Datasets:

---

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 3

[ { "body": "From JGram: ～う／ようものなら： もし～ようなことをしたら．．．（大変なことになる） Once if (one) happen to ... ,\nthen (bad consequence).\"\n\nSo the first part of the sentence does not imply the listener is the subject,\nbut the 'that person' in the next part of the sentence instead.\n\nSo basically it is saying: \"You should be careful because if you help that guy\nout once, he will take advantage of that (act) and ask for favors very often.\"", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-28T06:02:42.083", "id": "3836", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-28T06:39:10.667", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-28T06:39:10.667", "last_editor_user_id": "878", "owner_user_id": "878", "parent_id": "3833", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "に応じて has a totally different meaning than what you're thinking of, and can be\nthought of as a separate grammar point or expression. If I had to translate\nit, I'd say it sort of means \"correspond to\" or \"dependent upon.\"\n\nSource (Weblio) --> に応じて ある物事を指し、それと連動して状況が変化するさまなどを指す表現。それ次第で。\n「車の速さに応じてガソリンの消費量が変わる」>> Fuel use will change dependent upon the cars speed.\n\nこたえる actually uses the same Kanji 「応」, and means to live up to expectations or\nrequests.\n\nSource (Yahoo) --> 応える （１）働きかけに対して、それに添うような反応を示す。応じる。報いる。 「期待に―・える」 「要求に―・える」", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-28T06:14:01.973", "id": "3837", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-28T06:14:01.973", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "879", "parent_id": "3835", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Expanding on @TsuyoshiIto's comment above, `がる` basically turns an イ-adjective\n(or \"words which conjugate like\" them, as he states) into a verb. Essentially\nmeans \"acting this way\" or \"behaving in such a way\":\n\n> * 寒【さむ】がる → To be cold (さむがり: a person who is always cold -- like me);\n> \"acting that you are cold\"\n> * 怖【こわ】がる → To be afraid of something; \"behaving such that you are afraid\"\n>\n\nAs a logical following of this, `たがる` is really just the 〜たい form of a verb\n(which conjugates like an イ-adjective) plus `がる`\n\n> * 食べたがる → (\"Acting like\") Wanting to eat\n> * 行きたがる → (\"Acting like\") Wanting to go\n> * 見たがる → (\"Behaving like\") Wanting to see/watch\n>\n\nSince `〜たい` cannot be used to directly state a 3rd party's desires (unless\nfollowed by something like `〜と思っている` or `〜と言う`), you must use `〜たがる`.\n\n> × となりのひとは新しいテレビを買いたい。 \n> ○ となりのひとは新しいテレビを買いたいと言った。 \n> ○ となりのひとは新しいテレビを買いたがっている。 \n> ○ となりのひとは新しいテレビを買いたいようだ。\n\nI think the confusion in your examples is that you just happen to be using\n`食べたい` (want to eat) and `ほしい` (generic \"wants\").\n\nSo there's really no need to think that there are two separate grammar\npatterns here. The pattern is really just `がる`. It just depends on whether\nyou're attaching it to a regular イ-adjective or to a `〜たい` イ-adjective.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-28T15:52:21.390", "id": "3844", "last_activity_date": "2014-10-20T06:36:50.530", "last_edit_date": "2014-10-20T06:36:50.530", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3839", "post_type": "answer", "score": 25 } ]

[ { "body": "死んだつもりになって is a set expression that means to frantically 頑張る (and maybe even\nwith reckless abandon and power). If my understanding is correct, it has a\nreally great flavor. I wouldn't say it's interchangeable with 必死に, but I think\nit's safe to say they have similar nuances.\n\nSources (girlfriend and Weblio)-->\nその例文はな。。。もう今からしても遅いかもやけど、死に物狂いになって頑張れば大丈夫かも、です。笑 (^_^)\n\n類語 from Weblio >> 捨て身でかかる ・ 死んだつもりになって～ ・ クソ度胸で～ ・ 火事場のバカ力で～", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-28T09:18:04.440", "id": "3841", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-28T09:18:04.440", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "896", "parent_id": "3840", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "[goo.ne.jp](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/50468/m0u/)'s definition for\n`つもり` is:\n\n 1. An intention (of doing)\n 2. Expectation, plans\n 3. `そうなった気持ち` which I might translate to \"the feeling as if (something) has become that way.\"\n\nI believe some more natural translations for definition 3 might be:\n\n * As if you think.../As if someone thinks...\n * I think.../I feel as if...\n\nSome examples:\n\n> 死んだつもりになって働きます。 \n> \"Work as if (you think) you'll die.\"\n>\n> あれで歌手のつもりだ。 \n> \"It's as if he thinks he's a singer.\"\n>\n> 分かっているつもりだ。 \n> \"I think I understand.\"\n\nSee also: [the different usages of\nつもり?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1822/796)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-28T10:05:24.740", "id": "3842", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-28T12:42:06.943", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3840", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "Here is another, (but similar,) approach... but combining both possible\ndefinitions of \"objet\" in the original context:\n\n> 表現の対象となるもの、前衛美術では，幻想的効果のために取り入れられる物体。\n>\n> An expression transformed into an object (used to surreal effect, in avant-\n> garde art.)\n\n_Note: \"surreal\" is used here to demonstrate a different approach for that\npart of the translation, though, something having to do more with the word\n\"illusion\" would probably be more accurate._\n\nAlso, (and as already noted in the comments on the question,) this part: `It\ndepends on the represented target,` doesn't seem to be in the original\nwriting.\n\nAs long as the definition fits with the definition of [\"objet\" in\nFrench](http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objet), the translation into English\nshould be fine.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-27T21:05:03.210", "id": "4835", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-28T01:40:42.807", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-28T01:40:42.807", "last_editor_user_id": "1188", "owner_user_id": "1188", "parent_id": "3843", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "> A target of depiction. In avant-garde art, an object introduced to create an\n> illusory effect.\n\nThis might not be the best translation, but it avoids the pitfalls that others\nseem to have fallen into.\n\nThe first comma is a listing comma separating two definitions of the word.\n\n[となるもの](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AA%E3%82%8B%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE)\ndoesn't have much meaning, except for maybe taking an fairly abstract word\n(対象) and explicitly creating an instance of it.\n\n幻想的 I find hard to translate, since I feel it's somewhere between \"dreamy\" and\n\"illusory\", both of which have slightly different connotations in English.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-28T01:12:46.553", "id": "4836", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-28T02:47:28.197", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-28T02:47:28.197", "last_editor_user_id": "107", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "3843", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "You guess is right. And 観測 can also mean prediction based on the data observed\n(e.g. 希望的観測).\n\nSome details can be found is the explanation of the two word:\n[観察](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/14519/m0u/%E8%A6%B3%E5%AF%9F/)\n[観測](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/14840/m0u/%E8%A6%B3%E6%B8%AC/)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T11:58:30.337", "id": "3877", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-01T11:58:30.337", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3845", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "かのよう（だ） translates as ‘(seems) as if...’ or ‘(seems) as if perhaps...’ while\n(depending on the sentence) ようだ can be less conjectural.\n\n> …なにもなかったかのように… ‘as if nothing had happened’[1] \n> …なにもなかったように… ‘it looked like nothing had happened’\n\nHowever, in counter-factual statements, ようだ can lend this meaning all by\nitself. Often (as in the sentence of the question) まるで is added for emphasis,\nand まるで…ようだ and …かのようだ would seem equally conjectural. [2] [3]\n\n> 木村さんはまるで酒を飲んだようだ Mr. Kimuro looks as if he had just drunk sake. [2]\n\nThat means that the sentence 「４月になって雪が降るなんて、まるで冬が戻って来たかのようです。」 (considering\nthat April is well past the winter season) taken as a whole would not really\nchange its meaning when you replace かのようです with simply ようです (it _would_ be\ndifferent in only the fragment 戻って来たようです/戻って来たかのようです, depending on the\ncontext). Removing まるで as well might make the sentence less emphatic, but\nsince it is still an ‘as if’ scenario the meaning would basically remain. A\nreal difference would only appear in sentences that are more statement of\nfact.\n\nAs for the second question (are there restrictions regarding active use of\nかのようだ instead of ようだ[4]), not being a native speaker I wouldn't know how to\nanswer that for sure. [3] seems to be from a native speaker and he or she does\nseem to be unable to answer this very same question right away (see at the\nbottom of the page) but does suggest that かのようだ is much less common in set\nphrases like 水を打ったよう (\"水を打ったかのよう\" 19,400 results versus \"水を打ったよう\" 4,590,000\nresults in Google).\n\n 1. Samual E. Martin _A reference grammar of Japanese_ (p. 929). \n 2. Makino and Tsutsui _A Dictionary of basic Japanese grammar_ (p. 549)/ \n 3. [「～かのようだ」と「まるで～ようだ」](http://nihon5ch.net/contents/bbs-study/old/mie-bbs.cgi?s=131)\n 4. It's not simply the か in かのようだ, you can not leave the の in between verb+ようだ either.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-29T10:34:35.077", "id": "3851", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-29T10:34:35.077", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "836", "parent_id": "3846", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "It seems to me that \"かのように\" adds a touch of surprise and personal comment in\nthe meaning, while \"ように\" is simply narrating a phenomenon, which is more\nobjective, and with less personal feelings or judgment.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-02-27T12:58:40.217", "id": "43914", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-27T12:58:40.217", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "12028", "parent_id": "3846", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "(1) about the difference in meaning between 「自分について書きたいことがあります。」and\n「自分自身について書きたいことがあります。」.\n\nAccording to the dictionaries 大辞泉 and 広辞苑 「自分自身」 emphasizes 「自分」.\n\nMartin (p. 1050) translates both _watakushi jishin_ and _watakushi jibun_ as\n\"I myself\" and translates _watakushi jibun jishin_ as \"I myself (in\nperson)...\"; \"I my very own self\" - which are ways to emphasize \"myself\"\nwithout the use of italics (but it would depend on the context if a phrase\nlike \"in person\" can be used in an actual translation).\n\nNone of these sources write anything about shifting emphasis elsewhere in a\nsentence that might contain _jibun jishin_ (and surely Martin would have\nmentioned that if it were the case).\n\n(2) a translation of 「自分について書きたいことがあります。」 would look something like \"There are\nthings about myself (that) I want to write about.\". The variant\n「自分自身について書きたいことがあります。」 puts emphasis on \"myself\" therefore in a translation\none could use italics, or use a different phrase, or leave out the emphasis,\nall depending on the context. For instance: \"There are things about _myself_ I\nwant to write about.\" \"There are things about my own person I want to write\nabout.\".\n\nReferences: \n[自分自身 in Yahoo! JAPAN-Yahoo!辞書 /\n大辞泉](http://dic.search.yahoo.co.jp/search?ei=UTF-8&p=%E8%87%AA%E5%88%86%E8%87%AA%E8%BA%AB&fr=dic&stype=prefix) \n広辞苑 (1992) \nSamual E. Martin (1987 [1975]) _A reference grammar of Japanese_", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-11T18:40:03.820", "id": "3966", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-11T18:40:03.820", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "836", "parent_id": "3847", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "Both Xに関する and Xに関わる have the overlapping meaning when it comes to 'concerning\nor related to X'.\n\nHowever when you see XがYに関わる or Yに関わるX it is probably better than 関する when X\nis something that directly affects Y, or is something that Y is dependent\nupon. Also, there is the nuance that Y is a big or serious thing such as\neducation, peace, life.\n\nFor example you might say 治安に関わる仕事 when talking about policemen to show the\nlarge degree in which peace (public order) is a result of the police.\n\nYou may also say 治安に関する仕事 but then it's means more something like a job that\nhas something kind of connection to peace, and would not be as complimenting\nas the above example.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-29T10:20:52.713", "id": "3850", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-29T10:51:23.523", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-29T10:51:23.523", "last_editor_user_id": "878", "owner_user_id": "878", "parent_id": "3848", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "I'm going to make sure you understand the sentence structure here correctly.\n\nThis こと is a nominalizer and does not mean \"things\".\n\nFocusing on the first part:\n\n> 親のしつけが子供の性格形成に（関する・関わる）。（そんなことは言うまでもない。）\n\nThe former means \"relates to\"; the latter means \"has a significant effect on\".\n関する is also rarely used to end a clause like this; it's more common as the\nstructure Xに関するY.\n\n>\n> [かかわる@プログレッシブ和英中辞典@Yahoo!](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E9%96%A2%E3%82%8F%E3%82%8B&enc=UTF-8&stype=0&dtype=3) \n> `それは命にかかわることだ` \n> It is a matter of life and death.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-29T16:23:26.263", "id": "3853", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-29T16:28:53.710", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-29T16:28:53.710", "last_editor_user_id": "315", "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3848", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "In this sentence, 女性ゆえの差別 does not mean “discrimination (against someone)\nbecause of a woman,” but it means “discrimination (against someone) because of\n(that person) being a woman.” That is, it means the fact that some people\ndiscriminate against a person because the person is a woman.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-29T13:07:43.017", "id": "3852", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-29T13:07:43.017", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3849", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "I can find this in [a\ndictionary](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/77275/m0u/%E3%82%86%E3%81%88/)\n:\n\n> 3 〔…のために〕\n>\n> それゆえに\n>\n> for that **reason**\n>\n> 悪天候ゆえに旅行は延期された\n>\n> 「 **Because of [On account of]** the bad weather, the trip was postponed.\n>\n> 何ゆえにうそをついたのか\n>\n> Why did you lie?\n\nwhich explicitly used **because of** in the translation.\n\nAnd I think try to find one word (or phrase) as an equivalent of a word (or\nphrase) in another language is just impossible. So maybe sometimes ゆえ means\n\"as a result of\", but that does not mean it is equivalent to it.\n\nEDIT:\n\nIn \"女性ゆえの差別\", the \"ゆえ\" here is to show the reason why a person got\ndiscriminated (because of that she is a woman). The literal meaning has been\ngiven in Ito's answer. However, in English there not such a way to express\ndiscrimination, so the translation becomes \"discrimination against women\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T11:41:17.320", "id": "3876", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T03:17:07.287", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-09T03:17:07.287", "last_editor_user_id": "903", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3849", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "`故{ゆえ}` appears to mean many different things depending on the way it's used,\nbut the main definition seems to be \"reason\".\n\n * `ゆえの`: \"by reason of (being)\", \"due to (being)\" or \"because of (being)\". \n \nWhether to add or omit \"being\" can only be determined by context:\n\n> 女性ゆえの差別 \n> \"discrimination by reason of being a woman.\" \n> \n> 有名人ゆえの苦労 \n> \"hardships by reason of being a famous person.\" \n> \n> 熟練ゆえの効率の良さ \n> \"efficiency by reason of skill.\"\n\n * `X（が）ゆえに`: \"for the reason of X\" or \"because of X\":\n\n> 信念を貫くがゆえに拷問を受ける \n> \"be tortured for the reason of one's faith\"\n\n * `（それ）ゆえに` at the start of a sentence etc: \"for that reason\", \"therefore\" or \"thus\":\n\n> 故に商品の質は、信頼そのものになる \n> \"for that reason, product quality is consumer confidence.\"\n\nAccording to\n[Daijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%82%86%E3%81%88&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0),\nit can also mean \"of splendid history\" when written as `故ある人` and `故ある家` etc,\n\"taste/atmosphere\", \"relation/affinity\" and \"break-down/accident\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-09T07:41:07.543", "id": "3959", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T08:00:38.737", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-09T08:00:38.737", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3849", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "This かえった (かえる; 孵【かえ】る) means \"hatch\". \"The fish that just hatched from (the)\neggs.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-29T21:51:50.057", "id": "3857", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-29T21:51:50.057", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3855", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "As far as I understand, they mean the same thing. The one with `が` seems\nslightly more formal.\n\n**Edit** : Apparently this is ungrammatical, although I don't understand why.\nMaybe I'll make it a separate topic.\n\n~~It is also more likely to be used if there is some \"long\" clause that\nmodifies the`気`. Ex:\n\n> 母に電話をかけなかった気がつきました → I realized I forgot to call my mother~~", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-29T22:02:38.740", "id": "3858", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-30T02:09:31.920", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-30T02:09:31.920", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3856", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "気が付く has three meanings.\n\n 1. notice, realize\n 2. (often in the form よく気が付く) be attentive, be quick to notice\n 3. come to oneself (usually after losing consciousness)\n\nFor senses 1 and 3, 気付く is also used. When used in these senses, I do not\nthink that there is any difference in meaning between 気が付く and 気付く. I do not\nrecognize any difference in formality, either, but I may be wrong.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-30T07:44:55.140", "id": "3861", "last_activity_date": "2021-11-23T03:15:48.050", "last_edit_date": "2021-11-23T03:15:48.050", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "3856", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "These stroked are called 筆画, and as for kanji, it is traditionally said that\nthere are eight types of strokes (I copied the words from the webpage that I\nlinked below):\n\n```\n\n 1) 点 ([側]{ソク}) \n 2) 横画 ([勒]{ロク}) \n 3) 縦画 ([努]{ド})\n 4) はね, かぎ ([趯]{テキ}) \n 5) 左はらい ([掠]{リャク})\n 6) 右はらい ([磔]{タク})\n \n 7) 右上がりの横画 ([策]{サク}) \n 8) 短い左はらい ([啄]{タク}) \n \n```\n\nAnd all those eight appear in the character `永`. [This web\npage](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B0%B8%E5%AD%97%E5%85%AB%E6%B3%95)\nprovides a good explanation.\n\nModern treatment suggests a slightly different set of strokes. According to\n[this web page](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AD%86%E7%94%BB), it replaces\n7 and 8 above with the following two:\n\n```\n\n 9) かぎ \n 10) おれ \n \n```\n\nI think this modern set is familiar among Japanese, but when they need to\nrefer to the kanji in the absense of a writing material, it is more common to\nrefer to the radical (部首) or to refer to a word that includes that character\n(for example, `田んぼの「田」`).\n\nThere are probably no such notions for kana.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-30T04:21:12.227", "id": "3860", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-30T17:14:34.353", "last_edit_date": "2011-11-30T17:14:34.353", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3859", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "Let me try:\n\n`言う`： The only thing on your list that I'd actually translate as \"to say\" or\n\"to tell\". This is sort of \"neutral\" in that it really just means to say. For\nexample:\n\n> 「彼女がいない」と言ったでしょう？ = He doesn't have a girlfriend, I told you so already!\n\nNote that as I am not giving any context you could equivalently translate the\nsentence as: He said he didn't have a girlfriend, or did he not!\n\n`述べる`： Can mean \"to express\" or \"to state\":\n\n> 英語で自分の考えを述べるのは難しい。= It is difficult to express one's thoughts in English.\n\n(Example sentence taken from jisho.org)\n\n`話す`：\"to talk\", as you wrote above. For example:\n\n> 今お母さんと話しています。= I'm talking to mum right now.\n>\n> おしゃべりな人と話したくない。= I don't want to talk to talkative people.\n\n`伝える`： \"to convey\" as in \"Say hello to X.\":\n\n> 田中さんにこの知らせを伝えて下さい。= Please pass these new onto Mr. Tanaka.\n\n`告げる`： I've not heard this one before (which doesn't mean much) but it seems\nto mean \"to tell\" or \"to convey\" again. Examples (again taken from\n[jisho.org](http://jisho.org/sentences?jap=%E5%91%8A%E3%81%92%E3%82%8B&eng=)):\n\n> もし私がそれを知っているなら、私はそれをあなたに告げるだろう。= If I knew it, I would tell you.\n\n`教える`： Can mean \"to teach\" or \"to tell\". For example:\n\n> あなたの電話番号を教えて下さい。= Can you give me your phone number?\n>\n> 彼は日本語学校で日本語を教えています。= He's teaching Japanese at a Japanese language school.\n\nThis answer is incomplete but I hope this helps.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-30T22:22:06.993", "id": "3869", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-08T00:59:20.187", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "388", "parent_id": "3862", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "It's a tentative statement, not an assertion of fact, but the writer's opinion\nclearly shows through.\n\nI like \"Perhaps (there is a case to be made that)...\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-30T14:30:29.710", "id": "3864", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-30T14:30:29.710", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3863", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "The use of のではないだろうか I think you understand as 'isn't it the case' or 'it\nmight be the case'.\n\nWhat may be confusing is that だろうか can used for casting strong, questioning\ndoubt on the preceding text. So this use is actually fairly different and\nalmost opposite of だろう and のではないだろうか.\n\nFor my source, surprisingly I don't see that many online examples, so I'll\ncopy out of an old unicom 実力アップ jlpt 2 kyuu book.\n\nだろうか -\n\n文の形は疑問文だが、否定が強い。（反語）\n\n1.お金で愛情買うなんて、そんなことできるだろうか。\n\n2.あんなうそつきの人の言うことを信じていいだろうか。\n\n3.彼のように無能な人間が、いったい社長になれるだろうか。\n\nIt seems like right before だろうか there often comes a potential form of the\nverb, but that is not always the case, as seen in example 2.\n\nAnd in fact, when I looked だろうか up in the index it was listed as だろうか（できるだろうか）", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T03:03:45.190", "id": "3870", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-01T03:09:31.903", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-01T03:09:31.903", "last_editor_user_id": "878", "owner_user_id": "878", "parent_id": "3863", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I don't think that comparing だろうか to だろう in terms of assertion strength is the\nright approach. Try tearing the sentence down and rebuilding it...\n\n * (X する) 必要もある。 = There is also a need to X.\n * (X する) 必要もあるのではないか。 = Isn't there also a need to X? \n * (X する) 必要もあるのではないだろうか。 = Isn't there perhaps also a need to X?\n\nThe first is a bald statement. The second is a rhetorical question, which\nmight be more literally translated \"Is it not the case that there is also a\nneed to X?\" It is TECHNICALLY possible that listeners/readers might respond\n\"Indeed, that is not the case. There is no need to X whatsoever,\" but that\nwould not be expected, in English or Japanese.\n\nThe third, the version used in your target sentence, is the same sort of\nrhetorical question, but ない has changed to ないだろう. (You could also use なかろう [a\nbit old-fashioned/informal] or ないでしょう [more polite].) In other words, the\n\"not\" in \"is it not the case\" has changed from straight assertion to pseudo-\ntentative/hedged assertion. And I say \"pseudo\" because here the\n\"tentativeness\" is just a politeness strategy, exactly like the \"perhaps\" in\nmy translation.\n\nCompare this to the version using just だろう:\n\n * (X する) 必要もある。 = There is also a need to X.\n * (X する) 必要もあるのではない。 = There is no need to X, either.\n * (X する) 必要もあるのではないだろう。 = (I put it to you that) there is no need to X, either.\n\n(That last one might also be translated as a rhetorical question -- \"There is\nno need to X, either, right?\" -- but the implied answer is completely opposite\nfrom the ないだろうか version as you can see.)\n\nSo you can see that the だろう and だろうか versions are as different as the ない and\nないか versions. This is what I meant when I said, at the top, that comparing だろう\nand だろうか as if they worked the same way but indicated different levels of\ncertainty is the wrong approach.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T04:20:20.680", "id": "3872", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-01T04:20:20.680", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3863", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Yes. `中国レストラン` sounds a bit awkward. A normal way to say it is `中華料理店` or\n`中華料理屋`. You don't use `中国` for Chinese foods but rather `中華`.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-30T20:03:45.613", "id": "3866", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-30T20:03:45.613", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3865", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "Yes. If you say `ただいまより`, it's like a really formal way to say `今【いま】から`. I've\nheard it used at the beginning of formal ceremonies, esp. Western-style\nweddings. These situations may not occur very often, but it certainly seems\n\"normal\" to use such a formality.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-11-30T22:02:26.183", "id": "3868", "last_activity_date": "2011-11-30T22:02:26.183", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3867", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "As istrasci says, can be a rather formal word to use. But it also has uses\noutside of the super formal ceremonial use - you still hear it fairly often in\nannouncements, as in those you would hear in an ad or department store.\n\nOne common use is with a noun that ends with 中\n\nYou've probably heard this in an ad before:\n\n只今、発売中\n\nI just saw this when watching a comedy show when the lead character is doing\nnothing:\n\n只今アイドリング中\n\nAlso I have heard in this use case when some status is being reported:\n\n只今、到着しました。\n\nThis can also be totally informal such as:\n\n只今起きた\n\n只今食べた\n\nYou can also say 只今気づいた but my gut feeling is that you can't add the 面白いこと in\nthere without being awkward, even though it doesn't seem to break any\ngrammatical rules. I don't have anything to back this up other than most of\nthe 只今 cases I've heard have been short examples with just the verb or a noun.\nPlease correct me if I am wrong.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T05:44:14.707", "id": "3874", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-01T05:44:14.707", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "878", "parent_id": "3867", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I use `只今` often in a business context, for instance when a customer over the\nphone wants to talk to X, but X is having a meeting:\n\n```\n\n 只今会議中ですので、終わりましたらXよりお電話させていただきます。\n \n```\n\nAlso: `只今外出中…` (not at the office) `只今他の電話にでております…` (answering another call)\netc.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-02T01:24:05.233", "id": "3887", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-02T01:24:05.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "parent_id": "3867", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I think the original translation maybe better. \"といったら\" in the sentence has\nalready lost its original meaning of 'say', 'speak' or 'describe'. It is only\nthere to show an emphasis.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T05:13:47.457", "id": "3873", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-01T05:13:47.457", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I'm not exactly sure where in the sentence you face the problem, but I'm going\nto guess that it's with:\n\n 1. Implicit agency\n\n 2. Implicit experiencer\n\n 3. The ~といったら sentence pattern\n\n* * *\n\nFirst let's fix 1. and 2.\n\nYou must have realised by now that the Japanese language is so to speak\n\"sparse\" because quite often you will encounter sentences that are seemingly\nambiguous because no specific persons are mentioned.\n\n> [Person A] どこ行くの？\n>\n> [Person B] (私は)図書館に行く。\n\nThe context makes who is performing which action evident. Without context,\n(i.e. you just walked in on a conversation and only heard `図書館に行く`) it could\nbe anybody who is going to the library.\n\nNow notice that you have one contextual clue in your second sentence - `ましょう`.\nUsually this is used in a cohortative sense of \"let us do ~\" or \"shall we do\n~?\". The subsequent sentences can either involve the speaker, the listener or\nboth. The context given is that the speaker is inviting the listener to go\noutside to enjoy the fireflies.\n\nConsider which of the sentences are appropriate:\n\n> Existing contextual information: Intention is to share the firefly-\n> phenomenon\n>\n> Invitational Sentence:\n>\n\n>> Shall we go outside after eating?\n\n>\n> Elaboration 1:\n>\n\n>> A. **I** will see a myriad of fireflies dancing right behind the inn\n\n>>\n\n>> B. **You** will see a myriad of fireflies dancing right behind the inn\n\n>>\n\n>> C. **We** will see a myriad of fireflies dancing right behind the inn\n\n>\n> Elaboration 2:\n>\n\n>> A. The phenomenon will take **my** breath away\n\n>>\n\n>> B. The phenomenon will take **your** breath away\n\n>>\n\n>> C. The phenomenon will take **our** breath away\n\nObviously choice A would feel completely unnatural. You intend to share\nsomething with someone and end up talking only about yourself (how selfish).\n\nNow B and C are possible ways to parse it into English for both Elaboration 1\nand 2. But I feel it should sound most natural as: \n\n> \" **We** will see a myriad of fireflies dancing right behind the inn. The\n> phenomenon will take **your** breath away.\"\n\nBecause in the first part, the focus is on a \"shared activity\", namely\nwatching the fireflies together. And in the second part, the focus is on\n\"getting the other person to experience the phenomenon\"; the focus is on the\nother person.\n\n* * *\n\nNow for the ~といったら sentence pattern. Its function is similar to ~といえば, ~って,\n~ったら. What it does is that it presents ~ as a topic from something that was\nfrom a previous discourse. It is similar to the topic marker は, except that it\ncarries more emotive overtones.\n\n> なんと宿のすぐ裏でホタルたちが一面に乱舞。\n>\n> その幻想的なことといったら息をのんでしまうほどです。 Literally: \"Speaking of that phenomenon, it is\n> something to the extent of taking your breath away.\"", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T08:50:16.010", "id": "3875", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-01T08:56:08.113", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-01T08:56:08.113", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Focusing on the second part of the sentence, this seems to be a problem which\nis part-English and part-Japanese. I'm sure there are cases where\n\"breathtaking/astonishing\" and \"takes your breath away\" can't be exchanged,\nbut I'm having trouble finding them. In English at least, \"takes your breath\naway\" is an idiom which means [something which astonishes or surprises\nyou](http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/take+your+breath+away.html)\nand the \"your\" in that figurative expression doesn't literally refer to the\nlistener and it's not implied that anyone literally has their breath taken\naway.\n\nIn the case of `息をのんでしまいました` \"(my) breath was taken away\" it could refer to\nsomeone actually having been astonished. But I get the feeling that\n`息をのんでしまうほど` would generally refer to something which \"is to the extent of\nbeing astonishing\" and and it's largely descriptive/hypothetical just like\nsomeone saying e.g. \"that concert will be astonishing!\"\n\nIf you look at [Space ALC's definition for\n`息をのむ`](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E6%81%AF%E3%82%92%E3%81%AE%E3%82%80/UTF-8/),\n`息をのむほど` and `息をのむよう` are generally translated as \"breathtaking\" while `息をのむ`\nis \"catch one's breath\" so I'm not sure anyone is performing any action or\nreceiving any reactions here.\n\nThere are cases where \"breathtaking\" can't be used, for example `息をのむほど感動した`\nmight be \"I was moved to the point of being astonished\" or \"I was moved to the\npoint of having my breath taken away.\" But in many other cases, e.g.\n`思わず息をのむほどの[美麗]{びれい}さ`, I think \"beautiful to the extent of being\ninstinctively breathtaking\" could work in place of \"beautiful to the extent of\ninstinctively taking your breath away.\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-02T01:22:57.353", "id": "3886", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-02T12:05:27.170", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-02T12:05:27.170", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3871", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "You just read it as it is written. These kind of \"written language\" sometimes\ndo appear in conversations, but rare. However, if you are reading it out (to\nyourself or to anyone else), the \"spoken\" \"written language\" will perfectly\nOK.\n\nI don't know if I've made myself clear ...", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T14:53:14.160", "id": "3879", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-01T14:53:14.160", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3878", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "\"Written Japanese\" doesn't mean \"forms that can only be expressed in written\nform\". It means \"forms that are generally used in writing rather than speech\".\n\nSo there's no need to replace anything on the fly as you read it. You read it\nas written, whether it's 走らないこと, 走るべからず, な走りそ, whatever. It doesn't matter if\nit would be weird as a conversational utterance... because it isn't one. It's\n\"written Japanese\" that you happen to be reading out loud.\n\n**Update 12/2:** Actually, let me add one caveat: If you are reading\n_Classical_ Japanese, or most pre-WWII, then \"reading it as written\" doesn't\nmean the same thing as it does for modern Japanese. For example, 思はぬ is\npronounced as if it were 思わぬ. This is called [historical kana\northography](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_kana_orthography)\n(歴史的仮名遣) and it is related to the particles は, へ and を being pronounced わ, え,\nand お. But it even in this case, you don't change the actual words -- you\nwouldn't change 思はぬ to 思わない, for example. It's just that the rules for\npronouncing certain kana in certain contexts are different.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T15:09:09.870", "id": "3881", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-02T02:21:33.480", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-02T02:21:33.480", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3878", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

[ { "body": "1. The affix `く` is used with i-adjectives in normal conditions. The exceptions (when `く` is not used) is when an i-adjective is used for compounding or in the plain non-past form, which ends with `い`. `さ` is known as an affix generally used to change an i-adjective or na-adjective into a noun. `み` is an affix that idiocyncratically attaches to some i-adjectives that it particularly selects. It only attaches to some selected i-adjectives and its meaning tends to be idiosyncratic, as contrasted to nouns created by `さ`.\n\n 2. What is traditionally called 連用形 is, in modern linguistic point of view, nothing more than a mere verb stem (followed by an epenthetic vowel `i` in case of a consonant ending verb (五段動詞)). Verb stems seem to be able to be used as a noun. Particularly, what you are mentioning here is actually `verb-stem + もの` or `verb-stem + こと`, and these are compounds. Therefore, their meaning is idiosyncratic, and cannot be derived systematically. You have to look into the differences between `verb-stem + もの` and `verb-stem + こと` case by case.\n\n 3. `終止形 + こと` is a noun phrase headed by the formal noun `こと` with an appositive clause. It can generally be translated as `the fact that ...`, `the event that ....`, etc.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T23:44:56.413", "id": "3885", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-02T06:10:30.343", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-02T06:10:30.343", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3880", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "used with a negative verb 誰も means no one or nobody.\n\n誰もその卑わいな冗談を笑わなかった。No one laughed at the obscene joke.\n\nUsed with a regular verb (positive?) it can mean anyone, anybody, everybody or\neveryone.\n\n誰もがその話を知っている。Everyone knows that story.\n\n誰もそのことに異存［異論］はない。Everyone agrees about that. （No one objects to that.)\n\nhere are a number of examples <http://eow.alc.co.jp>/誰もその/UTF-8/?ref=sa", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T20:00:08.707", "id": "3883", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-01T23:31:48.107", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-01T23:31:48.107", "last_editor_user_id": "706", "owner_user_id": "706", "parent_id": "3882", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "`誰` by itself does not mean 'who'. Nor does `も` always mean 'also'. Words like\n`誰` are called indeterminates, and are more essential than wh-words (It can be\na part of the meaning of a wh-word; Not wh-word itself). `誰` only means 'some\nvariable (something that does not have a fixed reference) that ranges over\npeople'. Depending on what particle it is used with, it would be translated\ninto different words in English:\n\n> 誰 who \n> 誰か someone \n> 誰も anyone/everyone", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-01T20:05:12.440", "id": "3884", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-01T20:05:12.440", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3882", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "One way is to look at them as exclusive (ほかの) and inclusive (ほかに).\n\n> 1. だれか **ほかの** 人に聞いてごらん \n> Ask **somebody else** _[someone other than me/someone other than this\n> person]_ for help.\n>\n> 2. **ほかに** 行きたい人はいますか \n> [ **In addition** to who already wants to go] is there anyone else who\n> wants to go?\n>\n>\n\nNotice that you can use \"besides\" in both sentences: \n`1. Ask someone besides me.` \n`2. Besides those who already want to, anyone else want to go?`\n\nJust keep in mind that ほかの excludes what it's attached to (1. ひと), and ほかに\nincludes it (2. 行きたい人).\n\nWith that in mind, when each can be used should depend mostly on what you wish\nto say. I am sure there are specific rules for how they can be attached to\nwords, but I don't know them.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-02T03:20:09.630", "id": "3890", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-02T03:59:23.780", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "3889", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

[ { "body": "You are correct that the Verb+てもらえない（か）is used to request favors. The かな\nsoftens things a bit, and is more polite, perhaps being less assuming that the\nfavor will be granted.\n\nHere's is a non-comprehensive list of some てもらえない request use cases roughly\nordered with the top being with more politeness. The top and middle are pretty\nsimilar and may be swapped around.\n\n貸してもらえませんか？\n\n貸してもらえないでしょうか？\n\n貸してもらえないかな？\n\n貸してもらえない？\n\n貸してもらえないか？", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-02T20:39:05.077", "id": "3893", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-02T21:12:35.773", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-02T21:12:35.773", "last_editor_user_id": "878", "owner_user_id": "878", "parent_id": "3892", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "`貸してもらえない` means:\n\n> 'I cannot receive the favor of your lending it to me.'\n\nThen the `か` at the end changes it into a question:\n\n> 'Is it the case that I cannot receive the favor of your lending it to me?'\n\nAnd `な` adds some subjective feeling. The whole sentence (at least without\n`な`) is syntactically not a request. It is a question. It is the pragmatics\n(the usage) that makes it a request. The same as in English:\n\n> Can you lend me the book?\n\nwhich is syntactically a question, but can be a request within the actual\nusage.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-02T20:52:11.387", "id": "3894", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-04T08:47:43.037", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-04T08:47:43.037", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3892", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Your understanding is correct. To embellish on what the person above said, the\nmore polite forms would include:\n\n貸していただけますか。\n\n貸していただけませんでしょうか。\n\nお貸しいただけないでしょうか。\n\nお貸しいただいてもよろしいでしょうか。\n\nお借りできませんでしょうか。\n\n頂戴できませんでしょうか。\n\n頂戴いただけたら幸いです。\n\nお言葉に甘えて頂戴いたします。\n\n(the list is practically endless)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-06T01:51:40.850", "id": "3904", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-06T01:51:40.850", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "831", "parent_id": "3892", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "With or without `ている`, the core meaning does not change. It means\n'waiting/staying behind (for something)'", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-03T03:48:28.697", "id": "3896", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-03T03:48:28.697", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3895", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Found two dictionaries:\n[goo](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/62692/m0u/%E6%8E%A7%E3%81%88%E3%82%8B/)\nand [alc](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E6%8E%A7%E3%81%88%E3%82%8B/UTF-8/?pg=1). (Any\ngood Japanese-English dictionaries that I can reference here? I always use a\nJapanese-Japanese one. The translation are not very good. However, the\nexamples in alc are excellent, though not 100% correct.)\n\nThe meaning of 控える can be \"waiting/saying behind(for something)\", or \"to\nrefrain\", or \"to make notes\", or more. And 控えている is formed by 控え+ている, and\n\"ている\" here means something like \"in the state of\".\n\nAs for the examples:\n\n>\n```\n\n> ちょうど1年後に控えている\n> be just a year away（主語を）\n> \n```\n\nIt means the phrase can be used as \" **卒業を* _ちょうど一年後に控えている\", \"_ *Graduation**\nis just a year away\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-05T02:01:36.630", "id": "3903", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-05T02:01:36.630", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3895", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "With a search on the web, I found\n[ja.wikipdia.org/wiki/...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ja/wiki/%E3%83%99%E3%82%B8%E3%82%BF%E3%83%96%E3%83%AB&%E3%83%95%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BC%E3%83%84%E3%83%9E%E3%82%A4%E3%82%B9%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC)(also\nmentioned by sawa) , <http://gfhis.com/towa.html> , <http://www.vege-fru.com/>\n, etc. From these pages, we can see the \"野菜ソムリエ\" is not a job, but a\nqualification. It is a qualification for people withe various knowledge of\nvegetables and fruits: classification, nutrition, cooking method, quality,\netc.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-04T06:48:13.147", "id": "3898", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-04T06:48:13.147", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3897", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "I'd say the closest to satisfying would probably be:\n\n> 俺が一番\n\nwith possible variants:\n\n> 俺が一番ですよ etc.\n\nKeeping in mind that, no matter what, the phrase in question is going to sound\nsilly (at best) and somewhat boastful verging on rude, I think waffling over\nthe propriety of 俺 in this case is rather out of place. 私 would probably be\ntoo soft, and 僕: ridiculously out of place.\n\nI don't think a Japanese would use '一番' in such a context. If anything, the\nkind of person who would say that (whether seriously or in jest) would\nprobably use some manner of English (\"俺がナンバーワン\" etc.), but I doubt that would\nreally satiate your friend's craving for something weird and foreign to write\non a t-shirt.\n\nPS: '俺様' could also be used here, I think. It is more pompous than rude (well:\nrude, _because_ pompous), but once again: calling yourself 'the best' on a\nt-shirt has already established that quite clearly already.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-04T14:40:32.963", "id": "3900", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-04T14:40:32.963", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "3899", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "As you correctly note, the `が` in this context adds focus to the noun phrase:\n\n> 私が一番 \n> ' **I** am the best.' or 'The best one is **me** '\n>\n> 私は一番 \n> 'I am the **best**.'\n\n`[私]{わたくし}` is very formal and polite, and is not usually used other than in\nbusiness conversations, `[私]{わたし}` is neutral with politeness, `俺` is rough,\nand `俺様` is self-appraising. Any of them will work with `は` or `が`.\n\n`私の一番` does not make sense. `俺様一番` without the particle `が` really sounds like\na funny phrase made up by a non-Japanese speaker, the kind that indeed is\noften seen printed on T-shirts or tatoos.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-04T15:48:17.207", "id": "3901", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-05T00:43:03.443", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3899", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "I would consider using a different word then `一番`. To me, it feels like the\nthing you are the best _at_ is ommitted. If you wanted to use `一番` I'd go with\nsomething like `一番かっこいい` (the coolest).\n\nMy suggestion would be to use `最高{さいこう}` or `最良{さいりょう}` instead.\n\nAs for `僕` vs `俺` I think it really has to do with the kind of guy your friend\nis. If he's big and gruff, you can go with `俺` and if he's not, go with `僕`.\nPersonally (without having met him, of course) I'd lean toward `僕` as it's\nmore flexible.\n\nSo what I'd suggest would end up being `僕は最高`.\n\nHope that helps!", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-07T22:31:29.343", "id": "3924", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-08T17:07:42.857", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-08T17:07:42.857", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": "921", "parent_id": "3899", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "* `的`: -ish, -like \n\n> 日本的思考 'Japanese way of thinking'\n\n * `風`: Intentionally or unintentionally resembling the style but not itself. Pseudo. \n\n> 日本風の料理店 'Pseudo-Japanese style restaurant'\n\n * `流` School. Classification of styles that are inherited (occasionally secretly within a family).\n\n> 甲賀流忍者 'Kouga-school ninja' \n> 裏千家流 'Urasenke-school tea ceremony'\n\n * `様式` Design, form of art \n\n> 日本様式の建築 'Japanese style architecture'\n\n * `式`: Style. More popular and major classification of styles compared to `流`. Can usually replace affixal use of `様式`.\n\n> 日本式庭園 'Japanese-style garden'", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-06T16:37:10.223", "id": "3911", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-10T19:24:13.803", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-10T19:24:13.803", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3905", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

[ { "body": "平成20年4月1日 ・・・・インターンシップ（ ・・・・研修） **開始**\n\n平成21年3月31日 同上 **終了**", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-12T11:18:31.443", "id": "4658", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-12T11:18:31.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3907", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "To answer my own question (after receiving the answer from somewhere else at\nthe time), the proper term would be: **滞在開始**.\n\nE.g.:\n\n> 平成２４年 ３月０１日 松下電器産業株式会社にインターンシッププログラムにより滞在開始\n>\n> 平成２４年 ３月３１日 同上卒業", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-03-13T13:51:55.447", "id": "5000", "last_activity_date": "2012-03-13T13:51:55.447", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "3907", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Your example works. Having a comma after `より` is slightly unnatural, though.\nYou can also use `にとって`:\n\n> 私にとって、日本語で話すことは、貴方が英語で話すことより難しいです。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-06T16:54:55.373", "id": "3912", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-06T16:54:55.373", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3908", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "非【ひ】は理【り】に勝【か】たず、理【り】は法【ほう】に勝【か】たず、法【ほう】は権【けん】に勝【か】たず、権【けん】は天【てん】に勝【か】たず", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-06T16:30:02.403", "id": "3910", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-06T16:30:02.403", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3909", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "`と` is the normal one, `って` is a colloquial variant of it, `て` is substandard\nat best and may be ungrammatical.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-06T21:02:35.220", "id": "3914", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-06T21:02:35.220", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3913", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "It is hard to know when a character uses 'on' or 'kun'. It is usually not\ndistinguished by meaning. But usually in a word, the characters tend to use\nthe same variation of reading. I even know a word that both reading are\naccepted 国境 can be read as both こっきょう(on) or くにざかい(kun), with no difference in\nmeaning. (Can't find the article that discussed the problem of \"国境\" now)\n\nOne way to guess which variation should be used is: words originated in Japan\nusually use \"kun\", and words originated in China usually use \"on\". But that\nworks only to those who are familiar with Chinese.\n\nSo you may have to remember the reading in individual words.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-07T00:36:45.463", "id": "3917", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-07T00:55:57.897", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-07T00:55:57.897", "last_editor_user_id": "903", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3915", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "It can be either, and if there are no furigana, there is no way to be 100%\ncertain. However, certain tendencies can be identified.\n\nIf 魂 is used on its own with no special context, it will usually be たましい. But\nthere are many situations where 魂 is used as \"jargon\" with a specific meaning.\nIn these cases, using the pronunciation こん helps to distinguish the author's\nspecial use of 魂 from the general concept of たましい.\n\nFor example, if you Google around a bit you will see people discussing the\nduality of 霊 (れい) and 魂 (こん) [cf the word 霊魂, \"soul\"]. Or you can find 魂 (こん)\nvs 魄 (はく), a similar duality with Taoist overtones (this is the one cypher\nmentions in comments).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-07T06:18:12.163", "id": "3921", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-07T06:18:12.163", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "3915", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "\"訂正\" seems to mean to correct an error. And \"添削\" is to check whether an\narticle or answer is correct or appropriately written, and if not, correct\naccordingly.\n\nSo we can say \"誤りを訂正する\" or \"文章を添削する\".\n\nWhen used with translation, usually a whole translation is to corrected, not a\nsingle mistake, so \"添削\" is used.\n\nbtw: In English test in Japan, there seems to be a kind of problem called\n\"間違い訂正\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-07T02:05:50.000", "id": "3920", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-07T02:05:50.000", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3918", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Quoting from the page you mentioned:\n\n> `マラ` was originally a word used by monks, and there is a prevailing view\n> that the etymology comes from a transliteration of the Sanskrit\n> \"[Mara](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_%28demon%29)\" meaning \"evil god\n> who prevents good conduct,\n> [Klesha](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleshas_%28Buddhism%29) which amounts\n> to an obstruction to [Satori](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori)\", but\n> it's not known if that is accurate.\n>\n> Otherwise, there is a theory that the etymology of `マラ` is from an\n> alternative form of the verb `放{ま}る` meaning \"excretion\", a theory that it\n> came from `茎{くき}` to be `真茎{マラ}` and a theory that it came from `末裸{マラ}`\n> among others.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-07T07:07:49.227", "id": "3922", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-07T09:03:24.843", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3919", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "* `...に訪ねる` is ungrammatical. You have to use `...を訪ねる`.\n * In the first place, using the expression 'visit' is metaphoric. It may work in English, but it is a bit strange in Japanese to use `訪ねる`. As cypher writes, `ご覧ください` 'please see' is more natural.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-07T23:36:09.673", "id": "3926", "last_activity_date": "2016-06-18T02:38:48.470", "last_edit_date": "2016-06-18T02:38:48.470", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3923", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "On the off chance that the information on the referred page is related to the\ncontents of your email, I'll add in `～をご参照【さんしょう】ください` meaning \"Please refer\nto...\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T04:16:16.143", "id": "3929", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-08T04:16:16.143", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "3923", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "As I commented at your comment line, it looks like personally to me Choko san\nmight not submit her own answer, I would like to \"answer\" instead....\n\n## Choko san's own answer ( about which I think it is quite appropriate )\n\n> \"To change your setting, go to www.example.com, then click \"my profile\",\n> then click \"settings\" >> Well in that case I think you could say something\n> like **「設定を変更するには、www.example.comを開いて / にアクセスして、\"my profile\"** → **\"setting\"\n> の順にクリックしてください。** 」\n\nor\n\n> 「 **設定はwww.example.comから/よりご変更いただけます。/\n> 設定の変更はwww.example.comよりお願いします・から行ってください。\"my\n> profile\"→\"setting\"の順にクリックしてください。** 」etc\n\nP.S I would like not to change her comment since I think it is not appropriate\nto change someone's **original** answer/comment without paying due heed to the\nperson.\n\n**-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------**\n\nHere, I would like to start my opinion....\n\n**Regarding why to direct someone to a certain URL needs such a long speech.**\n\nFor example, this is the Yahoo! Japan's guidance.\n\n> ★MyYahoo!では Yahoo! JAPANページを 自分仕様にカスタマイズできます！\n>\n> ・ドラッグ＆ドロップで、自分が 見やすい位置にコンテンツを移動 ・ヤフオクやメールなど、いつも 使っているYahoo! JAPANサービス\n> をまとめて表示 ・気になるサイトのRSSフィードを 追加して一緒に表示\n>\n> ▼My Yahoo!の特徴はこちら <http://docs.my.yahoo.co.jp/newmyyahoo/promo/index.html>\n\nTranslation\n\n> You can customize your Yahoo! Japan's page as you like here at MyYahoo! (\n> page)\n>\n> Use the drag & drop function to place your favorite contents to your\n> preferred place, ( to be continued )\n>\n> You can display your favorite contents such as Yahoo auction or Yahoo e-mail\n> at your preferred place.\n>\n> You can display the RSS feeds of the sites of your own choice in addition to\n> the above.\n>\n> For the above peculiar My Yahoo! services, click\n> <http://docs.my.yahoo.co.jp/newmyyahoo/promo/index.html>\n\nGranted, since I have not seen your PC's screen? to users, I can not say\nperfectly, but **should there be explanations of your direction to users on\nyour screen, explaining the features or services or setting ups as I presented\nabove as an example ( = My Yahoo )** , then I think what you need to direct\nthe users to the site is just to direct them to \"click\" as below.\n\n> こちらをクリックして下さい。 ( Please click here )\n\nlike Choko-san's answer.\n\n## If I were you, ( my personal way )\n\nI may probably would like to do like this ( almost same with that of Choko-san\n)\n\n> 貴殿（きでん）のプロフィールを変更されたい場合はまずこちらをクリックして下さい。 <http://www.example.com>\n\nTranslation\n\n> If you would like to change your profile kindly click below first.\n> <http://www.example.com>\n\nThen I would probably change the further instruction according to which site (\nat the main screen or the at the above link ) the explanation about the later\n\"Profile\" and \"Setting\" link is.\n\nNo1. In a case that the explanation about the link to \"Profile\" and \"Settings\"\nis **not** at <http://www.example.com>\n\n> リンク先に「プロフィール」という項目が有ります。まずそこをクリックして下さい。 その中に「セッティング」という項目が有りますのでそこをクリックして貴殿の\n> プロフィールを変更して下さい。\n\nTranslation\n\n> After you click the above link, there is an additional link 「My profile」.\n> Please click it. Inside the page ( link ) you can find a link 「Settings」.\n> Kindly click it and change your profile as your prefer to.\n\nNo2. In a case that the further instruction **is at** the\n<http://www.example.com>. ( = meaning, after the users click\n<http://www.example.com> )\n\n> 「プロフィール」の項目をクリックして下さい。\n\nTranslation\n\n> Kindly click 「Profile」.\n\nThen after the users click the \"Profile\" link, I would probably add,\n\n> 「セッティング」をクリックして下さい。そこで貴殿のプロフィールの変更が出来ます。\n\nTranslation\n\n> Kindly click 「Settings」. You can change your profile as you like there.\n\nSo No2 is kind of a **step by step** explanation.\n\n**-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------**\n\nP.S Since I have no way but to imagine in my way your \"main screen\" or the\nrelated links, I just wrote imagining at my own discretion.\n\nHave a nice day and thank you.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-08-04T01:58:50.247", "id": "26162", "last_activity_date": "2015-08-05T17:34:11.990", "last_edit_date": "2015-08-05T17:34:11.990", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3923", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "> `いられない` \n> i-rare-nai \n> 'be'-'can'-'not' \n> 'cannot be'\n>\n> `...ずにはいられない` \n> 'cannot be without doing ...'", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-07T23:38:54.833", "id": "3927", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-07T23:38:54.833", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3925", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "sawa has the answer for \"ずにはいられない\".\n\nCompared with \"～せざるをえない\", they are both formed by two negative phrases to get\na strong positive meaning, and the latter means \"have to\".\n\nAnd there is no しざるをえない , it's only せざるをえない. \"せ\" is there to stand for a \"未然形\"\nfor a verb.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T01:32:17.223", "id": "3928", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-08T01:32:17.223", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3925", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "`～ざるを得{え}ない` literally means \"cannot not\". `～ずにはいられない` literally means \"cannot\nbe without (do)ing\" as has been noted.\n\nBoth can be translated as \"cannot help but...\" in many cases. Both\n`時代の流れを感じずにはいられない` and `時代の流れを感じざるを得ない` could work as \"I cannot help but feel\nthe flow of time\".\n\nHowever, I found that `断念{だんねん}せざるを得ない` was used frequently, but\n`断念{だんねん}せずにはいられない` was barely used. Asking someone about why this was,\napparently `～ずにはいられない` has connotations of doing something\ncompulsively/cravingly, and as a result that sentence sounds unnatural:\n\n> × 希望を断念せずにはいられない \"I cannot hold back the urge to abandon my hopes\"\n>\n> △ 希望を断念せざるを得ない \"I cannot help but abandon my hopes\"\n\n[According to\nDaijisen](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%9A%E3%81%AB%E3%81%AF%E3%81%84%E3%82%89%E3%82%8C%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=09980200),\n`～ずにはいられない` expresses the feeling of being unable to hold back emotions or\nhold back from performing actions even if one tries. Here are some examples\nfrom [Space\nALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%9A%E3%81%AB%E3%81%AF%E3%81%84%E3%82%89%E3%82%8C%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84/UTF-8/?pg=1)\nwhich seem to show this:\n\n> 盗{ぬす}みを働{はたら}かずにはいられない \"Steal compulsively\"\n>\n> どうしても～を食べずにはいられない \"Have a compulsive urge for\"\n>\n> 賭{か}け事{ごと}をせずにはいられないこと \"Compulsive gambling\"\n>\n> 浮気{うわき}をせずにはいられない \"Can't help cheating\" (compulsively cheat)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T11:32:21.440", "id": "3934", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-08T11:49:18.530", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3925", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Cypher's answer says more or less everything, but I'd like to add something\nthat comes, part from what I heard from my sensei, part from my personal\nexperience and, well, part is just an hunch (so I'd be grateful for some input\nfrom other answerers).\n\nI'll try to be brief. 2 points.\n\n 1. ～ずにはいられない is more or less ～ないでいられない (without は), and ～ないでいられない is a double negative, meaning it's not that different from ～ている (obviously it can't be replaced, due to the different nuance). So, what I'm saying is that there is a nuance about time passing. Let me make an example: Can't help cheating = Can't let the time pass without cheating (on her).\n\n 2. ざるを得ない doesn't have the aforementioned nuance and is for things you _literally_ can't avoid. 聞かずにはいられない is way more frequently found than 聞かざるをえない because you actually can avoid asking! Just to be clear this is the part that comes from my sensei, meaning I've been corrected, and then I tried to make some sense of it (sensei said it was \"just more natural\"... so if some native speaker here can throw some light on this issue, it would be wonderful ^_^)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-07-03T21:56:30.363", "id": "17647", "last_activity_date": "2014-07-03T21:56:30.363", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "2972", "parent_id": "3925", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "It can be translated as 聞いたことがない\n\n> 聞いたことのない歌です。 \n> 宮崎賢治のことを聞いたことがありません。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T04:55:23.943", "id": "3932", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-08T04:55:23.943", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3930", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "For \"I have never___\" you take the verb, put it in the past tense, then add\n`ことがない` or `ことがありません`.\n\nThe direct translation is something like \"I don't have X experience\" or \"I've\nnever done X thing\"\n\nSo, for 聞く, we go:\n\n```\n\n 聞く　--> 聞いた --> 聞いたこと --> 聞いたことがありません\n \n```\n\nor to answer your initial question:\n\n```\n\n その歌{うた}を聞いたことがありません。\n \n```\n\n* * *\n\nFor \"I've never heard of that store\" you can't really use this expression,\nyou'd have to say something more like:\n\n```\n\n その店ぜんぜん知らない。\n \n```\n\n\"I don't know anything about that store\"", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T05:11:07.677", "id": "3933", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-08T05:11:07.677", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "921", "parent_id": "3930", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "No to both of your questions. You are mixing up different things.\n\n * `もらえる` is the potential form of the verb `もらう`, and it means the same thing as `もらうことができる`.\n\n * `見える` 'can be seen, is observable' is related to the verb `見る` 'see', but means a different thing. The construction is different from `見ることができる`.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T17:12:21.143", "id": "3936", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-08T17:12:21.143", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3935", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "They are some ways to get verbs end with える:\n\n 1. 五段動詞 can change the last kana to え段 and add る to form a kind of 可能動詞, like:\n\n> もらう → もらえる \n> 書く → 書ける \n> 飛ぶ → 飛べる\n\nThey have a similar meaning of the \"れる\" form : もらわれる 書かれる 飛ばれる. In modern\nJapanese, the れる form is not so popular as the form of \"可能動詞\".\n\n 2. える is a verb that can be used after the 連用形 of other verbs to show ability or possibility:\n\n> ある → ありえる \n> 起こる → 起こりえる\n\nみえる and 聞こえる (I don't know if there are more) are another story, they are from\nみゆ and きこゆ in classic Japanese.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T17:15:48.300", "id": "3937", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-30T09:16:56.683", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T09:16:56.683", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3935", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "According to dictionary.goo.ne.jp, maybe\n[柳](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/222323/m1u/%E6%9F%B3/) is the\ncollective name for all willows, and\n[楊](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/226141/m1u/%E6%A5%8A/) may be used\nfor some specific species (カワヤナギ,ネコヤナギ).\n\nHowever, the kun reading(やなぎ) of 楊 is usually not used, and 楊 is usually only\nused in some compound words. So when referring to willow, 柳 would be used.\n\nNote that for tree names formed with the two characters may refer to different\nkinds of trees. E.g, 白楊【はくよう】 may be\n[ヤマナラシ](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%A4%E3%83%9E%E3%83%8A%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B7)\n([Populus tremula](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populus_tremula)), which is\nnot a kind of willow.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T18:18:55.950", "id": "3940", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-08T18:18:55.950", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3938", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "`柳` やなぎ リュウ:\n\n> * Used for willows which have their branches hanging down including\n> [`しだれやなぎ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B7%E3%83%80%E3%83%AC%E3%83%A4%E3%83%8A%E3%82%AE).\n> Can refer more broadly to the tall deciduous trees in the willow family and\n> as a general term for shrubs as well according to Kanjigen.\n> * Has a frequency of 1169/2501 and is classified as a general usage Kanji\n> according to Kanjidic.\n>\n\n`楊` かわ やなぎ ヨウ:\n\n> * Used for willows which have their branches going upwards including\n> `かわやなぎ` and\n> [`ねこやなぎ`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%8D%E3%82%B3%E3%83%A4%E3%83%8A%E3%82%AE)\n> according to Kanjigen.\n> * Has a frequency of 1815/2501 so is less common and is classified as a\n> `人名用{じんめいよう}` Kanji for use in people's names according to Kanjidic.\n>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-09T02:41:39.587", "id": "3955", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T02:41:39.587", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3938", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "It depends. In most cases it is おう. But is some words, the \"おお\" form is\nretained, such as \"大【おお】きい\", \"多【おお】い\", \"遠【とお】い\", etc.\n\nFor 扇, I'd believe if the dictionary doesn't have おおぎ, it should be incorrect.\n\n(btw, from the transcription of おうぎ in classic Japanese (あふぎ) which is shown\nin the dictionary, the transcription now can only be おうぎ.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T18:34:09.840", "id": "3942", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-08T18:34:09.840", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3939", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "If it's a kanji, and it's an ON reading of the kanji, it's almost certainly\nオウ.\n\nEx. Tōkyō = とうきょう\n\nWith kun readings, you just have to know which one. I don't think it's an\nespecially common occurrence, so knowing the common cases (おおきい,\nおおい、とおる）should be pretty sufficient.\n\nEven if you get it wrong, you'll be understood.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T22:49:32.917", "id": "3947", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-08T22:49:32.917", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "933", "parent_id": "3939", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "You seem to be considering the relation between the written and the spoken\nforms in the opposite way. Indeed, the writing system of a language always\nappears after the spoken form to transcribe it. But that is true only at the\nbeginning. As time passes, the spoken form undergoes language change faster\nthan the written form. As a result, when you see a discrepancy between the\nwritten and the spoken forms, the written form is not the (exact)\ntranscription of the spoken form any more. It is the opposite: the spoken form\nis rather the (rough) reflection of the written form (which is tied to the\noriginal spoken form). There are both words that are written in kana as `おう`\n(`[王]{おう}[位]{い}`) and `おお` (`[多]{おお}い`). They are the underlying forms. They\nconverge into the same pronunciation \"ō\" because of the phonological rules. It\nis not the other way around. There is no mapping from the pronunciation \"ō\" to\nthe written forms `おう` or `おお`. But the mapping from the written forms `おう` or\n`おお` to the pronunciation \"ō\" is simple: `ou → ō`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-09T03:19:21.533", "id": "3957", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T13:55:12.123", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T13:55:12.123", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3939", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I don't know if I should bring over my answer from the Linguistics SE or not.\nIn my experience, you can split anywhere between characters (including\nokurigana), but it is still best to keep words together. Sometimes there is\nreally little choice but to split between the characters in a word. However,\nas long as one is able, words should not be split.\n\nIn handwritten Japanese, I have never seen the characters that make up a word\nor compound split lines. In typewritten Japanese, I see it all the time. I\ncannot remember (as I don't have either on hand at the moment) how book or\nmanga text layout is handled.\n\nThe best example I can think of for typewritten has to do with resizing of\nwindows (or screen resolution) on a computer. Programs will automatically wrap\nthis text and it appears that a line will wrap when it comes to the edge of\nthe text box/window/whathaveyou regardless of kanji/kana word composition. It\nis my understanding that proper wrapping (at the end of a word) can be\nmanually forced, but that it is not because it is tedious, can really mess up\na layout design, and is not really necessary.\n\nI am interested in seeing what anyone else has to say, as this topic never\ncame up in any of my lessons and my reasoning is based solely on my experience\nas a professional and as a consumer.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T22:09:03.703", "id": "3944", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-08T22:09:03.703", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3943", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "If you hit the end of line, and you're out of space, yes, you can freely split\nkanji and their okurigana. I have a novel right in front of me that does it\ntwo lines in a row on the second page:\n\n * 彼女と初 **//** めて会った\n * 思 **//** い出してみるがいいよ.\n\nWikipedia says that the rules governing line-splitting in Japanese are called\n[禁則【きんそく】処理【しょり】](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%A6%81%E5%89%87%E5%87%A6%E7%90%86),\nand there are slight variations in implementation.\n\nFor example, [LibreOffice](http://help.libreoffice.org/Common/Asian_Layout)\nuses the following lists and rules by default when typesetting Japanese text:\n\n> **Characters that should not begin a line**\n>\n> (If a character typed here is positioned at the beginning of a line after a\n> line break, it is automatically moved to the end of the previous line.)\n>\n>\n> !%),.:;?]}¢°’”‰′″℃、。々〉》」』】〕ぁぃぅぇぉっゃゅょゎ゛゜ゝゞァィゥェォッャュョヮヵヶ・ーヽヾ！％），．：；？］｝｡｣､･ｧｨｩｪｫｬｭｮｯｰﾞﾟ¢\n>\n> (essentially: do not begin a line with a suffix, a terminating or closing\n> punctuation mark, or any kana that changes the pronunciation1 of the kana\n> that ended the previous line, including the sokuon)\n>\n> **Characters that should not end a line**\n>\n> (If a character typed here is positioned at the end of a line due to a line\n> break, it is automatically moved to the beginning of the next line.)\n>\n> $([¥{£¥‘“〈《「『【〔＄（［｛｢£￥\n>\n> (essentially: do not end a line with a prefix or opening punctuation mark)\n\nThis basically lines up with what I see in novels. The process leaves the line\na character or so short, and in typeset text, justification is normally\napplied, by increasing (追い出し) or decreasing (追い込み) the space between\ncharacters. On 原稿【げんこう】用紙【ようし】, where this is obviously not possible, I'd\nguess that punctuation which can't begin the next line is just stuck after and\noutside the last box on the end of the previous line, or wedged into that last\nbox.\n\n**However, when the location of the end of line is only roughly defined\ninstead of rigidly enforced,** for example when writing in a nebulously-\ndefined small region of a larger piece of paper, there's often a tendency to\nsplit where it comes most naturally rather than when you run out of room. In\nthat case I feel (but I'm not a native, uh, writer) that it would be unusual\nto split a kanji and its okurigana.\n\n* * *\n\n1 Incidentally, I find it amusing that they offer readers this comfort, yet\nhave no qualms about leaving the pronunciation of the last kanji on a page\nentirely in question until you turn over...", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-08T22:35:19.073", "id": "3946", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T16:16:35.150", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-09T16:16:35.150", "last_editor_user_id": "37", "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3943", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

[ { "body": "The meaning of ている can be found\n[here](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/4536/m0u/%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B/).\nしていて comes from する+ている.\n\nAnd てる てて are short forms of ている ていて. These short forms should be avoided in\nformal reading and writing, as they are less formal, and are still being\nargued whether they should considered correct Japanese.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-09T01:09:28.087", "id": "3950", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T01:09:28.087", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3945", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm a programmer at a Japanese company, and all of our variable names are\nnamed in English. Sometimes it's misspelled or unclear English, but it's\nEnglish nonetheless. It's just the standard. Heck, most programming languages\ndon't even support non-ASCII variable names, and romaji variable names are\nunwieldy and unnecessary. Of course, it all comes down to the style used at\nyour particular organization, and variable naming convention can really run\nthe gamut.\n\nThat being said, to get to your core question (if you absolutely have to give\nyour variables Japanese names), I would probably go with 種類 for a general sort\nof type (as in the phrase \"a type of customer\"), タイプ for a programming data\ntype (as in \"the integer type\") and maybe 種別 or カテゴリー for a classification or\ncategory or something.\n\nAlso, I would never use \"tokui\" for \"customer;\" I'm not even sure how you got\nthat. I usually see 顧客 or お客様. Or sometimes even カスタマー. But \"tokui\" doesn't\nmean that.\n\nHope this answer helps! To summarize, go with English for the variable names\nand comment in Japanese :)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-14T10:09:49.317", "id": "4275", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-14T10:09:49.317", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1048", "parent_id": "3948", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "You are right that both `とはいえ` and `とはいうものの` are similar things, but your\ntranslation is not quite right. They mean 'even though they say A, B'", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-09T02:18:17.257", "id": "3952", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-02T22:11:09.467", "last_edit_date": "2016-03-02T22:11:09.467", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3949", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "とはいえ＝といっても (approximately), meaning \"although.\"\n\nIt's similar to 〜くあれ＝〜くても or ＡあれＢ＝ＡあってもＢ, in that it's a written-style usage\nof the imperative that functions as a concessive. That is, it's conceding\nsomething: although, though, even though, yet, however, etc.\n\n春【はる】とはいえまだ寒【さむ】い。 = Although it's spring, it's still cold.\n\nKeep in mind that this isn't 言【い】う in the sense of \"he said ___,\" but more in\nthe broader sense of defining and describing a concept. As a general point,\nwhile you're correct that いう is 言【い】う, the two spellings imply different\nusage. Although it's not a _rule_ , generally 言【い】う will refer to an action,\nlike something directly spoken:\n\n何度【なんど】も言【い】った。 = I've said it several times.\n\nいう, on the other hand, generally used in phrases like という or こういう, has the\nbroader senses of defining, describing, quoting, emphasizing, etc. It implies\na grammatical function (like とはいえ):\n\n日本【にほん】という国【くに】 = The country (called) Japan", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-09T05:25:01.570", "id": "3958", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T05:33:47.000", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-09T05:33:47.000", "last_editor_user_id": "457", "owner_user_id": "457", "parent_id": "3949", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "I interpret it as the imperative 言え, which relates it to ～にしろ、～にせよ, which have\nsimilar functions. Then it becomes \"That said...\", and, in the case of the\nother two examples, it's the ～にする construction with the imperative, which\ncomes out to \"Then assume X, [it still doesn't change my conclusion which is\nY]\".\n\n> どっちにしろ、今はここで待つしかない。 \n> Either way, all [we/I] can do now is wait here. \n> とは言え、直ぐに方針を変えるわけにはいかない。 \n> That said, it won't do to change our course immediately.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-02-26T10:59:02.483", "id": "11340", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-29T06:57:22.180", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-29T06:57:22.180", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "3131", "parent_id": "3949", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "'Unreasonable' is the right translation, and I don't understand why you think\nit does not fit, but if you are not satisfied with it, you may want to\nconsider it as 'being forced into an unreasonable situation' or 'negatively\naffected (=being forced to work) unreasonably (= all the efforts were treated\nin a way to make them worthless)', etc.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-09T02:50:07.367", "id": "3956", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-09T02:50:07.367", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3954", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "It's probably a typo. Mayebe you should ask him what he meant.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-12T15:25:59.130", "id": "3969", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-12T15:25:59.130", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "947", "parent_id": "3960", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "It is rather the other way around of what the second link says, and the reason\nfor that description is that it is probably confusing politeness and\nformality.\n\n * ら: non-polite, formal\n * たち: slightly polite, informal\n * がた: polite\n\nAs for 俺ら, 俺 is highly informal, and the whole combination is informal because\nof that even if ら is formal.\n\nAnd besides that, some personal pronouns only go with either of them as noted\nin the first link.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-10T20:23:30.507", "id": "3963", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-10T20:31:27.060", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-10T20:31:27.060", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3962", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "In addition to 'as it stands', it means 'in the mean while' with an\nimplication that it is temporal and with expectations of some other events to\nfollow.\n\n> とりあえず、そこを掃除しておけ。 \n> 'In the mean while (before I give you further instructions), clean that\n> place.'\n>\n> とりあえず、ビールを飲む。 \n> 'I will drink beer for now before doing anything else.'", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-11T19:41:33.550", "id": "3967", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-11T19:46:40.383", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3965", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "According to\n[goo](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/160965/m0u/%E3%81%A8%E3%82%8A/)\n([English](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/55213/m0u/%E5%8F%96%E3%82%8A%E6%95%A2%E3%81%88%E3%81%9A/)),\nとりあえず means:\n\n 1. (Before doing any other things,) First of all\n\n> とりあえず母に合格を知らせる。 \n> Let's first tell mother that (I/we/you..) passed.\n\n 2. (Without time (or chance) to do anything else, ) for the time being\n\n> とりあえずけが人に応急処置をした。 \n> We gave first aid to the injured (as an emergency (a temporary) measure)\n\nIn this sense I feel that the example given by the OP is not appropriate. But\nwe can say\n\n> とりあえず計画を立てましょう。 \n> Let's first make a plan.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-12T00:42:24.387", "id": "3968", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-14T03:36:32.910", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-14T03:36:32.910", "last_editor_user_id": "903", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3965", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "It's simply that だから is the copula だ + から. Therefore:\n\n2 can't be 寒くなっただから because 寒くなっただ is nonsense; you don't put だ after verbs.\n\n1 can't be 寒いだから for the same reason -- い-adjectives don't take だ. They take\nです, as a politeness marker, but not だ.\n\n3 can't be 寒さから because now から is following a noun instead of a clause or\nsentence (which だ would have completed). When から follows a noun, it instead\nmeans \"from\" (cf. が the subject particle / が meaning \"but\").", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-12T21:00:18.193", "id": "3971", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-13T01:45:03.013", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-13T01:45:03.013", "last_editor_user_id": "315", "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3970", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "> この五種類の果物の{中/うち}で、りんごが{一番/最も}おいしいです。 \n> ソウルや、東京、上海の{中/うち}で上海が{一番/最も}大きいです。", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-13T01:17:15.737", "id": "3975", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-13T01:17:15.737", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3972", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm no keigo expert, but it seems to me that choice #1 is a bit too\nformal/humble for an internal memo or comment to someone that's not in a\nhigher position than you. Choices #2 and #3 seem a bit better, but the humble\nform お + verb + する for かける seems a bit too humble to me in this case. I would\nchange #2 to 「ご迷惑をかけて申し訳ありません」 and #3 to 「ご迷惑をかけてすみません」.\n\nIn my case I would probably use #2. #3 seems a bit too familiar to use on\nsomeone in a work environment where you don't necessarily know exactly who\nthey are and you haven't interacted personally with them before. Also,\nchanging it to the past tense should be fine, since you've already made the\nmistake, you are just reporting/explaining it on your expense report.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-09T17:25:52.233", "id": "4233", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-09T20:12:00.450", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-09T20:12:00.450", "last_editor_user_id": "1026", "owner_user_id": "1026", "parent_id": "3976", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "It is not an apology.\n\nIt is a standard ending of a letter to the person you depend on. Like your\nboss, a person on position who helps you without earning benefits directly,\nand a customer who you ask to do something. The meaning is simply \"sorry for\ndisturbing you with this request.\"\n\nThen, if it comes to apologies, you have to use \"total kenjougo\" in the\nletter, and begin it with ....,まことに申し訳ございませんでした。or some equivalent to that.\n\nBTW, this thing with a credit card is officially called \"power harassment\" in\nJapan. In companies it is applied to foreigners more often than to Japanese\nwomen. Media raises the topic, but the state does not care, so you can't go to\nlawyer, like you would do in the USA. See \"Fear and Trembling\" movie(or read\nthe book).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-09-19T23:37:05.843", "id": "61624", "last_activity_date": "2018-10-30T01:34:05.833", "last_edit_date": "2018-10-30T01:34:05.833", "last_editor_user_id": "29714", "owner_user_id": "29714", "parent_id": "3976", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "The clause used in `...ことがある` is structurally ambiguous between an appositive\nclause and a relative clause.\n\n> 書きたくなることがあります \n> 1\\. As appositive clause \n> `書きたくなる` 'I become tempted to write something' is the content of the formal\n> noun `こと` 'occasion' \n> 'There are occasions that I become tempted to write something.' \n> 2\\. As relative clause \n> The `こと` '(factual) thing' is the missing object of the relative clause\n> `書きたくなる` 'I become tempted to write' \n> 'There are things that I become tempted to write.'\n\nIt is just as the same in English. Depending on whether you interpret the\nEnglish `write` in:\n\n> There are occasions that I become tempted to write\n\nas intransitive or transitive, you can interpret the clause as appositive or\nrelative, and will get the two meanings.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-13T13:06:58.087", "id": "3978", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-13T13:20:04.913", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-13T13:20:04.913", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3977", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "The following is only my understanding.\n\nことがある is not a fixed word/phrase. Though it can be often seen, it is formed as\n(...ことが)ある.\n\nこと here is a 形式名詞 (NOTE1), which is used to convert the previous sentence into\na noun phrase, and can have various meanings. According to\n[goo](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/80340/m1u/%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8/),\nthere are only two usages of こと that often (only) appear in the form ことがある:\n\n> （「…ことがある」などの形で）場合。「ときどき郵便物が返ってくる―がある」 \n> （「…ことがある」などの形で）経験。「アメリカなら行った―がある」\n\nThe first means \"occasion\", The second means \"experience\".\n\nThese are the two forms the OP first mentioned.\n\nHowever, if the meaning of noun phrase permits, \"がある\" can also be attached to\nother usages of こと to form \"ことがある\".\n\nE.g. 書きたいこと means \"something that (I) want to write about\", and we can have\n\n> 書きたいことがある have something that (I) want to write about \n> 書きたいことを書く Write what (I) want to write about\n\nThe formation of 書きたいこと is similar with 行きたいところ (place where (I) want to go).\n\n> 面白いことがある have something fun\n\nNOTE1:I've also seen some grammar books call it 形式体言. I don't know which is\nofficial.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-13T13:51:16.970", "id": "3979", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-13T13:51:16.970", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3977", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "`&` is not part of Japanese. It is just cited form a western language\n(probably English), and is just read \"アンド\". If you see `カードを使う＆電話をかける`, it is\nmost likely pronounced \"...アンド...\".\n\nOne important thing is that Japanese does not have the counterpart to the word\n`and`. The particles `と` or `や` do not mean `and` but are rather close to\n`with`. `みかんとりんご` is something like `apples with oranges` rather than `oranges\nand apples`. That is why you cannot connect predicates with `と` or `や`. The\nて-form is something like participles in English. So the strategy of using the\nて-form to connect the predicates like `歯を磨いて寝る` is something like `having\nbrushed my teeth, I sleep` rather than `I brush my teeth and sleep`, although\nthe latter sounds more natural in English.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-13T17:13:42.120", "id": "3982", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-13T23:26:41.070", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-13T23:26:41.070", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3980", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "Oh my, a question by sawa!\n\nI suspect I have less of an idea than you do, even -- particularly since I've\nnever even been to a Japanese school! -- but I'll write my thoughts anyway.\nThese are just my feelings and hunches. I hope I'm not wasting everyone's time\nby writing stuff that's completely wrong. :(\n\nFirstly, I don't think this is just examinations; it's textbooks as well.\nExaminations just follow the pattern. In making this assertion I'm going by my\nknowledge of the Japanese used in [this book\nseries](http://www.hyuki.com/girl/) and other Japanese mathematical writings\nI've seen.\n\nIn the very early stages of learning, it seems more constructive/productive to\nask young children to \"join in\" with a (fun) activity with ましょう, rather than\nordering them to do a task with なさい (which is never much fun - なさい is what you\nhear when you're told to clean your room or go to bed early). It's likely to\nchange their perception of the task, if only on a subconscious level. It's\nfriendly.\n\nください works in a slightly different way, being a request rather than a command,\nbut again shies away from coldly ordering the student to do anything.\n\nAs you move up the schooling system, and the students grow up, it's natural to\ntreat them less like kids, so switching to command forms like なさい is sensible\nto avoid mollycoddling. The switch to a command form also acts as a\nsubconscious signal impressing upon the student that the task requires more of\na sense of responsibility and seriousness to solve than the more casual tasks\ndone before.\n\nThe switch from なさい to せよ is even more interesting, as it represents a switch\nin the relationship between the textbook and the student. Before, the textbook\nwas a parent or teacher, nagging you and telling you strictly to solve\nproblems. But by this point, you chose your subject. Now, you study on your\nown, because you want to. You signed up. So the textbook directs you with the\nsame type of language that might be used in the army or similar organizations.\nThere is more respect this way; the textbook no longer questions whether you\nwill follow the orders, and it doesn't speak down to you; it simply hands out\nits orders in the most efficient way possible, knowing you were waiting for\nthem and that you feel honored to follow them.\n\nI think most of that would be lost in using しろ rather than せよ, but even so しろ\nis yet preferable to なさい, as once again it cuts out mollycoddling (the book\nisn't pretending to be friendly any more and neither are the questions).\n\nせい just sounds old or angry? I don't know.\n\nである is taken in preference to だ because it keeps some distance between the\nauthor and the reader. だ is casual and can be used between friends. である only\nappears in written works. It makes it clearer that the author isn't chatting\nto you, he's dictating, lecturing, reading and stating facts. This tone is\nmore appropriate than a conversational one. It also might sound more\nauthoritative.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-14T03:33:05.583", "id": "3991", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-14T03:33:05.583", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "3981", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "> 豆腐の角に頭をぶつけて死んでしまえ。\n\nUsed to say that a person is so stupid (that he would believe this and real\nfind a piece tofu to die).\n[(source)](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ja/w/index.php?title=%E8%B1%86%E8%85%90&oldid=40284190#.E6.85.A3.E7.94.A8.E5.8F.A5)\n\n> ...の爪の垢を煎じて飲む。\n\nUse the dirt under the nail of ( some expertise ) as a drug, (you'll get some\nof his talent). [(source)](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/148346/m0u/)\n\n> 名人の爪の垢を煎じて飲めば少しは腕が上がるだろうに\n\nIt'll be hard to make any sense out of them if you see them alone. I'd\nrecommend you to find some reference.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-14T01:27:04.693", "id": "3990", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-14T02:42:51.287", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-14T02:42:51.287", "last_editor_user_id": "54", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3983", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "As far as I know, Hiragana is for normal Japanese words, Katakana is for\nforeign words such as: 'pizza' and 'hamburger'. Kanji is a symbol for a word,\nin a way it simplifies writing and doesn't cause confusion.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-13T19:09:31.453", "id": "3985", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-13T19:09:31.453", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "947", "parent_id": "3984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "There are no alphabets in Japanese. For a detailed explanation check wiki,\nthough there are probably tons of writing on this subject.\n<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_writing>", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-13T19:25:53.553", "id": "3986", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-13T19:25:53.553", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "parent_id": "3984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "That's a good question, I used to wonder about that myself! This is what I've\nfound out through my own experiences:\n\nWhen the Chinese brought their written language to Japan, there were only\nKanji (Literally, Chinese Characters). Unfortunately, although this kind of\nideographic writing system works perfectly for the Chinese language, the\nJapanese language is structured differently. For example, in Chinese, if you\nwant to say something in the past tense, all you do is add the word for \"past\"\nto the verb (it would be the equivalent if every verb in English could be put\nin the past tense solely by adding '-ed' to the end of it {fall-ed, go-ed}),\nand in Japanese (as in English) the actual word changes.\n\nWhat the Japanese needed was a way to notate their verb changes. They\ndeveloped Hiragana and Katakana from already existing Kanji and assigned them\nsolely phonetic meanings. At some point Katakana came to be used for (among\nother things*) foreign loan-words, but you can still see examples of Japanese\nwords written in Katakana (for example, on old gravestones) and loan-words\nwritten in Hiragana (for example, you can see たばこ for tobacco).\n\n*See link in comments below", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-13T19:38:49.307", "id": "3987", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-14T03:06:41.683", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-14T03:06:41.683", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": "921", "parent_id": "3984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "Let me reflect this back as a similar question -- why are there two alphabets\nin English, upper- and lower-case? Is there any logical reason for this, or\njust tradition? English can clearly be written using only one or the other.\n\nIn that context, it's worth noting that everything about language is largely\nhanded down to us from the past. It's very rare to find moments in history\nwhen someone sat down and carefully thought out some aspect of a language; for\nthe most part, language evolves over time to suit the needs and circumstances\nof its speakers. And that's also the answer for why Japanese has kanji,\nhiragana, and katakana -- the kanji came first, and were borrowed from the\nChinese. It was cumbersome to use kanji to handle writing out the changing\nparts of Japanese words, and so the most commonly used kanji were simplified\nfor those specific roles. And that's the short, probably over-simplified\nanswer.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-13T20:30:27.570", "id": "3988", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-13T20:30:27.570", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "820", "parent_id": "3984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "As for hiragana vs. katakana, it pretty much resembles the distinction between\nupright vs. italics. People tend to count hiragana and katakana as different\nscripts, but it makes more sense to consider them as a single script in\ndifferent styles comparable to upright, italic, bold. In fact, during the\nhistory or in special situations (like computers in the old days or\ntelegrams), the roles of hiragana and katakana are often switched. You should\ncount them together as one script. Some bases for claiming that the two kanas\nare a single script are:\n\n(1) They show an almost one-to-one correspondence (exceptions being the use of\nthe long-vowel symbol and some minor subscript combinations in katakana, which\nhiragana does not have).\n\n(2) They have several characters which are very similar (such as う and ウ, や\nand ヤ, か and カ, き and キ, へ and ヘ, り and リ), which goes well with the\nunderstanding that they are mere different styles.\n\n(3) Even more of the kanas than mentioned in (2) share the same Chinese\ncharacter as the origin (such as く and ク, etc.).\n\nAs for hiragana/katakana vs. kanji, a characteristics of Japanese is that it\ndoes not segment the words (for example, by a space). The different graphical\nimpression of kanji vs. kana plays a role in identifying the word boundary. If\noften coincides with transitions from kanji to kana or the other way around.\nChinese can go with Chinese characters only because a Chinese character\ncorresponds to a single word or a single morpheme, so the layout of a Chinese\ncharacter as a single block already counts for the purpose of identifying the\nword/morpheme boundary.", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-13T23:13:10.013", "id": "3989", "last_activity_date": "2016-06-18T02:35:40.140", "last_edit_date": "2016-06-18T02:35:40.140", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "3984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Many answers are answering \"Why does there _need to_ be 3 ways\" or \"How are\nthey used\", but not really _why are there_. I'll make an attempt...\n\nThe one line answer is: Because the need for a phonetic script was so big that\nkanji which were previously only used for their phonetic value evolved into\nseparate scripts.\n\nIn the beginning, there were only Chinese scripts, and people would study\nthem.\n\nLater, people would start using the kanji in these scripts only for their\nsemantic value, and actually pronounce the scripts in Japanese. But since\nJapanese and Chinese are very different, including word order, this would mean\na lot of jumping around in the Chinese text, adding suffixes as particles that\nwere not explicitly marked in Chinese, etc. This excercise is still done by\nJapanese students when studying Kanbun.\n\nLater again, in order to make scripts easier to read and write in _actual_\nJapanese, people would start using some kanji only for their phonetic value,\nintermingle them with kanji to express verb endings, particles etc. Modern\nChinese also uses characters only for their phonetic value in some cases, but\nobviously, this need is much bigger in Japanese.\n\nEventually, these phonetic kanji evolved into kana (which are basically\nsimplified phonetic kanji). Katakana and hiragana were created in different\nways, but are similar in this sense. They've been used for different purposes\nthrough time, but the need to have both of them has survived until current\nday.\n\nI'm no expert on the history of Japanese scripts, but this should cover the\ngeneral idea. Feel free to correct me on inaccuracies.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-08-06T07:17:38.987", "id": "6423", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-06T07:17:38.987", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "3984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Kanji were brought to Japan about 4th centry from China. Hiragana are phonetic\ncharacters created from Chinese readings of kanji in around the eighth century\nin Japan. For example, あ was created from 安 and い was created from 以.\n\nKatakana were mainly created by Japanese scholars from Chinese readings of\nkanji at the same time that hiragana were created. For example, ア was creatad\nfrom 阿 and イ was created from 伊.\n\nThe reason why Japanese created hiragana and katakana are that writing kanji\nis a bother and we want to use phonetic characters.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-10-13T10:18:30.410", "id": "19074", "last_activity_date": "2014-10-13T11:10:37.787", "last_edit_date": "2014-10-13T11:10:37.787", "last_editor_user_id": "7320", "owner_user_id": "7320", "parent_id": "3984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "Your question\n\n> Why are there kanji, hiragana and katakana? Is there a logical reason behind\n> this or just tradition?\n\nWith regards `a logical reason behind this`, None of the answers here really\nsatisfied me, but I found [this\narticle](https://en.rocketnews24.com/2016/05/10/why-does-japanese-writing-\nneed-three-different-sets-of-characters-part-1/) which has some useful\nsuggestions, basically:\n\n 1. Kanji may be considered a more \"mature\" or \"sophisticated\" way of expressing words. The author suggests that using hiragana in place of kanji comes across as childish. While I agree that kanji looks more impressive, I really don't think this alone is a good reason to continue its use.\n\n 2. Japanese has several homonyms, which may cause ambiguity when written down (for example on a sign) rather than in speech, where there is often more context available. Since these homonyms would all look the same in hiragana, it is useful to have kanji representations to avoid confusion.\n\n 3. Japanese text does not make use of spaces as we do in English, so if everything was written in hiragana it may become difficult to identify where a word starts or ends. So if we just use hiragana to represent particles/modifiers and kanji for our main words or concepts, it is much clearer what a sentence is trying to get across.\n\nNow the article does not really explain _why_ katakana might have a logical\nfunction, but as in point 3 above, we may consider that a sentence could be\nbuilt using kanji for our main concepts, hiragana for particles/modifiers and\nkatakana to represent words/concepts from foreign languages so that these can\nbe easily differentiated from the hiragana in the sentence. This way our\nwritten Japanese can be much clearer.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2017-10-10T10:28:40.767", "id": "53723", "last_activity_date": "2023-05-10T16:31:43.790", "last_edit_date": "2023-05-10T16:31:43.790", "last_editor_user_id": "26091", "owner_user_id": "26091", "parent_id": "3984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "Both works, although it'd be better if `あなたは` was elided (unless there is a\nneed to specifically refer to the person, otherwise it can have either an\naccusatory feel or it can have the effect of appearing intimate with the\nperson). `に` can also be elided.\n\n`の` at the end behaves something like a sentence softener. It tends to have a\nfeminine undertone. It is related to the sentence ending pattern `~のだ` which\nroughly means \"It is that ~\". The question is derived from `どこ行くのですか` with\n`ですか` elided.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-14T07:55:55.923", "id": "3993", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-14T08:12:24.563", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-14T08:12:24.563", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "3992", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The are both correct. It's just two different expression of politeness.\n\nThe first is polite (丁寧語). It is the form that usually ends with ます です.\n\nThe latter is less polite and can be used between friends. It uses the form\nthat usually exists in dictionary to end sentences. (What should be form be\ncalled? In Japanese it may be called くだけた言い方)\n\nYou can check this [wiki\narticle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific_speech_in_Japanese#Polite_language),\nor the [Japanese\nversion](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ja/wiki/%E6%95%AC%E8%AA%9E#.E4.B8.81.E5.AF.A7.E8.AA.9E).\n\nの here is a final particle (終助詞). It can be used at the end of sentence with a\nrising intonation to show question. ([source-\nEnglish](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/je2/58754/m1u/%E3%81%AE/) [source-\nJapanese](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/171157/m1u/%E3%81%AE/)):\n\n> （上昇調のイントネーションを伴って）質問または疑問の意を表す。 \n> 「君は行かないの」「そんなに悲しいの」「なぜなの」\n\nAnd there is a note on [the above\npage](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/171157/m1u/%E3%81%AE/):\n\n> [補説]終助詞の「の」は、近世後期以降用いられ、現代語では **うちとけた対話** に用いられることが多い。...\n\nwhich says that it is usually used in plain text (that does not use ます です).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-14T08:23:10.120", "id": "3994", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-14T12:23:09.870", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-14T12:23:09.870", "last_editor_user_id": "903", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3992", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Both ways are correct, but there are lots of ways of saying \"where are you\ngoing\" depending on politeness levels etc. You can also replace the `に`\nparticle with the `へ` particle in many instances, and in fact you can go\nwithout both `に` and `へ` in many informal situations. Often `あなたは` isn't\nnecessary as it can be determined by context.\n\nIn Japanese there isn't any distinction between \"where are you going\", \"where\nare you going to go\", \"where do you go\", \"where will you go\", \"where will you\nbe going\" etc, and it's usually determined by context which is meant.\n\nThis is by no means a complete list and the explanations may need to be\ncorrected, but I hope it will give some idea of the different ways of saying\nit:\n\n> どこ行くの more informal, omitting `に`\n>\n> どこに行くのか／どこに行くの informal \n> \n>\n>\n> どこに行くのかな informal but \"softer\", \"where are you going I wonder?\"\n>\n> どこに行くのかしら feminine version of the above\n>\n> どこに行くのだろう not strictly male, but I think it's used more by males similar to\n> the above\n>\n> どこに行くのでしょうか a formal version of `どこに行くのだろう` \n> \n>\n>\n> どこに行くのですか slightly more polite\n>\n> どこに行くつもりですか／どこに行く予定ですか polite, \"where do you intend to go\"\n>\n> どこ行きますか a polite but colloquial form\n>\n> どこに行きますか polite form\n>\n> (...et cetera)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-14T11:39:41.337", "id": "3996", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-14T11:56:40.227", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "3992", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Well, this is the first time I've heard of SKIP. But according to this [wiki\narticle](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kodansha_Kanji_Learner%27s_Dictionary),\nI think it is a mistake.\n\n古 has 5 strokes and 月 has 4, so the SKIP for 胡 should be 1-5-4.\n\nThe stroke order listed in [the\nlink](http://jisho.org/kanji/details/%E8%83%A1) given by jkerian in the\ncomment can also confirm this.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-18T12:08:14.840", "id": "4028", "last_activity_date": "2012-10-29T14:32:33.987", "last_edit_date": "2012-10-29T14:32:33.987", "last_editor_user_id": "1328", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "3997", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "Do you mean words or sentences?\n\nFor word, they can understand common words exist in both Chinese and Japanese\nand have the same meaning, of course. But there are still words that exist\nonly in Chinese or Japanese, and words having different (or opposite) meaning\nin Chinese and Japanese. Like `娘` means `daughter` in Japanese, but `mother`\nin Chinese.\n\nFor sentences or passages, no. Classic Chinese is taught in Japanese schools,\nbut it is still hard to understand for general population. Only well educated\npeople (in some special research fields) can understand classic Chinese well.\nThe Chinese language we use today, even written Tradition Chinese scripts, is\na lot different from classic Chinese, and maybe only taught in language\nschools ( I guess ). So it'll be nearly impossible for people who have not\nlearned Chinese to understand.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-15T00:48:35.960", "id": "4001", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-15T10:18:55.310", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-15T10:18:55.310", "last_editor_user_id": "903", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "4000", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "In short, no.\n\nEven for 漢字 that exist in both languages, not all are semantically equivalent.\n\nConsider `勉強`. One of its main meaning in Japanese is \"study\". [In\nChinese](http://www.nciku.com/search/zh/detail/%E5%8B%89%E5%BC%BA/1310377) it\nmeans \"to force/push oneself (reluctantly)\".\n\nAlso consider the grammar. `的` in Chinese is similar to `の` (genitive case\nmarker). In Japanese, `的` produces an adjective from a noun.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-15T01:23:56.423", "id": "4002", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-15T01:23:56.423", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "4000", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "With well-educated young adults, it's likely that you can.\n\nJapanese junior high and high school students learn kanbun (i.e. ancient\nChinese poems and literature) at school in a very unique way with some special\nmarks that compensate for the difference in grammar. Those with ambition of\ngoing to top colleges would study the subject very hard, so you might be able\nto communicate with it. But again, it's only for entrance exams so as they get\nolder they might forget it.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-15T02:51:35.867", "id": "4003", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-15T02:51:35.867", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "954", "parent_id": "4000", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "I would say generally no except for similarly written characters within the\n[常用漢字](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji).\n\nMost Japanese can't even make out old Japanese texts in\n[漢文](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanbun). In analogy, Kanbun is to modern\nJapanese what Anglosaxon is to modern English, whereas Chinese to Japanese\nwould be like Finnish or Romanian to English.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-22T21:30:23.603", "id": "4057", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-22T21:30:23.603", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "981", "parent_id": "4000", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm surprised it is hard to find an entry of `に` in the dictionary that can\nfit the usage.\n\nBut finally I found\n[this](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%A0%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&index=112323000000&pagenum=1)\nwhich is under the entry of `だろう`:\n\n> （「だろうに」の形で）事実に反する仮想を述べる。 \n> (In the form of `だろうに`) Saying some supposition that is different from the\n> facts \n> 「もう少しがんばれば、何とかなった **だろうに** 」 \n> If (you) try a little harder, you should have (succeeded).\n\nIt seems that we can even treat `だろうに` as a whole phrase.\n\nI didn't find a source which give an origin of this usage. However, I don't\nthink it is related to the case particle, nor that it is form from elision.\n\nFor the final use of the のに, it does come from the the conjunction\nuse([source](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/172162/m1u/%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AB/)).\n\n>\n> [1](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%A0%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&index=112323000000&pagenum=1)［接助］《準体助詞「の」＋接続助詞「に」から》活用語の連体形に付く。内容的に矛盾する二つの事柄を、意外・不服の気持ちを込めてつなげる意を表す。 \n> (from 準体助詞「の」＋接続助詞「に」) Used after 連体形. To link two contradict statement,\n> with a feeling of unexpectedness or unsatisfactory. \n> 「東京は晴れな **のに** 大阪は雨だ」Although it is sunny in Tokyo, it is raining in Osaka. \n> 「九月だという **のに** 真夏の暑さだ」Although it is September, it is as hot as in summer.\n>\n>\n> [2](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/172162/m1u/%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AB/)［終助］《[1](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%A0%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&index=112323000000&pagenum=1)の文末用法から》活用語の連体形に付く。不平・不満・恨み・非難などの気持ちを表す。 \n> (From\n> [1](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%A0%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&index=112323000000&pagenum=1)\n> when used at the end of sentence) Used after 連体形. Showing feeling of\n> dissatisfaction, disapproval, bitterness, accusation. \n> 「これで幸せになれると思った **のに** 」(I) thought (I) could be happy after this.\n\nI think this use of のに can be treated as the latter half of the sentence\nelided.\n\nNOTE: The translation of explanations and examples are made by myself.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-15T10:07:56.357", "id": "4005", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-15T11:31:37.777", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-15T11:31:37.777", "last_editor_user_id": "903", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "4004", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "The `に` in `だろうに` historically comes from the case particle `に`, but in\npresent Japanese, it should be considered a different thing. (Many things in\nJapanese that look like a particle actually do come from particles. Even the\nconjunction `が` as in `食べてみたが、まずかった` is originally the nominative case\nparticle `が`.)\n\nIn both cases, the continuing part is elided as you correctly suspected.\n\n> 僕はいい仕事があったら美智子さんと結婚出来ただろうに、(いい仕事がなかったために、結婚できなかった。) \n> 僕はいい仕事があったら美智子さんと結婚出来たのに、(いい仕事がなかったために、結婚できなかった。)\n\nThe reason it is usually elided is because its content can be reconstructed\nfrom the remaining part. Because the condition is a counterfactual condition,\nthe continuing part, which is the reality, is simply the negation of the\nremaining part. The reason the condition is counterfactual is due to the use\nof past tense in the consequent of it. Past tense is usually used for facts\nthat already happened, and cannot be changed in normal circumstances. Putting\na past tense for a conseqnent to a condition implies that you are referring to\na situation that had not happened. It is similar to how the English\nsubjunctive past can mean a counterfactual event of a present time.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-15T15:57:19.577", "id": "4008", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-16T02:04:06.160", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-16T02:04:06.160", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4004", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "勉強{べんきょう}する is one verb. 勉強をする is a phrase.\n\nThey don't seem to have any difference in meaning, but the usage may differ.\n\nFor 勉強する, an object can be added:\n\n> 日本語{にほんご}を勉強する learn Japanese \n> ~~日本語を勉強をする~~ is wrong\n\nFor 勉強をする, adjectives (or words or phrases that can be used as adjectives) can\nbe used before 勉強:\n\n> しばらく医者{いしゃ}になるための勉強をする study for a while to become a doctor \n>\n\nWhile 勉強する cannot be used in this way.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-15T13:08:49.243", "id": "4007", "last_activity_date": "2021-10-01T19:19:58.927", "last_edit_date": "2021-10-01T19:19:58.927", "last_editor_user_id": "816", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "4006", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

[ { "body": "Kanjigen only lists `堪{た}える` and Kanjidic lists that reading first, so I'm\nguessing it would normally use that reading. Looking at the [Goo\nthesaurus](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/thsrs/4289/m0u/%E3%81%93%E3%82%89/),\n`こらえる` seems to be often written with Hiragana.\n\n`こらえる` also has the additional meanings of \"refrain, repress, keep back\". As\nfefe has noted, it's normally `～をこらえる` and `～に堪{た}える` as the former generally\nrefers to holding back feelings from within whereas the latter generally\nrefers to enduring pressure etc from outside. `こらえる` seems to take the meaning\nof \"endure, stand\" when written as `～はこらえられない` and `～はこらえて` et al.\n\nIt may be read as `堪{こた}える` in some contexts, but I think that reading is\nusually only used in e.g. `踏{ふ}み堪{こた}える` and `持{も}ち堪{こた}える`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-15T22:55:42.820", "id": "4010", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-16T04:27:25.100", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-16T04:27:25.100", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "4009", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Comparing the goo explanation for\n[こらえる](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/82575/m0u/%E3%81%93%E3%82%89%E3%81%88%E3%82%8B/)\n[たえる](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/135060/m0u/) and\n[こたえる](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/79630/m0u/%E3%81%93%E3%81%9F%E3%81%88%E3%82%8B/),\nwe can see that:\n\n堪{こら}える is usually used with を: 痛みを[堪]{こら}える \n堪{た}える is usually used with に: 暑さに[堪]{た}える \n堪{こた}える is often used to form compound words: 踏み[堪]{こた}える\n\nAnd for `堪`, `堪{た}える` is the only kun reading listed in 常用漢字, so you may see\nthe other two be written in kana more.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-16T01:57:08.177", "id": "4011", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-16T01:57:08.177", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "4009", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "My professor used to say this is not only a question of spoken, but also of\nbody language - this being the reason you will see a Japanese person bowing as\nacknowledgement/affirmation of the other person even when on the phone, and\nthat even if as a foreigner you would master the verbal part, you would still\nconvey confusing messages by not affirming what you say by what you gesture.\n\nAs a student, I thought this statement was mostly based on\n[日本人論](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihonjinron), but then I spent some time\nin Japanese Zen monasteries (where verbal communication is not an option in\nmany situations), and I gained a deep appreciation for the subtleties and\nprecision in movement and gestures the Japanese use to convey the unspoken -\nand the realization that this is much harder to learn than vocabulary and\ngrammar.\n\nI'm not suggesting you should spend a couple of months among the monks\nmeditating - but perhaps simply mute the sound when you're watching a modern\nJapanese movie or a TV show, and just watch the gestures - you'll be amazed\nhow much you will see conveyed.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-22T21:09:42.560", "id": "4056", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-22T21:14:57.263", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-22T21:14:57.263", "last_editor_user_id": "981", "owner_user_id": "981", "parent_id": "4012", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "The はい you are talking about are the ones said _while the other person is\nspeaking_. They are not really answering anything. This is as you said : \"I'm\npaying attention and understand what you're saying.\". You can _never_ assume\nthey are agreements.\n\nYou want to convey that you agree with what the person is saying ? Use\nそうです（ね）、確か（に/です）、、私もそう思います etc.\n\nBut, if you ask a question, and then the person says はい; it is a \"yes\". If\nthey want to start with a \"Alright, I listened to you, understood, let me see\nnow\" will be a ま or そうですね (the ね is important here, without it, it is a \"yes\")\nor both and they will then, answer.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-02T04:42:25.877", "id": "4522", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-02T04:42:25.877", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "4012", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I would take all the words used for acknowledgement to mean nothing more than\njust [相槌]{あいづち} - back-channel response that indicates that that one is still\npaying attention and/or still can comprehend.\n\nThe agreement on the idea should always take a \"not agreed on\" default value\nunless either party initiates an explicit question to call for an agreement or\nthe listener declares explicitly and unambiguously that they have agreed on\nthe idea.\n\nIn short, you would have to form a whole sentence. (Can't rely on はい alone\nunless it's a response to a \"do you agree?\" question)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-02T05:32:58.340", "id": "4524", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-02T05:32:58.340", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "4012", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "You could use 分かります although in a business setting it may sound a bit \"snobby\"\n(as if you were forced to listen and had to agree with the idea) but generally\nit's OK.\n\nI would use そうですね over 分かります if I felt comfortable speaking casually with whom\nI'm speaking to since it sort of gives me the the ability to converse in a\nless formal manner as opposed to if I used 分かります.\n\nAnother one is 成程. It shows you understand what the person is saying - gives\nthe feeling of \"Ah, I see...\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-02T06:56:20.407", "id": "4527", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-02T06:56:20.407", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1114", "parent_id": "4012", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I would say that ええ (not え) is even more vague than はい, and that even to a\ndirect question, ええ _could_ mean that you understand the question but are\nstill thinking about it.\n\nうん is a colloquial version of はい, and I wouldn't use it at business meeting.\nOn the back-channel-scale, I'd put it approximately in the same place as はい.\n\n確かに _does_ mean surely or certainly, but it carries the nuance that there\nmight be a \"but\" coming, so I wouldn't use/read this as an absolute\naffirmation.\n\nそうだ/そうです are in the affirmative end, while そうだね/そうですね can be quite back-\nchannel.\n\nEven if you don't want gestures or facial expressions, in verbal communication\na lot can be told from prosody and intonation. For example はいっ with a glottal\nstop after the い sounds more affirmative and less back-channel than just はい.\n\nIf you want there to be no doubt, you should really give/expect a full\nsentence, like\n\n * おっしゃる通りです\n * その通りです\n * そう致します\n * 全く同感です\n\netc.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-02T08:03:20.877", "id": "4528", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-09T14:04:41.297", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-09T14:04:41.297", "last_editor_user_id": "1073", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "4012", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I think there is a process involved here. First, you use はい or other forms\nlike ええ、そうですね、はいはい, as you hear the other person out. There is no need to\ncommit to anything, merely politely listen to what the other person is saying\nwhile indicating that you are actually listening.\n\nAfter the other person has stated their case, it is time to put your own ideas\nand reactions. This might start out with something like そうですね。それは、ですね... or\nxxxさんのおっしゃる通りですが、... or xxxさんの説明がよく分かりました。こちらとしては..., or ちょっと質問ですが... or many\nother ways of launching into a full or partial agreement with, modification\nof, development of, or rebuttal of what the other person has said.\n\nI guess this is not a direct answer to the question, but it seems to me that\nit's important to follow this protocol. Rather than trying to express\nagreement or disagreement with the content of what the other person is saying\nbefore that person is finished, it's better to hear them out and then come\nback with your response.\n\n(I've just realised that oldergod is saying something similar. Take this post\nas supporting what he/she says.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-05T15:05:48.817", "id": "4570", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-05T23:45:51.417", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-05T23:45:51.417", "last_editor_user_id": "1038", "owner_user_id": "1038", "parent_id": "4012", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "With your context, `X。この延長線上にこそ、Y。` means 'only if (we have) X, (we can\nachieve) Y'. This is different from `XなのでY` which means 'because of'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-16T11:17:59.377", "id": "4014", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-16T11:17:59.377", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "4013", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "It is a contracted form.\n\n> いって → って", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-16T12:22:28.557", "id": "4016", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-16T12:22:28.557", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4015", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "* 連れる (終止形)\n\n * 連れて (て form)\n\n * 連れていく (+行く)\n\n * 連れていって (+て form of 行く)\n\n * 連れてって (contraction)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-16T14:43:39.760", "id": "4017", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-16T14:43:39.760", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "4015", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

[ { "body": "It is true that a word that means 'play' is used to get the super honorific\nform (although you seem to have misunderstanding in that you presented `the\nemperor liked playing to die`, which does not fit).\n\nTo get the super honorific form, you can attach `あそばす` (which is a classical\nhonorific form of the verb `遊ぶ` that means 'play' when used as a main verb)\nafter the verb stem (with epenthetic vowel `i`):\n\n> 亡くなる \n> 'die/disappear' (euphemism of `死ぬ` 'die')\n>\n> 亡くなられる/お亡くなりになる \n> 'die' (honorific)\n>\n> お亡くなりあそばす \n> 'die' (super honorific)\n\nor after `お/御+noun`\n\n> 勉強する \n> 'study'\n>\n> 勉強される/お勉強なさる \n> 'study' (honorific)\n>\n> お勉強あそばす \n> 'study' (super honorific)\n\nGenerally, the strategy primarily used to honor someone in the Japanese\nlanguage is to remove the volition from the person. Hence, referring to a\nperson not by the personal pronouns `彼` or `彼女` but by the locational\ndemonstratives `こなた` (obsolete), `そなた` (obsolete), `あなた`, `どなた`, or\ndirectional demonstratives `こちら`, `そちら`, `あちら`, `どちら`, as if that person is\nnot a person, is more polite. `られ`, which initially only meant passive, came\nto be used to express honorifics because passive will syntactically remove the\nvolitionality (agenthood) from the subject. The same with `なる` 'become'.\nBecoming something does not need volition. Using `あそばす` 'play', in my hunch,\nis along the same line. By adding this verb, it means that the act was not\ndone under full serious volition or intention. In English, the same strategy\nis used to at least weaken the responsibility of the person doing something\n(although I am not sure if that is necessarily considered as being polite).\nFor example, instead of saying `The US army killed some civilians`, `Some\ncivilians were killed (by the US army)` implies less volition, hence less\nresponsibility, of the subject.\n\nIn present Japanese, this form is used as 役割語 (stereotypical role words) for\nrich madams (often in imperative form). These are called あそばせ言葉.\n\n> ごめんあそばせ \n> 'excuse me' (implication of stereotypical rich madam)", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-16T23:41:13.743", "id": "4021", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-02T02:52:24.860", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-02T02:52:24.860", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4018", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "They can be used to express the entailment `B → A`, but they are syntactically\ndifferent.\n\n**Conjunctions**\n\n * `から` 'because'. Attaches to an **indicative** from of a clause. **Can** appear in a focus position.\n\n> B から A。 \n> 'A because B'\n>\n> A のは B からだ。 \n> 'It is because B that A'\n\n * `ので` 'because'. Attaches to the **attributive** form of a clause. **Cannot** appear in a focus position.\n\n> B ので A。 \n> 'A because B'\n>\n> × A のは B のでだ。 \n> 'It is because B that A'\n\n**Adverbials**\n\n * `なぜなら` 'that is because'. Initiates a sentece, and concords with `からだ`.\n\n> A。なぜなら、B からだ。 \n> A. That is because B.\n\n * `だから`, `なので` (colloquial) 'therefore'. Initiates a sentence.\n\n> B。だから/なので、A。 \n> B. Therefore, A.\n\nI feel that there is a subtle difference in meaning. The following may not be\nstrictly followed, but is a tendency that I think holds.\n\n * conjunction から, adverbial なので tend to be used for **subjective/humane** reasoning.\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> あのラーメン屋は人を待たせる。なので、行かないことにした。 \n> 'Since that ramen shop makes the customer wait, I decided (from my own\n> will) that I will not go there anymore.'\n\n * conjunction ので, adverbial なぜなら, だから tend to be used for **objective/logical** reasoning.\n\n> あのラーメン屋は人を待たせるので、行かないことにした。 \n> あのラーメン屋は人を待たせる。だから、行かないことにした。 \n> 'That ramen shop makes the customer wait. Therefore, it follows that I\n> decide that I will not go there anymore.'", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-17T04:14:26.157", "id": "4023", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-19T06:14:42.607", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-19T06:14:42.607", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4022", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "なぜなら(ば) is used in formal written Japanese. It brings strong focus on the\nreason.\n\n> X。なぜなら、 **Y** 。(\" **Y** is the reason for X\")\n\nIt can be paraphrased using から or ので (can be used in both spoken and written\nJapanese):\n\n> YからX。\n>\n> YのでX。\n\nThe difference between `から` and `ので` is that `ので` indicates objective\ncausality. This means that `ので` cannot be used for a command, request,\nsuggestion, invitation or opinion.\n\n* * *\n\nThe だ in だから:\n\nIt's used when it is in sentence-initial position. Or when a noun precedes から\nand is expressed as a cause rather than a place of origin.\n\n* * *\n\nThe な in なので:\n\nIt's the attributive form that allows nouns to be connected.\n\n> [Noun]だ\n>\n> [Noun]なので\n>\n> [Noun]だので (Incorrect)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-17T04:19:17.793", "id": "4024", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-17T04:28:27.337", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "4022", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "Following [this advice on\nMeta](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/593/comments-are-not-\nfor-answers), I'm going to throw in an answer I'm pretty sure of, but could be\ncorrected on.\n\nScanning down the [list of example counters in the Wikipedia\narticle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_counter_word#Common_counters_by_category)\nyou linked to, _every one of them_ starts with `一{いち}`, or it's [phonetically\nadjusted\nequivalents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_counter_word#Euphonic_changes)\nlike `一{いっ}`. There were a lot, though, so maybe I missed one or two\nexceptions.\n\nThus, the rule of thumb I think you're looking for is:\n\n> Unless you already know for sure it's an exception, always guess the counter\n> starts with `一{いち}/一{いっ}`\n\nI think this could be said for just about all counters, not just foreign\nwords. Since you're asking specifically about \"loan-counters,\" though, the\npoint is that this rule of thumb would encompass them as well.\n\nI can't think of an example exception, along the lines of `一人{ひとり}` and\n`二人{ふたり}`, that uses a loan-word in the counter.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-18T03:17:30.433", "id": "4026", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-18T03:17:30.433", "last_edit_date": "2017-03-16T15:48:25.793", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "4025", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I'm going to extrapolate the rules for Japanese counters onto foreign-counter-\nwords.\n\nExtracted from\n[Nihongoresources](http://grammar.nihongoresources.com/doku.php?id=counters#idxenglishrules_for_%E4%B8%80_%E3%81%84%E3%81%A1_counting_pronunciation_rules_%E4%B8%80_%E3%81%84%E3%81%A1):\n\n* * *\n\nRules for 一\n\n * When followed by a counter starting with a syllable from the か—, さ— or た—column, いち becomes いっ\n\n * When followed by a counter starting with a は—column syllable, いち becomes いっ and the counter changes to a 'p' sound\n\n* * *\n\nRules for 三:\n\n * When followed by a counter starting with a は—column syllable, that syllable changes to a 'b' sound\n\n* * *\n\nRules for 六:\n\n * When followed by a counter starting with a か—column syllable, ろく becomes ろっ\n\n * When followed by a counter starting with a は—column syllable, ろく becomes ろっ and the counter changes to a 'p' sound\n\n* * *\n\nRules for 八:\n\n * When followed by a counter starting with a か—, さ— or た—column syllable, はち becomes はっ\n\n * When followed by a counter starting with a は—column syllable, はち becomes はっ and the counter changes to a 'p' sound\n\n* * *\n\nRules for 十:\n\n * When followed by a counter starting with a か—, さ— or た—column syllable, じゅう may become じっ or じゅっ\n\n * When followed by a counter starting with a は—column syllable, じゅう can become either じっ or じゅっ and the counter changes to a 'p' sound\n\n* * *\n\nIn short I don't think it matters if the counter is of Japanese origin or\nforeign origin. It depends on the first syllable of the counter.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-18T03:50:54.607", "id": "4027", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-20T04:28:50.103", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-20T04:28:50.103", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "4025", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "「から」 used to indicate a cause or reason must follow a verb or adjective. 「だ」\nis the copula 「である」, which binds the noun it follows with the causative\nparticle「で」 and the existence/possession verb 「ある」 in order to turn the noun\ninto a verb clause.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-20T22:45:04.510", "id": "4036", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-20T22:45:04.510", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "4033", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "`A から B` means 'B because A', and here, the B part is omitted, expecting the\naddressee to reconstruct it. See [my answer to a related\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/4022).\n\n`だ` is the copula, and is here because the because-clause ends with a noun.\nDepending on the type of the predicate, there are different endings.\n\n> 君がクラスに来たから。 [verb] \n> ここは寒いから。 [i-adjective] \n> ここは静かだから。 [na-adjective] \n> ここが君のクラスだから。 [noun]", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-21T15:26:00.607", "id": "4039", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-21T15:26:00.607", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4033", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This is not necessarily an idiomatic structure. English uses the exact phrase\nwhen talking about unknowns.\n\n\"Candidate X is an unknown variable so anything can happen once he/she enters\nthe race.\"\n\nMathematical terms tend to be constants (yet another mathematical term) and\nmany are actually co-opted from real world use to talk about mathematics.\nAlphabets are similarly used such as \"crossing your t's and dotting your i's\"\nto indicate finishing up properly, and \"teaching him all the steps from A to\nZ\", or referring to God as \"the Alpha and the Omega\" to indicate all\nencompassing. In Japanese, such things are \"ア から ン\".\n\nThe point is that, these terms are rather similes rather than idiomatic. They\ntend to be directly comparative rather than obliquely obscure.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-21T07:12:30.113", "id": "4038", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-21T07:19:50.227", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-21T07:19:50.227", "last_editor_user_id": "973", "owner_user_id": "973", "parent_id": "4034", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "Actually I don't find it surprising. It may be just my own experience but,\n\nEnglish:\n\n> [a] \"When I was in (primary/secondary/middle/high/etc.) school......\" (More\n> common)\n>\n> as opposed to,\n>\n> [b] \"When I was a (primary/secondary/middle/high/etc.) school student......\"\n> (Not as common)\n\nChinese:\n\n> [a] \"(我在)[小/中/大]学時......\" (More common)\n>\n> as opposed to,\n>\n> [b] \"我[小/中/大]学生時......\" (Less common)\n\nSinglish (Singaporean English):\n\n> [a] \"primary school that time...\" or \"that time primary school...\" (More\n> common)\n>\n> [b] \"primary school student that time...\" or \"that time primary school\n> student...\" (Almost not used)\n\nArguably the [a] versions are not specific enough, because you can be\nreferring to **any** time period that you were in (the) school, regardless of\nwhat role you are. I.e. you could be a student, teacher, staff, random\ncivilian, etc. The [b] versions explicitly state that it's the time of being a\nstudent.\n\nAlso the Singlish versions (if anyone can understand it) show quite obviously\nwhy [a] is preferred to [b]. It's just a shorter sentence, and everything else\nis deduced from context. Being a native speaker of Singlish without any formal\nstudy into it I have no way to analyse it apart from just simply feeling that\nit's correct.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-20T23:25:35.460", "id": "4037", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-20T23:53:10.720", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "4035", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "I was given the same advice by my first-year professor, and I'm pretty sure\nthe reason why he told us that was to break our reliance on them. In English\n(among other languages) it is necessary to always use second-person pronouns\nfrom a grammar stand-point, and in Japanese they are in no way required, and\nvery often omitted. By telling us not to use them ever, he was getting us to\nre-wire our brains. (Which is a good thing! Adding `あなたは`every time you want\nto say \"you\" in Japanese is very unnatural!)\n\nThat being said, second-person pronouns are used with some regularity in\nJapanese, but which one depends highly on who is speaking, and to whom they\nare speaking. `お前`, `あんた`, and `きみ` are some of the more common ones.\n\nWhich brings me to my third point: if you are not absolutely sure that you\nshould be using a second-person pronoun, just don't. It will sound much more\nnatural, especially for a non-native speaker, you don't have to try to falter\ntrying to think of the right pronoun. You can use the person's name plus `さん`,\nor `先輩{せんぱい}`, etc., (speaking in the third person in Japanese, even when\nreferring to yourself, is not as strange as it sounds in English), or if you\ndon't know their name, you can use, `お兄さん`, `お姉さん`, `おじさん`, `おばさん`, etc.,\ndepending on their age and gender (despite the fact that you're not actually\nrelated to them). In a pinch, `あなた` will work for anyone, even if it's not\nquite appropriate, you'll be understood.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-21T20:34:04.427", "id": "4041", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-21T22:24:38.633", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-21T22:24:38.633", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": "921", "parent_id": "4040", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "There are lots of second person pronouns in Japanese, and of course, there are\noccasions where you are supposed to use them. I think the reason your teacher\nadvised you to avoid using them at the beginning is not because you are not\nsupposed to use them but because it will be difficult for a beginner to pick\nup the right one. Rather than making a wild guess and picking the wrong one,\ndo not use them for the time being until you proceed to an advanced level and\nbecome sure which one to use in which occasion. That was your teacher's\nmessage, I guess.\n\nFor example, `あなた` has a very subtle nuance, and can only be used between\ncertain relations, contrary to what another answer says. If you use `あなた` to\nyour teacher, it would be definitely rude. But that does not mean that `あなた`\nis an impolite form. It actually is an honorific form, and why it becomes\nimpolite has a complicated reason behind it. It is true that you often cannot\nfind a pronoun with the appropriate politeness, and have to call the second\nperson by the name or by the title. As I mentioned above, the rule behind this\nis very complicated, and you probably will not get it at this point. So I\nthink it is a good idea to follow your teacher to avoid them, but that does\nnot mean that they are not used in real Japanese. They are just too difficult\nfor beginners to use.\n\nYour question: \"[D]o Japanese people in Japan actually pay attention to these\ndistinctions?\" shows that you are optimistic about how much Japanese language\nis sensitive to social relations. Japanese is one of the languages in the\nworld that reflects the social relation in various aspects of the language\nmost heavily. Yes, they do. More than the speakers of most other languages.\n\nTo show you how severe it is in Japanese to use the correct expression to\nrefer to a person, I will point out that, the distinction that you mention for\nthe second person is just the beginning, and when it gets to the third person,\nit becomes even more complicated. You can either refer to a person by the name\nlike `山田`, which is not (particularly) polite, or put a polite affix or a\ntitle after it like `山田さん` or `山田先生`, but which to use depends not only on the\nrelation between you and the person referred to, but also on who you are\ntalking to. Japanese adopts a system called _relative honorification_ (as\nopposed to _absolute honorification_ used, for example, in Korean). If `山田` is\nyour boss with the title `部長` within a company, and you are talking with\nsomeone within the company, you have to be polite enough to refer to him/her\nas `(山田)部長` (even attaching the polite affix like `山田さん` is not polite enough,\nand is rude). But when you are talking with some outsider, then you have to\nsay `山田`, and saying `山田さん` would be impolite to the outsider (and the\nexpression `山田` does not become impolite to `山田`).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-21T21:16:21.783", "id": "4042", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-21T21:36:26.357", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-21T21:36:26.357", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4040", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 }, { "body": "I think you should follow your teacher's advice and avoid second person\npronouns. I speak Japanese daily, but _never_ use them.\n\nBut since they _do_ exist, I don't think \"just don't use them\" suffices, so\nI'll try to give a list of situations when I hear them. But even in these\ncases, they're used _much_ less than in English. Usually sentences are created\nin a way where the second person's role is understood implicitly.\n\n 1. _Between romantic partners/very close friends_. Some people (mostly males) sometimes address very close friends/romantic partners as お前, others (mostly females) sometimes as あなた. But even if you truly _are_ romantic partners/very close friends, many people will still not like this, while others will like it, taking it as a confirmation that you are, in fact, romantic partners/very close friends. \n\n 2. _Jocular use_. If your statement is very obviously jocular, you can sometimes sneak in an お前 (or おめぇ), 君 or あんた. But even so, do _not_ do it to somebody who is senior to you.\n\n 3. _To someone very junior to you_. A senior at a workplace might address someone very junior to them as 君, and a school principal a student as 君 etc.\n\n 4. _Broadcasting_. In broadcasting, the option of mentioning the addresee's name is often not available, so you will sometimes hear/see あなた/君, for example in commercials.\n\n 5. _Dialectal use_. Some dialects use 2nd person pronouns more than standard Japanese. I do not have the knowledge to cover this in full.\n\n 6. _Foreign movie/tv-show voice-overs_. This is where I hear it the most (mostly 君 and あなた). The lines using them still sound unnatural to my ears, but I guess I can understand why they need to translate them that way, since it's often hard to remove the 2nd person pronouns without changing the whole context.\n\nThis list is probably not complete, but these are the cases I could think of.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-14T06:42:56.203", "id": "4680", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-14T06:54:54.657", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-14T06:54:54.657", "last_editor_user_id": "1073", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "4040", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "That is fine. Alternatives are:\n\n> クスクス 'silently laughing while making fun of someone' \n> ウフフ 'smiling somewhat silently and often happily' \n> エヘヘ 'smiling because of being ashamed' \n> デへへ 'smiling with a slight implication of 変態-ness' \n> アハハ, ワハハ, ワッハッハ 'giggling' \n> ガハハ 'giggling out loud or a fat person giggling' \n> ゲラゲラ 'giggling continuously'\n\nA famous ambiguous sentence when written in hiragana, showing the importance\nof having hiragana, katakana, and kanji:\n\n> ははははははとわらった。 \n> Interpretation 1: 母はハハハと笑った。 \n> Interpretation 2: ハハハハハハと笑った。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-21T21:54:53.577", "id": "4044", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-22T00:17:05.583", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-22T00:17:05.583", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4043", "post_type": "answer", "score": 21 }, { "body": "Someone pointed out to me that all of the \"H\" group sounds (is there a name\nfor them?) are laughing sounds. I forgot what the nuances were, but I'll refer\nto this [Pera Pera Penguin's 5-minute Japanese\nClass](https://web.archive.org/web/20130121043550if_/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/columns/0002/pdf/ppp095.pdf)\nby Hitomi Hirayama.\n\n> はははは - normal laugh \n> ひひひひひ - conniving laugh \n> ふふふふふ - creepy laugh; feminine laugh \n> へへへへへ - shy laugh \n> ほほほほほ - [elder] feminine laughter \n>\n\nPrefixing an the appropriate vowel alters the meaning:\n\n> あはははは - conniving laugh \n> いひひひひひ - [elder] feminine laughter \n> うふふふふふ - creepy laugh; feminine laugh \n> えへへへへへ - normal laugh \n> おほほほほほ - embarrassed laugh; shy laugh \n>\n\n", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-22T02:00:39.257", "id": "4048", "last_activity_date": "2021-11-08T01:13:29.023", "last_edit_date": "2021-11-08T01:13:29.023", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "4043", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "`か` makes a question, but it does not make a tag question as you thought. And\nin this case, it can be interpreted as a rhetorical question.\n\n> 笑えない \n> 'I can't laugh.'\n>\n> 笑えないか \n> 'Can't I laugh?' (Rhetorical question with the expectation: 'I can laugh.') \n> → 'I expect/wish that I can laugh'.\n\nThe expectation that follows from the question is the opposite of how you\ntranslated. I don't know where your idea of translating it into a tag question\ncame from.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-21T23:34:21.423", "id": "4046", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-24T16:10:39.880", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-24T16:10:39.880", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4045", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Building off of sawa's answer my understanding is now this:\n\n> 笑えない 'I am unable to laugh.'\n>\n> 笑えないか 'Am I unable to laugh?'\n\nThe next logical thought would perhaps be, \"I am unable to laugh, but if only\nI could laugh.\" I understand this line of thinking but it is still a bit of a\njump in meaning for me. I guess the な at the end makes the sentence even more\nrhetorical, forcing the concluding thought. I don't understand exactly how the\nfinal meaning corresponds to the grammar, but I will remember this as one of\nthe meanings of 笑えないかな.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-23T20:01:56.707", "id": "4063", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-23T20:01:56.707", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "parent_id": "4045", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "`笑えないかな` literally means \"can't (I) laugh?\" but it looks like it has a number\nof different meanings depending on context:\n\n * \"I wish to laugh\" or \"if only I could laugh\"\n * \"I think you'd laugh if...\" or \"I think you'd have a happy time if...\"\n * \"isn't that something you can't laugh at?\" or \"can you really laugh at that?\"\n\nIn this context, it does seem to be a rhetorical question. A literal\ntranslation might be \"can't I laugh?\" here, though it clearly doesn't have the\nsame meaning in English if it's translated that way:\n\n> 全て受け止めて笑えないかな \n> Literally: \"I wonder if I can't stop everything and laugh?\" \n> Means: \"I wish to stop everything and laugh.\"\n>\n> あなたと楽しく笑えないかな \n> Literally: \"I wonder if I can't laugh together with you joyfully?\" \n> Means: \"I wish to laugh together with you joyfully.\"\n>\n> 笑えないかな \n> Literally: \"I wonder if I can't laugh?\" \n> Means: \"I wish to laugh.\"\n\nI think these kind of rhetorical questions can't always be directly translated\nto English and that it might need to be taken from context:\n\n> * 笑えないかな \n> \"I wonder if I can't laugh\" (with the implication that \"I can laugh\")\n> * 彼がそんなことをするだろうか（＝彼は絶対にしない） \n> \"I suppose he'd do that sort of thing?\" (he would absolutely not do that)\n> * そんなことがあり得ようか（＝あるはずがない） \n> \"Is that sort of thing possible?\" (that doesn't happen)\n>\n\nSee also the Japanese Wikipedia page on [rhetorical\nquestions](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%8D%E8%AA%9E). I'm not sure\nthere's going to be a simple answer to this question as rhetorical questions\nin Japanese seem very different to English.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-24T05:44:59.547", "id": "4068", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-24T20:39:52.527", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-24T20:39:52.527", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "4045", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "笑えないかな can also be taken to mean something like \"I don't think I can laugh\".\nWhether this ambiguity is intentional by the lyricist, I do not know...\n\nIn any case, it seems like you're having trouble internalizing the \"I wish I\ncould ...\" meaning of ～ないかな, so I'll give it a try.\n\nMost of the analysis in the other answers focuses on just the question part,\nbut I think the key to the understanding lies in な (or maybe the combination\nかな)\n\nな has many nuances and usages, but in the combination かな, I would translate it\nas \"I wonder if ...\".\n\n> 明日は雨かな I wonder if it will rain tomorrow\n>\n> 笑えるかな I wonder if I can laugh\n>\n> 笑えないかな I wonder if I can't (couldn't) laugh\n\nOnce we've got this far, the jump to \"I wish I could laugh\" might not be so\npainful.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-27T03:17:17.263", "id": "4823", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-27T03:17:17.263", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "4045", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "ゼロ has almost 0% ambiguity (when spoken) and, only requiring katakana, is much\neasier to write.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-22T04:04:38.810", "id": "4051", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-22T04:04:38.810", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "4047", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "I've heard れい still being used when pronouncing phone numbers. But other than\nphone numbers (and maybe sports scores,) ゼロ is generally easier for listeners\nto pick up\n[because](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q108328520)\nit has more of a 濁音{だくおん} (voiced sound.)\n\nMore analysis for this can be found on [this\npage,](http://www.cozymax.org/study/zero050615.htm) as well.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-25T23:31:19.307", "id": "4818", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-25T23:31:19.307", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1188", "parent_id": "4047", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Not sure whether this is relevant, but I have also heard the null-valued\nnumeral written as 〇 and pronounced まる, but I don't know much about this.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-05-17T22:19:52.403", "id": "47524", "last_activity_date": "2017-05-17T22:19:52.403", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "21802", "parent_id": "4047", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "れい is also used when saying numbers with a decimal point that begin with a\nzero.\n\n> 0.5\n\nreads phonetically as\n\n> れい てん ご", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-05-17T22:24:51.027", "id": "47525", "last_activity_date": "2017-05-17T22:24:51.027", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22133", "parent_id": "4047", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Zero means nothing, but 零 means a quite bit. So 0.5,零細企業 so on. It is said\nJapanese didn't have a word which means nothing. Well also most Japanese don't\nknow this fact, though.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-05-19T14:44:45.673", "id": "47580", "last_activity_date": "2017-05-19T14:44:45.673", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "13619", "parent_id": "4047", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Like Takahiro Waki [hinted\nat](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/4047/why-\nis-%e3%82%bc%e3%83%ad-more-popular-than-%e3%82%8c%e3%81%84/47580#47580) in\nanother answer, 零 originally didn't mean the numeral \"zero\", nor the idea of\n\"none, empty\"; it meant \"a little, paltry, small, fraction\" (as in 零細{れいさい} =\n\"insignificant\", or in Chinese 六十有零 = \"a little over sixty\"). Up until well\ninto the Edo period, the word doesn't appear as a numeral in Japanese-language\ntexts (it did appear in mathematical treatises of the 和算{わさん} tradition, but\nthese were written in Chinese and of limited influence). In things like\nmerchant's ledgers, nothingness was represented by a blank. In other words,\nJapan was a culture without a numeral zero, just like the West before it was\nintroduced from the Hindo-Arabic tradition (compare with the Roman numerals).\n\n零 as a numeral zero only spread into general usage quite late, possibly as\nlate as Meiji. So it didn't have that much of a time advantage over the\nintroduction of the word _zero_ , which might have facilitated their\ncoexistence (especially since Japanese was already used to multiple numerals\nfor each number).\n\nSource: Yōsuke Hashimoto, _Nihongo no Nazo wo toku_.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-05-20T10:17:14.920", "id": "47605", "last_activity_date": "2017-05-20T19:23:50.563", "last_edit_date": "2017-05-20T19:23:50.563", "last_editor_user_id": "622", "owner_user_id": "622", "parent_id": "4047", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "* For your particular sentence, using `五日` adverbially without `に` under the meaning 'fifth day of the month' is ungrammatical, so it is unambiguously `何時か`. They are expressing intent to go to America eventually in the future. As Tsuyoshi Ito correctly points out below, there is still slight chance that it may be `五日` meaning 'for five days,' but this possibility is less likely because (i) `[五]{いつ}[日]{か}[間]{かん}` is more natural, and (ii) it would usually be written in kanji.\n\n * Generally, in written form, `何時か` is usually written in hiragana, whereas `五日` is usually written in kanji, so you can usually tell.\n\n * Generally, in spoken form (in the standard dialect), `五日` has the pitch pattern `いつか{LHH}` (low-high-high), whereas `何時か` has the pitch pattern いつか{HLL} (high-low-low), so they are unambiguous.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-22T02:47:05.893", "id": "4050", "last_activity_date": "2013-09-28T01:45:01.097", "last_edit_date": "2013-09-28T01:45:01.097", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4049", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

[ { "body": "I would assume that with verbs, the form would be identical to ところ：\n\n```\n\n 楽屋【がくや】にいるところだ\n \n 終【お】わったところだ\n \n 寝【ね】てるところだ\n \n```\n\nwhere いる、〜ている forms indicate a present continuous state (I'm X-ing at the\nmoment, I'm X-ing right now), past 〜た indicates recent completion (I've just\nX-ed), while the non-past indicates imminent action (I'm just about to X).\n\n(I don't know whether or not なう is in evidence with non-past, but ところ at least\nworks this way.)\n\nThus:\n\n```\n\n I'm in the green room at the moment.\n \n I've just finished.\n \n I'm sleeping at the moment.\n \n```", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-22T17:55:22.120", "id": "4053", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-22T17:55:22.120", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "808", "parent_id": "4052", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I claim against Amadan's answer. I think it is rather identical to the form\nthat attaches to `らしい`. The difference from `ところ` appears when you have a noun\nor a na-adjective. The latter takes the attributive form.\n\n * verb\n\n> 食べるらしい \n> 食べるなう \n> 食べるところ\n\n * i-adjective \n\n> 寒いらしい \n> 寒いなう \n> 寒いところ\n\n * na-adjective\n\n> 静からしい \n> 静かなう \n> 静か **な** ところ [Different form]\n\n * noun\n\n> (今は)年末らしい [Don't confuse with `らしい` as in `年末らしい飾り`] \n> 年末なう \n> 年末 **である** ところ [Different form]\n\nSo the answer will be that `なう` seems to attach to a **non-polite indicative**\nform and the tense does not matter. But as with `らしい`, `だ` has to be omitted\nfor morpho-phonological reason.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-22T19:08:10.573", "id": "4054", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-23T05:06:17.973", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-23T05:06:17.973", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4052", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "I think your translation is incorrect. I believe this would be something\ncloser to \"The mask-using Link\" or \"Link, using a mask...\". The verb precedes\nthe noun because it is describing it. I'm not sure what that's called, but it\nhappens a lot.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-22T21:31:11.583", "id": "4058", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-22T21:31:11.583", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "820", "parent_id": "4055", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "Just like adjectives, verbs in Japanese can be used to describe nouns. In this\nsituation, the 連体形 of the verb is used, which happen to be the same as 終止形\n(the form used to end sentence) in modern Japanese.\n\nIn this formation, a sentence is not formed. It only gets a descriptive\nphrase, which can be used as part of the sentence (as a noun phrase). So the\ntranslation given in @AHelps's answer may be more appropriate.\n\nbtw, the forms for adjective used to describe nouns are also called 連体形. For\ni-adjectives it is the same with sentence ending form, for na-adjectives it is\nnot.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-23T02:05:33.253", "id": "4061", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-23T02:05:33.253", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "4055", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "`彼` can mean either 'boyfriend' or 'male person,' but the problem with your\noriginal interpretation or the one you were told is that they are interpreting\n`彼` as an indefinite person, translating it with `a(n)`. A better counterpart\nis `him`. And note that the relative clause in this case is a non-restrictive\none, not a restrictive one. Depending on the context, it can either mean:\n\n> 'I like him, who does not put on airs.' \n> 'I like my boyfriend, who does not put on airs.'\n\nWhen `彼` in a sentence can in principle be interpreted either as definite or\nindefinite, the preferrence for the definite interpretation is so strong that\nthe indefinite interpretation is blocked and is impossible. Only when the\ndefinite interpretation is logically impossible, the indefinite interpretation\ncomes to the foreground. One such example is given by Hyperworm in the comment\nbelow:\n\n> 彼が欲しい \n> 'I want a boyfriend.'\n\nIn this case, the verb `欲しい` 'want' presupposes that the person does not have\na boyfriend, which makes the definite interpretation of `彼` as 'boyfriend'\nimpossible. In such case, an indefinite interpretation becomes possible. Note\nthat, when you take the `彼` here as 'male person', then it loses the\nindefinite interpretation because the definite interpretation becomes\npossible:\n\n> 彼が欲しい \n> 'I want him.' \n> ×'I want some man.'\n\nYour use of the word `guy` is also problematic. `[奴]{やつ}` can be translated as\nsuch, but `彼` or `男` does not have such coarse/rude nuance. And unlike `彼`,\nthe words `奴` and `男` can be used to refer to an indefinite male person.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-23T20:26:10.567", "id": "4064", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-30T03:59:54.297", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T03:59:54.297", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4062", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "The most likely interpretation is that this `で` is short for `であり`, or `であって`.\nThis usage of the stem (`連用形`) or te-form is usually translated as `and` in\nEnglish (although there are significant differences).\n\n> 日本女性で電車の中で化粧をする人 \n> 'a person who is a Japanese woman and puts makeup on the train'\n\nAnother possibility is that this `で` is short for `のうちで` 'within, among'.\n\n> 日本女性で電車の中で化粧をする人 \n> 'among Japanese women, those who put makeup on the train'\n\nYour quotation is probably taken from a very conservative and somewhat\nnationalist person who thinks that Japanese women are (expected to be) more\nelegant and well behaving than women living in other areas. If this is the\ncase, then the first of the interpretations that I gave is the correct one.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-23T20:54:25.723", "id": "4066", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-23T23:52:44.870", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-23T23:52:44.870", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4065", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "The color term `赤` 'red' is historically related to `明るい` 'bright, clear' or\n`明らか` 'evident'. From this, the `赤` in the expressions such as `赤の他人`,\n`真っ赤な嘘`, or `赤っ恥` means 'clear, complete'. This will make them mean 'complete\nstranger', 'complete lie', 'complete shameness'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-24T21:06:27.737", "id": "4070", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-24T21:17:47.770", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-24T21:17:47.770", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4069", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Consulting [Gogen-Allguide](http://gogen-allguide.com/a/akanotanin.html), the\n`赤` used has the meaning of \"complete and total\", \"completely\" and\n\"obvious/evident\" (`明らかな`).\n\nThere is also a theory it is taken from the Buddhist terms `閼伽{あか}` and\n`阿伽{あか}` meaning \"offering clean water\", from \"is cold to touch like water\" to\nalso mean \"a person who is cold to touch\", furthermore \"a person who has\nabsolutely no relation\" but it's unlikely that's the case as there are other\nwords/expressions which use `赤` for emphasis.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-24T22:07:10.387", "id": "4071", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-24T22:07:10.387", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "4069", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "In ordinary daily-life Japanese at the moment, `メリー` only means a person's\nname 'Mary' or 'Merry'. And even for 'Mary', it is usually written as `メアリー`,\nand `メリー` is seen only in a few established expressions like `メリーさんの羊` 'Mary's\nlittle lamb', `メリーポピンズ` 'Mary Poppins', or `クイーンメリー 2` 'Queen Mary 2'. Also\n'Merry' is not much popular name, and is limited as in `メリー喜多川` 'Merry\nKitagawa'. Other than that, `メリー` cannot be seen as a word in ordinary daily-\nlife Japanese.\n\n`メリークリスマス` is a gairaigo (crucially, not wasei-eigo) that originated from\n`Merry Christmas`, which means that you cannot divide `メリークリスマス` into its\nparts and make sense. The original English expression `Merry Christmas` can be\ndivided into `merry` and `Christmas`, but dividing the Japanese word\n`メリークリスマス` into `メリー` and `クリスマス` is no different from dividing it into `メ`\nand `リークリスマス`; it does not make sense, and these parts do not have any terms\nby which they are referred to. `クリスマス` is another gairaigo that originated\nfrom `Christmas`.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-25T19:08:10.417", "id": "4073", "last_activity_date": "2012-04-07T16:41:39.623", "last_edit_date": "2012-04-07T16:41:39.623", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4072", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Some nouns can be transformed into verbs by adding をする. \nThe resulting verbs can be transitive (e.g. 勉強をする, to study) or intransitive\n(e.g. 旅行をする, to travel). If you specify a direct object for the resulting\nverb, you have to have identify it with を, so you have to remove the other を\nbefore する (because only one direct object per verb is possible).\n\n> Right:スペイン語を勉強しています \n> Wrong: スペイン語を勉強 **を** しています\n\nIf you don't use direct object for the resulting verb, you can keep or drop を\nbefore する at will.\n\n> Right: 毎日勉強しています = 毎日勉強をしています \n> Right: 旅行したい = 旅行をしたい\n\nConstructions like 英語の勉強をする = 英語の勉強する are grammatically correct, but rarely\nused.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-30T22:38:08.040", "id": "4488", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-30T22:38:08.040", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1103", "parent_id": "4076", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 }, { "body": "As common as nounする is, する verbs all decided. In the case of nounする it can be\nconsidered as a single word, not as 2 words.\n\nThat is to say that you can't just take any noun and add する to make it a verb,\nonly some nouns work like this.\n\nTo be clear 勉強する is a verb on it's own.\n\nHowever pretty much any word with an action/verbal component can be made into\na verb by using をする. Since 日本語の勉強 is a noun, but not a noun on the list of する\nverbs, you must use をする.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-07T01:32:13.987", "id": "4587", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-07T01:32:13.987", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1129", "parent_id": "4076", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "勉強 is a noun and する is a verb. And 勉強する is a verb because we sometimes make\nverbs like 勉強する by setting する behind a noun.\n\n日本語を勉強する=日本語+を(postpositional particle for object)+勉強する(verb)\n\n日本語の勉強をする=日本語+の(postpositional particle which means \"of\")+勉強(noun)+\nを(postpositional particle for object)+する(verb)\n\nThe above two sentence is natural. However 日本語を勉強をする is unnatural. How about\n日本語の勉強する? I think this sentence is grammarwise incorrect but it is sometimes\nused colloquially. It is the one which is clipped \"を\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-01-31T10:29:45.847", "id": "30848", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-31T10:29:45.847", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7320", "parent_id": "4076", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "The speaker, not seeing any signs of regret from person X who did not take the\nchance to counter attack, believes that person X made this choice\ndeliberately, and that person X still believes in the correctness of his\nactions even after the fact.\n\nThe question means: what is your mindset, person X? Why do you believe,\npresently, that you made the right choice? What are you doing?\n\nIf it's obvious that the person has realized their actions have failed, then\nyou might ask どういうつもりだった -- What was your mindset at the time, which you no\nlonger hold? What were you intending to achieve, that you have not achieved?\nWhat were you hoping for?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-26T22:59:21.633", "id": "4081", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-26T22:59:21.633", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "4078", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I see only one negation in your sentence, and therefore I do not know what\nmade you think that it might be a double negative. Anyway, 恐るるに足らない means “not\nworth fearing.”\n\nStrictly speaking, 恐るるに足らない is not very correct because it is a mixture of the\nclassical and modern Japanese grammars. As I explained in an\n[answer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/2480/15) to the question which\ncypher linked to, it should be 恐るるに足らず in the classical grammar and 恐れるに足らない\nin the modern grammar.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-26T23:06:24.090", "id": "4082", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-26T23:06:24.090", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "4079", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "There are two verbs: a 五段 verb 足る and an 一段 verb 足りる. They both have the same\nmeaning. According to the Daijisen\n[[1](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/139289/m0u/)], 足る was the original,\nand 足りる started being used in the early modern / Edo era:\n\n> 四段活用の「足る」から転じ、近世から江戸で用いられるようになったもの。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-27T02:18:36.117", "id": "4087", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T02:18:36.117", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "4084", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "According to [Oxford Advanced Learner's\nDictionary](http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/eraser),\nthe 's' is voiced in British English, and unvoiced in American English.\n\nSo イレーザー may come from the British reading.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-27T04:49:46.743", "id": "4088", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T04:49:46.743", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "4085", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This answer is a more detailed version of my two comments on the question.\n\nI do not know the origin of the notation エンターティナー, but let me give a few\nplausible origins.\n\n### Hypercorrection\n\nFirst, I think that hypercorrection is a pretty plausible reason. For example,\nwhat was written as フイルム is now also written as フィルム, reflecting the\npronunciation of the original word in English better (or at least intending to\ndo so). If one does not know the pronunciation of “entertainer” in English,\none may well think that what is written as エンターテイナー is probably more precisely\nwritten as エンターティナー, “analogously” to other words such as フィルム.\n\nA cursory look at some of the search results for [[\"エンターティナー\"\n発音]](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E3%82%A8%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BF%E3%83%BC%E3%83%86%E3%82%A3%E3%83%8A%E3%83%BC%22+%E7%99%BA%E9%9F%B3&hl=en&ie=utf-8)\non Google seems to give enough evidence that some people indeed pronounce\n“エンターティナー” with the ティ /ti/ sound.\n\n### Non-standard use of letter ぃ\n\nSecond, some people seem to use little ぃ in a non-standard way; namely, to\ndenote a weak い sound instead of modifying the preceding vowel to /i/. For\nexample, there is a cake product called\n[かすてぃら](http://www.oohara.co.jp/kasutera.html). If I am not mistaken, this\nproduct name is pronounced as かすていら with /i/ sound or かすてーら with long /e/\nsound, never with /ti/ sound. As an another example, some people write “へい” in\nthe Edo dialect as “へぃ”: searching\n[[\"へぃお待ち\"]](http://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E3%81%B8%E3%81%83%E3%81%8A%E5%BE%85%E3%81%A1%22)\non Google shows 213 results (by checking until the last search-result page).\nFor those who employ this non-standard convention, エンターティナー is pronounced as\nエンターテイナー with weak イ, which reflects the pronunciation of the English word as\nwell as (or possibly even better than) the usual notation エンターテイナー.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-03T00:30:07.880", "id": "4153", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-03T00:30:07.880", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "4086", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "~まい is the negative volitional form. Take a look at the ~まい construction on\n[Tae Kim's Guide](http://www.guidetojapanese.org/learn/grammar/volitional2)\n\nIn a nutshell:\n\n * ~まい expresses negative intention.\n\n * ~まい appends itself to the verb stem for 一段 verbs, and just after the verb for 五段 verbs.\n\n> 一段: 信じる > 信じまい\n>\n> 五段: 行く > 行くまい\n\n * You cannot append the polite ending ~ます after ~まい. But ~ますまい is possible.\n\n * Not commonly used in spoken form.\n\nNegative volition can also be expressed by ~のはやめよう (can be used in spoken\nJapanese):\n\n * 行くのはやめよう (Let's not go)\n\n * ~するのはやめよう (Let's not do ~)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-27T06:17:37.563", "id": "4092", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T07:49:30.753", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T07:49:30.753", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "4091", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "* `の代わりに` 'temporarily substite, instead of' does not accompany temporal transition from one to another.\n\n> × エコノミークラスではガラスの食器に代わってプラスチックの食器が出る。 \n> 'On economy class seats, plastic utensils are served, taking over the role\n> of glass ones.' \n> エコノミークラスではガラスの食器の代わりにプラスチックの食器が出る。 \n> 'On economy class seats, plastic utensils are served instead of glass\n> ones.'\n\n * `に代わって` 'replace, take over' entails temporal transition from one to another.\n\n> 戦後ガラスに代わってプラスチックが出てきた。 \n> 'After WWII, plastics appeared, taking over the role of glasses.' \n> × 戦後ガラスの代わりにプラスチックが出てきた。 \n> 'After WWII, plastics appeared instead of glasses.'\n\n`出る` here means 'appear' (< be exposed to the world) or 'be served' (< appear\nin front of the customer).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-27T07:01:57.270", "id": "4094", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T07:12:03.060", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T07:12:03.060", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4093", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm mostly guessing here, but I think it might be in order not to mistake them\nfor 三万 and 三億 when spoken. While せんまん and さんまん only differ by a vowel, いっせんまん\nand さんまん are easy to distinguish.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-07T14:26:36.393", "id": "4595", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-07T16:27:11.863", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-07T16:27:11.863", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "4105", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I think the answer to this question has more to do with mathematics than\nlanguage. The point of having repeated values is to make counting easier. If\nevery new order of number had its own name, it would be \"very\" difficult to\nremember them all or tell them at a glance. Also, if we didn't have new names\nfor each \"grouped order\" (not really sure what these are called), then there\nwould be numerous (no pun intended) ways to name one value.\n\nWhat I mean is, you ask why there is (for example) no `万万`. The same reason\nthere is no 1,000-1,000 in English: because the order \"million\" has been\nestablished. If there was no concept of millions, then the value 1000000 could\nbe described any number of (numerous, if not infinite) ways: 10-100000,\n100-10000, 1000-1000, 10000-100, 100000-10, 500-2000, 40-25000, ...; and there\nwould be no consistency amongst what different people use. Since everyone\nknows the concepts of millions, it's easy to instantly see and understand the\nmagnitude of such a value.\n\n> Why is 千 prefixed with 一 in this case? Why is it not like the following?\n>\n\n>> 千 \n> 千万 \n> 千億\n\nThat's the only way I've heard those numbers. I've never heard `一千`,`一千万` or\n`一千億` outside of \"formal\" documents, etc.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-07T16:08:53.813", "id": "4597", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-07T16:08:53.813", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "4105", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "I suppose we can trace the East Asian system back to China. In the Chinese\ntext [Nine Chapters on the Mathematical\nArt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Chapters_on_the_Mathematical_Art)\n九章算術 (dating to 2nd C BCE at the latest if I understand correctly), we see\nthis question and answer:\n\n> 今有 **十八分之十二** 。問、約之得幾何？ \n> 答曰、 **三分之二** 。\n\nThis looks like a likely precursor for the Japanese X分のY notation, with 之\nsimply translated の (which is of course extremely common). But I am not\nconvinced that it actually says \"twelve divided by eighteen\" and \"two divided\nby three\". I would interpret it rather as \"Twelve of eighteen parts\" and \"two\nof three parts\" respectively.\n\nIn Christopher Cullen's [translation](http://www.nri.org.uk/suanshushu.html)\nof the [Writings on\nReckoning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su%C3%A0n_sh%C3%B9_sh%C5%AB) 筭數書,\nanother Chinese text of similar vintage, his notes indicate that he agrees:\n\n> The topic of division naturally leads into that of fractions. When faced\n> with the standard form of expression sān fēn zhī yī 三分之一, **literally ‘one\n> of three parts’** I have decided simply to write ⅓. It does seem reasonable\n> to take the solidus line as relating 1 and 3 just as fēn zhī 分之 ‘of [ ]\n> parts’ relates yī 一 and sān 三 in the reverse order. The term fēn 分 has been\n> translated as ‘part’ rather than ‘fraction’; this seems closer to the usage\n> of the text.\n\nSo I propose that your premise is incorrect: Egypt and China used essentially\nthe same method to represent fractions. Your example is not \"Five that was\ndivided by three\" but \"five of three parts\" -- which is obviously not an\nintuitive concept when you express it in terms of \"parts\" of an implicit\n(single) whole, since the result is more than one, but you can see how it\ncould develop as an extension from terminology like \"one of three parts\".\n\nOne interesting way in which I could be incorrect is that all of the above is\ncorrect in terms of where the X分のY terminology came from, but most modern\nJapanese speakers (represented by you and Tsuyoshi) nevertheless do in fact\ninterpret it as \"Y divided by X\" rather than \"Y of X parts [of a whole]\". In\nthat case, the question would be, how did this reanalysis of the phrase arise\nin Japan? (And how about Korea and other nations in China's sphere of\ninfluence?) I bet the answer would be something to do with word order, in that\ncase...", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-27T04:36:43.103", "id": "4460", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-27T04:36:43.103", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "4106", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "Fefe pointed me towards a link in the comments, so I read up on it. [(see\nhere)](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A9%94%E5%8B%85#.E5.85.AC.E6.96.87.E5.BC.8F.E4.BB.A5.E5.89.8D)\nIt seems that these two kanji are used together (`詔{しょう}勅{ちょく}`) to mean an\n“an Imperial decree or edict”.\n\nHowever, they have separate meanings as well, which are `詔{しょう}書{しょ}` and\n`勅{ちょく}書{しょ}`. From what I can tell, the main difference seems to be:\n\n * `詔書` would require the Imperial court to sign off on it. Apparently getting a `詔書` signed was a pain, so it ended up being used for very official, formal things, like a `改{かい}元{げん}` (changing of an era).\n * `勅書` did not require full ratification and was used for more urgent or day-to-day matters.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-29T23:50:15.970", "id": "4120", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T23:50:15.970", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "921", "parent_id": "4107", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "As @ZhenLin said in the comments, there are three particles left unchanged in\nthe reform of the usage of kana: は へ を.\n\nThey are left unchanged because they are so widely used, and changing them\nwould result in too much in the writing form. I quote from a book*(I don't\nknow the book, so the contents are in fact from\n[wiki](http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E7%8F%BE%E4%BB%A3%E4%BB%AE%E5%90%8D%E9%81%A3%E3%81%84#.E7.8F.BE.E4.BB.A3.E3.81.8B.E3.81.AA.E3.81.A5.E3.81.8B.E3.81.84.E3.81.AE.E7.B2.BE.E7.A5.9E)):\n\n* * *\n\n*現代かなづかいの精神・抜粋（国語シリーズ8／文部省著、統計出版・昭和27年3月） \nThe spirit of the modern Kana usage (an extract) (Japanese Language Series 8,\nBy the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)\n\n* * *\n\n> 「本を読む」の **を**\n> をば、をと書く例外をことわっている。これが問題である。なぜこんな例外を許したか。例外にせずに、これも「お」と書いたらよいではないか、という非難がごうごうと聞える。これには、こういう理由がある。\n>\n>\n> もちろん例外は、よくよくでないかぎりは設けないほうがよい。委員会でもそれは皆心得ていたことなのである。だから、この例外を設けたのは、よくよくのことなのである。 \n>\n>\n>\n> およそ改革は、ことに万人の所有である言語の改革は、まさつの少ない、万人のすぐついてこられるものでなければ、案がいかにりっぱでも、机上の理想論に終って、実現ができない。理想としては、だれもだれも助詞の\n> **を** をも **お**\n> にしてしまいたい。しかし、助詞というもの、ことに「が」「の」「に」「を」「へ」「は」などは、最もたくさん出てくる。〔中略〕いちいち\n>\n\n>> これわ それわ わたくしわ \n> それお これお わたくしお \n> これえ それえ わたくしえ\n>\n>\n> というように書くようになると、あまりにも、今までと変りすぎて異様さが目だち、ちょっと実行の手がにぶる。この助詞さえ、もし今までどおりにして置いてよかったら、他の点は、漢字で書くとほとんど隠れて、新かなづかいも、大部分今までどおりで済む〔中略〕助詞だけは漢字で書けず、いつもかなであって、必ずひっかかる、いちいち直すにかかる手もうるさいが、見る目にも抵抗が多過ぎて、すぐ実行できるか、あやぶまれる。これが、大新聞社側の決定的な意見であった〔中略〕いかにも、「わ」「お」「え」が、目にたって、一見異様であって親しめなかった記憶が、ある委員たちにもあったのである。\n>\n>\n> 大事の前の小事である。実行できない案では、いかに美しくってもなんにもならない。要は実行できる案でなければ、一時強行されても、少しでも無理があると、動天返しになる憂いがある。 \n> そこで委員会も、助詞を元どおりにのこすという妥協案を決定するよりほかにしかたがなかったようである。\n\n\"There is exceptions that を in 本を読む would be written as を. This is a problem.\nWhy the exceptions are permitted? Why not write this as お and elimination all\nexceptions? Often there are criticisms about this. There is the following\nreason for this. Of course exceptions should not be allowed unless it can be\navoided. The committee is well aware of that. However, these exceptions are\nthe ones that cannot be avoided.\n\n\"Reform, especially the reform of language that is used be everybody, unless\nit can be followed by everybody in a short time, it will only be an ideal plan\non the desk, and cannot become true. As an ideal (plan), everybody wanted\nchange the particle を to お. However, the particle, especially\n「が」「の」「に」「を」「へ」「は」 are most widely used. If we change them all, and write as\n\nこれわ それわ わたくしわ \nそれお これお わたくしお \nこれえ それえ わたくしえ \n\nthere would be too much change from the original writing, and would be hard to\nbe put into practice. If only these particles are written as the original,\nother changes will mostly be hidden when kanji is used. The new kana usage\nwill not have too much change in actual writing. (...) Only the particles\nwon't be written in kanji, and are always written in kana, so will certainly\nbe affected (by the reform). Changing all of them will cause too much effort,\nand it will cause too much resistance from people who read it. This is the\ndecisive comment from the big publishing companies. (...) some members of the\ncommittee also (think) that 「わ」「お」「え」will stand out in the text, and make the\ntext not look like normal Japanese.\n\n\"This is a 'little thing' before a big reform. A plan that cannot be put into\npractice will be nothing however good it is. If it is not a practical plan,\neven it is forced into use, it maybe reversed as long as there are something\n(unreasonable).\n\n\"Thus, the committee has to use the plan that keeps all the particles.\"\n\nYou should see that を is only kept as a particle, its appearances in other\nwords are all changed to お, just like ゐ and ゑ changed to い and え.", "comment_count": 14, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-28T15:45:12.903", "id": "4117", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-02T07:05:55.083", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "903", "parent_id": "4108", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "The literal meaning of the phrase is 'poisonous for your mind'. I think you\nare trying to literary understand the `毒` 'poison' part, but that is just a\nmetaphor. The expression is not limited to medical situations. It means\n'unfortunate' and is used generally.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-28T03:28:42.193", "id": "4110", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T03:28:42.193", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4109", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "This was an interesting question. I see this in movie subtitles all the time\nwhen the English line is along the lines of, \"sorry for your loss.\"\n\nThe \"best answer\" on this provides some more insight to the answer already\ngiven: <http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q119850871>\nBut the answer below that, where the guy talks about the origin in 江戸時代 is\nalso interesting. Basically in summary between the two posts, it's the\nopposite of 気の薬, which in Edo times was something given to the sickly. I'd be\ncurious to know just WHAT 気の薬 was (a drink? a food? a pill?). Since it was\nsomething good and given to cure sickness, poison (the opposite of medicine)\nwas used to express something bad such as 不安 or 困ること. And today it's used to\nexpress sympathizing with someone for their loss.\n\nTo be honest, I still felt pretty unsatisfied with the answer, so I asked my\nfiancee (Japanese) just now, what the origin and original meaning of お気の毒に is,\nand she had no idea beyond that it's just a set phrase you say when to express\nsympathy for someone's loss.\n\nTo address your question about other uses, she was able to say that you indeed\ncan say it to sick people expressing sympathy for their condition, IF the\ncondition is light/curable/will get better soon. She said that you can't\nreally say it to someone with a terminal or debilitating illness, because then\nit's kind of just reminding them of the crappy situation they're in. Whereas\nif someone breaks a bone or has a cold, well, they'll get better, and they're\njust down and out temporarily, so it's kind of like, \"dang, that sucks that\nyou got sick.\" Example sentence that I vaguely remember being told one time by\na Japanese co-worker a few years ago: お気の毒に…こんな忙しい時期に風邪を引いちゃうって、最悪だね,\nexpressing sympathy for the fact that I was sick, but I had my plate full and\nhad to continue working anyway.\n\nIt can also be used somewhat sarcastically, but it's not that common. It will\ngenerally draw a chuckle if you use it for something like say, a close friend\n(definitely not a co-worker or someone you don't really know) lost their phone\nbecause it was their own fault/they were being a drunken idiot/etc.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-19T11:54:32.270", "id": "4342", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-19T11:54:32.270", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1070", "parent_id": "4109", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Just conjecturing but based on:\n\n * tendency for longer expressions to sound more polite\n\n * みず is two morae\n\n * こおり is three morae\n\n`こおり` is \"one mora more polite\" than `みず`. `お` in `おみず` makes it three and so\nit compensates for being short and abrupt.\n\n* * *\n\nAlso it could just be a rather simple reason being that in isolation, `おみず`\nhas a higher occurrence than `みず` and `こおり` has a higher occurrence than\n`おこおり`. The higher usage one takes precedence due to argumentum ad numerum.\nI.e. everyone uses it because everyone uses it more often in the past. So by\nextension everyone continues to use the one more commonly observed thereby\nenforcing the dominant variation. (I lack the statistics to support this\nclaim. This is also a conjecture)\n\n* * *\n\nAnd also, so far **only** `氷とお水` has been considered in **a single** instance.\nWe are lacking information on:\n\n 1. お氷とお水\n\n 2. お氷と水\n\n 3. 氷と水\n\nI cannot make any definitive conclusion about `氷とお水`. Especially so if any of\nthe other patterns above are in reality more common than `氷とお水`.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-28T12:51:06.907", "id": "4115", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-02T11:04:42.623", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-02T11:04:42.623", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "4111", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I've heard that rice (when cooked and not being used in a curry) has the\nhonorific ご in ごはん because it is an essential item, i.e. something you can't\nlive without. Perhaps the same is true of water.\n\nIce, on the other hand, is not an essential, and presumably wouldn't have had\nenough time in the language to get any honorific prefix anyway.\n\n**Edit:** I probably heard about this from\n[お-Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorific_speech_in_Japanese#Prefix_usage):\n\n> There are some words which frequently or always take these prefixes,\n> regardless of who is speaking and to whom; these are often ordinary items\n> which may have particular cultural significance, such as tea (o-cha) and\n> rice (go-han). The word meshi, the Japanese equivalent of Sino-Japanese go-\n> han, is considered rough and masculine (男性語).", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-29T20:40:10.763", "id": "4119", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-02T10:16:28.230", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-02T10:16:28.230", "last_editor_user_id": "91", "owner_user_id": "91", "parent_id": "4111", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "The reason is fairly simple, but probably not going to going to be as pattern\nbased as you would hope.\n\nお[水]{みず} is an example of a segment of Japanese known as [美化語]{びかご}, this is\nmore or less means being more polite by using a nicer sounding word.\n\nSome example of this are\n\n[食]{た}べる instead of [食]{く}う\n\n[美味]{おい}しい instead of [旨]{うま}い\n\nお[昼]{ひる} instead of [昼]{ひる}\n\nThese words are all set, they don't really follow a set pattern other than\nmany of them start with お.\n\nThe source of your confusion probably comes from the fact that お～ is also used\na prefix to honor other people's things/actions. In the case of [美化語]{びかご} you\naren't honoring anything directly.\n\nSo to get back to question of 氷 is written as just 氷 because there is no\npoliter set alternative.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-02-07T01:24:20.970", "id": "4586", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-07T01:24:20.970", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1129", "parent_id": "4111", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "In Japanese, four-digit Gregorian years are read only as single numbers.\nTherefore, 1988年 is せんきゅうひゃくはちじゅうはちねん. Reading the number 1988 as\nいっせんきゅうひゃくはちじゅうはち (and therefore reading 1988年 as いっせんきゅうひゃくはちじゅうはちねん) with\nいっせん instead of せん is acceptable but I think that it is non-standard. Neither\n“じゅうきゅう はちじゅうはちねん” nor “いち きゅう はち はちねん” is correct. The latter might be\nunderstandable, but I would be surprised if a native speaker understands\n“じゅうきゅう はちじゅうはちねん” as the year 1988.\n\nAs in English, years are sometimes abbreviated by omitting the first two\ndigits when they are obvious. If someone says 88年 in the contemporary context,\nit must mean the year 1988. In this case, 88年 is read as はちじゅうはちねん.\n\n> Q2. What(and how strong) is the preference for the type of reading for years\n> in Japan? In Gregorian years or in the format of Japanese-Era + Year number?\n\nIt is mostly the matter of style and personal taste. Sometimes Gregorian years\nare used because they are more convenient for calculation, and sometimes\nJapanese years are used by tradition (as in many official documents issued by\ngovernment).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-28T12:25:07.237", "id": "4114", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T12:30:22.533", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-28T12:30:22.533", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "4113", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Agree with TsuyoshiIto's answer, but would like to complement the answer to\nQ2.\n\n * The Japanese years are called 元号 or 年号.\n * There is a law that states that, in official contracts, if the date is written both in 元号 and some other system, then the 元号 description overrides the other in case of contradiction or inconsistency. For this reason, in official document, it is somewhat forced to use 元号.\n * I personally hate 元号, and think that it does not qualify as a calendar system because, besides inconvenience in calculation, **there is no way you can talk about the future**. How would you describe the year after 平成23年? Will it be 平成24年? Likely. What about 5 years later? 平成28年? Maybe. What about 10 years later? 平成33年? Can be. What about 50 years later? 平成73年? Less likely. What about 100 years later? 平成123年? Probably not. ... You can only tell by guess, or you would have no idea how it is called.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-28T20:09:00.327", "id": "4118", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-28T20:09:00.327", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4113", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Q1. 1988年 should be read, \"センキュウヒャクハチジュウハチネン”, nothing else.\n\nQ2. Generally Japanese use 平成 at the moment. It is more use than 2012 etc.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-01T01:55:21.973", "id": "4138", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-01T01:55:21.973", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1007", "parent_id": "4113", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Maybe you are bothered too much with the translations \"know\" and \"understand\".\nI feel that these translation are not that bad, but they may only be\nreflecting some shades of the meanings, and do not match precisely. The\ndistinction is like this:\n\n * 知る: To objectively come to know (have in mind) an established fact. (知っている is 'to know'.) Does not require thinking (computation); it is just about memory.\n * 分かる: To subjectively grasp/accept the mechanism/reasoning/meaning behind something, or being able to handle/analyze/conclude something through thinking. As the kanji indicates, this verb is related to `分ける`, which means 'to divide', which leads to 'analyzing'.\n\nIn case of a question given, if it is something you need to think of or if it\nis a question that you have heard for the first time (which is the majority of\ncases), then `分かる`/`分からない` is appropriate. If it is something that you either\nsimply know or not, then `知っている`/`知らない` is appropriate (Be aware that it is\nnot `知る`/`知らない`).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-30T10:25:55.720", "id": "4126", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-30T10:53:51.017", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T10:53:51.017", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4116", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "It's fine for ski instructors and pretty much anyone else who teaches you\nsomething.\n\nUsing it as an honorific after the name is a little more formal than just\nusing `先生` by itself. But it conveys your respect and appreciation for the\nfact that they are imparting their knowledge to you. I think it's possible\nsomeone might correct you and say that just `さん` is fine, but I can't imagine\nanyone being bothered in any sense of it being inappropriate.\n\n 1. It's not disrespectful to other teachers. Simply put, who you address as `先生` has no bearing on who else is addressed as `先生`.\n\n 2. It's not too cold or informal, and can be kind of a fun joke. Sometimes I'll ask someone at a store or a waiter at a restaurant for clarification on some Japanese, and then say something like `「有難う、先生」`. Gets a chuckle.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-31T06:13:26.743", "id": "4129", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-31T06:13:26.743", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "4127", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "You can use 先生 to anyone who teaches anything in Japan. In traditional sports\nor arts, Japanese use [師匠]{ししょう}.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-01T01:51:24.693", "id": "4137", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-02T11:44:40.850", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-02T11:44:40.850", "last_editor_user_id": "215", "owner_user_id": "1007", "parent_id": "4127", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I'd never call my ski instructor '--さん'. Nor have I ever called my calligraphy\nteacher '--さん' or '師匠'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-01-04T09:25:48.110", "id": "4168", "last_activity_date": "2012-01-04T09:25:48.110", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "4127", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "First of all I think it's usually written as\n[`凛{りん}と`](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?p=%E5%87%9B%E3%81%A8&stype=0&dtype=3)\nrather than\n[`凛{りん}`](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E5%87%9C&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=0&index=120634800000&pagenum=1),\nmeaning \"dignified\".\n\nSecondly I think it's most likely\n[`艶{つや}`](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%A4%E3%82%84/UTF-8/) as in `つやつや`\n\"glossy/shiny\" as I've often seen `つやつやとした` in reference to shiny hair, and\n`つやロング` gets lots of relevant search results but `えんロング` doesn't seem to.\n\n> 凛{りん}と際{きわ}立{だ}つ艶{つや}ロング \n> \"Glossy long (eyelashes) that stand out dignified.\"", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-12-31T06:28:03.973", "id": "4130", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-31T10:57:15.830", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-31T10:57:15.830", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "4128", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]