Datasets:

---

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 3

[ { "body": "* 人類 human race as in 人類[未踏]{みとう}の地 (where no one has been before)\n\n * 人物 (\"human thing\") is not used to address other people. It is formal, and often used in the third person or referring to humans in general.\n\n観察・描写・評論などの対象としての〕人 For example 危険な人物 or 登場人物.\n\n * 人人(=人々) emphasizes that there are more than one 人, as in \"people.\" 「途上国の人々との話し方」\n\n * The hardest is 人間 , Chinese-based, and 人 a Japanese word. The former feels more formal and abstract (like Latin vocabulary in English.)\n\nThe compound 人間 comes from.人(々)の間, ie the interaction/relation of individual\nhumans, and is often used with social connotation. よく出来た人間, 役に立つ人\n\nHere's a nice quote I found:\n\n「人は人間関係、社会を通して人間になっていく。」 ( from [this\npage](http://d.hatena.ne.jp/horii888888/touch/20101118) we can tell there's a\nphilosophy behind 人 vs. 人間)\n\n人 is used in phrases such as: [人聞]{ひとぎ}きが悪い, but not 人間聞き.\n\n人間 is used in compounds with other ON-word: 人間社会, 人間科学部、大学院人間科学研究科、人間総合研究センター,\nyou cannot substitute 人間 for 人 here.\n\n人間 can also be read じんかん and means [世間]{せけん}, 世の中. Eg [人間]{じんかん}に[流布]{るふ}する.\n\nAlso, note that the actual usage of these words is likely more complex than\nillustrated above, which should be regarded as a rule of thumb, a general\ntendency.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-24T12:14:01.930", "id": "12405", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-05T23:05:15.813", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-05T23:05:15.813", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12403", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "人(person) = 人間(human)\n\n人々(people) = 人類(humankind)\n\n人物(human thing, formal)\n\n個人(individual)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-24T13:40:46.880", "id": "12406", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-24T13:40:46.880", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3755", "parent_id": "12403", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Never seen よーちぇん before but it must be a lazy pronunciation of 幼稚園{ようちえん}\n\nSo: \"I haven't forgotten it since kindergarten\"\n\nAnd no context in the question but おらん will most likely be the negative of おる,\nyes.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-24T19:50:27.443", "id": "12420", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-24T19:50:27.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3010", "parent_id": "12419", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Spouse of a Kansai-ben speaker here and I can confirm おらん is the normal way of\nsaying いない. If the speaker is supposed to be from Kansai then that must be it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-25T04:50:48.070", "id": "12421", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-25T04:50:48.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3313", "parent_id": "12419", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "The `大` is probably used here to mean `大【おお】いに` which means `非常に`, `たくさん`, or\n`はなはだ`. So it's more like \"a great rain\", where \"great\" could either mean\n`大量に降る雨` or perhaps \"big in scope\".\n\nYour logic with `多【た】雨【う】` makes sense, but I've never seen that word until\nnow. However, the definitions I see for it say \"heavy rainfall\" or \"much\nrainfall\". The \"-fall\" in those to me would indicate rain over a longer period\nof time, as opposed to one \"instance\" (day, afternoon, etc.) of rain. In fact,\nanother definition shows `雨の日が多いこと。また、雨量の多いこと。`", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-25T19:23:45.817", "id": "12424", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-25T19:23:45.817", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I'd hazard a guess that 多 is used for countable objects/quantities, and 大 for\nuncountable ones. 多雨 seems to be a meteorological term so it makes sense when\ntalking about measurable rainfall amounts. 大雨, on the other hand, looks to be\nless formal and indicates that the rain was greater than usual.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-26T00:38:46.443", "id": "12425", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-26T00:38:46.443", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "12423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "大 can be used idiomatically to mean 'great' or 'super duper' or 'awesome' in\naddition to 'physical dimensions are quantitatively large'. If you compare 多雨\nand 大雨, the first one looks more scientific and the second one has a more 'a\nwhole ton of rain!' feeling.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-26T02:08:48.363", "id": "12426", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-26T02:08:48.363", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3221", "parent_id": "12423", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "What about `身につまされる`? Here are some examples I found of it.\n\n> * 友人の死を聞いて身につまされた → ［痛切に感じた] The news of my friend's death **_came home\n> to_** me. ［ひどく気の毒に思った] I **_felt deeply sorry [felt deep sympathy] for_** my\n> friend's death.\n> * その娘の苦労が身につまされる → The girl's sufferings **_touch_** me deeply.\n> * 彼の話には身につまされて皆泣いた → We all shed tears of sympathy at his story.\n>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-26T16:08:18.063", "id": "12430", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-26T16:08:18.063", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12427", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "How about 失恋 【しつれん】?\n\nThere are a number of examples on space alc -\n\nhttp://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=失恋&ref=sa", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-27T00:26:06.163", "id": "12431", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-27T04:49:21.607", "last_edit_date": "2013-07-27T04:49:21.607", "last_editor_user_id": "3169", "owner_user_id": "3169", "parent_id": "12427", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "わくわく is not feminine at all, but a little childish.\n\n楽しい or 楽しみ is a better expression to use in a formal situation.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-26T14:53:43.700", "id": "12429", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-26T14:53:43.700", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3755", "parent_id": "12428", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "There's no question in this question! What are you asking here?\n\nIf you are asking the Japanese translation of \"What is the best way to ask for\ndirections in Japanese?\", 日本語で道を聞く一番の言い回しは何でしょうね is my version.\n\nSimilarly for \"What is the best way to say weird/strange in this sentence?\", I\nwould say この文にweird/strangeっていうニュアンスを入れたいんですけどどうしたらいいでしょうね or\nweird/strangeっていう感じを無難に入れるにはどうすればいいでしょうね.\n\n「weird/strangeと言う一番いい方法はなんですか」 would do, but you can't omit 「は」 here.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-04T21:37:56.573", "id": "12479", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-04T21:37:56.573", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3059", "parent_id": "12432", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Don't know why snailboat didn't answer the question, but just to make an\nanswer:\n\nくま can also be 隈, which is the dark circles under your eyes when you are tired\nor don't get enough sleep, like when you have to do lots of overtime at\nwork...", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-27T08:17:01.807", "id": "12434", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-27T08:17:01.807", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1217", "parent_id": "12433", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "\"I'm following him who is kicking around piled up snow.\"\n\nIt is he that is kicking around piled up snow", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-27T13:13:52.117", "id": "12436", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-27T13:13:52.117", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3755", "parent_id": "12435", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "後ろ, 背中, and 後ろ姿 are often used in Japanese as if they had their own volition,\nparticularly in modifying clauses.\n\nYou can say that a person's 背中 is walking off into the distance (歩いていく背中) --\nthis really means **that person** is walking into the distance, and the\nperspective of the scene is (the speaker) watching their back as they go.\n\nSo in this case, the speaker is following their 後ろ (i.e. behind them) as it\n(as they) `積もった雪を蹴散らすように進む`, `advance in a manner of kicking the piled-up snow\nabout`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-27T15:35:33.747", "id": "12437", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-27T15:35:33.747", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "315", "parent_id": "12435", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm not sure how you got to your translation.\n\nIsn't everything before たくや君 a relative clause?\n\n> Takuya-kun, who followed the example of popular idol(s) and ranked high last\n> year, is outside the top ten.\n\nWould this make sense in the context?\n\nEdit: Thanks Marasaiさん for pointing out that this is about baby names. So it\ntranslates like:\n\n> Takuya, which ranked highly last year due to the popular idol (Takuya\n> Kimura), is outside the top ten\n\nThe main point of the sentence is 「たくや」君はベストテン圏外 (Takuya is out of the top\nten), but extra information about how it used to be in the top ten is added\nwith the relative clause.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-27T21:20:57.823", "id": "12439", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-28T01:54:59.240", "last_edit_date": "2013-07-28T01:54:59.240", "last_editor_user_id": "3010", "owner_user_id": "3010", "parent_id": "12438", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "The explanation in\n[デジタル大辞泉](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/jn/225173/meaning/m0u/) is:\n\n>\n> 「いく」の語形も上代からみられ、平安時代以降は「ゆく」と併用される。「ゆく」「いく」はほとんど意味は同じであるが、古くは「ゆく」のほうがより広く使われ、特に訓点資料・和歌（「生く」との掛け詞の場合を除き）では、ほとんどすべてが「ゆく」である。現在では「ゆく」に比べて「いく」のほうが話し言葉的な感じをもち、したがって、「過ぎ行く」「散り行く」など、文章語的な語の場合には「ゆく」となるのが普通である。なお、「ゆきて」のイ音便形「ゆいて」も用いられたが、現在は一般的でなく、促音便形は「ゆく」のほうは用いられず、「いく」を用いて「いって」「いった」となる。\n\nMy translation / synopsis is as follows:\n\nいく has been seen from ancient times but from the Heian period both have been\nin use. いく has almost exactly the same meaning as ゆく but in olden times, ゆく\nwas used more widely: Putting the use of double entendres and word play based\non 生く aside, then the use of 行く in Japanese poetry (waka/tanka) or symbolism\ncan almost always read as ゆく. As a result, when expressions such as\n「過ぎ行く」「散り行く」 are used stylistically in written language they are normally read\nas ゆく. However forms such as ゆきて have stopped being used in favour of forms\nderived from いく such as いって and いった.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-29T14:59:00.683", "id": "12443", "last_activity_date": "2016-02-28T23:13:41.880", "last_edit_date": "2016-02-28T23:13:41.880", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "1556", "parent_id": "12440", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "They both mean the same of course, and there is plenty of info you can find\nexplaining that ゆく is an older version. In addition, I have found that while\nゆく tends to be a somewhat casual version of いく. いく is _easier_ to pronounce\nthan ゆく. Also, FWIW, I think いく is used more often than ゆく in conversation.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-12-20T15:52:23.513", "id": "20979", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-29T03:38:41.990", "last_edit_date": "2014-12-29T03:38:41.990", "last_editor_user_id": "7998", "owner_user_id": "7998", "parent_id": "12440", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "ゆく is both more formal and more poetic that いく, so you'll hear ゆく in public\nannouncements, song lyrics, formal letters. In every day life, いく is what\nyou'll hear.\n\nThese kinds of couplets are very common in Japanese, and you'll frequently\nfind near-synonyms like 参加する・来る / 逮捕【たいほ】する・捕【つか】まえる / 拝見【はいけん】する・見る /\n消失【しょうしつ】する・消える or 包含【ほうがん】する・含める. The general trend behind all of this is\nthat Sino-Japanese words are usually more literary and formal than their\nnative counterparts. ゆく, as a mostly obsolete form of いく, a retains the sense\nof a literary tradition, like most Sino-Japanese words, that for its\ndifficulty was prestigious in earlier Japanese history, and still carries a\ndegree of prestige today.\n\nAs you can see in Earthliŋ's comment, よい and いい are also good examples of this\nprinciple.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-12-24T09:40:38.520", "id": "21004", "last_activity_date": "2014-12-24T11:58:21.520", "last_edit_date": "2014-12-24T11:58:21.520", "last_editor_user_id": "8009", "owner_user_id": "8009", "parent_id": "12440", "post_type": "answer", "score": -2 } ]

[ { "body": "貸してくれたということは ＝ 貸してくれた ＋ ということは\n\nということは~ ＝ That means ~\n\n<http://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%81%A8%E8%A8%80%E3%81%86%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AF>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-29T10:02:56.043", "id": "12442", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-29T10:02:56.043", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3675", "parent_id": "12441", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Japanese-Japanese dictionaries give [almost complehensive\nlists.](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E8%A8%80%E3%81%86%E3%83%BB%E4%BA%91%E3%81%86%E3%83%BB%E8%AC%82%E3%81%86-201316#E5.A4.A7.E8.BE.9E.E6.9E.97.20.E7.AC.AC.E4.B8.89.E7.89.88)\n\n“Aという” originally meant “someone says A”, but its original meaning has been\nlost in many cases, and it is used like a 助詞.\n\n“Aということだ。” means “I heard that A.” In this sentence meaning of “say” is\nremaining.\n\nIn other cases “Aということ” is used as a noun clause. A shorter form “Aこと” is also\nused, but “Aということ” makes it more obvious that it is a noun clause. “Aこと” may\nbe confused with a normal combination of 連体形 + 名詞.\n\n> 彼が言ったということ \n> The fact that he said something \n> (less common) What I hear he said\n>\n> 彼が言ったこと \n> What he said \n> (less common) The fact that he said something\n\nWhen used in the form of “Aということは、B(ということ)だ。”, it means “Judging from A, B.”\n\n“なんということもない” means literally “about which I have nothing to say” implying “not\nspecial”.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-11-08T11:10:19.997", "id": "19425", "last_activity_date": "2014-11-08T14:19:02.883", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "6554", "parent_id": "12441", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "I feel your pain...but I think I'm able to answer this.\n\nFirst, let's quickly review relative clauses. From\n[Niwasaburoo](http://www.geocities.jp/niwasaburoo/56rentaisetu.html):\n\n［Ｎを］ 私が買った辞書, which would be the relative clause version of 私が辞書を買った。\n\n［Ｎに］ 私が日本語を教えた学生 ⇒ 私が学生に日本語を教えた。\n\n［Ｎへ］ 母が買い物に行ったデパート ⇒ 母が買い物にデパートへ行った。\n\n［Ｎと］ ×毎朝学校へ通った友達 ○毎朝いっしょに学校へ通った友達 ⇒ 毎朝いっしょに友達と学校へ通った。\n\nSo there's a lot of construction of the case of the head noun from context. So\nhow are we supposed to reconstruct what the noun's original case would be in\n~というN? Well, let's just assume that it's the subject が. In that case, we'd get\nNが〜という。If N is こと for example, we'd have ことが〜という。\n\nNow let's take a look at the definition of と from\n[dictionary.goo](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/154670/m1u/%E3%81%A8/):\n\nと：２ （文や句をそのまま受けて）動作・作用・状態の内容を表す。引用の「と」。\n\nThis is huge...because this is NOT what the English word \"quotation\" means.\nFrom this definition, it would appear that と is extracting the substance of\nwhat it is quoting more than just the words.\n\nNow if only we could grab a definition of いう that states clearly what it is\nthat the subject is doing with the \"quoted\" material, and makes sense why this\nwould be metaphorically related to the act of speaking, but it is here where\nthe dictionary flounders a bit. From [the という\nentry](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/9767/m1u/%E3%81%84%E3%81%86/):\n\n１ （「…という」の形で体言に続けて）\n\n㋐同格であることを示す。「世界の中のアメリカと―・う国」\n\n㋑「と」の前の事柄を特に取り立てて示して、意味を強める。\n\n㋒数量を表す語に付いて、その意味を強める。…に相当する。\n\n５ （「…という」「…ということだ」などの形で）話の内容が直接でなく他からの情報にもとづくことを表す。\n\nIt would be great if there were a more abstract stand-alone usage of いう to\nhelp us understand という, but it seems there isn't.\n\nTwo more things I would like to bring up. The first is apposition. [In\nMasahiro Tanimori's Handbook of Japanese\nGrammar](http://books.google.com/books?id=Me7t9o-LLroC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=handbook%20of%20japanese%20grammar%20apposition&source=bl&ots=OBeuXxeEMX&sig=CouGHainCEhMvkMYeUzyhO91cxo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UF5eVKm_Acb8yQSw9IKgDA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=handbook%20of%20japanese%20grammar%20apposition&f=false),\nという is defined as:\n\n 1. After noun is apposition to the following word.\n\nand 2. After statement in apposition to the following word.\n\nI found this to be helpful to coping with という. Also, the distinction between\nrestrictive and non-restrictive apposition(referenced in both the [relative\nclause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_clause) and\n[apposition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition) wikipedia pages) is I\nthink good to know.\n\nLastly you were wondering why someone would use a complex sentence? Well, when\nyou're dealing with\n[形式名詞](http://www.geocities.jp/niwasaburoo/14keisikimeisi.html)(もの、の、ところ、etc),\nusually you have some manner of [cleft\nsentence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleft_sentence). Why use a cleft\nsentence? i.e. Why say \"It was the Germans who started this war\" instead of\n\"The Germans started this war\"? Well, usually this is wrapped up in the\nconcept of [focus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_\\(linguistics\\)). When\nyou say 〜ということは, you're making a note in some global variable called 文脈 that\nyou will be answering the implicit question you have posed. Similarly, \"It was\nthe Germans who started this war\" is answering the question, posed or not,\n\"Who started the war?\" By using a cleft sentence, you set this kind of special\nfocus on some block of dialogue.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-11-08T18:39:05.437", "id": "19429", "last_activity_date": "2014-11-09T03:11:53.960", "last_edit_date": "2014-11-09T03:11:53.960", "last_editor_user_id": "4481", "owner_user_id": "4481", "parent_id": "12441", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Question ①:\"I have been trying for ages to understand **the reason という is used\nso frequently.** \"\n\nQuestion ②:\"What does という add to the sentence and what connotations does it\nhave in Japanese?\"\n\nQuestion ③:If you were forced to name who it is doing the いう'ing, would it be\nthe speaker, Japanese society or just some abstract entity?\n\nQuestion ④:What does 彼が金を貸してくれたということは do that 彼がお金を貸してくれたことは doesn't?\n\nQuestion ⑤:\"How do I even go about understanding what 何ということも(from\n何ということもない普通の人生) means?\"\n\nQuestion ⑥:Could you also explain というの and というわけ? Preferably with examples\nrather than just Aということ?\n\nI'll try to answer as many of these as possible(as I tried in my other\nanswer).\n\nという is an appositional akin to の(the の from 神社の鐘). It's primary purpose is to\nneutrally relate two words or phrases, either VというN or NというN.\n\nBut what is it's connotation? These two(from goo thesaurus):\n\n[From the という／といった／との thesaurus\npage](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/thsrs/17163/m0u/):[共通する意味]★同格・内容説明を表わす。\n\n同格 is the Japanese word for apposition...This would be a really awesome moment\nfor you to go look at the [wikipedia page for\napposition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition).\n\n[From the という／といった／といって／として／にしても thesaurus\npage](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/thsrs/17187/m0u/):[共通する意味]★強調を表わす。\n\nExpressing emphasis (or if we're feeling brazen, let's call it focus（焦点）)\n\nSo yeah...apposition and emphasis, that's という.\n\nContinuing on to the derivatives...\n\nFrom the [といえば／というと／といったら／となると thesaurus\npage](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/thsrs/17199/m0u/):[共通する意味]\n★ある事柄を話題とし、主題とすることを表わす。\n\nSo the common meaning here is that these all make what precedes them the topic\nor subject (of the following dialogue).\n\nSo now what about the 形式名詞（もの、の、こと、ところ、わけ）? Why is という used so frequently with\nthem? Why is という used/needed before こと in sentences like the one above? The\nbest I can offer is to note again the \"emphasis\" meaning...I feel that alot of\nthis is mired in the grammatical category of focus. That question(④), properly\narticulated, would be a great question to ask by itself.\n\nConcerning 何ということもない, to explain why this is equivalent to 問題はない means\ncovering grammar quirks not within the scope of the other questions. I think\nyou can swap the appositionals, getting 何のこともない, and the meaning would be the\nsame. Again, this would be a great question to ask by itself.\n\nHopefully this is helpful. But if it is not, I'll try to further touch up this\nanswer as I have the time.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-11-09T15:25:04.697", "id": "19443", "last_activity_date": "2014-11-09T18:42:26.540", "last_edit_date": "2014-11-09T18:42:26.540", "last_editor_user_id": "4481", "owner_user_id": "4481", "parent_id": "12441", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "彼が金を貸してくれたということは私は彼に信用されているということだ。\n\nThe fact that he lent me money means that he trusts me.\n\nこと is use to turn a verb into a noun = **nominalization**\n\n彼が金を貸す he lends money 彼が金を貸すことは to lend money = lending money Another usage of\n'koto' is to serve as a placeholder for other nouns for exemple, you could\ninsert the word \"fact\" in place of 'koto' which leads to \"the fact he\nlends/lended money\" this is another way to nominalize\n\nlast but not least the structure of the whole phrase is 田中(noun)は医者(noun)\n\n * noun is noun - Tanaka is a doctor we can nominalize the two sentences to follow the same pattern which is something along those lines\n\nseeing is believing to see is to believe\n\n見る 事 は 信じる 事 です miru koto ha shinjiru koto desu\n\nSome times we use 'to iu' to show the contents / meaning\n\nfor example: the fact | but what fact 事 | どう 言う 事\n\n彼が金を貸してくれたということ - the fact that he lended money", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-02-14T16:15:51.287", "id": "98599", "last_activity_date": "2023-02-14T16:22:49.217", "last_edit_date": "2023-02-14T16:22:49.217", "last_editor_user_id": "55773", "owner_user_id": "55773", "parent_id": "12441", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "Using ため as the 'for' in 'thank you for' is strange.\n\nOff the top of my head I can think of 4 ways we normally use ありがとう to say\nthanks for something.\n\n> 1. masu-stem of the verb + ありがとう (this one's particularly formal) \n> メールアドレスを教えていただき有難う御座います。 \n> Thank you for telling me your email address.\n>\n> 2. te-form of the verb + ありがとう \n> メールアドレスを教えてくれてありがとう。 \n> Thanks for telling me your email address.\n>\n> 3. noun + ありがとう \n> メアドありがとう！ \n> Thanks for your email address!\n>\n> 4. [noun + を + ありがとう](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/5496/78) \n> メッセージをありがとう \n> Thanks for your message\n>\n>\n\nThere's lots of other expressions which don't use ありがとう like: \n\n> ～についてお礼を申し上げます \n> ～に対し感謝します\n\nため is 'for' as in for the benefit or purpose of someone/something. \n\n> `私のために`こんなすてきなパーティーを開いてくれてありがとう。 \n> Thank you for throwing such a splendid party `for me`.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-30T09:38:18.630", "id": "12446", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-30T15:50:30.933", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "3010", "parent_id": "12445", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "It might be easier to understand the usage if you think of `ため` as \"for the\nsake of (smb/smth)\".\n\n> 会社{かいしゃ}の **ため** に働{はたら}く \n> Work **in interests** of the company [=for the sake of the company]\n>\n> 彼女{かのじょ}は娘{むすめ}の **ため** なら何でもやる \n> She will do anything **for** her daughter. [=for the sake of her daughter]\n>\n> 正義{せいぎ}の **ため** に \n> **In the cause of** justice [=for the sake of justice]\n\nA related meaning is \"for the purpose of\" or \"with the goal of\"\n\n> 君{きみ}は何の **ため** にここへ来{き}たのだ。 \n> **What** have you come here **for**? [=for what purpose]\n>\n> 金{かね}の **ため** に働{はたら}く \n> Work **for** the money [= with the goal of getting money]\n\n`ため` may also means \"due to\" or \"because of\". It seems to be used this way\nmostly in formal speech. You can often recognize it by the missing `に` (but\nthis it not a 100% indicator).\n\n> 飛行機{ひこうき}が台風{たいふう}の **ため** 欠航{けっこう}した。 \n> The flight was canceled **due to** a typhoon.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-31T20:10:39.817", "id": "12455", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-01T07:36:47.693", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-01T07:36:47.693", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "12445", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "制限 has a feel of externally imposed man-made restriction, such as \"speed\nlimit\" (速度制限), \"my doctor isn't letting me drink\" (医者に飲酒を制限されている).\n\nIn contrast, 限界 isn't an external limitation but rather because of inability\nor lack of capability. \"this car can only go up to 75mph\" (この車は120km/h位が限界) \"I\ncan't run more than 5km\" (僕は走るのは5kmが限界)\n\n限度 is closer to 制限. They both have some idiomatic usages, but aside from that\nI can't really explain what are the differences. For example, limit in speed\nis 速度制限 while limit in the amount of loan is 融資限度 and the maxiumum depth you\ncan dive is 潜水限度. Perhaps 制限 has a legal / inflexible feel to it?\n\nFinally, 限り also refers to 限度-like limit, but it is more often used to\ndecorate other nouns and verbs, such as \"today's special\" (本日限り), \"grass field\nall around you\" (見渡す限りの草原), \"give it the old college try\" (力の限り戦う) and this is\na use that other 3 words cannot do.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-30T14:06:32.517", "id": "12448", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-30T14:06:32.517", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3059", "parent_id": "12447", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

[ { "body": "There's something called\n[オネエ言葉](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%AA%E3%83%8D%E3%82%A8%E8%A8%80%E8%91%89),\nwhich, similar to English, is a stereotype of gay men who use feminine\nspeech/gestures. c.f. [this show](http://www.ntv.co.jp/one-mans/) (warning: do\nnot click if you are allergic to pink).\n\nオネエ can be used to describe a person who uses such speech/gestures.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-01T23:58:01.450", "id": "12460", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-01T23:58:01.450", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "12449", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "ために is used with verbs that indicate volition in order to express an intention\nto produce a desired result. ように does not use verbs of volition and simply\nstates a condition that is a desired result without implying direct\nfulfillment of those conditions through a specific exerted effort.\n\nThere's an explanation [here](http://www.jp-\nsji.org/jp/contents/opencourse/list-50gimon_03.php) that explains it pretty\nwell, so I'll translate some of what it says:\n\nFirst they give some example sentences:\n\nａ．美しい自然を守るために、市民はダム建設反対運動を起こした。 \nｂ．世界一周旅行に行くために、500万円貯めました。 \nｃ．５時までに帰れるように、仕事を急いで片付けた。 \nｄ．クラスのみんながわかるように、先生はゆっくり話します。\n\nExamples a and b both use verbs of volition as in \"in order to protect nature\"\nor \"in order to travel around the world.\" Examples c and d, on the other hand,\nuse verbs of possibility or intransitive verbs. It's stating a condition\nrather than an intention as the goal. Note that in d the change in subject\ndoes not affect the 'intentionality' of the verbs.\n\nWhen creating these sentences we have to think about what the attitude is\ntoward the end result. For example in b the kind of thought process is \"I want\nto travel around the world. Therefore I saved 500 man yen.\" Compare this to\nexample d where the thought process is more like \"It's nice if the whole class\nunderstands what the teacher is saying. Therefore the teacher spoke slowly.\"\n\nSo it's about intentional actions versus desired conditions.\n\nNow to offer my own two cents to this, your original instinct about action\nverbs I think isn't wrong. I'm not sure if \"action verb\" and the Japanese term\n意志動詞 overlap perfectly, but I'm assuming that most volitional verbs are indeed\naction verbs. It's more important to think about the distinction between\nconditions and volition, though.\n\nSo in your examples, the first one expresses that the condition brought about\nby not being late for your plane is a good one, and you are taking that action\nas a step toward fulfillment of that condition. \"乗り遅れる\" would not normally be\nconsidered a volitional verb because the lateness kind of implies something\nthat you _don't_ want. It's a negative verb that is basically another way of\nsaying like, 間に合って指定された時間に乗れる, which ultimately is a condition. If you just\nuse 乗る then things are different. In the second, \"answer a question\" is not a\ncondition. It is an action that you are doing out of your own volition, a\ndesire to answer the question, and you are raising your hand as a direct means\nto achieve that.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-02T01:28:33.513", "id": "12461", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-02T01:28:33.513", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12450", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "I find SSB's explanation rather complicated. It sounds correct but the most\nuseful explanation I remember is that ために is used for situations where the\nspeaker/actor has control, or ability to make something happen (\"in order\nto\"). ように is used when you cannot control the situation (\"so that\").\n(分かるように勉強する: you cannot guarantee that you will come to understand but you\nstudy so that you may understand)\n\nIn your examples, you go to bed early to ensure you do not oversleep, but you\ncannot be sure it won't happen because you cannot wake your self up.\n\nYou raise your hand because that is the custom to ask a question. The teacher\nwill notice and respond.\n\n(There is a better English explanation in \"A students guide to Japanese\nGrammar\" by Naomi Hanaoka McGloin but this is how I remember it.)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-03T03:28:58.560", "id": "12469", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-03T06:19:14.940", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-03T06:19:14.940", "last_editor_user_id": "1556", "owner_user_id": "1556", "parent_id": "12450", "post_type": "answer", "score": 32 }, { "body": "I've checked the online grammar appendix to the widely known 初級日本語 book\npublished by 東京外国語大学 留学生日本語教育センター.\n\nIt states that for the 辞書形＋ように construction can be used with either verbs in\npotential forms or something that we have no control over, for example drying\nup clothes:\n\n> ### 辞書形+ように\n>\n> * 服が乾くように、火のそばに持って行きました。\n>\n> * 帰ってすぐ寝られるように、部屋に布団を敷いておきました。\n>\n>\n\nMeanwhile, the ない+ように construction can be used with both volitional and **non-\nvolitional** verbs.\n\n辞書形+ために, on the other hand, is merely used to show the goal of actions stated\nin a sentence.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-04T21:36:35.403", "id": "12478", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-19T01:37:04.900", "last_edit_date": "2018-05-19T01:37:04.900", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "3776", "parent_id": "12450", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Ok. I have read the explanation from some of the post I found and here's what\nI got. I'll be talking about the usage as \"In order to\" only since ように・ために\nhave other meanings as well.\n\n 1. ~ように is used when Verb in front of it is a potential dict form. e.g. いける, なれる\n 2. ~ために is used when Verb in front of it is a dictionary form. e.g. いく, なる So in this case, ために sounds more of a serious intention of things to happen, instead of just \"can, able to, could\".\n 3. Since ために is for something you can control, that means you cannot use it if the subjects are two different person/ things. e.g. 子供はいい学校に行ける ために, 彼女は一生懸命働きます。 You can't use ために since The mom and child are different subjects, which means her mom still have no control whether her child can go to good school or not regardless of how hard she work. \n 4. For Verb with ない form, it's USUALLY use with ように。\n\nMy Japanese is a beginner level, but hope this helps.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2019-06-26T22:26:53.653", "id": "69114", "last_activity_date": "2019-06-26T22:34:47.580", "last_edit_date": "2019-06-26T22:34:47.580", "last_editor_user_id": "34482", "owner_user_id": "34482", "parent_id": "12450", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "A quick Google lookup shows that some plum varieties are called Prunes in\nEnglish, and they don't need to be dried to be called that way.\n\n> A prune is any of various plum cultivars, mostly Prunus domestica or\n> European Plum, sold as fresh or dried fruit.\n\nIn the [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prune) about prunes\nyou can see a photo of fruit looking strikingly similar to what you bought.\n[Japanese\nWikipedia](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%BB%E3%82%A4%E3%83%A8%E3%82%A6%E3%82%B9%E3%83%A2%E3%83%A2)\nand [Goo\nJisho](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/196019/m1u/%E3%83%97%E3%83%AB%E3%83%BC%E3%83%B3/)\nindicate that プルーン in Japanese has the same meaning that it has in English\n\n> プルーン (prune) は、スモモの近縁種セイヨウスモモ (Prunus domestica) などの総称である。\n\n[This](http://www.alps.pref.nagano.lg.jp/letter/nattoku/ntk2006/ntk_frur_0608_1.pdf)\nJapanese page gives further insight on the difference between plums and\nprunes.\n\nI'm neither a biologist, nor a native English/Japanese speaker, but it seems\nmost likely to me that the fruit you have bought are indeed called prunes in\nthese two languages.\n\n(I just copied my earlier comment by Nicolas' advice with minor edits.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-01T23:12:48.170", "id": "12459", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-09T21:24:45.607", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-09T21:24:45.607", "last_editor_user_id": "1442", "owner_user_id": "1442", "parent_id": "12451", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "明鏡国語辞典 lists it as an additional meaning (二６), おおよその時間。その時分。 What it lists as\nsense 二１ comes pretty close to its general meaning and how it is used here:\n\n> 「その事をする方法・手段。 **また、その様子・有様。** 」\n\nPerhaps you could think of it like this?\n\n作り方=how to make food\n\n明け方=how it becomes bright=as it becomes bright=dawn\n\nPitch accent, see ＮＨＫ日本語発音アクセント辞典\n\n```\n\n 　　＿＿＿＿\n 　あけか°た [=flat, か° is a nasal が (鼻音,ɳa)]\n 　　＿\n 　あけ\n \n```\n\nAs for how they're different in meaning, there's a good explanation in the\n語例解辞典.\n\n> 【使い分け】\n>\n>\n> (１)「明け方」は、夜が開ける時間帯をいうのに対し、「夜明け」「明け」は夜が明けること、あるいはその時をいい、さらにそれを中心とする時間帯をいう場合もある。\n>\n> (2)「夜明け」は、「アジアの夜明け」のように新しい時代、好ましい変革の到来を意味することもある。 [ _yoake_ can be used\n> idiomatically in the sense of \"dawn of a new age\"]\n>\n> 【使い方】\n>\n> (明け)\n>\n> 深夜から明けにかけて暴走族が騒いでいる (this is about その時)\n>\n> 明けの明星\n>\n> (明け方)\n>\n> 明け方が近く、雷がなった\n>\n> 翌日の明け方に目的地についた (both are concerned with 夜が開ける時間帯)\n\nAlso, 明け seems to be used more in compounds (忌明け,休み明け,精進明け,梅雨明け,年明け,正月明け),\nwhile 明け方 is usually an individual word.夜明け (,perhaps because it is longer and\na fully formed idea [??],) can be seen as an individual words in phrases such\nas 「夜明けにはまだ間がある」 or 「夜明けを待つ」", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-31T20:14:46.273", "id": "12456", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-03T20:42:40.670", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-03T20:42:40.670", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12452", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm not precisely sure what you mean by one verb \"acting\" on another because\nthat could potentially means many things. Also, it seems your examples just\ndeal with liking/hating something, so I'll answer according to that. In that\ncase, the third one is correct. You first have to nominalize the verb by\nadding `の` or `こと` to the dictionary form (辞書形).\n\n> * 踊る **の** が大好きです！ → I love to dance\n> * 戦う **の** が嫌い！ → I hate to fight\n> * 映画を見る **こと** が趣味【しゅみ】です → Watching movies is a/my hobby\n>\n\nHowever, one verb can \"act\" on another with simply the `〜て` form (and possibly\nvarious, \"set\" endings).\n\n> * チキンを焼いて食べる → I grill the chicken then eat it / I eat chicken by grilling\n> it\n> * やってみる → Do something and see how it turns out - `それ、やってみよう！` → \"Let's do\n> it\" (with some uncertainty)\n> * 本やペンを机の引き出しにしまっておく → Put away my books, pens, etc. in the desk drawer\n> (so they'll be ready for next time)\n>\n\nOr different types of compound verbs\n\n> * 着替える → Change your clothes (\"redo your dressing\")\n> * 雨が降り出す → Begin raining\n> * 仕始める → Start doing\n>\n\nSo I think \"a verb acting upon another verb\" could really cover a lot of\ndifferent situations.\n\n* * *\n\nSee also [What is the difference between the nominalizers こと and\nの?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1395/78)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-07-31T19:18:56.480", "id": "12454", "last_activity_date": "2013-07-31T19:36:45.000", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12453", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "First of all, 初めてです is verb+て+です, the te-form + です. The te-form has nothing to\ndo with the particle で. (で can be like the te-form of だ/です, but this is not\nwhat your question is about.)\n\nです is a copula, and so Xです means \"it is X\". You can substitute pretty much\neverything for X. The best way to think about your sentences would be to\ninterpret then as 「バスで 」です and 「初めて」です. You could also say 「信用を」です or 「」、です\netc.\n\nBut when you think about it a bit more, the particle で does not apply to the\nverb (action) in these sentences the same way as in バスで来る - to come and to do\nthis coming by bus.\n\nHowever, a copula is not some action that could perform \"by bus\". バスでです means\n\"it is by bus\", but \"by\" does not apply to \"is\", because then \"it exists by\nbus\" should make sense as well. The English verb \"be\" is used as a copula\nhere, and the right way to think about it is \"it is 'by bus'\".\n\nTo summarize, です is a bit different from your usual verb, and it is certainly\nnot the same as the English verb \"to be\". Curiously, and what might add to\nyour confusion, is where the copula itself comes from: Japanese had many\ncopulas, but many of them are made up of particle+ある: で+ある(\"to exist as\"),\nなり=に+ある, たり=と+ある, で+御座る.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-01T05:58:20.373", "id": "12458", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-01T13:50:14.407", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-01T13:50:14.407", "last_editor_user_id": "706", "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12457", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "There is another usage for the particle に: that of an indirect object, and\nsimilarly it is used in the same way as the preposition \"to\" in English. Look\nat the following example:\n\n> I gave my _mother_ a gift. \n> 私は母におくりものをあげました。\n\nIn this case \"mother\" is an indirect object. In other words, she is at the\nreceiving end of the action. Often times there is an invisible \"to\" or \"for\"\nthat can be applied to an indirect object. Look at a second example:\n\n> I bought a new toy for _my sister_. \n> 私は妹に新しいおもちゃを買いました。\n\nIn this case \"sister\" is the object of the preposition \"for\", but it can also\nbe thought of as an indirect object, because the \"for\" could be omitted and\nthe sentence is \"I bought my sister a new toy\".\n\nThe particle に performs both of these functions, which are more or less\ninterchangeable in English. So \"それは体に悪い\" means \"That is bad **for** the body.\"", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-03T22:11:20.213", "id": "12471", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-03T22:11:20.213", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1575", "parent_id": "12463", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "A simple search reveals the answer. I will offer a brief translation.\n\n<http://gogen-allguide.com/si/syousetsu.html>\n\nBasically in China there were regular reports of the goings on and ramblings\nof the general public that were compiled and presented to leaders. These were\nreferred to as 小説. Through common use the meaning evolved to refer to\n\"worthless\" or \"meaningless\" stories. Eventually this meaning was taken and\nadapted as a translation for the English word 'novel.' Therefore the term 小説\ndoes not refer to the length of a work. Rather it is a word applied to the\nEnglish word 'novel,' referring to the 'value' of the work instead.\n\nThere are some more details about how it came about, but the short version is\nthat its modern use is based on the Chinese equivalent of the term 'novel' in\nEnglish.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-02T06:38:30.207", "id": "12465", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-02T14:46:02.073", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-02T14:46:02.073", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12464", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "In this case, `エホバに関する` is a relative clause, so it modifies the following\nnoun phrase. Since `どんな` is not by itself a noun, we can conclude that it's\npart of a larger noun phrase. In this case, the only possible such noun phrase\nis `どんな事実`.\n\nNote that unlike English, Japanese doesn't have a distinct class of words\ncalled _determiners_ which terminate the expansion of a noun phrase. That is,\nin English you cannot say phrases like * _the red this house_ , because the\ndeterminer _this_ cannot be further modified by the string _the red_. In\nJapanese, however, you can place modifiers before words like `どんな` or `あの`\nwithout a problem.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-02T11:14:32.223", "id": "12467", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-02T11:14:32.223", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12466", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "畳 is used only for tatami and is included in the Joyo list. 帖 can be used for\nfolding screens, stage curtains,\n[shields](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Ashigaru_using_shields_%28tate%29.jpg),\nbatches of nori seaweed, batches of Washi (traditional paper), or traditional\nbooks as well as tatami, and is not included in the Joyo list.\n\n帖 is often used as the counter for tatami mats when describing room size on a\nfloor plan.\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Nlzki.png)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-03T05:30:00.240", "id": "12470", "last_activity_date": "2018-11-14T12:36:07.173", "last_edit_date": "2018-11-14T12:36:07.173", "last_editor_user_id": "19278", "owner_user_id": "3506", "parent_id": "12468", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "I think the only way for it to be `あれが` and make sense is if it's in response\nto some question. Although that would be emphasizing the **_that_** in \"That\nmust be it\".\n\n> * 何が一番偉いものなんだ？ → What's the best/greatest one (thing)?\n> * あれが！ → That one (is)! / That must be it!\n>\n\nIf you're sure the pronunciation isn't `だ`, there's a slight possibility they\ncould be saying `あれや！` where `や` is the Kansai-ben equivalent of `だ` and\nslightly mistakable for `が` if said fast enough.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-04T02:32:27.940", "id": "12474", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-04T02:55:22.923", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-04T02:55:22.923", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12473", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "I would look at standard Japanese 履歴書{れきりしょ} rather than translating from an\nEnglish resume format.\n\nA common section is 志望{しぼう}の動機{どうき} which is a reason for applying (to that\nparticular job/company), and tends to contain the sort of thing you're\ndescribing - why you want to work in that field and/or for that company,\ncombined with any skills and experience you have that makes you right for the\njob.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-05T11:57:45.590", "id": "12482", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-05T11:57:45.590", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "12475", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "It's hard to say without understanding the whole twisted plot, and I can't\nreally come up with a plausble interpretation.\n\nThe reason \"dead\" is unlikely in this sentence is that 終わる as dead would\nnormally mean committing a suicide as 終える. The subject of this sentence is\nMaya-san, so this becomes \"or Maya might have committed a suicice, and I don't\nthink it flows very well.\n\nAnother possibility is \"[the killer had achieved his/her objectives and] the\nkilling has ended\", which I would say more natural use of 終わらせる, except that\nthis won't explain それとも.\n\nI think it's fair to say this text isn't particularly well written. I think\nmore sentenes that follow might help disambiguate.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-04T21:31:08.520", "id": "12477", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-04T21:31:08.520", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3059", "parent_id": "12476", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "It's just based on the metaphorical idea of something turning meaning that\nsomething is functioning normally, as in a machine. In English we have sayings\nabout the gears not turning. You can't really try to draw parallels between\nidiomatic phrases. For example, in English if you're dizzy then your head is\nspinning, but in Japanese it's your eyes that spin (目が回る).\n\nLook, for example,\n[here](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/detail?p=%E5%9B%9E%E8%BB%A2&stype=0&dtype=0).\nParticularly at definition 3, which reads:\n\n> ３ 機能を十分生かした働きをすること。存分に活動すること。「頭の―が鈍い」「人員を―させて事務をさばく」\n\nThe definition of 回転 includes the idea of something 'moving' metaphorically in\nsuch a way that it fulfills its functions.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-05T04:24:36.100", "id": "12481", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-05T08:29:46.523", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-05T08:29:46.523", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12480", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "Yes. You can address any day of the week by its first kanji, and you can refer\nto it in short using the respective onyomi. For example, you can say\n月{げつ}水{すい}金{きん}はお休みです。 In fact you often hear the weekend referred to as\n(きん)どにち. You can also go half way and abbreviate it just to ◯曜, as in 日曜.\n\nOutside of spoken language you see the kanji used to represent days of the\nweek all the time, so you might see on a poster something like ８月５日（月）. Other\nabbreviations that you might see that are related to the day of the week are 休\n(when somewhere is closed), 祝 (for holidays), 平 (for weekdays), and probably\nsome others.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-05T13:28:15.103", "id": "12484", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-06T03:18:19.757", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-06T03:18:19.757", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12483", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "Pulling from <http://kurotoxxx.exblog.jp/20636377>:\n\n> 駆逐、してやる! この世から、一匹残らず... \n> I'll exterminate 'em! From this world, with not a single one remaining...\n>\n> もっとだ! \n> More!\n>\n> もっと... もっと殺す! 殺したい。 \n> More... Kill more! I want to kill them.\n>\n> もっと、いっぱい... 殺してやる... \n> With more, full-on-ness (for lack of a better word)... I'll kill 'em...\n\nI believe \"もっとだ\" does emphasize the \"もっと殺す\" to make it stronger as \"もっと\" comes\nimmediately before \"殺す\" in the following sentence - I'm pretty sure \"もっと殺す!\"\nneeds to follow to make it clear what the \"もっとだ！\" refers to here.\n\n\"もっとだ！\" by itself without following context could mean \"give (me/it etc)\nmore!\" in an informal and stronger way than \"もっと！\", or \"it's more (than\nsomething)\" etc.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-06T04:40:43.197", "id": "12488", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-06T05:06:01.183", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "12487", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Both are {noun+の or verbal phrase X}ように{verb Y }, ie to do Y in a way of X, do\nY like or similar to X.\n\nMost literally you could interpret all these sentences in such a way:\n\nI (shall) act such that [in a way that] I remember\n\n[I am wishing] In a way that the weather be clear tomorrow.\n\nTo teach in a way a teacher teaches.\n\nThe nuances follow quite intuitively.\n\n\"in a way such that it is nice tomorrow\" starts to make sense once we add the\nimplicit \"I/We wish or hope in such a way\" or \"please act in such a way, {some\ndeity}!\".\n\nようにする, from its literal meaning, has become one standard expression for your\ngoals.\n\nGeneralization (extended sense) and concretisation (restricting to one sense),\nas well as.metaphors are common in language, and I think it's not too hard to\nsee what all these three sentences have got in common.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-06T08:34:02.910", "id": "12490", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-06T08:34:02.910", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12489", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "The Japanese Wikipedia has an entry for\n[`益虫`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9B%8A%E8%99%AB) which links to the\nEnglish [Beneficial insects](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneficial_insects),\nwhile [`害虫`](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AE%B3%E8%99%AB) links to\n[Pest](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_%28organism%29).\n\nHowever, unlike the English term it _does look_ like `益虫` include not only\ninsects (`昆虫`) but also other small animals:\n\n> 益虫（えきちゅう、英: Beneficial insects）とは、何らかの形で人間の生活に役に立つ、昆虫など小動物のことを指していう言葉である。\n>\n> \"Beneficial insects(?)\" refers the the various small animals, such as\n> insects, which benefit human activities in different ways.\n\nI guess geckos count because they are insectivores. The article itself gives\n`カブトエビ` (tadpole shrimp), which is no insect, as an example.\n\nAs for `虫`, the [Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%99%AB) states:\n\n> 日本語の虫（むし）の概念は時代や個人による差もあるが、今日では主に水中以外の節足動物を指し、広義には獣・鳥・魚類以外の小動物全般を指す。\n\nMy attempt at translation (I'm not too certain about some terms):\n\n> The Japanese word \"mushi\" had different meanings depending on the historical\n> period or point of view, but in modern times mainly refers to **arthropods**\n> (except those living underwater). More generally, it can be applied to all\n> small animals except mammals(?), birds and fish.\n\nThe article goes into more detail and seems to be pretty informative.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-06T22:37:40.043", "id": "12492", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-06T22:37:40.043", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "12491", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "transitive/intransitive difference.\n\n> 風邪 **を** 治す。 \n> I'll cure my cold.\n>\n> 風邪 **が** 治る。 \n> my cold will be cured.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-07T00:42:56.390", "id": "12494", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-07T00:42:56.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "12493", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "`治す` is transitive.\n\n> 傷を治す \n> to heal a wound\n>\n> ほとんどの病気は薬を使わずに治すことができる。 \n> Most ailments can be cured without medicine.\n\n`治る` is intransitive.\n\n> 風邪が治った \n> my cold got better\n>\n> 傷が治らないので、私はまた病院に行った。 \n> My wound did not heal, so I visited the hospital again.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-07T00:45:56.890", "id": "12495", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-07T00:45:56.890", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3010", "parent_id": "12493", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "It's almost exactly the same as the difference between 教わる and 教える, only in\nthis case English uses different words: \"learn\" and \"teach\".\n\nThe other answers give the correct grammatical explanation, but I think it\nhelps to see that this is not really a Japanese peculiarity, it's a curious\nfact about English that in very many cases the same verb is used for the\nentity receiving something and the entity giving the something.\n\nIn Japanese this distinction is shown by referring to 自動詞 (\"self-acting\"\nverbs) and 他動詞 (\"other-acting\" verbs). Many J dictionaries show this after the\nheadword: for example, 新明解国語辞典, highly recommended, gives なおる【自五】 and なおす【他五】.\nThose single characters may tell you all you need to know.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-11-17T09:17:50.243", "id": "19558", "last_activity_date": "2014-11-17T09:17:50.243", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7717", "parent_id": "12493", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

[ { "body": "Here's a bunch of words which can mean \"annoying\" or something related:\n\n * `めんどくさい` (also `めんどい`): something that requires effort but you don't feel like doing or dislike doing for whatever reason; bothersome\n\n * `うるさい`: lit. \"noisy\" or \"loud\"; can also be used to refer to annoying people, their words or actions\n\n * `むかつく`: something or someone who raises your blood pressure, ticks you off\n\n * `イライラする`: to get annoyed by something/someone\n\n * `しつこい(奴{やつ})`: obstinate or insistent (person) who is pestering you with silly questions etc.\n\n * `腹{はら}が立{た}つ`: to get angry/furious/pissed off \n\n * `邪魔{じゃま}な(もの)`: something/someone who's a hindrance, in your way literally or figuratively.\n\n * `うざい` (often said as `うぜえ`): can mean many things: annoying, bothersome, gross, nuisance etc. Used mostly by young people; apparently very offensive to the point of [leading to bloodshed or suicides](http://zokugo-dict.com/03u/uzai.htm).\n\nOther words from dictionaries which I haven't encountered myself so not\ncertain of their nuances.\n\n * `うっとうしい`\n * `じれったい`\n * `わずらわしい`\n * `しゃくに[障]{さわ}る`", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-07T20:31:38.163", "id": "12503", "last_activity_date": "2019-05-06T03:58:11.543", "last_edit_date": "2019-05-06T03:58:11.543", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "12496", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "`詰らない` (adjective in i) means annoying, boring or not interesting.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-08T01:49:48.437", "id": "12504", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-08T04:45:28.187", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-08T04:45:28.187", "last_editor_user_id": "3796", "owner_user_id": "3796", "parent_id": "12496", "post_type": "answer", "score": -1 } ]

[ { "body": "You can omit `今から` and the meaning will be unchanged.\n\nJust saying 今、授業がある could be okay but I think it conveys that the class is\nalready going on at the moment. 今から is usually like \"from right now\" or just\n\"now\" like in your example. \nTo say \"from now on\" implying a continuity, it would be \"これから\" or \"今後\".\n\nBy the way, you are mixing different level of speaking in your sentence. またね\nis quite familiar compared to your `あるので` and `行かなければならない` which are a bit\nheavy.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-07T01:02:42.393", "id": "12498", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-07T01:12:33.787", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-07T01:12:33.787", "last_editor_user_id": "1065", "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "12497", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "THe は in ～てはいけない. Is actually not the topic marking particle, but a different\nparticle entirely. IT's kind of like how the particle に has a number of\ndifferent uses. In this case the は is used to emphasize the negative part of\nthe sentence. You'll see in other places が being replaced by は before ない or\nanother negative verb or adjective.\n\nEdit: I found some more information on the subject. [This\nwebsite](http://www.learn-japanese-adventure.com/japanese-particles-\nchange.html) does a good job discussing this concept as I understand it.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-08T05:08:36.373", "id": "12505", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-08T14:46:34.930", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-08T14:46:34.930", "last_editor_user_id": "3800", "owner_user_id": "3800", "parent_id": "12500", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Aside from the fact that \"bike's time\" and \"Anna's time\" don't make even sense\nin English (except for a _very_ small set of contexts), I can't think of many\nscenarios where you'd use \"possessive\" time except for the following. And\ngenerally `時間` refers to the amount of time or the specific time of something,\nso it wouldn't always be interchangeable with `とき` without a slight change in\nmeaning.\n\n * Representing an \"era\" or (subjectively) long period of time with `とき`\n\n> * 子供のとき → When I was a child\n> * 留学のとき → When I studied abroad\n> * 留学の時間 → The amount of time I studied abroad\n\n * When using a noun from which a similar/exact verb could reasonably be inferred, meaning \"It's time to 〜\", \"〜 time\", or \"when (I) 〜\"\n\n> * ダンスのとき・時間だ！ ←→ ダンスする／踊るとき・時間だ！ ←→ It's time to dance! / It's dance\n> time!\n> * ○ 食事のとき ←→ 食事をする／食べるとき ←→ When eating\n> * ○ 散歩のとき ←→ 散歩する／歩くとき ←→ When I (take a) walk\n> * ? バイクのとき → Doesn't make sense because バイクする isn't a verb, and it can't\n> be reasonably inferred what's happening with the バイク; are you riding it?\n> Fixing it? Buying it? In such case, you need to specify unless context or\n> familiarity with the listeners would already afford that knowledge (which is\n> to say probably not often) \n>\n> * ○ バイクに乗るとき → When I ride my motorcycle \n>\n> * ○ バイクの修理をするとき → When I'm repairing my motorcycle\n> * × アンナのとき → Doesn't make sense at all. Again there is no default verb\n> one could infer from アンナ, so you have to specify what you mean\n> * ○ アンナといっしょにいるとき → When I'm with Anna\n\nThe only time I could see \"bike's time\" making sense is if you meant something\nlike \"the time displayed on the motorcycle's dashboard clock\", in which case\nyou'd be better off saying something like `バイクの内蔵時計の表示する時刻`. Similarly, I can\nonly see \"Anna's time\" making sense in the context of some kind of race, and\nyou're referring specifically to the time it took her to finish (`アンアの完了の時間`).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-07T20:02:40.027", "id": "12502", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-12T01:26:58.993", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-12T01:26:58.993", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12501", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "What is the actual question here? You doubt the meaning of the word or the\nactual context in which it is said?\n\nAnyway, this is a colloquial way to say \"good looking\", \"stylish\" or \"cool\"\nwith a slight emotional feeling supplied by じゃーん.\n\nNormally the word is written like 格好いい although I've heared somewhere on this\nsite that writing this word in kanji feels more old fashioned.\n\nActual nuances probably will be cleared by native speakers.\n\nP.S.: Sorry for any mistakes I've probably made due the fact that neither\nEnglish nor Japanese are my native languages.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-08T06:15:01.697", "id": "12507", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-08T06:15:01.697", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3544", "parent_id": "12506", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Writing a word in katakana is often used to put emphasis. じゃん is kind of\ncolloquial way of saying \"isn't it?\", while the long vowel mark in between,\nonce again, puts more emphasis.\n\nI'd translate the sentence the following way:\n\n```\n\n \"He/She/It is sooo cool, isn't he/she/it?\"\n```\n\n`\n\nPS. Next time, it'd have been better if you provided more context if you want\nsomething translated.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-08T11:27:21.087", "id": "12508", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-08T11:27:21.087", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3776", "parent_id": "12506", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I think you're trying to give a positive meaning to the second explanation.\nThe expression does add an extra air of confidence, but it is still ultimately\na negative construction. The two explanations boil down to the same general\nmeaning, but the second one you give just doesn't explicitly say that it's a\nnegative. That should be apparent from looking at the actual construction\nitself and thinking about what it's saying.\n\nFor example, you gave:\n\n> この病気は寝ていれば治るというものではない。\n\nThe important part is ものではない. It's saying that it's _not_ whatever sort of\nthing is being described, in this case an illness that will be cured just by\nsleeping. There's no way you can look at it grammatically from the Japanese\nand arrive at the conclusion that it is making some sort of positive\nstatement, i.e. that it is _definitely_ an illness that will be cured by\nsleeping.\n\nIn English saying \"it's not just a matter of~\" is a way of asserting a rather\nstrong opinion about a way of doing something, and the second explanation is\nsaying it more directly, but you have to be careful of the overall negative-\nness of the grammar itself.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-08T15:21:35.303", "id": "12511", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-08T15:21:35.303", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12510", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The first explanation is correct, that is to say the appropriate translations\nfor your examples would be:\n\n> * Curing this disease isn't just a matter of resting in bed.\n> * You cannot marry your partner just because you love him/her.\n>\n\nAnother example:\n\n * どんなことでもお金で解決できるというものではない。 It's not always possible to resolve any problem with money.\n\nNow I somewhat agree with your second manual, in that it brings some emphasis.\nBut not to the statement preceding 〜というものではない, it would be to the whole\nsentence. It would be interesting if this (second) manual included some\nexamples...", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-08T16:29:37.567", "id": "12512", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-08T16:29:37.567", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3804", "parent_id": "12510", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "I don't think 自己修養 is wrong, but just 修養 by itself has a meaning of improving\nyourself, usually with the implication of improving knowledge, building\ncharacter. There are books with titles like 「武士道と修養」、 「禅と修養」、 「修養としての茶の湯」,\netc.\n\n精神修養 would work if the purpose of \"self cultivation\" is\nmental/moral/spiritual.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-10T13:03:46.480", "id": "12521", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-10T13:03:46.480", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "12513", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I searched for 自己修養 at rakuten.co.jp. The books it brought up were generally\nabout self-discipline, inner peace, and leadership ability. If that's what\nyou're covering, you should be able to use this word with no confusion. I\nwould reccomend getting the book you linked to in the question and see if\nthere is a word that that author uses.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-10T20:16:54.227", "id": "12522", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-10T20:16:54.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3800", "parent_id": "12513", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This is just a case of `は` acting as emphasis. The `と` is used with `違う` to\nsay that something is different than something else\n\n> AはBと違う → A is different than/from B\n\nAdding the `は` is placing the focus on the relationship (`彼` and `昔の彼`), not\nthe analysis of the relationship (`違う`).\n\n> * 彼は昔の彼と違う → He is different than his former self (neutral statement)\n> * 彼は昔の彼とは違う → As for him and his former self, they differ\n>\n\nFundamentally, they mean the same thing. The difference is the focus. Don't\nknow if I'm explaining that well. Take a look at this related question. It\ndoes a good job explaining in-depth how adding `は` to another particle affects\nthe meaning.\n\n[What is the difference between “に” and\n“には”?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1096/78)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-09T15:41:40.323", "id": "12515", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-09T15:41:40.323", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.207", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12514", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "There are sometimes more than one acceptable stroke order. The Japanese\nwikipedia article on [stroke\norder](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AD%86%E9%A0%86) mentions that there is\nnot always a single correct stroke order - some kanji have two or more which\nare commonly used, and also sometimes the stroke order changes when writing\n行書{ぎょうしょ}. In 1958, the Ministry of Education in Japan published a document\nwhich showed stroke orders for the then 881 kanji on the 'education' list:\n\n>\n> 本書に取りあげた筆順は、学習指導上の観点から、一つの文字については一つの形に統一されているが、このことは本書に掲げられた以外の筆順で、従来行われてきたものを誤りとするものではない。\n\nThat is, one stroke order per character was given for teaching, but that did\nnot mean that stroke orders which had been used in the past should be\nconsidered incorrect.\n\nFor 踵 specifically, I don't think there is an 'official' determination in\nJapan on how it should be written, although I agree it would be normal to\nfollow the stroke order for 重.\n\nIt may be that some of the stroke orders on that site are taken from Chinese\nsources, where there are official guidelines for more characters. For example,\n[here](http://stroke-\norder.learningweb.moe.edu.tw/characterQueryResult.do?word=%E8%B8%B5) is an\nofficial Taiwanese source (Ministry of Education) which uses the same one as\nyou link.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-10T12:04:51.347", "id": "12520", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-10T12:04:51.347", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "12516", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "検索 is typically used when searching, or looking up in, or retrieving from some\nkind of data store, which these days more often than not is a computer\ndatabase or of course the Internet. Translating it as \"search\" is almost never\nwrong (although in a database context it could be \"query\"). In the example you\ngive, depending on the level of colloquiality you're shooting for, I'd go with\nsomething like \"Could I ask you to do a web search?\"\n\n探す is of course a much more general term. As a rule of thumb, when searching\non the net, 検索 would tend to be used to refer to a single search possibly with\nparticular keywords, whereas 探す in that context (when not being used to mean\n\"find\") would more often indicate a whole process of searching multiple sites\nand keywords.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-10T03:28:04.133", "id": "12518", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-10T03:28:04.133", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12517", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "利用 is a very general way of saying 'to use something', and often the purpose\nis to benefit the user. For example, you can say 「あの会社のサービスを利用する」 (use the\nservices provided by that company), which implies that you use the services\nfor benefits. You can also say 「彼は私を利用して妻を騙した」, which means he tricked his\nwife indirectly, 'using' me. So 利用 can be used to replace 'use others for\none's own ends' in English.\n\n活用 is pretty much the same with 利用 but 活用 means to use something more\neffectively in order to achieve one's goal. You can say 「通訳は私の日本語を活用できる仕事だ」 (I\ncan use my Japanese if I become an interpreter), which emphasizes that you can\nfully use and practically use Japanese in order to perform the best during\nyour work (as an interpreter).\n\nAn interesting combination of the two words is 利活用, which is mostly used by\ngovernment officers.\n\n使用 is probably the most directly way of saying 'to use'. It doesn't often\nconvey other meanings than 'to use something'.\n\n用いる is the same as 使う but it emphasizes that, compared to other choices, the\nuser prefers one choice the most and decides to use it. 「この方法を用いて計算しよう」 (Let's\nuse this method to figure it out) emphasizes that they don't pick other ways\nto figure out the problem, but they took one method which they are\nparticularly in favor of.\n\nHope this helps!", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-15T07:17:13.353", "id": "12544", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-15T07:17:13.353", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3110", "parent_id": "12519", "post_type": "answer", "score": 22 }, { "body": "I could be wrong, as my Japanese was 90% self-taught (in 三重県), but...\n\nMy understanding is that 「使用」 is usually for using something physical\n(especially a consumable or something that experiences wear) and 「利用」 is for\nsomething intangible (like a service or someone else's knowledge) especially\nto one's (possibly ズルい) advantage. Further, 「活用」has always felt to me like it\nis closer to \"apply\" (such as a skill or one's own knowledge) than to \"use.\"\n※In that regard, \"use...effectively...to achieve one's goal\" in Greek Fellows'\nabove answer seems spot-on.\n\nAgain, this is to the best of my knowledge, based on observation and \"trial-\nand-error,\" because any time I ask my wife about subtle nuances in Japanese,\nshe says \"ほんなもん解らん！やで、私に聞かんと辞書を引けよ！\" (of course, anyone searching/posting on\nthis page already knows how fruitless using the dictionary can be, though...)\nThat said, we should all be really grateful forums like this exist!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2017-09-08T18:59:58.453", "id": "53139", "last_activity_date": "2017-09-08T18:59:58.453", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "25737", "parent_id": "12519", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "From context (such as ブチブチと **文句を** 言って), it looks like `ブチブチ` has the same\nmeaning as `ブツブツ`, which is onomatopoeia that corresponds fairly well to\n_grumble, grumble_ , as when dissatisfied or complaining. See [sense five for\nブツブツ in the Progressive\nJ-E](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&stype=0&dtype=3&p=%E3%81%B6%E3%81%A4%E3%81%B6%E3%81%A4)\nfor examples, or look up `ブツブツ` in your favorite dictionary.\n\nI also found [Google\nresults](https://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&output=search&sclient=psy-\nab&q=%E3%83%96%E3%83%84%E3%83%96%E3%83%84%E3%80%80%E3%83%96%E3%83%81%E3%83%96%E3%83%81&=&=&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1)\nwith `ブツブツ` and `ブチブチ` together, which seems to confirm that they're\nvariations on the same thing.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-11T00:56:49.007", "id": "12526", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-11T00:56:49.007", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12523", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I don't think that ブチブチ is a variation on ブツブツ, but rather a softening of\nプチプチ. プチプチ is a crackling noise. Softening it to ブチブチ suggests a more\nannoying, thick type of complaint in this case, which may contain more\ninformation/emotion than one would like. A complaint that is プチプチ could be\nignored as background noise, but a ブチブチ complaint suggests that the person is\nlaying it on thick and is truly annoying. Of course, describing a complaint\nwith ブチブチ is derogatory in the sense that speech is described as an annoying\nsound, rather than words.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-11T14:43:09.283", "id": "12530", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-11T14:43:09.283", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "12523", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Buchi is a old showa slang for actions like running away without saying a\nword, being careless or just not giving a damn fuck? also could be interpreted\nlike sleeping on the switch, when someone sleep in the classroom, ignore a\nphone call or skive to work.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2018-07-17T03:15:29.527", "id": "60173", "last_activity_date": "2018-07-17T03:15:29.527", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "30650", "parent_id": "12523", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "It's a contraction of `答えれば`. More generally, `eba` contracts to `ya`:\n\n```\n\n kotaer **eba** → kotaer **ya**　　（答え **れば**　→　答え **りゃ** ） \n ok **eba** → ok **ya**　　　（お **けば**　→　　お **きゃ** ） \n i **eba** → i **ya**　　　（言 **えば**　→　　　言 **や** ） \n naker **eba** → naker **ya**　　（なけ **れば**　→　なけ **りゃ** ）\n```\n\n(As you can see, the pattern is easier to see and describe when romanized.)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-11T00:49:10.393", "id": "12525", "last_activity_date": "2015-07-09T18:36:50.640", "last_edit_date": "2015-07-09T18:36:50.640", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12524", "post_type": "answer", "score": 33 } ]

[ { "body": "As you correctly pointed out, many 一段 verbs have an older 四段 version. Many are\nformed by combining them with 在る, and 得(う)る, and 為(す)る, whose classical\nsentence-ending (\"dictionary\" or 終止形) form is only す.\n\n[This book, available online, explains it very\nwell.](http://archive.org/details/historicalgramma00sansuoft) (Unless you are\na professional linguists, the book does a good job at making sense of and\nshedding light upon, as the title suggests, the history and development of the\nJapanese language. And it's free.) See pages 199-201, as well as those pages\nmentioned below. The following is a short summary.\n\nYou should know about bases (eg 未然形, see page 90), as well as about\n四段・二段・一段活用(page 129) verbs.\n\nThere are three categories how (in)transitive verbs are derived:\n\n(a) original intransitive verb --> transitive form\n\n立つ→立つる (which has become たてる)\n\n進む→進むる (which has become すすめる)\n\n(b) original transitive verb --> intransitive form\n\n溶く→溶くる (溶ける)\n\n砕く→砕くる (砕ける)\n\n(c) original and often archaic verb (possibly both trans. and intrans.) -->\ntransitive and intransitive verb\n\n出(い)づ → 出だす(trans.) and 出づる(intrans.)(now 出(い)でる)\n\n定(さだ)む → 定むる(trans.)(now 定める) and 定まる(intrans.)\n\nAs you can see, the sound ~uru to -eru was very common, and it may have been\ninfluenced by the abolition of 二段 verbs. Formerly, you would talk about\n子食ぶ(the child eats) and 食ぶる子(eating child), but 食べぬ子(child which does not\neat). People stopped changing the vowel accordingly and picked one vowel for\nall bases.\n\nWhile this processes is about transitivity, it explains how some older verbs\nhave turned into their modern form. 食ぶ→食べる, 落つ→落ちる, 得(う)る→得(え)る, 飢(う)う→飢える.\n\n(However, see page 151 and following of above mentioned book about the origin\nof the different types of conjugation, where the author speculates all 二段 and\n一段 verbs were obtained via agglutination, eg by adding verbs.)\n\nIn fact, the original conjugation of 得(う) was 終止=う, 連体=うる, 連用=え, and when a\nword such as 進むる consists of 進む+得る, it is easy to see how it could have become\n進める.\n\nThe two examples from (c) make the derivation particularly clear:\n\n出だす is いづ+す. Note this is the same way how causative verbs are formed. (For\nexample, the causative in classical Japanese of 読む is 読ます, whose 連体形 is 読まする,\nnow changed to 進める.) So 出だす is lit. \"make come out\", ie \"to put out\". See\npages 164-173 of the above mentioned book for more details on causative verbs.\n\n定まる is 定む+在る, lit. \"be decided\", and thus intransitive. You could draw a\nparallel with the modern construction 書く→書いてある (\"be written\").\n\n定むる is 定む+得る. Note how this is similar to the classical passive/potential\nform. (For example, the passive of 読む would be 読まる, 連用形=読むるる, now changed to\n読まれる, which may contain an additional 在る, yomu+aru+uru to account for the\na-vowel.) See pages 156 and the following of the above mentioned book for more\ninformation on passive/potential verbs.\n\nLiterally, 定むる would be \"get [to make] a decision\", and thus transitive. Note\nthat 得(う) can mean 身に受ける・身に付ける・手に入れる・自分の物にする as well as ~する事が出来る. (全訳国語辞典) You\ncould draw a parallel with potential verbs today, such as 読める, which is\n読む+得(え)る.\n\n* * *\n\nOn a side note, this compounding explains why you can often tell whether an\n-iru/-eru verb is 一段 or 五段. 送り仮名 tends to be used for the inflectional part\nthat changes. 一段 verbs contain more okurigana and syllables that don't change;\nsuch as さだむ, which is 定む, when we add ある, it becomes 定まる. Okurigana 五段 verbs\nare only the syllable which changes; such as 滑る being 五段, and 統べる being 一段\nderiving from 統ぶ. The same can be said for 食べる, where the べ-syllable was\noriginally part of the inflectional part of the 下二段 verb 食ぶ.\n\nThis ended up longer that I had expected. This question is a good example of\nwhere the answer to one questions raises several more.\n\n* * *\n\nReferring to a comment, and incorporating some information from a book I read\nafter I wrote this answer originally, a few more thoughts concerning the\ndisappearance of the bigrade conjugation and its etymology:\n\nWhen most bigrade verbs shifted to unigrade during the transition to Modern\nJapanese (1600-), the alternative vowel was already part of the system.\nBigrade verbs are found in Old Japanese already, and one inquire as ti their\netymology. See \"A history of the Japanese language\" by Frellesvig (Cambridge,\n2010, 1st ed.), page 99-101 and 391-392. In short, he suggest phonological\nchanges, in particular vowel and consonant deletion, so that ake- (to open)\nformed its conclusive (終止) (like 聞く = kik- + u) via akeu->aku, and\n起きる:okwi+u>okwu>oku. He then suggests that bigrade verbs form the adnominal\n(連体) and exclamatory(已然) with the conclusive(終止) as a base, so that\nakuru=aku+ru, okuru=oku+ru. Quadrigrades use the base: kak+ru=kaku (consonant\ndeletion), 已然形 analogous. When the 終止形 fell out of use, he argues, akuru and\nakure were not based upon this conclusive anymore, but derived from the stem\nakuru=aku+ru. Thus, change took place so that both the 連体 and 已然 were now\nderived from the basic stem ake- and oki- as well.\n\nThis does not necessitate speakers to have been aware that\nakuru<-aku+ru<-、ake+u, they might have simply noticed the resemblance\nakuru=aku+ru and akure=aku+re (ie the first \"<\"), which was not possible\nanymore once aku had come out of use. ake- still existed, and become a\nsubstitute. Incidentally, for some time both forms existed parallel to each\nother: fe -> furu/feru (経る)\n\nThese deletions are not hand tailored to fit this purpose, they occur in\nseveral unrelated words in Old Japanese as well, eg: wa+ga+ipye->wagapye\n(我が家), myesi+age->myesage (召し上げ), toko+ipa->tokipa (常盤), and interestingly,\nko+i->ki (き, 連用 of 来る) as well as inflectional forms such as\nkakite+ari->kakitari (書きたり), arazu+ari->arazari (非ざり)\n\nSee page 39 of Frellesvig.\n\n> One [vowel] is elided. The second vowel is only elided when a monosyllabic\n> morpheme is followed by a vowel initial polysyllabic morpheme, elsewhere the\n> first vowel is elided.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-11T18:53:11.647", "id": "12533", "last_activity_date": "2013-09-18T23:01:40.067", "last_edit_date": "2013-09-18T23:01:40.067", "last_editor_user_id": "3275", "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12527", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 } ]

[ { "body": "Use the て form.\n\n待ってくれてありがとう。\n\nカーペットを汚してすまない。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-11T16:11:46.570", "id": "12531", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-11T16:11:46.570", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1065", "parent_id": "12529", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Informally, it's usually, ～てくれてありがとう and ～てごめん(なさい).\n\n> サッカー(の[試合]{しあい})の[後]{あと}で待っていてくれてありがとう。 \n> [絨毯]{じゅうたん}を[汚]{よご}してごめんなさい。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-11T16:14:11.663", "id": "12532", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-11T19:37:36.127", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-11T19:37:36.127", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "12529", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "There are a [few places](http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~QM4H-IIM/ktb_fr_a.htm#ni)\nwhere にゃ is used in place of certain constructions, but is it possible that\nthese are just someone trying to be cute?\n\nThe first one is a contraction of the phrase だるまさんがころんだ, which is a children's\ngame similar to 'red light, green light.' Seems possible that using にゃ is just\ntrying to be childish/cute/catlike in its pronunciation.\n\nThe second one is a contraction of には, which also might not be directly\nrelated to dialects and simply a contraction based on speech. So while this\nisn't really _cute_ per se, it certainly could be, but otherwise it just\nstrikes me as a normal contraction.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-12T12:17:33.897", "id": "12535", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-13T07:25:36.183", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-13T07:25:36.183", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12534", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "Those are just two different definitions of `よく`.\n\n### よく\n\n> 〔うまく・好ましく〕 \n>\n>\n> * この作文はとてもよく書けている → This composition is very good [well written]. \n>\n> * 今日は大分気分がよくなりました → I feel much better today. \n>\n> * 事態は一向によくならない → The situation has not improved at all. \n> \n> 〔しばしば〕 \n>\n> * 彼はよく怒る → He often gets angry. \n>\n> * よくあるケースだ → It's the kind of thing that happens every day. / That's\n> (fairly) common. \n>\n> * 僕が子供のとき，母はよく本を読んでくれた → When I was a child, my mother used to often read\n> me books. \n>\n> * 近ごろこの辺りはよく放火がある → There have been many cases of arson around here\n> recently.\n>\n\nOf course without any context, it's not possible to know exactly which meaning\nis implied. From your examples, I immediately jump to the \"often\" definition.\nIf you wanted to avoid confusion for just the neutral statement, you would\nprobably change the first example to use `うまく` or `上手に` instead of `よく`. But\nif you're in the middle of a conversation, the context is going to likely\nafford you the correct definition.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-12T14:27:53.977", "id": "12537", "last_activity_date": "2013-09-23T23:34:08.067", "last_edit_date": "2013-09-23T23:34:08.067", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12536", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Of course, context gives it away, but I think that \"speaking well\" and\n\"talking a lot\" would usually be distinguished as\n\n> 彼はよくしゃべ **れ** る。 He **can** talk well. = He is a good speaker. \n> 彼はよくしゃべる。 He talks a lot.\n\nOf course the first can also mean \"He can talk a lot\", but, at least for mem\nthe second is almost unambiguous.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-09-23T23:17:09.303", "id": "12914", "last_activity_date": "2013-09-23T23:17:09.303", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "12536", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "In Modern Japanese, the _dictionary form_ of a verb is a single surface form,\nbut it represents the evolution of two historical forms, the 終止形 and 連体形.\nAlthough it's often convenient to treat these as a single form, I think it's\nstill useful to make the distinction sometimes, and this may be one of those\ntimes.\n\nIn Classical Japanese, the 連体形 was able to function as a noun. In fact, that's\nhow we ended up with the particle `が` marking a subject; it was originally the\ngenitive `が` (meaning `の`) still seen in `我が` and names like `青木ヶ原`, and it\nlinked the subject (a noun) with the _nominalized form of the verb_ (the 連体形,\nanother noun!). That's also how we got the sentence-final `が` meaning \"but\";\nit was able to attach after a verb because that verb was nominalized!\n\nIn Modern Japanese, the 終止形 was lost, but the function remains, so we say that\nthe 終止形 has the same form as the 連体形. (With the exception of だ, of course.)\nPerhaps because of this change, the 連体形 of a verb doesn't generally function\nas a nominalized form, so an overt nominalizer such as `の` or `こと` is usually\ninserted. And just as the function of the 連体形 has been reanalyzed, so have the\nroles of the particle `の` and `が`.\n\nHowever, in this case, it seems that `目指す` is functioning as a noun, even\nthough the dialogue is clearly Modern Japanese! And since this kind of\nconstruction is accepted in modern published sources, I think we can conclude\nthat using `目指す` here as a noun must be grammatical. So either this form is\nable to function as a noun, _or_ there is a zero marker turning it into one.\nHere's how I'd sum up both analyses:\n\n 1. We can say that 目指す is not the 終止形 but the 連体形, and that this form can still function as a noun, _although it's not as common anymore_.\n 2. If we reject that the 連体形 can function directly as a noun in modern Japanese (or at all), then we can say there is a zero-nominalizer after the verb, similar to `の` but perhaps not equivalent. [Here is a question about zero nominalization in Japanese.](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/4489/zero-nominalisation-why-and-when)\n\nFor more details about the historical development of `が` and `の`, please see\nShibatani's _The Languages of Japan_ , pp.347-357.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-17T17:11:53.917", "id": "12572", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-17T17:11:53.917", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12538", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "I've summarized the following from a _Dictionary of Basic Grammar_ which seems\na little different from what you state. (Note that I'm not a native speaker.)\n\nThe time span in the clause before 間 and the main clause is the same, whereas\nthe time span in the clause before 間に is wider than the time span of the main\nclause.\n\nFor example:\n\n> 山田さんが巴里｛パリ｝に留学している間にお母さんが病気になった。\n\nThe period in which she became sick is a portion of the time when Yamada was\nstudying in Paris. If 間に is replaced by 間 then the sentence becomes\nungrammatical according to _A Dictionary of Basic Grammar_.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-15T00:48:13.717", "id": "12543", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-04T18:58:23.960", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-04T18:58:23.960", "last_editor_user_id": "4216", "owner_user_id": "249", "parent_id": "12539", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "It is very simple:\n\nA 間 B\n\nmeans;\n\nAll the time that A took place B was also happening. (I read my book while it\nwas raining)\n\nA 間に B\n\nmeans;\n\nWhile A took place B happend. The nuance to appreciate is that B is an event\nthat occurred (started & finished) at some point during the period A took\nplace. It did not go on all the time. (While it was raining the post was\ndelivered.)\n\nThe nuance is very similar to the difference between まで and までに\n\nA まで B\n\nmeans;\n\nUntil A happens, B will continue, constantly (I was watching television until\nfather came home)\n\nA までに B\n\nmeans;\n\nBy the time A happens B will have occurred (started and finished, during the\nperiod defined by A まで; it could happend at any point but did not happen\nconstantly. (I will finish my work by 5 o'clock. ie at some unspecified point\nduring the period to 5'oclock)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-15T14:02:14.850", "id": "12548", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-17T01:05:01.717", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-17T01:05:01.717", "last_editor_user_id": "1556", "owner_user_id": "1556", "parent_id": "12539", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 } ]

[ { "body": "It's はかくね. See [here](http://onno.jp/lab/kanji?KID=79459), but the following\nlinks can lend some extra evidence.\n\n<http://yomikatawa.com/%E7%A0%B4%E6%A0%BC%E5%80%A4> \n<http://reader.bz/%E7%A0%B4%E6%A0%BC%E5%80%A4> \n[https://www.google.com/search?q=はかくね](https://www.google.com/search?q=%E3%81%AF%E3%81%8B%E3%81%8F%E3%81%AD)\n(note the 'showing results for')", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-14T14:25:38.987", "id": "12541", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-14T18:34:26.163", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-14T18:34:26.163", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "As @ssb demonstrated, `はかくね` is a word and *`はかくち` is not, so `破格値` can only\nrepresent the former. But _why_ is it `ね`? Let's take a closer look!\n\n`破格{はかく}` is a Sino-Japanese word (or 漢語{かんご}), and for this reason it uses\n音読{おんよ}み. Since many 漢語 come from Chinese, they generally reflect Chinese word\norder rather than Japanese; the same thing is true of 漢語 which were coined in\nJapanese, with few exceptions.\n\nIn this case, `破格` is a _Verb-Object_ compound, a single word with the verbal\nmorpheme first. Since verbs come last in Japanese, to put this into Japanese\nword order we'd need to turn it around (and mark the object): we get `格を破る`\n(meaning 通例、常識を破る). In contrast, *`格値` is not a word and there is no such\nrelationship between `格` and `値`. Therefore, when we break down this compound,\nwe break it down like this:\n\n```\n\n 　　[ 破格 ] 値\n \n```\n\nIn general, large compounds can be broken down into one- and two-kanji pieces\nin this manner. In this case, the compound as a whole does not form a single\n漢語, so your assumption doesn't hold--we don't _need_ to use the _on'yomi_ for\n`値`. Compare the following words, where I've put the _on'yomi_ in katakana:\n\n```\n\n 　　言い値　　　　　いい **ね**　　　　　　訓-訓\n 　　返り値　　　　　かえり **チ**　　　　　訓-音\n 　　新値　　　　　　シン **ね**　　　　　　音-訓\n 　　数値　　　　　　スウ **チ**　　　　　　音-音\n 　　破格値　　　　　ハカク **ね**　　　　　[ 音-音 ] 訓\n 　　期待値　　　　　キタイ **チ**　　　　　[ 音-音 ] 音\n \n```\n\nAs you can see, you can't predict how to read `値` simply by whether the\nprevious character or compound has an _on_ reading or not. That's not to say\nthere aren't patterns, but you need to understand the reasoning behind them to\napply them. And after all, there are plenty of mixed compounds in Japanese! So\nhow do we decide between `ち`, `ね`, or for that matter `あたい`?\n\n**The truth is that these are all different words** , and we can observe\nrelatively consistent distinctions in their usage and meaning. Their meanings\nare close and sometimes even overlapping, which means we can't always\ndetermine with certainty which is correct, and in some contexts more than one\nreading might be appropriate. However, most of the time we can figure it out.\nThere are syntactic considerations (e.g., `あたい` doesn't generally form\ncompounds) and semantic considerations-- **which word has the most appropriate\nmeaning?**\n\nLet's simplify a little here and give a pair of customary translations:\n\n```\n\n 　　ち　Value\n 　　ね　Price\n \n```\n\nCompare the following words:\n\n```\n\n 　　安値　　　やすね　　　Low **price**\n 　　高値　　　たかね　　　High **price**\n 　　卸値　　　おろしね　　Wholesale **price**\n 　　終値　　　おわりね　　Closing **price**\n 　　半値　　　ハンね　　　Half **price**\n 　　言い値　　いいね　　　Asking **price**\n 　　破格値　　ハカクね　　Absurdly [low] **price**\n```\n\nAll of these are about the price or cost of some object or commodity, and they\nall use `ね`, meaning roughly 値段. Contrast with the following words ending in\n`ち`:\n\n```\n\n 　　価値　　　カチ　　　　　**Value**\n 　　数値　　　スウチ　　　　Numerical **value**\n 　　同値　　　ドウチ　　　　Equivalent (\"equal **value** \")\n 　　経験値　　ケイケンチ　　Experience points [in a video game] (\"EXP **value** \")\n```\n\nIn each of these words, 値 is used to write `ち`, meaning roughly 値打.\n\nKnowing this difference, we can decide `破格` + `値` is probably `はかくね`, since\nthe focus is on the actual _cost or price_ of the item in question.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-14T22:04:02.683", "id": "12542", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-15T00:12:30.873", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-15T00:12:30.873", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12540", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "`+`: 足{た}す \n`-`: 引{ひ}く \n`/`: 割{わ}る \n`*`: 掛{か}ける\n\nAnd you just say the terms normally in order. So your example of `3 * 4 = 12`\nwould be ３かける４は１２. Note that = becomes は, similar to how we use \"is\" in\nEnglish. As @blutorange mentioned, you can use イコール to mean \"equals,\" however\nin most situations you'll be good using は.\n\nYou learn these things quickly when listening to students recite their 九九{くく}.\n\nFor some bonus terminology, you can refer to exponents by using #乗{じょう}, so\nlike ２の二乗は４ or ２の３乗は８. Similarly you can refer to roots with #乗根{じょうこん}\n(although as @jovanni points out it's normal to use 平方根{へいほうこん} for square\nroots).", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-15T08:29:13.993", "id": "12546", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-21T07:22:38.600", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-21T07:22:38.600", "last_editor_user_id": "1797", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12545", "post_type": "answer", "score": 25 }, { "body": "You can read the arithmetic operators as follows:\n\n```\n\n 　　　+　　　たす　　　　（足す）\n 　　　-　　　ひく　　　　（引く）\n 　　　×　　　かける　　　（掛ける）\n 　　　÷　　　わる　　　　（割る）\n \n```\n\nIn place of the equals sign, you'd most likely use a particle such as `は`,\nmuch as we might say \"three times four **_is_** twelve\" in English to make a\ncomplete sentence out of it. Your example looks like this:\n\n```\n\n 　　３　　　×　　　４　＝　１２\n 　　さん、かける、よんは、じゅうに\n \n```", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-15T08:29:18.320", "id": "12547", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-15T08:29:18.320", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12545", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "I would like to offer one more alternative, that of using になります at the end of\nthis sentence. This is more formal and less common than just leaving it out.\n\n> 3 × 4 = 12\n>\n> さんかけるよんはじゅうにになります。", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-21T14:39:40.667", "id": "12607", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-21T14:39:40.667", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "706", "parent_id": "12545", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "There is no relation here. It is simply `何機も` followed by the form `〜（よ）うとする`.\nThe `何機も` corresponds to the combat planes because planes are counted with\n`機`. The `何 + counter + も` pattern just means \"several\" or an undetermined\namount of that thing. For example\n\n> * 食堂に生徒が何人もいます → There are several / There are a number of students in the\n> cafeteria.\n>\n\nSo your first translation is correct. \"They will try/intend to purchase\nseveral combat planes next.\" (+ `こと` to answer the question).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-15T20:45:40.860", "id": "12550", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-15T20:45:40.860", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12549", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "It's not as apparent in [ 食堂に生徒が何人もいます ] but\n\nin [ 次期主力戦闘機を何機も買おうとしていること ]\n\nthe implication is (as you said) that they're buying a lot of next-generation\nfighters -- the suggestion of \"too many\" or \"many\". \n \n\nThe \"too many\" sense is clear in the follwoing examples.\n\n * そんなに何度も何度も 言わないで分かってるから 無残にも悲しい顔を ひとつすることもなくて 溶けて消えてゆく 染まって色づいてく綺麗な言葉ほど歪んでいて「もうほっといて ...\n\n> 夜､何度もトイレに起きる男は早死にする!? 東洋経済オンライン-2016/08/30\n>\n> 夜間、何度もトイレに起きる男性が多いようですね。\n> 統計によると日本人男性の場合、50歳以上になると、夜中に1回以上トイレに起きる人が半分以上を占めるとされます。さらに70歳以上では、1回以上トイレに起きる人が大半を占めるそうです\n> ...", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-09-12T22:15:43.753", "id": "39155", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-12T22:21:00.860", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "16344", "parent_id": "12549", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I think the answer is \"yes, it's possible...but you'd be inventing a whole\nother language.\" To be able to describe modern concepts in an old language,\nyou'd still have to invent new words, and if you restrict yourself to only\nusing 和語、it's not going to be comprehensible to Japanese people.\n\nSuch an experiment is happening right across the sea, in Korea. While South\nKorea has occasional use of Hanja (that is, Kanji) and _beaucoup_ loanwords,\nNorth Korea has taken a firm stance forbidding Hanja, and discouraging usage\nof loanwords.\n\nAs [quoted here](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/30/world/asia/30iht-\ndialect.2639260.html): \"South Koreans puzzle over what North Koreans mean by a\n\"vehicle that goes straight up after takeoff,\" when the simple English word\n\"helicopter\" will do.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-22T17:49:42.233", "id": "12621", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-22T17:49:42.233", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "271", "parent_id": "12551", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "The 文語 translation of The Bible was made before WWII when written Japanese was\nundergoing a huge revolution.\n\n文語 is the written Japanese. Before Meiji, all written Japanese used a type of\nwritten Japanese called 文語体. 文語体 developed during 中古日本語, which was developed\nin Heian.\n\nAnd during Meiji there was a reform which suggested that written Japanese\nshould be the same as the oral one. This perfectly explains why the 文語 version\nof the Bible is so different compared with the modern ones.\n\nAt that time, Japan also had a 'diglossia'.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-16T01:00:38.210", "id": "12553", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-16T01:00:38.210", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3110", "parent_id": "12552", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Meiji-yaku is influenced from chinese bible(聖經).\n\n<http://xybk.fuyin.tv/bible/NCV/b5/>\n\n> 創造天地萬物 1 起初， 神創造天地。 2 地是空虛混沌；深淵上一片黑暗； 神的靈運行在水面上。 3 神說：“要有光！”就有了光。 4\n> 神看光是好的，他就把光暗分開了。\n\nMany kanji notations are same as that of chinese version, but the reading are\nthat of japanese. here becomes the deviations between the representations\n(kanji) and the readings.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-17T00:15:14.457", "id": "12562", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-17T00:15:14.457", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3847", "parent_id": "12552", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "This is one of the neat things about Japanese, and actually can shed some\nlight on [音]{おん}[読]{よ}み・[訓]{くん}[読]{よ}み.\n\nOne can think about the whole Japanese writing system as just using the 漢字\nthat have similar meaning for the Japanese word, and \"reading\" it as Chinese\nor Japanese.\n\nIt started out by being just literal Chinese ([漢文]{かんぶん}). Then, instead of\nreading it as Chinese, it was read as Japanese (i.e., 漢文[訓読]{くんどく} with\n[片]{かた}[仮名]{かな} markup). However, after a while, the verbs started being moved\nto the end (matching Japanese grammar), and then, there was a shift to using\nthe 漢字 for their \"sound\" instead of actual meaning (i.e., [和文]{わぶん}). Having\nto write so many strokes just for sound was cumbersome (i.e.,\n[萬葉]{まんよう}[仮名]{がな}); so, [平]{ひら}[仮名]{がな} was invented. It was difficult to\nunderstand text written only in 仮名 without the 漢字 to convey meaning; so, after\na while, both 漢字 and 仮名 were mixed together (i.e.,\n[和]{わ}[漢]{かん}[混淆]{こんこう}[文]{ぶん} and [仮名]{かな}[交]{ま}じり[文]{ぶん}).\n\nThat is a grossly over-simplified history of the Japanese writing system.\n\nSo, 漢字 and Japanese sounds have always been loosely coupled, which has allowed\nfor authors to pick-and-match 漢字 and reading.\n\nAn example of this is the word つくる—there are different 漢字 used to convey\ndifferent meanings/nuances.\n\n * 作る\n * 做る\n * 創る\n * 造る\n\nThe author(s) of your Bible decided to use 元始 for the meaning of \"はじめ\", and 創造\nas the meaning of \"つくる\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-24T11:39:18.493", "id": "12631", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-26T11:07:41.130", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-26T11:07:41.130", "last_editor_user_id": "3835", "owner_user_id": "3835", "parent_id": "12552", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Yes, they are. The conditional ば is just a voiced version of the particle は.\n[See page 273, on the\nbottom.](http://archive.org/stream/historicalgramma00sansuoft#page/160/mode/2up)\nSee also p.329.\n\nThe second seems to be a more recent coining, but it illustrates the\nprinciple:\n\n> 願【ねが】わくは\n>\n> 願わくば\n\n[Both are possible, and mean the\nsame.](http://keigo.livedoor.biz/lite/archives/946281.html)\n\nBy the way, 仮定形【かていけい】 is the modern term reflecting its current usage (only\nwith ば). Its historical name is 已然形【いぜんけい】 (\"Perfect\", as in finished),\nreflecting how it signified completion. You could say 「我【われ】、忘【わす】るれや」(have I\nforgotten?) or 「言【い】えど」(=言う けれど). See p.142 of the book linked above.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-16T12:37:51.230", "id": "12559", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-16T20:07:54.847", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12554", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "_On_ readings are usually divided into four categories:\n\n * [呉音](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go-on)（ごおん）\n * [漢音](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kan-on)（かんおん）\n * [唐音](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%8D-on)（とうおん）\n * [慣用読み](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E6%85%A3%E7%94%A8%E9%9F%B3)（かんようよみ）\n\nThe first three categories represent three broad periods of borrowing from\nChinese. The fourth category represents \"customary\" readings--generally\nvariations on readings from the above three categories which have nonetheless\nbeen accepted as part of the Japanese language. You can read more about these\ncategories on Wikipedia [in\nEnglish](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On%27yomi#On.27yomi_.28Sino-\nJapanese_reading.29) or [in\nJapanese](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AB%E3%81%8A%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97#.E9.9F.B3.E8.AA.AD.E3.81.BF).\n\n* * *\n\nSome kanji dictionaries written in Japanese (called 漢和辞典{かんわじてん}) show which\nreadings fall into which categories, but others do not; I don't know of _any_\nkanji dictionaries with English definitions that have this information.\nGenerally speaking, larger 漢和辞典 are more likely to mark readings this way. (In\naddition, larger 漢和辞典 are more likely to contain less common readings.)\n\nHere are a couple dictionaries which do mark readings this way:\n\n * 新漢語林（しんかんごりん） (published by 大修館書店)\n * 新選漢和辞典（しんせんかんわじてん） (published by 小学館)\n\nSome 国語辞典{こくごじてん} have entries for kanji too, and some of these indicate\n呉・漢・唐・慣用 as well. For example, [大辞泉](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/) is available\nfree online, and it has entries for some kanji, marked `[漢字項目]` in the\nYahoo!辞書 interface. For example, take a look at the entry for\n[清](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E6%B8%85&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=1&pagenum=1&index=20995600):\n\n> ［音］ **セイ** （漢） **ショウ** （シャウ）（呉） シン（唐） ［訓］ **きよい きよまる きよめる** すむ さやか すがやか\n\nSee [大辞泉の凡例](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/guide/jj/jj9.html) for more information.\n\nAnother online resource, [as blutorange points\nout](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/12555/is-there-any-\nreference-material-for-the-origins-of-kanji-on-yomi/12570#comment26919_12555),\nis Wiktionary. I'll reproduce the example links here, in case the comment is\never deleted: [行](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E8%A1%8C) and\n[御](http://ja.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BE%A1).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-17T16:21:30.540", "id": "12570", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-17T16:21:30.540", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12555", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "Formerly, ある could with persons or living beings as well.\n\n> 「昔、男ありけり」 (from 伊勢物語5; 全訳古語辞典 gives the meaning 昔、ある男がいたという).\n\nIt can even be used with persons today.\n\n> そうしないではいられない人がある。\n\n[A paper on ある vs. いる in (modern) Japanese, where I also took the above\nsentence\nfrom.](http://taweb.aichi-u.ac.jp/tgoken/bulletin/pdfs/NO22/03Yamamoto.indd.pdf)\n\n* * *\n\nThere have been many copulas throughout Japan's history, such as なり(に+あり),\nたり(と+あり) and で+ある as well as で+ございます. Note how they are all made up of\nparticle+ある and could be interpreted as \"to exist as\".\n\n(彼は)先生である, by established usage, means \"He is a teacher\", a native speaker\nwould not interpret it literally. Has a sentence with a copula such as \"A is\nB\" got a subject? The grammatical (or syntactical) subject is \"A\", of course,\nbut there is no real action going on here, and so there is no semantic\n(meaning-wise) subject.\n\nYou can of course talk about its etymology \"He exists as a teacher.\", and here\nhe is doing the existing, as a teacher.\n\nで居る, on the other hand, is not a standard copula, and is interpreted\nliterally.\n\n> 「笑顔で居ると幸せな気持ちになれる」 (lit. \"You will/can feel happy when you exist with a\n> smiling face\", ie \"Smile and you will feel happy.\")\n\nBefore I get to 先生でいる, the 広辞苑 gives this helpful insight on 居る:\n\n> 動くものが一つの場所に存在する意。現代語では動くと意識したものが存在する意で用い、意識しないものが存在する意の「ある」と使い分ける。\n\n[It once meant 座る, とまる or 住む as\nwell.](http://kobun.weblio.jp/content/%E5%B1%85%E3%82%8B)\n\n先生である focuses as something (or someone) being (defined as) a teacher. On the\nother hand,\n\n> 「元気な先生」でいるために、皆さんは…\n\nfocuses on acting as or like a teacher.\n\n* * *\n\nAs for 感じがする, it is again important to distinguish between syntactical and\nsemantic subject. It might prove to be of interest to inquire the etymology of\nthis idiom, what the people were originally thinking (about) when they said\nthis. I can imagine that, as a metaphor, they really ascribed an active role\nto their feelings, similar to English \"my emotions are over-whelming me.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-16T11:54:14.597", "id": "12558", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-16T12:11:38.723", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-16T12:11:38.723", "last_editor_user_id": "3275", "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12556", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Not 100% sure on this, but I think `つまり` is used more for rewording something,\nwhile `要するに` is more for \"summing up\" the \"preceding\" statements into a\n\"conclusion\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-16T20:22:09.887", "id": "12561", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-16T20:22:09.887", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12560", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "The two can be interchangeable but where as 要するに means \"To summarise\" or \"in\nshort\". つまり is usually taken to mean \"in other words\":\n\n> 大敗した。要するに 力の差があった。\n>\n> It was a big defeat. In short, there was big difference (in strength).\n>\n> 財布をなくした。つまり お金がない。\n>\n> I have lost my wallet. In other words, I have no money.\n\nThere is a similar word to つまり、すなわち which also means \"in other words\" but is\nnot interchangeable because it does not convey a a conclusion:\n\n> 母の兄、 すなわち おじさん。| My mother's elder brother. In other words my uncle.\n\nI explain this because (I think*) in the following sentence つまり is\ninterchangeable with either 要するに or すなわち, illustrating the nuance you are\nasking about.\n\n> 友人の仕事は危険で、汚くて、おまけに\n> きついらしい。ちなみにそういう仕事は俗に「３K」と呼ばれている。要するに「き」、すなわち「K」が３つつくというわけだ。\n>\n> I understand my friend's work is dangerous, dirty and hard. This kind of\n> work, incidently is commonly referred to as 3Ks work. In short the ３ \"ki\"s\n> or \"K\"s often come together.\n\n*I should be grateful for if others would confirm correct me on this.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-17T01:00:34.213", "id": "12563", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-17T01:00:34.213", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1556", "parent_id": "12560", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "It's 後で+も. The も serves to emphasize that it's speaking about after doing\nsports _in particular_ or especially. This is the same も that goes into the\nconstruction of the -(verb)てもいい pattern. Think of (noun)で as the -て form of a\nnoun (or adjectival).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-17T09:55:20.177", "id": "12567", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-17T09:55:20.177", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1575", "parent_id": "12564", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "でも not merely consists of で+も accidentally, it is a combination of で and も,\nand has then grown beyond the sum of its parts. Still, its meaning has not\nshifted completely, and so it should not be surprising that we can come across\nsome phrases where both interpretations work. (Also それでも, it can be analyzed\nboth ways.)\n\nNote that this is not the でも that can go sentence-initial, \"But...\".\n\n(Going slightly off-topic, it is my opinion that developing an understanding\nfor how words and different meanings of a word are related helps to develop a\nfeeling for the language.)\n\nPerhaps not under any circumstances whatsoever, but\n「スポーツをして汗をかいた後でも水分をとってはいけない」 is a pretty strong (negative) command, or\nintroducing a rule the student is expected to observe. でも is responsible for\n\"not even\", てはいけない for the commanding part.\n\nI am not certain whether asking if it is (by native speakers) analyzed as でも\nor で+も is a question that can answered objectively, but perhaps it might prove\nto be of interest to consider whether ~ででも is possible. If a speaker does not\nperceive the で in でも anymore, he might feel the need to insert the particle で\nagain.\n\nThis has happened with 他の, and you can see people saying 「他のの」. For example,\n[「また、物の成分本質（原材料）が薬事法上食品に使用可能なものであっても、他ののいずれかが医薬品的であれば製品を「医薬品」と判断します。」](http://www.fukushihoken.metro.tokyo.jp/kenkou/kenko_shokuhin/ken_syoku/kanshi/)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-17T10:02:30.907", "id": "12568", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-17T10:02:30.907", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12564", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Your teacher means 'Why did you know I like dogs?' `わかる` means different\nthings depending on context. Here it translates 'to know' as opposed to\n'understand'.\n\nAs a language, Japanese is heavily tied to context. There are often different\ntranslations of the same word to English depending on the context.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-17T09:45:23.407", "id": "12566", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-17T09:45:23.407", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3819", "parent_id": "12565", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "No, it is not a pun on 神隠し。\n\nAlthough, I've learned that the the word \"kami\" (as in 神、髪、上）all came from a\ncommon ancestry word meaning something that is higher, or more honerable. So\nthe words themselves are related in that sense.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-02-26T18:40:54.220", "id": "14631", "last_activity_date": "2014-02-26T18:40:54.220", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4770", "parent_id": "12569", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "A good source for slang or idioms is the Eijiro dictionary (英辞郎), which you\ncan look up online over at [Space ALC](http://eow.alc.co.jp/). (But you should\ncheck the results carefully.) Right now it offers three choices for \"guilty\npleasure\":\n\n * guilty little pleasure: `浅ましい小さな楽しみ`\n * _Guilty Pleasures_ (book title): `「罪深き愉しみ」`\n * seek comfort in the guilty pleasures: `やましい快楽の中に慰めを求める`.\n\nFrom these, `やましい快楽` feels the most fitting for me. `浅ましい` seems to be a bit\ntoo extreme for such an innocent thing as listening to music, and the book\ntitle feels too old-fashioned.\n\nSee also [this discussion](http://lang-8.com/97601/journals/502267).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-17T19:06:39.150", "id": "12574", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-17T19:06:39.150", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "12573", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "As Igor Skochinsky points out, there are some pre-existing translations of\nthis phrase.\n\nMany phrases, both idiomatic and otherwise, have been translated from one\nlanguage into another because the target language doesn't have a word or\nphrase that means the exact same thing. In Japanese, these words are sometimes\ncalled 訳語 or 翻訳語 ( _yakugo_ or _hon'yakugo_ , meaning \"translation words\").\n\nSometimes, if a translation word is used frequently enough, it becomes part of\nthe standard lexicon. For example, `彼女` was originally a translation intended\nto correspond to western pronouns such as _she_ ; it was read as the phrase\n`か(の)おんな`, where `かの` corresponds to modern `あの` \"that\". Over time, `おんな` was\nreplaced with `じょ` (the _on_ reading), and the resulting phrase was\nlexicalized as the single word `かのじょ`. And in today's Japanese, that word\nseems like a perfectly normal part of the language!\n\nNot all translation words (or phrases) integrate into the language as well as\n`彼女`, though. Sometimes there _is_ no customary translation that all speakers\nwill understand. In the case of _guilty pleasure_ , several loan translations\nhave been coined, and [Igor Skochinsky's\nanswer](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/12574/1478) helpfully points out\nthree choices listed on Space ALC. However, I'm not sure any of the choices\nwill be understood as conveying the exact same thing as the English phrase, at\nleast not by all speakers. Why do I think that? Well, take a look at some\nGoogle results:\n\n * [やましい快楽](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E3%82%84%E3%81%BE%E3%81%97%E3%81%84%E5%BF%AB%E6%A5%BD%22&safe=active&hl=ja&ei=sdgPUoWRJe2WiQfvtoDYBQ&start=90&sa=N) has only 51 hits, some of which are listing or discussing the meaning of the phrase. It can't be _that_ common.\n * [浅ましい小さな楽しみ](https://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22%E6%B5%85%E3%81%BE%E3%81%97%E3%81%84%E5%B0%8F%E3%81%95%E3%81%AA%E6%A5%BD%E3%81%97%E3%81%BF%22&=&=&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1) only has 5 hits, only one of which is actually _using_ the term.\n * [罪深き愉しみ](https://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22%E7%BD%AA%E6%B7%B1%E3%81%8D%E6%84%89%E3%81%97%E3%81%BF%22&=&=&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1) has more usage, but it's usually used as a book title rather than an idiom. It doesn't appear to be _terribly_ widespread, either.\n\n[Weblio EJJE](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/guilty+pleasure) lists a fourth\nchoice:\n\n * [やましい楽しみ](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E3%82%84%E3%81%BE%E3%81%97%E3%81%84%E6%A5%BD%E3%81%97%E3%81%BF%22&safe=active&hl=ja&ei=ItoPUrOyHKS8iAfMwoG4BA&start=90&sa=N) doesn't fare much better at only 59 results. I wasn't able to find much evidence that this term is in common use.\n\nDoes that mean you can't use any of these phrases? No, but I don't think the\nintended meaning is entirely compositional, so unless they're familiar with\nthe English idiom and they realize you're translating it, you might have to\n_explain what you mean_ after you say it.\n\nThankfully, besides giving a loan translation, [Weblio\nEJJE](http://ejje.weblio.jp/content/guilty+pleasure) also gives an\n_explanation_ :\n\n> 良くないとは分かっているのにやめられない楽しみ\n\nThat works pretty well, I think. Whether you want to use a loan translation\nlike one of the above or not is up to you, but my advice is be prepared to\n_explain_ it either way. That way you'll be understood even if the person\nyou're talking to doesn't quite understand the term you used.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-17T20:28:54.120", "id": "12575", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-17T20:35:20.133", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12573", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "`話になんない`=`話にならない`\n\nLiterally you could translate `話にならない` as \"won't become a story\". However, as\na phrase it generally has two meanings:\n\n 1. Not worth discussing; be beneath mention; out of the question; unthinkable.\n 2. Be pointless (waste of time) trying to discuss the matter with smb.\n\nSo, the quoted phrase could be translated more literally as \"Anyway, there's\nnothing to talk about unless you swing the bat\". Depending on the context,\n\"nothing can happen\" is not a bad equivalent.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-18T19:13:13.653", "id": "12579", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-18T19:13:13.653", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "12577", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "If we uncontract 振んなきゃ, we find that it's undergone these three contractions:\n\n```\n\n 　　振らなけ **れば**　　→　　振らなけ **りゃ**　　　　(eba → ya)\n 　　振らな **けりゃ**　　→　　振らな **きゃ**　　　　　(erya → ya)\n 　　振 **ら** なきゃ　　　→　　振 **ん** なきゃ　　　　　(/ran/ → /rn/ → /Nn/)\n```\n\nIn other words, the full form of 振んんなきゃ means \"If [you] don't swing [the\nbat]\". That's conditional, though, so something should come after it; and if\nnothing _does_ come after it, we can infer that the rest of the sentence has\nbeen deleted:\n\n> 振らなければ **ならない**\n\n...which is why なきゃ on its own can have that meaning. However, in this case\nyou _cannot_ infer that ならない has been deleted, because it follows as part of\nthe rest of the sentence. In this case, the consequence of not swinging is\n話になんない. Let's uncontract that, as well:\n\n```\n\n 　　話にな **ら** ない　　　→　　話にな **ん** ない　　　　　(/ran/ → /rn/ → /Nn/)\n```\n\nIn this case, 話 means \"a topic of discussion\" / \"something to talk about\"; see\n[sense 3 at 大辞泉](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E8%A9%B1). So the phrase 話にならない\nmeans \"[won't] become something to talk about\". See also [the entry for the\nphrase itself in\n大辞林](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E8%A9%B1%E3%81%AB%E3%81%AA%E3%82%89%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84),\nwhich says (among other things):\n\n> 話題にする価値もない\n\n...which I would translate as \"to have no value as a topic of discussion\".\n\nPut it all together:\n\n> とにかくさ、バット **を** 振 **ら** な **ければ** 話にな **ら** ない\n\nAs you can see, it doesn't _literally_ mean \"nothing can happen\". I would\ntranslate it somewhat literally as follows:\n\n> Anyway, if [you] don't swing the bat, it won't be worth talking about.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-18T19:50:06.883", "id": "12580", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-18T21:42:42.657", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-18T21:42:42.657", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12577", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Your question isn't entirely clear to me, but I'll try to break down the\nsentence for you:\n\n> 私は［［少し苦みのある］コーヒー］が好きです。 \n> I-TOP [[a little bitterness-OBJ have] coffee]-OBJ like-COP. \n> 'I like coffee which has a little bitterness.' (Literal) \n> 'I like slightly bitter coffee.'\n\nThe の in 苦みのある is actually a が which has undergone GA-NO conversion, which is\npossible since it's a relative clause.\n\nThere is no need for a の after ある because verbs can directly modify nouns.\n\nThere is no need for a の before が because ［少し苦みのある］コーヒー is a noun already.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-18T21:08:24.780", "id": "12582", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-18T21:08:24.780", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "12581", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "The `も` just adds emphasis. As you probably know, the `あく` in `あくまで` is the\nword `飽く`. This is an \"old\"/literary version of the word `飽きる` meaning \"get\ntired of\", \"be fed up with\", \"have enough of\", almost always with a negative\nconnotation. So `飽くまで` would be \"until one gets tired of\" or \"until you've had\nenough of\" -- or \"to the end/last\", \"persistently\", \"stubbornly\" as most\ndictionaries have it defined. So adding `も` would just make it \" ** _even_**\nto the end\" -- emphasis.\n\n> * あくまで抵抗する → Resist (it) to the end\n> * あくまでも抵抗する → Resist (it) to the _very_ end\n>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-21T15:40:25.377", "id": "12608", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-21T15:40:25.377", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12583", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "お電話差し上げる reduced an を but it's correct in a grammatical sense.\n\nTo keep it simple, 「差し上げる」 is the 謙譲語 of 「やる」.\n\nIn 「お電話を差し上げる」, 「差し上げる」 is the predicate, thus it is a polite way to say\n「お電話をやる」.\n\nIn 「お電話をして差し上げる」, 「する」 is the predicate, thus it's **_NOT POLITE AT ALL_**.\nThe sentence means 「電話をして」 + 「やる」. It's really bad to say 「してやる」.\n\n「お電話を差し上げる」 would imply that the person who's going to receive that call is\n**_expecting to get that call_**.\n\nSo I personally believe it's simpler, more direct and more polite to say\n「お電話致します」「お電話をさせていただきます」.\n\nHope this helps!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-19T11:04:52.347", "id": "12589", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-19T11:04:52.347", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3110", "parent_id": "12584", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "[差]{さ}し[上]{あ}げる is [謙譲語]{けんじょうご} for words like あげる and やる, as well as してあげる.\nBy itself it means _to give_ (with a sense of great respect), and as a\nsubsidiary verb ([補]{ほ}[助]{じょ}[動]{どう}[詞]{し}), it adds a great sense of respect\n(for the person receiving the action) to the verb it is helping.\n\n[致]{いた}す is basically 謙譲語 for する.\n\n`電話（を）する（いたす）` can be thought of as: \"to call\".\n\n`電話（を）してあげる（さしあげる）` can be thought of as: \"to give a call\".\n\nIn the sentence, the callee is telling the caller to expect a call back. This\ncreates a sense of \"waiting\"; so, instead of just \"calling\", the person will \"\n_give_ a call back\" (i.e., 電話をしてあげる). However, in business situations 謙譲語 is\npreferred on the phone. So, the frank-sounding `してあげる` becomes `差し上げる`.\n\nAs to `お電話（を）いたしてさしあげます`, converting back from 謙譲語 would yield `電話（を）してしてあげる`,\nwhich is blatantly incorrect.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-20T02:55:14.717", "id": "12592", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-20T03:27:45.550", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-20T03:27:45.550", "last_editor_user_id": "3835", "owner_user_id": "3835", "parent_id": "12584", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "According to [the Wikipedia article for 風立ちぬ\n(小説)](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A2%A8%E7%AB%8B%E3%81%A1%E3%81%AC_%28%E5%B0%8F%E8%AA%AC%29),\nthis 〜ぬ is not the negative ぬ, but the past/perfect auxiliary ぬ (過去・完了の助動詞)\nand means \"風が立った\", or \"the wind has risen\".\n\nHowever, dictionaries identify it as only a perfect marker (完了), not a past\ntense marker (過去). For example, take a look at\n[大辞泉](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/169020/m0u/%E3%81%AC/):\n\n> 動作・作用が完了または実現したことを表す。…た。…てしまう。…てしまった。\n\nThis dictionary also says that this ぬ attaches to the 連用形 (continuative stem),\nwhich is what we see here in the form of 立ち. The negative ぬ, in contrast,\n[attaches to the\n未然形](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/dsearch?enc=UTF-8&p=%E3%81%AC&dtype=0&dname=0na&stype=0&pagenum=1&index=14184600)\n(irrealis stem), just like the negative ない. The two forms look like this:\n\n> 立ちぬ - contains the perfect auxiliary ぬ \n> 立たぬ - contains the negative auxiliary ぬ\n\nWe can use this difference to tell the two apart.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-19T04:49:55.390", "id": "12586", "last_activity_date": "2014-01-16T22:10:32.717", "last_edit_date": "2014-01-16T22:10:32.717", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "796", "parent_id": "12585", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "The most commonly known ぬ is the helper verb of negation, similar to ない. It\nis, like ない, added to the [未然形]{みぜんけい}-base of a verb: [立]{た}たぬ=立たない=does not\nstand. However, in this case we have ぬ being added to 立ち, and there's a\ndifferent story behind it.\n\nNote how the English wikipedia entry for [風]{かぜ}[立]{た}ちぬ says \"The wind\nrises\", with no negative meaning to be found.\n\nWe need to go back to classical and old Japanese, and here we can find another\nぬ that is affirmative. It is related to つ. It follows the [連用形]{れんようけい}-base\nof a verb (also called masu-stem).\n\nWhat follows are some examples to illustrate this usage:\n\n> [我]{わ}が[恋]{こい}は[慰]{なぐさ}めかねつ(from the Manyoushuu) - my desire cannot be\n> appeased\n\nかねる means \"it is hard to do ~\", and かねつ is more affirmative (and emphatic)\nform.\n\n> [鳴]{な}かざりし [鳥]{とり}も [来]{き}[鳴]{な}きぬ (Manyoushuu) - the bird which did not\n> sing have come and are singing\n\n鳴かざりし=鳴かなかった. Here you can see how ぬ is used with the [連体形]{れんたいけい}, and how\nits affirmative nature is contrasted with the negative 'did not sing'.\n\n> [名]{な} [乗]{の}らさね!(Manyoushuu) - Do tell me your name!\n\nHere you can clearly see the emphatic or affirmative nature of ぬ. ね is the\nimperative form of ぬ.\n\nFrom the above, it should not be hard to understand how 風立ちぬ translates to\n\"(the) wind rises\". The Japanese name sounds somewhat archaic or poetic.\n\n* * *\n\nTo get some more insight, both the negative ぬ as well as the affirmative ぬ can\nbe conjugated themselves, and here their differences show:\n\n> Negative ぬ\n>\n> [終止形]{しゅうしけい} ず\n>\n> [連体形]{れんたいけい} ぬ\n>\n> [連用形]{れんようけい} ず\n>\n> [未然形]{みぜんけい} - (none)\n>\n> [已然形]{いぜんけい} ね\n\nAnd\n\n> Affirmative ぬ\n>\n> 終止形 ぬ\n>\n> 連体形 ぬる\n>\n> 連用形 に\n>\n> 未然形 な\n>\n> 已然形 ぬれ\n>\n> [命令形]{めいれいけい} ね\n\nIt should be pointed out how the negative ぬ posseses a pretty irregular\nconjugation and seems to combine words of different origins (like am, are,\nis). On the other hand, affirmative ぬ mostly follows the [四段]{よだん}\nconjugational pattern. In this context, it is interesting that ぬ is a\nconjectured copula (=possible, but there is not enough evidence).\n\n[See this book](http://archive.org/details/historicalgramma00sansuoft) , pages\n234(conjectured copula), 179(affirmative ぬ), 174(affirmative つ),\n192(speculation concerning the history of the conjugation of negative ぬ).\n\nLet me end this with a quote from page 180:\n\n> There is just as good reason for supposing that we have in _nu_ and its\n> forms vestiges of an old verb 'to be'. The meanings of _nu_ in composition\n> tend to bear out this supposition. It is not primarily a tense suffix but\n> merely one which definitely asserts the performance of an act. [From these\n> examples, we see that] in (1) we have an imperative, in (2) a future, in (3)\n> and (4) a present tense. There can be no question of any time significance.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-19T05:43:15.580", "id": "12587", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-19T06:04:34.530", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12585", "post_type": "answer", "score": 30 } ]

[ { "body": "As far as I know, they are generally identical in meaning and function.\nHowever, adding という seems to add emphasis to the meaning of the preceding\nphrase. I do not believe there is any general rule separating the usage of the\ntwo. (As long as you're using の and こと properly, of course.)\n\nIt's hard to use Google to find sources to back this up (besides Yahoo\nAnswers, which isn't much of a source).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-22T03:52:36.830", "id": "12611", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-22T03:52:36.830", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3871", "parent_id": "12590", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "As @jovanni said: クソ literally means \"shit\" (feces), as well as being used as\nan interjection (\"Shit!\") in essentially the same way it's used in English.\n\nしまった is also an interjection but is not vulgar. It's also not as colloquial as\nクソ. It comes from the word しまう, which means \"to finish ...; to do ...\ncompletely\" (usually with a connotation of reluctance or regret). しまった could\nperhaps be taken to mean \"Now I've done it...\" (as an expression of regret).\n\nYour observation that しまった is more likely to be used when the speaker had some\ncontrol over the situation is almost certainly because しまう specifically has\nthat connotation of regret (though, well, you can certainly feel bad about\nsomething out of your control).", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-22T04:11:22.007", "id": "12613", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-22T04:11:22.007", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3871", "parent_id": "12591", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "Is there any difference in meaning between sentences (2) and (3)? => Not\nliterally/factually\n\nDoes including 'だけ' just add emphasis? => Yes - see on\n\nしか =＞ used when more is expected\n\nだけ ＝＞ does not have this nuance\n\neg\n\n> 一問しか間違えていなかった。\n>\n> There was only one mistake\n>\n> 一問だけ間違えていた。\n>\n> There was just one mistake\n\n=> だけしか ＝ no more than just....\n\n_Reference: A students' guide to Japanese Grammar by Naomi Hanaoka McGloin, p\n70-77 covers the difference between だけ＆しか._", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-20T14:25:29.347", "id": "12596", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-22T12:01:33.513", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-22T12:01:33.513", "last_editor_user_id": "1556", "owner_user_id": "1556", "parent_id": "12594", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "To the best of my knowledge there are none. Infixes are really pretty rare\ncrosslinguistically, so it's not that surprising. English's expletive ones are\npretty unusual even by English's standards, and as far as I know they're not\nparticularly productive (I can't think of too many words you're actually\nallowed to use them with).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-20T15:33:46.263", "id": "12598", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-20T15:33:46.263", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3639", "parent_id": "12595", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "The only one I can think of, if it can be called an infix, is [兼]{けん} as in:\n\n> [書斎兼応接間]{しょさいけんおうせつま} - a room used for both study and for receiving vistors\n\nor\n\n> [総理大臣兼外務大臣]{そうりだいじんけんがいむだいじん} - (be both) Prime Minister and Minister of\n> Foreign Affairs\n\nBut as it has been pointed out, prefixes and suffixes are much more common in\nJapanese.\n\nOne might ask whether の and つ count in phrases that have become one word, such\nas [おの-づ-から]{自ずから}, [あき-つ-かた]{秋津方}, [あき-つ-しま]{秋津島}, [つち-の-え]{戊}.\n\nOther than infixes (inside one morpheme), there are also interfixes (placed\nbetween morphemes), and this describes 兼, の and つ much better.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-20T16:07:16.157", "id": "12600", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-20T16:35:53.780", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-20T16:35:53.780", "last_editor_user_id": "3275", "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12595", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "What about っ (the \"little tsu\") and ん?\n\nFor example:\n\n * やはり → やっぱり・やっぱし\n * よほど → よっぽど\n * あまり → あんまり・あんまし\n * みな → みんな\n\nThese seem, to me at least, to be similar to English colloquialisms (e.g.,\nhizouse, saxomaphone).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-20T22:48:53.517", "id": "12602", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-20T23:16:55.027", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-20T23:16:55.027", "last_editor_user_id": "3835", "owner_user_id": "3835", "parent_id": "12595", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Not sure if it's quite the same thing linguistically, but you sometimes see\nなんか used with negative forms of adjectives or in て form + negative.\n\n> 欲しくない → 欲しくなんかない\n>\n> 待ってないんだから → 待ってなんかないんだから！", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-21T11:55:52.937", "id": "12605", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-21T11:55:52.937", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "12595", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "From Natsuko Tsujimura's _An Introduction to Japanese Linguistics_ , page 148:\n\n> Infixes are bound morphemes that are inserted in the middle of a word rather\n> than being placed before or after it. **Japanese does not have any examples\n> of infixes.** _(emphasis added)_", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-09-13T08:24:47.833", "id": "12801", "last_activity_date": "2013-09-13T08:24:47.833", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12595", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "1)\n\n伝わる can have the meaning \"to travel\" but I think it's easier to remember it as\nconvey. To pass information of emotion to another person.\n\nmailよりも気持ちが伝わるんです。\n\nLet's break this down.\n\nより means \"than\" or \"more than\". You seem to have missed this in your\ntranslation.\n\n気持ち means feelings\n\n伝わる means convey\n\nんです in this case, is giving a reason as to why she 手紙をたまに書きます。\n\nIn not so natural English, \"Emotions (feelings) are conveyed more in\nhandwritten letters than email.\"\n\n2)\n\nYes. 温かい can also be used in that way. However, there is another kanji: 暖かい.\nThis one can only be used for weather, etc. Not in the way \"warm heart\".\n\nIn the sentence you posted のほうが is showing comparison. We do this in English\nwith \"~er\" or \"more\". So here maybe a good translation would be: \"You could\nsay handwritten letters are warmer.\".\n\n3)\n\nでも in this sense is used as \"even\". You often see it used like this.\n\nコーヒーでもいかがですか？ How about a coffee or something?\n\nIt generally introduces a single option out of many others.\n\nIn your case, the option is \"after you finish work\" but of course, other times\nwould be fine too.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-20T15:38:45.950", "id": "12599", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-20T15:38:45.950", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "parent_id": "12597", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

[ { "body": "This is a stretch; but, could it just be due to the fact that the part\ntouching the ground looks like \"ひ\"?\n\n* * *\n\nBy the way, horses are sometimes called ひんこ in child-speak, and they say\n\"ひひ～ん\" :)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-20T23:13:57.920", "id": "12603", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-20T23:13:57.920", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3835", "parent_id": "12601", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Here's what 「漢字源」 has to say about it (selected parts):\n\n> 《意味》 \n> ①｛名｝ひづめ。牛や馬の、 **一つにくっついたつめ** 。[...] \n> 《解字》 \n> 会意兼形声。帝（テイ）は、三本のひもを―印で一つにまとめたさまで、締（まとめる）の源字。蹄は「足＋(音符)帝」で、つめが一つにまとまったひづめ。\n\nThe last part unfortunately only explains the `テイ` reading. So I can only\nsuggest that `ひ` comes from `一つ` (see bold text).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-20T23:59:23.183", "id": "12604", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-20T23:59:23.183", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3295", "parent_id": "12601", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "According to [Yamaguchi Masumi (2007)](http://books.google.ca/books?id=TfU_-\njVc15sC&pg=PA395) (I'm using a hard-copy), the ひ（ = 脚・四肢・足） originally\nreferred to the limbs/feet/legs of horses and sheep. It was then combined with\nつめ to form ひづめ, and then extended to mean the hooves of any mammalian\nquadruped.\n\nIt should be noted, however, that all this was original research done by\nYamaguchi, who apparently is not a historical linguist (so far as I can tell).\nSo although I'm happy to accept Yamaguchi's explanation, he doesn't cite any\nsources, which makes me a little skeptical.\n\nBut going through UVirginia's online library, I've found evidence of 爪（つま・つめ）\nbeing used to mean \"hoof\" as late as ~1360AD. Phrases like\n「馬の爪」、「鹿の爪」、「駒の爪」、and 「爪音」 are also attested prior to 1360, suggesting that\nthe word ひつめ/ひづめ must have appeared around or after this time as a combination\noriginating from つめ（爪）.\n\nIn conclusion, [蹄]{ひづめ} is (almost) definitely a concatenation of ひ-, which\n_may_ mean \"ungulate limb\", and -つめ 'claw/hoof'; and probably emerged in the\n13th or 14th centuries.\n\n* * *\n\nSome other facts you might find interesting:\n\n * Yamaguchi claims that the ひ in [膝]{ひざ} and [肘]{ひじ} also share this root with ひづめ, making them reflexes of the same cognate.\n * The word ひづめ（蹄） was conspicuously absent in all the other Japanese etymology dictionaries/books I looked through in my university's East Asian library.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-02-22T03:06:28.603", "id": "14569", "last_activity_date": "2014-02-22T03:06:28.603", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4229", "parent_id": "12601", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "These guidelines are much more difficult than ordinary self-help guidelines,\nperhaps even the highest level of difficulty. Think of the legend of St.\nGeorge and the dragon, or something like that.\n\nThis 鬼 is similar to the 心の鬼, in that it's a great challenge you recognize\nwithin your own heart.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-22T01:40:56.510", "id": "12610", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-22T01:40:56.510", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "583", "parent_id": "12609", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "鬼 referring to a person often means someone who is something like an 鬼\n(fierce, unrelenting, merciless, etc). It is also used as a prefix (鬼検事, for\nexample), but in this case I think you should take it as 鬼の十則, where he is\nusing 鬼 to describe himself/the sort of person you should become to succeed in\nbusiness.\n\n仕事の鬼 is a common phrase. Such a person may be very hard working, very good at\nwhat they do, but also very hard on their subordinates, ruthless when it comes\nto business competitors, etc. Judging by those rules, I would not be surprised\nif people had used this exact term to refer to 吉田.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-23T14:13:53.437", "id": "12627", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-23T14:13:53.437", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "12609", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "I agree with you that が sounds better in this case.\n\nI think what is going on here is some direct/indirect quote confusion, i.e. a\nmix of 「私は偉い」と思って and 自分が偉いと思って.\n\nDirect and indirect quotes are less syntactically distinguishable in Japanese\nthan, say, English, so I'm guessing that this sort of thing is more likely to\nhappen. As mentioned, I prefer the が too, but might not notice the は in\npassing.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-23T02:08:05.170", "id": "12623", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-23T02:08:05.170", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1073", "parent_id": "12612", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "When you are in a tram they will almost always say ドア. \nIn an elevator --> ドア / 扉 \nIn a bus --> ドア / 扉 \nFor a wardrobe / closet --> 扉 \nOr maybe 「未来への扉」\n\nThe difference may be that people pass through ドア but they don't pass through\n扉", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-22T05:41:15.333", "id": "12615", "last_activity_date": "2016-06-04T06:52:05.403", "last_edit_date": "2016-06-04T06:52:05.403", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "3110", "parent_id": "12614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "ドア is about equivalent to 戸, and (usually) has just one pane.\n\n扉 is (usually) two panes.\n\nBut, I think they can be used interchangeably.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-22T06:25:01.100", "id": "12617", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-22T06:25:01.100", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3835", "parent_id": "12614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I always think of 扉 as sliding doors (as also usual in trains and buses), and\nof ドア as a door with hinges (or some other more modern/Western construction,\nlike elevator doors).\n\nSee 類語例解辞典《小学館1994,2003》\n\n> ① 「扉」は、[蝶番]{ちょうつがい}などを軸に回転するようにして開閉する機構のものも左右に開閉するものもいう。\n\n(「扉」 is used for both doors with hinges and sliding doors)\n\n>\n> ③「ドア」、主に[蝶番]{ちょうつがい}で開閉する機構で洋風のものをいうが、「自動ドア」の場合は、左右に開閉する機構であるのが普通。又、「ドア」は、出入り口以外には使わない。\n\n(「ドア」: mainly for doors with hinges; except for automatic doors, here it is\ncommon for sliding doors as well; only used for entrances/exits)\n\nI suppose, when thinking of a western-style door, one associates it with ドア\nfirst, as it has got the more specific term ドア. Thus, 扉 is associated\n_especially_ with sliding doors, _in contrast to ドア_. But as a general term, 扉\nmay refer to other kinds of doors, as evidenced by the [広辞苑]{こうじえん} definition\n[開]{ひら}き[戸]{ど}の[戸]{と}, and 扉 comes from [戸片]{とひら}.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-22T23:33:15.747", "id": "12622", "last_activity_date": "2016-06-04T06:48:50.930", "last_edit_date": "2016-06-04T06:48:50.930", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "12614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Thinking longer about it, I am now more fond of the explanation that a 扉 opens\nfrom the middle (with two moving parts) and a ドア opens from one side only.\n\nExpressions like 心の扉, 夢の扉 and [a picture\nsearch](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1309&bih=633&q=%E6%89%89&oq=%E6%89%89&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i24l4j0i5i2j0i24l3.2838.3567.0.5314.7.7.0.0.0.2.413.1318.1j4j1j0j1.7.0....0...1ac..25.img..4.3.466.lNM3fVINB8s)\nseem to corroborate this hypothesis.\n\nThis also would explain why trains (with two doors sliding open from the\nmiddle) and buses (with two doors swinging out from the middle) use 扉, but a\nbus with a single sliding door might still use ドア.\n\nSliding doors in a 和室 have their own names anyway (襖, 障子).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-24T10:57:19.713", "id": "12630", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-24T10:57:19.713", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "12614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "[This page](http://lang-8.com/60427/journals/253062) had some interesting\ncomments, especially this one:\n\n> 扉は日本式の戸だと思います。 ドアは外来語なので、西洋式の戸だと思います。 戸（出入口や門に使う板などの総称）\n> 今はあまり使い分けがはっきりしてませんね。 日本人は無意識に使い分けていると思うので、違いを発見したらご報告しますね\n\nWhich would mean that 扉 was used for Japanese-style sliding doors, whilst ドア\nwas used for western-style hinged doors. But nowadays the distinction has\nbecome blurred, with people using the term they feel is appropriate or which\nthey are more used to.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-27T22:58:09.503", "id": "12651", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-27T22:58:09.503", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3494", "parent_id": "12614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I'm japanese. Most japanese don't consciously use these words properly in\ndaily coversation. And I don't, either.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-06-03T09:52:10.050", "id": "34616", "last_activity_date": "2016-06-03T09:52:10.050", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "14646", "parent_id": "12614", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "電車 【でんしゃ】 (densha) is an electric train, because 電 refers to electric.\n\n普通 【ふつう】 (futsuu) is a local train, one that stops at every station.\n\n特急 【とっきゅう】 (tokkyuu) is an express or limited stop train. These usually only\nstop at main stations to reduce the travel time. 急 refers to the speed such as\nrapid or fast.\n\n急行 【きゅうこう】 (kyuukou) is a high speed train, relatively speaking, in any area.\nRefers to the speed of the train, not necessarily the transit time. Rough\ninterpretation of the kanji would mean something like \"moves fast\".\n\nI doubt these types are specific to any country, to the extent such services\nare available.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-22T06:38:01.747", "id": "12618", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-22T07:20:24.247", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-22T07:20:24.247", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3169", "parent_id": "12616", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Because \"in the West\" is quite general, I'll just draw a parallel with\nGermany. In Germany, the national rail network has similarities to the system\nin Tokyo.\n\nOn a regional level there are the\n\n * [RB](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionalbahn) ( _Regionalbahn_ \"regional train\"), which stops at any town with a train station\n * [RE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional-Express) ( _Regional-Express_ \"regional express\"), which leaves out the smallest stations\n\nBetween regions there is the\n\n * [IRE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interregio-Express) ( _Interregional-Express_ ), which connects bordering regions and stops at large towns or cities\n\nNational trains are\n\n * [IC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercity_%28Deutsche_Bahn%29) ( _Intercity_ ), which stops only at cities\n * [ICE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercity-Express) ( _Intercity Express_ ) which stops only at the bigger cities\n\nThey compare to the trains in Tokyo as follows\n\n * RB = 各駅停車, 普通\n * RE = (通勤)快速\n * IRE = 急行\n * IC = 準特急\n * ICE = 特急\n\nAnd, of course, 電車 just means \"train\" and not any particular type of railway.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-22T17:41:45.560", "id": "12620", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-22T17:41:45.560", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1628", "parent_id": "12616", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "In principle, it's arbitrary. Dictionary makers are free to put 富 under\nwhichever section they want, and the same goes for 仏 or any other character.\nAnd in fact, editors of some dictionaries put characters under different\nradicals; see for example the New Nelson. As such, they can have different\nmotivations, and it's impossible to answer what the motivation is in every\ncase.\n\nHowever, 富 fits a very common pattern: like the majority of kanji, it can be\ndivided into a semantic component and a phonetic component. In such cases, the\nsemantic portion is _usually_ the radical. In this character, 宀 is the\nsemantic portion, while 畐 is the phonetic portion.\n\nLikewise, 仏 consists of 亻 and 厶. The former is the semantic and the radical,\nand the latter is the phonetic.\n\nThere are other patterns you can recognize. For example:\n\n * If a character is itself a radical, it is its own radical.\n * Semantic-phonetic characters are generally divisible into two parts. In your example of 富, it's not likely for 田 to be the radical because the top half doesn't form a character, so the division is probably somewhere else (in this case, just under 宀).\n * In left-right kanji, the left side is much more likely to be the radical.\n * In top-bottom kanji, the top side is more likely to be the radical.\n * In enclosure kanji, the enclosure is more likely to be the radical.\n * The left-side radical form of 人, called にんべん, is written 亻. If a character contains this element, it's most likely the radical! This is true of many such combining forms, including `氵`, `灬`, `忄`, and so on.\n\nIn some cases, you'll simply have to memorize the radicals. For example, 謄, 騰,\nand 勝 and all have 朕 as a phonetic! So the radicals are in the unexpected\nlower-right position, and you'll find these characters under 言, 馬, and 力. As\nyou come to recognize phonetic elements and identify them with patterns in\n音読み, identifying radicals like these will be easier, and over time, you'll\nsimply come to remember them.\n\n(In principle, you can tell that the radical is in lower-right position in the\nabove because those kanji aren't left-right divisible, but in practice this is\ndifficult because (for example) valid left and right sides may include\ncharacters that are no longer used or were never used in Japanese.)\n\nAnd there will always be exceptions to the above generalizations. For example,\nthe kanji 錦 has the same _on_ reading as its left side (金), so it appears that\nthe phonetic portion is on the left. But in this case, that's also the\nradical! Why? Well, the right side can't be the radical simply because it's\nnot one of the 214 choices! Likewise, the radical for 難 is on the right. Why?\nAgain, the left side isn't one of the 214!\n\nSo it's a complicated system, and it's likely to surprise you. But hopefully\nthe more you learn, the more it will make sense, and the rest you'll be able\nto memorize or look up as need be. (After all, it is just a system for\nindexing dictionaries.)", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-23T12:43:13.933", "id": "12625", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-23T12:43:13.933", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12624", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

[ { "body": "「広める・広げる」 are transitive (他動詞), 「広まる・広がる」 are intransitive (自動詞). It's really\nas simple as that. 広める and 広まる have to do with 'spreading', so the first is\n'to spread (something) out' and the second is 'to be spread out' (or 'to\nspread out' without an object). 広げる and 広がる have to do with 'widening' or\n'expanding', so the first is 'to widen (something)' and the second is 'to grow\nwider'.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-24T17:05:16.050", "id": "12633", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-24T17:05:16.050", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3639", "parent_id": "12626", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "This is how I think it is:\n\n\n\nI think to 広げる is to spread out something like a blanket or a mat or your\narms, the reach/extent is increased.\n\nFor 広める I think it is to spread things like stories, gossips, and the\nreach/extent increases because the same information is recreated in other\nplaces.\n\nBut how about \"to broaden vocabulary\"? I think it belongs to 広げる, the\nvocabulary stays in one person's mind, and its extent is increased (within\nitself) instead of being reproduced to other people.\n\nHow about spreading a virus? I think both 広げる and 広める can work.\n\nIf you are thinking of the spread of a particular influenza virus, then we can\nthink of that virus as an (one single) abstract notion that increases like a\nblanket. (this is the 広げる case)\n\nWe also can think of how it spreads by replicating and creating new copies of\nitself. (this is the 広める case)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-25T09:20:37.090", "id": "12635", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-25T09:47:46.747", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-25T09:47:46.747", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "12626", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "The 大辞泉 entry for 広がる explains the difference between 広がる and 広まる in the 「用法」\nsection:\n\n[大辞泉：広がる](http://dic.yahoo.co.jp/detail?p=%E3%81%B2%E3%82%8D%E3%81%8C%E3%82%8B&stype=0&dtype=0)\n\nTo paraphrase, 広がる describes something spreading out naturally, like a scenic\nview or a wildfire, whereas 広まる describes something spreading as the result of\nan intentional attempt to spread it.\n\n広がる also has the meaning of physically opening up or being unfolded.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-25T16:07:38.717", "id": "12636", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-25T16:07:38.717", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3878", "parent_id": "12626", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

[ { "body": "[Verb Stem]に行く or に来る, such as 試しに来た (I came here to try it), means to come or\ngo for the purpose of doing the verb.\n\nXしに来る is a common usage which applies this for Xする verbs.\n\nSo「YOUは何しに日本へ？」 is short for 「Youは何をしに日本へ来た？」, meaning \"what did you come to\njapan to do\", or perhaps more fluidly and less literally, \"what did you come\nto japan for?\"", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-24T08:32:01.243", "id": "12629", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-24T08:40:59.667", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-24T08:40:59.667", "last_editor_user_id": "878", "owner_user_id": "878", "parent_id": "12628", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

[ { "body": "I tend to think of `以後` as meaning `one or more specific points after` whereas\n`以降` means `most of/the whole time after`. But I'm not positive that they\ndon't overlap at all.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-25T03:43:41.010", "id": "12634", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-25T03:43:41.010", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12632", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "If you were to say 夢は夢しかない then it would have a meaning of something like\n\"dreams have nothing but dreams.\" It's the simple ～は～が construction you learn\nin Japanese 101 to describe a particular feature of a subject. This is not a\ncopula.\n\nAs you mention, you should be looking at it in terms of である. If you take out\nthe しか you'll have the normal copula 夢は夢ではない, which you will recognize is that\nfull form of \"じゃない.\" So this way of sandwiching しか into it allows you to get\nthe \"only\" meaning of しか while preserving the copula である.\n\nAs for other cases, I\"m not sure if you mean other cases of でしか or other words\nwith である. For でしかない you can expect to see it wherever the meaning is\nappropriate as it's not a particularly exotic expression. For other\ncombinations, you can compare it to でもある, which is how you say that [something\nis _also_ something else](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/1905/78)\n(その人は研究者です。先生でもある。）.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-26T23:51:11.640", "id": "12640", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-27T14:52:11.297", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12638", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Let's start with something common:\n\n> 夢は夢だ。 'Dreams are dreams.'\n\nLet's negate it (using ではない instead of its contracted form じゃない):\n\n> 夢は夢ではない。 'Dreams are not dreams.'\n\nは is a 係助詞{かかりじょし} (\"binding particle\"). Any 係助詞 fits in this spot. しか is also\na 係助詞:\n\n> 夢は夢でしかない。'Dreams are nothing but dreams.'\n\n* * *\n\nThe \"modern\" grammatical analysis of this stuff is that で is the 連用形{れんようけい}\n(\"continuative form\") of the copula だ which results in ではない and でしかない falling\nnicely into this general rule:\n\n> (連用形 of something) + (optional 係助詞) + (ない or ある)\n\nSome other instances of this rule are `すごく（は）ない`、`あつく（も）ない`、`バカで（も）ある`。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-27T01:01:06.087", "id": "12641", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-27T01:01:06.087", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "12638", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

[ { "body": "I think they have just slightly different nuances. They are very similar; but,\nI think that 幾 has a more \"specific\" nuance (as in with relatively small\nnumbers), whereas 何 has a more \"broad\" nuance (as in \"to what extent\" or\n\"why\").\n\nFor [何度](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/165880/m0u/), デジタル大辞泉 says:\n\n> １ どれほどの回数。また、多くの回数。何回。「―やってもできない」「―でも挑戦するつもりだ」\n>\n> ２ はっきりしない温度・角度などをさす。「気温は―ですか」\n\nFor [幾度](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/10649/m0u/), デジタル大辞泉 says:\n\n> １ どのくらいの回数。何度。いくたび。「―読んでもおもしろい」「―となく注意する」\n>\n> ２ （「いくどか」の形で）若干の回数。何回。いくたび。「―かお会いしたことがある」\n>\n> ３ （「いくども」の形で）度数の多いこと。たびたび。いくたび。「―も足を運んだ」\n\nThe [entry for 幾](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/50227/m0u/) says:\n\n> １ 比較的小さな数について問う語。いくつ。「幾何(きか)」\n>\n> ２ 少しずつ。それとなく。「幾諫(きかん)」\n>\n> ３ （「機」と通用）細かいきざし。「幾微」\n>\n> ４ こいねがう。「庶幾」\n\nAnd the [entry for 日中 of 幾](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/cj/11788/m0u/) is\ninteresting, too:\n\n> 疑問の代詞で,ほぼ1桁(けた)と予想される数を尋ねる\n\nMaybe one could think of it as \"how much\" (何) vs. \"how many\" (幾)...", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-28T17:18:37.310", "id": "12657", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-28T17:18:37.310", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3835", "parent_id": "12639", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "As far as the meaning, there is no difference. To say otherwise would be\nnitpicking.\n\nThe only (and important) difference is the way the words using 幾 and 何 as\nsuffixes sound in our native-speaking ears. It is the classic \"softer-sounding\nkun\" vs. \"sharper-sounding on\" difference.\n\nFor instance, 幾重（いくえ） sounds much softer than 何重（なんじゅう） though these words\nmean exactly the same thing --- \"multiple folds\" or \"how many folds\". One\nwould opt to use the former in a poem or story, but if one used it in a daily\nconversation, one would look like a weirdo.\n\nOne could say 何 is more versatile because that is what we use much more often\nin real life.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-10-21T00:26:30.860", "id": "13212", "last_activity_date": "2014-02-21T07:20:27.567", "last_edit_date": "2014-02-21T07:20:27.567", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "12639", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "There are two ways to form sentence conjunctions using 用言{ようげん} (inflectable\nwords) in Japanese sentences:\n\n * the て-form; e.g., 難しくて, 走って\n * the 連用形{れんようけい}; e.g., 難しく, 走り\n\nIt is called the 中止形{ちゅうしけい} when you use the 連用形 as a conjunction.\n\nNuance-wise, using the 中止形 is a little more literary, so it can give a more\nformal feel to the sentence.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-27T03:12:04.310", "id": "12643", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-27T03:17:15.023", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-27T03:17:15.023", "last_editor_user_id": "3097", "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "12642", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "To my knowledge, this is historically shrouded in mystery, so there is no\nauthoritative answer. (I'd be very interested in hearing one myself.)\n\n[This page](http://www012.upp.so-\nnet.ne.jp/nikodebu/laboratory/report/report3.htm) speculates (in,\nunfortunately, a very authoritative tone, yet with no citations...) that the\nnegation of ある (あらない) did at one point exist, but was discarded for the\nantonym of ある (ない). _(N.B., we do at least know that another negation of ある\n(あらず), did exist historically, so the first part of this claim isn't too hard\nto believe.)_\n\nTheir reasoning goes something like...\n\n```\n\n word negation antonym\n 開く 開かない　　　閉める\n 大きい　　大きくない　　小さい\n ある　　　あらない　　　ない \n \n```\n\nIn these cases, none of the negations match the antonym (\"to not open\" != \"to\nclose\", \"not big\" != \"small\") except for ある, and since ない is shorter, the あらない\nform was discarded.\n\n* * *\n\nI don't know if I entirely buy their argument or not. It seems logical but\nhonestly anything could have happened historically for us to end up in our\ncurrent position, so I'd personally be reluctant to actually subscribe to this\ntheory without any evidence.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-27T04:52:40.363", "id": "12645", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-27T04:58:40.720", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-27T04:58:40.720", "last_editor_user_id": "3097", "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "12644", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "In modern Japanese, instead of the conjugation [未然形]{みぜんけい}+[無]{な}い, another\nword is used to express the plain negative, namely 無い.\n\nThis a process called suppletion, supplying a certain conjugational form with\na different word. It exists in English as well. You don't say _good and\ngooder_ , you talk about _better_ , which comes from Proto-Indo-European\n*bhAd- _good_. Further examples include _bad_ - _worse_ , and _be_ - _is_ -\n_was_.\n\nHowever, this kind of conjugation exists in Classical Japanese. Here the\nnegative is expressed via 未然形+ず, and ある is no exception: あらず. ず , or perhaps\nbetter known in its form ぬ, is the helper verb of negation.\n\n>\n> 「[舟]{ふね}は[水]{みず}に[非]{あら}ざれば[行]{ゆ}かず。[水]{みず}、[舟]{ふね}に[入]{い}れば[則]{すなわ}ち[没]{ぼっ}す」\n\nEven in modern Japanese, you can still say あらへん (Kansai dialect).\n\nLastly, although rare, there are attested instances of the form あらない (see\n日本国語大辞典, entry あらない)\n\n> せく事はあらない\n>\n> 土佐【とさ】とて鬼の国でも蛇【へび】の国でもあらないものを\n\nThere is also あらなくに, but the な here is analyzed as the く-nominalization of ず.", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-27T05:08:46.947", "id": "12646", "last_activity_date": "2014-06-03T16:40:38.057", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "3275", "parent_id": "12644", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

[ { "body": "「あなたにいつもお世話になっていますからね」 means \"It's because I'm always {indebting myself to\nyou|being taken care of by you}, isn't it\".\n\nThe \"isn't it\" part corresponds to ね, a detail we should not lose in the\ntranslation.\n\nWhy we might translate it as \"indebting\" or \"always being\" is because\nなっている/なっています is an -iru progressive verb: something going on rather than a\nfinished action.\n\nThe に particle is tricky because of its multiple meanings. It can indicate an\naction toward something, but it also means \"by\" in passive senses, which is\nessentially the reverse. For instance \"anata ni moratta X\" means \"the X given\nto me by you\", which can also be expressed as \"anata kara moratta X\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-27T14:35:55.173", "id": "12648", "last_activity_date": "2013-11-11T00:43:36.187", "last_edit_date": "2013-11-11T00:43:36.187", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1266", "parent_id": "12647", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Perhaps one might think of 仕事で as \"at/while work(ing)\" and 仕事に as \"at/for/to\nwork\".\n\nYou might also say something like [最大限]{さいだいげん}に[能力]{のうりょく}を[発揮]{はっき}する.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-28T04:46:31.453", "id": "12655", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-28T13:39:23.083", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-28T13:39:23.083", "last_editor_user_id": "3835", "owner_user_id": "3835", "parent_id": "12649", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "I would say it as `信じても信じなくもない` or `信じてはないけど、信じなくもない`.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-28T04:18:10.207", "id": "12654", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-28T05:39:39.093", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-28T05:39:39.093", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "12653", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Don't try to translate の too literally. For example, 友達のようこ means \"my friend\nYoko,\" not \"my friend's Yoko.\"\n\nMy (possibly flawed) understanding is that in this case, の serves the same\npurpose as in 巨人の進撃 but reversing the order changes the emphasis slightly, so\nthat 巨人 becomes the focus rather than 進撃.\n\nI'm sure you already noticed that the English version of the title (\"Attack on\nTitan\") is a mistranslation (possibly intentional?)\n\nAs an aside, the anime is absolutely fantastic, although I haven't read the\nmanga yet.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-28T21:16:06.670", "id": "12659", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-28T22:26:25.217", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-28T22:26:25.217", "last_editor_user_id": "3794", "owner_user_id": "3794", "parent_id": "12658", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "You've already figured out what's going on in your first bullet point - the の\nin 進撃の巨人 functions in its usual role of forming a 連体修飾語{れん.たい.しゅう.しょく.ご} (a\nmodifier; の's role in forming possessives is one example of this function of\nの).\n\nThe only issue is that you've done your translation in kind of awkward\nEnglish. Rather than \"giants of charge\", you probably want something more like\n\"the charging giants\" (which is, after all, basically what the anime/manga is\nabout).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-28T23:32:37.930", "id": "12661", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-27T01:26:15.797", "last_edit_date": "2013-12-27T01:26:15.797", "last_editor_user_id": "3437", "owner_user_id": "3437", "parent_id": "12658", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "1. Kanji were originally from Chinese. Japanese used extremely accented Chinese (sorta like what they do with English now) to pronounce Middle Chinese words, which eventually became 音読み. For example 日本 /njit.pon/ became /nippon/. For 訓読み, they simply find the nearest native Japanese word in meaning. You can imagine an English person seeing 走 and pronouncing it \"run\". Remember that \"literacy\" in Japan back then basically meant knowing a significant bit of Chinese.\n\n 2. First of all, most people were not literate, and thus had no need of looking up things in dictionaries. Dictionaries back then do give readings in 万葉がな (manyougana), which basically is a finite set of kanji used _only_ for sound. It's like giving the kanji reading entirely in other kanji, used all as phonetic 当て字 (ateji). Example of equivalent in Modern Japanese: よろしくお願いします => 夜炉四句悪袮雅医四魔素", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-29T00:11:10.983", "id": "12662", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-29T00:11:10.983", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "2960", "parent_id": "12660", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "Yes.\n\nThe word for it is 読み間違える, as you hinted at. Some other words that seem to be\nmore limited to metaphorical instances of reading people or situations include\n読{よ}み誤{あやま}る (\"misread the political picture\" 政治情勢を読み誤る) as well as 見誤{みあやま}る\n(\"misread a signal,\" or 合図［信号・サイン］を見誤る)\n\nThese examples and others can be seen\n[here](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=misread&ref=sa).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-29T04:31:28.883", "id": "12664", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-29T04:31:28.883", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12663", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "There's no need to connect でも～くらい into one construction. Rather you're looking\nat [自分でも][無様なくらいに][声が震えてきた]\n\nSo if you break that down it's just basically [even me][to an unsightly (or\nwhatever you want to translate it as) degree][voice started trembling]\n\nNote that it is 無様+な+くらい, so it's using くらい as amount/degree and using 無様 as a\nsimple na-adjective to describe the extent.\n\nThe translation that you offered is slightly off. 無様 refers to how the\ntrembling voice made the speaker look, not to what caused the trembling in the\nfirst place. So it would be closer to something like \"Even my voice started\ntrembling awkwardly,\" to use your choice of awkward.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-29T14:35:15.657", "id": "12666", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-29T14:35:15.657", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12665", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "全然 began to be taught as only being followed by negatives between 1950 and\n1960.\n\nAs mentioned in in the comments above, とても can actually be, and very often is,\nused with negatives. And in colloquial Japanese, 全然+non-neg. is currently, and\nlikely always has been, frequently used.\n\nIn normal Japanese, you are correct in your presumption that double negatives\nresolve to positive. ない、なくない、なくなくない、 and so on, will continue to alternate\nnegativity as you add more negatives to the end. However, 全然 itself does not\ncontain any kind of negative aspect; that still must be attached to the target\nof inflection (an adjective or verb).\n\nIf I were to hazard a guess as to why 全然 became restricted to negatives, I\nwould say that it is likely related to the Japanese language's strongly head-\nfinal nature. It tends to favor very long subjects and short predicates, which\nmeans that in many cases, you can't understand an utterance until the verb\ncomes at the very end.\n\nAs a result, Japanese has developed a number of words like 全然 which preview\nsome aspect of that verb; specifically: negativity. Following is a list of\nsome such words:\n\n * 決【けっ】して\n * めったに\n * ちっとも\n * しか\n\nThese are essentially _always_ followed by a negative, and so act as nice\nindicators of what will come, perhaps much later in the sentence. It seems to\nme that the inverse (things only used with the positive) exists as well, but I\ncan't think of any examples.\n\nThere are several\n[detailed](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1333690543)\n[responses](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1374560098)\nover on Yahoo's Chiebukuro that you may find interesting, as well.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-11-01T05:08:54.033", "id": "13298", "last_activity_date": "2013-11-03T19:58:29.527", "last_edit_date": "2013-11-03T19:58:29.527", "last_editor_user_id": "384", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "12667", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "If you mean \"phrasing things politely toward listener(s) of higher rank than\nthe speaker\", then it probably has always been a part of the language/culture.\nI don't think there is any one specific grammatical structure, though (e.g.,\nです, ます, でございます, etc.).\n\nThe word 丁寧 apparently comes from [a metal instrument used by the Chinese\nmilitary a long, long time ago](http://gogen-allguide.com/te/teinei.html).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-30T02:33:27.207", "id": "12669", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-30T02:33:27.207", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3835", "parent_id": "12668", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "Frellesvig [ _A history of the Japanese language_ ] does not say very much\nabout polite language, but here are some relevant bits:\n\n> Politeness is a prominent feature of cNJ [= contemporary modern Japanese]\n> where polite style is expressed by the auxiliary _-(i)mas-_ or the polite\n> copula _des-_ , but as with exaltation, there are NJ [= modern Japanese]\n> dialects which do not have polite style. The grammatical expression of\n> polite style is a relatively late addition to the language: OJ [= Old\n> Japanese] did not have it at all, and while there are incipient uses in EMJ\n> [= early Middle Japanese], it was not thoroughly established until early LMJ\n> [= late Middle Japanese]. [...]\n>\n> [...], in early LMJ, _paber-_ was in this function replaced by _sauraw-_ ,\n> which in addition to being used as a suppletive polite equivalent of _ar-_\n> came to be used as an auxiliary verb, that is, attaching to the infinitive\n> of verbs to express polite style, e.g. _mi-saurawabaya_ ‘see-POL.OPT; if\n> only I could see’, which is an early example from the _Heike monogatari_\n> (early thirteenth century). This development made possible the expression of\n> polite style with all predicate types and established politeness as a\n> grammatical category in the language. _Sauraw-_ comes from early EMJ\n> _saburap-_ which is said to be a changed from of OJ _samorap-_ ‘serve, be in\n> attendance’, also reflected in the word _samurai_.\n>\n> During LMJ _-sauraw-_ was used as the general polite marker; it changed to\n> _-sɔɔraw-_ by regular sound change, but also gave a number of other more\n> reduced shapes with irregular inflected forms, such as _sɔɔ-_ which was both\n> used on its own as the nonpast form and as a stem for attaching other\n> morphemes: _sɔɔta_ past, _sɔɔnu_ negative. This divorced its polite-style\n> marking function from its use as a lexical verb. Thus, _sɔɔrɔɔ_ and its\n> different variants might best be understood as an auxiliary, rather than as\n> an auxiliary verb, but it should be noted that they continued to function as\n> polite variants of _ar-_ in all its functions, including combining with the\n> copula gerund _de_ to form polite copula forms, e.g. _de sɔɔrɔɔ_ or _de\n> sɔɔ_. The cNJ polite copula _des-_ is by some scholars thought to descent\n> from _de sɔɔ_. [...]\n>\n> Finally, in the second half of LMJ, _-(i)sɔɔrɔɔ_ was replaced as the general\n> marker of polite style by the auxiliary _-(i)marase-_ , which is the source\n> of the present-day polite style auxiliary _-(i)mas-_ , e.g. from _Esopo_ :\n> _i-marasuru_ exist-POL.NONPST ‘is’, _osie-marasyoozu_ teach-POL.INT ‘(I)\n> will teach’. As opposed to the other polite style verbs and auxiliaries\n> mentioned above, _-(i)marase-_ does not originate in a suppletive respectful\n> or humble existential verb. Its OJ source is the humble verb _mawir-_\n> ‘come.HUM, go.HUM’ (which itself is reconstructible as *maw + ir- ‘humble\n> prefix + enter’), through lexicalization of the causative _mawira-se-_ to a\n> suppletive humble verb _mairase-_ , which came to be used as a humble\n> auxiliary verb _-mairase-_ , which in turn in late LMJ was further reduced\n> phonologically and became an auxiliary _-(i)marase-_ which shifted from\n> humble to polite, eventually being reduced even further to its present-day\n> shape _-(i)mas-_ ; this is thought to have taken place early in NJ, but\n> there are examples from LMJ which suggest that it may have happened already\n> in late LMJ and that the two shapes _-(i)marase-_ and _-(i)mase-_ coexisted\n> for some time during LMJ, but that the latter was only sporadically\n> reflected in writing.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-31T18:57:10.313", "id": "12691", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-31T18:57:10.313", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "578", "parent_id": "12668", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "There's no literal translation, and a proper translation will always depends\non context.\n\nIn the case where it's meant to add some doubt, note that it doesn't mean you\nfling your hands up in the air and accept any posibility. You've made your\nguess about something. Surely you can relate to saying something with some\ndegree of conviction while not being completely sure. This is in contrast to\nかもしれない where you have little (no?) conviction either way and 多分 which is an\nadverb/noun.\n\nI don't think understanding the nitty gritty details of where it stems from\nwill help you gain a native's appreciation of it, in this case anyhow. But\nyes, afaict regarding your explanation of where it comes from, そうでしょう.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-30T07:21:48.217", "id": "12672", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-30T07:21:48.217", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1173", "parent_id": "12670", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "`でしょう` is basically the [丁]{てい}[寧]{ねい}[語]{ご} of `だろう`, which in turn comes\nfrom `であろう`.\n\nThe [entry for だろう in\nデジタル大辞泉](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/139438/m0u/) says:\n\n>\n> ［[連語]{れんご}］《[断定]{だんてい}の[助動詞]{じょどうし}「だ」の[未然形]{みぜんけい}＋[推量]{すいりょう}の[助動詞]{じょどうし}「う」》[不確]{ふたし}かな[断定]{だんてい}、あるいは[推定]{すいてい}の[意]{い}を[表]{あらわ}す。\n>\n> 「[彼]{かれ}はきっと[成功]{せいこう}する―◦う」\n>\n> 「むこうの[山]{やま}が[南]{みなみ}アルプス―◦うか」→のだろう\n>\n> [[補説]{ほせつ}]\n> [現代語]{げんだいご}では、[主]{おも}に「う」「よう」が[話]{はな}し[手]{て}の[意志]{いし}を[表]{あらわ}すのに[対]{たい}し、「だろう」は[広]{ひろ}く[用言]{ようげん}に[接続]{せつぞく}して[推量]{すいりょう}を[表]{あらわ}すのに[用]{もち}いられる。「だろう」を[一語]{いちご}の[助動詞]{じょどうし}とみる[説]{せつ}もある。\n\nThis is telling us that `だろう` is the _irrealis/imperfective form_ of `だ` with\nthe _conjecture auxiliary_ `う`, and that it can express\nconjecture/presumption/hypothesis (uncertainty).\n\nThe two example sentences mean (roughly):\n\n * I assume that he will be successful.\n * Those mountains over there are Minami-alps, aren't they?\n\nYou can see that there is a certain amount of conjecture/presumption going on.\n\nIn weather reports, for example, you will hear `[明日]{あす}は[雨]{あめ}が[降]{ふ}るでしょう`\n(\"it will rain tomorrow\"), which is a conjuncture/presumption/hypothesis.\n\nYour question sentence (`[嘘]{うそ}でしょ！`) means roughly \"you're kidding!\", \"you\ndon't say!\", or \"no way!\"—one might think of it as an idiom. And, by the way,\nshortening `でしょう` to `でしょ` can sound a little feminine.\n\n`[多分]{たぶん}` can be used in conjunction with `でしょう`, e.g. `多分そうでしょう` (\"that is\nprobably true\"). It just adds a bit more uncertainty to the sentence.\n\n`かもしれない` means simply that one cannot say for certain but that there _is_ a\npossibility.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-30T08:05:34.020", "id": "12674", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-30T08:27:35.140", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-30T08:27:35.140", "last_editor_user_id": "3835", "owner_user_id": "3835", "parent_id": "12670", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "歩いて here simply means \"by walking\" just as バスで would mean \"by bus\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-30T07:27:17.570", "id": "12673", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-30T07:27:17.570", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1173", "parent_id": "12671", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I believe that one misconception on your part is that you seem to think that\nthere are two attributive clauses (歩いて二十分ほどの) and (歩いて二十分ほどのところにある), while\nthere is in fact only one: the latter.\n\nOne easy thing to do in order to understand where subordinate clauses start\nand end is to remove the parts you think constitute subordinate clauses. Then\ncheck if these parts form grammatically correct sentence on their own, and\nwhether or not the rest of the original sentence remains grammatically correct\neven with these parts taken out.\n\nThe part 歩いて二十分ほどの can't form a grammatically correct sentence on its own.\nWith that taken out, the remaining part of the original sentence will be:\nところにある河原です, which doesn't make any sense either. If we however try to split\nthe sentence at 歩いて二十分ほどのところにある, we'll be left with two parts which constitute\ngrammatically correct sentences on their own.\n\nTo answer your question: There is no omitted verb in the original sentence.\n\nAs for your second question, 歩けば二十分ほどのところにある川原です is grammatically correct.\nThere is a slight difference in nuance between this sentence and the original\none; This sentence emphasizes the fact that 20 minutes is how long it will\ntake to travel _on foot_ (in contrast to other means of transportation).The\noriginal sentence contains no such indication, but is simply a statement of\nhow long it takes.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-31T22:16:19.290", "id": "12693", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-31T22:42:15.273", "last_edit_date": "2013-08-31T22:42:15.273", "last_editor_user_id": "3841", "owner_user_id": "3841", "parent_id": "12671", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I don't think anyone would say お召し上がる. However, some people do say お召し上がれ and\nお召し上がりください. It shows that the speaker is trying to add _more_ respect to the\nlistener.\n\nHere's an interesting [short Q&A about\n召し上がる](http://home.alc.co.jp/db/owa/jpn_npa?stage=2&sn=65).", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-30T10:54:51.787", "id": "12677", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-30T10:54:51.787", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3835", "parent_id": "12675", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "(Incorrectly) doubling up on honorifics is sometimes called 二重{にじゅう}敬語{けいご}.\n\nThere are some good examples\n[here](http://www.levelup99.net/businessmanner/cate3post21.html). Basically,\nas has already been said, there are multiple ways of constructing a polite\nform, but they normally do not stack.\n\nInterestingly, that particular site also gives お召し上がりになる as an example of\ntechnically incorrect forms which are acceptable due to being in common use -\nalthough probably this depends on who you ask.\n\nThis \"double politeness\" effect does not apply to cases where you have two or\nmore terms involved which each undergo a single modification for politeness.\nThey call this 敬語連結{けいごれんけつ}.\n\nSo, for example, お読みになっていらっしゃる is acceptable, converting 読む to お読みになって, and\nusing いらっしゃる instead of いる.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-30T14:21:15.837", "id": "12678", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-30T14:21:15.837", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "571", "parent_id": "12675", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Bear in mind that this is an answer based on research and not actual\nfamiliarity with the term.\n\nThe gist of it is that げす is a dirty word that is generally written in\nhiragana and refers to things that are socially low, base, vulgar, of the\ncommon class. In common use it'll just refer to something crude or vulgar.\n\nOur first stop is an actual J-J dictionary (and not edict which has the\nunclear definitions you got). See [the\nentry](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%92%E3%81%99):\n\nDefinition one describes a crude or vulgar thing or person. That's where\nyou're getting \"sleazebag.\" The example it gives is げすな考え, or what we can\nprobably call \"dirty thoughts\" or \"having one's mind in the gutter.\"\n\nThe second definition is someone of a low social rank. This is where you'll\nget your \"humble person\" definition. The example sentences are slightly\narchaic so you probably don't need to worry about this one. (For reference:\n「―下郎」「女も男もいと―にはあらざりけれど/大和 148」)\n\nThe third definition is just a servant, and its examples are also archaic, so\ndon't sweat this one unless you really want to get into your old literature.\n(「食(めし)たかせける女のむめといふ―なり/浮世草子・五人女 4」)\n\nThe 4th is just a low ranking official, or your \"petty official.\" Again, don't\nworry about this one.\n\nInteresting at the end here is a big list of set phrases that use げす, one of\nwhich appears in the alc examples.\n\nNote also that all three of the kanji variations you listed point here and all\nare indicated as uncommon. Essentially they seem to mean the same thing but\nyou won't normally be using them anyway so the distinction in use becomes more\nof a historical question than one of choosing the right one for the situation\n(which I'm assuming to be out of the scope of this question).\n\nSo as for how it's used, we check\n[alc](http://eow.alc.co.jp/search?q=%E3%81%92%E3%81%99):\n\n> **げす** \n> cocksucker〈米俗・卑〉 \n> cur〈軽蔑的〉 \n> heel〔【反】baby face〕 \n> King Richard the third〈豪俗〉〔turdの押韻俗語〕 \n> squit \n> turd〈卑〉 \n> **げすな勘繰りはやめろ。／変な意味に取らないでください。** \n> Get your mind out of the gutter. \n> 性的な意味にも取れることについて「そういう意味ではない」とくぎを刺すのに使われることが多い。〕 \n> **げす野郎** \n> dick-licker〈米俗・卑〉 \n> dick-sucker〈米俗・卑〉 \n> dickey-licker〈米俗・卑〉 \n> sleazebag〈俗・軽蔑的〉 \n> sleazeball〈俗・軽蔑的〉 \n> slimebag〈俗・軽蔑的〉 \n> slimeball〈俗・軽蔑的〉 \n> slimebucket〈俗・軽蔑的〉\n\nSo we have it on its own just being a classic King Richard. The term\n[げすの勘ぐり](http://www.weblio.jp/content/%E4%B8%8B%E7%A8%AE%E3%81%AE%E5%8B%98%E7%B9%B0%E3%82%8A)\nis a set phrase that refers to having vulgar thoughts. And then if you want to\nmake a presumption about someone's phallic proclivities, you can go ahead and\ncall them a ゲス野郎. Note that the Japanese doesn't actually refer to any\nfellatio.\n\nAnd as a final note, for the kanji just don't worry about it. If you want to\nuse it then pick one and go wild. The word is yours for the bandying so make\nit count.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-08-31T19:16:56.453", "id": "12692", "last_activity_date": "2013-08-31T19:16:56.453", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1797", "parent_id": "12679", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]