいではありません。 わたしもではありません。\n\nCan I make it even shorter to say \"Neither am I\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T12:13:48.547",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12882",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T14:09:22.130",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-20T12:19:01.077",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3941",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particles"
],
"title": "What's the short way to say \"me too\" and \"me (n)either\"?",
"view_count": 6228
} | [
{
"body": "You can use the following expressions, as appropriate\n\n> 私も。\n>\n> 私もです。\n>\n> 私もそうです。 私もそうだよ。\n\nall of which roughly mean \"me, too\". These all work for negative and positive\nstatements, except for a sentence like\n\n> 山田さんは学生じゃありません。\n\nin which case I find it more natural to say\n\n> 私も学生じゃありません。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T13:01:39.133",
"id": "12884",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T13:01:39.133",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12882",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "You can also say （私も）同じ、（私も）同じく、（私も）一緒等など",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T14:09:22.130",
"id": "12885",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T14:09:22.130",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1065",
"parent_id": "12882",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12882 | 12884 | 12885 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12888",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "As I read 「ノルウェイの森」 by 村上春樹, I noticed some words that are probably mistyped. \n\n```\n\n しかしそのおかけでクラスの中で僕の立場はもっと孤立したものになった。\n \n```\n\nShouldn't it be そのおかげで?\n\nA few more examples:\n\n```\n\n 「...」と彼は黒いボストン・バックに衣類やノートを詰めこみながら言った。\n \n```\n\nバッグ => バック (no dakuten)\n\n```\n\n そしてそんなことを考えれば考えるほど僕の体は余計に飢え、そしで乾いた。\n \n```\n\nそして => そしで (extra dakuten)\n\n```\n\n 彼にとつてはそれはただのゲームにすぎないのだ。\n \n```\n\nとって => とつて (っ grows up to つ, this is another kind of transformation, but I'm\nnot sure if I should create a separate question for it)\n\nAre these words just misprinted or they are used correctly?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T15:16:01.537",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12886",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T18:17:39.923",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1640",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"kana-usage"
],
"title": "Unusual dakutens and つ instead of っ",
"view_count": 279
} | [
{
"body": "I think おかけで, かつと, and そしで are most plausibly explained as misprints. They\ndon't generally occur, and this novel is too recent (written in 1987) to make\ncomparisons to historical kana orthography.\n\nAlthough it's possible that バック too is a misprint, another explanation seems\nplausible to me in this case. In Japanese, a phenomenon called rendaku or\n_sequential voicing_ occurs primarily in compounds such as ひとびと, in which ひと\nis joined with another ひと, but the second /h/ is voiced to /b/. This is\nlimited (but not predicted) by Lyman's Law, a set of rules that explain when\nsequential voicing should not happen.\n\nAlthough バッグ is _not_ an example of sequential voicing, as it consists of a\nsingle morpheme loaned from English, if you apply a similar set of rules to\nloanwords in Japanese, you discover something interesting. If we applied\nLyman's law, we'd find that the /k/ in ばっく could not voice to /g/ because of\nthe voiced obstruent /b/ in the beginning of the word. And when Lyman's law\nwould prevent voicing in native compounding, it manifests as _optional\ndevoicing_ in loanwords. That is, the /g/ in バッグ optionally devoices to /k/,\ngiving us バック. Other examples include:\n\n> ビッ **グ** → ビッ **ク** \n> ベッ **ド** → ベッ **ト**\n\nThis is a native Japanese phonetic rule appearing as a _tendency_ in contexts\nwhere it should not strictly apply. This was first pointed out by Kohei\nNishimura's thesis, _Lyman's Law in Loanwords_ (2003) and has been the subject\nof some recent research. In particular, Shigeto Kawahara illustrates in\n_Aspects of Japanese loanword devoicing_ (2011) that this devoicing is more\nlikely to happen in words that are used more frequently.\n\n(Of course, I think in published material it would still be considered an\nerror, but I think there's at least a possibility that it's a more interesting\nkind of error than a simple misprint.)",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T17:53:45.507",
"id": "12888",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T18:17:39.923",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-20T18:17:39.923",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12886",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 12886 | 12888 | 12888 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12895",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "So, 美化語 is used to create honorifics: お名前 ご注文 etc.\n\nBut, the standard way to create the 謙譲語 form of verbs is: お＋[verb stem] +\nいたします\n\nThat does not make logical sense to modify the action that you are performing\nwith an honorific \"お\", right? There is nothing about this paradox that would\nhelp with understanding 敬語 in a broader context。Every language has its\nidiosyncrasies. Assigning 美化語 to action you perform is just something to\nmemorize, right? I don't care about etymology. So, memorize and move on to the\nnext topic?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T22:46:28.843",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12891",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-21T17:36:44.990",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-21T17:36:44.990",
"last_editor_user_id": "578",
"owner_user_id": "3962",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"honorifics"
],
"title": "using 美化語 in 謙譲語 verb forms does not make sense, right?",
"view_count": 528
} | [
{
"body": "Not quite sure what you're asking, but not all `謙譲語` is of that form. You can\nhave\n\n 1. The form of `ご ＋【漢語】＋ いたす` like `ご注文いたす` or\n 2. special verbs like `申す`, `拝見【はい・けん】する`, `仰ぐ`, etc.\n\nYou could have `美化語` together with `謙譲語` with something like\n\n> * ご住所を伺【うかが】う → Ask for your/an address\n> * お寿司をいただく → Eat sushi\n>",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T23:25:16.450",
"id": "12892",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-20T23:25:16.450",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "12891",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Prefixing a word with `お` or `ご` does not necessarily make it an honorific.\nThe following is an example of humble speech (謙譲語):\n\n> 先生へのお手紙\n\n...while this is an example of honorific language (尊敬語):\n\n> 先生からのお手紙\n\nNotice that both phrases use `お手紙`.\n\n`美化語` does _not_ mean honorific. `美化語` is used to make one's speech sound more\nrefined (`美化` = beautification, `語` = word/language). Therefore, `美化語` is\nfrequently used in regular polite speech. The following are examples of `美化語`:\n\n> 菓子 -> お菓子\n>\n> 酒 -> お酒\n\nNote that not all words that are prefixed with `お` or `ご` are examples of\n`美化語`. For instance,\n\n> 先生のお名前\n\nis an example of 尊敬語.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-21T08:08:34.257",
"id": "12895",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-21T08:08:34.257",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3794",
"parent_id": "12891",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 12891 | 12895 | 12895 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This is my current understanding of gemination (促音, /Q/, small っ): in native\nJapanese words, only the following sounds can be geminated: /k/, /s/, /t/,\n/p/. Additionally, in loanwords we can geminate their voiced counterparts /g/,\n/z/, /d/, /b/. German loans also give us geminatable /h/. (Separately, we also\nhave moraic /N/, which can precede /n/; and place assimilation of /N/ -> /m/\nbefore /m/.)\n\nThis is all well and good, but today I learned that the loanword for\n\"tagliatelle\" is written タリアテッレ, with a geminated /r/.\n\n> How do you geminate Japanese /r/, which is (at least in my idiolect) a\n> central flap, which doesn't seem to lend itself to gemination?\n\nBy contrast, English /r/ is an approximant and Spanish /r/ is a trill, so it's\nclear how those geminate (just pronounce them for double the usual length),\nand similarly, all the other geminatable Japanese sounds are stops or\nfricatives, which also have an obvious way of geminating them.\n\nAudio of a native speaker pronouncing geminated-/r/ words would be very\nhelpful as part of an answer.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-20T23:38:31.273",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12893",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T04:00:14.267",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-21T00:25:03.750",
"last_editor_user_id": "3437",
"owner_user_id": "3437",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"loanwords",
"gemination"
],
"title": "How do you geminate ら-line sounds?",
"view_count": 964
} | [
{
"body": "Since OP asked me in [another\nthread](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/12906/when-does-r-become-\na-trill/12910#12910) to post this here, I'll start with what I think of the\nsound used by the native speaker in the video.\n\nThe Italian word \"tagliatelle\" pronounced by native Italian speakers sounds to\nthe Japanese like タリアテッレ, タリアテーレ, タリアッテレ or something along those lines (or it\ndoes at least to me). So I'm guessing that the Japanese guy in the video is\nsimply mimicking the Italian sound within the Japanese phonology. So, his /r/\nthere may not be representative of natural Japanese.\n\nIn any case, if it is a trilled /r/, I guess you can analyze the /rure/ part\nas one \"syllable\" /rre/, i.e., it contains a trilled /r/ with some sort of\ngemination. But as a native Japanese speaker, I'd say it's just two moras ルレ\nsaid quickly. At least my brain hears it that way, regardless of how the sound\nis being realized by his mouth.\n\nAlso, usually it's not difficult to realize a geminated version of a phoneme\nlike /r/ in a given phonetic/phonological context. If it is a consonant that\nis not usually geminated in Japanese (as in a loanword like this case), you\njust come up with an analogous 促音 sound on the fly so it flows best. You can\neven make a 促音 at the end of a sentence, where there's literally no sound to\nstretch out. The mechanism is explained [here in the Japanese Wikipedia\narticle on 促音](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BF%83%E9%9F%B3).\n\nIn your case, if a Japanese person who has never heard タリアテッレ (or tagliatelle)\nin their life is to pronounce it as a loanword they just ran into (e.g., it's\nwritten on a menu this way in katakana), it'd be something along the line of\n\n```\n\n リアテッ \n タ \n レ (← This final mora is lower in pitch than タ.)\n \n```\n\nwith the required pitch drop at レ for pitch accent and gemination on /r/ the\nsame way as you'd do on some other phoneme. I'm pretty sure the vast majority\nof the native Japanese speakers understand what _タリアテッレ (テにアクセント)_ should\nsound like, although there can be variations. Personally, I seem to realize 促音\nfor this particular word (in this kana spelling) by the following method\nexplained in the Wikipedia article:\n\n> 次の側音の構えのまま声門を閉鎖する無音状態とし、声門を開放すると同時に次の側音を発する。\n\nSo, what I'd do is basically to first make a glottal stop while placing my\ntongue in the regular /r/ position), hold it by one mora, and then realize /r/\nin the normal way. Probably this can depend on other factors like how quickly\nI pronounce it. But with this pitch pattern (which I think is the natural\nchoice for many native speakers), I seem to use the glottal stoppy version.\n\n**Edit:** I can't seem to correctly align the kana above in the pitch accent\ndescription; the preview looks fine, but when it's posted, stachexchange\nrenders it differently than what I'm seeing in my preview... Anyway, レ at the\nend should be lower than タ if said in isolation.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-23T19:47:24.963",
"id": "12911",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T04:00:14.267",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12893",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12893 | null | 12911 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12899",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm confused about 「に作られた」 in the following sentence. Kindly explain this part\nto me.\n\n> 「Central Base」とは、旧「アクアポリス・中央エアポート」 **に作られた** 、「ASDF」の陸上（？）基地のことだ。\n\nSome sort of translation:\n\n 1. Central base is, created by the old Aquapolice - Central airport, ASDF's land(?) base.\n\n 2. Central base is, created on the old Aquapolice - Central airport, ASDF's land(?) base. (However in this case I think that で would be more suitable)\n\nThe \"（？）\" is part of the original text.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-21T09:14:28.173",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12896",
"last_activity_date": "2014-10-04T10:12:28.800",
"last_edit_date": "2014-10-04T10:12:28.800",
"last_editor_user_id": "5041",
"owner_user_id": "3183",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-に",
"passive-voice"
],
"title": "Does the particle に in に作られた mark the agent or the location here?",
"view_count": 278
} | [
{
"body": "The reading as に to mark the agent of the passive construction is definitely\nsyntactically possible, but a much more likely reading is the locative に, i.e.\nyour second reading.\n\nWhy is it に and not で? で marks a place where an action happens, に marks a\nplace where something \"exists\". There is definitely some overlap in usage, but\nで in this case sounds strange to me, as if \"it was built there, but then moved\nsomewhere else\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-21T23:20:03.130",
"id": "12899",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-21T23:20:03.130",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "12896",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12896 | 12899 | 12899 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12905",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "So I was watching 女が階段を上る時 by Mikio Naruse late at night, and heard something\nthat sounded familiar. Alas, I fell asleep and returned the movie before\nchecking (yes there is still a rental store in my hood).\n\nAnyway, in the movie a hostess from a rival club walks into a bar, and\nreceives the 『いらっしゃい！』greeting. However, I remember hearing her respond to the\ngreeting with another set phrase that sounded familiar yet was one I haven't\nlearned. Does anyone know if there is set response to 『いらっしゃい！』? I think I\nmight have heard it in another old movie before, but not irl.\n\nEdit; the character say ごくろうさん, but this is not a phrase with a specific\nrelation to 『いらっしゃい！』. Thanks, all!",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-21T19:55:45.500",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12898",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-29T12:43:26.773",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-29T12:43:26.773",
"last_editor_user_id": "706",
"owner_user_id": "706",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "Is there a set response to 『いらっしゃい！』?",
"view_count": 1468
} | [
{
"body": "I guess you could go with these standbys: 失礼します。 お邪魔します。 ご迷惑をおかけいたします。\nごぶさたいたしました。 // only if you know the マスタ and not seen him for awhile\n\nIf I am not with a native Japanese, I reply something like:\n\"入ってもよろしいですか？お忙しいですか？\"\n\nI have watched Tampopo (famous movie about ramen's place in Japanese culture)\nseveral times, and the customers almost always just place their orders after\nTampopo says \"いらっしゃいませ\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-22T02:54:17.590",
"id": "12901",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-22T02:54:17.590",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3962",
"parent_id": "12898",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "As far as I know, there isn't a set response to いらっしゃい（ませ）. Usually people\ndon't say anything in response. You can politely acknowledge the person\nwelcoming you in a non-linguistic manner by smiling or nodding.\n\n(I wanted to post いらっしゃいました as a joke answer, but fortunately I'm too mature\nto do so ;-)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-22T14:35:57.750",
"id": "12902",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-22T14:35:57.750",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12898",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "1. If you are being greeted with an いらっしゃいませ, when entering a large shop, supermarket, bank etc., you are not expected to reply. If you feel you need to somehow acknowledge, a short nod would do.\n\n 2. If you hear いらっしゃい, when entering someone's house, お邪魔します or 失礼します would be a standard answer. If you are entering a small shop and there are no other customer (so that the いらっしゃい(ませ) is addressed to you personally, you say something like 入ってもいいですか？ or まだやっていますか？. Of course, it is perfectly OK say the above phrases **before** being greeted.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-23T01:57:26.940",
"id": "12905",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-23T01:57:26.940",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3957",
"parent_id": "12898",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 12898 | 12905 | 12905 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12904",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "```\n\n 話者の希望・意向を表す文や働きかけの文は来ない。\n \n```\n\nThis is a case when interpoint (中黒) is used for listing like a conjunction. I\nwonder how would a native speaker pronounce such an expression?\n\n * Simply きぼういこう\n * きぼう (pause) いこう\n * or きぼうといこう, きぼうやいこう, i.e. inserting some context-appropriate conjunction word between items.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-22T17:32:05.053",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12903",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-22T18:50:31.387",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-22T18:15:39.543",
"last_editor_user_id": "1640",
"owner_user_id": "1640",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"punctuation"
],
"title": "Pronunciation of interpoint when listing items",
"view_count": 190
} | [
{
"body": "The 中黒 is used as punctuation and is only part of written language (文語体) and\ndoes not represent anything in spoken language (口語体). (You will find no 中黒 in\nbedtime stories.) When reading to yourself, or to someone reading the text\nnext to you, the 中黒 would simply be ignored, with possibly a short pause\nbetween the words.\n\nIf you are reading, say, a dictionary entry out loud to someone not seeing the\ntext, you can insert a や or と, as appropriate, to avoid mistaking the two\nwords for a single one.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-22T18:50:31.387",
"id": "12904",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-22T18:50:31.387",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12903",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12903 | 12904 | 12904 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In a video that snailboat pointed out in a comment on [my question about\ngeminated /r/](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/12893/how-do-you-\ngeminate-%E3%82%89-line-sounds), at least [one speaker of\nJapanese](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq-Jg6jT9Og#t=0m6s) sounds to me\nlike they trill both the /r/s in タリアテッレ.\n\nIt's my understanding that, most of the time, /r/ in Japanese is a flap that\nfreely varies between central and lateral (cf. the answer to [R sound vs L\nsound](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/12803/r-sound-vs-l-\nsound)). For /r/ to transform into a trill, then, is really quite surprising.\n\n> In what contexts (social, dialectal, grammatical, whatever) does /r/ become\n> a trill?\n\nI know that /r/ manifests as a trill (巻き舌) in yakuza speech (cf. [What are the\nstereotypical characteristics of yakuza\nspeech?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/941/what-are-the-\nstereotypical-characteristics-of-yakuza-speech)); where else do we find\ntrilled /r/?\n\n( **Note:** I may just be mishearing the speaker in the Youtube video linked\nabove; if so, just ignore that part. Either way, my question about trilled /r/\nin Japanese remains.)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-23T04:40:44.037",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12906",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:59:58.967",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3437",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"phonetics"
],
"title": "When does /r/ become a trill?",
"view_count": 4722
} | [
{
"body": "To my ear, the native Japanese speaker in the video sounds like saying\n/tariatterure/ with the typical Japanese gemination occurring on /t/ and only\non this consonant. So, I focus on when trilled /r/ might typically appear in\nJapanese, and post my impression on the /r/ in the video in question to\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/12893/how-do-you-\ngeminate-%E3%82%89-line-sounds), which OP suggested.\n\nIf you're referring to the kind of allophone on /r/ that typically appears in\nyakuza speech, as you said yourself, it is called [巻き舌\n(まきじた)](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B7%BB%E3%81%8D%E8%88%8C) in Japanese.\nPhonetically speaking, it's the [alveolar\ntrill](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_trill).\n\nThis is not one of the allophones the average native Japanese speaker would\nuse when speaking in standard Japanese in normal context. As the [Japanese\nWikipedia article on the alveolar\ntrill](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%AF%E8%8C%8E%E3%81%B5%E3%82%8B%E3%81%88%E9%9F%B3)\nsays, this allophone is most typically associated with the dialects(?) called\n[べらんめえ調](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B1%9F%E6%88%B8%E8%A8%80%E8%91%89)\nspoken by [江戸っ子 (えどっこ)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edokko) and\n[浜言葉](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B5%9C%E8%A8%80%E8%91%89) typically\nstereotyped as fishermen's speech, and a certain aggressive, hostile, and\nrough register in spoken language (such as typical yakuza speech).\n\nI'm not sure if it's linguistically true that this sound is regularly used as\na major variant of phoneme /r/ in any of the alleged dialects/register. But as\na native Japanese speaker, I do understand these \"stereotypes.\" In fact, as is\nexemplified in the other video you linked to in the comment, the stereotypes\nare so widespread that this trilled /r/ (or its connotations to a rough,\naggressive or rude manner) can be effectively exploited in fiction. You may\nalso use it to sound humorous just like any other stereotypical speech. So, at\nleast it's \"widespread\" in a sense and is definitely part of the Japanese\nlanguage. But as far as I know, it does not appear as a regularly used (free)\nallophone in any of the major dialects I know or speak. Then again, I wouldn't\nbe terribly surprised if someone uses it very often in a regular manner as\npart of their natural idiolect, either.\n\nIn any case, the examples I can be sure about are the three I mentioned above,\ni.e., べらんめえ調, 浜言葉, and yakuza speech, all of which sound \"rough.\" Note that\nwhile べらんめえ調 is informally said to be the same as 江戸言葉, which is one of the\nregional dialects in Tokyo, the Wikipedia article of this dialect doesn't\nmention trilled /r/. So, it's possible that 江戸言葉 as the real regional dialect\n(which is becoming quite obsolete nowadays by the way) doesn't have this\nallophone, so perhaps it's just a stereotype thing.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-23T17:26:50.123",
"id": "12910",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:59:58.967",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12906",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12906 | null | 12910 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 5,
"body": "I have come across the following in a piece of fiction (「永遠のジャック＆ベティ」, by\n清水{しみず}義範{よしのり}):\n\n> 「今日は上着を着ているためには暑すぎます」\n>\n> **◯◯するには☓☓すぎる。** つまり、暑くて上着なんか着ていられない、という意味だった。\n\nAs you can see, the bolded sentence is presented as an example of a Japanese\nsentence structure, with the ◯◯ and ☓☓ standing in for two arbitrary 動詞 (or\n形容詞 or 形容動詞, I guess). It is part of the running prose (i.e. not dialogue), so\nno character in the story actually speaks it.\n\nHow do you read this aloud, though? My first instinct is to read it as\n「マルマルするにはバツバツすぎる」, but this seems kind of weird to me. I've seen マル used a lot\nas a placeholder, but バツ seems to carry with it a meaning of \"wrong\" or\n\"incorrect\" and doesn't seem like a neutral placeholder.\n\n**EDIT** : My professor claims that it is incorrect to read both the ◯◯ and\nthe ☓☓ above identically (as なになに), because then you lose the fact that the ◯◯\nand ☓☓ can (and perhaps should) be distinct lexical items. In light of this, I\nhave provisonally unaccepted @tdes's answer and am now hoping for answers with\nsome sort of authoritative citation.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-23T06:28:41.803",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12907",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-05T05:05:00.753",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3437",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"pronunciation"
],
"title": "How do you pronounce \"☓☓\" as a placeholder?",
"view_count": 2558
} | [
{
"body": "Both the OO and XX are pronounced なになに。 （なになに）するには（なになに）すぎる。\n\nSource: I just asked my partner who is from Japan.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-23T08:00:54.890",
"id": "12908",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-23T08:00:54.890",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3982",
"parent_id": "12907",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 15
},
{
"body": "When I attended Japanese lessons in the シベリア·北海道 文化センター we pronounced\nplaceholders directly as まるまる or ばつばつ. Of course, なになに is also OK.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-23T15:36:26.497",
"id": "12909",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-23T15:36:26.497",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3544",
"parent_id": "12907",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Collating some of the information that's floating around in comments:\n\n[@execjosh says](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/12907/how-do-\nyou-pronounce-%E2%98%93%E2%98%93-as-a-placeholder#comment27633_12907) that ☓☓\ncan be read チョメチョメ or ペケペケ. He also notes that these placeholders are called\n伏字{ふせ.じ}.\n\n[@istrasci writes](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/12907/how-do-\nyou-pronounce-%E2%98%93%E2%98%93-as-a-placeholder#comment27635_12908) that\nなんとかなんとか can also be used to read placeholders.\n\n[@ssb notes](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/12907/how-do-you-\npronounce-%E2%98%93%E2%98%93-as-a-placeholder#comment27637_12908) that the\nchoice of interrogative word can change depending on context (e.g. 〇〇さん would\nbe read ダレダレさん, not ナニナニさん).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-25T23:27:36.477",
"id": "12935",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-25T23:27:36.477",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3437",
"parent_id": "12907",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "About your edit, I highly doubt that a professional linguist would describe\nsomething \"incorrect\" or \"wrong.\" Linguistics does not judge correctness or\ndefine what is right. It's totally against the concept of descriptive grammar.\n\nThe professor you're talking about has absolutely zero authority in defining\nwhat others should pronounce OO and XX, or any word for that matter. Even\ndictionaries never dictate the actual usage, meaning, and pronunciation of a\nword; they only try to describe the current state of the language.\n\nTo answer your question, these placeholds don't have \"correct\" readings. If\nyou're having a hard time swallowing this, ask yourself what the \"correct\"\nreadings of underlines and blank boxes in a fill-in-a-blank test in English. A\ncloze test may have a question like\n\n> He __ John.\n\nwhere you have multiple choices: 1. is, 2., are, 3. am, 4. be. and so on. So,\nwhat's the \"reading\" of this underline? The placeholder in the next question\ncould be a blank box. Would your professor claim that underlines and blank\nboxes must be pronounced differently because they must be distinct lexical\nitems?\n\nPlaceholders are placeholders. Nothing special about them. \"○○\" and the like\nare pronounced まるまる (most likely reading for this particular placeholder),\nなになに (most generic of the bunch), だれだれ (when referring to a person), ほにゃらら (a\nbit humorous), and many other ways. Your first instinct \"マルマルするにはバツバツすぎる\"\nsounds perfectly natural to me, too. In fact, I think that's the most likely\nreading native speakers would use.\n\nIf you want a real example that backs up your instinct, here's an official\ndocument (application form for tender on construction contracts):\n\n<http://www.pref.kyoto.jp/shimei/documents/h25tebiki_denshi_1.pdf>\n\nOn page 13 (or page 15 in PDF count), there is a sample instructing how to\nfill out the form. There, you can find a bunch of placeholders including ○○,\n××, and △△. And some of them have readings on top of them. For example, 日本○○設計\nhas kana \"にほんまるまるせっけい\" there. 代表者の氏名 (name of representative) is filled as \"○○\n××,\" which has まるまる ばつばつ as their readings.\n\nYou can also read the Wikipdeia article on 伏字 here:\n\n<http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BC%8F%E5%AD%97>\n\n伏字 is a special use of placeholders such as censoring certain letters. It's a\nbit different than your example. But you can learn how ○ and × can be read in\nthis case there.\n\nAnyway, if someone reads a placeholder aloud in a specific way, if everyone\nunderstands what he means, and if it sounds as good as any other, that's\nperfectly fine. Your professor can insist that it's \"incorrect\" to pronounce\nunderlines and blank boxes the same way as much as he or she wants. But that's\nnot gonna fly in linguistics. His or her doctrine has nothing to do with how\nwe, as Japanese speakers, native or nonnative, should speak Japanese. It's\nnone of that person's business.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-30T22:50:29.563",
"id": "12984",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:54:42.673",
"last_edit_date": "2013-10-04T03:54:42.673",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12907",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
},
{
"body": "Let me post a list of possible readings of \"blanks\".\n\n**Generic readings:**\n\n * なになに\n * [ほにゃらら](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%BB%E3%81%AB%E3%82%83%E3%82%89%E3%82%89) (sounds like a veriety show)\n * なんとか\n * なんちゃら, なんたら (slangy)\n\n**Context-specific readings:**\n\n * だれだれ: \"someone\"\n * どこどこ: \"somewhere\"\n * いついつ\n * ピー: *bleep*, *censored*\n\n**Symbol-specific readings:**\n\n * まるまる: for `○○`\n * ばつばつ: for `××`\n * ぺけぺけ: for `××` (informal)\n * ちょめちょめ: for `××` (old-fashioned and [has a sexual connotation](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/62154/5010))\n\n(There are no common symbol-specific readings for △△, □□, ☆☆, ※※, etc., all of\nwhich are used as placeholders. Something like さんかくさんかく is too lengthy.)\n\n* * *\n\nThese are all common. NHK's language learning programs prefer\nなになに/どこどこ/だれだれ/いついつ because they can specify the role of a word in a sentence.\nSymbol-specific readings such as まるまる and ばつばつ are also perfectly valid,\nespecially when you want to retain the distinction of the two blanks (but IMHO\nthis is not necessary in most cases. だれだれはだれだれを紹介した is not confusing at all).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-02-05T05:05:00.753",
"id": "74259",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-05T05:05:00.753",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "12907",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12907 | null | 12908 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 私は山田さん **から** 本を借りました。\n>\n> 私は山田さん **に** 本を借りました。\n>\n> (I borrowed a book from Yamada-san.)\n\nIs it ok to use から or do I have to use に ?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T04:53:18.110",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12916",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T04:00:20.047",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "769",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-に",
"phrases",
"particle-から"
],
"title": "Can I use Xさんから。。。かりました？",
"view_count": 193
} | [
{
"body": "Without context, I can only say either is fine.\n\nThese postpositions are not exactly interchangeable even in a sentence with\nthe same grammatical structure though. For example, 図書館に本を借りた sounds a bit\nstrange; it sounds like you're personifying the library and saying you owe him\na favor or something. In a normal context, it should be either 図書館で (marking\nthe \"place\" by で), 図書館から (marking \"from who/where/which\" by から) or something\nalong those lines. But since X is a person in your question, and because\nthere's not much context to take into account here, they both make perfect\nsense as isolated sentences and are as grammatical as it can get.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T05:25:40.093",
"id": "12917",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T04:00:20.047",
"last_edit_date": "2013-10-04T04:00:20.047",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12916",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12916 | null | 12917 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12928",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "My Japanese teacher told me there is no shorter way to say 自動販売機{じどうはんばいき}.\nHowever, I found 自販機{じはんき} in my dictionary. Does a word (including slang) for\n\"vending machine\" shorter than four morae exist?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T11:40:53.787",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12921",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-16T02:16:40.127",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3741",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"words",
"abbreviations"
],
"title": "Does a word for vending machine shorter than 自販機 exist?",
"view_count": 4296
} | [
{
"body": "The wikipedia article for\n[自動販売機](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%87%AA%E5%8B%95%E8%B2%A9%E5%A3%B2%E6%A9%9F)\nconfirms that 自販機 can be used as a short form but doesn't list any other\nvariants. 販売機{はんばいき} is another option.\n\nThe only slang term I know is ガチャ for those capsule vending machines (with\nlittle toys or something inside).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T12:00:18.800",
"id": "12922",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-24T12:00:18.800",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "571",
"parent_id": "12921",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "Just 自販 without the 機 is quite common.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T23:46:49.330",
"id": "12928",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-24T23:46:49.330",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "12921",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "Never heard or seen 自販 used as a shortened form of 自動販売機 or 自販機. (I have lived\nhalf of my life in Tokyo and the other half in Nagoya, and I am a Japanese-\nspeaker to begin with.) The only times I have heard/seen 自販 have been when it\nwas used to mean a \"car dealer\" （short for 自動車販売）. I am more than curious to\nfind out why that answer has so many upvotes.",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-10-16T02:16:40.127",
"id": "13149",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-16T02:16:40.127",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12921",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12921 | 12928 | 12928 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12929",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "「臭う」 and 「臭いがする」 have the same meaning, but can this be generalize?\n\naccording to google: 臭いがする (49-m hits); 話しがする (17-m hits); 笑いがする (31-m hits);\n踊りがする (5-m hits); ...\n\nBut, a Japanese scholar told me that, except for 「臭いがする」、\"verb stem\" + がする is\nincorrect grammar. I am not convinced. Can someone help me sort this out? To\nstart with, I bet that the verb must be intransitive.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T16:56:03.373",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12923",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:55:55.960",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-24T17:03:19.087",
"last_editor_user_id": "3962",
"owner_user_id": "3962",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"verbs"
],
"title": "does the structure「(verb stem)がする」 exist?",
"view_count": 460
} | [
{
"body": "Xがする is often used for environmental senses.\n\n臭い in 臭いがする is actually a noun and not a verb stem. For some other examples\nyou can also say these things:\n\n•(いい)香りがする\n\n•明かりがする (maybe?)\n\n•(いい)味がする",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T17:40:31.840",
"id": "12927",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-24T17:40:31.840",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "878",
"parent_id": "12923",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "The word する as a stand-alone verb can be either intransitive as in 変な味がする\n(\"This tastes strange.\") or transitive as in 話をする (\"to study\"), and can also\nbe analyzed as an auxiliary verb that looks like a full-fledged verb as in\n日本語を話せはするが上手くない (I speak Japanese a little but not very well). Of course, it\ncan be used with a stem word to form a \"X-suru\"-type irregular verb (or, more\nprecisely,\n[サ変動詞](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B5%E8%A1%8C%E5%A4%89%E6%A0%BC%E6%B4%BB%E7%94%A8))\nas in 取引する (\"to make a transaction\").\n\nEach class of this verb has various different uses, each of which has multiple\nsub-categories. Technically, する in 臭いがする is one of the intransitive uses. In a\nbroader sense, this intransitive use appears when the speaker refers to\nsomething along the line of a phenomenon, event and symptom. The 臭いがする case\nfalls into one subcategory of this particular intransitive use, where Xがする\nroughly means \"to sense X through a sensory organ.\" So, X in this subcategory\nof this particular intransitive use is typically smell, taste, sound, physical\nfeel (felt by your skin), and the like. jlptn1's answer list some typical\nexamples of Ｘがする in this subcategory.\n\nThis particular intransitive use has more subcategories. A very common one\ntakes a \"symptom\" for X, e.g., headache (頭痛がする), dizziness (めまいがする), and\ntinnitus (耳鳴りがする). Another common subcategory has an \"emotion\" or \"feeling\" as\nX, such as loneliness (寂しい思いがする).\n\nAmong many other intransitive uses of する, there is another common one that\nquite frequently takes the form of Xがする, where it carries the sense that\nsomething has a certain quality or property. A typical example would be 見劣りがする\n(looks inferior/poorer/worse). But this subcategory is further divided into\nsub-subcategories, one of which uses が before する and the other of which takes\nの. When to use が and when to use の is well beyond the scope of the question,\nso I'll stop here.\n\nWhen する is a transitive verb, X in the form of Xがする must be the doer of the\naction. So by definition, the verb form of X, if exists, doesn't mean the same\nthing as Xがする in general.\n\nSo, in an intransitive case, X in Xがする may happen to have a verb form as in 臭う\nfor 臭いがする. But this does not mean you can generalize the form of Xがする to other\nwords that have verb versions. If I were asked to give a systematic\ndescription of Xがする, it would look like this:\n\nする can be\n\n 1. _Intransitive verb_\n * _Usage 1_ : \nSpeaker refers to phenomenon, event, symptom, etc.\n\n * _Subcategory 1_ : \n**Takes form of Xがする** , \nX is sensed through sensory organ, \nX is smell, taste, sound, feel (felt by your skin), etc. \nExamples: 臭いがする and 味がする.\n\n * _Subcategory 2_ : \n**Takes form of Xがする** , \nX is symptom of some sort, \nExamples: headache (頭痛がする), dizziness (めまいがする), and tinnitus (耳鳴りがする)\n\n * _Subcategory 3_ : \n**Takes form of Xがする** , \nX is emotion or feeling, \nExamples: loneliness (寂しい思いがする) and uneasiness (胸騒ぎがする)\n\n * _Usage 2_ : \nSpeaker refers to quality, property, etc. \n\n * _Subcategory_ : \n**Takes form of Xがする or Xのする** , \nX is quality, property, etc. \nExample of Xがする case: 見劣りがする (looks inferior/poorer/worse) \nNote: The issue of が vs. の is complicated.\n\n * _Many other usages_ : \nDo **not** take form of Xがする.\n\n 2. _Transitive verb_\n * _Many usages_ : \nDo **not** take form of Xがする by definition of \"transitive verb\" unless X is\nthe doer. \nVerb form of X, if exists, does not mean Xがする in general.\n\n 3. _Auxiliary verb_\n * _Many usages_ : \nDo **not** take form of Xがする.\n\n 4. _Part of compound verb_ \nDo **not** take form of Xがする by definition.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-25T04:09:27.900",
"id": "12929",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:55:55.960",
"last_edit_date": "2013-10-04T03:55:55.960",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12923",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12923 | 12929 | 12929 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was taught that [Siddham](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A2%B5%E5%AD%97)\nis used in modern cultural context of Japan as a system of writing the Buddhis\ntexts and (or) mantras.\n\nWhat is the exact context of its usage? Is it applicable at all?\n\nMy apologies for bothering you with such a question, but I do lack knowledge\nof the topic.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T17:12:49.337",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12924",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-15T14:59:37.757",
"last_edit_date": "2015-06-15T14:59:37.757",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "3987",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"orthography"
],
"title": "What is the current usage of Siddham (梵字)?",
"view_count": 760
} | [
{
"body": "According to Wikipedia's article on the [Siddhaṃ\nalphabet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddha%E1%B9%83_alphabet):\n\n```\n\n In Japan the writing of mantras and copying of Sutras using \n the Siddhaṃ script is still practiced in the esoteric Buddhist \n schools of Shingon and Tendai as well as in the syncretic sect of Shugendō.\n \n```\n\n... and\n\n```\n\n A recent innovation is the writing of Japanese language slogans \n on T-shirts using Bonji. Japanese Siddhaṃ has evolved from the \n original script used to write sūtras and is now somewhat different \n from the ancient script.\n \n```\n\nWhile your question focuses on modern use of Siddham in Japan, for a historic\nreference of it's introduction to China and Japan see [Siddham in China and\nJapan - Sino-Platonic Papers](http://www.sino-\nplatonic.org/complete/spp088_siddham_china_japan.pdf). One of the things this\npaper shows is how Japanese is heavily derived from not just Chinese but from\nSiddham as well (somewhere around page 102).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-10-04T13:59:18.563",
"id": "13010",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T13:59:18.563",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "86",
"parent_id": "12924",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12924 | null | 13010 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The languages of oriental Buddhist traditions, be it\n[Theravada](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana) or\n[Mahayana](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahayana), do not always provide\ncomplete and entire canonical texts.\n\nUp to now, I am aware of\n[Pali](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon#Comparison_with_other_Buddhist_canons),\n[Chinese](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Buddhist_canon) and\n[Tibetan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Buddhist_canon) versions of\nBuddhist canonical texts only.\n\nMy knowledge is not perfect, so can someone help me and shed some light on the\nsituation with Buddhist canon in Japanese? Sorry for my question being so ugly\nset.\n\nHas a complete translation of Buddhist canon into Japanese been ever made?\nDoes a Buddhist canon in Japanese exist as a part of Japanese cultural context\n(just like the aforementioned canons in their respective cultural areas)?\n\nIf so, what is its writing system and to which degree does the language of\ncanon differ from its modern Japanese version?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-24T17:25:56.713",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12925",
"last_activity_date": "2014-06-08T11:51:49.707",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-27T14:35:48.407",
"last_editor_user_id": "3987",
"owner_user_id": "3987",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"translation",
"nuances",
"history",
"culture",
"resources"
],
"title": "Is Japanese one of the Buddhist canonical languages?",
"view_count": 721
} | [
{
"body": "This isn't really an answer, but I am guessing that Japanese Buddhist scholars\nregularly read Chinese texts. Since that resource is already available and\nunderstandable (with a bit of extra studying) my guess is that a systematic\ntranslation into Japanese has not been carried out for all texts.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T17:06:30.373",
"id": "12960",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-27T17:06:30.373",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3997",
"parent_id": "12925",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "No, it is not. The Japanese use the Chinese Buddhist canon, which is written\nin classical Chinese. They read the texts using go-on readings throughout.\nThere are of course translations into Japanese, just as there are into\nEnglish, but they are only meant for study, not for ritual use, and are not\nconsidered canonical.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-06-08T11:09:23.593",
"id": "16327",
"last_activity_date": "2014-06-08T11:51:49.707",
"last_edit_date": "2014-06-08T11:51:49.707",
"last_editor_user_id": "170",
"owner_user_id": "170",
"parent_id": "12925",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 12925 | null | 16327 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What does \"POP\" mean below?\n\n>\n> このたびのスペシャルイベントでも、オーディエンスのみなさんがサポートしたくなるようなプロジェクトについて、会場でPOPなどで紹介し、ドネイション（基金）を募りたいと考えています。\n\nAlso:\n\n> 団体名と簡単な概要入りの共通POPはこちらで作ります。\n\nAlso:\n\n[This PDF](http://wakasinkojapuchi.web.fc2.com/img/kikaku.pdf) lists `共通POP一枚`\nas a required item.\n\nNothing on [ALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=POP) nor\n[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/POP).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-25T04:29:31.637",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12930",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-25T05:38:44.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "107",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does \"POP\" mean in the context of charity/forms/information?",
"view_count": 281
} | [
{
"body": "POP広告 means \"Point of purchase advertising\", and POP seems to have become a\nsynonym for in-store advertisements like this one:\n\n\n\nThanks to Yuichiro Fujiwara for the tip!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-25T05:38:44.247",
"id": "12931",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-25T05:38:44.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "107",
"parent_id": "12930",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 12930 | null | 12931 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCORe7qs0Sk> at 3:13 the man on the left\nsaying something to show gratitude. it's not arigatou gozaimasu or domo\narigatou, or something like that. it's sounds like \"koteii ni domo\" I can't\nfind it in any dictionary.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-25T05:45:12.233",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12932",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-25T14:34:21.537",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-25T14:34:21.537",
"last_editor_user_id": "571",
"owner_user_id": "3989",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Expressions of gratitude",
"view_count": 559
} | [
{
"body": "ご丁寧にどうも \n(Go-teinei ni doumo)\n\nThank you. That's very thoughtful of you.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-25T06:02:25.883",
"id": "12933",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-25T06:02:25.883",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3010",
"parent_id": "12932",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12932 | null | 12933 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12937",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "So my name is written Anibal, I'm from Brazil, just so you know. I'd like to\nknow how would you write it in japanese, I'm in doubt between A-ni-ba-ru and\nA-ni-ba-e-ru. Any further explanation would be much appreciated.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T00:46:58.647",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12936",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-26T15:31:33.923",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-26T01:02:25.903",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3992",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"katakana",
"names"
],
"title": "How would you write the name Anibal in Japanese?",
"view_count": 348
} | [
{
"body": "For this kind of question, you can start by seeing how other people spell it.\nI searched the Japanese Wikipedia for **Anibal**. Here were the top two\nresults:\n\n * [Anibal Alejandro Sanchez](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%8B%E3%83%90%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B5%E3%83%B3%E3%83%81%E3%82%A7%E3%82%B9) - **アニバル** ・アレハンドロ・サンチェス\n * [Tarso Anibal Santanna Marques](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%BF%E3%83%AB%E3%82%BD%E3%83%BB%E3%83%9E%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B1%E3%82%B9) - タルソ・ **アニバル** ・サンタナ・マルケス\n\nHow you transcribe a name usually depends on its _pronunciation_ , not its\n_spelling_ , so it's possible that an Anibal from a different region would\nhave a different transcription. But you said you're from Brazil, and so is the\nsecond person I linked to above, so it seems reasonable to spell your name the\nsame way as his. And that's true regardless of whether it's based on spelling\nor pronunciation--following convention in transcribing names is usually a good\nthing. So based on this, I think **アニバル** seems like a good spelling.\n\nIf you can't read katakana, that's **A-ni-ba-ru** , just like your first\nguess. That would usually be written without hyphens, so it's **Anibaru**.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T01:00:58.460",
"id": "12937",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-26T15:31:33.923",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-26T15:31:33.923",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12936",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "As far as I know, the final L is pronounced [u], so that Anibal could also be\nアニバウ (A-ni-ba-u), which represents the pronunciation more faithfully than アニバル\n(which sounds more like Anibaru, when pronounced as a Portuguese speaker\nwould).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T09:54:14.983",
"id": "12939",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-26T15:09:46.343",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-26T15:09:46.343",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12936",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12936 | 12937 | 12937 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12943",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "How to call it when a vehicle that just passed you gets back in lane too\nearly, forcing you to brake, or even causing an accident?\n\nSee this [Diagram](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Queue-\nde-poisson.svg).\n\nThis can also happen when a vehicle overtakes and then decide to turn very\nsoon afterwards, cutting your way.\n\nIn French it is called [queue de\npoisson](https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/queue_de_poisson).\n\nIt is DIFFERENT from \"fishtail\". Fishtail is when a vehicle loses control due\nto an obstacle, \"queue de poisson\" usually does not involve losing control,\njust braking in a straight line, in most cases. Fishtail can be had alone,\n\"queue de poisson\" can't happen with less than 2 vehicles.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T12:00:39.520",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12941",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:27.853",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "107",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words"
],
"title": "Dangerous driving: \"queue de poisson\" in Japanese?",
"view_count": 164
} | [
{
"body": "ALC proposes this:\n\n> xxx cut me off : xxxが横から割り込んできた\n\nNot sure it conveys the whole concept though.\n\nThanks to snailbot for helping me find this!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T12:10:22.340",
"id": "12942",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-26T12:10:22.340",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "107",
"parent_id": "12941",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "If it's just the phrasal verb \"to cut off\" in general, 割り込む works pretty well\nas its general translation. Its noun version is 割り込み. If you want to make it\nclear that someone cut you off dangerously close or suddenly, 無理 and 急\ncollocate very well. So, for example, in the noun case, 無理な割り込み sounds very\nnatural, and in the verb case, 急に割り込まれる sounds fine.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T12:18:47.683",
"id": "12943",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:27.853",
"last_edit_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:27.853",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12941",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 12941 | 12943 | 12943 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Does anybody know what べた打ち means, and what the kanji for べた could be? The\ncontext I heard it in was the upright playing style of taiko.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T14:54:14.990",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12944",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T04:00:24.890",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Meaning of べた打ち",
"view_count": 189
} | [
{
"body": "I don't think there's kanji for べた as it is 擬態語.\n\nI actually didn't know that it is used in the context of playing taiko, but\naccording to [this](http://yanagisawa-taiko.jp/taiko-tatakikata.pdf), it means\nhitting the taiko surface with the long edge of the stick to maximize the\ncontact surface.\n\nThe way I understand べた in べた打ち is that it represents stickiness. So for\nexample in type-setting it refers to [putting letters next to each other\nwithout line\nspace](http://blog.ddc.co.jp/mt/words/archives/20080615101000.html) (thus\nletters are sticking to each other), and in text typing it refers to entering\ntext without editing (and thus adding space), and in construction it\napparently refers to [driving lots of stakes into the ground right next to\neach\nother](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%B9%E3%81%9F%E6%89%93%E3%81%A1).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T15:23:14.610",
"id": "12945",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-26T15:23:14.610",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3059",
"parent_id": "12944",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Depends on if its a technical term or just a colloquial expression. I'm no\nexpert on taiko, but [this PDF written by a Japanese taiko\nmaker](http://yanagisawa-taiko.jp/taiko-tatakikata.pdf) says that ベタ打ち is the\nopposite of the ideal way of using a stick to hit a taiko.\n\nAccording to them, you're supposed to hit the surface of a Japanese taiko with\na snappy motion so that the tip of your stick touches only for a very short\nperiod of time. This is supposed to make deeper resonance.\n\nベタ打ち is the poor form of hitting that does exactly the opposite (or so the PDF\nsays). You're not snappy enough so not only the tip of the stick gets landed\nbut also the side also touches the surface, killing resonance and potentially\ndamaging the surface of your taiko.\n\nBut I must admit that I didn't know ベタ打ち as a technical term before I googled\nit today. And actually I was about to post an answer explaining the more usual\nmeaning of this word. Thank God I googled it just in case!\n\nAnyway, if the speaker is not a taiko master, another potential case is that\nit's just one of the usual meanings of べた, which doesn't have a kanjified\nversion as far as I know, plus 打ち. The ones I'm aware of that are often\nfollowed by 打ち are\n\n 1. no or little space in between,\n\n 2. all over the place or a very wide range,\n\n 3. raw or \"as is.\"\n\nThe third one is sort of technical jargon and means that you copy&paste data\nfrom one place to another or move data without changing its content to another\nfile etc. So this can't have anything to do with Japanese taikos. The first\none might be it because it kind of sounds like a sequence of rapid strokes.\nThe second one seems to be why the bad form of stick work is called ベタ打ち... So\nif it's not the technical term, the speaker might have meant fast beat drum\nwork.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T15:33:27.820",
"id": "12946",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T04:00:24.890",
"last_edit_date": "2013-10-04T04:00:24.890",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12944",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 12944 | null | 12946 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12949",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Many English words have their definitions change depending on their parts of\nspeech:\n\n\"type\" (noun) = classification of something. (verb) = to peck-away as a\nkeyboard. \n\"blue\" (noun) = a color. (adj) = depressed, melancholy. \n...\n\nBut, in the case of Japanese、are there any nouns that can also function as\nanother part of speech? サ変動詞 do not count.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T16:45:45.230",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12948",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-26T17:31:37.290",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-26T16:51:08.307",
"last_editor_user_id": "3962",
"owner_user_id": "3962",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"nouns"
],
"title": "are there nouns that can function as another part of speech?",
"view_count": 194
} | [
{
"body": "To some degree, 形容動詞 can flip between nouns and adjectives, but this is\nlargely due to the fact that the morphology is nearly identical (the one\ndifference is である vs な for modifying other nouns). There is also a very small\nnumber of loan nouns that already look like verbs and so are slangishly used\nas verbs (e.g. ググル＞ググる).\n\nBeyond those, zero-derivation pretty much never happens. The reason for this\nis primarily the fact that most kinds of words are required to have a certain\nform even in an uninflected state - for example, verbs have to end with -u\n(and the number of consonants before that is restricted, you can't have -yu),\n形容詞 have to end in -Vi, etc. This is why する has to be added to most nouns to\nmake verbs - not because it's required to explicitly mark nouns being used as\nverbs, but because most nouns can't be used as verbs as they lack the proper\nform.\n\n(also, your English examples aren't really the best - something better might\nbe 'table', where the noun and verb definitions are clearly related (i.e. it's\nnot just homophony, like 'type' and 'type').)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-26T17:31:37.290",
"id": "12949",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-26T17:31:37.290",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "12948",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 12948 | 12949 | 12949 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12969",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'd like to say “Tomorrow is Monday”. Is it correct for me to say 「あしただげつようび」?\nOr is there simply no particle at all?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T01:54:59.840",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12952",
"last_activity_date": "2014-10-24T23:22:54.610",
"last_edit_date": "2014-10-24T23:22:54.610",
"last_editor_user_id": "6840",
"owner_user_id": "3992",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particles"
],
"title": "Can だ be used as a particle in a phrase?",
"view_count": 1834
} | [
{
"body": "# **_No_** , you can't use だ that way.\n\nHere's what you're trying to do:\n\n> あした ＝ tomorrow \n> だ ＝ is \n> げつようび ＝ Monday\n\nUnfortunately, **that doesn't work**. Why not?\n\n * Japanese grammar is different from English grammar. That means you can't put words together the same way in both languages.\n * Japanese vocabulary is different from English vocabulary. That means that words in one language don't always correspond directly to words in the other, either in terms of meaning or usage.\n\nSo what can you do?\n\n 1. Stop guessing how to make sentences. Find a _textbook_ , a _reference book_ , or a _website_ , and start learning some correct sentences. You can find lots of these in our [Resources for Learning Japanese](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/756/resources-for-learning-japanese) section. Here are a few in particular:\n\n * [Genki I: An Integrated Course in Elementary Japanese](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/4789014401) is a full textbook that'll teach you the basics.\n * [A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Sentence Patterns](http://www.amazon.co.jp/Dictionary-Basic-Japanese-Sentence-Patterns/dp/1568365101) is a reference that can teach you how to construct basic sentences like this one.\n * [Tae Kim's Guide to Japanese](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/) is an online alternative that is often recommended to beginners.\n\nOf course, you could also _take a class_.\n\n 2. Make your own sentences based on the patterns you've learned.\n\nFeel free to stop reading here. **Go to a store and buy a textbook, or sign up\nfor a class!** You'll learn a lot more that way. But because I feel like\nwriting, and because it's educational for _me_ to articulate my thoughts, I'll\ndo my best to answer your question anyway.\n\n* * *\n\n# A comparison between English and Japanese\n\nTo understand what's different between English and Japanese, we first have to\nunderstand what's going on in English. Let's take a look at your sentence:\n\n> Tomorrow is Monday.\n\nThe verb _**\" is\"**_ is called a \"copular verb\". The \"copula\" part comes from\nLatin, and it literally means that it **joins two things together**. When you\nsay \"A is B\", you're joining A with B somehow. And of course, the copula has a\nlot of uses in English. Here are a couple important ones:\n\n * _Ascriptive use_ : _**B**_ is a trait of _**A**_ ( _Cats are nice._ )\n * _Specifying use_ : _**A**_ and _**B**_ are the same thing ( _My cat is the one on the left._ )\n\nWhat about Japanese? Does it have something similar? Well, **だ** is often\ndescribed as _**the copula**_! And in fact, it does something pretty similar,\njoining two things together. But there are two big differences:\n\n 1. The copula **だ** isn't a verb. It's a kind of suffix.\n 2. Japanese word order is totally different!\n\nSo you can't just stick **だ** where you'd stick _**is**_ , even though it's\npretty similar.\n\n* * *\n\n# Predicators\n\n**In Japanese, we usually put predicators at the end of a sentence.** But\nwait, what's a predicator? Well, in English, we really only have one type of\nword that can be a predicator, and that's a verb! But Japanese has three\ntypes:\n\n 1. **Verb** :\n\n> ストアに **いく** ( _sutoa-ni **iku**_ ) \n> **go** to the store\n\n 2. **Noun + copula** :\n\n> これは **リンゴだ** ( _kore-wa **ringo-da**_ ) \n> This **is an apple**\n\n 3. **Adjectives** :\n\n> そらが **うつくしい** ( _sora-ga **utsukushii**_ ) \n> The sky **is beautiful**.\n\nThe key here is that **the predicator comes at the end** , no matter which\ntype of word it is. Of course, there's a lot more to say about these examples,\nand of course I want to focus on the **noun + copula** combination. But first,\nwe'll have to take a look at some of the other words in these sentences.\n\n* * *\n\n# Suffixes\n\nYou'll notice something about the words ストア, これ, and そら. All three of these\nare marked with a suffix that tells you what role it plays in the sentence. In\nexample 1, for instance, we've got the suffix に (\"to\") attached to the noun\nストア (\"store\"):\n\n> ストア **に** ( _sutoa- **ni**_ ) \n> **to** the store\n\nThese suffixes are usually called _**particles**_. And when you add one of\nthese suffixes, it makes a new \"phonological word\". In less technical terms,\nthat means you should pronounce the _-ga_ in _sora-ga_ as though it's part of\nthe same word! Let me repeat this, because it's really important:\n\nWhen you pronounce _sora-ga_ , **do not pause after _sora_!**\n\nAnd だ is a special kind of suffix, too. When we add だ to リンゴ (\"apple\"), we get\nthe predicator リンゴだ (\"is an apple\"). And again, you can't pause between リンゴ\nand だ. Phonologically speaking, the combination is a single word! And like all\npredicators, リンゴだ **has to come at the end of the sentence**. We can't stick\nit in the middle.\n\nWhat about your sentence?\n\n> * **あしただ** げつようび (* _ **ashita-da** getsuyōbi_)\n\nWell, there are more things we need to learn before we can fix it, but I'm\nsure you can see one problem with it now. When you add だ to あした (\"tomorrow\"),\nyou get a predicator あしただ (\"is tomorrow\"). And that has to come at the end of\nthe sentence! So by the time you start saying げつようび, your sentence is already\nover. This is no good.\n\nInstead, we probably want to attach だ to the second word and form the\npredicator げつようびだ (\"is Monday\"). So if we do that, your sentence looks\nsomething like this:\n\n> あした、 **げつようびだ** ( _ashita-∅ **getsuyōbi-da**_ )\n\nWell, that's still not perfect, but it's an improvement. You could get away\nwith saying this, but it's not quite complete. I put in a ∅ symbol to show\nwhere something has been left out. But before I talk about what to add to make\nit complete, I want to talk about English again.\n\n* * *\n\n# Subjects and predicates\n\nThe terms _subject_ and _predicate_ come from western grammar. The idea is\nthat the predicate **says something about the subject**. For example, it can\nsay something that the subject is doing (like _\" goes to the store\"_), or it\ncan tell us about a trait (like _\" is green\"_). Let's look at your sentence:\n\n> [ Tomorrow ] _subj_ [ is Monday ] _pred_\n\nThe subject is \"tomorrow\". The predicate is \"is Monday\". That tells us\nsomething about the subject, right? Well, that's what predicates do.\n(Remember, our English predicator is the verb \"is\". The whole predicate is \"is\nMonday\".)\n\nIn English, we know that \"tomorrow\" is the subject because it's a noun and\nbecause it's at the beginning of the sentence. We're pretty good at spotting\nsubjects, even though we don't mark them with a suffix in English. So it's\neasy for us to see what part of the sentence the predicate is acting on.\n\nAnd in Japanese, we have predicates too. And a predicate contains a\npredicator, just like in English. The difference is what a predicate acts on.\nIn Japanese, you mark the thing a predicate acts on using a particle. And\nusually, it's one of these two:\n\n 1. The subject particle が:\n\n> そらが **うつくしい** ( _sora-ga subj **utsukushii** pred_) \n> The sky **is beautiful**.\n\nHere, そら (\"the sky\") is the subject, and the predicator うつくしい (\"is beautiful\")\ntells us something about it. The sky is beautiful.\n\n 2. The topic particle は:\n\n> これは **リンゴだ** ( _kore-wa topic **ringo-da** pred_) \n> This **is an apple**\n\nHere, これ (\"this\") is the topic, and the predicator リンゴだ (\"is an apple\") is a\ncomment on that topic. This is an apple.\n\nIn English, both the subject \"the sky\" and the topic \"this\" would be expressed\ngrammatically as a subject. So here again, you can see a difference between\nEnglish and Japanese grammar.\n\n* * *\n\n# Completing the sentence\n\nLet's go back to your sentence. We saw earlier that あした was missing something:\n\n> あした、 **げつようびだ** ( _ashita-∅ **getsuyōbi-da**_ )\n\nHow do we tell whether we should add は or が? Well, unfortunately the\ndifference is too complicated to explain here. And it's notoriously difficult\nto explain, and controversial to boot, so I'd probably end up explaining it\nwrong. (Entire books have been written on the subject!) But since you're just\nstarting out, you don't need to worry about that yet. You need to learn some\nsentence patterns and grammar before you delve too deep into the mystery of は\nversus が.\n\nSo for now, let's just say that we want to add the topic particle は! Let's add\nthat in:\n\n> あしたは **げつようびだ** （ _ashita-wa topic **getsuyōbi-da** pred_) \n> Tomorrow **is Monday.**\n\nAnd now we've got a complete sentence! Woo hoo! Our predicator げつようびだ (\"is\nMonday\") tells us something about the topic あした. We can say that the right\nhalf of the sentence is \"predicating on\" the left half. (And remember,\npronounce _ashita-wa_ as one word, and the same goes for _getsuyōbi-da_! Don't\npause!)\n\nSo this sentence is done. But remember: _textbook, class, or website_ ;-)\n\n* * *\n\n_In this answer,_ * _means that the sentence is not grammatical Japanese._",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-28T10:23:04.017",
"id": "12969",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-28T10:23:04.017",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12952",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 14
}
] | 12952 | 12969 | 12969 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12955",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've never actually played a sudoku puzzle (I know, I live in a cave!).\n\nI just saw the word written in kanji somewhere, which rekindled my interest.\n\n[Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudoku) states:\n\n> The puzzle was popularized in 1986 by the Japanese puzzle company Nikoli,\n> under the name Sudoku, meaning single number.\n\nThough to me, the compound 数独{すうどく} implies \"number addiction\", especially in\nthe context of a game.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T05:52:59.293",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12954",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-27T06:09:59.950",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1804",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"compounds"
],
"title": "Does 数独{すうどく} really mean \"single number\"?",
"view_count": 1472
} | [
{
"body": "I don't believe that sudoku exists as an actual word. Literally it does mean\n\"single number,\" as it is a combination of the characters for \"number\" and\n\"single.\" However the mathematical term for singular (versus plural) is\n単数{たんすう}.\n\nAccording to the [Wikipedia\npage](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%95%B0%E7%8B%AC) for it, the name is a\nreduction of the phrase \"数字は独身に限る,\" or basically \"limited to one number.\" I\ndon't know if there are any hidden puns about number puzzle enthusiasts being\nforever alone, but a subsequent publication of this type of puzzle in Japan\nshortened that title to 数独, and thus it was named.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T06:09:59.950",
"id": "12955",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-27T06:09:59.950",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1797",
"parent_id": "12954",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 12954 | 12955 | 12955 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In English, the geographical scope of \"Asia\" and \"Asian\" depends on which\ndialect of [English you\nspeak](https://english.stackexchange.com/q/34321/1420). For example, in\nBritish English the terms often refer to the Indian subcontinent, whereas in\nAustralian English \"Asia\" and especially \"Asian\" would often refer to China,\nJapan, and south-east Asia.\n\nWhat geographical scope does アジア or アジア人 encompass?\n\nI had a look at the Wikipedia article on\n[アジア](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%82%B8%E3%82%A2), but it\nseemed to talk about the worldwide view of what Asia is, and didn't talk\nspecifically about the Japanese-language definition.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T12:33:16.477",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12958",
"last_activity_date": "2015-11-09T15:13:41.490",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:38:10.367",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What geographical scope does アジア have?",
"view_count": 648
} | [
{
"body": "Before answering your question, the Japanese Wikipedia article on アジア you\nlinked to DOES talk about how the Japanese language defines アジア; it can't be\nmore authentic a definition of アジア in Japanese when a popular encyclopedia\nwritten in the Japanese language and intended to be read by Japanese people\ntalks about アジア. I think what you want to know is what アジア and アジア人 typically\nrefer to in a colloquial Japanese vernacular. Or maybe it's more like how\ndifferent the precise definition you linked to is from the actual meaning and\nusage of the word in everyday language spoken by the hypothetical average\nperson in non-educational, non-political, and non-scientific context.\n\nThe answer is, of course, \"depends.\" But generally speaking, it's closer to\nwhat would pop up on your average American's mind when they hear the words\nAsia and Asians in normal everyday conversation. So, when you talk about アジア,\nRussia is often excluded, although it hugely depends on context because, for\nexample, Russia and Japan are next to each other so there are many natural\ncontexts where part of Russia just feels like Asia, which it is. Every\neducated person knows Middle East is technically アジア, but if you talk about\nアジア人 for example, it typically means East and South East Asians. India and the\nsurrounding region are a bit ambiguous. You shouldn't be surprised if the\nspeaker includes or excludes the region without specifically mentioning it.",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T14:03:47.513",
"id": "12959",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-27T14:03:47.513",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12958",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "Here is my perception of what アジア means instinctively for the average Japanese\nspeaker:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/6Ytz8.jpg)\n\nOf course, if asked further,\n([nearly](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q12106818192))\nall know Japanese speakers would know that アジア in fact means more countries,\nincluding even Japan itself. This map is about the \"first thing that comes to\nmind\".\n\nIt is sometimes extended to include Bangladesh/India. Not sure about\nBhutan/Nepal. Philippines and Papua New Guinea might not really belong. I can\nmodify the map based on your feedback, waiting for your comments.\n\nThailand seems to be the most アジアn country in アジア. By the way, I suspect that\nアジア is where エスニック food comes from.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-11-09T09:22:45.897",
"id": "29111",
"last_activity_date": "2015-11-09T15:13:41.490",
"last_edit_date": "2015-11-09T15:13:41.490",
"last_editor_user_id": "107",
"owner_user_id": "107",
"parent_id": "12958",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12958 | null | 12959 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "There are several words that have a common etymological origin but are\nsometimes pronounced with a 'b' and sometimes with an 'm'. Here are some\nexamples:\n\nおもえる、おぼえる （思える、覚える）\n\nさむらい、さぶらい （侍）\n\nぶ、む （無）\n\nばく、まく （幕）\n\nば （馬）\n\nThere are many more examples. For 馬, I'm almost certain it is pronounced with\nan 'm' initial in every dialect of Chinese but its onyomi has a 'b'.\n\nIs there a reason why these two similar, yet definitely distinct, consonants\nare related in this way?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T17:29:45.317",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12961",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-27T17:56:33.703",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3221",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"history"
],
"title": "relationship between 'b' and 'm' sounds",
"view_count": 397
} | [
{
"body": "There are two different reasons.\n\nFor native words - the historical pronunciation of Japanese voiced consonants\ninvolved prenasalisation (so /d/ was more like [ⁿd]). While in most cases the\nprenasalisation has been lost, in a few instances the voiced stop was the part\nthat was dropped.\n\nThis is also the reason for the modern language's [ɡ]~[ŋ] variation.\n\nFor Sino-Japanese words - Japanese has multiple sets of on'yomi that were\nborrowed from Chinese at different times. The variety they were borrowed from\nunderwent an initial denasalisation ([n]>[d]) between times when Japanese\nborrowed, so for example, one word which was borrowed as まく before the change\nwas later reborrowed as ばく after the change.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T17:56:33.703",
"id": "12962",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-27T17:56:33.703",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "12961",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12961 | null | 12962 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12966",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "What exactly does 〜ておきます mean in this context?\n\n旅行{りょこう}する前{まえ}にホテルを予約{よやく} **しておきます** 。\n\nIs this trying to say something like \"Before traveling, reserve a room\". Is\nthis a suggestion? An order? (If so, why aren't they using ください at the end\ninstead of おきます?)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T23:48:04.827",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12964",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:57:04.217",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-27T23:59:13.847",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1714",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"て-form"
],
"title": "What's the meaning of 〜ておきます?",
"view_count": 6814
} | [
{
"body": "It means \"in preparation\". It is generally used when the action in question is\ndone as a preparatory action. In your example, a translation would be\n\n> Before traveling, I am booking a hotel (in preparation).\n\nThe general construction is ～ておく, and it gets conjugated like any other verb.\nFor example:\n\n> I booked a hotel in preparation for traveling. \n> 流行のためにホテルを予定しておきました。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-27T23:59:24.677",
"id": "12965",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-27T23:59:24.677",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1575",
"parent_id": "12964",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "This sounds like a sentence taken from a travel agency's website, an\ninstruction sheet or something along those lines. If that's the case, this\n〜しておきます contains two grammatical points.\n\nBefore explaining the grammatical points, here's my (very loose) translation\nof the sentence:\n\nMake sure to book a hotel before you leave.\n\nThe first grammar point is the combination of a te-form verb and auxiliary\nverb おく. While this combination can have multiple meanings, in your particular\nexample, it carries the sense that someone does the action referred to by the\nverb in advance or make sure that it will have been done when its effect\nbecomes important. Usually the action is a good or important thing to do now\nsuch as preparation or a precaution. The doer typically has some purpose or\nobjective, but it can be that the doer just does it for no particular reason\nother than \"just in case.\" In your example, 予約 in 予約しておく is the action, which\nyou do before the event \"旅行\" happens.\n\nThe second grammar point is 〜ます. You probably already know that this makes a\nsentence polite. And actually this is what this auxiliary verb is doing here\ntoo. Then how come this sentence is telling you what to do? You might find it\neasier to see the reason why the whole sentence sounds like an instruction or\norder of some sort if you think of your sentence this way:\n\nホテルを予約よやくしておく + ます = Book a hotel (i.e., grammatical imperative form) +\nPlease.\n\nIt's not exactly \"Please do it.\" But 〜します is a very common phrase in an\ninstruction and the like. For example, an instruction\n\n> Click here to edit your post.\n\non an online forum can be translated as\n\n> 自分の投稿を編集するにはここをクリックします.\n\ndepending on context.\n\nSo if your context actually suggests that it's very likely an instruction of\nsome sort, you can say it's a strong suggestion or request.\n\nAs for why it's not 下{くだ}さい, it's just the writer's choice of words. This 〜します\nversion as a request can sound stronger or more forceful than the 下さい\nalternative if you say it the wrong way at the wrong time. But it's a very\ncommon phrase for when the speaker tells you how something is supposed to be\ndone or how you're supposed to do something, which makes it a handy phrase\nwhen writing instructions, manuals, guides, etc.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-28T00:51:12.007",
"id": "12966",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:57:04.217",
"last_edit_date": "2013-10-04T03:57:04.217",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12964",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
] | 12964 | 12966 | 12966 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The motivation for this question is the phrase 本法廷 which I recently read.\n\nDoes ほん (本) work as a general purpose prefix? By this I mean can I look in the\ndictionary and pick any noun and put 本 in front and have a grammatically\ncorrect phrase?\n\nWhen it acts as a prefix, can it always mean either 'this' or 'true' depending\non context?\n\nIf it is a prefix to a word starting with h-, is rendaku applied to make it\nstart with p-? For example is 本法廷 ほんほうてい or ほうぽうてい？",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-28T04:58:11.137",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12967",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-16T13:07:29.937",
"last_edit_date": "2015-06-16T13:07:29.937",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "3221",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"syntax",
"prefixes"
],
"title": "Does 本 work as a general purpose prefix?",
"view_count": 469
} | [
{
"body": "大辞泉 has an [entry](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/detail?p=%E6%9C%AC&stype=1&dtype=0)\nfor 本 as \"general purpose prefix\":\n\n> ［接頭］名詞に付く。\n>\n> １ 今、現に問題にしているもの、当面のものであることを表す。この。「―議案」「―大会」\n>\n> ２ それがいま話している自分にかかわるものであることを表す。「―大臣としては」\n>\n> ３ きょうの。本日の。「―未明」\n\nThat is, 本 means either (1) \"now/current\", (2) something related to _oneself_\n, (3) something related to _today_.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-28T09:10:27.540",
"id": "12968",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-28T09:10:27.540",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "12967",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "You seem to be conflating two grammatically different functions.\n\n本 as a single word can be used directly in front of a noun to mean something\nalong the line of \"this X we're talking about,\" where X is the noun 本\nprecedes. I think this use is what you mean by a \"general purpose prefix\" that\nmeans \"this.\"\n\nThe character 本 can also be part of a single word. If you look up many stand-\nalone words with 本 in them, you'll notice that there are certain patterns in\nmeaning. If you analyze these words as systematic compounds, one of the\nhypothetical meanings the character 本 systematically contributes can be\ntranslated as \"genuine,\" \"true,\" \"real,\" or something along those lines. (To\nbe clear, the sense of \"this\" is also an example of various possible senses in\nsome kanji compounds. The point is that there are two different things going\non in OP's question; 本 can be a stand-alone word with the \"this\" sense but can\nalso simply be part of a word, where the semantics can be sort of predicable\ndue to the fact that words with 本 tends to have shared senses. The shared\nsenses can be \"genuine,\" \"true,\" etc. or \"this\" or something else like\n\"book\".)\n\nThese two uses of 本 are different in that the former is simply a word that\nalways precedes a noun due to its semantics while the latter is part of a\nsingle word that can't be divided any further. In fact, the former is a full-\nfledged single word 本 that has its own pitch accent, which is ほん{HL}. This\npitch pattern does not change regardless of what noun follows it. But the\nlatter does not have a defined pitch pattern in the sense that the whole\ncombination gets its own pattern instead, e.g.,\n\n本マグロ = ほんまぐろ{LHHLL} and\n\n本わさび = ほんわさび{LHHLL}.\n\nAs you can tell from the fact that マグロ as a single word has a different pitch\npattern (まぐろ{LHH}), 本X of this kind is a stand-alone, single word on its own.\n\nNow, because the former usage is simply a word on its own, grammatically\nspeaking, you can put pretty much any noun after it as long as it's\nsemantically valid, although there are many words that just wouldn't appear\nafter 本 of this use in normal context. But the latter use is valid only when\nit forms a legitimate noun when combined with the following word. Of course,\nyou can coin a new noun by attaching 本 on the spot if you want. And if it\nmakes sense and sounds great in the situation you are in, there's nothing\nwrong about it. Your new word may catch on among other Japanese speakers. Lots\nof words have been coined this way anyway. But you should note that there is a\ndifference between the former use as a stand-alone word and the latter use as\na \"prefix\" within a single word.\n\nYou can still say that they're both prefixes within a word or both stand-alone\nwords, or even something different, depending on how you define \"prefix,\"\n\"word,\" and other grammatical terms. But there is a huge difference in\nversatility because the former behaves just like any other single word while\n本X of the latter kind is valid only if it forms a real word or the whole\n\"sounds legit\" as a single word.\n\nAs for sound changes, the former does not introduce the h -> p/b change. The\nlatter tends to cause this sound change.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-30T23:16:36.247",
"id": "12985",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-02T07:38:41.477",
"last_edit_date": "2013-10-02T07:38:41.477",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12967",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 12967 | null | 12968 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12971",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Lately my ears started catching words ending in り that seem like nouns created\nfrom verbs. I'm sorry I don't have any other examples besides the one from the\ntitle 始まる (to start) -> 始まり (the start). Is it just a small number of word\npairs like that or there is some magic grammar formula to produce such nouns?\nありがとうございます！",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-28T12:34:34.313",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12970",
"last_activity_date": "2020-06-27T14:22:14.630",
"last_edit_date": "2013-09-28T15:07:46.797",
"last_editor_user_id": "2922",
"owner_user_id": "2922",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"nouns"
],
"title": "始まる->始まり Is there a rule of making nouns from verbs (besides nominalization)?",
"view_count": 7514
} | [
{
"body": "As a rule, a verb's 連用形 (conjunctive/continuative form) can become a noun\n(名詞化). I think that technically it doesn't matter what word it is. All can\ntake that form and become nouns. In regular use, though, I think you'll find\nthat words that are used this way are relatively limited. So we have common\nwords like 始まり、綴り、しゃべり、 etc. It may be useful to think of these as distinct\nwords that happen to follow this rule of nominalization, because there are\nquite a lot of words that you wouldn't normally use this way (though I don't\nthink that means you _can't_ ). It's just a matter of what's most natural. For\nexample, you wouldn't say 彼の言いを聞いてください. Rather you'd say 彼の言うことを聞いてください, or\nsomething along those lines that uses other forms of nominalization.\n\nIn my experience, outside of the 'usual' words that you can use, compound\nverbs seem to be the most common targets of this form, like 話し合い or 打ち合わせ or\nもの探し. You can also use these verb stems as suffixes. For example you can add\n～作り to the end of something to refer to the act of making something (ケーキ作り, or\nmaking cake).\n\nThere are some words that take on unique meanings in this construction,\nthough, so be wary. Like 見合い, which refers to arranged marriage rather than\nthe literal act of looking at each other.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-28T12:54:44.873",
"id": "12971",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-28T12:54:44.873",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1797",
"parent_id": "12970",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 13
},
{
"body": "I believe there's a rule to convert verbs into nouns. All you have to do is to\nturn a Verb into its Verb stem form & it can be used as a noun.\n\nTo prove this, I would like to cite Tae Kim's Guide to learning Japanese and\n皆の日本語・初版 I 本冊, lesson 13. There is a similar pattern in both cases.\n\nTae Kim's Guide to Learning Japanese > Complete Guide >Verbs > Polite Verbs.\nIt is written here that there are 3 rules to convert a verb into verb stem.\n\n(1) For ru-verb: Drop the る\n\n(2) For u-verbs: Replace u-sound with i-sound equivalent\n\n(3) Exceptions:する to し・くる to き・\n\nNow, to compare said rules with examples in Lesson 13 of Minna no Nihongo.\nSpecifically, this lesson uses a grammar formula of:\n\nSは S２を Nに Vます\n\n*S, S2 = subject, usually noun. N = noun. V = verb\n\nExamples:\n\n・私は フランスへ 料理を 習いに 行きます。I go to France to learn its cuisine. （convert習う＞習い）\n\n・私は 神戸へ 遊びに 行きます。I go to Koube to have fun. (convert 遊ぶ＞遊び）\n\n・私は 神戸へ ロシア料理を 食べに 行きます。I go to Koube to eat Russian cuisine. (convert 食べる＞食べ）\n\nThe corresponding similarities lead me to believe that you can convert verbs\nto nouns by using verb stem rules.I would very much appreciate further\ndiscussions & feedbacks on this opinion. よろしくお願いします。\n\nReference:\n\n(Tae Kim) Polite verbs. Accessed at:\n<http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/complete/polite_verbs>\n\n皆の日本語・初版 I 本冊, page 104, 106",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-06-27T14:22:14.630",
"id": "78264",
"last_activity_date": "2020-06-27T14:22:14.630",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "39495",
"parent_id": "12970",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 12970 | 12971 | 12971 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "12981",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> ごくろうさん gokurousan 【ご苦労さん · 御苦労さん】\n>\n> expression meaning: I appreciate your efforts\n>\n> アリさん、今日もご苦労さんだよ。はい、角砂糖あげるよ。 Hi Mr Ant, keeping up the good work today as\n> well. Here's a sugar cube.\n\nご is the honorific, 苦労 means trouble or hardships, but does the さん have the\nsame meaning of さま when it means \"state\"?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-29T16:32:45.043",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "12972",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:57:11.670",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "706",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"words",
"phrases"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of さん in ごくろうさん?",
"view_count": 1543
} | [
{
"body": "This `さん` is the same one as adding it after someone's name. But a more polite\nversion is `ご苦労様【く・ろう・さま】`. Here it is being used in a familiar setting, so\nthey use `さん` instead. There are several topics on this site regarding `ご苦労様`,\nso I suggest looking at those as well.\n\nAs far as meaning, `さん` _is_ a contraction of `さま`, but I don't believe\n`さん・さま` being applied to someone's name was ever derived from / used for the\nmeaning of \"state\".",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-29T18:11:01.440",
"id": "12973",
"last_activity_date": "2013-09-29T18:11:01.440",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "12972",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> but does the さん have the same meaning of さま when it means \"state\"?\n\nYou could say so. But its literal meaning is already lost and not felt by\nnative speakers anymore just like any other greeting and overly clichéd old\nidiom.\n\nIf you do analyze the very literal meaning of ご苦労様, it would be\n\n> \"ご = preffix for politeness,\"\n>\n> \"苦労 = noun that means trouble/difficulties/whatever that require a lot of\n> effort,\" and\n>\n> \"様 = suffix for the sense of 'being in the state of.'\"\n\nBy explicitly saying these words, you mean, in the most literal sense, \"I\nacknowledge that you have been in the state of having to put a lot of effort.\"\n\nBut, to be honest, it's just a fixed phrase you use when someone has just\nfinished some work. So, asking what 様 means here is like thinking of what\n\"there\" means in \"Hi, there.\" You may be able to find an interesting etymology\nor explanation. But the literal meaning, if ever existed in the past, is\nalready lost. I'm not saying trivia, etymology, and stuff like that are not\ninteresting, though.\n\nIn any case, さん here is a much friendlier and less serious version of 様. So,\nit sounds like the speaker doesn't acknowledge the trouble you've gone through\nas seriously or appreciate the effort as sincerely as if they used 様. This\ngenerally applies to other similar set phrases such as お疲れ様 vs. お疲れさん and\nお待ち遠様 vs. お待ち遠さん. In all cases, さん is much more informal and less serious.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2013-09-30T17:45:57.537",
"id": "12981",
"last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:57:11.670",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "12972",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 12972 | 12981 | 12981 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.