question
dict | answers
list | id
stringlengths 1
6
| accepted_answer_id
stringlengths 2
6
⌀ | popular_answer_id
stringlengths 1
6
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Reading [a lesson on\n国語文法.com](http://国語文法.com/%E6%84%8F%E5%BF%97%E3%83%BB%E6%8E%A8%E9%87%8F%E3%83%BB%E5%8B%A7%E8%AA%98%E3%81%AE%E5%8A%A9%E5%8B%95%E8%A9%9E%EF%BC%88%E3%81%86%E3%83%BB%E3%82%88%E3%81%86%EF%BC%89.html),\nI'm having difficulty telling 意志 from 勧誘.\n\nE.g. 「今度こそ成績をあげよう。」 is stated is that of volition (意志). However, why can't it\nbe \"(I suggest you to) improve your grades!\"?\n\nOr the following example/exercise sentence: 彼の業績は評価しよう - is that the speaker's\nintention to evaluate 3rd party performance, or a suggestion to 2nd party to\ndo that?\n\nOr an image like this, is it the speaker's (猫さん's) intention or suggestion for\nthe reader (a motivational image)?\n\n",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T14:54:10.737",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24344",
"last_activity_date": "2015-09-13T22:31:59.740",
"last_edit_date": "2015-09-13T22:31:59.740",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"volitional-form"
],
"title": "How to distinguish between う/よう of volition and suggestion?",
"view_count": 204
} | [
{
"body": "It might be easier to visualize this as the ambiguity of **me/us** , rather\nthan a clear distinction between volition/suggestion.\n\nWhen one says 成績を上げよう, it may seem to an English brain that it is _either_\n“Let **me** improve **my** grades” or “Let **us** improve **our** grades”. In\nfact, the mental image in my Japanese brain is more like “Let it be that\ngrades are improved”. There is an inherent fuzziness to the me/us. In this\ncase I might even say the me/us is nonexistent.\n\nIn the example 山を見よう, it is like “Let [me/us] look at the mountain”, where\n[me/us] is a single ambiguous clump that isn't actually teased apart at the\npoint of speaking nor receiving. It safely remains as a clump, until called\nupon to provide a clear English translation.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-09-13T20:22:28.243",
"id": "27988",
"last_activity_date": "2015-09-13T20:22:28.243",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "888",
"parent_id": "24344",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24344 | null | 27988 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24349",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When should 今後 and 未来 be used? Both of the words can mean \"future\". I have\nnoticed that 今後 refers to both present time and what will happen from now on,\nand 未来 is simply what will happen in the future sometime. Is this correct?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T15:46:52.347",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24347",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T06:08:23.533",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-16T06:08:23.533",
"last_editor_user_id": "9749",
"owner_user_id": "7045",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"usage",
"nuances"
],
"title": "Difference between 今{こん}後{ご} and 未{み}来{らい}",
"view_count": 319
} | [
{
"body": "今後 means \"from now on\", whereas 未来 refers to a time far in the future.\n\nNote that 未来 refers to some point in the future, whereas 今後 is something\nstarting from the present, and continuing (indefinitely) into the future.\n\nFor the near future (even one's own future), you're better off using 将来. 未来\nusually has a sense of being farther forward in time than that.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T17:33:37.143",
"id": "24349",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T17:33:37.143",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24347",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] | 24347 | 24349 | 24349 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24630",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The question is clear but I would like to add an example. (My sentence may\nhave other errors as well)\n\n> I am glad that you think the same. \n> あなた **が** そう思いますうれしいです\n>\n> I am glad that you think the same, too. \n> あなた **も** そう思いますうれしいです\n\nIs this conversion correct?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T17:23:24.707",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24348",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-29T21:50:50.877",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "10109",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particles",
"particle-が",
"particle-も"
],
"title": "When particle mo is used to mean also, particle wa is omitted. Does mo also replace ga?",
"view_count": 1242
} | [
{
"body": "も replaces が in the sense that it does not become がも like you have でも or にも。\n\n> 「 あれ見て。猫がいるよ。」「どこに？あ、いたね。」「（興奮）あ、あ、あ、子猫も！かわいい〜」\n\nIt's really hard to make examples. But here 子猫も the も replaces 子猫がいる",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-29T21:50:50.877",
"id": "24630",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-29T21:50:50.877",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10194",
"parent_id": "24348",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 24348 | 24630 | 24630 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24352",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have a decent grasp on the basics, but I'm not quite clear on the details.\nAnyone know?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T20:35:13.387",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24351",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T23:27:46.707",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T22:20:10.777",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3172",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"slang",
"morphology"
],
"title": "What are the principles behind turning foreign language words into verbs?(e.g. ググる and サボる)",
"view_count": 566
} | [
{
"body": "We can find several patterns in these derivations:\n\n 1. Long words are often clipped:\n\n> ハーモ **ニー** → ハーモ \n> スターバ **ックス** → スターバ \n> サボ **タージュ** → サボ\n\n 2. Long vowels (with `ー`) and geminate consonants (with `ッ`) are shortened:\n\n> グ **ー** グル → ググル \n> コピ **ー** → コピ \n> ハ **ー** モ → ハモ \n> スタ **ー** バ → スタバ \n> パニ **ッ** ク → パニク\n\n 3. If final ル is already present, it is reanalyzed as る:\n\n> ググ **ル** → ググ **る** \n> トラブ **ル** → トラブ **る** \n> ダブ **ル** → ダブ **る**\n\n 4. Otherwise, final る is added:\n\n> ハモ → ハモ **る** \n> コピ → コピ **る** \n> サボ → サボ **る** \n> スタバ → スタバ **る** \n> パニク → パニク **る**\n\nMost of these verbs end up 3 moras long counting the final る. A few end up 4\nmoras long, or occasionally even longer.\n\nThis process is relatively productive colloquially, but most of the words\npeople invent this way don't catch on, and only a few become well-established\nwords. Some have been very successful, though, like your example of ググる.\n\nThese patterns aren't absolute, but they describe most of these derivations\npretty well. There are exceptions. For example, people have said both ローソる\n(from ローソン), keeping its long vowel, and the shorter ロソる you might expect from\nthe patterns described above.\n\nInterestingly, these verbs always conjugate as consonant-stem verbs (五段動詞),\neven with examples like コピる that could conceivably be interpreted as vowel-\nstem verbs (一段動詞).\n\nLearners are generally not advised to coin words like this themselves.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T21:15:05.270",
"id": "24352",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T23:27:46.707",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-15T23:27:46.707",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24351",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 16
}
] | 24351 | 24352 | 24352 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24354",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Is there any significant difference between ～ないと、～なきゃ、なくちゃ when they mean\n'must'?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T22:02:18.563",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24353",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T22:27:28.383",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Differences between 'must'",
"view_count": 223
} | [
{
"body": "～ないと is usually used for rules, social conventions, very important\nappointments, and is often abbreviated to just ～ないと. (with no explanatory\nclause following)\n\n運動をしないとね = Undou wo shinai to ne / 'Cause if you don't work out, then... =\n\"gotta work out\"\n\n手を洗わないとね = gotta wash your hands. (to me personally it feels more like \"yeah\nbecause if you don't wash your hands then...\")\n\n～なきゃ feels colloquial (and in some cases hurried)\n\n～なくちゃ feels colloquial\n\n～なくてはいけません (roughly: must do this at all costs\")",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-15T22:27:28.383",
"id": "24354",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-15T22:27:28.383",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9542",
"parent_id": "24353",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 24353 | 24354 | 24354 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In the Japanese language, if the speaker wants to express the will he himself\nwants to do, 'たい ' is usually used. For example:\n\n> I want to buy this book. \n> わたしはこの本を買いたい。\n>\n> I want to go back home. \n> わたしは家に帰りたいです。\n\nBut how to say something like, \"do you want to\", or \"does he want to\" in\nJapanese? Can I say, '君.....たがる’?、or ’彼.....たがる’? For instance:\n\n> Do you want to go back to the company? '会社に戻りたがる？\n>\n> Do they want to play in the park? 彼らは公園で遊びたがりますか?\n\nAm I right?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T03:11:08.883",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24356",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T10:30:57.133",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-16T07:10:33.777",
"last_editor_user_id": "3097",
"owner_user_id": "9883",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"expressions"
],
"title": "How to ask if others want to do something?",
"view_count": 4628
} | [
{
"body": "When asking a question, you still will want to use たい instead of たがる. The\nreason for this is that がる really means that you are concluding based on\ncertain observations, and also makes the sentence sound impersonal. This is\nwhy it is suitable for third person but not first person, because using it\nwith the latter would make it sound like you're guessing your own emotions and\ndesires.\n\nWhen asking what the listener wants, there is no need to use the がる grammar\nbecause you aren't making any conclusions based on observations, you're just\nasking them what they want. Simply using たい is fine.\n\nI believe when asking what a 3rd person wants, you should still use the がる\ngrammar because it still gives an impersonal/distant feel. I'm inclined to\nsay, though, that using でしょう instead is used a lot more in daily speech for\nstating what a 3rd person wants than たがる.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T03:44:19.783",
"id": "24357",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T03:44:19.783",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9749",
"parent_id": "24356",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Since たがる means \"to try to do something\", you can use it as long as \"to want\"\nis interchangeable to \"to try to do\", (though たがる has contemptuous nuance and\nnot desirable to aply to actions by a specific person who is supposed to be\nrespected like your teacher). Otherwise, it doesn't work.\n\nAs for your examples, in addition to Blavius's answer, \"Do they want to play\nin the park? \" is mostly said in a situation when you are deducing a\nconclusion based on some observations like this.\n\n * \"Why are they gathering there? Do they want to play in the park?\"\n\nIn that case, you use a のだ form, that is, あの子たちは公園で遊びたいのですか？.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T10:30:57.133",
"id": "24361",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T10:30:57.133",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24356",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24356 | null | 24357 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24366",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Is the Japanese phrase \"俎板の上の鯉\" - [a carp laid on a chopping\nblock](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/162539/are-there-\nmetaphoric-english-expressions-meaning-keeping-composure-at-a-fatal-m) related\nto the Vietnamese phrase \"như cá nằm trên thớt\" - [like a fish on cutting\nboard](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/246575/what-is-the-english-\nversion-of-the-vietnamese-idiom-nh%C6%B0-c%C3%A1-n%E1%BA%B1m-tr%C3%AAn-\nth%E1%BB%9Bt-li), either because Japanese got the phrase from Vietnamese,\nVietnamese got the phrase from Japanese, or the two languages got it from a\nthird language?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T08:11:54.023",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24360",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T16:08:21.573",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:38:10.367",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "Is \"俎板の上の鯉\" related to the Vietnamese phrase \"như cá nằm trên thớt\"?",
"view_count": 245
} | [
{
"body": "Chinese has 人为刀俎，我为鱼肉, which I must say matches the Vietnamese one more, and\nis well documented in its origins.\n\nThe phrase (in chinese) is attested to Sima Qian of the Western Han dynasty,\nwho wrote in 史記・項羽本紀:\n\n> “如今 **人** 方 **為刀俎、我為魚肉** 。”, meaning \"to be taken advantage of\"\n\nMany thanks to China documenting its history so thoroughly. Its structure\ndoesn't match that of either the Vietnamese nor the Japanese, and because this\nis classical Chinese, I'd be rather surprised that the Japanese one didn't at\nleast keep some of the characters (like 魚 vs 鯉) if this _were_ the origin.\nSame goes for Vietnamese, which uses native vietnamese terms rather than\nChinese ones.\n\n**Relationship between the phrases**\n\nIf you look at the meanings of the two phrases in either language, note that\nthe Vietnamese one is about your fate being out of your control (whether or\nnot you like it), and the Japanese one is about **staying calm** in the face\nof an inevitable doom. They're similar in style, but different in ultimate\nmeaning, which seems unusual if they were loaned. 一石二鳥 was loaned to English,\nand the meaning's still intact. I doubt in this sense that it's representative\nof being loaned just because they're both about fish being cut on a board.\n\nThe chinese expression doesn't really match the sentence structure of either\nof these at all, but it _more closely_ matches the vietnamese one in meaning\n(not exactly). The Japanese one doesn't really resemble either in what it\nimplies, which focuses more on the reaction of the person rather than the\nsituation they're in.\n\nIf there was a common language, it's almost certainly chinese, but the chinese\nequivalent just mentions fish, and that's it -- not a whole lot in common.\nAlso, the Viet and Japanese terms differ in meaning and style.\n\nI'd therefore conclude they were developed independently by fishing-based\nsocieties. Their meaning, style, and structure aren't too much alike, but just\nresemble a common experience any fisherman has when cutting a fish.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T15:28:56.010",
"id": "24365",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T16:08:21.573",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-16T16:08:21.573",
"last_editor_user_id": "9185",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24360",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I don't have any clue to decide whether it's a parallel evolution or not, but\nI guess it's from Chinese, considering the phrase is attested in a famous (1st\ncentury BC) Classical Chinese literature, namely _Shiji_ , and the fact all\nChinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese shares the similar expressions.\n\n> 大行不顧細謹，大禮不辭小讓。如今 **人方為刀俎，我為魚肉** ，何辭為。 \n> _The most powerful never mind small matters; the most polite never care\n> about small etiquette. Now **they are knife and chopping block, we are fish\n> in between** , why need we say goodbye?_ \n> （[史記・項羽本紀](http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=gb&id=4869)）\n\n* * *\n\n> Chinese: 俎上之鱼，任人宰割 \n> Japanese: まな板の（上の）鯉 \n> Korean: 도마에 오른 고기 \n> Vietnamese: như cá nằm trên thớt",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T15:30:40.817",
"id": "24366",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T15:30:40.817",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24360",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 24360 | 24366 | 24366 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "According to my grammar book, the 普通形 of a verb in Japanese usually has two\nfunctions: it shows a regular common action and the action that the subject is\ngoing to do in the future.\n\nFor instance:\n\n 1. （毎日）テレビを見る \n 2. （明日）テレビを見る \n\nAnd it is also said that the '......ている' form is also used to show a regular\ncommon action, like:\n\n 3. （毎日）テレビを見ている. \n\nSo are sentences 1 and 3, （毎日）テレビを見る and （毎日）テレビを見ている, interchangeable?\n\nAnd if I simply say わたしは本を読む, how will the listener understand it? Will they\nsee it like 'I read books everyday' or 'I will read a book'?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T13:46:51.077",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24362",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T15:06:07.203",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-16T15:06:07.203",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9883",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"tense",
"aspect"
],
"title": "The 普通形 of a verb in Japanese - future and habitual interpretations",
"view_count": 663
} | [
{
"body": "毎日テレビを見ている is conscious that you are keeping the habit so far but could quit\nit soon or some time. On the other hand, 毎日テレビを見る is not conscious of that.\nAnd, 私は本を読む depends on contexts.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T14:39:54.393",
"id": "24364",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T14:39:54.393",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24362",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24362 | null | 24364 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24370",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I recently discovered the kana ゟ, which is a ligature of よ and り, so it's the\ncomparison particle. According to a few sites it's obsolete, or 'dated'.\n\nWhy is ゟ considered obsolete, and why should I use it, or avoid doing so?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T20:46:24.480",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24367",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T22:41:07.903",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9671",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"kana"
],
"title": "Why is ゟ considered obsolete?",
"view_count": 1517
} | [
{
"body": "It's considered obsolete because it isn't in use any more, and people don't\nreally think of it when they want an archaic flavour.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T22:28:33.577",
"id": "24368",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T22:28:33.577",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"parent_id": "24367",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "ゟ has fallen nearly entirely out of standard usage. This means that if you\nshow it to most people, they'll have no idea what it means, and you should\n**definitely not use it yourself in regular writing**. Instead, write out より\nwith 2 kana, as this is standard now.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T22:32:27.457",
"id": "24369",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T22:32:27.457",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24367",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "The reason is very simple: universal education.\n\nゟ is not a \"kana\" but an abbreviation\n([合略仮名](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%88%E7%95%A5%E4%BB%AE%E5%90%8D))\nused in the 1800s. In other words, it is not an outdated letter like long s\n(ſ), but a [scribal\nabbreviation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribal_abbreviation) like \"Ↄ̄\"\nfor \" _contra_ \". It was mainly in use when writing was limited to a small\nliterate class, and when language began being taught to the public at large,\nit was omitted, as can be seen in [this 1874\ntextbook](http://wayback.archive.org/web/20080321190545/http://www.lingua.tsukuba.ac.jp/~myazawa/data/bunten/t1_maki1.html).\n\nWikipedia says that you can still see ゟ in newspapers from time to time; I\nmight have seen it myself at some point. But the most common scribal\nabbreviations still in use today are the iteration marks 々, ゝ, and 〻. You\nshould not use the other ones.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T22:41:07.903",
"id": "24370",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-16T22:41:07.903",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "583",
"parent_id": "24367",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
] | 24367 | 24370 | 24370 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "36263",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In Samuel E. Martin's \"A Reference Grammar of Japanese\", in a section (Chapter\n23, p. 1041) on putative etymologies for some Japanese interjections like さあ\nor まあ, he asserts:\n\n> Although others [other interjections] seem like little more than grunts or\n> shouts — aa, yaa, yoo — they may have originated as shortenings of more\n> legitimate etyma; oo 'yea' is, after all, a Chinese loanword.\n\nReally? If so, a loan from which Chinese word?",
"comment_count": 14,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-16T23:28:28.843",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24371",
"last_activity_date": "2016-07-03T09:15:14.683",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-17T12:15:26.560",
"last_editor_user_id": "9185",
"owner_user_id": "816",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"etymology"
],
"title": "Is the interjection おう really a Chinese loanword?",
"view_count": 394
} | [
{
"body": "I think Martin has 応 (old form 應) in mind. This was not uncommonly used to\nwrite _ō_ , especially in Edo times. A famous haiku by Kyorai:\n\n> 応々といへどたたくや雪の門 \n> ō ō to / iedo tataku ya / yuki no kado \n> \"All right, all right!\" / I say, but the knocking doesn't stop / at the\n> gate in the snow\n\nHowever, I agree with the commenters that _ō_ is unlikely to have been\nborrowed from Chinese at all -- not least because it appears in the Nihon\nShoki as 越々, i.e. /wowo/ (which incidentally isn't easy to reconcile with any\nChinese pronunciation of 応/應), and only got attached to 応/應 later.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-06-28T15:52:21.667",
"id": "36263",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-28T15:52:21.667",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "531",
"parent_id": "24371",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "I'm astounded to see a series of the answers and comments to this question.\nMost of them are misguiding and confusing the O.P. They lack even a beginner's\nknowledge of Chinese language about how to read it and what it means.\n\nNone of “応、鳴、唯, 越々, and 応々” corresponds to the pronunciation equivalent to\n“おう” – \"oh\" or \"ou.\" They are pronounced respectively as \"ying,\" \"ming,\"\n\"wei,\" \"yue-yue\" and \"ying-ying\" in Chinese. And all suggested words are\npointless and utterly wrong. If you have just an elementary knowledge of\nChinese language, you wouldn't make such a primitive and laughable mistake.\n\nThey are absolutely different beasts from “さあ,” “まあ” and “おう\" either\nphonetically or semantically. If you have any objections, please contend with\nme to make your case. I'm waiting for your rebuttal.\n\nBoth “応\" and \"鳴\" are verbs each meaning \"respond\" and \"sing, chirp, twitter.\"\n\"唯” is an adjective meaning \"only, sole\" in both Japanese and Chinese, ”越々” is\nan adverbial phrase meaning \"the more ... the more,\" all irrelevant to “さあ,”\n“まあ,” and “おう\" which are interjections.\n\nThe connection of \"応々\" in 去来's haiku with Chinese word is comically\nfarfetched. There's no Chinese word spelt or vocalized like 応々, and if it\nshould happen to be by chance, it must be read \"ying-ying,\" not \"ō, ō\" as an\nanswerer suggested.\n\nI think @sqrtbottle is right. And only he was right.\n\nIf Japanese, “さあ” and “まあ” is a loan word from Chinese word or character that\nsounds “oo” as Samuel Martin says, it may be “哦” which is pronounced as \"o\" or\n\"oh.\"\n\nA Chinese language dictionary at hand, “多功用常用字典” - published by 新華出版社 in\nBeijing - defines “哦” as a \"感嘆詞.表示懐疑或吃惊. 哦! 是这么回事. – [Exclamation] indicates a\nsuspicion or surprise. Example. Oh, my God! What is this all about! \"\n\nHowever, I’m not sure whether “さあ” and “まあ” are really a loanword from Chinese\nlanguage.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-07-01T03:25:35.867",
"id": "36331",
"last_activity_date": "2016-07-03T09:15:14.683",
"last_edit_date": "2016-07-03T09:15:14.683",
"last_editor_user_id": "12056",
"owner_user_id": "12056",
"parent_id": "24371",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24371 | 36263 | 36263 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24387",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "If so, how formal is it? Please compare it with other apologies.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-17T12:09:05.083",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24373",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-18T01:21:05.613",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words",
"keigo"
],
"title": "Is ごめんなさいませ idiomatic?",
"view_count": 281
} | [
{
"body": "It is difficult to talk about the phrase 「ごめんなさい **ませ** 」 mostly because it is\nnot in wide use (that is unless there actually exists an area that I am\nunaware of where it is often said).\n\nI have probably heard it 2-3 times in my life, but that means only once every\n10 years or so. I feel like it has (almost) always been an adult woman who I\nhave heard say it.\n\nTo me, a native speaker, 「ごめんなさいませ」 does not necessarily sound formal. In\nfact, it actually sounds fairly informal but, at the same time, pretty polite.\n\nIf you want to apologize politely, you would be better off using:\n\n「[大変失礼]{たいへんしつれい}いたしました。」、「[本当]{ほんとう}に失礼いたしました。」 or 「本当にごめんなさい。」\n\nbecause those are what we would use most often ourselves.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-18T01:21:05.613",
"id": "24387",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-18T01:21:05.613",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24373",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24373 | 24387 | 24387 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24375",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Consider the following sentence:\n\n> Bobはこの女の子を自分の子供と思って育てることにしました。\n>\n> Bob thought of this girl as his own and decided to raise her (my rough\n> translation).\n\nI have several problems with it:\n\n 1. It is hard to think of an example where I would expect 思う to take an object, other than when thinking **about** something e.g. 母のことを思う. I wonder if the を here is the object of 育てる rather than 思う. Which leads me to ask can を act through a て joining two clauses such that it is the object of the second clause?\n 2. I've never seen 〜と思うcome after anything other than a verb/adjective/copula. Can it act on a noun e.g. 猫と思う (I'm thinking of cats)?\n 3. If I were asked to translate into Japanese I would probably try something like Bobはこの女の子が自分の子供だと思って育てることにしました。Would this be wrong and, if so, why?\n 4. Can someone please break down the original sentence to explain why it is correct?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-17T12:31:32.840",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24374",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-17T15:11:47.290",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-を",
"particle-と"
],
"title": "Can 思う take を and と at the same time?",
"view_count": 425
} | [
{
"body": "> 1. It is hard to think of an example where I would expect 思う to take an\n> object, other than when thinking about something e.g. 母のことを思う. I wonder if\n> the を here is the object of 育てる rather than 思う.\n>\n\nIt would help you if you could somehow forget the notion \"思う = 'to think'\" for\na moment. I could be wrong but I feel that might be what is preventing you\nfrom understanding this.\n\n**_\"To regard A as B\"_** is the expression that I would like you to consider\nhere because, frankly, that is what 「AをBと思う」 means in the given context. Yes,\n「思う」 can take 「を」 and 「と」 at the same time.\n\n> Which leads me to ask can を act through a て joining two clauses such that it\n> is the object of the second clause?\n\nIf you are seeing two clauses in that sentence, it is a proof that you are\nreading the sentence structure incorrectly.\n\nIt is not in the structure of \"One does thing A **_and then_** he goes on to\ndo thing B.\" That is not the usage of 「て」 in the sentence in question. The 「て」\nhere expresses simultaneity of (1) raising the girl and (2) regarding the girl\nas his own. Your translation says another thing.\n\n> 2. I've never seen 〜と思うcome after anything other than a\n> verb/adjective/copula. Can it act on a noun e.g. 猫と思う (I'm thinking of\n> cats)?\n>\n\n「猫と思う。」 does **_not_** mean \"I'm thinking of cats.\" That would be\n「猫のことを考えている。」 or 「猫のことを思っている。」.\n\n「猫と思う。」, all by itslef, does not really mean anything. 「猫 **だと** 思う。」 means \"I\nthink it is a cat.\" as an answer to the question \"What animal do you think\nthat is?\"\n\n> 3. If I were asked to translate into Japanese I would probably try\n> something like Bobはこの女の子が自分の子供だと思って育てることにしました。Would this be wrong and, if\n> so, why?\n>\n\nNo, it would not be wrong; It actualy sounds pretty natural as well.\n\n> 4. Can someone please break down the original sentence to explain why it\n> is correct?\n>\n\nIt is more than correct and grammatical; It is perfectly natural on the native\nlevel (except, perhaps, for the silly-looking \"Bob\" part.).\n\n> 「Bobはこの[女]{おんな}の[子]{こ}を[自分]{じぶん}の[子供]{こども}と[思]{おも}って[育]{そだ}てることにしました。」\n\nBob made a decision. ← 「Bob は～～～～ことにしました。」\n\nWhat was his decision? It was 「この女の子を自分の子供と思って育てる」.\n\n「この女の子を自分の子供と思って育てる」\n\n= \"Performing Action 「この女の子を自分の子供と思う」 and Action「（その子を）育てる」 simultaneously.\"\n\nPut it all together and you should have:\n\n**_\"Bob decided to raise this girl by regarding her as his own (child).\"_**",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-17T15:11:47.290",
"id": "24375",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-17T15:11:47.290",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24374",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24374 | 24375 | 24375 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24378",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "This question is of interest to me because of my own difficulty with\nremembering on'yomi, as there are fewer possible on'yomi than kun'yomi. So\nthere must be a finite number of valid on'yomi pronunciations, right? The\nquestion is, what is this number?\n\nThis sounds more mathsy than Japanese, but I'm aware that there are\nphonotactic constraints which JSE users would be more qualified to discuss,\nthan MSE users.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-17T15:50:18.673",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24376",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-13T14:51:33.577",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-17T18:20:28.817",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4242",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 19,
"tags": [
"readings",
"onyomi"
],
"title": "How many unique on'yomi are there?",
"view_count": 5835
} | [
{
"body": "The on'yomi are of course morphemes borrowed from Middle Chinese, so in a\nsense the sounds of Japanese on'yomi are the sounds of Middle Chinese filtered\nthrough Japanese loanword phonology. Of course, the phonetics and phonotactics\nof Japanese changed over time, so describing the exact process by which we\nended up with the sounds we have today is kind of complicated! I won't attempt\nthat here. Instead, I'll focus on the set of on'yomi I believe are in modern\nuse.\n\nThe Middle Chinese readings that on'yomi represent were (almost?) exclusively\nmonosyllablic. As a result, each on'yomi looks something like a syllable:\n\n 1. **Onset**. Thirteen possible consonants can begin a \"syllable\". Most consonants can be followed by /y/ except the glides /w/ and /y/ (and also /d/ due to sound change):\n``` 0: ∅\n\n 1: k g s z t d n h b m y r w \n 2: ky gy sy zy ty ny hy by my ry\n```\n\n 2. **Nucleus**. All five Japanese vowels are possible, along with six vowel+vowel combinations:\n``` 1: a i u e o\n\n 2: ai ii uu ui ei oo\n```\n\n 3. **Coda**. By itself, only /n/ is possible. But /k/ and /t/ also appear when followed by the epenthetic vowels /i/ or /u/:\n``` 0: ∅\n\n 1: n\n 2: ki ku ti tu\n```\n\nThese last four can't truly be considered syllable codas in Japanese, of\ncourse. Words like 悪 /aku/ can't be considered monosyllabic in Japanese. But\nin describing the possible on'yomi it helps to start from the syllable model\nbecause of the relationship to Chinese, so that's what I'm doing here.\n\nSometimes these sounds have undergone further changes in the Japanese\nlanguage, and this can produce combinations that aren't possible based on the\nlist above. For example, じか was derived from 直(じき). It's not clear whether\nthis sort of example should be listed as a separate on'yomi or not; 新漢語林\ndoesn't list it as one, so I've chosen to leave it out of the list. (See Zhen\nLin's comment below for some more exceptional examples that don't fit into my\nlist, and flow's answer for further discussion.)\n\nThe above gives us 24 possible onsets, 11 possible nuclei, and 6 possible\n\"codas\". If we multiply these together, we find a total of 1584 possible\ncombinations, but I count only 335 in modern use:\n\n> ア アイ アク アツ アン イ イキ イク イチ イツ イン ウ ウツ ウン エ エイ エキ エツ エン オ オウ オク オツ オン カ カイ カク\n> カチ カツ カン ガ ガイ ガク ガチ ガツ ガン キ キク キチ キツ キャ キャク キュウ キョ キョウ キョク キン ギ ギャ ギャク ギュウ\n> ギョ ギョウ ギョク ギン ク クウ クツ クン グ グウ グン ケ ケイ ケチ ケツ ケン ゲ ゲイ ゲキ ゲツ ゲン コ コウ コク コチ コツ\n> コン ゴ ゴウ ゴク ゴン サ サイ サク サツ サン ザ ザイ ザツ ザン シ シイ シキ シチ シツ シャ シャク シュ シュウ シュク シュツ\n> シュン ショ ショウ ショク シン ジ ジキ ジク ジツ ジャ ジャク ジュ ジュウ ジュク ジュツ ジュン ジョ ジョウ ジョク ジン ス スイ スウ\n> スン ズ ズイ セ セイ セキ セク セチ セツ セン ゼ ゼイ ゼツ ゼン ソ ソウ ソク ソチ ソツ ソン ゾウ ゾク タ タイ タク タチ タツ\n> タン ダ ダイ ダク ダツ ダン チ チキ チク チツ チャク チャン チュ チュウ チュツ チュン チョ チョウ チョク チン ツ ツイ ツウ ツク\n> テ テイ テキ テツ テン デ デイ デキ デツ デン ト トウ トク トツ トン ド ドウ ドク ドン ナ ナイ ナツ ナン ニ ニク ニチ ニャ\n> ニャク ニュ ニュウ ニョ ニョウ ニン ヌ ネイ ネツ ネン ノ ノウ ノン ハ ハイ ハク ハチ ハツ ハン バ バイ バク バチ バツ バン ヒ\n> ヒキ ヒチ ヒツ ヒャク ヒュウ ヒョウ ヒョク ヒン ビ ビャク ビュウ ビョウ ビン フ フウ フキ フク フツ フン ブ ブツ ブン ヘイ ヘキ\n> ヘツ ヘン ベ ベイ ベキ ベツ ベン ホ ホウ ホク ホツ ホン ボ ボウ ボク ボチ ボツ ボン マ マイ マク マチ マツ マン ミ ミツ ミャク\n> ミュウ ミョウ ミン ム メ メイ メツ メン モ モウ モク モチ モツ モン ヤ ヤク ユ ユイ ユウ ヨ ヨウ ヨク ラ ライ ラク ラチ ラツ\n> ラン リ リキ リク リツ リャク リュ リュウ リュク リョ リョウ リョク リン ル ルイ レイ レキ レツ レン ロ ロウ ロク ロン ワ ワイ\n> ワク ワツ ワン\n\nNote that the second half of what I've written as /oo/ is spelled with ウ in\nkana, so for example /koo/ is コウ, and so on.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-17T16:33:00.023",
"id": "24378",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-17T19:12:39.067",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-17T19:12:39.067",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24376",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 19
},
{
"body": "@snailboat i get a very similar number. Of 13776 entries that are mainly taken\nfrom Unihan i can distill the below 420 documented On-readings. It has to be\nsaid that the Unihan data is not extremely well curated; in many places, it\njust lists anything that you could possibly list for a given character, and in\nsome cases, pre-1945 spellings are thrown into the mix.\n\nOne rather interesting fact about the number of around 400 different On-\nreadings for modern Japanese is that it very closely matches the number of\ndifferent syllables (disregarding the tones, which puts the number closer to\n1200 or so) attested by dictionaries for modern Chinese (Mandarin /\nPutonghua). That means that the _losses_ (e.g. the merger of final -p, -ng,\n-au) that occurred in the historical development of Chinese as spoken in Japan\nare nearly perfectly outweighed by the features that were _preserved_ in Japan\n(e.g. final -t, -k) but got lost in Mandarin during the past centuries. Put\ndifferently, the set of syllables (disregarding tones) that was once used on\nboth sides of the East China Sea got reduced by the same margin, but by\ndifferent means in China and in Japan.\n\nAnother remark to be made that has already been touched upon by @snailboat and\n@Zhen Lin is the question where onyomi starts and where it ends. Thus we have\nsuch readings as タバコ for 煙(草), ページ for 頁, ペキン for 北京, ホンコン for 香港 and so on;\nare these onyomi? But even staying within the more classically accepted terms\none has to say that the so-called 漢音, 唐音, 呉音 styles of readings are in some\ncases more a theoretical construct than a practical fact. Then there are such\nreadings as ケツ for 欠, which is obviously a Japanese innovation that could be\nwell classified as kunyomi. Utterly difficult are cases like うめ, うま for 梅, 馬;\nthese are thought to be very ancient reflexes of the Chinese readings (which\nare mei and ma in modern Chinese) and are, as such, really onyomi—but\ndictionary writers have always classified these as 'true Japanese words', and,\nhence, as kunyomi.\n\nTo show how and where the matter gets really over the top let me share an\nobservation made in a Meiji-era\n[Schreibmeisterbuch](http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schreibmeister); there, we\nfind a letter of a 19th c Japanese who is staying abroad. In this letter,\n\"Paris, France\" is written as \"佛國巴里\" (in modern Chinese, that would be 法國巴黎\nand, in modern Japanese, フランス・パリ or maybe 仏・パリ). Anyhow, those four characters\nare annotated on the right with ふつこくばりす, and on the left with フランス. As a rule,\nin this book it's often the _on_ yomi that are written out with hiragana,\nwhile for the more colloquial _kun_ yomi, katakana are used—quite the opposite\nof the modern preference—so it does look like フランス is understood as the\nexplanatory reading of 佛國, while ばりす is understood as the onyomi of 巴里. But\nhow could one ever read 里 as りす _except_ when 巴里 are used as 当て字 in which case\ntheir reading is \"kunyomi-style informed by onyomi habits\"? The point is that\nif you do not accept フランス and ばりす as onyomi or kunyomi you'll need yet another\nconcept to account for the facts.\n\n**Fun Fact** 弗, which has the classical reading フツ, is also read ドル, which is\nshort for ドルラル, because it looks a lot like $. What do you call that? A 笑い音読み?\n\n```\n\n ア\n アイ\n アク\n アチ\n アツ\n アン\n イ\n イウ\n イキ\n イク\n イシ\n イチ\n イツ\n イン\n ウ\n ウイ\n ウチ\n ウツ\n ウン\n エ\n エイ\n エウ\n エキ\n エチ\n エツ\n エン\n オ\n オウ\n オク\n オチ\n オツ\n オン\n カ\n カイ\n カク\n カチ\n カッ\n カツ\n カン\n ガ\n ガイ\n ガク\n ガチ\n ガッ\n ガツ\n ガン\n キ\n キイ\n キク\n キケ\n キチ\n キツ\n キャ\n キャク\n キャン\n キュウ\n キョ\n キョウ\n キョク\n キン\n ギ\n ギチ\n ギツ\n ギャ\n ギャク\n ギュウ\n ギョ\n ギョウ\n ギョク\n ギン\n ク\n クウ\n クク\n クチ\n クツ\n クン\n グ\n グウ\n グチ\n グン\n ケ\n ケイ\n ケキ\n ケチ\n ケツ\n ケン\n ゲ\n ゲイ\n ゲキ\n ゲチ\n ゲツ\n ゲン\n コ\n コウ\n コク\n コチ\n コツ\n コン\n ゴ\n ゴウ\n ゴク\n ゴチ\n ゴツ\n ゴン\n サ\n サイ\n サウ\n サク\n サチ\n サッ\n サツ\n サフ\n サブ\n サン\n ザ\n ザイ\n ザツ\n ザン\n シ\n シイ\n シウ\n シキ\n シチ\n シツ\n シャ\n シャク\n シャン\n シヤウ\n シュ\n シュウ\n シュク\n シュチ\n シュツ\n シュフ\n シュン\n シユ\n ショ\n ショウ\n ショク\n シン\n ジ\n ジカ\n ジキ\n ジク\n ジチ\n ジッ\n ジツ\n ジャ\n ジャク\n ジャン\n ジュ\n ジュウ\n ジュク\n ジュチ\n ジュッ\n ジュツ\n ジュン\n ジョ\n ジョウ\n ジョク\n ジョツ\n ジン\n ス\n スイ\n スウ\n スク\n スン\n ズ\n ズイ\n セ\n セイ\n セウ\n セキ\n セク\n セチ\n セツ\n セン\n ゼ\n ゼイ\n ゼチ\n ゼツ\n ゼン\n ソ\n ソウ\n ソク\n ソチ\n ソツ\n ソン\n ゾウ\n ゾク\n ゾン\n タ\n タイ\n タク\n タチ\n タツ\n タン\n ダ\n ダイ\n ダウ\n ダク\n ダツ\n ダン\n チ\n チキ\n チク\n チチ\n チツ\n チャ\n チャク\n チャン\n チュ\n チュウ\n チュチ\n チュツ\n チュン\n チョ\n チョウ\n チョク\n チン\n ヂ\n ヂュウ\n ツ\n ツイ\n ツウ\n ツク\n ツサ\n テ\n テイ\n テキ\n テチ\n テツ\n テン\n デ\n デイ\n デキ\n デチ\n デツ\n デン\n ト\n トウ\n トク\n トツ\n トド\n トン\n ド\n ドウ\n ドク\n ドツ\n ドン\n ナ\n ナイ\n ナッ\n ナツ\n ナン\n ニ\n ニク\n ニチ\n ニャ\n ニャク\n ニュ\n ニュウ\n ニョ\n ニョウ\n ニン\n ヌ\n ネ\n ネイ\n ネチ\n ネツ\n ネン\n ノ\n ノウ\n ノン\n ハ\n ハイ\n ハウ\n ハク\n ハチ\n ハッ\n ハツ\n ハン\n バ\n バイ\n バウ\n バク\n バチ\n バツ\n バン\n ヒ\n ヒキ\n ヒチ\n ヒツ\n ヒャク\n ヒュウ\n ヒョウ\n ヒョク\n ヒン\n ビ\n ビチ\n ビツ\n ビャク\n ビュウ\n ビョウ\n ビン\n フ\n フウ\n フク\n フチ\n フツ\n フン\n ブ\n ブク\n ブチ\n ブツ\n ブン\n ヘ\n ヘイ\n ヘウ\n ヘキ\n ヘチ\n ヘツ\n ヘン\n ベ\n ベイ\n ベキ\n ベチ\n ベツ\n ベン\n ホ\n ホウ\n ホク\n ホチ\n ホッ\n ホツ\n ホン\n ボ\n ボウ\n ボク\n ボチ\n ボッ\n ボツ\n ボン\n ポン\n マ\n マア\n マイ\n マク\n マチ\n マツ\n マン\n ミ\n ミチ\n ミツ\n ミャク\n ミュウ\n ミュク\n ミョウ\n ミン\n ム\n メ\n メイ\n メチ\n メツ\n メン\n モ\n モウ\n モク\n モチ\n モツ\n モン\n ヤ\n ヤク\n ヤチ\n ヤラ\n ユ\n ユイ\n ユウ\n ヨ\n ヨウ\n ヨク\n ラ\n ライ\n ラク\n ラチ\n ラツ\n ラン\n リ\n リイ\n リキ\n リク\n リチ\n リツ\n リャク\n リュ\n リュウ\n リュク\n リョ\n リョウ\n リョク\n リン\n ル\n ルイ\n レ\n レイ\n レキ\n レチ\n レツ\n レフ\n レン\n ロ\n ロウ\n ロク\n ロン\n ワ\n ワイ\n ワク\n ワチ\n ワツ\n ワン\n \n```",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-17T18:51:08.003",
"id": "24383",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-19T17:37:31.883",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-19T17:37:31.883",
"last_editor_user_id": "7301",
"owner_user_id": "7301",
"parent_id": "24376",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "If you prefer visuals I've done some research on this topic several years ago.\nLike, for example, this is the list of kanji grouped by ON-yomi and sorted by\ntheir uniqueness.\n\n\n\nThe research was done for most popular kanji learned in school ( _1945 total_\n). Here are some interesting results I got:\n\n 1. [List of kanji grouped by number of different ON-yomi they have](http://funbit.info/kanji/readings/kanji_table.html)\n\n * 1460 kanji have single ON-yomi\n * 401 kanji have 2 different ON-yomi \n * 63 kanji have 3 different ON-yomi \n * 11 kanji have 4 different ON-yomi \n * 5 kanji have 5 different ON-yomi \n * 5 kanji don't have ON-yomi (込, 枠, 畑, 峠, 匁)\n * 375 kanji don't have KUN-yomi\n * 5 most popular readings are: ショウ (77 characters have it!), コウ, シ, カン, トウ...\n * total number of different ON readings is 323 (direct answer to your question :) )\n 2. [List of kanji grouped by ON-yomi and sorted by ON-yomi uniqueness (kanji inside each row are sorted by ascending school grade)](http://funbit.info/kanji/readings/on_table_by_grade.html)\n\n 3. [List of kanji grouped by ON-yomi and sorted by ON-yomi uniqueness (kanji inside each row are sorted by descending usage frequency)](http://funbit.info/kanji/readings/on_table_by_freq.html)\n\nThe colors represent school grade (from green to red: [Grade 1, Grade 2...\nGrade 6, Middle/High-\nSchool](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%8Diku_kanji)).\n\nThe research helped me to find out many useful things, such as that there are\nmany characters which have single and unique ON-yomi. Knowing that makes it\nmuch easier to remember.\n\nHope you'll find it useful too.\n\nPS. To make the research I used\n[JMDict](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/kanjidic.html) data.\n\nPPS. Some parts of the pages are in Russian, sorry about that.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-06-13T14:29:34.147",
"id": "24994",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-13T14:51:33.577",
"last_edit_date": "2015-06-13T14:51:33.577",
"last_editor_user_id": "5465",
"owner_user_id": "5465",
"parent_id": "24376",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 16
}
] | 24376 | 24378 | 24378 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24388",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have known for a while about 度 and 回 when counting occurrences, but recently\nI found a passage that used 遍 as well, which surprised me.\n\n> 一[遍]{ぺん}転べば・・・十[遍]{ぺん}転べば・・・百[遍]{ぺん}転べば・・・\n\nIf I understand correctly, 度 is used for degrees, 回 for revolutions, and 回 is\nmore common for larger numbers.\n\nHowever, where does 遍 fit into all of this? Is it more archaic? Is it more\nsimilar to 度 or 回?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-17T16:39:02.833",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24380",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-18T07:52:49.367",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-17T21:54:15.920",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "6881",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"usage",
"nuances",
"counters"
],
"title": "Difference between 遍 and 度/回 in occurences",
"view_count": 255
} | [
{
"body": "「遍」 is used to count action,movement or behavior. and It is more archaic and\ninformal than 「回」\n\n○「その動画１０遍見たけど、理解出来なかった」\n\n(I watched the video for 10times but I couldn't understand any of it.)\n\nThis word can't be used for Ordinal number.\n\n×「この映画を見るのはこれが3遍目です。」\n\n○「この動画を見るのはこれが3回目です。」\n\n(This is third time for me to watch this video.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-18T07:52:49.367",
"id": "24388",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-18T07:52:49.367",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10088",
"parent_id": "24380",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24380 | 24388 | 24388 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Can you use it that way? 逃げるんだ and 逃げるんだよ are both acceptable commands (if\nrather forceful), but could you say 逃げるんだね for a softer but still very\nforceful command (or 逃げるんだな)?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-17T18:05:29.640",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24381",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-18T20:18:42.607",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words"
],
"title": "～んだね as command",
"view_count": 363
} | [
{
"body": "You could use 逃げるんだね as a command, but I don't think you should use it. Here\nare the reasons.\n\n 1. The phrase is commanding the listener to escape, but it also has an extra nuance that the speaker is not concerned about the result the listener's escape, or the speaker thinks the listener can't do it. It sounds ironic.\n 2. 逃げるんだね also sounds like asking a question depending on the context. If you say せいぜい逃げるんだね。, you are commanding to escape. And if you say, [結局]{けっきょく}逃げるんだね。 you are asking a question. (which means \"Are you finally escaping?\")\n\nIf you want to say 逃げるんだ in a more formal way, you can say 逃げてください。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-18T11:05:59.367",
"id": "24389",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-18T20:18:42.607",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-18T20:18:42.607",
"last_editor_user_id": "6881",
"owner_user_id": "9608",
"parent_id": "24381",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24381 | null | 24389 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "They both contain vowels and consonants. So why should 1 be called consonant\nand the other vowel?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-17T23:43:28.140",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24384",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-18T10:05:39.223",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-18T10:05:39.223",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10123",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"terminology"
],
"title": "Why are the verb groups in Japanese called \"consonant-stem\" and \"vowel-stem\"?",
"view_count": 1435
} | [
{
"body": "You'll understand if you just look at them romanized:\n\n 1. ## Vowel-stem verbs (一段動詞)\n``` 食べない tab **e** -nai\n\n 食べます tab **e** -masu\n 食べる tab **e** -ru \n 食べれば tab **e** -reba\n 食べよう tab **e** -yoo\n \n```\n\nThe stem is _tabe-_ , which ends with /e/, a vowel.\n\n 2. ## Consonant-stem verbs (五段動詞)\n``` 泳がない oyo **g** -anai\n\n 泳ぎます oyo **g** -imasu\n 泳ぐ oyo **g** -u\n 泳げば oyo **g** -eba\n 泳ごう oyo **g** -oo\n \n```\n\nThe stem is _oyog-_ , which ends with /g/, a consonant.\n\nSimple as that.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-18T00:13:57.070",
"id": "24385",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-18T00:13:57.070",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24384",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "When learning Japanese as a foreign language, \"consonant-stem\" (respectively\n\"vowel-stem\") verbs are called thus, because **their stem _ends_ in a\nconsonant** (resp. **vowel** ), where \"stem\" refers to the part not changing\nduring inflection (conjugation).\n\n> m **i** -ru, m **i** -tai, m **i** -masu, m **i** -nai, m **i** -r-eba, m\n> **i** -y-ou...\n>\n> ki **k** -u, ki **k** -i-tai, ki **k** -i-masu, ki **k** -a-nai, ki **k**\n> -eba, ki **k** -ou...\n\nDepending on the inflection, consonant-stem verbs change the vowel coming\nafter the consonant in the stem. In fact, all five vowels appear, which is why\nin traditional Japanese grammar (where the concepts \"consonant\" and \"vowel\"\naren't used) they are said to follow 五段活用 \"five rank conjugation\". The vowel\nin the vowel-stem verbs doesn't change, so they follow 一段活用 \"single rank\nconjugation\".\n\nNote that the dichotomy consonant-stem–vowel-stem is a simplification of\ntraditional Japanese grammar, which further divides the (\"vowel-stem\") \"single\nrank conjugation\" into \"upper\" and \"lower\" (and also ignores the verbs _suru_\nand _kuru_ ). (Have a look at the table on\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:%E6%B4%BB%E7%94%A8%E3%81%AE%E7%A8%AE%E9%A1%9E).)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-18T00:14:24.460",
"id": "24386",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-18T00:14:24.460",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24384",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 24384 | null | 24385 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "As a beginner of Japanese, I very often I don't understand or completely\nmisunderstand spoken Japanese - even if I know every word in the sentence, and\nmay have recognized it in different context. Here is an example where I was\ncompletely stunned - had no clue what it said until I saw the text. A native\nJapanese speaker saying the following sentence:\n\n> まだ学校へ行くには早い時間です。 \n> It's still to early to go to school.\n\n(This is from some flashcard stack in Anki. The accompanying picture shows two\nyoung kids who may have just woken up.)\n\nWhen listening to this first, even repeatedly, without knowing the text or any\nother hint, I heard roughly the following, if I had to write it down in kana:\n\n> まだが こへい くには はやい じかん です。\n\nOr in letters (deliberately not exactly rōmaji):\n\n> Madaga kowei kuniwa hayai jikan des\n\nFirst, one thing seems to be a general rule: In 学校 the individual readings\nがく＋こう get contracted to がっこう. (Is there indeed a rule behind this? I heard the\nshort pause in gakkou as a word boundary.)\n\nThe other thing I got totally wrong was the place where there are essentially\nfour vowels in a row in 学校へ行く：\n\n> がっこうへいく in the underlined ouei. (the へ is basically just the vowel e in this\n> situation)\n\nI don't know exactly how to pose this as a question. But I still wonder how I\ncan accelerate my listening understanding (besides just more training)?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-18T16:32:43.013",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24390",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-19T12:42:28.947",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-19T12:42:28.947",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10126",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"spoken-language",
"pitch-accent",
"listening"
],
"title": "Beginner miscomprehension of spoken Japanese - finding wrong word boundaries",
"view_count": 2789
} | [
{
"body": "What Lyle said is true―you'll want to practice a lot. It's much easier to\nrecognize words and phrases you're used to _hearing_ , not just used to\n_reading_. That means ear training, and there's no way around it!\n\nStill, we can look at some facts about Japanese pronunciation. I'm a non-\nnative speaker, and one of the trickiest things for a non-native speaker to do\naccurately is describe pronunciation details, but I'll try my best anyway :-)\n\n* * *\n\nLet's look at your example:\n\n> まだ学校へ行くには早い時間です。 \n> mada gakkō e iku ni wa hayai zikan desu\n\nThe way I've romanized it here, I've split it into nine words. But is each\nword really pronounced separately with space in between? Of course not―we put\nwords together when we speak. This is true in any language, not just Japanese.\n\nSo how _are_ words put together in Japanese? First, let's start by grouping\n**particles and auxiliaries** with the words before them:\n\n```\n\n まだ 学校 **へ** 行く **には** 早い 時間 **です** 。 \n mada gakkō= **e** iku= **ni** = **wa** hayai zikan= **desu**\n \n```\n\nIn this sentence, we have the particles へ{e}, に{ni}, and は{wa}, along with the\nauxiliary です{desu}. I've grouped each of these with the words before them.\n\nThese groups form the basic **accent phrases** (APs) in this sentence. In\nnormal pronunciation, each accent phrase is pronounced together as a group. In\nStandard Japanese (based on a Tōkyō accent), each accent phrase contains at\nmost one large, rapid drop in pitch called a **pitch accent**.\n\nFor example:\n\n> [まだ]{HL} \n> ma↓da\n\nThis word is pronounced with a drop in pitch about halfway through. We say\nthat the ま{ma} is \"accented\" because the pitch drops sharply afterwards.\n\nThis is the sort of thing you want to listen for. When you learn the word\n[まだ]{HL}, you can't just memorize the consonants and vowels. You've got to\nmemorize the drop in pitch, too! That's just part of learning the Japanese\nlanguage.\n\nThat doesn't mean you've got to sit down with a book and start writing down\nwhere the pitch accent is in every word. What it means is this: **Listen to\nhow native speakers of Japanese say words, and try to talk like them.** We\nnaturally learn by **imitation**. You'll come to absorb the fact that [まだ]{HL}\nhas a pitch drop in the middle, and that'll help you recognize the word when\nother people say it.\n\nAnd yes, that means you're going to have to practice listening and speaking!\nYou can't learn to use the spoken language entirely by reading :-)\n\n* * *\n\nLet's take another look at our example sentence:\n\n```\n\n まだ 学校へ 行くには 早い 時間です。 \n ma↓da gakkō=e iku↓ni=wa haya↓i zikan=de↓su\n \n```\n\nThere are three main pitch drops to listen for:\n\n 1. ma↓da\n 2. iku↓ni=wa\n 3. haya↓i\n\nAnd of course, in order for these drops to occur, pitch has to rise at some\npoint, so you'll notice this sentence naturally goes up and down like a\nrollercoaster. This is what you want to listen for; these groupings help you\nidentify the parts of a sentence.\n\nIn natural pronunciation, sometimes these phrases are run together into larger\ngroups. If all five of the accent phrases were really pronounced separately\nlike I wrote above, we might expect this:\n\n> [まだ]{HL} [学校へ]{LHH} [行くには]{LHLL} [はやい]{LHL} [時間です]{LHHL}。\n\nYou'll notice that I've written a fourth pitch drop here in [です]{HL}. But in\nterms of actual _phonetics_ , you might not hear a pitch drop at all! Why not?\nWell, you wrote \"des\", right? Like the vowel /u/ was entirely missing from\n[です]{HL}. And if the vowel is missing, it can't carry a pitch!\n\nSo if it's pronounced that way, you won't be able to listen for a fourth pitch\ndrop. And without a pitch _drop_ , the pitch may never go _up_ in the first\nplace, which means the entire thing could be pronounced with a low, flat\npitch! But you _will_ be able to listen for what you've written as \"jikan\ndes\". That's what the [時間です]{LHHL} notation represents, even if the physical\npitch is flat.\n\nBut since I'm concentrating on the _physical_ pitch you need to listen for,\nand not so much on the theory, I'm going to cheat here and write [時間で]{LLL}す.\nSo let's do that, keeping in mind that it's cheating a little bit :-)\n\n> [まだ]{HL} [学校へ]{LHH} [行くには]{LHLL} [はやい]{LHL} [時間で]{LLL}す。\n\nI think this is starting to look accurate. In natural speech, though, I think\nit might be grouped together like this:\n\n> [まだ]{HL} [学校へ行くには]{LHHHHLL} [はやい]{LHL} [時間で]{LLL}す。\n\nAfter all, it's not really necessary for the pitch to be low at the beginning\nof 行く. What's necessary is for the pitch to be high before it drops, and it's\nalready high at the end of 学校へ, so the phrases sort of naturally run together.\n\nThere's also a phenomenon called **delayed pitch fall** , which most people\ndon't really notice, but you might as a learner, so I'm mentioning it here.\nFor example, if the pitch fall is delayed in 早い, it might actually sound more\nlike this to you:\n\n> [まだ]{HL} [学校へ行くには]{LHHHHLL} [はやい]{LHH} [時間で]{LLL}す。\n\nOnce you can hear these groupings and where the pitch accents fall, you'll\nhave an easier time identifying lexical words and the particles and\nauxiliaries that attach to them.\n\nOf course, in real life pitch moves smoothly up and down; people don't\npronounce language by singing two different notes! That would be silly :-) So\nit might be something more like this:\n\n\n\n* * *\n\nLet's see what we can learn from your transcription.\n\nYou identified the first word as まだが. Listening for pitch tells us that can't\nbe the case! The が must be part of the next word. Over time you'll also come\nto know that [まだ]{HL} is a word but [まだが]{HLL} isn't, and that knowledge will\nhelp you too.\n\nYou also wrote this:\n\n> In 学校 the individual readings がく＋こう get contracted to がっこう. (Is there indeed\n> a rule behind this? I heard the short pause in gakkou as a word boundary.)\n\nSure, there's a rule predicting it. The rules are too complicated to describe\nhere; feel free to ask them separately or look them up for yourself in\nLaurence Labrune's _The Phonology of Japanese_ (2012).\n\nBut there's not much point in describing those rules here anyway. You need to\nknow that this is a **word** , and that it's pronounced /gakkoo/. It\n**cannot** be pronounced /gakukoo/. If you don't have this memorized, you\nwon't be able to recognize it in speech; it doesn't matter whether or not you\nknow the rules mentioned above.\n\nBy the way, I wrote /oo/ at the end because, even though the last kana is う,\nit's pronounced like お. You wrote \"ou\", but there is no /ou/ in this word,\neven though that's how it's spelled in kana. And I didn't write a ↓, because\nthere's no pitch drop in this word for you to memorize. So it's actually\npronounced like this:\n\n> 学校 = [ガッコー]{LHHH}\n\nIn short, to recognize words like this, you have to have this knowledge\ninternalized. You can't _think_ about 学 and 校 combining at this point, because\nthe speaker will be done with the sentence before you figure it out. If you're\ngoing to recognize words, you have to _know_ them. And that just means\npractice.\n\n* * *\n\nThe last thing you'll want to listen for in identifying words is **devoiced\nvowels**. This is another big topic, and I can't describe it in detail here,\nbut you'll want to read about them and pay attention in your listening\npractice. In your example, the only devoiced vowel is in [です]{HL}, which we\ndiscussed above.\n\n* * *\n\nSadly, there's no easy answer to your question. You're just going to have to\nlearn to pay attention to all of these details. But don't worry! The more you\npractice, the easier it'll get :-)",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-18T22:11:44.017",
"id": "24391",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-19T04:06:26.877",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-19T04:06:26.877",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24390",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 27
},
{
"body": "snailboat has already provided an excellent response, but I'd like to share an\nonline resource that's pretty useful when trying to figure out the pitch\naccents of any given text.\n\nJust stick your Japanese text into [Prosody Tutor Suzuki-\nkun](http://www.gavo.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ojad/eng/phrasing/index), tweak the\nsettings as you see fit, hit \"analyze\", and you'll see a rather accurate pitch\nanalysis of the input text.\n\nAfter analyzing the text, you can even generate an accented voice clip to\nlisten to. You can also tweak the gender and speed of the speaker, but you'll\nhave to hit \"generate\" to apply any new settings.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-19T04:21:26.153",
"id": "24393",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-19T04:21:26.153",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10068",
"parent_id": "24390",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24390 | null | 24391 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've seen some people in Japanese writing the emoticon \"orlF\". For example:\n\n> というシチュであったかもしれない **orlF** のストーリーという感じです\n\nAnd I really want to know what it means... xDD. Please help~ ^^'",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-19T02:15:17.947",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24392",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-19T20:17:56.307",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-19T03:52:43.253",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10127",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"slang"
],
"title": "What does orIF mean in the middle of this Japanese sentence?",
"view_count": 328
} | [
{
"body": "broccoli forest pretty much answered it in the comments. The sentence example\nprovided also is fairly self explanatory. It's \"or\" and \"if\" not separated by\na space (and for some reason the \"I\" is a lower case \"L\"). The \"or\" really\ndoesn't need to be there.\n\n\"If\" by it itself is a common term used in parody short story writing, though\nI think it's still slang). It means in English \"alternate universe\", \"parallel\nuniverse\", \"What-if world\". \"If\" stories can include the introduction of new\ncharacters, different events occurring, characters surviving where they\noriginally died, and characters swapping genders.\n\nSometimes the Japanese equivalent 「もしも」 is used. Also, it's commonly attached\nto other words to indicate it's referring to an alternate universe as opposed\nto the original story: IFストーリー、IFの世界, etc.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-19T20:17:56.307",
"id": "24398",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-19T20:17:56.307",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9508",
"parent_id": "24392",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24392 | null | 24398 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I learnt that it means dialect. During a presentation at university, someone\nasked a question about whether my topic was possibly influenced by a\nmisunderstanding of the word \"hougen\" i.e. that it could also mean regional\nvariation, or something else. He even said that Korean had been called a\nhougen.\n\nHow accurate is this?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-19T09:40:09.297",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24394",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-25T08:01:20.083",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7953",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What is the denotation of 方言？",
"view_count": 437
} | [
{
"body": "While you're right that 方言 means dialect, such as 東京方言, it's used slightly\ndifferently in connotation in Japanese. You do get expressions referring to it\nby dialect (ie regional grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation to a language),\nas pointed out, it can also be used to refer to languages that have split from\na common ancestor.\n\nKotobank, as cited by Earthling above, states:\n\n>\n> 中国の非常に違ったことばが中国語としてまとめられ、ラテン語から分かれたスペイン語・ポルトガル語などが別の言語とされるのは、むしろ言語以外の、政治や文化が基準になっている。この意味で、日本語に関して微妙な位置にあるのが琉球{りゅうきゅう}地方の方言である。かつて奄美{あまみ}・沖縄諸島に琉球王国が成立し、その首都首里のことばが文字に記され、全土に通じた時代には、「琉球語」としての地位をもっていたとみなしうる。\n\nTo summarize, it leaves the determination of a \"dialect\" as very much\npolitical, as in the example of Chinese, which is internally viewed as having\nmany dialects, some of which aren't even mutually intelligible, but all share\na writing system and political nation. Equally Okinawan holds similar status\nin Japan; it's not mutually intelligible, but often seen as a dialect of\nJapanese because they have common ancestry, and are still politically united.\nThe same loose definitions exist in English, too (and _for_ it, but that's a\ndifferent topic).\n\nIn the case of Korean, some people argue that they share a common ancestral\nlanguage (see\n[here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_Japonic_languages#Korean_hypothesis)\nfor more) . Maybe calling it 方言 is a stretch, but not _entirely_ alien to some\ndefinitions of 方言, which are already quite loose, and very political.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-19T11:21:47.340",
"id": "24395",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-19T14:11:26.107",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-19T14:11:26.107",
"last_editor_user_id": "9185",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24394",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "@Sqrtbottle, @snailboat Victor Mair has pointed out on numerous occasions how\ncritically he views the current usage of the term 方言 in current Chinese and\nJapanese contexts, see for example\n<http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=6654>,\n<http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=10303>,\n<http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=15006>.\n\nThe point is that 方言 used to mean what he translates as 'topolect', a.k.a.\n'regiolect', IOW \"a language spoken in some place (other than here)\". As such,\nthe more classical use of 方言 is simply \"a form of expression we need an\nexplanation or even a translator for\"; it is a very non-committal term.\n\nIn fact, what we call languages now have been historically sometimes been\nreferred to as 方言, and this term also appears in the name of the office of\ntranslations of former Chinese dynasties.\n\nBy contrast, the modern idea of both the term 'dialect' and 方言 carry strong\novertones of \"a mere variant of the real thing\", and this is (rightfully) what\npeople from Hong Kong and Shanghai get P-offed by when the central government\ntries and suppresses the use of local idioms. It does so with the argument\nthat these forms of expressions are not 'languages', they are merely 'variants\nof the one language', the implication being that they're faulty variants and\ntherefore to be avoided and corrected.\n\nTo an extent, this may also be true for the situation in Japan. I cringe a bit\nwhen I read \"Okinawan holds similar status in Japan; it's not mutually\nintelligible, but often seen as a dialect of Japanese because they have common\nancestry, and are still politically united\". First of all, which 'still' is\nthis, the assertive one ('i still did it'—though it was frowned upon) or the\ntemporal one ('i still did it'—when they saw me)? In case it's the latter:\nOkinawa is a very recent addition to the Japanese Empire (dating from the late\n19th c,; [read more on Tofugu](http://www.tofugu.com/2013/09/26/the-forgotten-\ndynasty-of-the-ryukyu-islands/)).\n\nAsserting that two forms of speech are \"not mutually intelligible\" _and_ \"are\nviewed as dialects\" at the same time flies flat in the face of everything that\n'dialect' wants to be as a term. The whole idea of 'dialect' in modern\nunderstanding is that \"well they may sound peculiar but i can still talk to\nthem\". If it were to mean \"i can't talk to them but we're of same origin so\ntheirs is just a variant of my speech and X thousand years ago we would've\nsounded the same\", well then, ultimately, all the languages of Europe,\n_including_ Basque, are mere 'dialects' of each other, for it is thought that\n_all_ languages derive from a single ancestor.\n\nThe whole idea of two languages having a common ancestor is also often\nsomewhat overrated, as is the so-called 'genetic' ancestry of language.\nLanguages mix and mingle quite freely, and Mandarin Chinese in particular is a\nlanguage well known for having resulted from a melting pot of different\npeoples with different tongues.\n\nWhat looks like a monolithic Japanese language is, likewise, the result of the\ncoming together of a number of influences from different directions, not least\nbecause Japanese has taken over so many Chinese forms of expression and\nincorporated them so inextricably deep in the language proper. Sure you say\n\"those are but loanwords!\" but the fact is you don't say \"ume (the plum) is\nnot Japanese!\" or \"fude (the brush) is not Japanese\" but you (like the\nJapanese themselves) only don't do that because you're not _aware_ they're\nprobably very old loans from Chinese. In other words, to some degree it so\nhappens that something that we _can_ trace the origin of we call a foreign\ninfluence, and something that we can not link to something somewhere else we\ncall native. Tells you a lot about what we know, and sometimes little about\nthe language at hand.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T09:53:20.787",
"id": "24407",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T09:53:20.787",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7301",
"parent_id": "24394",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24394 | null | 24395 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24397",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm going back over my notes from Japanese For Busy People. I no longer have\nthe books but I wrote out many of the examples. What I have not always done is\nwrite down my teacher's explanations. Hopefully I can get an answer here.\n\nIn these two examples we see けっこう and いい used. I remember using けっこう for\nsaying one does not want any more tea (いいえ、もう けっこう です) but I don't know if it\nis the same usage here. More commonly I use もう いい です. So seeing けっこう here has\nconfused me.\n\nCould somebody explain the difference between these two examples please?\n\n> 今 ペンが ありません。 えんぴつで も いい です か。 \n> はい、えんぴつで も けっこう です。\n>\n> 今 現金が ありません。 カードで も いい です か。 \n> はい、 カードで も いい です。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-19T13:29:44.887",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24396",
"last_activity_date": "2022-04-26T22:42:27.007",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4071",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Difference between もう いい です and もう けっこう です",
"view_count": 2199
} | [
{
"body": "We are talking about two different (though related) shades of meaning of\n「けっこう」 here.\n\n> \"no longer in need of ~~\"\n\n「もう **けっこう** です。」 means \"I want no more ~~.\"\n\n「もう **いい** です。」 has at least two meanings. One is the same as 「もうけっこうです。」, but\nit is less formal than 「もうけっこうです。」. The other meaning is \"(Something) is ready\nto (or 'to be') ~~.\"\n\n> \"sufficient\", \"satisfactory\", etc.\n\n「えんぴつでも **けっこう** です。」 = \"A pencil will suffice (if you have no pen).\"\n\n「カードでも **いい** です。」 = \"A credit card would be no problem (if you do not have\ncash.)\" A store clerk would generally speak more formally than that and would\nsay 「カードでも **けっこう** です。」",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-19T14:07:04.290",
"id": "24397",
"last_activity_date": "2022-04-26T22:42:27.007",
"last_edit_date": "2022-04-26T22:42:27.007",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24396",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24396 | 24397 | 24397 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24401",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What does 許しを乞い mean? And especially what's the role of 乞い here? The full\nphrase is: まさか、また許しを乞いに参ったのではありますまいな！？",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T00:29:22.580",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24400",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T01:33:54.140",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9976",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What does 許しを乞い mean?",
"view_count": 144
} | [
{
"body": "「[乞]{こ}い」 is the [連用形]{れんようけい} (continuative form) of the verb 「乞う」. It has\nabsolutely nothing to do with \"carp\" the fish. 「乞い」 is a verb and it needs to\nbe in that conjugation form in order to connect with the following word\n(another verb) 「[参]{まい}った」.\n\n「[許]{ゆる}しを乞う」 is a set phrase meaning \"to beg forgiveness\".\n\nThe 「に」 here means \"in order to\".\n\n**_\"Surely, you didn't come here to beg forgiveness again, did you?\"_**",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T01:33:54.140",
"id": "24401",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T01:33:54.140",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24400",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 24400 | 24401 | 24401 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24414",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Part of war propaganda is to assign a nickname to the enemy so as to\ndehumanize them. The USA has done this for decades in the wars in Southeast\nAsia, Vietnam, the Middle East, Central America, etc.\n\nDid the Japanese soldiers refer to Western soldiers as \"鬼畜米兵\"? \nDid the civilian population also refer to Western soldiers as \"鬼畜米兵\"?\n\nWas there a slang term used by Japanese soldiers to refer to soldiers from\nAsian countries in WW2?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T02:59:15.747",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24402",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T16:45:30.260",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9509",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"slang"
],
"title": "Were western soldiers called \"鬼畜{きちく}米兵{べいへい}\" in WW2?",
"view_count": 368
} | [
{
"body": "鬼畜米英 is somewhat famous even today as a slogan, and this is what most of\nJapanese people learn in history classes at school. But this phrase is\nobviously too long for everyday use, and there seems to be little evidence\nthat this was widely used in speech during the war.\n\nOther shorter derogatory nicknames I know include\n[アメ公【こう】](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%A1%E5%85%AC) and\n米鬼【べいき】. In particular, I've heard アメ公 used often in war-films (which were\ncreated long after the war), but I admit I have no idea how often these were\nactually used by Japanese people in those days.\n\nWikipedia has the [list of derogatory\nnicknames](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B7%AE%E5%88%A5%E7%94%A8%E8%AA%9E#.E6.97.A5.E6.9C.AC.E8.AA.9E.E3.81.A7.E5.90.84.E5.9B.BD.E4.BA.BA.E3.82.92.E5.B7.AE.E5.88.A5.E3.83.BB.E4.BE.AE.E8.94.91.E3.81.99.E3.82.8B.E3.81.9F.E3.82.81.E3.81.AE.E7.94.A8.E8.AA.9E)\nreferring to people in various countries. I'm not familiar with some of these,\nthough.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T16:45:30.260",
"id": "24414",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T16:45:30.260",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24402",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24402 | 24414 | 24414 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I was re-reading my Genki text the other day regarding intransitive verbs and\nている and it stated that when intransitive verbs take the ている form they\nexclusively refer to the state resulting from the change, i.e.\n\n> 窓が開いている。 \n> The window's open.\n>\n> お湯が沸いている。 \n> The water boiled.\n\nHowever, with certain phrases such as 雨が降っている can the meaning be both 「It's\nraining/It has rained」 ? Which interpretation would be more appropriate 「It's\nraining」 or 「It has rained」? I would interpret it as 「It has rained」.\n\nIs it a set in stone rule that all intransitive verbs take the result of\nchange form rather than the \"-ing/progressive form\" or is this just loose rule\ngenki introduced with exceptions?",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T04:06:25.993",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24403",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-14T14:30:12.267",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4385",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"conjugations",
"て-form",
"transitivity",
"aspect"
],
"title": "Intransitive verbs and ている",
"view_count": 1812
} | [
{
"body": "「ている」 means both state of object and continuous action. But also it has past\nform 「ていた」, so 雨が降っている would rather translate as「It's raining」and 雨が降っていた\nas「It has rained」or「It rained」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-31T10:41:21.280",
"id": "24670",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-31T10:41:21.280",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10225",
"parent_id": "24403",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "**Short answer** : Yes, it's a loose rule of thumb with many exceptions.\nPersonally, I wouldn't even bother with memorizing that rule; it seems more\ntrouble than it's worth.\n\n**Long answer** :\n\nVerbs in the _-te iru_ form have three possible basic meanings. I'll paste\nthis from [another\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3262/does-v%e3%81%a6%e3%81%84%e3%82%8b-always-\nmean-an-action-already-completed/3288#3288):\n\n 1. Progressive (=\"continuative\", \"durative\"): 学校を通っている → I am passing the school right now (but haven’t passed it yet);\n 2. Resultative (the action is over, and we're talking about the resulting state): 学校を通っている → I have passed the school (already);\n 3. Repetitive/habitual: 学校を通っている → I usually pass through the school; I’m passing the school these days.\n\nFor the purposes of this question, let's set aside the habitual and\nconcentrate on the other two. How can you tell whether a _-te iru_ verb has a\nprogressive meaning, or a resultative one?\n\nIn the general case, you can't. You'll have to depend on context for that.\nIt's not rare for the context to be insufficient, and then, well, that's how\nit is. Just keep the possibilities in mind and expose yourself to natural\nJapanese materials; in time, one gets used to the normal patterns of usage,\nunconsciously, without having to painstakingly memorize every single case.\n\nStill, let's look closely into how it works (though, again, I don't recommend\nmaking flashcards out of this or anything). A few verbs have semantic\nrestrictions, preferring one meaning or the other. For example, non-Japanese\nspeakers intuitively think 来ている must be _\"he's coming; she's on her way\nhere\"_. However, it turns out that the action of 来る in Japanese refers\nexclusively to _the point in time_ where they arrive, so that 来ている always\nmeans \"she has come; they're already here\" ⁽ᵇᵘᵗ ˢᵉᵉ ᵇᵉˡᵒʷ⁾. Verbs like this\nare called **punctual verbs** ; they're conceived as instantaneous, and never\nhave the progressive meaning. Verbs that can have a duration are called\n**durative**.\n\n降る is durative, so 降っている theoretically could have both meanings (Martin, pp.\n454–455, fn. 56). However, in practice I don't think I've ever seen it used\nfor _\"it has rained (so be careful, the floor's still wet)\"_. I always see it\nused in the sense of _\"it's raining (so take an umbrella with you)\"_. Judging\nfrom a few minutes browsing on Twitter and from the comments to your question,\nI think that's how natives use it these days. Perhaps 雪が降っている could have\nbetter luck in being used as a resultative, since people are more likely to\nwant to talk about \"the state of having snowed\"; but I found it hard to find\nunambiguous examples. Perhaps @Margarita Spasskaya is right in that, in these\ncontexts, they'd prefer 降っていた as less ambiguous (though note that's not a true\nresultative; it doesn't say _\"out there is now in the state of having rained\"_\n, it says literally _\"earlier today it was raining\"_ ). Long story short, if\nyou see 降っている, assume it's progressive. A few other durative verbs are like\nthat, used mostly for the progressive sense only; for example, 泣いている is, I\nthink, normally used for _\"is crying\"_ and not _\"has cried\"_.\n\nNow, it's true that durative verbs are often transitive, and punctual verbs\nare often intransitive. There's also a relationship between punctuality and\nintentionality; punctual verbs are usually intransitive and involuntary (it's\nhard to \"try doing\", _-te miru_ , them), while durative verbs are usually\ntransitive and voluntary. These associations and tendencies are interesting\nfor semanticists and lexicographers, but they're not very useful for the\nlearner, because there are too many important exceptions in all directions.\n\nHere are a few verbs that are intransitive and punctual (that is, they follow\nthe Genki rule):\n来る、行く、入る、出る、上がる、下がる、死ぬ、届く、離れる、出発する、到着する、決まる、見つかる、止まる、治る、（雨が）止む、残る、尽きる、住む、座る、結婚する…\n\nBut the following are intransitive and durative (like 降る):\n働く、滑る、泣く、及ぶ、（花が）散る、揺れる、燃える…\n\nDid that make sense so far? I hope it did, because now it gets worse: when we\nlook more deeply into usage patterns, we find that even verbs traditionally\ndescribed as punctual do actually see durative uses. For example, 死んでいる is\npunctual, that is, it always means _\"[is already\ndead](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/you-are-already-\ndead-%E3%81%8A%E5%89%8D%E3%81%AF%E3%82%82%E3%81%86%E6%AD%BB%E3%82%93%E3%81%A7%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B-omae-\nwa-mou-shindeiru)\"_ and never _\"is dying\"_ ; except if the subject is\ncollective, like populations or forests, in which case _\"are dying\"_ becomes a\npossibility. 先生が来ている normally means _\"the teacher is already here\"_ ; but\n先生が来ているところ means _\"(just at) the point when a teacher **is coming** \"_.\n\nIf things are so complex, why did Genki propose that rule at all? I think it's\nmeant as an aid to deal with counter-intuitive movement verbs like 来る, where\nthe primary and most frequent meaning is the one that a student wouldn't\nexpect. However, the rule will inevitably backfire later. I'd rather recommend\nkeeping the following in mind:\n\n * The _-te iru_ form can have one of three meanings: a) that the action is ongoing, b) that the action is finished but the results are ongoing, or c) that the action is recurring or habitual.\n * Some verbs prefer one meaning or the other, but the details are hard to pin down; keep an open mind and think of which one makes sense in-context.\n * In particular, a few frequent intransitive verbs of movement are different from English in that they're usually about a completed action: 来る、行く、入る、出る、上がる、下がる…\n\nSource: Martin's _A Reference Grammar of Japanese_ , pp. 454–455 fn. 56; pp.\n257–. Thanks to everyone who posted in the question so far.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-14T14:21:43.150",
"id": "50369",
"last_activity_date": "2017-07-14T14:30:12.267",
"last_edit_date": "2017-07-14T14:30:12.267",
"last_editor_user_id": "622",
"owner_user_id": "622",
"parent_id": "24403",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 24403 | null | 50369 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24406",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I don't know what the direct translation of ゆっくりする in English is. Do you know?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T07:36:36.760",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24405",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T18:26:36.913",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9896",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "What is the direct translation of ゆっくりする in English?",
"view_count": 9152
} | [
{
"body": "ゆっくり can be translated as \"slowly\" or \"without rushing\", according to\n[jisho.org](http://jisho.org/word/%E3%82%86%E3%81%A3%E3%81%8F%E3%82%8A):\n\n> ### ゆっくり\n>\n> 1. slowly; at ease; restful (Onomatopoeic or mimetic word)\n>\n\n...and\n[Wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%82%86%E3%81%A3%E3%81%8F%E3%82%8A):\n\n> ### ゆっくり (romaji yukkuri)\n>\n> 1. slowly; at ease, without rushing, restfully\n>\n\nIf you're familiar with the \"Yukkuri\" internet meme, you've probably also seen\nit translated as [\"Take it easy\"](http://yukkuri.wikia.com/wiki/Take_it_easy):\n\n> ### Take it easy\n>\n> “Take it easy” is the Alpha and Omega of Yukkuri speech, the spoken\n> embodiement of all what a Yukkuri strives for in life. It's also somewhat an\n> untranslatable pun about the \"Yukkuri\" word, that's japanese both for\n> \"Taking it easy\", both for \"Taking it slowly\", thus cementing the idea of\n> Yukkuris as lazy creatures who like to enjoy a slowpaced, easy life.\n\nThe [する](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B) suffix is a verb\nmeaning \"to do (something)\". The [Pocket Kenkyusha Japanese\nDictionary](https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=!ISBN+978-0-19-860748-9) explains\nthat it can be used to turn the adverb ゆっくり into an intransitive verb:\n\n> **yu「kku」ri** ゆっくり _adv._ (~ to)\n>\n> **1** slowly; without hurry; leisurely.\n>\n> ...\n>\n> **yukkuri suru** (~する) _vi._ take one's time; stay long.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T07:57:52.863",
"id": "24406",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T18:26:36.913",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-20T18:26:36.913",
"last_editor_user_id": "9212",
"owner_user_id": "9212",
"parent_id": "24405",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 24405 | 24406 | 24406 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24411",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "A translation question for ya :) I'm in need of the word for \"form\". In this\ncase it is a form on a webpage a user fills out to answer survey questions\n(\"how did you think you did? did you enjoy it?\"). We have a form generator -\nwe can make many forms like these to present to the user. But I am unsure as\nto which word to use.\n\nMy candidates are: フォーム (easy!)\n\n態 e.g. 事業態\n\n書類 (document)\n\nWhich is correct for this scenario?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T15:26:00.693",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24409",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T15:39:35.083",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4071",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Translation - \"form\" (internet form you fill out, NOT an application)",
"view_count": 117
} | [
{
"body": "It sounds like you're describing an アンケート. This is from French _enquête_ , and\nI think it's usually translated into English as 'questionnaire' or 'survey'.\n\nIf you mean a technical term for the actual HTML `<form>` element, then I\nthink that would just be フォーム like you said.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T15:39:35.083",
"id": "24411",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T15:39:35.083",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24409",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 24409 | 24411 | 24411 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24412",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am used to seeing 名前 on application forms. But can 名前 be used on a form\nwhere the name of an inanimate object is required?\n\nFor example an application form that asks for the name of... your boat. 名前：\nThe River Explorer\n\nor the name of some software on a purchase order. 名前：Photoshop X\n\nOr would one use another word?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T15:37:05.183",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24410",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T15:51:24.503",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4071",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "名前 - used for the name of something?",
"view_count": 821
} | [
{
"body": "While 名前 is the generic term for _name_ , for inanimate objects, 名称【めいしょう】 is\nthe word that sounds more formal and technical. For example you can say\n船舶【せんぱく】の名称 or ソフトウェアの名称.\n\nLikewise, for names for people, 氏名【しめい】 is preferred on official application\nforms, etc.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T15:51:24.503",
"id": "24412",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T15:51:24.503",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24410",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24410 | 24412 | 24412 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24415",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I just finished an introductory Japanese class, and the class bought a small\ngift for the professor. I'm planning to drop the gift off at the professor's\noffice, so I need to write a brief tag saying who it's from: \"Thank you from\nthe whole class.\" Is something as simple as:\n\nありがとうございます!\n\n---[class name] のみな\n\ncorrect and appropriate for the situation?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T16:28:33.790",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24413",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-30T15:21:31.187",
"last_edit_date": "2015-06-30T15:21:31.187",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "7701",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"politeness",
"culture",
"written-language"
],
"title": "Thank you note to Japanese professor",
"view_count": 8865
} | [
{
"body": "How about:\n\n> [一年間]{いちねんかん}/[半年間]{はんとしかん}/[三ヶ月間]{さんかげつかん}etc.* お世話になり、ありがとうございました。 \n> (class name)[一同]{いちどう} or (class name)一同より\n\n*一年間=for a year, 半年間=for half a year, 三ヶ月間=for three months",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T16:49:58.140",
"id": "24415",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T16:49:58.140",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24413",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 24413 | 24415 | 24415 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> 王様のベッドで寝ちゃおっと\n\nI've heard that this phrase is spoken in a child-like way. The full\ntranslation is \"let's sleep in the king's bed\", and the portion that is child-\nlike would be 寝ちゃおっと (let's sleep). This 寝ちゃおっと cannot be translated very\neasily so could someone explain the nuance of this phrase?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T19:08:48.173",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24416",
"last_activity_date": "2021-11-19T22:22:33.013",
"last_edit_date": "2021-11-19T22:22:33.013",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "10137",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"nuances"
],
"title": "「ちゃおっと」 Childish manner of speaking?",
"view_count": 549
} | [
{
"body": "The phrase may be spoken in a child-like way and may have child-like\nintentions, but I wouldn't call it child-like per se.\n\nThe basic form `〜しちゃう` (as opposed to `〜する`) simply connotes tentativeness or\ndisregard for consequences, similar to how you would say “go ahead and do”\ninstead of just “do”.\n\nThis can range from a subtle uncertainty (映画見ちゃう “I'll go ahead and watch a\nmovie”), to mischief (このクッキーとっちゃう “I'll go ahead and take this cookie”), to\nfull-blown recklessness (酔ってるけど運転しちゃう “I'm drunk but I'll go ahead and\ndrive”).\n\nChanging the `〜しちゃう` to `〜しちゃおう` removes you one degree from the decision,\nperhaps revealing your hope of diffusing responsibility for the action. This\nis similar to how you would say “Let’s go ahead and…” instead of “I'll go\nahead and…”, when there is no **us** and you are the only one going ahead.\n\nBumping it up to `〜しちゃおうっと` or `〜しちゃおっと` shifts the nuance from subtle\nuncertainty to more mischief/recklessness.\n\n(Side note: Although `〜しちゃおう` is first-person plural and can be used to prod\nboth **me** and **us** , adding a `〜っと` at the end restricts the use to a\nsingular context. `〜しちゃおうっと` is never used to prod an actual group of people —\nonly **me**.)\n\nSo, if I were to offer a wordier translation just for the purpose of conveying\nthe statement's intent:\n\n> 王様のベッドで寝ちゃおっと\n>\n> Why don't I go ahead and sleep in the king's bed",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-09-13T14:28:31.230",
"id": "27980",
"last_activity_date": "2015-09-13T14:28:31.230",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "888",
"parent_id": "24416",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 24416 | null | 27980 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24420",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What would the word for empress (other than of Japan) be? Please give me the\nword for a ruling empress.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T21:21:45.997",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24419",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T23:16:15.787",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words",
"gender"
],
"title": "Can a 皇帝 be female?",
"view_count": 167
} | [
{
"body": "It's [[女帝]{じょてい}](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A5%B3%E5%B8%9D).\n\n皇帝 is also used for an empress, e.g.:\n[アンナ(ロシア皇帝)](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%8A_%28%E3%83%AD%E3%82%B7%E3%82%A2%E7%9A%87%E5%B8%9D%29)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T22:59:56.197",
"id": "24420",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-20T23:16:15.787",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-20T23:16:15.787",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24419",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 24419 | 24420 | 24420 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24425",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "So I was signing up for an account at a website, and I came across this line:\n\n> 写真があった方があなたがどんな人なのかわかるし、フレンドも作りやすくなります。\n\nI have never come across a sentence with 3 が's in it, much less one with 3 of\nthem placed consecutively like that. How do you even make heads or tails of\nthis!?\n\nBy the second が, the sentence had already lost me... If が marks the subject of\na sentence, what on earth is going on in this sentence?\n\n**Questions:**\n\n * How would you parse this sentence?\n * Is there a less confusing / better way of phrasing it?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T23:25:19.563",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24421",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T02:00:13.733",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-20T23:40:11.787",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10068",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"meaning",
"particle-が",
"subordinate-clauses"
],
"title": "Parsing and making sense of this sentence with multiple が's",
"view_count": 252
} | [
{
"body": "Actually, there is no definite way of \"parsing\" a sentence, i.e.\ndistinguishing the components : it depends on the context. See for example\n[this](http://togetter.com/li/567493) very funny twitter thread about the\nsentence, where native speakers try to find all possible interpretations :\n\n> 頭{あたま}が赤｛あか｝い魚｛さかな｝を食｛た｝べた猫｛ねこ｝\n\nHowever, it should be obvious that in a given context, only one sentence is\nacceptable. In your example, the first thing to notice is that 「写真があった」 is a\nproposition that modifies the noun following it, i.e. 方.\n\n> People who have a (profile) picture.\n\nThe next が shows that 方 is in turn subject of the next clause. The next verb\nbeing わかる, we need to find the function of 「あなたがどんな人なのか」. Well, this would be\nthe object of わかる. It is an indirect or [embedded\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/13034/usage-\nof-%E3%81%8B-after-a-clause/13038#13038) : meaning that people will understand\nthe answer to the question 「あなたがどんあひとなの」.\n\nThis sentence ends with 「し」, here showing a reason among others. Thus :\n\n> One reason that it becomes easy to make friends 「フレンドを作りやすくなります」, is that\n> people can understand what kind of person you are if you have a profile\n> picture.\n\nThis is obviously subject to interpretation, and we lack context but in this\ncase, I do not see any other way of splitting the sentence in parts that make\nsense.\n\n> 「写真があった方」が「あなたがどんな人なのか」わかるし、フレンドも作りやすくなります。\n\nMy guess would be that people who see your profile picture would get a better\nunderstanding as of who you are !\n\nAnd no, I do not see another \"less confusing\" way of writing this sentence. It\nis true that it contains nested propositions, but this is very common in\nJapanese.",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T01:29:31.707",
"id": "24423",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T01:57:28.087",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3614",
"parent_id": "24421",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> 「[写真]{しゃしん}があった[方]{ほう}があなたがどんな[人]{ひと}なのかわかるし、フレンドも[作]{つく}りやすくなります。」\n\nis a perfectly normal sentence with a fairly simple sentence structure.\n\n> It says \"Condition A will bring Result #1 and Result #2\".\n\nCondition A:「写真があった方が」\n\nResult #1:「あなたがどんな人なのかわかる」\n\nResult #2:「フレンドも作りやすくなる。」\n\nIn 「写真があった方が」, 「方」 is used to compare (implicitly) two situations.\n\nSituation 1: 「写真が **ある** 」\n\nSituation 2: 「写真が **ない** 」\n\nIt is saying that Situation 1 is \"better\", \"recommended more\", etc. (than\nSituation 2). = **_\"If there existed a photo, ~~\" ⇒ \"If you pasted a photo,\n~~\"_**\n\n「あなたがどんな人なのかわかる」 = **_\"(Others) will get to know you (better).\"_**\n\n「フレンドも作りやすくなる。」 = **_\"It will be easier (for you) to make friends.\"_**\n\n> Is there a less confusing / better way of phrasing it?\n\nAs I stated at the beginning, the sentence is very simple and it could not be\nmade any simpler. It is already \"good\", too.\n\nThe kind of sentence that you would better understand (even though I have no\nidea what it would be like) would probably not be a very natural sentence for\nthe native speakers.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T02:00:13.733",
"id": "24425",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T02:00:13.733",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24421",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24421 | 24425 | 24425 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24424",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "季節 is composed of two kanji, き and せつ, however, both of them mean 'season'\nwhen translated to English. Though I'm aware that 季 originally referred to the\nseasons of the year and 節 was initially used to refer to segments of bamboo,\nboth kanji have taken the meaning of 'season'. As near as I can tell, 季節 is\nthe common word to refer to autumn, winter, summer, and spring, but 季 is still\nin use. Would anyone be able to clear up the appropriate usage of 季 versus 季節?\nIs there a distinction in connotation between the two? Is 季 used on its own,\nor merely as a component in combination kanji?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-20T23:40:17.863",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24422",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T01:56:46.997",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10099",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"usage",
"connotation"
],
"title": "Usage distinction between 季節 and 季",
"view_count": 210
} | [
{
"body": "Although 季【き】 and 節【せつ】 both can mean 'season' within various compounds, they\nare not used on their own to mean 'season' at least in modern Japanese. You\nalways have to say 季節.\n\nMany Japanese compounds are made of two kanji with similar meanings: 危険\n(danger + danger), 豊富 (plenty + plenty), 永久 (eternity + eternity), and so on.\nIn most cases, you cannot just pick one of these kanji individually and use it\nas a meaningful word in conversations.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T01:56:46.997",
"id": "24424",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T01:56:46.997",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24422",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 24422 | 24424 | 24424 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24445",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "ほうがいい means:\n\nthe particular way \"ほう\" is \"が\" good \"いい\"\n\nSo, for example, if it looks like it's going to rain, I might say to a friend:\n\n\"今日は雨らしい。傘を持った方がいい。\"\n\nBut what I'm curious is, why is \"持った\" past tense? It feels like it means, it\nWOULD'VE BEEN good to carry an umbrella, so it feels quite inappropriate\ntense-wise. I ask this question because there's no distinction between future\nand present tense in Japanese. For example,\n\n\"明日来る人は私の友達です。\" The dude coming tomorrow, is my friend.\n\n\"今、あそこから来る人は私の友達です。 That dude coming our way, is my friend.\n\nSo logically, I thought \"take your umbrella\" would be: \"今日は雨らしい。傘を持つ方がいい。\"\n\nInstead of \"今日は雨らしい。傘を持った方がいい。\"\n\nSo, why is it that it's past tense?",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T06:49:06.810",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24426",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T23:38:23.363",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-21T06:54:25.413",
"last_editor_user_id": "7904",
"owner_user_id": "7904",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 15,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"syntax"
],
"title": "In front of \"ほうがいい,\" is it always past tense?",
"view_count": 6244
} | [
{
"body": "The suffix た does not automatically imply past tense.\n\nIn this free online dictionary, for instance, it lists **8** different\nmeanings /usages of 「た」.\n\n<https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%9F-556028#E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.9E.97.20.E7.AC.AC.E4.B8.89.E7.89.88>\n\nSure, you may not be able to read it, but it would at least give you a good\nsign that you should forget about your preconception \"た = past tense\" for a\nmoment, would it not? 「た」 is important because it is complex.\n\nLook at definition #6, for example. 「さあ、どんどん[歩]{ある}い **た** 、歩い **た** 」 is an\nimperative meaning \"Keep walking; Don't stop!\". It is talking about the\npresent and even immediate future. That is not past tense at all. Not even\nclose to it.\n\nGetting back to your question,\n\n> 「(Verb phrase ending in た) + [方]{ほう}がいい」\n\nis an extremely often-used expression that talks about the present and/or\nfuture -- again not the past. This is not unique to Japanese at all. You would\nsay in English:\n\n> \"(If it indeed rains,) you will be glad you _**brought**_ an umbrella with\n> you.\"\n\nOr would you still ask \"Why use the past-tense 'brought'?\"?\n\nIn Japanese, it is just customary to use the た-form when giving advice and\nmaking suggestions to others.\n\n> 1.「傘を持って **いった** 方がいい。」\n>\n> 2.「傘を持って **いく** 方がいい。」\n\nBoth are actually correct sentences, but _**#1 would be heard much more\noften**_.\n\nSentence #2 would sound like a stronger piece of advice than #1 to the native\near.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T15:24:32.087",
"id": "24441",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T23:38:23.363",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24426",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "This 〜た is the perfect, not past; that is, it's indicating a time before some\nreference time, rather than a time before speech time:\n\n> 傘を持っていったほうがいい。 \n> Lit. \"Having brought an umbrella would be better.\"\n\nThat said, I don't think native speakers actually have such a complicated\nmodel (of comparing possible future worlds, one of which where you have\nbrought an umbrella), but rather 〜たほうがいい has just become a way of making\nsuggestions; that is, I think the 〜た has become mostly semantically bleached.\nHowever, I'm pretty sure this was the original function of 〜た here.\n\n* * *\n\nIt is also possible to have the plain form of verbs before 〜ほうがいい, but they\ndon't have a future interpretation but rather a \"general\" or \"habitual\" one.\n\n> 傘を持っていくほうがいい。 \n> \"Bringing an umbrella is best.\"\n\nThat is, you're not making a suggestion about something to do at a future\ntime, but making a more categorical statement.\n\nI wish I had an explanation of _why_ it's impossible for the plain form to\nhave a future interpretation here, but I don't.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T19:28:25.503",
"id": "24445",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T19:55:43.740",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-21T19:55:43.740",
"last_editor_user_id": "3097",
"owner_user_id": "3097",
"parent_id": "24426",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 25
}
] | 24426 | 24445 | 24445 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "For the past few months I've been researching pitch accent in Japanese off and\non, concentrating on trying to identify regularities in a phenomenon which is\nnearly completely arbitrary.\n\nI've not seen any research dealing with the genesis of pitch accent though. I\nhave seen a paper which I can't find at the moment which gives evidence that\nin English loan words, the pitch drop often, but not always, correlates with\nthe primary stress in the source language. That seems like a reasonable origin\nfor pitch accent in English loans.\n\nBut it is clear that Sino-Japanese compounds, and not just native compounds,\nexhibit pitch accent. The pitch accent on SJ compounds which share a character\ncan often differ:\n\n> 感謝 kánsha 感心 kanshin\n>\n> 電気 dénki 電源 dengen\n>\n> 地下 chiká 廊下 rouka\n\nIs there any regularity to how SJ compounds (and native words for that matter)\nacquired pitch accent? A hypothesis of mine: did SJ compounds start off as\nunaccented (平板) and then somehow develop accent as they become more common? Or\ndoes some quality of the Chinese reading predict the resulting pitch accent?\n\nAlso, what are the rules which underlie pitch accent, particularly when\naccented words are combined, or when prefixes (like 御) are affixed? I already\nunderstand that particular endings, such as -通り have a \"de-accenting\" quality\nwhich removes any accents on the words to which it is affixed. What other\nregularities exist?\n\n_EDIT_ : One more question: Martin's \"Reference Grammar of Japanese\" gives the\npitch accent of 故 as yúé (in his notation). I didn't think a word could\npossess two stresses — is this what he intended to notate?",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T07:35:07.227",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24427",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-23T13:33:07.643",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-21T08:42:32.423",
"last_editor_user_id": "816",
"owner_user_id": "816",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"pitch-accent"
],
"title": "The origins and mechanics of pitch accent in SJ compounds",
"view_count": 940
} | [
{
"body": "Finding some method in this madness was actually part of eminent linguist\nHaruhiko Kindaichi's 1951 Ph.D. thesis. Kindaichi found a perfect\ncorrespondence between Chinese tones and pitch accent of Japanese _kango_.\nHowever, it was not with the Tokyo accent that is now standard and taught in\ntextbooks, but the Heian period court accent.\n\nKindaichi found that one Heian period dictionary, called the _Ruiju myōgishō_\n, contained not only the four Chinese tones in use at the time, but also\nmarked the corresponding Japanese accents. The perfect correspondence is shown\nas follows:\n\n[NOTE: L=Level, R=Rising, G=Going (often \"departing\"), E=Entering. Source:\n[\"Pitch-accent of standard-Japanese\"]](http://hdl.handle.net/10722/32991)\n\n\nThe court intellectuals of the Heian period who were pronouncing the Buddhist\nterms found in the _Ruiju myōgishō_ would have been familiar with the Chinese\ntones and regulated their speech accordingly. Obviously, this was never the\ncase for the general public. While the categories found in the _Myōgishō_ are\nstill generally adhered to today, the formation of the Tokyo accent would have\ntransformed the resulting pitch accents according to its own rules, for\nexample:\n\n> In Tokyo, the first syllable is always low pitch unless the syllable is\n> accented.\n\nSource: Shimabukuro, Moriyo, [A reconstruction of the accentual history of the\nJapanese and Ryukyuan languages\n](http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/3039)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T13:33:07.643",
"id": "24480",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-23T13:33:07.643",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "583",
"parent_id": "24427",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24427 | null | 24480 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24429",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "\n\nThe character doesn't know how to ride a bike and tries to remember what his\nfriend was doing when starting the vehicle.\n\nHe then says to himself :\n\n> たしかここんとこを **グリッて** まわしてたような……\n\nI can't find any info on グリッて, what does it mean?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T08:21:53.290",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24428",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T08:27:13.347",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-22T08:27:13.347",
"last_editor_user_id": "29",
"owner_user_id": "4822",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"onomatopoeia"
],
"title": "Meaning of グリッて",
"view_count": 362
} | [
{
"body": "This グリって is a mimetic adverb (擬態語) which is basically the same as\n[グリグリ(と)](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/64021/m0u/):\n\n> 押さえつけながら強く回すさま。「ひじで肩を―（と）もむ」\n\nIt's similar to\n[グルグル(と)](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/64340/m0u/%E3%81%90%E3%82%8B%E3%81%90%E3%82%8B/)/グルっと\nwhich describes how something rotates smoothly. But グリグリ refers to a more\nforceful, unsmooth movement/rotation.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T10:23:35.623",
"id": "24429",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T10:23:35.623",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24428",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 24428 | 24429 | 24429 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Is there any difference between 頼む and 聞く? I've checked a few dictionaries,\nand it seems to me that maybe 頼む is more humble and 聞く more generic. Would\nthat be it? Are they generally interchangeable?\n\nI think they both mean 'ask'. For example:\n\n友だちに何時と聞きました。 友だちに何時と 頼み ました。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T11:21:25.963",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24430",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T13:41:17.897",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-21T12:44:02.437",
"last_editor_user_id": "5423",
"owner_user_id": "5423",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Difference between 頼む and 聞く",
"view_count": 2822
} | [
{
"body": "[聞]{き}く refers to a **request for information**. Note that this particular\nusage of the word is often written as 訊く as well. Examples:\n\n * [友]{とも}だちに[何時]{なんじ}と[聞]{き}きました。 (Asked a friend what time it was.)\n * [自分]{じぶん}の[胸]{むね}に[聞]{き}け (\"Ask your heart.\" / \"Look inside yourself.\")\n\n[頼]{たの}む is all about a **request for action**. Examples:\n\n * [代筆]{だいひつ}を頼む (Ask someone to write a letter. / \"Please write a letter [for me].\")\n * [口外]{こうがい}しないよう頼む (\"Don't reveal this [secret].\")\n\nAs you can see with these definitions, 「友だちに何時と頼みました」 doesn't really make any\nsense. I don't know of any examples I've seen where the two words can be\nswitched out while still retaining the same meaning. This is a good example of\nthe fact that even though two words may _translate_ similarly, that doesn't\nnecessarily mean that they function similarly in the original language. :)\n\n(other example sentences from goo[辞書]{じしょ}:\n[聞く](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/51102/m0u/%E8%A8%8A%E3%81%8F/),\n[頼む](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/138138/m0u/))",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T13:35:41.373",
"id": "24435",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T13:35:41.373",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4923",
"parent_id": "24430",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "聞く means 'ask (a question)'.\n\n> 友達に何時か聞きました。I asked a friend what time it was.\n\n頼む means 'ask someone to do something'.\n\n> 友達に助けてくれと頼みました。 I asked a friend to help me.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T13:38:52.163",
"id": "24436",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T13:38:52.163",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24430",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "「[頼]{たの}む」 means \"to ask a favor\", \"to make a request\", etc.\n\n「[聞]{き}く」 means \"to ask (a question)\"\n\nI cannot think of a situation where 「[頼]{たの}む」 and 「[聞]{き}く」 are\ninterchangeable except for in a **_very_** informal conversation where a\nquestion being asked involves a request. Careful speakers, however, would try\nto avoid this.\n\n「[車]{くるま}を[貸]{か}してくれる **か** (or **かどうか** )、スミスに **聞いて** みよう。」= \"Let's ask\nSmith if he could lend us his car!\"\n\nTo say the same thing using 「頼む」, one will need to make a change in the middle\npart as well.\n\n「車を貸してくれる **よう** (or **ように** )、スミスに **頼んで** みよう。」\n\nCareful speakers would not swap 「頼む」 for 「聞く」 or vice versa in the example\nsentences above. That, of course, means that some people actually would do\nthat.\n\nLet's take a look at your sentences.\n\n「友だちに何時と聞きました。」＝「友達に『何時？』と **聞きました** 。」 = \"I asked my friend what time it\nwas.\"\n\nThis is a good sentence and you could NOT use 「頼む」 here.\n\n「友だちに何時と **頼みました** 。」\n\nThis makes no sense, I am afraid. Where is the request that is being made?\n\nTo use 「頼む」 correctly, one could alter the sentence to:\n\n「友達に5時に来るように頼みました。」 or\n\n「友達に5時に来てと頼みました。」\n\nNaturally, you could NOT use 「聞く」 in these sentences.\n\n= \"I asked my friend to come at 5 o'clock.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T13:41:17.897",
"id": "24437",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T13:41:17.897",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24430",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] | 24430 | null | 24437 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24433",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm struggling to understand how to translate \"Last Edited By\", for an online\ndocument.\n\nI think there must be another english phrase to use, and translate that, but I\njust cannot think what it could be.\n\n先の編集者 (previous editor) ?\n\nand subsequently the \"Last Edited Date\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T12:05:30.560",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24431",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T12:28:30.773",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4071",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "\"Last edited by\" - how to translate?",
"view_count": 118
} | [
{
"body": "The most natural translation (though not literal) would be 最終編集者 and\n最終編集日／最終編集日時. You can also use 更新者 (updater) instead.\n\n> 最終更新者: naruto \n> 最終更新日時: 2015年5月21日 15:05\n\n先の (=prior) would not work as you expect in this case.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T12:28:30.773",
"id": "24433",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T12:28:30.773",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24431",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24431 | 24433 | 24433 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24452",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was wondering what the difference is between 内側 and 中 as I understand both\nmean \"inside\". However, there are situations when we can use one and not the\nother.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T12:16:35.240",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24432",
"last_activity_date": "2020-11-16T15:56:25.927",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-21T12:29:32.147",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "4322",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Difference between 内側 and 中",
"view_count": 702
} | [
{
"body": "The basic concept is: \n\n**内側** means that spaces are divided by something like fence, and you're\nstanding on the inside ground, while **中** is like that there's a vessel and\nyou're inside it.\n\nThe interpretation of `Xの内側` and `Xの中` is different regarding the `X`. In the\nformer, `X` indicates **boundary** , while in the latter, `X` is\n**container**. If you say `Xの中` when `X` is something with inner room, then\nwhoever in there is likely to be in that space, but when `X` is a filled\nmaterial, then they're likely to be packed within it.\n\n* * *\n\n**Random examples taken from Google image search:**\n\nThey are thought to be in **ガラスの内側** but not ガラスの中:\n\n\n\nwhile he is thought to be in **ガラスの内側** or **ガラスの中** :\n\n\n\nand they are thought to be in **ガラスの中** but not ガラスの内側: \n(well, these are actually ice cubes but never mind)\n\n\n\n* * *\n\n**Extra** \nThere's another (mostly figurative) usage of **中** , that is you can refer\nwhat you see through apertures such as: 絵の中, 鏡の中, 画面の中 etc.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T06:12:09.730",
"id": "24452",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-23T05:13:01.487",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-23T05:13:01.487",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24432",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 24432 | 24452 | 24452 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24438",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The possibility that Japanese used words derived from \"Mongoloid\" to refer to\nDown Syndrome hadn't crossed my mind until I was mentioning the word to a\nJapanese person practicing English, but jisho.org [mentions the\nword](http://jisho.org/word/%E8%92%99%E5%8F%A4%E7%97%87), and the term is\nmentioned in the Japanese edition of Wikipedia's [entry on Down\nSyndrome](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%80%E3%82%A6%E3%83%B3%E7%97%87%E5%80%99%E7%BE%A4).\n\nWas 蒙古症 or similar terms derived from the English word \"Mongoloid\" commonly\nused to refer to Down Syndrome?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T13:13:00.273",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24434",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T14:13:43.607",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"loanwords",
"terminology",
"offensive-words"
],
"title": "Was 蒙古症 or similar words commonly used to refer to Down Syndrome?",
"view_count": 350
} | [
{
"body": "Apparently Dr. John Langdon Down discovered around 1860 what's now called\nDown's syndrome. Just like anyone, Dr. Down didn't name the syndrome after\nhimself, but named it \"mongolism\" (also \"mongoloid\"), which was used widely\nuntil the 1960s. (More info here, at [Down's Syndrome\nScotland](http://www.dsscotland.org.uk/about_us/our-press-\ncentre/statements/the+M+word).)\n\nI'm guessing that 蒙古症 is a literal translation from English and was used\nwidely in Japan at least until the 1960s, when it was globally renamed Down's\nsyndrome, citing from the above link\n\n> scientists petitioned to use “Down’s syndrome” instead of “Mongolism” or\n> “Mongoloid” as they were embarrassing terms for Chinese and Japanese\n> scientists and academics to use this word to refer to the syndrome\n\n(Unfortunately I don't have access to any Japanese corpus data from before\n1960 to confirm this.)\n\nFor contemporary Japanese, 大辞泉 has (emphasis mine)\n\n> **ダウン症候群**\n>\n> 《Down's syndrome》染色体の異常により、知能障害と特異な顔貌(がんぼう)を示す疾患。1866年に英国の医師ダウンが報告。\n> **蒙古(もうこ)症。** ダウン症。\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> **蒙古症**\n>\n> ダウン症候群の俗称。\n\n大辞林 is a little more politically correct:\n\n> **蒙古症**\n>\n> ⇒ ダウン症候群（しようこうぐん）\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> **ダウン症候群**\n>\n> 〔1866年ダウン（J. Langdon Down 1826～1896）が報告したことからの名〕\n> 染色体異常の一。多くは二一染色体の過剰による。一般に精神発達や発育が障害され，先天性の心疾患を伴うこともある。 **俗に蒙古症ともいわれた。**\n\nThat is, 大辞林 says \"used to be commonly called mongolism\", whereas 大辞泉 lists\n\"mongolism\" as an alternative name for \"Down's syndrome\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T14:03:59.130",
"id": "24438",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T14:13:43.607",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24434",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "The terms we use most often would be 「ダウン[症候群]{しょうこうぐん}」 or 「ダウン[症]{しょう}」.\n\nI feel like I heard the term 「[蒙古症]{もうこしょう}」 when I was little, but I sure do\nnot hear/see it anymore.\n\n「蒙古症」 would be a direct translation of the desease name from its counterpart\nin a European language (not sure which one). As we all know now, however, the\ndesease has nothing to do with the race of the patient. Thus, using the term\ncould sound somewhat derogatory and I personally cannot recommend it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T14:06:13.997",
"id": "24439",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T14:06:13.997",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24434",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24434 | 24438 | 24438 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24443",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "My story book says this:\n\n> どんなに寒いでも...\n>\n> No matter how cold it is ...\n\nbut my grammar book says this:\n\n> どんなに寒くても...\n\nBoth of them seem reasonable to me. Are they both correct? Is there any\ndifference in nuance between them? Could I also translate the first sentence\n(or indeed the second) as \"Even if it is so cold...\"? Thanks",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T16:18:43.973",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24442",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T17:25:17.730",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"て-form"
],
"title": "て form of adjective in 'no matter how much' clause",
"view_count": 1230
} | [
{
"body": "どんなに寒くても...(No matter how cold it is...) is correct, but どんなに寒いでも is\nincorrect. Maybe it was a typo of どんなに寒い日でも or something.\n\n* * *\n\nYou form the phrase this way:\n\nwith i-adjectives: 「どんなに/どれほど+連用形(～く)+て+も」 \neg. 「どんなに忙しくても」「どんなに古くても」\n\nwith na-adjectives: 「どんなに/どれほど+連用形(～で)+も」 \neg. 「どんなにきれいでも」「どんなに好きでも」\n\nwith nouns: 「どんなに/どれほど+(adjective)+noun+で+も」 \neg. 「どんなにきれいな花でも」「どんなに忙しい人でも」",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T16:42:40.990",
"id": "24443",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T17:25:17.730",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-21T17:25:17.730",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24442",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 24442 | 24443 | 24443 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24448",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Couldn't find this one in my dictionaries. How would you translate \"chunky\"\ninto Japanese? As in chunky peanut butter, or, \"I left the milk out for 3 days\nand now it's all chunky,\" or, \"the chemicals congealed into a kind of chunky\ngel\".",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T19:17:09.107",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24444",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T22:41:29.263",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-22T08:28:23.433",
"last_editor_user_id": "29",
"owner_user_id": "7094",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words",
"food"
],
"title": "How do you say \"chunky\" or \"congealed\" in Japanese?",
"view_count": 436
} | [
{
"body": "Peanut butter:「[粒入]{つぶい}り（の）」、「つぶつぶ（の）」, etc.\n\nRotten milk:「ドロドロになる/なっている」、「ドロドロの」, etc.\n\nChunky gel: same as rotten milk. If it is very hard, one could use\n「ゴツゴツ」、「ゴロゴロ」, etc.\n\nI only trust you can change these forms freely according to the context.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T23:34:21.570",
"id": "24448",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-21T23:34:21.570",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24444",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 24444 | 24448 | 24448 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "うそだ isn't really a serious accusation. How would you say 'you're lying' more\nseriously?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T21:19:44.293",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24446",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-01T11:56:09.617",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "How to accuse someone of lying",
"view_count": 903
} | [
{
"body": "The answer @Unknown gave is perfect if you want more weight and directness to\nthe accusation\n\n> Hmm.... 「うそつけっ！」, maybe? or 「うそつき！」とか・・ – Unknown May 21 at 22:04",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-29T21:32:54.260",
"id": "24628",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-29T22:00:35.413",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-29T22:00:35.413",
"last_editor_user_id": "10194",
"owner_user_id": "10194",
"parent_id": "24446",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "It seems to me that うそだ is already strong enough, when said in normal tone (or\nmore serious, of course), because we don't usually use in that way. Another\npossible strong expression would be\n\n> それはない。 (That can't be true.)\n\nPerhaps you should compare with more casual accusing expressions such as\nう(っ)そだ〜 うそでしょ？",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-06-01T11:56:09.617",
"id": "24703",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-01T11:56:09.617",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10234",
"parent_id": "24446",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24446 | null | 24628 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24449",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm writing a program which replaces kana characters with romaji, so that\n`りょかん` becomes `ryokan` etc. I thus need to handle cases where ゃゅょ (or ャュョ)\ncombine with the preceding character.\n\nMy understanding is that they can combine with any `-i` kana character except\nい or イ. On this basis, ゐゃ/ゐゅ/ゐょ (or ヰャ/ヰュ/ヰョ) are valid combinations, being\ntransliterated as **wya** , **wyu** , and **wyo** respectively.\n\nI didn't find anything useful on [jisho.org](http://jisho.org), but Wiktionary\nhas a few examples:\n\n * [en.wiktionary.org](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%B0%B8) has **永** : よう (ゐゃう)\n * [ja.wiktionary.org](http://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%B4%AB) has **洫** : キョク (クヰョク)\n * [Various other pages](http://ja.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%89%B9%E5%88%A5%3A%E6%A4%9C%E7%B4%A2&profile=default&search=%E3%83%B0%E3%83%A3&fulltext=Search) mention ヰャゥ, クヰャウ, クヰャゥ, and クヰャク\n\nHowever, I'm not sure if these would be applicable to modern Japanese - I get\nthe impression that they may simply be historic spellings, and thus no longer\nrelevant.\n\n**tl;dr:** Would `wya`/`wyu`/`wyo` be considered be _valid_ combinations (even\nif they're never actually used) in modern Japanese?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-21T22:03:38.170",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24447",
"last_activity_date": "2021-09-11T14:56:07.523",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9212",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"obsolete-kana"
],
"title": "Can ゐ/ヰ be combined with ゃゅょ/ャュョ?",
"view_count": 518
} | [
{
"body": "ゐ, ヰ, ゑ, and ヱ are not used in modern Japanese; they have been obsolete for\nalmost 70 years. Most people do not even know how to type these characters\nwith a keyboard. If you're not interested in the historical spellings of\nJapanese, you can safely ignore them altogether. (And serious support for\nhistorical Japanese is bound to be a _huge_ task.)\n\nActually, these characters may appear in some recent proper nouns, for example\n[ヱヴァンゲリヲン](http://www.evangelion.co.jp/3_0/index.html) and\n[よゐこ](http://415yoiko.jp/), just because they look peculiar and eye-catching.\nIf you need to handle such cases, you can simply replace these characters with\nえ or い, respectively.\n\nYou can type ゐ with `wyi` and ゑ with `wye` using most IMEs, and this was a\n[part of JIS\nstandard](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E5%AD%97%E5%85%A5%E5%8A%9B#.E5.BF.85.E3.81.9A.E5.AE.9F.E8.A3.85.E3.81.97.E3.81.AA.E3.81.91.E3.82.8C.E3.81.B0.E3.81.84.E3.81.91.E3.81.AA.E3.81.84.E5.85.A5.E5.8A.9B.E6.96.B9.E5.BC.8F).\nBut I think these are more like shortcuts rather than pronunciation-based\ntransliterations.\n\nI don't recall the exact combination of ヰャ/ヰュ/ヰョ used, even in the classic\nliterature classes when I was a high school student. And I have no idea what\n`wya`, `wyu`, or `wyo` should produce—at least my ATOK gives nothing. Maybe\nthey were used somewhere in the Japanese history, but I doubt it's worth\nsupporting.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T01:10:37.093",
"id": "24449",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T09:16:56.257",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-22T09:16:56.257",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24447",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "ゐゃ/ゐょ only appear in\n[合拗音](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%8B%97%E9%9F%B3#.E5.90.88.E6.8B.97.E9.9F.B3_2)\nof archaic on'yomi system (ゐゅ isn't attested). Historically they were\nrepresenting sounds like `wya` and `wyo` but they're very rare pronunciations\nin limited combinations ゐゃう ( _wyau_ ), くゐゃう ( _kwyau_ ), くゐゃく ( _kwyaku_ )\nand くゐょく ( _kwyoku_ ) (maybe ゐょう ( _wyou_ ) and ゐょく ( _wyoku_ ) too, according\nto [this\npaper](http://repository.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2261/9796/1/nihongo03_1.pdf)).\n\nThe biggest problem is those spellings were (re-)discovered after abolition of\nhistorical orthography, that means, they have never been and will never be\nused outside historical study. I personally think it's not worth supporting\nbut isn't a big deal to support too, as far as it won't break your other\nparts.\n\n* * *\n\nPS \nThings like くゐゃう should theoretically be written with small-size ゐ, that\ncorresponds to ゎ in くゎ. The lack of this letter I think explains how we don't\nuse it.\n\n**Update** : Some auxiliary small kana including the small ゐ was [encoded into\nUnicode in 2019](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Kana_Extension), though\nthe font support is still scarce.\n\n* * *\n\nFurther reference:\n[鎌倉時代における日本漢字音の位相的研究](http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/ja/list/HU_type/9070/item/15563)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T04:52:01.520",
"id": "24451",
"last_activity_date": "2021-09-11T14:56:07.523",
"last_edit_date": "2021-09-11T14:56:07.523",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24447",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] | 24447 | 24449 | 24451 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24459",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have came across the following sentence in an instruction manual and I'm\ncurious why they did not use them in the te-form.\n\nこの取{と}り扱{あつかい}説{せつ}明{めい}書{しょ}をよく **お読{よ}み** いただき, 正{ただ}しく **お使{つか}い** 下{くだ}さい。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T10:46:06.420",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24456",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T13:10:21.460",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9559",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Why these words, 「お読み」 and 「お使い」 do not use te-form in this sentence?",
"view_count": 199
} | [
{
"body": "In formal Japanese, this is the standard 連用形. It's used in place of て form of\nverbs when linking. It's usage in 敬語{けいご} actually goes beyond this, with\nthese suffixes also helping form verbs. In the context of your quote, both are\nreplaceable with て form in everyday speech.\n\nThe general rule being to take the ます stem, remove this, and replace as\nnecessary\n\n> 座ります -> お座りください Please sit\n>\n> 伝えます -> お伝えください Please tell them\n>\n> 連絡します -> ご連絡ください -> Please contact / get in touch\n\nNote that you remove する if the verb takes this. Other examples for 〜頂く：\n\n> お読みいただき\n>\n> お電話いただき\n\nNot all verbs conjugate like this, and some take ご rather than お. The\ninstruction manual uses them to keep the writing polite and formal to the\nbuyer. As for when to use it yourself, the finer rules are all part of\n敬語{けいご}, which is itself more complex than can be summarized in one answer.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T13:10:21.460",
"id": "24459",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T13:10:21.460",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9185",
"parent_id": "24456",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] | 24456 | 24459 | 24459 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24471",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I was reading an article and I came across this sentence:\n\n> 車の会社がいつごろこのような自動運転の車を売り始める **か** 予想しました\n\nWhat exactly does the か in this sentence/what is the meaning?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T12:19:39.730",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24457",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-23T21:22:19.033",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-23T21:22:19.033",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9915",
"post_type": "question",
"score": -1,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-か",
"interrogatives",
"subordinate-clauses"
],
"title": "What is the use of か in 売り始めるか〜",
"view_count": 200
} | [
{
"body": "This か is the same as the particle we see all the time at the end of an\ninterrogative sentence. It's also used in a noun clause like so:\n\n> * いつ車を売りますか? When do they sell the cars? \n> いつ車を売るか (noun clause) when they sell the cars\n> * 今日は日曜日ですか? Is it Sunday today? \n> 今日は日曜日か (noun clause) whether it is Sunday today\n>\n\nTherefore, \"車の会社がいつごろこのような自動運転の車を売り始めるか\" is a long noun clause which means\n\"when the automobile companies begin to sell those self-driving cars.\"\n\n**EDIT** : \nI found a related question with an extensive answer: [Usage of か after a\nclause?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/13034/5010)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T01:23:16.793",
"id": "24471",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-23T02:40:31.683",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24457",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24457 | 24471 | 24471 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've just learned 間･間に, as in:\n\n> 私はビーンに **いる間** 、写真をたくさん取りたいですよ。\n>\n> ジョンは出かけ **ている間** 、ビールを飲みました。\n\nAll the examples on my grammar sheet use present-continuous form (～ている) or いる.\n(These are my own examples, though.) So my question is twofold:\n\n 1. Can you use present-tense dictionary form (e.g. 出かける) with 間?\n 2. If so, what time-frame would it indicate; when would the action take place?\n\n* * *\n\n**和訳**\n\n私はつい最近「間・間に」を習いました。例えば、\n\n> 私はビーンに **いる間** 、写真をたくさん撮りたいですよ。\n>\n> ジョンは出かけ **ている間** 、ビールを飲みました。\n\n私の文法プリントに載っている例文は全部現在進行形（～ている）か「いる」を使っています（上のは自作の例文ですが）。そこで、二つの質問があります。\n\n 1. 現在の辞書形（例：出かける）を「間」と一緒に使うことはできますか？\n 2. 使えるとしたら、前後関係はどうなるのですか？動作はいつ行われるのですか？",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T12:34:45.247",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24458",
"last_activity_date": "2015-08-20T14:28:13.243",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4242",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"tense",
"time"
],
"title": "(When) can you use dictionary form with 間? / 辞書形と「間」は（どんな時に）一緒に使えますか？",
"view_count": 379
} | [
{
"body": "Yes, you can use 出かける間 from the moment when you try to leave home, to the\nmoment when you get out. In addition, you can still use 出かけている間 for the same\nsituation. The action in the main clause is done during that moment. e.g.\n私がちょうど出かける間にネコに家に入られたようだ。(By the way, what the speaker in the first sentence\nis whining for, regaring taking picture?)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T03:19:09.373",
"id": "24491",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T03:19:09.373",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24458",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "間 stands for \"while,\" \"during.\"\n\nSo it stands to reason that you use it with a verb indicating some duration,\nas in 居る間, 出かけている間 (= while staying, while staying out).\n\nI would not say 出かける間, as I doubt 出かける is an action with duration.\n\n*** Added the 21st June, 2015 ***\n\nI have no ideal why someone downvoted my answer.\n\nI would like to stress that 出かける means \"to go out\" and refers to the _action_\nof \"going out\". Do you say \"while I go out?\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-06-20T05:40:59.817",
"id": "25171",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-21T12:54:45.490",
"last_edit_date": "2015-06-21T12:54:45.490",
"last_editor_user_id": "10402",
"owner_user_id": "10402",
"parent_id": "24458",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24458 | null | 25171 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24461",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The line 「殺しはせん。」 is said by a character in anime.\n\nWhat is せん here (I assume it's somehow related to negative form of する)?\n\nPlain negative (I'm not killing you)? Volitional neg. (I'm not intending to\nkill you (like the せん in (せんとする))? Potential (like in せねば…)? Is the ん some\nauxiliary verb or part of する conjugation?\n\nSomething else?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T14:14:29.860",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24460",
"last_activity_date": "2015-07-16T02:06:27.530",
"last_edit_date": "2015-07-16T02:06:27.530",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"particle-は",
"renyōkei"
],
"title": "連用形＋は＋せん （殺しはせん。） meaning?",
"view_count": 614
} | [
{
"body": "せん(=せぬ) is the classical version of しない, 'do not'.\n\nせ = the imperfective form (未然形) of the verb す, 'do' (す = classical version of\nする) \nん = the negative auxiliary\n[ぬ](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/169019/m0u/%E3%81%AC/) << derived\nfrom the classical negative ず\n\n殺しはせん(連用形「殺し」 + particle は(= here it can be like 'at least') + verb せ +\nnegative ん) is the classical way of saying 殺しはしない, 'I'm not killing / I'm not\ngoing to kill (you/someone)'",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T14:38:00.230",
"id": "24461",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T15:03:41.133",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-22T15:03:41.133",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24460",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 24460 | 24461 | 24461 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24479",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This phrase is used pretty much on every intro page to Japan, as a polite way\nto state \"my name is _____\". I think it's similar to _Je m'appelle_. My\nquestion is why is it exactly the particle と used in this case? Is it a unique\nthing, or is there a bigger trend? Is it used as a quotative way -- \"Feliksas\n(quote - as in quoting what people say) am called\"?\n\nThank you very much!!",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T16:11:36.847",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24462",
"last_activity_date": "2016-03-20T14:10:44.553",
"last_edit_date": "2016-03-20T14:08:41.230",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "10151",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-と"
],
"title": "Particle と in \"Feliksas と申します。\"",
"view_count": 613
} | [
{
"body": "Yes you are right, the と is used as a quote. Feliksas - I am called that.\n\nOnce you know the root of the word 申します the reason becomes clear. \n申します is the keigo (polite) form of 言います. \n \nと言います can be used for reported speech.\n\nあの女の子は「私はもう大丈夫です」と言いました。 \nThat girl said \"I am all right now\". \nThat girl said she was all right at the time.\n\nOn a side note - if you are writing Japanese try to avoid romaji, even in\nnames like Feliksas since most Japanese won't know how to pronounce it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T11:20:33.043",
"id": "24479",
"last_activity_date": "2016-03-20T14:10:44.553",
"last_edit_date": "2016-03-20T14:10:44.553",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "10083",
"parent_id": "24462",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24462 | 24479 | 24479 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24465",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> ある日、アリババがロバをつれて森へいくと、たくさんの馬の足音が聞こえてきました。\n\nCan anyone explain to me what つれて and いくと mean in this sentence, I'm having a\nhard time understanding..\n\nThanks",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T16:14:51.920",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24463",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T20:16:28.100",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-22T19:17:56.570",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10152",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What do つれて and いくと mean here?",
"view_count": 384
} | [
{
"body": "つれて is just the て-form of the verb\n[連{つ}れる](http://beta.jisho.org/search/tsureru) whose meanning is \"to lead\n(people)\", \"to take people (from one place) to another one\".\n\nAnd, いくと is the verb 行{い}く + the と particle. In this case と means \"when\".\n\nIf you still can figure out the meaning of your sentence, there is a\ntranslation in a spoiler.\n\n> Therefore, your sentence (ある日、アリババがロバをつれて森へいくと、たくさんの馬の足音が聞こえてきました。)\n> translates into: Once, Alibaba led the donkeys, when they came close to the\n> forest, a great sound of hooves could be heard.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T19:46:37.400",
"id": "24465",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T20:16:28.100",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-22T20:16:28.100",
"last_editor_user_id": "4216",
"owner_user_id": "4216",
"parent_id": "24463",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 24463 | 24465 | 24465 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24470",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I know that this kanji is associated with writing and text, and can mean\n\"sentence.\" When using it to mean \"sentence\", is it only a written sentence? I\ncan't find any examples that unambiguously demonstrate that it can be a spoken\nsentence as well.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T19:33:40.897",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24464",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T23:54:31.770",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7094",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "Does 文 refer only to written sentences, or can it be used for spoken sentences as well?",
"view_count": 107
} | [
{
"body": "文 refers to a sentence, regardless of whether it's written or spoken. I find\nno significant discrepancy in usage between Japanese '文' and English\n'sentence' here.\n\nFor example you can say something like 命令文のイントネーション (intonation of an\nimperative sentence), which unequivocally refers to a spoken sentence.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T23:54:31.770",
"id": "24470",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T23:54:31.770",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24464",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24464 | 24470 | 24470 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24472",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I think I understand the pattern ...を adverb する e.g.\n\n> 彼は彼女を幸せにする\n>\n> He makes her happy\n>\n> 部屋をきれいにしました\n>\n> I made my room tidy\n\nI think I'm right in saying that the に in these sentences serves to turn the\nな-adjective into an adverb.\n\nI got confused when I saw this sentence:\n\n> 箸{はし}を櫂{かい}にして川{かわ}を上って{のぼって}いきました\n\nThis translates as something like \"He used chopsticks as oars and went up the\nriver\" (not as weird as it sounds, in context). I don't really know how to\ntranslate nounをnounにする. Can you please break it down for me and provide some\nadditional examples of this grammar?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T20:18:03.990",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24466",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-23T10:53:28.110",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-に"
],
"title": "Can you make an adverb from a noun by adding に?",
"view_count": 2119
} | [
{
"body": "I think you're actually asking about にする and not just に. に isn't a verb after\nall.\n\nIt has a lot of uses, each probably worth a question of their own.\n\nHere are some [definitions from\nJisho.org](http://jisho.org/search/%E3%81%AB%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B):\n\n> AをBにする\n>\n> 1. to place, or raise, person A to a post or status B\n> 2. to transform A to B; to make A into B; to exchange A for B\n> 3. to make use of A for B; to view A as B; to handle A as if it were B\n> 4. to feel A about B\n>\n\nFor the first two sentences, I think in your case it's the second meaning of\n_to transform_ or _make into_. Perhaps the third as well, but there the third\nmeaning of _to handle_ as or _make use of_ is better. But yes, it can be\nattached to nouns and noun-forms.\n\nIt has so many particulars to it I don't think a single question or answer can\ncover it. How and where it's placed, the tense of what it's attached to,\naffects all of this. So it might be best to ask about a specific use.",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T04:26:32.413",
"id": "24472",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-23T10:53:28.110",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "54",
"parent_id": "24466",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I don't think there are any な-adj in the third sentence at all (only nouns,\nwhich function like な adjectives), に is used as a general location particle,\nand is not limited to actual places, the first clause in\n\n箸を櫂にして川を上っていきました\n\nwhich is\n\n箸を櫂にして\n\nwould mean,\n\n\"Chopsticks, in (in the form of a) paddle, is done\"\n\n\"In the way of a paddle, chopsticks were being used.\" or \"In place of a\npaddle, chosticks were used\"\n\nUnfortunately, it's nearly impossible to get a natural sounding translation in\nEnglish as して is extremely context sensitive.\n\n* * *\n\nThe second clause,\n\n川を上っていきました\n\nmeans, to go up the river.\n\nThere's no な adjectives there either, but there is を.\n\n* * *\n\nThe 'pattern' you mention is actually just two distinct and separate grammar\nfunctions.\n\nを is the direct object of the noun (chopsticks is done)\n\nwhile a noun or な-adj is turned into an adverb-like function using に. There's\nnot really an English equivalent here, as English does not merge adjectives\nand nouns together.\n\n彼は彼女を幸せにする\n\nwould be\n\nAs for him, she is done (to happiness, in happiness, in the form of happiness)\n\nor\n\n\"He does her happiness\", \"She is done by him to happiness\"\n\nZはYをXにする is best interpreted as \"Z does things that generally lead to Y being\nX\"\n\n部屋をきれいにしました does not have は, so Z is 'I' by context, and the meaning would be\n\"I did things that generally led to room being clean\"\n\n箸を櫂にして uses a noun instead of a na adjective, but the gist of it is \"(I) do\nthings that generally makes the chopsticks to be a paddle\"\n\n* * *\n\n箸を櫂にして川を上っていきました\n\n(I) do things the generally makes the chopsticks to be a paddle, then went up\nthe river.\n\nI'm really terrible at formatting - can someone help me make the answer more\nreadable?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T08:28:25.367",
"id": "24475",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-23T08:33:54.893",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-23T08:33:54.893",
"last_editor_user_id": "7955",
"owner_user_id": "7955",
"parent_id": "24466",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24466 | 24472 | 24472 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24469",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Google translate says 日本語 means Japanese.\n\nIt also says:\n\n * 語 means \"word\"\n * 本 means \"this\"\n * 日 means \"day\"\n\nSo how do you get \"Japanese\" out of these three kanji?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T23:00:03.730",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24467",
"last_activity_date": "2017-09-20T22:26:18.103",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-24T01:44:36.497",
"last_editor_user_id": "9671",
"owner_user_id": "10156",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words",
"meaning"
],
"title": "Why does 日本語{にほんご} mean Japanese?",
"view_count": 3623
} | [
{
"body": "* 日 Can also mean \"Sun\"\n * 本 Can mean \"Origin\"\n * 語 Can mean \"language\"\n\nIf you look at the Japanese Flag ,you will notice there is a big red circle.\nThat is a sun. The sun is a very important object in Japanese folklore.\nAnother thing is that 日本語 refers to the Japanese language which we often just\nrefer to as Japanese",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T23:19:52.617",
"id": "24468",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T23:19:52.617",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10157",
"parent_id": "24467",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "* 語 is the suffix which means 'language'. Unlike English which needs two different nouns for a country and its language, in Japanese, you can simply add 語 after the name of a country to mean the language spoken in that country. (e.g. ドイツ = Germany, ドイツ語 = German, フランス = France, フランス語 = French)\n * 日本 is one word made of two characters, meaning 'Japan'. Etymologically [it can be further analyzed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Japan#Nihon_and_Nippon) (日 (Sun) + 本 (origin) => the rising Sun), but no one cares about that in everyday life.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-22T23:36:50.987",
"id": "24469",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-22T23:48:31.753",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-22T23:48:31.753",
"last_editor_user_id": "5010",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24467",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 15
}
] | 24467 | 24469 | 24469 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24492",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "厚生［こうせい］ \n福祉［ふくし］ \n福利［ふくり］ \n生活保護［せいかつほご］\n\nTranslating \"welfare\" into Japanese seems a bit complicated. Could someone\nmaybe provide for context the most typical phrases/chunks that use these\nwords?\n\nI'm aware that 厚生 is used in the name of the Ministry for Health, Labour and\nWelfare (厚生労働省), but am a bit confused as to why it isn't 福祉, for example.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T08:03:46.373",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24474",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T17:33:12.943",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-24T04:47:27.480",
"last_editor_user_id": "3313",
"owner_user_id": "3313",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"words",
"meaning",
"usage"
],
"title": "Difference in usage/nuance between 厚生, 福祉, 福利 and 生活保護",
"view_count": 143
} | [
{
"body": "### 厚生, 福祉 and 福利\n\nFirst of all, 福利 and 厚生 are almost outdated words except in legal terms or a\ncombination of 福利厚生 (\"[fringe\nbenefits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_benefit)\" according to WP).\n福祉 is the most common word covers \"welfare\" in every situation today.\n\n福利 particularly refers to benefits or services one can gain from welfare\nsystem. And 厚生 literally means \"fulfilled life\" or \"life enrichment\" (or \"high\nQoL\" if you prefer), which is used as a fancy word in place of \"welfare\", much\nas like we call the judicial administration \"Department of Justice\".\n\n### 生活保護\n\nIt's a proper name given to Japanese social welfare program officially\ntranslated as \"[Public\nAssistance](http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail_main?vm=&id=24)\".\nYou cannot consider this as a term indicates any kind of generic welfare\nsystems.\n\n**EDIT** \nA general term translates \"public assistance\" or \"social assistance\" seems to\nbe 公的扶助.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T06:49:29.807",
"id": "24492",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T17:33:12.943",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-24T17:33:12.943",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24474",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 24474 | 24492 | 24492 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24478",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I saw [a sticker set](http://www.line-tatsujin.com/detail/a112839.html) being\nused on a popular social platform the other day that I found very interesting.\nThey were pictures of food items, sweets mostly, and had words next to them\nthat seemed to be portmanteaus mixing Japanese phrases with the names of the\nfood. I was able to identify some:\n\n * picture: _a candied apple_ \ncaption: _おかえリンゴ_ . \nmy guess: _a portmanteau of おかえり and りんご_\n\n * picture: _a piece of 羊羹_ \ncaption: _おはようかん_. \nmy guess: _a portmanteau of おはよう and ようかん_\n\n * picture: _a piece of lemon meringue_ \ncaption: _おつかレモン_ \nmy guess: _a portmanteau of おつかれ and レモン_\n\n * picture: _some mochi_ \ncaption: _餅ろん_ \nmy guess: _a portmanteau of もち and もちろん_\n\nPretty straightforward so far, but then there is this one:\n\n\n\n> picture: _a piece of cake_ \n> caption: ケーキがいいね\n\nAfter consulting a dictionary, I thought maybe it's a pun on 景気がいい, meaning,\n\"the situation is good,\" or \"business is good.\" I'm not very confident in this\nanalysis, since I personally can't recall having come across this expression\nmyself.\n\nSticking heads together with friends didn't turn up anything either, and the\none Japanese person we were able to ask about this replied, \"Well, cake _is_\ngood.\" I don't think she understood our issue all that well.\n\nWhat kind of pun could this be?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T10:33:37.013",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24476",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T05:44:03.687",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-27T09:47:23.537",
"last_editor_user_id": "3527",
"owner_user_id": "3527",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"puns"
],
"title": "What's the meaning of this pastry pun?",
"view_count": 1012
} | [
{
"body": "I would say it is a pun on 景気が良い like you guessed.\n\nInformally the long vowel mark ー is often used in place of the sound イ, for\ninstance けいこ→けーこ.\n\nThe expression 景気がいい is used quite a lot. References:\n\n * 新聞やニュースで、よく「景気がいい、景気が悪い」という言葉が使われます <http://diamond.jp/articles/-/17436>\n * 景気がいい時は、お給料が上がりやすかったりモノが売れやすかったりというイメージがありますよね。 <http://www.k-zai.net/ebasic/020_economy.html>\n\nDo all stickers use extremely simple words that any 5-year old would\nunderstand? If yes, then 景気 would stand out as a more difficult word and\nEarthliŋ's suggestion of 天気がいい would apply better, I guess.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T10:55:53.510",
"id": "24478",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T05:44:03.687",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-28T05:44:03.687",
"last_editor_user_id": "107",
"owner_user_id": "107",
"parent_id": "24476",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24476 | 24478 | 24478 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24483",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "All of my studies so far have suggested that i-adjectives never take だ (です can\nbe used to make the sentence polite). Then I came across this sentence:\n\n> 私が世界で一番偉いだって？？\n>\n> I'm the greatest in the world??\n\nI'm not really comfortable with what the って is doing at the end here and I\ndon't understand why だ is needed. How does this grammar work and how does the\nnuance differ from\n\n> 私が世界で一番偉いか？？",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T18:09:12.067",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24481",
"last_activity_date": "2021-09-14T14:32:27.573",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"nuances",
"particle-って"
],
"title": "i-adjective followed by だ",
"view_count": 549
} | [
{
"body": "There is nothing incorrect or ungrammatical about the sentence:\n\n> 「[私]{わたし}が[世界]{せかい}で[一番偉]{いちばんえら}い **だって** ？？」\n\nbecause this is different from saying:\n\n> 「私が世界で一番偉い **だ** 。」, which is ungrammatical.\n\n「だって」 in the sentence in question is placed after a quote, is it not?\n\n> 私が世界で一番偉いだって？？ ＝\n>\n> 『私が世界で一番偉い。』だって？？ (私 = listener)\n\nDepending on the context, it may be:\n\n> 私が『世界で一番偉い』だって？？ (私 = speaker)\n\n**This 「だって」 expresses one's surprise, criticism, etc. toward the statement\nthat is being quoted.**\n\nThe fact that the quoted statement _**happens**_ to end in an i-adjective has\nno effect on the validity of 「だって」. People can utter phrases and sentences\nthat end in all kinds of parts of speech, and since you are basically quoting\nthem word for word right in front of this 「だって」, you can and should expect to\nencounter 「～～だだって」、「～～ですだって」、「～～だっただって」、「～～ねだって」、「～～だろうだって」, etc.\n\nSince that is a valid usage, you can find it in dictionaries, too. (Not sure\nabout bilingual dictionaries as I almost never use them.)\n\nSee definition 三 here:\n\n<https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%A0%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6-561380#E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.9E.97.20.E7.AC.AC.E4.B8.89.E7.89.88>\n\n「私が世界で一番偉いか？？」 feels very different because it is a plain yes-no question and\nit does not express the surprise or criticism that I mentioned above which\n「だって」 as a sentence-ender expresses.\n\nI think I should mention this before I go. This 「だって」 is pronounced **VERY**\ndifferently than 「だって」 that means \"because\" as in 「だって女の子だもん！」.\n\nSentence-ender: Accent on the 「て」\n\n\"Because\": Accent on the 「だ」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T20:23:02.567",
"id": "24483",
"last_activity_date": "2021-09-14T14:32:27.573",
"last_edit_date": "2021-09-14T14:32:27.573",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24481",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
] | 24481 | 24483 | 24483 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I saw this sentence, but I'm not sure what the で particle is doing in it.\nEverything else is fine, and I can make out what the sentence says pretty\neasily, but it's bugging me that I don't know specifically what the で is\ndoing.\n\nThanks.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T19:29:51.100",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24482",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T01:35:05.520",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10164",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-で"
],
"title": "Question about で in this sentence: 今日だけは悲しいままでいさせてほしい。",
"view_count": 100
} | [
{
"body": "When I read this question, I instantly remembered an English sentence that\nlooked and felt very strange when I was struggling to learn English many years\nago. That sentence was: \"I came home sick.\"\n\nMy Japanese-speaking brain just kind of refused to accept it. To me, at least\na word was missing in front of the last word \"sick\". I think I was\nunconsciously seeking a particle there, without which the sentence simply did\nnot make much sense.\n\nThe same (but opposite) thing seems to be happening to you this time.\n\n> 「(Phrase) + ままで～～」\n\nis an often-used expression meaning **\"in the (same) situation (described by\nthe phrase)\".** The state/situation is maintained. The 「で」 is the equivalent\nof \"in\" here.\n\n**_\"I would like to stay sad for the rest of the day.\"_**\n\nA more literal translation would be: \"I would like you/them to let me stay in\nthe same sad situation for the rest of the day.\"\n\n<https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%BE%E3%81%BE%E3%81%A7-388805#E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.9E.97.20.E7.AC.AC.E4.B8.89.E7.89.88>\n\nIn highly colloquial (and sloppy) kind of speech, some people will actually\ndrop the 「で」 just as particles in general tend to get dropped in casual\nspeech. In writing, however, it would sound \"better\" if you did not drop it.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T01:35:05.520",
"id": "24489",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T01:35:05.520",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24482",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 24482 | null | 24489 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24493",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "All of them means \"truth; reality\". 誠 is read as \"まこと\", and 実 as \"じつ\", however\n実 can also be read as \"まこと\". 本当 seems to have an inclination to a thing or\nfact, rather than a concept, but it also means \"truth, reality\".",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T20:23:38.413",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24484",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T11:12:32.727",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-24T04:56:13.853",
"last_editor_user_id": "7405",
"owner_user_id": "7405",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"kanji",
"homophonic-kanji",
"kanji-choice"
],
"title": "Difference between 誠, 実, and 本当",
"view_count": 2065
} | [
{
"body": "Indeed, what is truth? The answer to your question has two parts: one very\nsimple, and another very difficult.\n\nToday, these three characters are used in slightly different contexts:\n\n * 誠{まこと} is \"sincerity,\" i.e. a basis in a true heart (see below). Such a judgmental word is not heard much these days in Japanese or English. In fact, you most often hear it in Japanese where it is least called for: in a department store they often play the message ご来店{らいてん}いただきまして誠{まこと}にありがとうございます \"we are sincerely grateful to you for coming to our store today\", even though the recording is not a human and therefore cannot possess sincerity.\n * 実{じつ} is used to mean \"in fact,\" for example 実{じつ}は猫{ねこ}を飼{か}っていない \"actually, I don't keep a cat\". It slightly more often refers to externally perceived realities.\n * 本当{ほんとう} is used to mean \"actually without lying,\" for example 本当{ほんとう}の話{はなし} \"true story\", or 田中{たなか}くんが本当{ほんとう}は何{なに}を考{かんが}えているのか \"what is Tanaka-kun really thinking?\" It slightly more often refers to internal realities. This is also the word that you belt out when someone tells an unbelievable story. ほんと？？\n * 本当{ほんとう} is also used to mean \"actually without qualifications,\" for example 本当{ほんとう}の夏{なつ}の暑{あつ}さは梅雨{つゆ}明{あ}けから \"the real summer heat will start after the end of the rainy season\".\n\nNow, why does Japan have so many different words that all mean such similar\nthings? Like the English \"true, real, actual,\" this is the result of 2000\nyears of intellectual history.\n\nIn Confucianism, the heart that is true to itself is one that is pure of evil\nand deception. (This should be contrasted with Western morality, where \"being\ntrue to yourself\" often means breaking promises you have made in the past.)\nThe word for this purity/sincerity is 誠. 誠 has always had this deep moral\nconnotation, and in modern Japanese it is not much different than always.\n\nIn ancient China, 実 originally meant the \"products\" of one's estate. This\ndeveloped into two important meanings by the classical period: 実{み} \"fruit,\"\nin the same way that \"produce\" is used for \"fruit\" in modern English, and\n実{じつ} \"what's really produced,\" in the same way that one \"produces evidence\"\nin modern English. The revivalist Zhu Xi promoted his brand of Confucianism as\n実学 in order to emphasize that he was not only interested in elite poetry and\nhistory, but with a _practical_ philosophy that produced fruit, so to speak,\nfor the prosperity and happiness of ordinary people.\n\nWhen these two words came to Japan, they were both pronounced まこと in the\ncontext of reality. まこと is literally just ま+こと \"the real/true thing\". But over\nthe course of the Edo period, the _kun'yomi_ まこと became more strongly\nassociated with the Confucian idea of sincerity and the _kanji_ 実 with\nexternally verifiable truth, and now people basically only use 実 with its\n_on'yomi_ じつ. The reason for this seems to be the arrival of Western learning,\nwhich focused the concept of 実学 more finely on scientific verification.\n\nThis created a void into which 本 stepped. Most Japanese students learn the\nword 本{もと} as referring to the roots of a tree. From this, ancient China used\n本 to mean \"beginning\" or \"original\", but it was never used to mean \"true\" and\nwas never read as まこと until the Edo period. This is when Zhu Xi's philosophy\nbegan to percolate into Japan, teaching that human nature is good from the\nbeginning, and the original heart is therefore the sincere and good heart.\nParadoxically, this equation of 本=誠, which was not originally believed in\nJapan, is what led Motoori Norinaga and other national scholars to assume that\nJapan needed to recover its \"original goodness\" from Chinese complexity. 本 is\nno longer pronounced まこと, but it is from this use of 本 that we get the modern\n本当, derived from a mishearing of 本途{ほんと} \"original [true] way [of being]\".\n\n本当の話です。 For reals.\n\nSource: Tomomi Nishida, _Makoto no ji kara Edo ga mieru_ (1998). ISBN\n4876396140",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T08:58:59.560",
"id": "24493",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T11:12:32.727",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-24T11:12:32.727",
"last_editor_user_id": "583",
"owner_user_id": "583",
"parent_id": "24484",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24484 | 24493 | 24493 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24486",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I found myself thinking about how to refer to the English language in\nJapanese.\n\nI realise of course that English originated here in England, and then by\ncolonisation was brought into America, but would that distinction be made in\nJapanese as in English?\n\nPut simply, should I refer to イギリス語 or アメリカ語, even if the first is the name\nfor the English language?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T20:55:38.933",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24485",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-26T09:44:23.877",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9671",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"translation"
],
"title": "Referring to the English language",
"view_count": 407
} | [
{
"body": "I think these are the basic terms:\n\n * American English is [アメリカ英語](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%A1%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AB%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E).\n\n * British English is [イギリス英語](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A4%E3%82%AE%E3%83%AA%E3%82%B9%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E).\n\nThey're both types of 英語, just like American English and British English are\nboth types of English.\n\n* * *\n\nThat doesn't mean no one ever puts it differently. You might find 米語 and 英語\nused as short forms to refer to American and British English, for example.\nHere are some frequency results from [the Google Japanese Web N-gram\ncorpus](https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2009T08), showing how often people\nuse various terms:\n\n```\n\n 英語 31945067\n 米語 46649\n 英国語 814\n 米国語 540\n アメリカ英語 57446\n イギリス英語 75223\n アメリカ語 3217\n イギリス語 2185\n \n```\n\nUnless 英語 is being specifically contrasted with 米語 (to mean BrE and AmE), I\nthink it's usually taken to mean English in general, not just British English.\nAnd talking about English in general is more common than singling out a\nparticular dialect group, so 英語 is by far the most common term.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T21:19:59.433",
"id": "24486",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-23T22:09:11.287",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-23T22:09:11.287",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24485",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
},
{
"body": "We put both British and American English into the same generic term, 英語.\n\nIn other words, when we Japanese say 英語, we don't distinguish American English\nfrom British English, nor from Singaporean English (a.k.a. Singlish) or from\nIndian English.\n\nWhen we have a need to specify any of them, we say\n\"アメリカン・イングリシュ、ブリティッシュ・イングリッシュ、and シンガポール・イングリシュ.\"\n\nWe used to say 米語 and 英国流英語 to distinguish American English from British\nEnglish. But it sounds too crude, and today's trend, especially among younger\ngenerations, seems to be in favor of using\n\"アメリカン・イングリシュ、ブリティッシュ・イングリッシュ、シンガポール・イングリシュ\" as it is.\n\nIt's like people call アメリカン・コーヒ― 、ヨーロピアン・コーヒー、イタリアン・コーヒー、ターキッシュ・コーヒー today\ninstead of calling them 米国流コーヒー、欧州流コーヒー,イタリヤ式コーヒー and 土耳古風コーヒー. The same thing\napplies to substitution for 片言英語 with ブロークン・イングリッシュ.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-06-26T00:41:50.220",
"id": "36180",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-26T09:44:23.877",
"last_edit_date": "2016-06-26T09:44:23.877",
"last_editor_user_id": "12056",
"owner_user_id": "12056",
"parent_id": "24485",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24485 | 24486 | 24486 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "25151",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "My impression is that, in speech, 名前 is polite, and 名 is ruder - but in\nwriting, 名 sounds more literary. Am I correct?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-23T21:55:15.953",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24487",
"last_activity_date": "2015-07-31T07:29:42.100",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words"
],
"title": "名 and 名前 - the difference",
"view_count": 6128
} | [
{
"body": "名前 is just \"name\", and sometimes お名前 is used in polite conversation, but 名\nwould not be used in conversation. In literature you might see it like 彼の名は～～\nbut it sounds good only in a story context, not conversation unless you intend\nto sound like you are narrating something in a joking manner.\n\nIn school, when we would go to the teacher's room, sometimes teachers would\ntell us to 名乗れ！ meaning \"Say your name\" if we didn't greet properly. But I\nhave never heard 名 being used for anything else.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-06-19T11:29:57.820",
"id": "25151",
"last_activity_date": "2015-06-19T11:29:57.820",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10390",
"parent_id": "24487",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "As Haya8 said, [名前]{なまえ} means name in both written and speech.\n\nPolite way (not used for oneself): お名前\n\nEx. お名前は何ですか。\n\nCommon way: 名前\n\nEx. 私の名前は一郎です。\n\n名 itself isn't used in speech. However, in written terms:\n\n 1. It can be a counter for people. ~名 \nEx. 5[名]{めい} means 5 persons.\n\n 2. It can be a suffix of something. ~名 \nEx. [会社名]{かいしゃめい} means Company Name",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-07-31T01:52:25.890",
"id": "26056",
"last_activity_date": "2015-07-31T07:29:42.100",
"last_edit_date": "2015-07-31T07:29:42.100",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "10778",
"parent_id": "24487",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24487 | 25151 | 25151 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "27394",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Many times I come across sentences that uses が instead of の to indicate\npossessiveness.\n\nExample: \n彼 **が** 車 instead of 彼 **の** 車.\n\nThe dictionary says that が can also \"indicate possessive (esp. in literary\nexpressions)\", but why not to use の?\n\nThis confuses me a lot. Is there a nuance using が or の to possessiveness?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T00:56:10.117",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24488",
"last_activity_date": "2015-08-14T21:40:23.917",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7405",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"particle-の",
"particle-が",
"possession"
],
"title": "Trying to understand the use of が as の",
"view_count": 122
} | [
{
"body": "It is not a question of possession.\n\nI'll show it to you using your example.\n\nLet's say : He has built a car.\n\n彼が車を造りました。\n\nIf you want to say more about the car e.g.’ The car he built got famous in the\nwhole country.’, it comes to the change your question is about. The sentence\nwill be like this. 彼の造った車が、全国で有名になりました。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-08-14T21:40:23.917",
"id": "27394",
"last_activity_date": "2015-08-14T21:40:23.917",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10912",
"parent_id": "24488",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24488 | 27394 | 27394 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24494",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Upon looking up the term\n[大事ない](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/srch/jn/%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%8B%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84/m0u/),\nI was, shall we say, nonplussed to learn that it could mean both [\"very\nimportant\"](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/133324/m0u/%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%8B%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84/)\nand [\"not very\nimportant\"](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/133325/m0u/%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%8B%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84/).\nThe explanation of the \"very important\" meaning clears things up, though - the\nない here is not 「無い」, but rather [the \"emphatic\" 接尾語\n「ない」](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/162272/m0u/%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84/).\nThis is super-interesting, and explains why words like 切ない do not \"mean\"\n\"切無い\", which is something that had always bugged me.\n\nWhat is the etymology of this \"emphatic\" ない? Is it related to the classical\ncopula なり?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T02:07:26.060",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24490",
"last_activity_date": "2015-11-11T01:47:39.043",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3437",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"etymology"
],
"title": "What is the etymology of the \"emphatic\" ない?",
"view_count": 458
} | [
{
"body": "Just to respond to the question part, the origin of the \"emphatic\" ない is the\nClassical suffix 「なし」, and not 「なり」.\n\n<http://kobun.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%AA%E3%81%97>\n\n「なし」 is an adjective-forming suffix with the meanings of \"truly ~~\",\n\"extremely ~~\", etc.\n\nIt needs to be noted again that this has **_nothing_** to do with 「[無]{な}し」.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T09:11:35.627",
"id": "24494",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T09:11:35.627",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24490",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "As l'électeur notes, the emphatic ない in 大事【だいじ】ない, 切【せつ】ない, and the like comes\nfrom older なし, and is an adjectival suffix indicating \" _having XX quality or\nstate_ \", where _XX_ is the preceding root word. In terms of meaning, this is\ndefinitely **not** the same _nashi_ as 無し.\n\nThere is a growing body of research, including recent works by Bjarke\nFrellesvig, building on the idea that Old Japanese had a copular verb ぬ. The\nemphatic ない is probably related to this in some way -- a number of other old\nroot verbs have counterpart adjectives following the same vowel-shift pattern,\nsuch as あく > あかい, たく > たかい, なぐ > ながい.\n\nNegative ない appears to have grown out of negative ぬ somehow. Although the\nexact derivation is unclear, the resources I've looked at (Shogakukan,\nDaijirin, Daijisen, among others) all agree on this point. Negative ない as a\nverb ending appears as an eastern-Japanese term from the late [Muromachi\nperiod](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muromachi_period).\n\nNegative ぬ must follow the incomplete form (未然形【みぜんけい】) of a verb. If it\nfollows the stem or compounding form (連用形【れんようけい】), it instead indicates\ncompletion or resulting state -- essentially the same as emphatic ない.\n\n### Speculation\n\nThis leads me to think that the negative connotations of ない originally arose\nfrom the incomplete or inchoate senses inherent to the incomplete conjugation\nof verbs. In my own research, it thus appears that negative ない and emphatic ない\nboth arise from this same ぬ copula in Old Japanese.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-11-10T22:54:56.873",
"id": "29151",
"last_activity_date": "2015-11-11T01:47:39.043",
"last_edit_date": "2015-11-11T01:47:39.043",
"last_editor_user_id": "5229",
"owner_user_id": "5229",
"parent_id": "24490",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24490 | 24494 | 24494 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24496",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm becoming increasingly confused about the correct way to form questions in\ninformal speech. I originally learned that I should replace か with の. Then I\nlearned that that was a bit girly. Then I learned that I didn't need a\nparticle at the end at all, I should just raise the intonation. Another book\ntold me I should be using かい and だい. And finally, it seems I can use か after\nall. What is the truth here? What do everyday Japanese people do (let's stick\nwith Tokyo dialect)? Just to confuse things further, I'm familiar with the\nconcept of the explanatory の, but how does that interact with all these\nschemes?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T10:10:19.333",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24495",
"last_activity_date": "2017-03-03T21:26:37.227",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"nuances",
"particle-の",
"questions",
"particle-か"
],
"title": "Use of question particles in plain speech",
"view_count": 524
} | [
{
"body": "の sounds a little feminine but you can use it if you're male - so long as のか\ncould also be used (兄弟いるの？ you can say but not どういう事ですの？) It also has somewhat\nof an implication of asking for an explanation sometimes (何やってるの？ - What are\nyou doing [and why]?)\n\nAsking without a particle is probably most common informally - 手伝う？ It has no\nreal hidden implications, so feel free to use it.\n\nかい and だい are largely used by male speakers very informally, with people their\nown age or younger. They sound soft. かい is used for yes/no questions and だい\nfor open ended questions - remember that だい has an origin related to だ, so you\ncan only use it where you could use だ. Saying どうだい？ is fine, as is どこへ行くんだい？,\nbut not 何してるだい？ Another note is that かい can very occasionally be used for non-\nyes/no questions. Anyway, these two are less popular among the younger\ngeneration.\n\nか sounds somewhat agressive in plain speech - それが名前か？ It would probably be\nbest not to use it unless you wanted to make your anger clear. However,\nfollowing a volitional, it is far less agressive (and often pronounced っか with\nthe volitional おう shortening to お). 行こうか？ It's also masculine speech in plain\nform besides following volitionals. The last note is that, in writing, where\nthe plain form is usual, か is the usual way to ask questions, and usually\nfollowed by a full stop - なぜ行ったか。",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T10:57:51.550",
"id": "24496",
"last_activity_date": "2017-03-03T21:26:37.227",
"last_edit_date": "2017-03-03T21:26:37.227",
"last_editor_user_id": "9971",
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"parent_id": "24495",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 24495 | 24496 | 24496 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Do Japanese actually pronounce the \"v\" sound? They do have a kana character\n(ヴ) dedicated to transcribing foreign \"v\" sounds, but do they actually\npronounce them like the English phoneme /v/ (using the upper teeth and the\nlower lip)? Or is it like a \"weak\" /b/ in Spanish, which is actually [/β/\n(using both lips)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_bilabial_fricative)?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T12:08:02.820",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24498",
"last_activity_date": "2019-08-22T07:33:28.900",
"last_edit_date": "2019-08-22T07:33:28.900",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10168",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 15,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"katakana",
"loanwords",
"phonetics"
],
"title": "Do Japanese actually pronounce the \"v\" sound?",
"view_count": 53737
} | [
{
"body": "tl;dr: It varies, but it is usually a weak \"b\".\n\nIt varies from person to person, so some may pronounce it like the English\n\"v\", but others may use a strong \"b\" sound.\n\nOriginally, Japanese had no ヴ character so they used variations of ビ (bi). I\nthink some Japanese might be able to do it, but they find it quite awkward.\nThat's why television is called テレビ (terebi), it's hard for them to pronounce\nso they changed the sound. It's in the same vein as why they stick vowel\nsounds on the end of borrowed foreign words that end in constanants.\n\nヴ was probably introduced in order to reduce confusion and to retain accuracy\nwhen transliterating.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T20:55:57.030",
"id": "24508",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T20:55:57.030",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10171",
"parent_id": "24498",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "I think on _reading_ ヴァ, ヴィ, etc., people usually try to pronounce it\ndifferently from バ, ビ, etc., but with varying success. In fact, I think most\nJapanese that try to distinguish ヴァ and バ pronounce what would be //v// indeed\nlike the Spanish [[β]], a voiced bilabial fricative (or like a combination\nlike [[bβ]]). That seems to make sense since the voiceless bilabial fricative\n[[ɸ]] is already present in Japanese (in フ [[ɸɯ]] and as ファ, フィ, etc. in\nloanwords).\n\nI think one should point out, though, that while the katakana ヴ exists and is\ngaining ground, there is no particular standard of spelling words with ヴ and\none will most often encounter the spelling with バ etc. and only rarely\nencounter the spelling with ヴ. Loanwords that were loaned a long time ago are\nusually much more resistant to respelling. For example, バージョン is rarely\nspelled ヴァージョン:\n\n> [BCCWJ](http://www.ninjal.ac.jp/english/products/bccwj/) corpus, accessible\n> via <http://www.kotonoha.gr.jp/shonagon/>\n>\n> バージョン 1366 results \n> ヴァージョン 107 results\n\nMajor monolingual dictionaries, such as 大辞林, in fact still don't use ヴ at all\nand just note:\n\n>\n> [**ヴ**](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%83%B4-208607#E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.9E.97.20.E7.AC.AC.E4.B8.89.E7.89.88)\n>\n> 外来語の［v］の音を書き表すのに用いられる片仮名表記。\n> 〔本辞典では「ヴァ」「ヴィ」「ヴ」「ヴェ」「ヴォ」の表記は用いず，原則としてバ行の片仮名を用いた。「ヴァージン→バージン」「ヴィオラ→ビオラ」「ヴント→ブント」「ヴェール→ベール」「ヴォリューム→ボリューム」。なお「ワイマール」「ウィーン」のように「ワ」「ウ」を用いたものもある〕\n\nThat is, ヴ is taken to be a particular katakana notation to indicate that a\nloanword was spelled with V. 大辞林 writes all loanwords containing V (e.g.\nヴァージン, ヴィオラ, etc.) with バビブベボ (like バージン, ビオラ, etc.).\n\n## tl;dr\n\nIn any case, I think it can be said that the //v// phoneme doesn't (yet) exist\nin Japanese and for those speakers that do recognize it as different from\n//b//, it's almost never the voiced labiodental fricative [[v]], but rather\nthe voiced bilabial fricative [[β]].",
"comment_count": 12,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T23:29:00.167",
"id": "24509",
"last_activity_date": "2017-06-10T12:33:11.437",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24498",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 20
}
] | 24498 | null | 24509 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24506",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "How to pronounce 繁栄 han'ei? Is there a glottal stop between the two syllables?\nIs it //haɴʔeː//, //haɴeː//, //haŋʔeː// or //haŋeː//?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T12:15:56.230",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24499",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T23:00:09.247",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-24T15:14:34.043",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10168",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"pronunciation",
"phonetics"
],
"title": "How to pronounce 繁栄 han'ei?",
"view_count": 440
} | [
{
"body": "繁栄 and 反映, 半影, ... are pronounced //haɴeː// without glottal stop and ん as\n//ɴ//.\n\nThe combination //ɴ// + vowel is difficult to pronounce, so in some cases,\nsuch as 反応【はんのう】, orthography has been adapted to allow for easier\npronunciation (although はんおう might still be considered a valid pronunciation).\nUsually though a word has only a single valid spelling, which sometimes may\nhelp to distinguish homophones, e.g. 漢音【かんおん】 and 観音【かんのん】.\n\nThis phenomenon is called\n[連声【れんじょう】](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%80%A3%E5%A3%B0) and usually\noccurs with //ɴ// + //aou//, although the Wikipedia page also gives examples\nfor んゑ > ね.\n\nI guess one should also mention that in the case of //ɴ// + //i//, [there is\n雰囲気【ふんいき】](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/3293/1628), which is more\noften than not pronounced ふいんき...\n\nIn any case, //ɴ// + //aiueo// sometimes calls for attention to detail, but\nputting exceptions aside, ん + あいうえお is pronounced //ɴ// + //aiueo//. In the\ncase of //ɴe// the phonetic realization usually exhibits some palatalization\nas in [[haɴʲe:]] or nasalization as in [[hãːeː]] (see comments below).",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T15:03:48.290",
"id": "24506",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T23:00:09.247",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24499",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24499 | 24506 | 24506 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "38229",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Some verbs, like 過ぎる can be added to the stem of other verbs to alter the\nmeaning, (食べる>食べ過ぎる), can 過ぎる be used alone in specific circumstances? Are\nthere verbs which are either grammatically incorrect when used alone, but\nstill are classified as a verb, or verbs which can never be used alone in any\ncontext, despite being usable alone without being grammatically incorrect?",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T12:21:05.440",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24500",
"last_activity_date": "2016-09-23T22:08:30.143",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7955",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"adverbs",
"subsidiary-verbs",
"compound-verbs"
],
"title": "Are there verbs that simply cannot work alone under any circumstances?",
"view_count": 242
} | [
{
"body": "(Compiling a few comments into one big answer, hope nobody minds.)\n\nTo answer your first question, 過ぎる can be used alone. It means \"pass,\" as\nnoted in comments by user4092.\n\n> 賞味期限を三日過ぎた豚肉\n>\n> Pork three days past its best-by date\n\nYour second question is trickier. In modern linguistics, words are classified\nbased on how they function. You could argue that a word that can't function as\na verb really shouldn't be classified as one. (This is why many languages have\na separate class for \"auxiliary verbs\", words that conjugate and otherwise\nbehave like verbs but cannot serve as the main verb in a sentence. Some\nlinguists see this distinction in Japanese too, and speak of an \"auxiliary\nverb\" class as described in comments.)\n\nHowever, there are some words in Japanese that began as independent verbs but\nare now almost invariably used in an auxiliary-ish way (as part of a \"compound\nverb phrase\", if you like), like sobireru and aguneru as mentioned by\nchocolate. Many of these would probably fit the description \"verbs which can\nnever be used alone in any context, despite being usable alone without being\ngrammatically incorrect,\" at least in contemporary Japanese. (People might\nconcede the point if you argued that it wasn't _wrong_ to use sobireru as an\nindependent word, but it would probably still sound weird to them.)\n\nIncidentally, looking at the history of Japanese, many morphemes that are now\nindisputably \"auxiliaries,\" completely unable to stand alone, started this way\n(-masu, for example, was once mairasuru). Basically, what we are looking at is\nexamples of verbs that picked up an auxiliary-ish use and then also lost their\nnon-auxiliaryish use -- as opposed to verbs like \"sugiru\" that picked up an\nauxiliaryish use but still thrive as an independent verb too. (In fact\n\"sugiru\" has arguably split into an \"auxiliary verb\" and a \"verb,\" depending\nhow you want to slice things.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-08-05T08:31:50.217",
"id": "38229",
"last_activity_date": "2016-08-05T08:31:50.217",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "531",
"parent_id": "24500",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "i guess... Looking for a true [auxiliary verb] or verb-suffix in Jp.\n\nHow about めく ?\n\ni don't think it can be used by itself.\n\n> <http://kobun.weblio.jp/content/%E3%82%81%E3%81%8F>\n>\n> －め・く --- 接尾語 カ行 四段活用\n>\n> ① 〔名詞・形容詞・形容動詞の語幹に付いて〕…らしくなる。…のように見える。▽四段動詞を作る。「春めく」「古めく」「ほのめく」「今めく」。\n>\n> ② 〔擬声語・擬態語に付いて〕…という音を立てる。…のような状態になる。▽四段動詞を作る。「そよめく」「きらめく」「ひしめく」。\n\n[「めく」の使い方、どのような場合に「めく」を使うのが自然ですか。](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/29855/16344)\n\nAlso:\n\n－そ・む 【初む】 〔動詞の連用形に付いて〕…し始める。初めて…する。「言ひそむ」「聞きそむ」「咲きそむ」「立ちそむ」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-09-23T22:08:30.143",
"id": "39430",
"last_activity_date": "2016-09-23T22:08:30.143",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "16344",
"parent_id": "24500",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 24500 | 38229 | 38229 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "How do the Japanese actually pronounce words such as マッハ (Mahha - Mach) or\nシャッフル (Shaffuru - Shuffle)? I know\n[gemination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_phonology#Gemination) is a\nfeature of Japanese phonology, but I've only managed to articulate such\nclusters as /pp/, /kk/, /tt/, /ss/. I'm not sure about /hh/ or /ff/ (?). Any\nsuggestions?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T12:22:07.307",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24501",
"last_activity_date": "2016-12-19T09:44:57.553",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10168",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"phonetics"
],
"title": "Pronunciation of マッハ or シャッフル",
"view_count": 264
} | [
{
"body": "ッ/っ creates a glottal stop. If you want to hear a glottal stop, listen to a\nScottish person say \"butter\".(bu(pause)er)\n\nNormally, when one is created in Japanese it doubles the nearest hard\nconstanant, making it easier to pronounce. As in 日本 にっぽん Nip(pause)pon).\n\nIn words with soft constnants \"ー\" is often used, but that lengthens the sound.\nLike in セーフ. (se-e-fu)\n\nIn シャッフル it is easier to pronounce if a gap if left. So it does the same as in\nにっぽん but without doubling any constanants.\n\nsha(pause)furu",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T19:08:44.787",
"id": "24530",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T19:08:44.787",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10178",
"parent_id": "24501",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -3
},
{
"body": "Just start the initial sound of the kana (ハ or フ) early and hold it. It's\neasier to show this with romaji:\n\n> \"mahhha\" (extended huffing sound in the middle)\n>\n> \"shafffuru\" (keep blowing air through your pursed lips for a little longer\n> than usual after the シャ)\n\nIt's the same as with words like レッスン where you extends the \"ssss\" sound.\n\nEDIT: And for more fun, there is an Italian-style rolled \"r\" in Japanese (for\nspeakers able to do it) in Italian loanwords like タリアテッレ. Speakers unable to\nmake the sound may just say it as タリアテルレ or some such.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-12-18T19:30:35.963",
"id": "41782",
"last_activity_date": "2016-12-19T09:44:57.553",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "19118",
"parent_id": "24501",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24501 | null | 41782 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Context: Someone(アスタリスク) is about to have his ceremony to become a knight.\n\n> 「それではアスタ、……アスタリスクの騎士叙任の儀を始めます。さあ、私の元へ」\n>\n> 「……はい」\n>\n> 「リッシュ・エデンが聖母イブの名の下に、この世に新たな騎士を遣わせる」\n>\n> 聖母イブの名を口にすると、リッシュの体が神秘的な光を発し始める。\n>\n> その光は優艶で、アスタはただその光景と光に照らされたリッシュの美しい顔を息を呑んで見つめ続ける。\n>\n> 「平和と安寧を司る者、名をアスタリスク。汝はその使命を全うするために、その生涯を信じる者に捧げることを誓いますか？」\n\nMy question is about the first part where it says 平和と安寧を司る者. As I understand\nit, this sentence is implying that he is a 平和と安寧を司る者. From what I've seen the\nusage of 司る is used to represent someone in charge of something, but アスタリスク\nisn't a knight yet, or anyone special who has been tasked with ensuring\npeace(at least before he takes this oath) or anything like that, he just does\nit because he wants to do it. The usage of 使命を全うする to me also implies that it\nis something he has been tasked with. My question is whether these things can\nbe used to talk about things that people have taken upon themselves, or am I\nmisunderstanding something here?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T14:26:08.403",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24502",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T15:45:36.230",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-24T15:45:36.230",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "10059",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "The meaning of 司る",
"view_count": 145
} | [
{
"body": "司る suggests that someone has authoritative control over something, rather than\njust being in charge of. Whether being tasked or not is irrelevant. Also, it's\na quite grandiose word that 平和と安寧を司る者 sounds to me like s/he has or is allowed\na very mighty, even god-like, power.\n\nWhile I'm ignorant of context, it'll be indeed a bit untypical that s/he is\ncalled 司る者 if s/he won't obtain the power until s/he go through the ritual as\nyou said. But nonetheless you can take it as the declaration of his/her new\ntitle.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T15:44:45.600",
"id": "24507",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T15:44:45.600",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24502",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 24502 | null | 24507 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24504",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the context of two opponents facing off each other. Does it mean reducing\nor increasing the distance between the two? Something else?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T14:30:58.390",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24503",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T14:51:03.383",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "Meaning of 間合いを外す",
"view_count": 117
} | [
{
"body": "It would mean \"to increase the distance\" to use your own words.\n\n「[間合]{まあ}いを[外]{はず}す」 means \"to sidestep\", \"to dodge\", etc. in the one-on-one\ntype of sports and martial arts.\n\nYour exact context is unknown, but the phrase could not possibly mean the\nopposite.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-24T14:51:03.383",
"id": "24504",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-24T14:51:03.383",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24503",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 24503 | 24504 | 24504 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24512",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In newspaper articles, quotes seem to be always followed by （「~~~」と **話した** ）\nand （「~~~」と **語った** ）.\n\n_examples_ : \n大村明日香さんは「緊張しましたが、練習より楽しかった。大きな声を出すように心がけました」と **話した** 。 [(full\ncontext)](http://www.sankei.com/region/news/150505/rgn1505050029-n1.html) \n担当者は「ますます女性にとって快適な機内にしたい」と **語った** 。 [(full\ncontext)](http://www.sankei.com/region/news/141205/rgn1412050080-n1.html)\n\nWhat is the difference in meaning and usage between （「~~~」と **話した** ） and\n（「~~~」と **語った** ）?\n\nLet me start by saying that（「~~~」と語った） is never used in conversation, right?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T03:18:11.920",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24510",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T04:51:22.823",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-25T03:47:50.110",
"last_editor_user_id": "9509",
"owner_user_id": "9509",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Difference between （「~~~」と話した） and （「~~~」と語った）?",
"view_count": 213
} | [
{
"body": "In your examples, they're interchangeable. In general, 語る is only used when\nsomeone tells a story, opinion, idea, etc. You cannot use 語る when just おはよう or\nごめん is said. In this case I think 語る is closer to _tell_ and 言う is closer to\n_say_ , because we can say 'say hello' but not 'tell hello'. (Of course the\nusage of _tell_ and 語る are very different)\n\n語る is safely used in conversations, but its colloquial use is probably limited\nto fairly long stories. \"おじいちゃんが戦争の思い出を孫に語っているよ\" is OK. Sometimes we can even\njust say \"おじいちゃんがまた語り始めたよ\", meaning \"Grandpa stared his endless talk again!\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T04:51:22.823",
"id": "24512",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T04:51:22.823",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24510",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 24510 | 24512 | 24512 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24514",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I was reading the Tobira textbook recently and I became a little confused when\nreading the following passage.\n\n> \"日本語では、会話をスムーズに進めるために「あいづちをうつ」ということをします。「はい/ええ」「うん」「そうですか」など色々ありますが、これらは\n> ″Yes, I'm following you; please continue.″という意味で、″Yes, I\n> agree.″という意味ではありません。\"\n\nMore specifically this particular sentence\n\n> \"これらは ″Yes, I'm following you; please continue.″という意味 **で** 、″Yes, I\n> agree.″という意味ではありません。\"\n\nFrom my understanding this sentence means\n\n->\"This means \"Yes, I'm following you; please continue\" and **NOT** \"Yes I agree\".\"\n\nIs this correct?\n\nThe reason I'm confused over this is because despite the clauses being\nopposite polarity they are using the て/で form.\n\nNormally wouldn't a sentence with opposing polarities be better suited/more\nnatural to using the が particle such that\n\n> これらは ″Yes, I'm following you; please continue.″という意味 **ですが** 、″Yes, I\n> agree.″という意味ではありません。\n\nIs using the で in the first example the same as using the が in the second\nexample?\n\nTheoretically speaking, if I wanted to negate both clauses would it make sense\nto use じゃなくて？\n\n> これらは ″Yes, I'm following you; please continue.″という意味 **じゃなくて** 、″Yes, I\n> agree.″という意味ではありません。\n\nWould it make sense to interpret this sentence as \"These do **NOT** mean \"Yes,\nI'm following you; please continue\" and **NOT** \"Yes I agree\".\n\nI.E both clauses are negative.\n\nBasically what's troubling me is: is the polarity determined from the ending\nof each individual relative clause or is the polarity of the entire sentence\ndetermined by the ending of the sentence. Because tense IS determined by the\nsentence final ending, correct?\n\nThanks",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T04:01:46.827",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24511",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T16:31:50.080",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-25T16:31:50.080",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "4385",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"syntax",
"て-form",
"clause-pattern"
],
"title": "Sentence Polarity when connecting sentences/clauses with て/で",
"view_count": 419
} | [
{
"body": "> これはAで、Bではありません。\n\nmeans 'This is A, not B.' This is similar to\n\n> これはBではなく、Aです。(This is not B, but A). \n> これはAですが、Bではありません。(This is A, but not B.)\n\nSo\n\n> これらは \"Yes, I'm following you; please continue.\"という意味で、\"Yes, I agree.\"\n> という意味ではありません。\n\nmeans 'This means \"Yes, I'm following you; please continue\" and NOT \"Yes I\nagree\".'\n\nYou would say\n\n> これはAでもBでもありません。 \n> これはAでもなくBでもありません。 \n> これはAでもないしBでもありません。 \n> これはAでもなければBでもありません。 \n> これはAではなく、またBでもありません。 etc.\n\nto mean 'This is not A or B.'\n\nSo, 'These do NOT mean \"Yes, I'm following you; please continue\" and NOT \"Yes\nI agree\".' would be written\n\n> これらは \"Yes, I'm following you; please continue.\"という意味でも(なく/ないし)、\"Yes, I\n> agree.\"という意味でもありません。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T05:04:47.257",
"id": "24514",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T05:11:52.217",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-25T05:11:52.217",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24511",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "> _The reason I'm confused over this is because despite the clauses being\n> opposite polarity they are using the て/で form._\n\nThe で you mentioned is used to **join two sentences** here, and it **isn't a\ncounterpart of て/で form** in verbs, though their... they're very confusing. As\nit's... its true identity is somewhat debatable and I don't know how your\ntextbook explains, I go theory-neutral here.\n\nFunctionally, it serves as:\n\n> これらはAという意味だ。 + これらはBという意味ではない。 \n> → これらはAという意味 **で** 、Bという意味ではない。\n\n...and is parallel with:\n\n> 私は日本人ではない。 + 私はアメリカ人だ。 \n> → 私は日本人では **なく** 、アメリカ人だ。\n>\n> 彼女は朝走る。 + 彼女は午後に散歩する。 \n> → 彼女は朝走 **り** 、午後に散歩する。\n\nIn summary, this particle is found in the following grammatical paradigm:\n\n```\n\n Dictionary Form This equivalent TE-Form\n 走る 走り 走って\n 美しい 美しく 美しくて\n ない なく なくて\n である であり であって\n だ で <- HERE! ×\n きれいだ きれいで ×\n \n```\n\nYou can see we don't have te-form of copula だ because of some grammatical\nrestriction, and we use this form in situations other words would have te-\nform, too. It ultimately comes from case particle で, so we have to borrow であって\nwhen we need to differentiate it from other possible meanings で could have.\n(The same applies to _na-adjectives_ like きれいだ, because they're basically\ndiverting だ to their conjugation except before nouns.)\n\n> _Basically what's troubling me is: is the polarity determined from the\n> ending of each individual relative clause or is the polarity of the entire\n> sentence determined by the ending of the sentence._\n\nYes, polarity is independent. Only tense and politeness are carried over. (The\nreason why, I guess, belongs to another lengthy answer.)\n\n> **これらは ″Yes, I'm following you; please continue.″という意味ですが、″Yes, I\n> agree.″という意味ではありません。**\n\nIt's grammatically correct but semantically weird. The latter half is\nsupporting the former, so it shouldn't be connected with が \"though\".\n\n> **これらは ″Yes, I'm following you; please continue.″という意味じゃなくて、″Yes, I\n> agree.″という意味ではありません。**\n\nSo is this. At least it needs \"either\"; you should say: ～という意味で **も** ありません.\nAnd ideally, \"nor ~ neither ~\" pattern is more preferable:\n\n> これらは ″Yes, I'm following you; please continue.″という意味 **でも** 、″Yes, I\n> agree.″という意味 **でも** ありません。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T15:44:21.210",
"id": "24524",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T15:44:21.210",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7810",
"parent_id": "24511",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24511 | 24514 | 24514 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24515",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "As far as I understand, the word 大人 (otona) uses the kanji 大 to represent お\nand the kanji 人 to represent と. According to [this\nsite](http://tangorin.com/kanji/%E4%BA%BA) the readings for 人 do not include\nな. Where does the な come from then?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T04:51:39.500",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24513",
"last_activity_date": "2018-10-07T09:27:17.957",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-25T11:06:11.077",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "3726",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 17,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"etymology"
],
"title": "Where does the な in 大人 (otona) come from?",
"view_count": 10161
} | [
{
"body": "It's [熟字訓]{じゅくじくん}. Excerpt from\n[Wiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jukujikun):\n\n> A Japanese word whose kanji spelling conveys the meaning based on the\n> individual characters, but the reading is not directly related to the\n> spellling. For example, 大 (“big”, usually read _ō_ in _kun'yomi_ compounds)\n> and 人 (“person”, usually read _hito_ in _kun'yomi_ compounds) combine to\n> form 大人, meaning “adult” but read as _otona_ instead of the otherwise-\n> expected _ōbito_.\n\nWe have tons of 熟字訓, e.g. [昨日]{きのう}, [土産]{みやげ}, [二十歳]{はたち} etc. For more, see\n[熟字訓 on Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%86%9F%E5%AD%97%E8%A8%93).",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T05:26:38.707",
"id": "24515",
"last_activity_date": "2018-06-11T03:06:11.617",
"last_edit_date": "2018-06-11T03:06:11.617",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24513",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 22
},
{
"body": "# Regarding the etymology of おとな\n\n大人 contains the meaning of **the leader of a group, the most significant one,\nthe eldest one,** etc.\n\nThe etymology is not clear however one of the reason might related to the word\n乙名＝おとな\n\nDuring 室町 period, the wise leaders who lead some local farmer's autonomous\ngroup were commonly called 乙名＝おとな。 It is unclear which word came first but the\nreading [大人]{おとな} is _**quite possibly**_ came from 乙名。\n\nReference: See section [大辞林\n第三版](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E4%B9%99%E5%90%8D-40740#E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.9E.97.20.E7.AC.AC.E4.B8.89.E7.89.88\n\"Kotobank Online Dictionary\").\n\nSo here you go! The な comes from [名]{な} in 乙名。\n\n_Or is it? GO FIND OUT YOURSELF〜 ヽ(ﾟ∀ﾟ)メ Study etymology〜_ You can probably\nget a PhD studying this.\n\nPortal -> [日本歴史言語学会](http://www.jp-histling.com/Pages/default.aspx)\n\n* * *\n\n# Regarding 熟字訓\n\nIt is false to think 大人＝ [大]{お}・人{と}＋な。\n\n[@user5185 is right](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/24513/where-\ndoes-the-%E3%81%AA-in-%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%BA-otona-come-from/24515#24515) about 大人\nbeing 熟字訓 and got not much relation with the pronunciation おとな。 _（It might\nonce be related, but not anymore cause no one is sure.）_\n\nFor more information on 熟字訓 and 当て字 see my another answer for [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/50383/exceptions-to-\nkanji-readings \"Q: Exceptions to kanji readings\").",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2017-07-15T17:27:51.653",
"id": "50400",
"last_activity_date": "2018-10-07T09:27:17.957",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "22397",
"parent_id": "24513",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] | 24513 | 24515 | 24515 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Would the sentence below make sense?\n\n> バスがじゅっぷんにきます。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T06:45:00.607",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24516",
"last_activity_date": "2019-04-02T06:16:22.260",
"last_edit_date": "2016-02-07T08:22:30.783",
"last_editor_user_id": "11849",
"owner_user_id": "10174",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "How to say 'in 10 minutes' as in 'the bus comes in 10 minutes'?",
"view_count": 3020
} | [
{
"body": "You would say\n\n> バスは[１０分]{じっぷん(じゅっぷん)}[後]{ご}に来ます。 \n> or バスは（[後]{あと}）１０分で来ます。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T06:53:43.220",
"id": "24517",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T08:05:17.383",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-25T08:05:17.383",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24516",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "I would usually use `後｛ご｝`, as an indication of what is to come :\n\n> バスが十分｛じゅっぷん｝後｛ご｝に来{き}ます。\n\nAnother example :\n\n> 飛行機{ひこうき}は１０分[後]｛ご｝に離陸｛りりく｝します。\n\nMaybe you also know `後｛あと｝で` as a way to say, `afterwards, in a while`, this\nis the same kanji. You can use it this way :\n\n> 電車｛でんしゃ｝は後｛あと｝五分で発車｛はっしゃ｝します。",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T06:56:30.290",
"id": "24518",
"last_activity_date": "2019-01-10T16:57:12.610",
"last_edit_date": "2019-01-10T16:57:12.610",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "3614",
"parent_id": "24516",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "You could say\n\n> バスは[10分]{じゅっぷん}後{ご}に来{き}ます。\n\nOr a slightly more formal\n\n> バスは[10分]{じゅっぷん}後{ご}に到着{とうちゃく}します。\n\nEDIT: \nI asked my Japanese teacher about this (as it came up somewhere else) the\nfollowing clarification was made:\n\nBAD: 後２０分に (This phrasing is typically used for an ongoing action that has\nalready started)\n\nGOOD: ２０分後に (This specifies a time point in the future)\n\nI have edited the answer accordingly.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T06:57:45.593",
"id": "24519",
"last_activity_date": "2019-04-02T06:16:22.260",
"last_edit_date": "2019-04-02T06:16:22.260",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"parent_id": "24516",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 24516 | null | 24517 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24526",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I've seen several posts saying that と cannot be used to mean 'and' when\nlinking clauses. They say it should be treated as 'when'. I have come across\nseveral sentences in my studies that do not support this conclusion e.g.\n\n> 鬼は、一寸｛いっすん}ぼうしを吐き出すと、大急ぎで逃げていきました\n>\n> The ogre spit out 一寸ぼうし 'and' hurriedly ran away.\n>\n> *When the ogre spit out 一寸ぼうし he hurriedly ran away\n\nIt doesn't feel right to interpret と as 'when' here because that would imply\nthat I already knew the ogre had/was going to spit him out (I don't know this\nfrom the prior sentences in the story).\n\nFurthermore, grammar books tell me that と should be used to mean 'when' only\nif the main clause is a natural consequence of the condition. Here's another\nsentence from the same story\n\n> 都に着くと、いっ寸ぼうしは大臣の家に行きました。\n>\n> When he arrived at the capital, いっ寸ぼうし went to the nobleman's house.\n\nUsing 'when' makes sense here since I already knew he was going to the\ncapital, but, going to the nobleman's house isn't a natural consequence of\narriving in the capital (in fact, I would claim it was volitional. And\nvolitional statements are explicitly banned when using と to mean 'when'). If I\nmove いっ寸ぼうしは to the front of the sentence I could equally well translate the\nsentence as \"いっ寸ぼうし arrived at the capital and went to the nobleman's house.\"\nCan someone please provide some insight into the use of と in sentences like\nthese. Also, could I write 鬼は、一寸ぼうしを吐き出して、大急ぎで逃げていきました for the first sentence,\nand how would it differ in meaning/nuance?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T14:20:32.927",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24523",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T18:42:47.367",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"て-form",
"particle-と",
"conditionals"
],
"title": "Using と to link clauses instead of て",
"view_count": 506
} | [
{
"body": "1. 鬼は、一寸ぼうしを吐き出すと、大急ぎで逃げていきました is a lot closer to \"When the ogre spit out 一寸ぼうし he hurriedly ran away\" than \"The ogre spit out 一寸ぼうし 'and' hurriedly ran away.\", which is close to 鬼は、一寸ぼうしを吐き出 **して** 大急ぎで逃げていきました.\n\n 2. と should be used to mean 'when' only if the main clause is a natural **consequence of the condition** , which means the main clause should be conditional or habitual past instead of ~~indicative~~ past indicative, that is, statement of a realized fact. Now, the example sentence is past indicative, or statement of a fact. So, that explanation above is irrelevant to your example.\n\nEdit: \"natural consequence of the condition\" doesn't mean if you know it or\nnot, but that a thing that the main clause stands for happens regardless of\nyour intention under the condition, or so.\n\n 3. Simple temporal usage of と is rare (should I say hardly heard?) in everyday conversation, but frequently used in narrative.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T17:01:38.947",
"id": "24526",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T17:22:59.550",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-25T17:22:59.550",
"last_editor_user_id": "4092",
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24523",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I found [this site](https://www.renshuu.org/grammar/110/%E3%81%A8).\nConstruction 4 of 4 says \"Shows a sequence of two events A and B (These events\ndo not necessarily need to have a cause/effect relationship)\". The grammar is:\n\n> A (Verb: Dictionary Form) + と + B (Verb: Casual, past (た))\n\nAnd some example sentences are supplied:\n\n> 映画を見るとポップコーンを食べました。\n>\n> I watched a movie and ate popcorn.\n>\n> 宿題を終わると家に帰りました。\n>\n> I finished my homework and came back home\n\nI don't know how reliable this web site is but it certainly seems to fit some\nof the sentences I've seen better than a conditional と.\n\nIt doesn't, however explain why I should choose this form over て. I'de be very\ninterested to know if people find this grammar/interpretation credible.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T18:42:47.367",
"id": "24555",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T18:42:47.367",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"parent_id": "24523",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 24523 | 24526 | 24526 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24535",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Spoken as part of a monologue by an anime character (cutting out parts\nirrelevant for context):\n\n> 私にとっても、それは不快な事実だった。 **私がではない** 。 あれほど冷酷な魔術師だった男が、敵を助けたという事実こそが不快だった。\n\nIs it a fixed phrase? What does it mean? What is が here? Just added modality\n(disappointment, surprise etc.)?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T16:58:45.757",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24525",
"last_activity_date": "2015-12-14T00:09:58.163",
"last_edit_date": "2015-12-14T00:09:58.163",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"modality",
"cleft-sentences"
],
"title": "Meaning of 私がではない",
"view_count": 332
} | [
{
"body": "It means 'I am not', with emphasis on the I: watashi ga (emphasised I), dewa\nnai (am not). If you wanted to, you could put a na adjective or noun (no\nparticles needed) between the watashi ga and the dewa nai to make\n\nI am not (word)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T22:06:00.473",
"id": "24533",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-25T22:06:00.473",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10167",
"parent_id": "24525",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "> 私がではない。あれほど冷酷な魔術師だった男が、敵を助けたという事実こそが不快だった。\n\nThe が in 私が is the case particle as a subject marker. 'I did not. / It was not\nI (who saved my enemy).' It was the 男(=切嗣) that saved his enemy (= me = 言峰),\nnot the other way around, and 言峰 is saying that it was 不快 to him.\n\nSource: <http://www26.atwiki.jp/tmranking/pages/51.html>\n\nbreakdown: \nが= 格助詞/case particle \nで= 断定の助動詞/assertive auxiliary, or copula \nは= 係助詞/binding particle \nない= 形容詞/negative adjective\n\neg. \n「XXがではない」 It's not XX (who does...) \n「XXにではない」 It's not to/for XX \n「XXのではない」 It's not XX's \n「XXとではない」 It's not with XX",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T22:42:05.077",
"id": "24535",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T01:11:12.533",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-26T01:11:12.533",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24525",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24525 | 24535 | 24535 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24537",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have come several times across the の particle just before a comma （、）but I\ncould not figure out why の was use and for what purpose.\n\nHere are some examples I have run across:\n\n> ex1: [今回はそのようなリスクを少しでも減らすため **の**\n> 、チェックリストを呈してみることにする。](http://www.jgnn.net/ls/2013/08/post-7886.html)\n>\n> ex2: [普段はIT企業の役員を務める彼 **の** 、芸人としてのバイト代は……？\n> エンディングムービーも要チェック。](http://getnews.jp/archives/924827)\n>\n> ex3: [※『未来篇』のBD-DVD **の** 、劇場での販売の予定はございません。](http://anime-kyokai.com/bd-\n> dvd/)\n\nFor ex3, I would have expected something like the next sentence on the page\n(『過去篇』のBD-DVD **は** 、未来篇上映劇場にて引き続き、販売いたします。)\n\n* * *\n\nI know that the particle の can be used to refer to something aforementioned\nlike in the following example, but it does not seem to be the case in the\nexamples I mentioned.\n\n> A: 誰の教科書ですか。 \n> B: 私のです。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T20:13:30.477",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24531",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T00:21:37.540",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "4216",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-の"
],
"title": "What is that suspentive の particle?",
"view_count": 267
} | [
{
"body": "「(Phrase) + の」 always modifies a noun that follows. That noun can either\ndirectly follow 「の」 or after another phrase that directly follows 「の」.\n\nTo examine this in your examples:\n\n 1. 「そのようなリスクを少しでも減らすための」 modifies 「チェックリスト」.\n\n 2. 「普段はIT企業の役員を務める彼の」 modifies 「バイト代」.\n\n 3. 「『未来篇』のBD-DVDの」 modifies 「販売」.\n\nUnlike in many other languages including English, the use of commas in\nJapanese is pretty much left to the discretion of the writer and that often\nseems to be the cause of confusion and misunderstanding among Japanese-\nlearners.\n\nIn your examples, the comma would feel least \"needed\" in #1 because the noun\n「チェックリスト」 follows directly the の-phrase. The author probably used a comma\nbecause the の-phrase is fairly long and s/he saw a need for a \"moment of\npause\" there.\n\nThe commas in #2 and #3 seem more \"needed\" (though still optional) because in\neach case, there is another shorter の-phrase between the main の-phrase and the\nnoun that it modifies.\n\nFinally, the possesive の that you mentioned at the end has very little to do\nwith the 「の」 that I have discussed above.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T00:21:37.540",
"id": "24537",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T00:21:37.540",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24531",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] | 24531 | 24537 | 24537 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24536",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Just how feminine is it? How odd would it be if a male speaker said it? I have\nfound one example of someone male using, in a piece of fiction: Lest レスト、 the\nmain character of Rune Factory 4 ルーンファクトリー４、 at one point shouts 違ったじゃない\nregarding something, and his speech patterns aren't that feminine (though not\nas masculine as they could be) - but I have a feeling that the game's script\nis nearly identical regardless of gender.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T21:49:04.537",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24532",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T00:21:27.903",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words",
"gender",
"feminine-speech"
],
"title": "The positive ～じゃない",
"view_count": 271
} | [
{
"body": "～じゃない is not particularly feminine in Standard/Tokyo Japanese, as long as the\nない is relatively short (i.e. sticks to the moraic rhythm) and maintains its\nlow pitch.\n\nI would say that the longer ない is drawn out, and the more rising pitch it is\ngiven, the more feminine it sounds.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-25T22:47:58.167",
"id": "24536",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T00:21:27.903",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-26T00:21:27.903",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "24532",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 24532 | 24536 | 24536 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I just finished Japanese level 2 in college, which as I have come to\nunderstand is ~the most important~ and I came away with quite a lot of\nquestions.\n\nWe learned about relative clauses and something my teacher referred to as a\n\"sentential modifier\" and they seem very similar, but clearly have different\nfunctions. Hoping someone could help.\n\n> コーヒーを飲んでいる男の人です。\n>\n> the man drinking coffee\n\nSo as I understand this is an example of a relative clause (i.e. the preceding\nclause modifies the noun). However, when my sensei brought up a \"sentential\nmodifier\" she kind of glossed over it. But here was the sentence\n\n> これは私が使う水です。\n>\n> That is the water I use.\n\nSo, these things are pretty similar, but I was hoping someone could clarify\nthis for me. Both sentences use the short form of verbs and no particle\nbetween the verb and the ~leading~ noun.\n\nIf these are both correct, how commonly are clauses/sentences like this used?\nAre there any \"rules\" about use of particles in these instances?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T01:18:43.183",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24540",
"last_activity_date": "2017-01-10T11:52:02.317",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "10182",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"particles",
"syntax",
"relative-clauses"
],
"title": "sentential modifiers(?) and relative clause question",
"view_count": 828
} | [
{
"body": "* S1. コーヒーを飲んでいる男の人です。 == Here's a man (who is) drinking coffee. ( a relative clause ? )\n\n * S2. これは私が使う水です。 == This is the water [that I use].\n\nThe latter is said to contain a \"sentential modifier\" because instead of [that\nI use], it could be [that Peter uses] or (based on) any elaborate sentence.\n\ne.g. 「これは、頭が赤い魚を食べた猫と私が飲む水です。」\n\nI think the main difference is whether the [relative clause] contains a\nsubject or not -- (I mean \"subject\" in the sense of English grammar.)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-08-02T01:34:18.883",
"id": "37125",
"last_activity_date": "2016-10-20T22:10:54.850",
"last_edit_date": "2016-10-20T22:10:54.850",
"last_editor_user_id": "16344",
"owner_user_id": "16344",
"parent_id": "24540",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I may not understand your question exactly but I try to answer.\n\nIf a sentence or a phrase modifies a noun, a postpositional particle isn't\nnecessary like コーヒーを飲んでいる男, 私が使う水.\n\nIf a noun or noun phrase modifies a noun, a postpositional particle の is\nnecessary like 男の人, 図書館の本, 大きく成功した会社の社長.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-08-02T16:10:45.317",
"id": "37142",
"last_activity_date": "2016-08-04T12:18:23.793",
"last_edit_date": "2016-08-04T12:18:23.793",
"last_editor_user_id": "7320",
"owner_user_id": "7320",
"parent_id": "24540",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "I can't (at least instantly) think of any relative clause which use special\nparticle to connect to the noun.\n\nSo I suppose answer is:\n\n * They are both commonly used grammer\n * No. There is no Japanese grammer which use special (or, dedicated...?) particle to connect a relative clause to a noun.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-12-11T10:11:18.230",
"id": "41623",
"last_activity_date": "2016-12-11T10:11:18.230",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10859",
"parent_id": "24540",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 24540 | null | 37125 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24549",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The answer to [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/9594/uses-\nof-%E3%81%A7%E3%81%8D%E3%82%8B-apart-from-potential) explains how できる can have\nmore uses than just as a potential verb. However, are there any differences in\nusage between できます and します? They both seem like they can be used to describe\nsomething being completed.\n\n`e.g. 宿題ができました! vs 宿題をしました！`",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T04:34:12.357",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24542",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T09:57:08.853",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3765",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage",
"verbs"
],
"title": "What is the difference between できました and しました?",
"view_count": 3445
} | [
{
"body": "> 宿題ができました。\n\nYou would say this to mean 'I just finished/completed my homework'. Your\nhomework is complete now.\n\n> 宿題をしました。\n\nThis means 'I did my homework'. Your homework may or may not be complete. For\nexample, if you say しました。 as a reply to 宿題はしましたか？ , you normally mean you have\ncompleted it. But you could also say 宿題をしました。まだ最後までできていませんが。(I did my\nhomework. Though it's not complete yet.) as a reply to 'What did you do in the\nafternoon?'",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T06:47:10.353",
"id": "24546",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T06:47:10.353",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24542",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
},
{
"body": "There is not much of a real difference between the two when kids say those in\nreal life.\n\nThe main difference, however minor it may be, is that the topic (and focus) is\n「宿題」 in 「宿題ができました。」 whereas it is the speaker him/herself in 「宿題をしました。」.\n\nA more interesting difference is that 「宿題ができました。」 has another completely\ndifferent meaning, which is \" ** _I have finished preparing the homework._** \"\nsaid by the **teacher**. 「宿題をしました。」 does not have this meaning.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T12:33:45.127",
"id": "24549",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T12:33:45.127",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24542",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24542 | 24549 | 24546 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "鳥 means bird or poultry. It's understandable that 鳥肉 would be chicken meat\nsince chicken is the most popular \"bird meat\".\n\nBut in this case where chicken has monopolized the meaning of bird, how would\nyou express duck meat?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T06:25:49.780",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24544",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T16:09:09.980",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "6863",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"kanji"
],
"title": "If 鳥肉 is chicken meat, what is duck meat?",
"view_count": 3233
} | [
{
"body": "With the kanji for duck, of course!\n\n> 鴨肉{かもにく}\n\nThough 鴨 is more commonly written in kana as かも or カモ.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T06:28:28.870",
"id": "24545",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T06:33:35.970",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-26T06:33:35.970",
"last_editor_user_id": "10068",
"owner_user_id": "10068",
"parent_id": "24544",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "Chicken meat is \"tori niku\" (鶏肉) and duck meat is \"kamo niku\" (鴨肉).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T14:27:34.390",
"id": "24552",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T16:09:09.980",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-26T16:09:09.980",
"last_editor_user_id": "5041",
"owner_user_id": "10188",
"parent_id": "24544",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 24544 | null | 24545 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24548",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am writing a recipe in Japanese. The excerpt is given as follows.\n\n> まず、丼に卵と塩とこしょうと薄切りの玉ねぎを入れて、混ぜる。\n>\n> フライパンに油を入れて、火をつけて、１っ分ぐらい持つ。\n>\n> フライパンに「the contents of the bowl」を入れて、５分ぐらい炒める。\n\nThe contents of the bowl is the mixed ingredients. What is the correct pronoun\nto replace \"the contents of the bowl\"? Is there a single word for it?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T11:49:57.437",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24547",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T12:20:42.160",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9896",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "What is the name for the mixed ingredients in a bowl?",
"view_count": 87
} | [
{
"body": "混ぜた材料を - To be explicit about what you are referring to\n\nAnd just regarding the rest of your sentence - 丼 → ボール and １分 (don't need the\nっ)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T12:20:42.160",
"id": "24548",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T12:20:42.160",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9489",
"parent_id": "24547",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24547 | 24548 | 24548 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24551",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm working to translate this particular line, wondering if it accurately puts\nacross this idea. Alternatives are welcome too! 彼{かれ}のする方{かた}",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T13:28:20.433",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24550",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T14:01:26.077",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10187",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "\"The way she went about things\" as 彼のする方",
"view_count": 77
} | [
{
"body": "「[彼女]{かのじょ}の[物事]{ものごと} **への** [取]{と}り[組]{く}み[方]{かた}」\n\nor\n\n「彼女の物事 **の** 取り組み方」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T14:01:26.077",
"id": "24551",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T14:01:26.077",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24550",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24550 | 24551 | 24551 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "Can any 名詞をする be shorten as 名詞する ? Is there any exception for this?\n\nFor example,\n\n * 勉強をする can be shorten as 勉強する\n * テニスをする can be shorten as テニスする",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T14:54:08.327",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24553",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T14:54:08.327",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9896",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Can any 名詞をする be shorten as 名詞する?",
"view_count": 108
} | [] | 24553 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24557",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The relevant bit goes like:\n\n> 我が祈りを聞き給え\n>\n> 生きとし生けるものすべては主に帰 **せん**\n>\n> 我が魂よ再び安らぐがよい主は報いて下さるがゆえに\n\nGoing off context ん seems to be a volitional auxiliary (推量) as it would make\nthe middle bit as \"to you (the Lord) all living beings shall come\". Is it that\nor something else?\n\nBut how does 帰す conjugate here? Is 帰せ an older mizenkei?\n\nEdit: I've found some examples, such as\n\n> 乙女のすがたしばしとどめ **ん** I **want** to keep the image of the young women for a\n> while.\n\nHowever, I don't know if this verb is the same as modern とどめる, which wouldn't\nmake much sense attaching 連用形 to volitional. If とどめ were a mizenkei form of\nsome other verb it would start making some sense to me, I think.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T18:25:22.063",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24554",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T21:35:33.043",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "9771",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"verbs"
],
"title": "What is 帰す form here?",
"view_count": 178
} | [
{
"body": "Yes, it's a mizenkei and the ん is a volitional auxiliary as you say. 帰す（きす）\nhere stands for to be attributed to, and the conjugation goes きせ(ず) きし(たり)\nきす(べし) きする(こと) きすれ(ば) きせよ.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T21:35:33.043",
"id": "24557",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T21:35:33.043",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4092",
"parent_id": "24554",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24554 | 24557 | 24557 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "My textbook I studied from many months ago stated that to quote what somebody\nsaid, you have to use と言っていました. I was wondering why that form is used and not\nと言いました。 Is there any specific reason for it?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T19:45:35.527",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24556",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T23:04:27.663",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-26T23:04:27.663",
"last_editor_user_id": "9749",
"owner_user_id": "5423",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Why と言っていました and not と言いました",
"view_count": 260
} | [] | 24556 | null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24560",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Ikemen means something like cool man, is there something similar for women?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T22:49:05.800",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24558",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T23:24:31.393",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7791",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"words",
"slang",
"word-requests"
],
"title": "Is there a female version of ikemen?",
"view_count": 13609
} | [
{
"body": "Because it just means \"good looking / handsome man\" the female version will be\n美人 (bijin) meaning \"pretty women\".\n\nMaybe your also interested into the fairly newly created words デキ女 (dekijo)\nand デキ男 (dekidan) for a more characterwise coolness in the sense of someone\nwho is successful f.e. in job.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T23:00:49.183",
"id": "24559",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T23:06:44.900",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-26T23:06:44.900",
"last_editor_user_id": "9538",
"owner_user_id": "9538",
"parent_id": "24558",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "I do not believe there would be a word that everyone could agree upon as the\nword 「イケメン」 itself is pretty new.\n\nIf you are looking for a new word, we have 「イケジョ」 even though it is not wide-\nspread yet.\n\nMore common (and traditional) words include: [美人]{びじん}、[美女]{びじょ}、べっぴん、べっぴんさん,\netc. All are safe choices.\n\n「かわいこちゃん」(with only one い) was a very common word when I was growing up, but\nit feels kinda retro now.\n\nYou could say (and we do often say) 「きれいな人」 though it is not one word.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T23:24:31.393",
"id": "24560",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-26T23:24:31.393",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24558",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 24558 | 24560 | 24560 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24562",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "How would you translate \"以前の問題\" in the next sentence:\n作文が上手かどうかは、日本語能力以前の問題である。\n\nThank you! )",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-26T23:48:29.380",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24561",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T00:19:12.317",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9364",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "How to translate 以前の問題",
"view_count": 294
} | [
{
"body": "> 「Word or phrase + [以前]{いぜん}の[問題]{もんだい}」\n\nmeans \"a matter to be considered prior to (word or phrase)\".\n\nWhat that means is that there is an underlying matter which is more essential\n(and possibly more important) than the matter at hand.\n\nThe sentence 「[作文]{さくぶん}が[上手]{じょうず}かどうかは、日本語[能力]{のうりょく}以前の問題である。」 suggests\nthat whether or not one is good at writing compositions in Japanese depends\nmore on something else than on one's Japanese ability.\n\nWhat is that something? Only the author could answer this, but if I were to\ntake an educated guess, s/he would probably be referring to one's ability in\none's first language.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T00:19:12.317",
"id": "24562",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T00:19:12.317",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24561",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 24561 | 24562 | 24562 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24565",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I came across the word in a manga in a situation that a teenage boy is going\nto explain something to a group of kids. I cannot find the word in online\njapanese dictionary.\n\nHere is the sentence.\n\n耳{みみ}をかっぽじって **ようく** きくがいい!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T06:21:12.293",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24564",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T08:35:50.800",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-27T08:35:50.800",
"last_editor_user_id": "9212",
"owner_user_id": "9559",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words",
"manga"
],
"title": "What does the word 「ようく」mean?",
"view_count": 1136
} | [
{
"body": "「ようく/よーく」 is an exaggerated pronunciation of 「よく」, which is why it is not\nfound in the dictionary.\n\n「ようくきく」＝「良く聞く」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T06:30:32.410",
"id": "24565",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T06:30:32.410",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24564",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 24564 | 24565 | 24565 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24572",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am often confused on which level of politeness to use between people who are\nrelatively close.\n\nFor example, let say I am talking when a friend in Japanese and we use plain\nform. Although a close friend of that person comes along and joins the\nconversation. How does the use politeness change between the group?\n\nIf its someone I know but would normally use ～ます/丁寧語 form with, would the\nentire group switch to that? Or would the politeness stay the same between\neach person of the group?\n\nI have read a [different\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/9493/situational-\nacceptability-of-politeness-and-or-honorific-use) that was helpful but it is\nmore centered around formalities with work.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T06:49:36.863",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24566",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T11:31:05.213",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "10191",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"politeness"
],
"title": "Situational use of politeness",
"view_count": 170
} | [
{
"body": "My experience in Japan is that you mix levels. When in a group conversation,\nyou tend to keep the level of politeness you have with that particular person.\nIf it is someone new, you keep it 丁寧語.\n\nThat being said, I have noticed that this rule can be a bit relaxed, in the\nsense that you may introduce some plain form with the person you almost do not\nknow in the context of the group general politeness level, specially if she/he\nis a friend of your friends, and you are in a casual environment. However, I\npersonally try to see what is the feeling with the new person, and whether it\nis or not appropriate to use plain form (for example, in a work meeting, you\nshould probably always keep the appropriate level).\n\nAs mentioned by @DariusJahandarie, experience is your best teacher. Also, keep\nin mind that using 丁寧語 you may never be wrong (but mistakingly using plain\nform may convey the wrong impression).",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T11:31:05.213",
"id": "24572",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T11:31:05.213",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7230",
"parent_id": "24566",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24566 | 24572 | 24572 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24568",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Here is the sentence including the word.\n\n> 計画{けいかく}の一!\n>\n> それは この広{ひろ}い川{かわ} **っぷち** の両{りょう}岸{がん}一[帯]{たい}の\n> おとなも子{こ}どももあそべるでっかい遊{ゆう}園{えん}地{ち}を作{つく}ること!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T07:13:55.610",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24567",
"last_activity_date": "2017-04-04T06:00:09.930",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-04T06:00:09.930",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "9559",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"words",
"colloquial-language"
],
"title": "What does the word 「っぷち」 mean?",
"view_count": 283
} | [
{
"body": "The \"dictionary\" word is 「[縁]{ふち}」, meaning \"side\", \"edge\", \"brink\", etc. 「\n**っぷち** 」 is its colloquial pronunciation.\n\n「川っぷち」 = \"a river bank\"\n\nThe most common word containing 「っぷち」 would be 「[崖]{がけ}っぷち」, which means \"edge\nof a cliff\" literally and \"critical point\" figuratively.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T07:33:58.497",
"id": "24568",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T07:33:58.497",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24567",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] | 24567 | 24568 | 24568 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24570",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In _The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe_ novel, the character Aslan orders\ncentaurs and eagles to chase a wolf, saying, \"He will be going to his\n**mistress**.\" He is referring to the wolf's female master, the White Witch,\nwho considers herself to be the \"Queen.\" The witch refers to a dwarf as her\n\"slave,\" so she has a master/slave relationship with her followers. What is\nthe correct Japanese word for a dominant female \"master?\"\n\nI tried searching in online Japanese dictionaries for the word \"mistress,\" but\nthe results seem to be comprised of Japanese words for \"mistress\" as in an\nextra-marital lover, or \"madam\" as in a well-bred lady, rather than a woman\nwho has slaves/servants. When I searched for the word \"master,\" I could not\nfind words that fit females.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T08:40:45.390",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24569",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T07:01:08.633",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4547",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"words",
"word-requests",
"gender"
],
"title": "What is the female equivalent for 「ご主人様」 or \"master?\"",
"view_count": 7857
} | [
{
"body": "The female equivalent of 主人 is [女主人]{おんなしゅじん}, and you would address your 女主人\nas [奥様]{おくさま} or お[嬢様]{じょうさま}. (You wouldn't address her as\n[女主人様]{おんなしゅじんさま}.)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T09:01:56.580",
"id": "24570",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T07:01:08.633",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-28T07:01:08.633",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24569",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] | 24569 | 24570 | 24570 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24579",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm confused at how から works, and there's very little information on this\nsubject.\n\nだから is used in front of a な adjective or noun.\n\nい adjectives simply use 「から」.\n\nVerbs can be in ます form, and only use 「から」.\n\nCan 「ですから」 be used in place of 「だから」? And is the difference between:\n\n「早く寝ましたから早く起きます。」 and 「早く寝たから早く起きます。」 different to each other the same way any\ntypical plain form - ます form pair of sentences is?\n\nDoes the same apply to 「猫が綺麗だから犬が怖くないです。」 and 「猫が綺麗ですから犬が怖くないです」?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T10:33:42.653",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24571",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T18:56:29.737",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-27T18:56:29.737",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "7955",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"politeness",
"particle-から"
],
"title": "How does 「から」 work in regards to 「だから」 and 「ですから」?",
"view_count": 1506
} | [
{
"body": "> Can 「ですから」 be used in place of 「だから」?\n\nTechnically, yes. In practice, no. It's very rare to use ですます調（敬体）in this\nsituation. When a sentence contains the type of から (English \"because\") that\nyou are using here, it always comes with a second part. As long as the second\npart is in 敬体 the whole sentence is assumed to be. So your example:\n\n> 「早く寝ましたから早く起きます。」 and 「早く寝たから早く起きます。」 different to each other the same way\n> any typical plain form - ます form pair of sentences is?\n\n「早く寝たから早く起きます。」 is already considered \"polite\". That said, から here still feels\nmore informal than ので, so probably better is to use ので in business situations.\n\nThe situation you may hear ですから is when the second part is not present, either\nbecause it is implied or because you are answering a question.\n\n> Does the same apply to 「猫が綺麗だから犬が怖くないです。」 and 「猫が綺麗ですから犬が怖くないです」?\n\nSorry, I don't actually understand what you are trying to say in this example.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T17:18:11.887",
"id": "24579",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T18:55:40.287",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-27T18:55:40.287",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "10194",
"parent_id": "24571",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24571 | 24579 | 24579 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24576",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "How should I decide to choose either「万が一の場合」vs「念のために」?\n\n「万が一」 , by itself, cannot directly substituted for 「念のために」, right? But, adding\n「の場合」 makes 「万が一の場合」and「念のために」 pretty much the same?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T14:27:31.280",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24574",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T15:44:24.947",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-27T14:53:22.103",
"last_editor_user_id": "10193",
"owner_user_id": "10193",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "「万が一の場合」vs「念のために」?",
"view_count": 1891
} | [
{
"body": "Definitely not the same. While a dictionary might tell you they both translate\nto \"just in case\", 念のため is the more general here. 万が一 has a negative\nconnotation. It's denoting something bad might or will happen. One of the\nexamples [here](http://www.japandict.com/%E4%B8%87%E3%81%8C%E4%B8%80) shows it\ntranslated as \"in the worst case scenario\". Their usage is also quite\ndifferent.\n\nTop level definitions would look like: \n念のため: Just to be sure \n万が一: In case something bad happens\n\nThe numerous examples\n[here](http://ejje.weblio.jp/sentence/content/%E4%B8%87%E3%81%8C%E4%B8%80)\ndon't make it painfully obvious, but they should help.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T15:38:19.550",
"id": "24575",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T15:38:19.550",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7550",
"parent_id": "24574",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "In meaning, the following can be said:\n\n1.「[念]{ねん}のために」 **≠** 「[万]{まん}が[一]{いち}の[場合]{ばあい}」\n\n2.「念のために」 **≒** 「万が一の場合に[備]{そな}えて」\n\n> 「 **念のために** + (verb phrase)」 means \"to (verb phrase) **_beforehand_** just\n> in case something happens on an off chance.\"\n\nBut\n\n> 「 **万が一の場合** + (verb phrase)」 means \"to (verb phrase) **_in response_** in\n> case something happens on an off chance\"\n\nThat is the huge difference; Thus, I stated #1.\n\nIn order to use 「万が一の場合」 to describe what to do in advance, one needs to add\n「に備えて」(= in preparation for)、「のために」(= for), etc. to it. This is what I meant\nto say in #2.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T15:44:24.947",
"id": "24576",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T15:44:24.947",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24574",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] | 24574 | 24576 | 24576 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24578",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What does the word 「ぶったてる」mean?\n\n> このドヤがいの西{にし}のはずれにりっぱな総{そう}合{ごう}病{びょう}院{いん}を **ぶったてる** こと!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T16:16:44.400",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24577",
"last_activity_date": "2022-02-27T22:24:07.710",
"last_edit_date": "2022-02-27T22:24:07.710",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "9559",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"words",
"prefixes"
],
"title": "What does the word 「ぶったてる」mean?",
"view_count": 1722
} | [
{
"body": "「ぶったてる」＝「ぶっ建{た}てる」\n\n= \" **to build** \" or rather \" **to f***ing build** \" if one were to translate\nthe nuance intended.\n\n「ぶっ」 is a manly and slangy **verb prefix** that emphasizes the meaning of the\nverb. The core meaning of the verb itself stays the same even if the prefix is\nadded.\n\n<https://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%89%93%E3%81%A3-618986#E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.9E.97.20.E7.AC.AC.E4.B8.89.E7.89.88>\n\nRelated verb prefixes for emphasis:\n\n「おっ」、「かっ」、「つっ」、「つん」、「とっ」、「ひっ」、「ひん」、「ぶち」、「ぶん」、「ふっ」, etc. There might be a few\nmore.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T16:23:17.067",
"id": "24578",
"last_activity_date": "2019-02-17T12:53:48.053",
"last_edit_date": "2019-02-17T12:53:48.053",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "24577",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 17
}
] | 24577 | 24578 | 24578 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24585",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I read [here](http://dorilu.net/itiran4zyukugo.htm) the following explanation\nabout 一朝{いっちょう}一夕{いっせき}, [a\n四字熟語{よじじゅくご}](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yojijukugo) :\n\n> 一日や半日{はんにち}、朝{あさ}から夕程度{ゆうていど}の、短{みじか}い期間{きかん}のこと\n\nI don't feel confident about the grammar in this sentence, specially about the\nの particle after 夕程度{ゆうていど} : does the whole sentence mean something like \"a\nshort gap of time during one day or half, roughly from the morning to the\nevening\" ?\n\nIs the の the \"explanatory\" particle ? And why don't we read 朝{あさ}から夕{ゆう}まで ?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T17:19:43.193",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24580",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T20:47:08.250",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "4550",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"meaning",
"particles"
],
"title": "grammar of a sentence explaining a 四字熟語{よじじゅくご}",
"view_count": 156
} | [
{
"body": "Well, first off, that's not really a complete sentence, it's just a brief\ndefinition. This grammar is everything up to the の modifies the 短い期間 which by\nitself is already pretty good defintion. The commas like in English is just\nreiterating or defining the same thing, so in this case it's like saying:\n\nA small period of time such as from morning to evening; a day or half-day\n\nI find with words it's useful to search for example sentences, in Japanese 例文,\nthere are some good ones here:\n\n<http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/thsrs/15090/m0u/>",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T18:20:26.637",
"id": "24581",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T18:20:26.637",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10194",
"parent_id": "24580",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> ［一日や半日］［［朝から夕程度の］［短い］期間］のこと \n> \"a half or full day; a morning-to-evening-scale, short time interval\"\n\n 1. The の in 朝から夕程度の can be understood as である.\n 2. The comma after 朝から夕程度の makes it so that 朝から夕程度の and 短い are two separate ways of describing the interval, as opposed to further refining the type of \"short time interval\" it is. (Imagine removing the comma after \"morning-to-evening-scale\" in my gloss.) The difference in nuance is subtle, but basically with the comma it sounds more like the entry is expressing the complexity or vagueness of the concept because it needs to use multiple different modifiers to describe it.\n 3. 朝から夕まで would refer to the exact time interval of morning to evening. 朝から夕程度 is a morning-to-evening _sized_ interval.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T20:47:08.250",
"id": "24585",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T20:47:08.250",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "3097",
"parent_id": "24580",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 24580 | 24585 | 24585 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24591",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "\" **時々** \" means \" _sometimes_ \" and \" **しょっちゅう** \" means \" _frequently_ \",\nright? And, the meaning is well short of \"いつも\".\n\nNow, I can't imagine \"しょっちゅう\" is used in writing or formal speaking, right?\n\nSo, what is the proper way to express the idea of \"しょっちゅう\"?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T18:25:07.237",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24582",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T01:02:29.373",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-28T00:50:04.647",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10193",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"formality"
],
"title": "What is the formal way to say \"しょっちゅう\"?",
"view_count": 654
} | [
{
"body": "Japanese has many levels of formality and writing is not necessarily formal by\ndefinition. Let's look at a thesaurus:\n\n<http://thesaurus.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%97%E3%82%87%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A1%E3%82%85%E3%81%86>\n\n屡屡 ・ 再再 ・ 往往 ・ しげしげ ・ 屡々 ・ 始終 ・ 頻繁 ・ 間間 ・ 再三 ・ 度度 ・ 間々 ・ 良く ・ 頻く頻く ・ まま ・ 頻って\n・ 往々 ・ 比々 ・ 許多度 ・ 繁繁 ・ 度々 ・ 重重 ・ 頻りと ・ 繁々 ・ たびたび ・ 頻りに ・ 時時 ・ 比比 ・ 重ね重ね ・ 繁く ・\nよく ・ ちょこちょこ ・ ちょいちょい ・ ちょくちょく ・ 数多度 ・ しきりと ・ しきりに ・ しばしば ・ 屡\n\nHmm, let's see たびたび (度々)is definitely formal so maybe that's a good word--but\npeople don't really use it in the same way they use しょっちゅう. It's used in a lot\nof set or almost set phrases though.\n\n頻繁に is quite commonly used:\n\nAbout 12,400,000 results (0.37 seconds)\n\nas is its noun 頻度. And could be nice additions to your options.\n\nOn the other hand I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with\nしょっちゅう or よく（良く） especially in formal _conversation_ , in writing then sure\nyou might prefer 良く or 頻繁に over しょっちゅう, but there are lots of types of writing\nand I'm not even convinced there.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T22:48:42.480",
"id": "24588",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T22:48:42.480",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10194",
"parent_id": "24582",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Yes, you are right that \"しょっちゅう\" is not appropriate in a formal context. As\nothers said, \"度々（たびたび）\", \"頻繁に（ひんぱんに）\", \"よく\" are good in formal contexts. I\nwould like to add \"繰り返し（くりかえし）\" and \"何度も（なんども）\" as more options when you want\nto express that something happens repetitively.\n\nLet me give an example in which \"しょっちゅう\" sounds wierd. Suppose that a head of\na company comes up to a press conference and apologizes about a sequence of\naccidents revealed by a journalist. If he says,\n\"社内で調査しましたところ、同種の事故がしょっちゅう発生していたことが判明いたしました。申し訳ございません。\", that sounds strange.\nHe should say, \"社内で調査しましたところ、同種の事故が度々、発生していたことが判明いたしました。申し訳ございません。\", or he\ncould replace \"度々\" with \"頻繁に\", \"繰り返し\", or \"何度も\". In this example, \"よく\" does\nnot fit well.\n\nAs another example, if you want to say \"I am sorry for calling you many\ntimes.\", \"しょっちゅうお電話差し上げて申し訳ございません。\" sounds strange. The mode of formality is\nobviously different between \"しょっちゅう\" and the rest of the sentence. You should\nsay, \"度々お電話差し上げて申し訳ございません。\". You can replace \"度々\" with \"何度も\" or \"繰り返し\", but\n\"頻繁に\" sounds a little strange somehow. In this example, \"よく\" does not make\nsense.\n\nAs yet another example, if you want to say, \"I often came to this library when\nI was a student.\" in a speech upon the closing ceremony of the library, then\nyou will say, \"私は学生のとき、この図書館によく来たものです。\" but not \"私は学生のとき、この図書館にしょっちゅう来ていました。\"\nunless you want to present yourself as a relaxed and friendly person.\n\nAs a final example, if a policeman writes an official report stating that a\nsuspect has visited the victim's house frequently, he will write,\n\"被疑者は被害者の家を頻繁に訪れていた。\". He can use \"何度も\" and \"繰り返し\" in this context. It is\nstrange to see \"しょっちゅう\" in such an official document as well as in an academic\nthesis, a news paper, etc.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-28T01:02:29.373",
"id": "24591",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T01:02:29.373",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7266",
"parent_id": "24582",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24582 | 24591 | 24591 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24584",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm happy with the purpose of と when it precedes verbs like 言う、聞く、思う etc. The\nfollowing sentence puzzles me:\n\n> おじいさんは「雀は大丈夫かな。」と、大変がっかりしました。\n\nI understand that the man feels disappointed and wonders if the sparrow is\nalright, but I can't make a sensible translation. Did he say it while feeling\ndisappointed, or did he say it in a disappointed manner? Please explain if\nthis is a shorthand way of saying a longer expression or whether it is common\nto be able to quote feelings in Japanese.\n\nHere's a slightly different one:\n\n> 「舌切り雀のお宿はどこだ、ちゅんちゅんちゅん。」と探し回りました。\n\nI know that と is used with sound effects (for want of a better word) so\nちゅんちゅんちゅん needs it, but there's a whole sentence in quotes and it needs to be\n'said' or 'asked' or 'thought'. It doesn't make sense for it to be 'looked\naround-ed'.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T19:18:20.400",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24583",
"last_activity_date": "2020-08-10T02:50:21.043",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "7944",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"quotes"
],
"title": "Use of quote marker と before unusual verbs",
"view_count": 367
} | [
{
"body": "You can replace と with と思いながら or と思っていて etc if that helps structure them for\nyou. Though I like the elegant ambiguity of not knowing for certain if he's\nthinking silently or thinking aloud.\n\nI think there is some similarity in English though, when books use italics to\nrepresent thoughts without explicitly saying \"he thought\" or \"she thought\".\n\nEdit, as requested, example translations:\n\n> おじいさんは「雀は大丈夫かな。」と、大変がっかりしました。\n\n_Little sparrow, are you ok?_ worried the old man.\n\nThe old man felt miserable. Would the sparrow be all right?\n\n> 「舌切り雀のお宿はどこだ、ちゅんちゅんちゅん。」と探し回りました。\n\n_Chun chun chun_ the old man searched, _Snipped-tongue Sparrow, where are\nyou?_\n\n_Snipped-tongue Sparrow, where are you hiding?_ the old man searched. _Here?\nChun-chun. Here? Chun-chun. Or here? Chun-chun-chun_",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T20:04:01.907",
"id": "24584",
"last_activity_date": "2020-08-10T02:50:21.043",
"last_edit_date": "2020-08-10T02:50:21.043",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "10194",
"parent_id": "24583",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24583 | 24584 | 24584 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24587",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I could not find the explanation of my following question in English. What are\nthe main differences between 頭がいい人 and 頭が切れる人? It is still hard for me to\nunderstand the Japanese version given in [this link\n(click)](https://careerpark.jp/5094?page=2).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T22:20:43.130",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24586",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T22:34:21.720",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9896",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "頭がいい人 versus 頭が切れる人",
"view_count": 162
} | [
{
"body": "According to that site:\n\n頭がいい人\n\n * Born smart\n * Academic / scholastic definition of smart\n * Good at studying and doing things they are told\n * Highly productive\n\n頭が切れる人\n\n * Smartness acquired through practice and experience\n * \"Street smart\"\n * Good at learning things there is no manual / instructions for by exploration\n * Not the most productive worker, but has unexpected insights\n\nBear in mind that is just one net article's opinion, and seems a little biased\ntowards appealing the 頭が切れる人 type, but there's still some valuable\ndistinctions there.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T22:34:21.720",
"id": "24587",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-27T22:34:21.720",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "10194",
"parent_id": "24586",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] | 24586 | 24587 | 24587 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24597",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This appears to be an apology, but it seems a little blunt - its like ごめんね\nごめんな、are logical; they apologize and soften it with those particles. But ごめんよ\nseems a little forceful. Why would you use it? (For the context, I encountered\nit in a work of fiction - said by a twelve-year-old prince, if it makes any\ndifference.)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-27T23:02:58.490",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24589",
"last_activity_date": "2018-01-12T15:50:29.977",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9971",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "ごめんよ - what is it?",
"view_count": 740
} | [
{
"body": "I think there is no significant difference in meaning between ごめん, ごめんね, ごめんな,\nand ごめんよ. They all can be used among close friends, either seriously,\ncasually, or even playfully, depending on the situation.\n\nAmong these, ごめんね sounds a bit mild and girly, and ごめんな sounds boyish. As for\nごめんよ, I feel it's a bit less common, and has a small masculine ~~and tough~~\ntendency. (This sentence-final particle よ is [associated with both feminine\nand masculine speech](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/12987/5010). Women\nmay use ごめんよ, too.)\n\nThe first person who came up to my mind as a typical user of ごめんよ was\n[ジャイアン](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Doraemon_characters#Takeshi_.22Gian.22_Goda_.28.E5.89.9B.E7.94.B0_.E6.AD.A6.2C_G.C5.8Dda_Takeshi.3F.29.2FTakeshi_.22Big_G.22_Goda_.28English_Dub.29),\nif that helps. I guess he would say ごめんよ even when he sincerely expresses his\napologies to his friends.\n\nEDIT: On second thought, I remember some of my female friends actively use\nごめんよ in real life, though I still feel this has a small masculine tendency.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-28T05:08:47.763",
"id": "24597",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T05:45:15.680",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "5010",
"parent_id": "24589",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] | 24589 | 24597 | 24597 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24596",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I want to say that my waiter told me about Japanese restaurants or taught me\ninfo about them. I was thinking that I might just try `フュージョンは 日本の食堂を 教えました。`\nBut that would mean the waiter taught Japanese restaurants to me wouldn't it?\nI would like to say that he told me about something? How do I say \"about\"\nsomething? Any help is appreciated.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-28T03:33:26.290",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24592",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T07:04:01.353",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-28T04:31:02.930",
"last_editor_user_id": "7952",
"owner_user_id": "7952",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"usage",
"verbs"
],
"title": "Told About Something",
"view_count": 491
} | [
{
"body": "First thing I would like to point out is that `教えりました` is fundamentally wrong.\nI think you were looking for `教えました` (Remember that 教える is 一段｛いちだん｝ or \"weak\"\nverb).\n\nIn this case however, I think you would like to express gratitude for the\nperson who taught you and thus stay polite. I would reach for either the\nactive `教えてもらう` or passive `教えてくれる` depending on where you want to put the\nemphasis.\n\nTo express `about` the easiest is probably to use `について`.\n\nThus something along the lines of :\n\n * `フージョンは（私に）和食のレストランについて教えてくれた・教えてくれました。`\n * `（私は）フージョンに和食のレストランについて教えてもらった・教えてもらいました。`\n\nShould do just fine. Note that I used `レストラン` instead of `食堂` because the\nlatter, at least in my opinion carries a notion of \"canteen\", thus a low-end\nplace. Feel free to modify that part !",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-28T04:14:04.330",
"id": "24596",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T07:04:01.353",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-28T07:04:01.353",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "3614",
"parent_id": "24592",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] | 24592 | 24596 | 24596 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Today, I received the following email after an online purchase:\n\n> この度はご注文いただき誠にありがとうございます。\n>\n> 頂きましたご注文の発送方法について、EMS(国際スピード郵便)による配送となりますので、 送料が1,500円かかります。\n>\n> よろしければ、クレジット決済金額の変更をし、商品を発送いたします。 お手数をおかけいたしますが、ご返信をお願いいたします。\n\nI am having a great deal of trouble finding common phrases to respond to in\ne-commerce related conversations over email.\n\nWhat is the proper way to give the sender permission to proceed?\n\nEvery phrase that I would like to use in English seems to have a dual meaning\nwhich does not work in Japanese (e.g. please go ahead), or produces very few\ngoogle results for the phrase which suggests to me that no-one speaks in that\nmanner.\n\nI spent several hours trying to find a way of saying, \"Is it possible to use\nregistered shipping instead? If not, please proceed.\"\n\nMy best attempt is something along the lines of\n\n「書留郵便ができるでしょうか？如何とも決済金額の変更して, 追加送料を払ってください。」\n\nbut I really have no idea how accurate my vocabulary is. Considering some of\nthese words yield little to no search results when I google them, I suspect\nthis is wrong.\n\nWhere can I even find examples of conversations of this nature to learn what\nto say?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-28T03:55:39.467",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24593",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T05:33:35.943",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-28T04:02:59.937",
"last_editor_user_id": "1805",
"owner_user_id": "10196",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"translation",
"business-japanese",
"email"
],
"title": "How do I properly tell someone to proceed with a transaction in an email?",
"view_count": 1554
} | [
{
"body": "Speedy EMS (?) does appear have a registered service:\n\n```\n\n https://www.post.japanpost.jp/whats_new/2011/0307_01.html\n \n```\n\nSo you could just ask to be told how much it would cost for registered mail.\n(You never know the cost provided may already be registered)\n\n> 本注文ですが、国際スピード郵便(EMS)と国際書留サービスで郵送していただきたいですが、いかがでしょうか？ もし可能でしたら、その送料を教えてください。\n>\n> どうぞよろしくお願い致します",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-28T04:00:49.787",
"id": "24594",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T04:00:49.787",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"parent_id": "24593",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "> Is it possible to use registered shipping instead? If not, please proceed. \n>\n> EMS(国際スピード郵便)ではなく、[国際書留](http://www.post.japanpost.jp/int/service/option/registered_merit.html)で送っていただくことはできませんか。もし無理なようでしたら、そのまま(1,500円のEMSで)手続きを進めてくださって結構です。\n\n",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-28T05:18:31.443",
"id": "24598",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T05:24:01.167",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-28T05:24:01.167",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "9831",
"parent_id": "24593",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "If you just want to say proceed.\n\n> 表題の件ですが、承知いたしました。問題ありません。\n>\n> どうぞよろしくお願い致します",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-28T05:33:35.943",
"id": "24599",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T05:33:35.943",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1805",
"parent_id": "24593",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] | 24593 | null | 24598 |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "24602",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Here is the sentence including the word.\n\n> 東のはずれには年を **とって** 働けなくなった人たちのために養老院をたてるっ",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-28T09:37:39.500",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "24601",
"last_activity_date": "2015-10-12T08:41:51.780",
"last_edit_date": "2015-05-28T09:47:30.033",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "9559",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words",
"verbs",
"manga"
],
"title": "What does the 「とって」 mean?",
"view_count": 431
} | [
{
"body": "年をとる means to grow old, to age.\n\nNext time [try a dictionary\nfirst](http://jisho.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&keyword=%E3%81%A8%E3%81%97%E3%82%92%E3%81%A8%E3%82%8B).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-05-28T09:40:35.427",
"id": "24602",
"last_activity_date": "2015-05-28T09:40:35.427",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "24601",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "年をとって means gained years (grown old). \n働けなくなった unable to move \n人たちのために for such people",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-10-11T01:41:52.100",
"id": "28604",
"last_activity_date": "2015-10-12T08:41:51.780",
"last_edit_date": "2015-10-12T08:41:51.780",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "11407",
"parent_id": "24601",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] | 24601 | 24602 | 24602 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.