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": 2,
"body": "I've seen people trying to define it in many places, but all of them end up\ngiving different versions or saying it can't be defined.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-25T07:16:32.117",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6270",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T11:15:14.767",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1543",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"slang",
"internet-slang"
],
"title": "What's the meaning of \"Moe\"",
"view_count": 1698
}
|
[
{
"body": "\"Moe\", from 「[萌]{も}える」, refers to the feelings of the subject towards the\nobject, especially with regards to affection or care.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-25T07:31:34.377",
"id": "6271",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-25T07:31:34.377",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22",
"parent_id": "6270",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "There are multiple ways \"Moe\" or 「萌え」can be used.\n\n * 「萌え萌え」as a mimetic word (擬態語) like Ignacio's link in the comment.\n\n * 「萌え！」as an interjection (感嘆詞)\n\n * 「妹萌え」as a prefix (接尾辞) In this example someone has a fetish/attraction/affection/情熱/欲望 towards little sisters. \n\n * 「萌える」as a verb as well. For example, 「あなたは（私から見て）萌える」\n\nEither way you can attach 萌え to almost anything that you might be attracted to\nin regard to females (I've yet to see it directed towards males, but if it\nexists please correct me). However, 萌え is generally used in the context of\nanime, manga, video games, etc, to denote someone's charm (which may or may\nnot be recognized by a specific group of people).\n\nWhat your asking about is the slang version, but originally 萌え comes from 芽生え\nwhich means to bud or sprout in terms of plants.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-25T17:21:34.913",
"id": "6272",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-25T19:08:10.377",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-25T19:08:10.377",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6270",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6270
| null |
6272
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6274",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I would like to know when do you use the word 回答{かいとう} versus the word\n応答{おうとう}. Based on my understanding they 回答 is reply while 応答 is response.\nAlthough to reply would also mean to response, in English though.\n\nI usually misused 回答 when naming on describing the response on programming\nrequest and response specification. It should be 応答 instead. Can you use 応答 as\na verb like 応答する? While when referring to email or telephone you use 回答.\n\nIs there a general rule on using this two?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T02:00:23.793",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6273",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-26T02:12:50.327",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "786",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "When do you use 回答 and 応答?",
"view_count": 329
}
|
[
{
"body": "* 回答 is a response to a question in the form of an answer and is done by a person. \n * 応答 is a response in the form of a signal or a short chat and may be done by an animate or inanimate thing.\n\nThey are both suru-nouns, and can be used as 回答する, 応答する.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T02:12:50.327",
"id": "6274",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-26T02:12:50.327",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6273",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
}
] |
6273
|
6274
|
6274
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6280",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "This question is the result of a conversation with Chocolate in\n[chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/5512598#5512598), and\nalso this Japanese calendar I have that lists the months according to the\ntraditional Japanese names.\n\nFor some reason, there exists some discrepancy about the literal meaning of\n水無月 and 神無月. What is the correct meaning verbatim as it relates to the\nJapanese language other than that these are specific months? (I am not asking\nfor names \"June\" and \"October\").\n\nOne translation due to the 無 character acting as a \"negative identifier\"(?)\n(否定の接頭語) meaning \"nothing/non/un/not\" and such:\n\n> 神無月 - \"the month when there are no gods\"\n>\n> 水無月 - \"the month when there is no water\"\n\nA second translation exists stating that 無 acts as an ateji (当て字, 宛字) for\n「な/の」. This would result in a slightly different meaning:\n\n> 神無月 - \"the month of gods\"\n>\n> 水無月 - \"the month of water\"\n\nIt seems that there are a variety of sources that take either side. What would\nbe the appropriate literal meaning for each of these words? In addition, does\n無 act as an 当て字 or as 否定の接頭語?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T02:13:28.727",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6275",
"last_activity_date": "2016-06-14T07:44:38.347",
"last_edit_date": "2016-06-14T07:44:38.347",
"last_editor_user_id": "7810",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"translation",
"etymology",
"ateji",
"old-japanese"
],
"title": "What is the correct veritable meaning of 水無月 and 神無月?",
"view_count": 889
}
|
[
{
"body": "10月 is 神無月. I think that the original meaning of 神無月 is\n\n```\n\n 神無月- \"the month when there are no gods\". \n \n```\n\nIn Japanese ancient story , all the gods attend the meeting that held in\nShimane prefecture (島根県-しまねけん）in (10月)10th lunar month. So there is no god in\nother parts of the country. But , for the people of Shimane prefecture(島根県-\nしまねけん）,(10月) 10th lunar month is 神在月. The meaning is\n\n```\n\n 神在月- \"the month when there are so many gods\". \n \n```\n\nBecause there are many gods in their prefecture .",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T03:10:54.867",
"id": "6276",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-26T03:47:36.927",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-26T03:47:36.927",
"last_editor_user_id": "623",
"owner_user_id": "623",
"parent_id": "6275",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "At this point, there is no final, airtight answer to the question of whether\nthe /na/ in /kaNnazuki/ and /minazuki/ is related to /nai/ (\"nothing\", \"no ~\")\nor /no/ (genitive particle) because the matter has not been settled\ndefinitively.\n\nWe _can_ say that the \"genitive particle\" explanation (giving \"month of water\"\nand \"month of gods\", rather than \"... of no water/gods\") is preferred by the\nmajority of contemporary specialists in Japanese historical linguistics. The\n\"... of no water/gods\" interpretation is generally rejected as folk etymology,\nand the same genitive /na/ is argued to be visible in other words, such as:\n\n * minato \"harbor\" = /mi/ \"water\" (cf modern /mizu/) + /na/ + /to/ \"door\"\n * nunato \"sound of jewels\" = /nu/ \"jewel\" + /na/ + /oto/ \"sound\"\n\n(Normalizing OJ morae to NJ equivalents because details not important here)\n\n... But there are also modern linguists who disagree with this analysis. For\nexample, in Alexander Vovin's Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western\nOld Japanese, the /na/ in the above words is analyzed as a plural marker:\n\n> 4.1.2.1.4 Plural marker -na There is another plural marker _-na_ in Western\n> Old Japanese that is not productive: it survives predominantly in compounds.\n> Traditional Japanese analysis defines it as a genitive marker in some cases\n> [...] and as a locative suffix in other cases [...], but a closer\n> examination reveals that it has nothing to do with either the genitive or\n> the locative. This plural marker also survives in modern compounds like _ta-\n> na-gokoro_ \"palm of the hand(s),\" _mi-na-giwa_ \"water front,\" _ma-na-ko_\n> \"pupil of the eye,\" etc. From the examples below it becomes clear that _-na_\n> follows stems of nouns designating paired body parts [...] uncountable nouns\n> [...] and two temporal nouns [...]. Such usage seems to be in perfect\n> agreement with the above proposal that _-na_ represents a relic plural\n> marker.\n\n... And so, Vovin believes that /minato/ means \"waters' door\" and /nunato/\nmeans \"jewels' sound\", with the /na/ indicating plurality rather than a\ngenitive relationship. Now, you don't have to believe that Vovin is correct.\n(I don't, for reasons that are complicated and not relevant here.) But the\nfact that he is able to mount a reasonable argument for his viewpoint\nindicates the thinness of the evidence we have for how the construction arose:\nmultiple non-crazy theories can explain what we see in the historical record.\n\n(Incidentally, don't know if Vovin has ever voiced an opinion on /kaNnazuki/\nand /minazuki/ but based on his other writings my guess is that he would\nprobably go with \"month of the gods (pl)\" and \"month of waters (pl)\", seeing\ntraces of genitive /no/ in the voicing of /tuki/ rather than in the /na/.)\n\nThere are also other theories, e.g. the argument that the /kaNna/ is related\nto /kaminari/ \"thunder\" and so on. These are minority viewpoints too.\n\nSo, the summary:\n\n * Most modern historical linguists believe that this is a genitive /na/ and the words mean \"month of water\" and \"month of gods\". It is probably safe to call this the current scientific consensus. This doesn't mean that it has been proven correct -- just that most scientists (linguists) in the field consider it the most likely (or least unlikely) explanation.\n * Many older sources, and indeed the standard kanji used to write the words, support the opposite interpretation, \"month of no water\", \"month of no gods\". There are even communities who have built up traditions around this interpretation, like Shimane prefecture. This is why there are plenty of sources who argue for this interpretation, even today.\n * The actual construction is very old, predating the first written Old Japanese, and so there is no evidence showing its evolution. Thus, it is possible that both of the theories above are incorrect, and an entirely different explanation like Vovin's is the right one.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T15:06:25.260",
"id": "6280",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-26T15:06:25.260",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "531",
"parent_id": "6275",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 11
}
] |
6275
|
6280
|
6280
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "A friend has asked me to design a T-shirt for him, and he wants it to read:\neat, sleep, drift (as in car drifting) So far I have this: 食べる 睡眠 漂. I'm not\nsure if it's right as I am an English speaker with no experience of Japanese.\nIdeally I would like a Kanji AND Katakana translation. As you will probably\nunderstand I would like him to be pleased with his shirt and not looking a\nfool with something grammatically incorrect or insulting printed on it!",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T09:46:43.037",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6277",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-26T16:56:19.813",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-26T16:56:19.813",
"last_editor_user_id": "921",
"owner_user_id": "1546",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "\"eat, sleep, drift\" translation",
"view_count": 2302
}
|
[
{
"body": "That phrase as a whole already has an established translation. It is: 食う寝る遊ぶ\n\"eat, sleep, play\" or maybe sticking to your words, more literally, 食う寝るドリフト\n\"eat, sleep, drift (the car)\". You cannot write it entirely in kanji. It is\nimpossible. I have no idea what you mean by katakana translation. Do you just\nwant the same thing to be written in katakana? Then, クウネルアソブ. But I think such\nidea is already stepping into \"looking a fool\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T10:05:41.327",
"id": "6278",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-26T10:34:13.943",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-26T10:34:13.943",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6277",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "Check out this car ad <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqyqYrZb2I4>, they say\nくうねるあそぶ. You don't want to use the words 食べる for eat, nor 漂 for drift. 食べる\njust seems too straight to me. It's hard to explain, but I don't think it has\nthe same semantic profile as the English translation \"eat\"; it might be too\nliteral or too semantically simple. くう has a more lively, connotative vibe to\nit and is probably the better choice as a more stylized word. As for 漂, I\nhaven't much experience with it, but I don't think it means \"drift\" in the\nsense of \"car drift across pavement\". 漂 is more \"drift about the ocean\" or\n\"drift through midair\". Whereas car drift is tractionless linear movement\nacross some surface, the car never floats up off the pavement into the air nor\nbegins to exhibit Brownian movement. Or at least that never happens on\npurpose. So, I think 漂 is the wrong sense of the English word \"drift\".\nInterestingly enough:\n<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drifting_%28motorsport%29#Japanese_adaptation>.\n\nAnyways, chances are if you just look in a dictionary for translations the\nresult will be totally underwhelming and won't have that terse aphoristic\neffect you're aiming for. You're best of asking someone. I'd go with what Sawa\nhad to say but make it all kana, so くうねるあそぶ. Or maybe \"食寝DRIFT\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T12:38:04.607",
"id": "6279",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-26T12:38:04.607",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1454",
"parent_id": "6277",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
6277
| null |
6278
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6284",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "One of my grammar books 日本語総まとめN2 文法 lists both of the grammar forms 「きっかけに」\nand 「契機に」 in the same definition.\n\nHowever, in the example question a choice is given between them:\n\n> その事件（a. の契機に b. をきっかけに)、商品の検査体制が見直された。\n\nThe book lists \"b\" as the correct answer, yet I'm still puzzled as to why\neither of them would be more appropriate than the other.\n\nIs it the case that 「契機に」 has a much more limited/specific use compared to the\nother?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T20:24:12.473",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6282",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-26T21:35:37.603",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"usage"
],
"title": "Are the grammatical forms きっかけに and 契機に interchangeable?",
"view_count": 1094
}
|
[
{
"body": "`〜契機に` is used when the 文末 has a good/positive meaning. Otherwise, their\nmeaning and usage is basically the same. My book says that it is more of a\nformal and/or written expression.\n\nYour example sentence is like \"Because of that incident, the inspection method\nof the merchandise was reevaluated\", and seems like an overall negative\nmeaning. Even though reevaluation can be a good thing, the mood of the whole\nsentence seems negative. Compare that to the mood of this sentence:\n\n> 今度の病気、入院を契機に、今後は定期検診をきちんと受けようと思った。 → \"(After) being hospitalized by my last\n> illness, I decided that I'll be good about getting regular checkups.\"\n\nEven though the sentence started out negative (hospitalization), the person\nmade an encouraging/positive decision at the end.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T20:46:44.597",
"id": "6283",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-26T20:46:44.597",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "6282",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "The problem is the particle. 契機 or きっかけ both take を, not の. を契機に or をきっかけに is\nfine.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-26T21:35:37.603",
"id": "6284",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-26T21:35:37.603",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6282",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6282
|
6284
|
6284
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6294",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I am unable to locate objects and their orientation with respect to myself\nwhen 向こう and 向かい are used.\n\nConsider:\n\n * 向こう側\n\n * 向かい側\n\n * 向こうの店\n\n * 向かいの店\n\nWhere is 向こう側 and 向かい側 with respect to me? Are they the same place?\n\nMy current hypothesis is that 向こう and 向かい both may occupy the same place,\nexcept that 向かい necessarily orientates the object to face the subject (either\nthe first person, or from some place's perspective which the first person\nadopts) by either the having a \"front side\" or by assuming that the object has\na \"front side\".",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T03:44:18.333",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6285",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T13:12:19.143",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-27T05:40:49.200",
"last_editor_user_id": "542",
"owner_user_id": "542",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 19,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 向かい and 向こう?",
"view_count": 2011
}
|
[
{
"body": "My answer is based solely on feelings: 向こう is objective, and 向かい is\nsubjective. The former is \"the other side\", maybe far, the latter is \"the side\nin front (of us?)\", surely visible.\n\nYou may be interested in the following drawing:\n<http://image.lang-8.com/w0_h0/d_m_42082_49fc56d56a3e113a8d0778db5943590c.jpg>\nand this Chie links:\n<http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1348865128>\nhttp://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1413091004",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T05:21:43.763",
"id": "6286",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T05:21:43.763",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "356",
"parent_id": "6285",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "I'm learning also, so I'll share what I learned. Axioplase has the idea, but I\njust want to make a relationship between 向こう and 向かい. I think it is a\nperspective issue.\n\nExample:\n\n> 家はレストランの向かいにある\n>\n> 「レストランの向かい」 takes the direction the restaurant is facing and goes across\n> from it to the house. They are probably facing each other /「合っている」.\n>\n> Rough translation: The restaurant is facing the direction of my house, and\n> it's across from it.\n\nAnother:\n\n> 家はレストランの向こう側にある\n>\n> 「向こう側」 is the opposite side. Who's opposite side? The restaurant's. So, the\n> house is on the opposite side of the restaurant.\n>\n> Rough translation: My house is on the opposite side of the restaurant.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T06:44:43.720",
"id": "6289",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T06:44:43.720",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6285",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "* 向こう requires a reference line (which may be overtly expressed or not expressed). It means A and B are on opposite sides with respect to C.\n\n> 店は川の向こうにある。 \n> A = current location, B = store, C = river\n\n * 向かい requires a \"forward\" direction. It means that along a line starting from A and facing the forward direction, there is B.\n\n> 佐藤さんの向かいが山田さんだ。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T11:23:20.847",
"id": "6294",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T13:12:19.143",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-27T13:12:19.143",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6285",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 18
}
] |
6285
|
6294
|
6294
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6292",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I understand that a kanji can have several possible readings and several\n(typically related) meanings. Furthermore, I've noticed that a single reading\ntypically corresponds to some subset of the meanings. To give a brief example:\n\n生 can mean \"birth\", \"genuine\", or \"life\" (according to Kanjidic)\n\n * Pronounced せい it means \"life\", \"living\"\n * Pronounced なま it means \"raw\", \"natural\", etc.\n * Pronounced いき it means \"lively\"\n * Pronounced うむ (生む) it means \"to give birth\", \"to produce\"\n * Pronounced なる (生る) it means \"to bear fruit\" \n * etc.\n\nIs there any resource (book/website/database/etc.) which matches readings to\nmeanings? Bonus points if the resource is easily machine-readable - I'm\nbuilding some software for which the data would be valuable.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T06:05:41.337",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6288",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T14:18:23.810",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-27T07:17:59.513",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1548",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"meaning",
"resources"
],
"title": "Relation between kanji readings and meanings",
"view_count": 1040
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes there is.\n\nThis is probably what you want: [Romaji Desu](http://romajidesu.com/)\n\nHere is an [example](http://www.romajidesu.com/meaning-of-%E7%94%9F.html):\n\n> Definition of 生\n>\n> 生: いく /iku/ (pref) (arch) vital/virile/lively\n>\n> 生: うぶ /ubu/ (adj-na, n, adj-no) (1)\n> innocent/naive/unsophisticated/inexperienced/green/wet behind the\n> ears/(n-pref) (2) birth-\n>\n> 生: き /ki/ (n, pref) pure/undiluted/raw/crude\n>\n> 生: しょう /shou/ (n) (1) life/living\n>\n> 生: せい /sei/ (n) (1) life/living/(n,n-suf) (2) (male) (hum) I/me/myself\n>\n> 生: なま /nama/ (adj-no, adj-na, n, n-pref) (1) raw/uncooked/fresh/(2)\n> natural/unedited/unprocessed/crude/(3) (col) unprotected (i.e. not wearing a\n> condom)/(4) live (i.e. not recorded)/(5) inexperienced/unpolished/green/(6)\n> (abbr) impudence/sauciness/(7) (abbr) unpasteurize\n>\n> 生: なまり /namari/ (io) (n) (uk) (abbr) boiled and half-dried bonito\n>\n> 生: ふ /fu/ (n, n-suf) area of thick growth (of trees, grass, etc.)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T07:10:48.150",
"id": "6290",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T14:18:23.810",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-27T14:18:23.810",
"last_editor_user_id": "921",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6288",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "I thought I should note that Jim Breen's\n[Kanjidic2](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/kanjidic2/ \"Kanjidic2\") does\nthis to some extent with the\n[<rmgroup>](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/kanjidic2/kanjidic2_dtdh.html\n\"<rmgroup>\") tag. However the documentation mentions that:\n\n> One major change, which will only be implemented gradually as it will\n> require a lot of manual work, is to group the readings and the matching\n> meanings.\n\nI'm not sure how much this has progressed, but I'm guessing it is probably the\nmost comprehensive free resource out there.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T10:00:50.140",
"id": "6291",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T10:00:50.140",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1548",
"parent_id": "6288",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "In 大辞泉 there are entries labelled 漢字項目 which sometimes give this information\nfor on-readings (where there is separation, and it's usually not particularly\nclear-cut).\n\nFor example, [日](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch/0/0na/21068300/). Under ニチ\nthey give five meanings with example compounds, and under ジツ they give two\n(out of the five given for ニチ already). So from that you can see that the\nmeaning 日本のこと is only given to the reading ニチ, for example.\n\nNow for [生](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch/0/0na/20993800/). You'll see that\nthere are a number of readings given for セイ and ショウ and that both can take the\nmeaning of うむ and いきる in compounds, whereas セイ can also take the meaning of\nなま. Overall, セイ has more possible meanings (I think this is probably just a\nfunction of it being a more common reading).\n\nIf a kun-reading is given with okurigana (e.g. う・む) you can probably assume\nthat the most common meaning for that reading = the meaning of the\nverb/adjective.\n\nHowever, all of these will come with some level of vagueness factor, the more\nso the more you try to boil the meaning down to something simple. \"nama =\nraw/natural\" works in many cases but doesn't explain 生意気{なまいき} or 生返事{なまへんじ}.\nInclude more information and you end up basically replicating a kanji\ndictionary.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T10:04:54.643",
"id": "6292",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T13:12:50.017",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-27T13:12:50.017",
"last_editor_user_id": "571",
"owner_user_id": "571",
"parent_id": "6288",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6288
|
6292
|
6292
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6297",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "I thought of this after seeing a news article about 星出{ほしで}彰彦{あきひこ}, who is an\nastronaut.\n\nAptronym is a term for a name (often the surname) that fits a person's\noccupation or personality. A classic example is \"Igor Judge\" (a British judge,\nalso known as Lord Judge), but the name doesn't have to be precisely the same\nas the occupation, for example, a florist with the surname \"Flowers\" or a chef\nwith the surname \"Spoon\" would count.\n\nIn English the term \"aptronym\" is not widely used (I think it was relatively\nrecently coined) but phrases such as \"aptly named~\" \"fittingly named~\" \"an apt\nname\" \"a fitting name\" might be. In Japanese, how would one best describe a\nname that fits the owner?\n\nI had one thought: 仕事にぴったりな名前\n\nI have found some indications that this is possible including one direct\nmention of 星出さん:\n\n 1. On the blog of a ikebana instructor called 花香, she mentions often getting the comment 「お花の仕事にぴったりな名前ですね」\n 2. 星出さんなんて 宇宙飛行士{うちゅうひこうし}にぴったりな名前 (on twitter)\n\nHowever I'd like to know if there are other terms (ふさわしい？合う？) that are used,\nand if there is a coined term like \"aptronym\" used in Japanese. Famous\nexamples (real or fictional) would also be welcome.",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T13:58:34.077",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6295",
"last_activity_date": "2016-11-06T02:07:37.617",
"last_edit_date": "2012-09-12T01:03:23.797",
"last_editor_user_id": "501",
"owner_user_id": "571",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"words",
"names",
"word-requests"
],
"title": "Describing aptronyms (names that fit their owner)",
"view_count": 864
}
|
[
{
"body": "I remember reading when I was a high school student an auto-biography of a\nmathematician named 矢野健太郎. His specialization was differential geometry. He\nintroduced his name to his colleagues that it means \"vector field\" (矢野).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T15:11:41.960",
"id": "6296",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T15:11:41.960",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6295",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "I don't really like to bring up the subject of anime or manga as an example,\nyet the first character that came to my mind was 夜神 月(ライト) from \"Death Note\".\nThere is a subculture that has made many references to the character's name\nsuch as ライト signifying 光/正 due to his intelligence and sense of justice. As\nwell as 神 indicating that he acts in the way a god might having control over a\nperson's existence.\n\nAs far as I know, the term that I noticed most associated with this was \"相応しい\"\nas you indicated before. In the context of fiction, someone might ask what the\norigins of the name are or 由来.\n\nThere also exists a completely different context of \"fitting names\" that is\ndifferent than what you are asking, but I think it might be useful to include.\nMaybe you have heard of some Japanese fitting certain readings to kanji\ncomposed names that are not standard. For example, 光中 ー＞ ぴかちゅう. The slang term\nfor this is どきゅん or DQN. ぴったり as well as 相応しい are also used to describe this\nsituation where readings \"fit\" the name.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T19:37:07.123",
"id": "6297",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T20:08:34.617",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-27T20:08:34.617",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6295",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "There is [Kentaro Goto](http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/users/89) and [Naohisa\nGoto](http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/users/263), as well as a [GOTOU\nYuuzou](http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/users/58) as Ruby (the programming language)\ndevelopers. I don't think any of them are [considered\nharmful](http://www.u.arizona.edu/~rubinson/copyright_violations/Go_To_Considered_Harmful.html),\nthough.\n\nI think that Satō may be a good candidate for an aptronym, for cooking-related\nprofessions.\n\nShort track speed skater Apolo Ohno inherited his surname from Yuki Ohno (大野\n幸). In the 2002 Winter Olympics, he came second due to a [four-person\ncrash](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAADWfJO2qM) in the 1000 metres final,\nleading to some \"Oh no\"\n[jokes](http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,212043,00.html).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T10:51:39.567",
"id": "6347",
"last_activity_date": "2014-03-03T20:32:24.203",
"last_edit_date": "2014-03-03T20:32:24.203",
"last_editor_user_id": "91",
"owner_user_id": "91",
"parent_id": "6295",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "Separate answer for this one, in case people don't like it:\n\n[ジュリアン・ブランク](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A5%E3%83%AA%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%BB%E3%83%96%E3%83%A9%E3%83%B3%E3%82%AF)\n([English Wikipedia link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Blanc)) is a\n[Pick Up\nArtist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_community#Pickup_artist)\n(ナンパ). His attitudes towards women as a whole are odious, but he's best known\nin Australia for saying about Japan women that \"If you're a white male, you\ncan do what you want\" to them.\n\n\"ブラン\" (without the ク) is used in モンブラン to refer to Mont Blanc, or \"white\nmountain\", and \"ブラ\" (without ンク) is used in ブラマンジェ to refer to Blancmange,\nwhich means \"white dish\"). The word ブランク means \"blank\" in Japanese.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-11-06T02:07:37.617",
"id": "40691",
"last_activity_date": "2016-11-06T02:07:37.617",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"parent_id": "6295",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
6295
|
6297
|
6296
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "According [to this post](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1985/769), the に\nin 一緒に makes this an adverb. Which means that 一緒 is an adjective. But when can\n一緒 ever be (or be used as) an adjective? 一緒人? (conjoined twins, a couple, best\nfriends connected at the hip????)\n\nNote: I have no idea if 一緒人 is an actual word or even grammatically correct.\nIt was just something random I threw out there.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T23:04:53.310",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6298",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T23:55:01.303",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "769",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"usage",
"adjectives"
],
"title": "Can 一緒 ever be used as an adjective?",
"view_count": 178
}
|
[
{
"body": "As an adjective, I have only seen 「一緒」 paired with 「の」. It is actually used\nfairly often.\n\nExample:\n\n> 一緒の部屋に泊まる (to stay the night in the same room)\n>\n> 一緒 becomes an adjective with の\n\nAs far as I know, 「一緒人」 in incorrect. Although there are scarce instances of\nit found online it makes me think it is neither widely accepted nor correct.\n\nIf you want to use 「一緒」 in the context of people, it usually looks something\nlike:\n\n> 僕らは一緒だ (We're together)\n\nI believe the word 「一緒」 recognizes \"two separate entities that are together\".\nThere is a word 「同一人物」which is used when specifying someone who has two titles\nis actually the same person. Notice the different kanji to denote this.\n\nExample:\n\n> それらの犯罪は同一人物によって犯された。(The crime was committed by the same man)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-27T23:55:01.303",
"id": "6299",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-27T23:55:01.303",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6298",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
6298
| null |
6299
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6302",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm totally puzzled as to what this means, and I couldn't find any helpful\nhints when I searched through multiple websites. Does anyone else have a clue?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-28T06:33:43.647",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6300",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-28T16:05:14.937",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-28T16:05:14.937",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"words",
"definitions"
],
"title": "What does ぐぎぎmean?",
"view_count": 527
}
|
[
{
"body": "It's a variation of `ギギギ`, which originates from the manga `はだしのゲン` ([barefoot\nGen](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_Gen)).\n\nIt's onomatopoeia which refers to teeth grinding in anger, frustration or\nregret. It can also be used as a sort of \"groan\" symbolizing unbearable agony.\n\nSee also <http://www.paradisearmy.com/doujin/pasok_gigigi.htm> for more info.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-28T08:15:46.423",
"id": "6302",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-28T08:15:46.423",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "796",
"parent_id": "6300",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
6300
|
6302
|
6302
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6303",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What is the translation of はこう ? (from はこうやって)\n\nI know that it would mean something like : This is how (I do) ... Yet, I\ncannot find the word in any dictionary. I just find the meaning of \"wave\nheight\".",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-28T08:15:26.640",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6301",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-28T08:50:17.207",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1553",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"words",
"meaning"
],
"title": "What is はこう from はこうやって?",
"view_count": 1206
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think it should be parsed as the `は` particle, `こう` \"in this way\" and `やって`\n(from the verb `やる` \"to do\").\n\nIf at the end of the sentence, I think it would most likely be \"as for ..., do\nit in this way\", but if in the middle or start of the sentence, `こうやって` can be\ntranslated as \"thus\" or \"in this way\", for example:\n\n> こうやって私はその機械を作った。 \n> I made the machine in this way.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-28T08:32:40.053",
"id": "6303",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-28T08:50:17.207",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-28T08:50:17.207",
"last_editor_user_id": "796",
"owner_user_id": "796",
"parent_id": "6301",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6301
|
6303
|
6303
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6318",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "If you look at my translation of the sentence below from a text book (総まとめ N3\n読解), I think you will agree that I have guessed the meaning correctly but can\nanyone explain the grammar to the first phrase in bold? The particle も seems\nto have a wider usage than that given in most books or perhaps there is an\nomitted phrase?\n\n> 「 **かわいい写真たてもうれしかった** けれど、それより、 黙ってプレゼントを用意してくれていたことに感激した。」\n>\n> \"I was very happy with the photoframe (?) but more than that, I was touched\n> that she prepared a present secretly, without revealing anything.\"\n\nContext: This was an entry to a young woman's diary, trying to think of a nice\nbirthday present for her friend.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-29T03:45:34.713",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6305",
"last_activity_date": "2014-11-11T15:48:40.903",
"last_edit_date": "2014-11-11T15:48:40.903",
"last_editor_user_id": "6840",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particle-も"
],
"title": "What's the function of the particle も in 「かわいい写真たてもうれしかったけど、…」?",
"view_count": 771
}
|
[
{
"body": "も means \"also\", which means there is something else on top of which something\nis added. You might be tempted to assume that this \"something else\" should\nhave been introduced into the context in advance, but in this case, it is not.\nIt is introduced in the part that follows this expression.\n\n> I was also happy for the pretty picture stand, but rather than that, I was\n> surprised by the fact that she had prepared a secret present.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-29T09:16:16.057",
"id": "6307",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-29T12:19:03.417",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-29T12:19:03.417",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6305",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "Let me shamelessly steal the explanation by sawa and an example by Chocolate\nto make up a slightly different explanation.\n\nも signifies that there are other things than the thing to which も is attached.\nIt is sometimes used with けれど or a similar conjunctive, and in this case the\nthing to which も is attached is contrasted to something else, which is often\nmore important than the thing introduced with も.\n\n> かわいい写真たて **も** うれしかったけれど、それより、 黙ってプレゼントを用意してくれていたことに感激した。 Although the cute\n> photo frame made me happy, (it was not the only thing that made me happy,\n> namely) more importantly, I was moved by the fact that he/she had prepared a\n> present without saying a word.\n>\n> 勉強 **も** 大事だけど、たまには息抜きしなきゃ。 Although studying is important, (it is not the\n> only important thing, namely) you have to take a break once in a while.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T00:59:47.813",
"id": "6318",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T13:10:45.383",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "15",
"parent_id": "6305",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "My first thought was that the frame was _so_ cute, I was happy... も as an\nintensifier usually/often appears concatenated with other particles but can\nshow up by itself. Even with the new info on the context, I'm not sure _also_\nis the way to go. Could this be truly ambiguous? If we had audio it might be\nclear: the frame was _sooo_ cute vs the frame was _also_ cute...",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T01:33:15.587",
"id": "6319",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T01:33:15.587",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1345",
"parent_id": "6305",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
}
] |
6305
|
6318
|
6318
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6309",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Japanese verbs are quite complex compared to English verbs (Most English verbs\nhave five or six forms and _to be_ has eight not including archaic forms).\nTheir agglutinative nature means they have various parts which can be present\nor not, or can take different morphemes.\n\nWhat I'm wondering is if it is possible to calculate the total number of\npossible forms this can lead to for a typical Japanese verb.\n\nIf it's not straightforward or generally talked about, a reference to a\ndiscussion or research paper would also be a great answer.",
"comment_count": 13,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-29T09:19:21.760",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6308",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-29T14:38:29.853",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-29T14:38:29.853",
"last_editor_user_id": "125",
"owner_user_id": "125",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"conjugations"
],
"title": "How many forms can a Japanese verb take?",
"view_count": 7316
}
|
[
{
"body": "It depends on how you count. There are ~10 base forms to which you can append\nauxiliaries in a fairly regular manner. For reference, the handbook of\nJapanese verbs covers 154 conjugations which stem from ten different forms:\n\n 1. Conjunctive form (14)\n 2. Dictionary form (39)\n 3. Negative form (33)\n 4. Conditional form (5)\n 5. Imperative form (2)\n 6. Volitional form (5)\n 7. Te form (26)\n 8. Ta form (25)\n 9. Tara form (3)\n 10. Tari form (2)\n\nBut there is a lot of similarity among those, and there are probably both more\nand less inclusive lists.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-29T11:08:55.993",
"id": "6309",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-29T11:19:07.423",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-29T11:19:07.423",
"last_editor_user_id": "542",
"owner_user_id": "1548",
"parent_id": "6308",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6308
|
6309
|
6309
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I checked Japanese Wikipedia and お天道様 is an early Edo period word for the sun,\nas used in some kind of early modern popular religion that is not really\ndescribed well at all. Anyway, I've never seen a word like this in any\nchildren's book, so how do kids know what their grandparents are talking\nabout? It seems like if it's a word nobody understands, the grandparents\nshould just say お日様 instead.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-29T15:07:19.080",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6311",
"last_activity_date": "2014-03-21T02:00:58.773",
"last_edit_date": "2014-03-21T02:00:58.773",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "583",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "When grandmas tell their kids お天道様がみてるよ, how do the kids know who お天道様 is?",
"view_count": 343
}
|
[
{
"body": "This is an interesting question but I don't think it's really Japan-specific.\nJapanese kids learn the word お天道様 the same way kids everywhere learn words.\n\nI mean, how do kids in the US know who \"God\" is? If anything, it should be\neasier to figure out お天道様 -- at least Japanese grandmas can point to a\nconcrete placeholder... I'm sure there are many Japanese kids who grow up with\nidiosyncratic understandings of what お天道様 means, but again, the same could be\nsaid of \"God\".\n\n> It seems like if it's a word nobody understands, the grandparents should\n> just say お日様 instead.\n\nBut it isn't a word nobody understands -- it's a word (almost) everybody\nunderstands, even if they can't put their understanding in simple words. Plus,\nif grandmas said お日様 it wouldn't really make sense. There is obviously some\noverlap, but watching over people and disapproving of naughtiness is just not\nsomething that お日様 does.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T13:22:44.360",
"id": "6328",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T13:22:44.360",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "531",
"parent_id": "6311",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6311
| null |
6328
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6313",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "For some reason, I have had the impression that か at the end of a sentence\nmarks some kind of question that is being asked. However, in these examples\nfrom 日本語総まとめ 文法:\n\n> うれしい **もんですか** 。困っているんです。\n>\n> (I'm not at all pleased. I am not in a good situation.)\n>\n> デジカメが壊れた。なんとか直らないもの **だろうか** 。\n>\n> (My digital camera is not working. I wish I knew how to fix the problem.)\n\nIt appears to not be an adequate or translation of the grammatical forms. The\nfirst example doesn't seem to explain the existence of any question (if one\nexists). The second one might be better translated as:\n\n> \"My digital camera is broken. I wonder if something cannot be done to fix\n> it.\"\n\nI thought this conveys the idea of something being questionable. How would the\nfirst example be better explained/translated so that whatever is questionable\nis not lost?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-29T21:53:01.517",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6312",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T02:17:37.567",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-30T02:17:37.567",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation",
"jlpt"
],
"title": "Are the grammatical forms ものか and だろうか questions?",
"view_count": 1004
}
|
[
{
"body": "The first one is a rhetorical question.\n\n> Would I be pleased at all (in this situation)? \n> Implication: I am not pleased.\n\nThe second one is a question unto oneself.\n\n> Wouldn't there be some way for it to get fixed?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-29T22:59:56.270",
"id": "6313",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-29T23:25:24.460",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-29T23:25:24.460",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6312",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "In the second example, the grammatical form is the ない form of a verb followed\nby ものか or だろうか. It indicates a desire for, or hope of, something.\n\nSo I think the example translation is more accurate because it shows the\nspeaker's wish that it can be fixed.\n\nA couple more examples:\n\n> 世界中が平和になる日が来 **ないものだろうか** 。 \n>\n>\n> いつも原田{はらだ}選手に負けている。何とかして勝て **ないものか** 、作戦を考えているところだ。\n\nSource: [耳から覚える日本語能力試験文法トレーニングN2, pg.\n11](http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/reader/4757418558/ref=sib_dp_ptu#reader-link)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-29T23:32:05.810",
"id": "6314",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-29T23:51:10.573",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "54",
"parent_id": "6312",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -1
}
] |
6312
|
6313
|
6313
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6320",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I came across this phrase in the sentence:\n\n> 勘【かん】というものは、しょちゅう経験【けいけん】していながら、 **どことなくつかみどころがなく**\n> 、いまの科学【かがく】ではまだその正体【しょうたい】が、明らか【あきらか】にされていない。(Soumatome N1 dokkai, p45)\n\nMy best effort to translate it naturally would be:\n\n\"Although we all often experience intuition, it is an intangible phenomenon\nthat modern science has yet to explain. \"\n\nBut this is a guess with some added words. The expression can be googled as\n'it is slippery in some way'.\n\nDoes anybody know this expression (or can suggest a good reference for such\nexpressions)?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T00:04:51.670",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6315",
"last_activity_date": "2020-12-20T14:30:49.640",
"last_edit_date": "2020-12-20T14:30:49.640",
"last_editor_user_id": "37097",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"words",
"translation"
],
"title": "what does どことなくつかみどころがなくmean?",
"view_count": 664
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think part of the problem comes from trying to understand the phrase as a\nwhole. If you take it piece by piece, it can become clear.\n\nInstead of looking at つかみどころがなく, try just つかみどころ first. So a rough translation\nmight be \"to have a hold or grip on something\". You also could go the \"kanji\nway\" and look at 掴み所 which can shed light on the meaning.\n\nSo, I would probably translate どことなくつかみどころがなく as:\n\n> \"For some reason, we cannot seem to grasp this concept.\"\n\nYou could also probably say:\n\n> \"For some reason, this (idea,concept) is elusive\".\n\nbut that seems not as clear.\n\nYou can see part of the expression on [Space\nALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E3%81%A4%E3%81%8B%E3%81%BF%E3%81%A9%E3%81%93%E3%82%8D).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T00:14:07.173",
"id": "6317",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T00:37:41.343",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-30T00:37:41.343",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6315",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "The way I interpret it is that\n[`つかみどころがない`](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E3%81%A4%E3%81%8B%E3%81%BF%E3%81%A9%E3%81%93%E3%82%8D)\nliterally means something like \"no places (you) can grab onto\", and that it\ncan mean \"eludes grasp\", \"elusive\", \"slippery\", \"vague\", \"unclear\" and\nsimilar, and that\n[`どことなく`](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E3%81%A9%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AA%E3%81%8F)\nmeans \"somehow\":\n\n> 勘というものは、しょっちゅう経験していながら、どことなくつかみどころがなく、いまの科学ではまだその正体が、明らかにされていない。\n>\n> While being experienced quite often, the sixth sense somehow eludes our\n> grasp. The way it physically manifests remains unclear to modern science.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T02:49:11.727",
"id": "6320",
"last_activity_date": "2013-03-30T12:32:59.293",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "796",
"parent_id": "6315",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "Breaking it down into the constituent parts:\n\n * どことなく : not anywhere in particular (adds vagueness to the word); somewhere (but I cannot tell where)\n\n> From [goo辞書](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/158557/m0u/):\n>\n> * どことはっきり言えないが、なんとなく。 - \"Unable to clearly say where; somehow or other\"\n\n * つかみどころ (掴み所) : gripping point\n\n> From\n> [goo辞書](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/146635/m0u/%E6%8E%B4%E3%81%BF%E6%89%80/):\n>\n> * つかむ部分。また、そのものの本質や真意を押さえる手がかりとなる点。とらえどころ。 - \"The point that pins down\n> the essence and/or intention (of the thing in question) that is key (to\n> understanding); clue; vital point.\"\n\n * ～がなく : not having ～\n\nIt comes together to form \"not having a gripping point somewhere (but I do not\nknow where in particular)\".\n\nThe \"gripping point\" represents a step towards understanding for which if you\nmanage to \"grab\" it, you can start to understand more of the intangible\nphenomenon of intuition.\n\nOpinion: Think of it as rock-climbing, and every hand-grip (clue to\nunderstanding) you manage to grab, hold on and pull yourself up brings you\ncloser to the top (complete understanding)\n\nTo continue the metaphor, imagine rock climbing while being blindfolded. You\nrecognize that there are hand-grip points around you, but you reach out and\ncannot find any, so you do not have a gripping point. But you know it is\nsomewhere, just not exactly where. It is also possible that there are no hand-\ngrip points around you, because you were blindfolded from the start and led to\nthe wall, you might not even know that it could be an unclimbable smooth wall!\n\nBringing it back to trying to understand the phenomenon of intuition\nscientifically, the \"blindfold\" symbolises scientists trying to look into an\nunknown field. But scientists assert that there must be some systematic way of\nunderstanding it so they look for the \"hand-grip points\" in an attempt to\nunderstand and \"ascend the wall\". However because little is known about the\nnature of the wall, it could in fact be a flat smooth wall with no way to\nclimb over.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T05:55:12.387",
"id": "6325",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T13:42:42.423",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-30T13:42:42.423",
"last_editor_user_id": "542",
"owner_user_id": "542",
"parent_id": "6315",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6315
|
6320
|
6320
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6322",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I have this book 「図解でわかる 文字コードのすべて」 which lists many of the Unicode and JIS\nsymbols that one can type. I noticed the section of enclosed alphanumerics\n(囲み文字). Not all kanji are included in 囲み文字 which leads me to believe that some\nhave special meanings.\n\nFor example:\n\n> ㊑ probably stands for 株式会社\n>\n> However, I have no clue what ㊯ would indicate or be used for.\n\nSome of them are obvious, yet others are not. Is there a resource that exists\nfor how these 囲み文字 are used along with the context and meaning? Also, how is\nit that certain characters are chosen to be included in 囲み文字 and others not?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T03:32:39.267",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6321",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T13:38:18.367",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-30T13:38:18.367",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"usage",
"meaning",
"resources",
"computing"
],
"title": "How do specific characters get included in 囲み文字 and what are the meanings they convey?",
"view_count": 296
}
|
[
{
"body": "囲み文字 are derived from Edo period corporate logos called 表号 which were one of\nthe standard ways of naming or identifying a shop\n([屋号](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B1%8B%E5%8F%B7)). You may see in the\ncountryside some companies identify themselves with logos that look like hats\nor carpenter's squares. There is a good survey of traditional logos from one\ntown here:\n\n<http://www.kokuhei.com/sa-ken/hyogo.htm>\n\nAs you can see there are three main varieties: yama (山, ∧), kane (矩, ┐) and\nmaru (丸、○). There are some other ones on that page too but you won't see them\nso often today. Many current businesses in Japan derive their names from these\n屋号, for example Yamasa soy sauce ∧+サ, and Marui fashion outlets which are\ntoday styled \"OIOI\" but would have been ㋑ at some point in the distant past.\n\nThe maru variety of 屋号 became the present 囲み文字 simply through familiar use by\ncorporations and people who had seen such symbols around town. [Wikipedia has\na list of commonly used kanji\nabbreviations](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9B%B2%E3%81%BF%E6%96%87%E5%AD%97#.E6.BC.A2.E5.AD.97)\nand most of them are associated with business use. So, for example, ㊯ stands\nfor a contract manufacturer.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T04:25:56.273",
"id": "6322",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T04:37:36.620",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-30T04:37:36.620",
"last_editor_user_id": "583",
"owner_user_id": "583",
"parent_id": "6321",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "In short, they are frequently used in business.\n\nYou're question is similar to asking, why is the \"$\" symbol included in the\nascii character, but not other units like \"°\"? The answer is the same: because\nit is used frequently in business.\n\nBusiness use dominates the direction of the development of computers.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T12:17:13.583",
"id": "6326",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T12:22:13.750",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-30T12:22:13.750",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6321",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
6321
|
6322
|
6322
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6324",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I also see both in different examples.\n\nAs in :\n\n> 今日は暑い。\n>\n> 本日はおめでとうございます。\n\nBoth are translated as \"Today\", but when and how should I use either one?\n\nCan we say : 本日はあつい。 And 今日はおめでとうございます。?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T04:43:35.227",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6323",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T16:28:00.090",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1553",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 25,
"tags": [
"definitions",
"synonyms",
"word-choice",
"keigo",
"time"
],
"title": "What's the difference between 今日{きょう} and 本日{ほんじつ}?",
"view_count": 15431
}
|
[
{
"body": "本日 is keigo. You will hear this on a train or airplane, or in a store. But you\nwon't be saying it yourself, unless if you as a beginning student are put in\nthe unlikely position of making an official announcement to someone.\n\n今日 is what you would use in ordinary situations.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T05:00:22.427",
"id": "6324",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T05:00:22.427",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "583",
"parent_id": "6323",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 20
},
{
"body": "Although 本日 will usually be too formal for most situations, there are many\ncases where you would use it over 今日 (with slightly different nuances).\n\nTypically when referring to something tied to the day's date:\n\n> 本日の魚 (in a restaurant)\n>\n> 本日の会議 (in a professional context)\n>\n> etc.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T16:28:00.090",
"id": "6332",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T16:28:00.090",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "290",
"parent_id": "6323",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
}
] |
6323
|
6324
|
6324
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6331",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "The phrase is: `mada minu kimi e tsudzuku`. I believe the kana is:\n`まだ見ぬきみへつづく`。",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T13:01:46.617",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6327",
"last_activity_date": "2016-04-17T02:46:20.553",
"last_edit_date": "2016-04-17T02:46:20.553",
"last_editor_user_id": "4216",
"owner_user_id": "769",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"negation",
"classical-japanese",
"auxiliary-ず"
],
"title": "What does 見ぬ/minu mean in this sentence?",
"view_count": 2478
}
|
[
{
"body": "In most cases 'minu' translates to 'unseen'.\n\nThe full sentence まだ見ぬ君へ続く can be roughly translated to \"(It) still continues\nunseen to you\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T13:45:02.290",
"id": "6330",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T13:45:02.290",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1563",
"parent_id": "6327",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "見ぬ is the archaic/literary form of 見ない, the negative form of the verb 見る, to\nsee/meet. So I think the whole sentence literally translates to \"(Something:\n\"the road\" or something I guess) leads to you, whom I've not seen yet\"",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T13:49:05.133",
"id": "6331",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T13:49:05.133",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6327",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6327
|
6331
|
6331
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6335",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Not sure if this is a noun or a na-adjective but is something like `好きながら`,\n`貧乏ながら`, `親切ながら`, `貧弱ながら`, et cetera, a general grammar pattern of noun or na-\nadjective + ながら?\n\nWhat I mean is, do all these work, or will they always work for a given noun\nor na-adjective?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T17:09:15.277",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6333",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T20:10:57.690",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "54",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "Is 名詞 or な形容詞 + ながら a general case?",
"view_count": 477
}
|
[
{
"body": "It is not a general pattern. For 好き, it does not work. 好きながら is ungrammatical.\nIt has to be 好きでありながら.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-30T20:10:57.690",
"id": "6335",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-30T20:10:57.690",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6333",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6333
|
6335
|
6335
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6339",
"answer_count": 4,
"body": "Where in your body is [心]{こころ} located?\n\nWhen people refer to [心]{こころ} do they refer to their heart or brain? I assume\nheart as the literal translation, but I've heard both so was wondering what\nthe answer is.\n\nFor example, there is the expression `[心]{こころ}に[浮]{う}かぶ` which seems to me\nlike it would be referring to your brain rather than your heart, is there a\ndistinction between this usage and other usages?\n\n**CLARIFICATION**\n\nI realize the [心]{しん} can refer to your heart, as in [心臓]{しんぞう}. However, my\nquestion is about the word こころ not しん.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T00:11:07.427",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6336",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T09:03:08.223",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-31T01:35:57.430",
"last_editor_user_id": "1217",
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"words",
"etymology"
],
"title": "Where exactly in your body is \"心\"?",
"view_count": 714
}
|
[
{
"body": "Heart is 心臓, brain is 脳. 心 refers to your mind. This is not any part of the\nbody.\n\nps: In restaurant, you often say こころ for animal's heart. I don't know why\nthough.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T00:21:00.200",
"id": "6337",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T00:21:00.200",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1065",
"parent_id": "6336",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "It seems like the actual location of 心 is not really clear. But there are a\nfew places where most people thought.\n\nBased on [Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BF%83), the Chinese\nthought it was located in 心臓、腹部、or 胸部.\n\nPossibly it might be similar to asking \"where is your spirit in your body?\".\nThat's a hard to answer question and has brought forth a multitude of study,\nso I'd guess 心 would as well.\n\nI wonder if 「心に浮かぶ」 would be referring to your \"mind\" more so than \"brain\".",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T00:26:01.533",
"id": "6338",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T00:34:01.057",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-31T00:34:01.057",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6336",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "There are two meanings. As a body part, it means the heart. In the other\nmeaning, it means the mind.\n\n**Edit to match the edited question**\n\nこころ \"mind\" is an abstract notion. By now, people believe that the location of\nthe mind is the brain. However, that is not included in the meaning of こころ.\nWithin the (not necessarily correct) world where this definition belongs to,\nthere is no real object that corresponds to こころ. It has no location.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T00:44:51.443",
"id": "6339",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T09:03:08.223",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-31T09:03:08.223",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6336",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "According to the [gogen-allguide page for `腹`](http://gogen-\nallguide.com/ha/hara_karada.html), In present times it's thought one's `心` is\nlocated in one's `胸` (chest), while historically it was thought that one's `心`\nwas situated in the `腹` (abdomen), which is also the reason why `腹` is often\nused to mean feelings/emotions (`腹が立つ` might be one example of this.)\n\nThe [page for `心{こころ}`](http://gogen-allguide.com/ko/kokoro.html) also states\nthat the reason 心 can mean \"mind\" etc is because it was thought in Chinese\nthat the operation of one's mind and one's heartbeat were linked. It also\nstates that unlike the `漢語` (word of Chinese origin) `心{しん}`, after the middle\nages `心{こころ}` lost it's meaning of the internal organ.\n\nAs with `私の胸の中` and `私の心の中`, I think `胸` can sometimes be used in place of `心`\n(and vice-versa), but I don't necessarily think they always have the same\nnuance. In your example, I think `心` can be replaced with `胸`, as there's both\n[`心に浮かぶ`](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E5%BF%83%E3%81%AB%E6%B5%AE%E3%81%8B%E3%81%B6/UTF-8/)\nand\n[`胸に浮かぶ`](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E8%83%B8%E3%81%AB%E6%B5%AE%E3%81%8B%E3%81%B6).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T03:03:53.687",
"id": "6340",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T04:23:11.280",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-31T04:23:11.280",
"last_editor_user_id": "796",
"owner_user_id": "796",
"parent_id": "6336",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
6336
|
6339
|
6338
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6344",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "While reading this [bit of\nnews](http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20120731-00000168-yom-soci), I noticed\nthat the article used an interesting type of \"honorific\":\n\n> 京都大学院薬学研究科の辻本豪三・ **元教授** （５９）が医療機器販売会社（東京都世田谷区）から私的な旅行費用などの肩代わりを受けていた問題で\n> [...]\n\nAlthough the `元教授【もときょうじゅ】` fragment appears on its own elsewhere (for example\nin the title), it also follows every occurrence of the disgraced former\nprofessor's name (3 times in this short article), in what would seem to be the\nchosen honorific to address him.\n\nMy question(s) are then:\n\n * Is the `-元+[former address]` form of honorific standard and commonly used? Would any former prime minister be `元総理大臣`? \n\n * Does the form carry any negative nuance? E.g would it be used in cases where the term/position ended normally? (in this instance, the professor obviously resigned in disgrace, but what if he had just been a _retired_ professor)\n\n * Any reason why the journalist would use this particular form rather than either a standard \"civilian\" `-様` or the usual legal suffixes (`-容疑者` etc)? (the insistence on pointing out his fall from grace seems a little petty to my untrained eye)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T08:56:03.040",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6343",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T09:22:17.917",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-31T09:07:53.743",
"last_editor_user_id": "290",
"owner_user_id": "290",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"honorifics"
],
"title": "Use of 「元」in honorifics",
"view_count": 271
}
|
[
{
"body": "* As for the usage to avoid 呼び捨て, it is not common. It is the invention of the mass media. But there are even more unnatural ones. Ones (without 元) that are famous for their ad-hoc-ness are (草薙/稲垣)メンバー, 小泉タレント, 島田司会者. \n * As for general usage, it does not have particularly negative nuance. It can be used for positions that ended normally.\n * 様 is an honorific form and is not neutral. Although the writer wants to avoid dishonor, neither is there any particular reason to honor the person. A neutral one that can be used is 氏. 容疑者 can also be used, but if it is avoided, that is perhaps because the writer wants to be more specific, or is concerned that the majority of the readers are ignorant enough to not be able to distinguish 容疑者 and 犯人.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T09:09:48.947",
"id": "6344",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T09:22:17.917",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-31T09:22:17.917",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6343",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6343
|
6344
|
6344
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "While looking up the denonym for a Kansai resident (I've since found out it's\n関西人{かんさいじん}), jisho.org described 才六, 贅六, 上方才六, 賽六 and 采六, with pronunciations\n(not necessarily in that order) of ぜいろく, ぜえろく, かみがたざいろく, and さいろく as being\n(presumably related) words used to debase people from Kansai.\n\nWhat did these words mean?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T10:34:46.623",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6346",
"last_activity_date": "2012-09-12T00:50:52.747",
"last_edit_date": "2012-09-12T00:50:52.747",
"last_editor_user_id": "501",
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"translation",
"meaning",
"offensive-words",
"demonyms"
],
"title": "What did 才六 and similar terms about Kansai residents mean?",
"view_count": 334
}
|
[
{
"body": "> What did these words mean?\n\n才六, 贅六, 賽六 and 采六 are all the same word written in various kanji. There are\nseveral pronunciations:\n\n * sairoku: most basic and original.\n * zeiroku: Derives from above sairoku. This is how an easterner would pronounce the word. ai > eː is a common phonological change in eastern Japanese. Likely pronounced as zeːroku (zeeroku) rather than zeiroku. Voiced sounds, especially word initial, often have a negative sense to it, which is likely the explanation for s > z.\n * zeeroku: Same as above, but this time spelling ai > eː as ee instead of ei.\n\nThe word kamigata (上方) is the area around Kyōto. cf Kinki and Kansai. While\nsairoku etc generally already refer to people from the western part of Japan,\nthis specifies the region.\n\nAs for the meaning, originally sairoku meant a young person. (Similar to\naonisai 青二才). When not applied to a child, this may be insulting and is how\nthe term came to be used as an insult.\n\nJust speculating but I wonder if 才六 is just an inversion of 六才 \"six years\nold\". There are other slang words like this such as biichiku < chikubi (乳首)\nand jingai (人外 < 外人).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T12:10:19.507",
"id": "6349",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-01T02:12:40.460",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-01T02:12:40.460",
"last_editor_user_id": "1141",
"owner_user_id": "1141",
"parent_id": "6346",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "According to 大辞泉{だいじせん} the term came from 丁稚{でっち}, a term used particularly\nin the area around Kyōto for \"shop boy\"/apprentice (and also apparently\nsometimes used as a derogatory term itself). 小僧{こぞう} was the Edo equivalent of\n丁稚.\n\nThe suggested development is\n[this](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%95%E3%81%84%E3%82%8D%E3%81%8F&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0):\n丁稚 sounds like 重一, a term from sugoroku where both dice come up as ones. The\nopposite side from the one on a dice is six, hence \"ろく\". This would also\nexplain the use of the kanji 采・賽\n\nSome alternative explanations can be found\n[here](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1160720076)\n\n 1. (from 大阪ことば事典) From the terms 青二才・毛二才, with the addition of 六 as in 甚六・宿六 (where 六 = ろくでなし), from which 毛二才六 was shortened to 毛才六 and then just 才六\n\n 2. From some form like ６つの贅沢{ぜいたく} or 6つの才能{さいのう} (these are likely to be later explanations tacked on).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-02T12:22:10.900",
"id": "6367",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-02T12:22:10.900",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "571",
"parent_id": "6346",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6346
| null |
6349
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6351",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "What is the difference between the two words `こぼれる` and `あふれる`?\n\nI think for `こぼれる`, the focus is on **improper or bad containment** leading to\noverflow/spillage. \nAnd for `あふれる` the focus is on the **abundance** of the object being\ncontained, therefore leading to overflow/spillage.\n\nAs an aside, how frequently is the kanji `溢` used for `あふれる` and `こぼれる`? \nI ask this because Google IME suggests `溢れる` for both `あふれる` and `こぼれる`. \nIs `あふれる` usually in kana and `こぼれる` usually `零れる`?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T16:03:27.827",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6350",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T19:22:24.183",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "542",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Difference between こぼれる and あふれる",
"view_count": 779
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes, your analysis is correct. As a Christian, `溢れる` is used often in church,\nthe Bible, etc. to describe such as God's overflowing love (`神様の溢れ出る愛`),\noverflowing joy, etc. And I usually see it written using the kanji `溢`.\n\nI have never seen `こぼれる` written with `溢`. The kanji `零` (れい) also means\n\"zero\", so it's not hard to see that spilling something might result in an\namount of zero leftover. So this has a more negative connotation than `溢れる`.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T16:23:58.300",
"id": "6351",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T16:23:58.300",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "6350",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "* こぼれる is the general term for \"spill\". It can be due to leakage, overflow, tilt, etc.\n * 溢れる specifically means \"spill due to overflow\", or \"full of\" without particular mention to spill.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T19:22:24.183",
"id": "6354",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T19:22:24.183",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6350",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
6350
|
6351
|
6351
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6353",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When can I safely say 「行ってきます」when leaving home or another place? How loosely\ncan this phrase be used? Can you use it even if you don't plan to come back\nuntil a day/week/month later?\n\nIf it is going to be an extended period that a person is gone (from home), is\nthere another a better phrase to use or is「行ってきます」still appropriate?\n\nFor the sake of the question, let's assume that the listener knows that the\nperson is leaving, and they also know how long that person will be gone.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T18:59:35.413",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6352",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T20:05:32.367",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-31T20:05:32.367",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"set-phrases",
"time"
],
"title": "Can I say 行ってきます if I don't plan to come back?",
"view_count": 444
}
|
[
{
"body": "If your concern is that (て)きます means coming back, and that is not necessarily\nwhat is going to happen, then just do not use it. Say 行きます.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T19:17:05.827",
"id": "6353",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T19:44:30.207",
"last_edit_date": "2012-07-31T19:44:30.207",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6352",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6352
|
6353
|
6353
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6356",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "It is likely that this is due to my poor understanding, but why are there so\nmany names for「すし」? I think for the most part I have only seen the first three\n(寿司、鮨、鮓). For whatever reason in [some restaurants in\nAmerica](http://www.ayasteakhouse.com/index.php/directions) there are these\nother compositions listed.\n\nSomething tells me that their is some nuance between them or not all of them\nare in use. What are the differences between these words, and why are there so\nmany?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T20:57:22.133",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6355",
"last_activity_date": "2018-06-14T21:08:43.060",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"usage",
"nuances",
"kanji"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 寿司, 鮨, 鮓, 寿斗, 寿し, and 壽司?",
"view_count": 3142
}
|
[
{
"body": "First, we can split your examples in to two categories: Words exisiting before\nthe Edo period and 当て字 existing after the Edo period:\n\n**当て字 existing after the Edo period** ：\n\n> 寿司、寿斗※、寿し and 壽司※\n\n※:I have lost confidence in where these 当て字 come from. I found a couple sites\nthat claim that 寿斗, etc. originate from the Edo period. However, the sites do\nnot have anything to back this claim up, so I cannot find any conclusive\nevidence.\n\n**Words exisiting before the Edo period** :\n\n> 鮨 and 鮓\n\n`鮓` (originally comes from 酸し (see Dono's comment) meaning \"sour\") refers to\nfish that has been salted or put into\n[[糟]{かす}](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sake_kasu) and fermented. Originally,\nthis was done to preserve the fish (before refrigerators were evented) and is\narguably considered to be the most \"correct\" version.\n[鮒鮓]{ふなずし}、[鮎鮓]{あゆずし}、and [鯖鮓]{さばずし} would all fit into this category.\n\n`鮨` originally referred to\n[魚]{さかな}の[[塩辛]{しおから}](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiokara) from China,\nhowever it soon became mixed with 鮓 and both have been used interchangeably\nfor many centuries.\n\n`寿司` was an 当て字 developed in the Edo period to mean [寿]{ことぶき}を[司]{つかさど}る or\n[寿司]{じゅし or よごと} as it was a special food used in celebrations, etc.\n\n`寿し` would be the same as above with 司 replaced with し.\n\n`寿斗` is an 当て字 also. However, I could not find conclusive evidence on the use\nof 斗, I suspect it has to do with\n[Masu](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masu_%28Japanese%29) and its use for\ndrinking sake.\n\n`壽司` is just a variation of `寿司`, as 壽 is just a variation of 寿.\n\nNowadays in Japan, I only see 寿司 and すし most often, and very rarely 鮨 and 鮓\n(probably used more on expensive restaurants). I have never seen 寿斗, etc. in\nJapan (as also mentioned by sawa that they aren't used in modern Japanese),\nbut this is my own personal experience. Also, the reason there are so many is\nbecause its purpose has changed overtime. Originally it referred to fish that\nwas preserved so it wouldn't go bad, next it became known for a special food\nused in celebrations, etc., and nowadays sushi is so common and widespread,\nthat it slowly is becoming more of an everyday food (although it still is\nconsidered somewhat special and is eaten during the holidays, etc.).",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T23:52:27.890",
"id": "6356",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-01T21:45:55.037",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-01T21:45:55.037",
"last_editor_user_id": "1217",
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6355",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "If you collect all the written forms of sushi you can find in America, you\nwill find writings that are not Japanese because the majority of sushi\nrestaurants in America are operated by Chinese or Korean people.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-07-31T23:58:49.393",
"id": "6357",
"last_activity_date": "2012-07-31T23:58:49.393",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6355",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Use 寿司 the most commonly. Sometimes use 鮨 on Sushi bentobox. Other complicated\nkanji/ateji might be used because it would look cool, out of ordinary writing.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-01T07:46:12.737",
"id": "6364",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-01T07:46:12.737",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1044",
"parent_id": "6355",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
6355
|
6356
|
6356
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Why were the terms 外回り and 内回り chosen for the directions on Yamanote line\n(railway) rather than the more straigntforward 時計回り and 反時計回り? Is it expected\nthat people should know which matches which?",
"comment_count": 13,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-01T04:49:08.523",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6359",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-01T15:21:27.513",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "外回り, 内回り instead of 時計回り, 反時計回り",
"view_count": 222
}
|
[
{
"body": "In addition to what Chris said about not knowing which side ran clockwise or\ncounter-clockwise (there might not be a train in the station, or it might have\nan engine on either end and be standing still), another advantage of the\n[concept](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner/outer_directions#Concept) is\nexplained on Wikipedia:\n\n \n_In nations where automobiles drive on the right side of a road, traffic\ntraveling in a clockwise direction around a loop will always be in the \"inner\"\nlane(s) (assuming that there is no lane crossing)._\n\n \n_Likewise, in nations where automobiles drive on the left side of the road,\ntraffic traveling in a clockwise direction will always be in the \"outer\"\nlane(s)._",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-01T05:53:49.473",
"id": "6360",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-01T05:53:49.473",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "54",
"parent_id": "6359",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
6359
| null |
6360
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Can the topic marker は be used twice in a sentence? For example, かれは日本語はいいですね。\nIs that right?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-02T10:36:54.940",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6366",
"last_activity_date": "2015-09-30T11:06:28.457",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1554",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 14,
"tags": [
"particles"
],
"title": "Can the particle は be used twice?",
"view_count": 9846
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes. As long as there is no more than one neutral topic and the rest are\ncontrastive.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-02T14:18:43.700",
"id": "6369",
"last_activity_date": "2015-09-30T11:06:28.457",
"last_edit_date": "2015-09-30T11:06:28.457",
"last_editor_user_id": "5176",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6366",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "Particle は is quite versatile and flexible, which implies, for foreigners\n(外{がい}人{じん}), a quite slow learning curve. One of the many possible usages of\nthis particle is the one devoted to underline and express contrast. I guess it\nis the only possible (common and regular) context where you will find two は\nparticles in the same sentence.\n\nI am going to describe classic situations, but please consider that more\ncomplex examples are possible.\n\n## Contrast on subjects\n\nPlease look at the following pattern:\n\n> (Subject-1)は(Sentence-1)[が|けど|けれども|...]、(Subject-2)は(Sentence-2)\n\nHere are some examples:\n\n> 1) あの、僕は出来ないけど、ケンちゃんは出来るよ！彼に聞いたほうがいいと思う〜 => Well, I am the one who cannot do\n> that, Ken-chan can sure do it! You better ask him I think!\n>\n> 2) ミナト先生は知っているんだけど、フジヤマ先生は知らないと思う！ => Minato-sensei knows it, it's Fujijama-\n> sensei the one who doesn't know I think\n\n## Contrast of objects\n\nTake a look at this pattern as well:\n\n> (Sentence-1-Part1)(Object-1)は(Sentence-1-Part2)[が|けど|けれども|...]、\n> (Sentence-2-Part1)(Object-2)は(Sentence-2-Part2)\n\nHere are some examples:\n\n> 1) イタリア語は話せないんですが、韓国語は話せますよ！ => I cannot speak Italian, but I can speak\n> Korean\n>\n> 2) チェスは出来るけど、囲碁は出来ない！ => I can play Chess, but I cannot play Go!\n>\n> 3) えと、ペンは持って来た、カバンは持って来ていない〜 => Well, I brought a pen, I didn't bring a\n> backpack\n\nAs you can see, this should be the only case to have two particles は. My\nsensei as school told me that sometimes Japanese people use the particle in\nother situations, but it sound slangish or quite strange. So, for a good\nlanguage usage, you should avoid repeating particle は (unless you need to put\nemphasis on some contrast).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-11-20T20:54:27.477",
"id": "9518",
"last_activity_date": "2012-11-20T20:54:27.477",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "12",
"parent_id": "6366",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Lots of people are saying that you can have は twice in a sentence, but used as\na particle, you cannot. は Is used to show where the subject of the sentence\nis. My Japanese teacher is from Japan and this is what she taught us, so the\nanswer to your question is no, you cannot have は twice in your sentence (when\nused as a particle).",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-09-30T00:41:42.287",
"id": "28388",
"last_activity_date": "2015-09-30T00:41:42.287",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "11326",
"parent_id": "6366",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -3
}
] |
6366
| null |
6369
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6370",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In all the japanese learning books, they teach you that xxxday ends with 曜日.\n\nBut sometimes I get to see xxx曜 only without the \"Day\" Kanji.\n\nCan I shorten it when speaking too or is it only written ? And when can I\nshorten it ?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-02T13:23:53.867",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6368",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-02T14:29:38.413",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-02T13:38:25.943",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1553",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 16,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"abbreviations"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 日曜日【にちようび】and 日曜【にちよう】?",
"view_count": 1533
}
|
[
{
"body": "It is not clear cut, but my impression is that the tendency is that 日曜日 means\na particular day that is Sunday whereas 日曜 means Sunday in general or series\nof Sundays.\n\n> 日曜日に出掛けます。 \n> 'I will go out on next Sunday.'\n>\n> 日曜に出掛けます。 \n> 'I go out on Sundays.'\n\nWhen it is clear that it is not about a particular day but is about a series\nof days, this contrast becomes clear.\n\n> * 日曜日洋画劇場\n>\n> 日曜洋画劇場",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-02T14:24:17.047",
"id": "6370",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-02T14:29:38.413",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-02T14:29:38.413",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6368",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "When you say\n\n> But sometimes I get to see xxx曜 only without the \"Day\" Kanji.\n\ndo you mean in your books? Or other places too?\n\nI personally only use it in informal situations like speaking with/emailing\nfriends. I can't say I've ever seen it written this way non-informally.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-02T14:25:54.293",
"id": "6371",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-02T14:25:54.293",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "6368",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
6368
|
6370
|
6370
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6377",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "My understanding is that ものだ is used to assert things which are mostly known\nto everyone.\n\n> 誰かの家に招待されたときは、何か手土産をもっていくものだ \n> 'When invited to somebody's home it's customary to bring presents'.\n\nOn the other hand, ことだ is used to give someone advice.\n\n> A: どうすれば日本語が早く簡単に上達しますか。 \n> B: 上手になりたいなら、真面目にコツコツ勉強することです。それ以外に方法はありません。\n\nI can understand that B gives an advise to A, however B is not really saying\nanything that A couldn't already know. Moreover, when talking about what to do\nwhen going to somebody's home, \"bring presents\" is not necessarily something\nthat everybody is aware of - could be that some cultures are used to bringing\nmoney.\n\nSo it seems to be that, in the examples above, ものだ and ことだ are can be freely\nexchanged. Note, that the examples are from my textbook so i guess they can't\nbe exchanged.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-02T14:52:31.150",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6372",
"last_activity_date": "2015-11-30T15:16:19.370",
"last_edit_date": "2015-11-30T15:16:19.370",
"last_editor_user_id": "4091",
"owner_user_id": "399",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 21,
"tags": [
"usage",
"syntax",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Difference between sentence final ものだ and ことだ",
"view_count": 4371
}
|
[
{
"body": "I am not sure where your confusion comes from, but …するものだ means “it is\ncustomary to do …” and …することだ means “do ….” Their meanings are different, and\nthey are not interchangeable.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-02T23:14:01.027",
"id": "6377",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-02T23:14:01.027",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "15",
"parent_id": "6372",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "～ものだ is used to state something that is common sense, and not the speaker's\npersonal opinion (\"one should..\"). It is similar to ～すべきだ.\n\n～ことだ is used to give and advice that is based on the speaker's own opinion or\njudgement. It is similar to ～したほうがいい, and should be avoided when talking to\none's superior.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-09-04T14:11:17.533",
"id": "6700",
"last_activity_date": "2012-09-04T14:11:17.533",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1676",
"parent_id": "6372",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] |
6372
|
6377
|
6377
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6376",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am trying to understand the title of an anime series called: [Naruto\nShippuden](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARUTO_-%E3%83%8A%E3%83%AB%E3%83%88-_%E7%96%BE%E9%A2%A8%E4%BC%9D).\nSearching google, I\n[found](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_shippuden_mean_in_Japanese) that\n`shippuden` can be translated as `hurricane chronicles` or `legend`. I looked\nfor `hurricane` in the English wikipedia, and afterwards went to the [Japanese\nversion](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%86%B1%E5%B8%AF%E4%BD%8E%E6%B0%97%E5%9C%A7).\n\n> 熱帯低気圧（ねったいていきあつ、英: Tropical Cyclone）\n\nCan someone explain why 疾風伝 whould be translated as `hurricane chronicles`?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-02T21:28:30.303",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6375",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-05T12:26:25.933",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-02T22:39:25.910",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1460",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"meaning"
],
"title": "What is the meaning of 疾風伝?",
"view_count": 23153
}
|
[
{
"body": "疾風 (rapidly + wind) means Hurricane (meteorological) 伝 means\ntradition/deliverance/legend 伝 is used like a suffix. For an Anime/Manga title\nit's o.K, but I doubt you would say it this way in normal conversation",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-02T21:43:55.383",
"id": "6376",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-02T21:43:55.383",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1576",
"parent_id": "6375",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "Shippuden means hurricane because the name of the serie naruto shippuden and\nnaruto's surname is uzumaki and that means hurricane.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-11-21T20:15:17.250",
"id": "41076",
"last_activity_date": "2016-11-21T20:15:17.250",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18765",
"parent_id": "6375",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
6375
|
6376
|
6376
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6379",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I am interested in the literal meaning of くすぐったい. If くすぐったい is equivalent to\nthe English expression, \"That tickles!\" (said by someone being tickled), what\nis the literal meaning of this word? If it is an adjective stemming from the\nverb くすぐる, would it literally mean \"I want to tickle!\"? Is there a logic\nbehind the use of the -tai form adjective ( expressing desire ) that I am not\ngetting?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T00:08:32.543",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6378",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-03T00:44:28.607",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "706",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "The logic behind \"くすぐったい\"",
"view_count": 4336
}
|
[
{
"body": "> If くすぐったい is equivalent to the English expression, \"That tickles!\" (said by\n> someone being tickled),\n\nTranslation requires context. In additional to \"tickles\", it may also mean\n\"embarrassing\": そんなに褒められると擽ったい.\n\n> what is the literal meaning of this word?\n\nFrom the verb kusugur- (擽る, to tickle), the adjective kusuguttai describes the\nsituation of being tickled. Note that there is also kosogur- and kosoguttai.\n\n> Is there a logic behind the use of the -tai form adjective ( expressing\n> desire ) that I am not getting?\n\nAs the desiderative -tai, this would become kusuguRItai. Rather, this is\nanother -(t)tai suffix that expresses 1) extremeness and 2) situational. There\nare both -tai and -ttai forms. Other examples include atubottai, bottai,\nhabattai, harebottai, hirabettai, hirattai, kemutai, kemuttai, kutihabattai,\nmedetai, tumetai, usirometai, usubettai, uzattai, yabottai, zirettai.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T00:44:28.607",
"id": "6379",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-03T00:44:28.607",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1141",
"parent_id": "6378",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6378
|
6379
|
6379
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6387",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In response to my\n[question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/6378/the-logic-\nbehind-%E3%81%8F%E3%81%99%E3%81%90%E3%81%A3%E3%81%9F%E3%81%84) about くすぐったい, I\nwas told of the specific suffix in use, the \"ったい.\" What is this ったい / -ttai\nsuffix called in English and in Japanese (or what would one call it if it does\nnot have a specific name)? What exactly does it connote? Would someone be kind\nenough to provide me with a brief list of Japanese words using this suffix? (I\nfound Dono's romanization hard to understand {sorry})",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T01:59:40.283",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6380",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-03T23:13:54.603",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "706",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What is the ったい / -ttai suffix called?",
"view_count": 476
}
|
[
{
"body": "Some from a standard dictionary (using ending-by search) 厚{あつ}ぼったい (thick),\nはれぼったい (puffy), 口{くち}幅{はば}ったい (bragging), じれったい (impatient), 平{ひら}べったい (flat),\n野暮{やぼ}ったい (uncouth).\n\nIt's interesting to me how many of these have a ば row kana before the ったい, and\nぼったい appears in the\n[dictionary](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%BC%E3%81%A3%E3%81%9F%E3%81%84&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0),\nas being something that attaches to the stem of a i-adjective or verb\n(basically as a strengthener).\n\nThis form seems common in 遠州弁{えんしゅうべん}, for example as in [this\nsite](http://homepage3.nifty.com/hachimankotoh/koitai.html) which splits the\nwords into plain ったい and ぼったい ending versions, and also in 静岡弁{しずおかべん}.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T12:44:04.850",
"id": "6387",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-03T12:44:04.850",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "571",
"parent_id": "6380",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "Reading your conversation with Tsuyoshi ito in the comments, I guess you are\nasking whether -ttai is a derivational affix or an inflectional one. It is a\nderivational one.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T23:13:54.603",
"id": "6394",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-03T23:13:54.603",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6380",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6380
|
6387
|
6394
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6385",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I seem to have a hard time recognizing when to choose either にわたって or を通じて in\nthe following question:\n\n> この地方は一年（ ）暖かく、とても過ごしやすい。\n\nThe correct answer is を通じて. My idea is that を通じて would make this say\n\"throughout this year\". With にわたって, I thought that it would be \"Over the\ncourse of one year\". Yet, I'm thinking that these are incorrect. What is the\ndifference between these two words with respect to time? Also, what would be\nthe correct translation for this phrase?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T06:42:56.690",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6383",
"last_activity_date": "2019-07-14T15:44:57.003",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage",
"translation"
],
"title": "When is it appropriate to choose にわたって or を通じて in regard to time?",
"view_count": 2355
}
|
[
{
"body": "* にわたって expresses the duration of a single **ongoing** project/activity.\n\n> 試験のために、一年にわたって勉強した。 \n> I spent a year studying (possibly taking holiday breaks) for the exam.\n>\n> ここは40000年に渡って氷河期で、凍っていた。 \n> This place has been in an ice age and was frozen for 40000 years.\n\n * を通じて means that multiple instances of a single event or a single state are **repeated consistently** throughout the time span.\n\n> 試験のために、一年を通じて勉強した。 \n> I studied throughout the year without taking a holiday break (possibly for\n> a few years) for the exam.\n>\n> ここは1年を通じて凍る。 \n> This place is frozen for the whole year.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T07:32:52.980",
"id": "6385",
"last_activity_date": "2019-07-14T15:44:57.003",
"last_edit_date": "2019-07-14T15:44:57.003",
"last_editor_user_id": "7994",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6383",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "…にわたって specifies the length of a period for which an event or a state\ncontinues. 一年にわたって暖かい would mean “warm for one year,” and maybe it is not warm\nafter one year.\n\n一年を通じて means “all the year round” (≈ no matter which day in the year it is),\nand it does not specify the length of a period for which an event or a state\ncontinues. 一年 just specifies a period of a single unit. We also say 一日を通じて,\n一月を通じて, 一週間を通じて, 四季を通じて, and so on.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T12:19:40.137",
"id": "6386",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-03T12:19:40.137",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "15",
"parent_id": "6383",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6383
|
6385
|
6385
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "When I tried to use ～かねない to express my own feeling about a situation, I was\ntold by a native that it sounds incorrect and strange. However, ～かねる is\nappropriate and fine. For example, this is the impression I get of what is\ngoing on.\n\n> 彼が本当のことを言っているとは信じかねる \n> (the speaker thinks it's hard to believe he's telling the truth)\n>\n> 彼が本当のことを言っていると信じかねない \n> (the speaker thinks he's probably not telling the truth, yet others think\n> he is)\n\nHowever, I was told that ～かねない cannot directly refer to the speaker's opinion,\nbut to can refer to someone else. For the second example, is it true that you\nmust directly reference a different party? Why is that?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T07:19:37.177",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6384",
"last_activity_date": "2019-07-08T01:19:07.927",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-16T22:46:29.797",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage"
],
"title": "Why is it that ～かねる can refer to oneself, yet ～かねない must refer to another person?",
"view_count": 806
}
|
[
{
"body": "Think of かねない as するおそれがある, and then think about how that would fit in with the\nspeaker's opinion. It would be like saying 信じるかもしれない when talking about\nyourself. However, かねる simply means \"cannot\", so you can use it when speaking\nabout yourself.\n\nI would translate your second sentence as:\n\n> I might believe that he is telling the truth.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T23:34:06.477",
"id": "6395",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-03T23:41:32.960",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-03T23:41:32.960",
"last_editor_user_id": "1217",
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6384",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "I agree with @Jesse in that かねない is interpreted as おそれがある/しそうだ/ありうる/するかもしれない,\n\"Someone could do~~\", \"I fear someone might do~~\", \"Someone might do\n~~(normally something unfavorable)\".\n\nI just suspect that your second sentence might be read as:\n\n> (誰かが)本当のことを言っていると、彼が信じる恐れがある。\n\nWhere the subject for 言っている is someone except '彼', and the subject for 信じる is\n'彼'.\n\nFor example, you might say it to mean:\n\n> 彼が、(君が)本当のことを言っていると信じてしまうかもしれないよ。（だから、つまらない冗談はやめなよ。） \n> \"He might believe that you're telling him the truth / He might take you\n> seriously (so you should stop telling him such a stupid joke.)\"\n\nCompare:\n\n> 私にはわかり **かねます** 。 \n> _It's beyond me. / It's too hard for me to understand. / I'm afraid I don't\n> know._ \n> 彼なら嘘をつき **かねない** 。 \n> _I wouldn't put it past him to lie._",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T16:25:16.317",
"id": "6404",
"last_activity_date": "2019-07-08T01:19:07.927",
"last_edit_date": "2019-07-08T01:19:07.927",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6384",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6384
| null |
6395
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I read that `... to ii na to omoimasu` means \"I hope that ...\". Is the `na`\nhere a final particle that adds the first person's subjective feeling to the\nproposition as in sawa’s answer to [using なafterい-\nadjectives](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/5951/1328)?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T12:56:44.477",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6388",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-03T13:57:18.533",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1532",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"particles"
],
"title": "ii na to omoimasu",
"view_count": 2405
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes, it is. It is the sentence final particle.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T13:42:34.730",
"id": "6389",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-03T13:42:34.730",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6388",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "「と」 is also the quoting particle. Used as such, it is allowed to follow what\nwould normally be considered a complete and independent sentence.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T13:57:18.533",
"id": "6390",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-03T13:57:18.533",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "22",
"parent_id": "6388",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
6388
| null |
6389
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6392",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I imagine that in `じゃんけんぽん`, `けん` corresponds to `拳` which I interpret as\n\"fist\" which is \"rock\".\n\nDo `じゃん` and `ぽん` correspond to \"scissors\" and \"paper\" ?\n\nIf not, then do the individual parts of `じゃん`, `けん` and `ぽん` mean anything on\ntheir own or are they derived from another word?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T15:15:00.430",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6391",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T05:10:24.860",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "542",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 15,
"tags": [
"etymology"
],
"title": "What do the parts of じゃんけんぽん mean?",
"view_count": 1202
}
|
[
{
"body": "According to [this\narticle](http://web.archive.org/web/20070718033840/http://gogensanpo.hp.infoseek.co.jp/main2.html),\n\"じゃんけんぽん\" is a corruption of the Chinese pronunciation of \"両拳碰, which is\npronounced in Cantonese \"loeng kyun pung\". 碰 in Chinese means \"to collide\" or\n\"to clash\", so the full phrase means \"two fists collide\".",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T18:11:42.433",
"id": "6392",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-04T01:04:42.377",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-04T01:04:42.377",
"last_editor_user_id": "816",
"owner_user_id": "1575",
"parent_id": "6391",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "The names for the hand signals are グー(rock), チョキ (scissors), and パー (paper). I\ndon't know where these words come from, but I've never heard じゃん, けん, or ぽん to\nrefer to them individually, just the game. (The reverse isn't true, though.\nI've heard the game be referred to as グーチョキパー)",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-03T20:45:57.957",
"id": "6393",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T05:10:24.860",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-05T05:10:24.860",
"last_editor_user_id": "542",
"owner_user_id": "921",
"parent_id": "6391",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] |
6391
|
6392
|
6392
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6407",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "What is the logic behind the similar sounding expressions 後へ引く and 後を引く? Are\nthey idioms? Apple dictionary lists these examples:\n\n**後へ引く**\n\n> もう後へは引けない \n> 'It's too late to turn back now.' \n> 'We're in too deep to back out now.'\n\n**後を引く**\n\n_1 影響が残る_\n\n> 傷の痛みがいつまでも後を引いている \n> 'The pain of the wound [won't go away / still lingers].'\n>\n> あの事件の後遺症がいまだに後を引いている \n> 'The aftereffects of that incident are still being felt.'\n\n_2 次々に欲しくなる_\n\n> このクラッカーは食べ出すと後を引く \n> 'Once I start eating these crackers, I can't stop.'\n\nThe idiomatic meanings don't quite fit the individual words or similar idioms\n(eg 潮が引く \"the tide goes out\" or 事故が後を絶たない \"there continue[s] to be [no end to\nthe] accidents\").",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T00:41:22.723",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6396",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-04T22:52:26.107",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-04T16:32:54.470",
"last_editor_user_id": "1556",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"words",
"set-phrases",
"expressions"
],
"title": "The expressions 後へ引く and 後を引く",
"view_count": 202
}
|
[
{
"body": "This is because 後 has the same roots as 跡. In, the first version 後へ引く, 後\nliterally means to go backwards, etc. However, the second version does not\nmean that, it is closer to 跡. I guess you could think of the meaning as \"to\nleave a mark\". They are both idioms.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T22:52:26.107",
"id": "6407",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-04T22:52:26.107",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6396",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
6396
|
6407
|
6407
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6399",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Did any writing systems, or even failed attempts at them, exist for Japanese\nbefore kanji was imported from China?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T02:00:24.007",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6397",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T09:36:17.137",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"history",
"orthography"
],
"title": "Did any writing systems exist before kanji was imported?",
"view_count": 5975
}
|
[
{
"body": "There are some dubious claims collectively called 神代文字. The dominant view in\nacademia is that these are fake.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T02:31:57.320",
"id": "6398",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-04T02:52:05.643",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-04T02:52:05.643",
"last_editor_user_id": "91",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6397",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "Does history belong on this site? Anyway, I just flickered through my history\nbook and came up with this.\n\nFirst off, from Wikipedia and common sense: Hanzi is said to have come into\nexistence around 2650 BC. \"Common people\" didn't just go write things for fun\n\"back in the day\", that was something for the wealthy. (emperors and such)\n\nNow, though legend says the first emperor of Japan lived around 600 BCE, the\nfirst recognized by text is princess/queen/empress(?) Himiko, written in the\nChinese text Weizhi around 297 CE. The first text to recognize Japan at all is\na Chinese text (Hanshu) written around 87 CE.\n\nA prince Shootoku is said to have written the first Japanese \"constitution\" at\n604 CE. An image of Chinese text is given, though it's not saying not much\nabout it.. Around this time is also when Japan started to record its own\nhistory in text. Nothing is mentioned about what writing system they had, but\nJapan was influenced a lot by China and Korea. The constitution itself was\nmerely some Buddhist guidelines, meaning Chinese text was reasonably imported\nalong with Buddhism.\n\nThe first Japanese collection of poems, Kaifuusoo, was given out at 751 CE.\nHere it says it was written in Japanese, though with Chinese characters\nbecause they didn't have their own writing system yet. Some characters were\nused for their meanings, others because their readings resembled the Japanese\nwords.\n\n..not exactly conclusive evidence, but it's something, and too long to be left\nas a comment, so here we go. I guess they could still have had some primitive\ncave-like drawings, but I don't know if that's technically classified as text\nby linguists and such.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T08:16:22.027",
"id": "6399",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T09:36:17.137",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-05T09:36:17.137",
"last_editor_user_id": "531",
"owner_user_id": "1173",
"parent_id": "6397",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6397
|
6399
|
6398
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6402",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Is it ok to put さん after an internet handle, such as a twitter name or a\nusername?\n\nMy suspicion is that you'd avoid adding さん if it'd confuse the software, and\nthat addressing someone by their internet handle at all would be too casual in\nformal situations, but that otherwise you'd add さん or whatever honorific was\nappropriate.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T12:23:47.053",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6400",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-04T13:34:34.280",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"honorifics"
],
"title": "Is it normal to put さん after an internet handle?",
"view_count": 236
}
|
[
{
"body": "Not only is it okay, the Twitter button on a website will do this\nautomatically when you are using Japanese locale. For example, I recently\npressed the button and it tweeted\n\n> Ursula K. Le Guin pressured to make books 'more like Harry Potter'\n> <http://blastr.com/2012/07/ursula-k-le-guin-pressure.php> @blastrさんから\n\nWhen replying to someone on Twitter with an @myname, you don't generally add\nさん to their username because it makes it look a bit like writing a letter, but\nif you are mentioning them in the midst of a sentence, you will add it unless\nif it's a good friend, for example, 「.@mynameさんによると・・・」\n\nWith other kinds of usernames, さん is completely dependent on context. For\nexample, on 2channel you may see people add it to be polite, or omit it to be\ncasual, or even from time to time use it sarcastically, like\n「1さんのお母さんでいらっしゃいますか？息子さんが 2ちゃんにクソスレ立ててらっしゃいますよ。」",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T13:34:34.280",
"id": "6402",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-04T13:34:34.280",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "583",
"parent_id": "6400",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
6400
|
6402
|
6402
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6403",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I recently looked at the [disambiguation\npage](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%89%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BC)\nfor Andrew on the Japanese Wikipedia, and found that there were several\n\"アンドルー\"s, and several \"アンドリュー\"s.\n\nI couldn't discern any trend that one form tended to be from an earlier time\nperiod and the latter was from a later time period, or that one form was from\ncertain languages and the other was from other languages.\n\nAre both forms considered normal transcriptions of \"Andrew\", or is one form\nconsidered more normal than the other?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T12:59:25.607",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6401",
"last_activity_date": "2012-09-12T00:56:50.433",
"last_edit_date": "2012-09-12T00:56:50.433",
"last_editor_user_id": "501",
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"loanwords",
"katakana",
"orthography",
"names"
],
"title": "Is one transcription of \"Andrew\" more standard than another?",
"view_count": 1886
}
|
[
{
"body": "Check the top line on Wikipedia:\n\n> 日本ではしばしば習慣的にアンドリューとも表記されるが、英語での発音は [ˈændruː] であり決して r の後に /j/\n> を付けて発音されることはない。\n\n\"It is frequently habitually written 'andoryuu' in Japan, but as a matter of\nfact the English has no 'y' sound after the R.\" So, \"andoryuu\" is the habit\nbut \"andoruu\" is supposed to be more accurate. Does it sound right to you?\n\nI notice as well that アンドルー・ロイド・ウェバー has had his name changed to アンドリュー on his\nWiki page, so I'm thinking that \"andoruu\" is sometimes corrected to \"andoryuu\"\nby well meaning folks, but someone on Wikipedia is annoyed by this because it\ndoesn't match up to their imaginary perfect representation of IPA in katakana.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T13:44:28.343",
"id": "6403",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-04T13:44:28.343",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "583",
"parent_id": "6401",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6401
|
6403
|
6403
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6406",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "くれる usually means that the giver is not on the first person's side and the\nreceiver is on the first person's side. Why is it used in くれてやる, where the\ngiver is the first person and the receiver is not first person?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T18:10:53.657",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6405",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-04T22:40:32.483",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-04T18:19:01.247",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"perspective"
],
"title": "Usage of くれる in くれてやる",
"view_count": 624
}
|
[
{
"body": "Looking up [くれる](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/64758/m0u/) in the\ndictionary leads to this second definition (which I have never heard in modern\nJapanese except for the form くれてやる):\n\n> ２\n> 自分が相手にものを与える。また、相手に対してある行為をしたり、加えたりする。相手を与え手より低い者として卑しめる気持ちを込めた言い方で、「くれてやる」の形になることも多い。「鳥にえさを―・れる」「盆栽に水を―・れる」「平手打ちを―・れてやる」\n\nSo, basically, くれる by itself can mean to give something to someone else in the\nfirst person. Also, as you already know, やる can mean to give something. What\nthis implies is that by using くれてやる you are effectively saying give \"twice\"\n(二重) which _emphasizes_ that act of giving (and of course implies\n上から目線/恩着せがましい meaning). This is the reason why there is the form くれてやる.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T22:40:32.483",
"id": "6406",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-04T22:40:32.483",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6405",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
6405
|
6406
|
6406
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6415",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Why do the singular first person pronouns 俺{おい}等{ら} and 俺{お}等{ら} involve the\nplural affix 等?\n\n ",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-04T23:22:08.057",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6408",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T10:16:22.530",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-05T03:58:55.513",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"first-person-pronouns",
"plurals"
],
"title": "The plural 等 in おいら, おら",
"view_count": 398
}
|
[
{
"body": "First, I am not sure that /ora/ really belongs in this category. Most\ndictionaries simply list it as a variant of /ore/. But /oira/ is pretty\nunanimously agreed to derive from /orera/, 俺 + 等 as you say, so I will stick\nto discussion of that one. (In any case, presumably whatever applies to /oira/\nwould also apply to /ora/ if indeed they were the same /-ra/.)\n\nSo, the key point is that 等 does not necessarily mean \"[+plural]\" in a literal\nsense. In the case of /oira/ it was originally a way of expressing non-\nspecificness and therefore humbleness. Contemporary first-person singular\nusages like /watakusi.domo/ and /watakusi nado/ are, I think, an example of\nthe same phenomenon: they don't mean \"myself and others\", but rather \"(a\nlowly) one such as myself\". You can find this usage attached to other pronouns\ntoo in historical documents; the Kojien has an example of first-person\nsingular /ware.ra/ for example. And of course it has also been attached to\nsecond- or third-person pronouns to express contempt (something like the\ncontemporary /omae nado/).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-05T10:16:22.530",
"id": "6415",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T10:16:22.530",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "531",
"parent_id": "6408",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6408
|
6415
|
6415
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6420",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Why is that young children call themselves by their first name when referring\nto themselves? This question is similar to [Speaking in the third\nperson](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/2320/1328); however, young\nchildren do not understand the connotations of speaking in the third person.\n\nMy fiance's cousin who is six refers to herself as ゆりちゃん. Is the only reason\nshe calls herself by her own name because everyone calls her ゆりちゃん when\ntalking to her? When do children stop referring to themselves in the third\nperson and why?",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-05T03:54:49.403",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6410",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T01:48:28.973",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"learning"
],
"title": "Why do children call themselves by their name?",
"view_count": 4985
}
|
[
{
"body": "According, to the wikipedia article for\n[illeism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeism):\n\n> Young children in Japan commonly refer to themselves by their own name (a\n> habit probably picked from their elders who would normally refer to them by\n> name, this is due to the normal Japanese way of speaking where referring to\n> another in the third person is considered more polite rather than using the\n> Japanese words for \"you\", like Omae[3]) though as the children grow older\n> they normally switch over to using first person references. Japanese Idols\n> also may refer to themselves as so to give off the feeling of childlike\n> cuteness.\n\nWhich I think has _some_ truth to it. In Japanese it is more common to refer\nto children by their name than other languages and also since young women also\nuse it, there is a chance that the child may pick it up by seeing the usage\nfrom other people. Also, my own personal opinion is that Japanese is very\ncomplicated when it comes to first person and third person pronouns, and that\nis why children will use their names to avoid having to worry about it. Women\ngenerally will stop at an early age although some women might continue using\nit even up to there early thirties (although people around them might detest\nit). I think for men, you will only see the usage in very young children\n(preschool or earlier).\n\nAlso, I think it should be known that while English speaking countries find\nthis usage very strange, it is common in other languages such as Thai also.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-05T08:09:56.417",
"id": "6411",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T08:18:39.387",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-05T08:18:39.387",
"last_editor_user_id": "1217",
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6410",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "@JesseGood's answer is correct, but just to add to it:\n\nNot only will other people refer to kids by their name, they will often also\nrefer to _themselves_ by title when speaking to them. I.e. their mother/father\nwill likely refer to themselves as \"お母さん/お父さん\" or \"ママ/パパ\" and their teacher to\nhim/herself as \"先生\" when speaking to them. They might not hear personal\npronouns much at all in their daily lives.\n\nThus, it's not surprising that kids learn that people have a label which is\nused independently from who is using it. Kids have to learn to use pronouns\n_at all_ , which is quite different from the problem of learning to use I/you\n_correctly_ , which seems to be common in languages where pronouns are more\ncommonly used.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-06T04:24:10.597",
"id": "6420",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T01:48:28.973",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-18T01:48:28.973",
"last_editor_user_id": "1073",
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "6410",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6410
|
6420
|
6420
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When is it possible to connect sentences using the stem of masu-form? Are\nthere restrictions on the use of this form?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-05T08:23:23.940",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6412",
"last_activity_date": "2016-03-04T19:58:45.397",
"last_edit_date": "2016-03-04T19:58:45.397",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1532",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"renyōkei"
],
"title": "Connecting phrases with the stem of masu-form",
"view_count": 2704
}
|
[
{
"body": "You can list activities. It does not imply temporal order, so it is sometimes\nunnatural. When the verb stem ends with a consonant, you need to insert the\nepenthetic vowel i.\n\n> 野菜を買い、切り、炒めた。\n\nIf you want to imply temporal order, use the te form.\n\n> 野菜を買って、切って、炒めた。",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-05T09:13:27.173",
"id": "6414",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T09:13:27.173",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6412",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
6412
| null |
6414
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6418",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Why is the direct object taking を in (1) and に in (2)? What are basic rules\nthat drive these two sentence constructions?\n\n> (1) 叔母は父を頼っている \n> 'My aunt is counting on my father's help.'\n>\n> (2) 農民は収入を[牧羊]{ぼくよう}に頼っていた \n> 'The farmers depended on sheep-farming as their source of income.'\n\nI am not sure of the technical terms but there is clearly a bit more going in\n(2). However the farmers in (2) are relying on sheep farming in the same way\nthat my aunt is relying on my father in (1).\n\nI think (1) could be amended as (3) to comply with the same grammatical rules\nas (2):\n\n> (3) 叔母は援助を父に頼っている \n> 'My aunt is counting on my father for support.'\n\nbut I still do not understand how/when/what grammatical rules are being used.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-05T15:58:56.813",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6416",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T17:38:49.137",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-05T16:49:30.260",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage"
],
"title": "Use of を and に with 頼る (to depend on)",
"view_count": 1637
}
|
[
{
"body": "The role of 父 in (1) and 牧羊 in (2) are not the same. 父 has volition, and can\nbe an agent of some helping activity on its own will, whereas 牧羊 is something\nto happen. In fact, you cannot have 牧羊 in the position of the を-phrase in (1).\n\n> * 農民は牧羊を頼っていた\n\nAlso, (3) is actually ungrammatical. in order to express the intended meaning,\nyou have to say\n\n> 叔母は(父の)援助に収入を頼っている\n\nConclusion is that, 頼る has two different constructions with different\nmeanings:\n\n * AがBを頼る \"A relies on B's activity\"\n * AがCにDを頼る \"A relies on event C for D\"\n\nThe fact that they are different can be made clear by the fact that the former\nmeaning can be expressed by the predicate 頼りにする, but the latter cannot.\n\n> 叔母は父を頼りにしている \n> * 農民は牧羊を頼りにしている",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-05T17:25:34.083",
"id": "6418",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-05T17:38:49.137",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-05T17:38:49.137",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6416",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
6416
|
6418
|
6418
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6459",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "In the context of native Japanese speakers ([not non-\nnatives](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/354/what-are-the-\nadvantages-disadvantages-of-writing-in-romaji-instead-of-kanji-hir)), is there\na concept that roughly translates as \"kanji illiteracy\"? If so, what are the\nJapanese terms for it? Also, what does it mean? Does it mean not being able to\ndistinguish kanji apart, not knowing the readings, or not knowing the\nmeanings? Can it also mean people who are unable to write kanji, being reliant\non IMEs and producing lots of\n[誤変換](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/3178/91)?\n\n**Background** : Episode 5 of 古代少女ドグちゃん had _Das Kapital_ being deployed to\nun-brainwash some exploited workers in a crab-meat factory (presumably a\nreference to [蟹工船](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanik%C5%8Dsen)). It worked on\nthe older workers, but the younger workers were not un-brainwashed, and the\nheroes deployed the まんがで読破 ([Manga de\nDokuha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga_de_Dokuha)) version, saying \"the\npressure-free education kanji-illiterate can understand it,\" according to a\nD-Addicts fansub.\n\nRelated question: [How do I differentiate all these terms for\n\"illiterate\"?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/4539/how-do-i-\ndifferentiate-all-these-terms-for-illiterate) talks about illiteracy, but\ndoesn't seem to mention kanji in particular.\n\n**Edit:** The term turned out to be kanji yomenai (漢字読めない). (Thanks nkjt先生!)\nEdited the title so it's more informative.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-06T03:16:37.337",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6419",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-13T00:45:40.480",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "91",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"readings",
"terminology"
],
"title": "What is \"kanji illiteracy\" (kanji yomenai) in the context of native Japanese speakers?",
"view_count": 2293
}
|
[
{
"body": "In this particular case, could it just have been 漢字読めない？ (The other \"KY\").",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-10T13:03:10.437",
"id": "6459",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-10T13:03:10.437",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "571",
"parent_id": "6419",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "nkjit's guess of 漢字読めない (kanji yomenai) was correct.\n\nI don't know exactly what 漢字読めない (kanji yomenai) means, but the term seems to\nexist, possibly as a slight neologism.\n\nIt's mentioned in Japanese Wikipedia's [page on\nKY](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/KY).\n\nThen Japanese Prime Minister Tarō Asō has\n[apparently](https://celestialkitsune.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/why-excessive-\nmanga-reading-is-bad-for-you/) been\n[called](http://blogs.japanesepod101.com/?p=1697) a KY for his misreading of\nkanji. Describing himself as a Manga fan probably contributed to that\nperception of him.\n\n[Aso struggles with his kanji](http://blogs.straitstimes.com/2008/11/20/aso-\nstruggles-with-his-kanji/) says that he:\n\n 1. Misread “mizou” (meaning “unprecedented”) as “mizoyu” (a [nonword](https://celestialkitsune.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/why-excessive-manga-reading-is-bad-for-you/)).\n 2. Described exchanges between China and Japan as “hanzatsu” (“troublesome”) rather than “hinpan” (“frequent”).\n 3. Mispronounced “toshu” (“follow”) as “fushu” (“awful smell”).\n\nand [Aso's Kanji Blunders](http://tx.english-ch.com/teacher/julia/home/asos-\nkanji-blunders/) says that he\n\n 1. Pronounced \"teimei\" (sluggish) as \"teimai\"\n 2. Misread \"kiban\" (basis) as \"kihan\"\n\nHis problems with kanji led to a boom in books about kanji, including Futami\nShobo's \"Yomesode Yomenai Machigaiyasui Kanji\" (\"Commonly Misread Kanji that\nLook Easy to Read, but Cannot Be Read Properly\"), according to the Aso's Kanji\nBlunders blog post.\n\nI guess it shows that the kanji shouldn't be misunderestimated!",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-11T11:36:58.630",
"id": "6465",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-11T11:36:58.630",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "91",
"parent_id": "6419",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6419
|
6459
|
6465
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6425",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "When I look at them in the dictionary, they all mean the same thing. How to\nknow which one to use?\n\nIf I want to say: \"Generally, I go to school by bus\" or \"Generally, people\ngrow taller\" or even \"Generally, I like cats\", which one should I use? Or can\nseveral of them be used for the same sentence?\n\nExamples would be much appreciated.\n\n**Edit** : Okay, some of the sentences I gave lack context. Here would be the\nentire sentence:\n\n> \"Generally, people grow taller but some suffers from dwarfism\"\n>\n> \"Generally, I like cats but this one is horrible\"",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-06T04:34:38.357",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6421",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-06T22:56:01.613",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1553",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"synonyms",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "In general/Generally: 概【がい】して, 一般【いっぱん】に, 全体【ぜんたい】に, 総【そう】じて, なべて, 一体{いったい}に, etc",
"view_count": 3748
}
|
[
{
"body": "1. To understand better what the difference is, you must look at the meaning of the kanjis…\n\n 2. For your questions: I'd say\n\n * 普段は、バスで通学します -> meaning \"usually\"\n * 一般的に、人が成長します -> meaning \"as a law/rule\"\n * not meaningful to me, so I can't translate.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-06T06:20:51.087",
"id": "6422",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-06T06:37:35.300",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-06T06:37:35.300",
"last_editor_user_id": "356",
"owner_user_id": "356",
"parent_id": "6421",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Aside from `一般{いっぱん}（的{てき}）に` I don't think I've seen any of those used, but I\nthink I've fairly often seen\n[`普通【ふつう】`](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E6%99%AE%E9%80%9A&stype=0&dtype=3),\n[`通常【つうじょう】`](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E9%80%9A%E5%B8%B8&dtype=3&dname=2na&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=02794400)\n[`大体【だいたい】`](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E5%A4%A7%E4%BD%93%E3%80%81/UTF-8/) and\n[`大抵【たいてい】`](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E5%A4%A7%E6%8A%B5&dtype=3&dname=2na&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=02534100)\nused for \"generally\" (Japanese sentences from Tatoeba):\n\n> 麻雀は普通、四人で遊ぶゲームです。 \n> Mahjong is [generally/in general] a game played by 4 people.\n>\n> 母は大抵大変忙しかった。 \n> My mother was in general extremely busy.\n>\n> 彼は、通常バスで学校へ行きます。 \n> He generally goes to school by bus.\n>\n> ７月の天候はだいたい暑い。 \n> The weather is generally hot in July.\n\n(Disclaimer: I'm not sure how correct/natural these are):\n\n> 大抵の人は背が伸びるが、小人症という病気にかかる人もいる。 \n> Most people grow taller, but there are also some who suffer from dwarfism.\n>\n> 普通、猫は好きなんだけど、この猫はいやだ！ \n> Generally, I like cats but this one is horrible!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-06T12:37:31.717",
"id": "6424",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-06T12:46:25.917",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-06T12:46:25.917",
"last_editor_user_id": "796",
"owner_user_id": "796",
"parent_id": "6421",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "* Ignoring the details or minor exceptions, as a tendency: 概して, 総じて, (おし)なべて\n\n> 概して/総じて/おしなべて、日本人は神経質で、アメリカ人は雑だ。 \n> 'Generally, Japanese are highly strung and Americans are coarse/sloppy.'\n\n * Generalizing: 一般に\n\n> 4は2+2と表される。一般に、4以上の偶数は、2つの素数の和で表される。 \n> '4 is expressed 2+2. In general, an even number that is four or greater can\n> be expressed as the sum of two primes.'\n\n * As a whole, adding up: 全体(的)に\n\n> 個個の四半期で見れば赤字もあったが、この一年では全体的に黒字だ。 \n> 'There were quarters that we had deficit, but for this year as a whole, we\n> gained profit.'\n\n * The hell, on earth: 一体に\n\n> 君は一体に何が不満だと言うのか。この馬鹿者が。 \n> 'What in the hell do you have complaints about? You ass hole.'",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-06T14:55:44.390",
"id": "6425",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-06T22:56:01.613",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-06T22:56:01.613",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6421",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
6421
|
6425
|
6425
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 0,
"body": "> **Possible Duplicate:** \n> [do people actually respect the nuances of 探す vs\n> 捜す?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2123/do-people-actually-\n> respect-the-nuances-of-%e6%8e%a2%e3%81%99-vs-%e6%8d%9c%e3%81%99)\n\nThere are many kanji that I have come across with similar meanings, and\n(seemly coincidentally) identical readings. But the kanji in question look\nentirely different from each other. This particular aspect of kanji has been\nhelpful to me, as it makes memorizing readings and associating meanings much\neasier, but I have also found it intriguing.\n\nSome examples:\n\n元 and 源 are both read as \"gen\", and both carry a meaning of \"source or\norigin\".\n\n元 and 本 are both read as \"moto\", and both carry a meaning of \"root or origin\".\n\n内 and 家 are both read as \"uchi\", and carry a meaning of \"inner\" and \"home\",\nrespectively (related by the \"inner circle\" aspect of Japanese culture).\"\n\n他 and 外 are both read as \"hoka\", and carry the meanings of \"other\" and\n\"outside\", respectively.\n\n小 and 少 are both read as \"shou\", and carry the meanings of \"small\" and \"few\",\nrespectively.\n\n神 and 上 are both read as \"kami\", and carry the meanings of \"god\" and \"above\",\nrespectively.\n\n空ける and 開ける are both read as \"akeru\", both mean \"to open\", and their kanji\ntranslate to \"empty\" and \"open\", respectively.\n\nThe humble form of \"person\" is 者, and is pronounced \"mono\", as if referring to\nthe person as \"a thing\" (物).\n\nFinally, the adjective for \"ugly\", 醜い, is read \"minikui\". This is identical to\n見にくい or 見難い, which is an entire phrase meaning \"hard to look at\".\n\nThere are a lot more examples that I can think of, but I omitted most of them\nfor the sake of brevity. Is this just a series of coincidences, or is there an\netymological or historical reason for this?",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-06T22:08:49.380",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6426",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-06T23:08:35.823",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1575",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"words",
"kanji",
"etymology",
"readings",
"homophonic-kanji"
],
"title": "same reading, similar meaning, different Kanji",
"view_count": 404
}
|
[] |
6426
| null | null |
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6433",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I usually read that あたり is used to enumerate things like A あたり, B あたり.\n\nBut lately I can also hear ひとつひとつあたり also used. Is this the same word?\n\nHow do you use the あたり in general? A search on a dictionary does not help that\nmuch.\n\n> 当たり / あたり : n-adv n 1）hit 2）success 3）reaching the mark 4）per .. 5）vicinity\n> 6）neighborhood P",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-06T22:18:42.657",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6427",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-07T17:33:15.743",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-06T22:51:29.917",
"last_editor_user_id": "921",
"owner_user_id": "786",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"usage"
],
"title": "Is あたり used only to enumerate items?",
"view_count": 998
}
|
[
{
"body": "あたり is used in a \"per\" or \"for each\" construct. Examples:\n\n> My car gets 30 km per liter. \n> 私の車の燃費は１リットルあたり３０キロメートルです。\n>\n> Today, the Japanese/American exchange rate is 79 yen per dollar. \n> 今日、日米の為替レートは１ドルあたり７９円です。\n\nNotice that the **denominator** goes first (before \"あたり\"), the precise\nopposite of English where the denominator goes after \"per\".\n\nIt is used for quantities (real numbers) as well as items (integers). So it is\nperfectly valid to use it when referring to quantities (as I did in the 燃費\nexample).",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T12:57:12.090",
"id": "6433",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-07T17:33:15.743",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1575",
"parent_id": "6427",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] |
6427
|
6433
|
6433
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6429",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In my JLPT practice book, there is a question that asks you to put words in\nthe correct order:\n\n> 朝の満員電車の中で、大きな音で `____ ____ ____ ____` 若者がいる。\n\nWhat I put down was:\n\n> 朝の満員電車の中で、大きな音で **迷惑きわまりない音楽を聞いている** 若者がいる。\n\nBut the correct answer is:\n\n> 朝の満員電車の中で、大きな音で **音楽を聞いている迷惑きわまりない** 若者がいる。\n\nFrom what I can tell, it seems that the first sentence is saying that it is\nthe music that is annoying, and the second sentence is that the kids are\nannoying, but I do not see why one is any more grammatically correct than the\nother.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-06T23:02:42.663",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6428",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-07T04:20:58.713",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-06T23:15:59.090",
"last_editor_user_id": "921",
"owner_user_id": "921",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-order"
],
"title": "Word order: what does 迷惑きわまりない modify?",
"view_count": 207
}
|
[
{
"body": "It's not completely clear from your question whether the problem asks for \"any\ngrammatical order\" or \"the most natural order\". While your answer is\ngrammatically correct, the \"correct answer\" is more natural, and I'll try to\nexplain why.\n\nWhile \"annoying\" is one translation of 迷惑, often a more fitting translation is\n\"inconsiderate\". Although I have seen the word used in constructs like 迷惑な天気\nwhere no one is really to blame, I would say that much more frequently it is\nused in cases where there is actually someone who is being considered\n\"inconsiderate\". Even when used in constructs like 迷惑な音楽, the speaker will\ntend to have somebody in mind who is being \"inconsiderate\" by playing the\nmusic.\n\nIn this case, the \"inconsiderate\" culprit is obvious, it's the kid(s)\nlistening to music in the packed train. Therefore, it seems more natural to\nlet 迷惑きわまりない describe the kid(s).",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T04:20:58.713",
"id": "6429",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-07T04:20:58.713",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "6428",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6428
|
6429
|
6429
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6431",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I just had this terrifying conversation:\n\n> What is \"triangle\" in Japanese?\n>\n> me: 三角 right?\n>\n> Then what's 三角形?\n>\n> me: Uhh... triangle?\n\nI've confirmed both of these translate to \"triangle\". Apparently they refer to\ndifferent _aspects_ of the triangle in Japan? Is 三角 a symbol and 三角形 a\ngeometrical form?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T06:37:19.010",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6430",
"last_activity_date": "2013-03-25T22:34:56.450",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "583",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"mathematics"
],
"title": "What's the difference between 三角 and 三角形?",
"view_count": 1193
}
|
[
{
"body": "It might be something as simple as:\n\n> 三角 (something that is \"triangular\" where the focus is having attributes\n> similar to that of triangles ie: three sides, three corners)\n>\n> 三角形 (a polygon that IS a triangle)\n\nFor example: 「三角屋根」 is a way to describe a roof that is \"triangular\" in\ncomparison to other roofs of different shapes. It has attributes similar to\nthose of \"triangles\".",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T07:09:12.153",
"id": "6431",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-08T05:16:29.743",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-08T05:16:29.743",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6430",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "ya know sometimes what natives say can be misleading and not actually\nreflective of their intuitions. i think the difference is just as Chris says,\n\"triangle\" vs \"triangular\". i might add though that 三角 can refer to a specific\ntriangle sketched on a piece of paper or blackboard in the sense that you can\nsay \"look at this 三角 i just drew, its prettier than yesterday's 三角\". but 三角形\ndoesn't have that power to specify one triangle among others, its referent is\njust ambiguously the whole class of triangles.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T09:46:13.627",
"id": "6432",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-07T09:46:13.627",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1454",
"parent_id": "6430",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "As Gradius said, the mathematical term “triangle” is 三角形, and never 三角. As\npart of compound words, 三角 also appears; an example is 三角関数 (trigonometric\nfunctions).\n\n(As for the use of 三角 in compounds words, I think that there is a general\ntendency to prefer to two-kanji words than three-kanji words when they are\nused adjectivally in compound words. See also Chocolate’s comment on the\nquestion “[What is the difference between 日曜日 and\n日曜?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/6368/what-is-the-difference-\nbetween-%E6%97%A5%E6%9B%9C%E6%97%A5%E3%80%90%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A1%E3%82%88%E3%81%86%E3%81%B3%E3%80%91and-%E6%97%A5%E6%9B%9C%E3%80%90%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A1%E3%82%88%E3%81%86%E3%80%91)”\nby BabyAzerty.)\n\nAs a non-technical word, 三角形 is more formal and 三角 is less formal. I do not\nrecognize any difference in their meanings.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-08T02:40:48.267",
"id": "6445",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-08T14:22:21.060",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "15",
"parent_id": "6430",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
}
] |
6430
|
6431
|
6445
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "How did this brand name [Superdry. 極度乾燥(しなさい)](http://www.superdry.com/) come\nabout? Is there any deep consideration behind it? Are the customers having\nsome thoughts?",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T13:34:05.943",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6434",
"last_activity_date": "2014-04-16T16:16:36.707",
"last_edit_date": "2014-04-16T16:16:36.707",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"etymology"
],
"title": "Superdry. 極度乾燥(しなさい)",
"view_count": 1279
}
|
[
{
"body": "The answer is in [this BBC documentary called \"Secrets of the\nSuperbrands\"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZh1a-c3e_I#t=36m46s).\n\nThe owner of the [Cheltenham based British\ncompany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperGroup_plc) that developed the\nbrand simply went to Japan, possibly as far back as 1985, was inspired by\nJapanese packaging, and used that to develop their graphic images.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-08T00:08:27.903",
"id": "6444",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-08T00:30:09.023",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-08T00:30:09.023",
"last_editor_user_id": "119",
"owner_user_id": "119",
"parent_id": "6434",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6434
| null |
6444
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6441",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I remember being told that hiragana should be the same size as kanji when\nwriting them by hand. However, there are times when I see handwritten kana\nthat are much smaller than the kanji. Does this carry any nuance or is there\nany purpose to it?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T17:12:04.870",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6435",
"last_activity_date": "2014-03-09T11:12:27.300",
"last_edit_date": "2014-03-06T22:32:22.550",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"nuances",
"orthography",
"handwriting"
],
"title": "What is the appropriate size of hiragana in proportion to kanji?",
"view_count": 3095
}
|
[
{
"body": "In this particular case ギャル文字 is referring to the uber-feminine use of the\nlanguage. Some of those characters like the ッ are like our emoticons ;-) and\nsome are legitimate. For example in ギャル文字, the ギ{gi} is modified by\nャ{ya}(small YA), so instead of reading it \"Giyaru\" it is read \"Gyaru\".\n\nMost of the time you see the smaller character it will be modifying the\nprevious character. Mostly used with the \"Y\" characters (ya, yu, yo) but it\ncan be used with others. The small TSU character makes the **following**\ncharacter longer, so the double \"P\" in Sapporo is written \"さっぽろ\" and not\npronounced \"Satsuhoro\" but rather \"Sapporo\". In the example JPG you linked\nthey used the katakana TSU ッ and only for effect. But can also use it legit in\nクスッ{kusu}(swallow the last \"U\") and still be cutesy.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T22:16:59.300",
"id": "6439",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-07T22:35:47.247",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-07T22:35:47.247",
"last_editor_user_id": "1523",
"owner_user_id": "1523",
"parent_id": "6435",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "Usually, they should be the same size, but considering the history that\nokurigana used to be markings (like subscripts) on the Chinese text to add\nJapanese inflections, it is natural that they are written smaller than kanji.\nIn fact, in caligraphy, it is usually said that hiragana should be written\nsmaller than kanji.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T22:51:18.343",
"id": "6441",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-08T04:42:07.710",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-08T04:42:07.710",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6435",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "In Japanese calligraphy and penmanship, usually kana are written slightly\nsmaller than kanji. Basically, the more strokes a character has, the larger it\nshould be written for proper balance and appearance. This is because [simple\ncharacters look larger than complicated ones with human\neyes](http://shodotebiki.com/c02point.html). [This\narticle](http://milda2t.web.fc2.com/kaizou1.html) says,\n\"漢字：10、ひらがな：8、カナ・ローマ字・数字：7～6、特殊記号：6\".\n\nAddition: This is not only in handwriting and not only in Japanese. [Even in\ntypography, kana are designed _slightly_ smaller than\nkanji.](http://soudan1.biglobe.ne.jp/qa1463059.html) It is pretty common from\ntraditional metal types to modern computer-designed fonts. Also, in Chinese\ncalligraphy, characters with few strokes are written _slightly_ smaller than\ncharacters with many strokes.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-08T06:46:17.107",
"id": "6446",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-08T17:57:40.893",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-08T17:57:40.893",
"last_editor_user_id": "1119",
"owner_user_id": "1119",
"parent_id": "6435",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
6435
|
6441
|
6441
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6447",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "My dictionary defines both 防止 and 予防 as \"prevention\", with 予防 having the\nadditional definitions of \"precaution\" and \"protection against\".\n\nI sort of understand the latter definitions for 予防 as acting to stop something\nwhich is happening from getting worse, which [explains its use in\nmedicine](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%88%E9%98%B2), but I've also seen\n予防 used in the \"prevention\" sense similar to 防止. For example, from the Tanaka\nCorpus:\n\n> 森林火災の **防止** はすべての人が負う義務です。 \n> The prevention of forest fires is everyone's responsibility.\n>\n> 今週は火災 **予防** 週間です。 \n> This is Fire Prevention Week.\n>\n> 交通事故の **防止** 対策を講じなければならない。 \n> We must take measures to prevent traffic accidents.\n>\n> **予防** 運転は事故を防ぎます。 \n> Defensive driving can help you avoid accidents.\n>\n> 鶏卵生産におけるサルモネラ汚染を **防止** することが必要です。 \n> It is essential to prevent salmonella contamination in hen egg production.\n>\n> **予防** は治療にはるかにまさる。 \n> Prevention is much preferable to cure. [sic]\n\nIn what situations is it preferable to use 防止 over 予防? What are the nuances\nthat govern the choice of one word over the other?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T17:34:35.523",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6436",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-08T23:05:24.950",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "162",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 防止 and 予防?",
"view_count": 1455
}
|
[
{
"body": "My understanding is that 防止 means \"prevent something from happening\" whereas\n予防 means \"assuming that something will happen, prevent or lessen in advance\nthe negative impact of it\".",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T22:59:23.497",
"id": "6443",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-07T22:59:23.497",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6436",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "The key to understanding the difference is in the characters, the 予 of 予防 can\nbe seen in the phrase 予め also, meaning \"in advance\" or \"beforehand\". While the\n止 of 防止 can be seen in the phrase 止める, meaning \"to stop something\". In other\nwords, 予防 doesn't mean to stop something, it means to do something in advance\nto _try_ to prevent it as you aware that it might happen, whereas 防止 just\nmeans to stop something from happening (prevent it) and doesn't include the\n\"in advance\" part.\n\nSo, to take your first two examples:\n\n森林火災の防止 means to stop (prevent) forest fires, whereas 火災予防 implies doing\nsomething in advance to try to prevent fires from happening as you are aware\nthat they might happen.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-08T07:22:12.260",
"id": "6447",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-08T20:42:40.050",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-08T20:42:40.050",
"last_editor_user_id": "1217",
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6436",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "[Kurosawa](http://www.kurosawashoichi.net/modules/blog/details.php?bid=18)\nexplains the difference as:\n\n(再発)防止：prevent the deplorable event from happening again (event having\noccurred once or more before)\n\n予防：prevent a deplorable event from ever happening (event not yet occurred)\n\n(sorry for posting this as an answer; I can't seem to comment on any of the\nother entries)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-08T23:05:24.950",
"id": "6451",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-08T23:05:24.950",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1587",
"parent_id": "6436",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6436
|
6447
|
6447
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6533",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When referring to a celebrity or historical figure, do you use -さん?\n\n> I am listening to Yoko Shimomura. \n> Would it be:\"下村陽子さんを聞いている。\"?\n\n****\n\n> Abraham Lincoln is my favorite president. \n> Would it be: \"エイブラハム・リンカーンは一番好きな大統領。\"?\n\nI have seen celebrities' and famous people's names in texts and references\nwithout any honorifics, but it feels strange to use someone's name whom I've\nnever met before without saying -さん, especially when using their full name.\n\nAnother case would be if a celebrity goes by a mononym (e.g. Beethoven) or a\npseudonym (e.g. Sting). Is it customary to use -さん or some honorific title\nwhen referring to them? Or is it only appropriate in certain situations?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T19:15:20.110",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6437",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-21T03:42:00.383",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-07T19:26:44.587",
"last_editor_user_id": "1575",
"owner_user_id": "1575",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"culture",
"honorifics",
"names"
],
"title": "Is -さん used when referring to a celebrity or historical figures?",
"view_count": 2469
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think that using さん, 様, ちゃん, 君 etc. is more of a subjective statement of how\nthe speaker/writer relates to the person he refers to. In an objective text,\nit would be fine to refer to President Lincoln simply as Abraham Lincoln,\nwithout title. Referring to President Lincoln as \"President Lincoln\",\nexpresses a personal stance of how the writer relates to the person Abraham\nLincoln.\n\nIf you were to write an article about a contemporary university professor,\nwhom you know personally (as Prof. X), you would be more likely to use Prof. X\nthan the more objective John X in your article.\n\nOf course さん or ちゃん are quite personal, so their use in formal writing would\nbe more limited than, for example, 先生, which is an objective fact (of course\ncoupled with your subjective decision of choosing 先生 as suffix).\n\nAs a rule of thumb, I would only include さん for people I don't know, if I am\ndescribing a personal situation (as in your first example), and omit it in\nmore general contexts (as in your second example).\n\nIf you were to say `エイブラハム・リンカーンさんは一番好きな大統領` it sounds more like you are his\npersonal fan, although you don't have a particular high esteem for him,\nbecause you don't use 様 for someone as high up in the social order as a\npresident...\n\nHope this makes some sense.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T03:42:00.383",
"id": "6533",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-21T03:42:00.383",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "6437",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6437
|
6533
|
6533
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6442",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Can someone explain what rules for が come in play that make the sentence:\n\n> 発売延期となっていたネットワークレコーダー「nasne(ナスネ)」の発売が8月30日に決定しました\n\ngrammatically correct? I would have formulated it\n`「nasne(ナスネ)」の発売が8月30日に決定されました`, or to keep the usage of しました-form:\n`ソニーは「nasne(ナスネ)」の発売を8月30日に決定しました`",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T21:56:52.950",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6438",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-08T15:51:05.437",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-07T22:28:27.763",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1587",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"particles",
"particle-が"
],
"title": "... が決定しました rather than ... が決定されました",
"view_count": 293
}
|
[
{
"body": "It is the nominative case marker on an intransitive subject. The verb 決定する can\nbe used transitively as you expected, or intransitively. You may not be able\nto do this with the corresponding verb `decide` in English, but other verbs in\nEnglish have the same type of transitive alternation.\n\n> The family settled in New York. \n> The professor settled the test tube on a stand.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T22:45:49.207",
"id": "6440",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-07T22:45:49.207",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6438",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "が simply marks a subject of a sentence, but your question is not really about\nthe use of が.\n\nNote that\n[決定する](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%B1%BA%E5%AE%9A&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=05632900)\nhas two usages: 〈人〉が〈事〉を決定する (transitive) and 〈事〉が決定する (intransitive). The\nformer usage is similar to 決める, whereas the latter usage is similar to 決まる.\n\nWhen we say something was decided without a focus on who did it, it is more\nnatural to use 決定する intransitively rather than using it transitively in the\npassive form or with a subject omitted.\n\nThere are other verbs which can be used as both transitive verbs and\nintransitive verbs. Examples are:\n\n * [[開]{ひら}く](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%B2%E3%82%89%E3%81%8F&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=1&index=116714800000&pagenum=1): 扉を[開]{ひら}く / 扉が[開]{ひら}く (cf. [開]{あ}ける / [開]{あ}く)\n * [移動する](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E7%A7%BB%E5%8B%95&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0ss): 自動車を移動する / 自動車が移動する (cf. 動かす / 動く)\n * [開始する](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E9%96%8B%E5%A7%8B&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0na): 試合を開始する / 試合が開始する (cf. 始める / 始まる)\n * [分解する](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E5%88%86%E8%A7%A3&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0ss): 自転車を分解する / 自転車が分解する (cf. 分ける / 分かれる)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-07T22:51:23.193",
"id": "6442",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-08T15:51:05.437",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-08T15:51:05.437",
"last_editor_user_id": "15",
"owner_user_id": "15",
"parent_id": "6438",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
6438
|
6442
|
6442
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6452",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "The verbs ひらく and あける both mean to open, and とじる and しめる both mean to close. I\nunderstand that ひらく and とじる are antonym pairs, as are あける and しめる, but have\nnever been clear on the difference between them. I have heard it explained in\nseveral different ways, but have come across several cases which seem to\nrefute them. Some of the explanations I have seen are:\n\n> 1. ひらく/とじる refer to an abstract or figurative opening or closing, such as\n> opening a store, account, or ceremony. あける/しめる are literally opening or\n> closing something (physically).\n> 2. ひらく/とじる are opening or closing something in 3 dimensions (such as a\n> laptop or a car door), where あける/しめる are only used when the opening/closing\n> action only spans one dimension (such as a sliding window or a Japanese\n> style closet).\n>\n\nOn the other hand, I have seen buttons on an elevator say ひらく and とじる (which\nrefutes #2). I have never heard ひらく or とじる applied to a door--it's always\nあける/しめる, whether it's a hinged or a sliding door. I have always heard あける /\nしめる used when referring to the opening of a store or business (e.g.\nレストランはあけていますか。). What is the difference between these terms?\n\nAnd as a secondary question, is ひらく both transitive and intransitive?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-08T17:33:59.327",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6449",
"last_activity_date": "2016-08-21T01:20:03.320",
"last_edit_date": "2012-10-04T21:43:05.207",
"last_editor_user_id": "1575",
"owner_user_id": "1575",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 48,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances",
"verbs"
],
"title": "ひらく / とじる vs. あける / しめる",
"view_count": 11542
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think the key to understanding the differences is to understand the concept\nof [空間]{くうかん} in Japanese. Basically, if by performing the \"open\" action, you\nconnect two 空間 together, create a new 空間 or make a 空間 visible, then both ひらく\nand あける can be used. This can be seen in the following phrases:\n\n> 窓をあける/ひらく (by opening a window, you connect two 空間 together)\n>\n> 箱をあける/ひらく (by opening a box, you are able to make the inner 空間 of the box\n> visible)\n>\n> ドアをあける/ひらく (same as window)\n>\n> 目をあける/ひらく (by opening your eyes you make a new 空間 visible)\n\nHowever, I should stress that generally あける is preferred in the above\nsituations.\n\nNow, let's see some examples that do not fit the above explanation.\n\n> 本をひらく/あける*\n>\n> 傘をひらく/あける*\n>\n> 羽をひらく/あける*\n\nIn the above situations, あける **cannot be used**. Do you see why? Basically,\nthe concept of 空間 that I mentioned above is missing. What is common about the\nabove examples is that they are more focused on the \"movement\" of an object.\nIn other words, the cover of the book, the umbrella and wings all move to\nexpand or widen.\n\nFrom this, we should be able to understand why あける is preferred in my first\nexamples. Since ひらく focuses on \"movement\" like I explained above, あける should\nbe preferred when focusing on the 空間 aspect.\n\nAlso, while the above explains some of the differences, I should note that あける\ncan be written in three ways: 開ける/明ける/空ける, and ひらく has four ways: 開く/拓く/啓く/披く.\nSo, the usage is _much_ more complicated than what I explained above.\n\nFor your last question, yes ひらく can be both transitive and intransitive. ひらく\nand あく are used differently, for example you can say 毛穴がひらく but not 毛穴があく,\nwhile 穴があく is better than 穴がひらく.",
"comment_count": 7,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-08T23:38:51.357",
"id": "6452",
"last_activity_date": "2016-08-21T01:20:03.320",
"last_edit_date": "2016-08-21T01:20:03.320",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6449",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 51
}
] |
6449
|
6452
|
6452
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6453",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "From what I can tell they both mean \"Because of\", and the only differences in\nmeaning I can see seem to be very subtle.\n\n> **あっての:**\n>\n> * [Because of A (strong emphasis),\n> B](http://www.renshuu.org/index.php?page=grammar/individual&id=402&PHPSESSID=9d0743b4d178eacc198e47143e66da41)\n> * [Thanks to (various things),\n> (outcome)](http://dev.jgram.org/pages/viewOne.php?tagE=atteno)\n>\n\n>\n> **とあって:**\n>\n> * [Because of A,\n> B](http://www.renshuu.org/index.php?page=grammar/individual&id=474&PHPSESSID=nwfllypu)\n> * [Because ~; ~ as expected; because ~, naturally\n> ~](http://dev.jgram.org/pages/viewOne.php?tagE=toatte)\n>\n\nAs far as I can tell, the only difference is that `あっての` proceeds and follows\na noun, while `とあって` can proceed and follow a sentence. Is there some other\ndifference between these?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-08T21:47:18.400",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6450",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-09T03:53:43.997",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "921",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"particles"
],
"title": "What is the difference between あっての and とあって?",
"view_count": 291
}
|
[
{
"body": "Firstly, they are grammatically different. With あっての, both A and B have to be\nnoun phrases, and the result is a noun phrase. With とあって, A can be a noun\nphrase or a clause, and B has to be a clause, the result being a clause.\n\nSecondly, the focus is different. あっての emphasizes that B _could not be_\nwithout A, whereas this connection is weaker with とあって. With とあって, B tends to\nbe the main point which the speaker is trying to get across, and A is added as\nextra explanation.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-09T03:53:43.997",
"id": "6453",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-09T03:53:43.997",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "6450",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
6450
|
6453
|
6453
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6477",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Do the following expressions:\n\n> 1. (もうすこし）上手にでき ないものか\n>\n> I wish I could get a bit better.\n>\n> 2. (どうにか）直せ ないものか\n>\n> I wish I could somehow fix it.\n>\n> 3. (なんとか）でき ないものか\n>\n> I wish we could somehow do something. \n> (or: \"hmm, I wonder if we can't somehow do something?..\")\n>\n>\n\nmean:\n\n> A. \"I can't ~\",\n>\n> B. \"I wish I could ~ (but I can't)\", or\n>\n> C. \"I can't ~ but wonder if I could~ (if I tried harder/thought a bit more a\n> bit more about it)\"?\n\nHow does the addition/removal of (i) the expressions in brackets\n(もうすこし／どうにか／なんとか), (ii) だろう（ie ~ものだろうか） and (iii) context in which the\nexpression is used change the meaning?\n\nI ask because normally a sentence ending in ~ものか is a strong denial (or does\nthis only apply when attached to a verb in plain affirmative form (eg 似合うもんか,\n\"It doesn't suit you\"?).\n\nThe translations are my own/taken from my notes for reference but I am not\nconfident about conveying the correct impression when I used these terms.\n\n**Supplementary question** : How is this used in polite speech? Can ~ものですか be\nused?",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-09T05:01:12.110",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6454",
"last_activity_date": "2013-01-27T23:26:07.790",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-15T00:38:59.190",
"last_editor_user_id": "1556",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"negation"
],
"title": "Use of 〜ないものか with もうすこし／どうにか／なんとか",
"view_count": 1173
}
|
[
{
"body": "**ものか is used in 1,2 & 3 with a potential negative verb (-> 〜ないものか) to\nindicate the speaker wants to do something or is wondering what choice he/she\nshould make.** _This is distinct from the use of ものか to express strong\ndisagreement or negative intention_ , _which is typically with the non-past\nplain form of a verb_ (but can also be used with adjectives and nouns).\n\nWith respect to A, B & C: The expressions 1,2 & 3 all mean \"I wish.....\", the\nspeaker might use the expression to imply whether he/she \"can/can't\" do\nsomething but it depends on them and the situation. The addition of **だろう** ,\nas in **ないものだろうか** softens the expression of desire from \"I wish\" to \"I wonder\nif I can....\".\n\n「ないもの（だろう）か」 is commonly used with expressions such as **もうすこし／どうにか／なんとか**\nwhen they simply add the meaning \"a bit\" or \"somehow\" in the same way they do\nin English sentences 1,2 & 3 above.\n\nThe phrase can also be used with other \"non-potential negative\" verbs to\nindicate something beyond human control eg:\n\n> 人の性格は変わらないものだろうか (I wonder if a person's character ever changes?)\n\n**Supplementary question:** Both ないものか and ないものだろうか are used in spoken Jse\n(m&f) along with ないものでしょうか and ものかしら(f). (I can't find any reference\nexplaining the use of ないものですか but the alternative use of ものか for disagreement\ncan take the form もんですか in female speech.)\n\n_References: \"this page\" link from cypher (above) and Dict. of Adv Jse Gmr\n(Makino)_\n\n_Note: This answer is based on text-books. There is more technical detail in\nthe references but further comment from practical experience is welcome._",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-14T05:01:51.960",
"id": "6477",
"last_activity_date": "2013-01-27T23:26:07.790",
"last_edit_date": "2013-01-27T23:26:07.790",
"last_editor_user_id": "1556",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "6454",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
6454
|
6477
|
6477
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6457",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I often hear both of the following phrases:\n\n> 彼氏が出来る\n>\n> 彼氏を作る\n\nBoth of them seem to mean the same thing(?). Why is it that 作る is used in this\nway? I had previously thought 作る meant to \"create\" or \"make\" something. Does\nthis mean that the two phrases differ?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-09T05:03:35.200",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6455",
"last_activity_date": "2021-09-04T03:43:00.377",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-09T05:42:04.630",
"last_editor_user_id": "162",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 彼氏が出来る and 彼氏を作る?",
"view_count": 2446
}
|
[
{
"body": "Just looking at the verbs, it looks like:\n\n * 彼氏ができる: to have a boyfriend, to reach the state where one has a boyfriend (often used in conversation as \"彼氏ができた\", meaning \"I now have a boyfriend.\")\n\n * 彼氏を作る: to act so as to have a boyfriend. I've never heard it, but it would imply that some involvement is necessary, or that dating is an objective: eg, 彼氏を作るために、クラブでナンパした (she flirted with guys in clubs in order to have a boyfriend)",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-09T06:26:42.170",
"id": "6456",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-10T01:47:31.053",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-10T01:47:31.053",
"last_editor_user_id": "356",
"owner_user_id": "356",
"parent_id": "6455",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "With the help of everybody's comments and examples, I think the difference\nrelates to the degree of \"control\" the speaker wishes to convey. In this case\ndoes the speaker wish to emphasise the woman's ability to find a boyfriend or\nthe other factors that are also involved? (eg \"money can't buy love\"):\n\nThe use of 作る to emphasise the subject's active influence is consistent with\nthe above examples:\n\n> 1. 「アタシも頑張って彼氏作らなきゃ~！」 \n> \"I have to find a bf too!\"\n>\n> 2. 彼氏を作るために、クラブでナンパした \n> She flirted with guys in clubs to get a boyfriend\n>\n>\n\n出来る (which has to be used with ように not ために）conveys the importance of other\nfactors beyond the person's control that can determine the final result (such\nas mutual interest from the intended partner). You could apply the same\nprinciple to:\n\n> 3\\. 「赤ちゃんができた」 \n> She is pregnant.\n>\n> 4\\. 「30歳まで子供を作りたくない」 \n> \"I don't want to have a child before I'm thirty.\"\n\nMost dictionaries assign a large number of uses/meanings to both verbs. In the\nApple dictionary: あの二人は出来ているらしい is translated as \"They seem to be in love with\neach other\" or \" They seem to be on intimate terms with each other\"\n(emphasizing a physical relationship). 男を作る is defined as \"become involved\nwith a man/ have [take] a lover\" but having the same meaning as 友達を作る, \"to\nmake friends\".\n\n出来る is also assigned the more general meaning of \"come in to existence\"\n(生じる／生まれる in the Apple dictionary) which emphasises a change of state. It is\nalso close to its use to say the equivalent of \"He(A boyfriend) came into her\nlife\", or \"I was able to find a boyfriend\" in the same way that 英語ができる means\n\"I can speak English\": in both cases the verbs \"find\" and \"speak\" can be\ninferred.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-10T01:45:10.557",
"id": "6457",
"last_activity_date": "2021-09-04T03:43:00.377",
"last_edit_date": "2021-09-04T03:43:00.377",
"last_editor_user_id": "9831",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "6455",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6455
|
6457
|
6456
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm quite familiar with the different uses of the particles に and で. However,\nright now I'm stuck, because I want to say the following in Japanese, and as I\nunderstand it, either one of these particles could provide the appropriate\nadverbial meaning if attached to the end of 楽しみ.\n\nI would like to say in Japanese:\n\nI will explain [i.e., make an explanation] it [to you] with pleasure.\n\nWhich one of the following is correct?\n\n楽しみに説明します。 or 楽しみで説明します。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-10T12:25:18.627",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6458",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-11T22:39:49.703",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-11T15:23:54.497",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1595",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"adverbs"
],
"title": "Adverbial form: 楽しみに or 楽しみで?",
"view_count": 577
}
|
[
{
"body": "Aside from the fact that I'm pretty sure that the correct word to use would be\n喜んで（よろこんで） instead of 楽しみに, in some other similar sentence, you would use で,\nbecause \"in this manner, I __\"\n\nIn terms of the difference between 喜んで and 楽しみに is that the former is not so\nmuch a matter of pleasure, as it is like saying \"no problem\" or something you\nwould have no hesitation doing. In English we just say \"with pleasure\" as one\nof the things that we could say in that situation, but they don't all mean\nthat you take pleasure in something. Tanoshii implies an actual, more solid\npleasure. Something that feels good or is enjoyable. This is one of those\nthings that can't just be directly translated.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-11T18:12:18.603",
"id": "6469",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-11T18:12:18.603",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1598",
"parent_id": "6458",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "For a Japanese equivalent to the phrase, \"It is my pleasure to explain it to\nyou,\" here are some suggestions:\n\n> 喜んで教えます。\n>\n> 喜んで説明します。\n>\n> 喜んでお教えします。(with honorific)\n>\n> 喜んでご説明します。(with honorific)\n>\n> 喜んでご説明致します。 (more polite)\n>\n> 喜んでご説明させていただきます。(most polite)\n\n楽しみに(する) is usually translated as \"to look forward to something.\"\n\n喜んで/よろこんで is an adverb meaning \" with pleasure ...\" and is thus the more\nfitting choice for your question.\n\nよろこんで is from the verb よろこぶ meaning \"to rejoice/to take pleasure in.\"",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-11T20:12:23.133",
"id": "6470",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-11T22:39:49.703",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "706",
"parent_id": "6458",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6458
| null |
6470
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6462",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I am aware of these words that mean \"butterfly\":\n\n * [蝶]{ちょう} \n * 蝶々 (Is the alternate form of チョウチョ more common than 蝶々? Because 蝶々 would be チョウチョウ instead and it seems ウ is removed because of shortening)\n * [胡]{こ}蝶\n * バタフライ (I think this is mainly used in the context of swimming; バタフライで泳ぐ, and in the context of chaos theory; バタフライ効果. Can it be used for the insect?)\n\nWhich is most commonly used to generally refer to the insect? And when are the\nless common (if any) forms used? What are their nuances if any?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-10T15:36:05.283",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6460",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-11T17:54:04.617",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "542",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Which word to use for \"butterfly\"?",
"view_count": 19280
}
|
[
{
"body": "From my experience, `蝶々` is the most used and recognized. Although I've never\nheard the pronunciation shortened to `チョウチョ`.\n\nI personally like to use `胡蝶` (note: can also be written as `蝴蝶`) because 1)\nit sounds cooler, and 2) [`蝴蝶隠れ`](http://youtu.be/zHVwYSn2P9E). But whenever\nI've used `蝴蝶` in conversation with my Japanese friends, none of them knew\nwhat I what talking about until I changed it to `蝶々`.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-10T19:57:45.253",
"id": "6462",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-10T19:57:45.253",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "6460",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
},
{
"body": "This is sort of a piggy-back/solidification of the first response [the one\nabout Latin and whatnot], and also a clarification of the shortening. ** Also,\nsorry if you know some of this, or if it seems long-winded**\n\n * In terms of the shortening, this occasionally happens in colloquialism. Just as we shorten or slur words in more relaxed communication, this also happens in Japanese. So in terms of which one is safest to use, use ちょうちょう. If you look at an online dictionary (personally I like to use tangorin.com), they sometimes tell you which one is more common. The elongated one is more common, most likely because it is the one that is more socially acceptable and safe. You may hear the shortened form in very casual speech, but it shouldn't be used with just anyone as it can be disrespectful. You also wouldn't write the shortened version (unless in a super casual setting).\n * The choice between using 蝶 and 蝶々 is explained when you think about how kanji works. Kanji in itself is not a set of words, it is a set of meanings. so the kanji by itself means butterfly, but can be thought of as the butterfly nature of something. This is why you can have some words that can have the kanji for butterfly in it, and not refer to the insect (like 蝶ナート, which is a nut with a butterfly-ish form). So, think of 蝶々 as a \"butterfly, butterfly\" referring to the actual insect just as we would make such clarifications in English. \n * In terms of 胡蝶, it refers to the insect as well, but it is an archaic word. You will probably read it in novels more than you will hear it. \n * バタフライ would be used for an imported form of typing (imported because it is written in katakana, typing because of its usage). You can think of the difference between 蝶 and バタフライ can be thought of like this: \n\n\"Hey, I've got this new think/concept from America! It's called the Butterfly\n___!\" (here you would use katakana)\n\n\"Hmmm, you know, I'm trying to come up with a name for this thing, and it kind\nof has the nature of a butterfly. I think i will call it chou_ **_/** _chou! \"\n(in this case it would be kanji)\n\nOf course this example can only be generalized, and some things are surely a\ncase by case basis, but this should help I think.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-11T17:54:04.617",
"id": "6468",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-11T17:54:04.617",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1598",
"parent_id": "6460",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6460
|
6462
|
6462
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6484",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "Specifically for when they mean \"a little\". \nIn what situations would they be used and are they completely interchangeable\nwithout any differences?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-11T15:06:01.633",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6466",
"last_activity_date": "2018-05-28T08:19:16.057",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-11T15:31:06.483",
"last_editor_user_id": "542",
"owner_user_id": "1497",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 28,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"usage",
"ambiguity"
],
"title": "What is the difference between ちょっと and 少し?",
"view_count": 8993
}
|
[
{
"body": "It seems to be a lot about nuances.\n\nIt says that you can replace 少し with ちょっと in most cases but it's less common\nthe other way around. Then it lists few examples when the sentence does not\nconvey exactly the same meaning based on which one you use.\n\nOne of the example is from a\n[book](http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4569640656?ie=UTF8&tag=kotonohaenerg-22&linkCode=as2&camp=247&creative=1211&creativeASIN=4569640656)\nand it talks about the difference between 「ちょっと待ってね」 and 「少し待ってね」. The first\none would be an _egoist_ way of asking the people to wait, a bit vague, term\nthat would be convenient for you. The other one with 少し would be apparently\nmore accurate, easier to rely on and let the other person more likely to feel\nat ease/trust with you.\n\nAn other example is a case when you cannot really use 少し instead of ちょっと. The\nexample is 「ちょっと、わかんない。」.\n\nI am not sure I fully understand myself but what I understood so far is that\n少し, compared to ちょっと, is ちゃんとした言葉 compared to ちょっと that would be a bit 適当\n(sorry I don't find the words to explain that in english). This difference\nwould be reflected especially when you ask someone to do something.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-15T04:33:56.983",
"id": "6484",
"last_activity_date": "2017-05-30T00:20:39.043",
"last_edit_date": "2017-05-30T00:20:39.043",
"last_editor_user_id": "1065",
"owner_user_id": "1065",
"parent_id": "6466",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
},
{
"body": "To a certain extent they are just different levels of politeness. Check the\nfollowing: \n \nちょっと待って！ \n少し待ってください \n少々お待ちください \n\n少々（しょうしょう）> 少し > ちょっと\n\nThe phrases get longer the more polite they are. Also, I believe ちょっと is more\nof a spoken phrase than a written phrase.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-27T15:55:22.470",
"id": "6612",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-27T15:55:22.470",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1648",
"parent_id": "6466",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6466
|
6484
|
6612
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "18098",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "This quesion:\n\n[と言っても vs とは言え\n.](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2030/%e3%81%a8%e8%a8%80%e3%81%a3%e3%81%a6%e3%82%82-vs-%e3%81%a8%e3%81%af%e8%a8%80%e3%81%88)\n\nreminded me of a similar case:\n\n> どっちにしても vs どっちにしろ\n\nwhich are also synonymous as far as I can tell.\n\nThat got me thinking:\n\nIs this coincidental? Are there other cases where the imperative is used\ninstead of the conditional formulation? Has this replacement ever been\nproductive?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-12T03:44:26.153",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6471",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-03T01:27:24.150",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"etymology",
"imperatives"
],
"title": "Imperative used instead of conditional form",
"view_count": 1107
}
|
[
{
"body": "`とは言え` and `どっちにしろ` are not imperative(命令形).\n\n> どっちにしても vs どっちにしろ\n\n`どっち` is an informal way to say `どちら`. `どちらにしても` is `どちらに(したと)しても`. `どちらにしろ`\nis `どちらにすれども`. Similarly, `とは言え` is `とは言えども`.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-09-23T08:28:58.973",
"id": "6897",
"last_activity_date": "2012-09-23T08:28:58.973",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1720",
"parent_id": "6471",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "What about ～であれ～であれ and ～といい～といい?\n\nOh, there's also ～にせよ～にせよ, but it's just a more 堅い version of ～にしろ～にしろ (which\nin turn is more 堅い than ～にしても～にしても)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-07-03T22:32:00.217",
"id": "17648",
"last_activity_date": "2014-07-03T22:32:00.217",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "2972",
"parent_id": "6471",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "This is a remnant of the Classical Japanese form named\n「[命令形]{めいれいけい}の[放任法]{ほうにんほう}」. 命令形 means \"imperative form\",\n放任、”noninterference”, \"permission\", etc. and 法, \"rule\".\n\nNative speakers, young or old, still use the 命令形の放任法 on a daily basis, but\nvery few Japanese-learners seem to be able use it actively.\n\nIn short, the nuance of this form is \"Do as you like.\" 「どっちにしろ（or せよ）」 means\n\"whichever you take/choose\" and the speaker could not care less which one\nsomeone selects.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2014-08-03T01:27:24.150",
"id": "18098",
"last_activity_date": "2014-08-03T01:27:24.150",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6471",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
6471
|
18098
|
18098
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6473",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I saw a film where in two separate scenes the characters seemed to use the\n\"imperative-prohibition\" to invite the opposite action:\n\n> 1.In one scene a father after explaining something to his son appeared to\n> ask his son if he could understand what he had explained:\n>\n> 「わかるな」？\n>\n> It was as if he had said: 「[おれのいうこと]、分かりませんか」？\n>\n> 2.In another scene a woman invited a child to sit on a chair that she was\n> pointing at:\n>\n> 「すわんな」\n>\n> As if she had said: 「座りませんか」\n\nIn both cases I am sure I have quoted the subtitles correctly but is this\nreally the imperative prohibition or have I missed something?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-13T06:13:57.343",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6472",
"last_activity_date": "2014-05-08T08:42:50.953",
"last_edit_date": "2014-05-08T08:42:50.953",
"last_editor_user_id": "125",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"meaning",
"imperatives"
],
"title": "Other uses of \"imperative prohibition\" form eg わかるな ・すわんな",
"view_count": 603
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think in that context, that `わかるな？` uses sense 3 of [this\nentry](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%AA&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=1&index=114424700000&pagenum=11)\nat Daijirin to \"seek agreement or a response\". It might be similar to `わかるよね？`\n(\"you understand, right?\")\n\nI think `すわんな` would be a more colloquial form of `座りな`/`座りなさい` \"sit down\". I\nthink `な` here is a shortened form of `なさい` to make a command as in [this\nentry](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%AA&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=1&index=114424900000&pagenum=11).\nNote this is different from the prohibitional `座るな` \"don't sit\".",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-13T08:34:16.910",
"id": "6473",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-13T08:34:16.910",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "796",
"parent_id": "6472",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] |
6472
|
6473
|
6473
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6588",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "There is a generally expressed rule in Japanese that, when declaring\nexistence, いる is used for animate subjects, and ある is used for inanimate\nsubjects. There are some interesting variations in what is considered to be\nanimate, but there's one very well known exception to these rules.\n\n> 私は子どもがXある - I have X children/As for me, there are X children.\n\nいる is preferred in this sentence, but ある is permissible. I have heard the\nacceptability of ある in the above explained in two ways.\n\n 1. Children are \"de-personified\" in this structure, either because of linguistic humility or some other reason. In this case, intransitive ある maintains the usual distinction of working only with inanimate/non-moving subjects.\n 2. This is actually a different ある verb from the existence variant. In this case, ある is a transitive possessive verb meaning \"to have, to own\".\n\n* * *\n\nEither of these explanations will work, but moving outside of this specific\nsentence presents me with a problem.\n\nI have recently read that\n\n> ×私は運転手がある\n\nis not acceptable, even if 運転手 refers to a permanent servant working for the 私\nin the above sentence. Why is this?\n\nI would think it would be at least as acceptable to de-personify one's own\nservants as one's children. Rather obviously explanation 2 (possession) should\nallow this construction as well. What distinguishes these two uses of aru?",
"comment_count": 14,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-13T21:51:35.510",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6474",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-25T02:54:20.423",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-14T19:38:13.173",
"last_editor_user_id": "29",
"owner_user_id": "29",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"verbs"
],
"title": "aru vs iru : Why is aru in \"Watakushi-wa untenshu-ga aru\" (私は運転手がある) unacceptable?",
"view_count": 1192
}
|
[
{
"body": "As noted in the comments, we all agree that `私は子供がいる` is the usual way of\nsaying you have children. The question is why is `私は子供がある` permissible, but\n`私は運転手がある` is not?\n\nThe verb ある can be written as 有る or 在る. The first is the one used in the rule\n`\"use 有る for inanimate objects and 居る for animate beings\"` and means \"being\n(t)here\". The verb 在る, like its 漢語 incarnation 存在, means existence and has a\nmore essential flavour to it than a just being there. With more 漢字, the first\nsentence should thus be written `私は子供が在る`.\n\nThis existence is closely tied to the person in question (私) in a way that the\ndriver (運転手) is not. Thus one can say\n\n```\n\n 彼は[田舎]{いなか}に[親戚]{しんせき}が在る。\n \n```\n\nbut not `私は運転手がある`, because the existence of your driver is not tied to you in\nsuch an inextricable way. You can change your driver, or fire him, in a way\nyou cannot change (or fire) your children. (Well, you can fire them legally,\nby giving them free for adoption, but you cannot fire them biologically.)\n\nThus, it _is_ just about possible to say\n\n```\n\n ブルース・ウェイン(ウェイン家)はアルフレッドと言う[忠実]{ちゅうじつ}なバトラーが在る。\n \n```\n\nbecause the butler's existence is tied to the Wayne family much like a family\nmember.\n\nSide note: (Judge for yourself, whether this is at all related to the question\nor to the answer.) Looking at the negation of ある, ない, we also have different\n漢字, i.e. 無くなる and 亡くなる. As a negative analogue of the ある/いる rule above, we\nhave the rule `\"use 無くなる for inanimate objects and 居なくなる for animate beings\"`.\nThe expression 亡くなる, however, is used for the verb \"to die\", but can also mean\n\"to perish\" or \"to cease from existence\" and is thus the perfect candidate for\nthe negative of 在る, when used in the phrase `親戚が在る`; you have (在る) relatives,\nuntil you don't have (亡い) relatives, because they die (亡くなる). If your\nrelatives moved into town, you have to say that\n\n```\n\n [親戚]{しんせき}は[田舎]{いなか}から居なくなった。今[都会]{とかい}に[住]{す}んでいる。\n \n```",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-25T02:54:20.423",
"id": "6588",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-25T02:54:20.423",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "6474",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
6474
|
6588
|
6588
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6529",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "What is the difference between and how can we explain the grammar in the\nexpressions for \"follow\" in the examples below?\n\n 1. 子供が母親のあとをついていく (A child is following his/her mother)\n\n 2. 母親の買い物についていく (go shopping with mother)\n\n 3. 彼の考えにはついていけない (I can't go along with his idea)\n\n 4. 彼の後をつける (I follow/tail him-see also * below)\n\nI wondered if this was because:\n\n * についていく allows the subject to \"attach itself to the object\" and move after it (grammatically this works well because both are intransitive)?\n * 後をつく and 後をつける are both idioms whereby: \n * つける can only be used with あと (\"mark left behind\") and as a transitive verb takes を to mark the object？\n * つく is intransitive so grammatically を is used \"spatially\" as in 信号を曲がる\n * 〜ついていく can only be used when there is continuous movement/\"one journey\", as opposed to say a child following its mother 24 hours a day who will start and stop/\"make several journeys\"?\n\nReferences/notes on examples 1-4:\n\n 1. All can be found in 総まとめ 語彙 N2-p132 (ex1-3) N1-p100 (ex4); \n\n 2. *Example 4 also appears in the Apple dictionary as: こっそり人 (の後) を付ける｜follow a person secretly / shadow [stalk / ｟口｠tail] a person\n\nOr (long shot suggestion): \\- Is the つく verb the same in all cases? (last week\nI noticed that 付く is intransitive but 吐く as in うそをつく is transitive.)\n\n* * *\n\n**Update to reflect two answers received as of 28 Aug 12:**\n\nTo summarise answers received, there are two explanations:\n\n**Explanation 1:**\n\nThe main difference b/w the examples can be explained by the difference b/w\nあとに & あとを:\n\n * 後に is a temporal/spatial use of を. Essentially the follower is following the same course as the object but not necessarily at the same time. \n * 跡を is a physical (or if emotionally used, metaphorical) use: the followers moves behind the object of its pursuit in \"lockstep\", speeding up and slowing down to maintain the same distance. \n\nRegarding use of つくvsつける： 後をつく is ungrammatical because つく is intransitive but\nthe ついていく in 後をついていくis thought of as independent transitive verb, taking 後 as\nobject. (つける is a transitive verb and can take the object あとを）\n\n**Explanation 2 (Revised):**\n\nThe main pts of this explanation was proposed after referring to the\nexplanation 1 (above):\n\n * （～の後を）ついて行く is defined as \"trail\", and it classifies this usage with を as being intransitive (【自動】). It might literally be \"follow someone's behind\".\n * (人）の後について行く is defined as \"tread in someone's footsteps\"/\"tread in the steps of\", and ～の後について行く is listed as \"follow\" and classifies this usage with に as being transitive (【他動】). \n * 後をつける is used for shadowing/tailing and 跡をつける leaving traces,\n\n**Explanation 3 [Original Explanation 2]:**\n\n * When the particle に is used the person being followed is the main actor in the sentence.\n * When the particle を is used the main actor in the sentence is unchanged.\n\nThis is similar to the difference b/w に伴う and を伴う\n\n(Although this was explanation was replaced, I have kept it here for reference\nas I think it still has credibility.)\n\nAny further comments or input are welcome.",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-14T02:35:55.783",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6475",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-28T01:55:42.913",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-28T01:55:42.913",
"last_editor_user_id": "1556",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice",
"usage"
],
"title": "The difference between \"follow\" using についていく、「あと？」をつける、「あと？」をついていく",
"view_count": 1830
}
|
[
{
"body": "**Edit:** Rewrote as I think user1205935's explanation of them being separate\nverbs sounded more plausible than mine.\n\nLooking through Space ALC, there are definitions for\n[`後をついて行く`](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E5%BE%8C%E3%82%92%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6%E8%A1%8C%E3%81%8F/UTF-8/)\nas well as\n[`後について行く`](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E5%BE%8C%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6%E8%A1%8C%E3%81%8F/UTF-8/).\nOne difference does seem to be transitivity:\n\n * `（～の後を）ついて行く` is defined as \"trail\", and it classifies this usage with `を` as being intransitive (`【自動】`). It might literally be \"follow someone's behind\".\n\n * `（人）の後について行く` is defined as \"tread in someone's footsteps\"/\"tread in the steps of\", and `～の後について行く` is listed as \"follow\" and classifies this usage with `に` as being transitive (`【他動】`). \n\nHere I do think that `ついて` and `行く` being separate when used with `に` is\nlikely. In a separate listing, you can see `（人）のすぐ後について行く` as \"follow someone\nto heel\". Here I think the `ついて` means \"attach\", so maybe in this usage it\nmight tend to be used to indicate following closely to someone.\n\n* * *\n\n[This page](http://www.practical-japanese.com/2011/06/blog-post_1618.html)\nlists `後をつける` and `跡をつける` together, so I think the two might sometimes be\ninterchangeable ([this page](http://alphatxt.cocolog-\nnifty.com/blog/2009/04/post-0fbb.html) says `後をつける` is used for\nshadowing/tailing and `跡をつける` leaving traces, so maybe one might be more\nappropriate than the other depending on context, though it seems\n[Daijirin](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%82%E3%81%A8%E3%82%92%E3%81%A4%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0)\nand\n[Daijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%82%E3%81%A8%E3%82%92%E3%81%A4%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0)\nboth include \"shadow/tail\" as one of the meanings for `跡をつける`.)\n\nThat page includes `**こっそりと** 後を追うこと` in the definition so it does seem that\n`後をつける`/`跡をつける` also include the nuance of stealthy/secret pursuit. This seems\nto also be backed up in the second [Daijirin definition for\n`跡をつける`](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%82%E3%81%A8%E3%82%92%E3%81%A4%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0):\n`後ろからひそかについて行く` (\"Stealthily follow from behind\").\n\nThe fact that definition includes `について行く` also might mean `について行く` doesn't\ninclude the nuance of stealth.\n\n* * *\n\n[This Chiebukuro\npage](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q119473541) also\nseems to back up that the Kanji for `ついていく` is `付いていく`, so I think they both\nuse `付`, though I think it's frequently written with Hiragana.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T03:02:09.630",
"id": "6529",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-26T03:18:38.457",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-26T03:18:38.457",
"last_editor_user_id": "796",
"owner_user_id": "796",
"parent_id": "6475",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "Rather than looking at the verb つく, this may be best explained by focussing on\nあと. Compare\n\n```\n\n 母の後についていく\n 母の跡をついていく\n \n```\n\nThe あと from the first example is a spatial or temporal following, whereas the\nあと from the second example is more like a metaphor for a physical following,\nas in 足跡「あしあと」»footprints«, indicating an emotional following. That the second\nあと is sometimes written with 後, rather than 跡, is as subtle a decision as\ndistinguishing between 診る and 看る (or 見る and 観る), with a preferred 漢字 for a\nspecific context, but no clear right and wrong. In order to be able to\ndistinguish between あと as spatial/temporal concept (written 後) and as physical\nconcept (written 跡), however, the preferred 漢字 for your fourth example would\nbe 跡.\n\nLastly, it shouldn't be upsetting that the verb ついていく allows both intransitive\nand transitive uses.\n\nThe meaning of \"follow\", is thus spatial/temporal in 後についていく and physical (or\nby metaphor emotional) in 後をついていく.\n\nHere the difference between spatial and physical is a matter of distance/time.\nFollowing spatially could mean following the same path, no matter when or at\nwhat speed. Following physically mean as best as one can at the same speed at\nthe same time, with as little distance as possible.\n\nI hope this answers at least part of your question.\n\nEDIT: In response to your edit, I will write some more about つく, ついていく, and\nつける. After some discussion with the locals, I think it is best to think of\nついていく in\n\n```\n\n 後についていく\n 後をついていく\n \n```\n\nas two different verbs. Let me explain.\n\nThe ついていく in\n\n```\n\n 後をついていく\n \n```\n\nis thought of as independent transitive verb, taking 後 as object.\n\nThe ついていく in\n\n```\n\n 後についていく\n \n```\n\nis thought of as a compound of the intransitive verb つく and 行く, where 後に is\nthe indirect object (is this the correct term?) for つく.\n\nOne can say\n\n```\n\n 後をつける\n \n```\n\nbecause つける is a transitive verb, but not\n\n```\n\n 後をつく\n \n```\n\nbecause つく is intransitive...\n\nP.S. The 漢字 for つく is in all cases 付.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T03:12:34.700",
"id": "6531",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-26T12:10:57.700",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-26T12:10:57.700",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "6475",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6475
|
6529
|
6529
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6479",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "For example, in this sentence:\n\n> 彼は、失敗をものともせず、 **何度もくりかえし** 挑戦し続けた。\n\n`くりかえし` is modified by `何度も`, implicitly stating that the action was repeated\nmultiple times.\n\nMy question is that if the sentence was rearranged like so:\n\n> 彼は、 **何度も失敗** をものともせず、くりかえし挑戦し続けた。\n\ndoes `くりかえし` then imply that the action was repeated only once (while the\nfailures were multiple)?\n\nAre there other ways to indicated the amount or frequency of repetitions\n(perhaps other than just with adjectives/adverbs)?\n\nBonus question: Does the first sentence indicate the \"he\" failed only once?",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-14T04:56:42.007",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6476",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-15T12:17:25.130",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-14T12:36:47.743",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "921",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Does くりかえし mean a single iteration or multiple ones?",
"view_count": 298
}
|
[
{
"body": "I don't think you understand the sentences correctly. The two of them are\nquite different.\n\nFirst, notice that くりかえし is a verb in 連用形 (the verb くりかえす \"to repeat\"), not a\nnoun.\n\nYour first sentence (awkwardly) reads `ignoring failure, he kept retrying to\ntake the challenge several times.`\n\nYour second sentence reads `ignoring several times failure, he kept retrying\nto take the challenge`. It seems that at some point, he did not ignore\nfailure, but still kept retrying…\n\n何度も modifies the verbs くりかえす (as くりかえし) or する (as せず), not a noun, as your\nusage of bold and your question seem to show you thought.\n\nAlso, because of 続ける, we know that retrial did not happen only once. Would you\nsay \"Ignoring failure several time, he kept retrying only once\"?\n\nTo sum things up, I think that the question is meaningless, and I hope that my\nanswer helped you understand why.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-14T05:27:49.817",
"id": "6478",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-14T12:34:27.230",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-14T12:34:27.230",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "356",
"parent_id": "6476",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -2
},
{
"body": "* The first sentence sounds fine, but the second sentence (more specifically the 何度も失敗をものともせず part) sounds awkward to me. I think I'd rather say:\n\n> \"[度重]{たびかさ}なる失敗をものともせず・・・\".\n\nMaybe it's because 度重なる is a 連体形 verb and modifies 失敗, while 何度も is an adverb\nand \"何度も...ものともせず\" sounds awkward... Maybe when 何度も modifies a negative verb,\nit's interpreted as a partial negation. Like, 何度も[諦]{あきら}めなかった sounds awkward\nto me, at least it sounds ambiguous between \"諦めない happened many times\n(=negation of 諦める)\" and \"didn't give up so many times but did give up maybe\nonce or twice (=negation of 何度も諦める)\".\n\n * > if the sentence was rearranged like so: \n>\n> 彼は、何度も失敗をものともせず、くりかえし挑戦し続けた。\n>\n> does くりかえし then imply that the action was repeated only once?\n\nNo, くりかえし~~し続けた implies that the action was repeated many times.\n\n * > Does the first sentence indicate the \"he\" failed only once?\n\nNo, the 何度もくりかえし挑戦し続けた implies that he failed many times.\n\n * > 彼は、失敗をものともせず、何度もくりかえし挑戦し続けた \n> 彼は、失敗をものともせず、くりかえし挑戦し続けた \n> 彼は、失敗をものともせず、何度も挑戦し続けた\n\nall sound fine to me. 何度もくりかえし sounds to me as an emphasis on 何度も or くりかえし,\n\"many many times, again and again\". I think the 続けた already implies that he\nfailed and tried many times, so even 彼は失敗をものともせず挑戦し続けた sounds alright to me.\n\n * > くりかえし is modified by 何度も\n\nHmm I'm not sure... I'd rather think that both くりかえし and 何度も modifiy 挑戦し続けた.\n(Because 何度もくりかえし挑戦し続けた and くりかえし何度も挑戦し続けた both sound alright to me.)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-14T12:30:55.050",
"id": "6479",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-15T12:17:25.130",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-15T12:17:25.130",
"last_editor_user_id": "796",
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6476",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6476
|
6479
|
6479
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6483",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I keep coming across this word often 「自己PR」when looking at applications. I'm\nnot sure what the \"PR\" part means in Japanese, but in English it usually means\n\"public relations\". What does this word mean, and what does the \"PR\" stand\nfor?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-14T16:49:04.467",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6480",
"last_activity_date": "2016-10-28T04:27:01.917",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"definitions"
],
"title": "what does 自己PR mean？",
"view_count": 10118
}
|
[
{
"body": "The PR does indeed stand for public relations. In English it is almost\nexclusively a business term used to represent a companies goals to persuade\nthe public, employees, and other stakeholders to maintain a certain point of\nview about it, its leadership, products, etc.\n\nIn Japanese it has the same meaning, only it can be applied to areas other\nthan business. In this case, 自己 (yourself). So in a sense, the phrase\nbasically means your own personal PR.\n\nHaving written several CV's in Japanese I can tell you that it is basically\nthe part of the CV where you get a chance to talk about yourself, your skills\n& abilities, etc in an attempt to persuade your employer about how awesome you\nare, and why they should hire you.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-15T00:12:05.690",
"id": "6483",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-15T01:41:54.203",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-15T01:41:54.203",
"last_editor_user_id": "1608",
"owner_user_id": "1608",
"parent_id": "6480",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 16
},
{
"body": "For those who are familiar with cover letters, what the job candidate writes\nin a Jiko PR would be the equivalent of what she/he would write in a cover\nletter.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2016-10-28T04:27:01.917",
"id": "40422",
"last_activity_date": "2016-10-28T04:27:01.917",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "18453",
"parent_id": "6480",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
}
] |
6480
|
6483
|
6483
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have the sentence:\n\n> この国に生まれ老い、良かったと死んでゆける高齢化社会。\n\nThis is the first time I've seen 「死んでゆける」 or 「ゆける」. What does it mean? Is this\na grammatical form? I also tried looking up more examples with\n「ゆける」[here](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E3%82%86%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B), but\nthere are only a few, and I'm not able to derive the meaning yet.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-14T22:07:31.920",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6481",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-14T22:22:11.630",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"definitions"
],
"title": "What does the word ゆける signify?",
"view_count": 2787
}
|
[
{
"body": "yuke-ru (行ける) is a verb meaning \"can go\" or \"is possible\". It derives from the\npotential form of the verb yuk- (行く). \"an aging society in which one can die\nbeing grateful for being born and growing old in this country\"",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-14T22:22:11.630",
"id": "6482",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-14T22:22:11.630",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1141",
"parent_id": "6481",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
6481
| null |
6482
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6486",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I came across the phrase\n[甘いものに目がない](http://thesaurus.weblio.jp/content/%E7%94%98%E3%81%84%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AB%E7%9B%AE%E3%81%8C%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84)\nwhich roughly translates to \"having a sweet tooth\". Then I wondered why\n[目がない](http://thesaurus.weblio.jp/content/%E7%9B%AE%E3%81%8C%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84)\nrefers to \"something that you like\". Is there an explanation for why \"having\nno eyes\" means to \"like something\"?",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-15T16:21:54.857",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6485",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-16T21:21:47.337",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 14,
"tags": [
"set-phrases"
],
"title": "Why does 「目がない」mean \"something you like\"?",
"view_count": 1081
}
|
[
{
"body": "Tsuyoshi Ito already touches on the answer. Basically, 目 is used in a lot of\nexpressions talking about your capability see something for its true self\n(見極める力). It can be seen in phrases and words like: 抜け目がない、目がきく、見識、目角が強い, etc.\n\nSo, 目がない literally means you lack the \"eyes\" to see through things or see\nsomething for its true self. Which in turn became to mean that you like\nsomething without even thinking or using your ability to see what something\nreally is.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-15T22:20:51.187",
"id": "6486",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-15T22:20:51.187",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6485",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] |
6485
|
6486
|
6486
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6488",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Is there any difference between the words 格好 and 恰好? Can I actually call them\ndifferent words, or is it that they are just the same word written\ndifferently? I've been told that they have exactly the same meaning by a\nnative, but possibly someone here might know a difference.\n\nIn the sentence:\n\n> 朝みた時と同じ恰好で立っていた。\n\nWould there be any difference in replacing the compound with 格好? If not, then\nwhy are there two currently existent \"words\" for the same concept?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-16T03:33:20.120",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6487",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-16T07:40:00.397",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-16T07:40:00.397",
"last_editor_user_id": "542",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"kanji",
"word-choice",
"homophonic-kanji"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 恰好 and 格好?",
"view_count": 790
}
|
[
{
"body": "[This page on alternative renderings of kanji\ncompounds](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%8C%E9%9F%B3%E3%81%AE%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E3%81%AB%E3%82%88%E3%82%8B%E6%9B%B8%E3%81%8D%E3%81%8B%E3%81%88)\nsays that in order to simplify the kanji set, some compounds which contained\nuncommon kanji had components replaced with common homophonous kanji.\n\nOne set of changes was promulgated by the 国語審議会 in 1956, but the page also\nlists a number of changes which came into _de facto_ use. 恰好→格好 is one such\npair.\n\nIn many cases (for example 毀損→棄損), the homophony is only true in Japanese, and\ndoesn't hold or no longer holds in Chinese. As such, some of the resulting\ncompounds, which were originally common with Chinese, look a bit odd to\nChinese readers.\n\nThe page also has a good list of [homophonous compounds whose meanings are\noften\nconfused](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%90%8C%E9%9F%B3%E3%81%AE%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97%E3%81%AB%E3%82%88%E3%82%8B%E6%9B%B8%E3%81%8D%E3%81%8B%E3%81%88#.E5.85.83.E3.80.85.E7.95.B0.E3.81.AA.E3.82.8B.E6.84.8F.E5.91.B3.E3.81.AE.E7.86.9F.E8.AA.9E.E3.81.8C.E6.9B.B8.E3.81.8D.E6.8F.9B.E3.81.88.E3.81.AA.E3.81.A9.E3.81.AB.E3.82.88.E3.82.8A.E3.80.81.E6.B7.B7.E5.90.8C.E3.81.97.E3.81.A6.E3.81.84.E3.82.8B.E4.BE.8B).",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-16T05:12:48.700",
"id": "6488",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-16T05:18:47.133",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-16T05:18:47.133",
"last_editor_user_id": "816",
"owner_user_id": "816",
"parent_id": "6487",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] |
6487
|
6488
|
6488
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6498",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm having trouble understanding the best way to respond to someone asking\n\"why\".\n\nMy study guide advised,\n\n> To answer the question with \"why\", make a statement sentence that indicates\n> the reason and add からです at the end, \n> A: どうして昼ご飯を食べなかったんですか B: ダイエットをしているからです\n\nFeeling like it couldn't possibly be that simple, I went looking to see if\nanyone had explained things in more detail.\n\nHowever, nearly every sentence with から I found are sentences that describe\nboth the cause and response, seemingly not as a response to a \"why\" question,\nsuch as [this sentence taken from another\npost](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/4022/6840)\n\n> あのラーメン屋は人を待たせるから、行かないことにした。\n\nI haven't been able to find much at all on からです in direct response to a\nquestion, as it was in my book's example.\n\nI figured the most likely reason for this was either \nA. からです is a nonstandard approach and my book is weird, or \nB. I've missed something.\n\nUnfortunately, B prompted me to wonder if some of these descriptions actually\nwere a direct response that I was misunderstanding.\n\nSo, while I was searching for something like\n\n> A： どうして外に行かなかったんですか \n> B： 雨が降っていたからです\n\nPeople were actually saying\n\n> A： どうして外に行かなかったんですか \n> B： 雨が降っていたから、外に行きませんでした\n\n* * *\n\nIn short, is something like \"ダイエットをしているからです\" actually a standard way to give a\nreason in response to a question? If not, what would be more appropriate?\n\nAny other ways to give a reason are welcome, because nuance is neat.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T01:17:05.130",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6493",
"last_activity_date": "2014-10-10T14:33:34.107",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1616",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"usage",
"nuances"
],
"title": "What's the standard way of explaining reason in response to the question \"why?\"? Do you use からです at the end?",
"view_count": 490
}
|
[
{
"body": "Look up these expression: ～ものですから （formal) ～もんだ (casual)\n\n<http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/genericnouns> (i.e. もの)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T13:05:55.670",
"id": "6497",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-17T13:05:55.670",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "818",
"parent_id": "6493",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 0
},
{
"body": "I think we'd say/write like this when we need to sound formal/polite:\n\n> * ダイエット（を）して（い）るからです/雨が降って（い）たからです\n>\n\nWe normally say 「ダイエットしてるんです。」「雨が降ってたんです。」etc. in polite speech\n\nAnd in casual speech:\n\n> * 「ダイエットしてるの。」(feminine) \n>\n> * 「ダイエットしてるんだ。」(masculine) \n>\n> * 「ダイエットしてるんだもん。」(feminine, cute) \n>\n> * 「ダイエットしてるから。」 \n>\n> * 「ダイエットしてるもんで。」 \n>\n> * 「雨が降ってたの。」(feminine) \n>\n> * 「雨が降ってたんだ。」(masculine) \n>\n> * 「雨が降ってたんだもん。」(feminine, cute) \n>\n> * 「雨が降ってたから。」 \n>\n> * 「雨が降ってたもんで。」et cetera\n>\n\nThe が after 雨 can often be left out when we talk casually. \n\n~~てるんだ/です in ダイエットしてるんだ/です and ~~てたんだ/です in 降ってたんだ/です are shortened\n(contracted?) forms for ~~ているのだ/です and ~~ていたのだ/です, respectively. (The \"い\" and\nthe \"o\" in \"の\" are dropped.)",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T13:54:16.977",
"id": "6498",
"last_activity_date": "2014-10-10T14:06:41.453",
"last_edit_date": "2014-10-10T14:06:41.453",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6493",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6493
|
6498
|
6498
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6496",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've seen 上で quite a few times recently, in contexts like:\n\n> In the cloud\n>\n> クラウド上で\n\nand：\n\n> On the computer\n>\n> コンピュータ上\n\nIn this case, is it pronounced うえ, as in クラウドうえで, or じょう?\n\nSilly little question, but none of the tools I have (rikaichan etc) help me to\nfind the answer. If there's a better way I could have found the answer, please\nlet me know!",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T10:29:45.657",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6495",
"last_activity_date": "2020-06-02T02:01:42.400",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "792",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 6,
"tags": [
"readings",
"suffixes"
],
"title": "クラウド上で - pronunciation?",
"view_count": 348
}
|
[
{
"body": "It is pronounced じょう in both cases.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T13:05:30.030",
"id": "6496",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-17T13:05:30.030",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1065",
"parent_id": "6495",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
}
] |
6495
|
6496
|
6496
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6500",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I have a sentence フライト・アテンダントはよく話しかけてくれて親しみがありました。 Where 話しかけて is what I can't\nunderstand. What sort of suffix is \"shikakete\"? Or is it two suffixes, shi +\nkakete?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T16:53:58.227",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6499",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-17T17:15:41.733",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-17T17:15:41.733",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1710",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"verbs",
"suffixes"
],
"title": "Please help to understand the verb suffix 掛ける",
"view_count": 1079
}
|
[
{
"body": "話しかける or 話し掛ける means to address or speak to someone.\n\nYou can think of it as two suffixes shi + kakeru, but it looks more like two\nverbs to me. There are many verbs with かける (掛ける) attached. For example, 投げ掛ける\nmeaning to \"throw at\" or 呼び掛ける meaning \"to call out to\".\n\nWith your example, the difference between 話して and 話し掛けて might be that the\nlatter assumes that your not as close to the person as in the former.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T17:01:01.150",
"id": "6500",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-17T17:11:52.100",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-17T17:11:52.100",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6499",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6499
|
6500
|
6500
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6506",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "This is a two part question, both pertaining to expressions involving \"必要\".\n\n 1. What is the difference between 必要がある and -なくてはいけない/ -なければならない? The difference between the latter two expressions is explained in [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2500/must-do-%EF%BD%9E%E3%81%AA%E3%81%91%E3%82%8C%E3%81%B0%E3%81%AA%E3%82%89%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84-vs-%EF%BD%9E%E3%81%AA%E3%81%8F%E3%81%A6%E3%81%AF%E3%81%84%E3%81%91%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84) question, but I'm still unclear as to where \"[必要]{ひつよう}がある\" comes into play (e.g. if it is synonymous with one or both of those, or if it carries a different nuance altogether).\n\n> I need to do my homework. \n> 宿題をしなくてはいけません。 \n> 宿題をする必要があります。\n\n 2. What is the difference between (noun)が[必要]{ひつよう}です and (noun)が[要]{い}ります? Unlike the expressions in question number one, these expressions are used when expressing the necessity of an object or thing.\n\n> I need a new motherboard. \n> 新しいマザーが必要です。 \n> 新しいマザーが要ります。",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T20:25:07.570",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6501",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-20T01:01:52.760",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1575",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 12,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances",
"expressions"
],
"title": "must/need [必要]{ひつよう}がある vs. なくてはいけない and [必要]{ひつよう}だ vs. [要]{い}る",
"view_count": 2242
}
|
[
{
"body": "While both ～必要がある and ～なくてはいけない are used to express that something is\nnecessary or must be done, they are both used slightly differently.\n\nTake for example the following sentances:\n\n> コンピュータを再起動する必要があります。 \n> You need to restart the computer.\n\n> コンピュータを再起動しなくてはいけません。 \n> You/I/etc must restart the computer.\n\nIn the above sentances `必要があります` is less personal and has a more instructional\ntone to it. The message is actually what my Mac displays when it wants me to\nrestart. In this scenario `しなくてはいけない` wouldn't be appropriate, as it would\nsound demanding and impolite.\n\n`しなくてはいけない` has a more colloquial, personal tone to it, while `必要がある`\nemphasises the degree of requirement, and is more formal/polite. For example\nhere is a sentence taken from the terms and conditions of a form I am\ncurrently filling in:\n\n> 申請者ご本人を確認する必要があります。 \n> We are required to verify the applicants identity.\n\nAgain, `しなくてはいけない` wouldn't really work in this more formal written scenario.\n\nFinally, if you take the examples posted by @yadokari above:\n\n> 宿題をする必要があります \n> It is necessary that i do homework\n\n> 宿題をしなくてはいけません。 \n> I have to do homework\n\nWhile both are fine, I doubt you'd hear many kids running around saying\n`宿題をする必要があります`, they would almost certainly use a form of `宿題をしなくてはいけません`.\n\nAs for the second part of your question, looking up the words in the\ndictionary gives a pretty good explanation.\n\n```\n\n 必要［名・形動］なくてはならないこと。どうしてもしなければならないこと。\n - Must not be without, Must be done / is necessary.\n```\n\n```\n\n 要る［動ラ五（四）］費用・品物・時間などが必要になる。入用である。\n - Is needed, becomes necessary, mainly used with products, goods, time, money, etc.\n```\n\nThe meaning of both 要る and 必要 are again very similar, as above there is a\nslight difference in the levels of politeness/formality. I would also say that\n要る has a lesser degree of need than 必要 does.\n\nFor example:\n\n> 新しいパソコンが要ります \n> I need a new computer.\n\nThe nuance of the above sentence would be that while your saying that you need\na new computer, it may not be a requirement (Maybe your current computer works\njust fine, but it runs slow, and it would just be great if you had a new one).\n\nWhile if you used ～必要です in the same sentence, it adds a greater degree of need\nto the statement, the computer becomes a requirement that you cannot do\nwithout (Maybe your computer is too slow to do what you want to do, or maybe\nit's broken, but the bottom line is that you must have a new computer to\naccomplish whatever it is you want to do).",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-18T01:12:34.387",
"id": "6506",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-20T01:01:52.760",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-20T01:01:52.760",
"last_editor_user_id": "1608",
"owner_user_id": "1608",
"parent_id": "6501",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 14
}
] |
6501
|
6506
|
6506
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6522",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I know the phrase `我が家` means \"our home\" or \"our family\". My question is when\nwould you use it, as opposed to say `私の家` or `私の家族`? It seems poetic to me, or\nsomething that wouldn't exactly be used in everyday conversation.",
"comment_count": 11,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T21:03:25.553",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6502",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-20T03:06:31.717",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "921",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"nuances"
],
"title": "What exactly is 我が家, and how is it used?",
"view_count": 877
}
|
[
{
"body": "我が家 implies:\n\n * That you are proud of your home (family) or that you have a deep affection toward your home (family). You could think of it partly as meaning \"my dear home\" or \"my beloved home\".\n\n * Not used in everyday conversation (used more often in the written form) and shows some form of rigidness and politeness. (As Tsuyoshi Ito mentions in the comments, 我が家 is probably more common in everyday conversation than other forms of 我がX, for example 我が家へようこそ would be common I think).\n\nThe above also applies to 我が母校、我が国、我が家族、我が妻、我が故郷、etc. They all imply that you\nhave a deep relationship, you are proud of them, show affection, etc. I often\nhear 我が国 when the prime minister of Japan gives a speech (perhaps the other\nones might be used in a speech also). I also feel that it would be more often\nused by men, but that might be my own personal experience only.\n\nThere also is the form 我が子, however, this form doesn't necessarily refer to\nthe person speaking (I feel like there are other examples of this, but I\ncannot think of any at the moment).",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-20T01:43:41.880",
"id": "6522",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-20T03:06:31.717",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-20T03:06:31.717",
"last_editor_user_id": "15",
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6502",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
6502
|
6522
|
6522
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6505",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I often hear Japanese males use the word お袋 in place of お母さん when annoyed or\nirritated. Is this word slang? How did this word come to mean 「お母さん」 and what\nare the circumstances it is used in?\n\nI am also interested in why the word 「袋」is chosen to address the mother. What\nis the importance of this word?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T21:16:28.513",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6503",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T02:08:48.793",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-18T01:58:34.597",
"last_editor_user_id": "542",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 14,
"tags": [
"usage",
"etymology",
"slang"
],
"title": "Why do some Japanese men use お袋 to address their mothers?",
"view_count": 6251
}
|
[
{
"body": "I wondered the same thing the first time I saw that! In English it's rather\nimpolite to refer to your mother (or indeed any woman!) as a \"bag\". (\"You old\nbag!\") This is not so in Japanese! It's actually a term of endearment. Please\nsee [this blog post](http://blogs.japanesepod101.com/blog/2010/02/05/your-\nmother-as-a-bag-part-2/) on some explanation.\n\nI'll give a section here in case the link breaks:\n\n> I can’t find anything about the etymology of お袋, but I’m going to have to\n> assume that it relates to the womb as the primordial bag. Just as koalas are\n> known in the kanji sense for their pouches (e.g., 袋熊, fukuro-guma: koala,\n> pouch + bear), a human mother is also nicknamed for her interior “pouch.”\n>\n> Here’s what Yahoo Japan’s dictionary has to say about お袋. See how much you\n> can understand before turning to the link for the yomi and breakdown:\n>\n> \"自分の母親を親しんでいう語。古くは敬称として用いたが、現在では主に男性が、他人に対して自分の母をいうのに用いる。\" Yomi and\n> Breakdown of the Words …\n>\n> A rough translation:\n>\n> \"A word expressing closeness with one’s own mother. A long time ago, people\n> used it as a title of honor, but nowadays a man will mainly use it when\n> talking to others about his mother.\"",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T21:34:31.917",
"id": "6505",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-17T21:34:31.917",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "921",
"parent_id": "6503",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 10
},
{
"body": "According to [Gogen](http://gogen-allguide.com/o/ofukuro.html), there are\nseveral theories:\n\n 1. A mother is likened to a bag where things like money and important valuables and treasures are kept, and she takes care of the management of such things.\n\n 2. The 袋 is representative of the placenta or uterus (which is like a bag that contains a foetus).\n\n 3. Breastfeeding on 懐 (ふところ), then the sound got changed to ふくろ。\n\nGogen also says it's an intimate way to refer to one's mother.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-18T02:08:48.793",
"id": "6507",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T02:08:48.793",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "542",
"parent_id": "6503",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6503
|
6505
|
6505
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6509",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I've previously asked about\n[あっての](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/6450/what-is-the-\ndifference-between-%E3%81%82%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%81%AE-\nand-%E3%81%A8%E3%81%82%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6), but now it seems to me that I've\nrun into an additional usage of it (or perhaps the same usage I just can't\nwrap my head around it...).\n\nWhen the sentence is simply AあってのB, it seems pretty straightforward. For\nexample:\n\n> あなた **あっての** 私なんです。\n\nI think means: \"I wouldn't be here without you\" This sentence, however is more\nconfusing to me:\n\n> 子供 **あっての** 我が家である。\n\nDoes this mean:\n\n * \"Our family wouldn't be here without the children/if not for the children\"? \n\nOr is it more like:\n\n * \"Our family exists for the (benefit of the) children\"?\n\nOr even:\n\n * \"If we never had children, we wouldn't be a family\"?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-17T21:16:35.237",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6504",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T05:23:33.733",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "921",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "How is あっての used to define something?",
"view_count": 315
}
|
[
{
"body": "I sometimes have this problem with あっての too so I looked it up ( _Reference:\n日本語表現文型辞典 p25_ ). To my surprise the English explanation was contradictory but\nthe Japanese explanation works.\n\nI'll start with the English definition:\n\n> 「N１あってのN２」is an emphatic expression meaning N1 is realized because there is\n> N2.\n\nThis fits\n\n> 「子供あっての我が家である。」\n\nwhich I take to mean \"We would not be the family we are without our\nchildren\"(see note 3), but seems contra to the more familiar:\n\n> 「あなたあっての私なんです。 / \"I wouldn't be here without you\"\n\nHowever the Japanese explanation uses the expression:\n\n> 「N１があるからN２が成立する」\n\nwhich works for both examples.\n\n**Notes**\n\n 1. FWIW: The book also give alternative English equivalents as \"comprised of\" or \"indispensable to\".\n\n 2. The full Japanese definition was:\n\n「N１あってのN２」の形で、「N１があるからN２が成立する」と強調するときの表現。\n\n 3. This translation is closest to your first meaning, which also seems quite acceptable. The others might also work in the right context?",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-18T05:04:24.970",
"id": "6509",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T05:23:33.733",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "6504",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6504
|
6509
|
6509
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "The other day at some festival a few japanese friends asked me something to\nthe effect of\n\nアイスを買ってくるけど、行く？\n\nBut I had already asked a friend, who had not yet returned, to get some for\nme. So I said\n\nジェームズがもう買って来てくれたので大丈夫。\n\nWhat I intended to say in English was \"No thanks, James already went to get me\nsome.\" But it seems that the japanese version of that statement could have\nmultiple meanings.\n\nHow do I differentiate between \"He already bought it for me (and has completed\nthis process)\" and \"He has already gone to buy it for me (and has not yet\ncompleted this action)\"?\n\n(もう買ってきてくれている could be a possibility, but for some reason doesn't sound\ncorrect to me. )",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-18T05:05:22.557",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6510",
"last_activity_date": "2014-11-04T04:13:00.273",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-18T05:09:31.923",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1619",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"translation"
],
"title": "How do I say \"He already went to do X for me\", implying he is still in the process of X, not finished?",
"view_count": 1657
}
|
[
{
"body": "Your sentence:\n\n> ジェームズがもう買って来てくれたので大丈夫。\n\nImplies that he went to buy and also came back. This is known because of the\ntwo verbs - 買って + 来て.\n\nIf you want to say that he went to go get ice cream for you, then how about\nsaying something like:\n\n> ジェームズがもう買いに行ってくれてるので大丈夫。\n\nThis way it states that he went to go buy it (but hasn't come back).\n\nEDIT: I forgot to mention that 「くれた」 in the first is past tense because you\nalready got the item supposedly. For the second, you haven't received it yet,\nbut you are expecting to.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-18T05:16:45.613",
"id": "6511",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T17:47:29.097",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-18T17:47:29.097",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6510",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
},
{
"body": "ジェームズがもう買って来てくれたので大丈夫/もう買ってきてくれている would mean \"James already bought it for me\n(and now I have it)\". I'd say\n\n> ジェームズが(今)買いに行ってくれてるから大丈夫\n\nor\n\n> (今)ジェームズが買いに行ってるから大丈夫。",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-18T05:20:07.653",
"id": "6512",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T05:20:07.653",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6510",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
},
{
"body": "Notice that the main verb is different for your two cases:\n\n 1. James already went to buy me ice-cream\n\n 2. James bought me ice-cream\n\nSimplifying:\n\n 1. James went ~ \n\n 2. James bought ~\n\nFor 1. you would want 行く to be the main verb, and for 2. you would use 買う:\n\n 1. 買いに行ってくれている - (went in order to buy)\n 2. 買ってくれている - (bought)",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-18T10:21:12.300",
"id": "6513",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T10:21:12.300",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "542",
"parent_id": "6510",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
6510
| null |
6512
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6515",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Both of them mean fire. But what are the difference between the two ?\n\nFor the sentence : There is a fire in my room. Can I use both of them ?\n\nAnd what about for the sentence : Fire is part of the 5 elements.",
"comment_count": 5,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-18T15:33:01.057",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6514",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T16:00:24.967",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1553",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 15,
"tags": [
"synonyms",
"word-choice"
],
"title": "Difference between Fire : 火【ひ】and 火事【かじ】?",
"view_count": 6931
}
|
[
{
"body": "火事 means \"fire\" like what you shout when a building is burning down. Or when\nwe say \"my house was lost in a fire\", it's that \"fire\". The big kind that\nburns things it isn't supposed to.\n\n火 is a more generic word for fire. It's what's on a candle or a torch or in a\nfireplace.\n\nFor your first sentence...it depends on if the fire is burning down your\nroom(火事), or if you have a candle or a fireplace that's lit(火). So, yes you\ncan use both, but it means (very) different things.\n\nFor your second sentence, I believe you could use 火. I seem to recall my Yu-\ngi-oh! cards using 炎{ほのお} which is \"flame, blaze\", but I'm not sure what\nmeaning you can derive from that...",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-18T16:00:24.967",
"id": "6515",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-18T16:00:24.967",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "921",
"parent_id": "6514",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 17
}
] |
6514
|
6515
|
6515
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "As far as I'm aware this expression means \"(a persons) strong points', but I'm\nnot sure how とする is being used in this context.\n\nMy best guess would be something like \"the thing (a person) tries to do best\"\nor something to that effect, but that doesn't really sound right, and I have\npreviously read that the 'try to do' usage is only with volitional form verbs?\nAnyway I'm not very familiar with とする or ところ (I'm fairly beginner level) so I\ndon't feel comfortable making a guess about it. Can anyone explain?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-19T03:49:05.823",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6517",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-20T14:04:13.257",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-19T08:05:18.827",
"last_editor_user_id": "1328",
"owner_user_id": null,
"post_type": "question",
"score": 8,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"usage",
"translation",
"particles"
],
"title": "得意とするところ explanation?",
"view_count": 1402
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think the 得意とする is a formal/literary version of 得意にする or 得意にしている, which\nmeans \"得意と見なす, 得意だと考える or 得意だと[位置]{いち}づける, consider ~~ as your strong point\".\nI think the ~~とする means \"~~と考える, ~~と見なす, to regard something as~~, to consider\nsomething as~~\", \"位置づける, to rank, to place(?)\" or \"~~だと[主張]{しゅちょう}する, to claim\nthat something is~~.\" \nThe ところ is \"[部分]{ぶぶん}, part\", maybe \"the part of you\"... So\nあなたが(orの)得意とするところは何ですかorどこですか? would literally be like, \"What is the part of\nyou which you consider as your strong point?\"",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-19T09:51:42.677",
"id": "6521",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-20T14:04:13.257",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-20T14:04:13.257",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": null,
"parent_id": "6517",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6517
| null |
6521
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6520",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm unsure of how to use this word 「キレる」. When I looked up the definition, it\nsays something along the lines of \"to get angry\" or \"to lose one's temper\".\n\nWhere does this word come from? I'm somewhat confused at the combination of\nkatakana 「キレ」 + hiragana 「る」. Does the origin of the word explain this?",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-19T07:00:23.850",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6519",
"last_activity_date": "2012-10-02T15:56:38.120",
"last_edit_date": "2012-10-02T15:56:38.120",
"last_editor_user_id": "29",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 13,
"tags": [
"etymology",
"slang"
],
"title": "Where does the word キレる come from?",
"view_count": 1787
}
|
[
{
"body": "The word is kire-ru. Like most 下一段, it naturally derives from the 下二段 verb\nkir-u. It is properly written 切れる. Consider the word 途切れる. You may think of it\nas \"堪えていた気持ちが途切れて, and now I'm pissed\".\n\nAs for why it may be written as キレる: it is slang, and the katakana emphasizes\nthis. The final -ru conjugates, so leaving it in hiragana is most natural.\n\nAlso note that there is 半切れ (or 半ギレ, if you prefer) in which one may suddenly\nraise their voice at someone as if they were mad in response to a comment.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-19T07:20:53.290",
"id": "6520",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-19T07:20:53.290",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1141",
"parent_id": "6519",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 12
},
{
"body": "[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AD%E3%83%AC%E3%82%8B) lists\n@Chocolate's theory that it comes from 堪忍袋の緒が切れる as a plausible one, another\none being the image of rage causing a vein to become apparent on one's\nforehead (a symbol often used in cartoons), and this vein \"popping\".\n\nMany slang words are written with katakana occasionally: バレる, ドジる, チクる etc.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-20T02:19:20.870",
"id": "6523",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-20T07:10:43.307",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-20T07:10:43.307",
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "6519",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
6519
|
6520
|
6520
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6534",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "In the [7th\nbook](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AD%A6%E5%9C%92%E9%BB%99%E7%A4%BA%E9%8C%B2_HIGHSCHOOL_OF_THE_DEAD#.E7.AC.AC7.E5.B7.BB)\nof the awesome [High School of the\nDead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highschool_of_the_Dead), there's this\npage:\n\n\n\nThe situation is that the main characters, a group of mostly teenagers who are\nsurviving a zombie apocalypse, are walking through a neighbourhood where some\nof them used to live.\n\nThe character with the sword, Saeko, says `〈奴ら〉になっているのは君たちの隣人だ……`. Meaning,\n\"The people in this area that have turned into zombies are your neighbours...\"\n_(Not an exact translation, of course - I'm adding more context to help\nclarify the situation.)_ She's saying that she should go forward and be in a\nposition to kill zombies because if the other team members recognize a zombie\nas someone they used to know, then they might hesitate.\n\nAnother character, Takashi, who is one of the people who used to live in the\narea responds `……家族をやれるか／ということですか／必要ならきっとーー`. \"You mean if we have to kill\nsomeone from our family? If we have to we'll definitely...\"\n\nSaeko cuts him off and says\n`[友]{・}[達]{・}[と]{・}[家]{・}[族]{・}[は]{・}[違]{・}[う]{・}[よ]{・}？`\n\nThat's where I get a little bit lost on the nuance. I get that the baseline of\nwhat she's saying is, \"friends and family are different\", which I think can be\nextrapolated more specifically to, \"killing family and killing friends is\ndifferent.\"\n\nBut, **because it ends in`よ`, which to me seems like an assertion, but the\nsentence also ends with a question mark**, I'm not sure if it's a _rhetorical_\nquestion as a statement or a _sincere_ question. As a response, Takeshi thinks\nto a moment when he had to kill a friend, but since I'm not sure of her\nstatement, I'm not sure of the meaning of his reaction.\n\nIs she saying \"Killing family and killing friends is different, don't you\nagree?\" Meaning that of course, it's different, so you shouldn't think you can\njust because you had to kill your friend before. Takeshi was able to actually\nkill his friend, but maybe Saeko is saying killing family is harder.\n\nMaybe she's asking \"Is killing friends and killing family different?\" leaving\nit open for Takeshi to consider the difference. Maybe Takeshi then just\nreflects on how hard it was to kill his friend, even though he eventually did\nit, and realizes that killing his family will be a challenge.\n\nOr maybe she's saying \"What's so different about killing friends and killing\nfamily?\" Meaning _both_ are difficult. Takeshi then remembers killing his\nfriend, and this steels his resolve to face up to killing people he might\nremember.\n\nOr maybe it's something else entirely. Is what Saeko is saying a genuine\nquestion? What exactly is the subtext of it?\n\nAlso, her words all have dots beside them, indicating emphasis (my\nunderstanding of these kinds of dots is that they're like using italics in\nEnglish). Is the emphasis for the benefit of the character Takeshi, or for the\nreader? And how does the emphasis impact the meaning?",
"comment_count": 8,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-20T09:24:56.080",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6524",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-21T15:45:25.743",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-21T02:42:44.597",
"last_editor_user_id": "119",
"owner_user_id": "119",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"nuances"
],
"title": "How do I interpret this question that ends with よ?",
"view_count": 1562
}
|
[
{
"body": "Still no replies... well, I'll give it a shot.\n\nApparently my intuition about what counts as a \"question\" or a \"rhetorical\nquestion\" or \"not a question\" is absolutely useless, so instead of attempting\nto describe things with those terms, I will answer this with some potentially\ninteresting usages of the question mark in Japanese and my best attempt at\ntranslating them.\n\nFor the purposes of the translations, I'd like to add that I speak British\nEnglish, and also I play loosely with the question mark where some people are\na lot more strict. I'm perfectly happy with forms such as this in English:\n\n> We will proceed with the next item on the agenda, unless there are any\n> questions? No? OK, moving\n> along...[*](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/5619/is-the-\n> question-mark-misused-in-affirmative-sentences)\n>\n> You can join me if you like? _(implied question: would you like to join\n> me?)_\n>\n> Yeah, I thought our team played really well. And, that other match? It went\n> to the final game!\n\nUnderstanding these usages might help understand what Japanese is doing with\nthe question mark.\n\nMoving on then:\n\n* * *\n\n> ……どうします？ 保留でも結構です **よ？**\n>\n> What's your choice? Holding back is also acceptable? _(rising tone)_\n\nThis corresponds to your example sentence. It's information (よ) with an added\nnuance of \"you might want to incorporate this information into your decisions\nperhaps?\"\n\nYou could add \"you know?\" to this sentence, but if you make a habit of doing\nthat it can become quite repetitive in translation. Depending on how you treat\nquestion marks in English, you may even prefer not to use one here.\n\n\"You know?\" isn't a perfect match -- this sentence isn't explicitly asking\n\"did you know what I just told you?\", and you can't reply to it with an いいえ\nand expect people to infer \"I didn't know that.\"\n\n> ハシゴ、しっかり押さえててくれよ。 あと、ちゃんと上を見てろ **よ？** 俺が手を滑らせて、この金槌を落っことしちまうかもしれねぇからなぁ\n>\n> Hold the ladder steady for me. And make sure to look up, yeah? If my hand\n> slips I might drop this hammer on you.\n\nNo response is particularly called for by the question mark. This isn't a \"you\nknow?\" but just something indicating \"this bit's important, I hope you got\nit!\"\n\n> あらぁ、必要な話 **よぅ？** だって遺産相続は、その時点で直ちに行なわれなきゃならないもの **よ？**\n>\n> Oh, but this discussion is _necessary_! (you know?) After all, the\n> succession of inheritance has to be performed immediately, then and there!\n> (you know?)\n\nAn example of how constantly translating as \"you know?\" can get ridiculous.\nThe speaker's tone throughout the sentences, added by the two よ？s, is \"Do you\nrealize that your position doesn't stand in light of the facts? Are you sure\nyou know what you're talking about?\", but adding \"you know?\" constantly is\nlike adding 、分かってる？ constantly to the Japanese. It's not supposed to be that\nexplicit.\n\n> …それより、聞いたぞ聞いた **ぞ？** 二人きりで旅行に行ったとな。\n>\n> But never mind that... a little bird told me you two went on vacation\n> together!\n\nAgain I feel like \"you know?\" is misplaced here. The question mark corresponds\nto a raised pitch on each of the ぞs, what might be a \"light taunting\" emphasis\non the words \"a little bird told me\" in English. The tone that indicates you\nknow something significant about the listener.\n\n> 恋の資格 **はね？** 自分だけが与えられるの。\n>\n> The right to love, you know(?), only you can give it to yourself.\n\nNo response is called for at the point of the question mark, and in fact it\nwould be rude to interject, as the speaker is just about to make her point.\n\n> 人生の成功者の余生なんだから、どう過ごそうと勝手だと、周りは温かく **？** 見守ったそうだが‥‥‥\n>\n> These being the few remaining years of a person successful in life, those\n> around him \"warmly\"(?) watched over him, feeling the time was his to spend\n> as he pleased--or so I hear, but...\n\nThe implication of the question mark is that the author or speaker is unsure\nthat 温かく really does describe the situation accurately.\n\n* * *\n\nAs for the dots, it implies the character is saying it in a bit more of a\n\"weighty\" fashion. The added \"importance\" of the line is intended to be\nperceived by both the reader and the characters. Sometimes there will be\nemphasis dots in a person's internal thoughts; the same applies there, it\nindicates that the character thinking those words considers them the important\npart of the sentence.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T15:13:35.870",
"id": "6534",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-21T15:45:25.743",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "315",
"parent_id": "6524",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
6524
|
6534
|
6534
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6527",
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "* 早く行った方が良かったでしょう。\n\nHere, if we take it apart we shall have:\n\n * 早く(Adverb) 行った(Verb, Past tense) 方(?) が(GA, Subject particle) 良かったでしょう(Verb, Past tense) 。\n\nWhat is the function of 方 in this position? I've read that it can be suffix,\nsuffix of what?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-20T10:17:58.327",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6525",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-30T23:40:38.713",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-30T23:40:38.713",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "1710",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 4,
"tags": [
"comparative-constructions"
],
"title": "What is 方 used for in 早く行った方が良かったでしょう?",
"view_count": 619
}
|
[
{
"body": "A方{ほう}がB means \"more B if A\" or \"B-er if A\":\n\n> 早く行った **方が良かった** でしょう。 \n> It _would have been better_ [more good] if (we/you/I etc) had gone early,\n> would it not?\n\nThe 方 here indicates a direction/side when comparing 2 or more things, in this\ncase implying going early would have been better than going later.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-20T11:11:39.110",
"id": "6527",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-30T23:35:11.953",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-30T23:35:11.953",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "796",
"parent_id": "6525",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 8
},
{
"body": "I agree with Cypher's explanation, and with the definition of 方 as a noun.\n\nI would like to propose an alternative translation of the sentence:\n\n> 早く行った方が良かったでしょう。\n>\n> \"The sooner you went, the better.\"\n>\n> \"The sooner you had gone, the better.\"\n>\n> \"It probably would have been better if you had gone sooner.\"",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-20T16:38:38.343",
"id": "6528",
"last_activity_date": "2022-01-30T23:36:34.780",
"last_edit_date": "2022-01-30T23:36:34.780",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "706",
"parent_id": "6525",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6525
|
6527
|
6527
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6532",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "I keep running into this symbol: ※\n\nWhat is it, exactly? How is it used?\n\nAccording to this\n[Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_typographic_symbols#Other_special_marks)\nlink on Japanese typographic symbols, this `※` is called `米{こめ}` or\n`米印{こめじるし}`. It is used in notes as a reference mark, similar to an asterisk.\n\nWith that being said, I seem to find it in situations where there is more to\nit then a simple asterisk, and I'd really like to hear from people who are\nmore familiar with it.\n\nThe specific example that prompted my question is in my grammar workbook,\nthere are several grammar patterns/points on a page, along with relevant\nexplanations and example sentences. One example sentence goes like this:\n\n> 例文 ： xxxxxxxxxxxxxx[grammar pattern]。 ※[grammar point variation]\n\n(I'll give the exact sentence at the bottom, but I thought it would be better\nto keep it generic as to not confuse the question.)\n\nI take it to mean both are valid, but I wonder if it means that the secondary\none is not correct. Also, I realize that this may vary from book to book, but\nI wonder if there is a standard for this sort of thing.\n\nThe exact sentence was: 今の成績では合格する可能性などありはしない。 ※合格などできはしない",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T03:08:11.897",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6530",
"last_activity_date": "2023-05-21T21:38:07.387",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-24T09:43:28.827",
"last_editor_user_id": "501",
"owner_user_id": "921",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 21,
"tags": [
"usage",
"punctuation"
],
"title": "What exactly is this ※ symbol, and what does it mean/how is it used?",
"view_count": 26013
}
|
[
{
"body": "This is the excerpt I found\n[here](http://www.jekai.org/entries/aa/00/nn/aa00nn28.htm):\n\n> The symbol ※, called 米印（こめじるし）, literally \"rice symbol,\" is used in Japanese\n> texts to introduce comments and remarks. Unlike the asterisk (*) in English,\n> ※ is usually not used to link an item in the body of the text to a footnote.\n> Rather, the purpose of ※ is to draw the reader's attention to an instruction\n> or precaution or to indicate that some information is subsidiary or\n> parenthetical to the main text. For this reason, it is usually not\n> appropriate to replace ※ with an asterisk in texts translated from Japanese\n> to English (and it is almost never appropriate to leave ※ intact in English\n> texts).\n>\n> When they do link body text to footnotes, ※s are often used with Arabic\n> numerals, such as ※1, ※2, etc. In translations, these, too, should be\n> replaced with suitable English footnote markers.\n\nLike that page states, I would guess that the information after the ※ in your\nexample is to give information that is parenthetical.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T03:37:49.000",
"id": "6532",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-21T03:37:49.000",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"parent_id": "6530",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 19
},
{
"body": "In Japan it is used as a sign for rice sellers and coin operated rice washing\nmachines.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2015-02-06T02:15:44.553",
"id": "21662",
"last_activity_date": "2015-02-06T02:15:44.553",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "9318",
"parent_id": "6530",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "As stated above, the _komejirushi_ or Reference Mark ( **※** , Unicode 203B)\nis generally used preceding an additional comment or supplemental information.\nThe best way to translate it into English is to write **Note:** (including the\ncolon) followed by a translation of the comment text. Other possibilities\ninclude **Attention** or **Important**.\n\nI have seen translations leave the _komejirushi_ as-is, but it is not a symbol\nwith a generally recognized meaning in English. Others \"translate\" it as an\nasterisk, as if the two symbols are interchangeable, but that is true only\nwhen it is used as a footnote marker, which is rare. See below.\n\nThe name \"Reference Mark\" suggests the symbol could also be translated\n\"Reference,\" often abbreviated \"Ref.,\" or \"For Reference (Only).\" Although\nwidely used by Japanese, these terms do not usually fit the actual meaning\nwell. Another possible translation is \"Reference information,\" also a bit off-\ntarget in most cases, besides being wordy and stilted. One might consider\n\"Refer to (...)\" if there is a citation of some document or page number, but\nthat is also almost never the way it is used. (The Japanese term for Reference\nis 参照 _sanshou_ and when there is a source listed it can simply be translated\n\"See\" or \"Source.\")\n\nThe _komejirushi_ is also used to preface a proviso, condition, or an\nexception to a rule. In this case as well, the translation **Note(:)** can\nserve. Other possibilities are **Caution** , **Warning** , or **Exception** ,\nfollowed by a colon and the comment.\n\nThe abbreviation **N.B.** for the Latin _nota bene_ (\"note well\") may also be\nused, but many people are unfamiliar with this somewhat bookish term. In many\ncases, it would be fine to simply use the word **However** followed by a comma\nand the comment.\n\nThere are the rare cases where the _komejirushi_ is actually inserted to mark\na footnote. If used in isolation and in a matched pair (with the symbol\ninserted both immediately following the text and preceding the footnote), an\nasterisk **(*)** is the correct translation. But in some cases the\n_komejirushi_ is used for multiple footnotes and accompanied by a number\n(Arabic numeral), such as \"※１\", etc. For one or two footnotes on a page, an\nasterisk and then a double-asterisk (**) with no numerals is the preferred\nsolution.\n\nFinally, there is an old custom of using the dagger ( **†** ) and then a\ndouble dagger ( **‡** ) for the third and fourth footnotes when there are not\nmore than four in all. A more modern method may be to use only superscript\nnumbers with no asterisks or daggers. (However, if the footnoted items are\nactually numerical data, it is preferable to use either asterisks and daggers\nor alphabetical superscripts.)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2023-05-21T21:08:45.827",
"id": "99710",
"last_activity_date": "2023-05-21T21:38:07.387",
"last_edit_date": "2023-05-21T21:38:07.387",
"last_editor_user_id": "56587",
"owner_user_id": "56587",
"parent_id": "6530",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
}
] |
6530
|
6532
|
6532
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "> 初めて日本に行った時、友達のお母さんが伝統的な和式朝食を作ってくれました。\n>\n> The first time I went to Japan, my friend's mother made me a traditional\n> Japanese breakfast.\n\nIf I wrote the opening of the sentence in the following manner, how would the\nmeaning change?\n\n> 最初に日本に行った時、\n\nor\n\n> 最初日本に行った時、\n\nIn this context, what is the difference between 初めて, 最初に and 最初?",
"comment_count": 10,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T15:49:30.050",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6535",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T03:01:06.043",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "706",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 9,
"tags": [
"words"
],
"title": "The difference between 初めて, 最初に and 最初",
"view_count": 5868
}
|
[
{
"body": "`最初に` sounds wrong in your example. `最初日本に行った時` I believe is correct. The\nadditional `に` is only needed if the \"first\" is like in a list of steps, or\ndescribing who/what is the first to do something.\n\n> * 最初彼に会ったときにはあまり強い印象を受けなかった。 → The first time I met him, he did not make\n> much of an impression on me.\n> * まず最初 **に** ゆでて，次に味付けする。 → First boil it and then season it.\n> * 最初 **に** 到着したのはトムだった。 → Tom was the first to arrive (\"The first to\n> arrive was Tom\").\n>\n\nOther than that point, assuming your second sentence is then just `最初日本に行った時`,\nthen they basically mean the same thing. The only thing I would say is that\n`最初` kind of implies many times, whereas `初めて` doesn't necessarily imply any\nnumber of repetitions. At least that's the feeling I get from them, but that\ncould just be me.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T17:09:46.497",
"id": "6537",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-21T17:09:46.497",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "6535",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "Here is my reasoning.\n\n最初 refers to the beginning of a time period or to the beginning of a series of\nevents. (Cf. 日本に来たばかりのとき...)\n\nAs istrasci pointed out in his answer, the additional に strengthens the time\nreference. (Cf. 日曜日街に行く vs. 日曜日に街に行く.)\n\n初めて is used, as far as I can tell exclusively, for things you do for the first\ntime. (Cf. 初めて見た.)\n\nThe difference between\n\n```\n\n 初めて日本に行ったとき、\n 最初日本に行ったとき、\n \n```\n\nis maybe best reflected in English as\n\n```\n\n When I went to Japan for the first time, [the first thing I did was to find a convenience store and eat natto and I loved it.]\n When I first went to Japan, [I could hardly understand a word of what people said.]\n \n```\n\nIn the first sentence, you talk about what Japan was like for you, as a first\nimpression. In the second sentence, you simply talk about the time period,\nwhich coincides with your arrival in Japan.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T03:01:06.043",
"id": "6560",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T03:01:06.043",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "6535",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6535
| null |
6560
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "So I was reading _A Dictionary of Basic Japanese Grammar_ , and in the part\nwhere it explains the uses of いる as an auxiliary verb after て it says\nsomething like that: \"(...) Also, verbs like 言う and 思う with a third person\nsubject require the ~ている pattern if the sentence expresses a present state.\"\nAnd then there's this example sentence:\n\n> ウエストさんは日本語がやさしいと思っている。\n\nMy question is: why does it have to be 思っている? And can I use 思っている as well when\nspeaking in the first person, or is it wrong?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T20:17:00.603",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6538",
"last_activity_date": "2021-12-27T22:32:54.160",
"last_edit_date": "2021-12-27T22:32:54.160",
"last_editor_user_id": "30454",
"owner_user_id": "1392",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 11,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"verbs"
],
"title": "思っている/言っている with a third person subject?",
"view_count": 3131
}
|
[
{
"body": "This seems to be \"just a rule\", there's some discussion of it [at this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3708/who-is-doing-the-\nthinking).\n\nSome surrounding thoughts to think about though. Non-stative verbs in the\nplain form are interpreted as talking about the future, unless the action is\ngeneric or habitual. `ジョンが食べる` means either \"John will eat\", or \"John\neats(habitually/regularly)\". To talk about an activity that continues, you\nswitch to the stative form ～ている. (See Derek's excellent coverage\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/3140/29))\n\nIn the case of 言う or 思う, the non-past seems to have an implication of \"I\n(typically) say\" or \"I (tend to) think\". Moving that to the stative seems to\npick up an implication of \"I (obstinately) say ...\", or \"I'm (stuck)\nthinking...\". It seems to be polite to emphasize the ephemeral nature of your\nown statements or thoughts.\n\nConfusingly, the structure that implies boorishness in oneself is seen as a\nvirtue of consistency in someone else.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T21:58:50.903",
"id": "6540",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-22T16:17:24.437",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "29",
"parent_id": "6538",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
6538
| null |
6540
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6543",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "Is the って in the following sentence equivalent to 「と」 as in AはBと変わる／違う?\n\n> 昔から好きな曲って変わらないみたい。\n>\n> My favourite songs have not changed for many years.\n\nDoes this mean it is equivalent to the と used for quotations.",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T22:11:43.537",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6541",
"last_activity_date": "2014-03-20T07:03:41.273",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"grammar",
"synonyms",
"particle-と",
"quotes",
"particle-って"
],
"title": "Is this って equivalent to 「と」?",
"view_count": 1985
}
|
[
{
"body": "I think it can be replaced with `は` and `というのは` here, as in `[2] [1]` at [this\nDaijisen\ndefinition](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=12427100).\n\n* * *\n\nAccording to the `日本語文型辞典`, this `って` indicates a subject, and can be an\ninformal way in speech to state meanings/definitions or to add value/emphasis.\n\nWhen used after nouns and adjectives to state meanings/definitions, this `って`\ncan correspond with `とは`. When used after verbs, it can correspond with\n`のは…だ`, and `の` can be added or omitted, as in the following example:\n\n> 都会で一人で暮らす（の）って、大変です。 \n> \"Living alone in the city is difficult.\"\n\n**Edit:** Tried to update with more information.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T22:31:57.090",
"id": "6543",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T07:15:56.060",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-23T07:15:56.060",
"last_editor_user_id": "796",
"owner_user_id": "796",
"parent_id": "6541",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
},
{
"body": "It's quite the equivalent of \"you know\" in colloquial English.\n\n> One's favourite song, you know, it seems never to change.\n\nAs such, it's quite a theme particle, as @cypher mentioned.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-22T01:11:55.723",
"id": "6548",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-22T01:11:55.723",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "356",
"parent_id": "6541",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "I believe this って is the casual variant of と.\n\n> “The quotative particle **to** has a slightly more casual equivalent **tte**\n> ( **te** following **n** ) which occurs very commonly in spoken language\n> when linked with the verbal **iu**.”\n\nThat said, って doesn't have to be bound to an explicit predicate.\n\n> “/ **X + (t)te** / may occur as a more casual equivalent of / **X + to ~\n> (t)te iû no wa** /”\n\n[Japanese: The Spoken Language, part 2, lesson 18B, structural\npatterns](http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300041880)",
"comment_count": 9,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-22T08:47:52.970",
"id": "6551",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-22T18:26:12.623",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-22T18:26:12.623",
"last_editor_user_id": "1634",
"owner_user_id": "1634",
"parent_id": "6541",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": -3
}
] |
6541
|
6543
|
6543
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6549",
"answer_count": 3,
"body": "What is the つく used at the end of this sentence?\n\n> 友人の仕事は危険で、汚くて、おまけに\n> きついらしい。ちなみにそういう仕事は俗に「３K」と呼ばれている。要するに「き」、すなわち「K」が３つつくというわけだ\n>\n> My friend's work is dangerous, dirty and tough. It is incidentally the kind\n> of work referred to as 3K because, without going into detail it has the\n> characteristics of the three きs or Ks.\n\n(The content of this sentence provide provide challenges for translation but I\nwant to focus on the つく, which could be a big subject in itself but to make\nthis question striaght forward, I wondered, is it 付く as in the following\nexample?:\n\n> この書棚には二つ引き出しが付いている｜This bookcase has two drawers.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-21T22:39:51.570",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6544",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-22T02:22:56.617",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"usage"
],
"title": "What is the つく used at the end of this sentence",
"view_count": 270
}
|
[
{
"body": "Yes, I think that it is fair to say that つく in the first example is used in\nthe same meaning as つく in the second example.\n\nI think that you are confused because you are assuming that き or “k” describes\nsomething about danger, dirtiness, and toughness. No, it refers to the words\nthemselves: **き** けん ( **k** iken), **き** たない ( **k** itanai), and **き** つい (\n**k** itsui) all begin with き, or with “k” if written in romaji. That is, all\nof these words have き (or k) in them.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-22T00:00:16.413",
"id": "6545",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-22T00:00:16.413",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "15",
"parent_id": "6544",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
},
{
"body": "> What is the つく used at the end of this sentence?\n\nRoughly, to come with, to have, to possess… The sentence says that the \"3K\njobs\", are those that bear the three \"ki{ken,tanai,tui}\".\n\nI also think that the meaning is the same as in the other sentence, although\nI'm not sure you'd use the kanji 付く in the first one. There might be a slight\nnuance, but I'm not 100% sure.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-22T01:09:38.253",
"id": "6547",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-22T01:09:38.253",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "356",
"parent_id": "6544",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 1
},
{
"body": "The rough meaning of つく in the two sentences is the same, but they're used in\nslightly different ways.\n\nIn この書棚には二つ引き出しが付いている the perfective aspect is used. The ている form of つく, a\nchange-of-state verb, expresses the \"state of having attached\", i.e. \"has\".\nNote that この書棚には二つ引き出しが付く would change the meaning.\n\nIn 「K」が３つつく, the simple form is used, i.e. the general/habitual aspect. This\naspect is often used when つく is used to mean \"The word has the letter X\", e.g.\n\"knife には k がつきます\".",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-22T02:22:56.617",
"id": "6549",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-22T02:22:56.617",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1073",
"parent_id": "6544",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
6544
|
6549
|
6549
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "> **Possible Duplicate:** \n> [と言っても vs とは言え\n> .](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2030/%e3%81%a8%e8%a8%80%e3%81%a3%e3%81%a6%e3%82%82-vs-%e3%81%a8%e3%81%af%e8%a8%80%e3%81%88)\n\nApparently they mean the same thing (although, that being said) and yet there\nare cases when only one of them can be used. For example:\n梅雨とはいえ、これほど雨が続くのも珍しい。",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-22T02:56:06.613",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6550",
"last_activity_date": "2012-09-11T16:16:53.357",
"last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "399",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 10,
"tags": [
"word-choice"
],
"title": "What is the difference between とはいえ and と(は)いっても?",
"view_count": 869
}
|
[
{
"body": "The subtle difference between the two expressions is that とはいっても sounds a bit\nmore emphatic about providing evidence that appears contrary to the sentence\nthat precedes it. For example, when you say\n\n> エール卒とはいえ、ブッシュ大統領は知的にみえなかった。\n>\n> エール卒とはいっても、ブッシュ大統領は知的にみえなかった。\n\nThe latter sounds a bit more emphatic. I am sure these are not the most\neffective ways to translate them, but you see a subtle difference in the\nconnotations when I translate as follows:\n\n> President Bush was a Yale graduate but did not appear intelligent.\n>\n> Despite being a Yale graduate, President Bush did not appear intelligent.\n\nThe former sounds more neutral whereas the latter sounds more emphatic.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-09-11T04:39:41.947",
"id": "6766",
"last_activity_date": "2012-09-11T16:16:53.357",
"last_edit_date": "2012-09-11T16:16:53.357",
"last_editor_user_id": "162",
"owner_user_id": "1692",
"parent_id": "6550",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 9
}
] |
6550
| null |
6766
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6553",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm trying to translate some Japanese text I found to English (I'm very\nbeginner, and self-learning). There are two columns of Japanese; on the left:\n\n私\n\nい\n\n日\n\n本\n\nが\n\nand on the right:\n\n大\n\n子\n\nき\n\nで\n\nす\n\nI divided these columns into blocks, as follow:\n\n私い = I (with Hiragana い used to strengthen the \"I\")\n\n日本 = Japan\n\nが = and\n\n大 = large\n\n子 = child\n\nき = ki\n\nです = copula (\"is\")\n\nSo, I'd translate it something like \"I'm Japanese, and a large child is the\nki\", but I'm not sure this is the correct translation. For example, what does\nき \"ki\" exactly mean? Does it mean spiritual energy? And, if so, why it is not\nwritten this way 気 ?\n\nAnd is it correct to consider が as \"and\"? I found on an online dictionary that\nが can indicate sentence subject (so would Japan be the subject in this case?\nIf so, how to reconstruct the phrase?)",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-22T09:50:49.990",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6552",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-22T15:40:04.407",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1635",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 1,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Translation doubts (が, き...)",
"view_count": 289
}
|
[
{
"body": "As the commenters above have mentioned, the sentence is likely\n\n> 私 **は** 日本が大好きです (Watashi wa Nihon ga dai-suki desu)\n\nIf this is indeed what it was, `好き` (\"suki\") means \"to like\" (very loosely).\nThe kanji `好` means \"good\", \"likeable\", etc., and the accompanying `き` is\n[okurigana](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okurigana) for the whole word `すき`. I\nwon't go into the details of okurigana here since that link explains it pretty\nwell.\n\nIn Japanese, to say \"like X\", the pattern is `Xが好き`. In this case, the `が` is\na subject marker. Often, `が` indicates a specific thing/example; what I like\nto refer to as a \"specifier\". So in the pattern `Xが好き`, \"X\" is the thing\nspecified as being liked.\n\nAs for `大好き` (\"dai-suki\"), as you noted, the kanji `大` means\n\"large\"/\"big\"/\"great\". So `大好き` means to really like/love (not romantic love)\nsomething a lot.\n\nSo broken down, the sentence is\n\n> 私は (As for me) 日本 (Japan) が (is what) 大好き (I really like)です。 → \"I really\n> like Japan!\" or \"I love Japan!\"\n\nHope this helps!",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-22T15:18:01.823",
"id": "6553",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-22T15:40:04.407",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-22T15:40:04.407",
"last_editor_user_id": "78",
"owner_user_id": "78",
"parent_id": "6552",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 7
}
] |
6552
|
6553
|
6553
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I found this example sentence in grammar book:\n\n> 門の前に車が止まっています。 A car is parked in front of the gate.\n\nI was told that instead of 止まる, 停まる would be a more accurate fit for \"parked\".\nDoes that mean the original would mean- \"A car is stopped in front of the\ngate.\"?\n\nFurthermore, I was told that the correct way to translate the original English\nsentence would be\n\n> 門の前に車が停まっています。\n\nLooking at that, I wondered the right way to say: \"A car is being parked in\nfront of the gate.\"\n\nThese are the responses I got from Japanese natives. Please tell me if all of\nthem are correct translations or which one is the most accurate.\n\n> A car is being parked in front of the gate.\n>\n> 門の前に車が停まろうとしています。\n>\n> 門の前に車が止まろうとしています。\n>\n> 門の前に車が停められつつあります。 (*written language)\n>\n> 門の前に車が止められつつあります。 (*written language)\n>\n> 門の前に車が駐車しようとしています。\n>\n> 門の前に車が今ちょっと停まっています。\n>\n> 門の前に車が停められようとしています。\n\nI guess I am confused because it is my understanding that -ろうとしています can mean\n\"trying to -\" as well is \"verb-ing\". If 門の前に車が停められつつあります is the most accurate\nway to translate the sentence, what would be the most common, colloquial way?\n\nBonus question- are any of these examples of げんざいしんこうけい 【現在進行形】?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T00:56:06.247",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6554",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T03:21:39.830",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "706",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 3,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "More fun with the present progressive",
"view_count": 323
}
|
[
{
"body": "Here is a partial answer.\n\n停めようとしています does not only mean trying to park, but also being about to park,\ni.e. the parking process is still on-going (e.g. the car is backing up into\nthe parking slot).\n\n停まっています means the car is parked (and not moving).\n\n駐車する is a slightly more formal way of saying 停まる.\n\nAs for 停まる vs. 止まる, the first is more of a holding, stopping (like a train\nstopping), whereas 止まる means physical non-motion. Depending on the context,\nboth have their place.\n\nParking lots often use 停まる, because for the parking lot, a customer is\nstopping his car there, before he moves on. An external observer, like in your\nexample sentence, just notices that a car is parked (i.e. not moving) in front\nof the gate, in which case 止まる is the better choice.\n\nStop me if I am getting to pedantic, but since the car is parked in front of a\ngate, it is most unlikely that it is parked in a parking lot (after all a gate\nis for going through, not for parking in front of it). Thus 停まる is almost\ncertainly the wrong choice, because 停まる implies stopping at an intended spot\nfor stopping (again, like the bus is expected to stop (停まる) at a bus stop).\n\nBonus question: The terminology 現在進行形 is used for the present progressive\ntense, which does not exist as a tense in Japanese and thus does not apply to\nJapanese (although the Japanese equivalent would be っている). So the sentence \"A\ncar is being parked in front of the gate\" is the only example of the 現在進行形.\nSee the Japanese Wikipedia article `http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/進行形` for the\nprogressive tense (進行形). (No direct link: SE seems to dislike Unicode URLs...)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T01:21:31.790",
"id": "6555",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T03:21:39.830",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-23T03:21:39.830",
"last_editor_user_id": "1638",
"owner_user_id": "1638",
"parent_id": "6554",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
},
{
"body": "> Does that mean the original would mean- \"A car is stopped in front of the\n> gate.\"?\n\nNo, if you were told that, the person that told you that **is wrong**. If you\nlook it up in [the\ndictionary](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/160171/m0u/), you will see a\nlittle triangle `▽停まる` besides the 停 form. This means that the 停まる form is\n常用外. Here is a little snapshot from my windows ime showing this:\n\n\n\nNote the *常用外.\n\nHowever, many people mix this up because 停 is used in words like 停止, バス停, etc.\nThis means your first example 止まる is perfectly fine and there is no difference\nin meaning. Given the above, I would say 門の前に車が止まろうとしています。is most appropriate\nfor your translation.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T01:29:19.840",
"id": "6556",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T01:29:19.840",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6554",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 3
}
] |
6554
| null |
6555
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6559",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When are `止める`, `停める` and `留める` read as `とめる` or `とどめる` (and in the case of\n`止める`, `やめる`)?\n\nI think `止めてください` could be read as both `やめてください` and `とめてください`, which I think\ncould maybe be translated as \"cut it out\" and \"please stop\" in English\nrespectively, but what exactly is the difference in usage and meaning between\n`やめる` and `とめる`?\n\nIs `とどめる` usually written in Hiragana, and if not in what contexts do you use\nthat reading rather than the others?\n\nWhat exactly is the difference in usage between the three Kanji `止`, `停` and\n`留`? (Looking at the Google IME explanation, I think the `止` is used for\ngeneric \"stop\", `停` when used in reference to cars stopping etc. `留` I'm not\n100% on, but I think it might have something to do with \"making something\nstay\"/\"detaining\" looking at the [Yahoo J-E\ndefinition](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E7%95%99%E3%82%81%E3%82%8B&dtype=3&dname=2na&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=03104800).)",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T01:40:08.747",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6557",
"last_activity_date": "2019-08-23T06:19:09.570",
"last_edit_date": "2019-08-23T06:19:09.570",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "796",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 16,
"tags": [
"word-choice",
"kanji",
"verbs",
"readings"
],
"title": "When are 止める, 停める and 留める read as とめる, やめる or とどめる?",
"view_count": 1968
}
|
[
{
"body": "The verbs やめる and とめる are different verbs, although related \"in spirit\", which\nis the only excuse for writing them with the same 漢字.\n\nTry to think of やめる as \"to quit\", as in \"to quit doing something\" or \"to quit\nwork\". やめる is almost always written in かな. For quitting work you are allowed\nto use 辞める.\n\nとめる (written 止める) means physical stopping and it is thus clear from the\ncontext, whether 止める should be read やめる or とめる. You can quit work, quit\nsmoking (たばこをやめる), but both are abstract concepts and cannot be stopped\nphysically.\n\n留める is more of a staying behind, as in 記憶に留める \"to keep sth. in mind\" and has\nlittle to do with physical non-motion, written 止, or stopping (at a bus stop,\nsay), written 停.",
"comment_count": 4,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T02:01:41.647",
"id": "6559",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T02:10:14.770",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-23T02:10:14.770",
"last_editor_user_id": "1628",
"owner_user_id": "1628",
"parent_id": "6557",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 18
}
] |
6557
|
6559
|
6559
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 2,
"body": "I'm familiar with 「という」 and was somewhat confused why I saw 「のいう」 in the\nfollowing sentence:\n\n> 人間対応能力は、ドラッカーのいう「他の人間とともに働く能力」のことです。\n\nWhat is the role of 「のいう」 in this sentence? Is it incorrect to say 「という」? I\nthought that 「の」 is possessive, but I'm unsure of what it means when combined\nwith 「いう」.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T05:03:32.007",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6561",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-26T16:08:12.647",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 7,
"tags": [
"grammar"
],
"title": "What does 「のいう」 mean in this sentence?",
"view_count": 527
}
|
[
{
"body": "Would the の be equivalent to が？\n\nIt seems that this modified phrase is slightly crowded. The event or こと is the\nquotation which is attributed to Drucker in a way that does not take emphasis\naway from the quotation itlself (placing it on Drucker instead).",
"comment_count": 3,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T05:27:23.730",
"id": "6564",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T05:27:23.730",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "6561",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
},
{
"body": "The の is in fact が here. Take the sentence and cut that little phrase to make\nit easier to see: 人間対応能力は、「他の人間とともに働く能力」のことです。The ability to get along with\npeople is \"the ability to work together with other people.\"\n\nNow the author just attributes the quote to Drucker with the short modifying\nphrase ドラッカーのいう. This could be ドラッカーがいう, but の is used in cases where the\nmodifier is kind of subordinate; it marks the subject of the modifying phrase\nbut not of the entire sentence, I guess.\n\nSo basically it works out to: The ability to get along with people is what\nDrucker calls \"the ability to work together with other people.\"\n\nOther examples of the の replacing a が:\n\n犬の舐めたボールを触るな！ Don't touch balls that dogs have licked! (Ok, that example\nsounds dirtier and more awkward than I intended it.)\n\n田中さんの選択した曲がかかってきた時、すごい盛り上がってきた。 When the song that Tanaka-san selected came\non, he got super excited.\n\nI guess a similar situation in English is choosing between that and which in\nmodifying phrases.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-26T16:08:12.647",
"id": "6604",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-26T16:08:12.647",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1648",
"parent_id": "6561",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 5
}
] |
6561
| null |
6604
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6570",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "Is there a basic rule for translating negatives/double negatives that do not\nfeel natural in English. The example I have been struggling is as follows:\n\n> [TOPIXは29年ぶりの安値に沈んでいます。]\n> **この株価水準は、経営者が暴走し、保有する資産を全く活かせずに、毎年赤字を垂れ流すという前提でなければ、説明のつかない水準です。**\n>\n> [TOPIX has fallen to a 29 year low. ] **On the basis that management are not\n> in disarray, assets are being properly used and losses are not being\n> annually hemorrhaged this level cannot be explained.**\n\nI can think of several ways to express the same view but ultimately (if it is\nnot dumb question) should we just choose what we think is the closest natural\nequivalent?\n\nBonus: I have taken a liberty with 暴走, which is not really \"disarray\" but\nseems to fit better. Is this commonly accpetable practice?",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T05:10:41.823",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6562",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T12:09:45.970",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "How should we translate double negatives/negatives that are unnatural in English?",
"view_count": 359
}
|
[
{
"body": "The way I would do it here is to use \"unless\":\n\n>\n> [TOPIXは29年ぶりの安値に沈んでいます。]この株価水準は、経営者が暴走し、保有する資産を全く活かせずに、毎年赤字を垂れ流すという前提でなければ、説明のつかない水準です。\n>\n> [TOPIX has sunk to a 29-year low] The stock price level is unexplainable\n> unless there is the assumption of managers being out of control, absolutely\n> failing to make the best use of the assets which they possess, every year\n> running deficits.",
"comment_count": 6,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T09:12:19.383",
"id": "6570",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T12:09:45.970",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "796",
"parent_id": "6562",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6562
|
6570
|
6570
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6568",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "When translating how does one deal with contrasts best satisfied with English\nexpressions that not the naturally translations from Japanese. In the\nfollowing example:\n\n> 現在の株式市場は、 **日本企業の経営者の正しい戦略や従業員の真摯な勤労に対して* _**、不当に低い評価しか与えていません。_\n> *[したがって、株価は異常に低いと判断しています。]\n>\n> The current stock market is assigning an unjustifiably low value on the\n> dedication of workers and the (correct) strategies adopted by the management\n> of Japanese companies and therefore we consider stock prices to be\n> anomalously low.\n\nI wanted to structure the sentence with \"Given that A, B is...\" because it\nallowed me to connect the full phrases before 「に対して」to the after it. However\nthis is not true equivalent of 「に対して」. Instead I have cheated by putting\n\"correct\" in parentheses but I am not sure what best practice would be.",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T05:13:58.900",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6563",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T06:42:39.020",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 0,
"tags": [
"translation"
],
"title": "Translating contrasts with English expressions that not their naturally equivalents in Japanese",
"view_count": 269
}
|
[
{
"body": "The best practice is to give the listener the best understanding of the\nconcept and not worrying about the actual word for word translations.\nUnderstand both languages well enough to know the different nuances in each\nand when you go to translate, present that thought as if it was your own in\nthe words you would have said it.\n\nI was watching a movie where a guy was shooting at another guy and missed all\nhis shots. He hands the gun to his assistant and says \"dame da kono teppou!\"\nand the English translation was \"It's useless!\" Yes, that was technically\ncorrect, \"dame\" means useless, and used with the motion of handing the gun to\nhis assistant it might have been understood that \"it\" was referring to the\ngun, but the way it came across was \"it is useless to peruse this man any\nfurther.\" Knowing the character and how a similar character in an American\nmovie would have talked, I would have translated it is \"This gun sucks!\" I\nknow the Japanese word for \"Sucks\" was not said, but that was how it should\nhave been translated.",
"comment_count": 2,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T06:42:39.020",
"id": "6568",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T06:42:39.020",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1523",
"parent_id": "6563",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 4
}
] |
6563
|
6568
|
6568
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": "6566",
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "I'm unable to understand the difference between 液体 and 流体. Both sound like\n\"fluid\" to me, while the latter sounds like \"flowing fluid\" (if that makes\nsense). I had thought there was only 気体、液体、and 固体. What is this 流体 and how can\nit be explained?",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T05:33:52.643",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6565",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T05:48:57.157",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 2,
"tags": [
"definitions"
],
"title": "What is the difference between 流体 and 液体?",
"view_count": 120
}
|
[
{
"body": "Is it not the difference between fluid and liquid? The latter can be very\nviscous or \"fluid\"/free flowing?\n\nDefn of fluid: a substance that has no fixed shape and yields easily to\nexternal pressure; a **gas or (esp.) a liquid**\n\nIt is a bit clearer if you look at the origins of the words.\n\nFluid (as an adjective): from French fluide or Latin fluidus, from fluere ‘to\nflow.’ Liquid: from Latin liquidus, from liquere ‘be liquid.’",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T05:40:38.637",
"id": "6566",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T05:48:57.157",
"last_edit_date": "2012-08-23T05:48:57.157",
"last_editor_user_id": "1556",
"owner_user_id": "1556",
"parent_id": "6565",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 6
}
] |
6565
|
6566
|
6566
|
{
"accepted_answer_id": null,
"answer_count": 1,
"body": "First off, I tried looking at the explanation\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/6522/1328). However, the reasons\nfor 我が家 don't seem to apply to 我が身.\n\nHere is the excerpt that doesn't seem to apply from Jesse Good's post:\n\n> The above also applies to 我が母校、我が国、我が家族、我が妻、我が故郷、etc. They all imply that\n> you have a deep relationship, you are proud of them, show affection, etc.\n\nObviously 我が身 is not stated there (possibly intentionally?). I'm unsure how it\nis possible to \"have a deep relationship, be proud of, or show affection\" to\nyourself.\n\nThe sentence that I read:\n\n>\n> だから、自分のことを、なかなか他人に伝えたり、分かってもらえなくて、悲しい思いや、傷ついたりすることも多く、ああ、なんてぼくは損な性質に生まれついたんだろう、と\n> **我が身** が腹立たしく、悔しく思ったことも一度ならずあった。\n\nWhat is the purpose of 「我が身」 in this sentence? Is it possible for it to simply\nbe substituted with 私自身? Also, what is implied by 「我が」 in 「我が身」 that is\ndifferent than the 「我が」 in the examples from the link above?",
"comment_count": 1,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T07:17:40.927",
"favorite_count": 0,
"id": "6569",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T21:31:55.617",
"last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500",
"last_editor_user_id": "-1",
"owner_user_id": "1328",
"post_type": "question",
"score": 5,
"tags": [
"definitions"
],
"title": "What is 我が身 and how is it justified in this sentence?",
"view_count": 313
}
|
[
{
"body": "我が身 in this sentence makes it feel like you are \"looking at yourself from the\noutside\" more than if you would use 私自身. I believe you could substitute わが身\nwith 自分自身 or 私自身, however I think 自分自身 would be a better fit because it feels\nmore 客観的. Also, 我が身 doesn't necessarily mean わたしの身, it actually can refer to\nthe 1st, 2nd and 3rd person. Although the 2nd person usage is archaic and not\nused anymore. So, although it might sound strange to \"have a deep relationship\nwith yourself\", think of the usage as talking about yourself in a somewhat\n\"detached\" way which might help you see the connection better.",
"comment_count": 0,
"content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0",
"creation_date": "2012-08-23T21:31:55.617",
"id": "6580",
"last_activity_date": "2012-08-23T21:31:55.617",
"last_edit_date": null,
"last_editor_user_id": null,
"owner_user_id": "1217",
"parent_id": "6569",
"post_type": "answer",
"score": 2
}
] |
6569
| null |
6580
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.