Datasets:

---

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 3

[ { "body": "I think you might have confused 名種設定 for\n[各種設定](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E5%90%84%E7%A8%AE%E8%A8%AD%E5%AE%9A), or\n\"various settings\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-17T08:19:56.220", "id": "9783", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-17T08:19:56.220", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "9782", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "You are confusing two _English_ sentences: \"I am going to buy it\" can mean a\nfuture form of \"buy\" (similar to \"I will buy it\"), or it can be a compound\nsentence whose main verb is \"go\" (similar to \"I am going out, in order to buy\nit\"). The former is 買う or 買います (which is the same as \"I buy it\", the plain\npresent tense, in Japanese), and the latter is 買いに行く or 買いに行きます - notice how\nthis contains the verb 行く, \"to go\". 買っている or 買っています is a sort of continuative\npresent form, and means \"I am buying it\".\n\n(Actually, the distinctions between 買う and 買っている are a little subtler than\nthat - you can't expect English and Japanese to correspond precisely - but I\nthink the simplified explanation above is enough to answer your question.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-17T22:09:38.440", "id": "9785", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-17T22:09:38.440", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1699", "parent_id": "9784", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The basic form in Japanese like 買う・買います actually means both present tense and\nfuture tense. The exact tense depends on usage. For example: 毎日ぎゅうにゅうを買います(I\nbuy milk everyday)・これからぎゅうにゅうを買います(I am going to buy milk) are using different\ntenses despite using the same 買います.\n\nThe difference between 買います and 買いに行きます is not on tense, but on the focus.\n買います focuses on the action of buying while 買いに行きます focuses on the action of\ngoing (out). In most cases they can mean the same thing but in some cases no.\nFor example: ネットで株を買います(Buy stocks online) will never be said as\nネットで株を買いに行きます, as there is no \"going out\" action involved.\n\nThe difference between ぎゅうにゅうを買っています and ぎゅうにゅうを買う is that the first one is\npresent continuous while the second one is in future tense. A proper\ntranslation would be \"I am buying milk now\" and \"I am going to buy milk\"\n\nSorry for the long answer.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-18T03:56:00.517", "id": "9787", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-18T03:56:00.517", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "2989", "parent_id": "9784", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "I think this is how:\n\nConsider first Clause1: 家賃が安い. \nThe structure is Subject1+が+Predicate1. \nSubject1: 家賃 \nPredicate1: 安い\n\nNow consider Clause2: (都心より)郊外のほうが家賃が安い. \nThe structure is Subject2+が+Predicate2, where Predicate2 is Clause1. \nSubject2: 郊外のほう \nPredicate2: 家賃が安い\n\n* * *\n\nPredicate: The part of a sentence or clause saying something about the subject", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-18T17:04:04.467", "id": "9789", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-18T17:04:04.467", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "9788", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "As @Flaw flawlessly explains, Japanese sentences can have clausal predicates.\nThis is what causes what is commonly known as double-subject constructions,\nalthough I believe \"clausal predicates\" really illustrates the structure\nbetter.\n\nI assume you have heard constructions like\n\n> 彼は髪が長い He has long hair\n\nSome teachers/textbooks might explain this away by saying that 彼 is a topic,\nnot a subject, but that creates problems when you run into sentences like\n\n> 彼が髪が長いんだ！ He is the one with long hair!\n\nHere the first が is an exhaustive-listing が. When multiple がs occur in a main\nclause, the first is usually exhaustive-listing. Note that 髪が長いのは彼だ might be\nmore common, but I don't consider the above ungrammatical. Also,\ndependent/relative clauses cannot have topics, so you might see\n\n> 彼が髪が長い理由は ... だ The reason for his long hair is ...\n\nalthough I think in this case 彼の髪が長い理由は...だ might also be as/more common.\n\nIn your example sentence, のほう needs to have a が (This would also fall under\nthe exhaustive-listing category) to have the comparative meaning\n\n> 郊外のほうが家賃が安い Rent is **cheaper** in the suburbs\n\nChanging the が to a は would lose the comparative meaning\n\n> 郊外のほうは家賃が安い Rent is cheap in the suburbs\n\nAs a side note, I'm not exactly sure what the function of のほう would be in this\ncase, I think you can see it either as a filler, or as something that directs\nyour attention to 郊外. 郊外は家賃が安い would mean almost the same.\n\nTo address Billy's question in his comment\n\n> 郊外が家賃が安い It is in the suburbs that rent is cheap\n\nis grammatical, but quite narrow in meaning. And again, 家賃が安いのは郊外だ is probably\nmore common to convey this meaning.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-19T01:17:37.543", "id": "9796", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-19T08:50:30.770", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-19T08:50:30.770", "last_editor_user_id": "1073", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "9788", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "`目的` can also mean \"purpose\". There is a book called \"The Purpose Driven\nLife\". In Japanese, it's titled `人生を導く５つの目的`.\n\nI think it boils down to the difference in English between \"purpose\" and\n\"goal\". A goal is something finite you hope to achieve. A purpose is like a\nmotivation for why you do something. Often they will overlap, but not always.\nHaving a finite goal kind of implies that you have a motivation. However, the\nconverse—having a motivation implies you have a finite goal—is not necessarily\ntrue.\n\nEx.\n\n> A: Why did you come to campus today? \n> B1: I came to visit my professor and get a letter of recommendation. → The\n> goal and the motivation are the same: get the letter. \n> B2: I came to visit my professor. → The motivation of why I came to campus\n> is to see my professor. However, there is nothing \"achievable\" just by\n> visiting him.\n\nSo the same with the Japanese words. If you have a `目標` you also (likely) have\na `目的`. However, if you have a `目的`, you do not necessarily have a `目標`.\n\nThat's how I see them anyway.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-18T21:04:13.973", "id": "9793", "last_activity_date": "2022-05-11T22:38:30.160", "last_edit_date": "2022-05-11T22:38:30.160", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "9790", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "目的＝目標＋意味\n\nExample: \nI want to become better at shooting the basketball. => 目的 \nI will consider myself better at it when I score at least 50% of my shots. =>\n目標\n\n目的 is a high level image, global image of a goal. 目標 is a more milestones like\nlow level goal towards achieving the 目的 which can be quantified and is\nexplicit.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-19T00:21:24.647", "id": "9794", "last_activity_date": "2022-05-13T00:49:30.983", "last_edit_date": "2022-05-13T00:49:30.983", "last_editor_user_id": "1065", "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "9790", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "I do not know the origin of the suffix -がる, but I am afraid that your theory\nis unlikely because the suffix -がる is attached to something different from\nwhat a particle が is attached. For example, we say 痛がる, but 痛が is not\ngrammatical.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-18T19:45:43.333", "id": "9792", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-18T19:45:43.333", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9791", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "[This\npaper](https://web.archive.org/web/20150910152012/https://teapot.lib.ocha.ac.jp/ocha/bitstream/10083/50105/1/02_011-021.pdf)\nbriefly lists this as a source:\n\n> 「がる」の語源にはいくつかの可能性があるようだが [...] 日本国語大辞典によると、\n> 「アハレガル、ウレシガル、痛ガル、面白ガルのガルは情をそそられる意から、アガルの約。道心ガル、才子ガル、得意ガルのガルは、ゲ（気）アルの約〔大言海〕」などの紹介がある。\n\nI do not have access to 日本国語大辞典, but it seems it does not support your がある\ntheory, rather suggests that it derives from あがる and/or 気{げ}ある.\n\n* * *\n\n**Update 2021-12-08:**\n\nThe 日本国語大辞典 is available (for now, at least) via Kotobank, and the relevant\nentry is [here](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%8C%E3%82%8B-235261).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-19T00:32:21.973", "id": "9795", "last_activity_date": "2021-12-10T04:35:17.563", "last_edit_date": "2021-12-10T04:35:17.563", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "9791", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "I've always thought it was 気(げ)ある contracted. It makes sense in that one can't\nreally report on someone else's feelings but one could say \"he/she has an air\nof wanting/hurting/etc.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-12-09T00:34:10.633", "id": "91532", "last_activity_date": "2021-12-09T00:34:10.633", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "48947", "parent_id": "9791", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Yes, [一分間]{いっぷんかん}, [一ヶ月間]{いっかげつかん} and [一年間]{いちねんかん} exist, but the [間]{かん}\nin them is not the same as in [一時間]{いちじかん} and [一週間]{いっしゅうかん}.\n\nThe 間 in 一時間 and 一週間 is a part of the counter words for \"hour\" and \"week\", but\nthe counter words for \"minute\", \"month\" and \"year\" are 分, ヶ月 and 年 (not 分間,\nヵ月間, 年間), and the 間 in 一分間, 一ヶ月間 and 一年間 is more like \"for~~\" or \"during~~\".\nSo I think this is why you can say [一時間後]{いちじかんご} and [一週間後]{いっしゅうかんご} but not\n[一年間後]{いちねんかんご} or [一分間後]{いっぷんかんご}.\n\nYou can say [一週間]{いっしゅうかん}の[間]{あいだ}, [一時間]{いちじかん}の[間]{あいだ}, but\n[一分間]{いっぷんかん}の[間]{あいだ}, [一ヶ月間]{いっかげつかん}の[間]{あいだ} and [一年間]{いちねんかん}の[間]{あいだ}\nwould be grammatically redundant, although quite a lot of people use ~~分間の間,\n~~年間の間.\n\nDon't ask me why we don't say [一週間間]{いっしゅうかんかん} for \"for one week\" or\n[一時間間]{いちじかんかん} for \"for one hour\" while we say [一分間]{いっぷんかん} (for one\nminute), [一ヶ月間]{いっかげつかん} (for one month), and [一年間]{いちねんかん} (for one year).\n(^_^;)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-19T10:57:56.580", "id": "9802", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-06T21:46:28.320", "last_edit_date": "2013-02-06T21:46:28.320", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9797", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

[ { "body": "Your sentences (mostly) have the same _general_ meaning of the car being near\nthe garage, but the choice of word does have nuances that will determine the\nflavor of that nearness.\n\n * そば says specifically that it is next to, or beside, the garage.\n * よこ emphasizes that it is _horizontally_ next to the garage, as its counterpart is たて. Basically using this can be alternately phrased as \"not たて.\"\n * ところ is much more vague. You're saying the car is in the same place as the garage.\n * ちかく is like a half way point between そば and ところ in terms of distance with regard to an unspecified location. You're saying it's near the garage somewhere.\n * となり has a generally equivalent meaning of \"neighboring\" even here, and has an image similar to よこ and そば. As you know it's usually used with houses or the like.\n\nSo as you can see it's not exactly true that that they all have the same\nmeaning. They all convey the same general idea, but nuances still have an\neffect. The more general a word is, like そば or ちかく, the less you will invoke\npotentially unexpected nuances.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-19T05:46:32.293", "id": "9800", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-19T14:50:03.577", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-19T14:50:03.577", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "9798", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "My previous link about `tonari` was lost. So I'm going to post another link I\nfound here as an answer for completeness.\n\n[Source: Japanese Words and Their\nUses](https://books.google.com/books?id=MVVzBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=tonari%20japanese&source=bl&ots=Z1O8hwNE_4&sig=8pUz7FhKWXpnoxleuEsU0mHcaFc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N7USVcaaMY2zyAS7qYLwBA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=tonari%20japanese&f=false)\n\n`Tonari` is used especially when two objects of more or less the same category\nare in question. When two objects belong to two entirely different categories,\n`tonari` is not appropriate. Examples (1) and (2) are correct, but (3) and (4)\nsound very strange.\n\n 1. Sakanaya wa nikuya no `tonari` desu. \n 2. Uchi no `tonari` ni Amerikajin no kazoku ga sundeiru. \n 3. Boku no uchi wa ooki na sakura no ki no `tonari` desu. \n 4. Kadan no `tonari` ni inu ga neteiru.\n\nIn such cases, (3) and (4) should be replaced by `[sugu] yoko` (\"by, at the\nside of\").\n\nIn English, a person living next to you is a neighbor, but a person living\nseveral doors away is also a neighbor. In Japanese, however, only the former\nwould be a `tonari` no hito, whereas the latter would be a `kinjo` no hito\n(\"person in the `neighborhood`\").", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-03-25T13:32:08.457", "id": "23448", "last_activity_date": "2015-03-25T13:32:08.457", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "769", "parent_id": "9798", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "Latin scholars in Japan seem to like using ウァ instead of ワ.\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%8F) says\n\"一部の外来語で、発音が同じ/wa/であってもワの代わりにウァと書く場合がある。一般には使われないが、ラテン語のvaを古典式発音で音写する際に用いられる（例：ウァレンティヌス、ミネルウァ）。\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-19T11:50:46.713", "id": "9804", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-19T11:50:46.713", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1119", "parent_id": "9801", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "It seems that there is a tradition to describe the sound of Latin /va/ as\nウァ(which would be pronounced the same as ワ) in Japanese.\n\nThis might spill over into Latin words used in actual Japanese, but the result\nis mostly a stylistic effect and/or a snobbery effect. There is only one /w/\nphoneme in Japanese.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-20T01:52:03.537", "id": "9806", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-20T01:52:03.537", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "9801", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "(This is my comment with small changes in wording.)\n\nJapanese have some suffixes for nouns which signify plurality such as たち, ら,\nand ども, and this might be referred to as “some kind of plural declension,”\nalthough showing plurality is not required grammatically like English.\n\nIf your professor was talking about conjugating a verb according to the number\nof its subject in Japanese in some old period, I would say that that sounds\nlike a groundless claim. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Japanese\nhad the conjugation like that. (But I am not a linguist.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-22T18:36:48.387", "id": "9828", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-22T18:36:48.387", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9805", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Notice that he said \"declension\", i.e., a _noun_ suffix etc. Probably -ra and\n-tachi were much more productive in Old Japanese, and what little I know of\nolder Japanese it seems to be the case.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-02-02T03:15:36.530", "id": "11116", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-02T03:15:36.530", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "2960", "parent_id": "9805", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "姿 almost always refers to a person's appearance in a kind of poetic sense.\nUsually when you refer to 姿 you're referring to some kind of beauty or special\nquality to someone's appearance. It's possible to use this to describe an\nobject, but as I mentioned it takes on a little bit more of a poetic quality.\nFor example:\n\n> [(4)物のかたち。ありさま。\n> 「―の美しい山」](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch/0/0ss/110299500000/)\n\n形 on the other hand is a simple word referring to shape. You can use 形 with\njust about anything and it doesn't carry any extra baggage along with it. So\nfor example you could normally say 携帯電話の形 but not 携帯電話の姿. The latter is only\npossible when you're deliberately trying to evoke a certain feeling or image\naround an inanimate object. 形 can also be used in more metaphorical ways and\nwith other nuances, but in terms of how it's different from 姿, you can think\nof it in terms of people and general shape.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-20T12:30:26.847", "id": "9808", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-20T12:43:48.107", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-20T12:43:48.107", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "9807", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "[Here's an article.](http://www.learn-japanese.info/Counters.html) [And\nanother article.](http://www.tofugu.com/guides/japanese-counters-guide/)\n\nAlso, once you know the counter no matter the number you can use them as\nusual.\n\n * I will buy 2 books = hon o ni satsu kaimasu\n * There are 3 people here = koko ni hito ga san nin imasu\n * There are 20 people = hito ga ni juu nin imasu\n * There are 21 people here = koko ni hito ga ni juu ichi nin imasu\n * I drank 4 cups of coffee = watashi wa koohii o yon hai nomimashita", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-21T04:32:04.837", "id": "9810", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-21T10:10:02.140", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-21T10:10:02.140", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "769", "parent_id": "9809", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "There are special words for counting a small number of people, days, and so\non, but let’s begin with the regular pattern.\n\nUsually, the word which describes a number is just the combination of a\nnumeral and a counter word. The numeral does not change depending on the\ncounter word, and the counter word does not change depending on the number.\nThis is what user1205935 and dotnetN00b wrote. However, the precise form of\nthe words describing numbers is a little more complicated than this, even in\nthe regular pattern.\n\nIf you know that 一匹のリス (one squirrel) is read as いっぴきのリス and 二匹のリス (two\nsquirrels) is にひきのリス, this should look contradictory to what I wrote in the\nprevious paragraph. This is because the last mora of the numeral and the first\nmora of the counter word are sometimes fused together. Whether this fusion\noccurs and how they are fused depend on the ending of the numeral and the\nconsonant in the first mora of the counter word; see\n[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_counter_word#Euphonic_changes).\nIn [一匹]{いっぴき}, the numeral [一]{いち} and the counter word [匹]{ひき} are fused\ntogether.\n\nBecause the numerals for 11 ([十一]{じゅういち}), 21 ([二十一]{にじゅういち}), 31\n([三十一]{さんじゅういち}), and so on end with 一, the pattern for these numerals is the\nsame as the pattern for 一.\n\nNow you might think that the pattern depends only on the last digit of the\nnumber, but that is incorrect! Why? It is because the numerals for 10\n([十]{じゅう}), 100 ([百]{ひゃく}), 1000 ([千]{せん}), and 10000 ([一万]{いちまん}) are\ncompletely different, and they are fused with counter words in different ways.\n\nAs I wrote earlier, there are some exceptions to this explanation. For\nexample, “one person” and “two people” have special words ([一人]{ひとり} and\n[二人]{ふたり}, respectively), while the case with more than two people follows the\nregular pattern with the counter word [人]{にん}.\n[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_counter_word#Exceptions)\nlists most notable exceptions.\n\nSee also the question “[What are the rules for reading numbers before a\nforeign counter-word?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/4025/what-\nare-the-rules-for-reading-numbers-before-a-foreign-counter-word)” by\nsilvermaple. (Despite the title, the answers given there are also applicable\nto the counter words which are not loanwords.)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-21T06:02:10.520", "id": "9812", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-21T06:18:11.297", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9809", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Let me work with your two examples above:\n\n> 1. 運動といい、勉強といい、僕は何をやってもダメだ。\n> 2. 日本人は子供といわず、大人といわず、漫画をよく読む。\n>\n\nThe pattern ～といい～といい from the first sentence is roughly equivalent in meaning\nto ～も～も and can list several unrelated things.\n\nThe pattern ～といわず～といわず from the second sentence is different in that it\nsamples several things from the same whole and tries to make a statement about\nthe whole.\n\nIn the first sentence, the \"I\" is trying to say he can't do anything. But he\nhas to say it by listing the items in a positive way. ～といわず～といわず on the other\nhand needs a\n\"[universe](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_\\(mathematics\\))\", a\ncategory (usually specified by は as the topic of the sentence) that contains\nthe examples, here 日本人.\n\nThe ～といい～といい of the first sentence can be turned into a sentence with\n～といわず～といわず by placing 運動 and 勉強 in some category, e.g.\n\n> 学校では、運動といわず、勉強といわず、僕は何をやってもダメだ。 \n> 家族の中では、運動といわず、勉強といわず、僕は何をやってもダメだ。\n\nbut\n\n> 運動といわず、勉強といわず、僕は何をやってもダメだ。\n\ndoes not work, because there is no unifying concept for 運動 and 勉強.\n\nTrying to express the nuances in English, I would maybe put it as\n\n> ~といい~といい \n> both ... and ... (and many more)\n>\n> ~といわず~といわず \n> both ... and ... (and all the others, too)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-22T00:52:23.750", "id": "9822", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-22T07:17:04.457", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "9811", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "My interpretation of the explanations in the 日本語表現文型辞典 is slightly different.\nThis answer could be incomplete and missing important details, so I hope\nsomeone else can write a more comprehensive answer, but based on the\ninformation available to me right now:\n\n* * *\n\nFor 〜といい〜といい in the 日本語表現文型辞典:\n\n> \"It's used when the speaker wants to say 'however you look at it, it's ...'\n> in regards to a certain matter/thing, presenting a few examples when the\n> speaker wants to give an evaluation/opinion.\"\n\nAnd it puts it under the primary heading \"〜も〜も\".\n\nThe 日本語文型辞典 says it's used to present two nouns as examples, and it frequently\n(though I don't think always) carries the nuance of that it's not just those\ntwo, but others as well. It says a similar thing to the 日本語表現文型辞典 in that it's\nused in sentences of criticism or evaluation with special feelings (like being\namazed, admiration, resignation etc).\n\nFrom this, I'd translate the above as:\n\n> 運動といい、勉強といい、僕は何をやってもダメだ \n> Both exercise and study, no matter what I do I'm hopeless.\n\nThe progressive dictionary also has a definition for\n[〜と言い](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%A8%E3%81%84%E3%81%84&dtype=3&dname=2na&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=02971900),\nand defines it as \"both...and...\", or \"neither...nor...\" in a negative\nsentence.\n\n* * *\n\nFor 〜といわず〜といわず in the 日本語表現文型辞典:\n\n> \"Giving a few examples, you use it when you want to emphasize 'without\n> discrimination to ... or ..., everywhere (every time, every one, everybody,\n> etc)'\"\n\nAnd it puts it under the primary heading \"〜も〜も区別なく\".\n\nThe 日本語文型辞典 says something very similar, saying it repeats nouns which\nrepresent a part/section of something (so I presume the nouns represent a\nsmaller subsection of a larger category), and expresses \"without\ndiscriminating, all\".\n\nI think to represent this, you can append an appropriate \"every*\" word to the\nsentence, the progressive dictionary has an\n[example](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/detail?p=%E3%81%A8%E8%A8%80%E3%82%8F%E3%81%9A&stype=0&dtype=3)\nof this.\n\nFrom this, I'd translate the above examples as:\n\n> 日本人は子供といわず、大人といわず、漫画をよく読む。 \n> Talking of the Japanese, no matter whether they be adults or children -\n> everyone - reads Manga often.\n>\n> 手といわず足といわず、子供は体中泥だらけで帰って来た。 \n> It doesn't matter whether on the hands or feet - everywhere - the child\n> returned home completely covered in mud.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-22T01:53:12.770", "id": "9823", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-22T01:53:12.770", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "9811", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "The two answers given earlier are both basically correct. Since you already\nhave a basic grasp of the two similar phrases, I'll just highlight the\ndifference in nuance here.\n\n\"A といい B といい C\" lists two examples A, B of things to which C applies.\nTypically, A and B are equally qualified as good examples. And generally the\nspeaker is implying that there are more examples like these. But there are no\nother connotations unless it's clear from context.\n\n\"A といわず B といわず C\" also lists two examples A, B of things to which C applies.\nThe biggest difference is that this expression assumes a certain class or\ncategory in which A and B belong. And all other items in this category, if\nexist, are also qualified as C. Also, this expression is more emphatic in that\nthe speaker is saying that A and B are by no means special examples that\ndeserve a remark (because everything in the assumed category is qualified as\nC). The reason that this expression takes the negative form of the verb 言う is\nbecause of this sense of \"no need to specifically mention A or B.\"\n\nSo, \"A といい B といい C\" is clearly better if you want to say that A and B are just\na couple examples of the many other things but wouldn't go as far as to say\nthat everything of the same kind is C. This doesn't mean that you can't use\nthis expression when actually everything is qualified as C, however. It's\nsimply that, unlike \"A といわず B といわず C,\" it doesn't always mean everything is C.\n\n\"A といわず B といわず C\" is best if it's clear what the assumed category is and also\nif you do mean that everything in this category is described as C. So, the\nexample sentence \"日本人は子供といわず、大人といわず、漫画をよく読む\" given in the question is talking\nabout the Japanese people in general; what it says is almost like, \"Kids? Of\ncourse. Adults? You don't say. The Japanese love manga. No exception.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-09-26T17:40:36.453", "id": "12950", "last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:45.043", "last_edit_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:45.043", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9811", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This is an colloquial way to write 動かないんじゃないか = 動かないのではないか. \n〜ではないか means \"is it not 〜\". I.e. the whole sentence means: Is it not the case\nthat it will not work?\n\nThat sentence is kinda weird though because it implies that something will\nstart to work if somebody shows that it works. Perhaps he/she was sleepy when\nthey wrote this ;p", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-21T11:01:28.990", "id": "9814", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-21T11:01:28.990", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "9813", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "動か is the conjugated form of the verb 動く \nねー is the colloquial version of the negative auxiliary verb ない \nん is the colloquial version of the nominalization particle の \nじゃ is the colloquial version of the auxiliary verb で (the dictionary form is\nだ)+ the particle は \nね (or ねえ, ねぇ or ねー) is also the colloquial version of ない (but the ね/ない here is\nan adjective not an auxiliary verb) \n \nSo... more politely it'd be like 動かないのではないですか？or 動かないのではありませんか？And... if you\nput it more feminine, I'd say... 動かないんじゃない？(I think it's like \"I wonder if it\nwouldn't work\" \"I doubt it would work\" or \"It wouldn't work, would it?\" ...\nsorry for my poor English) ^^", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-21T11:20:23.300", "id": "9815", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-21T11:37:30.870", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-21T11:37:30.870", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9813", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "When you are sick (especially when you have a fever), you sometimes feel the\ncold as if it were colder than it actually is.\n[[寒気]{さむけ}](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&stype=1&dtype=0&dname=0ss&p=%E3%81%95%E3%82%80%E3%81%91)\nmeans this feeling of coldness. It does not matter whether it is caused by\nviruses or bacteria, nor does it matter whether it is for a short period or\nfor a long period. As Chocolate noted, it also means the similar feeling\ncaused by fear. The word “chill” in English has a similar meaning.\n\n(Do not confuse with a separate word\n[[寒気]{かんき}](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E5%AF%92%E6%B0%97&dtype=0&dname=0ss&stype=1&pagenum=1&index=107837700000),\nwhich is written in the same way in kanji.)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-21T17:49:21.597", "id": "9817", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-21T19:00:31.793", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-21T19:00:31.793", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9816", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "> 彼が持っているのは二百円です\n>\n> He has 200 yen.\n>\n> 彼 / が持っている / の\n>\n> He / has (lit. is holding) / (what he is holding){because の makes が持っている\n> into a noun=\"what he has\"}\n>\n> は / 二百円です\n>\n> as for / 200 yen is\n\nSo literally, it would be, \"As for what he is holding, it is 200 yen\" - \"As\nfor what he has, it is 200 yen\" - \"As for what he has, it's 200 yen\" - \"He has\n200 yen\"\n\nの turns 彼が持っている into a noun phrase, while は means \"as for\".\n\nIn natural English, it becomes \"He has 200 yen.\" Without context, I cannot\nascertain what is emphasized -see comments below as well as this question:\n\n[AはB emphasizing B, rather than\nA](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/9830/a%E3%81%AFb-emphasizing-\nb-rather-than-a)\n\nDepending on context, perhaps an implied meaning would be, \"All he has is 200\nyen.\"", "comment_count": 15, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-21T20:07:39.580", "id": "9819", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-23T21:15:41.403", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "706", "parent_id": "9818", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I completely agree that the difference between 食べる and 飲む is whether you chew\nit or not. For example, “eat some soup” is スープを飲む, not スープを食べる.\n\nThe entry for [のむ (飲む, 呑む) in\nDaijisen](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E9%A3%B2%E3%82%80-597428) has a slightly\nmore detailed explanation in a usage note, although the purpose of the note is\nto explain the difference between のむ and 吸う:\n\n> 「水を飲む」「薬を飲む」「卵を呑んだ蛇」などのように、「飲む」は液体や小さな固体など、口に入れたものを噛(か)まずに体内に送りこむことを言う。\n\nMy translation:\n\n> 飲む means “swallow something (liquid, small solid, etc.) which was put to the\n> mouth into the body without chewing” as in 水を飲む (drink some water), 薬を飲む\n> (take medicine (orally)), 卵を呑んだ蛇 (a snake which swallowed an egg).", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-21T21:01:25.373", "id": "9821", "last_activity_date": "2015-11-14T00:55:27.260", "last_edit_date": "2015-11-14T00:55:27.260", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9820", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 } ]

[ { "body": "クズ(屑) literally means ゴミ, waste, trash, litter, garbage, rubbish... and it's\noften used like \"crap\" or \"a piece of crap\". I think it means something like\n[役立]{やくた}たず or [無能]{むのう} (worthless, good-for-nothing..?). \n \n審判 The referee \nが the case particle as a subject marker \nクズ crap, rubbish \nな The auxiliary verb だ \nだけ！only, It's only~~ \n \nSo I think it's like... \"It's only he's a crap referee!\" \"It's only because\nthe referee is rubbish!\"", "comment_count": 14, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-22T13:51:43.800", "id": "9825", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-22T14:00:11.043", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-22T14:00:11.043", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9824", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "In Japanese, a 助動詞 is a conjugatable particle, as opposed to 助詞 which do not\nconjugate. Like noun, verb etc, 助動詞 is now considered a part of of speech. The\nterminology is rather unfortunate, but originally (early Meiji) it was sub-\nclassified under the category of verb (動詞). This is due to the influence of\nEnglish in which 助動詞 represents \"auxiliary verbs\" which express tense (will,\nshall, have, be), mood (will, shall, may, must, can, be), passive (be) etc.\n\nRegarding nai, as the dictionary states, it attaches to the irrealis (未然形)\nform. It conjugates, thus having multiple forms: nakaro (< nakara), naku, nai,\nnakere. More precisely, the only form is nak-. To this, the verb ar- attaches\nresulting in the other forms:\n\n * naku + ara > nakara: To this, attaches -u and /au/ coalesce into o:.\n * naku: The adverbial / conjunctive form (連用形) as seen in all adjectives.\n * nai < naki. The attributive form as seen in all adjectives.\n * nakere: naku + are > nakere.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-22T17:59:39.860", "id": "9827", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-22T17:59:39.860", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1141", "parent_id": "9826", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "One way to interpret 「ＡはＢ」 is \"something [that is] (B), which happens to be\n(A)\".\n\nConversely, 「ＡがＢ」 can be interpreted as \"(A) is [doing] something, which\nhappens to be (B)\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-23T00:12:29.960", "id": "9832", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-23T00:12:29.960", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "22", "parent_id": "9830", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "が is not always emphasis, it is also used as a subject marker in the\nsubordinate clause, and things like passive form.\n\n(私が)持つ200円を私が落とした。 - It was me who dropped 200 JPY (derp!) \n私が持つ200円を落とした。 - Dropped the 200 JPY carried by me. \n私が持つ200円が落ちた。 - It was the 200 JPY I had that made itself mobile.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-23T07:52:39.013", "id": "9834", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-23T08:01:00.343", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-23T08:01:00.343", "last_editor_user_id": "3007", "owner_user_id": "3007", "parent_id": "9830", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "> So, in the sentence 彼が持っているのは二百円です, I interpreted は as marking a subject,\n> and in particular, marking known information (彼が持っているの). This causes the\n> focus to fall on the right half, as described above. I tried to express this\n> generally as \"the pattern AはB emphasizing B, not A\". Does this make sense?\n\nYes, basically I agree... at least this is what I learned in 言語学概論(Basic\nLinguistics) class at college I think. I don't know if this would be any help\nbut I remember learning something like this when I studied 情報構造(information\nstructure), 旧情報・新情報(old/new information), 焦点(focus) etc. \n \n\n> 私は山田です。--- \n>\n\nWhen you're asked your name, you'll probably say 私は山田です, not 私が山田です, and\nyou'll put the stress on 山田です. 私は part is the known/old information and 山田です\nis the new information and more important, so the focus is placed on 山田です. \n\n> 私が山田です。--- \n>\n\nWhen someone who doesn't know you is looking for you, asking\n山田さんはどの人ですか?/誰が山田さん?, then you'll probably say 私が山田です, not 私は山田です, with a\nstress on 私が. You'll probably say the 私が with a slightly higher tone than\n山田です. This time 山田 is the old information and 私 is the new information, and\nthe focus falls on 私が, not on 山田です. \n\n* * *\n\nThere might be some cases where the focus falls on A in the pattern \"AはB\": \n\n> りんごを食べたのは _彼です_ 。--- \n>\n\nWhen you say りんごを食べたのは彼です (or 彼がりんごを食べました。) as a response to\n誰がりんごを食べたの?/りんごを食べたのは誰?, you'll probably place a stress on 彼です, because 彼 is\nthe new, more important information. \n\n> _りんごを食べたのは_ 彼です。--- \n>\n\nHowever, when you want to say \"He ate the apple, but (it's not his fault,\nbecause) I made him eat it...\", you might say りんごを食べたのは彼です。でも、食べさせたのは私です.\nHere, you'll place the stress on りんごを食べたのは, not on 彼です.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-23T17:51:16.863", "id": "9835", "last_activity_date": "2014-09-08T15:00:30.530", "last_edit_date": "2014-09-08T15:00:30.530", "last_editor_user_id": "6840", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9830", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "If you are talking about a standard Western calendar that you buy in a store,\nthen I would hazard that カレンダー is safe to use. If you want to talk about other\ncalendar systems, such as lunar, then use 暦.\n\nFor asking about a date, you say 何日, as in:\n\n> 今日は何日ですか？ What is today's date?\n\nFor asking about what day, you use 何曜日, as in:\n\n> 来週の何曜日がお暇ですか？ What day are you free next week?\n\nFor a business setting, one can use 日付:\n\n> 日付の変更がございましたら、ご連絡ください。 Please let me know if there is a change of date.\n\nAnd for a legal or official setting one can use 期日 for fixed date/settlement\ndate:\n\n> 期日の変更の申立ては、期日の変更を必要とする事由を明らかにしてしなければならない。 A petition for a change of date\n> shall be filed by clarifying the grounds for requiring the change of date.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-23T03:43:09.230", "id": "9833", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-26T18:25:32.057", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-26T18:25:32.057", "last_editor_user_id": "706", "owner_user_id": "706", "parent_id": "9831", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "自殺志願者 usually means its literal meaning: “a person who has a desire to commit\nsuicide.” Although anything can be used in an ironic way, I do not think that\nit is particularly common to use this word ironically.\n\nI have seen the word 自殺志願者 or similar words in a derogatory sense, “a person\nwho does such a stupid and dangerous thing that it cannot be explained unless\nhe/she wants to kill him/herself.”", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-23T20:12:27.933", "id": "9837", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-23T21:12:13.553", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-23T21:12:13.553", "last_editor_user_id": "706", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9836", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "Valentine's Day has a slightly different importance in Japan than what I am\nused to in Europe.\n\nIn Japan, the act of giving chocolate for Valentine's Day has spread to all\nareas of life, in particular to the workplace. You (are expected to) give\nchocolate to your boss and your colleagues with the slight twist that only\nwomen give chocolate only to men. (The men are given the chance to \"return\"\nthe chocolate on March 14th, with the slight twist that now it needs to be\n_white chocolate_ ; therefore March 14th is called ホワイトデー. Those who cannot\nafford white chocolate are allowed to repay their debt in sweets or cookies.)\nOf course you can choose to give chocolate to your friends or your 恋人 (as long\nas you are a woman and your 恋人 is a man), but the focus is on preparing enough\n義理チョコ (\"obligatory chocolate\") for your workplace.\n\nHence, there is no place for the concept of a \"valentine\" in the sense you\nasked for.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-24T06:51:32.060", "id": "9839", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-24T06:51:32.060", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "9838", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I think the closest word would be 本命, although the meaning might be a bit\ndifferent.\n\n本命 refers to the person the women is confessing her love by giving him\nchocolate at Valentine. It's probably close to the English word \"Crush\",\nalthough it is implied that the woman is actively trying to get together with\nhim.\n\nAs for the phrase `Won't you be my valentine?`, I think `本命チョコ受け取って` could be\nthe closest. Note however that this sounds more juvenile compared to `Won't\nyou be my valentine?`.\n\nThese special chocolates are called 本命チョコ and are distinguishable from 義理チョコ\nby how fancy it is, how intricate the wrapping is, what the content of the\naccompanying message card is etc. (Just about any Japanese male can write a\nbook on how to distinguish 本命チョコ from 義理チョコ ;)\n\nFor most Japanese women, valentine day is pretty much the only occasion where\nthey can confess their love to men (instead of vice versa), so it's very\nsignificant. Japanese teenagers are particularly obsessed with 本命チョコ in\nValentine season.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-24T12:46:23.870", "id": "9843", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-24T12:46:23.870", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "9838", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "I have only heard people in Japan refer to \"Valentine's day\" but my Apple\ndictionary gives three meanings:\n\n 1. ローマのキリスト教殉教者；その祝日は2月14日. \n 2. バレンタインの贈り物 \n 3. この祭日に選ばれる恋人\n\nAll of which are compatible with my understanding of the day:\n\n**St. Valentine** 's Day is a feast day in the Anglican church (among others).\nIt began as a celebration of an early Christian saint named Valentinus. He was\nimprisoned for performing weddings for soldiers who were forbidden to marry.\nHe is said to have healed the daughter of his jailer before his execution and\nwrote, **\"from your Valentine\"** as a farewell to her. The day's association\nwith romantic love grew in the circle of Geoffrey Chaucer in the Middle Ages.\nBy the 15th century, it had evolved into an occasion in which **lovers\nexpressed their love for each other by presenting flowers, offering\nconfectionery, and sending greeting cards (known as \"valentines\")**. Since the\n19th century, handwritten valentines have given way to mass-produced greeting\ncards. (IOW: Where as it was highjacked by greetings card companies in Europe,\nthis was done by the chocolate companies in Japan.)\n\nHowever the gifts are not necessarily \"the valentines\" for everybody: The\nexpression **\"Would you be my valentine?\" (or lover)** echoes the legend and\nits use in Shakespeare's Ophelia (\"To-morrow is Saint Valentine's day,All in\nthe morning betime, And I a maid at your window, To be your Valentine.\")\n\nIncidentally, I am not sure about other Western countries but in the UK it is\nthe day when you can declare your love anonymously to the person you admire:\nThe cards should be unsigned, with possibly a clue to add to the fun and the\nnewspapers enjoy the extra revenue from publishing hundreds of anonymous\npersonal messages.\n\n(This is largely borrowed from a longer entry in Wikipedia)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-28T11:30:28.420", "id": "9864", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-28T11:30:28.420", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1556", "parent_id": "9838", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "The verb you're looking for is くださる\n\n話してはくださらない\n\nWhat's going on here is te-form + は(the particle) + くださる", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-24T08:49:49.873", "id": "9841", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-24T08:49:49.873", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3010", "parent_id": "9840", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "くださらない(下さらない) is the negative form of くださる. \nくださる(下さる) is the honorific form of くれる. \nSo 話して(+は)+くださらない is the negative form of 話して+くださる and 話して+くださる is the\nhonorific of 話して+くれる. \n(The negative form of 話して+くれる is 話して(+は)+くれない.) \nThe は is the particle([係助詞]{かかりじょし}) that comes with the negative ない (I\nthink)...^^; \nSomeone correct me if I'm wrong", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-24T10:32:09.767", "id": "9842", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-24T10:37:18.993", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-24T10:37:18.993", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9840", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 } ]

[ { "body": "In French, this has two meanings. Both conveys that the person is irritating\nbut one is \"clever for real\", one is \"pretending to be\".\n\nFor the \"pretending to be clever\", you have\n[`知ったかぶり`](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/98579/m0u/).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-25T00:40:28.903", "id": "9845", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-25T00:40:28.903", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "9844", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Treat state of being and verb uniformly, as if state of being was a verb\nitself. There should be no difference is using に vs で depending on verb/state\nof being being used. It is always the same: whether you stress \"in the place\nX\" (に) or \"the way of X\" (で). It is really minor difference in case of 家, but\nit is orthogonal to the fact if the sentence ends with a state of being or a\ntrue verb.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-26T14:53:28.953", "id": "9854", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-26T14:53:28.953", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1127", "parent_id": "9846", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I don't see much difference between:\n\n * [家]{いえ}に[一人]{ひとり}です。and 家で一人です。 \n\n * [今]{いま}、家に[独]{ひと}りぼっちです。and 今、家で独りぼっちです。 \n\n * [今夜]{こんや}は[部屋]{へや}に一人きりだ。and 今夜は部屋で一人きりだ。 \n\nI think we tend to use で in daily conversation and に when we write when we use\n一人だ/独りぼっちだ etc. to mean \"alone/there's nobody else in the room/house\". \n \n\nHowever, I see a slight difference between:\n\n * [職場]{しょくば}に独りぼっちです。and 職場で独りぼっちです。 \n\n * [教室]{きょうしつ}に一人です。and 教室で一人です。 \n\n * 今、[学校]{がっこう}に一人きりです。and 今、学校で一人きりです。 \n\nI think ~~に一人/独り means \"I'm (physically) alone/Nobody else is here\", while\n~~で一人/独り can be used for both \"I'm (physically) alone\" and \"I'm (mentally)\nalone. I'm isolated. Nobody talks to me in class\"... \n(And I think this is why 「[最近]{さいきん}、クラスで一人です。」「このごろ、教室で[孤独]{こどく}です。」(I've\nbeen isolated and lonely in class these days) sound fine but\n「最近、クラスに一人です。」「このごろ、教室に孤独です。」sound awkward.)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-27T10:56:43.613", "id": "9858", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-27T15:43:22.783", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-27T15:43:22.783", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9846", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I will attempt to build on from Chocolate's answer, and explain the grammar\nbehind Chocolate's observation:\n\n> ~~に一人/独り means \"I'm (physically) alone/Nobody else is here\", while ~~で一人/独り\n> can be used for both \"I'm (physically) alone\" and \"I'm (mentally) alone. I'm\n> isolated.\n\n* * *\n\nIn `[location]に一人です`, the location is an **important** part of the sentence;\ndative/locative particle に indicates the target of the verb which in this case\nis to exist. This means \"I am existing alone at [location]\" is an\nunbreakable(for lack of a better word) unit of meaning. This corresponds to\nbeing quite literally \"physically alone\".\n\nFor `~~で一人です`, `~~で` is an adjunct. The sentence is still complete without it.\nThis means \"I am existing alone\" is one unit of meaning. Then the location is\nan additional **incidental** information. This means it is possible to first\nbe `一人です`, then the location for where it happens is incidental, including\nplaces where there are people. This is why it can be used for both \"I'm\n(physically) alone\" and \"I'm (mentally) alone.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-27T16:00:26.320", "id": "9861", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-27T16:00:26.320", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "9846", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "In \"とある宝飾店\" (a jewelry store), とある is one word, and not と + ある. As a single\nword it means \"a\" or \"some\". It signifies that the speaker doesn't want to\nspecify which jewelry stor eit is.\n\nNote that there is also a sentence where とある is two words と (particle) + ある\n(verb: exist), such as \"メニューには売り切れとある\" (menu says [it is] sold out.)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-09T08:30:34.520", "id": "9942", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-09T08:30:34.520", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3059", "parent_id": "9847", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I remember hearing that the origin is due to the use of っていう or と used as in\nquoting/explaining, so when you were talking about a place or a thing but had\nmany possibilities, or were talking about \"I heard that this store..\" or \"this\nsubject...\" or \"people say...\", it was a circumlocution which over time ended\nup contracting and becoming the form we know as the current とある as because\nwhile とある is best thought of as one word, I've always heard it as \"a\ncertain...\" or \"some\" (not in the plural, but like... one out of many\npossibilities of jewelry stores, or some other noun, like in the manga / light\nnovel/anime series 「とある魔術の禁書目録」). But that's what my professor told me, and it\nmay have just been a way to remember this use of とある as I can't find sources\nconfirming this origin either. And of course there are other ways to denote\n\"people say about...\" etc in Japanese too.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-03-13T19:10:04.013", "id": "65991", "last_activity_date": "2019-03-13T19:10:04.013", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "33213", "parent_id": "9847", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "I would say the expression お世話になりました is spot on. Especially since you are\ntrying to express gratitude for guidance, which is contained in the word 世話\n\"looking after; help; aid; assistance\". Moreover, お世話になりました is formal and\ncertainly suitable for a corporate environment. To adapt it to your situation,\nyou could say, e.g.\n\n> 長い間お世話になりました。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-26T03:12:31.887", "id": "9851", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-26T03:12:31.887", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "9850", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "WWWJDIC writes しいて (adv) as 強いて \"by force\". In your sentence, しいて食べる is\nroughly equivalent to 無理して食べる, i.e. overdoing it in some way. A more literal\ntranslation might be\n\n> 食べたくなければしいて食べることないから、食べられるものだけ食べてね。 \n> If you don't want to eat anything, don't force yourself (to eat) and just\n> eat as much as you can/want.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-26T14:24:26.667", "id": "9853", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-26T14:24:26.667", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1638", "parent_id": "9852", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "In addition to tobiuo's answer, the sentence\n\n> 食べたくなければ、食べることないから、食べられるものだけ食べてね。\n\nis _not_ equivalent. Here ない means \"not necessary\" and しいて食べることない means \"it is\nnot necessary to force yourself to eat\". 食べることない by itself makes little sense\nin this context.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-26T15:01:40.800", "id": "9855", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-26T15:01:40.800", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "9852", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "I believe most Japanese think of Christmas as a secular, commercial holiday\n(gift giving, christmas decorations, etc) rather than a religious celebration\nof the birth of Christ, so I would think that most would not even think to be\noffended. It might be out of place to say at a religious (Shinto or Buddhist)\nshrine or celebration, but I would think this would be obvious. The only\nreason it became politically correct to say Happy Holidays in the U.S., for\ninstance, is due to the increased presence of religious minorities or atheists\nin what had been a firmly majority Christian nation. As Japan is one of the\nmost secular nations on earth (with a Christian population of less than 2% of\nthe general populace), I would think this consideration to be mostly\nirrelevant.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-26T21:21:46.887", "id": "9857", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-26T21:29:23.753", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-26T21:29:23.753", "last_editor_user_id": "706", "owner_user_id": "706", "parent_id": "9856", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "Wikipedia says that Jordan was indeed ジョルダン(・ハシェミット王国) until 2003, when the\nMinistry of Foreign Affairs changed it to ヨルダン(・ハシェミット王国).\n\nJordan is not pronounced ヨルダン in either Hebrew or Arabic (see\n[Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_River) for a romanization),\nbut in Hebrew the J is [j] rather than a [dʒ]. Whether the change ジョ > ヨ\noccurred because J was known as [j] from Hebrew (via the Latin Bible: Iordanis\n\"River Jordan\" > ヨルダン川, see Chocolate's comment below; also cf. ユダヤ人 \"Jew\"),\nfrom loanwords from Germanic languages (like Dutch, German, Scandinavian\nlanguages) or from all of those together is unclear. What seems to be clear,\nhowever, is that the Japanese regarded ヨ to be the more natural choice for the\ntranscription of Jordan into カタカナ, when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs\ndecided to change ジョルダン to ヨルダン, together with 59 other country names and 88\nplace names. (See\n[this](http://news2.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/newsplus/1044067260/) archived\nnewspost from the 朝日新聞). The people of Japan had apparently been complaining\nthat the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was spelling country and place names\ndifferently from everybody else.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-27T12:44:30.423", "id": "9860", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-28T08:38:46.787", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-28T08:38:46.787", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "9859", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "The short answer to your initial question is no. The historical/etymological\nspelling of 〜ましょう was 〜ませう, which is the expected form of the volitional,\nsince the irrealis (未然形) stem of 〜ます is 〜ませ. Regular sound change explains the\nrest: せう becomes しょう.\n\nThe same story applies to the consonant-stem (五段活用) verbs: the old spelling\nfor 行こう was 行かう (as seen\n[here](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3aAffiche_%C3%A9migration_JP_au_BR-d%C3%A9b._XXe_s..jpg))\netc. However, something strange happened to the vowel-stem (一段活用) verbs;\ninstead of 見む → 見う → **みゅう or せむ → せう → **しょう, these were replaced by the\nforms with 〜よう we know today.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-28T15:24:24.877", "id": "9865", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-28T15:24:24.877", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "9862", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "「経る」or「経つ」can be used two ways.\n\n 1. (時)が経つ・経る\n 2. (時)を経つ・経る\n\nIn the first case, the time is obviously the subject. In the second case, the\nperson who is passing the time is the subject. Some (complex) examples\n\n 1. 彼は長い時間を経て、悟りを啓いた。\n 2. 色も香も同じ昔に咲くらめど年[経]{ふ}る人ぞ改まりける。\n 3. ビルが10年の歳月を経てぼろぼろになった。\n\n_(the last two refer more to aging than time passing)_\n\nSo for your sentences, the subjects would be the people involved\n\n 1. Implied we (e.g. 我らが）\n 2. Implied \"one\" (e.g. 人)\n 3. Implied person who had the accident (e.g. 私が or 彼が etc)\n 4. 彼らは", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-18T01:06:09.870", "id": "11003", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-18T01:06:09.870", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3087", "parent_id": "9863", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Japanese is arguably a [topic prominent\nlanguage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic-prominent_language) and is often\nsaid that the notion of \"subject\" is unnecessary to describe the language. So\nthere's no point in identifying the \"subject\" of a sentence because there is\nno such thing as the subject of a sentence in Japanese. It's certainly useful\nto consider a hypothetical subject for educational purposes. But if something\ndoesn't add up when dealing with the \"subject\" of a Japanese sentence, you\nmight want to relax a bit and simply move on because you're asking for\nsomething that probably doesn't exist.\n\nIf you want to learn a little bit more on this, I think [this Japanese\nWikipedia\narticle](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E#.E6.96.87.E3.81.AE.E6.A7.8B.E9.80.A0)\nis good for general audiences (assuming your reading skill is good enough).\nAccording to this article, those who say there is a subject in Japanese are\nthe minority in academia.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-09-26T16:04:41.860", "id": "12947", "last_activity_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:35.637", "last_edit_date": "2013-10-04T03:56:35.637", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9863", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Strange enough, in the case of the question thru your link\n[here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/264/what-are-the-\nfundamental-differences-between-\nthe-%EF%BD%9E%E3%81%A8%E4%B8%80%E7%B7%92%E3%81%AB-and-\nthe-%EF%BD%9E%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A8%E3%82%82%E3%81%AB-fragments), it seems that:\n\n * 「誰々と一緒に」is basically equal to 'with someone', but\n * 「誰々とともに」sounds a bit like 'someone followed me'.\n\nIn most of the cases they have zero differences. But sometimes we use\n「誰々と共に」when we talk in a literary way, like「共に走ろう」.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-23T16:00:00.323", "id": "11029", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-23T16:00:00.323", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "3110", "parent_id": "9867", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "役目 is closer to \"role\" in meaning. 勤め is what the \"role\" requires you to do or\nwhat people expect you to do corresponding to the role.\n\nYou can call them \"duty\" as they are both roughly what you have to do.\n\n * a.)それがあなたの役目だ。(That is your role.=That is what you have to do.)\n * b.)それがあなたの親としての役目だ。(That is the role you have to take if you are a parent.)\n * c.)それがあなたの勤めだ。(That is what you have to do.)\n * d.)それがあなたの親としての勤めだ。(That is what you have to do as a parent.)\n\n役目 is usually more direct and specific than 勤め. On the other hand, 勤め sounds\nmore abstract and takes one step further than 役目 in meaning. Basically,\n\nb.) says: you have to take this role, because you are a parent.\n\nd..) says: being a parent includes this as what you have to do.\n\nTo summarize, 勤め is used based on who you are as 役目 is used based on what\nothers think.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-29T16:13:58.880", "id": "9870", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-29T17:59:57.157", "last_edit_date": "2012-12-29T17:59:57.157", "last_editor_user_id": "3018", "owner_user_id": "3018", "parent_id": "9868", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "(I moved my old comment to this answer with more detail.)\n\n洗う is a verb and 洗濯 is a noun. I assume that you want to compare 洗う and 洗濯する,\nwhich are both verbs.\n\nWhen you are talking about washing _in general_ , you cannot use 洗濯する because\n洗濯する is only for washing _clothes_ (as you wrote by yourself!). For example,\nit is incorrect to say 食器を洗濯する.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-12-30T00:24:59.773", "id": "9873", "last_activity_date": "2012-12-30T00:24:59.773", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9872", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "As you probably know, 民 means people (民族) rather than a person and calling\nsomeone a 島民 has the connotation of seeing him as part of a island community.\n(The island community as a whole would also be 島民.)\n\n島人 means just someone living on (or coming from) an island, but cannot really\nbe used in daily conversation, at least not as とうじん without causing confusion.\nAs an act of creative license, you are free to use 島人 in literature, but you\nwould probably like to specify the reading とうじん with 振り仮名 as more natural\nreadings of 島人 would be しまびと or しまんちゅ. The former is just what it says (島の人);\nthe latter is the Okinawan reading of 島人 (cf. [海人]{うみんちゅ}) and can be used to\nsay that someone is an islander from Okinawa.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-02T14:24:33.977", "id": "9876", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-02T14:24:33.977", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "9874", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I'll go ahead and add this as an answer since nobody else has, but basically\nyou'll be taking whatever kind of gathering it is that you have, using its\nkanji and adding 長 to it. So for example if it's some kind of 会 then it'll be\n会長. If your group is a 団, like a 劇団 or whatever, you can say 団長. If it's a\nschool club, like in 部活動, you'll say 部長. Or as pointed out you can also just\nsay クラブのリーダー.\n\n[alc](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=club%20president) suggests the last two.\n\n> club president クラブのリーダー、〔部活動の〕部長\n\nThere are other words you can explore, like 担当者, but I think the 長 route is\nappropriate given the context.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-04T10:16:40.430", "id": "9907", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-04T10:16:40.430", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "9877", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Just to add, 始端部 literally means “starting end,” and is used to refer to the\n[leader](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Cassette#Tape_leaders) of a\nmagnetic tape, although I think that it is more commonly referred to as リーダー.\n(But speaking of common words, magnetic tapes themselves are rare nowadays.)\n\nIt is better to always check a Japanese-English dictionary after you look up\nan English-Japanese dictionary. The purpose of an English-Japanese dictionary\nfor learners of Japanese is to list the Japanese words corresponding to many\nmeanings of a given English word. The purpose of a Japanese-English dictionary\nfor learners of Japanese is to explain a given Japanese word in English. They\nare not the opposite of each other.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-04T14:46:04.633", "id": "9908", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-04T14:46:04.633", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9877", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "For a more casual setting, would not 「幹事」 be the best choice? Some of the\nprevious comments suggesting 部長 or 会長 seem to me to be very formal and more\nappropriate for business settings...", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-09T14:12:20.197", "id": "9949", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-09T14:12:20.197", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3062", "parent_id": "9877", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "There are several theories (or guesses, rather) on [this\npage](http://questionbox.jp.msn.com/qa480936.html):\n\n 1. 食わない is used in the sense of 噛み合わない, where 噛み合わせ means engaging or meshing of gears _or_ [occlusion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occlusion_%28dentistry%29). Thus a more metaphorical use of 気が合わない.\n\n 2. 食わない is used in the sense of 口に入る (or 口にくわえる; see def. 10 of [大辞林](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E9%A3%9F%E3%81%86&match=beginswith&itemid=DJR_kuu_-030)). Another metaphorical use.\n\n 3. 食う replaced 召す in the phrase 気に召す, because 召す was once close in meaning to 食べる/食う (cf. 召し上がる).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-03T11:57:20.437", "id": "9881", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-03T11:57:20.437", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "9879", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Your sentence has the word 「容易」 which has both -な形容詞「容易な(yooi-na)」 and the -い\nversion 「容易い(tayasu-i)」. 「容易さ」 in your sentence can be read either \"yooi-sa\"\nor \"tayasu-sa\". The latter is generally used and the former is rather unusual.\nThe problem is, now all the difference could be between 容易い(tayasu-i) and\n容易な(yooi-na), not -さsuffix and -性suffix. Still, I will try to thnk about\nwhat's the best choice for your sentence.\n\nFirst, I don't think 「容易い(tayasu-i)」 (and naturally 「容易さ(tayasu-sa)」) can be\nused in that context. So, I would rather pick 「容易性」 there. A possible reason\nis that 「容易い」 has a similar meaning as 「簡単な」. These adjectives can be used\nonly when describing an action/what you do. An incident just happens by itself\nand is by no means an action. (This reasoning is just my opinion and thus open\nfor objections)\n\nAs for the 「頻繁」 part, I would say 「頻繁性」 is not really a valid word. However,\nthis word does not sound as awkward as other obvious mistakes. So actually,\nmany people may think it acceptable and only few people would complain.\nHowever, it's still worth avoiding the use of 「頻繁性」.「頻繁さ」 is okay to use, but\n-さsuffix makes things sound a little casual compared to -性suffix, not to\nmention you already have 「容易性」 for a preceding word. So I recommend you to\nchoose a word with a -性suffix that is a synonym of 「頻繁さ」.\n\nAll things considered, I would go with\n\n\"いわゆる「群体性事件」の発生容易性と頻発性\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-03T19:56:36.577", "id": "9900", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-04T00:51:42.223", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-04T00:51:42.223", "last_editor_user_id": "3018", "owner_user_id": "3018", "parent_id": "9880", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Not 100% positive on this, but I would say 行っている **間** に. `内に` usually\nindicates \"while it is in state X\", but implying that state X will eventually\nchange to state Y, and the action is undesirable/impossible in state Y. The\nexample I usually try to remember is\n\n> スープが温かいうちに飲んでください → Eat (drink) your soup while it's still warm.\n\nbecause once it cools down, it won't be as delicious; desirable to eat; etc.\n\nSo I think `内に` doesn't fit because the present could have still been\ndelivered each after his state changed from \"going to the office\" to another\nstate (\"being at the office\", \"going to lunch\", etc.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-03T19:49:47.167", "id": "9899", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-03T19:49:47.167", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "9898", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "_(Updated response)_\n\nI agree with Istrasci that 間に is probably correct and wonder if, as snailplane\nsuggests, that your textbook might give more context. I'd like to offer an\nextended solution that you can verify:\n\nうちに is used in the following two cases:\n\n1) A person intentionally takes action before something changes:\n\n> eg 日本にいるうちに、一度富士山に登ってみたい。\n\n2) While something is taking place, something changes without the speakers\nvolition (my text book refers to volition. I take it to mean \"as a result of\nthe speaker's conscious effort\")\n\nAn example of 2 would be:\n\n> eg 本屋で読みたい本を探しているうちに待ち合わせの時間を過ぎってしまった。 \n> or 気がつかないうちに外は暗くなっていた。\n\n間に can be defined as:\n\nWhile a continuous action is taking place a momentary action or change occurs.\n\n> eg 私が旅行で留守の間に、庭に草がたくさん生えてしまった。\n\nAs Istrasci says, 間に also seems to fit. I would add that the sentence\ncertainly does not fit the first definition of うちに and possibly the 間に\ndefintion fits better than the second definition...Is this perhaps a multiple\nchoice question giving both うちに and 間に as possible answers? If so then the\nquestion is asking you to choose the better answer.\n\n(Reference: The 完全マスター volume for JLPT N3 文法)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-04T08:04:08.047", "id": "9903", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-04T16:00:14.847", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-04T16:00:14.847", "last_editor_user_id": "1556", "owner_user_id": "1556", "parent_id": "9898", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "Chinese words are technically considered loan words, but they're so far back\nhistorically and so connected to Japanese that they are left in their own\nclassification as 漢語{かんご} while your more typical examples of loan words from\nEnglish or Portuguese or wherever, particularly of Western origin, are what\npeople generally refer to when they say 外来語.\n\nSee this [dictionary\nentry](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E5%A4%96%E6%9D%A5%E8%AA%9E) for\nclarification:\n\n> (1)他の言語より借り入れられ、日本語と同様に日常的に使われるようになった語。「ガラス」「ノート」「パン」の類。広くは漢語も外来語であるが、\n> **普通は漢語以外の主として西欧語からはいってきた語をいう** 。現在では一般に片仮名で書かれる。伝来語。\n\nI bolded the relevant part, which says basically what I said above if you are\nunable to read it.\n\nAnd I'm sorry that I somehow seemed to miss the part about emotionalness\nbefore even though it's the root of your question. But the distinction between\n\"foreign\" words and \"Chinese\" words even within Japanese should give you an\nidea of just how integral Chinese words are to Japanese language. Generally\nwhen you see something written only with 和語, with Japanese words, it gives it\nmuch more of a \"Japanese\" kind of feeling, of course, but I don't think you\ncan really consider Chinese words more impartial or less emotional. I think\nthe actual usage distinction is similar to the way Latin words crept into\nEnglish, through academia. I'd say that in this way it has more of an educated\nfeel and therefore less subject to the baseness of the commoner, like Old\nEnglish words, but that's not in the same way as using a word like トイレ because\nit doesn't have dirty connotations.\n\nI think a lot of the question hinges on the fact that you're asking about\npartiality or emotion with regard to the origin of the word, which I don't\nthink has an effect. There _is_ , however, a big difference in tone and in the\nfeelings and images evoked with word choice, just as you can evoke different\nimages and associations in English by using words of a certain type, for\nexample saying pork versus pig.\n\nThis is just my speculation, but I would imagine that there's a rather large\ndifference between \"We Shall Fight on the Beaches\" using only words of\nEnglish/Germanic origin and a speech in Japanese using only words of Japanese\norigin because Chinese words are such a huge part of Japanese, and a lot of\nthem are used basically in place of whatever would be a Japanese equivalent.\nTherefore it might sound a little bit odd to write something purely in 和語\nwithout it sounding like poetry or something really old, whereas in English a\nlot of older words are still very much in common use and can be used without\nbeing too conspicuous. Like you could give a speech entirely with words rooted\nin Germanic/Old English and most people probably wouldn't say \"hey this is\nonly using English words!\" whereas this would be quite apparent in Japanese.\n\nThis isn't to say that it's impossible for a Chinese word to be less emotional\nthan a Japanese word, but rather that certain words already have certain\ncultural connotations, and using one in place of the other is deliberate, so\nyou can make what you're writing sound smart by using a lot of Chinese words,\nmake it sound folksy by using a lot of Japanese words, or make it sound weird\nby using one where the other is expected.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-04T04:21:55.120", "id": "9902", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-04T09:40:42.690", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-04T09:40:42.690", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "9901", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "日本 (にっぽん) is the ultimate expression of nationalism, yet a Chinese loanword. I\ndon't think there is any bias toward native Japanese words in the sense that\nChurchill used Germanic words in the quotation you gave. (If I understand him\ncorrectly.)\n\nRather than being a matter of more or less emotional, the standard, more\n\"educated\" choice seems to be the Chinese reading. Native Japanese readings\nhave a slightly poetic flavour, but may also be used to be better understood\n(e.g. by children), as most homophones in Japanese are Chinese loanwords.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-04T08:58:04.837", "id": "9904", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-04T08:58:04.837", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "9901", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "This person is getting the \"as me\" from 私のように, but if we were to translate it\ndirectly we would probably say like me. My guess is that because this person\ndidn't say \"as ~ as me\" they probably just put 私のように and got \"as me\" with the\n\"like me\" meaning in translation software.\n\nSo the Japanese is a little different from the English, and the English isn't\nperfect. But the comparison is in the phrase 私のように, or \"like me.\"", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-04T10:02:24.600", "id": "9906", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-04T10:02:24.600", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "9905", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "向こう is relatively abstract in its usage and can include both the literal sense\nof being \"on the other side,\" like in bridging some sort of gap, as well as in\na metaphorical sense of \"over there,\" like referring to people, as in _me_ and\n_the other person/people/whoever_. 向こう also carries this connotation of\ngeneral \"awayness\" that you can use to refer to a place as vague as \"over\nthere\" or another country.\n\n向こう側, on the other hand, is a little bit more limited in scope because you\nattach the extra 側 meaning to it. What 側 does in this sense is it kind of\nmakes it a little more concrete, if that makes sense. Basically in every usage\nthat I know of for 向こう側 you could say 向こう, but for every use of 向こう you cannot\nsay 向こう側.\n\nFor example, 向こう側 refers to the other side of something. So you can have\n川の向こう側 or 山の向こう側 to refer to the other side of a river or the other side of a\nmountain. In a conversation you can have your point of view and the other\nside's point of view, and you can also use 向こう側 here. The nuance here is that\nthere is an emphasis on some sort of spatial/metaphorical other side. 向こう by\nitself, I believe, has more of a general meaning of _away_. There is the\nrelated word 向かう which means \"to face,\" and its noun counterpart 向かい, which is\na synonym for 向こう. Thinking of it in terms of facing something/somewhere may\nhelp you understand the scope of 向こう in general while 向こう側 sort of anchors\nthat down to just another side.\n\nIf this was a little long and rambly then I apologize, and I'll try to boil it\ndown to a few basic points.\n\n * 向こう generally means the opposite direction or something located there, like 向こうの返事 or 向こうの家\n * 向こう can include location that is generally just away from the speaker's location, especially with regard to another group/individual or whatever, like saying 向こうの人 when referring to a foreign country in relation to your own.\n * 向こう側 basically means \"other side\" or the \"far side\" or the \"opposite side\" or whatever, as in the far side of a mountain, the other side of a river, especially as contrasted with this side.\n * Both can refer to another party in some conversation or in events (相手) but generally I think 向こう is used more.\n\nThe following links are useful for seeing the distinctions (in Japanese):\n\n[ALC entry for 向こう](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E5%90%91%E3%81%93%E3%81%86)\n\n[ALC entry for\n向こう側](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E5%90%91%E3%81%93%E3%81%86%E5%81%B4)\n\n[Dictionary entry for\n向こう](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E5%90%91%E3%81%93%E3%81%86)\n\n[Dictionary entry for\n向こう側](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E5%90%91%E3%81%93%E3%81%86%E5%81%B4)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-05T06:50:29.997", "id": "9910", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-05T08:35:42.603", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-05T08:35:42.603", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "9909", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "This is another one of those situations where depending on a simple English\ntranslation will cause you to lose a lot of important details.\n\nIf you look at the kanji the difference is pretty clear. 餌食 combines 餌{えさ} and\n食 of 食べ物. 餌 means animal feed, and 食 is of course eat, so 餌食 becomes prey in\nthe sense of something that an animal eats for its food, like a lion hunting\nits prey. It can also share the meaning of prey in English's use, as in\n\"falling prey\" to something, like being the prey of online scammers or\nsomething.\n\nI don't know how accurate it would be to call 獲物 \"prey\" because I don't think\nthat it really contains the same connotations, at least not as closely as 餌食\ndoes. 獲物 would be better translated as \"game\" or something that refers to you\nget from hunting or fishing. The 獲 is the same as in the word 獲得{かくとく}, or\nacquisition. It can also be something like \"spoils\" in English, like in the\nphrase \"to the victor go the spoils,\" referring to something like what you\ngain in war.\n\nTo cite my best friend, the dictionary, the two definitions are very clear:\n\n[餌食](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E9%A4%8C%E9%A3%9F)\n\n> (1)動物の餌として食われる生き物。えさ。\n\n[獲物](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E7%8D%B2%E7%89%A9)\n\n> (1)狩りや漁で得た物。 「逃がした―は大きい」\n\nMoral of the story: consult J-J dictionaries as much as you are able.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-05T10:15:43.647", "id": "9912", "last_activity_date": "2014-01-03T18:04:10.997", "last_edit_date": "2014-01-03T18:04:10.997", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "9911", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "As ssb explained, 獲物 means \"game\", or it should be translated as \"target\"\nespecially in context other than actual hunting of animals. 獲物 is an target,\nso the subject not necessarily be weaker than speaker, or maybe even tougher.\nAlso, 獲物 has nuance in uncertain or future, a state of being targeted rather\nthan target already captured.\n\nOn the contrary, 餌食 may be translated as \"victim\", indicates a state of being\nalready hunted or weak enough and certain to be hunted down.\n\nSo in most situation of comics or novels, \"こいつは俺の獲物だ\" just means \"He's mine\n(to fight)\", and his hunting is not started or completed.\n\n\"こいつは俺の餌食だ\" is close \"He's an easy target\", however, this sentence itself\nsounds little weird since \"餌食\" belongs to the past as I explained in above.\n\"こいつは俺の餌食になるしかない(He has no choice other than become my victim)\" or\n\"こいつは俺の餌食も同然よ(I'm sure that I already have him)\" is more preferred.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-09T09:00:08.910", "id": "9945", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-09T09:00:08.910", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3060", "parent_id": "9911", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "ローマ字 is ローマ plus 字【じ】. It's a noun+noun compound, just like 漢字【かんじ】 or\nアメリカ人【じん】.\n\nIt is **not** the English adjective _Roman_ plus 字, so there's no reason for\nan ン to be there.\n\nWriting _romanji_ is a common beginner's mistake. There isn't really any\nlinguistic significance to it, and you should avoid making this mistake\nyourself.\n\n* * *\n\nThe Japanese place name ローマ is ultimately borrowed from the Latin _Roma_.\n\nHow did it make its way into Japanese? Dictionaries don't say, and it's not\nreally relevant to your question, but I'll try to answer anyway. My guess is\nthat it was borrowed into Japanese via Portuguese in the 1500s, [when\nPortuguese missionaries first arrived in\nJapan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Roman_Catholicism_in_Japan).\nThere's also speculation on\n[Wiktionary](http://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E) that\nit might have been via Spanish.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-05T13:23:41.757", "id": "9914", "last_activity_date": "2015-05-19T02:28:37.943", "last_edit_date": "2015-05-19T02:28:37.943", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9913", "post_type": "answer", "score": 28 }, { "body": "To tell the truth, this question was so unexpected for me who am not familiar\nwith colloquial English that I couldn't figure out what it means if it weren't\nfor an English speaker's guidance. Maybe I still don't grasp what you're\nasking, but there are so many reasons it couldn't be with ン.\n\n 1. **\"Roman\" in Japanese**\n\nIn English, _Roman_ is an adjective derives from Rome. Japanese has a word ロマン\ntoo, but it's from\n[French](http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/roman/69755), where it\nmeans English _romance_. Moreover, now we use it especially for \"an emotional\nattraction or aura belonging to an especially heroic era, adventure, or\nactivity\" ([Merriam-Webster](http://www.merriam-\nwebster.com/dictionary/romance)) sense. This word is associated with\n\"romanticism\" and has little to do with the city Rome, so it can be said that\nEnglish _Roman_ and Japanese ロマン are [false\nfriends](http://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFalse_friend&ei=NS9cVdeQLaLUmAWR6YCoDA&usg=AFQjCNH-\nHHhWEUWeuyn0RvpQC2oZ9zQF5w&bvm=bv.93756505,d.dGY) you cannot use them\ninterchangeably for Rome Roman.\n\nStrictly speaking, there's another word ローマン from English _Roman_ , but usage\nof this one is confined to a few technical jargon like ローマン体 \"roman type\" (↔\nor _italic_ ) in typography or グレコローマンスタイル in wrestling.\n\n 2. **How did Japanese know Rome and its alphabet**\n\nIt appears to be Christian missionaries that introduced the knowledge about\nthe city. 日本国語大辞典 cites its first appearance in 1605.\n\n> ＊妙貞問答〔１６０５〕下「イタリヤの内、 **朗磨** と云都に本寺を立て」 \n> \"they built the cathedral in a city in Italy, called **Rome** , ...\"\n\n[The author](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Fucan) of this tract is\neducated with Latin in a official Jesuit seminary in Japan, so perhaps it\ncould be direct transliteration from medieval Latin _Rōma_. Anyway, the Latin,\nItalian, Spanish and Portuguese pronunciations of this city had little\ndifference at that time.\n\nThe name of letters they used was, however, not known besides in a very vague\nterm throughout the Edo period: \"the horizontal writing\".\n\n> ＊俚言集覧〔１７９７頃〕「横文字。西洋の国四十二国みなよこ文字のかななりといへり。左より書はじめ右におはる。草のつるの如く書てよみがたし」 \n> \"Sideways letters: All 42 Western countries are said to write in sideways\n> phonetic letters. It starts in left and ends in right. Written like plant\n> vines that hard to read.\"\n\nThe solid term ローマ字 wasn't attested until Meiji. Again the first appearance\nis:\n\n> ＊羅馬字早学び〔１８８５〕〈矢田部良吉〉一「 **羅馬字** 即ち横文字は、二十六字にて」 \n> \" **Roman alphabet** i.e. the sideways letters consists of 26 letters...\"\n\nOriginally ローマ字 stood for general notion of \"Roman alphabet\", parallel to 漢字\n(\"Chinese character\") or 梵字 (\"Siddham script\"). The etymology is quite\ntransparent, from ローマ \"Rome\" + 字 \"writing\".\n\nLater, its usage was gradually limited within the discussion on Japanese\northography reform, eventually became a word means \"romanization\" or more\nspecifically \"Japanese romanization\", but that wasn't the original meaning.\nToday we usually call the writing system itself as ラテン文字 (\"Latin script\") or\njust アルファベット.\n\n 3. **Why not adjective?**\n\nIf someone's still not convinced, then it's grammar time. It is true that\nEuropean languages, including English, use adjective forms when describing an\nidea \"something _from somewhere_ \". But in Japanese, you **have to** use bare\nplace name in this situation, especially when the entire train of words\nrepresent a monolithic idea.\n\nIn fact, many English words are created in this way too, like \"stun gun\", \"ice\ncream\" or \"summer time\". But when it comes to locations or personal names, we\nrevive adjectives and say \"Central European Summer Time\". What Japanese does\nis just to remove \"-al\" and \"-an\"s completely, and we get 中央ヨーロッパ夏時間 (lit.\n\"center Europe summer time\"). Similarly, we only say ローマ帝国 (\"Roman Empire\"),\nローマ市民 (\"Roman citizen\"), ローマ文明 (\"Roman civilization\") or ローマ教会 (\"Roman\nchurch\"), but never *ローマン帝国 or *ローマン教会 (of course not *ローマ的帝国 etc.) otherwise\nit'll obscure the relationship between its base word ローマ.\n\nIt's not just because we've traditionally called them so, but works as well in\nnew words: an imaginary extraterrestrial intelligent development in a dwarf\nplanet, \"[Cererian](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_\\(dwarf_planet\\))\ncivilization\", would likewise be translated as ケレス文明. Thus, if we call the\ncity ローマ, then the Roman alphabet would be automatically called ローマ字.\n\nUsing Japanese adjectives (though [they don't work exactly as European\nadjectives](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/1016)) or genitives to\nqualify nouns is not prohibited, but it breaks the integrity of idea all-noun\ncompounds have. ローマの帝国 would only indicate \" _a_ Roman empire\" (cf. ローマの休日\n_Roman Holiday_ ) but not \" _the_ Roman Empire\" (which existed in 27 BC – 476\nAD).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-05-20T10:05:35.427", "id": "24408", "last_activity_date": "2015-05-30T06:13:16.320", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "7810", "parent_id": "9913", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "The `さま` in these definitions is none other than `様`. `様` in this sense is\nsynonymous with `有【あり】様` or `様子`, meaning \"state, circumstances, situation,\nappearance, condition\".\n\nSo the definition of `細やか` you provided would translate as \"shape/scope not\nbeing grandiose or exaggerated, but being (a) reserved/moderate/conservative\n(state)\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-05T20:26:49.040", "id": "9917", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-05T20:26:49.040", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "9915", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "From what I can see on the net, it's mainly a problem where people don't\nrecognise the word.\n[Here](http://komachi.yomiuri.co.jp/t/2012/0323/493704.htm?g=01) is some\ndiscussion about why people sometimes write トビ主 rather than トピ主 - in this case\none possible is that they didn't recognise that the first part is a shortening\nof トピック and so misread the word originally (apparently it's also easy to hit\nthe wrong key when you're adding dakuten/handakuten on a mobile phone).\n\nI don't think it would be a problem in safety information unless there is some\nspecial case where a misreading would cause a dangerous misunderstanding. I\ncan't personally think of one, and the solution would presumably be to rewrite\nto avoid the potentially confusing vocabulary, rather than increasing the font\nsize.\n\nIn terms of displays of safety critical information, that will be defined in a\nmix of ISO (international), JIS (Japanese), and similar standards, depending\non application. For example,\n[here](https://www.aeha.or.jp/information/safety/pdf/guideline04.pdf) (pdf) is\na guideline for the production of the safety notices on consumer electronics,\nand if you go right to the end there's a list of the appropriate ISO/JIS/etc\nstandards to consult for further info.\n\nOn page 19 you can see a summary and then following, some examples. For\nexample, in the first diagram, the top part, where it says 警告{けいこく}, should be\nminimum 8mm high, the image below, which indicates danger of electric shock,\nshould be larger than the top part, and the explanatory text at the base\nshould be a minimum of 8pt/3mm high, ideally in a gothic font. There are also\nguidelines for how to write the text (simple sentences of 40 characters or\nless, no technical jargon, etc).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-06T14:16:37.623", "id": "9924", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-06T14:16:37.623", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "9918", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Their translation is wrong. Yours is accurate.\n\n> If I lose what more (than I already have), will my heart be forgiven?\n\n= My heart will be forgiven if I lose what? (on top of what I already lost)\n\n= What else must I lose for my heart to be forgiven?\n\n(As an aside, I'm not sure whether or not \"heart being forgiven\" is the best\ninterpretation for the second part... it seems like it could have some other\npossible meanings, e.g. related to\n[心を許す](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/%E5%BF%83%E3%82%92%E8%A8%B1%E3%81%99)?\n...Not sure)", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-06T00:23:52.403", "id": "9921", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-06T00:23:52.403", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "9919", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Both could be が without changing the meaning. In this case, though, it is\npossible to use の in basically the same way without changing the meaning. This\nの is not the same as the の that you learned as a noun modifier, like in 私の家,\nbut rather the nominative case (主格). I am not an expert on grammar, but there\nis a lengthy post on this subject\n[here](http://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/4230142.html) (in Japanese). You can also\ncheck it on wikipedia in whatever language you desire.\n\nIf you cannot read that page, basically it says that this construction comes\nfrom a classical Japanese construction that uses the word order\n～の＋連体形{れんたいけい}＋名詞{めいし}, or some object plus a participle plus a noun. The\nexample given on that page is the old phrase 「嘴の赤き鳥」＝嘴が赤い鳥が. In the example\n心の強い人, 心 would be that object, の is the particle in question (格助詞), 強い would\nbe the participle adjective, and 人 would be the noun.\n\nIf I've made any errors here then please someone who is better at grammar\ncorrect me, of course!", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-06T05:03:09.960", "id": "9923", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-06T11:37:01.490", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-06T11:37:01.490", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "9922", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "> 食べている人はいますか？\n\nLiterally translated this means: \"Are there people who are eating?\"\n\nThis basically means the same thing as \"Is anyone eating?\"\n\nThe first translation is unnatural in colloquial English, while the second one\nwould be the natural way to say it.\n\nYour attempt seems correct to me (minus the が). However, another\ninterpretation of 誰でも could be \"everyone,\" making the first quoted example you\nfound more accurate in meaning. (Your attempt could also mean \"Is everybody\neating?\")\n\nIn English, \"any\" is a very versatile adverb/adjective that can apply to many\nthings. If you look up \"any\" in a Japanese dictionary you will find a number\nof corresponding words for different situations.\n\nI did not understand the second part of your question.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-06T22:24:58.493", "id": "9926", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-06T23:43:09.693", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-06T23:43:09.693", "last_editor_user_id": "706", "owner_user_id": "706", "parent_id": "9925", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "You are over analysing. English and Japanese often do not translate word for\nword (no matter how much you try to make them do so!)\n\nA thorough analysis of this sentence (which I am sure you don't need but we\nmight aswell) would be:\n\n食べている人(person eating - modified noun) は(topic marker)います(present - animate\nword for existence)か？(question mark)\n\nIn English this boils down to；\n\n> Is a person eating present?\n\nwhich could be re-written as,\n\n> Is anybody eating?\n\nor\n\n> Is there anybody eating?\n\n\"Is any ____\" (as opposed to \"Is any ____?\" ) is probably not in any English\ntext book. (Have you ever heard anybody say \"is any cat\" as a statement of\nfact?). Compare the following two statements:\n\n> 猫はいます=> There is a cat\n>\n> 猫はいますか=> Is there a cat?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-06T22:48:23.113", "id": "9927", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-08T15:51:57.917", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1556", "parent_id": "9925", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "There is a lot going on in this. The biggest problem is the fact that the\nstructure of the example sentence you found is a bit more advanced than you\nare used to. The example sentence is right. If you were to break it down\n\n食べている = currently eating \n人は = \"a person\" [the は marks the \"person\" the focus of the question] \nいます = exists \nか = ?\n\n誰でも is the closest thing to \"anyone\" in Japanese, but it is not used here\nbecause it is implied by the use of the word person. The example sentence\ncould also be translated \"Is someone eating?\" rather than \"Is anyone eating?\"\n\nTo use an easier sentence structure I think you would want \"誰かが食べていますか？\" which\nis (again) closer to \"is there someone eating?\" than \"is anyone eating？\" but\nusing ”誰でも” here sounds very awkward.\n\nAn important point to mention is that when you use \"誰でも\" the でも replaces the\nparticle you would normally use, so if you were to use 誰でも you would remove\nthe が entirely.\n\nXはいます is confusing in the example you've included because of how advanced a\nsentence structure the example you found is. (I don't think you would be\ntaught sentences like that until you reached Japanese 201.) X is not \"any\" it\nis merely the topic of the sentence, as it would be in any structure where it\nwas followed by は.\n\nIn all of your example sentences you want to look at the います which in all\ncases indicates existence. You would translate\n\nいます ＝ \"there is\" \nは ＝ \"a\" \n猫/車/花 ＝ \"cat/car/flower\"\n\nEDITED: However, as Yadokari pointed out, since います can only be used for\nliving creatures you would usually use があります for the car or flower, leaving\n猫はいます the only correct example. Depending on the sentence all 3 would more\ncommonly be written with が than は, but that gets into an entirely different\nquestion.\n\nI am sorry this got so long but I hope it can help you a bit!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-06T22:49:18.550", "id": "9928", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-06T23:46:19.627", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-06T23:46:19.627", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3053", "parent_id": "9925", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "This is not an answer but a collection of comments based on my personal\nfeeling, but I post it as an answer because it is too long for a comment.\n\nFirst, here are two clear facts:\n\n * のある simply does not have the same meaning as である. ピアニストのある私の姉 is incorrect.\n * Replacing AであるB with AのB sometimes causes ambiguity. For example, ピアニストの姉 can mean either “(my) sister, who is a pianist” or “a sister of a pianist” depending on the context.\n\nNow I will move on to a less clear part.\n\nI agree with you that AであるB sounds a little too formal for a casual\nconversation (although I would not call it “literary”). In a casual\nconversation, I would probably avoid a relative clause in this case and say\nsomething along the following.\n\n> 姉がピアニストなんだけど、いつも手に怪我をしないように気を付けているよ。 \n> My sister is a pianist, and she is always careful not to injure her hands.\n\nThe same meaning as AであるB can be also expressed by AのB in some cases, and I\nagree that AのB can be less formal than AであるB. But in your case, I find using の\nin place of である less natural:\n\n> ? ピアニストの私の姉は、いつも手に怪我をしないように気を付けています。\n\nUnfortunately, I do not know why I feel it less natural than ピアニストである私の姉.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-07T16:08:44.623", "id": "9931", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-07T16:08:44.623", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9929", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "My thought went along the line of Tsuyoshi's, but here is another comment:\n\nOn top of である being a bit more formal, I also feel that である tends to be used\nmore in nonrestrictive relative clauses, whereas の tends to be used more in\nrestrictive relative clauses:\n\n> ピアニストである姉は… My sister, who is a pianist, ... (nonrestrictive use) \n> ピアニストとドラマーの姉がいるんだけど、ピアニストの姉は… I have a sister who is a pianist and one who\n> is a drummer. My _pianist_ sister ... (restrictive use)\n\nThis isn't a hard rule, just tendencies that I feel. Obviously this will\nsometimes clash with the \"である is more formal\" pattern, so if you wanted to use\na nonrestrictive relative clause in colloquial speech, e.g.\n\n> I, being a pianist, ...\n\nthe restrictive/nonrestrictive tendency might speak in favor of\n\n> ピアニストである私は…\n\nwhereas the formality of である might speak in favor of\n\n> ピアニストの私は…\n\nRead\n[here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_relative_clauses#Restrictive_or_non-\nrestrictive) if you're unsure about the restrictiveness thing.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-08T01:35:06.567", "id": "9932", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-08T01:35:06.567", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "9929", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "I'll base my answer around [this Japanese thesaurus\nentry](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/thsrs/3137/m0u/%E3%81%8A%E3%82%82%E3%81%86/)\nwhich discusses the difference between `思う` and `考える`.\n\n`思う` is more subjective or emotional - for example: worries, hopes, affection,\nsupposition/imagination (as in 'It wasn't as big as I had imagined (thought)\nit would be') etc.\n\n`考える` is for more objective and logical thought.\n\nAt the bottom of the thesaurus page I linked there is a table which shows\nvarious sentences and whether or not `思う` and `考える` could be used in them (a ◯\nin the box means it can be used).\n\nLet's take a look at some examples from the table:\n\n> おいしいと思う \n> 'I think it tastes good'\n\nIn this is case `思う` is used because it is your own subjective opinion.\n\n> なぜ失敗したのか考える \n> 'think about why (I) failed'\n\nThis time it is `考える` because you are trying to logically think through why\nyou failed.\n\n> 日本の将来を思う／考える \n> 'think about the future of Japan'\n\nIn this example it is OK to use either. Without further context it's hard to\nsay for sure, but `思う` here could indicate a subjective concern for the the\nfuture of Japan, whereas with `考える` the speaker might simply be thinking\nthrough how Japan is going to be in the future.\n\nEDIT: I forgot you had mentioned `言う` and `話す`. The difference with those two\nis like 'saying something' v.s. 'talking _to/with_ somebody'. Not related, I\nwould say, to `思う` and `考える`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-08T16:11:27.723", "id": "9934", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-08T16:40:47.490", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-08T16:40:47.490", "last_editor_user_id": "3010", "owner_user_id": "3010", "parent_id": "9933", "post_type": "answer", "score": 29 } ]

[ { "body": "ならば～ = In which case, ~.\n\nThis use of いく following the te-form is explained in [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/676/difference-\nbetween-%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%81%8F-and-%E3%81%A6%E3%81%8F%E3%82%8B).\n\nAnd as for ～まで, its nuance of \"up to (a point)\" is still present in this\nusage, **Vするまでだ** , meaning \"(I will do / I need to do) **up to** V (and\nnothing at all further).\", which in this case can be interpreted as \"It's\nmerely a matter of V'ing.\"\n\nIt is also seen after other tenses like the past-tense, **Vしたまでだ** , meaning\n\"(I did) **up to** V (and nothing at all further)\", i.e. \"All I did was V / I\nmerely V'ed.\"\n\n> 君が来てほしいというから来たまでだ. I just came because you asked me to.\n\n* * *\n\nI think this is about the right amount of detail for an answer (which I wrote\nin case other people would find it helpful). I can't provide more without\nconsidering this as a \"translation question\".\n\nAlso, to be clear, you misunderstand many other things here; I would say that\nyour breakdown shows that you do not understand any of the sentences. This\napproach of relying on Google Translate is doomed to failure.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-08T23:01:35.257", "id": "9938", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-08T23:01:35.257", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "9935", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "いったい is not rude unless you make it rude. It has no inherent rudeness within\nit, but because it carries a fairly strong notion that one doesn't know what's\ngoing on, it can be seen as rude if you direct it at someone to express\nfrustration. Like you say, I always liken it to the English phrase \"on Earth,\"\nas in \"What on Earth are you doing here?\" This sentence could be read in a\nfriendly way or a rude way, depending on context, intonation, etc. But I don't\nthink it's inherently rude, but rather strong feelings of puzzlement are often\nused in rude ways.\n\nA more neutral usage in Japanese would be like, for example, you heard a loud\nbanging sound outside your house/door/wherever, and you said いったい何が起きたんだろう？\nwhich I would translate as \"I (am strongly perplexed and) wonder what on Earth\nhappened?\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-08T23:47:28.140", "id": "9939", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-09T00:00:43.380", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-09T00:00:43.380", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "9937", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "Thanks to @Chocolate, I was able to learn what this word means, which is\nroughly that something was funny. Here are a couple sources:\n\n 1. <http://wikiwiki.jp/himoteplus/?%C1%F0%C0%B8%A4%A8%A4%BF>\n 2. <http://www.logsoku.com/r/livejupiter/1340676537/>\n\nWhy does it mean something was funny? Well, as discussed in [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/143/what-is-the-\nmeaning-of-all-those-ws-in-email-and-snss/145#145), strings of `w` (such as\n`wwwwww`) express laughter, like the English term \"LOL\". At some point,\nsomeone must have decided `wwww` looked like little blades of grass, so they\ncame up with the expression `草生えた` (\"grew grass\") to indirectly express the\nsame thing.\n\n", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-09T00:04:46.240", "id": "9941", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-09T00:04:46.240", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9940", "post_type": "answer", "score": 69 }, { "body": "Great research!\n\nWell, literal (笑) someday changed into 'w' especially in 2ch and such, and\nsome people don't like ones who uses too many of them, like, ちょっwwwwwwwwwww,\n(this must be like \"hey, wait a minulollollollollol\") and they started saying\n草生えすぎ, or using the AA you put above, frowned （・ω・） mowing the lawn.\n\nSo now they also use 草生えた just instead of saying \"it's funny.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-02-12T10:00:41.333", "id": "11203", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-13T03:17:03.870", "last_edit_date": "2013-02-13T03:17:03.870", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "3179", "parent_id": "9940", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "lol = www\n\nw = 笑う`warau`= laugh\n\n`w` looks like grass.\n\nlol = The grass grows = very funny", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-09-17T15:25:14.960", "id": "39252", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-17T15:25:14.960", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "17923", "parent_id": "9940", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "> Interestingly I can find plenty of places listing it as a name for Australia\n> but none mentioning its origin. I'd assume ateji but who knows... you may\n> want to change the wording of the main question, though. And just to add to\n> your search, this site lists 9 different ways to write Australia.\n\nthose 9 ateji that i listed on my blog are those that had been used in Japan;\npublications published in Japan.\n\nbut on the other hand, those that could be understood/used by the majority of\nthe people living in present day Japan would only be two, i guess. 豪州 and its\nabbreviation 豪.\n\nmost of the ateji i listed, can be found on this dictionary \" 宛字外来語辞典\" ateji\ngairaigo jiten, published from 柏書房, kashiwa shobou: which has references for\neach usage, mainly from Meiji era.\n\nas far as i know, this dictionary is the best of its kind.\n\nthere are lists on the web that include those that are used/found only in\nChina, Hongkong, Taiwan, Korea.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-10T09:02:23.350", "id": "9953", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-10T09:02:23.350", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3068", "parent_id": "9947", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "\" And just to add to your search, this site lists 9 different ways to write\nAustralia. – ssb Jan 9 '13 at 13:39 \" I happen to be the one who wrote \"this\nsite\" I listed then, 9 different types of ate-ji for Australia, basically\nthose that can be found in Japanese written documents. What I took care was to\navoid those that can be not found usage in Japanese communities now or in the\npast（eg. only used in China）. Why I say \"Japanese communities\" is that there\nare some seldom cases used by Japanese living overseas mainly, and that is not\nthat recognized well within Japan itself. The main resource of my list is\n\"宛字外来語事典\" edited by 宛字外来語事典編集委員会 published by 柏書房, 1979. Which has reference\nto each usage. Most of the ate-ji are forgotten in the Japanese society\nnowadays. The abbreviation 豪 is most common. 豪州 next. 豪州 might have an origin\nin stating for the sub-continent, and not for the nation, but people are\ncareless these days whatsoever. Other ate-ji would not be understood by the\ngeneral public, nowadays. tito", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-05-12T14:12:43.493", "id": "34090", "last_activity_date": "2016-05-12T14:12:43.493", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "14409", "parent_id": "9947", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Historically I think it was OK to use ある with living things. This is because\nin Chinese 有 (the origin of あり) does get used with living things.\n\nIn the modern Japanese grammar, ある in ある人 is called 連体詞, a word that modifies\na noun. At some point in time this evolved from a verb and several other forms\nof words, but I think a different classification reflects the degree of the\ndivergence the modern form now has from the original verb form.\n\nSo I think it's probably more natural to think of ある in ある人 and ある as a verb\nas two separate words.\n\nNote that いる人 can be OK in some context, for example in 学校にいる人は帰りましょう (those\nwho are still in the school, please head home). Similarly, ある as verb can\nsometimes be combined with 人 as a subject in some specific forms, such as\nここに人あり.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-10T01:30:36.287", "id": "9952", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-10T01:34:28.233", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-10T01:34:28.233", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "3059", "parent_id": "9951", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "i'd like to explain this as a Japanese.( im not sure my english is correct,\nsorry about that) ある人 means ” a certain person\" we dont use ある for people as\nfor existence. ある for things, いる for people. the two ある mentioned above are\nnot the same ある, i think.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-10T10:47:31.563", "id": "9954", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-10T10:47:31.563", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "2897", "parent_id": "9951", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Both parties can use 失礼します at the end of a phone call, and in fact it is usual\nthat both parties say 失礼します in turn. I think that a phone call is considered\nto be similar to a conversation between two people who met on the street in\nthis regard. After such a conversation, both parties leave the place, so both\nsay 失礼します. Similarly, after a phone call, both parties leave the virtual\n“place” where the conversation took place.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-11T01:45:31.017", "id": "9957", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-11T01:45:31.017", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9956", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

[ { "body": "This refers to the base pitch of the instrument. 調子 refers to the tuning of an\ninstrument, and the number is the type of tuning. Each number represents a\nsemitone increase above the base key of low F, with F being 1. So if you have\na 六本調子, you have a Bb flute (F F# G G# A Bb (A#)). The others change\naccordingly.\n\nOn a side note, there is a word 一本調子 that carries the meaning \"monotonous\" in\nthe sense that we use it in English, as in a monotonous (or boring) speech.\n\n[This site](http://homepage2.nifty.com/iwatake/faq/q03.html) has some really\ngood explanations if you want more information.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-11T04:30:23.240", "id": "9959", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-11T04:45:32.427", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-11T04:45:32.427", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "9958", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "[Jake Adelstein](https://twitter.com/jakeadelstein) wrote last year on Twitter\nthat in Yakuza's world, お疲れ様 is almost prohibited and everybody use ご苦労様 or\nご苦労さん. I did not find everything but I found few\n[tweets](https://twitter.com/jakeadelstein/status/196186125168152576).\n\n> Lesson of the day for young yakuza: To the boss, ご苦労様 (go-kuro-sama) never\n> \"go-kuro-san\" and never, never \"お疲れ様\" (o-tsukare-sama).\n\nHe also said [something\nspecific](https://twitter.com/jakeadelstein/status/196179004087209984) for the\njournalism industry.\n\n> I was taught as a journalist at a Japanese paper that we said, \"お疲れ様\" to the\n> boss and ご苦労様 to those below us, but never ご苦労様 to the boss.\n\nAt the end, he rejoins you saying ご苦労様 is _better_\n[saying](https://twitter.com/jakeadelstein/status/196189834161831937)\n\n> Personally, I think ご苦労様\"/Thank you for your hard work\" beats お疲れ様\" (Thank\n> you, you must be beat). So to everyone working today: ご苦労様！\n\nThe guy is native level but he works as a journalist mostly on Yakuza stuff\nhis whole career so it is a specific point of view.\n\nIn my case, I work in a IT company and everyone use お疲れ（様／さん） and it would be\n**rude** to use ご苦労（様／さん） for upper/same/lower level.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-11T09:26:51.397", "id": "9963", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-11T09:26:51.397", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "9960", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "I feel that at the extremes of stroke order perfection foreigners always seem\nto be better than native Japanese, maybe because there are just too many who\nmake it a pastime to know all stroke orders for all sorts of obscure 漢字.\nUnless you are dealing with a 書道 teacher (or school teacher), the general\nfocus is more on whether you are able to remember all strokes correctly, no\nmatter what order. Now 田 is a primary two 漢字 and an exception to one of the\nfirst rules \"if a horizontal line crosses a vertical line, the vertical line\nis written first, by which it would be more sensible to write 冂 > 土 and not 冂\n> ｜ > 二. But because it is the archetypal exception to stroke order, I would\nsay that all Japanese do remember 田, but a few might get caught up in 荘 or 我,\nespecially if you make them think about it. (The Japanese obviously will have\na better kinetic memory than you. You might enjoy [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/7038/what-is-the-role-\nof-%E7%A9%BA%E6%9B%B8-writing-kanji-in-the-air-in-modern-japanese) about 空書.)\n\nStroke order is one thing, but combining strokes is practical and the\nfoundation for most styles of 書道. Combining strokes is what must happen\nnaturally. (They are still conceptually 12 strokes in a particular order, even\nif you didn't lift your pen/brush between stroke 6 and 7.)\n\nIn any case you are still wondering, regarding the reaction especially to the\nfirst blunder, I think @ssb put it quite well in his comment.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-11T08:11:34.513", "id": "9962", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-11T08:34:39.460", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "9961", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Yes, it is not that big a deal to get some ordering wrong. Most of the time,\nunless someone is watcing you write, they won't even be able to tell how you\nwrote it!\n\nThe reason the stroke order is emphasized in Japanese schools is that as you\nstart writing kanjis faster and faster, strokes start to join together. You\ncan see the most beautiful example of this in 行書, but you see some of this in\nnormal hand-writing people do. When you are writing such text, getting the\nstroke order right becomes critical, as others won't be able to read it if the\norder is diffrent. Similarly, to read such letters one needs to know the\nproper order of strokes.\n\nAs a foreigner studying Japanese, you should be sticking to 楷書, with each\nstroke cleanly separated. So long as you do that, don't worry too much about\nthe stroke order.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-15T18:46:33.190", "id": "10989", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-15T18:46:33.190", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3059", "parent_id": "9961", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Most of the Japanese text that is produced is produced by printing (books,\nnewspapers, magazines, office printing, electronic displays, ...) and in\nprinting there is no stroke order, or no evidence of stroke order in the end-\nresult.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-16T01:37:35.807", "id": "10990", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-16T01:37:35.807", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1266", "parent_id": "9961", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "It depends.\n\nIn my Japanese language school, there were a few Chinese students, and my\nteachers would emphasize before exams that Kanji have to be written using the\nJapanese stroke order.\n\nOn the other hand, for the character 備 they insisted that stroke 7 starts\nwhere stroke 4 ends and not where stroke 6 starts, even though in my\nunderstanding, the former is the (\"modern\" traditional) Chinese stroke order,\nwhereas the latter is the Japanese stroke order (as well as the \"traditional\"\ntraditional Chinese stroke order). Compare [備 in the\nwiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%82%99) and [備 in the Kangxi (p.\n113 character 21)](http://www.kangxizidian.com/kangxi/0113.gif).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-03-18T01:12:10.423", "id": "11484", "last_activity_date": "2013-03-18T01:12:10.423", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "2964", "parent_id": "9961", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm not a kansaiben expert, but I have heard this before. A professional Go\n(the board game) player from Kansai once played a bad move and then\nimmediately exclaimed アホちゃいまんねん！パーでんねん！ (How stupid! I screwed everything up!)\n\nThe exclamation stuck with me because it was hilarious.\n\nAnyway, ねん in kansaiben is supposedly derived from のだ, and ～まん I think is a\nshortening of ～ます. (I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong)\n\nOf course, in 標準語 you can't put ～ます before のだ (you have to use the regular\nverb form), but if it's Kansaiben, I guess it's okay.\n\nSo, 疲れまんねん = 疲れるんだ", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-14T23:25:43.113", "id": "10980", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-14T23:25:43.113", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3078", "parent_id": "9966", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I'm a Japanese from Niigata Prefecture, but I've came across a lot of people\nfrom Kansai.\n\n「疲れまんねん」is just a way of saying「疲れますねん」.\n\n「ねん」is almost added to any Kansaiben phrase. Such as:\n\n * 「違います」is「ちゃうねん」in Kansaiben.\n * 「なんですか？」is「なんやねん？」in Kansaiben.\n\nSometimes it is **'embedded'** inside phrases.\n\n * 「そうとは違います」is「そうとちゃうねんな」in Kansaiben.\n\n「ねん」is basically「だよ」「なの」「なのだ。」Swap it into the three possibilities and try to\nguess which matches the best.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-23T15:54:21.250", "id": "11028", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-31T03:33:31.537", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-31T03:33:31.537", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "3110", "parent_id": "9966", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I sometimes hear ~~まんねん used to mean ~~んです in Osaka/Kansai. I think they\nuse... \n\n> * ちゃいますねん/ちゃいまんねん to mean 違うんです (the polite forms) \n> (We use ちゃうんです to mean 違うんです in Kyoto.) \n>\n> * ちゃうねん to mean 違うんだ (the casual forms) \n>\n> * ちゃいます to mean 違います (the polite forms) \n>\n>\n\nSo I'd say... \n\n> * 疲れまんねん means 疲れるんです (the polite forms) \n>\n> * 疲れんねん means 疲れるんだ (the casual forms) \n>\n>\n\n* * *\n\n> How commonly is ~まんねん used? \n>\n\nI think we often hear older men in Osaka use ~~まんねん. We don't expect young\npeople like high school/college students or stylish businessmen in smart suits\n& ties to say 疲れまんねん (unless they're joking) even if they're from Osaka.\n\n> ...are the Seagal ads trying to portray a certain image by using this\n> pattern? \n>\n\nLikewise, we expect an action star like Steven Seagal to always look cool and\nperfect. We don't expect him to look exhausted and whine 疲れまんねん, right after\nhe dispatches his opponents or in the middle of a car chase. (The こう in こう見えても\nrefers to something like \"He's doing all these things with no difficulty.\")\nAnd, he abruptly confesses; \"こう見えても、疲れまんねん\" in a tone that an older male\nOsakan in shabby clothes would use. This is quite unexpected, so that's why\nthe commercials are pretty funny to us, draw attention and remain in our\nmemories (and actually that's what they'd want their TV commercials to be, no?\n^^) P.S. Sorry for my poor English.. please feel free to edit, TIA ^^", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-30T23:25:32.530", "id": "11088", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-10T15:17:38.697", "last_edit_date": "2016-04-10T15:17:38.697", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9966", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "It seems to just be an emphatic, stylistic lengthening of the `の` preceding\nit.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-11T15:22:42.243", "id": "9968", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-11T15:22:42.243", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "9967", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "The のぉ is what we normally write as\n「[のう](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%AE%E3%81%86-596155)」, one of the\nsentence ending particles (終助詞).\n\nI think it sounds rather archaic, now _we think_ it's only used by older\npeople (but I doubt it's actually used daily anymore... I think we only see it\nin fictional works eg anime, manga, dramas, novels etc.), and younger people\ndon't use it in \"normal\" conversation. I think it's probably the archaic\nequivalent for modern ね/ねえ/ねぇ or maybe な/なあ.\n\nIt has a different intonation from the sentence ending particle [の\n(終助詞)](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%AE-596099).\n\n> 「のう」⇒「やられた↗[のう]{HL}↘。(The subject is probably the hearer.)」 \n> 「の」⇒「どうした↘[の～]{LH}↗？(The subject is the hearer.)」--「やられた↘[の～]{LL}↘。(The\n> subject is the speaker.)」", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2013-06-10T12:04:11.610", "id": "12106", "last_activity_date": "2020-09-16T05:12:21.610", "last_edit_date": "2020-09-16T05:12:21.610", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "9967", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

[ { "body": "Verb する has two imperative forms (命令形) with the same meaning: しろ and せよ. せい is\nan old-fashioned sound variation of the latter form.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-12T19:52:03.577", "id": "9970", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-12T19:52:03.577", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "9969", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "Repeating the same noun twice as in`NounというNoun` here has the meaning of \"all\"\n([definition #5 at\nDaijisen](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/154743/m0u/%E3%81%A8%E3%81%84%E3%81%86/)):\n\n> …窓という窓が夕日に照らされて赤くキラキラ輝いている。 \n> \"...all of the windows are being shined on by the evening sun and are\n> sparkling red.\"\n\nSeparately, `Time NounというTime Noun` can also emphasize time words, but that's\na different usage ([definition #4 at\nDaijisen](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/154743/m0u/%E3%81%A8%E3%81%84%E3%81%86/)),\ne.g.:\n\n> 今日という今日 \n> \"today of all days\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-13T22:59:05.550", "id": "9973", "last_activity_date": "2014-10-10T09:37:23.773", "last_edit_date": "2014-10-10T09:37:23.773", "last_editor_user_id": "6840", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "9972", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 } ]

[ { "body": "_As per[meta](https://japanese.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/593/comments-\nare-not-for-answers), I shamelessly take Sindry's comment and make it an\nanswer._\n\nMy dictionary (gjiten) says 口を利く means \"to speak, to utter, to mediate\".\n\nThe same dictionary says 利く is intransitive, so it is probably an idiom.\n\n[口を利く in another\ndictionary](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%8F%A3%E3%82%92%E5%88%A9%E3%81%8F).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-02-19T02:45:13.310", "id": "11263", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-19T02:45:13.310", "last_edit_date": "2017-03-16T15:48:25.793", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "107", "parent_id": "9975", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "やってくる is \"(something) comes closer (from somewhere)\", so it's slightly\ndifferent from 来る and this gives rise to various nuances.\n\nYour example, 友達がやってきた, gives me the feeling that your friend either showed up\nunannounced/unexpected, or dilly-dallied on their way. It wasn't a direct and\nsimple \"came\".\n\nNote that the やってくる you are describing is a unique word (with it's own\ndictionary entry), so be careful not to confuse it with the grammatical\ncombination of やる + くる, which is also やってくる.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-14T23:04:59.130", "id": "10979", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-14T23:04:59.130", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3078", "parent_id": "10976", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "The dictionary is unfortunately vague on this matter, but\n[some](http://okwave.jp/qa/q639016.html)\n[discussion](https://web.archive.org/web/20041229074917/http://nihongo-\nonline.jp/tree02/treebbs.cgi?kako=1&log=2144) elsewhere on the web lends some\nclues to the nuance. These discussions say that やってくる, as you suggest, places\nmore emphasis on the act of coming, but especially that the traveler came with\nsome particular effort or purpose, or from especially far away.\n\nFrom the second link:\n\n> 「やって来る」は「苦労して、はるばる、遠くから来る」と言うニュアンスを持っているのではと思います。\n\nThe writer goes on to list a few examples. If this is the case I think it\nseems clear why you wouldn't say やってきて to your friend. It almost has kind of\nan お疲れ様 kind of feel to it. It's just the same way you can't say わざわざ来てください.\nIn fact it may be appropriate to think of やってくる as わざわざ来る, expressing some\namount of deference toward the subject, making a command feel unnatural. I\ncan't find any instances on google of it being used as a command. It's like in\nEnglish you wouldn't issue the command to someone, \"Go to the trouble of\ncoming here.\"\n\nThere's also the meaning wherein you can use やってくる to refer to work you've\nbeen doing for a long time, like もう２０年この仕事をやってきた。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-15T01:37:25.083", "id": "10981", "last_activity_date": "2022-05-08T07:12:18.307", "last_edit_date": "2022-05-08T07:12:18.307", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "10976", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

[ { "body": "You're right that 触れる can be used metaphorically, but 触る is normally reserved\nfor physical touch only.\n\n触る generally indicates a stronger, more intentional kind of \"touch\" than 触れる.\nFrom the other perspective, 触れる is often used to convey a sense of gentle or\nlight touching, or even \"brushing against\" something.\n\nNote that it's possible to use the particle を with the object of 触る, but you\nshouldn't use を with 触れる.\n\nThere's no grammatical problem with saying 触れる（さわれる）, and in this case it's\nthe job of the reader to discern from context whether the writer intended さわれる\nor ふれる. However, I think ふれる would be far more common, just because we don't\noften have occasion make a statement about our ability to touch something.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-14T22:35:52.743", "id": "10978", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-14T22:35:52.743", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3078", "parent_id": "10977", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "「触る」is only for real, physical touch while「触れる」could mean something abstract.\nSuch as:\n\n * 「この件に触れる」= to talk about this matter", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-23T16:05:29.850", "id": "11030", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-23T16:05:29.850", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3110", "parent_id": "10977", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "はis A more of a topic marker while が is not. For instance こんにちは marks the\ntopic of \"This day\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-15T12:46:21.930", "id": "10983", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-15T12:46:21.930", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1376", "parent_id": "10982", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "As you probably know, は／が distinction can fill entire grammar dictionaries; I\nknow, [I have\none](http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%AA%9E%E9%A1%9E%E7%BE%A9%E8%A1%A8%E7%8F%BE%E4%BD%BF%E3%81%84%E5%88%86%E3%81%91%E8%BE%9E%E5%85%B8-%E6%B3%89%E5%8E%9F-%E7%9C%81%E4%BA%8C/dp/4767490545/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358262215&sr=1-1).\nSo there are many facets to have they differ. But one way I try to remember is\nthat `は` is the topic marker and `が` is more of a specific indicator. So with\nyour examples it would be like\n\n> * 日本語の授業は面白いです。 → _\"Speaking of\"/\"As for\" (my) Japanese class, it is\n> interesting._ This is looking only at the frame of reference of the class\n> (the class is the topic). Nothing else is considered.\n> * 日本語の授業が面白いです。 → _\"The **Japanese** class is what is\n> interesting.\"/Japanese is the specific class (or thing) (out of possibly\n> others) that is interesting.\"_ Note that in this kind of sentence, the topic\n> being discussed (whether literally or implied) is probably different. The\n> discussion might have been about different classes, and you single out one\n> as interesting. Or it might have been about things you find interesting, and\n> you pinpoint the Japanese class.\n>\n\nSo I try to remember that one of `が`'s major functions it to point to one\nspecific example that the description applies to.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-15T15:20:04.687", "id": "10985", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-15T15:20:04.687", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "10982", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "The difficulty with your example is partly that this が is not neutral\ndescription. As Sindry commented, this one is \"exclusive listing\". From Kuno's\nbook (and quoted [here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/51/29)):\n\n> \"Sentences of neutral description present an objectively observable action,\n> existence, or temporary state as a new event.\"\n\nSomewhat more particularly:\n\n> neutral description only works with action verbs, existential verbs, and\n> adjectives/nominal adjectives that represent state change\n\n面白い does not represent state change, it's quite clearly referring to a state.\nAs a general rule, 形容詞 can only be neutral description in the sentence-final\nending in cases where something changes in front of your eyes (color change,\nfor example).\n\n* * *\n\nAs mentioned above, neutral description-が is used for describing something\nthat is actively happening. This limits the usage basically to situations\nwhere you watch something happen, and comment on it, or situations that could\nbe extrapolated from that theme. There is also the slightly odd exception of\nthe existential verbs: aru and iru, which can also work with a 'neutral\ndescriptive'-が.\n\nThematic-は, on the other hand, is used to bring things up again in the\nconversation. If we talked for awhile about A, then shifted to talking about B\n(or if A was a minor point in talking about B), one of us could shift the\ntopic of conversation by starting out with \"Aは。。。\".", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-15T15:30:44.213", "id": "10986", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-15T15:44:43.350", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "29", "parent_id": "10982", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "The key to understanding は is to understand how a sentence ties back to the\ndiscourse. This is where the \"topic\" comes in. Some linguists will claim that\nall Japanese sentences have a topic, even if it's implicit and unstated.\n\nIf you're asked:\n\n> 日本語の授業についてどう思いますか？ \n> What do you think about your Japanese lessons?\n\nwhat ties back to the discourse is \"日本語の授業\", so it will be marked with は:\n\n> 日本語の授業は面白いです\n\nOn the other hand, if somebody says to you:\n\n> 今日は機嫌がいいですね \n> You're in a good mood today\n\nwhat ties back to the discourse is _not_ \"日本語の授業\", rather, it's the cause-and-\neffect relationship of why you're in a good mood. Using the sentence with は\nwill sound strange, as if you're switching topics. Rather, to explain why\nyou're in a good mood (staying on topic, although the topic is never\nexplicitly stated), you might say:\n\n> 日本語の授業が面白いです\n\nNote that this (has a reading which) is _not_ an exhaustive-listing が. **I\ndisagree with the answers that claim that there's no \"neutral description\" が\nfor this sentence because 面白い is not state-change.**\n\nJust to preempt possible comments, this sentence does sounds slightly\nuncommon. Usually it is more idiomatic to add a の/ん, which is another way to\ntie a sentence into a discourse.\n\n> はい、日本語の授業が面白いんです \n> Yes, my Japanese classes are fun!\n\nSo to your question in the comments about whether this が is exhaustive-listing\nor neutral-description, my answer is: \"It can be both\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-16T02:15:55.763", "id": "10991", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-16T02:15:55.763", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "10982", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "The two sentences are both valid sentences, but would be used in entirely\ndifferent contexts.\n\nIn the は example, you are highlighting the topic of your conversation. Suppose\nyou are in the cafeteria with your friend, and you want to say \"Japanese class\nis interesting, isn't it.\" You would use particle は thus:\n\n```\n\n 日本語の授業は面白いですね。\n \n```\n\nYou are introducing a new topic of conversation, and so the は particle\nhilights what it is you are talking about. A literal translation of this is\nsomething like \"Speaking about Japanese Class, interesting, right?\" I find\nusing \"Speaking about\" as a translation for は helps to remember it.\n\nが is used to highlight the specific subject of a sentence, when you want to\nclarify what it is you are talking about inside of a specific context. For\nexample, your friend is asking you about the classes you are taking at\ncollege:\n\n```\n\n 大学の授業はどっちが面白いですか。\n \n```\n\n\"Speaking about your college classes, which is interesting?\" In this case,\nreplying using the sentence above with は would sound unnatural, like you are\nchanging the subject (which you are because は introduces a new topic!).\nInstead, you would reply naturally:\n\n```\n\n 日本語の授業が面白い。\n \n```\n\nThis は・が distinction extends to other things, for example the simple \"I like\"\nsentence. Say your friends are talking about what fruits they like, and you\nwant to chime in by telling them you like apples:\n\n```\n\n 私はりんごが好きです。\n \n```\n\n\"Speaking about me, apples are liked.\" In this case, the topic of conversation\nis you, and what you like. The specific subject of your sentence is apples -\nthat you like them. You would drop the `私は` if someone explicitly asked you\nwhich fruit you like - you don't need to change the topic because they are\nalready talking about you.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-18T07:44:05.557", "id": "11004", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-18T07:44:05.557", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3096", "parent_id": "10982", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Without some context, it seems like it's saying \"You can't get them to notice\nyou,\" almost as if the `君` wants to be noticed by them.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-15T16:19:26.783", "id": "10988", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-15T16:19:26.783", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "10984", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Do you have any point card? ポイントカードお持ちでしょうか。\n\nIs this for take-out or dine-out? 店内でお召し上がりでしょうか。\n\nWould you like a tray? (They don't really say this)\n\nWould you like to up-size your set? (They don't really say this)\n\n**Bonus**\n\nHow many payments would you like to split your credit card bill into? お支払方法は？\nor お支払回数は？\n\nMay I remove your plates? お[済]{す}みのお[皿]{さら}お下げしてもよろしいでしょうか？", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-17T05:37:03.427", "id": "10997", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-17T16:33:36.853", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-17T16:33:36.853", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3087", "parent_id": "10987", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "西瓜（すいか）is a Japanese word, borrowed from the Chinese. It is not known exactly\nwhen watermelons arrived in Japan, though it was most likely after the\nMuromachi period (1333-1573 CE). Words which are native to Japan, borrowed\nfrom China, or borrowed a long time ago tend to be written in Kanji and\nHiragana. Incidentally, 「西」means _west_ and 「瓜」means _melon_ or _gourd_.\n\nメロン on the other hand is an imported word from the English _melon_. This word\nrefers to Muskmelons which were imported in the late Meiji (1868-1912 CE) or\nearly Taisho (1912-1926 CE) periods. Words which are not Japanese or Chinese\nin origin are often written in Katakana.\n\nNormally, melons which were passed to the east of the Middle East contain the\nkanji 瓜（うり）and melons passed to west of the Middle East contain the word メロン.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-16T08:02:15.147", "id": "10994", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-17T05:04:21.217", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-17T05:04:21.217", "last_editor_user_id": "3087", "owner_user_id": "3087", "parent_id": "10992", "post_type": "answer", "score": 21 }, { "body": "Im pretty sure 西瓜(suika) also borrowed the pronunciation of 西瓜（xi-gua （shi-\ngua）） from China。\n\nI'm also pretty sure Watermelons originated in Egypt, and traveled east to\nChina, therefore having people in China call it 西瓜 which literally means west\nmelon. So when Japan borrowed Chinese characters for kanji, watermelon already\nexisted.\n\nIf a different type of melon was imported into Japan after they borrowed\nChinese characters it will most likely be written in katakana. For example\ncantaloupe(a type of muskmelon) is known as マスクメロン (masukumeron)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2021-08-16T11:48:28.620", "id": "88934", "last_activity_date": "2021-08-16T11:48:28.620", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "46894", "parent_id": "10992", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Though simplified Chinese characters are used in mainland China, traditional\nChinese characters are still used in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau.\n\nKanji is derived from traditional Chinese characters, but has its own set of\nsimplifications. They are not as extreme as simplified Chinese characters, and\nin fact looks very similar to traditional Chinese characters for the most\npart.\n\nIncidentally, there are other writing systems which evolved from traditional\nChinese characters just like Kanji did, such as Hanja (used with Korean,\nthough losing popularity recently) and Chữ Nôm (used with Vietnamese until\n1949)\n\nHistorically for China and Japan, complex writing systems did not fall out of\nuse because people found them hard to use. They fell out of use because the\ngovernments decreed that it be replaced with a simpler version. So people in\nJapan don't have it as hard as people in Taiwan, Hong Kong or Macau when it\ncomes to writing characters, but they don't have it as easy as mainland China.\nUnless the government adopts the Chinese writing system (unlikely), it's going\nto stay that way.\n\nNow, would Kanji ever be replaced by Hiragana and Katakana? After all, Hangul\nis replacing Hanja in Korea. The answer is no. In Japan, there are so many\nhomonyms that Kanji is necessary to decipher meaning.\n\nThis is a bit of a ramble but I tried to stick to comparing the complexity\nwhich rises from writing the characters themselves, as opposed to reading them\nor their cultural compatibility etc. Please read\n<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji> for a more thorough introduction. Hope\nthis helps!", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-17T05:30:11.540", "id": "10996", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-17T11:40:59.903", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-17T11:40:59.903", "last_editor_user_id": "3087", "owner_user_id": "3087", "parent_id": "10995", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Japanese doesn't use [simplified Chinese\ncharacters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters). They\nuse their own system of simplification called\n[_Shinjitai_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinjitai)\n([新字体](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%96%B0%E5%AD%97%E4%BD%93)) instead.\n\n_Shinjitai_ only applies to the Jōyō Kanji 常用漢字 while simplified Chinese\napplies to _\"all\"_ Han characters. Sometimes the simplified character is the\nsame in both systems such as 国, sometimes Japanese version is simpler like 仏\nvs 佛 in Chinese. But most of the time the Chinese version would be simpler\nthan Japanese version", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2014-06-02T15:58:50.030", "id": "16267", "last_activity_date": "2019-10-29T01:42:09.010", "last_edit_date": "2019-10-29T01:42:09.010", "last_editor_user_id": "3786", "owner_user_id": "3786", "parent_id": "10995", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "Japanese use a combination of traditional Chinese and its own version of\nsimplified Kanji. I believe that actually during the Republic of China era,\nthe Nationalists took some characters from Japan. During that time, they\nalready planned to simplify characters. I grew up with traditional and though\nI prefer to write in traditional, it really is a pain in the butt especially\nwhen you're running against the clock, such as in an exam or writing orders in\na restaurant. Simplified really does.. simplify everything. It's the truth and\nI don't care how many people in Hong Kong/Macau or Taiwan object to it.\nHowever, like the guy above said, there are some Japanese Kanji characters\nthat are simplified in a way that is only unique to the Japanese language.\nThese characters may or may not exist in the Chinese dictionary such as the\nKangxi Dictionary, compiled in 1710. Also, sometimes Chinese people will use\nthese simplified Japanese Kanji charcters incorrectly to convey a meaning.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-09-20T05:08:46.147", "id": "28144", "last_activity_date": "2015-09-20T05:08:46.147", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "10995", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "as a native chinese traditional chinese user，i don't think it's hard to use\nthem 。when you grow up with a language that's hard，it doesn't seem all that\nhard because it's your native tongue 。just like how georgians can speak and\nwrite georgian even though it's an insanely hard language with thousands of\ngrammar rules and dozens of cases，prefixes，suffixes，tenses，etc 。\n\ni've tried simplified chinese and it always feels so unnatural and forced\nwhich is why i don't use it 。traditional chinese is the same script from over\n2000 years ago，preserved from middle chinese，and it's absolutely beautiful\n。simplified chinese is a script made 70 years ago by the chinese communist\nparty to try and eradicate traditional chinese values and meanings in chinese\ncharacters，because enlightenment and individual thought opposed communist\nideologies 。\n\nmost traditional chinese users also use it because of the beauty and heritage\nthat comes with each character 。simiplified characters are a sign of communism\nand the eradication of traditional chinese culture and language 。in\njapanese，some kanji have been changed during the mid-late 1900s，such as 國 to 国\nand 學 to 学 。\n\nbut for the most part japanese still uses traditional characters 。that's also\nwhy japanese shipping companies often prefer to ship to hong kong，macau and\ntaiwan as opposed to the mainland because they can communicate by writing\ncharacters down，whereas they have no way to communicate to mainlanders since\nthey barely share any characters to communicate with 。\n\nit also doesn't take too long to write down traditional characters 。only 1-4\nseconds at most 。about as long as it takes to write most english\nwords，depending on how neat/legible your handwriting is 。sure，simplified\ncharacters are faster to write for the most part，but the thing about\ntraditional chinese characters is that they have thousands of years of history\nbehind them 。simplified characters have nothing to their name except 80 years\nof communism，facism，oppression，censorship，imprisonment，nazism，mass-slaughter\nand death 。\n\nno one really finds traditional characters too hard to use and that's why over\nan estimated 50-200 million people across the world still use traditional\ncharacters，high than the total population in the u.s.，the third-most populated\ncountry in the world 。the lower estimate only accounts for people in\ntaiwan，hong and macau，however most overseas chinese communities use\ntraditional characters 。\n\nhope this helps you understand the history and reasoning behind traditional\ncharacters 。i hope we can keep our language healthy and alive because there's\nthousands of years of culture in every traditional chinese character 。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2020-03-01T07:24:13.993", "id": "74715", "last_activity_date": "2020-03-01T07:24:13.993", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "37037", "parent_id": "10995", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "Both of these words do mean \"peace\" in the sense of a lack of conflict, but\n平和{へいわ} allows for a more metaphorical view of peace whereas 和平{わへい} describes\na lack of a more violent type of conflict, like war.\n\nFirst let's look at the [dictionary entry for\n平和](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E5%B9%B3%E5%92%8C):\n\n> (1)戦争もなく世の中が穏やかである・こと（さま）。 「―な時代」「―を守る」\n>\n> (2)争いや心配事もなく穏やかである・こと（さま）。 「―な家庭」「―に暮らす」\n\nIt refers to a calmness (穏やか) and an absence of conflict, either armed or\npersonal, and invokes a general idea of peacefulness.\n\nThe [dictionary entry for\n和平](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E5%92%8C%E5%B9%B3):\n\n> (1)争いがなく穏やかなこと。平和。 「百年もの間―が続く」\n>\n> (2)戦いをやめ、仲直りすること。 「―を申し入れる」\n>\n> (3)気候が穏やかなこと。\n\nThe first definition overlaps completely with 平和 and is defined in those\nterms. The second definition, however, refers specifically to warfare, a very\nspecific state where fighting has stopped and conflicted parties are trying to\nmend the situation. This is what we refer to when we refer to two parties\n\"hoping for peace,\" so for example while we hope for 平和 in the Middle East, a\ngeneral lack of conflict, we also hope for 和平, or the formal end of conflict\nand the start of a peace process. This meaning cannot be replaced entirely by\n平和.\n\nThe third definition is about the climate, take it for what you want.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-17T07:04:00.430", "id": "10999", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-17T23:45:55.917", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-17T23:45:55.917", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "10998", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "> Are L and R picked simply based on which \"sounds better\" to whoever is doing\n> the transliterating?\n\nSometimes it's this, and other times it's about figuring out which is correct.\n\nIt extends to more than just \"L\" and \"R\", by the way. For instance:\n\n * ロック・リー ( _rokku rii_ ) (from Naruto) : Rock **Lee**\n * ジュリー ( _jurii_ ) : Ju **lie** ... or ju **ry**\n * ジェリー ( _jerii_ ) : Je **lly** ... or, Je **rry** ... or, **Ge** rry...\n\nThe only way to decide is through context and educated guesses about what the\nauthor had in mind (or asking them). Working it out can be particularly\ndifficult for names or newly coined terms, and even more so (for English\nspeakers) if additionally the language it seems to be pulled from is some\nother language like German or Spanish.\n\nA novel I'm currently reading has the character name ルルウ ( _ruruu_ ). The\nother character names are エラリイ ( _erarii_ ), アガサ ( _agasa_ ), ポウ ( _pou_ ),\nand so on.\n\nTherefore, it is possible to deduce (although in this case the novel tells\nyou) that these are references to famous detective fiction authors (Gaston\n**Leroux** , **Ellery** Queen, **Agatha** Christie, Edgar Allan **Poe** ), and\nso those would be the appropriate translations. Sometimes, this level of\nresearch is required to produce a good translation (unless you can ask the\nauthor), and translators who miss cues like these, or fail to research them,\nwill result in \"flipped L/Rs\" and various other things.\n\nIn other cases, the original author may not have a specific transcription or\nreference in mind, and then it would seem to be up to the personal preference\nof the translator.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-17T15:56:43.753", "id": "11001", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-17T16:56:39.097", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-17T16:56:39.097", "last_editor_user_id": "315", "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "11000", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "I'll talk about the case for made-up words(造語).\n\nThe tendency is that translators often romanize any ラ行(r-line) sound into R as\na temporary measure simply because ラ行 sounds are shown as Ra Ri Ru Re Ro. That\nis because whether a ラ行 sound has to be written in L or R when romanized is\nsomething only the creator of the word would know.\n\nTake your R(L)ali-ho example, whether \"ラ\" in ラリホー is intended to be written in\nL or R is something only the creators of Dragon Quest would know. You have to\nask the creators directly or play the translated version of the game to know\nthe proper spelling when it comes to words like ラリホー which does not give you a\nclear clue as to what language the creators want it to sound like.\n\nIn some cases, as Hyperworm mentioned, the creator does not even have a\nspecific transcription in mind, in which case, the only thing that matters is\nthe personal preference.\n\n*edit:For some reason, I thought ラリホー was a spell from Final Fantasy by mistake. I don't know why I thought that and fixed.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-17T16:31:19.313", "id": "11002", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-17T22:15:52.127", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-17T22:15:52.127", "last_editor_user_id": "3018", "owner_user_id": "3018", "parent_id": "11000", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "It depends on context: what compound is the character involved in, if any,\nwhat are the okurigana and so on.\n\n友達：ともだち (tomodachi)\n\n友人：ゆうじん (yuujin)\n\nThere are general rules, like lone kanji, or lone kanji word stems, being\nkunyomi, and kanji compounds being onyomi. These rules are broken. Sometimes\nkanji compounds have a kunyomi. Sometimes compounds are half onyomi, half\nkunyomi.\n\nThe ultimate arbiter is the \"master\" assignment of spellings to the\nvocabulary.\n\nYou just know that yuujin is a word, and tomohito isn't. Ah, but, there is a\nTomohito surname, and one way to write it is 友人. You would know that from\ncontext, and other clues, like the presence of a given name, or a suffix like\nさん, 様 (sama), 氏 (shi).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-18T22:02:50.840", "id": "11006", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-18T22:11:11.730", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-18T22:11:11.730", "last_editor_user_id": "1266", "owner_user_id": "1266", "parent_id": "11005", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Interesting poem. Let me add a few quick comments.\n\n * 青かりたり根: As is, 青かりたり is 終止形, so the sentence comes to a complete stop there; the next sentence begins with 根. More likely you want the attributive (連体形) 青かりたる.\n * 青かりたり根: Rather than たり, you may want to consider き. It is a recollational past, so the poet would be speaking from memory. In attributive, this becomes し.\n * 夢がごとし: The English translation does not match, or is at least vague. This is a conclusive form (終止形), so the sentence comes to a complete stop. \"They (the sky and origin) are like a dream.\" This may be your intention and it works. Other options are to make it adverbial (連用形) ごとく, but then it becomes more vague like the English.\n * 元を返るべし: This is fine, but you could consider changing it to べきや, which softens the sense as well as adds a sense of question to oneself.\n * 汚さざらまし: This is fine. You could optionally emphasis this by adding を to the end.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-19T01:35:10.730", "id": "11008", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-19T01:35:10.730", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1141", "parent_id": "11007", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "Try this paper by Janick Wrona:\n\n[The early history of no as a\nnominaliser](http://ling.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~wrona/History%20of%20no%20%28NAJAKS%29.pdf)\n\nBasically Wrona argues that it was an evolutionary change, and that at some\npoint in time 'no' in a certain construction was newly interpreted as a\ngeneral nominaliser.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-02-16T13:14:51.993", "id": "11238", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-16T13:36:57.533", "last_edit_date": "2013-02-16T13:36:57.533", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "11009", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "nasi and nai are the same word. Like all adjectives, nasi is the conclusive\nform (終止形), while nai is the attributive form (連体形). More specifically, the\nattributive ends in naki, but the medial -k- drops out in modern Japanese\nbecoming nai. This is true of all adjectives: atusi -> atuki > atui, takasi ->\ntakaki > takai, muzukasi -> muzukasiki > muzukasii etc. You can still see this\nmedial -k- in the adverbial form (連用形) -ku.\n\nNote that in modern Japanese, the original conclusive was replaced by the\nattributive, so it may now act as a conclusive. This is true in verbs as well.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-20T04:52:48.440", "id": "11012", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-16T16:52:13.180", "last_edit_date": "2014-06-16T16:52:13.180", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "1141", "parent_id": "11010", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "It appears that コンセント [derives from \"concentric\nplug\"](http://www.jewa.or.jp/qa/receptacle.html#003), as plugs were round\n(concentric) in early 20th century England.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZY6jT.gif)\n\n[source](http://www.jewa.or.jp/qa/img/r003.gif)", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-20T10:06:34.317", "id": "11014", "last_activity_date": "2019-09-27T18:37:43.953", "last_edit_date": "2019-09-27T18:37:43.953", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "11013", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 }, { "body": "It is 和製英語. Sometime around the 1920s, employees at 東京電燈会社 created a device\nwhich consisted of a plug and outlet. This was called コンセントプラグ \"concentric\nplug\". Outlets without the plugs are now referred to as コンセント. Needless to\nsay, English \"concentric\" does not make much sense.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-20T10:09:14.093", "id": "11015", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-20T10:09:14.093", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1141", "parent_id": "11013", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

[ { "body": "> ストレスが原因だっていわれたって聞いたけど\n\nYou can break it up a little bit and replace the って with と for clarity:\n\nストレスが原因だと言われた - (Someone) was told that stress was the cause.\n\n～と聞いたけど - I heard that ~\n\nSo someone heard that someone was told that stress was the cause. けど.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-20T14:30:23.887", "id": "11017", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-20T14:30:23.887", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "11016", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I can think of two differences:\n\n * 自分 can only be used for referring to singular, you can use 自ら for referring to a _group_ of people.\n\n**Examples**\n\n> 社員たちが自らの力で組織内の問題を解決する。\n>\n> 子供たちが自らの力で未来を切り拓いていく。\n\n * 自ら can have implied meaning of \"not relying on others\" or \"by one's own will\".\n\n**Example**\n\n> 自ら勉強する\n>\n> 自分で勉強する\n\nIn the above, 自分で simply means by \"oneself\". However, 自ら has the implied\nmeaning that you have not relied on others in anyway. For example, no one has\ntold you to study, you are doing it by your own will.\n\nOtherwise, the two can be used interchangeably as shown in your example.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-21T03:30:47.643", "id": "11022", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-21T03:30:47.643", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1217", "parent_id": "11018", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "Rather than 死す (which I believe you are right in saying is literary), this is\na slang suru-verb キュン死 meaning \"death from a heart pang caused by seeing\nsomething cute\".\n\n(Possible English translations: \"death by d'awwing\", \"death from cuteness\noverdose/overload\"?)\n\nThe すっぞ comes from rough speech slurring -- するぞ→すんぞ→すっぞ -- so it fits his\ncharacter.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-20T19:09:18.363", "id": "11020", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-20T19:09:18.363", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "11019", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "Sometimes it can be confusing as whether 方 should be read as かた or ほう. It is\nactually preferred to use Hiragana for ほう often to distinguish between the\ntwo. However, keep in mind かた is used in polite speech when referring to\nsomeone in respect. In your example, reading it as かた would be awkward because\nof this.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-21T21:39:16.867", "id": "11024", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-21T21:48:05.320", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-21T21:48:05.320", "last_editor_user_id": "1217", "owner_user_id": "1217", "parent_id": "11023", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Yes, your reasoning is correct. `は／が` is used to describe when the action\nhappens to the thing itself. `を` is used to emphasize the (usually negative)\neffect of the action on the subject, optionally indicating the agent of the\naction with `に`.\n\n> * 弟にケーキを食べられた → My cake was eaten by my little brother (anger/aggravation\n> implied).\n> * カバンを取られてしまった → My bag was taken/stolen\n>\n\nYou could replace the `を` version with `の〜は／が` version, but 1) I'm not sure if\nthis is grammatically correct, 2) it's not as strong of a statement, and 3)\nmay not convey the negativity as the former does.\n\n> * 私のケーキは食べられた → weaker, possibly a neutral statement; may not be\n> acceptable\n> * 私はケーキを食べられた → stronger; definite negativity included\n>\n\nThe English translation might include the word \"on\", although it might not\nmake sense all the time. Though personally, it helps me to remember it this\nway.\n\n> * 電車の中の人に足を踏まれました → My foot was stepped **_on_** by a person in the train\n> (\"on\" works in this translation).\n> * 私は弟にケーキを食べられた → My cake was eaten \"on\" by my little brother (\"on\"\n> doesn't work in this way in English, though it still kinda makes sense).\n>\n\nNote that with the `は／が` pattern to describe an action on the subject itself,\nthere are nuances about when to use the passive form of the action and when to\nuse the intransitive verb of the action (if it exists) as [I discuss in this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/329/78).\n\nAlso, you probably shouldn't be feeding cake to your dog. ;)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-22T21:16:47.040", "id": "11026", "last_activity_date": "2014-09-19T14:43:38.777", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "11025", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

[ { "body": "Thanks to snailplane's and Dono's links, it seems that the answer is fairly\nestablished:\n\n大辞泉\n\n> 形容詞・形容動詞の語幹など性質・状態を表す語に付いて形容詞をつくり、その意味を強調する\n\n大辞林\n\n> 性質・状態を表す語（形容詞・形容動詞の語幹など）に付いて形容詞をつくり、程度のはなはだしい意を表す\n\nNamely, 〜ない is also a suffix that attaches onto words describing state or\nquality, turns them into a 形容詞, and emphasizes them.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-24T01:56:21.493", "id": "11032", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-24T01:56:21.493", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "11031", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "Yeah in Japan some people call it カスタードパン which would be 'custard bread'. But\nthat's just custard cream stuffed into a hollow bread, so we don't say it's a\nbrioche anyway. See the JP Wikipedia link\n[here](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AF%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0%E3%83%91%E3%83%B3)\nand there's no mentioning of the word 'brioche' (ブリオッシュ) throughout the entire\narticle except for the definition.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-24T11:16:01.367", "id": "11035", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-24T11:16:01.367", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3110", "parent_id": "11034", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I make it a general rule when I translate these kinds of things from Japanese\nto English, those being things which may be common in Japanese culture but are\nrare or otherwise not present in Western culture, to either preserve the\nJapanese word (for example we say 'sushi' instead of raw fish on rice or\nwhatever) or to go with something descriptive when the person I'm\ncommunicating with might not know what I'm talking about, so like I might say\n_natto_ to people who know what it is, but fermented soy beans to others who\ndon't. Ultimately it's about communicating your point in such a way that you\nare easily understood and that doesn't sound jarring.\n\nIn this case, and given my conditions, I say you would be perfectly fine\ncalling it a **cream-filled roll**. Why? Because that's what it is, and if you\nwere trying to describe it to me as a baka gaijin, if you said to me \"It's a\ncustard brioche!\" it wouldn't exactly give me an \"a-ha!\" moment. Translation\nisn't just about finding a one-to-one match for a word regardless of\ndifferences in use between languages. クリームパン in Japanese is simple and easily\nunderstood. Custard brioche in English isn't, unless maybe you're a big fan of\ncustard brioches.\n\nIf you're just looking for the formal English name out of curiosity then you\ncan disregard this answer. But for the sake of communication just call it what\nit is when there's no ready equivalent. I don't really think there's much of a\ndifference between description and translation anyway. You can almost think of\ntranslation as just describing what something says in another language.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-24T11:40:18.610", "id": "11036", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-24T11:40:18.610", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "11034", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "My dictionary lists five uses:\n\n 1. 上げる - moving something to a higher position / status\n``` 荷物を棚に上げる Put the luggage on the shelf\n\n 利益を上げる Raise profits\n \n```\n\n 2. 上げる - give or supply something\n``` 歓声を上げる Give a cheer\n\n プレゼントを上げる Give a present\n \n```\n\n 3. 挙げる - indicate, or cause something to happen\n``` 手を挙げる Raise your hand\n\n 式を挙げる Hold a ceremony\n \n```\n\n 4. 揚げる - suspend in space, fry\n``` 国旗を揚げる Raise the national flag\n\n てんぷらを揚げる Fry tempura\n \n```\n\n 5. あげる - do something for somebody\n``` 本を貸してあげる Lend a book\n\n \n```\n\nTo address your actual question: it depends on the meaning you want to convey.\nObviously for \"fry\" you would only use 揚げる, which is a bit disconnected from\nthe other meanings. The difference between 手を揚げる and 手を上げる is a bit more\nsubtle: the latter might refer to the physical motion of raising your hand,\nthe former to indicate you wished to speak. In the last case, the verb ending\n〜てあげる is listed as all-hiragana, but I've seen 〜て上げる in the wild.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-24T13:37:32.843", "id": "11038", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-24T13:42:54.340", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-24T13:42:54.340", "last_editor_user_id": "3111", "owner_user_id": "3111", "parent_id": "11037", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "I believe they're called\n[[長押]{なげし}](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%95%B7%E6%8A%BC).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-25T07:59:59.023", "id": "11041", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-25T07:59:59.023", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "11040", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "As far as I know, there is no particular honorific which is used for demons\nbut not for humans. But it would be possible to add \"sama\" on to the name of a\nparticularly powerful demon, in the same way as \"hotoke sama\" (仏様) or \"kami\nsama\" (神様). However, it is my firm opinion that \"san\" or \"shi\" (氏) would not\nbe used for a \"demon\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-02-01T02:57:57.227", "id": "11103", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-01T02:57:57.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3116", "parent_id": "11042", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "They still go to the lower right of the big kana they modify, although maybe\nmore vertically down than horizontal writing.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-25T18:26:40.683", "id": "11044", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-25T20:53:06.583", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-25T20:53:06.583", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "11043", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "When writing on a [grid](http://blog-\nimgs-11.fc2.com/m/a/d/madoaki/20070124161654.gif), they go in the upper right\nhand corner of the square below. Similarly, full-stops `。` and commas `、` also\ngo in the upper right hand corner.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GsoN8.png)\n\n[source](http://blog.livedoor.jp/tate3te/archives/51755863.html) [full\nimage](http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/tate3te/imgs/4/e/4e5d50aa.jpg)\n\nIn normal handwriting, the distances become closer than on the grid, of\ncourse.\n\n(Also, 振り仮名 and Japanese \"italicizing\" (indicated by dots) go into the column\non the right, see [Do Japanese writers use underline for\nemphasis?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1735/1628) and [Why are points\nused where furigana would be\nnormally?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/15270/1628))", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-25T20:14:27.560", "id": "11045", "last_activity_date": "2019-05-11T10:51:45.320", "last_edit_date": "2019-05-11T10:51:45.320", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "11043", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

[ { "body": "の at the end of a statement expresses emphasis. I believe that the のだ here is\nsimply used that way.\n\nFor example:\n\n> あの山は大きいの。\n\nYou could add on to this sentence:\n\n> あの山は大きいのだから、登るのが大変でしょう。\n\nWhen using から in to express causation you need to precede it with a verb or です\nor だ. You simply can't grammatically say のから. So the の was added for emphasis\nand the だ was added to make the sentence grammatically correct.\n\nので would probably be ok in here I think but ので is more colloquial and\nexpresses less emphasis than のだから. I generally see it used more in spoken or\ninformal language to express thoughts and feelings rather than facts, so I\ndon't generally see it in written Japanese like your example.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-30T04:54:30.467", "id": "11083", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-30T04:54:30.467", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1815", "parent_id": "11046", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I interpret the の in your example as a nominalizer and shows that this clause\nis explaining something else in the text. 「なんで腹が痛いか？」「アイスを食べすぎたのだ」.\n\nIt's the difference between saying: \n\"Additionally, it's said about 100 layers have accumulated, so (から) its vast\nbulk is unimaginably large.\" \n_and_ \n\"Additionally, because it's said that about 100 layers have accumulated, its\nvast bulk is unimaginably large.\"\n\nSometimes, の is just a nominalizer, but it seems to me that if you find it\nnear the end of a sentence, it's going to connote either asking for\nexplanation (腹が痛いの？) or providing one (アイスを食べすぎたのだ).\n\nEdit: I feel silly for having answered this a year later, but it was near the\ntop of the list when I checked and I didn't think to look at the date stamp\nuntil I posted. Alas.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-02-03T17:36:01.143", "id": "14389", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-15T07:15:16.720", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-15T07:15:16.720", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "4179", "parent_id": "11046", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "As a native Japanese speaker, I do not find a grammatical parsing of 「のだから」 or\n「というのだから」 to be of much value or help to understanding its role in this\nparticular sentence because it is being used as a set phrase.\n\n「A + というのだから + B.」 expresses:\n\n> \"Since they say A, (which was unexpected, surprising, etc.), I now must\n> conclude that B.\"\n\nThe 「というのだから」 in this sentence can be replaced with 「というから」 to retain the\nexact same meaning but with a slight difference in nuance. The latter is used\nmore often than the former. The former sounds more emphatic than the latter.\n\nYou will often hear us say things like:\n\n> 「～～というから[驚]{おどろ}きだ。」 \n> 「～～というのだから[大]{たい}したものである。」", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2014-02-04T11:46:04.273", "id": "14400", "last_activity_date": "2021-02-07T20:28:36.660", "last_edit_date": "2021-02-07T20:28:36.660", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "11046", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "こんにちは is \"Hello!\" or \"Good day!\", a greeting for meeting someone in any sort\nof circumstance.\n\nもしもし is how you answer a phone. Usually both parties say もしもし in turn, before\nthe caller identifies himself (\"Hi, it's John\"). Outside phone conversations,\nit is also used to get someone's attention, but I feel it is quite direct,\nmore like \"Hey!\". (To get someone's attention, the better alternative would be\nto clear your throat, say え～っと, or すみません, or any combination of these three\noptions.)\n\nTo summarize, use こんにちは when you mean \"Hello!\" and もしもし only when answering\nthe phone.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-26T02:02:35.477", "id": "11050", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-26T02:02:35.477", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "11049", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Is this correct? >> Yes I think it is. It means \"その男は凶暴なので\"/\"その男は凶暴だから\".\n\nThe particle は is left out. につき(に就き) means なので/だから, \"because~\", \"since~\". につき\nsounds more literary than なので. (The に is a particle.) So it's like \"Because\nthe man is violent (you got to stay away from him etc..)\"\n\n<http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/167354/m0u/> >> 2 \nor \n<http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch/0/0ss/114908800000/> >> 3", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-26T13:24:22.273", "id": "11054", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-26T15:40:58.790", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-26T15:40:58.790", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "11051", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Nitsuki is a small Ivory carving worn on a japanes murchants belt sash to hold\na money purse.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-10-30T21:12:29.493", "id": "40508", "last_activity_date": "2016-10-30T21:12:29.493", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "18478", "parent_id": "11051", "post_type": "answer", "score": -2 } ]

[]

[ { "body": "I wouldn't say always. I think the construction Xができる is more or less a fixed\nexpression for \"being able to do sth.\"\n\n車の運転ができる sounds more like \"I can drive\" in the sense of \"I have a driver's\nlicence and know how to drive\". It is unmistakably a statement about me.\n\n車を運転できる might be interpreted more circumstantial, like \"The car is drivable\nand I can drive it (now)\". It might be a statement about the condition of the\ncar.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-27T05:15:59.713", "id": "11058", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-27T05:21:47.847", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-27T05:21:47.847", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "11057", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I'm always unsatisfied by the explanation of が being a weird set-phrased form\nfor the direct object with dekiru, suki, etc. I would literally translate\n私は車の運転ができる。 as \"About me: car's driving is capable of being done.\" できる can be\ntranslated as \"to be able to be done\" and the が makes a _lot_ of sense.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-02-01T15:45:02.603", "id": "11112", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-01T15:45:02.603", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "2960", "parent_id": "11057", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "1. ため can be used to indicate reason/cause. It is always best to check [a Japanese dictionary](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/139016/m0u/) when you can.\n\n 2. The sentence should be parsed as (怪物のうろつく) 危険な迷宮区画, i.e. the sentence 怪物がうろつく modifies (as relative clause) 危険な迷宮区画 (keyword ga/no conversion).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-27T22:23:09.830", "id": "11062", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-27T22:23:09.830", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "11060", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "After doing more research, I can't seem to find any modern sentences which use\nthis form. This means it is most likely the fault of the grammar guides which\ninclude it, as it seems to be constructed rather than something which is\nactually used.\n\nSo, I think it is safe to say, never use 〜ましたり as a polite form for 〜たり.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-02-03T06:04:03.487", "id": "11124", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-03T06:04:03.487", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "11061", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "First, I disagree with Darius Jahandarie’s claim that relative clauses are the\nonly place where 連体形 is used. As fefe commented, …ますので is very common, and the\nconnective particle ので attaches to the 連体形 form of a verb or an adjective,\nwhich means that the ます in …ますので should be considered as the 連体形 form.\n\nNext, it is true that the use of ます in a relative clause is often old-\nfashioned. In modern Japanese, we usually use polite forms at the end of a\nsentence and before a connective particle, and not at the end of a relative\nclause. However, I think that it is an overstatement to call the use of ます in\na relative clause “historical.” As you can see, there are many examples of\nsuch uses. Here are some more examples:\n\nIn a tourist bus, it is common for a tour guide to say something like\n\n> 右手に見え **ます** のは、富士山でございます。 You can see Mt. Fuji on your right.\n\nIn this case, it is more like a fixed phrase, and it would be strange to\nreplace 見えますのは with 見えるのは.\n\nIn a department store, there is often a sign which reads:\n\n> このエレベーターは従業員が利用することがあり **ます** ことをご了承願います。 This elevator is used also by\n> employees. Kindly excuse us for any inconvenience.\n\n(Glancing at the examples in the question and the examples which I wrote here,\nI noticed that in these examples, the nouns modified by the relative clauses\ncontaining ます are semantically light: とき, ところ, の, and こと do not have much\nsemantic value. But I am not sure whether this is just a coincidence or it is\na general tendency.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-29T02:10:05.573", "id": "11072", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-29T03:00:48.730", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-29T03:00:48.730", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "11063", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "I think it's pretty common, although not necessarily punning so much as just a\nplay-on-words. I can't remember but a couple right now. I'll edit in more\nlater if I remember them.\n\n> * 委員会【いいんかい】の許可を得た。びっくりして「いいんかい？」と答えた。 → I got the committee's permission.\n> Surprised, I responded \"(Is it) Really (OK)?\".\n> * A major station I used to frequent had a nearby building called \"Sun\n> Plaza\" written as さんぷら座, as seen here on Google street view:\n> [京阪線枚方市駅](https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=34.81634,135.649867&spn=0.01138,0.015128&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=34.816433,135.650047&panoid=FgQ62fZxkdwx67NkeH4d9g&cbp=12,251.11,,0,-14.17)\n>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-01-28T16:15:38.443", "id": "11068", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-28T16:15:38.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "11065", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]