question
dict | answers
list | id
stringlengths 1
6
| accepted_answer_id
stringlengths 2
6
⌀ | popular_answer_id
stringlengths 1
6
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18003",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm trying to say this in Japanese: \"Woe be to those who near the swamp.\"\n\nI wasn't really sure how to go about this, but I came up with this:\n\n> それらのための災いは誰が沼に行きます \n> _Woe for those who go to the swamp._\n\nIs this correct at all? I'm very unsure about this sentence. Perhaps there's a\nbetter way of saying this?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-27T22:01:34.093",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18002",
"last_activity_date": "2015-11-17T09:00:41.607",
"last_edit_date": "2015-11-17T09:00:41.607",
"last_editor_user_id": "888",
"owner_user_id": "6900",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"translation",
"syntax"
],
"title": "Translating “Woe be to those…”",
"view_count": 210
} | [
{
"body": "To match the tone of \"woe\" and the slightly older sounding English of the\noriginal, why not?\n\n> 沼地に近寄る者に災いあれ\n\nYour\n\n> それらのための災いは誰が沼に行きます\n\nIs, I'm sorry to say, mostly nonsensical: \"disasters for the benefit of those,\nwho goes to the swamp?\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T04:16:07.900",
"id": "18003",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-28T04:16:07.900",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6841",
"parent_id": "18002",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 18002 | 18003 | 18003 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18007",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "I am following a book called \"Teach Yourself Japanese\", right now I am on\nusing adjectives.\n\nIn there, there is an example:\n\n> Igirisu no jamu wa totemo oishii desu.\n\nWhich I can understand in terms of structure and rules etc..\n\nBut in the book, it says that when an adjective is in the negative, \"Amari\"\nmust be used. So:\n\n> Igirisu no jamu wa totemo amari oishii desu.\n\nIs there a reason why amari is used? Or can anyone give me some more\ninformation about this word?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T06:18:09.763",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18006",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-28T14:50:04.670",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-28T14:50:04.670",
"last_editor_user_id": "6840",
"owner_user_id": "6902",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"adjectives",
"negation"
],
"title": "Use of Amari when an adjective is in the negative",
"view_count": 33802
} | [
{
"body": "This is a pair of **polarity items**. One appears in positive contexts, the\nother in negative:\n\n> イギリスの ジャムは **とても** おいし **いです** 。 \n> イギリスの ジャムは **あまり** おいし **くありません** 。\n\nEvery language has words like these. For example, in English:\n\n> I like pie, **too**. \n> I don't like pie, **either**.\n\nHere, _too_ and _either_ are **polarity items**. In our positive sentence we\nuse _too_ , and in our negative sentence we use _either_. It doesn't work very\nwell if we reverse them:\n\n> ×I like pie, **either**. \n> ×I don't like pie, **too**.\n\nWe can see something similar in your Japanese sentences. **とても** means \"to a\ngreat degree\", similar to English _very_ , and in this meaning it appears in\npositive contexts:\n\n> イギリスの ジャムは **とても** おいし **いです** 。 \n> English jam tastes **very** good.\n\nOn the other hand, **あまり** means \"to a low degree\", similar to English _not\nvery_ , and in this meaning it appears in negative contexts:\n\n> イギリスの ジャムは **あまり** おいし **くありません** 。 \n> English jam does **n't** taste **very** good.\n\nYour book probably didn't mean for you to put them together into one sentence.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T06:49:29.987",
"id": "18007",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-28T06:59:19.847",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-28T06:59:19.847",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18006",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 18
},
{
"body": "In very simple terms:\n\n\"Amari,\" used with a negative, simply means \"quite.\"\n\n\"amari yokunai\" = \"quite bad.\"\n\n\"amari omoshirokunai\" = \"quite uninteresting\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T09:01:38.627",
"id": "18009",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-28T09:01:38.627",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6903",
"parent_id": "18006",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -2
},
{
"body": "The simplest meaning vs とても/totemo (\"very\"), used in many first text books, is\n\"not very\".\n\nThis gives us:\n\n> \"not very good\" for amari yokunai/あまりよくない\n\nand\n\n> \"not very interesting\" for amari omoshirokunai/あまり面白くない\n\nand even\n\n> \"not very bad\" for amari warukunai/あまり悪くない\n\nThe best way to practice is to buy a text book (which you can probably trust)\nor possibly find a website with a few exercises.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T11:11:49.253",
"id": "18010",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-28T11:11:49.253",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "18006",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Things aren't completely +/- here. Variations on\n\n> あまりにもおいしい \n> あまりのおしさ\n\nare both perfectly fine; even common. Or how about\n\n> とてもできない",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T14:13:59.657",
"id": "18012",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-28T14:13:59.657",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6841",
"parent_id": "18006",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 18006 | 18007 | 18007 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I came across すすんで行く and さいて行く in a vocabulary list, and it was immediately\nobvious that there was probably some sort of grammatical construct involving\nて行く that was in use here. I don't really know what this grammatical construct\nmeans though, and it's apparently something different than just compounding\ntwo arbitrary verbs together with base te.\n\nA quick Google search brought [this\nlesson](http://ww8.tiki.ne.jp/~tmath/language/jpverbs/lesson64.htm) up, and he\nstarts to explain what the construct means (as well as て来る), but he doesn't do\na very good job of it. He also starts to deviate from the special grammatical\nconstruct towards just the base te verb compounding, and many of the other\nsearch results are focusing almost exclusively on the compounding.\n\nI vaguely get the notion of this construct meaning to get into the state of\ndoing something (て行く) or to have come into the state of doing something (て来る),\nbut I really don't understand it.\n\nCould somebody please explain this? I'm mainly wondering about the general\ngrammar being used here, but I also kind of wonder about how it applies to\nthese two words, since they're apparently decent examples. Thank you.",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T17:51:54.980",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18013",
"last_activity_date": "2014-09-27T22:44:00.100",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-28T17:58:57.623",
"last_editor_user_id": "1771",
"owner_user_id": "1771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"て-form"
],
"title": "How is て行く being used in すすんで行く and さいて行く?",
"view_count": 355
} | [
{
"body": "The meaning of て行く is that something is happening now and continuing into the\nfuture. So すすんで行く would be an advance that has begun and will continue into\nthe future, or a continual state of advancement. And with a quick check on\nGoogle Translate, さいて行く is \"beginning to bloom\". So your definition of\n\"getting into the state of doing X\" would be applicable in this case.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T15:13:12.250",
"id": "18034",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T16:02:39.680",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-29T16:02:39.680",
"last_editor_user_id": "6913",
"owner_user_id": "6913",
"parent_id": "18013",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "すすんでいく can mean \"to willingly go\" or \"to keep progressing\".\n\nAs for さいて行く, for example, \"氷を割いて行く\" means \"to break the ice and go\" or \"to go\nbreaking the ice\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-09-27T22:44:00.100",
"id": "18830",
"last_activity_date": "2014-09-27T22:44:00.100",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "18013",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 18013 | null | 18034 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18047",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "What does うぃーす exactly mean? (I vaguely hear it when people greet each other.)\nHow is it different from other greetings?\n\nIs it correct to write it as うぃす too?\n\nHow to properly type it on a Macbook? The い is a smaller font, and I don't\nknow how to type ー.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T18:08:19.730",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18014",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-30T12:11:37.957",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-28T18:15:11.417",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6906",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"greetings"
],
"title": "What does うぃーす mean?",
"view_count": 2712
} | [
{
"body": "There's several variations on this (besides うぃーす, there's also うっす、おっす、ちーす and\nprobably a few more that I'm not aware of), all of which are very informal\nmasculine greetings. They don't really have a good English analogue -\nsomething like 'hey' or 'yo' or 'what's up' is probably the closest you'll\nget.\n\nThese are fairly masculine greetings, and the average girl probably won't come\nacross much of a need for any of them - if I heard a girl use one, I'd assume\nshe was just being silly. These are also very informal - you'd only ever use\nthem with your equals or inferiors, and mostly only in informal situations\n(i.e. AFAIK two teachers might greet each other at a bar with one, but\nwouldn't greet each other at school with one). You could probably get away\nwith calling them slang.\n\nIt's not correct to write it as うぃす, as that doesn't accurately reflect the\npronunciation. As far as I know, no one shortens that vowel, so うぃす doesn't\nactually mean anything.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T18:43:40.367",
"id": "18016",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-28T18:43:40.367",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "18014",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "\"うぃーす\" is a ultra-shortened greetings of, maybe おはようございます or something.\n\"[おっす](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/6726/)\" is one of the\nvariations. Although the etymology is not clear, these are used in several\nways.\n\n 1. A sluggish, slow \"うぃーっす\" is a greeting used between young, mainly male, close friends. I think this is what @Sjiveru described, as something like \"yo\". People use this when they feel pronouncing \"おはよう(ございます)\" is too long and bothering.\n\n 2. A short, vigorous, strong \"うぃっす!\" or \"おっす!\" can be a _polite_ greeting in certain sport clubs/teams. You may be safe to say \"うぃっす！\" even to your seniors or advisers (But this greatly depends on the team you belong to). In such cases, the strength of your greetings determines the level politeness rather than what is actually said as a word. I think people use this because pronouncing \"おはようございます\" is too complicated to say out loudly. This is also something repeated almost meaninglessly in response to someone's speech, like \"yes (sir).\"\n\nI can't say \"うぃす\" is incorrect, especially when it's used in the second\nsituation. This is a shortened/altered form, so basically you can write this\nin whatever way you like. But \"うぃーっす\", \"うぃーす\" or \"うぃっす\" is more common.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-30T05:08:06.467",
"id": "18047",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-30T12:11:37.957",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18014",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 18014 | 18047 | 18047 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18018",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "What is the difference between endings なし and 抜【ぬ】き when you want to exclude a\ncertain ingredient from food? Aside from 氷【こおり】なし when ordering soft drinks, I\nthought that for most other things 抜【ぬ】き should be used. But my friend has\nbeen saying 卵【たまご】なし to get rid of an egg, so I'm curious when which one of\nthose is appropriate.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T18:37:07.130",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18015",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-27T15:26:51.593",
"last_edit_date": "2019-10-24T00:43:55.303",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6632",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 15,
"tags": [
"usage",
"nuances"
],
"title": "(Ordering food) difference between なし and 抜き",
"view_count": 2253
} | [
{
"body": "As a customer, using either one is completely fine. Among us native speakers,\nit is like each person has a habit of using one over the other.\n\nPoint is each eatery tends to use one word over the other among its staff\nmembers as well, meaning that even when you order by saying, for instance,\n「[卵]{たまご}なしで = \"with no eggs\"」, your waiter/waitress might reply by saying\n「卵[抜]{ぬ}きですね？」. This happens quite often but do not be discouraged because\nthey are just using 「抜き」 almost as a house rule. It is not that they are\ntrying to correct you because you used the wrong word.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T19:44:27.563",
"id": "18018",
"last_activity_date": "2019-07-04T01:31:41.397",
"last_edit_date": "2019-07-04T01:31:41.397",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18015",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 25
},
{
"body": "Although similar, there is a small semantic difference between the two words.\n\n> 抜き（ぬき）\n\n**Meaning:** leaving out; omitting; skipping\n\nAs an example, at a conveyor belt sushi restaurant in Japan, if you order\nsushi without wasabi, you may get a little flag to indicate that the sushi\ncomes without wasabi.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ROKw.png)\n\nIf it is typical or expected for a restaurant to serve sushi with wasabi then\nぬき emphasises that something has been left out, removed or excluded.\n\n* * *\n\n> なし（無し）\n\n**Meaning:** without\n\nThe word is very similar to ない, which means something that does not exist.\n\nなし is often used to refer to people whereas ぬき is often used to refer to\ningredients. (氷なし being a strange exception to that rule)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-02-27T15:26:51.593",
"id": "74657",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-27T15:26:51.593",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "19278",
"parent_id": "18015",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 18015 | 18018 | 18018 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18022",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> こんなちなみを ・・ ・・ \n> ユルしてはいただけませんの？\n\nI'm playing Ace Attorney 3 (逆転裁判３), and there's a girl in the dock (ちなみ)\ngiving evidence. She's just been found to be lying about something and is\nasking for forgiveness.\n\nI've seen the pattern ～ていただけませんか as a humble request, but why has she put a は\nafter the て?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-28T20:11:04.530",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18020",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T00:37:59.453",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4404",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"honorifics",
"particle-は"
],
"title": "「～てはいただけません」- Why the は?",
"view_count": 161
} | [
{
"body": "When you see a 「は」 in the following structures, it emphasizes the preceding\nverb, adjective or noun.\n\n> \"[連用形]{れんようけい} (conjunctive form) or the て-form of a verb + 「は」\"\n>\n> \"連用形 of an adjective + 「は」\"\n>\n> \"Noun + 「で」 + 「は」\"\n\n「ユルして + は + いただけませんの？」 fits the first pattern above and in the phrase, the\nspeaker is subtly adding emphasis to her petition for mercy. Without the 「は」,\nshe could sound pretty arrogant. She could sound like she takes it for granted\nthat she will be forgiven.",
"comment_count": 12,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T00:37:59.453",
"id": "18022",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T00:37:59.453",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18020",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18020 | 18022 | 18022 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18024",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In Japanese, I found two common translations of the English word \"north\nstar/polaris\".\n\n 1. 北辰\n 2. 北極星\n\nCould someone tell me the difference between the two?\n\nI saw that 北辰 is used for the design on the Hokkaido flag, so maybe 北辰 is more\n\"romantic\" and 北極星 is more \"scientific\"?\n\nThank you!\n\nETA: \"North star/pole star\" in English means \"a visible star that is\napproximately aligned with the Earth's axis of rotation\" (from Wikipedia).\n\"Polaris\" is the name of the star that is currently the north star/pole star\nnow. (Thanks virmaior)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T01:50:41.967",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18023",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T04:03:04.560",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-29T02:45:14.563",
"last_editor_user_id": "6861",
"owner_user_id": "6861",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Difference between 北辰 and 北極星",
"view_count": 2072
} | [
{
"body": "[北極星]{ほっきょくせい} is the word you hear and see to refer to the North Star\nbasically 100% of the time in present-day Japan. That is the word you learn in\nschool as a kid and use the rest of your life.\n\n[北辰]{ほくしん} is seen mostly in company names and such. I could not speak for\nother Japanese-speakers but I could say that the word 北辰 is basically non-\nexistent in my life for referring to the North Star.\n\nThus, 北極星 is both far more \"scientific\" and \"romantic\". To me, there is not\neven comparison.\n\nI would love to hear different opinions from my fellow Japanese-speakers here.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T04:03:04.560",
"id": "18024",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T04:03:04.560",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18023",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 18023 | 18024 | 18024 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18026",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I practice 合気道. We do a lot of break falling that we call ukemi. I was led to\nbelieve that it meant safe escape from a technique. However, I started looking\nat the Japanese and found I only had part of the answer. I believe that ukemi\ncan be translated as receiving body (受け身). It is what uke (受け, whoever\nreceives the technique) does when nage (投げ thrower?) or tori (取り, grabber?)\napplies a technique.\n\nAm I correct in my assumptions?\n\nAre my kanji correct?\n\n* * *\n\nCross posted from **[Martial Arts\nSE](https://martialarts.stackexchange.com/questions/2942/etymology-and-\nmeaning-of-ukemi)**.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T07:50:43.137",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18025",
"last_activity_date": "2021-04-28T02:05:22.540",
"last_edit_date": "2021-04-28T02:05:22.540",
"last_editor_user_id": "26860",
"owner_user_id": "6910",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"terminology",
"sports"
],
"title": "Etymology and meaning of ukemi (受け身?) as part of 合気道",
"view_count": 2406
} | [
{
"body": "Your kanji are correct. [受]{う}け[身]{み}. You can also write it [受]{うけ}[身]{み}.\n\nThe general meaning of 受け身, however, is not \"receiving body\" but \"passive.\"\nThus, the passive voice \"it is written by him\" (vs. active \"he writes\").\n\nI am not familiar with your martial art, but I would guess that it means you\ntake a passive rather than active role in the combat -- receiving the action\nof others and responding to it.\n\n* * *\n\nI could imagine this being understood as \"safe escape\" if there are Buddhist\novertones that imported in seeing actively fighting as being interested. But\nit's definitely not a very natural translation.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T07:56:46.123",
"id": "18026",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T19:57:34.200",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-29T19:57:34.200",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "4091",
"parent_id": "18025",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "You might also translate it as \"receptive\" body, as in a body prepared to\nreceive a blow, strike or onslaught. Judo techniques, as I remember in my\ndistant past, are primarily defensive, or \"receptive\" techniques, using the\nopponents' force and action against them.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-02-10T16:53:06.513",
"id": "21725",
"last_activity_date": "2015-02-10T16:53:06.513",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9363",
"parent_id": "18025",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Here is how the relevant terms are defined in the _Kodokan New Japanese-\nEnglish Dictionary of Judo_ :\n\n\n\nAnd here are the respective English language entries:\n\n> **uke** ( **\" receiver\"; the thrown; uke**) The person who receives a\n> technique during repetition (uchikomi) or controlled (yakusoku) practice.\n>\n> **ukemi** ( **breakfall** ) General term for breakfalls designed to protect\n> the body when thrown.\n>\n> **ukeru** ( **to receive** ) To receive a technique or attack from your\n> opponent, or to have a technique applied to you.\n\nNote that these are the definitions of these terms in a judo context, and 受け身\n( _ukemi_ ) and 受ける ( _ukeru_ ) more generally mean \"that which is passive\"\nand \"to receive\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-02-19T14:35:09.113",
"id": "74494",
"last_activity_date": "2020-02-19T14:35:09.113",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "26860",
"parent_id": "18025",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18025 | 18026 | 18026 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18048",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "体{からだ} and 身体{からだ} (or even 躰{からだ}) seem to be used interchangeably, is there\na nuance difference between them?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T08:18:13.083",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18027",
"last_activity_date": "2017-03-17T11:57:11.093",
"last_edit_date": "2017-03-17T11:57:11.093",
"last_editor_user_id": "1805",
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 18,
"tags": [
"words",
"kanji"
],
"title": "For body: 身体 or 体",
"view_count": 5721
} | [
{
"body": "Great question! I love [this answer from\n知恵袋](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q109825005). I'll\nprovide a minimal translation.\n\n## Difference in Writing\n\n * 体 is the standard way of writing it. 身体 is not.\n\n## Difference in Meaning\n\n * 体 actually has quite a few meanings. It can refer to the physical body itself, but it can also carry a meaning more akin to \"health\". On top of this, it can refer to pretty much _any_ kind of body, be it human, animal, or otherwise (例：[車体]{しゃたい} [\"body of a car\"]). A few other things as well, but those are the most important definitions. ([Full 三省堂 definition.](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E4%BD%93%E3%83%BB%E8%BA%AF%E3%83%BB%E8%BB%80%E3%83%BB%E8%BA%AB%E4%BD%93?dic=daijirin&oid=DJR_karada_-010))\n * 身体, which can be read either からだ or しんたい, is much narrower: **it can only refer to the physical (flesh) body** , either human or animal (from what I understand, this is regardless of which of the two readings you use). Furthermore, it can come across as being more academic -- you'd quickly come across this word in, say, medical literature.\n\n**Generally speaking you're gonna want to use 体** , since it's the more\nstandard way of writing it. Newspapers and other general-audience writing will\nmost likely use it. That being said, there might be situations in which you'd\nprefer 身体; if you were wanting to emphasize the actual physical body, for\ninstance.\n\n**Summary: They mean basically the same thing, but 身体 emphasizes the physical\nnature of the body and sounds a bit more academic.**",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T12:49:42.540",
"id": "18030",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T12:49:42.540",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4923",
"parent_id": "18027",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "In short:\n\n * 体【からだ】: normal way to say \"body\".\n * 身体【しんたい】: sounds more technical/academic/physical, and only mean the bodies of humans and large animals. Bodies of machines and robots are technically referred to as 筐体【きょうたい】.\n * 身体【からだ】: another generally accepted way of writing \"からだ\" in kanji, and it's a 熟字訓. It's not taught at school, but virtually all Japanese people recognize this readings.\n\nThe difficult part is the difference between 体【からだ】 and 身体【からだ】. For example,\nwhich one of the following is the better way to say \"Take care of yourself?\"\n\n> お体【からだ】を大事にしてください。 \n> お身体【からだ】を大事にしてください。\n\nIt seems that there is no single answer here. Yahoo! Chiebukuro has at least\nthree questions about this ([link\nA](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1222436112), [link\nB](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1433382224), [link\nC](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1314087763)), and\ndifferent answers were accepted as the best answer.\n\nAnd the number of Google results:\n\n * お体を大事に: 794,000\n * お身体を大事に: 346,000\n * お体を大切に: 160,000\n * お身体を大切に: 1,210,000\n * 体を休める: 4,700,000 (may include the results of 身体を休める)\n * 身体を休める: 2,180,000\n\nMy personal choice was 体【からだ】, because I felt 身体【からだ】 is used mainly in novels\nand lyrics. But now I'm aware that there are many people who prefer 身体【からだ】 in\nsuch cases. After all, I seems to me that both of 体【からだ】 and 身体【からだ】 are\nequally OK as long as you're using this to human body, and as long as you're\nnot writing something for dictionaries or news media.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-30T07:37:18.640",
"id": "18048",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-30T07:49:17.023",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-30T07:49:17.023",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18027",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 19
}
] | 18027 | 18048 | 18048 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18035",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I cannot recall this very clearly so I'm sorry if this is all not correct but\nsomeone once told me that the word 友達{ともだち} has the plural marker たち \"built-\nin\" and therefore you cannot say 友達たち about friends in a situation where you\ncould normally use ～たち.\n\nIs that right? If it is, is there any other way to mark plurality for the word\n友達 in situations where ～たち is used for other nouns?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T09:24:32.420",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18028",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T15:48:41.603",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-29T09:42:43.807",
"last_editor_user_id": "5041",
"owner_user_id": "5041",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"plurals"
],
"title": "Does 友達 have the plural marker たち \"built-in\"?",
"view_count": 1965
} | [
{
"body": "Your final question is different from the one in the title.\n\nFirst, ～たち is **not** _built-in_. The noun 友 can appear on its own. See\n[here](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%8F%8B?dic=daijisen&oid=13448100) for more\ninformation. Therefore, the answer to your last question is **no**.\n\nI want to mention though that ～たち, or suffixes such as ～ら, ～ども, etc. do not\nmark the plural in the strict sense, but rather an **associative**. An\nexpression such as 犬たち does not simply mean something like English 'dogs', but\nit means that multiple animals of the dog-persuasion are present **in\nperception**. Compare the next two examples:\n\n```\n\n (a) 公園では犬たちが遊んでいる。 \n 'Dogs are playing in the park.'\n (b) * 犬たちは哺乳類だ。 \n 'Dogs are mammals.'\n \n```\n\nExample (a) presupposes that the speaker is aware of the dogs in question.\nThey are unified as an association of animals in the perception of the\nspeaker. \nThat, however, would not be appropriate for (b) because the sentence is more\ngeneral and makes a statement about a larger association that is not present\nin perception. Hence in (b), the suffix should be absent.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T09:46:46.993",
"id": "18029",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T09:46:46.993",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5362",
"parent_id": "18028",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "友達 is kind of an odd case - it's a word in the process of fossilisation. 友 on\nits own is a valid word, albeit one with a distinctly archaic flavour. -たち was\nthen added to make a collective plural (as Thomas Gross says, not a true 'more\nthan one' plural, but instead a 'group described by this term' plural). Modern\nspeakers, though, would always use 友達 in all cases where 友 would have been\nused in the past (excepting intentional archaisms), meaning that 友達 now also\nhas a singular meaning - the -たち part has fused onto the end of the word and\nis no longer considered separable. Most people probably wouldn't even think of\nthis -たち here as the collective plural -たち.\n\n'Built-in' is not a term I would use to describe this, though. It's not that\n友達 was created as a single noun with -たち already a part, it's instead that the\nphrase 「友だち」 was so much more common than 友 on its own that people started\nhearing 友達 as a single unit rather than 友+たち.\n\nHowever, it's not completely fossilised for all speakers, as some will still\nmark ?友達たち as sounding odd. (Others are quite fine with it - it's totally\nfossilised for them.) How do you go about making it plural, then? It's quite\nsimple - _the plural of 友達 is 友達._ You don't have to do anything with it for\nit to sound quite natural. If you -really- feel the need to emphasise that\nyou're going with your friends as a group rather than just one, I suppose you\ncan take your chances and hope your listener is fine with 友達たち, but you can\neasily get away with not bothering - 友達と一緒に行く is quite valid for both 'go with\na friend' and 'go with my friends (in general)' (though not for 'go with\n(some) friends' or 'go with (a couple of) friends'!), and you can always clear\nup any confusion later.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T15:48:41.603",
"id": "18035",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T15:48:41.603",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "18028",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 16
}
] | 18028 | 18035 | 18035 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18038",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I would like to reference a question I have about this thread that I asked a\nfew days ago: [「思っているようです。」or 「思っている。」 for describing another person's\nopinion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/17986/%E6%80%9D%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B%E3%82%88%E3%81%86%E3%81%A7%E3%81%99-or-%E6%80%9D%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B-for-\ndescribing-another-persons-opinion) That question was clearly answered. This\nfollow-up question results from my studying the given answer.\n\nI wrote this as an example sentence: \n(1) _Bobさんによれば、株価が高いと思っているようです。_\n\nHowever, this was correction offered by 2 native speakers: \n(2) _ボブさんによれば、XXさんは物価が高いと思っているようだ。_\n\nI translate as: \n(1) _According to Bob's research, **someone** is thinking that the price of\nthe stock is high. \n(2) _According to Bob's research, **Mr. XX** is thinking that the price of the\nstock is high.\n\nGiven my intended meaning, the subject of #1 is in fact a meaningless, \"no-\nop\", word that must be there only to conform to the sentence structures of\nEnglish. I had to have some subject, even if it is meaningless. In Japanese, I\nfeel like I have some freedom with regard to sentence structure.\n\nAs these sentence are more about \"based on whose analysis were stocks\nevaluated (ie. Bob)\", and not about \"who was doing the thinking about the\nstock price (ie. someone)\", could I just get away with not having any subject\nat all? Doesn't that allow the native speaker to sense an implied (not\nrelevant to the meaning of the sentence) subject? Would not having any subject\nin Japanese break the grammar? Make the meaning confusing?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T13:48:25.100",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18031",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T16:45:45.930",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4835",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "can I get away with not having a subject in a sentence if the subject is not relevant to the meaning?",
"view_count": 219
} | [
{
"body": "If you don't care about who is doing the thinking, then why not make it much\nmore natural and use the passive voice?\n\n> ボブさんによれば、株価が高いと思われているそうだ。 \n> According to Bob, the stock price is thought to be high.\n\nAlso do you mean: 株【かぶ】価【か】 stock price or 物価【ぶっか】 cost of living?\n\nIf you want to omit the subject you **do** need context I'm afraid.\n\n> A: あの会社の株、XXさんはどんな風に考えている？ \n> B: ボブさんによると、高いと思っているそうだ。 \n> A: How's Mr. XX feel about the companies stock price? \n> B: According to Bob, he thinks it's high.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T16:24:11.643",
"id": "18038",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T16:45:45.930",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-29T16:45:45.930",
"last_editor_user_id": "6841",
"owner_user_id": "6841",
"parent_id": "18031",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18031 | 18038 | 18038 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18041",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I searched for both they mean to wake up.\n\nWhen do I need to use 目覚める and 起きる.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T19:33:13.367",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18040",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T21:15:07.453",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4322",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Difference between 目覚める and 起きる",
"view_count": 1998
} | [
{
"body": "起きる literally means \"to get up\", while 目覚める means \"(your) eyes are opened\".\nThis can mean either literally (i.e., waking up from sleep) or metaphorically\n(come to one's senses, come to a realization).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T19:52:15.277",
"id": "18041",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-29T19:52:15.277",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "18040",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 18040 | 18041 | 18041 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18045",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "'Hikarian' (full name '超特急ヒカリアン') is a Japanese anime that I was in fond of\nwhen I was a child, but I have no idea what does 'hikarian' mean. Oxford\ndictionary tells me that 'hikari' has only one meaning - light, and in wiki I\nfound that 'hikari' is a kind of train service in Japan, which makes lots of\nsense for me to understand 'hikarian'. Now the issue is that what does the\nending 'an' mean in 'hikarian'? Does the word 'hikarian' make any sense?\n\nP.S. As you may notice in the full name that 'hikarian' is the only katakana,\nis it supposed to be a name of a character?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T21:11:59.510",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18042",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-30T02:14:00.280",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-30T02:14:00.280",
"last_editor_user_id": "5041",
"owner_user_id": "4219",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words",
"anime"
],
"title": "What does 'hikarian' mean?",
"view_count": 516
} | [
{
"body": "\"Hikarian\" is a proper noun, and unique to this anime. Ordinary dictionaries\ndon't have this word.\n\nIn the [Wikipedia\narticle](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%B6%85%E7%89%B9%E6%80%A5%E3%83%92%E3%82%AB%E3%83%AA%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3),\nI can see almost all of the characters are named after Japanese trains or\nfamous stations. [English Wikipedia\narticle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hikarian) has many links to the original\nJapanese trains.\n\nAccording to the Japanese article, \"Hikarian\" is the name of a planet\n(ヒカリアン星【せい】)(星=star) and the name of aliens (humanoids) living in that planet.\nThe main heroes in the anime seem to be all Hikarians. So I think the ending\n\"-an\" is [English suffix\n\"-an\"](http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/an_2), as in\n_American_ or _christian_. The word ヒカリアン was created by someone to mean\n\"people in Hikari planet\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-30T00:35:03.773",
"id": "18045",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-30T00:35:03.773",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18042",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 18042 | 18045 | 18045 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "住んでいるのが好きです is a fragment of a sentence that is incorrectly constructed - the\ncorrect way to say \"I like living in [place] would be 住むのが好きです. But why is\nthis?\n\nIn the present tense, the usual way to say \"I live in [place]\" is to use the\nstate-of-being 〜ている, e.g., 私は日本に住んでいます。By that logic, \"I like living in\n[place]\" should really be \"I like the state of living in [place]\", or\n住んでいるのが好きです. But this sounds weird to me - and the multiple native speakers\nI've asked have said this is incorrect. Can someone shed some light on the\nreason?\n\nているのが好き as a construction is definitely not forbidden, as a search on\n[alc.co.jp](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B%E3%81%AE%E3%81%8C%E5%A5%BD%E3%81%8D)\nshows.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-29T23:53:36.997",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18044",
"last_activity_date": "2014-10-28T10:58:19.070",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4023",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"て-form",
"nominalization"
],
"title": "Why is 住んでいるのが好きです incorrect?",
"view_count": 1460
} | [
{
"body": "I raised a similar question about the tense of verbs modifying nouns, which I\nthink also applies here - the only difference is that the nominaliser の is\nbeing modified instead of a regular noun. Other users can give their\nassessment of the answer which I got from a teacher of Japanese.\n\n_Short answer:_ \nThe plain and \"past\"/\"perfect\" stative verbs are more objective and are\ntherefore more likely to be used in the media. The present progressive\n(〜ているの）is more subjective and therefore more likely to be used by the person\nperforming the act.\n\n_Full answer (including non-stative verbs):_\n\nI wanted to know the difference between expressions where the verb modifying a\nnoun is in dictionary form, past-perfect form or ている form.\n\nExpression prompting my question: 会話能力を持った初の人間型ロボットキロボ\n\n(ie: 持ったN vs 持つN＆持っているN）\n\nThe answer was as follows：\n\n(I can translate if there is enough demand):\n\n> こちらは状態を表す表現なのでどちらでもいいです。持つ、持ったのほうが、客観的（書き言葉的）に聞こえます。\n>\n> アクションを表す動詞の時は、現在・過去の意味が入ってしまうため辞書形・ているを使うときと過去を使うときで意味が違います。\n>\n> 状態動詞例）\n>\n> 山の上に立つ家・立っている家・立った家 （全てOK)\n>\n> アクション動詞例）\n>\n> 山に登る人（未来or 繰り返しのアクション）・ \n> 山に登っている人（現在進行or繰り返しのアクション）・ \n> 山に登った人（登ったことがあるか、登り終わった人たち）\n\nRegarding the difference between stative verb forms 山の上に立つ家・立っている家・立った家 (or in\nyour case 住んでいるの vs 住むの）：\n\nThe plain and \"past\"/\"perfect\" verbs are more objective and are therefore more\nlikely to be used in the media. The present progressive (〜ているの）is more\nsubjective and therefore more likely to be used by the person performing the\nact.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-30T16:05:52.007",
"id": "18053",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-30T23:37:41.887",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-30T23:37:41.887",
"last_editor_user_id": "1556",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "18044",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Strictly speaking these two sentences have completely different meaning:\n\n * 住んでいるのが好き。 - This means that you like the fact someone is living (somewhere). This could be you too, but that's not very clear way to tell it. Let's drop all the wrong usages of this phrase.\n * 住むのが好き 。 - This means you like to live (somewhere).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T00:54:36.097",
"id": "18054",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-31T00:54:36.097",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6748",
"parent_id": "18044",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Meh, I just asked my wife (native Japanese) for her opinion on this. I gave\nher four sentences and asked her to rank them by \"naturalness\". She says none\nof them are \"wrong\", but that the ～ている forms are much more natural sounding to\nher. I've marked their order of naturalness:\n\n```\n\n （３）ここに住むのが好きです。\n （１）ここに住んでいるのが好きです。\n （４）ここに暮らすのが好きです。\n （２）ここに暮らしているのが好きです。\n \n```\n\nI don't have any mumbo jumbo technical grammar points to offer, and I only\nhave the experience of living in Japan for 5 years so my opinion is far from\ngospel, but I also tend to lean towards ここに住んでいるのが好きです as being the choice I\nwould go to.\n\nAs a bonus, you can also say something like:\n\n```\n\n 東京の暮らしは私に合っている\n 東京の生活は私に合っている\n \n```\n\nto express a similar idea to the one originally posed, and I think that these\nare both grammatically and \"naturally\" correct.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T03:54:48.340",
"id": "18055",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-31T03:54:48.340",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1070",
"parent_id": "18044",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I don't have an analytical answer to this question. But empirically speaking,\nit seems like \"dictionary form + のが好き\" is much more common than \"～ている + のが好き\".\n\nTo be more specific, searching [the BCCWJ corpus via\nShonagon](http://www.kotonoha.gr.jp/shonagon/search_form), I've found that\n\n * \"～て・でいる + のが好き\" returned 26 hits\n * \"dictionary form + のが好き\" returned 623 hits after adjustments (actual number might be a bit lower)\n\nIn short, I don't know if 「住んでいるのが好きです」 is incorrect or not, _but_ judging by\nthe numbers 「住むのが好きです」 is the more common way of saying \"I like living in\n[place]\".\n\n* * *\n\n# Appendix: Breakdown of number of hits for various のが好き constructs\n\nThese numbers are true at the time of writing. Team #3 is mostly for\neliminating non-dictionary form hits for team #2.\n\n 1. Team \"～ている + のが好き\" → 26\n\n * ているのが好き：17\n * でいるのが好き：9\n 2. Team \"dictionary form + のが好き\" → ~623\n\n * むのが好き：36\n * すのが好き：34\n * くのが好き：74 excluding ていくのが好き (80 including)\n * るのが好き：410 excluding ている・でいる・てくれる・てあげる + のが好き (440 including)\n * うのが好き：49 excluding てしまう・てもらう + のが好き (52 including)\n * つのが好き：2\n * ぐのが好き：4\n * ぶのが好き：14\n * ぬのが好き：0\n 3. (Incomplete) Team \"～て + other subsidiary verbs + のが好き\" → >14\n\n * てあるのが好き ：0\n * であるのが好き ：0\n * ていくのが好き ：6\n * でいくのが好き ：0\n * てくるのが好き ：1\n * てあげるのが好き：3\n * てくれるのが好き：1\n * てしまうのが好き：0\n * てもらうのが好き：3\n\nAdmittedly this methodology is rather sloppy. There are caveats like\n\n * there are quite a few possible \"て + subsidiary verb + のが好き\" patterns not excluded from \"dictionary form + のが好き\" results. As a result, the actual number for \"dictionary form + のがすき\" might be a bit, but not significantly, lower.\n * the の might possibly not be the same as the one asked in this question. For example, 言うの might be \"the thing that someone said\", instead \"the action of saying\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-10-28T10:45:46.403",
"id": "19303",
"last_activity_date": "2014-10-28T10:58:19.070",
"last_edit_date": "2014-10-28T10:58:19.070",
"last_editor_user_id": "6840",
"owner_user_id": "6840",
"parent_id": "18044",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 18044 | null | 18054 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18052",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I wrote the sentence:\n\n> 一応、私の日本人妻の親と同居しています。\n\nThe appropriate word to use is 「一時的に」as suggested by a native speaker.\nHowever, when I asked the difference between the two words, I wasn't given an\nanswer. As far as I understand, both words mean \"tentatively\" or \"for the time\nbeing\". Is this not correct?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-30T12:59:26.900",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18049",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-30T16:13:25.020",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 「一応」and 「一時的に」",
"view_count": 551
} | [
{
"body": "「[一応]{いちおう}」 would actually be a much more difficult word for a J-learner to\nuse than a search in a dictionary might suggest. That is because, in informal\nspeech, we use the word for meanings that are not listed in the dictionary.\n\nSome years ago, I was hospitalized in Tokyo for a tonsillectomy. A day before\nmy operation, my main doctor visited me in my room and introduced herself by\nsaying:\n\n「一応、私が[主治医]{しゅじい}の (last name) といいます。」 *主治医 = \"doctor in charge\"\n\n「一応」, in this context, only meant \"well\", if I were to \"translate\" it. It was\nonly a sign of humbleness on her part. None of the dictionary definitions\nwould apply here: \"tentatively\", \"roughly\", \"for the time being\", \"briefly\",\netc.\n\n> 「一応、私の日本人妻の親と同居しています。」\n\nis not such a bad sentence, especially if the reason for that living\narrangement has already been explained prior to this sentence. It would have\nbeen better if you had said 「今は一応」 after a brief explanation of your reason\ninstead of just 「一応」.\n\nIf you had described your living arrangement ONLY with this sentence, however,\nthen using a more concrete expression like 「[一時的]{いちじてき}に」 would have been\nmore desirable than using a vague word like 「一応」.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-30T14:30:43.310",
"id": "18051",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-30T16:13:25.020",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-30T16:13:25.020",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18049",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "一応 is \"as a quick, dirty, incomplete [resolution / strategy / answer /\nexplanation]\", and implies that there's a better way to do/explain/resolve\nsomething.\n\nExamples:\n\n> 「元気？」「一応。」 (implies something is preventing him from saying he's 100% fine)\n>\n> 「宿題やった？」「一応。」 (he has done his homework, but not perfectly)\n\nYour sentence:\n\n> 一応、私の日本人妻の親と同居しています。\n\nDepending on the context, 一応 in this sentence means either \"To put it plainly,\n...\" or \"I know this is not good, but for now ...\".\n\n一時的に simply means \"temporarily\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-30T15:16:09.663",
"id": "18052",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-30T15:24:33.450",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18049",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 18049 | 18052 | 18052 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Why does 目 get used in situations like 二個目? How did it come about getting the\nmeaning of eye as well as some counting meaning?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T05:15:53.393",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18056",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-01T07:09:00.247",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 15,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"etymology"
],
"title": "Why does 目 have a counting sense to it?",
"view_count": 960
} | [
{
"body": "Wild speculation, but it could be related to [sense 10 in\n大辞泉](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%9B%AE):\n\n> 10 線状に1列に並んだものの間にできたすきまや凹凸。「櫛【くし】の―」 \n> A gap or unevenness occurring between items arranged in a line. _kushi no -\n> [ **me** ]_ (the **gaps** between the teeth of a comb)\n\nAnd from this notion, the notion of first, second, third. Or, maybe it's just\n当て字 for some homophonous grammatical suffix. I couldn't track down anything\nconcrete though.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T13:29:08.290",
"id": "18062",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-31T20:24:15.220",
"last_edit_date": "2014-07-31T20:24:15.220",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "6841",
"parent_id": "18056",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I think it's related to the sense mentioned by Brandon, from an underlying\nidea of \"something that sticks out visually\", hence the use of 目{め} \"eye\".\nThis same sense of \"visually notable or prominent feature\" gives rise to many\nother uses of 目{め}, such as 結{むす}び目{め} \"knot\" from 結{むす}び \"tying\" + 目{め}\n\"visually prominent feature\", or 籠{かご}目{め} \"lattice\" from 籠{かご} \"basket,\nbasket-style weave\" + 目{め} \"visually prominent feature\". It also attaches to\nadjectives (though it is generally spelled in kana then), as in 長{なが}め\n\"longish, on the long side\".\n\nFWIW, Shogakukan's entry for 目{め} breaks the definitions down a bit\ndifferently than Daijisen. Some of the definitions that are relevant to ideas\nof counting include (my additions in [square brackets]):\n\n> (3) 見る対象をいう。 \n> Indicates the object of seeing/looking.\n\nor:\n\n> (5) 連続する、物と物との隙間（すきま）。間の区切り。区切りをつける線条。また、そのように刻まれたもの。 \n> Gap between successive items. Separation between. Line separating things.\n> Or, a notch cut as such a line.\n\nor:\n\n> (6)\n> 空間的、時間的な切れ目。二つの物、あるいは二つの事態の区切りや接点。転じて、物の条理、また計量の区切りや、単位をいう。多くの場合、動詞の連用形と複合して用いられる。「切れ目」「切り目」「分け目」「折り目」「裂け目」「境目」「合わせ目」「繋ぎ目」「綴じ目」「くけ目」など。 \n> A spatial or temporal gap / break. [Note that this definition uses the word\n> being defined...] The divider or point of contact between two things or\n> situations. By extension, a division or unit in the reason for or\n> measurement of things. In most cases, used in combination with the\n> _ren'yōkei_ [continuative form, i.e. _-masu_ stem] of a verb. _Kireme_\n> \"break/gap\", _kirime_ \"cut\", _wakeme_ \"split\", _orime_ \"bend, fold\",\n> _sakeme_ \"rip, tear\", _sakaime_ \"boundary, border line\", _awaseme_ \"join,\n> seam\", _tsunagime_ \"connection, joint\", _tojime_ \"binding\", _kukeme_\n> \"stitch\", etc.\n\nor:\n\n> Ⅲ 〔接尾〕 (Suffix) \n> 1 数詞のあとに付いて、初めから数え進んでひと区切りをつけた、その区切りまでの数を表すのに用いる。「二番目」 \n> Attached after a counter [such as 個{こ} or 番{ばん}], used to express the\n> number counted when counting the divisions between items from the start\n> [that is, the ordinal or positional number]. _Nibanme_ \"second\" \n> . \n> 2\n> 形容詞の語幹、動詞の連用形などに付いて、そのような度合、加減、性質、傾向の意味を添える。「細め」「長め」「控えめ」「おさえめ」など。現代では、形容詞の連体形に付けていう場合もみられる。「細いめ」「長いめ」など。 \n> Attached to forms such as an adjective's stem or the _ren'yōkei_ of a verb,\n> adds a sense of that kind of degree, extent, quality, or tendency. _Hosome_\n> \"slender-ish\", _nagame_ \"long-ish\", _hikaeme_ \"moderate, with reserve\",\n> _osaeme_ \"restrained\", etc. In modern Japanese, also seen attached to the\n> _rentaikei_ [attributive form, same as the dictionary form] of adjectives.\n> _Hosoi-me_ \"slender-ish\", _nagai-me_ \"long-ish\", etc.\n\nThat's a lot to digest, so:\n\n### TL;DR:\n\nThe word 目{め} is generally translated just as \"eye\", but idiomatically, it is\nused to express a wide array of ideas related to the basic sense, \" **visually\nprominent feature** \". This is one of the more productive and useful words in\nJapanese, and learning the many uses of this term will serve you well.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T18:27:13.570",
"id": "18065",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-01T07:09:00.247",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-01T07:09:00.247",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "18056",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 18056 | null | 18065 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18059",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The full sentence, which I had to learn was:\n\n> わたしは ろくしゅうかんまえに にほんに きました\n\nBut I don't understand the meaning of the \"-kan\" that follows ろくしゅう Can anyone\nplease enlighten me when and why I have to use that suffix?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T08:06:41.270",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18057",
"last_activity_date": "2015-10-05T18:00:00.973",
"last_edit_date": "2015-10-05T18:00:00.973",
"last_editor_user_id": "3437",
"owner_user_id": "4725",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"suffixes",
"time"
],
"title": "Which form should be used: ろくしゅうかん or ろくしゅう?",
"view_count": 199
} | [
{
"body": "The かん here is 間 in kanji, and this is used as a suffix to refer to a span of\ntime. ろくしゅう in your sentence is spelled 六週 in kanji and means \"six weeks\", but\nin a way that is more ambiguous than the English. Various suffixes can be\nadded on the end to make things more specific, like 目{め} to mean \"the sixth\nweek\", or 分{ぶん} to indicate six weeks' worth of something, or 間{かん} for a span\nof time. Have a look partway down [the Weblio entry for\n間](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E9%96%93), for sense 1 under the かん reading\nfor some examples of how this かん is used.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T08:27:05.387",
"id": "18059",
"last_activity_date": "2015-10-05T07:52:10.893",
"last_edit_date": "2015-10-05T07:52:10.893",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "18057",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
] | 18057 | 18059 | 18059 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18061",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'd like to ask about ellipses in Japanese.\n\nFirst, as I understand, ellipses in Japanese often indicate silence or\ntrailing off at the end of a sentence in casual text communication and manga.\n\nI have three questions:\n\n 1. What other uses does an ellipsis in Japanese have?\n\n 2. Is リーダ the common word for an ellipsis? What do most people in Japan call this punctuation?\n\n 3. What is the most common (correct?) form of ellipses and what impressions do different ones give? Are different ones used in different situations/for different uses?\n\nFor example:\n\nそうなんですか・・・\n\nそうなんですか・・・ ・・・\n\nそうなんですか・・\n\nそうなんですか。。。\n\nThanks!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T08:20:22.637",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18058",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-31T10:45:13.217",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6861",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"punctuation"
],
"title": "Ellipsis Usage and Format",
"view_count": 7741
} | [
{
"body": "1. Other usages of this symbol include:\n\n * abbreviation of long text (あいうえおかきく……わをん）\n * simple \"filler\" in index pages (Preface ........ 2 / Appendix ......... 12)\n\nThe similar character is used as math symbols, but probably they're\ntechnically different.\n\n 2. This symbol (three dots as one character, Unicode `U+2026`) is often casually called `てんてん(記号)`. Technically speaking, `三点【さんてん】リーダー` is the specific term for this. There is also a `二点【にてん】リーダー`, which is rarely used in reality. I think `リーダー` by itself is ambiguous and has a good chance of being not understood.\n\n 3. In professional publishing, 三点リーダー is almost always used. Many publishers always use two 三点リーダーs (……), that is, six dots, and do not allow any other variations. But this rule is not very strict. \nRepeating 句点 「。。。」, 読点 「、、、」, 中黒 「・・・」, or English period 「...」 all looks\nterrible to me. Unfortunately these are frequently produced by people who are\nnot good at computers or punctuation marks. It's also bad to insert space(s)\nbetween leaders (… …).\n\nNote: Some fonts align the dots of the 三点リーダー to the bottom of the line (like\nthree periods ... or LaTeX `\\ldots`). But generally speaking, the dots should\nbe placed at the center of the line (similar to LaTeX `\\cdots`). (See [this\npage](http://www.koikikukan.com/archives/2013/02/27-012345.php) for more\ninformation)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T10:45:13.217",
"id": "18061",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-31T10:45:13.217",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18058",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 18058 | 18061 | 18061 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18083",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "A recent [question about the usage of quoted\nspeech](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/17977/%E3%81%A8%E8%A8%80%E3%81%84%E3%81%BE%E3%81%99-vs-%E3%81%A8%E8%A8%80%E3%82%8F%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%81%BE%E3%81%99)\ncontained this interesting sample sentence:\n\n> ハイリアの民は、ふしぎな力を あやつることが、できたと言います。\n\nOften when I read this kind of sentence, I wonder if `ハイリアの民` is part of the\nquoted sentence, or the actor doing the quoting.\n\nThat is, can this sentence only be read as \"They say that the people of Hylia\nwere able to harness a mysterious power\" (which seems to be the only reading\nconsidered in the aforementioned discussion), or is \"The people of Hylia say\nthat they (not necessarily the Hylians) were able to harness a mysterious\npower\" also a valid reading?\n\nIf only the first reading is valid, is this possibly due to the usage of the\nparticle `は` versus `が`, which would mark the speaker?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T09:32:28.150",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18060",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T04:39:32.567",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3527",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"syntax",
"quotes",
"parsing"
],
"title": "Telling the speaker apart from the person being spoken about",
"view_count": 243
} | [
{
"body": "I would interpret it this way:\n\n> 『ハイリアの[民]{たみ}は、ふしぎな力をあやつることができた』と言います。 \n> (They say that the people of Hylia were able to harness a mysterious\n> power.)*\n\nwith or without the commas.\n\nAnd I would write it this way:\n\n> ハイリアの民は、不思議な力を操ることができたと言います。 \n> ハイリアの民は不思議な力を操ることができたと言います。 \n> or \n> ハイリアの民は、不思議な力を操ることができた、と言います。\n\n* * *\n\nIf ハイリアの民 was the subject of 言います, then I would expect something like this:\n\n> ハイリアの民は、 **XXが、** ふしぎな力をあやつることができたと言います。 \n> or \n> **XXは** ふしぎな力をあやつることができた、と **ハイリアの民は** 言います。 \n>\n\n* * *\n\n*I interpreted your sentence this way maybe because of the words that are being used. If I read, for example:\n\n> 山田さんは、幼いころ[竹馬]{たけうま}に[乗]{の}れた、と言います。\n\nI would read it as \"Mr Yamada claims that he was able to walk on stilts as a\nchild,\" with or without the commas.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T02:30:42.710",
"id": "18083",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T04:39:32.567",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-02T04:39:32.567",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18060",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18060 | 18083 | 18083 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18064",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've heard that the の in のに and なのに is the general-noun の (I don't remember\nthe word for it.). So why, in that light, does the meaning of the two make\nsense?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T17:13:41.707",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18063",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-31T17:58:47.840",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"set-phrases",
"copula"
],
"title": "The の in のに and なのに",
"view_count": 1547
} | [
{
"body": "The particle construction ～（な）のに expresses the **adversative** , i.e. in\nEnglish _(al)though_ , _even though_ , etc.\n\nThe の in ～のに and ～なのに is a suffix that functions as a nominalizer. の turns any\ninflected expression into a noun, and なの does the some for expressions that\ncannot be inflected. This happens in order to make the attachment of\ngrammatical markers possible that usually do not directly attach to the\nexpressions, or that do so with a different grammatical meaning. The に is\n**dative/locative** case, which only appear with nominals.\n\n```\n\n 攻撃されたのに、冷静に行動した。\n Even though (he) was attacked, he acted calmly.\n \n```\n\n攻撃された is an inflected expression (a passivized verb), hence のに.\n\n```\n\n 重要な発見なのに、無視された。\n Though an important discovery, it was ignored.\n \n```\n\n発見 cannot be inflected, hence なのに is required.\n\nSome linguists believe that the separation of のに in の and に is not entirely\ncorrect because both particles must be present in order to express the\nadversative. The adversative meaning also does not follow from meaning\ncomposition, i.e. combining the nominalizing property of の with\ndative/locative に does not result in an adversative reading. \nThat の has a nominalizing property can be seen in other examples, such as\n\n```\n\n 太郎が行かなかったのを知らなかった。\n (I) didn't know that Taroo didn't go.\n \n```\n\nThe clause 太郎が行かなかった 'Taroo didn't go' is nominalized, and hence the\naccusative case particle を can attach.\n\nThe answer to your question then is: の in ～（な）のに is a nominal particle that\nproduces nouns, or nominal expressions. Therefore, some linguists call it a\n**particle noun** (e.g. [Jens\nRickmeyer](http://webcatplus.nii.ac.jp/webcatplus/details/creator/442125.html)).",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T17:58:47.840",
"id": "18064",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-31T17:58:47.840",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5362",
"parent_id": "18063",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 18063 | 18064 | 18064 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18088",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I can't completely understand the meaning of そうして in the following dialogue.\nAs far as I can guess it is similar to こうして, but what is the point of using\nそう?\n\n> 雪隆：「ああ、そうだ。あの八角と慧の戦いを見ただろう？上位校の騎士たちはやっぱり強かった・・・」\n>\n> 雪隆：「上位の騎士団との連戦を続けるよりは、奇襲で一気にケリを付けたほうがいいと判断した」\n>\n> 雪隆：「結局、上位の騎士は一部仕留め損なってしまったがな」\n>\n> 慧：「すまない。それは私の純粋な力不足だ・・・」\n>\n> そうして淡々と話す俺に、みんなが動揺しているのがわかる。\n\n雪隆 is the speaker, 俺.\n\nTranslation attempt:\n\n> I understand that everyone is disturbed by me, who is speaking indifferently\n> **like this**.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T20:06:38.120",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18066",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T15:09:08.700",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3183",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Meaning of そうして",
"view_count": 2330
} | [
{
"body": "The そうして here is much like the English _thus_ , _and so, ..._ meaning\nsomething like _in the aforementioned way, ..._. A more colloquial and natural\ntranslation of that last sentence might be:\n\n> **そうして** 淡々と話す俺に、みんなが動揺しているのがわかる。 \n> **And that** led me to understand that me talking so indifferently was\n> bothering people.\n\nThe 俺 here might use そう instead of こう stylistically, similar to how and why an\nEnglish speaker might say \" _and **that** was what..._\" instead of \" _and\n**this** was what..._\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-31T20:38:06.837",
"id": "18067",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-31T20:38:06.837",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "18066",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "First, I assure you that your translation is already good. You understand the\nsentence structure perfectly. One might question if your word choices of\n\"disturb\" and perhaps \"this\" are best, but it is good that you understand that\n「そうして淡々と話す俺」 is a relative clause. If you had, as some would, placed a \"mental\ncomma\" after the そうして, it would have cost you a lot.\n\nRegarding そう vs. こう, it is often a subtle choice. While I should not make a\nhasty comment by reading just a few lines from an entire book/story, we tend\nto use そう/その/それ to keep a certain distance between the narrator and the events\ndecribed by him/her. \"Objectivity\" would be another word for \"distance\". This\nis usually the same even when the narrator is the first-person.\n\n> \"~~~ by me, who is speaking (as) matter-of-factly as that.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T10:59:26.110",
"id": "18088",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T10:59:26.110",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18066",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 18066 | 18088 | 18088 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18080",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "My previous question about ellipses (三点リーダー) in Japanese got me thinking about\nthe middle dot (中黒) in foreign names.\n\nWhen I was in college, I learned that if you have a non-Japanese (or, rather,\nnon-kanji) name, you should put a 中黒 in between your first name and last name.\n\nFor example:\n\nリア・スミス\n\nHowever, when exchanging e-mails with a native Japanese speaker, I will often\nsee a katakana name typed with a space in between the first and last name:\n\nFor example:\n\nリア スミス\n\nWhich is technically correct: middle dot (中黒) or space (スペース)? As a non-native\nJapanese speaker, I prefer a space, but does a space look\nincorrect/confusing/unaesthetically pleasing to a native Japanese speaker?\n\nThanks!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-01T01:23:16.253",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18069",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-01T23:04:54.280",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6861",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"punctuation"
],
"title": "Middle Dot (中黒) in Non-Japanese Names",
"view_count": 8909
} | [
{
"body": "Using 中黒 seems a little bit wired for me because spaces are always used in\nEnglish. I always use space when I write a technical report even in Japanese.\nI know that 中黒s are sometimes used in some contexts, but you can always use\nspaces either in informal and formal ones. As I am a native Japanese speaker,\nI recommend you should use space in any context.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-01T13:47:37.017",
"id": "18077",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-01T13:47:37.017",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6928",
"parent_id": "18069",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -2
},
{
"body": "Also referred to as 中点{なかてん}, I prefer it over a space because it looks and\nfeels better. Traditionally, Japanese was not written with spaces. So style-\nwise, I think it is more appropriate to use 中点 instead of space. Nowadays with\nEnglish and global influence, I am seeing spaces used a lot more, especially\nin digital text.\n\nSecondly, it depends on where the name is located within the text. For\nexample, if you are writing the name at the top of an email, then a space\nwouldn't be so unnatural. However, if the name is within a newspaper article,\nthen the entire text is broken up by the use of this space. Using a 中点 in this\nsituation would preserve the flow of the text.\n\nTo summarize, I don't think there is a 'technically correct' answer. Both are\ncorrect and it just depends on which style you prefer, whether personal style\nor a formally established style.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-01T20:30:56.493",
"id": "18080",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-01T23:04:54.280",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-01T23:04:54.280",
"last_editor_user_id": "6823",
"owner_user_id": "6823",
"parent_id": "18069",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 18069 | 18080 | 18080 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18073",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm having trouble saying the following thing in Japanese: \"This song is\nplayed when the traffic light turns green in some places in Japan.\"\n\nSpecifically, I don't what would be 'the most natural/correct way' to say\n\"this song is played\" and \"in some places\".\n\nThank you in advance.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-01T06:21:57.687",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18070",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-01T09:36:01.880",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6809",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "How would you say \"this song is played\" and \"in some places/cities\" in natural Japanese?",
"view_count": 1535
} | [
{
"body": "\"This song is played when the traffic light turns green in some places in\nJapan.\" \n日本の一部の地域では、信号が青になったときにこの曲が流れます。\n\n\"this song is played\" is \"この曲が流れる\" \n\"in some places\" is \"一部の地域で\" or \"いくつかの場所で\" \n \nHope this helps!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-01T09:36:01.880",
"id": "18073",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-01T09:36:01.880",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6926",
"parent_id": "18070",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18070 | 18073 | 18073 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18074",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "While checking out \"正\" (as in 正坐, specifically) I found that apparently one of\nthe associated meaning would be 10^40 (i.e. 10 elevated at the 40th power).\n\nExample -[taken from\nTangorin.com](http://tangorin.com/dict.php?dict=general&s=%E6%AD%A3):\n\nsei 【正】 noun / noun with genitive case particle の:\n\n 1. (logical) true; regular \n 2. 10^40 \n 3. original —Abbreviation. → せいほん【正本】\n 4. positive; greater than zero; —Mathematics term. → ふ【負】\n\n10^40 is a pretty large number (estimated number of water molecules on Earth:\napprox. 4.5x10^48) and I wonder if this is to be intended as \"infinite\", or if\nnot, when is this specific \"meaning\" supposed to be used.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-01T08:13:33.237",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18071",
"last_activity_date": "2022-04-12T00:59:45.123",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1646",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"numbers",
"word-usage"
],
"title": "What is this 10^40 thing?",
"view_count": 1820
} | [
{
"body": "It is legit. From [大辞林](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%AD%A3?dic=daijirin)\n\n> ⑦ 数の単位。澗（かん）の1万倍，すなわち10の40乗。 〔塵劫記〕\n\nAlso, from the [Wikipedia JP page on \"正\n(数)\"](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A3_\\(%E6%95%B0\\)).\n\n> 正（せい）は漢字文化圏における数の単位の一つ。正がいくつを示すかは時代や地域により異なるが、現在では1040を示す。\n\nYou can see a list of these numerical terms for large numbers on [the\nWikipedia JP page on\n\"命数法\"](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%91%BD%E6%95%B0%E6%B3%95#.E5.A4.A7.E6.95.B0).\nOh, [here's an English\nversion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_numerals#Large_numbers).\n\nThat said, while 大辞林 has the corresponding entry for each in the list, 大辞泉 and\n広辞苑 do not list the definition for everything from (1024) to 極 (1048)\ninclusive.\n\nAdditionally, the [Wikipedia JP page on \"京\n(数)\"](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%AC_\\(%E6%95%B0\\)) mentions that\n\n> ただし、いずれの国でも京まで使われることは稀であり、台湾・韓国では京以上の命数はあまり知られていない。\n\ni.e. the terms for 1016 (京) and upwards are rarely used nowadays.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-01T09:39:30.223",
"id": "18074",
"last_activity_date": "2022-04-12T00:59:45.123",
"last_edit_date": "2022-04-12T00:59:45.123",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "6840",
"parent_id": "18071",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "I think it's just a number. In theory, you could use it any time you wanted to\nsay 1040, like if you were describing [the number of ways you could choose 45\nobjects out of a bag of 160\nobjects](https://www.google.com/search?q=160+choose+45), but in practice I\ndoubt it would be written or spoken that way.\n\nJapanese has lots of [words for big\nnumbers](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%91%BD%E6%95%B0%E6%B3%95). Actually,\n[English has some too](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers)!\nYou could equally ask your question about\n[_vigintillion_](http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vigintillion)\n(1063). Why does English need this word? Well, it probably doesn't, really,\nbut we've got it anyway.\n\nIn practice, you can probably ignore this use of 正 the same way you likely\nignore English _vigintillion_. If you ever come across one of them in print,\nyou can look it up in a dictionary. These days, if you need to write that\nnumber, you can just write 1040.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-01T16:52:07.793",
"id": "18079",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-01T16:52:07.793",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18071",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 18071 | 18074 | 18074 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I \"dreamed\" up this word, and want to use this as a Product/Company/... name.\nDoes this mean anything in Japanese? Google does turn up with a single result,\nbut i don't understand it:\n\n[https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-\ninstant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22kagekifu%22](https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-\ninstant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22kagekifu%22)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-01T10:20:28.447",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18075",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-01T11:42:35.933",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6927",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -2,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Does Kagekifu mean anything?",
"view_count": 219
} | [
{
"body": "First of all please let me briefly explain how Japanese writing works. There\nare two phonetical alphabets which are used to write some parts of language\nand the largest part are Chinese characters or Kanji. Basically if something\nis written in any alphabet it has no meaning without context and Kanji have\ncontext within them. So, writing anything in roman letters will not make any\ndefinite sense in Japanese even if there is such word. Only words (without\ncontext) written using Kanji have meaning.\n\nNext, let's move to your word.\n\n * Kageki - 過激 - excessive, radical\n * Fū - 風 - wind, style\n * Ha (Fa) - 派 - group, party\n\nSo, 過激派 (kagekiha) is \"extremists party\", 過激風 (kagekifū) is \"extreme way\" or\n\"radical way\".\n\nI will leave judgment if this is a good name for a product or company to you.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-01T11:42:35.933",
"id": "18076",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-01T11:42:35.933",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6748",
"parent_id": "18075",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 18075 | null | 18076 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18084",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm wondering how to express a very mild preference towards an option when\nbeing offered several choices in a conversation (e.g. when arranging a meeting\ntime with a colleague).\n\nI am familiar with the expressions .. ほうがいいです and .. がすきです, but both feel\nstronger than what I want to say.\n\nEssentially I'm trying to complete this sentence with something natural-\nsounding:\n\n「どちらでもいいですが、Xのほうが（・・・・・・）。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T00:38:52.203",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18081",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-28T18:12:20.913",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-28T18:12:20.913",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4669",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"phrase-requests",
"questions"
],
"title": "Expressing a mild preference",
"view_count": 1230
} | [
{
"body": "There are many ways but you want to be clear so perhaps the easiest is to use\na different adjective to いい such as 便利. \"Either is fine but X would be more\nconvenient.\" If you can give the reason even better.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T01:38:11.943",
"id": "18082",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T01:38:11.943",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "18081",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> a very mild preference\n\nHow about using どちらかと言えば、どちらかと言うと、[強]{し}いて言えば、強いて言うと etc. as in\n\n> どちらでも大丈夫なんですが、どちらかと言うと、～～のほうがいいです。 \n> どちらでも大丈夫なんですが、どちらかと言えば、～～のほうが[嬉]{うれ}しいです。/ありがたいです。 \n> どちらでもいいんですが、[強]{し}いて言えば、～～のほうが・・・。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T02:42:26.147",
"id": "18084",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T03:32:42.403",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-02T03:32:42.403",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18081",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 18081 | 18084 | 18084 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18087",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Recently, I read [this\narticle](http://ponderingnihongo.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/humble-beginnings-\nthe-%E3%81%A7-particle/) which interprets である as described by this post's\ntitle, so 学生である would be analyzed as \"(I) exist in the form of a student\".\n\nOn one hand, である originated from [にて +\nあり](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/12098/6840), with [にて being the\nprecursor of で\nparticle](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%A7?dic=daijirin&oid=DJR_de_-040).\n\n非回答者 also mentioned [here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/13754/6840)\nregarding the [splicing of である with a\ntopic](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/13753/6840)\n\n> Grammatically, である can be treated as one word, which is probably why you\n> feel it weird being spliced, but native speakers know instinctively that it\n> consists of two parts で and ある and that the subject for ある could be squeezed\n> in between. \"in (= で) a certain state + subject + ある(exists)\".\n\nOn the other hand, if one looks at the ある entry in dictionaries, e.g. [大辞林\ndefinition\n(二).1](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%9C%89%E3%82%8B%E3%83%BB%E5%9C%A8%E3%82%8B),\n[大辞泉 definition (二).3](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%9C%89%E3%82%8B), and 広辞苑\ndefinition (12), one would see something along the lines of\n\n> 名詞に助動詞「だ」の連用形「で」を添えた形に付いて\n\ni.e. で is specified as the 連用形 of だ instead of as a particle.\n\nAlso, since ある in である is listed as 補助動詞, and [Wikipedia JP's page on\n補助動詞](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A3%9C%E5%8A%A9%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E) says\nthat\n\n> 日本語などにおいて、別の動詞に後続することにより文法的機能を果たす動詞で、それ自体の本来の意味は保っていない（前の動詞との組合せで意味を持つ）ものである\n\nis it still correct to isolate the ある and say it means \"to exist\"?\n\nIn short, can one break down である into the particle で and the verb ある, and\nanalyze である as \"to exist in the form of ~\"?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T03:53:54.577",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18085",
"last_activity_date": "2014-11-03T18:19:16.520",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "6840",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"copula"
],
"title": "Can the である copula be explained as で (particle) + ある (to exist), i.e. \"to exist in the form of ~\"?",
"view_count": 789
} | [
{
"body": "The で in 「名詞 + である」 is not a particle/助詞, but a 助動詞(auxiliary verb).\n\nThe ある in 「名詞 + である」 is not a 補助動詞(subsidiary verb) because 補助動詞 should follow\na te-form verb. The ある in [包]{つつ}んである、[畳]{たた}んである、[組]{く}んである etc. would be a\n補助動詞.\n\nThe である in 「名詞 + である」 consists of 助動詞「だ」の連用形「で」 + 動詞「ある」. 「名詞 + である。」 at the\nend of a sentence functions in the same way as 「名詞 + です。」(polite) and 「名詞 +\nだ。」(casual).\n\nYes, you can break down である into で(assertive auxiliary verb だ) and ある(the verb\n在る/有る) and analyse it as \"to exist as~~ / to exist in the state of ~~\". You\ndon't \"translate\" it that way, though.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T05:15:24.903",
"id": "18086",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T05:42:28.390",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-02T05:42:28.390",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18085",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "When you read that で is the 連用形 of 断定の助動詞「だ」, that's a _reanalysis_. That is,\nfrom a modern perspective it makes sense to talk about it that way, and you\nshould be familiar with the concept if for no other reason than to understand\ndictionary entries.\n\nBut that doesn't mean that's how it came about _historically_. Of course だ is\ncontracted from である, and etymologically で is just である without the tense-\nbearing ある. The same thing is true of the old copula なり, which is a\ncontraction of にあり. If you look it up, you'll see that it's analyzed as having\nに as a 連用形, but from an etymological perspective it's simply にあり without the\nあり.\n\nTo assert that it's _etymologically_ a だ plus て, we'd need to suggest\nsomething like にてありて somehow contracting all the way down to で, but this is\nimplausible historically, given that に and にて were used as copulas before the\nderived copula である existed. [The copula に goes back all the way to proto-\nJaponic](https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/4691) and is clearly a more\nbasic form.\n\n* * *\n\nYou also ask \"is it still correct to isolate the ある and say it means 'to\nexist'.\" Here I have to say **no**.\n\nIt's clear that in Modern Japanese ある in である is being used grammatically, not\nlexically. \"Exist\" is a gross over-translation. If you'd like to suggest that\nthis was where it comes from _etymologically_ , that it's its _literal_\nmeaning, you could do so (although I think the \"as\" meaning of で is\nhistorically secondary, so I don't think it's _quite_ right). But in any case\nI don't think that's what it means _now_.\n\nRemember that etymology does not determine what a word means in the modern\nlanguage. To determine that, you have to look at how it's used _now_.\nOtherwise, you're falling victim to the [etymological\nfallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy).\n\n* * *\n\nSo how _do_ we analyze it now? Well, there's more than one valid way to think\nabout it, and I won't attempt to teach you the One True Analysis. But I'll\npresent one possible alternative below.\n\nThe modern linguist Kunio Nishiyama, in his 1999 [_Adjectives and the Copulas\nin\nJapanese_](http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20100764?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21104026914781),\nrefers to で as the **predicative copula** and ある as the **dummy copula**. In\nthis analysis, the former is used to create copular predicates, and the latter\nis a dummy verb whose sole purpose is to bear tense. (Of course, ある has other\nuses where it is not a dummy verb.)\n\nIf we adopt this theory, we can treat the combination of である contracting into\nだ when the two are next to each other. This contraction only happens under\ncertain conditions. For example, if you insert a particle such as も, the\ncontraction is blocked:\n\n```\n\n Ａで **** Ｂで **** ある → Ａで **** Ｂだ **** _(_ である _becomes_ だ _)_ \n Ａで **も** Ｂで **も** ある → Ａで **も** Ｂで **も** ある _(contraction blocked)_\n```\n\nHere, both Ａで and Ｂで are copular predicates, but it's not a complete sentence\nwithout ある, which turns the whole thing into a present tense sentence.\n\nIn similar fashion, we can treat だった as contracted from であった and です as\ncontracted from であります if we'd like (although the actual historical etymology\nof です is uncertain).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T05:56:51.623",
"id": "18087",
"last_activity_date": "2014-11-03T18:19:16.520",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:54:11.000",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18085",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 18085 | 18087 | 18087 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18091",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was translating some stuff and ran into this line: 私の言葉を曲げて捉えていると思ってな.\n\nNow, as the title said, my main issue here is the \"曲げて捉えて\" bit; would it be\ncorrect for me to read it as something like \"misunderstanding\"?\n\nAs in: \"It seems you're misunderstanding (the point of) my words\"?\n\nI went with that because it seems like the 曲げて+捉えて would work as the point of\nthe speaker's words being distorted and THEN wrongfully grasped? So,\nmisunderstanding seemed like the proper choice.\n\nAny confirmation or clarification is appreciated.\n\nThanks for the help!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T13:10:19.457",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18090",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T13:37:48.320",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5108",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "Regarding the meaning of ～曲げて捉えて",
"view_count": 82
} | [
{
"body": "Trusting that the unmentioned subject of the verb 「[曲]{ま}げて[捉]{とら}えている」 is the\nlistener as shown in your TL, I might go with something like:\n\n> \"I feel that you're distorting my meaning, (I'm afraid).\"\n\n\"Misunderstanding\", to me sounds kind of too innocent (unless that fits the\nlarger context better).",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T13:37:48.320",
"id": "18091",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T13:37:48.320",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18090",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18090 | 18091 | 18091 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18093",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am currently doing research on automatic case frame (格フレーム) acquisition and\nits applications. A case frame describes the syntactic structure of a\npredicate by providing a canonical representation of its syntactic structure\n(also known as 文型). Traditionally, 文型 contain only non-complex case-marker\n(e.g. が, を, に, で), however, for some applications in computational\nlinguistics, we are also interested in complex case-markers (複合格助詞) such as\n〜として, 〜に関して, 〜をめぐって, 〜とともに, and so on.\n\nDo you know of any comprehensive study on 複合格助詞? Is there a list of most\nfrequent 複合格助詞?\n\nAt the moment, the best I have is the list given in 『現代日本語文法 第３部格と構文』 but it\nlacks some common 複合格助詞 (e.g. をめぐって).\n\n[EDIT] Thanks to @snailboat I also got the list proposed by Samuel Martin in\n_Reference Grammar of Japanese_ (about 200 phrasal postpositions). As the\nauthor noted:\n\n> (...) it is difficult to give clear criteria for what is, and what is not, a\n> phrasal postposition.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T14:53:32.660",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18092",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-03T13:13:03.480",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-03T10:42:43.660",
"last_editor_user_id": "6591",
"owner_user_id": "6591",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particles",
"syntax"
],
"title": "Looking for references on 複合格助詞",
"view_count": 326
} | [
{
"body": "Samuel Martin calls these **phrasal postpositions** in his 1975 _Reference\nGrammar of Japanese_. Starting on page 577 he produces a list of over 200 of\nthese, giving literary and modern forms where applicable, marking whether は or\nも can be inserted between the elements, whether a polite version is available\n(as in につきまして for について), and so on. Although you're unlikely to be satisfied\nthat this list is complete, it could make a good starting point.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T18:09:14.550",
"id": "18093",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T18:09:14.550",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18092",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "MUST1 project annotates compound functional expressions (CFE) in a newswire\ncorpus. Although it requires the non-free 毎日新聞(1995年版CD-ROM) corpus, one can\nextract CFE from the `*.xml` files located in `MUST-dist-1.0/core`.\n\nAll these CFE do not correspond to 複合格助詞, yet the resource is worth a look.\n\nProject home page: <http://nlp.iit.tsukuba.ac.jp/must/>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-03T13:13:03.480",
"id": "18103",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-03T13:13:03.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6591",
"parent_id": "18092",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 18092 | 18093 | 18093 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18095",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am not sure how these two sounds are used in Japanese. Which one is more\ncommon, in terms of frequency? Under what cases is the other one used?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T19:48:51.830",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18094",
"last_activity_date": "2020-12-29T16:00:42.407",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3221",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"pronunciation"
],
"title": "Is /z/ pronounced as [z] or [dz] or both?",
"view_count": 4272
} | [
{
"body": "From _The Sounds of Japanese_ (Vance 2008), p.85:\n\n> We'll transcribe [dz] phonemically as /z/ because there's no contrast\n> between [dz] and the voiced lamino-alveolar fricative [z]. **Typically,\n> though not consistently, [dz] occurs at the beginning of a word or in the\n> middle of a word immediately following a syllable-final consonant (§5.1,\n> §5.6), and [z] occurs in the middle of a word immediately following a\n> vowel.** In short, [dz] and [z] are allophones of this /z/ phoneme. Most\n> native speakers of Japanese are quite surprised to discover there's actually\n> a phonetic difference to worry about, but you'll hear it if you listen\n> carefully to pronunciations of _zu_ [dzɯ] 図 'diagram' and _chizu_ [cɕizɯ] 地図\n> 'map'.\n\nIn the above, \"a syllable-final consonant\" means either `ん` /N/ or `っ` /Q/,\nwhich Vance explains in sections §5.1 and §5.6 respectively. In the latter\nsection (p.108), he goes on to write:\n\n> As we saw in §4.3, /z/ has both [z] and [dz] as careful-pronunciation\n> allophones, but following /Q/, /z/ is always [dz].\n\nAlthough note that voiced [geminates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geminate)\nlike this appear almost exclusively in loanwords, and even there under certain\nconditions are commonly devoiced--see e.g. [_A corpus-based study of geminate\ndevoicing in Japanese_ (Kawahara and Sano\n2013)](http://user.keio.ac.jp/~kawahara/pdf/KawaharaSano2013.pdf) or their\nother recent work for discussion.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T20:50:18.287",
"id": "18095",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-03T07:12:47.557",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-03T07:12:47.557",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18094",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "[dz] is far more common than [z]. The conventional rule is that [z] is more\ncommon after a vowel and [dz] everywhere else. In my experience, [dz] is close\nto mandatory in all other positions, and [dz] still frequently occurs after\nvowels.\n\nI once read that in particular before /i/, [dz(~dʑ)] is stil far more common\nafter vowels than [z(~ʑ)], far more than in front of the other vowels. I could\nnever find any research that backs this up, but this seems to match with my\nintuition and I did do some informal tests on random sound fragments after I\nread this to confirm this and it did match up that the affricative was about\ntwice as common there as before any other vowel — I have no idea as to what\nmight explain this.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2020-12-29T16:00:42.407",
"id": "83339",
"last_activity_date": "2020-12-29T16:00:42.407",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "35937",
"parent_id": "18094",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 18094 | 18095 | 18095 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18097",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Why is the kanji for うん(運) the same as the kanji for 運ぶ? Did the kanji just\nsomehow end up being the same, or were the two meanings related somehow? All I\ncan think of is some kind of \"carrying luck\", but that doesn't seem right.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T22:07:21.723",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18096",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-05T04:46:44.440",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"etymology",
"history"
],
"title": "Why is the kanji for luck the same as to carry?",
"view_count": 980
} | [
{
"body": "I think there are multiple interpretations of this character, but it's clearly\na combination of 辶 (from 辶) and 軍, which suggests the movement-related meaning\ncame first and \"luck\" was a derived meaning. But how was it derived? Here's\nwhat Henshall has to say:\n\n> 辶 is **movement** 129. 軍 is **army** 466 q.v. Some scholars take the latter\n> in a literal sense, giving **army on the move** and by association\n> **transportation** and the **fortunes** of war. Others take it to act\n> phonetically to express **round** , as well as lending its own connotations\n> of both **circle** and **vehicle** (from a circle of vehicles), thus giving\n> a meaning of **vehicles rolling along** , and hence **transport**. **Luck**\n> is then felt to stem from an association between fortune and circular/cyclic\n> movement.\n\nIt seems like the exact way it came to mean \"luck\" is unclear, but there you\nhave a couple possible ways it could have happened.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-02T22:55:05.317",
"id": "18097",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-02T22:55:05.317",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18096",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "This is speculation on my part, but I believe it is possible that when 運 is\nused to mean one's luck or fortune, it may be interpreted as \"[that which is]\ncarried\".\n\nTo illustrate, consider the word 運命(うんめい), meaning destiny or fate. Taking the\ntwo kanji apart, we have: \n運ぶ (はこぶ) meaning to carry \nand 命(いのち) meaning life.\n\nSo, synthesized, it would mean \"the life that one carries\" or even \"the life\nthat one is made to carry\".\n\nAs for why 運 without any object would refer to one's luck, it may refer to\nthat which is naturally and constantly possessed and thus the \"default in\nabsence of others\". A man stripped of all status and possessions would still\nhave his life, as it is part of him. And yet it can be the whole of him too,\nsince it seems that one's destiny is seen to be inescapable, decided by the\ndivine and placed upon one's shoulders.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-05T04:46:44.440",
"id": "18120",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-05T04:46:44.440",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6961",
"parent_id": "18096",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 18096 | 18097 | 18097 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18100",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I've heard someone say that \"一匹{いっぴき}\" was used at the end of the original\nGodzilla movie, with Dr. Yamane saying that Godzilla wasn't the last one of\n\"them\".\n\nWhy did he use that, as opposed to \"一頭{いっとう}\"? Do Japanese speakers sometimes\nuse the wrong counter to be ironic, or is there another reason?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-03T09:19:58.080",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18099",
"last_activity_date": "2019-04-08T03:33:09.413",
"last_edit_date": "2019-04-08T03:33:09.413",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 38,
"tags": [
"counters"
],
"title": "Why was \"一匹\" used for Godzilla?",
"view_count": 5804
} | [
{
"body": "There is certainly a reason for that. In this case, it is for expressing\nYamane's (or the human kind's) derogatory feelings toward Godzilla.\n\nThe counter 「[頭]{とう}」 simply does not carry that derogatory connotation among\nus Japanese-speakers; It can only be neutral. In case this is what you are\nwondering about, the size of Gozilla does not matter as Godzilla is way too\nlarge to begin with. The general real-life rule of \"匹 for smaller animals and\n頭 for larger animals\" does not apply here.\n\n「[一匹]{いっぴき}」, however, does just the job when used in the right context. With\nit, you can \"say\" out loud \"little f*****\" without actually saying it.\n\nBelieve it or not, 匹 can even be used to refer to humans if they are your\nenemies. In sports, excited fans often use it to refer to the opponents. You\nwill hear people say something like 「さあ, あと一匹だっ！」 at the bottom of the 9th\ninning with two outs in baseball.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-03T10:18:35.373",
"id": "18100",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-19T07:25:40.530",
"last_edit_date": "2016-02-19T07:25:40.530",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18099",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 44
},
{
"body": "This answer is supplementary, but using the counter 匹 for large animals is not\nso unnatural in daily conversations.\n\nFor example, Google returns roughly the same number of results for\n\"[2匹の象](https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=%222%E5%8C%B9%E3%81%AE%E8%B1%A1%22&safe=off)\"\nand\n\"[2頭の象](https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=%222%E9%A0%AD%E3%81%AE%E8%B1%A1%22&safe=off)\".\nI haven't checked out each of the results, but it's very unlikely that all\nthose people using 2匹の象 are elephant haters.\n\nIf explicitly asked \"what is the _correct_ counter for 象 in Japanese?\", many\npeople will answer \"頭\".\n\nBut in practice, we often unconsciously use 匹 for all kinds of animals,\nincluding elephants, whales or dinosaurs. Basically, don't think using 匹 for\nhuge animals is always ironic or derogatory.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-04T06:24:36.920",
"id": "18111",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-04T06:40:50.283",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-04T06:40:50.283",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18099",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "Googling the two terms in Japanese, there are a great deal of discussions\namong the Japanese about when to use which as clearly ambiguous to them as\nmuch as it is to you. One of such quoted the definitions from Dictionary of\nHow to Count (『数え方の辞典』) written by Asako Iida (飯田朝子).\n\n> 【匹】 \n> ・大型ではない生物全般。 \n> ・小型の哺乳類。 \n> ・小型の爬虫類、両棲類。 \n> ・魚類。\n>\n> 【頭】 \n> ・大型の哺乳類。 \n> ・大型の爬虫類。 \n> ・学術的な希少動物。 \n> ・学術分野でチョウ（英語の数え方の直訳）。 \n> ・人にとって重要、貴重、有益な小動物。（実験動物、カイコなど） \n> ・人が訓練した役に立つ犬。（警察犬、救助犬、盲導犬など） \n> ・まれに大型の鳥類。（ダチョウなど）\n>\n> 【恐竜】 \n> 匹、頭、体\n>\n> 小型のものは「匹」、大型のものは「頭」で数えます。骨格標本や模型などは「体」で数えます。\n\nMore or less the definition of \"小型の爬虫類、両棲類\" for 匹 seems suited for this case.\nOne may say it is an expression of belittlement. But also it can be taken as\nan expression of endearment by the diminutive expression.\n\nOne of the discussions said NHK does not have clear definitions in use of the\ntwo terms and neither for average native Japanese speakers. Some says, 頭 is\nused for any animals large or small in zoology. Some suggested that there is\nsome historical legacy in native speakers count in some unit the way they do\n(e.g. rabbits counted as 羽 so that Buddhists who was forbidden to eat 4 legged\nanimals can eat it as birds). Some says 匹 is used for hunting, distancing\nhunters from respecting the games.\n\nAll in all, we can read in a lot and try to see meanings behind it. But I am\nnot sure if the authorial intent can be clarified in a clear cut manner here.\nI, as an average native Japanese speaker, certainly can't.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-04T10:41:19.793",
"id": "18113",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-19T09:00:42.597",
"last_edit_date": "2016-02-19T09:00:42.597",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "6954",
"parent_id": "18099",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
] | 18099 | 18100 | 18100 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I have two examples of this structure which does not obviously correspond to a\npattern in English although it is quite common. I'd like to know what it\nmeans, why it is used and how it should be translated (because if I can do\nthat I know I understand it).\n\n**Example 1**\n\nI heard this on a TV series yesterday. The final scene of one part portrayed\ntwo sisters, かよ and はな. かよ was grieving over the death of her fiance and はな\ncould not say anything to her and get a calm reasonable response. The narrator\nsaid:\n\n> かよに何も言えないはなでした。ごきげんよう、さよなら。\n>\n> [FINIS]\n\nIt is easy to reword this final sentence as\n\n> はなはかよに何も言えなかったんだ。\n\nAnd capture most of the literal meaning. In English I might have narrated,\n\"Hana could not say anything to Kayo.\" or perhaps \"Poor Hana, as far as Kayo\nwas concerned, what ever Hana said, it was the wrong thing to say.\" but\nsomething, I am not sure what, is missing.\n\n**Example 2**\n\nThe following is the final paragraph from a magazine article on how\nconvenience stores have developed over the past 40 years, particularly since\nthe earthquake in March 2011:\n\n> 誕生から４０年、柔軟に形を変えながら成長してきたコンビニ。次は、どんなサービスを展開し、どう進化していくのか。楽しみである。\n\nThis is in \"newspaper Japanese\" so the copula is omitted. I would have\nwritten:\n\n> コンビニは誕生から４０年、柔軟に形を変えながら成長(してきた)。\n\nIn both examples the writers seem to have deliberately chosen this \"relative\nclause - noun - copula\" structure (in the second case a zero copula). We have\nsome questions on 体言止め help with my first question below I should be grateful\nif somebody could explain:\n\n1) Why or when is this structure used? \n2) How it should be translated? (because if I can do that I know I understand\nit). \n3) Are there any redundant subjects/topics omitted because they not necessary?\n(eg If we take AはBでした as a complete sentence then in example 1 we have \"Bでした\"\nbut not \"Aは\"）\n\n* * *\n\n_Supplementary note_ \nLast night I thought I had a new example from the TV. After a doing bungy jump\na woman said to the camera 「挑戦してよかった、あたし」. It sounded like the construction in\nexample one. Then I realised it is just an example of somebody inverting the\norder of the parts a spoken sentence. It may just be coincidence but the\nsimilarity of how this exclamation and example one sounded to me as a listener\n(and how the information is received) struck me.)",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-03T11:23:47.467",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18101",
"last_activity_date": "2014-09-13T08:14:15.100",
"last_edit_date": "2014-09-13T08:14:15.100",
"last_editor_user_id": "1556",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"translation",
"usage",
"copula",
"relative-clauses"
],
"title": "Adnominalisation (Relative clause - noun - copula structure): What does it mean? How can we translate it?",
"view_count": 814
} | [
{
"body": "How about using the English copula in this case too? \"And there **was**\nHanako, lost for words to comfort her sister, Kayo\"\n\nOr in the case of the second, \"the\" could work too: \" **The** ever evolving\nconvenience store: with 40 years since its inception, blah blah blah\"\n\nAs for meaning, it doesn't mean anything special per se, but to me it feels\n\"defining\" for lack of a better word, or like something used in narrative\n(like your example). Almost like the tone used in English nature documentaries\nif that helps:\n\n\"The fickle and mysterious domestic cat: superb hunter and ubiquitous human\ncompanion animal\"",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-03T12:28:19.150",
"id": "18102",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-03T12:28:19.150",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6841",
"parent_id": "18101",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "When there is no copula and nothing seems to be omitted, as in your second\nexample, I interpret the sentence as simply a **fragment** , used to \"set the\nscene\", and would translate it as such. It is very reminiscent of how\nfragments are used in descriptive passages in English:\n\n> Pale druggists in remote towns of the Epworth League and flannel nightgown\n> belts, endlessly wrapping up bottles of Peruna. . . . Women hidden away in\n> the damp kitchens of unpainted houses along the railroad tracks, frying\n> tough beefsteaks. . . . Lime and cement dealers being initiated into the\n> Knights of Pythias, the Red Men or the Woodmen of the World. . . . Watchmen\n> at lonely railroad crossings in Iowa, hoping that they'll be able to get off\n> to hear the United Brethren evangelist preach. . . . Ticket-sellers in the\n> subway, breathing sweat in its gaseous form. . . . Farmers plowing sterile\n> fields behind sad meditative horses, both suffering from the bites of\n> insects. . . . Grocery-clerks trying to make assignations with soapy servant\n> girls. . . . Women confined for the ninth or tenth time, wondering\n> helplessly what it is all about. . . . Methodist preachers retired after\n> forty years of service in the trenches of God, upon pensions of $600 a year.\n>\n> -- H. L. Mencken, taken from\n> [here](http://grammar.about.com/od/rhetoricstyle/a/effectivefrag.htm)\n\nCompare the above with this short Japanese passage that is clearly going for a\nsimilar, if not identical, effect:\n\n> 何者かが何者かに切り殺されている気配。嘆き。叫び。 … 血塗られた背と折れた剣、砕けた柱……。\n>\n> Hints of someone being slashed and slain by someone. Wails. Cries. ... A\n> back smeared with blood and a broken sword, a crumbled pillar....\n\nAnd your example translated in this way:\n\n> 誕生から４０年、柔軟に形を変えながら成長してきたコンビニ。\n>\n> The convenience store that has grown while limberly changing shape, 40 years\n> since its inception.\n\nThe form and function seem quite similar. There's practically no limit to how\nmuch the noun can be modified, be it adjectivally, adverbially, relatively, or\nphrasally. And what we get in effect is a snapshot, a picture, an isolated\nconcept. The focus is not on what the noun _is_ , _does_ , _did_ , etc, but on\nthe very noun itself.\n\n* * *\n\nWhen the copula is present, as in your first example, I don't see how the\nsentence is any different in form from 「私です。」, as in response to 「誰ですか？」, only\nwith additional modifiers:\n\n> かよに何も言えないはなでした。\n>\n> It was a Hana who couldn't say anything to Kayo.\n\nAnd before I get bashed for abusing English, let me just say that modifying\nproper nouns--and pronouns!--with the help of definite/indefinite articles is\na well-established practice:\n\n> Mr Dursley hummed as he picked out his most boring tie for work and Mrs\n> Dursley gossiped away happily as she wrestled **a screaming Dudley** into\n> his highchair. -- J.K. Rowling\n>\n> **The me I was yesterday** is no more. Let **the me of tomorrow** come!\n\nASIDE: Brandon's suggestion is definitely more natural and would work in\npractice. However, I feel that it's more a translation of the following:\n\n> そこで、かよに何も言えないはながいました。\n>\n> And there was Hana, unable to say anything to Kayo.\n\nWith there-insertion, _was_ is no longer the _linking-verb be_ , but the\n_existential be_.\n\n* * *\n\nEDIT: How does the Hana sentence fit as a narrative of the scenario? Why the\nrelative-noun-copula structure?\n\nAgain, here's the sentence in question, with what I believe to be the omitted\ntopic:\n\n> (それは)かよに何も言えないはなでした。\n\nA `subject + が` doesn't seem likely here.\n\nI don't believe this sentence is making a statement about Hana. If it were, it\nwould instead be 「はなはかよに何も言えなかったんだ。」, your suggestion. Rather, it is a\nstatement on the **general state of affairs** , quite fitting for an ending\nnarration.\n\nThe distinction may not be obvious. To illustrate, I'll appeal to English's\n_It_ , as the general-state-of-affairs idea is inherent in certain usages of\n_It_.\n\nConsider the \"[weather\nit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_pronoun#Weather_it)\":\n\n> (1) It is raining.\n>\n> (2) It is cold.\n\nWhat might _It_ be referring to?\n\nIn (1), one might argue that _It = Rain_ , `Rain is raining.`, where _to rain_\nmeans _to fall_. (Interestingly, this is how (1) is expressed in Japanese:\n「雨が降っている。」)\n\nHowever, the idea that the \"weather it\" refers to something concrete is\nproblematic, especially in (2), where it is not obvious what that something\nis. The weather is cold? The air? The surrounding area? And yet everyone seems\nto understand the sentence perfectly fine! Thus, some linguists argue that\n_It_ here simply refers to the **general state of affairs**.\n\nAlso, note how (2) is expressed in Japanese: 「寒いです。」, an `X + copula`\nconstruction. If we accept that Japanese's `X + copula` is similar to\nEnglish's `It + copula` in that both can be statements on the general state of\naffairs, then it would not be too much a stretch to say that the difference\nbetween 「(それは)かよに何も言えないはなでした。」 and 「はなはかよに何も言えなかったんだ。」 is akin to the\ndifference between \"It was a cold day.\" and \"The day was cold.\"\n\nHence, \"It was a Hana who couldn't say anything to Kayo.\" (The general state\nof affairs: a Hana who couldn't say anything to Kayo.)\n\nEvidence from literature:\n\n> **It was** the best of times, **it was** the worst of times. -- Charles\n> Dickens\n>\n> **それは** すべての時世の中で最もよい時世 **でもあれば** 、すべての時世の中で最も悪い時世 **でもあった** 。",
"comment_count": 14,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-09-11T03:04:24.790",
"id": "18641",
"last_activity_date": "2014-09-12T20:33:05.760",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5247",
"parent_id": "18101",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 18101 | null | 18102 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18105",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "So I'm just confused. I've read that when writing **を** is used, but when\ntalking **お** is used. Is this true or are they entirely different?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-03T19:49:10.547",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18104",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-03T21:37:19.730",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6821",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particles"
],
"title": "Is there a difference between the particle お (o) and the particle を (wo)",
"view_count": 19141
} | [
{
"body": "You need to distinguish **spelling** and **pronunciation**. You do this all\nthe time in English: you're aware that _**two**_ (\"one plus one\") and\n_**too**_ (\"also\") have the same pronunciation even though they're spelled\ndifferently.\n\nLikewise, in Japanese, keep in mind that **the particle を is always spelled\nを** , even though its basic pronunciation is the same as お.\n\n* * *\n\nを and お used to be distinguished in pronunciation, but they merged about a\nthousand years ago. The distinction was retained in spelling for a long time\nafter, just like how in English we still write _**knight**_ even though no one\npronounces the _**k**_ or _**gh**_ anymore.\n\nBut the distinction in spelling didn't last forever. After World War 2,\nJapanese spelling was finally revised and every word with を was re-spelled\nwith お instead. をとこ became おとこ, and so on.\n\n### Every word except one! The particle を.\n\nFor some reason, the spelling reformers decided to keep the particles は, へ,\nand を rather than re-spell them わ, え, and お. You'll just have to memorize\nthis. There are some other ways Japanese spelling is different from\npronunciation, for example in long vowels:\n\n```\n\n 王 （おう） king (pronounced like オー)\n 追う （おう） chase (pronounced like オウ)\n \n```\n\nYou'll have to keep the differences between spelling and pronunciation in mind\nas you learn Japanese.\n\n* * *\n\nAlthough every Japanese dialect has lost the distinction between を and お,\nthere are some people who pronounce を as /wo/ today as a spelling\npronunciation. You'll also hear a /w/ inserted in some phonetic contexts such\nas after ん /N/, but this insertion isn't phonemic—that is, it isn't used to\ndistinguish を from お. Likewise, you'll often hear を as /wo/ in songs, but\nyou'll also hear singers insert /w/ before お, so you can't rely on the\npresence of /w/ to distinguish お and を in modern Japanese, even in songs.\n\nRegardless of any phonetic variation, **the particle を is always spelled を**.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-03T21:37:19.730",
"id": "18105",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-03T21:37:19.730",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18104",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 19
}
] | 18104 | 18105 | 18105 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18110",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I would like to translate this pattern \"I wish I had/hadn't done XXX\",\nprecisely within this context: I went somewhere and I wish I actually hadn't.\n\nI could come up with:\n\n> 行かなければ良かったです\n\nWhereas Google Translate says:\n\n> 私はそこに行っていなかったことを願っています。\n\nWho's right and are there different ways to express this?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-04T01:45:15.040",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18107",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-04T04:19:33.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "664",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "I wish I hadn't gone there",
"view_count": 2828
} | [
{
"body": "From my experience, the results of Google Translate for sentences in Japanese\nto English are rarely correct.\n\nYou might find that a single word is sometimes correctly translated, however\nthere is no one-to-one mapping between the Japanese and English vocabularies,\nand depending on the context you might need to use a different word than the\none provided by Google. \nRemember that while English language is usually classified as a low-context\nlanguage (it is \"easier\" to makes sentences that completely describe a\nsituation), Japanese is more of a high-context language (a single sentence\ntaken out of its context can have many different interpretations). \nThis makes it extremely hard to translate sentences one by one, which is I\nthink the only way Google Translate can operate.\n\nAs for the grammar, the structures returned by Google Translate are often\nawkward. \nWhile your example does not sound that wrong to my ears (I am not a native\nspeaker so I can't be 100% positive about that), it does not sound natural\nneither. In a conversation you would typically drop of the `私は` and `そこに`, and\nI think you would prefer the `-なければ良かった` form to the heavier/longer\n`-なかったことを願う`.\n\nSo in conclusion I would suggest that you put more trust in yourself than in\nGoogle Translate, the service has still a long way to go to provide a\nsatisfying support for the Japanese language. \nOf course the best would be to ask a (native) human speaker, instead of a\ncomputerized service. However you might not always have access to one, so your\nreflex to turn to Stack Exchange was a good one.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-04T02:11:49.330",
"id": "18108",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-04T02:11:49.330",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1319",
"parent_id": "18107",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Like @wil said, neither sound wrong, just stilted and not what most people\nwould likely say. Try these:\n\n> 行くんじゃなかったなぁ。 \n> 行かなかったらよかったのになぁ。 \n> 行かねばよかったものを。\n\nAn explicit \"wish\" verb isn't needed to express this feeling in Japanese and\nIMO feels unnatural especially for something that has already happened.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-04T03:33:29.867",
"id": "18109",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-04T03:33:29.867",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6841",
"parent_id": "18107",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Most naturally, it would be:\n\n> 「行かなければよかった。」\n\nColloquially and naturally,\n\n> 「行かなきゃよかった。」\n\nThe Google Translate has given you gibberish this time as it usually does. It\nmakes little sense as it means:\n\n\"I pray that I did not go there.\"\n\nThe speaker does not even know if he went or not.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-04T04:19:33.480",
"id": "18110",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-04T04:19:33.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18107",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 18107 | 18110 | 18110 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18121",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In the video game Mother 3, there is a group of beings called the Magypsy, who\nare rumored to be very old. While talking to humans, one of them says the\nfollowing:\n\n> 人間なんて生きるにしても死ぬにしても精々たった100年。\n\nNote: The game's text is in almost all kana; kanji are mine. The original text\nis, 「にんげんなんて いきるにしても しぬにしても せいぜい たった１００ねん。」\n\nWhile my guess is that this means something along the lines of, \"A human life,\nfrom beginning to end, lasts at best a hundred years\", I'm wondering about the\nexact meaning of the 「～にしても」construction. Jisho translates 「にしても」as \"even if\",\nbut I can't find a way to phrase this sentence like that - \"... even if they\nlive, even if they die...\" doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.\n\nIs this some grammatical form I'm not familiar with, or is it perhaps my\ninterpretation of the sentence that's the problem?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-04T10:47:49.180",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18114",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-05T05:08:28.227",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-04T14:29:42.273",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "3527",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"meaning"
],
"title": "Meaning of 「生きるにしても死ぬにしても」",
"view_count": 785
} | [
{
"body": "The best English phrase that I could think of that would retain the nuance of\nthe original is:\n\n> \"whether they live or die\".\n\nYou do not need to translate 「にしても」 twice just because it is used twice in the\noriginal. What is more important is how things sound in the target language.\n\nThe first 5 characters 「人間なんて」 already tells us that the speaker looks down on\nhumans pretty badly. The rest of the sentence only reassures that fact.\n\n> \"Humans, whether they live or die, we're only talking in the order of 100\n> years at best.\"",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-04T11:19:00.840",
"id": "18115",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-04T11:19:00.840",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18114",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "The sense of both verbs is active rather than passive sense. In that case\n\"live or die as they might\" could be a closer interpretation.\n\nIt may refer to the fact that humans barely live longer than a hundred years\ndespite their best efforts, and nothing that they do lasts more than a century\n(thus the \"die as they might\" part).\n\nAs for 「～にしても」, it might make more sense if you interpreted it as \"even if one\n(actively does an action)\", rather than the simplistic \"even if\". It pertains\nto the consideration of the performance of some action, rather than referring\nto the action happening.\n\nFor considering the passive happening of some action, 「～としても」would be your\nticket. For example, 「雨が降るとしても、天気が晴れるとしても、俺は傘を持っているから問題ない。」 would mean\n\"Whether it may rain or it may be sunny, I've got my umbrella so there's no\nproblem.\"\n\nIf we were to substitute 「～にしても」for 「～としても」, it would anthropomorphize the\nweather by giving it some sort of \"will\", as in \"Whether the rain chooses to\nfall, or the weather decides to be sunny...\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-05T05:08:28.227",
"id": "18121",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-05T05:08:28.227",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6961",
"parent_id": "18114",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 18114 | 18121 | 18115 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Is the なる in 健全なる精神は健全なる身体に宿る just the normal 成る? I don't think I understand\nhow 健全なる精神 means \"a healthy spirit\"- I would think to say 健全の精神, I think. Can\nsomeone explain how saying 「健全なる精神...」 came to be?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-04T18:25:06.590",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18116",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-05T06:27:12.410",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"expressions"
],
"title": "「健全なる精神は健全なる身体に宿る」のなる",
"view_count": 244
} | [
{
"body": "As others have noted in the comments, the なる used in old-fashioned text after\n_-na_ adjectives is derived as a contraction from older form _ni aru_ , and\nactually doesn't have anything to do with 成{な}る \"to become\". This なる can be\nused after any _-na_ adjective to impart a somewhat more formal or poetic\nfeel: 健全{けんぜん}なる身体{しんたい}, 静{しず}かなる田舎{いなか}, 綺麗{きれい}なる着物{きもの}.",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-05T01:00:34.187",
"id": "18117",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-05T06:27:12.410",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-05T06:27:12.410",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "18116",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18116 | null | 18117 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "I'd like to compare the meanings of:\n\n 1. 田中{たなか}さんを尊敬{そんけい}している。\n 2. 田中さんのことを尊敬している。\n\nAre the following statements true?\n\n-#2 has a much broader meaning, right? Like, I respect Tanaka as a man, a husband, a father, a translator, a software developer, etc. All inclusively, I respect pretty much everything about Tanaka. Very deep and genuine meaning. Because it is so inclusive, any surrounding context will not change the meaning.\n\n-#1 sounds very flat. A garden variety \"I respect Tanaka.\" Something that you are supposed to say to be polite.\n\nBut then, can I say something like: \n\"マンガのことが好きです。\"\n\nI not only like to read manga, I also appreciate manga for how it reflects the\nsocietal norms of Japan, how it helps non-natives and native speakers become\nable to read Japanese, etc.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-05T01:46:51.513",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18118",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-05T01:46:51.513",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4835",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "difference between \"田中さんのこと\" and just \"田中さん\"?",
"view_count": 84
} | [] | 18118 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18125",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Recently I watched the film \"The Wind Rises\" by Studio Ghibli in Japanese with\nEnglish subtitles. I heard one of the children referring to an elder as\n[name]-さま. I was wondering, what is the difference between -さん and -さま?\n\nAny answer would be appreciated.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-05T15:02:34.573",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18124",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-05T15:16:00.503",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6968",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"suffixes"
],
"title": "What is the difference between -さん and -さま?",
"view_count": 343
} | [
{
"body": "Sama (様【さま】) is a markedly more respectful version of san. It is used mainly\nto refer to people much higher in rank than oneself, toward one's guests or\ncustomers (such as a sports venue announcer addressing members of the\naudience), and sometimes toward people one greatly admires and can be used for\neither gender.\n\nSee the Wikipedia article [Japanese\nhonorifics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_honorifics)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-05T15:16:00.503",
"id": "18125",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-05T15:16:00.503",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3803",
"parent_id": "18124",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 18124 | 18125 | 18125 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18127",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Recently, I was talking about nouveau riche Chinese behaving badly abroad. I\nwas referencing that some cut in line, speak loudly, etc. (going from rural\nChina to Fifth Ave. can be disorienting; i am not speaking ill of anyone).\n\nIn that context, I described such Chinese as \"礼儀が知{し}らない\". But, now I\ndefinitely think that that usage of \"礼儀\" is wrong. Respecting other people's\nspace, not cutting in line, etc. is really \"マナー” right?\n\n\"礼儀\" is a strange word? Non-Japanese not only are not expected to know \"礼儀\",\nthey can't. The word seems like something only a Japanese person can\nunderstand the definition of. Is that true? \n「田中{たなか}さんは礼儀が知らないやつだよね。」 seems quite natural? \n「Bobさんは礼儀が知らないやつだよね。」 just does not sound right? I mean, Bob is not 日本人、so how\ncould he possibly know his \"礼儀\"?\n\nSo, non-Japanese can only know the マナー that we follow in the West? 日本人 can not\nonly know their マナー、 they also know their \"礼儀\"? What is \"礼儀\"? It is like\nrespect for one's elders, respect for the cultural traditions of Japan, and\nlots more that I can't understand because I'm no Japanese.\n\nOr... is \"マナー\" just a synonym for \"礼儀\"?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T00:33:55.363",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18126",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-06T11:10:59.123",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4835",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "Non-Japanese can know their \"マナー\", but not their \"礼儀{れいぎ}\"?",
"view_count": 594
} | [
{
"body": "First, the object of `知る` must be specified with `を` particle. You have to say\n「礼儀を知る」, not 「礼儀が知る」. (You can say 「Xが分かる」, though)\n\nDictionary says 礼儀 is courtesy, while マナー is manner.\n\n礼儀を知らない人間 is someone who speaks too frankly to elders, someone don't express\ngratitude, and someone who cannot use honorific expressions, and so on. Well,\nit may be true that, in general, Japanese are said to be 礼儀正しい people. But I\nthink this concept itself is universal. Every human in the world, as a social\nbeing, must retain some 礼儀. Of course there are various ways to be a 礼儀正しい\nperson, and some of them are seen only in a few countries, like sending 年賀状.\n\nマナーを知らない人間 is someone who slurps while eating spaghetti, uses chopsticks\nstrangely, smokes in public areas, and so on. Many of them are almost\nuniversal, but basically マナー can vary culture to culture. You may have to\nlearn some of them by heart when you travel abroad.\n\nI think people who cut in lines, talk too loudly in public areas, or fail to\ntip, are not aware of both マナー and 礼儀. But in general, if you want to point\nout such mischief, it is far better to say \"マナーを守ってください\" rather than\n\"礼儀を知ってください\", because the latter sounds very rude or offensive.\n\n* * *\n\n**Edit:** While 礼儀 and マナー overlap with each other greatly, I think there is a\nnotable difference between them. Let me try to put it in a different way. マナー\nis closer to _etiquette_ as a matter of mere form or pattern, while talking\nabout someone's 礼儀 is usually talking about his internal sense of morality. In\na very basic sense, having 礼儀 is being able to express _thank you_ , _I'm\nsorry_ and _hello_ appropriately. And I doubt if there is a language that\nlacks those words.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T01:50:20.103",
"id": "18127",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-06T11:10:59.123",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-06T11:10:59.123",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18126",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "(This is too long to be a comment so I have made it an answer to compliment\nthe one from Naruto, who is welcome to incorporate my gentle corrections into\nhis answer)\n\n> My dictionary defines:\n>\n> 「マナー」 as: 「態度。礼儀。礼儀作法」 \n> \"Courtesy\" as: 「礼儀正しい」 (among other things).\n>\n> \"Manner\" can also refer to behaviour in a non-polite sense (e.g clumsy\n> manner).\n\nThe meanings of these words, and others such as 「行儀」, overlap but the concepts\nare the same. It is just the language and customs that differ from culture to\nculture.\n\nActually even within a culture ideas these vary: I would not classify\ndeference to older people as alien to western culture. It is a common custom\nborn out of respect for longer experience and the wisdom that often comes with\nit. And, if some people follow it for no reason other than custom, well, I\nsuppose that is the nature of custom after all.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T09:26:59.897",
"id": "18134",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-06T09:40:27.767",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "18126",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 18126 | 18127 | 18127 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "In Japanese class, we were always taught that the negative of 来{く}る is 来{こ}ない\n(not きない). In Japan, though, I've heard several native speakers use きない. I\nhave two questions about きない.\n\n 1. Who uses きない? People from rural areas? Rural Tohoku and Kanto regions? Is it part of a certain area's 方言?\n\n 2. What impression does きない give? One of my native Japanese friends got made fun of for using it, so I imagine きない is thought of as quaint or maybe uneducated by some. (Personally, I like it, though).\n\nThanks so much!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T01:55:38.710",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18128",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-06T23:58:26.440",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-06T02:08:03.513",
"last_editor_user_id": "5041",
"owner_user_id": "6861",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"dialects"
],
"title": "Usage and Impression of きない vs. こない",
"view_count": 831
} | [
{
"body": "According to [here](http://komachi.yomiuri.co.jp/t/2010/1126/366694.htm) and\n[here](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BE%A4%E9%A6%AC%E5%BC%81), this is\ncommon in [茨城]{いばらき} and [群馬]{ぐんま}. Also appearing in Saitama and Chiba.\n\nThese were the top two links googling in きない 来ない...",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T02:00:38.507",
"id": "18129",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-06T02:00:38.507",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4091",
"parent_id": "18128",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "そういえば…\n\nWhen I was in Shikoku island, I remember some people used 「きない」, but that\nmeant 「きなさい」 or 「きてください」, not 「こない」.\n\n> はよう、こっち、きない！ (= はやく こちらに きなさい)\n\nSeemingly this is used in\n[Fukuoka](http://fanblogs.jp/tomonariabc/archive/892/0) and\n[Oita](http://blog.livedoor.jp/kizunamise/archives/7658868.html), too.\n\nI personally haven't heard きない which means こない, but I'm not familiar with\ndialects in Kanto region. _No impression_ is my impression of that word.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T03:43:05.453",
"id": "18130",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-06T03:49:30.703",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-06T03:49:30.703",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18128",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "Looks like it's a Western Kanto thing.\n\n[http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/西関東方言#.E6.96.87.E6.B3.95](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A5%BF%E9%96%A2%E6%9D%B1%E6%96%B9%E8%A8%80#.E6.96.87.E6.B3.95)\n\n> 千葉県・埼玉県・群馬県・東京都多摩西部などで「こない」を「きない」や「きねー」と言ったりする。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T23:36:06.557",
"id": "18142",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-06T23:58:26.440",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-06T23:58:26.440",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "18128",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 18128 | null | 18130 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18132",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "At my old job, I knew someone by the name of Takahashi (last name).\n\nSometimes I'd see their name spelled 高橋 and sometimes 髙橋.\n\nWhy was 高 sometimes used and why was 髙 sometimes used?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T03:49:02.463",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18131",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-08T12:44:17.273",
"last_edit_date": "2016-02-08T12:44:17.273",
"last_editor_user_id": "11849",
"owner_user_id": "6861",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"kanji-choice"
],
"title": "Are 髙 and 高 interchangeable?",
"view_count": 949
} | [
{
"body": "The short answer is that 髙, or 「はしごたか」, is an alternate form of 高, and as such\nsome people might use it. It does _not_ represent a new/old character\nrelationship (新字体・旧字体), however 髙 could have been a hand-written form.\n\nApparently, though, this character is a little special, and it seems as though\nyou're not technically allowed to use it in names. [This\narticle](http://dictionary.sanseido-publ.co.jp/wp/2011/04/21/taka/) put out on\nthe website of 三省堂, a prominent Japanese dictionary publishing company,\ncomments on the character's history. It seems that 髙 was originally proposed\nas a form to consolidate and make consistent the characters used in printing\ntype (活字字体). There was, however, a concurrent movement to reduce the stroke\norder and complexity of characters in the 当用漢字, the precursor to 常用漢字, and the\nchange was scrapped. There were various revisions and updates to the naming\nstandards, but the new printed version \"髙\" was continually left out (despite\ncontinued attempts to use it).\n\n[Other\nplaces](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1311050408)\nsay that the 髙 form existed as a hand-written form, and that now that 高 is\nstandardized, 髙 is relegated to the status of \"俗字.\"\n\nSo with your previous colleague, my guess is that they wanted to use 髙, or\nmaybe that it was in the past or something. It's hard to type now as well,\nwhich would make it even more likely for someone to use 高 instead.\n\n_If_ my understanding is correct, then this person's name is officially\nregistered with 高 instead. The alternate [form does not appear on the\n人名用漢字表](http://www.moj.go.jp/content/000058122.pdf) either in the standard\nkanji or in the approved alternate forms.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T04:55:29.287",
"id": "18132",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-06T04:55:29.287",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1797",
"parent_id": "18131",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 18131 | 18132 | 18132 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18141",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Much to my disbelief (no, I'm kidding, it happens all the time), I found out\nthat my handbook was wrong to tell me _we must use 静けさ, because 静かさ doesn't\nexist_.\n\nWiki(tionary) says \"For degree, corresponding to the English quietness, both\n静かさ (shizukasa) and 静けさ (shizukesa) can be used, but 静けさ (shizukesa) may be\nmore common.\" On the other hand someone on chiebukuro says:\n\n> 「静かさ」といった場合「静かである程度」を 意味し、「静けさ」といった場合「静かであること（様子）」を意味しているように 思います。\n\nmeaning shizukasa is for degree, shizukesa is for appearance.\n\nBut I can't help feeling unconvinced. I've looked on weblio. In the ruigo\njisho I've found 3 meaning for\n[静かさ](http://thesaurus.weblio.jp/content/%E9%9D%99%E3%81%8B%E3%81%95) (for\nreference\n[静けさ](http://thesaurus.weblio.jp/content/%E9%9D%99%E3%81%91%E3%81%95)):\n\n 1. 音がないこと サイレンス ・ 物静かさ ・ 静寂さ\n 2. 静かな状況（例えば、話し声がしない状況） サイレンス ・ 音無 ・ 森閑 ・ 沈黙 ・ 無音 ・ だんまり ・ 黙 ・ 音無し ・ 黙り ・ 静寂 ・ 無言 ・ しじま ・ 無声 ・ **静けさ** ・ 静寂さ\n 3. 穏やかな静寂 静寂 ・ しじま ・ **静けさ**\n\nSo the first meaning, apparently, is the real difference with shizukesa,\nright? \nBut then again, if 1 is 音がないこと why 音無, 無音 and 音無し aren't also in the first\ngroup? And why 静けさ can be in the second group with these one, but not in the\nfirst group? \nSide question: why 静寂さ for 1st and 2nd group, but just 静寂 in the 3rd?\n\nFor reference, instead of the 1st meaning of 静かさ, with 静けさ we have another\ngroup: \n風のない穏やかさ 黙 ・ 沈静 ・ 無風 ・ 静寂 ・ 平静 ・ 静止 Isn't it overly specific? Can't this\ndefinition easily overlap with another group's definition (same of 2 and 3 for\n静かさ).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T20:28:27.917",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18139",
"last_activity_date": "2019-10-18T00:48:50.847",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2972",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"usage",
"nuances",
"na-adjectives",
"nominalization"
],
"title": "What's the difference between 静けさ and 静かさ?",
"view_count": 2605
} | [
{
"body": "I have found something that might be useful from poking around in the\netymological information I have to hand.\n\nShogakukan notes in their entry for 静{しず}か that the noun form is 静かさ. There is\nno separate entry for 静かさ。 When looking to see if there was an entry for 静けさ,\nI found an entry instead for 静けし, which lists a noun form of 静けさ.\n\n静{しず}けし appears to be an obsolete (or perhaps now dialectal?) form, derived as\na 形容詞{けいようし} (\" _-i_ adjective\") from the 形容{けいよう}動詞{どうし} (\" _-na_ adjective\")\nthat is 静{しず}か. The けし ending here is a suffix, for which Shogakukan provides\nthe following definition (my additions in [square brackets]):\n\n> 〔接尾〕体言や、形容動詞語根などに付いてク活用の形容詞を作り、その性質や状態を表わす。「露（つゆ）けし」「のどけし」「さやけし」「あきらけし」など。 \n> (Suffix) Attaches to terms such as substantives [generally, nouns] or the\n> stems of _-na_ adjectives to form _-ku_ -inflection adjectives [i.e. _-i_\n> adjectives], expressing that kind of quality or state. [Examples include]\n> _tsuyukeshi_ \"dewy\", _nodokeshi_ \"calm, tranquil, serene\", _sayakeshi_\n> \"crisp, clear, bright\", _akirakeshi_ \"clear, distinct, clean\", etc.\n\nI suspect that this _-keshi_ ending could be further decomposed into 気{け}\n\"mood, spirit, sense, feeling\" + the common adjectival ending し (classical\nterminal form for what became modern _-i_ adjectives).\n\nSo ultimately 静かさ and 静けさ started out as the noun forms of separate words,\nwith these then coming to be considered as alternate forms of a single word. I\nwonder if the separate etymologies might have some influence in the\ndistinction described on Chiebukuro, where \" _shizukasa is for degree,\nshizukesa is for appearance._ \"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T22:01:42.593",
"id": "18140",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-06T22:01:42.593",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "18139",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Here is how I (and many other native speakers) would use the two words in real\nlife. I am answering without looking at anything.\n\n「静 **か** さ」 describes the bare **physical** degree of how \"not loud\" a thing\nis. A high degree of quietness, while it may be desired, is not a prerequisite\nhere.\n\nExamples: 「静かさ」 is used to talk about how quiet a car, airconditioner, street,\nthe way a person speaks, etc. is. Point is that those all make some noise if\nnot a lot.\n\n「静 **け** さ」 means \" **tranquility** \". A high degree of quietness is an\nabsolute prerequisite. One wants a certain quality in the quietness that is\npleasing and satisfying to one.\n\nExamples: 「静けさ」 is used to refer to the tranquility of a forest, mountain,\nlake, large park, etc. One can use the word to describe any natural scene the\ntranquility of which one appreciates.\n\nI am not saying that everyone, myself included, uses these words correctly all\nthe time, but this would be the general guideline that many would share deep\ninside.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-06T23:20:33.473",
"id": "18141",
"last_activity_date": "2019-10-18T00:48:50.847",
"last_edit_date": "2019-10-18T00:48:50.847",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18139",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 20
}
] | 18139 | 18141 | 18141 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18148",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "In the sentence\n\n> 友人に彼女ができると辛い\n\nI'm a bit unclear as to what と辛い is actually supposed to mean (or even if it's\nsupposed to separately be と and 辛い).\n\nAs far as my understanding goes:\n\n彼女ができる means something like \"become (someone's) girlfriend\"\n\n辛い in this context, I think, means \"painful\"/\"bitter\"\n\nSo perhaps \"(someone) was hurt by becoming girlfriend to friend\" (in other\nwords, they broke up?) What's the use of と辛い here?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T00:49:31.957",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18143",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-07T01:28:22.050",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5086",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"particle-と"
],
"title": "What is this use of と辛い",
"view_count": 521
} | [
{
"body": "Perhaps this is confusion between 辛い and 幸い. 辛い is \"hard\", \"bitter\", \"spicy\",\nbut と幸いです is kind of \"I would be happy if...\".\n\nAlso there's possibility the speaker actually meant that it becomes hard (to\nbe a friend) when your friend gets a girlfriend. Then 辛い is pretty much on its\nplace.\n\nAnd, finally, できる, or more often できちゃう is sometimes used as a substitute for\n妊娠する which is \"to get pregnant\", but this is not the case in this sentence.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T01:01:00.767",
"id": "18145",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-07T01:28:22.050",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-07T01:28:22.050",
"last_editor_user_id": "6748",
"owner_user_id": "6748",
"parent_id": "18143",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
},
{
"body": "The way I understand it, it's more like the person was saying that \"it hurts\nwhen your friend becomes your girlfriend\".\n\nIt refers to the fact that how we treat our romantic partners is fundamentally\ndifferent from how we treat our close friends. To turn your friend into a\nromantic partner means to lose something, perhaps that sense that you would\nstill be friends even if you don't do something together regularly.\n\nAs you may have guessed, (X)と辛い following something means that \"it hurts to\n(X)\" or \"it hurts when (x)\", depending on the context.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T01:05:00.063",
"id": "18146",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-07T01:05:00.063",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6961",
"parent_id": "18143",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -2
},
{
"body": "You know what 辛【つら】い means in this context, but the interpretation of the\nfirst half of the sentence is not correct. \"友人に彼女ができる\" means \"a friend gets a\ngirlfriend\".\n\n * 友人が彼女になる My friend become a girlfriend (of me, or someone else)\n * 彼女から友人に戻る Become from a girlfriend to just a friend (break up)\n\nThis sentence, as a whole, means \"It's a painful thing that my friend gets a\ngirlfriend\". The speaker is saying this out of jealousy.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T01:21:39.643",
"id": "18147",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-07T01:21:39.643",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18143",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "This looks to me like a case of the conditional と, basically meaning\n'if/when'. The sentence then breaks down like this:\n\n> [[友人に彼女ができると]辛い]\n\nYou've got 彼女ができる a bit wrong - it's not 'become a girlfriend' but rather 'get\na girlfriend'. You have to figure out what 友人に is doing here, also. The\n'[someone] gets a girlfriend' doesn't have a marked subject or agent in\nEnglish, but it has a subject in Japanese that isn't the agent, so the agent\n(in this case 'a friend') is added with に. So 友人に彼女ができる is 'a friend gets a\ngirlfriend', and 友人に彼女ができると is then 'when a friend gets a girlfriend'. The\nwhole sentence then works out to something like 'it's tough when your friend\ngets a girlfriend'.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T01:25:48.860",
"id": "18148",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-07T01:25:48.860",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3639",
"parent_id": "18143",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18143 | 18148 | 18147 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18150",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "桃香を可愛がりたい気持ち、抑えられないよ\n\nTouka o kawaii ga ritai kimochi, osae rare nai yo.\n\nThe example sentence is like that. I'm wondering if this ritai here is in the\nsame use as aritai like in [Questions about\nありたい](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/4848/questions-\nabout-%E3%81%82%E3%82%8A%E3%81%9F%E3%81%84).\n\nWhat I know is that 可愛 means cute and since を is a direct object particle, it\nmakes\n\n```\n\n Touka is cute\n \n```\n\n気持ち is feelings\n\n抑えられ is suppressed, and ない negates it, so it means cannot be suppressed, but\nthe りたい part makes me wonder.\n\nIf the use of りたい here is the same as in that link above, then does it means\nthe English translation would be\n\n```\n\n It can't be suppressed that I felt Touka is getting more and more cuter\n \n```\n\n?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T10:22:08.153",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18149",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T13:15:02.153",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "6978",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What does [可愛が]りたい mean and how to use it?",
"view_count": 1101
} | [
{
"body": "かわいがる comes from かわいい + がる, but is almost a word in its own right. \n形容詞 → 語幹 + がる = feel like / act like 形容詞 \n寒がる・暑がる・偉がる … \n\nかわいがりたい comes from かわいがる + たい \n動詞 → 連用形 + たい = want (to do) \nしたい・行きたい・帰りたい … \n\n```\n\n 気持ちを抑える\n control one's feelings\n \n 気持ちを/が抑えられない\n unable to control one's feelings\n \n 桃香を可愛がりたい\n want to fawn over Momoka\n \n ⇒ (Someone) can't resist the desire to fawn over Momoka.\n \n```",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T10:58:58.383",
"id": "18150",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-07T10:58:58.383",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6841",
"parent_id": "18149",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18149 | 18150 | 18150 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18154",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 少し拗ねたように頬を膨らませる\n>\n> 諦めたように小さく頷いた\n>\n> 思い切ったように口を開いた\n\nCould anyone explain these or how you interpret the ta form of the verb in\nthese usages?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T12:21:21.443",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18153",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-11T09:37:12.163",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "6981",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Ta form + ように + phrase with verb meaning/usage e.g. 拗ねたように頬を膨らませる",
"view_count": 1820
} | [
{
"body": "> \"(Verb phrase A in た- form) + ように + (Verb phrase B)\" means: \"(Someone)\n> does/did/will B as if he did A (or A happened)\"\n\n少し[拗]{す}ねたように[頬]{ほほ}を[膨]{ふくら}らませる = \"(Someone) puffs out his cheeks as if he\ngot sulky\"\n\n[諦]{あきら}めたように小さく[頷]{うなず}いた = \"(Someone) nodded lightly as if he gave up\"\n\n[思]{おも}い[切]{き}ったように口を[開]{ひら}いた = \"(Someone) spoke out as if he got up courage\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T12:55:05.917",
"id": "18154",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-07T13:46:11.010",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-07T13:46:11.010",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18153",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18153 | 18154 | 18154 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In episode 25 of Attack of the Titan anime, the protagonist said\n\n> 駆逐してやる…いや、殺す (yelling very loudly)\n\nNow, \"exterminate\" seems to be a pretty common translation of 駆逐, for example\n\n * [JMDict](http://beta.jisho.org/word/51859a98d5dda7295400b49a) defines it as \"Extermination; expulsion; destruction.\"\n * [A Stack Exchange post by cypher](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/12488/6840) mentions a translation which uses \"exterminate\" for 駆逐.\n * 駆逐艦 means destroyer.\n\n* * *\n\nDespite that, [大辞泉・大辞林](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E9%A7%86%E9%80%90) defines\nthem along the lines of\n\n> 敵などを追い払うこと\n\ni.e. \"to drive (enemy etc.) away; to get rid of\"\n\n[研究社 新和英中辞典](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E9%A7%86%E9%80%90) also uses words\nlike\n\n> drive away [out]; oust; expel; get rid of\n\nfor 駆逐(する), but never \"exterminate\".\n\n* * *\n\nSo, I wonder if it's correct to say that 駆逐 means \"to exterminate\" or \"to\ndestroy\", or if such a meaning is only inferred indirectly from the context.\nAn example in English is \"to get rid\". Usually we won't think of \"get rid\" as\nkilling, at least not _specifically_ , right? Or rather, killing is but one of\nthe many ways of getting rid of something. But say\n\n> That guy's asking too much questions. Get rid of him.\n\nand you would associate \"get rid = kill\".\n\nIs this the same case with 駆逐?\n\n* * *\n\nSeems like 駆逐 is used very often in military context. For what it's worth,\nhere are some in non-military context I've come across\n\n * [スマートフォン、タブレットがパソコンを駆逐する？](http://pc.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/column/20110830/1036534/)\n * [動物駆逐用煙火（連続発射式）の取扱いにご注意ください！](http://www.safety-hokkaido.meti.go.jp/sangyo_hoan/kayaku/caution/index140729.htm)\n * [直訳文を駆逐せよ](http://japanenglish.jp/column/%E7%9B%B4%E8%A8%B3%E6%96%87%E3%82%92%E9%A7%86%E9%80%90%E3%81%9B%E3%82%88.html)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T14:13:26.693",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18155",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-07T19:55:57.460",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "6840",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Do people use 駆逐 in general to mean \"exterminate\"?",
"view_count": 565
} | [
{
"body": "I think 「駆逐する」 is stronger than _get rid_ , but not as strong as\n_exterminate_.\n\nLiterally speaking, 駆 means to _drive_ , and 逐 means to _chase_. As 大辞泉 says,\nthere is no meaning of _killing_ or _destroying_ explicitly included in this\nword.\n\nHowever, 駆逐 is almost always used in a military context, and usually implies\n_killing_ or _destroying_ , as the simplest measure to keep enemies away.\n\nAnd I feel _every last one_ or _all_ is also implied in 駆逐 (getting rid of\nevery last enemy). In this sense, _extermination_ is not too far. That said,\nkilling is not necessarily required.\n\n> 駆逐してやる…いや、殺す\n\nIn this sentence, I think the speaker is already not hesitating to kill the\nenemies by saying 駆逐してやる. And with 殺す, the speaker explicitly denies the\nenemies' chance of survival.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T17:30:07.787",
"id": "18156",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-07T17:40:32.700",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-07T17:40:32.700",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18155",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 18155 | null | 18156 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18158",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "A few quick questions regarding ～ておく and the casual form ～とく\n\nFirstly, when changing from ～ておく to the more casual ～とく I'm assuming the verb\nis first conjugated to the ～て form then the ～て is dropped and replaced with とく\nand it can then be conjugated following the godan conjugation pattern as in\nthe examples below.\n\nI.e.\n\n> 勉強して → 勉強しておく → 勉強しとく\n\n～とく conjugates as godan such that 勉強しときます and 勉強しときました. In the case of verbs\nthat have a ～で ending do they conjugate as どく？\n\nI.e.\n\n> 読んで → 読んでおく → 読んどく\n\n～どく also conjugates as godan such that 読んどきます and 読んどきました\n\nIs my understanding correct here?\n\nAlso, are there any nuances that make it outright different from ～つもりです in\nterms of preparing for something? Is it simply that one of the sentences below\nfeels more natural than the other?\n\nFor example\n\n> 明日試験があるので今晩勉強しておきます \n> vs \n> 明日試験があるので今晩勉強するつもりです",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T19:08:24.567",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18157",
"last_activity_date": "2022-06-17T05:28:57.470",
"last_edit_date": "2021-09-07T06:21:24.193",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "4385",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"verbs",
"conjugations",
"subsidiary-verbs"
],
"title": "～ておく or ～とく for preparation (conjugation and nuance)",
"view_count": 11656
} | [
{
"body": "Yes, all your assumptions about about the conjugations are correct.\n\nAnd far as comparing it to つもり, つもり simply means \"intention (to do\nsomething)\". It doesn't directly have anything to do with preparation or doing\nsomething beforehand. That it carries this mean in your example is incidental.\nWith your 勉強しておく sentence, the preparation is explicit; with the 勉強するつもり\nsentence, the preparation is implicit. But in general, using つもり is not for\npreparatory situations.\n\n> * 昨晩雪がたくさん降ったので、週末にスキーに行くつもりです → It snowed a lot last night, so I intend\n> to go skiing this weekend.\n>",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T19:32:48.343",
"id": "18158",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-07T19:32:48.343",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "18157",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "When you contract `te oku` to `t'oku`, you're still conjugating `oku`, so the\nnormal rules apply. The only reason this might not be clear is that kana\nprevents us from dividing `t'oku` into `t'` and `oku`.\n\nSubsidiary verbs following ～て are\n[grammaticalized](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammaticalization), and people\ntend to contract grammatical words. So naturally, there are a number of\ncontractions of ～て with subsidiary verbs you'll need to recognize, and each\none needs to be memorized individually. Some of them only appear in certain\ndialects (or appear more often in specific dialects):\n\n\n\nuncontracted | contracted | uncontracted | contracted \n---|---|---|--- \n〜 **てい** る | 〜 **て** る | - **te i** ru | - **te'** ru \n〜 **てい** く | 〜 **て** く | - **te i** ku | - **te'** ku \n〜 **てお** く | 〜 **と** く | - **te o** ku | - **t'o** ku \n〜 **てお** る | 〜 **と** る | - **te o** ru | - **t'o** ru \n〜 **てしま** う | 〜 **ちま** う \n〜 **ちゃ** う | - **te sima** u | - **t'ima** u \n- **t'ya** u \n〜 **てい** らっしゃる | 〜 **て** らっしゃる | - **te i** rassyaru | - **te'** rassyaru \n〜 **てあ** る | 〜 **た** る | - **te a** ru | - **t'a** ru \n〜 **てや** る | 〜 **た** る | - **te ya** ru | - **t'a** ru \n〜 **てあ** げる | 〜 **た** げる | - **te a** geru | - **t'a** geru \n \nAll of these have corresponding voiced versions when they contract with ～て's\nvoiced allomorph ～で, which in the case of ～ちまう・～ちゃう gives us ～じまう・～じゃう.\n\nOf course, there are more contractions I haven't listed here, and I couldn't\nbegin to describe the range of dialectal variation out there, but I think\nthese are the main ones I've run into as a learner of Japanese.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-07T21:23:32.010",
"id": "18159",
"last_activity_date": "2022-06-17T05:28:57.470",
"last_edit_date": "2022-06-17T05:28:57.470",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18157",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 23
},
{
"body": "It might help to think about what's going on with 「ておく」 and 「とく」 in romaji.\n\n```\n\n \" 勉強 shiteoku \"\n \n```\n\nThe we just drop the 'e' ('cause we're cool kids)...\n\n```\n\n \" 勉強 shitoku \"\n \n```\n\nThe same kind of thing happens all the time with 「い」\"i\"\n\n```\n\n 「何食べている？」 becomes 「何たべてる？」 (just drop the 「い」)\n \"Nani tabeteiru?\" becomes \"Nani tabeteru?\" (Just drop the 'i')\n \n```\n\nThis can seem more confusing when it's written in kana because kana generally\nrepresent a unique combination of consonant + vowel.\n\nI have seen romaji used this way in junior high school and elementary school\nto explain the finer points of Japanese verb conjugation to students.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T03:27:22.713",
"id": "18291",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T03:27:22.713",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7055",
"parent_id": "18157",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18157 | 18158 | 18159 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18163",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "I'm trying to translate \"Jesus's saving grace\". Translating directly from\nEnglish, the phrase that comes to mind is:\n\n> イエス様の救っている恵み\n\nBut I get the feeling that maybe it's more natural and articulate to put the\nverb first and the noun modifier second:\n\n> 救っているイエス様の恵み\n\nIn English, this sort of ordering would amount to \"saving Jesus's grace\",\nwhich is not what's intended, but maybe it's more natural and people would\nunderstand what it really means.\n\nSo I almost asked this question to see which of those two would be more\nnatural, but now I'm also starting to think that maybe instead of using 救っている,\nI should use 救う. Is this so? What's the most natural, articulate way to say\nthis? Thanks!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T00:49:44.457",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18160",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-09T16:30:09.047",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"translation"
],
"title": "Which is more natural: イエス様の救う恵み or 救うイエス様の恵み?",
"view_count": 304
} | [
{
"body": "You're a little mixed up about the English grammar and its equivalence in\nJapanese; \"saving\" is not present progressive, but a participle adjective.\n\nイエス様の救い would be enough I think, though you could make it \"fancier\" if you\nlike.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T01:20:36.057",
"id": "18161",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T01:20:36.057",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6841",
"parent_id": "18160",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "For an expression like this (a kind of 専門用語）there is likely to be a commonly\nused phrase you won't be able to come up with from scratch, and the majority\nof people have to look it up.\n\nI found this on the internet:\n\n> saving grace of God | 神の加護\n\nI expect you could use it for Jesus too.",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T01:20:43.610",
"id": "18162",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T10:22:17.460",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-08T10:22:17.460",
"last_editor_user_id": "1556",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "18160",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "As a Christian who worked at a Japanese church, I can say that `イエス様の救う恵み` and\n`救うイエス様の恵み` are both fine, although the latter is somewhat ambiguous in\nparsing, i.e., it could be parsed as either\n\n> * 救う(イエス様の恵み) → Jesus' grace that saves. \n> OR\n> * (救うイエス様)の恵み → The grace of Jesus, who saves.\n>\n\nTo disambiguate it, you could add in a その\n\n> * 救う **その** イエス様の恵み\n>\n\nEither way, the phrase beginning with 救う sounds more refined/formal to my ear.\nAnd of course, if you're saying this in a more familiar setting (like to other\nChristians), you can leave off 様 completely.\n\nAnd not to dump on @Tim's answer, but I have never heard any Japanese\nChristian use `神の加護`. Sounds way too dictionary and impersonal.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T04:36:30.390",
"id": "18163",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T16:38:01.107",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-08T16:38:01.107",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "18160",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "After some research about this topic, I've found that \" **(神の)救いの恵み** \" is\nvery frequently used by Japanese Christians. So this seems to be the exact\nphrase you need.\n\n * [旧約新約聖書講解―神の救いの恵みを学ぶための](http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4863250142)\n * [救いの恵みと祝福](http://www.dct3.net/index.php?%E6%95%91%E3%81%84%E3%81%AE%E6%81%B5%E3%81%BF%E3%81%A8%E7%A5%9D%E7%A6%8F)\n * [救いの恵みに今応答しよう](http://www.mission.or.jp/weekly/2013/%E6%95%91%E3%81%84%E3%81%AE%E6%81%B5%E3%81%BF%E3%81%AB%E4%BB%8A%E5%BF%9C%E7%AD%94%E3%81%97%E3%82%88%E3%81%86.html)\n * [神の救いの恵み](http://nozomich.com/contents/category04/post_105.php)\n * [亀戸教会 - 牧師より](http://www.maroon.dti.ne.jp/kameido-church/church/bokushi.html)\n\n> 主 **イエスの救いの恵み**\n> に応答する第一歩は、礼拝に参加すること、祈ること、聖書を読むことです。礼拝は祈りです。キリストの御名を通して、あなたの祈りが神さまに聞かれています。\n\nAnd looks like \"saving grace\" is used by some theologians as a strictly\ndefined technical term, as an antonym of \"common grace.\" ([English\nWP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_grace) and [Japanese\nWP](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%80%E8%88%AC%E6%81%A9%E5%AF%B5)). In\nthat case, \"救いの恩寵\" or \"救済的恩寵\" is the corresponding term of \"saving grace\". But\nI don't know whether this term is widely recognized by ordinary Japanese\nChristians.\n\nAnd as for the difference between 恵み and 恩寵【おんちょう】, Japanese Wikipedia says\nthat the choice of words depends on the communions.\n\n>\n> 「神の恵み」は日本聖書協会の口語訳聖書・新共同訳聖書、他にも新改訳聖書などで一般的な表記であるが、正教会では恩寵（おんちょう）が一般的表記である。カトリック教会では、かつては聖寵（せいちょう）と訳され、例えば伝統的な祈祷文「アヴェ・マリア」の文語訳（天使祝詞）では「めでたし聖寵･･･」と唱えられていた。いまは「恩寵」と表記される例も稀にあるが、カトリック教会のカテキズムや公式文書等では「恵み」「神の恵み」「恩恵」と表記されている。また、プロテスタントにも「恩寵」の語彙を用いるものがある。\n\nAnd you may also have to change the word choice depending on the intended\naudience. I can say 恵み is recognized by almost all native speakers (not to say\nthe precise definition is understood). I, as a non-Christian, feel 恩寵 is very\ndifficult.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-09T16:10:24.600",
"id": "18181",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-09T16:30:09.047",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-09T16:30:09.047",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18160",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18160 | 18163 | 18163 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18165",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've needed to use a word \"to ask\" recently, and the word I decided on was\n[尋]{たず}ねる. But I have strong doubts that this is actually the right word to\nuse in a situation such as this:\n\n> I would like to ask you something. (e.g. about my name, about what time it\n> is)\n\nIs there a better word to use than [尋]{たず}ねる for \"ask\" in this case? I've\nheard of [質問]{しつもん}する, but in both cases I can't find anything on how to use\neither of them in an actual sentence.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T04:55:01.910",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18164",
"last_activity_date": "2019-09-05T17:47:28.997",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2923",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "What is a word meaning \"to ask\"?",
"view_count": 46233
} | [
{
"body": "Without a doubt, the single most natural verb choice among us native speakers\nis:\n\n> [聞]{き}く (sometimes written as 訊く)\n\n・「聞きたいことがあるんだけど、いい？」 = \"Can I ask you a question?\" More literally, \"There is\nsomething I want to ask, OK?\"\n\n・「ひとつ聞いてもいい？」 = \"Can I ask you a question?\" (Literally.)\n\n・「[何]{なん}でも[聞]{き}いて。」 = \"Ask me anything!\"\n\n「尋ねる」, though some J-learners seem to use it as if it were the default verb,\nis actually too big a word for everyday conversations. They should know that\nit sounds pretty formal.\n\n「質問（を）する」 is used much more often than 「尋ねる」 by native speakers but we\ndefinitely use 「聞く」 more often than 「質問（を）する」 in informal situations.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T05:29:06.817",
"id": "18165",
"last_activity_date": "2019-09-05T17:47:28.997",
"last_edit_date": "2019-09-05T17:47:28.997",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18164",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
}
] | 18164 | 18165 | 18165 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18170",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In this specific case:\n\n> 取らせて頂いた\n\nSo, what's the meaning of such a construction? I understand what each thing\ndoes alone (the causative form, the te form and the verb in past indicative),\nBut what happens when we jumble it all together?\n\nFor context, the complete phrase I'm trying to understand is:\n\n> その時々で取らせて頂いた先生方のデータです",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T08:29:59.617",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18166",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T20:28:48.077",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-08T20:28:48.077",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4801",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"syntax",
"て-form",
"causation"
],
"title": "Causative form + te form + another verb construction",
"view_count": 1381
} | [
{
"body": "「～～させ (causative verb form) + て + いただく」 expresses receiving the permission (or\nopportunity) to perform an action from another person.\n\n「いただく」 ＝ 「もらう」 in meaning. Former is only politer than the latter.\n\n> 「[取]{と}らせていただいた」 means \"I/We received the permission to take/collect ~~.\"\n>\n> One could also use as a translation \"I/We had the pleasure of\n> taking/collecting ~~.\"\n\n＊Note that I personally do not write supplementary verbs (in this case, いただく)\nin kanji. That is actually the rule both in schools and the printed media.\n\n> 「その[時々]{ときどき}で取らせていただいた[先生方]{せんせいがた}のデータです。」, therefore, means:\n>\n> \"These are the data from (or \"on\") the teachers that I/we had the pleasure\n> of collecting at different times.\"\n\n(Without further context, one could not tell if it is \"from\" or\n\"on/regarding\".)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T12:33:28.073",
"id": "18170",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T12:33:28.073",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18166",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 18166 | 18170 | 18170 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18168",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "My name is Laurence. I would write this in Japanese as `ロレンス (rorensu)`. My\nquestion is, when I introduce myself, do I pronounce my name as it is in\nkatakana, or as it is in English?:\n\nThat is, would I say this:\n\n```\n\n Laurence です。 --> Laurence desu\n \n```\n\nor this:\n\n```\n\n ロレンス です。 --> Rorensu desu\n \n```\n\nThis is just an example. I am also asking about _all_ loanwords, for example:\n\n```\n\n Soccer が 大好き です。 --> Soccer ga daisuki desu\n \n```\n\nvs\n\n```\n\n サッカー が 大好き です。 --> Sakkaa ga daisuki desu\n \n```\n\nTo summarise, **are Katakana loanwords pronounced as they are written in\nJapanese, or as they are pronounced in their country of origin?**",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T09:50:21.050",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18167",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T17:04:01.160",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6968",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"katakana",
"names"
],
"title": "Are katakana names pronounced as they are written?",
"view_count": 1401
} | [
{
"body": "As a general rule, yes loan words are pronounced just as they are written. I\nsay general rule because I have noticed bilingual announcers on the radio who\nmix English and Japanese do sometimes insert the original pronunciation into\ntheir Japanese sentences.\n\nAs far as your name is concerned, yes it would be normal to say it as you\nwrite it in katakana: When you are trying communicate something on the phone,\nfor example, you don't want people getting distracted with an unpronounceable\nname, or, off the phone, unwilling to talk to you because they can't say your\nname properly.\n\nWhen people meet for the first time names are often an easy talking point,\neven among Japanese people who ask each other what Kanji they use.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T10:57:37.800",
"id": "18168",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T13:08:48.870",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-08T13:08:48.870",
"last_editor_user_id": "1556",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "18167",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "In my experience it is best to pronounce your name as written, particularly if\nyou are speaking over the phone, at a ticket booth, a checkout, etc.\n\nHowever, if you are meeting with somebody on a regular basis, such as at work,\nyou may find that they will eventually learn to speak your name properly. In\nthat case, you can begin pronouncing your name normally when speaking to them.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T17:04:01.160",
"id": "18172",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T17:04:01.160",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6988",
"parent_id": "18167",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18167 | 18168 | 18168 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Are they same meaning？ How to distinguish when using them?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T16:18:06.923",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18171",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-09T00:25:03.280",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-09T00:25:03.280",
"last_editor_user_id": "5041",
"owner_user_id": "6986",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"words",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What is different between 日本間{にほんま}、和室{わしつ} and お座敷{ざしき}",
"view_count": 433
} | [
{
"body": "**日本間**\n\nA room created using traditional Japanese architecture, interior design,\nconstruction materials. More of an objective/neutral term relating to the\nstyle/structure of the physical room. Japanese houses nowadays are more or\nless westernized. They are built using modern construction techniques and\nstyles but usually there will be one or more rooms that are created using\ntraditional Japanese style or 日本間. Inherently, these rooms serve certain\npurposes in the context of a Japanese home. Furthermore, in relation to the\nother rooms in the house, you can refer to a 日本間 as 和室.\n\n**和室**\n\nThis also means Japanese-style room, but is used as a general term to\ndifferentiate from a non-和室 room. For example, modern houses in Japan have\nbedrooms which have wooden/carpet floors and you sleep on a bed. This would be\n洋室. Another example is when you stay at an inn or hotel, you can have a 和室 or\n洋室.\n\n**お座敷**\n\nThis refers to a gathering place to enjoy drinks or food in the company of\nothers; naturally it is a Japanese-style room but 座敷 itself doesn't refer to\nthe Japanese nature of the room itself but more of the setting. お座敷 is used\noften to refer to the setting of an event, drinking party 宴{うたげ}, and also\ncommonly heard is お座敷{ざしき}遊{あそ}び or the games/activities played in the\npresence of 芸者{げいしゃ}.\n\nNow, this is the common/current interpretation of 座敷. But if you want to know\nthe origins of 座敷, it actually refers to the floor: a floor made of 畳{たたみ} as\nopposed to wooden planks for the purposes of sitting and socializing. So in\nthis sense, there is a connection to a Japanese-style room. You can research\nthe etymology of 座敷 as there is more historical context which I did not\nexplain here.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T18:51:23.143",
"id": "18174",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T18:51:23.143",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6823",
"parent_id": "18171",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18171 | null | 18174 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18178",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Specifically, when you are trying to romanize Kanji titles of movies, plays,\nwritten works, etc. for formal writing targeting non-Japanese speakers, what\nare some good guidelines?\n\nAs seen in [this](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/14/which-words-\nin-a-title-should-be-capitalized) English stack exchange question, there are\nsome well established style guidelines for the English-speaking world. I\nrealize this is a question of style, which is a matter of taste, but having\nsome solid guidelines would be better than nothing.\n\nA common sense approach of adapting the English guidelines to their Japanese\ncounterparts seemed viable, but my anecdotal research indicates that\ncommercial publishers/studios only do so half the time. Particularly vexing\nare compound particles and the Japanese copulae, such as _da_ and _desu kedo_.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T17:45:01.203",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18173",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-09T03:12:14.400",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:38:10.367",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "6987",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"rōmaji"
],
"title": "When romanizing a Japanese title, which words should be capitalized?",
"view_count": 6594
} | [
{
"body": "If it's a title, then presumably you'd capitalize most words. Japanese だ and\nです roughly equate to English **is, be** , and these are capitalized in English\ntitles, so it would make sense by analogy to capitalize the romanizations as\n_Da_ and _Desu_. Meanwhile, particles seem loosely equivalent in terms of\ngrammatical function to English articles and prepositions, which usually\naren't capitalized in titles.\n\n> Thrill to the new movie release, _Kore wa Pen Desu!!_",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-09T00:00:27.420",
"id": "18177",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-09T00:00:27.420",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "18173",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "In English, people often capitalize every word in a foreign title, and you can\napply that rule without talking about Japanese specifically at all. Of course,\ndifferent people use different styles! Here's what I'd do:\n\n> Capitalize everything except function words (particles, conjunctions, etc.).\n> If a function word is the first word, or if it's long (6+ letters-ish),\n> capitalize it anyway.\n\nThat's just me, personally.\n\n* * *\n\nAlthough there are [official guidelines for romanizing\nJapanese](http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/hakusho/nc/k19541209001/k19541209001.html),\nI couldn't find any official Japanese guidelines that addressed capitalization\nas well. That doesn't surprise me--when Japanese titles are written in\nJapanese, it's almost always with kana and kanji. In other words, although\nJapanese speakers are of course _familiar_ with romanization, the question\ndoesn't really come up that often in the context of the language itself.\n\nHowever, you might find [the ALA-LC\nromanization](http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/romanization/japanese.pdf)\ninteresting, as it addresses capitalization specifically and is an official\nsystem used by North American libraries including the Library of Congress, and\nin fact is used outside North America as well. ([Further ALA-LC romanization\ntables can be found here.](http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/roman.html)) Since\nit's [not\ncopyrighted](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government),\nI'll reproduce it here:\n\n> # Capitalization\n>\n> 1. _Personal Names_ :\n>\n> (a) Capitalize each word of a personal name, except the particle _no_.\n``` > Sugawara no Takasue no Musume 菅原孝標女\n\n```\n\n>\n> (b) Capitalize title and terms of address, except when consisting of a\n> single character or kana for _san, sama, chan, kun,_ etc., that is\n> hyphenated following a personal name. [...]\n``` > Kōbō Daishi 弘法大師\n\n> Naikaku Sōri Daijin Tanaka Kakuei 内閣総理大臣田中角栄\n> _but_ Okiku-san お菊さん\n> naikaku sōri daijin (as a generic noun) 内閣総理大臣\n```\n\n>\n> 2. _Place Names_ : Capitalize each word of a geographic name.\n``` > Yokohama 横浜\n\n> Nihon Rettō 日本列島\n> Yūraku-chō 有楽町\n> Taiheiyō 太平洋\n> Bōsō Hantō 房総半島\n> Tōyō 東洋\n```\n\n>\n> 3. _Corporate Names_ : Capitalize each word of a corporate name, except\n> particles and conjunctions.\n``` > Sensō o Kirokusuru Kai 戦争を記録する会\n\n> Nihon Rikugun 日本陸軍\n> Chuō Kōron Shinsha 中央公論新社\n> _but_ Chuō kōron (journal title) 中央公論\n```\n\n>\n> 4. _Documents and Publications_ :\n>\n> (a) Capitalize the first word of the title of a publication (book,\n> periodical, series, etc.)\n``` > Tsurezuregusa 徒然草\n\n> Chūō kōron 中央公論\n```\n\n>\n> (b) Capitalize the first word of the name of a document (law, regulation,\n> etc.).\n``` > Rōdō kumiaihō 労働組合法\n\n> Rōdō iinkai kisoku 労働委員会規則\n```\n\n>\n> 5. _Historical Events and Periods_ :\n>\n> (a) Capitalize each word of the name of a historical event, except particles\n> and conjunctions.\n``` > Dainiji Sekai Taisen 第二次世界大戦\n\n> Niniroku Jiken 二・二六事件\n> Meiji Ishin shi 明治維新史\n> Sekigahara no Tatakai 関ヶ原の戦い\n```\n\n>\n> (b) Capitalize the first word of the name of a historical period.\n``` > Jōmon jidai 縄文時代\n\n> Rikuchō jidai 六朝時代\n> Heianchō 平安朝\n> Shōwaki 昭和期\n```\n\n>\n> 6. _Peoples, Languages and Areas of Study Derived from Proper Names_ :\n> Capitalize names of peoples, languages and areas of study derived from\n> proper names.\n``` > Nihonjin 日本人\n\n> Amerikajin アメリカ人\n> Nihongo 日本語\n> Nihongaku 日本学\n> Eigo 英語\n```\n\n>\n> 7. _Religions and Sects_ : Capitalize names of religions and sects.\n``` > Bukkyō 佛教\n\n> Kirisutokyō キリスト教\n> Shintō 神道\n> Zenshū 禅宗\n> Jōdo Shinshū 浄土真宗\n```\n\n>\n> 8. _Structures, etc._ : Capitalize names of structures, etc.\n``` > Takamatsuzuka Kofun 高松塚古墳\n\n> Narita Kūkō 成田空港\n> Hibiya Kōen 日比谷公園\n> Eigenji Damu 永源寺ダム\n```\n\n>\n> 9. _Derivatives of Proper Names_ : Lowercase words derived from names of\n> places or religions, when the derived words are no longer considered to be\n> proper names. When the derivative is formed by the suffix of a single\n> character following a proper name, the proper name is capitalized and the\n> suffix is lowercased and follows a hyphen. [...]\n``` > nihontō 日本刀\n\n> nihonshu 日本酒\n> nihonga 日本画\n> butsuga 佛画\n> washitsu 和室\n> wafuku 和服\n> yōshu 洋酒\n> kutaniyaki 九谷焼\n> kokutani 古九谷\n> kanji 漢字\n> kanpō 漢方\n> kan'yaku 漢薬\n> zendera 禅寺\n> zensō 禅僧\n> kirisutosha キリスト者\n> rōmaji ローマ字\n> _but_ Taiwan-sei 台湾製\n```\n\n>\n>\n\nAs I said before, I would rather say \"function words\" than \"particle or\nconjunction\", and I do find one of their examples puzzling (I don't think 史 is\na particle or conjunction in 明治維新史), but they seem to be otherwise reasonable\nguidelines.\n\nOf course, style isn't set in stone--do whatever you think seems best!",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-09T03:12:14.400",
"id": "18178",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-09T03:12:14.400",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18173",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 18173 | 18178 | 18178 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I found various translations for the word 世話焼き: nanny, busyboy or\nbusybo**d**y. Since I'm trying to read シロクマカフェ I would prefer busyboy, but\nwhich one's acutally correct and how could I've find out myself? I couldn't\nfind the word in my dictionary.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T19:17:12.353",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18175",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T19:52:45.973",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4725",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does 世話焼き mean?",
"view_count": 205
} | [
{
"body": "Pulled partly from 三省堂 大辞林 and paraphrased.\n\n**1.a.** To like or enjoy taking care of others.\n\n**1.b.** Wanting to take care of others beyond what is necessary; burdensome\nto the receiving end.\n\n**2.** Caretaker*（世話人{せわにん}）\n\n* This definition spans various industries, environments, and situations. For example, a caretaker in a home, an organizer for an event, a person in charge of doing miscellaneous tasks for a sumo stable or arena, etc.\n\nNow, I don't know what シロクマカフェ is so I can't give you an answer in terms of\nthe literary context.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-08T19:52:45.973",
"id": "18176",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-08T19:52:45.973",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6823",
"parent_id": "18175",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 18175 | null | 18176 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18180",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Here is part of the lyrics of Mai Kuraki's Time After Time:\n\n```\n\n 風舞う花びらが\n 水面を撫でるように\n 大切に想うほど切なく…\n \n 人は皆 孤独と言うけれど\n 探さずにはいられない 誰かを\n 儚く壊れやすいものばかり\n 追い求めてしまう\n \n Time after time\n 君と色づく街で\n 出逢えたらもう約束はいらない\n 誰よりもずっと傷付きやすい君の\n そばにいたい今度はきっと\n \n```\n\nThe full lyrics can be found\n[here](http://j-lyric.net/artist/a000616/l001d01.html), in case someone wants\nto see them. This passage I translate to:\n\n```\n\n The flower petals dancing in the wind\n Seem to be stroking the water's surface\n The more [I] believe [they] are important, the more [I] suffer…\n \n Although all people say they are lonely (lit. \"say «loneliness»\")\n [They look for] someone [they] can't depend on if [they] don't look for [them]\n [But] only fragile and transient things\n [They] end up pursuing\n \n Time after time\n If with you in the city of changing hues\n [I] were to meet, [I] would never need promises\n Of you, who are always easier to wound than anyone,\n I want to stay at the side, this time, surely.\n \n```\n\nI have a couple of questions:\n\n 1. The main question is about `探さずにはいられない 誰かを`. Analyzing it, I see `sagasazu`, from `sagasu`, to look for, which is a negative connective form, so `not looking for`, then `ni`, stessing the \"adverbial\" nature of `sagasazu`, `wa`, marking the lot as a topic, `irarenai`, negative potential of `iru` (`要る`, I take it, but surely not `居る`), `to depend on`, `to need`, `dareka`, `someone`, and `wo`, marking `dareka` as object. So the translation should be:\n\n> someone (obj) from whom [they] cannot depend if without looking for\n> [him/her]\n\nThe question of course is: what is the verb holding this object? The subject\nis probably `mina` in the line above, as in the whole verse, meaning\n`everyone`.\n\n 2. Then we have this \"water's surface\", which has come out of nothing since I don't remember anything before or afterwards referring to water, so what water is it?\n\n 3. What is the subject of `大切に想うほど切なく…`?\n 4. Why do some translations refer the \"always\" to \"I want to be\" when `zutto` is in the middle of the relative clause `dare yori mo zutto kizutsuki yasui kimi`?\n 5. The `mono` in `koware yasui mono`, is it `者` (people) or `物` (things)?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-09T08:03:20.397",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18179",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-09T09:20:59.517",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-09T09:20:59.517",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5324",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Verb for the object `dareka` in `探さずにはいられない 誰かを`",
"view_count": 235
} | [
{
"body": "① 誰かを探す \n何々せずにはいられない ～＝ 何々しないではいられない （＝居られない） \n \n人は皆 孤独と言うけれど \nThey say we're all alone, but \n探さずにはいられない 誰かを \nI can't help but look... for someone \n \n② It's water in general; no context is needed. \n③ \n風舞う花びらが \nlike petals dancing in the wind \n水面を撫でるように \ncaressing the water's surface \n大切に想うほど切なく… \nthe more precious **you** feel them, the more painful\n\n④ Could be ambiguous \n誰よりも **ずっと傷付きやすい** 君のそばにいたい今度はきっと \nor \n誰よりも **ずっと** 傷付きやすい君のそばに **いたい** 今度はきっと \nthough the former is probably more likely with this phrasing. \n\n⑤ Either interpretation is probably ok; hence the かな.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-09T08:30:14.797",
"id": "18180",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-09T08:30:14.797",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6841",
"parent_id": "18179",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 18179 | 18180 | 18180 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Why does 留守{るす} have two almost opposite meanings? One is \"to keep the door\"\nor \"to look after home\" and the other almost opposite meaning is \"not at\nhome\".",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-09T16:49:17.687",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18182",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-10T03:23:43.053",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6906",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"words",
"meaning"
],
"title": "Why does 留守{るす} have two almost opposite meanings?",
"view_count": 1486
} | [
{
"body": "留 means _stay_ , and 守 means _guard_ , so 留守 literary means \"stay and guard\n(home)\". It actually used to mean just like this in the old Japanese. 留守\nreferred to keeping the house while the master is away from home.\n\nHowever, such usage is dying or at least very literary now. The main meaning\nof 留守 in **modern Japanese** is \" _not at home_ \". \"留守にする\" always means \" _be\naway (from home, office, etc.)_ \".\n\n * [留守の語源](http://www.biwa.ne.jp/~n-320/gogen.html)\n\n> 本来の意味は、主（あるじ）不在の家を守ることであったが、不在の主の方に重点が移り、\n> 単に「不在」の意味に使われるようになった。また、もとの意味の「守り」は、「留守番」「留守居」と呼ぶようになった。\n\n * [留守（るす）・・・・もともとは「不在」という意味ではなかった](http://kuwadong.blog34.fc2.com/blog-entry-2550.html)\n\n>\n> 留守という言葉は、中国語に由来していて、「皇帝が都を不在にしている間、都に留まって代わりに政治を行う」という意味があり、そこから「主（あるじ）が不在の家を守る」という意味になった。 \n>\n> やがて、主がいない間を守るという意味よりも「不在」ということに意識されるようになり、鎌倉時代には、現在と同じく単に「不在」の意味で「留守」という言葉が使われるようになった。\n\nIf we want to say \" _to look after the house_ \", we usually use \"留守番(をする)\".\nHere, 番 roughly means \" _keeper_ \" or \" _caretaker_ \".\n\nVery rarely, expressions like \"Aが城の留守をしている\" (\"A is looking after the castle\")\nare seen in recent novels. There is also a word 留守部隊, which means the party\nwho don't go to the front line. But I think those expressions can be\nunderstood only with the help of the context. Using 留守番 is almost always the\nsafer choice.\n\nIn some certain idioms, 留守 and 留守番 are still interchangeable and you can\nsafely use 留守:\n\n * 留守を頼む ≒ 留守番を頼む ask someone to look after the house\n * 留守を任せる ≒ 留守番を任せる trust someone to look after the house",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-09T18:23:19.637",
"id": "18185",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-09T18:23:19.637",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18182",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
},
{
"body": "I think the main point to look at are the usages of \"を\" and ”に\"\n\n\"を\" is suggesting that the action is done so \"留守をする\" is the original meaning\nof looking after. \"に\" is suggesting direction, in other words to put in the\nstate of the action. So in this way \"留守にする\" can be considered to mean \"to put\nin a state where somebody else is looking after it\" and hence could easily\nevolve towards just meaning \"put in a state where somebody(you, etc.) is not\nthere\".\n\nI also have to note that from experience Japanese doesn't seem to be\ngrammatically strict and that abbreviations are common place which would\nprobably contribute.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T03:23:43.053",
"id": "18189",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-10T03:23:43.053",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6995",
"parent_id": "18182",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
}
] | 18182 | null | 18185 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18184",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Why many words (nouns?) end with つ？ Some examples include\n寝室{しんしつ}、万年筆{まんねんひつ}. Is there some underlying patterns or rules that Japanese\nlanguage learners should be aware of?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-09T17:16:03.800",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18183",
"last_activity_date": "2016-11-22T07:50:13.273",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6906",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words",
"pronunciation"
],
"title": "Why many words (nouns?) end with つ？",
"view_count": 288
} | [
{
"body": "I can answer for the examples given. We have to go back to their origin as\nSino-Japanese terms, and in particular to their Chinese pronunciation. Now I\ncan't actually go back to the Middle Chinese pronunciation the Japanese\nreading reflects, but\n[Wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Baxter-\nSagart_Old_Chinese_reconstruction) may.\n\nIn any case, if you take the final characters, you can see on [the MDBG\nChinese to English Dictionary](http://www.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php) they\nare pronounced `sat1` and `bat1` respectively in Cantonese. **The`-tsu` is the\nreflex of the final `-t` of the imported Chinese sound. I think that will\ncover many of the words you have in mind.**\n\nIf this does not convince you because of the different vowel, think of going\nto [the Tawan Min Nan Common Usage Words'\nDictionary](http://twblg.dict.edu.tw/holodict_new/index.htm), being careful to\nlook for the _Chinese traditional form_ of the character, as you will not find\nit if you look for a simplified or Japanese form. There you find the Min Nan\npronunciation, which is `pit` for the second example, so the vowel is fixed.\nStrangely, the first example turns to `sik`.\n\nBut the Wiktionary comes in there and reconstructs `syit` for a Middle Chinese\npronunciation, with a fanqie (i.e. initial-final-tone explanation) that has 質\nas final, read `tsit` in Min. Now a final `-t` gets turned into `-tsu` or\n`-chi` (`-tu` or `-ti` once, I guess) in Japanese (e.g. `nichi`/`nitsu`, 日,\npresently read `nyit` in Hakka).\n\nAs Wikipedia explains:\n\n> fanqie is the explanation of the pronunciation of a character by giving:\n>\n> 1. A character with the same initial consonant\n>\n> 2. A character with the rest of the syllable (i.e. all other sounds and\n> the tone) identical\n>\n> 3. A character marking this is a fanqie.\n>\n>\n\n>\n> For example, a modern fanqie for 日 would be 让是切: first character for the r-,\n> second for the -ì, third marking the fanqie style of explanation used.\n\nExpanding any further would have to investigate sound changes in Chinese and\nJapanese, which I certainly can't do and might bring us off-topic, so I hope\nthis is enough for you. Btw this also answers a question like \"why are there\nmany words ending with -pu/-fu/-bu\" or \"… ending with -ku/-gu\", if any such\nshould arise, or at least starts: final stops in Chinese are -t, -p and -k.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-09T17:30:31.200",
"id": "18184",
"last_activity_date": "2016-11-22T07:50:13.273",
"last_edit_date": "2016-11-22T07:50:13.273",
"last_editor_user_id": "542",
"owner_user_id": "5324",
"parent_id": "18183",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 18183 | 18184 | 18184 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18188",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "How to properly pronounce コップ (meaning: cup)? Should it be コ + short and quick\nツ + soundless プ or something different？ BTW, is there a good online source\nwhere I can look up word with proper Japanese pronunciation?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-09T21:15:36.763",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18186",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-10T11:43:11.913",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6906",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words",
"pronunciation"
],
"title": "How to properly pronounce コップ?",
"view_count": 839
} | [
{
"body": "As for the pronunciation, read as it is written in katakana. There is no\nspecial rule you have to consider.\n\nHowever, both コップ and カップ are commonly used in Japanese, and that may be the\nsource of confusion. So let's see the difference.\n\n * コップ: pronounced as _KOPPU_. This roughly corresponds to a mug, but can refer to a cylinder-shaped cup made of glass [like this](http://www.dollartree.com/Crystal-Cylinder-Vase/p9889/index.pro). A paper cup is called 紙コップ.\n * カップ: pronounced as _KAPPU_. Used for コーヒーカップ、ティーカップ、マグカップ、etc. Interestingly, a mug is コップ, but マグカップ is more commonly used than マグコップ. I don't know why. And World Cup is ワールドカップ, not ワールドコップ.\n * グラス: a drinking glass. ワイングラス, カクテルグラス, etc. Glass as material is called ガラス.\n\nGoogle's image search would be the best tool to grasp the idea. I think you\nhave to just memorize when to use コップ and when to use カップ...",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T01:26:37.143",
"id": "18188",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-10T01:26:37.143",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18186",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "(This is intended to be a \"simple answer\". I assumed the OP does not just want\nto know how to pronounce コップ, which is relatively trivial - see note - but\nwhen to use コップ and when to use カップ, which is confusing.)\n\nThere are two similar words with different meanings - コップ and カップ, kOppu and\nkAppu.\n\n> カップ (kAppu) is the general word,\n\nIt is typically used to refer to\n\n * cups that go with saucers, such as a tea-cup, \n * cups you win, such as the Soccer World Cup\n * most other cup related derivatives such as brassiere cup (ブラジャーのカップ), cupcake (カップケーキ) or pot-noodle (カップヌードル)\n\n> コップ （kOppu） refers to cups for drinking\n\nThis is usually a\n\n * glass tumbler ((ガラス)コップ) but also includes \n * paper cups (紙コップ） and plastic cups (プラスチックコップ）\n\nAccording to Wikipedia, コップ comes from the Dutch word for cup, \"kop\". You can\nconsider it one type of カップ.\n\nThe same phenomenon applies to the word for glass for which there are two\nwords:\n\n> ガラス (gArasu) ＝ the material itself (hence ガラスコップ)\n>\n> グラス (gUrasu) ＝ the drinking cup made of glass, including ガラスコップ and ワイングラス\n\nThis time ガラス comes from the Dutch word \"glas\", グラス comes from English word\n\"glass\".\n\n**Note** \n- You pronounce it the way it is written and can hear it at this site [http://ja.forvo.com/word/コップ/](http://ja.forvo.com/word/%E3%82%B3%E3%83%83%E3%83%97/) ([http://ja.forvo.com/search/カップ/](http://ja.forvo.com/search/%E3%82%AB%E3%83%83%E3%83%97/))",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T11:00:18.860",
"id": "18196",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-10T11:43:11.913",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-10T11:43:11.913",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "18186",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18186 | 18188 | 18188 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18191",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "One of my friends is translating some stuff, and he told me he needs \"a second\nopinion for this one since he's having troubles to identify the first one\".\n\nI know the second one is だ, but I really can't identify the first one. I\nbelived for a second it was Katakana, but I've checked both of my basic tables\n(my Japanese is extremely basic, worse than my English though), and I really\ncan't find it.\n\nI've tried to search words that end with だ, but that would be extremely slow,\nso I wanted to ask you guys, is this a Kanji? If so, which one?\n\n",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T03:57:37.107",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18190",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-13T08:20:30.353",
"last_edit_date": "2016-02-13T08:20:30.353",
"last_editor_user_id": "11849",
"owner_user_id": "6997",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"katakana"
],
"title": "Recognizing a Kanji?",
"view_count": 194
} | [
{
"body": "This is actually two words: one consisting of two characters in katakana (ダメ)\nand the other is in hiragana (だ) - together ダメだ. だめ is often written using\nkatakana as ダメ.\n\nThe meaning depends on the context but could be \"don't do it\", \"no\", \"it's not\ngood\", \"you should not do it\", \"that's wrong\".",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T04:03:09.000",
"id": "18191",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-10T04:08:58.773",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-10T04:08:58.773",
"last_editor_user_id": "5041",
"owner_user_id": "5041",
"parent_id": "18190",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 18190 | 18191 | 18191 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What is the difference between 腰掛ける and 座る?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T10:17:44.303",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18194",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-20T15:24:09.757",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-10T10:47:04.270",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6986",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 腰掛ける and 座る?",
"view_count": 685
} | [
{
"body": "This is a nice cultural question.\n\n「[座]{すわ}る」 _**originally**_ means \"to sit on the floor or ground\".\n\n「[腰掛]{こしか}ける」 means \"to sit on a chair or something that has a certain\nheight\".\n\nNowadays, however, it is perfectly OK to use 座る when sitting on a chair, too,\nas in 「イスに座る = \"to sit on a chair\"」.\n\nOlder people still often use the word (noun) 「腰かけ」 instead of 「イス」 to refer to\na chair as well.\n\n* * *\n\nFor the advanced learner, 腰掛 can also mean \"temporary employment\" in informal\nspeech --- \"a chair to sit on for a few months\" kinda thing.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T10:34:10.030",
"id": "18195",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-20T15:24:09.757",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-20T15:24:09.757",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18194",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 15
}
] | 18194 | null | 18195 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18207",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> もしも君にめぐり逢えたら \n> 二度と君の手を離さない\n\nI would translate this to:\n\n> Even if I could meet you by chance, \n> I would never leave your hand a second time.\n\nThat is because of the following analysis: moshi, if; mo, even; kimi, you; ni,\npreposition required by meguriau; meguriaetara, -tara form of potential of\nmeguriau, meet by chance; nido to, a second time; kimi, you; no, possessive\nparticle; te, hand; wo, object marker; hanasanai, negative present of hanasu,\nlet go of. Trouble is, I've seen translations of this, which is from Time\nAfter Time by Mai Kuraki, which translate it more or less as:\n\n> Even if I had met you by chance, \n> I would not have left your hand a second time.\n\nBut if hanasanai is present, why should I translate it with a past\nconditional? Wouldn't it make more sense to translate it as a present one? It\n_is_ true that -tara contains the past suffix -ta, but so what? Does it\nnecessarily imply a past action? And if so, why use the present in the\napodosis?",
"comment_count": 14,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T12:09:36.710",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18198",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-11T06:49:00.087",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-10T14:59:40.130",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "5324",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"conditionals"
],
"title": "Properly translating a conditional",
"view_count": 256
} | [
{
"body": "> But if hanasanai is present, why should I translate it with a past\n> conditional?\n\nYou shouldn't.\n\n> Wouldn't it make more sense to translate it as a present one?\n\nIndeed. Or a future tense.\n\n> It is true that -tara contains the past suffix -ta, but so what? Does it\n> necessarily imply a past action?\n\nNo. The -ta is aspectual, i.e. it explains what will happen \"after having met\"\n_you_. It works because 君の手を離さない happens after 君にめぐり逢えた.\n\nThe distinction of aspect and tense is subtle in Japanese, but as a very rough\nrule, I usually say that -ta (etc.) expresses **past tense** in matrix verbs,\ni.e. main clauses (usually the last verb in Japanese sentences), and\n**perfective aspect** in other positions (subclauses, relative clauses etc).",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-11T06:49:00.087",
"id": "18207",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-11T06:49:00.087",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "18198",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18198 | 18207 | 18207 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18211",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 春の終わり告げる 花御堂{はなみどう} \n> 霞む花 一枚{ひとひら}\n\nThis is from Time After Time, and translates to:\n\n> The hanamidō tells us about the end of the spring, \n> A petal from a misty flower.\n\nHow is the `petal` linked to the rest? Is it at all? Is it meant to be an\nextra subject of `tsugeru`, along with `hanamidō`? And what does \"misty\nflower\" mean?\n\nUPDATE\n\nAfter some thoughts, and some interactions with others online, I am pretty\nmuch convinced that we're looking at an anastrophe, not a relative clause. I\nhave four theories:\n\n 1. My original idea is that the petal is blurring up (kasumu) because the singer is tearing up because of the memories (cfr. next section); thus, the line would be equivalent to 花の花びらひとひらが霞む;\n 2. On [Lyricstranslate](https://lyricstranslate.com/en/time-after-time-time-after-time-town-where-flowers.html), someone suggested that \"kasumu\" here is referring to the petal losing colour because it's the end of spring which is much later than when the Hanamidou is set up (April 8), so they're kinda withering away and becoming less bright in colour, which makes it grey/white like mist; that would explain how the Hanamidou is announcing the end of spring (as said in the other line quoted here);\n 3. I then asked Quora, and [one answer](https://www.quora.com/In-Mai-Kurakis-Japanese-song-Time-after-time-there-is-the-line-Kasumu-HANA-hitohira-Is-that-petal-blurring-up-in-the-singers-eyes-because-the-singers-tearing-up-or-is-it-withering-and-thus-dimming-Otherwise-how/answer/Hara-Shidho) mentioned \"hana kasumi\", the hazy look of cherry blossoms in the distance, saying that we have that on one side, and the petal blurring up because of tears on the other; maybe we have two subjects here: flowers, for the hana kasumi, and one petal, because of the tears, so first we see hana kasumi, then we zoom into one petal, and the tearing up starts; hence, 花とひとひら［の花弁］が霞む;\n 4. 1 and 3 both don't tell us how the Hanamidou is announcing the end of spring; perhaps we've got both petal-kasumu senses together? So the petal is kasumu-ing in two senses, the ones of 1 and 2, and then perhaps we also have a passing thought of hana kasumi as in 3?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T12:18:41.267",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18199",
"last_activity_date": "2022-07-25T21:44:08.780",
"last_edit_date": "2022-07-25T21:44:08.780",
"last_editor_user_id": "5324",
"owner_user_id": "5324",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Petal from a misty flower",
"view_count": 244
} | [
{
"body": "「霞む花一枚」 is a very rhetorical expression which is unlikely to be seen except in\nlyrics.\n\nGrammatically, 「霞む花一枚」 is not strongly linked to something in the previous\nline. It's a noun phrase, forming one sentence by its own. \"A petal from a\nmisty flower.\"\n\nI can't logically explain what \"霞む花\" (literally, _hazy_ or _misty_ flower)\nmeans here. There is a plant called\n[カスミソウ](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AB%E3%82%B9%E3%83%9F%E3%82%BD%E3%82%A6)\nbut it probably is irrelevant. And there is also a word\n[花がすみ](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/178232/m0u/), which means full-\nbloomed cherry blossoms looking like mist, but _full bloom_ is definitely not\nwhat she wants to say in this nostalgic situation.\n\nIt seems to me that the person here is reminded of old memories by seeing the\nflower. So it may be a kind of metaphor for the \"vagueness\" of the memory.\n\n\"枚\" is not used to count a flower. \"1枚の花\" is incorrect in plain Japanese.\nInstead, \"枚\" is used to count petals (1枚の花びら). So the best way to understand\n\"霞む花 一枚\" is to assume an imaginary petal: \"霞む花（の花びらが）一枚\". That's what the\ntranslator did.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-12T06:23:51.130",
"id": "18211",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-12T06:23:51.130",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18199",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18199 | 18211 | 18211 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18391",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 蘇る 思い出の歌 \n> この胸に 今も優しく\n\n 1. `The song of returning thoughts` or `The song returning in [my] thoughts`?\n 2. Does `yasashiku` at the end imply a verb or is it a sort of continuous form, as I sometimes seem to see done with -i forms of verbs? Maybe it is from `yasashiku naru`, so both things?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T12:25:11.907",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18200",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-24T19:28:34.967",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-10T14:58:07.437",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "5324",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "The song in my thought",
"view_count": 146
} | [
{
"body": "蘇る means \"come to life again\". 思い出の歌 means, a song that makes you nostalgic.\nSo in this case, the nostalgic song which was shelved in his/her mind came to\nlife again probably because he/she heard it again.\n\n\"今も優しく\" means \"still tender\" and この胸に roughly means \"to my heart\". I.e. \"Still\ntender to my heart\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-24T19:28:34.967",
"id": "18391",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-24T19:28:34.967",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "499",
"parent_id": "18200",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18200 | 18391 | 18391 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18245",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The following are [lyrics from _Time after time_ ～花舞う街で～ by\n倉木麻衣](http://www.kasi-time.com/item-7469.html):\n\n> 風に君の声が聞こえる \n> 薄氷{うすらい}冴{さえ}返る 遠い記憶\n\nI translate the two lines separately:\n\n> Your voice still sounds in the wind. \n> Distant memory / distant memories [over which] the thin ice freezes again.\n\nIs that right? Is it right to take the voice as linked to `kioku`, as the\n`memory`, and therefore translating with the singular? Also, [this\nsite](http://www.animelyrics.com/jpop/maikuraki/timeaftertime.htm) says, in a\nnote, that a _kigo_ is used in here. Could you expand on this?",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T12:57:02.587",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18201",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-16T16:22:27.200",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-16T16:22:27.200",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5324",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"translation",
"song-lyrics"
],
"title": "Memories and freezing ice",
"view_count": 296
} | [
{
"body": "Hmm, this post brings up a number of issues.\n\n### The poem\n\nI'm assuming this is the whole thing, at least for purposes of this\ndiscussion. I've tweaked the spelling and okurigana to match what I know and\nwhat my references use.\n\n> 風{かぜ}に君{きみ}の声{こえ}が聞{き}こえる \n> 薄{うす}ら氷{ひ}冴{さ}え返{かえ}る 遠{とお}い記憶{きおく}\n\n### Grammatical number\n\nJapanese doesn't have any inherent number in most nouns. Plural or singular,\neither could be correct -- when translating into English, you have to rely on\ncontext if there is any, or on your own intuition regarding the author's\nintent. In translating poetry, even more than other kinds of text, it's\nimportant to think about the implications and allusions of each word. So for\n記憶{きおく} here, it could be either \" _memory_ \" or \" _memories_ \", depending on\nwhat the author or you as the translator want to express.\n\n### Imagery\n\nThe two phrases 薄{うす}ら氷{ひ} and 冴{さ}え返{かえ}る both depict cold, crisp, and clear\nweather, like right when things are starting to freeze up.\n\n * 薄{うす}ら氷{ひ} is literally \" _thin ice_ \", and could apply to either early spring (as mentioned in your links), or also to late fall.\n * 冴{さ}え返{かえ}る is a compound verb. \n\n * 冴{さ}える is etymologically related to さやか (variously spelled in kanji as 明か・清か・爽か) and in this context it refers to piercing brightness, sharp cold, and/or extreme clarity, particularly the kind you get on really cold nights when the air is bitterly cold and crisp.\n * 返{かえ}る as the latter part of compound verbs often means \" _throughout, through and through_ \", or \" _re-, again_ \".\n\nThese two combined imply late fall or early winter, rather than early spring.\nThe mention of 風{かぜ} \" _wind_ \" further bolsters the idea of winter. That\nsaid, 冴え返る can also allude to the kind of cold snaps that happen in early\nspring just as things begin to warm up. Either way, 薄ら氷（が）冴え返る could suggest\nthat everything all around is frozen over in a thin layer of ice.\n\nMuch as in English, Japanese uses ideas of \" _cold_ \" in describing emotions\nand human relations. For example, if you describe someone as 冷{つめ}たい \"\n_chilly, cold [to the touch]_ \", you're saying they're being _cold_ and\n_unfriendly_. 遠{とお}い \" _distant, far away_ \" together with the cold and windy\nscene suggests that the 君{きみ} \" _you_ \" (familiar, often used by males to\nrefer to significant others) mentioned in the first line has broken up with or\nis somehow otherwise no longer intimate with the \"me\" of the poem.\n\n### _Kakariai_ : How the poem fits together\n\nJust in terms of the grammar, and in the absence of punctuation, a couple\ndifferent interpretations are possible.\n\n * These two lines could be parsed as two independent statements, as if there were full stops after each.\n\n> 風{かぜ}に君{きみ}の声{こえ}が聞{き}こえる。 \n> 薄{うす}ら氷{ひ}冴{さ}え返{かえ}る 遠{とお}い記憶{きおく}。\n\n * Alternatively, they could be parsed as one longer statement, with the first line acting as a modifier on the head noun of the second line (記憶{きおく}). Here, I've split the lines up differently to place each modifying phrase on its own line and in 〔Japanese parentheses〕, with the final head noun in bold.\n\n> 〔風{かぜ}に君{きみ}の声{こえ}が聞{き}こえる〕 \n> 〔薄{うす}ら氷{ひ}冴{さ}え返{かえ}る〕 \n> 〔遠{とお}い〕 \n> **記憶{きおく}**\n\n### Translating\n\nIn light of the above, there are several ways to approach this. Here are a\ncouple possibilities.\n\n> I can hear your voice on the wind \n> A distant memory shrouded in ice\n\nor\n\n> The distant frozen memory \n> of your voice on the wind\n\nWhen rendering poetry into English, one of the real challenges is making the\nEnglish both 1) express the meaning of the source text, and 2) come across as\npoetry in the English. As English poetry, you then have to decide on things\nlike whether to use free verse, or meter; what kind of rhythm and scansion to\nuse; and whether to use rhyme or alliteration. Haiku tend not to work very\nwell in English, for the same reason that limericks aren't a common format in\nJapanese. When porting poetry from one language to another, these kinds of\nstructural issues will be part of your decision-making process.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-15T23:54:10.390",
"id": "18245",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-15T23:54:10.390",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "18201",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 18201 | 18245 | 18245 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18206",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've been learning Japanese for a few days and there is one thing that I want\nto know:\n\nHow is \"forbids\" expressed on signs in Japan? And how in formal texts?\n\nI suggest that the form \"[x]は きんし です。\" is more colloquial and that in signs\nand in formal text there is the form \"いけません\" (= it is forbidden to...).\n\nYou can, if you want, make examples (e.g. for signs: Smoking forbidden ...; or\nformal texts...)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-10T13:42:56.143",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18202",
"last_activity_date": "2018-12-30T22:55:13.113",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-11T11:20:24.197",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7000",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -1,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Ways to express prohibitions",
"view_count": 1427
} | [
{
"body": "禁止{きんし} can actually frequently be found on Japanese signs. 喫煙禁止{きつえんきんし} -\n\"No smoking\" and 立入禁止{たちいりきんし} - \"Do not enter\" are common examples. Due to\nthe concise nature of this word (only two characters), it actually lends\nitself quite nicely to prohibition signs. A Google image search of 禁止 will\nactually yield nothing but prohibition signs.\n\nAs for expressing prohibition in a sentence, you are right in assuming that\nいけません could be used. I'm still learning myself, but I'm fairly sure that it's\nthe most common way (of course including the variants いけない、ならない、etc.) - I\ncannot comment on the usage of 禁止{きんし} to prohibit something in full\nsentences, but my hunch is that it would sound very stiff and formal and - if\nit is used at all - is not an option you should consider in general.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-11T00:49:34.973",
"id": "18205",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-11T00:49:34.973",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4289",
"parent_id": "18202",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Even though I am not entirely sure what exactly you are trying to ask, I will\nsomehow manage to talk about the things that I feel might be of interest to\nJapanesse-learners.\n\nWith Japanese signs --- any signs really, including those asking you not to do\nsomething --- things happen that do not happen with signs in other languages.\nThat is regarding how the message should be written. Specifically, which ones\nof the three writing systems we should use.\n\nFor instance, kids under 10 or so could not read the following sign at the\nbeach prohibiting swimming. It says 「[遊泳禁止]{ゆうえいきんし} [石巻市]{いしのまきし}」 meaning\n\"Swimming Prohibited. The City of Ishinomaki\"\n\n\n\nYou will often find another sign nearby saying something like 「ここでおよいではいけません」\n= \"You cannot swim here.\" in kana so that smaller kids could read it. What you\nwill NOT find, however, is a sign that says 「ゆうえいきんし」 because that still\nrequires a ceratin level of vocabulary to understand despite the use of no\nkanji.\n\nBy far the most often-used phrase on signs to keep kids away is:\n\n「よいこはここであそばない」 = \"Good kids do not play here.\"\n\n[http://image.search.yahoo.co.jp/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=top_lt3_sa&p=%E3%82%88%E3%81%84%E3%81%93%E3%81%AF%E3%81%93%E3%81%93%E3%81%A7%E3%81%82%E3%81%9D%E3%81%B0%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84](http://image.search.yahoo.co.jp/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=top_lt3_sa&p=%E3%82%88%E3%81%84%E3%81%93%E3%81%AF%E3%81%93%E3%81%93%E3%81%A7%E3%81%82%E3%81%9D%E3%81%B0%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-11T02:52:08.557",
"id": "18206",
"last_activity_date": "2018-12-30T22:55:13.113",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18202",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18202 | 18206 | 18206 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18209",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am having a hard time express the concept of _striving to achieve\nsomething_. I found a video of a monk online using the word 励む, but I am not\nsure exactly how to use it.\n\nIt seems it pairs with nouns as in\n\n> 勉強に励む\n\nBut what if I want to pair it with a verb? Is this acceptable?\n\n> 目的を達成するに励ます\n\nOr, I was thinking perhaps:\n\n> 目的を達成するために励ます\n\nOr else, how would you express this concept?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-11T07:34:41.887",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18208",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-11T10:57:43.967",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3423",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"usage"
],
"title": "Strive to achieve something",
"view_count": 819
} | [
{
"body": "First, I will talk about how to use 「[励]{はげ}む」 and later on, other possible\nexpressions.\n\n> Both 「[勉強]{べんきょう}に励む」 and 「[勉学]{べんがく}に励む」 sound natural with the latter\n> being more formal or \"adult-speaker-like\".\n\nNext, how to combine 励む with other verbs.\n\nYou used 「励ます」, which is a transitive verb meaning \"to encourage someone to do\nsomething\". You cannot use it to talk about how you are striving to achieve\nsomething yourself. (Or was it meant to be the ます-form of 励ます, which is 励みます?\nIf so, you need a み in there.)\n\n> You can say all of the below：\n>\n> 「[目的]{もくてき}を[達成]{たっせい}するよう（に）励んでいます。」\n>\n> 「目的を達成できるよう（に）励んでいます。」\n>\n> 「目的を達成するため（に）励んでいます。」\n\nNative speakers use 「励んでいます」 100% of the time if you have already been trying.\nIf you say 「励みます」, it will sound like you have not started making the efforts\nand you are talking about doing so in the (near) future. This is a common\nmistake among Japanese-learners. They tend to end up using the \"present\" tense\nbecause they translate directly from their first language --- \"I strive to\nachieve A and B.\".\n\nFinally, some other verb choices besides 「励む」.\n\n> 「[精]{せい}を[出]{だ}す」、「[奮闘]{ふんとう}する」、「[努]{つと}める」, etc. The last one is kind of\n> weak in meaning.\n\nColloquially, you can use 「やっきになる」, but to use it properly, your other words\nwill need to sound colloquial and natural as well.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-11T10:50:32.220",
"id": "18209",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-11T10:57:43.967",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18208",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 18208 | 18209 | 18209 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18224",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "In Japanese, we often see where the beginnings of multiple words are taken to\nmake a contraction word.\n\n> * 短大 → **短** 期 **大** 学 → A juniour college\n> * 収支 → **収** 入と **支** 出 → income and expenditure; earnings and expenses\n> * 国連 → **国** 際 **連** 合 → The United Nations\n> * リモコン → **リモ** ート **コン** トロール → Remote control(ler)\n>\n\nHowever, `因果` is an abbreviation for 原 **因** と結 **果**. I can't say I've seen\nany other words formed by combining the end pieces. Why did 因果 come about this\nway? Why isn't the abbreviation `原結`?\n\nIf you have other examples please list them.\n\n* * *\n\nEdit: Oops, yes, of course I meant `結果`, not `効果`. I was multitasking and my\nwires got crossed.",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-12T21:03:36.263",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18214",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-27T16:44:27.420",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-13T16:53:51.717",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"words",
"abbreviations"
],
"title": "[因果]{いん・が}: A bass-ackwards contraction?",
"view_count": 447
} | [
{
"body": "Do you mean 原因と結果？\n\n因 signifies the cause, as in 原因 or 要因.\n\n果 signifies the result, as in 結果 or 効果.\n\nSo when you make the contraction, you are using the kanji that holds those\nindividual meanings. In this case, it wouldn't make sense to not use those\nkanji. In the example you gave, 原効 doesn't hold the intended meaning.\n\nSo in this particular case, it seems the words are derived from Chinese from\nSanskrit. See [Gogen](http://gogen-allguide.com/i/inga.html) and [Wikipedia\nJP](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%A0%E6%9E%9C). I don't know what the\ntechnical term is but conceptually, it seem the 原因・結果's relation to 因果 was\napplied after the fact. I don't think it is like your typical Japanese\ncontraction but it has more to do with the Chinese derivation of the word.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-12T21:26:03.170",
"id": "18215",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-13T10:09:46.930",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-13T10:09:46.930",
"last_editor_user_id": "6840",
"owner_user_id": "6823",
"parent_id": "18214",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Perhaps the following would reek of Chinese thinking, where 原因 for example is\ntraditionally thought of as _two_ words.\n\n原因 = 因 of the 原, i.e. causing reason\n\n結果 = 果 which has 結, i.e. the produced result\n\nBoth words arose in Chinese as a way to eliminate homophones by adding\nredundant adjectives (obviously all reasons are causing, and all results are\nproduced). The original words are simply 因 and 果; thus they are used in\ncompounds. Put it another way, the compound \"因果\" probably is older than the\nwords \"原因\" and \"結果\", which came after sound changes caused much homophones.\n\nThis is similar to how 葉{は} had too many homophones and useless っぱ was added,\nand 田{た} had too many homophones and んぼ was added; you still use は and た in\ncompounds though.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-13T16:24:48.040",
"id": "18224",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-13T16:24:48.040",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2960",
"parent_id": "18214",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "「因果」 literally means \"cause and effect\".\n\n```\n\n It is often used in the phrase 「因果関係」, \"a causal relationship\".\n \n```\n\n「因果」 is a combination of two ideas 「因」 as in 「要因」 and 「果」 as in 「結果」.\n\nThis kind of word formation where two elements of opposite meaning are\ncombined to mean \"A and B\" is very common in Chinese and Japanese as in words\nlike\n\n```\n\n 「善悪」 - \"good and evil\"\n 「生死」 - \"life and death\"\n 「勝負」 - \"victory and defeat\"\n 「山海」 - \"mountain and ocean\"\n 「白黒」 - \"white and black\"\n 「是非」 - \"that which is good and that which is bad\"\n 「賛否」 - \"agreement and disagreement\"\n 「因果」 - \"cause and effect\"\n \n```",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T08:43:22.627",
"id": "18297",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T08:43:22.627",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7055",
"parent_id": "18214",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Some may have implied this but let me make it even clearer.\n\nConsider Chinese syntax.\n\nThere have been 2-char words in the Chinese languages since long ago. One\nparticular way of coining such words is, to combine two words together with\none being the entity and the other being a decorator.\n\nFor example:\n\n * 偏见 (\"prejudice\", n) is from 偏 (\"slanted\", adj) and 见 (\"view\", n).\n * 想象 (\"imagine\", v) is from 想 (\"think\", v) and 象 (\"image\", n).\n\nThe basic rule is:\n\n * v + n = v\n * adj + n = n\n\nAs we can see:\n\n * 原因 = 原 (\"original\", adj) + 因 (\"cause\", n)\n * 結果 = 結 (\"to generate\" or \"[the] generated\"; the implicit subject is the plant, from which the fruit is obtained) + 果 (\"fruit\", n)\n\nAlthough 結果 is v+n, it is not used as a verb in real use. Instead, it is used\nas a noun or a conjunction. So when 結果 is used as a noun, it inherits the part\nof speech of 果.\n\nIn result, if you would like to coin a new contradiction-style 2-char noun\nbased on two 2-char nouns, the best way should be to pick up their noun parts,\nrespectively.\n\n* * *\n\nFurther readings:\n\nThe Chinese languages don't necessarily distinguish parts of speech in\nwriting. 想象 (\"imagine\", v, \"imagined\", past, \"imagined\", past participle), 想象\n(\"imagining\", present participle), 想象 (\"imagination\", n), 想象 (\"to imagine\",\ninfinitive), 想象的 (\"imaginative\", adj), and 想象力 (\"imaginative force\", n) all\nuse the same substring \"想象\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2018-02-27T16:44:27.420",
"id": "56921",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-27T16:44:27.420",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "27865",
"parent_id": "18214",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18214 | 18224 | 18224 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I do not understand the meaning of として in this sentence:\n\n> 設備機器を固定資産 **として** 登録するために必要 **として** いるのでしょう.\n\nEdit (from comment): There are 2「として」in the sentence above. In my opinion, the\nfirst one has the same grammar as this sentence: 彼はその箱を椅子として使った",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-13T01:41:24.460",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18216",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-07T08:22:25.277",
"last_edit_date": "2016-02-07T08:22:25.277",
"last_editor_user_id": "11849",
"owner_user_id": "7014",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "I do not understand the meaning of として in this sentence",
"view_count": 328
} | [
{
"body": "I think the として in 固定資産として means \"as\" ([meaning\n3](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%A8%E3%81%97%E3%81%A6))\n\n必要として is the て-form of\n[必要とする](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E5%BF%85%E8%A6%81%E3%81%A8%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B&ref=sa)(to\nneed; to require). \n(or, 必要としている is the progressive form of 必要とする.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-13T02:18:16.793",
"id": "18217",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-13T14:09:08.190",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-13T14:09:08.190",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18216",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 18216 | null | 18217 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "What are the differences between 死ぬ{しぬ}, 他界する{たかいする} and 亡くなる{なくなる}?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-13T10:08:00.183",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18219",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-21T00:32:46.020",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-13T10:11:31.780",
"last_editor_user_id": "5041",
"owner_user_id": "6986",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"words",
"usage",
"synonyms"
],
"title": "Differences between 死ぬ{しぬ}, 他界する{たかいする} and 亡くなる{なくなる}?",
"view_count": 2672
} | [
{
"body": "死ぬ is the general, neutral term for \"to die\". 他界する assumes particular belief,\nnamely that the person/animal goes to the afterworld. 亡くなる is euphemism.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-13T10:12:22.713",
"id": "18220",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-13T10:12:22.713",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7022",
"parent_id": "18219",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "From my personal experience,\n\n**「亡くなる」** is the most neutral word.\n\n```\n\n 「先生のお父さんはがんで亡くなられたよ」 - \"Our teacher's father died from cancer\"\n \n```\n\n**「死ぬ」** is a strong word that is usually avoided by polite people, but is\nused to express emphasis or to deliberately offend. It can also be used to\ntalk about animals.\n\n```\n\n 「勝手に死ね！」 - Literally, \"Die on your own!\", but is very strong and rude.\n 「あのセミが死んでいるよ」 - \"That cicada is dead\"\n \n```\n\n**「他界する」** is a polite word (often used on television) to express the idea\nthat someone has \"left this world\".\n\n```\n\n 「美紀ちゃんは13才という若さで他界した」 - \"Miki-chan passed away at the tender age of 13\"\n \n```",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T08:56:26.810",
"id": "18298",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T08:56:26.810",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7055",
"parent_id": "18219",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "死亡する is also used in place of 死ぬ because the latter is too strong a word. It's\nused in news articles, announcements, and I think has a slightly official and\nimpersonal feel to it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-21T00:32:46.020",
"id": "18322",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-21T00:32:46.020",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3360",
"parent_id": "18219",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 18219 | null | 18298 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I wonder, what term 詰めの甘さ could mean? The whole sentense is:\n三種の器に入れてもらえなかった詰めの甘さなのだろうか",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-13T11:13:11.747",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18221",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-13T11:44:22.320",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6677",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "meaning of 詰めの甘さ",
"view_count": 415
} | [
{
"body": "「[詰]{つ}め」 originally means \"checkmating\" in Japanese board games. From that,\nwe often use the word to refer to the \"final stage\" or \"final move\" in all\nkinds of things.\n\n「[甘]{あま}い」 here does not mean \"sweet\". It means \"not severe\", \"permissive\",\netc. If you were being permissive or lenient at the final stage of a game of\nchess or something, you would not be likely to win.\n\n「詰めの甘さ」, therefore, means \"one's tendency to slack off at the end of\nsomething\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-13T11:44:22.320",
"id": "18222",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-13T11:44:22.320",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18221",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 18221 | null | 18222 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18226",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What does it mean when people start sentences with つー事? Is it an abbreviation\nof something else? \nTwo examples of such are:\n\n[つー事で。](http://ameblo.jp/kojima-takahiro/entry-11878442610.html)\n\n[つー事は、](https://twitter.com/mcYoucan/status/486872553244205056)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-13T20:41:38.867",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18225",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-14T01:12:21.607",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4801",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "つー事 as a sentence starter",
"view_count": 562
} | [
{
"body": "「つー」 is the common contracted form of 「という」 and furthermore, of 「っていう」.\n\nIn the order of formality, it is 「という」、「っていう」 and 「（っ）つー」. Learners should\nknow that among the three, 「（っ）つー」 borders on slang. DO NOT use it with your\nteacher, boss, etc.\n\nNeedless to say, 「つー」 is pronounced exactly the same as 「つう」. (That is only if\nyou are pronouncing 「つう」 correctly in a single syllable.)\n\nAll of these forms are quotative in function and meaning, referring to what\nhas already been discussed, implied or has been shared as common knowledge\nbetween the speaker and the listener.\n\n> 「つーことで」 means \"and so\", \"therefore\", etc. when it comes at the beginning of\n> a sentence. It is also sometimes used in colloquial speech as a\n> conversation-ending phrase meaning \"That is all I have to say.\" In that\n> case, it is said just before saying good-bye.\n>\n> 「つーことは」 comes at the beginning of a sentence and it means \"So, that means\n> ~~\" or \"If that is the case\".",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-13T22:54:49.787",
"id": "18226",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-14T01:12:21.607",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18225",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 18225 | 18226 | 18226 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18230",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "In the context of email sending, in order to acknowledge an email which is\nbetter?\n\n> 回答有難うございます\n>\n> 返事有難うございます\n\nAlso, if you have some rules on when to use either, it would be much\nappreciated!",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-14T00:17:00.207",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18227",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T02:25:15.723",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "664",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Email: 「回答」vs「返事」",
"view_count": 841
} | [
{
"body": "Based on own knowledge and some research:\n\n * 返事 is an answer when there is a conversation about a particular topic. Basically it is used when addressing an oral conversation but not exclusively.\n * 返信 when there was question sentence and answer sentence is provided.\n * 回答 is basically an answer as a matter. For example - answer to a claim (as a thing, not its contents).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-14T00:47:59.333",
"id": "18229",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-14T00:47:59.333",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6748",
"parent_id": "18227",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "It all depends on the content of your most recent correspondence.\n\n> If the other person has answered an important question that you had asked\n> previously, you can use 「（ご）[回答]{かいとう}ありがとうございます。」 as 「回答」 means \"an answer\n> to a question\".\n\nI used the word \"important\" because something like \"How are you?\" is not one\nof the questions I am talking about here.\n\nThe honorific 「ご」 would be a nice touch most of the time, but it would be\noptional if you were way \"above\" the other person.\n\n> If no Q&A has been performed recently, you cannot use the word 「回答」 like\n> above. You can say, instead, 「お[返事]{へんじ}ありがとうございます。」 as 「返事」 only means\n> \"reply\".\n\nThat honorific 「お」 is used virtually 100% of the time in this set phrase\nregardless of your relationship with the other person.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-14T00:55:10.943",
"id": "18230",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-14T00:55:10.943",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18227",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "返事 = a reply 回答 = an answer\n\n返る = to come back 答える = to answer\n\nIf you want to thank someone for answering your question, use 「回答」.\n\nIf you want to thank someone for replying to your communication, use 「返事」.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T02:25:15.723",
"id": "18286",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T02:25:15.723",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7055",
"parent_id": "18227",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18227 | 18230 | 18230 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18231",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am currently learning basic grammar using the Tae Kim's guide to japanese.\nIn one of his examples he roughly translates this sentence:\n\n> こんな **の** を本当に食べる？\n\nas \" _Do you think [he/she] will really eat this type of thing?_ \"\n\nMy question is, how does the possessive **の** particle make this sentence\ndifferent from for example:\n\n> こんなを本当に食べる？",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-14T00:33:32.783",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18228",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-14T01:02:36.290",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-14T00:40:26.793",
"last_editor_user_id": "5131",
"owner_user_id": "5131",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"words",
"meaning",
"particles",
"particle-の"
],
"title": "Confusion with the の particle",
"view_count": 655
} | [
{
"body": "の here is not a possessive の, it's a nominalizer, a formal noun. こんな is\nadjectival and cannot by itself constitute a noun phrase.\n\nIn other words, こんな means \"this type of\", こんなの means \"this type of thing\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-14T01:02:36.290",
"id": "18231",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-14T01:02:36.290",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "18228",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 18228 | 18231 | 18231 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18234",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Is just さようなら acceptable as a 'goodbye' in 敬語, or is there a more formal\nversion?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-14T01:42:14.673",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18232",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T16:07:11.187",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7025",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"expressions",
"keigo"
],
"title": "How to say farewell in 敬語?",
"view_count": 2259
} | [
{
"body": "You can always say `失礼します` say goodbye or to excuse yourself (lit. \"I'm being\nrude (by leaving))\". This is probably the most common. There is also `失敬します`,\nbut I've heard this is rather old-man-ish and haven't heard anyone use in\nnormal conversation.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-14T02:33:43.260",
"id": "18233",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-14T15:30:20.863",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-14T15:30:20.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "18232",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "さようなら is used mainly by school children, but adults use this less commonly in\neveryday conversations. Here's the list of possible expressions:\n\n * お疲【つか】れ様【さま】です : Typically used after work. This is only polite enough to say goodbye to your colleagues. Don't say this to important external guests.\n * (お先【さき】に)失礼【しつれい】します: Typically used when leaving (and entering) an office, conference room, etc. You can use 失礼します (without お先に) at the end of a phone conversation.\n * (お先に)失礼いたします : Even more polite one with a humble form.\n * ごきげんよう : Very polite greeting, which is [described elsewhere](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/5317/). It's unlikely that you hear this in a business setting.\n\nAnd there are shortened forms: 「お疲れ！」「お先に！」 These are no longer considered as\n\"polite\", but are very frequently used, instead of さようなら, among colleagues who\nknow well each other.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-14T03:14:49.800",
"id": "18234",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-14T03:14:49.800",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18232",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "If you're not in a work environment, maybe you could use それでは",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T00:05:41.940",
"id": "18251",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-17T00:05:41.940",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2972",
"parent_id": "18232",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 18232 | 18234 | 18233 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18236",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "The [Tanos JLPT\nlist](http://www.tanos.co.uk/jlpt/skills/grammar/sentences/?grammarid=516)\ncontains this sentence:\n\n> ディズニーランドはとても面白かったよ。君もこればよかったのに。 Disneyland was very interesting. You should\n> have come with us.\n\nBut [the accepted answer at Chiebukuro for\n『よかったら、一緒に来れば？』と誰かを誘ったりするときの「来れば？」ですが、...](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1327605988)\nsays:\n\n> 東北辺りでは これば？と言う人もいます \n> 方言の一種ですね \n> 読み仮名を付ける場合は「くれば」しかありません\n\nAlso, my IMEs refuse to convert これば into 来れば, and Rikaichan does not give any\nmeaningful translation for これば.\n\nIs there a contradiction, or am I misunderstanding something?\n\nIs 来ればよかった correct? \nIs こればよかった correct?\n\nIf there are several definitions of \"correct\", I am interested in what JLPT\ndeems \"correct\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-14T03:36:31.653",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18235",
"last_activity_date": "2016-07-01T11:40:28.173",
"last_edit_date": "2014-10-20T02:34:11.827",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "107",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"conjugations"
],
"title": "Is こればよかった correct or not?",
"view_count": 1650
} | [
{
"body": "I think the correct form in standard Japanese is [来]{く}ればよかったのに, since\n[Wiki](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AB%E8%A1%8C%E5%A4%89%E6%A0%BC%E6%B4%BB%E7%94%A8)\nsays 仮定形 of 来る is くれ.\n\nI think こればよかったのに is a typo or an error. Maybe the person who wrote this uses\na regional dialect and typed これば (unconsciously or carelessly?), and it was\nnot converted into kanji so they just left it as it was.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-14T05:53:20.570",
"id": "18236",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-14T06:08:43.217",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-14T06:08:43.217",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18235",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "The answer up there you posted seems to make it seem pretty clear to me.\n\n```\n\n 東北辺りでは これば？と言う人もいます\n 方言の一種ですね\n 読み仮名を付ける場合は「くれば」しかありません\n \n```\n\nis translated to:\n\n```\n\n Around Touhoku, there are some people who say 「これば」.\n It's just one type of local dialect. \n But when you write it down, the only correct way is 「くれば」。\n \n```\n\nSo in other words, if you are in 東北 and say 「これば」you will be understood just\nlike you can replace 「だ」 with 「や」 in 関西 , but for the JLPT or whenever you're\nwriting formal Japanese, it has to be the Tokyo dialect 「くれば」.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-15T01:28:31.687",
"id": "18239",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-28T14:53:56.330",
"last_edit_date": "2016-06-28T14:53:56.330",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7031",
"parent_id": "18235",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "Classic ら抜き + れ抜き (In other words it's a mistake!)\n\n```\n\n これる == こられる\n \n これば == こられれば\n \n```\n\nHowever, 「これる」is in the 大辞林 as meaning \"being able to come\". Though it does\nmake the note that the \"original\" (read correct) form is 「こられる」.\n\n<http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E6%9D%A5%E3%82%8C%E3%82%8B>\n\nTo sum up, ら抜き言葉 is awesome. But れ抜き言葉 is not. I mean which would you rather\nsay, \"koreba\" or \"korarereba\"? I don't have time for that. No, wait... Yes I\ndo! Maybe I'll just go with 「これれば」。",
"comment_count": 12,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T03:38:30.203",
"id": "18292",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-25T08:02:06.097",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-25T08:02:06.097",
"last_editor_user_id": "7055",
"owner_user_id": "7055",
"parent_id": "18235",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 18235 | 18236 | 18236 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18244",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the video game Ripening Tingle's Balloon Trip of Love, the protagonist\nTingle meets a fortune teller who demonstrates her powers to him. She asks\nhim, \"You come from a far away town, right?\" If Tingle answers, \"No\", she\nresponds:\n\n> うそ おっしゃい ! おばさん わかってるの。 \n> あなた まよっちゃったのよ ・・・\n\nNow, from what I understand, `うそおっしゃい` means, \"You're lying\". However, since\nshe continues with \"I understand, you're lost...\", it doesn't sound like she\nreally disbelieves.\n\nIn this context, is `うそおっしゃい` to be taken literally, or is it a set phrase\nexpressing astonishment like, \"You must be kidding\" ?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-15T14:38:06.853",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18243",
"last_activity_date": "2019-09-07T10:58:19.307",
"last_edit_date": "2018-01-17T01:47:21.947",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "3527",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"set-phrases",
"imperatives"
],
"title": "Is 「うそおっしゃい」 to be taken literally here?",
"view_count": 1598
} | [
{
"body": "First, 「おっしゃい」 is the imperative form of the verb 「[仰]{おっしゃ}る」, which is the\nhonorific form of 「[言]{い}う」.\n\n「うそおっしゃい。」 means the exact **_opposite_** of what it means literally. Its\nliteral meaning is \"Tell a lie!\", but that is clearly not something a person\nwould say under normal circumstances, is it?.\n\nThus, 「うそおっしゃい。」 always means\n\n> \"Don't lie (to me)!\"\n\nA more common form is:\n\n> 「うそつけ！」\n\nwhich also literally means \"Tell a lie!\", actually means \"Don't lie!\" 100% of\nthe time.\n\nThe nuance of these phrases is \"Lie all you want; I can see through you!\",\n\"Lie if you want but it won't work!\", etc. Thus, you are, in essence, saying\n\"C'mon, don't lie to me!\" These expressions are loosely called\n「[反語表現]{はんごひょうげん}」.\n\n(Nothing to do with the question, really, but 「おばさん」 in this context means\n\"I\". The speaker is using it like a first-person pronoun in talking to a\nyounger person. This is very common in Japanese.)",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-15T14:48:19.227",
"id": "18244",
"last_activity_date": "2019-09-07T10:58:19.307",
"last_edit_date": "2019-09-07T10:58:19.307",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18243",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 25
}
] | 18243 | 18244 | 18244 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18252",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Is the term \"フリーマーケット\" sometimes assumed to be derived from, or meaning, \"Free\nmarket\", as opposed to \"Flea market\"? (That is, having a [false\netymology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_etymology))\n\nThere is a phrase \"Free market\" in English, but it has an unrelated meaning to\n\"Flea market\". (To be fair, describing a \"Flea market\" as \"Free\" makes some\nsense, as it's outdoors and vendors presumably have fewer restrictions than if\nthey had a store in a shopping centre)\n\nI've come across some sites talking about this in Japanese, such as\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%9A%A4%E3%81%AE%E5%B8%82#.E3.83.95.E3.83.AA.E3.83.BC.E3.83.9E.E3.83.BC.E3.82.B1.E3.83.83.E3.83.88),\nand this Japanese-language site about [Japanese\nEnglish](http://www.eieigo.com/index.php?%E3%83%95%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B1%E3%83%83%E3%83%88%E3%80%80free%20market%20%E3%81%AF%E3%80%81%E5%92%8C%E8%A3%BD%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E%EF%BC%9F),\nbut haven't found any info in English.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-16T08:08:56.293",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18247",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-17T03:18:52.003",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"loanwords",
"false-etymology"
],
"title": "Is \"フリーマーケット\" sometimes assumed to be derived from \"Free\"?",
"view_count": 581
} | [
{
"body": "Both links explain that フリーマーケット comes from \"flea market\" not \"free market\"\nbut the term needs some disambiguation.\n\n蚤 (のみ）is the 漢字 for flea and the プログレッシブ dictionary lists 蚤の市 as \"a flea\nmarket\"\n\nThe following extract from your second link explains the above and that フリー is\nnot \"free\" but \"flea\":\n\n> [Q:]英語でフリーマーケットは？\n>\n> [A:] ...フリーマーケットとは蚤の市のことであり、flea （蚤） ＋ market（市、市場） ＝ flea market\n> となります。フリーは、 free ではなく、flea の方なんです。\n\nIn the first link we are told to be careful because the Japanese for free\nmarket in its true (English) sense is 自由市場:\n\n> free marketとは、経済学用語[、]..自由市場のこと..なので注意が必要である\n\nAccording to the sites, the term フリーマーケット seems to be used more for large\nscale events aimed at families and young people, taking place in places such\nas car parks of stadia on particular days. There is no hard and fast rule and\nthere are other terms for other markets for old things.\n\nAs pointed out in the comments, フリーマーケット is not really 和製英語 as it is based on\nan English expression rather than a \"Japanese made English\" such as \"nighter\"\n(ナイター）for an evening game of baseball under floodlights. However if its use is\nrestricted to a specific type of market for old things then it has a 和製\nnature. This gets more complicated if it gets taken to be derived from (and\nperhaps written as) \"free market\" in English/Romaji. If such a market is held\nin a free open space then I suppose some people may even infer this as\nreflected in the name but I don't see that written in your links which seek to\ndisambiguate the term.\n\n(So, to summarise, yes it seems some people might mistakenly think the phrase\nrefers to \"free\" as in \"free market\" but not necessarily in a physical sense.)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-16T09:04:41.093",
"id": "18248",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-17T00:35:45.040",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "18247",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "To answer the title question first, yes, it is. Roughly, I am going to say\nthat it happens incidentally 90% of the time and intentionally the rest of the\ntime.\n\nThis comes from innocent ignorance 80-90% of the time as the English word\n\"flea\" is simply not known nearly as widely as the word \"free\" among the\naverage people. The word 「フリー」(from \"free\") is already very common and most of\nus just never questioned our notion \"フリー = free\".\n\nThere is the old term that everyone knows 「[蚤]{のみ}の[市]{いち}」, which literally\nmeans \"flea market\" but we just fail to make the connection between 「蚤」 and\n\"flea\". 「蚤の市」, by the way, is the translation of its original French term \"le\nmarché aux puces\". It does not come from \"flea market\" in English in case that\nis what you thought.\n\nSo, it was coincidental in the vast majority of cases. However, there are\ntimes when people who are actually familiar with the English term \"flea\nmarket\" use on purpose \"free market\" as the \"spelling\" for THEIR own flea\nmarkets. This is where what OP states in his paragraph #2 comes in. I have\npersonally seen advertisement where \"Free Market\" is used in its English\nspelling with an explanation saying that freedom is the key word. You can sell\nanything for whatever prices you want. You can even choose to barter instead\nof sell. You are free to do anything!\n\nFinally, a word on the tricky term 「自由市場」. It has not been explained fully as\nI type.\n\nWhen read 「じゆうしじょう」, it means \"the free market (system)\" as an economics term.\n\nWhen read 「じゆういちば」, it is (part of) a proper noun for a \"flea market\" type of\nan event or place that someone is running.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T02:53:12.383",
"id": "18252",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-17T03:18:52.003",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-17T03:18:52.003",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18247",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 18247 | 18252 | 18252 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18255",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "When I was trying to order a set meal in the restaurant, the waiter said\n\n> Aランチのほうでよろしかったでしょうか\n\nI am not sure why the past tense よろしかった is used here, I personally would say\n\n> Aランチのほうでよろしいでしょうか\n\nI have heard the explanation that the past tense is used to show politeness,\nbut I am not sure how past tense makes it more polite or if it has completely\ndifferent meaning here.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T13:10:17.860",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18253",
"last_activity_date": "2019-10-24T01:03:29.800",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6893",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"usage",
"meaning",
"nuances",
"politeness"
],
"title": "Why does the waiter use past tense here",
"view_count": 462
} | [
{
"body": "In short, your waiter said what he said because it is the \"in\" thing to do for\nyoung workers (mostly part-time) at inexpensive restaurants, fast food places,\nconvenience stores, etc.\n\nThis speech style is called 「マニュアル[敬語]{けいご}」, 「コンビニ[言葉]{ことば}」、「ファミレス言葉」, etc.\nand it has been very common the last 20 years or so. （マニュアル = \"manual\", ファミレス\n= \"family restaurant\"）\n\nマニュアル敬語 is basically a set of honorific expressions that are not really\n\"correct\" by the traditional (or school) standards. Many young kids seeking\nemployment are not good at honorific speech to begin with but the employers\nmentioned above have no time to teach it as it is not really their job. So,\ninstead of letting them speak freely to their customers with their terrible\nhonorific speech, they ended up creating \"their own\" simplified honorific\nphrases instead and the result is devastating IMHO. It sounds like a whole new\nlanguage for people who are old enough to have kids working at those places.\nIt has been criticized in the media quite heavily but it does not look like it\nis going out soon.\n\nUsing the past tense to confirm orders is one of those \"rules\". I cringe at it\nand so do many others but we hear it on a daily basis.\n\n> 「Aランチのほうでよろしかったでしょうか。」\n\nThis sentence has not only one but two problems in it.\n\n1) Use of past tense in よろしかった.\n\n2) Use of の[方]{ほう}. That is completely unnecessary.\n\n\"Traditionally\" the waiter would confirm your order by saying:\n\n> 「Aランチで **よろしい** でしょうか。」\n\nand that is exactly what a waiter would say at a more expensive restaurant.\n\nNo one knows how many more decades this speech will last but I personally feel\nembarrassed that this was pointed out by a Japanese-learner.\n\nThere is even an article on this on English Wiki, which means that it is one\nhuge phenomenon.\n\n<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_keigo>",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T14:09:37.720",
"id": "18255",
"last_activity_date": "2019-10-24T01:03:29.800",
"last_edit_date": "2019-10-24T01:03:29.800",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18253",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 16
},
{
"body": "It depends on how it is used.\n\nIf the customer had made all the orders, and the waiter is making a\nconfirmation going through the orders, and if the non-past tense is used, then\nit will sound like the waiter simply forgot the order and is asking for the\nsecond time with a guess. That can be rude. By using the past tense, it\nexpresses that the customer's selection/order is already an established fact.\n\nIf the past tense is used out of the blue, then it sounds a little strange. It\nmay be a misuse, wrongly expanded from the usage just mentioned above, but\nstill, a possible interpretation to this is that the waiter is standing on the\npoint of view of the second person. From the second person's point of view,\nthe choice was probably already made by the time the waiter is asking, and\nhence the past tense is used. It is sometimes considered polite to talk from\nthe second person's point of view.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T14:31:02.897",
"id": "18256",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-17T14:36:09.577",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-17T14:36:09.577",
"last_editor_user_id": "7049",
"owner_user_id": "7049",
"parent_id": "18253",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18253 | 18255 | 18255 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> 明日はどうやら雨らしいよ。 \n> It looks like it's going to rain tomorrow.\n\nThe English definition given (in Core 6k) is \"seems, looks like\", but in this\nsentence and other example sentences I've seen, it's generally paired with\nwords that have similar English definitions such as らしい、よう、～そう. What does どうやら\nadd to the sentence that isn't already covered by these other words? If I\nchanged the example sentence above to `明日は雨らしいよ。`, how would the meaning\nchange?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T13:19:07.273",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18254",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T02:41:44.993",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4404",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does どうやら mean?",
"view_count": 1403
} | [
{
"body": "As a Japanese-speaker, my first reaction upon reading your question was like\n\"Since when is どうやら a verb!?\"\n\n「どうやら」 is an adverb （[副詞]{ふくし}） in Japanese even though your source appears to\ngive verbs (to seem, to look like) as its definitions. And because 「どうやら」 is\nan adverb, it is perfectly natural that it is used together with the auxiliary\nverb 「らしい」. There is no redundancy there.\n\n> 「どうやら」 means \"not certainly but probably\", \"in some way\", etc.\n>\n> 「らしい」 means \"to look like\", \"to seem like\", etc.\n\nThese two words are often used together to express an inference based on\ngrounds.\n\nIf you said 「[明日]{あす}は[雨]{あめ}らしいよ。」, it would surely be understood but it\ncould sound kind of curt depending on the situation. It would sound like you\nsaid it using the fewest words possible. I admit that adding 「どうやら」 will not\nchange the meaning of the sentence much, but it will sound \"more normal\" or\nmore like human conversation.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T15:40:02.857",
"id": "18258",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-17T15:40:02.857",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18254",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "「明日は雨らしいよ」- \"I heard it's gonna rain\" The speaker is unobjectively stating\nthat he has received information from a 3rd party source indicating that it is\ngoing to rain.\n\n「明日はどうやら雨らしいよ」- \"It seems that it's going to rain\" The speaker is objectively\nstating that he has received information from a 3rd party source indicating\nthat it is going to rain and not implying whether he believes that it will\nrain himself or not.\n\n「どうやら」is a way for the speaker to emphasize his objectivity or possibly doubt.\n\nSee the second definition from the 大辞林 dictionary here:\n<http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%A9%E3%81%86%E3%82%84%E3%82%89>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T02:41:44.993",
"id": "18287",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T02:41:44.993",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7055",
"parent_id": "18254",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18254 | null | 18258 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "\n\nI'm trying to read manga in Japanese and I don't understand this: 伽夜. Can\nsomeone explain it to me please?\n\n> A : でもこんな時代だからこそ \n> A : 限り有る\"生\"をより豊かに享受する為にも趣味には正直でないと… \n> A : ね **伽夜** \n> B : なんでそこで私に振るのよ!? \n> A : またまたそんなこと言って **伽夜** にもご立派な趣味があるんじゃないのー？ \n> B : そっそんなもの無いもん！",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T15:31:23.867",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18257",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-17T17:37:38.797",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-17T17:37:38.797",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7050",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -2,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "What is a Togi yoru",
"view_count": 493
} | [
{
"body": "It's pretty clearly written as かや, but it seems that it's just the character's\nname. It does seem that there is a word 夜伽{よとぎ}, so it might be some sort of\nplay on that.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T17:29:33.400",
"id": "18259",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-17T17:29:33.400",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1797",
"parent_id": "18257",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 18257 | null | 18259 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The sentence is:\n\n> ギャンブラーを名乗るなら、采の目ぐらい、投げ方ひとつで自由に出せるようになっておけ.\n\nMC is revealing a secret how to win every dice game. But I'm not sure the\nmeaning of his words. Does it mean throwing dice one by one?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T21:45:08.430",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18260",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-17T23:50:18.507",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-17T23:50:18.507",
"last_editor_user_id": "5041",
"owner_user_id": "7053",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "Meaning of ひとつで自由に出せるように",
"view_count": 325
} | [
{
"body": "ひとつ（で） actually applies to the previous word 投げ方 here. It's kind of like だけ in\nthis usage; he is saying to become able to control the result of the dice\n_solely through just_ the 投げ方 (way of throwing).\n\nIn the above sentence, the 投げ方 is described as the sole deciding factor for\nproducing the result.\n\nWiktionary has a good example of the usage:\n\n> ある物事を左右する要素。 (The factor that influences another event.) \n> 君の返事 **一つで** どうにでもなることだ。 _(All it would take is) the right reply from you\n> and this could all go away._\n\nThat's not to say that there aren't other ways the situation could be\nresolved, but a reply would serve on its own to decide things all by itself.\n\n大辞林 also highlights its use in this kind of situation.\n\n> ひとつ【LHL】 【一つ】 \n> 一 \n> （ 名 ） \n> ⑥ そうすることによって決まる，それ次第であることを強調していうときに用いる。 「やるかやめるか決心 **ひとつ** だ」 「心の持ちよう\n> **ひとつで** どうにでも変わる」 (used to emphasize that sth _will be resolved/settled by\n> doing X_ ; or _hinges on / is dependent on X_ ). \" _To do it or not -- it is\n> all a matter of how you will make up your mind._ \" \" _You can be whatever\n> person you want to be; it all depends on your attitude._ \"\n\n大辞泉 is more plain about it and says not much more than だけ, but I get the\nimpression that it's stronger than だけ and gives a greater sense of exclusion.\n\n> ９ 名詞の下に付いて、それ以外にはないことを強調する語。…だけ。「身 **ひとつで** 脱出する」「母の手 **ひとつで**\n> 育てられる」「行くか行かないかは自分の決心 **ひとつ** だ」 (Following a noun, emphasizes that there is\n> nothing else than that. ... _dake_.) \" _Make it out using nothing more than\n> one's own body_ \" \" _Be raised solely by the hand of one's mother\" \"Whether\n> to go or not entirely hinges on your own ability to decide_ \"\n\n(translations are mine)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-17T23:37:11.603",
"id": "18261",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-17T23:37:11.603",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "315",
"parent_id": "18260",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 18260 | null | 18261 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18263",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am stuck trying to explain that \"I got accustomed\". I would like to use the\nsame grammar as in:\n\n> 寒くなる\n\nBut with\n\n> 慣れる\n\nCould you point me to the right direction and also share other patterns to\nexpress the fact to get accustomed/used to something over time?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T00:49:28.280",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18262",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T01:41:35.073",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "664",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Grammar: Combine 慣れる and -くなる",
"view_count": 405
} | [
{
"body": "One cannot combine 「[慣]{な}れる」 with 「なる」.\n\n「[寒]{さむ}くなる」 is fine because 「寒い/寒く」 is an adjective. 「慣れる」 is a verb.\n\nTo express \"to get accustomed to\", you can say:\n\n> 「慣れてくる」 and 「慣れていく」.\n\nNo other forms could express the \"get\" part of \"to get accustomed to\" nearly\nas closely as these two.\n\n> 「[大学生活]{だいがくせいかつ}にも慣れてきました。」 = \"I am getting used to my college life.\"\n>\n> 「まだ大学生活には慣れていませんが、これから少しずつ慣れていくと思います。」 = \"I am not used to college life yet,\n> but I think I will get used to it little by little from now on.\"\n\nNotice neither いく nor くる is used in the first part of my second example\nsentence because it says \"I am not used to\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T01:41:35.073",
"id": "18263",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T01:41:35.073",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18262",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18262 | 18263 | 18263 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18266",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Once the context is that we are about to part ways, when I want to say\n\"goodbye\" to someone in maximum 敬語{けいご}, I say「どうぞよろしくお願い致します。それでは、失礼いたします。」.\n\nIs that usage of 「どうぞよろしくお願い致します」 correct? \nIs 「どうぞよろしくお願い申し上げます」 also ok? Is the nuance different?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T03:59:33.377",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18264",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-17T18:38:59.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4835",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "When to use \"どうぞよろしくお願{ねが}い致{いた}します。\" in a greeting?",
"view_count": 26183
} | [
{
"body": "If you are saying good-bye to someone to whom you have just made a request,\nyes, you can say 「どうぞよろしくお[願]{ねが}いいたします。それでは、[失礼]{しつれい}いたします。」\n\nWe often say EXACTLY that in business settings. Quite a few adult speakers\nwould actually speak like that even in non-business occasions, but even for\nthose people, the phrase would be too formal to use with close friends.\n\nLess formal versions:\n\n「よろしくお願いします。では失礼します。」\n\n「よろしく～。じゃあねえ！」\n\nRegarding 「どうぞよろしくお願い[申]{もう}し上げます。」, it is one step more formal than\n「どうぞよろしくお願いいたします。」 It can still be used verbally in business, but it would\nmostly be reserved for writing. The two phrases have exactly the same meaning.\nIt is just that the former raises the status level of the other person higher\nthan the latter does.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T06:13:01.040",
"id": "18266",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T09:25:25.823",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-18T09:25:25.823",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18264",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "In ascending order of politeness:\n\n> よろしく (friendly, very informal)\n>\n> よろしくお願いします (friendly and business OK)\n>\n> どうぞ、よろしくお願いします (formal and friendly)\n>\n> どうぞ、よろしくお願い致します (formal, addressee is above you in status)\n>\n> どうぞ、よろしくお願い申し上げます (very formal, addressee is far above you in status or you\n> are addressing a group)\n\nTo make yourself sound more formal (as in writing a business letter or talking\nto the Shogun) you can replace 「どうぞ」 with 「[何卒]{なに・とぞ}」.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T03:14:28.270",
"id": "18290",
"last_activity_date": "2021-10-17T18:38:59.480",
"last_edit_date": "2021-10-17T18:38:59.480",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "7055",
"parent_id": "18264",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18264 | 18266 | 18266 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18269",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flfi38e0NKk>\n\nI'm watching the above video, and they are explaining だらけ, as being synonymous\nwith ばかり. However, as is always the case when I come across words that have\nthe same meaning, I am given no way to differentiate them.\n\nMay I know which is more polite, which is more common, if there is any nuance\nin usage or grammatical rules? Anything that can help me unconsciously decide\nwhich to use when, it would be most welcome.\n\nThankyou!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T05:59:54.763",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18265",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-16T12:11:10.663",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3754",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What is the difference between だらけ and ばかり",
"view_count": 988
} | [
{
"body": "I am not sure about the actual rules, but normally you use だらけ when saying\nabout something in the negative context, such as ゴミだらけ. On the other hand ばかり\nis more neutral, such as お菓子ばかり。 Also, there's third word, ずくめ which is used\nmostly in the positive context.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T06:14:50.637",
"id": "18267",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T06:14:50.637",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6748",
"parent_id": "18265",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "「だらけ」 has the connotation of being \"all over the place\" or being \"riddled\nwith\" . The speaker that chooses this word wants to imply that he's not happy\nthat there's so much of .\n\n> 「ここは男性だらけやんか！」\n\nThis has the idea of \"There's nothin' but friggin' dudes up in this place!\"\ni.e. \"sausagefest\"\n\n「ばかり」 can be simply thought of as \"only\" in kind of a neutral way where no\nreal preference for more or less being stated by the speaker.\n\n> 「ここは男性ばかりですね。」\n\nThis has more of a \"Oh well, I guess there's nothing but men here.\" sort of a\nsound to it.\n\nOn a side-note you can emphasize that there's ONLY men by saying the\nfollowing.\n\n> 「ここは男性ばっかりですね。」\n\nNow since we're putting some oomph into 「ばかり」 with the addition of 「っ」it\nsounds somewhat negative, but it's more like the speaker is expressing his\nwish that there were _more than just men_ (also ladies!) rather than 「だらけ」\nwhich expresses a strong negative evaluation of the fact that there are too\nmany men.\n\nTo sum up, 「だらけ」= too many 「ばかり」= only 「ばっかり」= only (and I wish there were\nsomething else)",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T07:37:09.343",
"id": "18269",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-16T12:11:10.663",
"last_edit_date": "2016-06-16T12:11:10.663",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "7055",
"parent_id": "18265",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 18265 | 18269 | 18269 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18272",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've noticed that both へ and に are use with ようこそ. The one I learned first is\nへ, and it seems like it's more common, but I know に is also used, as in the\ntitle\n[NHKにようこそ](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHK%E3%81%AB%E3%82%88%E3%81%86%E3%81%93%E3%81%9D!).\n\nWhen I search [BCCWJ](http://www.kotonoha.gr.jp/shonagon/), I find that へ is\nmore common, at least when it comes right before ようこそ:\n\n```\n\n へようこそ 69 results\n にようこそ 37 results\n \n```\n\nOf course, this is a written corpus and it might be different in speech. But\nassuming I'm right that へ is generally more common, are there any other\ndifferences between the two? I always say へ, but every time I hear に I wonder\nif there's a difference in register or such that I'm not picking up on, or if\nthey're totally the same.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T06:34:06.667",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18268",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-28T08:50:18.463",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "へようこそ and にようこそ",
"view_count": 952
} | [
{
"body": "I think there is no difference in politeness, register, gender, etc., between\nthe two.\n\n\"Welcome to X\" on the welcome signs for tourists is more commonly written as\n\"ようこそX **へ** \". This is a well-known idiom; if I saw \"ようこそ日本 **に** \" at Narita\nAirport, I would feel it's a bit unnatural.\n\nHowever, I feel 「Xへようこそ」 and 「Xにようこそ」 are _completely_ interchangeable, when X\nis 私の家, 東京, 日本, NHK, グーグル, グランドキャニオン or even 宇宙.\n\n(By the way, this is a topic I've been concerned about, too, since I saw an\n[OP's answer in a different\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/16269/).)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T08:39:56.577",
"id": "18272",
"last_activity_date": "2018-02-28T08:50:18.463",
"last_edit_date": "2018-02-28T08:50:18.463",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18268",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 18268 | 18272 | 18272 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18276",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "So, I would like to better understand the expression:\n\n> ダメな時はダメ\n\nI usually see it used practically alone, in a no-good situation.\n\nIs it something like: \"Impossible is impossible\"? More to the line of \"That\nwas no good\"? Something different?\n\n[This tweet-\npic](https://twitter.com/aferide100/status/478027008501227520/photo/1) may\nserve as an example.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T10:28:33.620",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18274",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T11:17:31.647",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-18T10:39:07.293",
"last_editor_user_id": "4801",
"owner_user_id": "4801",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"expressions",
"slang"
],
"title": "How to interpret \"ダメな時はダメ\"?",
"view_count": 369
} | [
{
"body": "My best translation would be \"When it rains, it pours.\"\n\nIn the image you provided, the speaker has just had two bad things happen to\nhim in a row.\n\n1) Failed at boiling the eggs the way he liked them.\n\n2) Tried to make up for it by heating the eggs in the microwave and they\nexploded.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T11:17:31.647",
"id": "18276",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T11:17:31.647",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18274",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 18274 | 18276 | 18276 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18278",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "How should I understand the expression 自分への戒め? The first part is quite clear\n(自分への), but what is the right interpretation for 戒め (since it has [so\nmany](http://jisho.org/words?jap=%E6%88%92%E3%82%81&eng=&dict=edict)\nmeanings)?\n\nThis really seems like an expression that may have a deeper meaning, since it\nis [a popular hashtag at\ntwitter](https://twitter.com/hashtag/%E8%87%AA%E5%88%86%E3%81%B8%E3%81%AE%E6%88%92%E3%82%81)!",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T12:16:37.400",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18277",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T14:20:30.947",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4801",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"expressions"
],
"title": "How to interpret \"自分への戒め\"?",
"view_count": 141
} | [
{
"body": "Basically, 戒め is something that firmly restricts or binds yourself. 戒【いまし】め\nhere means _lesson_ or _warning_ in simple English. More difficult words such\nas _aphorism_ or _wisdom_ may fit better. So `#自分への戒め` is as simple as \"a\nlesson for myself.\"\n\n戒め is a very old-sounding word, but recently we see 戒め more often in the\ninternet, because this has been a net slang since several years ago. 戒め is\ntypically used at the end of sentences in the form of `(戒め)`. Search [戒め at\ntwitter.com](https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%E6%88%92%E3%82%81) and\nyou can see hundreds of wild and peculiar usage of this. [This\npage](http://moto-neta.com/net/imashime/) explains the etymology, but I think\nmany people are using 戒め without knowing the origin.\n\nBasically 戒め is used when they want to say \"I realized this\" or \"I shouldn't\nhave done this\", but people use this pretty loosely and jokingly.\n\nOf course you can use this idiom to write something serious about self-\ndiscipline, but even seeing the hashtag `#自分への戒め`, I can see very few people\nuse it seriously today.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T13:11:45.707",
"id": "18278",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T14:20:30.947",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-18T14:20:30.947",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18277",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18277 | 18278 | 18278 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18289",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The other day I was [musing on chat about\n忘れれれば](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/511/conversation/about-), which I\nimagined you would get if you started with 忘れられれば and left out ら:\n\n> 1. 忘れ **る**\n> 2. 忘れ **られる** （忘れる ＋ られる）\n> 3. 忘れ **られれば** （忘れる ＋ られる ＋ れば）\n> 4. 忘れ **れれば** （忘れる ＋ られる ＋ れば ー ら）\n>\n\nOf course, it sounds a little silly, but I thought it might be a possible\nexample of the so-called ら抜き言葉, where ら is left out of a verb form with 〜られる.\n\nI've read about ら抜き言葉 before, but I'm afraid I've forgotten where! And I'm\nhaving trouble finding the reference again. I do have Martin 1975, but it's\nbeen almost 40 years since it was written, so I think it's likely to be out of\ndate on this point.\n\nIf I recall correctly, I read about some tendencies like \"it occurs more often\nwith negatives\" and \"it occurs most often with short verbs\". So I'm aware that\nit's not really as simple as dropping ら from any form with 〜られる, but I'm not\nquite sure what the rules are.\n\nI guessed that a form like 忘れれれば would be uncommon. But when I asked about it\non chat, [非回答者さん helpfully\nresponded](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/511?m=17190617#17190617):\n\n> [...] no one says 忘れれれば. It is not a matter of how often it is said. That\n> form does not exist in the first place.\n\nIf it doesn't exist, there must be a reason ら抜き doesn't occur. What is this\nreason? Is it because the verb is too long? Or is there perhaps a rule against\nusing ら抜き with verbs ending in 〜れる? Or is it something else?",
"comment_count": 12,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T16:41:31.920",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18279",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T03:22:26.870",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"colloquial-language",
"morphology"
],
"title": "ら抜き言葉: Why doesn't 忘れれれば exist?",
"view_count": 743
} | [
{
"body": "Under the assumption that ら抜き is correct for all ichidan verbs, 忘れれれば is fully\ncorrect, meaning \"if [] can forget\".\n\nHowever, ら抜き doesn't seem to occur equally often for all ichidan verbs. These\nare hits on kotonoha (<http://www.kotonoha.gr.jp/>). I don't have time to\nfilter out passive られる and other noise now, anybody please feel free to\nenhance my answer.\n\n**root られる れる %れる** \n来 284 66 18.9 \n見 5245 629 10.7 \n信じ 169 5 2.9 \n入れ 766 12 1.5 \n忘れ 103 0 0 \n離れ 22 0 0\n\nNot exactly a lot of statistical material, but enough to create some kind of\nimage. The distributions are likely different in spoken Japanese. Also\nincluding other forms than just -る would probably paint a better picture.\n\nMy rough hypothesis is that ら抜き is more common for shorter verbs, and more\nuncommon when it forces confusing forms including sequences like れれ. Still\n忘れれれば is not wrong (unless you subscribe to prescriptive rules). If I heard it\nin speech with enough context, I doubt I'd even notice. If I heard it in\nisolation, I'd have to think for a second to get it. If I saw it in writing,\nI'd find it a bit clumsy.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T00:35:48.367",
"id": "18283",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T00:35:48.367",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "18279",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "I, a native speaker, do not even know how to pronounce 「忘れれれば 」 because I have\nnever heard it said and therefore I have no idea where the pitch accent is\neither in Standard Japanese or the couple of dialects that I am more than just\nfamiliar with. I imagine it would sound fairly harsh and unpleasant and would\nalso be difficult to say.\n\nNatural languages will generally avoid those negative effects because it\nreally benefits no one including the most avid ら抜き言葉-users. If they want to\nomit ら's because it makes it easier and/or faster to say certain words, why\nwould they opt to use a hard-to-say phrase like 「忘れれれば 」?\n\nI thought about this question this morning and have come up with something.\nWhether that something is the answer, I am not 100% sure yet. It works,\nhowever, with the dozens of examples that I tested in my head.\n\n> It appears that when ラ行下一段活用 verbs that end with れる in their plain forms get\n> to escape from ら-omission when they are made into their \"potential &\n> hypothetical\" forms.\n>\n> Those verbs include: [忘]{わす}れる、[入]{い}れる、[慣]{な}れる、[触]{ふ}れる、[別]{わか}れる、etc.\n> There are so many.\n\nNative speakers, even including the ら抜き言葉-lovers, say 忘れられれば, not 忘れれれば, and\n入れられれば, not 入れれれば, etc.\n\nThese are definitely \"everyday\" verbs and if I still do not hear a 「れれれ」 with\nthese verbs, it would have to mean something.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T03:03:41.377",
"id": "18289",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T03:22:26.870",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18279",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 18279 | 18289 | 18283 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "In [a video game I'm\nplaying](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irozuki_Tincle_no_Koi_no_Balloon_Trip),\nthe main character, who is a middle-aged man, and his child-like young friend\nmeet a farmer, who seems to address the younger of the two as 「ボクちゃん」.\n\nAn example:\n\n> オレは ピーター。この はたけの オーナーだ。オヤジと ボクちゃんは どうして ここに?\n\nWhat exactly does ボクちゃん mean here? What does his choice of words tell us about\nhis opinion of the other two men?\n\nIs the word possibly related to\n[坊ちゃん](http://beta.jisho.org/search/%E5%9D%8A%E3%81%A1%E3%82%83%E3%82%93), or\ndoes the \"manservant\" meaning of [僕](http://beta.jisho.org/search/%E5%83%95)\ncome into play here?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T17:18:37.810",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18280",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T17:18:37.810",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3527",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"usage"
],
"title": "What form of adress is 「ボクちゃん」?",
"view_count": 135
} | [] | 18280 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18282",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I can't find much information on this word. I know that it means\n\"backstabbing\" or \"betrayal\", but there are little to no example sentences\nwhich use it. For example, would I use it in a sentence like \"a backstabbing\nperson\", and if so, would this be along the lines of 裏切りな人 or something\ncompletely different?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T23:16:28.183",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18281",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-21T04:07:43.550",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7016",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "How would you use 裏切り in a sentence?",
"view_count": 1223
} | [
{
"body": "`[裏切]{うら・ぎ}り` is just the noun form of the verb `[裏切]{うら・ぎ}る`. So to describe\na backstabbing person (backstabber), you can just say\n`[裏切]{うら・ぎ}る(者{もの}・人{ひと})`. Although there is also the special compound noun\n`[裏切]{うら・ぎ}り者{もの}` for the same meaning. There's a slight usage nuance that I\ncan't quite put into words, but it's not so big that it's something to worry\nabout.\n\nAnd of course, the verb `[裏切]{うら・ぎ}る` conjugates as a [五段動詞]{ご・だん・どう・し}, the\nsame as 切{き}る by itself.\n\nThere are many examples of this in the Bible, especially concerning Judas\nbetraying Jesus. You can search for the term `裏切` (leave off the okurigana)\n[online here](http://www.bible.or.jp/read/titletext.html) if you want to find\nsome of these examples.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-18T23:29:23.610",
"id": "18282",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-18T23:59:09.457",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-18T23:59:09.457",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "18281",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "As the noun form, it can also be used simply like this.\n\n彼の裏切りにカッとした。 (I, or someone else) flew into a rage at his **betrayal**.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-21T00:42:39.723",
"id": "18323",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-21T04:07:43.550",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-21T04:07:43.550",
"last_editor_user_id": "3360",
"owner_user_id": "3360",
"parent_id": "18281",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 18281 | 18282 | 18282 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Jim Breen's edict translates 大さじ simply as (American) tablespoon, but I'm\nreading directions on a green tea package that says 一人大さじ一杯 and it seems like\na lot of tea for a single 湯のみ. I know there are special utensils used to\nmeasure tea for the tea ceremony, but this is normal green tea and not matcha.\nMight 大さじ have a different meaning in the context of tea? Teaspoon sounds more\nreasonable.\n\nFor example, weblio.jp gives the following definition for 大さじ:\n\n> 容量15ミリリットルの計量スプーン。または、ティースプーンのような比較的大きな匙。大匙。\n\nwhich I translate as:\n\n> A 15 mL measuring spoon. Or, a fairly large spoon (匙) such as a teaspoon.\n\nNow that second definition is nerve-wracking. Does common sense dictate that\nwhen measuring tea, you reach for a teaspoon as your 大さじ?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T01:10:57.153",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18284",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T03:10:45.453",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-19T03:10:45.453",
"last_editor_user_id": "7063",
"owner_user_id": "7063",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"food"
],
"title": "Does 大さじ always mean 1 Tablespoon, even for tea?",
"view_count": 3688
} | [
{
"body": "This question is more related to culture rather than language. Normally used\nmeasures are as following:\n\n * 茶さじ according to various sources varies from 2.5 cc to 6cc so it is quite unreliable measure.\n * 小さじ is 5cc\n * 大さじ is 15cc which equals to about 6 grams of tea.\n * カップ is 200cc\n\nRegarding the amount used for this particular tea I would guess this is not\ngreen tea but kind of 麦茶 or, possibly, ほうじ茶 for which using larger amounts is\ncommon. \"normal\" green tea will be too saturated if used in such amounts.\n\nSome reference found on internet: [measures and\nweights](http://www.eurus.dti.ne.jp/~kae-/pan/meyasu.html)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T01:40:33.120",
"id": "18285",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T02:28:37.317",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-19T02:28:37.317",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6748",
"parent_id": "18284",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 18284 | null | 18285 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18296",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Say I was trying to write the number 3,476,521,893,421 in kanji. How would I\ngo about this? My guess was 三万四千七百六十五億二千百八十九万三千四百二十一 but it looks really wrong\nto me because it feels too Western to be correct.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T05:13:51.357",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18293",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T08:04:53.667",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7016",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"numbers"
],
"title": "What is the correct syntax for large numbers in kanji?",
"view_count": 1667
} | [
{
"body": "The counting system for large numbers is almost the same as Western numbers,\nexcept that digits are delimited into blocks of four instead of three. You add\n\"thousand, million, billion, trillion, ...\" for each 3 digit, and in Japanese,\nwe add \"万, 億, 兆, 京【けい】, ...\" for each 4 digit.\n\nThe \"correct\" format to write long numbers depends on the situation.\n\n 1. > 三兆四千七百六十五億二千百八十九万三千四百二十一\n\nThis is the most basic form based on the pronunciation, but too lengthy and\nless readable. This is on math textbooks for young students, but I think this\nis generally avoided after we graduate from junior high school.\n\nIt's almost like saying in English, \" _three trillion and four hundred seventy\nsix billion and five hundred twenty one million and eight hundred ninety three\nthousand and four hundred twenty one_ \". --- Can you understand this\ninstantly?\n\n 2. > 三兆四七六五億二一八九万三四二一 \n> 三兆四七〇五億二一八〇万三四二一 (= 3,470,521,803,421)\n\nLeave 4-digit grouping unit (万、億、兆、...) and omit 十、百、千. Use 漢数字ゼロ(〇) to\nrepresent zero. This preserves both readability and brevity, so this is the\npreferred style in newspapers. If you don't mind using some Arabic numbers and\nyou are writing horizontally, you can do like this:\n\n> 3兆4765億2189万3421\n\nActually this is the most understandable way (even easier than\n\"3,476,521,893,421\") for Japanese.\n\n 3. > 三四七六五二一八九三四二一 \n> 三四七〇五二一八〇三四二一 (= 3,470,521,803,421)\n\nSimply replace Arabic numerals with kanji numerals (again, use 〇 for zero).\nThis is typically used for phone numbers, address, etc., but less readable for\ngeneric big integers.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T08:04:53.667",
"id": "18296",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T08:04:53.667",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "18293",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] | 18293 | 18296 | 18296 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18302",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "What difference is there between ディスカウント and バーゲン?\n\nIn English, the verb \"Discount\" is commonly used when talking about a\ncorporate store deciding without any negotiation with the buyer to reduce the\nprice of products without any negotiations taking place with the customer.\n(Though it isn't unheard of to be used in other contexts) By contrast, the\nverb \"Bargain\" is generally used for the seller and the buyer, usually at a\nnon-corporate store, arguing about what the price of an item should be.\n\nThe noun \"Bargain\" can be used about an item bought for a low price,\nregardless of whether the low price was the result of a negotiation, or not\nthe result of a negotiation.\n\nHowever, I've been told that \"ディスカウント\" and \"バーゲン\" don't have the same\nrelationship in Japanese. That is, \"ディスカウント(する)\" as a verb can be done by the\nseller after negotiation between the buyer and the seller, and \"バーゲン\" can be\nthe result of a corporate store reducing prices without any negotiation. Is\nthis true?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T11:07:12.093",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18299",
"last_activity_date": "2019-02-19T22:05:52.947",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What difference is there between ディスカウント and バーゲン?",
"view_count": 502
} | [
{
"body": "I am not sure if those are used as separate words other than as parts of the\nwords ディスカウントストア and バーゲンセール. Even if they are, I think the meaning carries\nover the meaning of these more common words, so that ディスカウント implies things\nsold at low price regularly at particular stores while バーゲン implies a temporal\nsale at any kind of a store.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T12:39:17.260",
"id": "18300",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T12:39:17.260",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7067",
"parent_id": "18299",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "My dictionaries, 大辞泉 and プログレッシブ英和和英 are consistent with my own idea of each:\n\n**ディスカウント** ：\n\nIndicates a reduction typically based on fixed percentage，in other words a\n割引(if unit of 10%) or 値引き (if otherwise). This is consistent with its use in\nfinance (eg discounted cash flow).\n\nThe word gets used in other expressions such as ディスカウント・ストア although I am not\nsure to what extent they apply a formula to keep all their prices down.\n\nThe word can also be used as a verb, as you suggest:\n\n> 「値札から三割ディスカウントする」| to take 30% of the marked price\n\nMy feeling is this would normally be initiated by the seller (\"offered at a\ndiscount\") although I don't see why someone should not \"ask for a discount\"; I\nhave and it was understood although I have feeling there is another word for\nthe \"extra bits\" you sometimes get from a good salesman in a place like 秋葉原.\n(I also have a feeling that it is (was?) also possible to \"bargain\" in 秋葉原 for\na ディスカウント but perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me.)\n\n**バーゲン** :\n\nI think of this a something bought at a very good price representing value you\nwould not normally be able to get，typically but not necessarily, at the end of\na sale when the seller is trying to clear their stock. This is quite close to\nthe definition in 大辞泉：It describes a バーゲン as 掘り出し物 which it in turn defines as\n「思いがけなく手に入った珍しい物。また、思いがけなく安い値段で手に入れた物」. It also uses the word 見切り品 which\nrefers to remaindered goods (to be cleared).\n\nSo far this is consistent with my use of the word in English but there is also\none other use: バーゲン is an abbreviation for バーゲン-セール (bargain sale).\n\nI have never heard バーゲン used as a verb and it is not listed as one.\n(激しく交渉する/はげしくこうしょうする is probably the correct word.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T13:20:29.120",
"id": "18301",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T15:14:25.537",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-19T15:14:25.537",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "18299",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Answering the question without looking at anything....\n\nLet us start with 「バーゲン」 because it is the simpler of the two in terms of\nmeaning and usage. Quite simply, it means \"a store-wide clearance sale\" in\nretail. It is a considerably larger event than a 「セール」, which may be limited\nto certain sections or items in the store. We have another common word\n「バーゲンセール」, which means exactly the same thing as 「バーゲン」.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y97ZA.jpg) \n(source: [living.jp](http://mrs.living.jp/wp-\ncontent/uploads/2013/12/rara.jpg))\n\nExcept for when the likes of critics, economists and such use terms like\n「バーゲニングパワー」、「バーゲニングチップ」, etc. in their technical discussions, the word 「バーゲン」\nwould only mean what I stated above in Japanese.\n\nNow, on to 「ディスカウント」, which is somewhat more complicated than 「バーゲン」 as far as\nusage. Unlike 「バーゲン」, which is only used in retail, 「ディスカウント」 can be used at\nall levels of business --- direct sale by producer, wholesale and retail. You\nsell something at a reduced price, that is called 「ディスカウント」.\n\nAs a verb phrase, you can say 「ディスカウント（を）する」 instead of using the more\ntraditional 「[値引]{ねび}きする」. Unlike a 「バーゲン」, where items are sold at reduced\nprices WITHOUT negotiation between seller and buyer, 「ディスカウント」 can occur both\nways --- with or without negotiation. In this sense, there is some very rough\noverlap in meaning between the two words. There is, however, basically no\ninterchangeability between the two words.\n\nAs @Choko mentioned in the comment, 「ディスカウント」 is often used in the compound\n「ディスカウントストアー」. It refers to a business like ドンキホーテ where things are sold at\nreduced prices all year around.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T13:28:07.937",
"id": "18302",
"last_activity_date": "2019-02-19T22:05:52.947",
"last_edit_date": "2019-02-19T22:05:52.947",
"last_editor_user_id": "18772",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18299",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 18299 | 18302 | 18302 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18304",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am trying to learn Japanese with Rosetta Stone for a vacation in Japan. Is\nit important to learn all the kanji or are there always furigana?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T19:53:23.840",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18303",
"last_activity_date": "2016-02-07T16:24:43.913",
"last_edit_date": "2016-02-07T16:24:43.913",
"last_editor_user_id": "11849",
"owner_user_id": "7068",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"furigana"
],
"title": "Learn kanji or just furigana for a vacation in Japan",
"view_count": 667
} | [
{
"body": "You say you're just going on vacation in Japan. Well, in that case, you might\nnot need to know a whole lot of kanji. In fact, people go to Japan without\nknowing the language at all and manage to get around okay! So for your\npurposes, you might be fine without learning any kanji at all.\n\n**But what if you're trying to learn the language for real?**\n\nThe fact is, there aren't always furigana.\n\nUnless if you want to be illiterate, you'll need to be able to read words and\nnames written with a number of kanji. How many? 2500 is probably a good\nnumber, although educated native speakers can certainly read more than that.\nIt's hard to come up with an exact figure, but the number is definitely much\ngreater than zero! Even if you can only read a few hundred kanji, you'll be\nsignificantly better off.\n\n\"Learning a kanji\" isn't a well-defined task, though. What does it mean? Being\nable to recognize that the kanji exists? Being able to write it from memory?\nBeing able to rattle off a list of readings associated with the kanji?\nProbably the most useful skill is being able to read words written with a\nkanji, but there isn't a fixed list of words for each character (although the\n[jōyō\nkanji](http://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/joho/kijun/naikaku/kanji/joyokanjisakuin/)\nchart does list a number of examples).\n\nRegardless of how you define it, you can't learn \"all the kanji\". Very large\nkanji dictionaries have upwards of 50,000 characters! However, you'll never\nsee that many actually used. I have a character dictionary with only 8,000\ncharacters, and even that is far more than I need to know. [4200 characters\nbrings you to the 99.9%\nlevel,](http://www.taishukan.co.jp/kanji/qa01.html#Q0006) but many of those\nare names or other things which are likely to have furigana when they're\nintroduced, so the real number you need to know is lower than that.\n\nIf I were you, I'd just learn kanji as you learn vocabulary. There's a lot\nmore words in daily use than there are kanji, so before long you'll you know\nmost of the kanji you need to know, and you'll find that the real problem is\ndeveloping a large enough vocabulary. What's more, kanji actually help you\nbreak down vocabulary logically and understand words you don't know yet.\n\nSo do you need to know lots of kanji? In order to be literate, yes. To go on\nvacation in Japan? Probably not, but it couldn't hurt to learn some basics.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T20:22:32.120",
"id": "18304",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-19T20:22:32.120",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18303",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 18303 | 18304 | 18304 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18306",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am pretty sure that I have heard the phrase \"そなわち\" used to begin sentences.\nGoogling \"そなわち\" returns about 35,000 pages. Just like I remember, most use\n\"そなわち\" as a phrase at the beginning of a sentence. However, neither [goo\ndict](http://www.goo.ne.jp/) or [jisho dict](http://jisho.org/) have this\nphrase.\n\n * what does \"そなわち\" mean?\n * Why isn't \"そなわち\" in either of those dictionaries?\n * Goo and Jisho are probably weak dictionaries. What are the jp/jp, eng/jp, jp/eng dictionaries that the moderators use?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T22:05:05.980",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18305",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-20T03:50:29.473",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4835",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "why isn't \"そなわち\" in dictionaries? what does it mean?",
"view_count": 283
} | [
{
"body": "The word you are looking for is **す** なわち and should be in every dictionary.\nIt means \"therefore\"/\"namely\".",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-19T22:12:27.813",
"id": "18306",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-20T03:50:29.473",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-20T03:50:29.473",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "18305",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] | 18305 | 18306 | 18306 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18311",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I have never actually seen the words for almost used in Japanese. Below are\nthe various translations for \"Almost\" that I came accross:\n\n> 「大方」\n>\n> 「粗」\n>\n> 「九分」\n>\n> 「殆」\n>\n> 「もう少しで」\n\nCould you please highlight which should I use in those generic contexts? And\nalso how to use them?\n\n * I almost fell down\n * I pray almost every day\n * Almost all the gold is gone (to contrast with \"Most of the gold is gone\")",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-20T12:13:54.580",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18310",
"last_activity_date": "2018-09-18T15:39:58.020",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "664",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"usage"
],
"title": "What is \"Almost\" in Japanese",
"view_count": 22484
} | [
{
"body": "There is no one particular Japanese word that you can use everytime you want\nto use \"almost\" in English contexts.\n\n> \"I almost fell down.\" = 「もう[少]{すこ}しで[転]{ころ}ぶところだった。」\n\nThat would be by far the most natural Japanese sentence. Native speakers would\nalmost never say 「ほとんど転んだ。」 unless they were trying to sound humorous. You, as\na learner, could end up arriving at that if you tried to \"directly translate\"\nthe English sentence \"I almost fell down.\"\n\n> \"I pray almost every day.\" = 「ほとんど（or ほぼ）[毎日]{まいにち}お[祈]{いの}り（を）します。」\n\nWith this one (and the next one), you could use ほとんど/ほぼ like you would use\n\"almost\" in English.\n\n> \"Almost all the gold is gone.\" = 「ほとんど（or ほぼ）[全]{すべ}ての[金]{きん}がなくなってしまった（or\n> simply なくなった）。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-20T12:50:37.220",
"id": "18311",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-20T13:24:41.250",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-20T13:24:41.250",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18310",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
},
{
"body": "Similar to the relationship between `だけ` and `しか`, you could also use\n`[危]{あや}うく` or `[辛]{かろ}うじて` with the negation/opposite of what you are trying\nto say. Since these words mean \"barely\", the negation/opposite of the premise\nwould translate together as \"almost\".\n\n例文:\n\n> * 危うく終電に間にあった。 → I **_barely caught_** the last train home. → implies \"I\n> **_almost missed_** the last train home\".\n> * 辛うじて試験に合格する → To **_barely pass_** the test → implies \"to **_almost\n> fail_** the test\"\n>\n\n`危うく` can also carry the direct meaning of \"almost\", and be used similar to\n`もう少しで`.\n\n> * 危うく[梯子]{はし・ご}から落ちるところだった。 → I nearly fell off of the ladder.\n>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-20T15:32:24.110",
"id": "18314",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-20T15:32:24.110",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "18310",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18310 | 18311 | 18311 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18317",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "From a quick google search, they both refer to **friend**.\n\nAre they completely identical or is there any difference between [友達]{とも・だち}\nand [友人]{ゆう・じん}?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-20T13:32:26.727",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18312",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-04T23:03:44.503",
"last_edit_date": "2018-05-04T23:03:44.503",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "6863",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 22,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"wago-and-kango"
],
"title": "What is the difference between [友達]{とも・だち} and [友人]{ゆう・じん}?",
"view_count": 14679
} | [
{
"body": "友人 is more formal than 友達.\n\nI think this formality results in the side effect of it suggesting a closer\nfriendship, because one would usually not refer to someone as a friend in\nJapanese in a serious conversation if they were not close, in my opinion.\n\nSo no, they are not identical — there are situations where one makes more\nsense to use than the other — but as far as understanding goes, I don't think\nit really matter if you ignore that specific nuance.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-20T19:32:17.097",
"id": "18316",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-21T00:35:07.387",
"last_edit_date": "2014-08-21T00:35:07.387",
"last_editor_user_id": "4091",
"owner_user_id": "3097",
"parent_id": "18312",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
},
{
"body": "It's just that 友人 is more formal than 友達. I don't feel there is any difference\nin what they refer to.\n\nFor example, saying 「友人が会社を経営していまして。。。」 in a job interview would sound\nnatural, but saying「友達が会社を経営していまして。。。」 sounds a bit childish. Conversely,\n「ずっと友人でいような！」is weird but 「ずっと友達でいような！」 is natural.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-20T20:32:25.317",
"id": "18317",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-20T20:32:25.317",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "499",
"parent_id": "18312",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 23
}
] | 18312 | 18317 | 18317 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18315",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What is the difference between 夕立 and 朝立ち? They both refer to the kanji 立, and\nhave contrastive words 夕 (evening) and 朝 (morning). Are they antonyms, or is\nthere any difference between them?\n\n分かりやすく教えてください。お願いします。",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-20T15:12:38.637",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18313",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-20T15:43:27.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": -3,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 夕立 and 朝立ち?",
"view_count": 397
} | [
{
"body": "They're not antonyms. They're very different from each other. 立 on it's own\n[means](http://www.romajidesu.com/kanji/%E7%AB%8B) to stand up, to erect and\nstuff like that. When you use this Kanji in a word like in the case of\n[朝立]{あさだ}ち which [means](http://www.romajidesu.com/dictionary/meaning-\nof-%E6%9C%9D%E7%AB%8B%E3%81%A1.html) early morning erection, you can see how\nthe 立 fits into the word, i.e your manhood being erect.\n\nIn the other word [夕立]{ゆうだち} which\n[means](http://www.romajidesu.com/dictionary/meaning-\nof-%E5%A4%95%E7%AB%8B.html) sudden evening shower/rain, I don't know how the 立\nfits in but yeah it's not close to meaning 朝立ち",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-20T15:43:27.897",
"id": "18315",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-20T15:43:27.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4287",
"parent_id": "18313",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18313 | 18315 | 18315 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18321",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am trying to say \"You **will** not feel good if you eat such food\" and this\nhas been my attempt so far:\n\n> そんな食べ物を食べれば、君はいい感じない\n\nHow can I express \"will not\" in this case? Also, any corrections in general\nare very much appreciated.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-20T22:32:24.723",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "18318",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-20T23:58:48.530",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5131",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"words"
],
"title": "How do I turn this into \"will\" form?",
"view_count": 173
} | [
{
"body": "Tenses generally do not correspond well between English and Japanese.\nJapanese-speakers usually just use the present tense to talk about near future\nevents and we could always tell from the context.\n\nNatural-sounding Japanese sentences for \"You will not feel good if you eat\nsuch food.\" would be:\n\n> 「そんなもの[食]{た}べてると[元気]{げんき}になれないよ。」\n>\n> 「そんなのばかり食べてると元気になれないぞ。」\n>\n> 「そんなの食べてると[身体]{からだ}に[悪]{わる}いぞ。」\n\nAs usual, one could not arrive at a natural-sounding phrase if one TRANSLATED\nfrom another language. If you find my English understadable, that is because I\nam not translating from Japanese.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-20T23:58:48.530",
"id": "18321",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-20T23:58:48.530",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "18318",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 18318 | 18321 | 18321 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.