Datasets:

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2059", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I was in Japan recently and am trying to remember the name for a small towel\nthe Japanese may use to wipe the sweat off their faces in the summer. I was\nhoping to buy one for myself in the U.S.\n\nDo these towels have a name in Japanese? If so, what would be the\ntransliteration in English?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-19T13:27:54.020", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2057", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-30T00:06:56.517", "last_edit_date": "2016-09-29T10:46:31.813", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "525", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "words", "word-requests" ], "title": "Small towels to wipe sweat off", "view_count": 1841 }

[ { "body": "I am not sure which one you are talking about, but hope it is one of these\nbelow. I doubt it is either of the first two, but 手拭い seems too long for what\nyou describe as \"a small towel\".\n\n> * タオル 'towel'\n> * ハンカチ 'handkerchief'\n> * 手拭い (tenugui) Similar to handkerchief, but longer\n> * 脂取り紙 (aburatori-gami) piece of paper-like tissue that absorbs oil from\n> the surface of the face.\n> * おしぼり A small towel that is slightly wet and sterilized with vapor.\n> Served at restaurants or bars before meal\n>", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-19T13:35:00.150", "id": "2059", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-19T13:57:06.777", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-19T13:57:06.777", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2057", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "About those towels... they're awesome, but they seem to be getting harder to\nfind in Japan these days. The banks used to give them away in the summer\nmonths, and martial arts dojos still seem to have a source. There used to be a\nteeny tiny shop near Ebisu station where they sold all sorts of towels, and\nhad the nice terrycloth mid-size ones. It's long gone now unfortunately. You\ncan often find terrycloth handkerchief size items in the department stores\nduring the summer months, or if you go to an onsen and stay in a pretty nice\nplace you may be able to accidentally leave with a few when you check out.\nGood luck. Oh... generally タオル or sometimes 日本手ぬぐい. But I think that 日本手ぬぐい\nusually refers to the tighter weave (not terrycloth) cotton cloth you wear\nunder your headgear in kendo, or what the sushi chefs sometimes roll up and\ntie around their head.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-09-30T00:06:56.517", "id": "39570", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-30T00:06:56.517", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15819", "parent_id": "2057", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2155", "answer_count": 1, "body": "これは漕ぎに来てくれるフラグ?\n\nI read that on twitter. This is the tweet, if it helps to make sense of it.\n\n自信…なくないです( ´ ▽ ` )ﾉ笑RT @yamadamic: あらマオにゃん!これは漕ぎに来てくれるフラグ?（笑） RT @mao_sid:\n出勤時に聴いてましたよ（＾∇＾）RT @mizuuchitakeshi: 楽しかった(^O^)やまちゃんありがとう～汗だくだ…\n\nAll that I understand is that it says, \"Is this **___ __ ___ __**?\"", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-19T17:22:12.923", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2061", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T02:47:17.587", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-19T18:24:34.800", "last_editor_user_id": "69", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "translation" ], "title": "What is 漕ぎに来てくれるフラグ in English?", "view_count": 277 }

[ { "body": "`フラグ` started to be used recently as an internet slang. It means an 'advance\nhint', 'indication of something that will happen later', or 'some fact that\nwill make much sense when some other fact is revealed later'. It is woven into\nthe context intentionally (as in detective stories) or it happens non-\nintentionally. A normal way of saying it is `伏線`.\n\nIt comes from the English 'flag', whose relevant usage is, according to my\nspeculation, a global boolean variable used in computer programming to keep\nthe state of something and is used later.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T00:52:11.947", "id": "2155", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T02:47:17.587", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-24T02:47:17.587", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2061", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2066", "answer_count": 1, "body": "At first I thought ギャ meant girl, but after doing some googling, that doesn't\nappear to be what it is. What is シドギャ?\n\nシドギャ is related to the band シド, the most popular Visual Kei rock band in Japan\nfor all of you who don't know.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-19T17:38:37.570", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2062", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-23T00:15:27.910", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-23T00:15:27.910", "last_editor_user_id": "11", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "translation", "slang", "definitions" ], "title": "What is a シドギャ? ギャ doesn't mean girl, does it?", "view_count": 492 }

[ { "body": "シドギャ is short for シドギャル, so ギャ is indeed \"girl.\" シドギャ refers to (usually\nfemale) fans of シド (SID). A similar word is バンギャ (likewise short for バンギャル),\nwhich refers to (again usually female) fans of visual kei bands.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T01:00:51.943", "id": "2066", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T01:00:51.943", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "2062", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2065", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm a bit confused regarding the choice between the 加 and 増 kanji for any\nmeaning related to \"adding one thing to another\".\n\nI assume that, as usual, the suru-verb combination 増加する is somewhat more\nformal than either of the other options.\n\nI was told that 増 was for adding more of the same thing, while 加 might be used\nfor adding things of a different type, but examples that I have found don't\nseem to match with that idea. For example, my dictionary has the following at\nthe start of an example sentence...\n\n```\n\n 汽車がスピードをだんだん加えていき。。。\n \n```\n\nThere's also 殖える, which seems to replace 増 in cases explicitly related to\npopulation (people, livestock, or grain), but it seems to be used for\nsomething like \"net worth\" as well.\n\nThere's also 足す, which I believe has a connotation similar to 足りる in meaning\n\"add enough to suffice\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-19T18:29:02.773", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2063", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-10T06:30:05.173", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-19T22:22:35.497", "last_editor_user_id": "384", "owner_user_id": "29", "post_type": "question", "score": 17, "tags": [ "word-choice", "vocabulary", "synonyms" ], "title": "加える/増やす and 加わる/増える or even 増加する/殖/足, various kanji for \"adding things\"", "view_count": 4323 }

[ { "body": "## Words for Adding Things\n\nNote that there are actually many more suru-verb kanji combinations that mean\nthings similar to \"adding\" or \"growing,\" so I've only covered the two\nmentioned here.\n\n### 足す【たす】\n\nThis is used only for adding two things of the same type.\n\n> Example: なべに水を足す \"Add water to the pot\"\n\n### 加える【くわえる】\n\nLike 足す, this is also used for adding two things of the same type, but it is\nalso used when adding things _of different types_.\n\n> Example: カレーに薬味を加える \"Add condiments to the curry\"\n\n### 増える【ふえる】 / 増やす【ふやす】 / 増す【ます】\n\nUnlike 加える and 足す, these do not have a meaning of \"adding,\" per se.\n\n * 増す is generally used when increasing a degree, level, or extent. It can be used with を or が. When used for volume or amount, it adds a moderately formal air.\n\n> Example: 悲しみが増す \"Increase [the degree of] sadness\"\n\n * 増やす is simply \"to increase the amount,\" and is generally used with を.\n\n> Example: 楽しみを増やす \"Increase [the amount of] pleasure\"\n\n * 増える is \"to be increased\" or \"to grow\" and is generally used with が. They are both used to describe _volumes_ rather than _degrees_. Note: \n\n> Example: お客さまが増えた \"[The number of] customers has increased\"\n\n### 増加する【ぞうかする】\n\nMuch the same as 増える and 増やす, this means \"to increase,\" much the same as the\nEnglish verb. The size of the increase does not matter, but it can only be\nused with quantities or volumes, _not_ degrees.\n\n> Example: 体重が五キロ増加する \"Weight increased by 5kg\"\n\n* * *\n\nI've also included istrasci's suggestions, which rather than simply meaning\n\"to add\" all mean more along the lines of \"to supplement.\"\n\n### [付]{つ}け[足]{た}す\n\nUsed to add in something after-the-fact which was insufficient or lacking.\n\n> Example: 炭を付け足す \"Add charcoal (presumably to a dwindling fire)\"\n\n### [付]{つ}け加える【くわえる】\n\nUsed to add in something after-the-fact which is necessary. Very similar to\n付け足す.\n\n> Example: 名前をつけ加える \"Add a name to the list\"\n\n### 付加する【ふかする】\n\n付加 is used when adding something after-the-fact which is _different_ than the\noriginal. Very similar to 付け加える.\n\n> Example: 条件をもう一つ付加する \"Add one more condition\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-19T22:16:22.630", "id": "2065", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-10T06:30:05.173", "last_edit_date": "2016-04-10T06:30:05.173", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "2063", "post_type": "answer", "score": 15 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2071", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Saw this on twitter:\n\n> A: マオにゃん、シドギャの彼女が出来ない僕に一言くれたら幸いです ...\n>\n> B: 付き合った後に **染めちゃえ**\n\nWhat is 染めちゃえ here?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T03:10:59.867", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2068", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T06:10:54.660", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:10:54.660", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": -4, "tags": [ "translation", "words", "meaning", "て-form", "contractions" ], "title": "What does 染めちゃえ mean here?", "view_count": 590 }

[ { "body": "Just an idea: Maybe it means that someone has been in contact with X for so\nlong that they have been influenced?\n\nLike a white shirt would get a bit blue if you wash it together with blue\nclothes. A metaphor that can be found in French with \"déteindre\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T06:56:56.673", "id": "2071", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T06:56:56.673", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "parent_id": "2068", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2074", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I think we all are familiar with する verbs, which are verbs that are formed by\nappending する to nouns. Examples include 勉強する, 愛する etc. This pattern is very\nconvenient because it can be appended to almost anything, such as ライクする (to\n'Like' a Facebook post).\n\nThere is another common verbification pattern, which is the つく verbs. Examples\ninclude 嘘つく, 傷つく etc. However, unlike する which simply means \"to do\", つく has a\nlots of meanings and kanji characters. When I queried in WWWJDIC, つく has at\nleast 8 variants, including but not limited to 付く, 就く, 点く, 突く, 着く etc. While I\nobserve many of these verbs are made of 付く, there are some that are made of\ndifferent variants like 落着く {おちつく} and 楯突く {たてつく}, and some even have multiple\nvariants, for example うそつく can be written as both 嘘付く and 嘘吐く. **How do we\ntell (apart from referring to a dictionary of course) which つく that made up a\nparticular つく verb, for example むかつく?**\n\nThere is also a question on particles on the extended verb phrase. For\nexample, while 傷つく is 傷をつく and 嘘つく is 嘘をつく, 気づく is actually 気がつく. What about,\nagain, むかつく? Is it むかをつく or むかがつく? In a Google search, I even saw むかとつく. **So,\nin general, how do we actually tell which particle is used in a particular\nverb?**", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T06:06:03.557", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2070", "last_activity_date": "2020-03-31T19:23:50.490", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-20T06:18:02.737", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 19, "tags": [ "particles", "verbs", "homophonic-kanji" ], "title": "Dissecting つく verbs", "view_count": 2068 }

[ { "body": "> How do we tell which つく that made up a particular つく verb\n\nYou can't. It's vocabulary, there's just no rule to decide one or the other.\nYou need to know their meaning. I would list them all here, but there are\nreally too many and each one of them would probably need special attention.\n\nEven knowing the meaning of each つく verb, you would still have a chance to use\nthe wrong one (ex: 嘘付く = attach a lie? Nobody would know 付く is the one to\nchoose) Most of these are fixed expressions and most of them probably have\ndeep etymological origin.\n\n> how do we actually tell which particle is used in a particular verb?\n\nIt's like making a normal sentence. You need to know how\ntransitive/intransitive verbs work, how to mark the subject, action...etc.\nThere are a lot of possibilities for each つく verb: (see [questions about\nparticles](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/particles))\n\n味方に付く、気が付く。。。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T07:45:24.323", "id": "2072", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T07:45:24.323", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2070", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Before I come back to a rough rubric for determining which kanji to use, let\nme take a stab at the second half of your question: namely, how to tell which\nparticle to use. This is a relatively simple problem in most cases. If the\nverb is transitive (i.e. it can have an object), it uses を. If the verb is\nintransitive (it _can't_ have an object), then it uses が. This is why it's\n気が付く, because 付く is an intransitive verb. The transitive form of 付く is 付ける,\nwhich leads us to another phrase you've likely heard before... 気を付ける.\n\nThe problem is that some つく are transitive, and others are intransitive.\nUnfortunately, you just have to memorize the lists.\n\n> * **Transitive (を):** 突く、吐く\n> * **Intransitive (が):** 付く、着く\n>\n\nThat covers all the main ones. Basically, everything except 突く and 吐く are\nintransitive and therefore use が.\n\nNow, moving back to the first part of your question: how to tell which つく is\npart of a given word. The first rule of thumb seems to be that for just about\nanything, you seem to be able to use 付く (even the transitive ones like 吐く,\nstrangely enough). Other than this exception, if you think about the word, and\nunderstand the meanings of the various つく, you should be able to figure it out\nwith at least a decently high degree of accuracy. Here's a list:\n\n> * **突く (also 衝く, 撞く, 捺く) - to thrust/strike** \n> If the idea requires pinpoint accuracy or is aggressive, this could be your\n> word. A relatively obvious example is 雲突く【くもつく】 (to tower: \"to thrust\n> through the clouds\"). One less obvious is 毒突く【どくづく】 (to curse at someone:\n> \"to attack someone with poison [of the mouth? :p]).\n>\n> * **吐く - to breathe/expel** \n> The most common example is 嘘【うそ】を吐【つ】く (to lie: \"to spit lies\"). It's\n> usually used either for speaking negative things or breathing -- usually\n> outward, e.g. ため息を吐く (to breath a sigh).\n>\n> * **着く - to reach/arrive** \n> If you think about it, words such as 落ち着く begin to make sense. We use a\n> very similar metaphor in English: \"settle down.\" One's mood reaches a more\n> normal point after falling. Occasionally, it is also used in things having\n> to do with clothing (that would normally be 付く), probably due to the kanji's\n> use in 着る【きる】 (and less commonly, 着く【はく】).\n>\n>\n\nThere are several others, but these are the main ones. Many of them can\narbitrarily be replaced with 付く, which actually seems to have subsumed some of\nthe less common ones (such as 点く and 憑く). Unfortunately, this answer is\nalready _much_ too long, and covering every one of the extremely large number\nof つく verbs is likely beyond the scope of this website.\n\nOne final note: No dictionary that I can find lists a kanji for the つく in\nむかつく, but if I were to guess, I would say 着く (\"reaching an irritated state\").\nAlternately, 付く, which seems to be a relatively safe bet quite a bit of the\ntime. However, it seems that this word, at least, is normally only written in\nkana.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T08:00:01.117", "id": "2074", "last_activity_date": "2020-03-31T19:23:50.490", "last_edit_date": "2020-03-31T19:23:50.490", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "2070", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "I think to approach this problem, you need to recognize that `つく` isn't a word\nwith many different meanings, from \"stick\" to \"tell lies\" to \"stab\".\n\nThe situation you are facing is that these are different words that happen to\nbe [homonyms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym) (words that sound the\nsame). `吐く`, `突く`, `付く`, `着く`, and all the rest are distinct entities, not all\naspects of some common thing.\n\nNow, before some [etymologist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymologist) jumps\nall over me and points out some potential relationships, note I am not saying\nthey don't potentially share roots or commonalities. I'm just saying that _in\nthis situation_ the possible commonalities in the origins of these words\naren't as useful as the differences as their modern usage.\n\nOnce you see that these are different words with different kanji, you can see\nthat this isn't like taking a word and adding `する` in order to make it a verb.\nThis is just a matter of putting words together to refine a meaning. It's like\nadding `出す` to `取る` to make `取り出す【とりだす】` to mean \"pull out\" instead of simply\nusing `取る` to mean just \"pull\".\n\nThat you sometimes see it in hiragana isn't an indication that this is some\nkind of grammatical form, just that in all likelihood, the author just chose\nto not use kanji, as Japanese often do as a matter of course.\n\nIn order to figure out what words go with which version of `つく`, there is no\nrule book, it will just depend on the sense of the resulting two word\ncombination. `嘘つく` is not going to be `嘘点く`, because what would it mean to\nlight with a lie? I suppose you could get poetic, but let's just keep to\ncommon, every day usages. The point is that the normal combination is `嘘吐く`,\nbecause `吐く` means to tell lies (I like to think it means that lies are\n\"spat\").\n\nUnfortunately, not all combinations are obvious. The only way to be sure in an\nunclear case, though, is to use a dictionary or ask someone.\n\nAlso, last note, it just happens that sometimes okurigana is omitted in some\nof these kinds of kanji combinations. So `落ち着く` can also be written as `落着く`.\nThe middle `ち` is dropped, so to a beginner it might appear as a kanji\ncompound, but it's really just a two word combination.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T08:51:46.397", "id": "2076", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T08:51:46.397", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2070", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2090", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I maintain a [flashcards](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashcard) app (called\nAnkiDroid), it is open source so various users contributed the Japanese UI\nlocalization.\n\nUnfortunately, for the term \"flashcards deck\" (a file containing a number of\ncards about a particular topic), there seems to be two schools of thought:\nSome are using デッキ while others are using 単語帳.\n\nFor the sake of consistency, I must choose one, but I have no idea which is\nbetter. \nWhich one would you keep?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T07:56:07.407", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2073", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-25T23:36:22.663", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-25T23:36:22.663", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "terminology", "computing" ], "title": "Software flashcards deck = 単語帳 or デッキ?", "view_count": 209 }

[ { "body": "デッキ seems to be most often used in the sense of the first definition given [on\nWiktionary](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deck):\n\n> Any flat surface that can be walked on: a balcony; a porch; a raised patio;\n> a flat rooftop.\n\n単語帳 describes what you're talking about perfectly.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T08:12:07.633", "id": "2075", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T08:32:29.807", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-20T08:32:29.807", "last_editor_user_id": "384", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "2073", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "`デッキ` as a deck of cards is not established among the general people. I guess\nonly people who are particularly related to playing cards, RPG cards, or\nmagicians may use it in that way. For most other people, `デッキ` will primarily\nmean 'cassette deck', or the meanings rintaun mentions, or as part of a noun\ncompound `デッキチェアー` 'deck chair'. `単語帳` particularly means 'flashcards' (or a\nnotebook with similar content), and sounds more natural.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T18:41:05.343", "id": "2090", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T18:41:05.343", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2073", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2092", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> **Related:** [Dissecting つく\n> verbs](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/2070/384)\n\nThere are many verbs which are pronounced つく, and I was simply wondering: **Do\ntheir intonation patterns differ?**\n\nIf so, **what are the intonation patterns of the most common forms of つく in\nTokyo dialect?**\n\nCommon: 付く、着く、吐く、突く", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T09:07:46.217", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2077", "last_activity_date": "2013-09-23T18:51:26.080", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.740", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "384", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "words", "pronunciation", "pitch-accent", "intonation" ], "title": "Do the various verbs pronounced つく differ in intonation?", "view_count": 258 }

[ { "body": "The NHK pronunciation dictionary prescribes that:\n\n 1. 付く, 着く, （羽根を）撞く, （職に）就く, （嘘を）吐く, （位に）即く, （明かりが）点く, and （餅を）搗く all have the accent on the first or second mora (with first preferred: HL)\n 2. 突く has no accent (so in isolation it is LH, but note that this is not the same as accent-on-the-second-mora LH when other words follow)\n\nHope this helps!", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-21T00:03:19.270", "id": "2092", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-21T00:03:19.270", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2077", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2079", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What does the interjection ぎゃほ mean?\n\nContext: \nA: We are mentioned in (famous newspaper) \nB: ぎゃほ！ かんどう＝＝＝＝３３３\n\nDoes it have the meaning of かんどう ? Or is it surprise, or something else?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T09:41:28.460", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2078", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T12:30:05.563", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-20T12:30:05.563", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "107", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "translation", "interjections" ], "title": "Meaning of ぎゃほ ?", "view_count": 528 }

[ { "body": "\"ぎゃぼ\" is one of the unique interjections used by Noda Megumi (野田恵), the main\nprotagonist of the manga, anime and j-drama \"Nodame Cantabile\" (のだめカンタービレ)\nwhen she is surprised. She also uses \"むきゃ\" when irritated.\n\n", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T09:55:29.617", "id": "2079", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T09:55:29.617", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2078", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2084", "answer_count": 4, "body": "**_Warning:** We're all adults here, but just in case, this question may\ncontain words, in both Japanese and English, that some may not like to read._\n\nA long time ago, when I was working with a translator, a native Japanese\nspeaker, the term `気違い{きちがい}` (\"insane person\") came up. She told me it was\none of the worst insults one can use. So bad, in fact, that you wouldn't hear\nit on television.\n\nI wasn't clear to me then, or now, if she meant that as her opinion, hyperbole\nto express how bad the word is, or that there really are some guidelines or\nrules about words that can be uttered on television.\n\nIn any case, I took it to mean that `気違い{きちがい}` is much more offensive than,\nsay `「この野郎{やろう}！」`, which means \"You asshole!\"...\n[maybe](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/3459/can-%E9%87%8E%E9%83%8E%E3%82%84%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86-really-\nhave-that-many-meanings).\n\nThen, a little while ago, I'm reading a Tintin book, [`タンタンの冒険{ぼうけん} -\n青{あお}い蓮{はす}`](http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E9%9D%92%E3%81%84%E8%93%AE-%E3%82%BF%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BF%E3%83%B3%E3%81%AE%E5%86%92%E9%99%BA%E6%97%85%E8%A1%8C-14-%E3%82%A8%E3%83%AB%E3%82%B8%E3%82%A7/dp/4834011798)\n( _The Adventures of Tintin_ \\- _The Blue Lotus_ ), and on page 13, when\nTintin is running away from a sword weilding madman on drugs, he yells\n`「きちがいだ！」`\n\nSince this is a book for young readers, I guess my impression of `気違い{きちがい}`\nis wrong...?\n\nFirst question is, just how bad is `気違い{きちがい}`?\n\nSecond question, is there a list of words considered too bad for television?\n(If so, references please, lets not just speculate.)\n\n_(Please no overly technical linguistic terms. Thanks!)_", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T11:31:24.100", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2080", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-17T03:29:46.153", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:48.447", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 29, "tags": [ "word-choice", "vocabulary" ], "title": "Are there words so bad that they aren't allowed on television?", "view_count": 5654 }

[ { "body": "Oh yes. From what I understand, Japan is _over_ zealous about keeping possibly\npolitically incorrect terms off the air; see the [Wikipedia\narticle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotobagari) on \"word-hunting\" which does\nindeed mention 気違い. See the main [Japanese Wikipedia\narticle](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%94%BE%E9%80%81%E7%A6%81%E6%AD%A2%E7%94%A8%E8%AA%9E)\non 「放送禁止用語」(un-broadcastable words) for more information; it links to this\n[list of un-broadcastable\nwords](http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/4845/odio/kinku.html).\n\nOne thing to note is that the list of words considered unfit for broadcast\nincludes words in common usage that few people find offensive, not just words\nyou wouldn't say in front of your grandmother. The word 「床屋」(barbershop) is a\nprime example. There was a barbershop in the Edo period that had a\n[tokonoma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokonoma); people referred to it as\n「床の間のある店」(the shop with the tokonoma), and then just 「床屋」for short. However,\nthe kanji「床」can mean \"bed,\" so there are people who think it means that\nbarbershops were fronts for brothels, even though this is not historically\ntrue. Thus 「床屋」is on the list of un-broadcastable words, even though it is\nused in common parlance without raising any eyebrows.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T12:37:58.747", "id": "2081", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T15:00:01.660", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-20T15:00:01.660", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "2080", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 }, { "body": "I prefer this question to the [other\none](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1198/what-are-the-bad-words-\nin-japanese) because whereas the other was asking for the actual words, I feel\nthis one could evolve into more intelligent discussion on a particular facet\nof the language.\n\nTo answer the question, then: Yes, there are words so bad that (some) networks\nwill censor them. To provide a reference, I recall watching a weekly comedy\nshow on Saturday nights wherein one of the regular comedians had a routine\nbased on drawing storyboards and asking girls (where \"girl\" means early 20s)\nin the audience to fill in blanks in the dialogue. The \"correct answers\" were\nalways innocuous, but the blanks were chosen so that you could easily put in\nan vulgar word. (This was of course the entire point of the routine, as not\nonly the word itself, which was censored, but also the comedian's exaggerated\nreaction to such a word coming from a girl, drew much laughter.)\n\nJust as in the U.S., a different network (or a different broadcast time slot)\nwill have different standards for what is censored and what is allowed. A\nlate-night TBS Radio program such as 爆笑問題, which often takes in 下ネタ【しもねた】 from\nlisteners, will censor nothing, whereas a midday show on the same station will\nbe more judicious in which listener mail is chosen for reading on the air.\n\nThe most curious thing about Japanese profanity, in my opinion, is that a\nparticular word can receive different English translations based on how and\nwhen it is said. For example, 畜生【ちくしょう】 is often used as a generic profanity\nwhen the speaker is frustrated by a situation or turn of events. It could be\neasily translated into English as a four-letter word beginning with F or S\n(both of which my upbringing has made me embarrassed to type out), but I have\nheard this word in situations where a \"lesser profanity\" would be a better\ntranslation: many times from people who would never think of saying anything\nfrom the list of outright vulgar words, and once even from a father who was\nplaying a game of cards with his wife and two young children. Similarly,\nconstructions which have an \"informal variant\", such as the ～んではない prohibitive\nand its ～んじゃねぇ variant, though they sound not much different to the ears of\nnative English speakers, can sometimes be interpreted as particularly vulgar\nto native Japanese speakers. This illustrates the importance in Japanese of\n_how_ you say something over _what_ you say.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T12:58:33.263", "id": "2082", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T12:58:33.263", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2080", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "1. You are right. Using the word `気違い` is insulting and is not allowed on mass media. The reason is because its use often means that you are mixing up intellectual disability, insaneness, and other mental diseases, which have nothing to do with each other, and it connotates that they are all harmful. In the old days, mass media would write a news article such as \"a patient of a mental hospital escaped and killed someone\", and people will discriminate all the people belonging to any of the categories referred to as `気違い`, thinking that they may do a similar thing. In the worst case, there are ignorant people who even confuse physically disabled poeple with mentally disabled people and with insane people. \n\n 2. Japanese broadcasting has taboos, on which factors other than political correctness have strong influence. You can easily obtain a list by doing a search with the words '放送禁止用語', so I will not place a link here. You can often see political pressure on them. Among the famous is to mention the nature of the religional sect soukagakkai: [video 1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggn46I0Ersg&feature=player_embedded), [video 2](http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm2394265) (Video 1 is already deleted, and I added the link intentionally to show you the political pressure). Another famous taboo word is the female genital. Male genital is not a taboo, and this shows sexual bias.\n\n**Edit** [The original\nvideo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6aaxqBKpvc&feature=feedrec_grec_index)\non youtube came to my attention, which shows the moment of an NHK announcer's\nmentioning the connection of 公明党 and 創価学会 being blocked probably by a superior\nin NHK due to a political pressure by 創価学会.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T16:10:06.617", "id": "2084", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-24T23:43:39.643", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-24T23:43:39.643", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2080", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "just add two cents on 気違い, I remember from the movie about Yamashita Kiyoshi,\nwhen he is being teased for being metally handicapped he yells: 気違いじゃないだな！ In\nthis context I saw that it was rude but it did not seem like a terrible\ncurseword.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T18:50:57.930", "id": "3182", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-19T18:50:57.930", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "parent_id": "2080", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2085", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In all the anime and j-drama I have watched all these years, as far as I can\nremember, the only scenario where the greeting 「ごめんください」 is used is when the\ncharacters are in front of an ajar or open door of a house calling the\nresidents out, like 「ごめんください! だれかいませんか?」. I also remember some scenes where\nthis greeting was used in phone calls, although I can't recall whether it was\nin the beginning or before the end of the conversations.\n\nApart from the two scenarios above, are there any other scenarios where\n「ごめんください」 is used? If not, what makes this greeting so restricted in usage?\n\nN.B. Somewhat related: [Usage of すみません (sumimasen) versus ごめんなさい\n(gomen'nasai)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/317/usage-of-\nsumimasen-versus-gomennasai)", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T13:16:30.773", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2083", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T18:36:25.893", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.157", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "usage", "politeness", "set-phrases", "greetings" ], "title": "Usage of 「ごめんください」", "view_count": 2142 }

[ { "body": "`ごめんください` is an idiomatic expression used to attract someone's attention when\nvisitng that person's place. It does not mean 'appology' + 'please give' any\nmore. Pretty much similar to your example but another variant is when you want\nsomething at a shop, and you don't see a shop clerk around, you can use this\nword to call someone. If the person you want to call is already in front of\nyou, you cannot use this.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T16:59:29.597", "id": "2085", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T16:59:29.597", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2083", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "sawa already gave a good explanation of the idiom ごめんください, but I will add\nanother usage: it is also used at the end of conversation when the speaker\nleaves. In this meaning, it is also used over the phone, whereas I do not\nthink that anyone says ごめんください at the beginning of a phone call. Using ごめんください\nwhen the speaker leaves (over the phone or not) sounds old-fashioned to me.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T18:36:25.893", "id": "2089", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T18:36:25.893", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2083", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2088", "answer_count": 2, "body": "According to dictionaries, 「けど」 means ‘but’, ‘although’, ‘however’.\n\nHowever, it seems to have slightly another meaning at the end of the sentence.\nFor example, here are few example sentences with their approximate\ntranslations (correct me if I'm wrong):\n\n * 「まあ、いいけど。」 — ‘I guess, it's okay.’\n * 「お話があるのですけど」 — ‘I have something to tell you’\n * 「セーターが欲しいんだけど」 — ‘I'm looking for a sweater’\n\nTranslations demonstrate that「けど」 introduces some uncertainty, but don't\nfeature anything close to ‘but’ or ‘however’.\n\nCan anyone clarify how the meaning of 「けど」 at the end of sentence can be\nexpressed in English, when it's appropriate to use this word, and what's it\n‘politeness level’?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T18:07:44.347", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2086", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-31T11:20:43.603", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "131", "post_type": "question", "score": 40, "tags": [ "word-choice", "particles", "conjunctions" ], "title": "けど at the end of the sentence?", "view_count": 19351 }

[ { "body": "There is also `が`.\n\n> お話があるのですが\n\nIt is sort of a hedge (weakening). And I see the exact same thing in English.\nAre you a native English speaker? If so, you should have encountered these\nexpressions. I know a person who ends a sentence with `but`.\n\n> It's okay, but ... [Sentence ends without continuation]\n\nAnother variant I observe in English is:\n\n> Do you want this, or ... [Sentence ends without continuation]\n\nAnd very often, I see English speaking people starting a conversation with\n`so`:\n\n> So, I am doing a project.\n\nI personally feel uncomfortable with these, but it is the same thing in\nEnglish and Japanese. Maybe they are slightly different in that, in Japanese,\npeople put the period, but that will be awkward in English.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-20T18:16:11.963", "id": "2088", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-20T18:43:46.327", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-20T18:43:46.327", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2086", "post_type": "answer", "score": 27 }, { "body": "I often have the impression that _though_ would be a good translation.\n\n> I guess it's ok, though.\n>\n> I have something to tell you, though.\n\nOnly in the last sentence it doesn't really work in English.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-12-31T11:20:43.603", "id": "13968", "last_activity_date": "2013-12-31T11:20:43.603", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "4119", "parent_id": "2086", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2098", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I have only found the ～ませ conjugation used in the following honorific verbs:\n\n 1. いらっしゃいませ\n 2. くださいませ\n 3. なさいませ\n\nCan the conjugation be applied to other honorific verbs, like おっしゃいませ or\nめしあがりませ?\n\nOr even common verbs, like がんばりませ or つづきませ?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-21T07:47:01.343", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2097", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-21T10:36:13.627", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "verbs", "conjugations", "honorifics" ], "title": "General applicability of the ～ませ conjugation", "view_count": 466 }

[ { "body": "`ませ` is the imperative form of the polite `ます`.\n\nFor all of your examples, you cannot directly add `ませ`, but you can add\n`くださいませ`:\n\n> * おっしゃってくださいませ\n> * 召し上がってくださいませ\n> * 頑張ってくださいませ\n> * 続いてくださいませ\n>\n\nor `なさいませ`:\n\n> * おっしゃいなさいませ\n> * 召し上がりなさいませ\n> * 頑張りなさいませ\n> * 続きなさいませ\n>\n\nProbably, only a few verbs including the ones Lukman mentions have the\nconjugation `ませ`. And ento found that `召しませ`, is also possible.\n\nMy speculation for this is that only the verbs that:\n\n 1. have an auxiliary usage besides its main verb usage, and\n 2. are [suppletive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppletion) honorification\n\nhave the `ませ` conjugation.\n\n> * いらっしゃる, いる 'be' [As main verb]\n> * 召し上がって **いらっしゃる** , 食べて **いる** 'have been' [As auxiliary]\n> * くださる, くれる 'give to me' [As main verb]\n> * 召し上がって **くださる** , 食べて **くれる** 'eat for me' [As auxiliary]\n> * なさる, する 'do' [As main verb]\n> * 召し上がり **なさる** , お食べに **なる** [As auxiliary]\n>", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-21T08:33:58.907", "id": "2098", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-21T10:36:13.627", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-21T10:36:13.627", "last_editor_user_id": "384", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2097", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2156", "answer_count": 2, "body": "As in \"some one who plays video games\". Could I just use ゲーマー?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-21T09:47:38.810", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2100", "last_activity_date": "2021-03-16T19:09:54.513", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "115", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "colloquial-language" ], "title": "What is the Japanese term for a gamer?", "view_count": 9807 }

[ { "body": "That's correct. ゲーマー is the word that is generally used.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-21T09:53:04.367", "id": "2101", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-21T09:53:04.367", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "2100", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "As rintaun says, ゲーマー is the most general term for \"some one who plays video\ngames\".\n\nIn its narrower sense, when describing a person, it can mean a \"hardcore\ngamer\" as opposed to just ゲーム好き (げーむずき, casual gamer). For example, if someone\nwants to say she's just a casual gamer, she might say things like\n`ゲーム好きだけど、ゲーマーじゃありません。`\n\nIf you need to differentiate between different gamer types, there are terms\nthat roughly corresponds to the english ones.\n\n * ライトゲーマー: casual gamer\n * ミドルゲーマー: mid-core gamer\n * ヘビーゲーマー: hardcore gamer\n * コアゲーマー: especially avid fans among mid-core gamers\n\n(From Wikipedia articles:\n[ゲーマー](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B2%E3%83%BC%E3%83%9E%E3%83%BC) and\n[Gamer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer))", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T03:16:26.953", "id": "2156", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T03:16:26.953", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "541", "parent_id": "2100", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2216", "answer_count": 9, "body": "_There were a lot of great answers here. I gave the checkmark to ento's answer\nbecause I felt it most completely explained all aspects of this use of こと. But\nmany of the other answers are excellent, so if you're visiting this question\nfor the first time, please take a few moments to read through all answers.\nThanks to everyone for your help with this question._\n\n* * *\n\nWhen learning the phrase \"I like X\", everyone learns \"Xが好きだ\". But if X is a\npronoun, you sometimes see こと:\n\n> あなたが好きだ。 → あなたの **こと** が好きだ。\n\n**What purpose does こと serve here?** I know that in subordinate clauses, こと\ncan eliminate ambiguity:\n\n> 彼が好きな人 \"a person he likes\" _or_ \"a person who likes him\"\n>\n> 彼の **こと** が好きな人 \"a person who likes him\"\n\nBut in a simple statement such as the first example above, it doesn't seem to\nchange the meaning at all.\n\nMy own searches on this problem have yielded the following two theories\n(neither with anything to back them up):\n\n 1. こと adds a layer of indirectness, and is therefore preferred from a Japanese standpoint.\n 2. こと encompasses more of the object (\"you\" versus \"all the things about you\")\n\n**Is either of these correct?**\n\nこと also shows up in many other situations, seemingly without any effect on the\nmeaning:\n\n> 事件を覚えている。 → 事件の **こと** を覚えている。 I remember the incident.\n>\n> 地球を考えて行動する → 地球の **こと** を考えて行動する take action while considering the ~~Earth~~\n> planet _(edited to \"the planet\" to fulfill the requirement for 考える to be\n> paired with something abstract)_\n\n**What's going on here?**", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-21T13:02:35.843", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2102", "last_activity_date": "2016-07-10T20:56:45.123", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "post_type": "question", "score": 139, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "nuances", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "What is the こと in sentences such as あなたのことが好きだ?", "view_count": 33082 }

[ { "body": "I wasn't entire sure, so I asked one of my language partners, who speaks\nJapanese natively. Her answer:\n\n\"Both are same,[sic] and there are no differences between them. Howerver,[sic]\nfor me あなたのことが好きだ sounds more natural!\"\n\nSo there you have it.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-21T16:14:42.547", "id": "2104", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-21T16:14:42.547", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "2102", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Unless someone comes up with a stunning counter proposal, I am firmly in the\ncamp that says `こと` refers to \"all the things about [you or whatever\nsubject].\"\n\nIn my personal interactions, I can viscerally feel a difference between saying\n`「あなたが好き」` and `「あなたのことが好き」`.\n\nIt's a similar distinction as in English between \"I love you,\" and, \"I'm in\nlove with you.\" In one we are referring to what we conceive of as the person,\nand in the other we are speaking about our bond that exists because of the\nrelationship. However, you can see that the distinction is subtle and could\nlead to many lover's quarrels over the distincion.\n\n`「あなたが好き」` is all about relating my feelings for the person directly.\n\n「`あなたのことが好き」` is all about relating to the qualities of that person that they\nshare with me.\n\nTaking the concept further, in light of some interesting conversation and in\nline with Enno's answer, `こと` is not _merely_ \"all the things about [you or\nwhatever subject].\" Its presence lets you know that the subject has dimension,\nor quality. _(\"Quality\" in the neutral sense of having appreciable substance,\nnot in the sense of high value.)_\n\nA person, for example, has `こと`, because each individual is a universe of\nvariable traits.\n\nA slice of bread, however, is just a slice of bread. It has no `こと`... unless,\nI suppose, you were some gastronomical baking enthusiast who wanted to convey\nthe depth of your appreciation for all that bread is.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-21T16:27:47.660", "id": "2106", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T14:21:45.970", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-22T14:21:45.970", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2102", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 }, { "body": "My explanation is (along the lines of Dave's explanation) that\n\n> `のこと` will add the meaning 'things about', and that will include some\n> propositions/concerns.\n\nWith `考える` 'think', the difference is salient. As Tsuyoshi Ito points out,\n`地球を考えて行動する` is ungrammatical to me. I feel that the object of the verb `考える`\nhas to be something like proposition, question, prediction, restriction,\nprohibition, or allowance, but not simply an object. `のこと` will add the\nmeaning: 'things about', and that will include some propositions/concerns. So,\nwhereas `地球` is just an object, which cannot be the object of `考える`, `地球のこと`\nmeans 'concerns about the earth', which can be the object of `考える`. One\nexample that I can think of when `考える` takes an object without `のこと` is in\nconstant/variable settings in mathematics.\n\n> 半径 r の円 C を考える \n> '(Let us) consider circle C of radius r.'\n\nProbably, what is the object of `考える` is acutally not 'the circle C', but 'the\nexistence of the circle C', something like:\n\n> 半径 r の円 C の存在を考える \n> 'to consider the existence of the circle C of radius r'\n\nAnd indeed, if you replace the object with an intangible thing like `環境` as\nDerek suggests, the sentence improves.\n\n> 地球の環境を考えて行動する\n\nIn this case too, `環境` is interpreted as a proposition/concern related to the\nenvironment.\n\nWith `覚えている`, I see a subtle difference depending on whether you attach `のこと`.\n\n> 事件を覚えている\n\nwill mean that you remember there was such incident, but may not know anything\nfurther about it.\n\n> 事件のことを覚えている\n\nwill mean that you remember some facts related to the incident.\n\nWith `好き`, I think there should be a difference that parallels the difference\nseen above, for example, 'liking you' vs. 'liking the facts about you'. But to\nbe honest, the difference is too subtle and I cannot feel it.\n\nYou give an interesting restriction regarding the distribution of `...のこと`,\nwhich I was not aware of. In the example:\n\n> 彼が好きな人\n\n`彼が` can be interpreted either as the subject or the object of 'liking' within\nthe relative clause `彼が好きな`, and hence the ambiguity arises. Now, since the\nsubject but not the object of liking has to be animate, it would be predicted\nthat you can add `のこと` to the object but not to the subject because a\npropositional-like thing cannot be animate. And that is where the disambiguity\nthat you point out comes from:\n\n> 彼のことが好きな人\n\nIn the sentence above, `彼のこと` can only be the object.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-21T19:02:56.427", "id": "2108", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T05:09:03.487", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-22T05:09:03.487", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2102", "post_type": "answer", "score": 27 }, { "body": "So I talked to my co-workers here, and 4 of us (Japanese native) discussed\nthis for a good 30 minutes! lol\n\nOur conclusion is that the difference is very subtle and each of us had a\nslightly different explanation. The most common ground was that こと somewhat\n\"directs\" more attention (or maybe \"creates more focus\") on the subject.\n\nWe also found some examples in which \"こと\" will definitely sound odd:\n\n> * パンが好き\n> * パンのことが好き\n>\n\nThe second example sounds definitely odd. Our conclusion was that パン is not a\nunique entity and thus isn't suited to focus on. On the other hand, a unique\nperson, the earth etc. would be fine. \n \n\n> * 動物のことが好き\n> * 犬のことが好き\n>\n\nHere, both sound odd, but much better than \"パンのことが好き\" (Somehow. Perhaps it has\nsomething with the fact that animals are more animate than bread?) \n \n\n> * Fluffyのことが好き \n> (Fluffy is the name of the speaker's dog)\n>\n\nThis sounds ok. \n \nObviously these are only some amateur observations though.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T02:23:21.253", "id": "2110", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T02:23:21.253", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "499", "parent_id": "2102", "post_type": "answer", "score": 44 }, { "body": "I've let my subconscious sleep on this for a while, which has a native\nJapanese language processor built in, and come to the conclusion that のこと does\ntwo seemingly opposite things. I'll illustrate them with my inner images for\n[noun] and [noun]のこと, and later quote a dictionary to further support my\nviews.\n\nLet's take 事件のこと as an example.\n\nA plain **\" 事件\"** is a simple dot...\n\n\n\nadd a little blur/halo around the dot and arrows going toward it and you get\n**\" 事件のこと\"**:\n\n\n\nThe little blur/halo adds a \"universe of variable traits\" (quote from Dave M\nG's answer) around the subject noun and lifts it to an abstract level (because\ntraits are abstract things).\n\nThis \"abstracting\" aspect becomes apparent when the ensuing verb is about a\nphysical action:\n\n> あなたを抱きしめたい。 I want to hug you.\n>\n> あなたのことを抱きしめたい。 I want to hug all the things that is you. (figuratively)\n\nパンのことが好き, is just fine in this light, if it's meant to be \"I like everything\nabout breads,\" and not \"I like to eat breads.\"\n\nNow to the arrows. I'd like to call these the \"focusing\" feature of \"のこと\" (as\nmentioned in Enno's answer). The \"focusing\" aspect can be seen clearly when\nthe ensuing verb has directivity in itself.\n\n> 人を見下す。 Look down on someone.\n>\n> 人のことを見下す。Look down on at someone. (I know it's incorrect, but I hope the\n> spirit gets through.)\n\nWith the latter example, there's a bit more emphasis on the action of looking\ndown.\n\nAt this point, I took up the dictionary and looked if it has anything to say\nabout it. And these two definitions from\n[Daijirin](http://www.excite.co.jp/dictionary/japanese/?search=%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8&match=beginswith&itemid=07359800)\nmatch up with my observation:\n\n * \"abstracting\": (2)(ア) ある物事に関連する事柄。 Things related to a particular thing.\n * \"focusing\": (2)(イ) ある人物が動作・心情の対象であることを示す。 Indicates a person is the object of an action/emotion.\n\nThe dictionary makes it seem like these two are mutually exclusive, but I\nthink the two aspects of ..のこと can manifest themselves at the same time, or\nwith one of them more stressed than the other, depending on the\nabstractedness/directivity/etc. of the verb/noun used in conjunction.\n\nSo in summary, のこと in あなたのことが好き serves two purposes: abstracting and focusing.\n\nAs for the two theories, `theory 2. \"こと encompasses more of the object\"`\ncorresponds to the \"abstracting\" aspect of こと, which I deem true. `Theory 1.\n\"こと adds a layer of indirectness\"` is also true, because speaking abstractly\nmeans indirectness. However, I'm not sure if it's universally \"preferred from\na Japanese standpoint\", perhaps except in the case of expressing emotion\n(あなたが好きだ!), it's well conceivable that a reserved mode of expression can be\npreferred by some.\n\nI'll leave the analysis of 地球を考える and 事件を覚えている to sawa's answer =)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T15:30:22.133", "id": "2216", "last_activity_date": "2015-03-31T00:00:24.740", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2102", "post_type": "answer", "score": 92 }, { "body": "> 事件を覚えている。 → 事件のことを覚えている。\n>\n> 地球を考えて行動する → 地球のことを考えて行動する\n\nWhat I feel by reading those two is the difference in span, intention, causes\nor effects. Adding \"のこと\" extends the proposition's target to contain also\nthings that are related. I think it is similar in concept to what we have with\nについて/に関して where に関して also considers related, often unmentioned, elements.\n\n事件を覚えている。 I remember the car hitting the pedestrian. It's stored somewhere in\nmy brain, yes. \n事件のことを覚えている。 And also the weather, the ambulances, the shivers, how everything\nunfolded…\n\n地球を考えて行動する。\"it is round, isn't it? Now, let's dig a bigger hole!\" \n地球のことを考えて行動する。 \"But what if I cause harm to the planet, leading to the death\nof all Lapp penguins? What will happen to procrastinating students who studied\nthem? How dare I dig a bigger hole?!\"\n\nSo, by saying\n\n> あなたが好き\n\nAll I mean it that I like your body. By saying\n\n> あなたのことが好き\n\nI mean that I also like your presence, your being next to me, your charm, and\nso on. I like this thing that makes you different from the others. (Let's not\ndebate the degrees of fondness of \"好き\" which are irrelevant here.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T08:23:40.290", "id": "2389", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T08:23:40.290", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2102", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "`のこと` just means 'something about' or 'something from'. Like: `彼のことを好き` means,\n'I like something about him.' I guess if you said `が`, you could mean either\n'something about him likes,' or 'something about him is liked', but because of\nnuance only it's 'something about him is liked.' In a more idiomatic sense,\nwhen you talk about your sweetheart and say, \"something\", it's more like \"that\nspecial something\". So, when you say, `君のこと`, you're saying: \"that something\nspecial about you, sweetheart\". That's why you have some people saying: \"I\nlove everything about you,\" instead of, \"I love something about you,\" when\nthey translate こと in conjunction with sentiments about human relationships.\n\nThe other sentences just mean: \"I remember the incident,\" vs. \"I remember some\nthings about the incident,\" and, \"Take action in consideration of the planet\nEarth,\" vs. \"Take action in consideration of earthly things.\" In the sooner of\nthese two comparisons, \"I remember some things about the incident,\" sounds\nless arrogant. So, Japanese people might prefer that. In the latter of the two\ncomparisons, \"Take action in consideration of the Planet Earth\" may be\npreferred because it's more slogan-like. It's like saying: \"Consider that we\nmight lose the entire planet Earth if we don't act,\" versus, \"We might lose\nsome things, here on Earth, if we don't act.\" The earlier sentence sounds much\nstronger and, therefore, less out-of-place in this kind of discussion.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T22:50:10.807", "id": "2400", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T22:50:10.807", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2102", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "**I think it's related to the culture of Yamato.**\n\nwhen I was learning Japanese. my teacher told us that **Traditional Japanese\nis modest,euphemism.**\n\nfor example:when the Japanese chatting with each other about the weather,or\neven if the weather forecast. they often says\" _あしたわ 雨が降りそです(tomorrow looks\nlike rain)_ \" instead of \"明日雨が降ります(it is going to rain tomorrow)\".because of\nthe uncertainty,couldn't guarantee to make sure that tomorrow it will be rain.\n\nanother example:\" _愛してる(loving)_ \". they will never say\" _私はあなたを愛しる(I love\nyou)_ \"in common.\n\nso as _彼のことを好き._ use \" _彼のこと(something about him/her)_ \" instead of \"\n_彼(him/her)_ \" sounds more euphemistic,smooth and natural. just like William\nsaid.in my opinion \" _**XX** のこと_\" of this topic is just a substitute of \"\n_**XX** _\", and dose not have the real meaning.\n\nI'm pretty new for both English and Japanese.hope you all could understand.and\nalso hope it's helpful.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T09:03:28.943", "id": "2410", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T02:43:34.610", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-04T02:43:34.610", "last_editor_user_id": "577", "owner_user_id": "577", "parent_id": "2102", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Please allow me to address practicality. Colloquially, we use ～の事 often. It\nmakes a good padding in conversation and it sounds natural. I dunno what\nothers think, but, in writing, I find using ～の事 frequently makes you sound a\nlittle inarticulate. As we can overuse the term, if you write like how you\nspeak, you could be littering with the terms in your letters, email,\ndocuments, making them look rather messy. I advise using ～の事 in writing when\nyou think it addresses your point better by deploying it. Read newspapers,\nblogs, business documents, etc. you can see this very clearly.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-08-05T08:22:49.997", "id": "18123", "last_activity_date": "2014-08-05T08:22:49.997", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "6963", "parent_id": "2102", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2112", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Some nouns take the 「ご」 prefix:\n\n> ご両親 {りょうしん} \n> ご家族 {かぞく} \n> ご無事 {ぶじ} \n> ご安心 {あんしん} \n> ご丁寧 {ていねい}\n\nWhile many others take the 「お」 prefix:\n\n> お母さん \n> お仕事 {しごと} \n> お月 {つき}さま \n> お家 {うち} \n> お客 {きゃく}\n\nIn general, what are the criteria that determine whether a noun takes a 「ご」 or\nan 「お」?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T04:03:31.483", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2111", "last_activity_date": "2019-08-04T17:44:50.497", "last_edit_date": "2019-08-04T17:44:50.497", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "word-choice", "synonyms", "honorifics", "prefixes", "bikago" ], "title": "Honorific prefixes: 「ご」 vs 「お」", "view_count": 4465 }

[ { "body": "Most generally:\n\n * Words of Chinese (On-yomi) origin take ご\n * Words of Japanese (Kun-yomi) origin take お\n\nIf I recall correctly, there are also a very few chinese-origin words which\ntake お as they are very commonly used, but I can't think of any of these off\nthe top of my head.\n\n**Edit:** One such example is お電話.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T04:09:53.410", "id": "2112", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T04:17:30.083", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-22T04:17:30.083", "last_editor_user_id": "384", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "2111", "post_type": "answer", "score": 18 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2133", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I was wondering whether the differences in Japanese vocabulary between the\ndialects extend even so far as particles.\n\nAre there dialects that pronounce any of the standard particles differently?\nEspecially the grammatical (syntactic?) ones like は (wa), が (ga), and を (wo)?\nOr do some dialects go so far as having extra particles or not using some of\nthe standard particles?\n\nI'm expecting if it occurs at all it would be in Okinawan/Ryukyuan since the\nspeech there is classed as separate language(s) as often as dialect(s) of\nJapanese. But I have been surprised before!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T06:39:25.500", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2113", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T06:14:45.367", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-22T16:31:07.887", "last_editor_user_id": "125", "owner_user_id": "125", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "particles", "pronunciation", "dialects" ], "title": "Do any of the Japanese particles have different pronunciations in any dialects? Or extra or missing particles?", "view_count": 722 }

[ { "body": "Sure. Dialects can vary right down to the particles.\n\n * In Kansai-ben, there is a particle かて which does not appear in standard Japanese. It roughly means 〜ても, でも, さえ etc.\n * In Tohoku-ben, the particle さ is used instead of what in standard Japanese would be に or へ: 東京さ行ぐ, etc. \n * In some Nagano dialects, を is pronounced /wo/, not /o/.\n * In many dialects, including Tokyo dialects, something like 僕は might be realized as /bokaa/ instead of /bokuwa/. I believe that this is more a case of phonetic rules causing this change even when particles are involved, rather than the particle itself having a \"different pronunciation,\" though.\n * The sound /u/ in many Okinawan words corresponds to the sound /o/ in the equivalent ([cognate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate)) Japanese words, and this applies to particles too: there is a particle /tu/ corresponding to standard Japanese と, etc.\n\n**Important note:** None of these cases, as far as I know, are the result of\nthe \"correct\" standard Japanese form being transmitted to a dialect area and\nthen changing there. The dialects grew up alongside standard Japanese, and\nhappened to end up with different pronunciations for some corresponding\nparticles. The difference is subtle but important.\n\nFor example, if you were Italian, you might say as shorthand \"in Spanish, the\nword 'il' is pronounced 'el'\" (and vice versa if you were Spanish), but it is\nmore accurate to say that a common ancestor word evolved into the words /il/\nand /el/ in the two different languages. Neither language is the \"correct\" or\n\"original\" form (if anything, that would be the Latin /ille/, but even this is\nprobably an oversimplification). They are different languages and therefore\ndifferent words. (They are, however,\n[cognates](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognate).)\n\nThe Okinawan /tu/ is a particularly good example of this because Okinawan is\nso distinct from standard Japanese. It's misleading to say \"In Okinawa they\npronounce と /tu/\". It's more like \"In Okinawan, there is a particle /tu/ which\nshares the same proto-Japonic ancestor as (= is cognate to) the particle と in\nJapanese.\" But you could say the same about Nagano /wo/, the usage of /sa/ up\nnorth, etc. -- they don't derive from modern standard Japanese itself, they\ncome from an older language (or dialect family, if you like) from which modern\nstandard Japanese is _also_ derived.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T20:48:48.250", "id": "2133", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T20:48:48.250", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2113", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "Matt's answer is great, and already accepted, but I add a few things about\nTohokuben in Miyagi prefecture. Please remember that the grammar is very\nlittle formalized, and that the final particles may be used differenty\ndepending on what precedes them, or who talks.\n\n * 東京さ行ぐ -> 東京に行く\n * 〜だちゃ -> 〜ですよ(ね)\n * 〜だべ -> だろう\n * 〜だすっぺ -> でしょう\n * うまいさ -> 美味しいよ\n * 行ぐが？ -> 行くか？\n * パンば買ってけろ -> パンを買ってください\n * なじょすっぺが？ -> どうしようか？\n * これあげっから! -> これをあげるよ!\n\nand the list continues…", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T06:14:45.367", "id": "2139", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T06:14:45.367", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2113", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2117", "answer_count": 1, "body": "One of the most useful turns of phrase in Japanese is `ありがた迷惑{めいわく}`, which is\nthat of being helpful in a way that is not helpful. It can cover situations\nwhere one is being helpful to semi-deliberately cause guilt (Hi mom!), or\nsituations where the helper is sincere but causing more harm than good.\n\nFor a long time I pronounced it as `ありがたい めいわく`, because I assume it was a\ncombination of \"grateful\" and \"troublesome\".\n\nSince learning the correct way of saying it, I've always wondered, why is\nthere no `い` at the end of `ありがた`?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T07:45:35.413", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2114", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-10T02:37:42.383", "last_edit_date": "2016-01-10T02:37:42.383", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "set-phrases", "spelling" ], "title": "Where's the missing い in ありがた迷惑【ありがた　めいわく】?", "view_count": 444 }

[ { "body": "ありがた迷惑 is not two separate words. It is one word, a compound noun. When you\nmake a compound noun like this in Japanese, you only use the stem of the\nadjective. The stem of ありがたい is ありがた, so this gets added to 迷惑 and you end up\nwith ありがた迷惑.\n\nHere are some similar examples of \"adjective stem + noun\" compound nouns, and\nthe equivalent \"adjective, noun\" two-word constructions:\n\n * 黒髪 (くろかみ) vs 黒い髪 (くろいかみ)\n * 細身 (ほそみ) vs 細い身 (ほそいみ)\n * 嬉し涙 (うれしなみだ) vs 嬉しい涙 (うれしなみだ)\n * 早口 (はやくち) vs 早い口 (はやいくち)\n\nIn each of these cases, the two-word noun-phrase form (on the right) is a\n_syntactically_ correct construction. But because the compound noun (on the\nleft) has been lexicalized (become a word in its own right), it will usually\nhave taken on some meaning or nuance of its own, diverging from the two-word\nconstruction to a greater or lesser degree. (And of course the fact that one\nis a noun and the other is a multi-word noun phrase can in itself have\nimplications for how they interact with other words in a phrase or sentence.)\nSo the two constructions are not interchangeable, even though they are\nobviously related.\n\nAll this applies to other types of compound nouns, too, e.g. 行き先 vs 行く先 etc.\n\nIn the case of ありがたい迷惑, I would hypothesize that ありがた迷惑 is so strongly\nlexicalized that in the majority of cases, unless it was clear that you were\nusing the form ありがたい迷惑 intentionally for effect, people would simply assume\nthat you meant to say ありがた迷惑 and misspoke.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T08:15:55.600", "id": "2117", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T14:02:35.327", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-22T14:02:35.327", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2114", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2129", "answer_count": 4, "body": "**_Warning:** This question contains words in both Japanese and English that\nsome might not want to read._\n\n**_Also:** My apologies that this question is lengthy. However, I wanted to\ntake care to express it properly._\n\nWhen I asked about [words that are not permitted on\ntelevision](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2080/are-there-words-\nso-bad-thay-they-arent-allowed-on-television), I was trying to get at the\nconcept of what makes a word \"bad\" in Japanese, because clearly the concept is\ndifferent than in English. However, that question opened my eyes to the\nconnected, but different issues of political correctness and\n[zeitgeist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitgeist). It was fascinating and\nhelpful, but I'm still wondering about how Japanese handles curse words.\n\nSo I am going to come at the question a different way in hopes of getting a\ndefinitive answer on something I know plagues many learners of Japanese:\n\nDoes Japanese _actually_ have swear words?\n\nWe all know the stereotype, which is that when you ask a Japanese person,\n\"what are some curse words in Japanese?\" they say, \"oh, we don't have those.\"\nThen one learns of words which _seem to be_ curse words, and the perception is\nbuilt that the Japanese language does contain curse words, but a culture that\nwants to be seen as non-confrontational obscures those words from outsiders.\nThus a whole bunch of stereotypes about Japan and Japanese people get\nreinforced, such as the fact that they withhold things from outsiders, or that\nthey are too shy to speak openly about some things, or whatever else.\n\nI thought `気違い【きちがい】 was one of those words, until I saw it in a book for\nkids. Now that I've seen the list of words unsuitable for broadcast, I now\nknow that it's offense doesn't lie in its purpose, but its inappropriateness.\nIt's probably best translated as \"psycho\", which, in English, is still used as\nan insult, it's acceptable in a wide variety of contexts, but a news anchor\nwouldn't say, \"police caught the psycho late last night.\"\n\nSo one thing one will note about [words not suitable for\nbroadcast](http://www.geocities.co.jp/WallStreet/4845/odio/kinku.html), is\nthat all of them can, in fact, be on TV, but it's all about when and how.\n\nSurprisingly to me, There are some words that are _not_ on the list that I\nthink might count as \"dirty words\", such as `てめえ`, `野郎【やろう】`, and `くそ`.\n\nI've seen these words translated as \"motherfucker\", \"asshole\", and \"shit\",\nrespectively.\n\nHowever, I've also seen them translated as \"you\" (although a stern \"you\"),\n\"rascal\", and \"damn\".\n\nThat flexibility is crazy to my mind, because in my culture, the _purpose_ of\na word like \"motherfucker\" is to convey an extreme of passions, or an extreme\nof comradery. You say it with intent to people you really want to know you are\nmad at, or people who already know you are such good friends that it's a joke.\nEither way, it conveys extremes.\n\nThus the real question, is if there is a concept of words that are on the\nother side of a line of general acceptability, like George Carlin's _[Seven\nDirty Words](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words)_.\n\nMy concern when I see `野郎` translated as \"rascal\" is that it's that maybe the\nword doesn't mean \"rascal\" at all, but something has been lost in the\ntranslation because the context didn't carry over.\n\nPut another way, in English, I can call my friend an \"asshole\" in a joking way\nthat I can get away with because we're friends. So when `野郎` is translated as\n\"rascal\", might that not simply be a case where the translator (in a general\nsense) was worried that the friendly context that made \"asshole\" acceptable\nwouldn't be conveyed?\n\nWith all that context in mind, I hope we can answer \" ** _Does Japanese\nactually have swear words?_** \" definitively. I hope an answer can directly or\nindirectly cover address the following points:\n\n 1. Are there words that are always harsh and insulting, that do not range from \"you\" to \"motherfucker\"? Words that are decidedly curse words? (Note I am not asking for a list, I'm asking for an analysis of their place in the language)\n\n 2. Is sometimes translating `野郎` to \"rascal\" actually a fair translation, or is it a [kludge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kludge) to try and make up for context that is hard to capture in words?\n\n 3. Does the Japanese answer \"we don't have those\" reflect the fact that Japanese really don't consider any words \"bad\"? Or does it reflect that they don't want to be involved by proxy in any contexts that call for those words?\n\n 4. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a word like `てめえ` is a curse word, and that it's default implication is bad, and that context can make it less threatening? In other words, it's not that its definition ranges from \"motherfucker\" to \"you\", it's that it means approximately \"motherfucker\", but given the right context it is _made_ acceptable, just like \"motherfucker\" in English.\n\n_Please no overly technical linguistic terminology so that answers are\nunderstandable for everyone. Thanks!_", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T08:57:07.713", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2118", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-19T21:58:23.300", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:43.857", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 26, "tags": [ "word-choice" ], "title": "Is there an equivalent to George Carlin's \"Seven Dirty Words\" in Japanese?", "view_count": 9621 }

[ { "body": "_Be advised that this post contains language which some may not find\nacceptable._\n\nI think the problem here is that the definition of \"swear word\" is not by any\nmeans static or universal. Is there a Japanese equivalent of \"shit\"? Well, in\nso many words, **not really** (though there may be words which are used\nsimilarly). But then, I don't actually think that's what you're asking.\n\nSo what _is_ a swear word, anyway? When you get right down to it, it's a word\nthat is on the extreme end of impolite. Traditionally in English, these\ngenerally tend to be words referring to bodily functions, usually of Anglo-\nSaxon origin (piss, shit, and fuck being primary examples). However, what is\nimpolite in one situation may not be so in another -- this is why you can get\naway with good-heartedly calling your friend an asshole, most of the time (but\nnot in church): **politeness is contextual.**\n\nThe result of this is that with continued use, we become desensitized as a\nsociety to them, and they lose their shock value. Eventually, they're replaced\nwith other impolite words. This has been happening in the United States quite\nvisibly in recent years, where the traditional \"four letter words\" are not\nconsidered \"bad\" by the younger population, and are being replaced by (for\nexample) racial slurs -- the power of which is evident in that I am hesitant\nto write them even in a scholarly discussion on the matter.\n\nThe important take-away is that it's all about context. Are there words that\nare impolite in most contexts in Japanese? Well, sure. In most contexts, てめえ\nis pretty impolite and insulting. But in all? I don't think such a thing\nexists in English, either. **Even \"motherfucker\" isn't always harsh and\ninsulting.**\n\nSo the question as I see it, is what does Japanese consider \"impolite\"? This\nis something we learn very earlier in Japanese, since it's so heavily\nrepresented in the grammar. Calling your teacher お前, then, is quite impolite,\nwhile doing the same with your best friend is almost explicitly not. The\ndisconnect occurs because of the thought that _it only means \"you\"_ \\-- well,\nsure, but that's just because Japanese measures politeness **so differently**\nthan English. In Japanese, it's more about station than about vocabulary (i.e.\neven **more** explicitly contextual). If I use words that raise myself up (or\nlower you down), when I should be doing the opposite (i.e. with a student-\nteacher relationship), it becomes impolite. That it is \"just a pronoun\" is\nentirely irrelevant; English having only \"you\" just confuses this.\n\nThe problem with translating these words, then, is that in English, we have to\nuse different words for different levels of politeness, while Japanese is more\nheavily contextual. So is translating 野郎 as \"rascal\" sometimes acceptable,\neven arguably _correct?_ Sure. You could argue that it's a kludge, but really,\nin my experience, **translation is always a kludge.** You always lose\nsomething in translation (though _where_ you lose it is a different question).\n\nI think the statement \"we don't have those\" reflects all of this as well; it's\nnot that they don't have impolite words, but rather that what is _primarily_\nconsidered impolite is so different. Just like you, they see our four letter\nwords and say, \"oh yeah, we don't have those\" -- all the while ignoring words\nthat are, in many situations, extremely impolite.\n\nYou could probably say all of those things about てめえ and nobody would ever\nsincerely disagree with your intent, but the problem is that its definition\n_isn't_ \"motherfucker.\" Its definition also does not _range_ from \"you\" to\n\"motherfucker\" depending on the context. てめえ is a second person pronoun which\nmeans \"you.\" **Period.** There is no arguing that fact. But contextually, I\nwould agree that its primary _use_ is just as you've said.\n\nSo, to tie everything back all up together nicely in a bow... **There are no\ninherently bad words in _any_ language, Japanese included.** What makes them\nbad is _always_ the cultural context surrounding them. I think we can all\nagree that the cultural context in which Japanese primarily exists is\nsignificantly different than the neighborhood English grew up in, so it's not\nat all odd that what we consider rude or insulting is so different.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T09:45:11.640", "id": "2119", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T09:45:11.640", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "2118", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "Swear words are \"swear words\" because they are considered so impolite that you\nwould never speak them in a polite setting. There is nothing inherently bad\nabout them, they're just words... But they low, crass words, and would upset\ngenteel ears to hear them.\n\nWith that in mind, I'm sure you can already think of some words that fit the\nbill.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T11:48:04.920", "id": "2120", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T12:38:10.327", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-22T12:38:10.327", "last_editor_user_id": "94", "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "2118", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "_Warning: This post contains objectionable language._\n\nPartial answer, but I know of one word that might actually have the taboo\nconnotation you're talking about. [From\njeKai](http://www.jekai.org/entries/aa/00/np/aa00np25.htm):\n\n> おまんこ is a vulgar Japanese word that means \"vulva\" or \"vagina.\"\n>\n> おまんこ is perhaps the most taboo word in Japanese. That is, it is widely\n> known, but its use is severely restricted. In this regard, it is similar to\n> the English synonym \"cunt.\" ...\n>\n> The word おまんこ does not appear in the broadsheet newspapers or on television\n> or radio, and when it does appear in print and on the Web it is often\n> partially blacked out. According to a citation in 性語辞典, the word is even\n> censored from the soundtracks of pornographic videos, and if the word is\n> spoken on-camera by a performer it is bleeped out...", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T18:49:11.903", "id": "2129", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T18:49:11.903", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "28", "parent_id": "2118", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "I don't know if I'm writing the right kanji, but doesn't the rude word for a\ndeaf person, 唖, usually get censored? I recall there were a few words like\nthis that wouldn't be a swear in English but were usually censored in Japan;\nthough of course one wouldnt really use them as an invective like sh*t or\nfu*k. I saw this word censored on tv but it was used a lot in the kurosawa\nfilm The Hidden Fortress (隠し砦の三悪人 Kakushi toride no san akunin).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-09-19T21:58:23.300", "id": "3183", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-19T21:58:23.300", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "706", "parent_id": "2118", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2122", "answer_count": 3, "body": "While visiting Tokyo, I noticed that most levels were indicated by `B2F, B1F,\n1F, 2F`, ... .\n\nThis doesn't look like the Romaji for `-kai` or `-gai` counter-words, which I\nassume would be `chika ni-kai, chika ikkai, ikkai, ni-kai`, ... .\n\nIs it wasei-eigo for `Basement 2nd Floor, Basement 1st Floor, 1st Floor, 2nd\nFloor`?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T13:28:27.123", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2121", "last_activity_date": "2022-06-11T23:51:01.193", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:09:53.740", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "etymology", "numbers", "counters", "wasei-eigo" ], "title": "Is B2F, B1F, 1F, 2F, ... wasei-eigo?", "view_count": 7875 }

[ { "body": "This may be an answer to Derek's comment rather than to Andrew's original\nquestion.\n\nThey are commonly written on walls right in front of an elevator, stairs, or\nan escalator, or on elevator buttons. They stand for Basement 2nd Floor,\nBasement 1st Floor, 1st Floor, 2nd Floor, as Andrew wrote. In Japanese, when\nwords are abbreviated, they are usually abbreviated in romanization or\nabbreviated after its English word. Writing `F` would require much less\nstrokes than `階`.\n\nI did not know that they are wasei-eigo. Are they not used in English? Or, do\nyou mean that the word order `Basement 2nd Floor` is wrong as English and\nshould rather be `2nd Basement Floor` or `2nd Floor Underground` or something?\nIf you mean that, then it might be wasei-eigo. The idea is something like\n'negative 2nd floor'.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T13:57:53.230", "id": "2122", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T13:57:53.230", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2121", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "You already know what these signs mean, but let me try to answer your specific\nquestion: Are these wasei-eigo? A short answer is “probably no.”\n\nRecall that a wasei-eigo is a word which looks like a loanword from English\nbut in fact is made in Japan. Although the signs B2F, B1F, 1F, 2F, and so on\nare specific to Japan (and possibly some other non-English-speaking\ncountries), I do not think that it is common to call them wasei-eigo. They are\njust “signs used primarily in Japan,” and it is not clear if they are words at\nall.\n\nSometimes people may abbreviate 地下1階 to B1F in writing, but even in that case,\nI guess that most people read it as ちかいっかい. This suggests that B1F is merely a\nway to write 地下1階 instead of a separate word in its own right.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T14:47:49.143", "id": "2215", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T14:47:49.143", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2121", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Let me add my own opinion to the contrary.\n\nThe ...B2, B1, 1, 2... numbering system for floors was likely borrowed from\nsome foreign country when elevator technology was first imported into Japan,\ntherefore likely from USA.\n\nAs for the F suffix, it's probably from the English \"floor\", as the same word\nin other languages doesn't begin with F (To wit: Andar, Verdieping, Etage,\nPiano, Piso... just to list the languages most often used in Japanese\nloanwords.)\n\nOne might guess they added the F suffix because numbers in Japanese must\nalways have a counter after them. You never say 2, you say 2人 for two people,\n2匹 for two animals, and so on.\n\nAs for the choice of F vs 階, either printing technology on elevator buttons\nwas not up to the task at the time (most likely) or B2階 looked wrong to\nJapanese eyes, or not \"modern\" enough to appear on something as futuristic as\nan elevator.\n\nSo yes, considering that B very likely stands for basement and F for floor,\nbut nobody says B2F outside of Japan, I would consider them \"English made in\nJapan\" or wasei-eigo. And yes, a single letter or romaji acronym can count as\na word in Japanese, see Hする and others.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2022-06-11T23:51:01.193", "id": "94933", "last_activity_date": "2022-06-11T23:51:01.193", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4104", "parent_id": "2121", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2125", "answer_count": 3, "body": "`**Part 1**`\n\nI understand **探す** to be **to search for something (general)**\n\nand **捜す** to be **to search for something lost**\n\nBut do people actually care about the difference in nuance when they use it?\n\nI mean do people use them interchangeably like using **捜す** for searching\n(general) and **探す** for searching for something lost?\n\n`**Part 2**`\n\nDo japanese school children learn the kanji 捜す first or 探す ?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T14:54:54.397", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2123", "last_activity_date": "2020-06-15T12:06:04.817", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-06T22:28:02.223", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "nuances", "kanji", "homophonic-kanji" ], "title": "do people actually respect the nuances of 探す vs 捜す?", "view_count": 4363 }

[ { "body": "Together with many other questions on this website tagged as 'homophonic-\nkanji', this is a case where in ancient Japanese when there was no writing\nsystem, there was no distinction among these words (i.e., they were a single\nword), but Chinese had finer distinction, and when Chinese characters were\nbrought into Japanese, different Chinese characters came to be used to\ndescribe the same Japanese word depending on the context to match the\ndistinction in Chinese. As a result, they came to be pronounced the same but\nwritten differently, and even after thousands of years, in native Japanese\nspeaker's mind, it is often a subtle thing whether they are different words or\nnot. People actually often do have problems distinguishing these, and there\nare dictionaries and software tools that assist you to distinguish them in\nkana-kanji conversion.\n\nQuite often, there is a character that is used generally, this case `探` as you\npoint out, which stands as the representative of the words in the group. The\ncharacter for a specific meaning can usually be replaced by a character of the\ngeneric one, but not the other way around.\n\n`探` is taught at the sixth grade. `捜` is taught at the seven grade or later.\nIn general, the kanji with the general usage is understood to be easier than\nthe ones with the specific meanings.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T15:11:29.437", "id": "2125", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-06T23:11:46.930", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-06T23:11:46.930", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2123", "post_type": "answer", "score": 24 }, { "body": "I was taught that 探 is used for \"things\" and 捜 is used for people.\n\n## 探 \n\n> * 探求 【たんきゅう】 → quest, pursuit\n> * 探究 【たんきゅう】 → inquiry, (re)search\n> * 探査 【たんさ】 → investigation\n>\n\n## 捜 \n\n> * 捜査 【そうさ】 → criminal investigation, search\n> * 捜索 【そうさく】 → a search for, manhunt\n>\n\n \nAlthough after researching this a bit, it does seem that the latter also has\nthe nuance of something being lost or gone, and the former can pertain to\nsomething desired.\n\nIn my experience, people only seems to respect the nuances as they pertain to\neither \"person\" or \"thing\"; but even then, not super carefully.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T17:15:34.593", "id": "2128", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-07T03:16:22.650", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-07T03:16:22.650", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2123", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I was watching an anime in which at some point a letter is shown. The\nsituation is like the brother of the reader of this letter is hiding a card in\na shopping mall and the reader must find it. A card is obviously a thing and\nnot a living being.\n\nSo, it seems that 捜 is used in a \"hunt\" way, searching things or people that\nyou don't know where they are but you need/want to find them. Not just lost\nthings, because in this case, the reader is not the owner of this card so he\nnever lost it.\n\nThis is the full sentence:\n\n> このショッピングモールの中に一人だけカードのありかを知ってる人がいるよ テレパシーを使って捜してみてね\n\nHope it helps.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2020-06-15T00:33:36.130", "id": "78016", "last_activity_date": "2020-06-15T12:06:04.817", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-15T12:06:04.817", "last_editor_user_id": "22352", "owner_user_id": "39360", "parent_id": "2123", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2127", "answer_count": 2, "body": "[WWWJDIC](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE@nakanaka) defines なかなか (with negative verb) as **by no\nmeans**\n\nBut shouldn't it have been **considerably** ?\n\n**By no means** means 100% not\n\n**considerably** means like 85% not\n\nSo does なかなか (with negative verb) bends more towards **by no means** or\n**considerably**?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T15:10:33.437", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2124", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T18:28:36.553", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-22T18:28:36.553", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "words", "definitions", "meaning" ], "title": "Does なかなか (with negative verb) mean \"by no means\" or \"considerably\"?", "view_count": 3038 }

[ { "body": "Elaborating on Amanda's comment, it is very often that one word in some\nlanguage has to be translated into two different words in another language\ndepending on the polarity (negation or affirmative) of the sentence. To give\nyou an example in English, consider the word `any`. In affirmative contexts,\n`any` means universal quantification (expressed by the logical symbol `∀`)\n\n> Any person would want to do that.\n\nIn negative contexts, `any` means existential quantification (expressed by the\nlogical symbol `∃​`)\n\n> I did not see any person in the building.\n\nThis sentence is the negation of:\n\n> I saw **some** person in the building.\n\nand is not the negation of:\n\n> I saw **every** person in the building.\n\nIt might be possible to subsume these two meanings under a single meaning\ndepending on the linguistic analysis you take. But it is also true that\ndifferent languages use different words to make different distinctions. That\nmay help you imagine why it is like what you asked.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T15:29:47.770", "id": "2126", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T17:18:08.517", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-22T17:18:08.517", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2124", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Ah, なかなか. How often you frustrate my attempts to translate you!\n「なかなか」はなかなか翻訳しづらいですね。\n\nI will leave the discussion of inter-language correspondences to the\nprofessionals and attempt to educe a definition. For my example sentences, I\nwill use the Chakoshi corpus from Purdue ([searchable\nhere](http://tell.fll.purdue.edu/chakoshi/public.html), but the interface\nleaves much to be desired).\n\nFirst, with non-potential verbs (these are from the conversational corpus, so\nthere are some really informal contractions here):\n\n> …中耳炎 **なかなか** 治らなくってー、治ってはぶり返してぶり返しててー、病院通いも大変だし。 …my tympanitis just\n> wouldn't get better, and every time it did it just kept coming back, and\n> going to the hospital was a pain.\n>\n> お母さんにも、あれ **なかなか** わかってくれんかった。 I couldn't seem to get my mother to\n> understand that either.\n>\n> メール **なかなか** 集まんないさー。 The e-mails don't really come in.\n>\n> でもねー、なんかバスが **なかなか** 来なかったりするじゃん… But there are times when the bus just\n> won't show up, you know…\n\nThe first conclusion we can draw from these examples is that they **imply the\npassage of time**. That is, a particular state (defined by the negative verb)\ncontinues over some length of time.\n\nThe use of なかなか can also **imply an expectation on the part of the speaker**.\nIn the sentences above, なかなか hints that the speaker waited for and expected\nsomething to happen (the tympanitis to get better, the e-mail to accumulate,\netc), but after some time passed, the expected result still had not come.\n\nThese two implications are present in sentences with potential verbs as well:\n\n> あたし、でも、部屋が寒いと **なかなか** 起きられないからさあ。 But for me, when the room's cold I can't\n> seem to get out of bed.\n>\n> 最近さー、眼鏡がどこにあるかさえ **なかなか** 見つけられないぐらい、目が悪くなってきたんだけど。 Lately my eyes have\n> gotten so bad I have trouble just finding where my glasses are.\n>\n> 連休の間だったから、あの、宿泊が **なかなか** 取れなくって。 It was a long weekend, so, I couldn't\n> really find a place to stay.\n\nWith potential verbs, なかなか **implies that the speaker put forth a good deal of\neffort** (over a length of time) but was still not rewarded with the expected\nresult, or that **the speaker achieved the desired result only with\ndifficulty**.\n\nA sub-category of なかなか deals with existence or frequency:\n\n> だけどヤリイカの生が **なかなか** 売ってないんですよ、魚屋さんに。 But it's hard to find fresh spear squid\n> at the fish market.\n>\n> そうだ、 **なかなか** 受けてくれる人いないもんな。 Right, there just aren't many people who would\n> accept that.\n>\n> 緊張してるＡさんなんか、 **なかなか** 見れないから、見たかった。 It's not often you get to see A when\n> he's nervous, so I wanted to see him.\n>\n> ケーキって、１人で住んでると、 **なかなか** 食べないからさ。 Since cake, you know, isn't something you\n> eat all that much when you're living alone.\n\nThis use of なかなか merely **implies that the action does not happen all that\nmuch or only rarely**. The implication of expectation is weakened or entirely\nabsent in this use.\n\nAs mentioned by others, there is no nice English translation for なかなか that\nworks all the time, so it has to be treated on a case-by-case basis. I hope\nthe examples and explanations here help you decipher なかなか the next time you\nsee it paired with a negative.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T16:15:35.280", "id": "2127", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T16:15:35.280", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2124", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2131", "answer_count": 4, "body": "How can I greet a person in a manner similar to \"Nice to find you in here!\" (—\nmeaning meeting a friend by chance somewhere)?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T20:15:39.893", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2130", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-30T14:54:46.500", "last_edit_date": "2015-06-30T14:54:46.500", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "536", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "words", "usage", "greetings" ], "title": "Greeting for meeting a friend by chance", "view_count": 1483 }

[ { "body": "The most common one is\n\n> 奇遇ですね。 \n> 'It's coincidental (as if it were planned).'\n\nbut it does not particularly mean you feel nice about it (nor does it mean it\nis bad). If you want to express that, you can just add the direct translation:\n\n> またお会いできてよかったです。 \n> 'I am happy to meet with you again.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T20:33:17.867", "id": "2131", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T20:33:17.867", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2130", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 }, { "body": "I'd say\n\n> （ここで）出会って よかった／うれしかった （です）！", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-22T20:43:37.407", "id": "2132", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-22T20:43:37.407", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2130", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "There might be a lot more ways to say that, but I’ll try to offer more general\nexamples. The following lines would be said with a wide smile.\n\n> あら、こんにちは（or どうも）！ (Female speakers would say to their friends.)\n>\n> よ、どうも（or こんにちは）！ (Male speakers would say to their friends.)\n\nIn my opinion, Japanese people don’t say a counterpart to “nice” because they\nexpress it with their smile. They don’t bother to say it. 「あら」and「よ」are said\nto draw an attention. (They might express a pleasant surprise.)\n\nI’m not sure how often speakers like こんにちは or どうも, but as far as my family is\nconcerned, my husband, 40s, don’t like long words. I like longer words, for\nsome reason. (It may depend on speakers’ sex, but I don’t know for sure.)\n\nWell, just for your information, what about meeting superiors?\n\nI would say\n\n> あら（or どうも）、こんにちは！\n\nMy husband will probably say\n\n> どうも、こんにちは！\n\nThe above lines would be said with a wide smile and a bow. I personally think\nどうも adds a little polite tone to the line. I feel this どうも is different from\nthe どうも in 「よ、どうも」which seems simply to mean “hello”in a friendly way.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T00:51:23.247", "id": "2134", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T00:51:23.247", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2130", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "I would go with お久しぶり！ because it works even if you saw them 2 days ago.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T03:01:22.170", "id": "2135", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T03:01:22.170", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "2130", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2138", "answer_count": 4, "body": "There are a few books with lists of words and kanji compounds found in the\nnews. Like [this one](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0804809194),\n[this one](http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4789012824), and [this\none](http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4757413300).\n\nHowever, unless one wants to spend a lot of time doing data entry, they don't\nlend themselves well to modern flashcard programs, both online and off.\n\nI was wondering if there were web pages and sites that might have this kind of\nthing, so the words can copied more efficiently into one's flashcard program?\n\nI suppose there are potentially two categories of words, ones that are\nperennially in newspapers (political, economic, and crime related terms), and\nones that try and capture the current zeitgeist (popular people, recent\nincidents, names of places where things happened.) Both types would be\nhelpful.\n\nOne with definitions and readings would be best. English would be ideal but\nnot required.\n\nOn a related note, what would you search for on [Google](http://google.co.jp)\nto find this kind of thing? I went along these lines:\n\n> 新聞の最近よく使っている言葉\n\n... But it didn't get me much.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T04:14:10.620", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2136", "last_activity_date": "2012-08-21T07:30:43.410", "last_edit_date": "2012-08-21T07:30:43.410", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "words", "learning", "resources", "dictionary" ], "title": "Is there an online list of frequently used words in the news?", "view_count": 2251 }

[ { "body": "It's not exactly what you were looking for, but would something like this be\nsatisfactory?\n\n<http://www.manythings.org/japanese/news/>\n\nHas an online quiz/flashcard Flash app for the most frequent words taken from\na newspaper.\n\nAs for the words themselves, you can get the frequency list and his steps for\ncompiling it on the quiz about page (if you want to take the same information\nand try to use it for some other flashcard app):\n\n> <http://www.manythings.org/q/n-about.htm>\n>\n> ...\n>\n> * I then merged the counts for words which were the same, but entered in\n> that database under different inflections.\n> * My \"cleaned-up\" list is here: _(boo, hyperlink limit; check the\n> original page for the link here)_ (723 Kb.)\n> * After that, I put that data through Jim Breen's WWWJDICT (Copyright\n> Notice / EDICT link) to grab the definitions. Then I removed a certain\n> amount of the data such as names of people, words marked as BU and other\n> things that did not seem appropriate.\n>\n\n>\n> ...\n\nSome downsides are that the list is derived from a single newspaper over four\nyears. Also the copyright on that page is from 2003, so I'm not sure how\noutdated any of the data would be.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T04:49:05.633", "id": "2137", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T04:49:05.633", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "537", "parent_id": "2136", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "The three annually revisited books: 現代用語の基礎知識, イミダス, and 知恵蔵 are particularly\nfamous for studying the trendy words with definition/explanation. They seem to\nbe putting things online, but some are not free. I found [this\none](http://kotobank.jp/), which seems to be free. You may want to follow the\n'アクセスランキング' link on it.\n\nFor your purpose, a search with '現代用語' will give you good results.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T05:21:31.753", "id": "2138", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T05:21:31.753", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2136", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Your Amazon links get mangled by SE, so I cannot really check what is in your\nrejected options (since the link below is the most obvious one, I wouldn't be\ntoo surprised if it is), but just in case:\n\nThe ever reliable [Japanese resource\npage](http://ftp.monash.edu.au/pub/nihongo/00INDEX.html#oth_fil) maintained by\nJim Breen offers two datasets compiled from news archive:\n\n> In 1998 Alexandre Girardi produced a word-frequency list based on 4 years of\n> the Mainichi Shimbun. It contains about 300,000 words. Another version,\n> which Charles Kelly at Aichi Institute of Technology tidied up, is available\n\n * [Wordfreq](http://ftp.monash.edu.au/pub/nihongo/wordfreq.zip)\n * [Wordfreq (tidied up)](http://ftp.monash.edu.au/pub/nihongo/wordfreq_ck.gz)\n\nNot sure it is exactly the format you are looking for, but it couldn't be far\nfrom it (being simple raw text)...", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T07:02:00.800", "id": "2206", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T07:02:00.800", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "2136", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I have kept a couple of these links exactly for that purpose too.\n\nLink 1: <http://www.offbeatband.com/page/2/#post-290>\n\nThis one is based on novels.\n\nLink 2: <http://corpus.leeds.ac.uk/frqc/internet-jp.num>\n\nI have no idea what the tokens mean, I mean I used to know what they mean but\nI can't recall anyway they list the top 15k, i'd guess that's all that\nmatters.\n\nLink 3: <http://ftp.monash.edu.au/pub/nihongo/wordfreq_ck.gz>\n\nThe format is easy to extract.. The Word + TAB + The Count\n\nLink 4 (JLPT): <http://www.thbz.org/kanjimots/jlpt.php3>\n\nI'd thought i'd put it in just for completeness, note that somehow it's not\nupdated with 5 levels.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-19T20:31:30.623", "id": "2758", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-19T20:31:30.623", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "parent_id": "2136", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2142", "answer_count": 2, "body": "What is the difference between Aが見える and Bを見る?\n\nIs there anything tricky about this?\n\nCan you illustrate with examples?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T06:21:49.870", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2140", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T04:54:00.193", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-25T19:46:27.273", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "particles" ], "title": "The difference between Aが見える and Bを見る", "view_count": 654 }

[ { "body": "Aが見る A looks.\n\nBを見る Look at B.\n\nIn this case I believe が is marking the agent, or who is doing the action.\n(Looking). Where as を is marking the object of what is being looked at.\n\nAがBを見た A looked at B.\n\nEDIT\n\nFrom the comments it appears you meant what is the difference between\n\nAが見える and Bを見る\n\n見える is an intransitive verb which means something along the lines of \"to/can\nbe seen\". That is, the visual information enters your eye and you are able to\nperceive an object.\n\nFor example: ˚あの窓から富士山が見えるよ！” - \"You can see Mt.Fuji from that window!\"\n\n見る is a transitive verb which means \"to see/to watch\". This is used in ways\nlike:\n\n\"映画を見る\" - \"To watch a movie.\"", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T06:32:36.480", "id": "2141", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T03:24:00.263", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-24T03:24:00.263", "last_editor_user_id": "108", "owner_user_id": "108", "parent_id": "2140", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "The simplest explanation for the difference is that in Aが見る A is the subject\n(the one who looks) while in Bを見る B is the object (the one who is looked at).\n\nExample with 食べた:\n\n> 鳥が食べた. \n> The bird ate [something].\n>\n> 鳥を食べた. \n> [Something] ate the bird.\n\nEDIT:\n\nUpdating my answer, since the question has changed in a fundamental way.\n\nAs stated in phirru's answer, 見える is an intransitive verb that means \"to/can\nbe seen\". It refers to state of the noun subject as being visible. It's\nbasically different from 見る, which is a transitive verb that means \"to\nsee/look\" which refers to the act of seeing/looking. In short, 見える is a state\nwhile 見る is an act.\n\nLike other intransitive verbs, 見える takes a が particle but not を. 見る on the\nother hand can take both particles depending on whether the preceding nouns\nare the subject or object of the \"look\" action, as I've shown in my original\nanswer above.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T06:38:26.913", "id": "2142", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T04:54:00.193", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-26T04:54:00.193", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2140", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "The \"Lonely Planet Tokyo\" iPhone app describes female sword fighting as a\nbygone form of male entertainment:\n\n> Surprisingly, striptease almost failed to catch on due to the popularity of\n> a rival form of risqué entertainment, namely female sword fighting (to\n> modern ears, the idea of scantily clad jousting females might sound a bit\n> strange, but at the time it was the height of erotic entertainment).\n\nIs there a Japanese term that refers to this phenomenon, as opposed to\nlegitimate fighters who just happen to be female?\n\nI tried googling and had no luck, but I heard from \"worst jobs in history\"\nthat it was a form of entertainment in the United Kingdom.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T06:39:41.393", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2143", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T22:20:35.523", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-23T10:16:56.640", "last_editor_user_id": "91", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "vocabulary" ], "title": "Is there a specific term that refers to female sword fighting?", "view_count": 395 }

[ { "body": "Perhaps [女剣劇](http://kotobank.jp/word/%E5%A5%B3%E5%89%A3%E5%8A%87)? It was\napparently popular in the early Showa period; does that correspond to \"at the\ntime\" in the part you quote?\n\n(How I found this: I figured that it would probably be a word for sword-\nfighting with \"female\" attached as a modifier, so that the first two\ncharacters had a good chance of being \"女剣\". When I searched for that\ncombination, I found 女剣劇.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T22:20:35.523", "id": "2154", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T22:20:35.523", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2143", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2146", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I just noticed that Windows is using \"…をインストールしています\" while installing\nsomething. The use of \"〜います\" by a computer strikes me as slightly weird, like\ntoo literal a translation leading to overdone anthropomorphism. I often see\n\"インストール中\" or something similar instead and personally prefer it.\n\nI'd expect this use to be _correct_ , but is it elegant, natural?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T11:24:32.253", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2144", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-30T00:10:35.763", "last_edit_date": "2016-09-29T10:43:06.753", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "88", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "usage", "computing" ], "title": "Is a computer displaying \"インストールしています\" correct? Weird?", "view_count": 344 }

[ { "body": "I cannot speak for other people, but personally I find nothing wrong with\neither インストールしています or インストール中. In both cases, the unstated subject is the\ninstaller or the computer.\n\nOn the other hand, インストールされています, mentioned in a comment, sounds definitely\nunnatural and “translationese” to me if it is used when a program is being\ninstalled. I guess that the reason is that されている usually means a state instead\nof an ongoing action in the passive form. For example, compare the following\ntwo sentences:\n\n * Office をインストールしています。\n * Office がインストールされています。\n\nThe former means that Office is currently being installed, while the latter\nwill almost surely mean that Office exists on the system (as a result of\ninstallation in the past) just like the English sentence “Office is\ninstalled.”\n\nIn general, a computer or a program can naturally be a subject of actions in\nJapanese. For example, a hypothetical email client can show メールを送信しました after\nsending email messages. In English, this will probably be stated in the\npassive form such as “Messages (have been) sent.” If you feel that the passive\nform is more natural, that preference probably comes from the use of the\npassive form in your native language. In Japanese, メールが送信されました is ok, but the\nuse of the passive form makes it sound slightly complicated for no good\nreason. メールを送信しました is just fine.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T13:44:54.997", "id": "2146", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T14:31:21.983", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-24T14:31:21.983", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2144", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "I'm pretty sure I've also seen certain programs use インストールを行っています as well.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T17:54:55.220", "id": "2168", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T17:54:55.220", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2144", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "Both インストールしていますand インストール中 are in common use. But, don't look to PC software\nfor fine examples of the translator's art. There are a zillion strings in an\nOS like Windows, and they farm the translation out to companies who can do\ndozens of languages for the lowest price. :/", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-09-30T00:10:35.763", "id": "39571", "last_activity_date": "2016-09-30T00:10:35.763", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15819", "parent_id": "2144", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Are there any websites that lists Japanese-language translation quotes of\nEnglish-language films? For example, how would I find out how `English,\nmother******, do you speak it?` from \"Pulp Fiction\" was translated?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T13:20:15.880", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2145", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T17:50:25.983", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "resources" ], "title": "How can I research how a film quote was translated into Japanese?", "view_count": 458 }

[ { "body": "Sawa's recommendation that you borrow or rent the movies and look these things\nup is the best one, because I seriously doubt there's a site that would offer\nwhat you're looking for as a matter of course.\n\nHowever, _just this once_ , because you caught me just at the right time, I'll\njust tell you what the translation is. I felt like making it an exercise of my\nlistening abilities, so we can both win.\n\nNote that this is what Jules says in the dubbed version. Subtitles can and\noften do differ.\n\nAlso note that this is how I heard it. If any native speakers catch some\nerrors, please let me know.\n\nLast note: I'm only going to translate the bits that reflect the difference\nbetween the Japanese and English versions. The rest I think you can work out\nif you want.\n\n**Jules:** お前、国はどこだ？ (\"What country are you from?\" This was originally \"Do you\nspeak English\")\n\n**Brett:** なっ...何？\n\n**Jules:** 何って国どこもねぇぞ！\n\n**Jules:** テメエ、アメリカ人だる？ (\"Are you American, motherfucker?\" This is the line\nthat was originally \"English, motherfucker, do you speak it?\")\n\n**Brett:** えぇ？\n\n**Jules:** アメリカだよ！テメエはアメリカじんだろや？！\n\n**Brett:** そうです！\n\n**Jules:** じゃ、俺の言っていること分かっているか？\n\n**Brett:** そうです！\n\n**Jules:** じゃ、言っているよ。マーセラス・ワラスはどんな姿形の男だった？\n\nAnd it goes on from there.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T17:50:25.983", "id": "2149", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T17:50:25.983", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2145", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2150", "answer_count": 4, "body": "What changes are usually made to the pronunciation of gairaigo?\n\nI notice that vowels are often added between multiple consonants and to the\nend of words (eg \"programmer\" => \"puroguramaa\" (プログラマー)), and that sometimes\nmultiple words are turned into portmanteaus (eg \"personal computer\" =>\n\"pasokon\" (パソコン)).\n\nAre there other changes made?\n\nAdditionally, if you have an English word and you think it may have a gairaigo\nequivalent, will pronouncing it in a \"more Japanese\" style make it easier to\nunderstand?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T13:58:12.773", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2147", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T13:54:10.087", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-15T01:35:00.217", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "pronunciation", "loanwords" ], "title": "What changes are made to the pronunciation of gairaigo?", "view_count": 1306 }

[ { "body": "The following is just a few rules that may stand out.\n\nConsonants:\n\n * si => shi [Change happens not in kana writing but in pronunciation]\n\n> system => shisutemu システム\n\n * ti => chi [Change happens not in kana writing but in pronunciation]\n\n> ticket => chiketto チケット\n\n * l => r\n\n> rails => reiruzu レイルズ\n\n * v => b [Sometimes]\n\n> virtual => baacharu バーチャル\n\nThe default vowel to be inserted to avoid consonant cluster or coda is 'u'.\nHowever, when the consonant is 't', 'd', the vowel tends to be 'o'.\n\n> Stravinsky => sutorabinsukii ストラビンスキー", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T14:28:22.053", "id": "2148", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T13:54:10.087", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T13:54:10.087", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2147", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "> Additionally, if you have an English word and you think it may have a\n> gairaigo equivalent, will pronouncing it in a \"more Japanese\" style make it\n> easier to understand?\n\nAbsolutely. There's a linguistic thing going on here whereby sounds outside of\nthe language you grew up speaking are much harder for your brain to process.\nThis is why certain English sounds (such as /r/ and /l/) are hard for the\nJapanese brain to process, and why certain Chinese sounds (/chī/ comes to\nmind) are difficult for the English brain to process. Also, since many\nJapanese learn the \"Japanese pronunciation\" of English in school (which is\noften closer to _gairaigo_ than English), as long as you pronounce your\nEnglish in a Japanese way, chances are good that they'll understand.\n\nCertain English speakers neglect this step with _gairaigo_ and insist on\npronouncing things the \"English way\", so they end up with sentences like\n「昨日、golfをしました。」. This actually hinders understanding, because Japanese people\nare more accustomed to hearing ゴルフ, not \"golf\". So although you may weep\ninwardly at the butchering of English that goes on in everyday Japanese (I\nknow I do), if you want to be understood, you have to follow the crowd and\npronounce _gairaigo_ in the funky Japanese way.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T17:51:33.860", "id": "2150", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T17:51:33.860", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2147", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "A couple of \"gotchas\" that I've noticed that are easily confused are:\n\n * The sounds of \"x\" or \"ecks\" within a word are usually written as キ instead of ク, but not 100% of the time.\n\n> \"Text\" → テ **キ** スト, not テ **ク** スト \n> \"Mexico\" → メ **キ** シコ, not メ **ク** シコ \n> \"Expert\" → エ **キ** スパート, not エ **ク** スパート \n> But \"Express\" → エ **ク** スプレス, not エ **キ** スプレス\n\n * Different sounds of the English 'a' usually produce a ャ instead of the associated ア kana; or sometimes a different Japanese sound altogether.\n\n> \"C **a** t\" → キャット; not カット which is \"Cut\"; Except in \"Kit Kat\" (the candy\n> bar, which are really popular in Japan) which is キットカット \n> \"Ch **a** racter\" → キャラクター \n> \" **A** ir\" → エア, \"Squ **a** re\" → スクエア\n\n * The sound \"or\" usually turns into オア at the end of a word\n\n> \"Do **or** \" → ドア \n> \"St **ore** \" → ストア \n>", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T20:26:06.780", "id": "2153", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T20:26:06.780", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2147", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "[This comment](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/6018/what-is-the-\nmore-common-pronunciation-for-the-romaji-letter-z-in-\njapanese#comment15341_6018) mentions that sometimes consonants are devoiced.\nThat \"bed\" is either ベッド or ベット, and that \"bag\" is バッグ or バック.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-07-04T22:24:31.043", "id": "6049", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-04T22:24:31.043", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "91", "parent_id": "2147", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2152", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Saw this on twitter:\n\n@Daigo19780408 昨日はお疲れ様でした！おもぴろかったです♪( ´▽｀)\n\nWhat does おもぴろかった mean? I find words like this all over the place on the net,\nbut I can't figure out what it means, and I can't find it defined anywhere.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T18:46:13.367", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2151", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-30T13:40:32.330", "last_edit_date": "2012-05-30T13:40:32.330", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "translation", "definitions", "register", "diminutives" ], "title": "What is おもぴろかった", "view_count": 434 }

[ { "body": "Changing the consonant 's' (or 'sh' derived from it) into 'p' is sort of a\ndiminutive. It gives the impression of cuteness/childishness. So the original\nform is `おもしろかった`. An English equivalent would be saying `doggie` for 'dog',\netc. These forms are not at all the standard way of talking. A famous example\nis what came to be called ノリピー語 'Noripii-ish' in the 1980s, named after the\nidol 酒井法子 (sakai noriko), who pronounced many words in this way, for example,\n`うれぴー` for 'うれしい', etc.\n\nIf you change the 's' into 'ch' or 'sh', then it becomes a baby-ish talk:\n`おもちろかったでちゅ`, `おもしろかったでしゅ`, `うれちい`.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-23T19:03:45.073", "id": "2152", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-23T20:58:23.770", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-23T20:58:23.770", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2151", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2158", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Trying to understand this tweet:\n\n日曜日は掃除の日。新しく買った掃除機が良すぎる！忙しいと週一とかになりがちな掃除機がけも、これでマメにやれそう♪(\n´▽｀)ルンバと迷ったけどこっちにしてよかった！やっぱり掃除は自分でしたいしね。\n\nI understood everything up to 週一. What does that sentence say?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T06:19:02.000", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2157", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T06:09:04.253", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:09:04.253", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "translation", "numbers" ], "title": "What does 週一 mean?", "view_count": 514 }

[ { "body": "週一 is a shorthand for 週一回, which means \"once per week\".", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T07:59:18.607", "id": "2158", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T07:59:18.607", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "541", "parent_id": "2157", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2162", "answer_count": 2, "body": "According to [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji#History), kanji\nwas introduced and imported from chinese hanzi long time ago before Japanese\nlanguage even had a writing system. From there, Japanese kanji has transformed\nand evolved from the original hanzi and became what is is today. To my\nknowledge, it is not clear how long the process took but I'm guessing that,\nexcept for modification and simplification, the assimilation has already\nmatured long time ago. Is this true?\n\n**Are there any kanji characters that were recently (i.e. post-[1946\nreform](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_script_reform)) created or\nimported from hanzi?** What I mean are characters that were previously still\nnot used in Japanese until they were created or imported from hanzi, not\ncharacters that had been assigned new meanings or readings, nor characters\nthat had been simplified like [惡 ->\n悪](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/932/whats-the-difference-\nbetween-and).\n\nRelated to that, **is it possible in the future that newly coined words like\nむかつく to be assigned brand new kanji characters instead of reusing existing\nones?**", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T10:47:22.020", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2159", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-20T06:00:40.470", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.863", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "kanji", "history" ], "title": "Recent creation or adoption of hanzi characters into Japanese kanji", "view_count": 2096 }

[ { "body": "When the caretaker registers a new born child at a local government, the name\nis submitted in handwritten form, and, until recent, that character became\nofficial even if there is a mistake such as missing or extra stroke, etc.\nTherefore, every time someone makes a mistake previously not made, that\ncharacter was added to the inventory of the kanji used in Japanese. These are\ncalled 俗字 'folk character', 誤字 'wrong character', or 異体字 'character variant'.\nIn my personal opinion, that is stupid. Recently, [a\nlaw](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/5200%E5%8F%B7%E9%80%9A%E9%81%94) was passed\nthat restricts usage of such characters.\n\nBesides that, as a game, people sometimes create new kanjis by combining the\nexisting ones, but those characters almost never come to be used.\n\nIt is less likely that a newly created kanji come to be assigned to some word.\nFor one thing, there are laws and notes by the government that define what is\nthe right way of writing in kanji. Second, in this digital age, being able to\ninput and output on the computer has become one criterion for a character to\nbe used, and is less likely that a newly created character will achive enough\npopularity despite not being in the list of characters usable on the computer.\nThird, in the recent history of Japan, several political claims/attempts have\nbeen made to discard or lessen the kanji characters, but going in the other\nway to add kanji characters is rare.\n\n**Explanation expanded since my intention does not seem to be understood** \nI think it is a general understanding shared by all countries using chinese\ncharacters that chinese characters take too much time to write, or require\nextra effort to input on the computers. It is a solid fact that putting East\nAsian languages on the computer was delayed because of the difficulty in\nhandling chinese characters on the computers. First, chinese characters have\nmuch more strokes compared to phonograms like most western languages, so the\ndisplay had to become higher in resolution, and still it would take more space\nto display them compared to latin alphabet. Second, since the number of\nChinese characters are vast, it could not fit within one-byte character code,\nand required modification to the software architecture. Third, since the\nnumber of characters are vast, it cannot be simply mapped to a layout on an\nordinary-sized keyboard; it had to wait for the development of input method\nprograms for these languages. Each of these was a major obstacle to\ncomputerization of the language. And it is true that this fact worked as a\nrationale for considering to dispence Chinese characters in these languages.\nBut as usual, an attempt to artificially change a language does not succeed\nthat easily.", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T13:47:05.187", "id": "2162", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-20T06:00:40.470", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-20T06:00:40.470", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2159", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "I doubt that any kanji characters commonly used in Japanese were made after\n1946.\n\nSome kanji characters used in Japanese are actually made in Japan. They are\ncalled [和製漢字\n(わせいかんじ)](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%92%8C%E8%A3%BD%E6%BC%A2%E5%AD%97)\nor 国字 (こくじ). However, although I do not know when they were made, I guess that\nmost of them were made before 1946.\n\nJIS X 0208 regulates basic characters commonly used in Japanese for\ninformation processing on computers, and the first version was made in 1978\n(it was labeled JIS C 6226 at that time). A later investigation by Hiroyuki\nSasahara and other researchers revealed that the specification included\n[twelve kanji characters which have no known\norigin](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/JIS_X_0208#.E5.85.B8.E6.8B.A0.E4.B8.8D.E6.98.8E.E3.81.AE.E6.BC.A2.E5.AD.97).\nThey are sometimes called ghost characters (幽霊文字; ゆうれいもじ). We can say that in\na sense, ghost characters are kanji characters which were created recently\n(probably by accident), but they are by no means commonly used.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T14:09:04.227", "id": "2163", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T14:09:04.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2159", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2165", "answer_count": 1, "body": "in \"明日、姉とデパート＿買い物に行きます。\" why is へ favoured over で in my workbook? If i ask\nmyself the question \"明日は、何をする\" Can i answer it with \"買い物に行く\" and make ”デパート”\nan incidental location? That was how i justified my choice of \"で\"\n\nTo justify the choice of へ, I tried to reason like this:\n\nIf \"デパート\" is the domain for which \"買い物に行く\" is true, it would make no sense\nbecause there would be no \"行く\"-ing to be done. \"買い物に行く\" would only make sense\nif my domain is outside of \"デパート\". If my domain cannot be \"デパート\", I cannot use\nで to mark it.Am i right?\n\nIs デパート **に** 買い物に行きます grammatically correct? If it is grammatically correct,\nthen how is it different from the case where へ is used?\n\nTo distinguish them, I tried to reason like this:\n\nI'm interpreting the case where へ is used to mean \"I'm going to the store to\nshop (but it does not mean all the shopping is going to be done there since へ\nonly ever indicates direction)\" and the case of に to mean \"I'm going to the\nstore to shop (and only the store which i mentioned will the shopping be\ndone)\"\n\nOr is it just a simple case of \"degree of politeness\", and for both cases they\nmean the same thing just that when へ is used, it's more polite by virtue of\nreferring to the location more indirectly than if に were used?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T14:56:31.443", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2164", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T19:26:53.480", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-24T19:26:53.480", "last_editor_user_id": "384", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "meaning", "particle-に", "particle-で" ], "title": "Differences in meaning of using へ, に, or で in marking locations.", "view_count": 1773 }

[ { "body": "> * デパートへ買い物に行きます\n> * デパートに買い物に行きます\n>\n\nare both grammatical with subtle difference in nuance, but using `で` is\ntotally ungrammatical. It is not the level of 'favoring over'. In your\nexample, `買い物に` is an adverbial phrase telling the purpose, so the core\npredicate is `行く` 'go'. That requires a destination. You cannot go somewhere\nwhile staying at that place. Using `で` means that the whole process of going\nwill happen within that single point, which contradicts with the meaning of\ngoing.\n\nAs for the difference in the nuance between `へ` and `に`, the former emphasizes\nthe process/direction of going whereas the latter just means destination. In\nboth cases, shopping is done entirely at the destination. But the difference\nis subtle, and you probably do not need to care about it at the level where\nyou are wondering whether `で` is appropriate in this context.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T15:04:59.677", "id": "2165", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T15:46:13.733", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-24T15:46:13.733", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2164", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2167", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Me and the particle `へ` don't get along. It's not that we don't like each\nother, it's that we don't get each other. I'm in a pretty committed\nrelationship with `に`.\n\nI mean, I think I understand what `へ` aspires to do. `へ` is focused on the\nprocess of going somewhere, and `に` is focused on the destination. But in\npractical terms, the difference strikes me as too subtle to really matter. So\nsubtle that I don't know if I've _ever_ uttered `へ` when speaking Japanese.\n\nIt seems to be that `「あの場所に行っている」` and `「あの場所へ行っている」` both mean \"[I'm] going\nto that place\". However in one case I'm emphasizing the `場所` and in the other\nI'm emphasizing that I'm `行っている`. Hmmm...\n\nWhenever I'm speaking, I never invite `へ` to come along, because I've never\nfelt the need to make that distinction.\n\nI've never thought, \"does the person I'm talking to understand that I'm\n_going_ to that place, not just there's a place that I'm going to?\" Absolutely\nevery time I want to convey an action that involves direction, I find that `に`\nalways comes through for me.\n\nSo I wonder, is there any situation where `に` absolutely cannot replace `へ`？\nWhere the meaning would significantly change, or that it would become\nungrammatical?\n\nHeck, do we even really need `へ`?\n\nOr have I misunderstood its purpose completely?\n\n_(Please make answers readable by all, with no overly technical linguistic\nterms. Thanks!)_", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T16:47:05.820", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2166", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T02:50:43.193", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "particle-に" ], "title": "Can't に always replace へ?", "view_count": 886 }

[ { "body": "Using `に` in front of `の` to modify a noun is ungrammatical.\n\n> ○ あの場所への行き方 \n> × あの場所にの行き方 \n> 'the way to go to that place'\n\nIf you are not modifying a noun, you can use either.\n\n> ○ あの場所へ行く方法 \n> ○ あの場所に行く方法 \n>\n\nTo answer rintaun's question below, when the noun is more of a recipient\nrather than just a destination, replacing `に` with `へ` will sound strange.\n\n> △ あなたへプレゼントをあげる \n> ○ あなたにプレゼントをあげる\n\nHowever, as with above, if the usage of `に` is prohibited for some reason,\nthen `へ` will take over that usage, and becomes completely fine.\n\n> ○ あなたへのプレゼント \n> × あなたにのプレゼント \n> \n> △ あなたへあげるプレゼント [Relative clause] \n> ○ あなたにあげるプレゼント [Relative clause]", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T17:01:00.180", "id": "2167", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T17:30:11.707", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-24T17:30:11.707", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2166", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 }, { "body": "Just one example case where へ can not be replaced by に:\n\nWhen addressing a note to someone, you could say 田中へ but I don't think you\ncould write 田中に with the same meaning.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T02:50:43.193", "id": "2175", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T02:50:43.193", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "parent_id": "2166", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2170", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I find this all over the net, but can't find it defined anywhere.\n\nI'm trying to understand this tweet:\n\nじゃあ二周目は是非モノマネで♪( ´▽｀)RT @mimiroll_410: @mao_sid\n今友達とカラオケに入ってるシドの曲を五十音順に全部制覇しようとしてます！(笑)ちなみに今は土曜日の女です＼(^O^)／\n\nWhat does the first sentence say?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T18:54:57.283", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2169", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T19:32:33.333", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-24T19:13:50.877", "last_editor_user_id": "69", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "translation" ], "title": "What does 二周目 mean?", "view_count": 1372 }

[ { "body": "目 is used as an _ordinal_ suffix. ~~It's the difference between \"2 weeks\" and\n(like in this case) \"the 2 **nd** week\".~~\n\n**Edit:** Sorry for failing so blatantly. :( Updated answer, now with less\nobvious errors!:\n\nSo in this case, Mao is suggesting that \"the second _round_ \" be Sid\nimpersonations (the first \"round\" is singing all the Sid songs in the Karaoke\nmachine in alphabetical order).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T19:08:56.560", "id": "2170", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T19:32:33.333", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-24T19:32:33.333", "last_editor_user_id": "384", "owner_user_id": "384", "parent_id": "2169", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Needs more context. ～周 means \"(a) round\" or a \"cycle\" or a \"revolution\". So if\nyou're talking about a race (horse, car, etc.) it would be the 2nd lap. Since\na \"cycle\" of a business, establishment, etc. is usually a year (the length of\none revolution around the sun), it can also mean 2nd year the place has been\nopen for operation. Or just at iteration number of some regular event; the 2nd\ntimes it's happened.\n\n* * *\n\n**EDIT** : I'd say the first sentence says, \"OK, round 2 will be\nimpersonations (of people).\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T19:15:40.000", "id": "2171", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-24T19:24:46.060", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-24T19:24:46.060", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2169", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2173", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Saw this on twitter:\n\nMC挟んでいいなら♪( ´▽｀)RT @miri_sid: @mao_sid マオくんは全曲連続で歌えますか？(^-^)\n\nCan't find the Japanese definition of MC anywhere. What does that say?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T22:30:32.860", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2172", "last_activity_date": "2018-03-15T17:36:24.317", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "translation" ], "title": "What does MC mean in Japanese?", "view_count": 9031 }

[ { "body": "`MC` in Japanese nowadays most commonly means a talk (by a singer) in between\nsongs at a (pop) concert. It is a 和製英語 (wasei-eigo) under this meaning. It\nseems to have derived from the phrase 'master of ceremony'. In a broader\ncontext, it simply means a talk at some event.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-24T22:46:00.127", "id": "2173", "last_activity_date": "2012-05-21T14:06:09.830", "last_edit_date": "2012-05-21T14:06:09.830", "last_editor_user_id": "91", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2172", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "In hip hop or dubstep events, the MC is the person rapping using the\nmicrophone, besides the DJ. I have used the term only in Japan, but it [seems\nto exist](http://www.uic.edu/orgs/kbc/hiphop/mc.htm) in other countries as\nwell:\n\n> In the 1970s and 1980s, the term MC (short for Master of Ceremonies, and\n> sometimes misrendered emcee) was generally associated with what is now\n> called rapping in hip hop music. MC has also sometimes been reported to\n> stand for Microphone Controller, but this appears to be a backronym. This\n> uncertainty over the letters' expansion may however be evidence to the\n> ubiquitousness of the acronym: the full Master of Ceremonies is very rarely\n> (if ever) used in the rap scene.\n\nThere are a lot of small parties in Tokyo with open MC where anybody can take\nthe microphone and rap in accordance with the DJ.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T02:42:13.463", "id": "2174", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T02:42:13.463", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "107", "parent_id": "2172", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "In English, MC means \"Master of Ceremony\" -- not just a person talking, but\nthe MAIN person doing the talking to the audience at any live event, not just\nmusical. The MC is kind of like the \"announcer\" for an event but an MC is\ntypically someone the live audience can see whereas an announcer may just be a\nvoice over a loudspeaker. Also the MC does not just announce the performances\nbut does other talking like interviewing performers, generating crowd\nexcitement, and giving the audience additional information related to the\nperformance. There can be more than one MC at an event if two or more people\nare fulfilling that role. The MC is not typically performing in the event. The\nMC typically has a certain notoriety and brings some of their own personality\nto the event.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2012-07-05T04:29:12.857", "id": "6051", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-05T04:29:12.857", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1493", "parent_id": "2172", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've encountered this word several times already but never really knew what it\nmeant. Then I just saw this on twitter:\n\n> タモリさん、今日服装が **ダンディー** 。\n\nWhat is a ダンディー? What kind of clothes does a ダンディー wear?\n\nCan someone explain to me how you would be able to recognize a ダンディ in a crowd\nof people?", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T03:29:03.400", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2176", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T01:03:23.407", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-26T01:03:23.407", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": -1, "tags": [ "translation" ], "title": "What is a ダンディー?", "view_count": 2065 }

[ { "body": "As you have it in the quote, it is `ダンディー`. You have a typo. But since you are\ndoing the same mistake three times, it looks like you are a little careless.\nIt is a borrowed from the English 'dandy'. Dandy wear is gentleman clothing,\ntypically in black. タモリさん is one of the big three male talents/commedians in\nJapan. He looks like\n[this](http://www.waseda.jp/student/weekly/people/obg-800.html). His real name\nis 森田 (morita), and as I answered in one of your previous questions, he played\naround with his name: mori + ta => tamori.\n\nP.S. Do you ever read anything other than twitter?", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T03:44:57.707", "id": "2177", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T03:50:38.793", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-25T03:50:38.793", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2176", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "It's in Katakana, so it's a borrowed word. It's from the English language.\n\nHave you watched some old cowboy movie where one of the badguys looks at a\nwoman and says: \"She's a dandy,\" and then he spits through his tobacco-stained\nteeth into a spittoon? Stands up and harasses her?\n\nThink about the kind of woman the cowboy is describing in contrast to himself.\nShe's classy, she's dressed well, she smells good, she's clean, etc.\n\nIt's a depricated (more in the US than in Britain) use of the English\nlanguage, perhaps for this reason and perhaps not, I think. Anyway, it means\n'classy'. In Japan, it happens to extend only to men. Japanese words are often\nmisconstrued and departed from their borrowed context. Since the language is\nold, it would take some investigation to discover if dandy was originally\nmeant to be used for men or women, and why it's only used for men now. It\ndefinitely means \"classy\", though.\n\nI know what it looks like because I like fashion. It's kind of subjective, but\nyou would definitely know it if you saw it from the right vantage point. If\nyou stand on a high rise (at least two stories above a crowd), and you look\ndown at the crowd, notice how men who wear black pants and white shirts stand\nout a little bit. They are dandy men. Many men wear brown suits, grey suits,\nblue suits, purple shirts, etc. They want to look different. For a dandy,\nblack-and-white is just fine. _Same thing every day? No problem._ \\- A Dandy\nMan.\n\nThat's dandy thinking for you.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T15:39:14.490", "id": "2190", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T15:39:14.490", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2176", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2180", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Saw this on twitter:\n\n> A: 懐い\n>\n> B: そういえば私がマオさんの唄初めて聞いたのwinter\n> fallでした。サンタさんでしたね（笑）あの日の衝撃は未だに忘れられないなー「歌うますぎ！この人誰！？」ってみんな言ってましたよ。懐かしい。", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T04:32:51.800", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2179", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-10T01:26:59.950", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-10T01:26:59.950", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "translation", "slang" ], "title": "What does 懐{なつ}い mean in this context?", "view_count": 471 }

[ { "body": "`懐い` is a slang for `懐かしい`. It is a kind of nostalgia/sentimental feeling that\noccurs when you remember the past or encounter something that reminds you of\nthe past.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T04:41:19.953", "id": "2180", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T04:41:19.953", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2179", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2182", "answer_count": 2, "body": "> A: 他にもラルクコピーしてましたか？\n>\n> B: じゃあ最後にもう一度聴いてくれ…虹。ってやってた\n\nI know that ラルク is the band L'arc En Ciel. What does **コピー** mean here? What\ndoes the first sentence say?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T05:20:41.013", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2181", "last_activity_date": "2013-01-11T16:07:58.397", "last_edit_date": "2013-01-11T16:07:58.397", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "translation", "music" ], "title": "What does コピー mean in this context?", "view_count": 591 }

[ { "body": "`コピー` 'copy' in this context means to play a song of a band in the format as\nclose as possible to the original. Often, you reconstruct the music score by\nlistening to that song. If it is done in this way, it is particularly called\n`耳コピー` 'copying by ear'.\n\n`じゃあ最後にもう一度聴いてくれ ... 虹。` means 'Then, please listen again. This will be the\nlast song Niji.'", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T05:29:04.903", "id": "2182", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T14:06:33.967", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-25T14:06:33.967", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2181", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "A conversation wouldn't flow that way, at all. I'm positive. Is there more\ncontext? ってやってた is very poor Japanese. It's something that would not be said\non a tape or on in an instructional book. This is what A-san would say:\n何からその情報を得たのか. It's because って doesn't belong and やってた would mean that you're\nspeaking down to the listener, as if the listener is a mangy dog or a very\nvery low subordinate who warrants no respect at all. Nobody is so rude, except\nfor a rowdy high school student, especially not in writing. Even in the case\nof high school students, they are usually insincere with this kind of jarring.\n\nCopy isn't used properly here. So, it doesn't have any meaning. Copy has no\nmeaning in this sentence. While it's true that 耳コピー has a meaning: 'copy by\near', it is very rarely used, even when asking for such a thing. Also, I am\nhere with a friend of mine, and neither of us can think of any other case\nwhere a word directly proceeds コピー. There's always a particle between two\nwords where the second word is コピー, with only the exception of the word 耳コピー.\n\nHere's the question Native Japanese speakers will ask themselves when they\nread this sentence:\n\n> どういう状況でコピーを使ったのか？-> What is it a copy of?\n\nIt seems the only (extremely unlikely) possibility is that the speaker is\nsaying: \"Is it a L'arc En Ciel copy band?\" There's an even less likely\npossibility that they're saying: \"Is it a copy of L'arc En Ciel's song?\" If\nthat were the case, the speaker would definitely say ラリクのコピーバンドですか or\nラリクの歌をコピーしましたか. In either case, 他にも would cease to have any place in the\nsentence. 他にも would sound equally as strange and out of place in one of these\ncorrected versions as ラリクコピー sounds in the original sentence.\n\nSo, isn't it possible that you misheard what was said? That seems most likely.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T03:26:24.967", "id": "2235", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T03:26:24.967", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2181", "post_type": "answer", "score": -3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2187", "answer_count": 2, "body": "How do I form a sentence of these patterns \"X does not arise from Y\", \"X not\ndue to Y\", \"X not because of Y\", \"There are other reasons for X\". Since\nobviously I cannot simply slap ない onto から or ので to form an \"anti-causal\"\nparticle.\n\nWould the below constructions work?:\n\n * Xの原因はYじゃない\n * Xの原因はYだけではない\n * Xの原因は他がある\n * XはYだからじゃない\n * XでもYはない\n * XとYは関係がない\n\nAre there better options for this type of relationship between X and Y? Or do\nmore colloquial forms or set phrases exist for stating anti/non-cause? I'm not\nsure if my constructions sound unnatural. The way I constructed those\nstatements feel quite literal to me.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T10:51:33.323", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2184", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T14:04:14.827", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "vocabulary", "set-phrases", "colloquial-language" ], "title": "Anti-causal/Non-causal relationship", "view_count": 244 }

[ { "body": "I think that \"Yと関係なく、Xは…\" is a fairly common expression.\n\nYou could naturally said \"Xの原因はYではなく、\" but you would have to say what the real\nreason is.\n\nXの原因はYとは限らない is maybe not bad either, to express that the reason of X is not\nlimited to Y.\n\nXの原因はYじゃない good, but very direct. You'll be asked \"What is the reason of X\nthen?\" \nXの原因はYだけではない similarly, \"then, what else?\" \nXの原因は他がある I would say \"ほかに(いくつか)ある\" \nXはYだからじゃない hum, not very correct as far as I can think about it \nXでもYはない idem \nXとYは関係がない you just say it's unrelated, yes.\n\nSome grammar points you can have a look at are \"に(も)関わらず\" and \"を問わず\" which\nbasically mean \"disregarding X\" or \"unrelated to X\". But they do not reflect\nanti-causality.\n\nThat's my best shot for now.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T12:00:02.763", "id": "2186", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T12:00:02.763", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2184", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "In the following, I assume that _X_ and _Y_ take the form of a sentence like\n`僕が遅刻した`.\n\n * If you want to presuppose that _X_ and _Y_ both happened, and assert that the former is not due to the latter, then a simple expression is:\n\n> _X_ のは _Y_ せいではない \n> _Y_ せいで _X_ のではない\n\nSome of your examples can also be used:\n\n> _X_ 原因は _Y_ からではない \n> _X_ のは _Y_ からではない \n>\n\n * If you want to presuppose that _X_ and _Y_ both happened, and assert that the former is not **only** due to the latter, then you can use your expressions:\n\n> _X_ 原因は _Y_ からだけではない \n> _X_ 原因は( _Y_ ことの)他にある [Corrected]\n\n * If you want to be neutral whether _X_ or _Y_ happened, and assert that they are not related, then \n\n> _X_ かどうかは _Y_ かどうかに依らない \n> _X_ かどうかは _Y_ かどうかに依存しない [Academic] \n> _X_ ことと _Y_ ことは無関係だ\n\nyou can also use your expression:\n\n> _X_ ことと _Y_ ことは関係(が)ない", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T13:49:25.713", "id": "2187", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T14:04:14.827", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-25T14:04:14.827", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2184", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2194", "answer_count": 2, "body": "> 子{こ}たる者{もの}すべからく親{おや}の命{めい}に従{したが}うべし。\n>\n> Children should obey their parents\n\nWhat I got from ALC is that a child isn't fit, unqualified, to be one's child\nif it disobeys its parents. Or is it just \"Those **who are** children...\"?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T18:45:15.373", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2191", "last_activity_date": "2011-09-27T06:05:02.077", "last_edit_date": "2011-09-27T06:05:02.077", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "translation" ], "title": "What's the literal and natural translation of たるもの?", "view_count": 589 }

[ { "body": "Your translation is right. `たる` is the classic form of the copula `である`. `子たる`\nis is a relative clause. So `子たる者` means 'whoever is a child'.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T19:47:15.853", "id": "2192", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-25T19:47:15.853", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2191", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "H'm, I dunno. たる is actually not the classic form of the copula である; it is\nmost likely from とある (quotative particle + aru). なる describes what\nsomeone/-thing is (essential nature), but たる describes how someone/-thing\nappears, or acts, or should act (assigned role, etc.). There is often an\nimplied judgment (nowadays it is often paired with 〜すべきである or 〜てはならない, etc.,\nand used to prescribe behavior to people in certain positions). I would say\nthat Louis's sample sentence does indeed imply that a child who disobeys their\nparents is in that way unfit to be their child -- it's not an uncommon idea at\nall in Confucian thought.\n\nSo, as sawa says below, you might say that a more \"literal\" translation would\nbe \"Whoever is _supposed to be_ a child should obey their parents,\" or \"A\nperson _in the position of_ a child should obey all of their parents'\ncommands,\" etc. For a more natural translation, just \"Children\" might work in\nmany cases (especially if you believed that たる者 was just being used to add\narchaic flavor), or you might say \"All children\" to emphasize that you are\nprescribing behavior required of anyone meeting the description \"child\", not\njust suggesting a general rule. You might even use a word like \"duty\" to bring\nthe prescriptiveness out: \"Obeying one's parents is one's duty as a child.\"\nThere are many possible translations that would be more or less appropriate\ndepending on context, translation philosophy, etc.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-25T22:37:24.410", "id": "2194", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T02:18:22.730", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-26T02:18:22.730", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2191", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I work in an American subsidiary of a Japanese company. I met a few Japanese\ncolleagues while working at the home office on an exchange. Do I need to use\nKeigo for:\n\nColleague A: 1 year younger in age than me and joined the company at a later\ntime. It seems like I could use the desu/masu form without Keigo, but since we\nbelong to different departments, different branches, etc., I'm not sure\nwhether he is in-group or out-group.\n\nColleague B: Not 100% certain about age and seniority, but probably the same\nage and seniority as me or my junior.\n\nColleague C: 6 years younger than me and much less seniority. Should I use\nplain forms to talk down to him? I decided not to since I wasn't sure whether\nwe were all in-group or considered out-group.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T00:26:35.967", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2195", "last_activity_date": "2015-04-07T08:52:27.460", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "545", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "business-japanese", "keigo" ], "title": "Should I use keigo in this situation:", "view_count": 1330 }

[ { "body": "I think in general you are safe using plain form with people in your group who\nare younger than you and in lower position (usually the same at a Japanese\ncompany though).\n\nthe tricky part is someone who is younger than you in a different dpt. I would\njust use Teine-go which is what desu/masu can be referred to.\n\nIn general, you don't need to use keigo in your office while talking to people\nunless there is a huge gap in level. Like talking to a dept manager/CEO or\nwhat not.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T00:48:22.227", "id": "2196", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T00:48:22.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "2195", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The answer to this can be extremely company-specific, particularly in a\ncompany with a significant presence in the US.\n\n> Colleague A: 1 year younger in age than me and joined the company at a later\n> time. It seems like I could use the desu/masu form without Keigo, but since\n> we belong to different departments, different branches, etc., I'm not sure\n> whether he is in-group or out-group.\n\nIn a cross-department meeting or a one-on-one meeting, standard desu/masu\nforms are appropriate. If you're both talking to a customer (or other\noutsider), humble forms are often appropriate for anything/anyone related to\nyour company.\n\n> Colleague B: Not 100% certain about age and seniority, but probably the same\n> age and seniority as me or my junior.\n\nStick with desu/masu, unless it fits into the last comment below.\n\n> Colleague C: 6 years younger than me and much less seniority. Should I use\n> plain forms to talk down to him? I decided not to since I wasn't sure\n> whether we were all in-group or considered out-group.\n\nThere are two places you will routinely hear 'plain forms' in a business\nsetting.\n\n 1. Coworkers who are extremely casual (depending on the corporate culture)\n 2. Speaking down to direct reports. Especially first line managers will routinely use casual (or even fairly rough) speech with their direct reports.\n\nEveryone else pretty much always uses at least desu/masu forms.\n\n* * *\n\nYou choose honorific predicates depending on who you're talking about, not who\nyou're talking to. Speaking to a direct report about the VPs/visitors upcoming\ntrip might involve the plain-form of いらっしゃる.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-04-07T05:54:47.680", "id": "23647", "last_activity_date": "2015-04-07T08:52:27.460", "last_edit_date": "2015-04-07T08:52:27.460", "last_editor_user_id": "29", "owner_user_id": "29", "parent_id": "2195", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2199", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Consider the statement A: ホテル（に/で）泊まる. For both cases would translate to \"I\nstay at a hotel\" in English. However they are answers to different questions.\n\nConsider the questions １．どこに泊まる and ２．（ホテルで）何をする\n\nQuestion 1 would be answered with ホテルに（泊まる）, while Question 2 would be\nanswered with （ホテルで）泊まる. The secondary information is presented in\nparentheses, and can technically be left out. This shows the role of に in\nmarking a location, and the role of で in marking an incidental location where\nan action occurs.\n\nConsequently, If I present other information using に/で I am in effect\nemphasizing on the location/action. And for which being more appropriate is\ndependent on contextual information. (Whether location/action is more\nimportant for the listener, or whichever the speaker wants to convey.)\n\n* * *\n\nNow consider statement B: 部屋（に/で）泣いている. I am told that I cannot analyze\nStatement B in the same way as Statement A. I think it's because the verb has\nbeen conjugated to its continuative form, and cannot be treated in the same\nway as Statement A. What happens when I try to ask the two questions of\n\"where\" and \"what\" again?\n\n* * *\n\nFrom Sawa’s answer below, my new understanding is if the verb naturally\nrelates to the location (as in the case of ホテルに泊まる）, に should be used. And if\nit doesn't, で is used.\n\nConsider the following statements. I-部屋に読む, II-部屋で読む, III-図書館に読む, IV-図書館で読む.\nThe verb \"read\" has no inherent connection with places in general (Reading can\nbe done in a variety of locations). However, \"read\" is naturally related to\n\"library\" as opposed to \"room\".\n\nQuestion: So, is II more appropriate than I? And III more appropriate than IV?\nIf it is the case that II>I and III>IV, under what circumstances would I>II\nand IV>III, and how different would the meaning (or in nuance if any) be in\neach instance?\n\nQuestion: For statementｓ containing に or で. Is it true that if に is replaced\nby で (Or the other way around). The sentence **immediately** stops making\nsense and is **absolutely** wrong? Are there circumstances for which a\nstatement is grammatically correct and has **two** separate meanings (or\nnuance) resulting from a (に/で） choice?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T00:53:53.217", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2197", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-23T11:43:08.973", "last_edit_date": "2017-02-23T11:43:08.973", "last_editor_user_id": "7810", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "particle-に", "particle-で", "に-and-で" ], "title": "に and で revisited", "view_count": 2856 }

[ { "body": "The opposition is not \"what\" vs. \"where\" or action vs. location. It is whether\nthat phrase is an indispensible part that follows from the meaning of the\npredicate, or an optional part without which the predicate will still make\nsense. When you say `ホテルに泊まる`, `ホテルに` is not simply expressing the location.\nWhat it expresses is more like 'the kind of place to stay in', like hotel,\nhome, hut, etc., and this is a core part of the predicate. So if you use it\nwith something that is purely a place, like `熱海`, it sounds strange:\n\n> △ 熱海に泊まる \n> ○ ホテルに泊まる\n\nOn the other hand, `ホテルで` is merely a location, which is optional, and in\nfact, `で` sounds completely fine with a pure place like `熱海`. It is rather\n`ホテルで` that sounds a little bit akward:\n\n> ○ 熱海で泊まる \n> △ ホテルで泊まる\n\nWhen it comes to `泣く`, the place has no inherent connection with crying, and a\nlocational phrase would be optional; hence you have to use `で`.\n\n> ○ 部屋で泣いている \n> × 部屋に泣いている\n\n* * *\n\nIn your added part, I and III are wrong. II and IV are correct. The way you\ntake \"naturally related\" is a little bit wrong. The act of reading has nothing\ninherent to do with the place, even if it is in a library. On the other hand,\nstaying at some place has an inherent connection to the type of place you\nstay. Moving has an inherent connection with the origin and destination.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T02:07:29.777", "id": "2199", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T05:00:22.700", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-27T05:00:22.700", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2197", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Ok, so you seem quite confused. Let's make it simple.\n\nVerbs いる、ある、泊る、行く、来る、乗る use に.\n\n * 部屋に人がいる\n * 部屋に車がある\n * 私はホテルに泊る\n * 学校に行く\n * ここに来てください\n * バスに乗ってください\n\nAll the others work with で.\n\n * シャワーで歌を歌う\n * 食堂でパンを食べる\n * ホテルで泣く\n * 図書館で本を読む\n * ここで、何をする？\n\nand so on. Remember that, and you'll be right 99% of the time. The remaining\n1% are the verbs I forgot to mention, and nuances that will just get you wrong\nif you want to learn them now. You have plenty of time before worrying about\nnuances.\n\nIt's not a matter of being natural or not, it's just that given verbs work\nwith given prepositions. That's all.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T06:21:29.853", "id": "2237", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T06:21:29.853", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2197", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "_Additional Info_\n\nI've always thought that if you use ある, you have to use に. I learned recently\nthat this is sometimes wrong. There's a case where using **X** に or **X** で\ndepends on what **X** is.\n\nFor example:\n\n> Aセンターで大きなコンサートがある。○\n>\n> Aセンターに大きなコンサートがある。▽\n\nで is correct here because コンサート is an event.\n\n> ５階建ビルにオフィスが５つある。(オフィス: Since an office is tangible, に is more natural)\n>\n> ５階建てビルで授業がある。（授業：Since a class is an event, で is more natural)\n\n[Also see this answer.](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/14259/4183)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-09-25T02:37:48.243", "id": "18805", "last_activity_date": "2014-09-25T02:37:48.243", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "4183", "parent_id": "2197", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2239", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In English, there is a certain etiquette to follow when writing a business\nletter. From what I've seen so far, the same seems to be true in Japanese as\nwell.\n\nIf I was making a business-related request to someone who has helped me a lot\nin the past, I can start my email with `いつもお世話になり、ありがとうございます。` Likewise, if\nI'm asking someone that has just done something for me, I could use `お疲れ様です。`\n\nHowever, if I needed to make a business request to someone I don't know well,\nis there a general opening phrase I could use?\n\nHow about if I don't know that person well, but they work in my department?\n\nWhat if they were in the same company, but a different department?\n\nWhat about if they worked for another company?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T01:59:51.260", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2198", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-30T14:36:23.417", "last_edit_date": "2015-06-30T14:36:23.417", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "162", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "culture", "phrase-requests", "business-japanese", "greetings", "email" ], "title": "How should I start an email when requesting something from someone I don't know well?", "view_count": 5744 }

[ { "body": "> はじめまして \n> 'This is the first time seeing you'\n\nis a standard expression.\n\nIf that person is in the same company, regardless of the department, you can\ncontinue as\n\n> ...部門の...と申します \n> 'I am called ..., and am from the ... department'\n\nIt is more polite than\n\n> ...部門の...です \n> 'I am ... from the ... department',\n\nwhich may, but not necessarily, presuppose that the person should already know\nyour existence.\n\nIf that person is in a different company, you should rather continue with\n\n> ...会社...部門の...と申します", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T02:58:00.807", "id": "2200", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T03:34:58.827", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-26T03:34:58.827", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2198", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "You have to read the last sentence in the next paragraph to get your specific\nanswer. I borrowed a good letter example from [a site with a lot of business\ntemplates](http://email.chottu.net/example/out-office/irai.html#30).\n\nFirst of all, you have to say the addressee's name, career, and you have to\nsay \"Sama\", and it should be delimited with line breaks and followed by two\nline breaks (Or maybe carriage returns. I don't know the difference, or which\nis more proper). Then, you use はじめまして。 You do a line break. Then you do\nbusiness type '株式会社(かぶしきがいしゃ)' and business name (they come in different\norders because the official company name may have かぶしきがいしゃ before, and it may\nhave it after, and you really have to get it correct), section name\n(営業部の部の意味は\"section\") and のyour name, then と申します(もうす). 申します 'it's said this\nway' and has the same meaning as と言います, but it's 謙譲語(けんじょうご). It has the\nhumble tone because it's humble language, and it says that you're speaking to\nsomeone who is in a higher place, kind of. `突然のメール､失礼いたします` is the greeting.\nIt means: \"Sorry for the sudden message.\"\n\n> 件名：ご講演の依頼 \n> ○○○株式会社 \n> 中村 裕子様\n>\n> はじめまして。 \n> 株式会社山田商事､営業部の山田太郎と申します。 \n> 突然のメール､失礼いたします。 <<(THIS IS THE GREETING)\n\nYou can inspect the rest of the letter, yourself, below. This letter is a\nrequest for a guest speaker from a high-ranking person at another company,\nNakamura-Sama (中村 裕子様). It's a standard 'request' letter, when you're not\nasking for any specific kind of favor; however, there are letters for some\nspecific kinds of requests, and you should be careful. At the website I\nmentioned, there are templates for other things that you can ask for. For\nexample, there is a letter requesting permission to relocate, from an employee\nto his boss, and there are many types of templates for to request that someone\ntake action to correct a mistake of some kind. The kind of mistake they want\ncorrected makes the letter's content change dramatically.\n\n> さて､このたびは弊社主催の研修セミナーにて､ \n> 中村先生にぜひご講演をお願いいたしたく､ \n> ご連絡させていただきました。\n>\n> 現代の国際事情を読み解き､ベストセラーになっている \n> ご著書『これからの東アジア情勢』は \n> 社内でも話題の1冊になっております。 \n> 先生のお話は､わが社の社員にとって \n> 貴重なものになると確信しております。\n>\n> ご多用中のところ誠に恐縮ですが､ \n> 下記のようなテ-マおよび条件にて \n> ご講演をお願いできればと考えております。\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> テーマ: ｢東アジアでのビジネス展開｣ \n> 日時:平成20年5月1日(月)午後6時～8時 \n> 会場:当社2階大ホール \n> 参加者:当社社員約550名 \n> 謝礼: 80万円(交通費別途)\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> なお､ご都合をお伺いするために､ \n> 週明けにこちらからお電話させていただきます。 \n> ご検討のほど､なにとぞよろしくお願い申し上げます。\n>\n> * * *\n>\n> 株式会社 山田商事 営業部 \n> 山田 太郎(ヤマダ タロウ) \n> 〒564-9999 \n> 大阪府○○市△△町11-9 2F \n> TEL：066-9999-9999(直通) 066-9999-9999 (代表)\n>\n> ## FAX：066-9999-9999\n\nI am also afraid that I may have given you wrong information because business\nmanners are so specific. If you are worried about a letter, you should post\nthe specific letter in a question to make sure that you're writing it\ncorrectly. There are so many differences between two different letters with\nalmost the exact same intention that each letter should warrant its own\nindividual post.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T06:34:52.730", "id": "2239", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T07:34:20.073", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-27T07:34:20.073", "last_editor_user_id": "162", "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2198", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2217", "answer_count": 4, "body": "Following the current trend of pitting the particles に and で against each\nother, here is another question that does the same but from another type of\nusage and perspective.\n\nWhen we want to say \"do X before Y\", we use \"Y 前に X\":\n\n> 食べる前に「いただきます」と言う。\n\nOn the other hand, when we want to say \"do X after Y\", we use \"Y 後で X\":\n\n> 食べた後で「ごちそうさまでした」と言う。\n\nWhat is the simplest explanation to explain the differences between 前 and 後\nthat make 前 goes with に while 後 goes with で in the two situations above?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T05:11:31.733", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2201", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-20T06:00:05.040", "last_edit_date": "2014-10-19T04:31:44.803", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 23, "tags": [ "word-choice", "particles", "particle-に", "particle-で", "に-and-で" ], "title": "に vs で again: 前に vs 後で", "view_count": 4418 }

[ { "body": "I always consider this kind of で as the suspensive form of です. So, I would\nread the second sentence as \"It is the time after lunch; we say\ngotisousamadesita\".\n\nAs for why it sounds more natural with 後 than with 前, I have no idea.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T06:26:33.153", "id": "2204", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T06:26:33.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2201", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "In 後でする the focus is that you will do whatever you were doing, just later;\nwhereas in 後にする the focus is that you will postpone whatever you are supposed\nto do until later.\n\nTreating で as the \"instrumental\" particle, this way, \"後でする\" would mean \"to do\n(whatever), by using the time after now\"\n\nAnd \"後にする\" would mean \"to do (whatever), at a point of time after now\"\n\nSo \"前に\" would be \"at a time before now\", and \"前で\" would be impossible since\nyou cannot use a time before now.\n\nAlternatively, treating で as the verb-conjunctive form of the copula だ, ”後でする”\nwould mean \"It is afterwards, and do it\"\n\nThis also shows the impossibility of 前で which would translate strangely into\n\"It is now before and...\" which is temporally impossible for the past to exist\nin the present.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T08:37:05.280", "id": "2209", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T08:43:28.707", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-26T08:43:28.707", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2201", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "`で` derives from `に＋て`, and `て` roughly corresponds to the present/past\nparticiples (-ing, -en) in Western languages. [Kuno\n(1973)](http://wals.info/refdb/record/Kuno-1973) notices that `て` implies\ntemporal order. So when you have\n\n> 走ってころんだ \n> '(By) running, I fell',\n\nrunning has to precede falling; it cannot be the other way around. This much\nis the general consensus.\n\nNotice that the usage of `で` in the question involves temporal notions rather\nthan locations. Now, I found an interesting explanation [here:\nQ14](http://nhg.pro.tok2.com/qa/joshi-2.htm) that connects the facts mentioned\nabove. According to this, when you have an expression\n\n> A [temporal noun] で B,\n\nthe `て` that is included in `で` obeys the temporal restriction mentioned\nabove; that is, what is expressed by `A [temporal noun]` has to precede `B`.\nGoing in the other temporal order is not allowed. Therefore, expressions like\n\n> 食べた後で「いただきます」と言う。 [Temporal order: 食べた => 言う]\n\nare grammatical but\n\n> × 食べる前で「いただきます」と言う。 [Temporal order: 食べる <= 言う] \n> × 食べるよりも先で「いただきます」と言う。 [Temporal order: 食べる <= 言う]\n\nare not. `に` can be used by all the examples above:\n\n> 食べた後に「いただきます」と言う。 \n> 食べる前に「いただきます」と言う。 \n> 食べるよりも先に「いただきます」と言う。\n\nIf there is preference of `食べた後で「いただきます」と言う` over `食べた後に「いただきます」と言う`, then\nsome kind of slight difference in meaning like what phirru mentions in the\ncomment may be playing a role here.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T16:10:39.367", "id": "2217", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-20T06:00:05.040", "last_edit_date": "2016-08-20T06:00:05.040", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2201", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 }, { "body": "If you want a very simple answer, then you can look at the meaning of ni and\nde, again: ni means things are separate and interacting. de means that things\nare contiguous and acting in a similar manner (i.e., to the same ends). I\nthink I answered a question you asked about them earlier to tell you that に\nand で could be compared to an English analogue of 'each other' and\n'themselves'.\n\nAnyway... 後で is used because after the past happens, it is included as a part\nof a continuing timeline 'themselves'. 前に is used because the prior event\ninteracts with the future event through time or the doer or whatever 'each\nother'. So, 'ホニャホニャの後でいく' = 'With/'contingent on' whatever's happening, I will\ndo it.' 'ホニャホニャ前にいく' means, 'Whatever happened, and my going before that is\nrelated somehow'. And to reiterate one more time: '後で' means: 'the future\ncomes only with complete a specific past' and '前に' means: 'the future seems to\ninteracts with a past'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T16:53:33.450", "id": "2219", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T16:53:33.450", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2201", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2203", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I just encountered the phrase 「男前な女」in the book I am reading. When I looked up\n男前, it was defined as \"good looks in a man,\" much like \"handsome\" in English.\nWhat does it mean when used to describe a woman?\n\nHere is the context:\n\n> もし、兄の連絡を受けるようにすれば、あの生意気で男前な女の被る負担は少しでも減るのかもしれない。 Roughly: _Maybe, if he was\n> willing to put up with his brother's phone calls, he could lighten that\n> cheeky, [?] woman's burden just a little._\n\n(For what it's worth, the woman in question had been repeatedly described as a\nconventional beauty. The man who describes her as an 男前な女 is probably\nattracted to her but still oblivious at this point.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T05:16:32.537", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2202", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T19:03:26.553", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-26T19:03:26.553", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "28", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "vocabulary" ], "title": "What does 男前 mean when used to describe a woman?", "view_count": 4172 }

[ { "body": "A definition I found for 男前 is a bit different from what you (and I)\noriginally expected： 男らしい顔つきや態度。男振りのよいこと。\n\nSo, I guess that this girl may behave a bit like a tomboy, or maybe show too\nmuch assurance.\n\nEdit: after a quick survey around me (corpus size: two persons), 男前な女 is\neither neutral or positive, and is much related to the behaviour, not really\nto the look of the female in question. It could be applied for example for a\nperson who says what she thinks a bit too directly. In the lack of more piece\nof information, I would personally not use it tomorrow before knowing more\nabout the nuance and how some people may react to it :)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T06:23:45.230", "id": "2203", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T09:16:06.450", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-26T09:16:06.450", "last_editor_user_id": "107", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2202", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "As you guessed already, 男前 has an implication of \"man-like\" good looks. But\nusing it on a woman is not in any way pejorative and merely indicates a\ncertain type of style in their appearance.\n\nA better translation than \"good looks in a man\" would be \"tomboy\", as\nAxioplase suggested, or, in a more historically fashion-conscious translation:\n\"flapper\" (1920's _Garçonne_ style). Neither of which is incompatible with\nconventional beauty and might even have extra appeal to some (but might be\nunappealing to those who seek the more traditional gender-bound Japanese\nstyles).\n\n[This page](http://www.citywave.com/tokyo/tokusyu/040917/) has a small\n(informal) discussion on what it means to be a \"男前な女性\", including examples of\nactual celebrity whose readers deem to be typical 男前な女性. Top two picks should\ngive you a good idea of the style:\n\n * [天海祐希](http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B5%B7%E7%A5%90%E5%B8%8C&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1115&bih=594#um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B5%B7%E7%A5%90%E5%B8%8C&oq=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B5%B7%E7%A5%90%E5%B8%8C&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=534638l534638l0l534852l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fa24606344fcdf28&biw=1115&bih=594)\n\n * [和田アキ子](http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%E5%A4%A9%E6%B5%B7%E7%A5%90%E5%B8%8C&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1115&bih=594#um=1&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=%E5%92%8C%E7%94%B0%E3%82%A2%E3%82%AD%E5%AD%90&oq=%E5%92%8C%E7%94%B0%E3%82%A2%E3%82%AD%E5%AD%90&aq=f&aqi=g8g-m1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=12144l12144l0l15039l1l1l0l0l0l0l146l146l0.1l1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fa24606344fcdf28&biw=1115&bih=594)\n\n(as you can see with Yuki Amami in particular, the Japanese definition of\n\"tomboy\" essentially rests on wearing pant suits and cropping your hair\nsomewhat short)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T06:41:37.227", "id": "2205", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T06:41:37.227", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "2202", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "I agree with the other answers that `男前な女` refers to a woman with a somewhat\nmasculine quality to her looks, in a positive way.\n\nHowever, I think that \"tomboy\" is the wrong English equivalent. It does not\nmatch with your description of the context where the woman in question is\n\"repeatedly described as a conventional beauty.\"\n\nA tomboy is a woman who _acts_ like a man or boy (depending on age) , and may\ndress the part, but it is almost entirely her behaviour. Whether she is\nattractive, whether in spite of or because of her tomboyish, is incidental.\n\nOn the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to [describe a woman as\nhandsome](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/17108/can-you-still-\ncall-a-woman-handsome). It refers to her physical features and implies that\nshe has a sort of masculine quality which adds to her feminine charms.\n\nThus, I think the best translation for `男前な女` is \"a handsome woman\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T08:53:00.087", "id": "2210", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T08:53:00.087", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:38:10.367", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2202", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "There's a LOT going on here....\n\nFirst, the answer: it means \"manly woman\". You may be thinking, incorrectly,\nthis is a scale: 1 is feminine. 10 is masculine. 4 is otokomae female (almost\na man). 4 is otokomae male (almost a man). \nTraditionally, the kanji \"mae\" didn't mean before. The kanji meant \"way of\nmoving\", and it came from Kabuki theater. Someone who is \"otokomae\" is someone\nwho could articulately be described as \"moving like in the loveliest way a man\npossibly could\". In other words, \"He is an ambassador for men, and he\nrepresents their best features.\"\n\nSo, if there were a scale, an otokomae woman would be a woman who made the\neloquent movements of the most 'gracefully', in the theatrical sense, moving\nman, so she could be anywhere from 1 to 5. She would, however, likely have a\nsturdy frame. As for men, they would likely be somewhere above 7, because they\nwould have to be at least a little masculine to embody this. They would\nprobably move with strong determination and flexibility.\n\nNow, I want to send you a personal note about your sentence, and the nature of\nthe Japanese language. You posted extremely unusual Japanese. As you may\nalready know, the meaning of a Japanese sentence cannot be taken without the\nwhole sentence. Likewise, in adult writing, the meaning of a sentence often\ncannot be divined until each sentence (including the last) has been read. It's\noften necessary to hold language in your head as you continue reading, so that\nthe secret of the earlier sentences may occur to you at a later time, and it\nsometimes takes a very long time to get to that point.\n\nIf you really did get your unusual Japanese from a book (probably a novel),\nthen you definitely should include _more_ context.\n\nCan you write in either: the two surrounding sentences, the entire paragraph,\nor the first and last sentence in the paragraph? Because if you don't, there's\nno way it can be understood.\n\nThe translation of the sentence you posted is like this, in English:\n\n\"If someone wanted to move towards gaining conversation (one of these people\napparently being a woman, and the other being a man [the direction of the\ndesire is likely revealed in another sentence]), the woman's burden of\nsuffering through the brash statement, \"You're a manly woman,\" could be\nreduced [by something that will be revealed in another sentence].\"\n\nSo, sitting here, a speaker of Native Japanese and Native English, with my two\nexclusively Native-Japanese speaking friends (who are studying for their\nnursing exams), we're thoroughly perplexed by the sentence. We don't know what\nit means.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T14:00:00.213", "id": "2214", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T14:00:00.213", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2202", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2218", "answer_count": 4, "body": "I noticed that the 前 is a handy kanji character in Japanese language. It is\nused in many words including but not limited to:\n\n> 名前 {なまえ} : Given name\n>\n> 手前, お前 : You\n>\n> [当]{あ}たり[前]{まえ} : Natural, obvious matter\n>\n> 出前 : Meal delivery\n>\n> [建]{た}て[前]{まえ} : Public facade\n>\n> 男前 {おとこまえ} : Handsome, manly, masculine\n>\n> 不足前 {たらずまえ} : Deficit, shortage\n>\n> [持]{も}ち前 {まえ} : Characteristic, nature\n>\n> [分]{わ}け[前]{まえ} : Share, quota\n>\n> 板前 {いたまえ} : Chef, cook\n>\n> 朝飯前 {あさめしまえ} : Very easy, a piece of cake\n\nTo my knowledge, a kanji character is used in a word because of how the\nkanji's meaning relates to the word's meaning, except for the case of\n[当て字]{ateji}, so I imagine that there must be a reason why each of the words\nabove (and many others) uses 前 as the ending kanji character. Does Japanese\nlanguage and culture have any concept that centers around 前?\n\nEDIT:\n\nIt seems like people are misunderstanding my question here. I am not asking\nhow to relate the meaning of the 前 characters to the meaning of the words I\nlisted above. I am asking why are those words built up using the 前 character?\nWhile we can easily see the relevance of 前 in some of them like 名前 and 建て前,\nthe relevance is not obvious in some others like 出前 and 板前. Does 前 have any\nsignificance in the language or culture, that somehow influenced how those\nwords are coined?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T07:06:24.977", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2207", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-10T06:23:10.510", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "kanji", "set-phrases", "culture" ], "title": "The significance of 前 {まえ} in Japanese language and culture", "view_count": 3242 }

[ { "body": "Random suggestions regarding meanings:\n\n名前: how about _forename_? \n手前, お前 : You, who stand _in front of me_ \n当たり前: an explication is a reading from misspelled \"当然\" \n出前: Goes out, up to your _front_ door \n建て前: Really a facade, like that of a building, isn't it? \n板前: in front of the cooking plan/shelf \n朝飯前: makes me think of a French expression you may use in a fight, and that\ngoes like \"guys like you, I have some everyday for breakfast\". Here, it's so\neasy it's even before breakfast :)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T08:12:08.627", "id": "2208", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T08:12:08.627", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2207", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "前 simply means something like 'before' or 'in front of'\n\n名前 {なまえ} : Before name\n\n手前, お前 : The person in front of me\n\n[建]{た}て[前]{まえ} : In front of the public\n\n板前 {いたまえ} : Person in front of a cooking board\n\n朝飯前 {あさめしまえ} : Before breakfast (as in, So easy I can do it before breakfast)\n\nThe others on your list probably also work like the last one in that there was\nsome phrase that made them make sense, but they've been shortened to just a\nword.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T11:04:22.300", "id": "2211", "last_activity_date": "2016-04-10T06:23:10.510", "last_edit_date": "2016-04-10T06:23:10.510", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "2207", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I think the meaning is pretty similar across all the words. It kind of means\n'forefront' or 'spitting image of', and it's from Kabuki. I just told someone\nelse this in another question.... If you consider that the minds of the people\nwho created the language were more interested in the interactions between\nmajor structures than they were interested in major structures: you'll\nunderstand that what was most important when '前' was chosen to describe things\nthat you would interact with in a play.\n\nIt's kind of an extension of the idea of 'concrete' and 'abstract', in\nEnglish, where 'table' is a concrete thing and 'love' is an abstract thing.\nIt's very easy to point to a table and call it what it is, but you can't point\nto love and say \"that's it\". It requires a lot of description. In that same\nway, when words like '名前' come to play, there's the first kanji, which means\nname, and the second kanji, which means 'it is most like it, so everyone can\npretend'. In the other unusual case you mentioned, we have '建て前' which you\nhave said means 'public facade'. '建て' alone means 'build', right? So,\nseparating the two kanji: a) something that we build, and b) everyone plays\nalong with because it seems so real.... This is undeniably a facade, I think.\nIt's difficult to get used to, but it's also good to know. Kanji, and indeed\nkanji combination, is to do with interactions (as in operators), not just\nmundane items (as in operands).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T16:33:05.917", "id": "2218", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T16:33:05.917", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2207", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The meaning of `前` in your examples do not seem to converge to one. If there\nare a lot of words made with `前`, it is just a coincidence. But since it is an\nabstract word, it is likely to be used in many words.\n\n[This website](http://gogen-allguide.com/) provides the origin of many words,\nfor example: [名前](http://gogen-allguide.com/na/namae.html), [出前](http://gogen-\nallguide.com/te/demae.html), [当たり前](http://gogen-\nallguide.com/a/atarimae.html), [板前](http://gogen-allguide.com/i/itamae.html),\n[男前](http://gogen-allguide.com/o/otokomae.html)\n\nYou can see that the origin is not as straight forward as some other answers\nspeculate.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T19:25:09.183", "id": "2223", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T00:52:50.540", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-27T00:52:50.540", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2207", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2226", "answer_count": 1, "body": "my dictionary shows both 随分 and なかなか (with positive verb) as\n**\"very/considerably\"**\n\nI was wondering is it true that 随分 is of a higher _degree_ than なかなか?\n\nLike\n\n> あんた **なかなか** 勇敢だな。= 75%\n\nand\n\n> あんた **随分** 勇敢だな。 = 85%?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T19:08:38.093", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2220", "last_activity_date": "2020-03-23T09:28:46.300", "last_edit_date": "2020-03-23T09:28:46.300", "last_editor_user_id": "37097", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "grammar", "nuances" ], "title": "is 随分 of a higher degree than なかなか (with positive verb)?", "view_count": 628 }

[ { "body": "Yes. `なかなか` means mildly, moderately. The origin is `中中`, 'middle-middle'. It\nis lower in degree than `随分`.\n\n* * *\n\nBelow is slightly technical.\n\nElaborating on rintaun's point, `なかなか` has another usage: used with a negative\nexpression. There are words that can be only used within negative environments\n(and some other environments, subsumed under what are technically called\ndownward entailment environments).\n\n> **決して** 食べない [Japanese example] \n> **全然** 食べない [Japanese example] \n> おかず **しか** 食べない [Japanese example] \n> He does not study **at all** [English example] \n> I am not paying **a red cent** [English example]\n\nSometimes, a word can be used either under this usage or under a different\nusage:\n\n> He cannot eat **any** -thing. [Negative usage] \n> He can eat **any** -thing. [Different usage]\n\nDepending on the usage, the scale differs. `なかなか` is an instance of such word.\nIt has a usage that requires a negative environment.\n\n> 彼は **なかなか** 食べない [Negative usage] \n> 彼は **なかなか** よく食べる [Different usage]\n\nIn this negative usage, the degree of `なかなか` is stronger.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T19:42:00.363", "id": "2226", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T00:35:38.747", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-27T00:35:38.747", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2220", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2227", "answer_count": 3, "body": "I've heard people using あした (the common one) and あす (rather uncommon) to refer\nto \"tomorrow\".\n\nI was wondering does anyone actually uses the reading みょうにち ?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T19:10:20.090", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2221", "last_activity_date": "2018-05-04T23:00:00.693", "last_edit_date": "2018-05-04T23:00:00.693", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "word-choice", "words", "readings", "spoken-language", "wago-and-kango" ], "title": "Do people actually ever say みょうにち?", "view_count": 590 }

[ { "body": "Sometimes old people do. I don't know why, but maybe they feel uncomfortable\nwith 熟字訓読み as in あした or あす, where the portion of the pronunciation of a word\ndoes not match each kanji character.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T19:38:40.807", "id": "2225", "last_activity_date": "2016-11-24T13:53:58.380", "last_edit_date": "2016-11-24T13:53:58.380", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2221", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "I have heard it used in formal (e.g. business) contexts. I have never heard it\nused in casual conversations among friends or family.\n\nThis is what you might expect, because Sino-Japanese words like みょうにち do tend\nto have a more formal feel than native Japanese words like あした or あす, when\nthey exist alongside each other with similar meanings.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T23:48:03.390", "id": "2227", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-26T23:48:03.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2221", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "In some parts of Tohoku, the greeting \"おやすみなさい\" or \"また明日\" is said \"おみょうにづ\",\nwith is a deformation from \"おみょうにち\". Even though it refers to the _next_ day,\nI think that \"お\" is the same one as in \"お早う\".\n\nI can't remember whether \"あした\" is casually said \"みょうにづ\" though…", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T02:10:53.097", "id": "2233", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T02:10:53.097", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2221", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2224", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In English:\n\n * a burglar is usually associated with someone who breaks into a house (victim is usually unaware during the burglary)\n\n * a robber is usually associated with that person who uses weapons and threatens you to give him your property (victim-aware of course)\n\n * a mugger is usually associated with a robber on the street (victim-aware)\n\n * a thief is usually one who sneakily steals things without resorting to violence (victim-unaware)\n\n * a pickpocket is usually associated with a thief on the street (victim-unaware)\n\nSo what exactly is the exact nuance of a 泥棒? perhaps most likely there isn't a\n1-to-1 match so probably could someone write an explanation of 泥棒 without\nusing words like robber/mugger/thief/pickpocket/burglar etc\n\nSide question: if we change 泥棒 to the hiragana form どろぼう, does it affect the\nnuance in any way?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T19:11:06.220", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2222", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T15:32:41.440", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-26T21:06:29.677", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "nuances", "definitions" ], "title": "What is the exact definition of 泥棒?", "view_count": 508 }

[ { "body": "In this particular case, I can see quite straghtforward correspondence between\nEnglish and Japanese. But `泥棒` is also the cover term that can be used to\nwidely refer to all of these.\n\n> * 空き巣 'burglar'\n> * 強盗 'robber'\n> * 泥棒 'mugger'\n> * 盗人 'thief'\n> * スリ 'pickpocket'\n> * ハンバーグラー 'Hamburglar'\n>\n\nWriting it in hiragana does not change the nuance.\n\nThere is a stereotypical image for 泥棒:\n[http://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%B3%A5%E6%A3%92&tbm=isch&biw=1272&bih=1055](http://www.google.com/search?q=%E6%B3%A5%E6%A3%92&tbm=isch&biw=1272&bih=1055)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-26T19:33:59.200", "id": "2224", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T15:32:41.440", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-27T15:32:41.440", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2222", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2230", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Today I heard 人形がいる, so I googled around because I thought 居る was only for\nliving things, but I found many examples of this usage. Many for 人形がある as\nwell.\n\nAre there other exceptions for いる／ある？", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T00:09:07.397", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2228", "last_activity_date": "2015-12-14T00:12:17.200", "last_edit_date": "2015-12-14T00:12:17.200", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "usage", "irregularities-exceptions", "personification" ], "title": "What are some well known exceptions for 居る (いる) and 有る (ある)?", "view_count": 725 }

[ { "body": "One such exception is that Taxis get いる.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T00:41:24.557", "id": "2229", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T00:41:24.557", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "2228", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "In your case, it can be simply an instance of personification. That is,\nmetaphorically handling an inanimate thing as if it were animate. That is easy\nto imagine with 'doll'. If that is the case, then this is not an exception but\nis simply a rhethoric.\n\nA case where an inanimate thing can take `いる` is when that thing is inherently\nmobile, and is used within the context as such. For example, if you are\nlooking at a time table, and found a train that you can take, then you can say\n\n> 電車がある\n\nbut if you were running into the station to catch a train that may have left\nalready, but you made to it in the last moment and there is a train in front\nof you, then you can say\n\n> 電車がいる\n\nOn the other hand, when you are talking about an existence of an animate\nthing, and that is an ordinary scene, you can use it with `ある`\n\n> 昔、おじいさんとおばあさんがあった \n> 昔、おじいさんとおばあさんがいた\n\nWhen you are talking about possession by nature, then you can use an animate\nthing with `ある`.\n\n> 彼には隠し子がある \n> 彼には隠し子がいる", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T00:44:36.583", "id": "2230", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T13:32:55.643", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-27T13:32:55.643", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2228", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2241", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've been listening songs and anime dialogues that end sentences with ～もの or\neven cuter version ～もん for so long that I am able to see how the word denotes\nreasons or excuses like:\n\n> おなか空{す}いた **もん** (when the character was asked why she finished the cake all\n> by herself)\n\nI have no problem with the grammatical structure of the sentences that end\nwith ～もの when the words before もの are verbs or adjectives, but I am confused\nwhen the words that precede the もの are nouns, they need to put the copula だ or\nです before the もの, for example:\n\n> 好きだ **もん** \n> 女です **もの**\n\nShouldn't it be の or な particles between the nouns and もの? How does that work,\nin term of grammar? Or is this usage of もの simply colloquial or slangy that\ndoes not have to follow any grammar rule?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T09:10:46.180", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2240", "last_activity_date": "2019-10-25T02:34:44.097", "last_edit_date": "2019-10-25T02:34:44.097", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "grammar", "register", "particle-mono" ], "title": "Ending sentence with ～だもの or ～ですもの", "view_count": 4158 }

[ { "body": "Because it's not the noun もの, but a grammatical final particle on its own. You\ndo say \"お腹が空いたから\" and \"好きだから\" with particle \"から\" don't you? It's the same\nthing here!", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T09:34:57.627", "id": "2241", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T09:34:57.627", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2240", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2243", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've seen this phrase a couple of times but couldn't read the Kanji so I don't\nremember it.\n\nOtherwise, what phrase would be good to include in the last slide to imply\n\"Thanks for listening!\"?\n\nFor example, after giving a presentation about project that you are working\non, after finishing talking at a seminar.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T12:25:44.547", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2242", "last_activity_date": "2016-05-19T08:01:24.857", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-28T15:37:30.773", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "79", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "usage", "phrase-requests" ], "title": "What is usually written at the end of a slides presentation to imply \"Thanks for listening\"?", "view_count": 10236 }

[ { "body": "I think the most common one around is `ご清聴ありがとうございました`.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T13:00:26.450", "id": "2243", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T13:00:26.450", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2242", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2245", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I am at present rigorously studying 擬音語／擬態語 (an _entire_ world of its own!).\n\nThe definition my book has for ぼちぼち (also ぼつぼつ) is:\n\n```\n\n 1. Gradually; slowly but steadily\n 2. Used to describe something that is about to happen. Imminently. Right away.\n 3. The condition of many dots or other small objects scattered around.\n \n```\n\nIgnoring definition 3, definition 1 seems nearly identical to どんどん and だんだん:\n\n```\n\n ぼちぼち　←→　どんどん　←→　だんだん\n \n```\n\nand definition 2 seems nearly identical to そろそろ:\n\n```\n\n ぼちぼち　←→　そろそろ\n \n```\n\nIs this correct?? If so, are they freely interchangeable in a given situation,\netc.? Can someone explain any nuances amongst them??", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T14:50:08.840", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2244", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T01:02:30.987", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T01:02:30.987", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "usage", "nuances", "synonyms", "onomatopoeia" ], "title": "ぼちぼち - related words", "view_count": 876 }

[ { "body": "Usage 1: I think this usage has sort of Kansai dialect flavour, although it\ncan still be used in Tokyo dialect. While どんどん and だんだん have the implication\nthat it is straightforwardly going towards one direction on the scale, ほちほち\nimplies that some kind of force against it or brake is in effect, or it just\nimplies that the rate of change is slower. It can even mean that it is not\nchanging but is static at some moderate degree. Close English expressions are\n`little by little` or `so-so`. A typical (stereotypical) Osaka-merchants'\ngreeting phrase:\n\n> A: 儲かりまっか。 \n> 'Is your business going well?' \n> B: ぼちぼちでんがな。 \n> 'So-so.'\n\nUsage 2: Under this usage, I think you can only use it for volitional acts.\n\n> そろそろ仕事に戻ろう。 \n> ぼちぼち仕事に戻ろう。 \n> 'Let's get back to work.'\n>\n> そろそろ雨が降るはずだ \n> △ ぼちぼち雨が降るはずだ \n> 'It is about to start to rain.'", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T15:16:26.883", "id": "2245", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T18:48:01.803", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2244", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2251", "answer_count": 3, "body": "From WWWJDIC:\n\n> 愛 【あい】 (n,n-suf) (See 愛する) love; affection;\n>\n> 恋 【こい】 (n) love; tender passion;\n\nMy understanding on affection, love and tender passion is like the following:\n\n> affection < love < tender passion\n\nIf I may line up all three in a spectrum in term of the strength of the\nemotion involved, I imagine 愛 covers the lower end of the spectrum while 恋\ncovers the higher end. The adjectives that are derived from these two nouns\nseem to conform to it:\n\n> 愛しい 【いとしい】 (adj-i) lovely; dear; beloved; darling;\n>\n> 恋しい 【こいしい】 (adj-i) yearned for; longed for; missed;\n\nHowever, when the two kanji characters are combined with 人 to refer to the\nperson that is the target of each type of love:\n\n> 愛人 【あいじん】 (n) lover; mistress;\n>\n> 恋人 【こいびと】 (n) lover; sweetheart;\n\nApparently the two 'loves' swap places, with my assumption being:\n\n> sweetheart < lover < mistress\n\nWhat's going on? Am I not getting the nuances for both nouns for 'love' right?\n\nN.B. I don't mind getting philosophical answers here so please go all out if\nyou must ;)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T16:24:22.113", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2246", "last_activity_date": "2019-01-29T01:14:54.410", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 29, "tags": [ "word-choice", "nuances" ], "title": "Love in the air: 愛ｘ恋 {あい vs こい}", "view_count": 19026 }

[ { "body": "It is the other way. On the scale, `愛` is stronger than `恋`. Besides that, `愛`\ncan be used generally, including the kind of love that Christianity talks\nabout, or the love in between a family. `恋` is only for relations/feelings\ntoward a person of the targetted sexual orientation.\n\nAs for the meaning of `愛人` and `恋人`, you have to be careful. Whereas `恋人`\npurely means lover, `愛人` means a lover that is not official, such as one in an\nadulterous relationship, or someone for just having sexual relationship. This\nis one of the words that need caution when also learning Chinese. In Chinese,\n`愛人` means spouse.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T16:32:30.687", "id": "2247", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T16:37:43.490", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-27T16:37:43.490", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2246", "post_type": "answer", "score": 20 }, { "body": "The difference between 愛 and 恋 is worth diving a bit deeper into. My view is\nas follows:\n\n * 愛: sacrificial, unconditional, love for the other person's sake (often parallels the Greek _[agape](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love)_ , but can extend into _philos_ as sawa mentions)\n * 恋: selfish, conditional, love for one's own sake (often parallels the Greek _eros_ )\n\nWhile both can be used for romantic love, you cannot simply swap out one for\nthe other. The contrast between the two shows up clearly in the したい forms of\n愛する and 恋をする:\n\n> 愛したい I want to love [someone in a deep, unconditional way]\n>\n> 恋がしたい I want to [fall in] love [with someone and experience the \"high\" of\n> being in love]\n\nWith 愛, the focus is on the other person: you are loving that person for\nhis/her sake, and even if he/she doesn't return your love, that won't change\nyour feelings. With 恋, the focus is on you: it's all about experiencing that\nfeeling of being in love, and it rarely continues if the feeling turns stale\nor if the object of your love fails to return your love.\n\nThe same difference appears in the ～たい passives:\n\n> ○ 愛されたい I want to be loved [by someone in a deep, unconditional way]\n>\n> △ 恋をされたい I want someone to fall in love with me\n\nWhile the first is perfectly OK and common, the second, while not wrong, can\nsound strange, as it essentially means you want to be the object of someone's\nshallow (compared to 愛) love. Granted, the feeling of knowing that someone\nloves you, whether that love is 愛 or 恋, can be pleasant, but when given a\nchoice, most people would rather be the target of 愛 as opposed to 恋.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T18:21:47.787", "id": "2251", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T18:21:47.787", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2246", "post_type": "answer", "score": 30 }, { "body": "A nice way to distinguish 愛 and 恋 is to look at the kanjis.\n\n愛は「上」の「心」\n\n恋は「下」の「心」\n\nThat should solve many ambiguities.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T03:06:45.920", "id": "2259", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-28T03:06:45.920", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2246", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'm trying to figure out what \"こと” is referring to in this idiom/grammar\npoint.\n\nIn the following example sentence:\n\n彼は若いころから日本に住んでいただけのことはあって、さすが日本語がうまいんだね。\n\nWhat does koto refer to here?\n\nAdditionally, is this perfectly interchangeable with だけあって\n\nCompare the following 2 sentences\n\n彼は若いころから日本に住んでいた **だけのことはあって** 、さすが日本語がうまいんだね。 \n彼は若いころから日本に住んでいた **だけあって** 、さすが日本語がうまいんだね。\n\nAre these different? If so, why?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T16:54:59.120", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2248", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T06:07:26.373", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:07:26.373", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 8, "tags": [ "grammar", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "What does こと refer to in だけのことはある", "view_count": 1260 }

[ { "body": "I think `こと` just refers to the general situation, and does not refer to some\nparticular thing. A close English analogue may be `the case` as in `It is the\ncase that he was living in Japan`. Your two sentences with and without `こと`\nare interchangeable.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T17:22:01.907", "id": "2249", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T17:22:01.907", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2248", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "It doesn't refer to anything. Again, it's just two grammar points:\n\n * だけのことはある is surely because ～; not surprising that ～; It was worth ～ \n\n * だけあって because, as expected (used for positive things)\n\nExamples:\n\n> 毎日訓練してるだけあって上達した。\n\nAs expected after a while of daily training, he improved a lot.\n\n> さすがにばかと呼ばれるだけのことはある。\n\nHe's not called an idiot for no reason indeed !", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T03:13:33.307", "id": "2260", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-28T03:13:33.307", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2248", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2258", "answer_count": 2, "body": "The is a certain way of talking where you can end just about anything you say\nin わけ.\n\nWhat is the sentence structure for this way of talking?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T18:05:44.897", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2250", "last_activity_date": "2021-12-07T05:16:18.080", "last_edit_date": "2021-12-07T05:16:18.080", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 36, "tags": [ "usage", "syntax", "word-usage", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "How do we construct sentences ending in わけ?", "view_count": 15788 }

[ { "body": "`わけ` is a noun meaning 'reason', but it might be better translated as\n'circumstances' as Matt comments. When you put it at the end of a sentence,\nyou are turning that sentence into an appositive clause modifying わけ. When the\npredicate is an adjectival noun (also called na-adjective), you need to change\nthe ending into the adnominal ending (-な). A word for word translation will be\n\"(there is) reason that...\", or \"the circumstances were that...\".\n\nIn actual usage, it does not mean much, but is used when you want to establish\nintermediate steps for explaining something.\n\n> 彼がそこにいた。 \n> 'He was there.' \n> 彼がそこにいたわけ。 \n> '{Reasonably/The circumstances were that/Now/Actually}, he was there.'\n>\n> 彼は静かだ。 \n> 'He is quiet.' \n> 彼は静かなわけ。 \n> '{Reasonably/The circumstances were that/Now/Actually}, he is quiet.'", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T18:28:30.913", "id": "2252", "last_activity_date": "2021-12-07T05:11:08.130", "last_edit_date": "2021-12-07T05:11:08.130", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2250", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "While sawa's answer does cover the basic construction rules, it's definitely\nworth it to go over the different use cases of わけ. Grab a comfy chair and your\nfavorite beverage, because this is a long one.\n\nThe best and most complete analysis I've found of this use of わけ is in this\n2001 paper by Atsuko Yokota:\n\n[文末【ぶんまつ】表現【ひょうげん】「わけだ」の用法【ようほう】 :\n「はずだ」「ことになる」との比較【ひかく】](http://repository.tufs.ac.jp/handle/10108/20942)\n\nIt's freely available as a PDF (yay!) but it's entirely in Japanese (hrm), so\nthe best I can give you here is a summary of the five (yes, five) distinct\nuses of わけだ which Yokota lists.\n\n## Yokota's Differentiation of わけだ\n\nDiagrammatically, Yokota charts out the first four uses of わけだ in her paper.\nHere is a clarified and prettified version:\n\n\n\n### 1\\. Marks a logical conclusion or result based on some known fact\n\nThe common thread in this type of sentence is that a known fact Y is used as\nthe logical basis for a conclusion Z:\n\n> 波【なみ】がずいぶん荒【あら】いですね。今日【きょう】は船【ふね】が出【だ】せない **わけ** ですか。\n>\n> Y (known): The water is really rough today, isn't it?\n>\n> Z (conclusion): **As a result,** will we not be able to put out to sea\n> today?\n>\n> 時差【じさ】が四時間【よじかん】あるから、日本時間【にほんじかん】のちょうど正午【しょうご】につく **わけ** だ。\n>\n> Y (known): The time difference is four hours, so\n>\n> Z (conclusion): **based on this** we'll arrive right at noon Japan time.\n>\n> 体重【たいじゅう】をはかったら52キロになっていた。先週【せんしゅう】は49キロだったから、一週間【いっしゅうかん】で3キロも太【ふと】ってしまった\n> **わけ** だ。\n>\n> Y (known): When I weighed myself I was at 52 kilos. Last week I was 49\n> kilos, so\n>\n> Z (conclusion): **this means** I gained a whole three kilos in one week.\n\n### 2\\. Marks a reason or cause for some matter\n\nThis is like the first use, only in the opposite direction. We take some known\nfact Y, and use わけ to mark X, the reason for or cause of Y:\n\n> 学校【がっこう】の中【なか】が静【しず】かですね。――あ、冬休【ふゆやす】みに入【はい】った **わけ** ですね。\n>\n> Y (known): It's quiet in the school, isn't it?\n>\n> X (reason): Ah, **it's because** we're in winter break now, right?\n>\n> 今年【ことし】の米【こめ】のできが良【よ】くなかった。冷夏【れいか】だった **わけ** だ。\n>\n> Y (known): This year's rice crop was poor.\n>\n> X (reason): **This is due to** the cool summer we had.\n>\n> 波【なみ】がずいぶん荒【あら】いでしょう。台風【たいふう】が近【ちか】づいている **わけ** です。\n>\n> Y (known): See how the water is really rough?\n>\n> X (reason): **It's because** there's a typhoon approaching.\n\n### 3\\. Marks the speaker's acceptance/acknowledgement of some truth\n\nThis is a little more complicated than the first two uses. Essentially, we\nagain start with some known fact Y (which may be unspoken). An answer for why\nY is true is presented as X, and this leads to the conclusion that X naturally\nyields Y:\n\n> フランスで中学【ちゅうがく】まで行【い】かれたのですか。道理【どうり】で、フランス語【ご】が流暢【りゅうちょう】な **わけ** ですね。\n>\n> _Y (known, unspoken): You are fluent in French._\n>\n> X (why is Y true?): You were in France through junior high?\n>\n> Y (acknowledged): No wonder you're fluent in French. _(acknowledging that X\n> naturally yields Y)_\n>\n> あかない **わけ** です。かぎが違【ちが】っているのですから。\n>\n> Y (known): It won't open. _(Listener: Why not?)_\n>\n> X (why is Y true?): The keys are different. _(Listener: Ah, so that's why.)_\n>\n> 夫【おっと】：隣【となり】の鈴木【すずき】さん、退職【たいしょく】したらしいよ。\n>\n> 妻【つま】：そうか。だから平日【へいじつ】の昼間【ひるま】でも家【いえ】にいる **わけ** だ。\n>\n> _Y (known by wife, unspoken): Mr. Suzuki is at home even during the middle\n> of the day on weekdays._\n>\n> X (why is Y true?): Husband: I heard that Mr. Suzuki next door resigned from\n> his job.\n>\n> Y (acknowledged): Wife: Ah, so that's why he's at home even during the\n> middle of the day on weekdays.\n\n### 4\\. Marks a restatement of some fact\n\nThis is one of the simplest uses of わけ. Here, a known fact Y is restated or\npresented from a different angle as Yʹ. Often you'll find this use of わけ\npaired with つまり:\n\n> 彼女【かのじょ】の父親【ちちおや】は私【わたし】の母【はは】の弟【おとうと】だ。つまり彼女【かのじょ】と私【わたし】はいとこ同士【どうし】な\n> **わけ** だ。\n>\n> Y: Her father is my mother's younger brother.\n>\n> Yʹ: In other words, she and I are cousins.\n>\n> 山田【やまだ】さんは韓国【かんこく】の領事館【りょうじかん】勤務【きんむ】になった。つまり彼【かれ】は出世【しゅっせ】した **わけ** だ。\n> ([example adapted from this\n> page](http://homepage3.nifty.com/i-yasu/Lesson31.htm))\n>\n> Y: Mr. Yamada got a job at the South Korean consulate.\n>\n> Yʹ: Essentially, he's moved up in the world.\n\n### 5\\. Does something entirely untranslatable\n\nUnfortunately, there has to be a catch-all category, since わけ gets used kind\nof like a sentence-final particle without any significant effect on the\nmeaning of the sentence. Even Yokota admits that \"speakers often use [わけ in\nthis way] unconsciously.\"\n\n> こうして二人【ふたり】は結婚【けっこん】して、幸【しあわ】せに暮【く】らした **わけ** です。\n>\n> And so the two married and lived happily.\n\nThis わけ doesn't fit nicely into any of the four preceding categories. You\nmight think it falls under #1 (a conclusion based on some known fact), but\nthis sentence isn't a conclusion of anything; it's merely a statement of some\nknown fact, without any connection. We could, in fact, remove わけ entirely,\nwithout affecting the meaning, by replacing 暮【く】らしたわけです with 暮【く】らしました.\n\nInside this category is the use of わけ to set up a context or prologue for a\nsucceeding statement. We find ～のだ being used in a similar way:\n\n> わたしは国史【こくし】を専門【せんもん】にしている **わけ**\n> ですが、わたしのような文献【ぶんけん】を扱【あつか】う者【もの】の立場【たちば】からすれば、もっと史料【しりょう】を大切【たいせつ】にすべきではないかと思【おも】うんです。\n>\n> I specialize in history, and from the standpoint of someone like me who\n> handles literature, I think we should value historical sources more.\n\nHere, わけ marks a prologue (\"I specialize in history\") and provides the\nfoundation for the following statement: it informs the listener of how\nqualified the speaker is to make such a statement. わけ could be replaced by の\n(ん) in this example.\n\n## Forming Sentences with わけだ\n\nThe rules for わけ follow the normal rules for forming a subordinate clause\nbefore a noun: the clause must end in a plain form, with the exception that\n(plain present) な-adjectives connect to わけ with な, and (plain present) nouns\ncan connect with either な or (less commonly) の:\n\n> 行【い】くわけだ／行【い】ったわけだ／行【い】かないわけだ／行【い】かなかったわけだ\n>\n> 優【やさ】しいわけだ／優【やさ】しかったわけだ／優【やさ】しくないわけだ／優【やさ】しくなかったわけだ\n>\n> 静【しず】かなわけだ／静【しず】かだったわけだ／静【しず】かではないわけだ／静【しず】かではなかったわけだ\n>\n> 証拠【しょうこ】なわけだ／証拠【しょうこ】だったわけだ／証拠【しょうこ】ではないわけだ／証拠【しょうこ】ではなかったわけだ\n\nOften the speaker will use という to \"wrap up\" the preceding clause (or\nsentences) and use it to modify わけ (というわけだ). This doesn't change the usage,\nand the rules for using という are the same as those for the use of と to mark a\nquote or thought. This use of という is often used at the beginning of a sentence\nas a transition:\n\n> というわけで、…\n>\n> So with that, …\n\nThis is especially common in TV or radio shows when the host needs to press\nthe show forward or move on to the next topic. The という wraps up the preceding\nstatements into わけ and essentially means, \"Now that all this has been said,\nlet's move on.\" というわけで has the following colloquial forms:\n\n> ちゅうわけで (a slur of というわけで)\n>\n> てなわけで (using て for という, but as to where the な comes from, your guess is as\n> good as mine)\n\nということで is also used as a transition with a meaning similar to というわけで.\n\n## Negative Forms of わけ\n\nThere are at least four negative forms of わけ, each with slightly different\nmeanings. One is using わけだ after a negative clause, which shows up in the\nexamples here. This answer is getting too long to cover these, so I will\nsimply list the other three here and wait for those interested in more\ncomplete explanations to ask a question:\n\n * ～わけがない: There's no way that ～\n * ～わけではない: It's not as though ～\n * ～わけにはいかない: It's not possible to ～", "comment_count": 18, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T00:30:25.903", "id": "2258", "last_activity_date": "2018-08-25T08:25:37.510", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2250", "post_type": "answer", "score": 63 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2254", "answer_count": 2, "body": "What does バタバタ mean?\n\n> コラム書かなきゃ。映像チェックしなきゃ。アレも書かなきゃ。アレも考えなきゃ。 **バタバタバタ** 子さん(´･_･`)\n\nEverything make sense to me except for the last part.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T19:28:30.113", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2253", "last_activity_date": "2017-08-19T17:45:47.067", "last_edit_date": "2017-08-19T17:45:47.067", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "onomatopoeia" ], "title": "What does バタバタ mean?", "view_count": 3446 }

[ { "body": "`バタバタ` is an onomatopoeia expressing busyness. Usually, a Japanese\nonomatopoeia repeats a two-mora part (like `バタ`) twice, four morae in total,\nbut here, it is repeated thrice.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T19:41:54.517", "id": "2254", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-28T03:25:50.870", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-28T03:25:50.870", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2253", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I probably found this too late for my answer to be of interest, but I think I\ncan shed some light on the mystery.\n\nThe phrase used is a paraphrase of a line from a well-known (to Japanese\nchildren at least) song from _Sore Ike Anpanman_. I am not sure of the song's\nname, but the first line is 勇気の鈴がりんりんりん and it was played as the ending theme\nof many episodes in 2010. It has also been used as the ending theme of more\nthan one of the Anpanman movies. The line in question is:\n\n> バタバタ走るよ、バタ子さん。\n\nバタ子's name (usually written バタコ) actually means \"butter-child\" (the 子 is a\nfrequent female name ending). バタバタ indicates her busy nature as well as being\na pun on her name. The writer of the original sentence has clearly truncated\nthe line to バタバタバタ子さん, probably expecting the reference to be obvious. To\nanyone living in a house with small Japanese children around 2010/2011 it\ncertainly would have been obvious.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2014-10-08T09:28:04.670", "id": "18999", "last_activity_date": "2014-10-08T09:32:19.690", "last_edit_date": "2014-10-08T09:32:19.690", "last_editor_user_id": "1628", "owner_user_id": "7438", "parent_id": "2253", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2256", "answer_count": 1, "body": "When asking, \"which is better,\" in Japanese, I could write どっちがマシ？\n\nHowever マシ has a negative connotation, implying that even though something is\nbetter it's still undesirable.\n\nWhat's a word like マシ that I could use when asking \"which is better?\" that\ndoesn't have this negative connotation?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T22:08:46.637", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2255", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-28T15:39:17.700", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-28T15:39:17.700", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "meaning", "word-requests" ], "title": "A word like マシ without the negative connotation", "view_count": 626 }

[ { "body": "You can say\n\n> どちらがよい? \n> どっちがいい? [Colloquial]\n\nwithout negative connotation. Or, if you want to imply that both are good, and\nwant to ask `Which is even better?`\n\n> どちらがよりよい? \n> どっちがよりいい? [Colloquial]", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-27T22:13:37.350", "id": "2256", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-27T22:13:37.350", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2255", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2262", "answer_count": 1, "body": "How are とても/とっても, でかい/でっかい, 超 (and others that I have yet to encounter) used\ndifferently? I figured that for とても/とっても-type difference is that the double-\nconsonant(geminated) version is stronger i.e. a greater intensity and used\ncolloquially.\n\nI've also heard \"でかい煩い\". I presume でかい/でっかい is used with negative\nconnotations? **EDIT:** (From the anime Aria the Animation, the character\nAlice frequently uses でかい as an intensifier in the ungrammatical way as in\n\"でかい煩い\". I now understand it as her 口癖)\n\nHow about 超 in \"超安い\" for \"very cheap\" (price of object)?\n\nWhat would be the difference if I swap them around?\n\nAre there other qualitative intensifiers that would be good to know? And what\ndifferences in nuance would there be?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T03:22:43.720", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2261", "last_activity_date": "2012-07-01T19:11:46.967", "last_edit_date": "2012-07-01T19:11:46.967", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "nuances", "meaning", "adverbs" ], "title": "Qualitative intensifiers e.g. とても, とっても, 超, etc. How are they different?", "view_count": 1947 }

[ { "body": "As you notice, the ones with gemination are colloquial versions, and do not\nhave particular difference in meaning besides being unformal. However, if you\nuse it together with a long vowel, that will further intensify the expression.\nFor example, `でーっかい` will be very colloquial and stronger than `でかい` or\n`でっかい`.\n\n * 大変 'very' is used in formal contexts.\n * とても/とっても/ものすごい 'very' is an intensifier in the Tokyo dialect.\n * えらい/めちゃ/めっちゃ/めっさ/むちゃ/むっちゃ/ごっつい/ごっつ 'very' is the corresponding intensifier used in the Kansai dialects.\n * 真剣 'very' is the corresponding intensifier used in Shinshuu dialect.\n * でら 'very' is the corresponding intensifier used in Nagoya dialect.\n * めちゃくちゃ 'very' means the similar, is colloquial, and is not bound to a certain dialect.\n * すごい/すっごい/すんごい 'very' are all colloquial irrespective of the gemination.\n * 比較的 'rather' makes the expression mild.\n * ある程度 'to a certain degree' is also mild.\n * 少しだけ/少し/ちょっとだけ weakens the degree.\n\n* * *\n\n * 超 'super' can be added to nouns or adjectives. Overusing it will sound colloquial. Especially, extensively using it used to be one characteristics of high-school girl's slangish way of speaking. For example, `超かわいい`, `超むかつく`, `超うける`. An extreme example is `超タモリ`.\n * 極 'ultra' can be added to nouns or adjectives or can be further added to `超`.\n\n* * *\n\n * でかい/でっかい means 'large'. It is not an intensifier. It has nothing to do with negative connotation.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T03:39:02.543", "id": "2262", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-28T17:06:39.460", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-28T17:06:39.460", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2261", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2264", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What's the difference between ◯◯ **を** 掃除 and ◯◯ **に** 掃除？\n\nTrying to understand the following, which using \"に\"\n\n> 引き続き執筆。合間のリフレッシュ **に** 掃除", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T14:12:25.187", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2263", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T06:26:11.070", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T06:26:11.070", "last_editor_user_id": "100", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": -4, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles" ], "title": "Difference between ◯◯を掃除 and ◯◯に掃除", "view_count": 215 }

[ { "body": "I suppose you meant `掃除する`.\n\nIn `部屋を掃除する`, `部屋` is the object to be cleaned.\n\nThere can be sources of a `...に` phrase that are **not directly relevant** to\nthis predicate:\n\n * Time: `3時に掃除する`\n * The subject of a causative: `その人に掃除させる`\n * An adverbial phrase expressing the purpose (can be translated as 'as'): `気晴らしに掃除する`", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T14:21:49.397", "id": "2264", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-28T14:33:25.347", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-28T14:33:25.347", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2263", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2269", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Sometimes I've seen ド as a prefix that adds emphasis to words. So saying\nsomeone is ドバカ is saying that they are much more stupid than just バカ.\n\nI'm wondering what the origin of ド in this context is. Does it come from 度\n【ど】(\"degree\"), as in, \"the degree of X is higher\"?\n\nAlso, is it always negative? I usually see it attached to negative terms, but\nI don't know if it's exclusively negative.\n\nLastly, is it impolite?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T16:14:39.433", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2267", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-28T13:33:45.850", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 18, "tags": [ "word-choice", "etymology", "politeness" ], "title": "What are the origins of ド when used as emphasis, and is it always negative?", "view_count": 1152 }

[ { "body": "Don't know if it's always from the kanji 度 or not. However, of the few\nexamples I found, there was `ど真ん中` (straight down the middle), so there is at\nleast one situation where it's not negative.\n\nAnd here's [the definition from\n大辞泉](http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/leaf/jn2/154704/m0u/):\n\n> # ど\n```\n\n> 〘接頭〙名詞や形容詞に付く。\n> １ まさにそれに相当するものであることを強調する。「—真ん中」「—ぎつい」\n> ２ ののしり卑しめる意をより強く表す。「—けち」「—下手」\n> \n```\n\nSo based on this, I would say that words themselves are not impolite, just\nmaybe _how_ you use it.\n\nA common one I use is `度忘れする` (this one I know for sure uses 度) meaning \"to\nslip your mind\" or \"momentarily cannot recall\". I don't see any way this in\nitself could be impolite.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T16:40:09.613", "id": "2268", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-28T13:33:45.850", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-28T13:33:45.850", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2267", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "In present Japanese, the usage is not limited to negative terms\n\n> ど真ん中 'right in the middle', 'bingo!' \n> ど根性 'strong guts'\n\nbut does not seem to be productive either (i.e., usage is limited). When it is\nused with a negative term, that is surely impolite, but the words listed above\nare not particularly impolite.\n\n`ど` seems to have derived from the 18th century form `どう`, whose meaning is\nnot clear. There is another descendant form `どん`, which developed mainly in\nthe context of kabuki (歌舞伎), and seems to be used only for negative terms.\n\n> どん尻 \n> どんケツ \n> どん引き [Recent slang]\n\nHere are some discussions on other sites:\n\n * <http://kotobakai.seesaa.net/article/8237957.html>\n * <http://d.hatena.ne.jp/nobita720/20110702>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T16:44:49.773", "id": "2269", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-28T19:23:14.280", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-28T19:23:14.280", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2267", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2271", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I'm trying to understand the following:\n\n> 後輩にサイフを開かせることはないよ\n\nI guess this could be generalized as AにBをCさせる.\n\nIt's confusing. Maybe if someone can break down how to understand this and\nthen I can memorize it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T18:40:30.217", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2270", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T09:28:07.210", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-28T18:58:58.723", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "particles", "syntax" ], "title": "How to break down who did what in AにBをCさせる", "view_count": 578 }

[ { "body": "Usually, you have a sentence like:\n\n> 後輩がサイフを開く \n> koohai ga saihu wo hirak-u \n> 'the junior opens the wallet'\n\nwhere the subject takes `が` and the object takes `を`.\n\nThere is a morpheme `-(s)ase-` 'let', 'make' that expresses causative. The way\nyou use it is that you embed the sentence, and change the embedded subject `が`\ninto `に`, take another subject that will be the causer.\n\n> 君が後輩にサイフを開かせる \n> kimi ga [koohai **ni** saihu wo hirak]-ase-ru \n> 'you let [the junior open the wallet]'\n\nIn your example, the subject `君が` is actually omitted, so you have\n\n> 後輩にサイフを開かせる", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T19:13:07.723", "id": "2271", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-28T22:42:07.277", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-28T22:42:07.277", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2270", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "Sometimes i _process_ it like this:\n\n(Zが) トムが: **Tom**\n\n(Aに) 後輩に: _towards_ / _unto_ **junior**\n\n(Bを) サイフを: _take_ / _consume_ **wallet**\n\n(Cさせる) 開かせる: _let_ / _made_ \\+ **open**\n\n= Tom let/made junior open the wallet.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T09:28:07.210", "id": "2290", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T09:28:07.210", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "parent_id": "2270", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2273", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm trying to understand this:\n\n賞品？おそらく！リナちゃん.....私の後ろの笑い声輝くん​がたくさんで黙らせ\n\nThe last word, 黙らせ, is confusing. Is this a combination of different forms?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T19:38:55.910", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2272", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-28T20:03:20.050", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "verbs", "meaning", "conjugations" ], "title": "What is the らせ form of a verb?", "view_count": 1267 }

[ { "body": "`黙らせる` is the causative form of the verb `黙る`. See [my explanation to your\nprevious question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2270/) for the\nmeaning of the causative `-(s)ase-`\n\n> damar-u [Original form] \n> BeQuiet-NonPast \n>\n>\n> damar- **ase** -ru [Causative] \n> BeQuiet-Causative-NonPast", "comment_count": 12, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-28T19:43:30.770", "id": "2273", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-28T20:03:20.050", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2272", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2284", "answer_count": 2, "body": "According to my dictionary, both `照{て}れる` and `照{て}れてる` mean to be shy, or be\nawkward.\n\nI don't _think_ one is a different verb form of the other. The `て`+`いる` form\nof `照れる` would be `照れている`, not `照れてる`.\n\nSo I think they're different words, but do they have a difference in meaning?\n\nAlso, the kanji by itself seems to mean \"to shine\". Is there some kind of\nassociation in the word origin or in the culture between shyness and shining?\n\n_(Please note that the green check will only be awarded to answers that do not\nrely on technical linguistic terminology to be understood.)_", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T06:01:28.597", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2277", "last_activity_date": "2012-02-08T03:49:58.280", "last_edit_date": "2012-02-08T03:49:58.280", "last_editor_user_id": "796", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "word-choice", "etymology" ], "title": "What is the difference between 照{て}れる and 照{て}れてる?", "view_count": 2894 }

[ { "body": "As Lukman comments, `照れてる` is simply a contracted form of `照れている`. `て + いる`\ncan be used to mean either or both\n\n * Progressive (as in English `be ~-ing`)\n * Perfect (as in English `have ~-en`)\n\ndepending on the verb. In this case, `照れる` will mean that the person generally\ngets shy; not that the person is shy at a particular moment.\n\n> 彼は人前でいつも照れる \n> 'He always gets shy in front of people.'\n\nIn order to describe a particular event of getting shy, you have to use the `て\n+ いる` form.\n\n> 彼は今,照れている \n> 'He is being shy now.' [literal translation] \n> 'He is shy now.'\n\n`照る` can be translated into English as 'shine', but it also means 'glow'. When\nyou are getting shy, (stereo-)typically, your face gets red with increased\nblood flow. The origin of `照れる` is this face described metaphorically as\n'glowing in a fire'.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T07:42:31.567", "id": "2284", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T07:48:03.857", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T07:48:03.857", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2277", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I think it's simply the contracted て+いる form, just like how 食べている is\ncontracted to 食べてる and している is contracted to してる.\n\nAs for the meaning of the kanji itself, my Japanese dictionary software (which\nuses EDICT) lists down four possible meanings: illuminate, shine, compare,\nbashful. So I think 照れる takes the \"bashful\" meaning straight from the kanji.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T07:43:33.390", "id": "2285", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T07:43:33.390", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2277", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2294", "answer_count": 3, "body": "One of my coworkers todays said something like:\n\n> \"Today I have too many 割り込みタスク so I cannot pay too much attention to this\n> project\"\n\nLiterally translating it into \"interrupting tasks\" sounds rather vague, so how\nwould a 割り込みタスク be defined?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T06:15:49.183", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2278", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T06:06:59.510", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:06:59.510", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "79", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "usage", "computing", "metaphor" ], "title": "What is a 割り込みタスク?", "view_count": 192 }

[ { "body": "That's sound like\n\n> \"I have got too many urgent tasks for today, so I cannot pay attention to\n> this project\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T06:28:58.667", "id": "2280", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T06:28:58.667", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "100", "parent_id": "2278", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "I think you misheard `割り込みタスク`. `割り込みタスク` or `interrupting task` is a\ntechnical term used in computer science:\n[wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrupt). Although it is a\ntechnical term, its meaning does not differ much from what you can imagine if\nit were an ordinary phrase. I think your coworker has some knowledge about\ncomputers, and used it metaphorically. Other than as a technical term, the\nphrase `割り込みタスク` would be too odd to be used.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T07:18:16.720", "id": "2282", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T07:54:30.823", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T07:54:30.823", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2278", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I'm not sure how common it is in general business Japanese, but `割り込みタスク`\nisn't that out of place among\n[lifehackers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_hack). It roughly means\n\"unexpected work created by external factors\".\n\nHere are a few articles that use the word...\n\n * [「バッファ時間」で割り込みタスクをやっつける](http://bizmakoto.jp/bizid/articles/0904/10/news039.html)\n * [タスクシュート方式における割り込みタスク](http://www.mindhacks.jp/2010/03/post-2184)\n * [割り込みタスクに四苦”ハック”](http://cyblog.jp/modules/weblogs/4106)\n\nIn lifehacking jargon, \"interruptions\" seems to be the corresponding term,\nthough not exactly interchangeable (to be exact, interruptions = 割り込み, tasks\ncreated by interruptions = 割り込みタスク):\n\n * [Plan for Interruptions to Minimize Their Impact](http://lifehacker.com/5496953/plan-for-interruptions-to-minimize-their-impact)\n\nThe point is, when you say 割り込みタスクが多い, the tasks themselves are interruptions\nto your coworker's planned work schedule, and that interruption has already\nhappened. I think that's a more natural interpretation/transcription than \"割り込\n**む** タスクが多い\" (tasks keep interrupting me).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T09:54:57.223", "id": "2294", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T18:42:30.190", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T18:42:30.190", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2278", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2335", "answer_count": 2, "body": "**_Update:** There seems to be some controversy here as to whether or not\nthere really is a difference between vouching and guaranteeing, which impacts\nhow it is translated. Please see the discussion I started on [English\nL&U](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/36205/what-is-the-difference-\nbetween-vouch-and-guarantee) about this, where I believe the answers are\nsupporting the idea that there is a difference, and explain what that\ndifference is._\n\nJapanese does not seem to have a readily available equivalent for the concept\nof \"vouching\" for someone when you are introducing someone for work, or as a\npossible date, or whenever there is some kind of favour involved and it's not\njust social.\n\nTo be more accurate, in Japanese culture, when one introduces someone else,\nthe _default assumption_ is that you are vouching for that person.\n\nWhich means that just about _any_ and _every_ introduction comes with a fair\namount of responsibility. Which might be fine, except Japanese tend to err on\nthe side of caution by being hesitant to make introductions, for whatever\npurpose, for fear that something might go wrong.\n\nThe words the dictionary provides for \"vouch\" is `保証【ほしょうする】`, or\n`請け合う【うけあう】`, both of which mean \"guarantee\", which is much too strong. I\nthink because the default assumption is that any introduction comes with a\nsense of vouching for that person, to then add words only stresses the\nassurance, not qualify it.\n\nThe problem with anything like \"guaranteeing\", is that it implies that if\nsomething goes wrong, you can come back to me, either for compensation, or\nmaybe just to punch me in the stomach, or something.\n\nIn English language and culture, when I'm vouching for someone, I am telling\nyou about the content of their character. What transpires from their actions\nis between you and them. Guaranteeing is about putting assurance on future\nactions and transactions.\n\nSo is there a way in Japanese I can say I'm vouching for the person without\nguaranteeing their future actions?\n\nAlso, can I qualify a meeting by saying I'm _not_ vouching for someone? In\nother words, despite the fact that this introduction is to help you with\nsomething, I'm only making the introduction because I'm trying to help, but I\ndon't know the person I'm introducing well enough to give you any assurance.\n\nThis is somewhat a cultural issue as well as a language issue, which means I\nwouldn't expect there's some perfect term that I simply haven't discovered\nyet. If this is a concept that has to be described in some way so as to\nintroduce it to the language, then let's concoct something new.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T06:24:22.697", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2279", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T14:06:57.490", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:38:10.367", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "word-choice", "culture" ], "title": "How would one convey the concept of \"vouching\" in Japanese?", "view_count": 916 }

[ { "body": "Let me start by thinking about the difference between vouching and\nguaranteeing. If I understand what you're saying right, you mean something\nlike: if I lend a guy a guitar because you vouch for him as a reliable guy,\nand he breaks it and won't replace it, I'm SOL, because I have no right to\nexpect you to replace it instead. But if you _guarantee_ that he won't break\nit, I _am_ within my rights to ask you to replace it.\n\nI think in the first case I would still be pissed at you, though. I would feel\nthat you had misled me (unintentionally or not) about this guy's character,\nand that you had a _moral_ obligation to step up and make the situation right.\n\nMaybe your understanding of \"vouching\" is different; if so, that shows that\nthe concept of \"vouching\" is hard to translate partly because it means\ndifferent things in different contexts/to different people. And a word this\nflexible is unlikely to have an exact counterpart in Japanese, as you note.\n\nSo if there's something you want to say to differentiate an introduction from\n\"default vouching\", it's probably best to state it directly. 信頼できる人だと思いますよ, or\nwhatever. If my guitar got broken in that case, I might feel that you had\nterrible judgment, but I probably wouldn't feel _misled_ \\-- you did say\nと思います, after all. (Of course, I might still decide to hold you responsible.)\n\nI would offer a similar answer for your opposite question, how to introduce\nsomeone _without_ vouching for them. If you want your hedge to be clear, and\ndon't have the skill to put it across by implication alone (I don't think I\ndo), the safe thing to do is to state it clearly. 直接一緒に仕事したことはないけど,\n二回しか会ったことないけど, etc.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T21:14:57.643", "id": "2335", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-30T21:14:57.643", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2279", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "I have no illusion that this answer might not be up to your expectations (it\nis rather a list of minor points and suggestions), but it is probably more\nappropriate than the lengthy comment back-and-forth we've been having, so here\ngoes:\n\n**1.** I disagree with the level along which you differentiate \"vouching\" and\n\"guaranteeing\" (in the context of introductions). As a few have pointed out\nalready, I think the general idea is that \"vouching\" is merely a _moral_ (and\n_somewhat_ informal) obligation whereas \"guaranteeing\" implies something\nstronger (often legal or financial) and more formal. In both cases, the\nimplication on the person you are vouching/guaranteeing for is the same: you\nwager a share of your own \"standing credit\" to their benefit. In both cases,\nyou are bearing witness to the content of their character (to what extent: you\ndecide), which _does_ indirectly affect how they might behave in their future\ninteractions with the person you are introducing them to (I don't think\nanybody is asking you to predict the future either).\n\nI think you could perfectly envision a situation where you **vouch** strongly\nfor someone you'd trust with your life (say, setting up your brother with a\nfriend), yet put **guarantee** for someone you do not know so intimately\n(typically: when facilitating a business deal).\n\nHowever, this is all obviously way out of scope for JLU (not even particularly\nJapan-related), so better agree to disagree, if that's not how you see things\n(although I fear it has a strong impact on any possible answer to your\nquestion).\n\n**2.** Your first sub-question asks how to \"vouch for somebody without\nguaranteeing their future actions\" and the point above should make it clear\nhow that is contradictory in nature.\n\nMore exactly: I don't think any reasonable person would ever ask you to\nvouch/guarantee for **all possible future actions** of the person you are\nintroducing: only what can be reasonably foreseen from their character and\npast actions:\n\n * If thermonuclear war strikes tomorrow and the person you vouched for turns out to be a sleeper agent for the rising masses of robotic overlords, I don't think anybody will call you on that.\n\n * On the other hand, if that person turns out to be a deeply unpleasant individual to work with, who consistently produces shoddy work and casually steals expensive office supply, your business partner might understandably expect you to **not** have vouched for such a person (and blame you accordingly if you did).\n\n**3.** Which takes us to the (slightly anticlimactic and rather obvious)\nanswer, which also should address your second subquestion:\n\n> To \"vouch\" for someone you do not want to guarantee anything about (i.e.\n> vouch for), you simply do not vouch for them.\n\nWhile vouching is indeed an implied part of **formal** Japanese business\nintroductions, it is also perfectly possible to introduce someone without\nvouching for them.\n\nIt sounds you may be looking for a specific word (although it is unclear\nwhether you want a verb describing such an action, such as 保証する, or a\nsentence/expression that can be used while performing it). I honestly don't\nthink there is a particular set expression in Japanese that says \"I am not\nvouching for this person\" and is recommended in business situations (at least\nI have never heard it), but there is a plethora of ways to distance yourself\nfrom a person you are introducing:\n\n * Pointedly using the word \"知り合い\" (or similar) at the exclusion of any word indicating a formal association through work or such (同僚 etc).\n\n * Insisting on how undeveloped your own relationship is: e.g. how many times you've met, such as recommended in Matt's answer (but this could easily sound quite rude if the person you are introducing is present). If the \"vouchee\" is not part of the conversation, then I find that \"会えば会釈する程度\" (\"nodding acquaintance\") is quite a nice non-commital (yet respectful) turn of phrase.\n\n * Common sense, really, but: keeping your introduction short and terse within the limit of politeness is a good way to convey your neutrality: \"吉田会社の田村さんです\".\n\n**3.** With all that said, I think it is worth pointing out that, particularly\nin Japanese business settings, you will often be called to vouch for people\nthat you may **not want** to vouch for. Unfair as it may be, there is just no\nway to introduce a member of your inner circle (relative, colleague etc.) to\nan outsider without automatically taking a part of responsibility in their\nfuture actions (if you have the intimate conviction that your boss is an axe\nmurderer, you can try slipping some oblique reference in, but good luck with\nthat).\n\n(This aspect may or may not have to do with your current situation, but at any\nrate, it is squarely in the \"Culture\" side of things, so let's not dwell on it\nhere.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T08:07:31.807", "id": "2348", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T08:12:44.360", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-31T08:12:44.360", "last_editor_user_id": "290", "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "2279", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2527", "answer_count": 8, "body": "I am looking for terms in the Japanese language which can describe the act of\nflirting in a positive light. This probably requires inventing terms to close\na [lexical gap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_gap), because as far as I\nknow, all terms that are related to flirting in Japanese carry a negative\nconnotation.\n\n\"Flirting\" has a couple of meanings in English. However, here I am speaking\nspecifically about flirting in the sense of when a person shows their\nattraction to another person. It's a deliberate act, and can range from covert\nto overt.\n\nThe thing is, where I come from, flirting generally is seen as a playful,\npositive thing. It is flattering to the recipient. It is also can be\nconsidered harmless, in that it might be that the person doing it does not\nnecessarily intend to seduce the other, but that they want to test the limits\nof their attractiveness by provoking a small response.\n\nThe only time flirting is negative in English is when a larger context makes\nit so. If a person flirts with a third person while in a committed\nrelationship, the action of flirting itself is not what defines it as\nnegative, it's that the committed relationship comes with an implication of\npromises that are being broken.\n\nIn Japanese, however, all the terms I know of that approximate the act of\nflirting tend toward the negative.\n\n`浮気する【うわきする】` is all about cheating, so this is clearly the dark side of\nflirting.\n\n`ナンパする` I would translate as \"to hit on,\" and it is clearly much more\naggressive than \"flirting\". With `ナンパ` one necessarily has the goal of\nseducing the other. The feeling of the word to me is of a meat-market night\nclub, although I know it can be used in much more mild and neutral\ncircumstances.\n\n`いちゃつく` might be the most mild, and therefor the closest to the English.\nHowever, it does seem a bit cutesy, like a child's view on flirting (\"...\nsitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g...\"). Also seems almost entirely on the overt\nend of flirting, in that it is more like a public display of affection, like\nkissing and holding, than it would imply any clever or subtle behaviour or\nwords.\n\nIn essence, I want to convey the idea of being at play with showing and\ngetting signals of attraction without it necessarily taking on an aggressive\nsexuality. Flirting can be a sophisticated interaction between adults.\n\nIs there a way to convey flirting in the positive light I am describing?\n\nIs there a way to say \"I'm not really hitting on you, I'm just flirting.\"\nSomething like:\n\n> 実際はナンパじゃなくって、ただ_ **_** _しているだけだ。", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T06:59:14.413", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2281", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-26T20:41:07.297", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T17:58:49.583", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "post_type": "question", "score": 28, "tags": [ "word-choice", "translation", "culture" ], "title": "Does the Japanese language only have negative terms for flirting?", "view_count": 10643 }

[ { "body": "Since no-one else has answered, let me try to chip away at the edges a bit.\nDisclaimer: I am not a native speaker, not young, not single, and not even an\nex-player, so my intuitions might be quite far from those of hip young\nTokyoites.\n\nThere is the phrase 良い雰囲気になる. It literally translates to something like\n\"arrive at/be in a state such that there is a good feeling in the air\", but\nthere is usually an implied romantic nuance. It doesn't correspond exactly to\n\"flirt\", but there is overlap. Two people successfully flirting will usually\n良い雰囲気になる as a result. If you saw your friend getting along very well with a\nnew acquaintance you might comment later on how 良い the 雰囲気 they なった was. If\nyou saw your husband flirting (again, successfully) with another woman, you\nmight angrily whisper 何いい雰囲気になってんのよ when she goes to get another drink.\n_[Edit: Seems that last part isn't true; see comments.]_\n\nHowever, my non-native intuition is that it would be weird to say \"No, baby,\nthis isn't nanpa, いい雰囲気になろうとしてるだけだよ\". It would sound creepy and conceited,\nlike you were trying to manipulate something that should arise naturally, and\ntotally confident that you could do it.\n\nI don't know any words that could fill in that gap. My sense is that a more\ngeneral word would be used like (楽しく)お話する, 遊ぶ, ふざける, depending on how you\nwanted to frame things. (Afterthought edit:) But, as sawa suggests, I think\nthat at the point you are putting it into words, for cultural reasons it would\nbe difficult to frame things positively.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T04:01:43.977", "id": "2323", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T11:38:42.610", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-08T11:38:42.610", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2281", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 }, { "body": "I know another expression which comes close to flirting:\n\n目が合った。\n\nWhich pretty much means what it says: \"Our eyes met\", and is also used as \"we\nhave been flirting\", or more broadly \"I have met a dark handsome stranger.\" ;)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T11:12:57.623", "id": "2430", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T15:19:07.337", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-04T15:19:07.337", "last_editor_user_id": "84", "owner_user_id": "84", "parent_id": "2281", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "Like all the responses so far, I don't have a good concise answer - like you\nsaid, such friendly flirting is accepted, but maybe it's just not culturally\nacceptable to express approval of it, thus no positive language exists. Just a\nthought, but maybe you want to use being friendly or sociable instead of\nflirting: 実際はナンパじゃなくって、ただ社交的にしているだけだ。", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-04T15:32:49.493", "id": "2439", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-04T15:32:49.493", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "580", "parent_id": "2281", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "If you are looking for euphemism, there are plenty:\n\n> * お茶でも飲みに行かない? [Tokyo]\n> * 茶でもしばかへん? [Osaka]\n> * 出会いを求めています\n>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T01:01:53.063", "id": "2450", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T01:01:53.063", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2281", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "How about 甘い話し\n\nNot nearly as sexually driven as the other terms, just a little sweet talking\nif you will!", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T13:14:14.453", "id": "2468", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-05T13:14:14.453", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "588", "parent_id": "2281", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Japanese has negative, positive, and neutral terms for flirting. There's\n'husband/wife hunting' `婚活`, 'stalking/creep hitting' `ナンパ`, 'puppy love\nflirting' `初恋の人の話しをする`, and everything in between. What would probably fit\nbest for you is: `デートに誘いたいんじゃなくて、友達として本当に可愛かったから言っただけだよ。`. This means, in a\nkind of sweet/genuine tone (thus the ん): \"I'm not trying to force a hook up or\nanything. I say things like 'you're cute,' just as a friend, as free\nconversation.\" It's probably something that probably wouldn't come off as\noffensive.\n\nJust let me know if you have any questions. The natural way to say it is 'just\ntalking' or, 'I was just saying'. It's a natural way to say what you want to\nsay, but without knowing the situation, I think it's hard to be sure.\n\nYou can definitely say `ただ話したかっただけ`. That means: \"It was just idle chat,\" as\nin, \"Don't read so much into it.\"\n\nThere isn't a lot of snarkiness in Japan. So, it's difficult to come off like:\n`夜を楽しく` or `ピロートーク` without overstepping your bounds. You can say those things\nif you want and try to be sarcastic, but I'm pretty sure it's going to sound\nstrong. Sarcasm isn't common in Japan.\n\nThe strongest thing you can say is likely `仲良くなりたい`->\"I just want to get\nalong\". That's what I would consider the 'upper limit' of \"just friends\".\n\n**-Update-**\n\n`ツンデレ` might mean 'flirting' as a near equivalence of the \"innocent\" English\nword, \"Flirt\". Pretend you have a friend who met a guy she really liked. She\nthen told you about it, but she said, \"I was dorky and grumpy,\" or, \"I was\nobvious,\" or, \"I didn't let on enough/right,\" or, \"I came on too strong....\"\nYou would say, `何でそなにツンデレをしました!?` Hehe....", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-08T07:30:09.253", "id": "2527", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-08T13:16:47.790", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-08T13:16:47.790", "last_editor_user_id": "544", "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2281", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "_I know I missed the bounty party, but let me leave a scribbling on the napkin\nlying on this table here._\n\nI'm going to take the path of concocting a new word or phrase to express the\nidea of flirting. I know I'm quit a newbie in this particular area, but I'm\ntaking a shot nevertheless.\n\nI've seen all the translations offered by dictionaries but (1) some of them\nhave negative connotation and (2) some of them imply that the participants\nintend to go all the way beyond talks and winks if they get the chance. ex.\nいちゃつく モーションをかける 流し目を送る 秋波を送る..\n\nTo really say \"we're not serious, just blahing\" and cut off the negativity\nattached to the act, something more abstract is called for, like\n\n> ナンパじゃなくて、大人のやりとりをしてただけだよ\n\n * 大人の grownup-\n * やりとり exchange of words, signs, etc.\n\nIt's substandard usage, but 大人の have multitudes of implications already, from\nsimply \"adult\" to a clean way to say \"dirty\", so no one will complain if you\nslip in a new sense.\n\nAlternatively, you can go the other extreme to make it clear you're not going\nfor a serious relationship.\n\n> ナンパじゃなくて、発情してただけだよ\n\n * 発情 in estrus, in heat\n\nLastly, you can coin a new word to mark that it's a new concept.\n\n> ナンパじゃなくて、色気ニケーション {いろけにけーしょん} (色気 + コミュニケーション) だよ\n\n * 色気 romance, sex appeal\n * Note: there's already another word that uses a similar compound formation: [飲みニケーション](http://www.japaneseexpressions.com/2010/10/21/nominikeeshon/) (the kind of interaction only possible under the influence of alcohol)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-09T16:33:47.780", "id": "2568", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-09T16:33:47.780", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2281", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "I don't see any mention of 口説く in the previous answers, but it seems pretty\nclose to what you want. The connotation can be negative or positive depending\nsolely on the individual's outlook:\n\n*同じ口説き文句*でも好きな人から言われれば天国に行った気分になるし、嫌いな人から言われれば吐き気がするものです。 \"Even if the words are the same, if they're said by someone I like, it feels like heaven. But if they're from someone I don't like, I feel like throwing up.\"〔【出典】Hiragana Times, 1994年3月\n\nデートならどんな場合でもロマンチックな意味があるはずだから、男性が女性に言い寄って*口説き落とそう*とするはずです。 Any date probably\nhas a romantic connotation attached to it and the lady should be wooed and\nswept off her feet.〔【出典】Hiragana Times, 2003年1月号◆【出版社】株式会社ヤック企画 〕\n\n[More at alc](http://eow.alc.co.jp/%B8%FD%C0%E2%A4%AD/EUC-JP/).\n\nIt's worth mentioning that there's a distilled alcohol with the playful name\nくどき上手. If it were only looked on negatively, I'm sure sales would be poor :)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-02-26T20:41:07.297", "id": "11345", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-26T20:41:07.297", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3131", "parent_id": "2281", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Does Aに助かりました mean that you were saved from A, or you were saved by A?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T07:40:45.843", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2283", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T05:00:24.690", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-27T05:00:24.690", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "particles" ], "title": "Figuring out Aに助かりました", "view_count": 150 }

[ { "body": "助かる is an intransitive verb which means \"to be saved\".\n\nAに助かりました would mean \"At the point of time/space of A, you were saved.(No agent\nis implied in the statement. It just means you were saved)\"\n\nMuch like 窓が開く, it would mean \"the window opens\" without implying any agent.\n\nThen consider ３時に窓が開く, it would mean \"the window opens at 3 o'clock\"\n\n(Agent: one who initiates and/or completes an action or event)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T08:58:45.027", "id": "2287", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T09:04:30.700", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T09:04:30.700", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2283", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2458", "answer_count": 3, "body": "_EDIT: Started a bounty with hope of getting more definitive and elaborate\nanswers, e.g. timeline of when color names started being used in Japan._\n\nIn Japanese language, there are colors that are i-adjectives: 青い, 赤い, 黒い, 白い\netc.\n\nThen there are colors that are original nouns: 緑 {みどり}, 紫 {むらさき} etc.\n\nAnd finally color nouns that are made of [something]-色: 茶色 {ちゃいろ}, 黄色 {きいろ} ,\n灰色 {はいいろ}, 桃色 {ももいろ}, 銀色 {ぎんいろ} etc.\n\n**Why are there different word classes for colors in Japanese?** Is it because\nthey have different historical backgrounds and etymologies?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T09:03:44.553", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2288", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-10T14:00:09.723", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-03T14:52:31.287", "last_editor_user_id": "112", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 16, "tags": [ "vocabulary", "etymology" ], "title": "Historical differences between colors that are i-adjectives and those that are simply nouns", "view_count": 2623 }

[ { "body": "There is a study by Berlin and Kay that colors are scaled from the basic ones\nto the advanced ones. The more basic, the more likely that it will have a\nmono-morphemic word representing it in a language. There is also an\nimplication relation: 'If language _A_ has a mono-morphemic color term _W_ ,\nthen it will also have mono-morphemic words for the more basic colors.' What\nyou found follows this scale. Colors like red, black, white are basic colors\nand a mono-morphemic word representing them exist in many languages. Green and\npurple are more advanced, brown, gray, pink, silver are even advanced. That\nindicates that at some old time, Japanese only had the colors that correspond\nto the i-adjectives. Later, some more colors were added, and even later, no\nnew color words were added but people just used some things with that color to\nrefer to the color.\n\nEdit: Sorry. Blue was not a basic color. The overall tendency of the\ngeneralization is correct, but there are some exceptions.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T14:09:58.967", "id": "2307", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T14:24:33.740", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T14:24:33.740", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2288", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Let's talk about い-adjectives: `暗いペンを作ってる。` In pre-kanji Japanese language,\nadjectives had an い ending. They always end with い、あ、お、or う before the い\nsuffix. They never end with え, as in せ, れ, て, or け. The reason there are many\nい-adjectives is because they were inherent to Japanese language, even before\nJapanese people began using Chinese characters in writing. Arguably, there was\nno written language before the Golden Scrolls came to Japan, though. We have\nto base our assumptions on word of mouth, decryption of artifacts, and early\nwriting in Japan, so it's difficult to be sure. Anyway, い-adjectives are used\nfor abstract and concrete concepts because the words were originally\nい-adjectives and not derived from nouns, like の and な adjectives both were.\n\nLet's talk about な-adjectives: `紫なペンを作ってる。` な-adjectives are words that were\nadded to the Japanese language as nouns. な was added to the end of nouns which\nseemed to have a use as an adjective. Na-adjectives can have あ、い、う、え、or お\nbefore the な suffix. People _never_ use な with colors, as in 紫なペン, except when\nthey're using their own vocabulary. For example, if you have a desk full of\ndifferent kinds of purple pens, you could ask someone if they liked 紫な;\nhowever, nobody would say that. People always say こんな紫のペン. The reason you\ndon't see any な-adjective colors is because colors are extremely simple to\nunderstand--objective/concrete--unlike い-adjectives which embody both abstract\nand concrete concepts, and の-adjectives, which are for concrete concepts,\nonly. な-adjectives are used to describe abstract/subjective things, only.\n\nAnd about の-adjectives: `グレーのペンを作ってる。` They're a lot like な-adjectives, but\nthey're for concrete/objective concepts, only. It's possible to think of な-\nand の-adjectives with colors: `こんな色->colors like this` and `この色->this color`.\nI think that some linguists call na-adjectives 'adjectival nouns' because they\nare \"derived from nouns\", but な-adjectives are actually derived from\nの-adjectives, which are derived from \"nouns\". Perhaps it's confusion with the\npossessive form: `あなたのペン->your pen`? If you say `紫のペン->a purple pen`, purple\nis definitely an adjective in translation. 'Purple's pen' wouldn't make sense,\nin translation. Many color words are の-adjectives. の-adjectives are thought of\nin the spirit of the possessive tense, though, in that the adjective's\nqualities are contained in a specific object or set of objects.\n\nCombining our knowledge of い-, な-, and の-adjectives, we can say: only い- and\nの-adjectives exist for colors. So, we know that colors are thought of as being\nconcrete concept.\n\nDialects: 茶色 means tea-colored. Since the birth of kanji, Japanese people have\nbeen combining kanji to form meaning. In English, we use a hyphen to indicate\nan adverb, and an adverb can take an adjective's place, becoming an adverbial\nadjective. In Japanese, there are so many compound words, and we have suffixes\nindicating part of speech, so it would be over-productive to hyphenate.\n\nBesides, kanji is more complicated than the English parts of speech\naccommodate. For example, `馬鹿` means horse-deer (originally an idiom). Because\nit's an idiom, we have to think of the relationship between the words to\nunderstand the meaning. It's from ancient Chinese history. One of the emperors\nof China never wanted his subjects to undermine him, so he had all of his\nadvisers come to him for a test. The emperor called a horse a deer in front of\nhis advisers. He killed each adviser who corrected him. People thought that\nthis strategy of divining an adviser's competence was stupid, and an idiom was\ndeveloped in China: 'horse-deer'--\"as stupid as calling a horse a deer\" or \"as\nstupid as correcting the emperor who calls a horse a deer\", perhaps. It's very\ncomplicated.\n\nWords like 茶色 (chairo) and 馬鹿な (bakana) adapted into the Japanese language,\ndespite their complexity. Because Japanese language was influenced by the\nnative あいぬ, immigrant Koreans, and immigrant Chinese, there were many options\nand dialects; however, 茶色 and 馬鹿な are a standard because, for some reason or\nanother, people accepted the dialect.\n\n色 history, from the birth of kanji in Japan: Why do I say \"since the birth of\nkanji\"? Because 色 is one of the kanji included in the Golden Scrolls that were\ninitially sent to Japan, from China. The first record of Chinese characters\nbeing used in any significant way, in Japan, was during the time when the\nGolden Scrolls were sent to Japan. The Golden Scrolls were some of the first\ndocuments sent to Japan. It's not the first document, but it's very close to\nthe top of the list. When the Golden Scrolls came to Japan, the Chinese\nbasically gave Japan their first definitive writing system.\n\nI think that い-adjectives and な-adjectives likely existed prior to\nの-adjectives because I have been told that many times. History teachers and\ntext books have told me that な-adjectives were used in conjunction with nouns\nto form adjectives, and with foreign words that were abstract and fit better\nas adjectives than as nouns. の-adjectives were a later distinction.... If you\nactually look at Japanese writing, though, they pretty much all come at the\nsame time (right when the initial phonetic alphabet, man'yōgana, came into\nplace). At this point, Japanese people were using all three kinds of\nadjectives. Perhaps the people who wrote the books did some kind of comparison\nof man'yōgana to older Japanese texts, in an attempt to get more in touch with\ntheir history, and this is why people are taught that adjectives came about in\nthis order?\n\nIn terms of history, who can be sure, though? The pronunciation of Japanese\nwords, even beyond 500 AD, isn't clear to anybody. This is because there was\nno commonly used phonetic alphabet, and because so many dialects were\nborrowed. There was a lot of immigration to Japan in the early days of\nJapanese writing. Japan had many local dialects, as well. It wasn't until much\nlater that a unified Japanese language was formed. The creators of today's\nofficial Japanese language appreciated language, much as we do today, for an\nart form. That, combined with the simplicity of seeing 色 and knowing _it's a\ncolor_ , is probably why they chose to use words like 茶色 rather than some pre-\nexisting い-adjective. Now, if there ever was an い-adjective for 茶色, it's\ndeprecated.\n\nAnyway, the kanji 色 first came to Japan in 57 AD. 色 was originally used like\n表情 with 顔色, and it means: 'the expression on the face'. Other than that, it's\nused with color. That's the purpose of the kanji..., to identify color, as\ncounters indicate something you're counting. The kanji is supposed to be two\nlovers sitting next to each other, looking at each other, and reading each\nothers emotions. So, 色 is like: 'you can tell if you look closely'.\n\nGreat Seal Scroll characters came to Japan as Han-period Chinese writing (206\nBCE–220 CE). It looks different today, but 色 has basically been there since\nthe beginning of written language, and therefore historical records of\nlanguage, in Japan. You can basically assume that it's always been used with\ncolors. I know for sure that it was used prior to 622 AD in association with\ncolors, in authentic Japanese, because the librarian at our school showed us\nthe kanji being used in a texts. 色 just happened to be used, which was\nexciting for us. The book explained how Chinese writing was hard to discern\nfrom authentic Japanese writing, but this was one of the ways....\n\nThe writer of the poem, which we couldn't actually understand, appears to be\neither Japanese, or some eccentric Chinese person who wasn't using Chinese\nproperly, due to the syntax. There's some hentai kanbun. Maybe it's still a\nChinese person, trying to describe something, but it seems like a bunch of\nChinese characters that don't belong together. For example, if I were to say\nsomething in English like: \"It's super-cala-fragil-ist-ic.\" There are too many\nword parts, and it looks very odd.", "comment_count": 11, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T16:11:51.883", "id": "2421", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-07T02:45:48.227", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-07T02:45:48.227", "last_editor_user_id": "544", "owner_user_id": "544", "parent_id": "2288", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Surprisingly, I wasn't able to find much information on this outside\nWikipedia, even though it's popular trivia in Japan, but here's data from [a\nbook about color\nnames](http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=HuAWhi8z0uMC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=%E3%80%81%E8%A4%87%E5%90%88%E8%AA%9E%E3%80%81%E5%A4%96%E6%9D%A5%E8%AA%9E%E3%80%80%E2%80%9D%E8%89%B2%E5%90%8D%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=Jw2pkqt4Cq&sig=W7BwHu-\nd_bKVrovDR3ciL_5Mn8o&hl=ja&ei=tm47TsXbH8PXmAXRpPXmAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%E7%8E%84&f=false):\n\nIn China circa 1000 BCE, the only kanji evidenced is white. By 820 BCE, this\ngrows to white, yellow, orange-red, and green-blue-black. In 770, 赤 is no\nlonger used for orange. In 750, 青 is invented for green-blue, and by 720 緑 is\ninvented for green and 黒 for pitch black.\n\nSo much for the use of kanji, which presumably had strong influence on Japan\nwhen they were imported in the first millennium AD. What about Japan's native\nwords? According to\n[Wikipedia](http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%89%B2%E5%90%8D#.E3.83.90.E3.83.BC.E3.83.AA.E3.83.B3.E3.81.A8.E3.82.B1.E3.82.A4.E3.81.AE.E5.9F.BA.E6.9C.AC.E8.89.B2.E5.90.8D),\nthey are the following:\n\nAka（赤）which shares an origin with \"akarusi\" (bright), \"ake-/aku\" (open),\n\"akaaka to\" (brilliantly/flaming) etc.\n\nKuro（黒）which shares an origin with \"kurasi\" (dark), \"kure-/kuru\" (darken/end)\netc.\n\nSiro（白）which shares an origin with \"sirusi\" (mark), \"siru\" (knowledge),\n\"sirasira to\" (obvious speech). Apparently the original word is Old Japanese\n\"sirusi\".\n\nAwo（青）which shares an origin with \"awi\", the plant indigo, and which is\nclaimed to be the antonym of siro.\n\nTherefore, it is claimed, ancient Japanese had four colors: light-warm, dark-\ncool, distinct, and indistinct. In the transition to medieval Japanese, light\nbecame red, dark became black, distinct became white, and indistinct became\nblue-green. These comprise the four i-adjective colors.\n\nThe origin of midori is unknown.\n\nLater, as another commentator said, \"iro\" was added to words to mean \"the\nappearance of tea\" etc., and later still color words were borrowed outright\nfrom English. 黄色, yellow, comes from the appearance of sprouts.\n\nFor more information, Wikipedia has some book recommendations at the bottom of\nits color names page.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-05T04:38:10.770", "id": "2458", "last_activity_date": "2014-05-10T14:00:09.723", "last_edit_date": "2014-05-10T14:00:09.723", "last_editor_user_id": "2960", "owner_user_id": "583", "parent_id": "2288", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2297", "answer_count": 3, "body": "What does する mean when it does not mean \"do\"?\n\nLike:\n\n> あなたも血のにおいが **する** な", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T09:27:48.023", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2289", "last_activity_date": "2017-07-19T06:26:47.303", "last_edit_date": "2017-07-19T06:26:47.303", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-が" ], "title": "What does する mean when it does not mean \"do\"? （血のにおいがする）", "view_count": 4840 }

[ { "body": "する does not actually mean \"do\". It's much more generic than that. \"to do\" is\njust one way it parses into English.\n\nFor your sentence あなたも血のにおいがするな. It would mean \"I smell blood on you too\"\n\nする in this sense takes on the meaning \"to perceive non-visually\"\n\n[Summarising from\nnihongoresources:](http://www.nihongoresources.com/language/lessons/lesson-02/lesson.html#nisuru)\n\n> The kanji form of する is 為る. And the kanji 為 represents some objective. So as\n> a verb it means \"to act in a way that accomplishes [objective]\" If your\n> objective is におい then to \"accomplish\" it would be to smell.\n>\n> This is also why ～にする means \"to decide on (whatever your choice is)\"\n>\n> And for ～をする since を marks the direct object, it means \"do ～\" (Because it's\n> a direct object, doing ～ directly accomplishes ～)\n\nする can also be used for describing some attribute:\n\n> 私は長い足をしている to mean \"I have long legs\"（stative resultant ている form of する)\n>\n> To accomplish \"long legs\", the simplest way is to simply \"have\" it.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T10:42:20.163", "id": "2297", "last_activity_date": "2016-05-05T06:12:34.133", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2289", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "In this type of saying, it is almost describing a state of something. In such,\nit can be used somewhat loosely to describe different things.\n\n> 血のにおいがする → smells like/of blood \n> すっぱい味がする → (has) a sour taste / \"gives a sour flavour\" \n> あの子は青い目をしている → That girl has blue eyes \n> 友人が消防士をしている → My friend is a firefighter (\"He 'does' firefighter-ing for\n> his job\")", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T15:29:04.493", "id": "2312", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T15:29:04.493", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2289", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "<http://japanese.about.com/library/weekly/aa060301a.htm> may be this would\nhelp you いい匂いがする｡it smells good 波の音がする｡ hear the sound of the waves among\nothers", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2015-02-12T02:58:42.983", "id": "21752", "last_activity_date": "2015-02-12T02:58:42.983", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "9357", "parent_id": "2289", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2301", "answer_count": 2, "body": "What is the differences in nuances between とうとう and やっと?\n\nis it true that やっと has a more \"happy\" feeling attached to it?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T09:33:12.753", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2291", "last_activity_date": "2016-06-18T02:40:52.470", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T03:45:18.163", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 20, "tags": [ "nuances", "words" ], "title": "What is the differences in nuances between とうとう and やっと?", "view_count": 7769 }

[ { "body": "> Toto is crucially different from yatto in that the former often indicates a\n> negative situation that came about spontaneously, but the latter indicates a\n> positive situation that has been realized with the greatest efforts. {From\n> intermediate dictionary on Japanese grammar pg 530}\n\nso it seems you are right that yatto is for happier occasions.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T13:14:39.127", "id": "2300", "last_activity_date": "2016-06-18T02:40:52.470", "last_edit_date": "2016-06-18T02:40:52.470", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "2291", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "やっと means that something realizes after spending/waiting a long time for it or\nmaking a lot of effort for it. Therefore it is understandable that やっと has a\nhappy feeling attached to it. If I understand English correctly, “at last” has\na similar meaning.\n\nとうとう means that something happens as a final outcome, and what happens can be\neither a good thing or a bad thing.\n\nFor example, suppose that some company has been financially in a trouble for a\nwhile. Today you heard that the company went bankrupt.\n\n> あの会社、とうとう倒産したそうだよ。 (あのかいしゃ、とうとうとうさんしたそうだよ。) I heard the company finally went\n> bankrupt.\n\nis a usual sentence. If you say\n\n> あの会社、やっと倒産したそうだよ。 (あのかいしゃ、やっととうさんしたそうだよ。) I heard the company went bankrupt\n> at last.\n\nthat means that you were waiting for the bankruptcy of the company.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T13:14:48.913", "id": "2301", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T13:14:48.913", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2291", "post_type": "answer", "score": 17 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2302", "answer_count": 3, "body": "Does anyone know of any o-words or go-words which are absolutely neutral (have\nno nuances of being polite / courteous / respectful / womanly / cute etc etc)?\n\nThe only ones I'm aware of currently is おちゃ and ごはん\n\n**Update**\n\nDoes anyone know of any o-words or go-words that when the お or ご is omitted,\nbecomes another word or not a word altogether?\n\nThe only ones I'm aware of currently is ごはん", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T09:34:19.590", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2292", "last_activity_date": "2016-07-19T00:33:49.237", "last_edit_date": "2016-04-03T06:04:49.980", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "words", "honorifics", "prefixes", "bikago", "lexicalization" ], "title": "does anyone know of any o-words or go-words which are absolutely neutral?", "view_count": 703 }

[ { "body": "お冷{ひや} for a \"cold drink of water\", at a restaurant, is one.\n\nAs an updated answer to your updated question, お冷 doesn't become a different\nword or a non-word if the お is omitted. I don't think that circumstance\nexists.\n\nHowever, having wondered myself if 冷, by itself, would be understood in a\nrestaurant context, I've tried it and can say from experience that waitstaff\nwill look at you quizzically if you drop the お.\n\nお冷, like most お and ご words, has become a conventional set phrase. Changing it\nup is just weird.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T09:59:42.480", "id": "2295", "last_activity_date": "2016-07-19T00:33:49.237", "last_edit_date": "2016-07-19T00:33:49.237", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2292", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I do not know what you mean by “absolutely neutral (have no nuances of being\npolite / courteous / respectful / womanly / cute etc etc).”\n\nSaying お茶{ちゃ} is definitely more polite to the listener than saying 茶{ちゃ}. The\nsame applies to お冷{ひや} in Dave M G’s answer: it is a polite form of a rarer\nword 冷 (ひや; often written as 冷や).\n\nご in ご飯{はん}'cannot be simply removed (because 飯 read as はん is not a word in\nitself), but ご飯 is at least more polite than 飯{めし}. I do not think that there\nis any reason to believe that ご in ご飯 means anything other than politeness.\n\nphirru mentioned おまえ in a comment on the question. I do not know the etymology\nof お前{まえ}, but I guess that お in お前 originally comes from the same お meaning\npoliteness.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T12:39:24.640", "id": "2298", "last_activity_date": "2016-07-19T00:32:15.433", "last_edit_date": "2016-07-19T00:32:15.433", "last_editor_user_id": "11104", "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2292", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Here is a list of neutral o- and go- words:\n\n> * お手玉 'small bag for juggling'\n> * おみくじ 'written oracle'\n> * お冠 'being angry' [Not crown]\n> * お目玉 'being angry' [Not eye ball]\n> * お新香 'pickle'\n> * おにぎり 'rice ball' [Not sushi]\n> * おむすび\n> * おこぼれ 'something positive gained (unexpectedly) from someone else' [Not\n> falling off]\n> * お裾分け 'a portion given away'\n> * お下がり 'used thing (clothes, etc.) often given from a senior to a junior\n> sibling' [Not going down]\n> * お流れ 'cancel' [Not current]\n> * おあずけ\n> * お手上げ\n> * お手\n> * おかわり\n> * お手付き\n> * お年玉\n> * お多福\n>", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T13:20:00.157", "id": "2302", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T05:52:16.973", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T05:52:16.973", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2292", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2296", "answer_count": 4, "body": "If you want to say \"things like\" you can use とか、など、and し。\n\nWhat if you don't want to list out several things. You want to say, \"things\nlike A.\" Then what do you do?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T09:34:45.790", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2293", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T03:59:22.033", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-02T03:59:22.033", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "phrase-requests" ], "title": "How to say, \"things like\"", "view_count": 13556 }

[ { "body": "Amongst とか, など, and し, I feel only など satisfies the specific role you're\ntalking about.\n\nThere's no rule that says など must be affixed only after 2 or more examples.\n\n> E.g. この難しいこと、私などには出来ません。 \"A person like me cannot do a difficult thing as\n> this\".\n\nThe more related examples you string before adding など makes your concept\nspecific, as if you are placing them under a common theme.\n\nThe more unrelated your examples, the bigger the scope of your concept\nbecomes, until the point where it feels like all the examples strung together\nare random and have no common theme.\n\n* * *\n\nとか is an inexhaustive listing helper. It is made up from the quoting function\nof と and the alternative-generating function of か.\n\nIt can be used without listing. Since か automatically implies at least one\nalternative.\n\n> Illustrating the implicit alternative resulting from か：\n> 図書館に行きますか。（それとも行きませんか。）\n\n* * *\n\nし is an emphatic \"and\".\n\n> E.g. このアパートはきれいだし、安いです。 \"This apartment is clean, and what's more, it's\n> cheap.\"\n\nListing with し does not do any thematic grouping, so you will not end up with\na concept of \"things like A, B, C...\"", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T10:07:26.167", "id": "2296", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T10:30:53.230", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T10:30:53.230", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2293", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Flaw has a great answer, but I'll just throw out another grammatical structure\nthat is similar is 「をはじめ」\n\nバナナをはじめ、フルーツは健康にいい\n\nFruits, like bananas, are good for your health.\n\nIt's not the same as など per se, but it is another way but is restricted formal\nspeeches and writing.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T13:08:18.180", "id": "2299", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T13:08:18.180", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "97", "parent_id": "2293", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "There are recent colloquial hedge words\n\n> * ~系\n> * ～みたいな\n> * ～的\n> * ～っぽい\n>", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T13:45:40.747", "id": "2305", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T13:45:40.747", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2293", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I'll throw in another grammatical structure for variety:\n\n## 〜やら\n\n(essentially the same as 〜とか)\n\n```\n\n りんごやらみかんやら，果物をたくさん買った → He bought a lot of fruit ─ apples, oranges, and whatnot [so on].\n \n```", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T15:10:45.733", "id": "2311", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T15:10:45.733", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2293", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2314", "answer_count": 4, "body": "What is the correct construction of \"unsolvable problem\"? Is it\n\"解{と}けられない問題{もんだい}\"？ **(Question 1)**\n\n> Plain(intransitive): 解{と}ける \"To be solved\".\n>\n> Potential form(of intransitive): 解けられる \"can be solved\".\n>\n> Potential + Negated(of intransitive): 解けられない \"cannot be solved\"\n\n* * *\n\n> Plain(transitive) 解{と}く \"(Some agent) solves\".\n>\n> Potential form(of transitive): 解ける \"(Some agent) can solve\".\n>\n> Potential + Negated(of transitive): 解けない \"(Some agent) cannot solve\"\n\n* * *\n\nDoes 解けられない問題 mean it intrinsically cannot be solved? **(Question 2)**\n\nDoes the transitive version \"解けない\" implies that some agent is unable to solve,\nbut does not mean it is absolutely unsolvable? **(Question 3)**\n\n*(Agent: one who initiates and/or completes an action or event)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T13:28:24.810", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2303", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T06:05:53.177", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 15, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "conjugations", "idioms", "potential-form" ], "title": "\"Unsolvable problem\"", "view_count": 760 }

[ { "body": "There is no such thing as intransitive form of `解ける` used in the sense as in\n`解ける問題`. `解けられる` and `解けられない` are ungrammatical. The three forms that you have\nunder the transitive version are the correct one.\n\nTo answer Question 3, They are just a single usage. If the subject is implicit\nand is to be interpreted as 'anyone', then that will mean that it is\nabsolutely unsolvable.\n\n**Edit** Maybe, you are confusing `解ける` (tokeru) with `解ける` (hodokeru), which\nis an intransitve verb, does not mean 'solve', and is a completely different\nverb.", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T13:42:29.610", "id": "2304", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T17:17:49.763", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T17:17:49.763", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "**Question 1:** Either **解けない** 問題 or **解けられない** 問題 is correct. The subtlety\ncomes in what the exact semantics are. **解けられない** 問題 means the problem itself\nit unsolvable. **解けない** 問題 means an Agent (as you denoted) cannot solve the\nproblem, although the Agent is omitted. Would be clearer to use something like\n**私が** 解けない問題 (\"A problem I can't solve\") or whoever the Agent happens to be.\n\nThus I would say that **解けられない** 問題 is stronger because it implies that\n_nobody_ can solve it.\n\n**Question 2:** Yes (based on what I just said), but something like **解けにくい**\nor **解けがたい** might work as well or better without the possible confusion.\n\n**Question 3:** Again, it would probably be better to specifically to include\nthe agent, otherwise まぎらわしい. If you wanted to use this form to say \"absolutely\nunsolvable\", you'd have to say **だれも解けない問題**.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T14:58:36.513", "id": "2310", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T15:50:19.600", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T15:50:19.600", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Neither of the current answers sit well with me at the moment, so I'm going to\nrisk adding to the confusion by posting another.\n\n### Question 1 (grammar)\n\nFirst, let's clarify the two verbs in question:\n\n> 解く solve (a problem)\n>\n> 解ける resolve (itself)\n\n(These are not the only definitions, but for the sake of brevity and on-topic-\nness we'll go with these.)\n\nThe difference lies in the subjects. With 解く, the subject is the person (or\nagent) who actually and intentionally does the solving, but with 解ける, the\nsubject is the problem itself, and no agent is given:\n\n> **私が** 問題を解いた。 I solved the problem.\n>\n> **問題が** 解けた。 The problem was solved (solved itself).\n\nNote that 問題が解けた could also mean \"[I] was able to solve the problem\", since\n解けた is both the past potential form of 解く (解く→解ける→解けた) and the past form of\n解ける (解ける→解けた).\n\nThis shows why the potential form of 解く (解ける) is valid, but the potential form\nof 解ける (解けられる) is not: 解けられる personifies an inanimate subject. (sawa says this\nis ungrammatical; I don't know if that's the right term, since it's a\nsyntactically valid form of 解ける, but it's certainly not used.)\n\n> ○ （私は）この問題が解けない。 [I] can't solve this problem.\n>\n> × この問題は解けられない。 This problem can't solve itself.\n\nThe second sentence might sound fine at first (from a grammatical standpoint),\nbut when you think about it, assigning an ability to an inanimate subject\ndoesn't work here. (Even in English, the better way to express the idea behind\nsentence #2 is, \"This problem **will not** solve itself.\")\n\nBecause of this, only 解けない問題 is correct.\n\n### Questions 2 and 3\n\nThis is an issue of context, as sawa and istrasci mentioned. For example:\n\n> 私が解けない問題 a problem I can't solve\n>\n> だれでも解けない問題 a problem no one can solve\n\nistrasci also mentioned the ～にくい suffix. I was about to agree with this, but\nthen I saw sawa's edit which reminded me that 解く can be read as both **と** く\nand **ほど** く, and 解ける can be read as both **と** ける and **ほど** ける. (The\nmeanings differ between readings.) ～にくい can be attached to both ほどく and ほどける,\nsuch as in this way:\n\n> ほどきにくいくつひも a shoelace that is difficult to untie\n>\n> ほどけにくいくつひも a shoelace that won't come undone easily\n\n…and to とく, but not to とける:\n\n> ○ ときにくい問題 a problem that's difficult to solve\n>\n> × とけにくい問題\n\nHowever, the ～にくい suffix does not convey the same level of \"impossibility\" as\nだれでも解けない does.\n\n### Bonus (more \"unsolvable\")\n\nGenerally, once you start throwing out kanji compounds like 解決 and 不可能, you're\nin the realm of written Japanese, but these might be good to know:\n\n> 解決できない問題 a problem that (subject) can't solve\n>\n> 解決不可能な問題 an unsolvable problem\n>\n> 解決不可能と思われる問題 a problem thought to be unsolvable", "comment_count": 13, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T16:02:21.860", "id": "2314", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T18:26:13.250", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "Only answering question #1.\n\nIn mathematical jargon, we have \"決定不能問題\" for an \"undecidable problem\", so I\nexpect \"unsolvable problem\" to be worded similarly, or as \"解決不能問題\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T07:31:24.980", "id": "2325", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-30T07:31:24.980", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2303", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2315", "answer_count": 2, "body": "_Note: This question may contain wordings that may be considered rude to some,\nso proceed with open mind and caution._\n\nOne of the legacies of Japanese colonization in my country during WW2 is a\nrude slang name-calling word \"bagero\" which roughly means \"stupid bastard\",\nwhich I could easily map to the similarly sounding colloquial phrase バカヤロウ\nsoon after I started learning Japanese. The people at that time probably could\nnot make out what they heard and simply understood the interjection as\n\"bagero\".\n\nHowever, I am still wondering if the \"bagero\" version really came from the\npeople mishearing \"バカヤロウ\", or there was a dialect that really pronounced バカヤロウ\nas バゲロ. Was there?\n\nThere is also a longer version of the localized interjection, \"bagero\nkuntoroyo\", that I still cannot decipher until now. Can anyone suggest what\nwould be the original Japanese bad words, if any?\n\n_N.B. My purpose of asking this question is not to learn about the bad words,\nbut simply out of curiosity about this phrase that are (fortunately becoming\nrarely) used by local people here who are oblivious of its actual meaning._", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T14:17:19.783", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2308", "last_activity_date": "2012-09-12T00:48:08.523", "last_edit_date": "2012-09-12T00:48:08.523", "last_editor_user_id": "501", "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "slang", "history", "phonology", "offensive-words", "phonetics" ], "title": "バカヤロウ to バゲロ [mature content]", "view_count": 11321 }

[ { "body": "I have no evidence, but I guess what you think is right. [This person (be\ncareful with the link; the back button does not\nwork)](http://shiekoreto1.blogspot.com/2006/11/bagero.html) is saying the same\nthing. 'Kuntoroyo' sounds close to `この野郎` (kono yaroo) 'You bastard!' to me.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T14:31:34.130", "id": "2309", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T15:09:13.720", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-29T15:09:13.720", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2308", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Searching for [`bagero\nbakayaro`](http://www.google.com/search?q=bagero+bakkyaro) on Google yielded\nthe following quote, a firsthand account of the time when \"bagero\" appeared on\nthe scene. It cites \"bakayaro\" as its source word:\n\n> Thursday, March 26, 1942\n>\n> ... And for the first time we heard the word \"bagero\"[24]...\n>\n> [24] Bagero = bakayarō, a strong term of abuse frequently used by Japanese\n> soldiers towards the Chinese and others they considered their inferiors. The\n> meaning is something like \"you stupid oaf.\"\n\n(Source: [Google\nBooks](http://books.google.com/books?id=q43gSgoR1uQC&lpg=PT87&ots=mQ0514R8yd&dq=bagero%20bakayaro&pg=PT87#v=onepage&q&f=false))\n\nThis is from a book called \"Prisoners at Kota Cane\", a memoir from the\nperspective of an Indonesian arrested by the Dutch during WWII.\n\nAlso, [in this\npage](http://www.h4.dion.ne.jp/~takashim/travel/burma/BURMA.html), someone\nrecounts a trip to Burma where he saw a comic skit that mimics a Japanese\nsoldier (circa 2001-2011):\n\n> 軍帽を被った男がぞんざいな態度で「バッキャロー」と言う。 A man with a military cap says \"bakkyarō\" in a\n> rude manner.\n>\n> ...\n>\n> 「バッキャロー」は相手を侮蔑する言葉として、アジア全般に知られた日本語だ。 \" bakkyarō\" is a well-known Japanese\n> word through out Asia for showing contempt at the other person.\n\nI don't know about the validity of the last sentence, but I conjecture that\nbagero really came from bakkyarō, an informal version of bakayarō, because\nthey sound more closer.\n\nRegarding kuntoroyo, I couldn't find any reference on the web. Maybe このとろい奴め\n\"You sluggard\", or この野郎, as sawa says?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T16:53:44.243", "id": "2315", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-30T04:31:39.580", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-30T04:31:39.580", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2308", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2319", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In\n\n> (1) 明日、家へ帰って、母が作ったおいしい料理を食べます。\n\nwhy is it `作った` when it’s a future event? If I wanted to create a clause\nmeaning 'delicious food my mother makes', it would be `母が作るおいしい料理`. Does\nchanging `作った` in (1) to `作る` make any sense? Or is it grammatically wrong?\n\nEDIT: I read my own draft question wrongly and transferred it wrongly to\nstackexchange. I intended to ask this:\n\nAnd in\n\n> (2) 私の家は郊外にあります。町までちょっと遠いですが、電車が走っていますから、便利です。\n\nWhy is it `走っています` and not `走っていました`? (I think I just solved this on my own.\n走っていた + から implies 走っていた causes 便利, which clearly isn't the case)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T17:55:37.200", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2317", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-30T01:51:28.917", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-30T01:51:28.917", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "tense" ], "title": "How do I decide when to use plain or past verb form?", "view_count": 590 }

[ { "body": "Isn't that, \"Tomorrow, I return home and eat the delicious food my mother\nmade.\" ? In English, it's past-tense, too. If she was making the food still,\nyou could use 作る instead.\n\nAlso, if you're thinking of it as the food she has historically made, I could\nsee it making sense in both languages, too, but English would definitely lean\ntowards present tense.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T18:19:27.897", "id": "2318", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T18:19:27.897", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "393", "parent_id": "2317", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "The first sentence here forms an excellent question, because it highlights the\nissue of tense in subordinate clauses, which can be counter-intuitive coming\nfrom an English background.\n\n> 明日、家へ帰って、母が作ったおいしい料理を食べます。\n\nThe English mind looks at this and thinks about the verb 作る _relative to the\ntime when this statement is made_. Since we're talking about a future event,\nit would seem to make sense that the verbs (even in subordinate clauses)\nshould match up and be in future tense. But the Japanese mind thinks about 作る\n_relative to the time when the main action takes place_. Since the main action\nis 食べる, at the point when 食べる takes place, the food will have already been\nmade, so 作った, not 作る, is correct.\n\nFor another example, consider the following:\n\n> 日本に行くときにデジカメを買います。\n>\n> 日本に行ったときにデジカメを買います。\n\nThese are both valid sentences, but they mean different things! The first,\nbecause 行く is non-past, means you will buy a camera _before_ going to Japan\n(because at the time とき, the action 行く has not happened yet). But the second,\nbecause 行った is past, means you will buy a camera _after_ having arrived in\nJapan (because at the time とき, the action 行く has happened).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T18:37:36.663", "id": "2319", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-29T18:37:36.663", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2317", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "Many things that seem normal in English look arrogant in Japanese. I think I\nfound a special case where the reverse is true. In Japanese is it normal to\nspeak in the third person when referring to oneself? I have seen this done\nbefore on Twitter.\n\nWhat about in face to face conversation or other conversational situations? Is\nit normal to refer to oneself in the third person?\n\nWhenever I try to speak in the third person about myself in English I always\nget accused of looking pompous. This is not the case in Japanese?\n\nWhat's the difference when using the third person to refer to oneself instead\nof words like 私、僕、or 俺？", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-29T23:07:07.733", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2320", "last_activity_date": "2016-05-24T06:32:37.290", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-30T03:44:49.113", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "first-person-pronouns", "pronouns", "perspective" ], "title": "Speaking in the third person", "view_count": 21691 }

[ { "body": "A young girl can use her first name to refer to herself in informal\nsituations. And this gives the impression of acting cutesy. There's no rule\nthat says it's only limited to girls, but statistically speaking this method\nof self-address is more common in girls than boys, men, or even women.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T00:03:35.483", "id": "2321", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-30T00:03:35.483", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2320", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "_**Update:** I didn't comment on the fact that speaking about oneself can also\nbe a matter of using \"he\" or \"she\" for oneself, as well as using one's own\nname._\n\nI have never heard anyone in Japanese use `彼【かれ】(he)` or `彼女【かのじょ】(she)` to\nrefer to themselves. As far as I can tell, it has more or less the same\nimplications that it would in English, and you can follow the same instincts.\nSo, for example, you might use the third person when writing a bio on a web\nsite when it's understood you're writing _about_ yourself.\n\nThe point is that using he or she has no special place in Japanese for\nreferring to yourself.\n\nUsing one's own name to refer to oneself, however, is something that is done\nin Japanese and different from English.\n\nWomen up to around 30 or so use their own name in place of a first person\npronoun commonly enough. However, it is reserved for certain social contexts,\nlike within their relationship, family, or close friends, and definitely not\nfor circumstances like work or school.\n\nSome people think of the use of one's own name as being \"girlish\", but that is\ndebatable. I think it's a matter of opinion as well a context.\n\nMen can also use the term, but in even a far, far more restricted sense. A\nfather talking to his young child, or a man in a very specific context with\nhis girlfriend/wife/partner.\n\nFor men learning Japanese, I would absolutely recommend not ever using one's\nown name in place of `私【わたし】`, `僕【ぼく】`, or `俺【おれ】`. If the circumstance comes\nup when it might work, as it has with me in some relationships, you will know\nbeyond a shadow of a doubt. Or, put another way, if there is a shadow of\ndoubt, you shouldn't do it. _(Note I'm not saying it's an indication of\ncloseness, just that it's the result of a context far too specific and\ncomplicated to describe here.)_\n\nFor women learning Japanese, you would have the option to try it, but it's an\nart, not a science. You would have to watch your female peers as a guide to\nsee if they felt comfortable using it given their age, standing, and social\ncontext.\n\nFor both men and women learning Japanese, it is far more beneficial to learn\nhow to drop the first person pronoun altogether than it is to master using\none's own name for that purpose.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T06:58:44.150", "id": "2324", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T05:20:06.777", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-01T05:20:06.777", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2320", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "This is actually more complicated than it seems. \nThe general feeling in conversation of referring to oneself in the third\nperson BY GIVEN NAME(or self chosen name re:Cher, Madonna, etc) has either a\nchildish (one who hasn't learned about the contextual nouns with which one\nshould refer to oneself by in a given situation) or an arrogant slant to it,\nbut again this is context based because if you are a Taoist or Buddhist or in\nan area with high prevalence of such philosophies you might have attained Mu\nin which case using self referential pronouns and nouns is no longer\nappropriate, in this particular case you wouldn't exactly call yourself by\nyour given name but rather say something more like 'X/Some call me NAME' but\ngenerally you would be avoiding such use and remove the nouns/pronouns that\nrefer to the self or you as an individual (excepting maybe 'this person')\nsince Japanese doesn't require it and that you have reached Mu would be\nextremely obvious from looking at you and the context would be readily\napparent already. Japanese is very friendly language to this kind of thinking\nand interaction already, and it isn't unusual to NOT refer to yourself even in\nformal settings, with many words satisfying the religious/philosophical\nrequirement such as actually meaning 'an unforgivable mistake' rather than\nmeaning 'I am sorry' as they are usually translated.\n\nSo to sum up: \n\n> * Third Person: normal with children \n>\n> * Third Person: not unusual with young women \n>\n> * Third Person: common and normal in highly specific context between those\n> close to you, or when you have a particularly unique and\n> pleasant/ironic/punny sounding name when spoken in Japanese. \n>\n> * Third Person: Standard usage if you have only one name and don't\n> 'belong' to any class, group, or caste (ethnicity, job, etc), family, etc.\n> (a highly specific context) \n>\n> * Third Person: not uncommon with people with no defined identify or\n> 'self' (both an individualist and someone who reach Mu would could readily\n> do this), this falls into the domain 'children' as well as this is WHY\n> children do as such, usually. \n>\n> * Third Person: unusual and condescending/arrogant when used by masculine\n> males or females over a certain age, the aged (but not wise), anyone\n> entrenched in social hierarchy speaking formally.\n>\n\nThis was only in conversation, everyone else covered other areas thoroughly.\nAnd remember there is nothing wrong with sounding arrogant, or offending\npeople!", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-05-23T03:23:56.757", "id": "34300", "last_activity_date": "2016-05-24T06:32:37.290", "last_edit_date": "2016-05-24T06:32:37.290", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "14504", "parent_id": "2320", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 3, "body": "One of the people I follow on twitter sometimes ends his sentences in ぞと. Is\nthis just a more polite form of ぞ？\n\nHere's an example:\n\n> ブログUPしましたぞと♪(´ε｀ )", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T12:55:19.290", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2326", "last_activity_date": "2021-12-14T01:48:04.367", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:05:13.923", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "usage", "particles", "register" ], "title": "Ending a sentence in ぞと", "view_count": 649 }

[ { "body": "I would split the example sentence into two parts:\n\n> ブログUPしましたぞ / と\n\nUnfortunately, I cannot explain how the と affects the other part well, but as\nfar as I can say as a Japanese, the と is a kind of like an interjection and\nits effect is vanishingly small, at least not making the sentence more polite.\n\nFYI,\n[Reno](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_of_the_Final_Fantasy_VII_series#Reno),\na Final Fantasy 7 character, often ends his words with `〜ぞ、と。` or `〜だぞ、と。` the\nsame way as the example. The person may perhaps just imitate this habit.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T05:39:42.560", "id": "2344", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T04:43:24.753", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-01T04:43:24.753", "last_editor_user_id": "44", "owner_user_id": "44", "parent_id": "2326", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "The only thing I can think of (without any context provided) is that this\nwould be used when quoting what someone else said. Like:\n\n> 彼は心斎橋へ行くぞと言った 【He said \"Let's go to Shinsaibashi\"】 → Making known that he\n> said something, and what it was. \n>\n>\n> みんなでどうしたらいいかについて彼は意見を言った。心斎橋へ行くぞと 【He gave his opinion about what we should\n> all do together. \"Let's all go to Shinsaibashi!\"】 → The fact that he said\n> something was previously known. Now it's being made known what he said.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T05:42:33.923", "id": "2345", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T05:42:33.923", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "78", "parent_id": "2326", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "This `ぞと` should be broken down into two particles:\n\n * `...ぞ`: reinforces and reminds one's decision or will to oneself \n * ex. さあ、やるぞ。Here I go.\n * `...と`: light declaration \n * ex. いつか行こうっと。I'll visit there one day.\n\nSo your example roughly means, \"There, I've posted a new blog article.\" And\nno, it doesn't add any politeness to the sentence.\n\nThe same `と` is discussed in [this\nboard](https://web.archive.org/web/20110602195339/http://nihongo-\nonline.jp/bbs/discuss.cgi?id=20&mode=part&page=0&num=2401&sort=1&back=tree)\n(Japanese), which cites 明鏡国語辞典 {めいきょうこくごじてん} (Meikyo Japanese Dictionary):\n\n> （「・・・っと」の形で）軽く言い放つのに使う。 (In the form of ...っと) used to declare something\n> lightly.\n\nThe preceding sentence is usually in volitional form, like ` もう寝ようっと`. Or, as\nin the case of ...ぞ, expresses volition in some other way.\n\nNote: depending on the context, there are cases that ぞと should be parsed as\n「...ぞ」と, as explained in istrasci's answer.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T04:45:09.030", "id": "2373", "last_activity_date": "2021-12-14T01:48:04.367", "last_edit_date": "2021-12-14T01:48:04.367", "last_editor_user_id": "30454", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2326", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2329", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've heard that we can usually omit nouns and stuff like that, but can we\nactually omit verbs or must they still be there?\n\nExample sentence: アイツ帰るなり、すぐに部屋にな～\n\n**Edit**\n\nCan we omit verbs in the main sentence clause when speaking casually?\n\nExample sentence: [アイツ帰る]なり、すぐに部屋に[verb missing]な～", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T14:59:52.233", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2327", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-14T10:53:10.057", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:04:45.360", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 12, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "ellipsis" ], "title": "can we omit verbs when speaking casually?", "view_count": 1264 }

[ { "body": "Yes.\n\nThe kind of thing you are talking about is quite common. The verb can be\ndropped when it is well understood what the assumed action would be.\n\nSo in your example, it says `「部屋{へや}に」`, \"to the room\". Note that \"room\" in\nJapanese often stands in for \"apartment\", or some understood location.\n\nThe key is in the particle, `に`, which indicates an action toward the thing it\nis pointing at, which in this case is a room. One doesn't do many things as an\naction toward a room, other than go to it, so we can assume the missing verb\nis something like `行く【いく】`(go) or `来る【くる】`(come).\n\nYou might wonder if it's come or go, and there might be hints in the context,\nbut either way we end up in the room, so everyone's happy. So the translation\nis something like \"As soon as that guy returns, I think we'll head to/go\nto/come to the room.\"\n\nMaybe you could jump into the room through the window, so might the missing\nverb not be something like `飛ぶ【とぶ】`(fly)? The key is that when you hear\ngalloping, think horses, not zebras. The reason the verb is dropped is because\nit's the obvious one.\n\nFor further consideration, imagine if the sentence ended with `「部屋を」`. `を`\nindicates that the room is being acted upon, so something is being done to it.\nThat would be weird. Not that sentences can't end in `を` or `で` or whatever\nelse, it's just that the rest of your example sentence doesn't really have\nenough meat on it to support `を`, because I can't think of an obvious action\non a room.\n\nMaybe it could be done if there was a whole context of conversation about, I\ndon't know, blowing the room up, and so everyone knew the missing verb was\n`「吹{ふ}き飛{と}ばせる」`(to blow something up).\n\nIn any case, verbs, like many things in Japanese, are dropped when the speaker\nor author thinks the listener or reader will be able to roll along without it.\n\nLastly, for an extreme example, I had an experience once where I asked a\nfemale friend what she did earlier in the day, and she replied `「バーゲン」`,\n\"bargain\", meaning that she had been to a bargain sale. I teased her for not\nusing any verbs, but still, there you have it. You can get away with just a\nnoun and not even a particle.\n\nHope that helps.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T17:24:49.660", "id": "2329", "last_activity_date": "2016-03-14T10:53:10.057", "last_edit_date": "2016-03-14T10:53:10.057", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2327", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2367", "answer_count": 2, "body": "This question is based on the discussion arising from [\"Unsolvable\nProblem\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2303/unsolvable-\nproblem)\n\n* * *\n\nStart of Excerpt\n\n* * *\n\nRelevant discourse extracted from \"Unsolvable Problem\":\n\n> Quoted from Derek Schaab's reply to \"Unsolvable Problem\":\n>\n> ○ （私は）この問題{もんだい}が解{と}けない。 [I] can't solve this problem.\n>\n> × この問題は解けられない。 This problem can't solve itself.\n>\n\n>> The second sentence might sound fine at first (from a grammatical\nstandpoint), but when you think about it, **assigning an ability to an\ninanimate subject doesn't work here.** (Even in English, the better way to\nexpress the idea behind sentence #2 is, \"This problem **will not** solve\nitself.\")\n\n>\n> Because of this, only 解{と}けない問題 is correct.\n\n* * *\n\nAlso from Derek Schaab's reply to \"Unsolvable Problem\":\n\n> istrasci also mentioned the `～にくい` suffix. I was about to agree with this,\n> but then I saw sawa's edit which reminded me that `解く` can be read as both\n> **`と`**`く` and **`ほど`**`く`, and `解ける` can be read as both **`と`**`ける` and\n> **`ほど`**`ける`. (The meanings differ between readings.) `～にくい` can be attached\n> to both `ほどく` and `ほどける`, such as in this way:\n>\n\n>> ほどきにくいくつひも a shoelace that is difficult to untie\n\n>>\n\n>> ほどけにくいくつひも a shoelace that won't come undone easily\n\n>\n> …and to `とく`, but not to `とける`:\n>\n\n>> ○ ときにくい問題 a problem that's difficult to solve\n\n>>\n\n>> × とけにくい問題\n\n* * *\n\nEnd of Excerpt\n\n* * *\n\n**(Question 1)** Why is `ほどけにくい` acceptable while `とけにくい` unacceptable?\nFollowing the logic of \"I cannot assign ability to an inanimate subject\", it\nshould cause both to be unacceptable since both are intransitive and by\nextension force the existence of the \"inanimate subject\"\n\n**(Question 2)** If it is true that there are cases for which\n`Intransitive+にくい` are acceptable, does it imply that there are cases for\nwhich `Intransitive+られる` (Potential form) are acceptable?\n\n**(EXTRA Question 2.1)** If there are cases for which `Intransitive+られる`\n(Potential form) are acceptable, how do we decide if we can assign\nability/potential to an inanimate subject?\n\n* * *\n\n**Appendix:** Other points taken from the comments in [\"Unsolvable\nProblem\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/2303/unsolvable-\nproblem) for your consideration\n\n> From Derek Schaab:\n>\n\n>> Could it be related to whether the verb expresses a continuous or discrete\nchange? `～にくい`, when it means `なかなか～しない`, seems to imply that the verb may\nhappen only gradually over a period of time, but never quickly and easily.\nBecause of the gradual transition, a continuous-change verb (such as `ほどける` or\n`燃{も}える`) is required. But `解{と}ける` expresses a discrete change: a problem is\neither solved or it isn't, and the change from unsolved to solved takes place\ninstantly. Perhaps this is why `解{と}けにくい` sounds odd, but other combinations,\nsuch as `溶{と}けにくい`, work.\n\n>\n> From Matt:\n>\n\n>> But you can say `割{わ}れにくい`, and that is instantaneous. Perhaps `〜eにくい` has\nsome sort of restriction relating to concrete vs abstract subjects?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T15:07:50.340", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2328", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T16:58:01.197", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.397", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "grammar", "conjugations", "potential-form", "morphology" ], "title": "Transitive/Intransitive + にくい (and +られる)", "view_count": 590 }

[ { "body": "**1** When you're walking and your shoelaces come undone, they appear to do\nthat on their own. 靴ひもがほどける does not mean that someone unties them, but that\nthey \"untie themselves\". The meaning is closer to an intransitive active than\nto a passive; therefore にくい is appropriate. On the other hand, 問題が解ける means\nthat the problem is solved by someone, not that it solves itself somehow; and\nthe way to say that it is hard for someone to solve it is 解き難い. Compare to\nEnglish: \"this problem is difficult to be solved\" is unnatural, and you would\nsay instead \"this problem is difficult to solve\".\n\n**EDIT** : as Matt and Derek pointed out, examples like 割れ難い suggest that the\nproblem is not agency. Matt suggests, in the other thread, that the\ndistinction may have to do with concrete vs abstract subjects, but I think\nthis is unlikely, considering things like 言い難い (although maybe the reasoning\ncould be restricted to intransitive verbs).\n\nI think agency still comes into play, but in a more subtle way, involving\npurpose. Consider 割り難い and 割れ難い: it seems to me that the former is used when\nyou want to break something, eg この木が割り難いから大きい斧を使う, while the latter is more\nlikely to be used when you're concerned about the possibility of something\nbreaking, eg この皿が割れ難いから心配しないで (compare with この皿が割れやすいから気をつけて; please excuse\nthe silly examples).\n\nSimilarly, when we want to untie the shoelaces, but we have trouble with it,\nwe use ほどき難い; when we want them to stay tied, we use ほどけ難い. For problems, we\nuse 解き難い when we want to solve them; 解け難い is not used because it would be\nstrange to wish for a problem to stay unsolved (otherwise it wouldn't be\nconsidered a problem in the first place).\n\nIs this more convincing?\n\n**2** Sure. For example, いられない, the potential form of the verb 居る, is quite\ncommon.", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T01:09:00.300", "id": "2367", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T13:51:49.077", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-01T13:51:49.077", "last_editor_user_id": "404", "owner_user_id": "404", "parent_id": "2328", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "I will go in conjecture mode here, as I do not have the knowledge of the\nvalidity in question.\n\n> (Question 1) Why is ほどけにくい acceptable while とけにくい unacceptable?\n\nI guess that it's related to the subject. A shoelace, in English too, gets\nloose and unties itself. The shoelace can do the action of untying itself,\nwith ease or not, hence the (claimed) validity of ほどけにくい. However, the problem\ncannot solve itself, it needs an external intervention, an external agent for\nwhom it will be hard. So, you couldn't say とけにくい since there is no notion of\nease for the problem itself which cannot do anything.\n\n> Following the logic of \"I cannot assign ability to an inanimate subject\", it\n> should cause both to be unacceptable since both are intransitive and by\n> extension force the existence of the \"inanimate subject\"\n\nI think that the shoelace is active as I tried to explain, and that it then\ndoes not fit the \"inanimate\" constraint.\n\n> (Question 2) If it is true that there are cases for which Intransitive+にくい\n> are acceptable, does it imply that there are cases for which\n> Intransitive+られる (Potential form) are acceptable?\n\nI think that\n\n * as I just said, some intransitive+にくい are possible, and\n * sentences like ドアが開かれない are perfectly valid in contexts like \"once locked, the door can't open itself.\"\n\n> (EXTRA Question 2.1) If there are cases for which Intransitive+られる\n> (Potential form) are acceptable, how do we decide if we can assign\n> ability/potential to an inanimate subject?\n\nWell, I think I gave a constructive proof of intransitive+rareru potential\nform. I reckon you have to simply think about the meaning of the verb,\nwho/what does the action (or even wonder \"is it an action?\") and then, it\nshould be obvious if I'm right.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T03:22:02.497", "id": "2368", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T03:22:02.497", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2328", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I know it is some form of する。The context is this tweet:\n\nいいえ！無視は **しちゃい** けませんな(^-^)/気持ちは受け取って♪(´ε｀ )RT @PuyoPuyoStar: @shinji_sid\nすみません。先程ツイート送ったんですが、「無理してはいけません」と書きたかったところ、「無視してはいけません」と書いてしまいました。本当すみませ", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T18:28:59.680", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2330", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T06:04:27.153", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:04:27.153", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "verbs", "conjugations", "contractions" ], "title": "What does しちゃい mean?", "view_count": 1961 }

[ { "body": "I think you're just misreading the the sentence slightly - it should be split\nas:\n\n```\n\n 無視は しちゃ いけませんな\n \n It's bad to ignore it, right?\n \n```\n\nしちゃ is a shortened form of しては, as far as I remember. In this particular case\nit seems to me an odd sentence, purely because of the emphasis placed on the\n無視 by the は. The sentence that I'd usually expect would be something like\n\n```\n\n 先生を無視しちゃいけませんな\n \n```\n\nor in a slightly less shortened (and more polite) way,\n\n```\n\n 先生を無視してはいけませんね\n \n```", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T19:04:03.007", "id": "2332", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-30T19:26:22.083", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-30T19:26:22.083", "last_editor_user_id": "561", "owner_user_id": "561", "parent_id": "2330", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "The context is this tweet:\n\n> **セットリストに適当** ！って書いてます。笑\n\nI could understand more easily if は was used instead of に. How does に change\nthe meaning?\n\nDoes an inference have to be made here to understand what is appropriate?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T19:03:42.320", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2331", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T16:56:49.950", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-31T02:10:06.490", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "particles", "particle-に" ], "title": "Difference between AにB and AはB", "view_count": 274 }

[ { "body": "`に` means that the action is being directed at the subject in question. `は`\nmeans... well, `は` is defined as a \"topic marker\", but trying to really define\nits usage is a whole topic of its own.\n\nAnyway, `適当【てきとう】` in this context means \"flippant\", and so the speaker is\nbeing flippant _toward_ the set list. In English I think the more natural way\nto say it would be that the speaker is being flippant _about_ the set list.\n\n`セットリストは適当` , in this situation, would mean that the set list itself is\nflippant somehow, but it would be vague about why, who made it that way, and\nhow exactly.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T02:08:57.490", "id": "2339", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T16:56:49.950", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-31T16:56:49.950", "last_editor_user_id": "15", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2331", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I think this person (maybe a musician) just means:\n\n> セットリストに「適当！」って書いてます。笑\n>\n> I just write 「適当！」(\"play without a plan!\") on a [set\n> list](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_list). lol", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T04:30:56.097", "id": "2343", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T04:30:56.097", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "44", "parent_id": "2331", "post_type": "answer", "score": 9 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2334", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've seen this in several places. Is that a set phrase? What does that mean?\n\nI know that it's a way of saying \"Goodnight,\" but the NASA胃 doesn't make\nsense.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T19:24:50.290", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2333", "last_activity_date": "2013-03-20T14:39:03.343", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:04:11.413", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "meaning", "puns" ], "title": "What is おやすみNASA胃？", "view_count": 1128 }

[ { "body": "胃 is read い and NASA reads \"なさ\" so what this actually says is おやすみなさい (\"Good\nnight\"). However, I don't know wether this is a typo or an intentional\nmisspelling.", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-30T19:56:34.153", "id": "2334", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-30T19:56:34.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "558", "parent_id": "2333", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2361", "answer_count": 2, "body": "There is a line in the 「この涙 星になれ」, which is a song of ZARD (Sakai Izumi):\n\n> 父なる砂漠 コイン投げて 明日を占おう\n\nI don't understand the meaning of 「父なる砂漠」. It's quite strange to think of it\nas the desert that has been a father...\n\n坂井泉水の大ファンなんです。今歌詞を整理しているので、理解出来ないところを問題にして、援助をお願いします。\n\nThank you very much.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T01:40:17.297", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2336", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-29T06:03:59.620", "last_edit_date": "2011-12-29T06:03:59.620", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "562", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "words", "quotes" ], "title": "What does 「父なる砂漠」mean?", "view_count": 301 }

[ { "body": "It does not say it has been a father. It says it is the father. Vast natural\nthings like sea, earth, desert, universe, etc. are often metaphorically\nexpressed as mother, father, the ancestors, or the homeland of human.\n\n> * 母なる大地 \n> 'Earth, the mother of human'\n> * 父なる砂漠 \n> 'Desert, the father of human'\n> * 生命のふるさと、海 \n> 'The sea, the homeland of life'\n>\n\nI dont' think this is particular to Japanese. But suddenly sticking in this\nphrase in this piece of lyrics does not make much sense. I don't think the\nquality of the lyrics is that high.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T02:07:38.623", "id": "2338", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T02:22:11.010", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-31T02:22:11.010", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2336", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "As sawa suggested, 母なる大地 (which literally means “the earth which is a mother”)\nis a fixed phrase to refer to Mother Earth, a common personification of the\nearth. Just to clarify, 父なる砂漠 is not a common phrase, but it clearly builds on\ntop of the phrase 母なる大地. The phrase may be an invention by the writer of the\nsong.\n\nInterpretation of song lyrics is a delicate art, and I will not try to do it\nhere.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T17:22:48.503", "id": "2361", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T17:22:48.503", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2336", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2341", "answer_count": 3, "body": "What's the meaning of すます in 耳をすませば?\n\nHow would you translate this?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T02:03:03.063", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2337", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-17T19:19:23.680", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-31T02:19:11.920", "last_editor_user_id": "54", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "translation", "meaning", "set-phrases", "idioms" ], "title": "What's the meaning of すます in 耳をすませば?", "view_count": 3216 }

[ { "body": "It is difficult to translate `すます` alone in this context. `耳をすます` is an idiom\nmeaning 'pay attention to any slight sound'", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T02:12:38.153", "id": "2340", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T02:12:38.153", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2337", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "`すます` is `澄ます` without the kanji, and it means \"to clear, to purify\".\n\n`耳をすます【みみをすます】`is a set phrase, listed in the dictionary in its complete form,\nmeaning to listen carefully.\n\nYou can think of `すます`, then, in this context, as meaning to clear out your\nears so as to listen better.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T02:14:42.947", "id": "2341", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T02:31:49.310", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-31T02:31:49.310", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2337", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 }, { "body": "As stated above 耳をすます is an idiom that means 'to listen carefully'. If we\ntranslate literally there is a kanji for 'ears' - '耳' and a verb 'すます' which\nmeans - 'to clear' - so if we combine these it's - 'to clear ears' which is\nthe same as 'to listen carefully'.\n\nAs for translation of 耳をすませば, it seems that すませば is a form of a verb to\ninclude 'if'. So I would translate it as 'if you/someone listen carefully' or\nsomething of that sort.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2016-01-17T19:19:23.680", "id": "30487", "last_activity_date": "2016-01-17T19:19:23.680", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "12249", "parent_id": "2337", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2347", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I was recently trying to make an **open-ended** enumeration of places in a\nconstruction that would require the use of a に particle. E.g.:\n\n> AやBに行こう\n\nor even:\n\n> A[and the like]に行こう\n\nPreferably using a stronger indicator of open-endedness, such as 等 (to me や\nonly has a weak implication of other possibilities, whereas here I want to\nconvey the idea of \"places like A [or B]\"). But then I realised that the\ncombination of に and 等 did not sound quite right, and even if it was, I had no\nidea how it would go (`Aに等`? `A等に`?)...\n\nThus my question:\n\nCan 等 (or a suitably similar word for \"and the like\") ever be used with a に/で\nconstruction? (not necessarily just locations... Tools or \"means\" as well:\n`AやBで行こう`)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T06:10:25.987", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2346", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T10:36:21.947", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-に", "particle-で" ], "title": "Combining に/で particles with 等【など】(or other \"etc.\" stand-ins)", "view_count": 319 }

[ { "body": "A particle normally follows `など`.\n\n`を` and `に` are marked as optional (my dictionary puts them in parenthesis).\n\n> For tools: フォークやスプーンなど`で`食べる人もいる。 \"There are also people who eat it with\n> things like forks and spoons.\"\n>\n> For places: 夏休みはXやYなど(に)行きましょうか。\"Shall we go to places like X or Y for the\n> summer vacation?\"\n\nInterestingly, my dictionary says that if the particles precede `など`, the\nsentence is given a derogatory meaning. (`が`, `を` and `は` cannot precede `など`)\n\n> 箸でなど食べられない。 \"We can't eat with the damned chopsticks.\"\n\n* * *\n\nAlternatively I think you can try:\n\n> For places: Xのような場所 \"Places like X\"\n>\n> For tools: Xのような道具 \"Tools like X\"\n>\n> And by extension: XのようなY \"Y like X\" for other categories of things you might\n> think of.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T07:03:22.260", "id": "2347", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T10:36:21.947", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2346", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "It is okay to say `などに` and `などで`, but they may sound slightly formal\nnowadays. A more casual way of saying it is using `とか`: `とかに` and `とかで`.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T15:37:50.300", "id": "2359", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T15:37:50.300", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2346", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2355", "answer_count": 3, "body": "This is a question taken from a JLPT excercise workbook.\n\n> Person A: 新聞をよく読みますか。\n>\n> Person B: そうですね。毎日は[Fill in this blank]。\n\nI am given 4 choices, of which only 2 are conjugated correctly.\n\n> Choice 1: 読みます\n>\n> Choice 2: 読みません\n\nTo me it seems both options answer the question, since `そうですね` in this case\nshould be just a `相槌` (interjection used to indicate that the listener is\nstill participating in the conversation), and should not be a consideration\nfactor between Choice 1 and 2.\n\nAccording to the workbook, Choice 2 is the correct answer. Is there an\nexplanation for this? Or can I just dismiss this as a poorly constructed\nquestion in the workbook?\n\n* * *\n\nAfter considering what Dave said about は. I've come up with some explanation.\n\nThis question should have been about the disambiguating function of は.\n\n> Person A: Do you read the newspapers **frequently**?\n>\n> Person B: 毎日は[Fill in the blank].\n\nThe domain that A establishes is \"frequently\"\n\nB is using は to extract 毎日 from \"frequently\" as a given premise. (Since the\nconcept of \"everyday\" is a subset of \"frequently\")\n\n* * *\n\nThis begs the question of why it's wrong when B says the following:\n\n> 1. 毎日読みません\n>\n> 2. 毎日は読みます\n>\n>", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T12:40:22.480", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2350", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T16:14:35.913", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "word-choice", "usage", "meaning" ], "title": "Does the use of は or omitting は affect the listener's reply?", "view_count": 301 }

[ { "body": "This is a classic JLPT tricky question.\n\nThe presence of `そうですね` is supposed to mislead you. It seems like a positive\nagreement, leading to you to think that a positive answer, `読みます【よみます】(to\nread)`, is the way to go.\n\nAfter all, if the answer was _just_ そうですね, then you _could_ translate the\nconversation like this:\n\n> Person A: 新聞をよく読みますか。(Do you often read the paper?)\n>\n> Person B: そうですね。(Yes, I do)\n\nIt would seem reasonable at first guess that the answer should have a positive\nfollow up.\n\nHowever, as Dave points out in his comment, the `は` is the tip off that there\nis a game afoot.\n\nThe `は` is there because it's saying something like \"as for...\". Which would\nmake the translation using `毎日は読みます` something like, \"I do read it a lot. As\nfor every day, I read it.\" So that doesn't seem quite right, does it? It's\nsort of redundant.\n\n`は`, or \"as for...\" seems to be creating a sort of comparison, and that's how\nwe get to the right answer.\n\nA really clunky translation that gives you insight into how the Japanese is\nconstructed would be \"Yes I do. As for _every day_ , I don't read it.\"\n\nThe natural English translation would be more like \"Yes, I read it a lot. I\ndon't read it every day, though.\"\n\nSo the correct answer is the second choice.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T14:17:40.227", "id": "2354", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T16:14:35.913", "last_edit_date": "2011-07-31T16:14:35.913", "last_editor_user_id": "119", "owner_user_id": "119", "parent_id": "2350", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "As Dave and Dave M G stated, the answer comes not from そうですね but from 毎日は.\n\nそうですね shows that person B is thinking about the question in a similar way to\n“Let me see” in English. It does not mean either “yes” or “no.”\n\nは here distinguishes 毎日 (every day) from other possible choices of frequency.\n毎日は might be translated to “as long as ‘every day’ is concerned.”\n\n(新聞を)毎日は読みません means that the speaker does not read newspaper _every day_ , and\nit also means that he/she reads newspaper (in less frequency). That is a good\nanswer to the question “Do you read newspaper often?”\n\n(新聞を)毎日は読みます would mean that the speaker reads newspaper _every day_ , and it\nalso means that he/she does not read newspaper in greater frequency. But if\nyou read newspaper every day, you usually count as a regular reader of\nnewspaper, and there is no point stating that you do not read in greater\nfrequency (say, once every hour).", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T14:31:17.353", "id": "2355", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T14:31:17.353", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2350", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The question in the workbook is not poorly constructed - choice 2 is indeed\nthe correct answer. The reason for this is that the は following 毎日 is being\nused in a contrastive context.\n\nPerson B is, I think, shortening what he is saying. Since the contrastive は\nrequires two parts to to it, in a form such as\n\n```\n\n 寿司は食べれますが、納豆は食べれません\n \n```\n\nIf we combine the latter part of person A's question with the first part of\nperson B's answer, then we can make the first part of person B's answer the\nfollowing\n\n```\n\n そうですね。新聞はよく読みますが、毎日は[Fill in this blank]\n \n```\n\nIf my reasoning is correct, then this would be the full structure of the reply\nthat person B is giving, but as is common in Japanese speech, certain parts\ncan be omitted if they do not really add anything to the conversation. In this\ncase, the part that does not add anything is 新聞はよく読みますが. This is because\nperson B is agreeing with the statement that he reads the paper often, even\nthough he does not explicitly state it in his answer. With that, the first\npart of the contrastive は form is not required, and so the answer can be\nshortened down to\n\n```\n\n そうですね。毎日は[Fill in this blank]\n \n```\n\nGiven that we now know what sort of structure is actually being used behind\nthe scenes, we can now deduce that the answer is indeed choice 2:\n\n```\n\n そうですね。毎日は読みません\n \n```\n\nOr, in its unshortened state,\n\n```\n\n そうですね。新聞はよく読みますが、毎日は読みません。\n \n```\n\nIt seems to me as though the そうですね may be being used as an interjection, but\nmay also provide a little context in this case - B agreeing that the content\nof the question applies to him.\n\nAt any rate, I'm not sure if this is the correct thought process for solving\nthe problem, but it's how I would reach the conclusion that 2 is the correct\nanswer.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T14:56:57.663", "id": "2357", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T14:56:57.663", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "561", "parent_id": "2350", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2353", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I've heard that the number four attracts superstition because of its\nsimilarity with the word for death. For example, [yon is used instead of\nshi](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/328/how-to-choose-between-\nyon-vs-shi-for-4-and-shichi-vs/336#336) in some circumstances, and sometimes\n[the number 4, along with some other\nnumbers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraphobia) is avoided.\n\nDoes the Roma-ji letter \"C\" attract any superstition, as it is usually\npronounced \"shi\" (for example, CD is pronounced \"shi dee\")? Or are the\npronunciations different?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T13:15:39.737", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2351", "last_activity_date": "2016-08-15T02:34:00.553", "last_edit_date": "2017-04-13T12:43:44.260", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "91", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "word-choice", "pronunciation" ], "title": "Does the letter \"C\" attract any superstition?", "view_count": 919 }

[ { "body": "Yes, the pronunciation is roughly the same.\n\nNo, it doesn't.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T13:23:53.793", "id": "2352", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T13:23:53.793", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "290", "parent_id": "2351", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "As Dave stated, there is no widely shared superstition arising from the\nsimilarity in pronunciation between “C” and death (死).\n\nActually their readings are different. Four (四) and death (死) are both し.\nLetter C is シー, pronounced as しい.\n\n四 is sometimes pronounced with a prolonged vowel (e.g. when counting numbers),\nbut its reading is still し, not しい.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T14:01:09.907", "id": "2353", "last_activity_date": "2011-07-31T14:01:09.907", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "15", "parent_id": "2351", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2358", "answer_count": 2, "body": "While attempting to translate the sentence \"It will soon be two years since I\nstarted learning Japanese\", I started wondering how になります works in the context\nof time. Ignoring any other translation errors, is になります the correct word to\nuse at the end of the sentence\n\n> 日本語を勉強し始めてからもうすぐ二年になります\n\nFor some reason, the になります sounds like it is incorrect. My main reason for\nusing になります is in order to keep the 'becoming' part of the original sentence.\nSomething like\n\n> 日本語を勉強し始めたのは二年前のことです\n\nholds a vaguely similar meaning, but is more like \"I started learning Japanese\ntwo years ago\"\n\nIs my usage of になります here correct, and is it common to use it when talking\nabout time?\n\nI often hear my friends say もうすぐ10時ですね, but is it also correct to say\nもうすぐ10時になりますね? Even typing that, it seems as though it can't be correct,\nperhaps because になります needs some sort of state to transfer into? The sentence\nもうすぐ10時になりますから、そろそろ帰りましょうか seems like an appropriate usage, but I really don't\nknow.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T14:55:15.613", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2356", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T16:39:52.527", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-02T04:59:11.517", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": "561", "post_type": "question", "score": 11, "tags": [ "translation", "time" ], "title": "Use of になります in the context of time", "view_count": 1820 }

[ { "body": "Your first sentence had grammatical mistakes irrelevant to the question, so I\nfixed it.\n\n> * 日本語を勉強し始めてからもうすぐ二年になります\n> * もうすぐ10時になりますね\n>\n\nare both correct. `なります` does not need some state to transfer into. It can be\njust an instantaneous event, like 'becoming 10 o'clock'.\n\nThe sentence\n\n> × もうすぐ10時になりますから、そろそろ帰りましょうか \n> 'Since it will be 10 o'clock soon, let's leave.'\n\nis strange under the intended context because the first part means that it is\nnot 10 o'clock yet, but the second part is suggesting to leave which is\nconditioned by becoming 10 o'clock. The correct way is to say\n\n> ○ もうすぐ10時になりますから、そろそろ帰る仕度をしましょうか \n> 'Since it will be 10 o'clock soon, let's prepare to leave.'", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T15:14:06.427", "id": "2358", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T05:02:31.827", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-02T05:02:31.827", "last_editor_user_id": "28", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2356", "post_type": "answer", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Using になります in the context of time, and any other numeric scale is perfectly\ncorrect.\n\nYou can actually think of it as \"some sort of state\" has been reached. Perhaps\nall the previous examples you've encountered so far were about\nsomeone/something becoming a particular person or thing, like:\n\n**state:** development stage of frogs **target state:** frog\n\n> オタマジャクシからカエルになる turn from a tadpole into a frog\n\nIt's just about the same thing with time:\n\n**state:** current time of day **target state:** lunch time\n\n> もうすぐお昼の時間になる。 Soon, it will become time for lunch.\n\nor money:\n\n**state:** amount of total price **target state:** a million yen\n\n> 合わせて100万円になります。 So, to sum it all together, it amounts to a million yen.\n\nor length:\n\n**state:** length of a snout **target state:** 18 ft.\n\n> あの鼻の長さはほとんど18フィートになります。 That snout is nearly 18 ft. long.\n\nor the time since something:\n\n**state:** time since the start of JLU **target state:** two months\n\n> JLUが始まってから、もう2ヶ月になります。 It's already two months since JLU started.\n\nHowever, although I've said it's \"perfectly correct,\" it's also context\ndependent. Because there's a slight emphasis on the _changing_ aspect when you\nsay になります, \"もうすぐ10時ですね\" is more natural if you just want to announce that it's\nalmost 10 o'clock. On the other hand, \"もうすぐ10時になりますね\" can suggest that the\nevent of time turning 10 o'clock has been anticipated, perhaps because\nsomething ends or starts at that time, or you have to leave by then.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T16:30:49.777", "id": "2395", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T16:39:52.527", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-02T16:39:52.527", "last_editor_user_id": "128", "owner_user_id": "128", "parent_id": "2356", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2366", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I sometimes find that when Japanese answer my questions, their answers are too\nvague. For instance, I asked what つなぎ is in a given context. A Japanese person\ntold me it is 作業着の種類, \"a type of work clothes.\" That's still too vague for me.\nIs it a kind of cloth? What are the other types? What can I say to get more\nclarification to get a better explanation of what exactly つなぎ is?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T16:08:11.023", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2360", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T22:54:46.133", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "phrase-requests" ], "title": "How to get clarification in Japanese", "view_count": 584 }

[ { "body": "The best way to get clarification is to ask a question that illustrates what\nexactly you're confused about. You've already asked these in English:\n\n> \"Is it a kind of cloth?\" それは生地の一種ですか？ (Answer: no, it's a type of clothing,\n> not cloth)\n>\n> \"What are the other types?\" 作業着といえば他にどんなのがありますか？\n\nIf you just ask \"could you clarify?\", your conversation partner is tasked with\nguessing what you could possibly be confused about, since they probably don't\nthink that they said anything vague.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T19:07:28.380", "id": "2362", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T22:54:46.133", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "448", "parent_id": "2360", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "```\n\n ええと…もっと具体的に？それだけでは、よく分からないのです…\n \n```\n\nWhich means something like \"Hum… more precisely? I am not sure I understand\nwith such a concise explanation\". This is quite oral, as you may guess.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T23:54:29.677", "id": "2366", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T03:07:18.270", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-01T03:07:18.270", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2360", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2365", "answer_count": 1, "body": "For example, when JAXA launches a rocket, or people count the seconds to the\nNew Year, do they use し or よん to count 4? do they use しち or なな to count 7?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T20:35:58.903", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2364", "last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T06:35:27.857", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-03T05:47:07.187", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "54", "post_type": "question", "score": 10, "tags": [ "usage", "numbers" ], "title": "How do you do a countdown?", "view_count": 5590 }

[ { "body": "Usually when you count, you use `よん` for '4' and `なな` for '7'. That applies to\nwhen you [count down](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSkhsbHwXI).\n\n> じゅう きゅう はち **なな** ろく ご **よん** さん に いち\n\nHowever, in some situations, pronouncing a certain sequence of numbers became\nso frequent end became a fixed expression. In that case, '4' and '7' may be\npronounced `し` and `しち`, respectively. That includes a situation of counting\nup:\n\n> いち に さん **し** ご ろく **しち** はち きゅう じゅう", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-07-31T21:14:36.757", "id": "2365", "last_activity_date": "2015-05-13T06:35:27.857", "last_edit_date": "2015-05-13T06:35:27.857", "last_editor_user_id": "54", "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2364", "post_type": "answer", "score": 16 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2371", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I have been in the market for some good synonyms for `ときどき`, and I encountered\none today that I wanted to share, and also ask for some opinions, since I can\nnot find a correct definition online. The specific use I encountered is:\n\n> 俺実は **ここんとこ** ずっと同じ夢を見るの subtitle: \"Lately I keep having the same dream\"\n\nContext: <http://www.crunchyroll.com/a-dark-rabbit-has-seven-\nlives/episode-1-900-seconds-of-after-school-part-one-580756> (4 minute 6\nsecond mark)\n\nThe entry in the Jim Breen dictionary is:\n\n> 此処ん所; ここん所 【とこ】 (n) this place; here\n\nAnd I think this is wrong, I think it is of the same general variety as\n`ときどき`, `ときに`, and `たまに`. However, I think it probably has a bit of a\ndifferent nuance as well. I think that the use here, as well as uses I find in\nGoogling for it, are showing that `ここんとこ` is good for showing that a phenomena\nhas started happening and is currently still happening on and off. I should\nqualify that observation by noting that I just totally made that up myself. I\nalso see some uses that might be referring to something physical, simply as a\nreplacement for `このところ`, but I'm not entirely sure. Oh, and `ここんところ` seems to\nsubstitute without any real difference in meaning.\n\nObviously I want to ask if anyone can give a definition with confidence. I\nwould also like to know how this word would fit into your arsenal of words to\nexpress occasional occurrences, which is something I'm always wanting more\nprecise words for. If I had to express the idea in my example I might have\nsaid `最近ときどき`, which sounds kind of clumsy now.\n\nThanks in advance! I'm new here, and I'll be taking a stop by meta soon to ask\nsome more questions about how to use Japanese SE effectively.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T04:10:27.120", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2370", "last_activity_date": "2021-03-31T02:58:56.347", "last_edit_date": "2021-03-31T02:58:56.347", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "199", "post_type": "question", "score": 9, "tags": [ "formal-nouns", "contractions", "adverbs", "time" ], "title": "ここんとこ (ここん所) and other \"every now and then\" adverbs", "view_count": 678 }

[ { "body": "It is a contracted form of `ここの所`. `所` typically means place, but has other\nuses such as heading a relative clause or, as in this case, refering to a time\ninstead of a place. `ここ` is also referring to recent times rather than nearby\nplaces. The translation is 'these days', 'recently'. You are right that the\ndictionary you cited is wrong. It is misinterpreting `所`. The reason it cannot\nmean 'here' is because that would make the expression redundant. `ここ` already\nmeans place, and adding an extra construct would not be motivated unless it\nchanges the meaning.\n\nInterestingly, `そこの所` or `そこん所` also departs from meaning a place. In this\ncase, it means 'what was just mentioned'.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T04:30:11.493", "id": "2371", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T04:50:01.500", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-01T04:50:01.500", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2370", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2375", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Can't find this in the dictionary. Is this the slang form of something else?\nWhat does it mean?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T05:10:27.223", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2374", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T05:27:47.477", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "69", "post_type": "question", "score": -5, "tags": [ "slang" ], "title": "Is 二ヶ所 slang for something else?", "view_count": 576 }

[ { "body": "It sounds like にかしょ, so probably 二カ所 (two places) or 二箇所 (two parts).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T05:27:47.477", "id": "2375", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T05:27:47.477", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54", "parent_id": "2374", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2383", "answer_count": 4, "body": "My dictionary lists `髭` as **moustache / beard** , but from the example\nsentences in [WWWJDIC](http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-\nbin/wwwjdic.cgi?1MUE%E9%AB%AD), it seems like `髭` is more often used to mean\n\"beard\" than \"moustache\" ?\n\nSo for example, in this sentence: `彼はもっと大人に見えるようにひげをはやした。`, is it clear to the\nlistener that the speaker wanted to say \"He grew a _beard_ to look more\nmature\", and not \"He grew _mustache_ to look more mature\"? Or is it ambiguous\nand it could mean either one?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T14:36:22.627", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2376", "last_activity_date": "2015-12-03T17:25:52.970", "last_edit_date": "2012-01-14T21:30:49.933", "last_editor_user_id": "921", "owner_user_id": "264", "post_type": "question", "score": 13, "tags": [ "words", "definitions", "homonyms" ], "title": "Does 髭 refer to the beard or the moustache?", "view_count": 3915 }

[ { "body": "I think it's hard to tell since they're both read as `ひげ`.\n\nBut comparing to Chinese,\n\n> 須(simplified) 鬚(traditional) (both read as xū) is used for beard.\n>\n> 髭(zī) is used for moustache.\n\nIf you look in the Japanese dictionary, ひげ has two kanji - 鬚 and 髭\n\nThe former corresponds to the Chinese word for beard, and the latter for\nmoustache.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T15:20:46.807", "id": "2379", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T15:20:46.807", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "parent_id": "2376", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "In a Japanese context, that distinction does not matter so much, and it can be\neither. Since you are asking whether that Japanese word is ambiguous, I think\nthat you are biased to English mind. It is not that the word `髭` is ambiguous;\nit is that a single concept in English does not match a single concept in\nJapanese. This is similar to fingers vs. thumbs. English makes that\ndistinction, but Japanese does not. So there is no one-to-one correspondence.\nYou cannot say that the Japanese word `指` is ambiguous. It is simply that the\ntwo languages segment the world into concepts in a different way.\n\nBut if you were to say which one is more typically called `髭`, then I would\nsay it is moustache. If you want to specifically refer to beard, you can say\n`顎髭` 'chin-moustache/beard'.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T16:30:43.307", "id": "2381", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T16:30:43.307", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2376", "post_type": "answer", "score": 12 }, { "body": "Your example says he grew facial hair. If it's a Japanese person, I would even\ndare say that it unambiguously refers to a beard, since I haven't seen many\nmoustaches recently in Japan (beside mines), while I keep seeing guys\nstruggling to get a beard :)\n\nThe unambiguous words you can use are:\n\n * 顎鬚 chin beard\n * 鼻髭 moustache\n * 口髭 moustache\n * 山羊髭 goatee\n * 揉み上げ sideburns\n * 頬髭 whiskers", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T01:59:17.567", "id": "2383", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T09:49:21.107", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-02T09:49:21.107", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2376", "post_type": "answer", "score": 13 }, { "body": "I'm a Japanese native speaker. It's my impression that in the aforementioned\nsentence 'hige' is very ambiguous, floating somewhere between beard and\nmustache. To be honest I don't give much thought to the difference in\nreading/hearing such a sentence.\n\nI don't fully agree with the idea that 'hige' is more likely to indicate\nmustache, although Sawa's explanation on the difference of range each language\ncan cover truly tally with my idea. In fact, aside from 'ago-hige', which as\nshown in the comment denotes beard, we also have 'kuchi-hige', which means\nmustache.\n\nSo let me put it this way: in saying 'hige', we tend to think that it's just\nsome amount of hair covering the part around our mouth, thick or sparse. In\norder to indicate the particular part, you need 'kuchi-' or 'ago-' right\nbefore 'hige'.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2013-02-07T01:53:27.137", "id": "11150", "last_activity_date": "2013-02-07T01:53:27.137", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3152", "parent_id": "2376", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2382", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Consider the case when `から` and `ので` follows a noun, な-adjective, or noun-\nequivalent:\n\n> から：静か **だ** から... \"Because it is quiet...\" (Subjective causality)\n>\n> ので：静か **な** ので... \"Because it is quiet...\" (Objective causality)\n\n**(Question)** What causes the difference in the parts in bold above?\n\n* * *", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T14:57:18.527", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2377", "last_activity_date": "2015-06-29T16:22:13.827", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "conjugations", "conjunctions", "morphology" ], "title": "から and ので formation/conjugation differences", "view_count": 1003 }

[ { "body": "`から` 'since, because' attaches to a clause, whereas `で` 'with (the reason\nbeing)' attaches to a noun. `静かだ` is an indicative clause (ordinary sentence),\nso you can simply attach `から`, but not `で`.\n\n> * 静かだから\n> * × 静かだで\n>\n\nIn order to use `で`, you have to have a noun. To do that, you use the formal\nnoun (or nominalizer) `の` taking an appositive clause. In appositive clauses\nand relative clauses, na-adjectives take the adnominal ending `～な`.\n\n> * × 静かなのから\n> * 静かなので\n>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-01T16:41:24.343", "id": "2382", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-01T16:41:24.343", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "parent_id": "2377", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2386", "answer_count": 2, "body": "The pronunciation \"みやげ\" does not correspond to on'yomi nor kun'yomi of `土産`,\nso I thought it was a _gikun_ (義訓), but the combination of kanji `土` and `産`\ndoes not seem to provide the meaning of \"souvenir\" either. Based on the\npronunciation, I previously thought that it was taken from the verb stem of\n`見上げる` and the meaning \"to look up at\" does sound like it's related to giving\nsouvenir, but the slight difference in the second syllables of \"みやげ\" and \"みあげ\"\nhas a lot to say against this theory.\n\nSo what was the origin of the word and kanji `土産{みやげ}`?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T04:32:10.840", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2385", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-29T01:10:11.533", "last_edit_date": "2011-10-29T01:10:11.533", "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "post_type": "question", "score": 14, "tags": [ "kanji", "etymology" ], "title": "Etymology of 土産 {みやげ}", "view_count": 1568 }

[ { "body": "There are several explanations I found on [gogen-allguide](http://gogen-\nallguide.com/mi/miyage.html):\n\nThe kanji are obvious, it's a souvenir, a product of the land.\n\nThe reading can come from 見上 (みあげ) as you \"look\" (見) for something to \"give\"\n(上), from 屯倉（みやけ）which is a place with stocks (of souvenirs?), from 都笥（みやこけ）,\n宮倉（みやけ）, 家笥（みやけ）」 which all evoke some place and some container.\n\nThe ateji was probably chosen at the end of Muromachi.\n\nPS: I don't see why the いあ -> や mutation \"has a lot to say against this\ntheory\". On the contrary, I find it very likely.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T05:20:31.267", "id": "2386", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T06:16:14.007", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-02T06:16:14.007", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2385", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 }, { "body": "To understand Japanese etymology one must master Chinses dialect such as\nTaiwansese,Mandarin,Kantonsese etc. \nMi in Taiwanese is Something and Ageru is to-give in Japanese. Thus Miage is\nGift.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-10-28T16:39:58.843", "id": "3591", "last_activity_date": "2011-10-28T16:39:58.843", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "813", "parent_id": "2385", "post_type": "answer", "score": -5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2388", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Consider the following sentence:\n\n> その薬は去年期限切れ **の** だったので、捨てました。\n\nI'm trying to explain what the bolded の does in the above sentence.\n\nThis is what I came up with:\n\n> の is used as a back referral\n>\n> The sentence would look like this :\n>\n> その薬は去年期限切れ **の** (薬)だったので、捨てました。\n>\n> But because 薬 can be understood from context, it is left out in the same\n> sentence.\n\nWhen I looked up `期限切れ` in the dictionary*, it is listed as (Nouns which may\ntake the genitive case prt. 'no') I'm not sure what it means exactly so...\n\n**(Question):** Is there something I need to understand differently because of\nthis dictionary categorisation? How are \"Nouns which may take the genitive\ncase prt. 'no'\" different from just nouns?\n\nWould 日本語 in 日本語の先生 also be a \"noun which may take the genitive case prt.\n'no'\"? Because so far many nouns are able to take の, and I dont understand the\nseparate category for it.\n\n**EDIT:** I think this was what I meant to ask - did the `の` in question come\nfrom elision or does it have something to do with 期限切れ being a no-adj ?\n\n(Just looked it up in other dictionaries**, it's labelled as no-adj)\n\n*taken from JMDict\n\n**checked against WWWJDIC and japanese.nciku.com", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T06:23:34.360", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2387", "last_activity_date": "2011-12-27T17:30:07.400", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "542", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-の", "formal-nouns" ], "title": "の performing back referral? の used adjectivally?", "view_count": 297 }

[ { "body": "Your question is not really clear… Are you asking about \"の\" or \"期限切れ\"?\n\n> の is used as a back referral\n\nActually, it's a simple elision..\n\n誰のペンですか？ 私の(ペン)です。 \nWhose pen is it? it is _mine_\n\n何のタイアですか？ 車の(タイヤ)だ。 \nOf what kind of vehicle is this tire? It's a car's one.\n\nAs far as \"の for an adjective\" goes, a famous example would be \"色々\" which can\ngo with の as well as な, to mean \"various\", but I'm not sure either how this\nfeat goes along the hint of your dictionary, if it's ever related.\n\n> EDIT: I think this was what I meant to ask - did the の in question come from\n> elision or does it have something to do with 期限切れ being a no-adj ?\n\n**Edit** : Well, then both, probably :) \nBecause 時間切れ works with a の, we could drop the word 薬 afterwards. If we were\nconsidering a word without の, like \"静か\", we would have to use a palliative の\ninstead: \nその公園は去年静かなのだったので、寂しい。 (I'm sad because this park was a quiet one last year\n(and isn't any more)).\n\n**Edit2** : on の-adj.\n\nThere are some nouns that have a different function when used の. Consider the\nnouns \"普通\" and \"日本語\". You say 普通の先生 and 日本語の先生, but while it is a \"teacher of\nJapanese\" it is not a \"teacher of normality\". It's also not a \"teacher from\nthe Japanese language\" but it's an \"average teacher\". You are not working with\na genitive here, but you are really making an adjective that modifies the\nfollowing group.\n\nAs for why some adjectives work with の and others with な, I have no idea.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T08:11:05.153", "id": "2388", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T03:46:46.480", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-03T03:46:46.480", "last_editor_user_id": "356", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2387", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Are no-adjs even a real thing in Japan? Any noun can modify another noun once\nno is appended, and this modification may be rendered with an adjective in a\ndifferent language (eg 日本の文化 -> Japanese culture). It seems to me that 期限切れ is\nno different in this regard. They could have translated it as \"the condition\nof being past the expiration date\", and let the reader infer that 期限切れの means\n\"expired\", but since the typical use is attributive anyway, they decided to\nmake things simpler for themselves and for foreign learners by translating\n期限切れ[の] directly as \"expired\".", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T14:26:25.080", "id": "2390", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T14:26:25.080", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "404", "parent_id": "2387", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2401", "answer_count": 3, "body": "For example, the following 3:\n\n> 女っぽい (おんなっぽい) \n> 女らしい (おんならしい) \n> 女みたい (おんなみたい)\n\nIn what situations would you use っぽい over らしい？ Does っぽい have negative\nconnotations? Are 女らしい and 女みたい interchangeable as in 彼女は本当に女らしい／彼女は本当に女みたい?\n\nI would love if someone could contrast these 3 terms.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T14:47:44.780", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2391", "last_activity_date": "2021-01-05T15:15:47.620", "last_edit_date": "2021-01-05T15:15:47.620", "last_editor_user_id": "37097", "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 36, "tags": [ "grammar", "word-choice", "i-adjectives" ], "title": "Contrasting っぽい、らしい、みたい", "view_count": 15277 }

[ { "body": "From what I have learned, らしい denotes third-party information (i.e. you got\nthe information from someone else) while みたい denotes first-party information.\nSo 女らしい would mean that you heard from someone (or even rumor) that she's a\nfemale, and 女みたい would mean that it is your conjecture based on your\nobservation (looking at her, hearing her voice etc).\n\nI'm not that familiar with っぽい, but my guts feeling says it's similar to みたい\nsuch that it's your own conjecture but you base it on general characteristic\nfor female. Meaning you would say 女っぽい if you see her behaving like a female.\nBut again, I'm not entirely sure.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T15:05:51.283", "id": "2393", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T15:05:51.283", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "112", "parent_id": "2391", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "As the above answers/comments show, you can divide usage of らしい, みたい and っぽい\ninto two rough categories: ending and thereby modifying entire sentences, or\nattached to something within the sentence (usually a noun phrase) to create an\nadjectival phrase. In the below examples, the first of each set is at the end\nof an entire sentence (Z は女 ○), and the second is modifying just a noun (女 ○).\n\n * Z は女らしい = It seems/I hear that Z is a woman\n * 女らしい Z = (a) womanly Z\n\n * Z は女っぽい = It seems/I understand that Z is a woman\n\n * 女っぽい Z = (a) womanly Z\n\n * Z は女みたいだ = It seems/It looks like Z is a woman\n\n * 女みたいな Z = (a) Z like a woman\n\nThere is some overlap, which can be confusing:\n\n * Zは女らしい(よ) = It seems/I hear that Z is a woman.\n * Zは女らしい(人) = Z is womanly (a womanly person).\n\n... but usually context will make one interpretation much more likely than the\nother.\n\nThe sentence-ending usages indicate that you are deducing what you say from\nsomething you saw, heard, etc. You are not in a position to make a definitive\nstatement. The modifier usages are more about making judgment, and ARE in many\ncases definitive statements.\n\n * Modifier Xらしい roughly means \"fulfilling with ease the requirements for X\", with a nuance of appropriateness or approval.\n * Modifier Xっぽい roughly means \"strongly evidences the characteristics associated with X\", with a nuance of inappropriateness or disapproval.\n * Modifier みたい comes originally from 見たよう and it simply means \"appears to be, looks like, acts like, seems like\". It does not require that the information be obtained visually, though: 赤ちゃんみたいな鳴き声, etc. X みたいな Y carries the implication that Y is not in the category of X.\n\nThus:\n\n * 女らしい would usually be applied to women, who are expected to be womanly, and 女っぽい to men, who are not, or to women who the speaker judges to be acting in a too stereotypically \"womanly\" way. (And both the \"praise\" and \"blame\" nuances can be used ironically, too... but this is a bit of a rabbit hole.)\n * 彼女は女みたいだ is basically an inappropriate thing to say, because if you are calling her 彼女 you know that she is in the category of 女 -- you are essentially denying that she IS a woman, and simply saying that she looks/acts like one. This sort of sentence is used, though, as a sort of mock-insult among friends (for example, you might say 女みたい to a friend who is acting/dressed in a way you deem womanly even though she normally does/is not), but it can obviously backfire very easily.\n\nNote: There is probably room for disagreement over how distinct these\nsentence-ending and modifier usages really are. For らしい at least, the\n\"hearsay\" and \"appropriately\" meanings are pretty distinct. For the others,\nyou could maybe argue that both usages are fundamentally the same, with any\nperceived difference in meaning arising from context/function in the sentence\nrather than inherent semantic differences.", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T23:10:35.293", "id": "2401", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T23:32:38.597", "last_edit_date": "2011-08-02T23:32:38.597", "last_editor_user_id": "531", "owner_user_id": "531", "parent_id": "2391", "post_type": "answer", "score": 25 }, { "body": "> [女]{おんな}っぽい\n\n\"Womanish\". \nThe same nuance you have in English with \"childish\", maybe a bit derogatory.\nWith make-up, high heels or a cell-phone with a hundredth of key-holders\nlinked to it… Has quite a lot to do with looks.\n\n> [女]{おんな}らしい\n\n\"Feminine\". \nThere are two らしい, and we're definitely not discussing the hearsay here.\nTherefore, this 女らしい means \"as expected from a woman.\" It's less derogatory,\nand may even be positive or a compliment. A show on morning TV would sell you\na nice bra+belt set to get big breast and a flat belly, so as to look \"女らしい\".\nIt's quite about the ideal of a woman.\n\n> [女]{おんな}みたい\n\n\"like a woman, but not one!\" \nI don't think there is any judgement here, unlike っぽい. Your gay/emo friend may\nbe 女みたい by the way he speaks, dresses or takes time to make-up. Or your boss\ndoing an impersonation of his wife scolding him. You just say that yes, it\nmakes you think of a woman, any.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T01:53:52.113", "id": "2405", "last_activity_date": "2017-02-08T01:41:15.303", "last_edit_date": "2017-02-08T01:41:15.303", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2391", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "2397", "answer_count": 3, "body": "The following two sentences, I believe, are grammatically okay, however I'm\nnot sure on how they differ in nuance.\n\n> もう[歩]{ある}けない **ほど** [疲]{つか}れた！ \n> もう歩けない **くらい** 疲れた！\n\nAdditionally, why is it that:\n\n> [死]{し}ぬ **ほど** [恥]{は}ずかしい\n\nis grammatically okay but\n\n> 死ぬ **くらい** 恥ずかしい\n\nis not?\n\n(However 死に **たい** くらい恥ずかしい is okay.)\n\nFrom looking at this, it seems くらい cannot show volition. Is there a logical\nreason for this that I'm not seeing?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T15:03:53.377", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "2392", "last_activity_date": "2022-09-08T15:18:53.677", "last_edit_date": "2020-02-27T04:38:57.907", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "108", "post_type": "question", "score": 38, "tags": [ "grammar", "particle-くらい", "particle-ほど" ], "title": "The difference between くらい and ほど in hyperbole", "view_count": 20041 }

[ { "body": "A ほど B だ says that B is sufficient for A. In the context of the hyperbole you\nmention, A is usually some high bar. So 死ぬほど恥ずかしい means that the embarrassment\nwas sufficient to cause death.\n\nA くらい B だ says that B is comparable to A. 一キロぐらいの重さだ = \"about 1 kilogram\".\n\nWhat's the difference in nuance between \"sufficient for\" and \"comparable to\"?\nIn the first (ほど）, A is implied to be some high quantity that B has measured\nup to, where this implication is absent from くらい. So ほど can be more useful for\nhyperbole. This is why 死ぬほど恥ずかしい is a much more common expression than\n死ぬくらい恥ずかしい. There's nothing grammatically wrong with the くらい version, but it\nsounds klunky and foreign.\n\nAs you say, there are some cases where くらい doesn't sound so alien, such as\nyour 歩けないくらい疲れた example. But using ほど is the safer bet when you're not sure.\n\nFinally, because くらい doesn't imply that A is large, it can occasionally be\nuseful for coy understatement. For example:\n\n> 富士山を二時間で登ったって?どんなに疲れた? (You climbed Mt Fuji in 2 hours? How tired are you?)\n>\n> うーん… 死ぬくらいかな? (Oh, about enough to die, maybe?)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T17:23:14.250", "id": "2396", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-02T17:23:14.250", "last_edit_date": "2020-06-17T08:18:27.500", "last_editor_user_id": "-1", "owner_user_id": "448", "parent_id": "2392", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "OK, I think I've got something here. Essentially, the difference boils down to\nthe following:\n\n * ほど expresses an upper bound; it is often emphatic and therefore expresses surprise\n * くらい expresses a lower bound; the level indicated may be exceeded\n\nLet's look at 歩けない { ほど／くらい } 疲れた. Diagrammed, it looks like this:\n\n\n\nBoth ほど and くらい express the level of tiredness marked by the red dot (not\nbeing able to walk at all). But ほど focuses on the left side of that dot, and\nit emphasizes the fact that the level of fatigue exceeds both the level where\nyour legs get a little wobbly (first dot) and the level where you can't keep\nyour balance well (second dot). But ほど does not exceed the red dot.\n\nWith くらい, on the other hand, the scale starts at the red dot, and may even go\nhigher to the last dot (not even being able to stand up). The surprise\nexpressed by ほど is mostly absent, and the sentence is more along the lines of\na simple statement of fact.\n\n### Places where ほど can be used, but not くらい\n\n[This page](http://www.geocities.jp/niwasaburoo/53teidohikaku.html#53.1) has a\nsection with some examples along these lines. Let's look at a few in light of\nthe rules derived from the above diagram:\n\n> ヨットが買える **ほど** お金持ちではないよ。 He's not so rich that he can buy a yacht.\n>\n> 僕のお小遣いで買えない **ほど** 高くはなかった。 It wasn't so expensive that I couldn't buy it\n> with my allowance.\n>\n> どうしても結婚したいという **ほど** 愛してはいなかった。 She didn't love him so much that she wanted\n> to marry him at all costs.\n\nThe common thread running through these sentences is that the level marked by\nほど is not reached. (All of the sentences could be reordered to fit the pattern\n\"B may be true, but not to the extent A.\") In other words, the actual level\nlies to the left of the red dot on the above diagram. Because it's on the left\nside, only ほど can be used.\n\n### Places where くらい can be used, but not ほど\n\nFrom the same page:\n\n> ここに入っちゃいけないこと **ぐらい** 知ってるでしょう？ You do at least know that you can't come in\n> here, right?\n>\n> 入賞した **ぐらい** で喜んではいけない。 You shouldn't be happy just over winning an award.\n>\n> 休みの日でも警備員をおく **ぐらい** できるだろう。 We should be able to at least station some\n> guards on days off.\n\nIn all of these sentences, くらい (sometimes ぐらい; the difference was [covered in\nthis question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/433)) marks a\nminimum level. So now we're dealing with the portion of the diagram to the\nright of the red dot. Thus, only くらい is allowed.\n\n### Effect on hyperbole\n\nSo based on what we've seen so far, why are these two different?\n\n> 死ぬ **ほど** さびしい so lonely one could die _(not really serious)_\n>\n> 死ぬ **くらい** さびしい so lonely one could die _(serious, possibly suicidal)_\n\nIn statements like these, ほど, because it covers the left end of the scale,\nimplies that you haven't reached the red dot yet, but it feels like you're\ngetting close. くらい is different. With くらい, you're at the red dot and are on\nthe way to more extreme levels (toward the right end of the scale). 死ぬくらい thus\nconveys more immediacy and reality than 死ぬほど, which can be used \"lightly\" and\nwithout really meaning it.\n\nThis contrast between くらい's immediacy and reality and ほど's figurativeness\nappears in sentences like this:\n\n> 死ぬ **くらい** ならなんでもする。 If I were at the point of death, I would do anything.\n\nほど doesn't work nearly as well here, because the setting for this sentence is\nthat the speaker has a life-and-death choice and is literally staring death in\nthe face. This is solidly on the right end of the scale, so くらい is the best\noption.\n\nFrom this we can also explain the unnatural feeling from your example\nfragment:\n\n> 死ぬ **ほど** 恥ずかしい so embarrassed one could die _(playful exaggeration)_\n>\n> 死ぬ **くらい** 恥ずかしい so embarrassed one could die _(weird)_\n\nThe second sounds weird because, unlike loneliness, which can and does lead to\nsuicide, embarrassment is an unusual reason for dying. But as you correctly\npointed out, 死にたいくらい is fine here. This is because feeling like one wants to\ndie after being embarrassed is common and quite different from actually\ncarrying out that feeling.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-02T20:33:37.987", "id": "2397", "last_activity_date": "2022-09-08T15:18:53.677", "last_edit_date": "2022-09-08T15:18:53.677", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "94", "parent_id": "2392", "post_type": "answer", "score": 51 }, { "body": "What I feel is that ほど (程) is a point, and that くらい (位) is a zone, an\napproximation.\n\n> もう歩けないほど疲れた！ (もうあるけないほどつかれた)\n\nI'm exhausted _to the point_ I can't walk any more.\n\n> もう歩けないくらい疲れた！ (もうあるけないくらいつかれた)\n\nI'm so exhausted, I _almost_ can't walk any more.\n\nIn those two sentences, I link (in my translation) the ほど/くらい to different\nthings: 歩く with ほど, and 疲れる with くらい. This allows me to express the nuance.\n\n> 死ぬほど恥ずかしい (しぬほどはずかしい)\n\nI'm ashamed to the point I could die.\n\n> 死ぬくらい恥ずかしい (しぬくらいはずかしい)\n\nYou can't \"be almost dying\", it's not progressive! You die, or you do not\n(there is no try). So, saying ぐらい here definitely sounds weird. (Well, in\nEnglish, you do say \"I'm dying while you're still alive\", but this is not what\nthe expression wants to convey).\n\n> (However 死にたいくらい恥ずかしい is okay.)\n\nYes, because you could _consider_ dying, have mixed feelings about dying.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 3.0", "creation_date": "2011-08-03T01:40:51.170", "id": "2404", "last_activity_date": "2011-08-03T01:40:51.170", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "356", "parent_id": "2392", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]