Datasets:

p1atdev

/

japanese-stackexchange

like 2

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 怖くなって体が動いてた 怖がってるくせにどこかでともえは俺のなのにだなんて勝手な事を考えてる自分もいて\n\nWhat exactly is のなのにだなんて here?\n\nなんて should be the quote but I'm confused by the use of 俺のなのに\n\nともえ is this dude girlfriend from context.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-25T17:11:52.933", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100075", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-26T03:28:03.260", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55492", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "particle-の", "quotes" ], "title": "Meaning of なのにだなんて", "view_count": 106 }

[ { "body": "Your excerpt has no punctuations at all. Is this from a manga? A version with\npunctuations would be:\n\n> 怖がってるくせに、どこかで「ともえは俺のなのに」だなんて、勝手な事を考えてる自分もいて。 \n> Despite being scared, there's (a part of) me that thinks something selfish\n> such as \"Tomoe is mine but ...\"\n\n * 俺の is \"mine\" just as 彼女の is \"hers\" and 田中さんの is \"Tanaka's (one)\".\n * Xなのに is \"although (it) is X\". \n * な is the attributive form of the copula.\n * のに is \"but\".\n * だなんて is だ + なんて, but they are often used together. This だ is a special だ that adds a sense of disagreement or suspicion. なんて by itself is not a quote, but it sometimes works as a quotation marker that also expresses surprise or contempt. \n * [Is there really any difference between だなんて and なんて?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/77933/5010)\n * [What does だなんて mean?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/86683/5010)\n * [だ in 「別に迷惑だなんて」](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/93631/5010)\n * [~たいだとか why is there a だ here?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/60014/5010)\n * [Is 「３人いるだと」 grammatical?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/5693/5010)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-25T20:42:37.497", "id": "100078", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-26T03:28:03.260", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-26T03:28:03.260", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100075", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100077", "answer_count": 1, "body": "According to Jisho, 完 (かん) can be used as a suffix with meanings \"completion;\nconclusion; end​\" and \"providing fully\".\n\n<https://jisho.org/search/%E5%AE%8C>\n\nHowever, I can't find any example of 完 used as a suffix for any of both cases.\n\nCould you please give me an example or some if possible with suffix 完?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-25T17:22:24.230", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100076", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-25T20:24:42.027", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "47013", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "suffixes" ], "title": "Examples with suffix 完 (かん)", "view_count": 450 }

[ { "body": "1. 完 is used to indicate the end of an entire work (similarly to \"Fin\"), but the same kanji is also used to indicate the end of a part/chapter. For example, on the last page of a volume of a novel, you may see \"第二部完\" (End of Part II) or \"X編・完\" (X Arc Complete). Not all novels use this kind of notation. I don't know if this is technically a suffix, though...\n\n 2. 完 meaning \"providing fully\" is an abbreviation of 完備. You find this mainly (or almost exclusively) in real estate ads. For example:\n\n> ◯◯駅まで徒歩8分！ システムキッチン・エアコン完！", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-25T20:24:42.027", "id": "100077", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-25T20:24:42.027", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100076", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100084", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I found the below sign in a [tweet about the new ordering system at\nSaizeriya](https://twitter.com/nokonk0/status/1673167450446389253). What\npuzzled me is the text on the sign at the bottom-left:\n\n> 右側のイスにずれて、順番にお待ち下さい。 \n> Please wait in line by ???ing at the chair to the right.\n\nIgnoring the poor English translation, what is the intended meaning of ずれる?\n[Looking it up in a monolingual\ndictionary](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%9A%E3%82%8C%E3%82%8B/), I\nonly see the meanings I know, which refer to being displaced from an intended\nposition (with nuances of being wrongly in that new position).\n\nWhat, then, does the sign mean by イスにずれて?\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/HEsOX.jpg)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-26T03:52:56.230", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100083", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-26T04:01:51.767", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "816", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "meaning" ], "title": "What is the meaning of ずれる on this sign?", "view_count": 540 }

[ { "body": "The sign is asking you to \"slide\" or move along to the chair to your right as\nyou move forward in the line.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-26T04:01:51.767", "id": "100084", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-26T04:01:51.767", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "100083", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "I was reading the `Bleach` manga and found this odd structure I am not used\nto.\n\nOne (giant) character is about to squish another character with his hands when\nhe says:\n\n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fzz89.png)\n\nI didn't know you could use `てくれる` when performing an action for/against\nsomeone.\n\nif he said:\n\n> 握り潰してやる or 握り潰してあげる\n\nIt would've made sense to me, but I don't get `くれる` used in this context.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-26T05:50:27.257", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100085", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-26T09:15:44.777", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "16104", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Using てくれる instead of てあげる when performing an action towards someone", "view_count": 48 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "What is the purpose of verb nominalization in Japanese? How do I know when to\nnominalize a verb and when not to? Still, knowing there are different ways of\nnominalizing i.e using the i form of the verb, adding no or koto, how do i\nknow which pattern to use? Can you please give answers with examples to\nillustrate?thank you", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-26T16:28:31.960", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100089", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T01:13:40.163", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "verbs", "nominalization" ], "title": "Nominalization of verbs in japanese", "view_count": 65 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "According to the teaching materials I read, it appears that both verb+ては and\nverb+のでは can refer to a condition leading to a negative result or the premise\nof a negative comment. I’m not sure if this understanding is on the right\ntrack. If it’s true, does it mean verb+ては and verb+のでは are often\ninterchangeable in a given sentence?\n\nFor example, can we say 年間200万円もかかる **のでは** とてもその大学には行けない。 and 年間200万円もかかっ\n**ては** とてもその大学には行けない。 interchangeably?\n\nIf I get it wrong, what is the difference between verb+ては and verb+のでは? Does a\nsentence exit in which verb+ては and verb+のでは are interchangeable but have\nslightly different meanings?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-26T16:30:11.793", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100090", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T01:02:26.623", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "36662", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "structure" ], "title": "Differentiating between verb+ては and verb+のでは?", "view_count": 64 }

[ { "body": "When you use のでは, you need to choose the right tense. For example, you say\n台風が来るのでは旅行に行けない referring to an approaching typhoon, but you say\n台風が来たのでは旅行に行けない referring to a typhoon that has already come. And because of\nthe explanatory-の, it is usually used with a specific event that will almost\ncertainly happen (or has already happened) and affects someone's specific\ndecision at hand.\n\nOn the other hand, the ては version does not have tense distinction, and it\ntends to sound like you are telling a general fact that is always true.\nProverbs such as\n[腹が減っては戦は出来ぬ](https://jisho.org/word/%E8%85%B9%E3%81%8C%E6%B8%9B%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%81%AF%E6%88%A6%E3%81%AF%E5%87%BA%E6%9D%A5%E3%81%AC)\nand\n[急いては事を仕損じる](https://jisho.org/word/%E6%80%A5%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6%E3%81%AF%E4%BA%8B%E3%82%92%E4%BB%95%E6%90%8D%E3%81%98%E3%82%8B)\nuse ては. Likewise, 台風が来ては旅行に行けない sounds to me like you're describing a general\nfact (which may _also_ affect the current decision). In other words, 台風が来るのでは\nmay be closer to \"Since a typhoon is coming\" and 台風が来ては \"When a typhoon\ncomes\". (This does not apply to short \"don't\" type sentences such as\n食べてはいけません, 見ちゃダメ and いなくなっちゃ嫌.)\n\nIn informal speech, のでは becomes んじゃ (e.g., 来るんじゃ, 来ないんじゃ), and ては becomes\nちゃ/じゃ (来ちゃ, 来なくちゃ).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-27T00:54:30.410", "id": "100094", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T01:02:26.623", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-27T01:02:26.623", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100090", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 何で高校の制服。。?\n\nWhy I got to wear a high school uniform?\n\n最高に似合ってる\n\nIt fits you the best!\n\nAnd the answer is\n\n> 感想を求めたんじゃないんだよな\n\nWhat is the purpose of んじゃないんだin this sentence? I guess he saying he didn't\nask for the other impressions?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-26T19:08:54.897", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100091", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T01:42:57.410", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55492", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "verbs", "particle-の", "negation" ], "title": "Use of んじゃないんだ in this sentence", "view_count": 67 }

[ { "body": "In this sentence, there are two\n[explanatory-の](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/5398/5010) used in a row.\nThe first one is used with ない. A very literal translation would be \"It's that\nit's not that I asked for your impression\".\n\n * 感想を求めた **ん** じゃない **ん** だよな \n感想を求めた **の** ではない **の** だ(よな)\n\nThe first の(ではない) indicates 感想を求めた is a reason/explanation for the previous\ncontext, so it's somewhat like \"(not) _because_ I wanted your 感想\". From\n[Tofugu: んだ・んです](https://www.tofugu.com/japanese-grammar/explanatory-nda-\nndesu-noda-nodesu/):\n\n> Adding an explanatory tone is one of the most common features of んだ.\n\nAnd the second の(だ) is used to convince the listener or resolve a\nmisunderstanding. An English equivalent might be \"Hey\", \"Come on\", \"I tell\nyou\" or something. From the same article:\n\n> んだ can be used to fill in the gap of understanding between you and your\n> listener not only when your listener is missing some information, but also\n> when they’re misunderstanding something.\n\nSo to put the original sentence very verbosely, 感想を求めたんじゃないんだよな is like \"Hey\nyou're misunderstanding, (the reason I said \"何で高校の制服?\") is not because I\nwanted your impression!\" Of course something like \"I didn't asked it!\" is\nusually enough as an English translation.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-27T01:37:46.937", "id": "100095", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T01:42:57.410", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-27T01:42:57.410", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100091", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 人樹ニ華アリ。人華ニ華アリ。\n\nI see two versions of English translations:\n\n * Flowers are present in human trees, flowers are present in human flowers.\n * Human trees have blossoms. Human flowers have blossoms.\n\nI read Chinese and my interpretation is \"Blossoming are in people and trees;\nBlossoming are in people and flowers.\n\nThis is from a Zen literature as such there is no logic on the _phenomena_\nthat is described. I am more interested in understanding the sentences based\non grammatical rules.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-26T19:31:49.317", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100092", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T09:30:50.373", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-27T01:47:50.423", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "56891", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "nuances" ], "title": "How do I interpret these two sentences?", "view_count": 139 }

[ { "body": "Looks like this is from\n[_Shōbōgenzō_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sh%C5%8Db%C5%8Dgenz%C5%8D) (13th\ncentury). It is too difficult for me to explain the Zen philosophy behind this\nsentence, but if it is simply to be interpreted literally as a Japanese\nsentence, as you requested, the most faithful English translation would be \"In\na human tree, a flower is present. In a human flower, a flower is present\" or\n\"There are flowers in human trees. There are flowers in human flowers\".\n(Plurality is not indicated, so it can be either \"a tree\" or \"trees\".)\n\nThere is no explicit \"and\" in 人樹 and 人華, so the straightforward\ninterpretations of these compounds would be \"human tree\" and \"human flower\"\n(don't ask me what they are). But if the context clearly tells otherwise,\n\"human and tree\" and \"human and flower\" are possible interpretations.\n\n* * *\n\n**EDIT:**\n\nSo this is the original text:\n\n> コノユヱニ百草ミナ華果アリ。諸樹ミナ華果アリ。金銀銅鐵珊瑚頗瓈樹等。ミナ華果アリ。地水火風空樹。ミナ華果アリ。 **人樹ニ華アリ。人華ニ華アリ**\n> 。枯木ニ華アリ。\n>\n> This is why various grasses all bear flowers and fruit. All kinds of tree\n> bear flowers and fruit. Goldtrees, silvertrees, coppertrees, irontrees,\n> coraltrees and crystaltrees, _et cetera_ , they all bear flowers and fruit.\n> Earthtrees, watertrees, firetrees, windtrees and skytrees, they all bear\n> flowers and fruit. **Humantrees bear flowers. (In turn, such) humanflowers\n> bear (yet another) flower**. (Even) dead trees bear flowers.\n\nThe text is basically saying all elements in the world are actually like\ntrees, and thus bear fruit and flowers. Here the kanji 樹 is clearly used as a\nkind of **suffix** meaning \"-tree\", as shown above. I know \"humantree\" and\n\"humanflower\" are not common words, but this 人樹 is indeed \"humantree\" or \"tree\nof human\" rather than \"human and tree\".", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-27T01:52:20.923", "id": "100096", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T09:30:50.373", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-27T09:30:50.373", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100092", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "ChatGPT said '\"なり\" (nari) functions as a copula, which is a word that links\nthe subject of a sentence with a predicate or description. Specifically, \"なり\"\nserves as a literary or formal version of the copula \"だ\" (da) or \"です\" (desu)\nin Japanese.' Is this correct or not in this sentence?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-27T00:40:55.827", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100093", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T17:01:02.203", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-27T17:01:02.203", "last_editor_user_id": "816", "owner_user_id": "56892", "post_type": "question", "score": 4, "tags": [ "classical-japanese", "copula" ], "title": "For this sentence 本日は晴天なりといったとする, could I replace なり to です, if not, why?", "view_count": 247 }

[ { "body": "It's very misleading to say なり is a _literary_ or _formal_ version of だ. It is\nan _obsolete_ copula that is no longer actively used in Japanese. You'll never\ncome across it in contemporary Japanese, but you may find it if you try to\nread old documents on display in a museum written by samurai.\n\nHowever, 本日は晴天なり is one of the rare exceptions where you might encounter なり in\nmodern Japan. This phrase is widely known as a set phrase used to check\nmicrophones or radio transmissions. An English equivalent would be \"Mic check\none two\", \"Radio check\" or [Harvard\nsentences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_sentences). Since 本日は晴天なり is\nmore of a \"test code\" rather than an actual message, changing it, such as\nreplacing なり with です, would defeat the main purpose of the phrase. You must\nalways use this phrase verbatim, even if it's heavily snowing outside.\n\n(By the way, while you don't need なり to read modern texts, you do need である,\nwhich is a formal and literary version of だ.)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-27T02:57:46.963", "id": "100099", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T07:35:34.343", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-27T07:35:34.343", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100093", "post_type": "answer", "score": 8 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100108", "answer_count": 2, "body": "The Phrase i dont understand grammatically is the one within brackets\n\n> ある調査の結果を見てみましょう。この調査では、日本人の大学生とアメリカら日本に来ている留学生に写真を見せて、[\n> それがどんな感情を表している写真か答えてもらいました ]\n\nIf i were to translate this phrase i would end up with: they answered, which\npictures that represent feelings?\n\nand somehow that doesnt make sense.\n\nSo my question is what is どんな connected to. to 写真 or to 感情. And where doese\nthe relative clause for 写真 start and end? And wouldnt the meaning that is\nintended be stated by this following phrase: それがどんな感情を表しているかを答えてもらいました、so the\nword 写真 after 表している is not needed and the particle を should be after the\nquestion marker か。\n\nI hope you can help me understand this point.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-27T15:32:12.013", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100104", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T23:18:47.980", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-27T23:17:25.547", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "56901", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "parsing" ], "title": "Genki 2 Grammar", "view_count": 135 }

[ { "body": "> what is どんな connected to. to 写真 or to 感情. And where does the relative clause\n> for 写真 start and end?\n\nどんな connects to 感情 and どんな・・・表している is the relative clause modifying 写真 (Very\nliterally: what-emotion-expressing photo).\n\n> And wouldn't the meaning that is intended be stated by this following\n> phrase: それがどんな感情を表しているかを答えてもらいました、so the word 写真 after 表している is not needed\n> and the particle を should be after the question marker か。\n\nYour sentence is correct, but を is optional here. The following question is\nrelated:\n\n * [を after particle (であるかを)](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/57145/45489)\n\nSo all of below are possible and mean basically the same in that context.\n\n 1. それがどんな感情を表している **写真か** 答えてもらいました\n 2. それがどんな感情を表している **写真かを** 答えてもらいました\n 3. それがどんな感情を表している **か** 答えてもらいました\n 4. それがどんな感情を表している **かを** 答えてもらいました", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-27T22:52:39.740", "id": "100107", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T22:52:39.740", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "100104", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Let's break this sentence down bit by bit, it'll help you see the grammatical\nstructure of it.\n\nThe entire sentence:\n\n> それがどんな感情を表している写真か答えてもらいました \n> I got the answer to what kind of feeling is that picture representing. \n> (OR) (The other person) answered to what kind of feeling is that picture\n> representing.\n\nStaring from 写真 and the relative clause：\n\n> 写真 picture \n> 感情を表している representing feeling\n\nUsing the relative clause to modify the noun 写真：\n\n> 感情を表している写真 picture that is representing feeling \n> **どんな感情** を表している写真か picture that is representing **what kind of feeling**?\n\nAdding the rest:\n\n> それが **どんな感情** を表している写真か That's a picture that is representing **what kind of\n> feeling**? \n>\n\n> 答えてもらいました receiving (the act of) answering, aka the other person did answer.\n\n> それが **どんな感情** を表している写真か答えてもらいました \n> I got the answer to \"that's a picture that is representing **what kind of\n> feeling**?\" \n> (In more natural English) I got the answer to what kind of feeling is that\n> picture representing. \n> (OR) (The other person) answered to what kind of feeling is that picture\n> representing.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-27T23:18:47.980", "id": "100108", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T23:18:47.980", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "39855", "parent_id": "100104", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vYjYp.jpg)\n\nAbove shows the phrase with the structure highlighted, from the \"Blood Plus\"\nmanga.\n\nMaybe it means \"to decide to be\", being a contraction of にする, with the\ntranslation being \"Over here it's hard to handle just deciding to be the enemy\nof the criminals of the humanity\"?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-27T20:58:36.227", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100105", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T22:33:15.033", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-27T22:33:15.033", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "32588", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "translation" ], "title": "What does 「にすん」 mean in this phrase?", "view_count": 87 }

[ { "body": "Sometimes る can contract to ん. You may have seen 「何してんの？」 in the past.\n\nAdditionally, 「相手にする」is a set phrase meaning 'to deal with'. 'We've got our\nhands full just dealing with human criminals.'", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-27T21:19:24.923", "id": "100106", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-27T21:19:24.923", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "9971", "parent_id": "100105", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100118", "answer_count": 1, "body": ">\n> ありがとうございます。多様性の時代をチャンスとして捉えるという意味ですよね。私も話していてすごく体感するのが、ひと足ふた足抜けてD&Iに取り組んでいらっしゃるので、本当にグローバルなイノベーションにつながると思います。真に多様性の尊重されるような組織をつくれたら、という思いに共感していますし、応援しています。\n\nThis is the conclusion of a talk about equity in the workplace where they\nbrought a guest who works for supposedly leading company in that area\n(双日株式会社｜Sojitz Corporation) Where the host says the phrase :ひと足ふた足抜け\" which i\ncoud not exactly find after searching, the closest thing i found is 足抜けて which\nis defined as つらい状況・境遇などから抜け出すこと。But I do not think this is how it is used\nhere ! Am I correct in my understanding that it means somthing along the lines\nof \"leading by a step or two\" ?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-28T17:25:45.423", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100113", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-29T03:29:24.303", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "50156", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "meaning", "sentence", "idioms" ], "title": "What does ひと足ふた足抜け mean here?", "view_count": 75 }

[ { "body": "Yes, I think your understanding is correct. While ひと足先に and 一歩抜け出す are common\nexpressions, ひと足抜ける is not. Still, it's reasonable to guess it's supposed to\nmean \"他の人より1、2歩先に\" or \"他の人に先駆けて\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-29T02:04:15.160", "id": "100118", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-29T03:29:24.303", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-29T03:29:24.303", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100113", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 女性は「火葬できる日を聞くと、いちばん早くても亡くなってから11日あとでした。\n\n[From this NHK easy\narticle](https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/easy/k10014108761000/k10014108761000.html)\n\nWhat is the meaning of ても here? Is it like \"Even the earliest (date)..\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-28T19:03:47.730", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100114", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-29T02:00:17.047", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-29T02:00:17.047", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "55486", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "words" ], "title": "What does ても mean here?", "view_count": 89 }

[ { "body": "> Is it like \"Even the earliest (date)..\"\n\nYes it is. Except it's not 早く + ても, but 早くて + も. The 早くて is the te-form of 早い,\nand も is just the particle も meaning \"also, even\" as in 私 **も** 人間です(I'm\n**also** a human) or 彼 **も** できない( **Even** he cannot do it).\n\nA te-form is needed when you connect a clause to は or も to discuss it as the\ntopic, as seen in the following examples, normal 終止形 would not work and the\nte-form is required.\n\n(Copied from my previous answers)\n\n> 全部食べ **る** もいい ❌ 全部食べ **て** もいい ⭕️ \n> 行かな **い** はダメ ❌ 行かな **くて** はダメ ⭕️ \n>\n\nTherefore:\n\n> いちばん早 **い** も亡くなって... ❌ \n> いちばん早 **くて** も亡くなって... ⭕️", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-28T23:54:51.247", "id": "100116", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-28T23:54:51.247", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "39855", "parent_id": "100114", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Are there good Japanese equivalents for controversial (\"Trump is a\ncontroversial figure\") and controversy (\"The high school's new admission\npolicy caused a huge controversy among both parents and students.\")? I see\nwords like 問題, 議論, and 論争 in the dictionary but I'm not sure they capture the\nEnglish meaning and nuance.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-28T23:53:35.910", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100115", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-29T02:03:28.830", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "35304", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "word-choice" ], "title": "Controversy, controversial -- Japanese equivalents?", "view_count": 115 }

[ { "body": "I'd suggest\n[物議を醸す](https://kotobank.jp/word/%E7%89%A9%E8%AD%B0%E3%82%92%E9%86%B8%E3%81%99-619098)\nas a relative clause, as in トランプは物議を醸す政治家 (Trump is a controversial political\nfigure).\n\n物議を醸す is an established saying, literally meaning \"to brew controversy\"\n\n問題 simply means a problem, like a problem with car or a problem on a test, and\nhas nothing to do with controversy.\n\n議論 is simply discussion, no overtone on the discussion being \"controversial\".\nIt can be a friendly 議論.\n\n論争, or alternatively 争論, means an argument, aka a heated discussion where\npeople argue over an issue.\n\nAll these three words are nouns, and cannot be used directly as adjectives. If\nyou say 論争な事情 people will like be confused what do you mean.\n\nOther than the idiomatic 物議を醸す, you can, however, say 論争を引き起こす, like\n論争を引き起こすニュース, literally \"News that brings up argument\", aka \"controversial\nnews\"", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-29T02:03:28.830", "id": "100117", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-29T02:03:28.830", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "39855", "parent_id": "100115", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Why would なら be used if なら is conditional? Couldn't you just use は?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-29T02:32:19.947", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100119", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-03T02:18:38.737", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54182", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning" ], "title": "Why is なら used in this sentence この内容なら勉強になるね。", "view_count": 118 }

[ { "body": "Like Felipe's comment mentioned, I don't quite understand why you would think\na conditional is not ok in this sentence. In fact, you can translate this\nsentence literally into English and it would make perfect sense.\n\n> この内容なら勉強になるね \n> If (it's) this content, (I) will study.\n\nAlthough I think \"I will be taught\" is a better translation for 勉強になる, as it's\na phrase you say when you get to learn something new.\n\nCan you use は? Yes absolutely you can, but the meaning would change a little.\n\n> この内容は勉強になるね \n> As for this content, (I) will study.\n\nA very subtle change in emphasis of the sentence, if you can see how the two\nEnglish sentences differ, you can understand how the two Japanese sentences\ndiffer.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-29T04:28:12.497", "id": "100122", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-29T04:28:12.497", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "39855", "parent_id": "100119", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100124", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I came across this line from YOASOBI's song 「アイドル」:\n\n> 流れる汗も綺麗なアクア \n> ルビーを隠したこの瞼 \n> **歌い踊り舞う** 私はマリア \n> そう嘘はとびきりの愛だ\n\nI'm having some trouble with the bolded part and I want to break it up\ngrammatically. \nI've tried to look up [歌い](https://jisho.org/search/%E6%AD%8C%E3%81%84),\n[踊り](https://jisho.org/search/%E8%B8%8A%E3%82%8A),\n[踊り舞う](https://jisho.org/search/%E8%B8%8A%E3%82%8A%E8%88%9E%E3%81%86),\n[歌い踊り](https://jisho.org/search/%E6%AD%8C%E3%81%84%E8%B8%8A%E3%82%8A) and\n[歌い踊り舞う](https://jisho.org/search/%E6%AD%8C%E3%81%84%E8%B8%8A%E3%82%8A%E8%88%9E%E3%81%86)\non Jisho but could find only 踊り and 舞う. This makes me think that it isn't a\nsingle verb but some compound verb using the ます-stem of 歌う and 踊る as in:\n\n> 歌う + 踊る + 舞う = 歌い ~~ます~~ + 踊る + 舞う = 歌い踊り ~~ます~~ + 舞う = 歌い踊り舞う\n\nWhat I'd like to understand this construct, translate it and if possible find\nsome alternative ways to say the same thing. \nSo for the first part, about understanding the grammar and the sentence, is\nthis the continuative form of 歌う and 踊る? And then it would translate as\n\"Singing and dancing while whirling\\fluttering about\" or just as an elaborate\nway of saying \"singing and dancing\"?\n\nFor alternatives, how about「歌い踊る」? Because both 踊る and 舞う can mean \"to dance\"\nor maybe use ながら to imply that both are happening at the same time「歌いながら踊る」?\nMaybe it can be replaced by 「歌って踊って舞う」 or use ながら somewhere in between to\nimply that both are happening at the same time?\n\nThanks!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-29T06:42:32.210", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100123", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-29T07:28:55.873", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "41223", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation", "song-lyrics", "compound-verbs" ], "title": "Is 歌い踊り舞う a compound verb or something else?", "view_count": 108 }

[ { "body": "歌い踊り舞う(私) is not a compound verb listed in a dictionary. It's just three verbs\nconnected using [中止法](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/9771/5010). In\nother words, it's roughly the same as 歌って踊って舞う(私).\n\n踊る and 舞う both translate to \"to dance\", but they refer to different types of\ndancing. 踊る refers to dynamic and rhythmical ones, while 舞う refers to\nrelatively slow and elegant ones like in [this\nvideo](https://youtu.be/GPIJ6aUDkio). See [this\narticle](http://kokugojuku.com/blog2317), too.\n\nBy the way,\n[舞い踊る](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E8%88%9E%E8%B8%8A%E3%82%8B/) is a\nlexicalized compound verb, but it's not used in this song.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-29T07:19:26.333", "id": "100124", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-29T07:28:55.873", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-29T07:28:55.873", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100123", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100126", "answer_count": 1, "body": "What is the resulting pitch accent when one appends ～ざる to 平板 (する, 言う, 寝る) and\n起伏 (来る, 持つ, 食べる) verbs?\n\nIntuitively, I would have assumed that the resulting word falls in the same\nclass (平板／起伏) as the simplex, but not only do I come across both pitches for\ne.g. 行かざる on\n[Youglish](https://youglish.com/pronounce/%22%E8%A1%8C%E3%81%8B%E3%81%96%E3%82%8B%22/japanese),\nI was also corrected by a native speaker when I said 振らざる{LHHH} instead of\n振らざる{LHHL}.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-29T17:29:44.220", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100125", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-30T04:29:37.650", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56734", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "verbs", "pitch-accent" ], "title": "Pitch accent of ～ざる", "view_count": 443 }

[ { "body": "-ざる always turns the word into nakatakagata. [○ざる]{LHL}, [○○ざる]{LHHL}, [○○○ざる]{LHHHL}, etc. This even applies to atamadaka verbs such as [持つ]{HL} (→[もたざる]{LHHL}) and [見る]{HL} (→[みざる]{LHL}).\n\nSome suffixes force a certain accent type. For another example, -型 always\nheibanifies the original word.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-29T23:33:55.767", "id": "100126", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-30T04:29:37.650", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-30T04:29:37.650", "last_editor_user_id": "816", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100125", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100131", "answer_count": 1, "body": "How to say [\"have a\nchild\"](https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/have-a-child)\n(= to be or become a parent) in Japanese?\n\nFor instance in a sentence such as \"We are planning to have child/baby\".\n\nCan we say \"子供をする\" or \"子供が欲しいです\"?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-30T10:52:20.520", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100127", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-30T18:01:45.817", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "41663", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "words" ], "title": "How to say \"have a child\" in Japanese?", "view_count": 175 }

[ { "body": "Just as in English, there are multiple ways to say the same thing in Japanese:\n\n * 子供ができる to (be able to) have children. できる is the potential-form of する, which denotes ability, but when put into past tense it can simply be a statement of result. Ex. 同僚に子供ができました would mean \"my coworker had a child\" and not \"my coworker had (been able to) have a child\". Although you could argue that these two sentences mean the same thing even in English, and Japanese should literally translate to the latter.\n * 子供を作る to make a child （You wanna say 子供を作る instead of 子供をする. The latter isn't natural）\n * 子供を迎える to welcome a child\n * 子供を産む to give birth to a child\n\n子供が欲しい, of course, means \"I want children\", and the meaning isn't the same as\n\"to have a child\". But yes this is probably the most natural way to say \"I\nwant a child\". Alternatively you could say 子供を作りたい, ex. あなたと子供を作りたい (I wanna\nhave/make children with you)\n\nInstead of 子供(children), 赤ちゃん(baby) can be used in all the phrases above as\nwell.\n\n### EDIT\n\nI want to expand a little on the discussion about できる indicating potentiality\nin its present tense but indicates a state of result in its past tense できた. In\nfact, the Japanese verb できる can be considered a one-to-one correspondent of\nthe English verbal phrase \"to be able to\", which, if you haven't noted, **also\nindicates potentiality in its present tense but indicates a state of result in\nits past tense**.\n\n> I am able to build a house. \n> Intended meaning: I have the ability, it is potential for me to build a\n> house.\n\n> I was able to build a house this summer. \n> Intended meaning: I **did** build a house this summer. \n> Not: During this summer, I had the ability to build a house.\n\nWhen you put \"to be able to\" in its past tense, the intended meaning is that\nthe thing is already done as a result, not just that you are have the\ncapability with no indication on the result.\n\nThe same logic goes for Japanese できる. When you say 子供ができる, it means you have\nthe ability to have a child, but when you say 子供ができた, it means \"were able to\nhave a child\", aka \"did have a child\"\n\nThe same goes for negative:\n\n> 彼女に子供ができない She is not able have a child(She is not capable) \n> 去年、彼女に子供ができなかった She was not able to have a child last year(She tried, but\n> she failed. She is not necessarily not capable of pregnancy, it's just that\n> as the \"state of result\" she **did not** have a child last year. Maybe she\n> will this year.)", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-30T17:45:04.383", "id": "100131", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-30T18:01:45.817", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-30T18:01:45.817", "last_editor_user_id": "39855", "owner_user_id": "39855", "parent_id": "100127", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "To translate the sentence: \"Who became the tallest?\", which is more natural?\n\n> 誰が一番背が高くなりましたか。or 誰が背が一番高くなりましたか。\n\nOn Busuu (language learning app), the correct option was the former (一番 before\n背, rather than before 高く).\n\nShouldn't 一番 be before the adjective?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-30T13:21:43.440", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100128", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-01T22:16:45.637", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-01T09:31:38.423", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "56862", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "adverbs", "word-order" ], "title": "「一番背が高くなります。」 or 「背が一番高くなります。」?", "view_count": 112 }

[ { "body": "As a translation of _the tallest_ , both 背が一番高い and 一番背が高い work fine. For\nexample:\n\n * クラスで一番背が高いのは太郎だ\n * クラスで背が一番高いのは太郎だ\n\nare both natural and mean _It is Taro that is the tallest in the class_.\n\nAs for the sentences in question, 誰が背が一番高くなりましたか is less idiomatic just\nbecause of the two consecutive が-phrases.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-01T09:13:41.270", "id": "100136", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-01T09:39:21.367", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-01T09:39:21.367", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "100128", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I agree with sundowner that the following two (cleft) sentences sound equally\nnatural.\n\n> クラスで一番背が高いのは太郎だ。\n>\n> クラスで背が一番高いのは太郎だ。\n\nHowever, I would prefer the first order in the following pair as a simple\nstatement about Taro being the tallest in the class.\n\n> 太郎はクラスで一番背が高い。\n>\n> 太郎はクラスで背が一番高い。\n\nThough the difference is very subtle, the second sentence seems to have extra\nfocus on the fact that the class are compared in height and not in other\naspects, but it is not always necessary if you just want to say Taro is the\ntallest in the class. This is not a problem in the first pair because the\nfirst part of each (cleft) sentence essentially declares that the class are\ncompared in height before it goes on to answer who wins in that competition in\nthe second part.\n\nBetween the two sentences you asked about, I would choose the first one for\nthis reason as well as because the second has two が-phrases back to back.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-01T22:16:45.637", "id": "100143", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-01T22:16:45.637", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "100128", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100130", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In the little busters VN, one of the heroines 鈴 created a cleaning schedule\nfor the male dorm toilets. But in the schedule, only the guys in her friend\ngroup are included, in a repeating manner. This is expressed the following\nway:\n\n> 『そうじスケジュール』 \n> 『５月１７日（木）：直枝理樹』 \n> 『５月２４日（木）：井ノ原まさと』 \n> 『５月さいご：けんご』 \n> 『６月はじめ：きょーすけ』 \n> 『次：りき』 \n> 『その次：まさと』 \n> 『次：けんご』 \n> 『次あいつ』 \n> 『次もうかかんでもわかるだろ』\n\nAs you can see, the names keep getting repeated, until the protag says the\nlast line, which I could kinda understand what he meant by it, but what is かかん\nhere? Or is this perhaps some kind of pattern, かかんでもわかる?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-30T14:52:27.157", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100129", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-30T15:41:05.197", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-30T15:41:05.197", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "51874", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "meaning", "nuances" ], "title": "次もうかかんでもわかるだろ - What does かかんでも mean here?", "view_count": 62 }

[ { "body": "It's 書かんでも, Kansai-ben for 書かなくても.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-30T15:39:59.910", "id": "100130", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-30T15:39:59.910", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "100129", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100134", "answer_count": 2, "body": "In\n\n> お店や学校や駅が **近くに** あります\n\nwould there be a subtle difference in meaning if 近く was used here instead of\n近くに? E.g.\n\n> お店や学校や駅が **近く** あります", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-30T20:51:56.810", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100132", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-30T23:59:43.803", "last_edit_date": "2023-06-30T21:38:39.737", "last_editor_user_id": "51280", "owner_user_id": "51280", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "nuances", "particle-に" ], "title": "Difference between 近くに and 近く in a sentence", "view_count": 186 }

[ { "body": "As per @aguijonazo's comment, only the first sentence is correct. I think your\nconfusion comes from that 近く is **both an adverb and a noun**.\n\nThe adverb 近く is the adverb form of the adjective 近い, meaning \"close to/near\".\n\n近く, however, is also a noun meaning \"places nearby\", or \"the surrounding\nareas\". A synonym in Japanese would be 付近. When you say 近くにある, that means\nsomething is nearby, or \"in the proximity areas\". You can also say 近くのXX or\n付近のXX meaning the XX nearby.\n\nUsing the adverb 近く to modify ある is unnatural in Japanese, so you'd want to\nuse the noun 近く, which needs a に when paired with ある to denote location.\n\nThe same goes for the antonym of 近い: 遠い. 遠く is also both an adverb of 遠く, and\na noun meaning \"places far way\". 遠くへ行きたい would mean \"I wanna go to far\nplaces\", and 遠くのXX means \"the XX far away\".", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-30T23:04:47.470", "id": "100133", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-30T23:04:47.470", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "39855", "parent_id": "100132", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "近くに and 近く as adverb mean different things. The former is _near_ and the\nlatter _soon (temporally near)_.\n\nSo お店や学校や駅が近くにあります is the only possibility as in\n\n * 彼は近くに住んでいます He lives near here. (here is implicit)\n\nThis 近く is a noun meaning _neighborhood._\n\n* * *\n\n近くあります is possible, meaning _to happen in the near future_.\n\n * 日米首脳会談が近くあります. JP-US summit meeting will take place soon.\n\nI guess **近く** 日米首脳会談があります is better; other verbs are possible 近く日米首脳会談が行われます.\nThis 近く is an adverb, but a bit formal and not (often) used in usual\nconversations.\n\n* * *\n\nFor comparison\n\n * ケーキ屋が近くにオープンします\n * ケーキ屋が近くオープンします\n\nThe former is an ordinary sentence meaning _a pastry shop will open nearby_.\nThe latter is a bit stiff way of saying _a pastry shop will open in the near\nfuture_.\n\nTechnically ケーキ屋が近く近くにオープンします is possible, but of course, this is never used.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-06-30T23:59:43.803", "id": "100134", "last_activity_date": "2023-06-30T23:59:43.803", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "100132", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "もっと楽な道ってないもんかしら？\n\nHow would the meaning change if i removed the もの?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-01T11:17:26.680", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100137", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-01T11:45:12.413", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55784", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "what is the もの in this sentence?", "view_count": 114 }

[ { "body": "もの is a sentence final particle here. It adds a slight sense of\ndissatisfaction.\n\n[Etymology of\nもん・もの](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/11703/etymology-\nof-%e3%82%82%e3%82%93-%e3%82%82%e3%81%ae)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-01T11:44:51.847", "id": "100138", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-01T11:45:12.413", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-01T11:45:12.413", "last_editor_user_id": "56924", "owner_user_id": "56924", "parent_id": "100137", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "My question is about a line from a the song \"Innocent Arrogance\". The relevant\nverse goes like this:\n\n> 見せたくないものばかりを \n> 見せないから \n> 大事なものさえも見つからない \n> 綺麗なままでいることは **できないじゃない** \n> 僕らは 僕らは 進もう\n\nI've marked in bold what I perceive as double negation. However, multiple\ntranslation and Google Translate indicate that there is no double negation\nhere. The translations I was able to find say that it means \"You can't stay\npretty\\clean forever\" but I don't see how that is possible when できない is\nimmediately followed by じゃない.\n\nThanks!", "comment_count": 7, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-01T12:45:03.587", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100139", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-01T14:28:23.713", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-01T14:28:23.713", "last_editor_user_id": "542", "owner_user_id": "41223", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "song-lyrics", "negation", "tag-question" ], "title": "Why できないじゃない isn't double negation?", "view_count": 58 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100160", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I'm watching _Koukyoushihen Eureka Seven_ , and I'm noticing several uses if\nthe titular form, like this one:\n\n> クダンの限界を超えた時に選択をする **であろう** スカブコーラルの考えまでもな‌\n\nSince I can't find anything specific about this form I'm guessing is the usual\n\"probably\", like in\n[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/17672/the-meaning-of-v-\nta%E3%81%A7%E3%81%82%E3%82%8D%E3%81%86) answer, but the subtitles translate it\nwithout any kind of dubitative:\n\n> Even to how the scub‌ corals will think and decide when we surpass the\n> Question Limitation\n\nSo I was wondering if this form has any particular meaning, of it can just be\ntranslated as a form of weakening/dubitative, so the example should mean\nsomething on the line of \"Also the thought of the Scub Corals, that could/will\n**probably** decide when the kudan limit is surpassed\".", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-01T14:51:40.253", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100140", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-03T02:45:49.520", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "35362", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "volitional-form" ], "title": "Meaning of verb + であろう", "view_count": 108 }

[ { "body": "This であろう is indeed what you think it is. It does express a supposition. In\nthis particular context, however, it seems this supposition is not of the\nspeaker but of someone called アドロック as the line before that says:\n\n> アドロックは、そこまで読んでいたというわけだ\n\nIt is hard to tell who does 選択 without fully knowing the context. If it’s\nスカブコーラル, the sentence would be literally translated as something like:\n\n> [Adroc read (= understood or anticipated)] even (up to) the thought of the\n> Scub Corals that [they (= the Scub Corals)] would likely choose when [we]\n> surpassed the Limit of Questions.\n\nThe translation in the subtitles seems OK.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-03T02:45:49.520", "id": "100160", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-03T02:45:49.520", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "100140", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "On the Wikipedia entry for jurassic park it reads as follows :\n\n>\n> 現実では、2012年のマードック大学の研究によって、DNAの半減期が521年で、DNAの復元に必要な長さのDNA断片が残るのは約100万年前までと推定され、恐竜の絶滅から約6500万年が経過した現代では、生息当時のDNAを用いた恐竜の再生は実現不可能であると判明した\n\nSaying that dinosaur can not be revived since a DNA of sufficient lenght - for\nrevival-could at best survive for 1 million years while dinosaurs have been\nextinct for at least 65 millions years . What i find troublesome is this\nsentece:\n\n> DNAの復元に必要な長さのDNA断片が残るのは約100万年前までと推定され\n\nThe original English that this is translated of reads : “\n\n> If the decay rate is accurate then we predict that DNA fragments of\n> sufficient length will preserve in frozen fossil bone from around one\n> million years in age,” .\n\nshould not the translation be somthing like DNAの復元に必要な長さのあるDNA断片が残るのは/\nDNAの復元に必要な長さあるDNA断片が残るのは ? Because from i what i understand\nDNAの復元に必要な長さのDNA断片が残るのは translate to : \" and it is estimated that DNA\nfragments of the length required for DNA restoration will only remain until\nabout one million years ago\" .", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-01T16:29:08.457", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100141", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-03T02:41:26.983", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-01T22:28:07.403", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "50156", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "sentence" ], "title": "Is there a difference between using の and ある in this sentence?", "view_count": 114 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100145", "answer_count": 1, "body": "For example,「ゼロではないけど、あまり多くない。」\n\n多くない = It is not much あまり多くない = It is not very much\n\nIs 多くない by itself “smaller” than あまり多くない？ In other words, does あまり lessen the\nstrength of the negative verb 多くない? Or, on the contrary, does あまり reinforce\nthe negative verb and make あまり多くない smaller than 多くない by itself？", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-02T00:00:51.387", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100144", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-02T08:35:07.440", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-02T00:03:19.680", "last_editor_user_id": "51536", "owner_user_id": "51536", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "word-usage" ], "title": "Does あまり “increase” or “lessen” the negative verb?", "view_count": 236 }

[ { "body": "あまり is \"(not) very\", and the literal meaning of あまり多くない is \"not very large in\nnumber/volume\". Likewise, あまり嬉しくない is \"not very happy\" rather than \"very\nunhappy\".\n\nAlthough あまり is primarily used to \"soften\" the sentence, it does not\nnecessarily correspond to the objective degree of largeness, happiness, etc.\nThe main difference between 嬉しくない and あまり嬉しくない is that the former sounds\ndirect whereas the latter sounds mild and euphemistic; the objective\ndifference in the degree of happiness is often unimportant. When you hear\nsomeone say あまり嬉しくなかった, you should not take it like \"Oh, so you were happy at\nleast a little, if not _very_ happy.\"\n\nTo make a clear contrast between \"large\" and \"very large\", you can use\nそこまで(は), それほど(は) or そんなに(は).\n\n * 多いけど、そこまで多くはない。 \nThere are many, but not _that_ many.\n\n * そこまでは嬉しくなかった。 \nI was not _that_ happy (although I was happy at least a little).\n\nOn the other hand, 多いけどあまり多くない simply sounds confusing.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-02T04:25:53.953", "id": "100145", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-02T08:35:07.440", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-02T08:35:07.440", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100144", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100163", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 私たちの会社は、従業員のうち、エンジニアは、技術力を持つ重要な存在であるとし、経営の基盤として認めている。\n\nMy own analysis is: \n1.In this sentence, 「とし」is the continuative form of 「とする」. \n2.the phrase before 「とし」 should be seen as a clause， which means the structure\nshould be\n\n> 私たちの会社は、(従業員のうち、エンジニアは、技術力を持つ重要な存在である)とし、経営の基盤として認めている。\n\nand the subject of 「し」and「認めている」 is 「私たちの会社」. \n3.We can divide the whole sentence into 2 parts:\n\n> 私たちの会社は、(従業員のうち、エンジニアは、技術力を持つ重要な存在である)とする \n> 私たちの会社は、経営の基盤として認めている\n\nI think the second part of this sentence is using 「AをBとして認めている」 and it have\nomitted the object which is obviously the same word 「エンジニア」which appears in\nthe former clause and should be omitted. If I **don't mind being long-winded**\n, the complete sentence should be:\n\n> 私たちの会社は、従業員のうち、エンジニアは、技術力を持つ重要な存在であるとし、 **エンジニアを** 経営の基盤として認めている。\n\nDoes my analysis make sense?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-02T14:46:11.103", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100147", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-04T03:18:50.217", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-02T23:55:12.400", "last_editor_user_id": "56516", "owner_user_id": "56516", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "syntax" ], "title": "How to analyze the structure of this sentence?", "view_count": 138 }

[ { "body": "Your analysis seems mostly correct. Just note that は is fundamentally a\ntopic/contrast marker, and it can mark both a subject and an object. So the\nfollowing _is_ a valid sentence:\n\n> 私たちの会社 **は** 、従業員のうちエンジニア **は** 経営の基盤として認めている。\n\nThe first は marks the topic of the entire sentence (the subject of 認めている), and\nthe second は marks the object of 認めている (replaced を for emphasis/contrast).\nTherefore, you may also simply think エンジニアは is a _shared_ argument that\nmodifies two verb phrases (重要な存在であるとする and 基盤として認めている).", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-04T03:18:50.217", "id": "100163", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-04T03:18:50.217", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100147", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "What is the meaning of いいなり in the phrase\n\n> セーブするにはポケモンレポートこまめにかくといいなり", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-02T14:53:47.113", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100148", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-03T00:41:20.623", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-02T16:33:04.527", "last_editor_user_id": "7944", "owner_user_id": "42348", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "expressions" ], "title": "Meaning of いいなり", "view_count": 132 }

[ { "body": "It appears this character is using なり, an old copula roughly equivalent to だ\nor です in the modern day, as just something they say at the end of their\nsentences to give them an 'old' feel. なり did not follow し adjectives, the\nprecursor to い adjectives, as し could stand on its own. かくとよし would be\nequivalent to かくといいです or かくといいよ (though I'm not sure if the と conditional was\nused at the time)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-02T16:03:14.577", "id": "100149", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-02T16:03:14.577", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "9971", "parent_id": "100148", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100156", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In conversation, we use \"of course,\" \"naturally\" \"as you know,\" etc. to\nannounce \"I'm about to say something that you know and is obvious; but I need\nto say it as background to what I'll say afterwards, just to remind you of the\ncontext.\"\n\nAn example might be \"Of course, in 2021 Covid travel restrictions were in\nplace, so using it as a base year for comparisons of tourism activity is\nproblematic.\" (It's also true that in the wrong hands such expressions can\nsound haughty, such as \"Of course, in 1648 the Treaty of Westphalia was\ncompleted...\" when your interlocutor probably has no idea of what the Treaty\nof Westphalia even is. But I still think such expressions are useful and, used\nproperly, respectful of the listener.)\n\nAt any rate, the three (possible) Japanese equivalents that I know of are 当たり前\n(あたりまえ ), もちろん, and 当然 (maybe 当然ながら? 当然ですが?) Are there other, more appropriate\nterms? Or perhaps the whole issue is less important in Japanese? Or perhaps\nfor a Japanese speaker, my question is seen in a much different way than I'm\nstating it, and such expressions are used in a much different way?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-02T16:22:40.330", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100150", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-03T01:39:19.450", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "35304", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "usage" ], "title": "Saying \"of course,\" \"naturally\" in conversation", "view_count": 711 }

[ { "body": "当然ながら is the safest in formal opinion statements, academic articles, etc.\n当たり前だが is okay, but I think it has a larger risk of sounding haughty. もちろん is\nalso okay, but it tends to sound slightly less academic. 無論 (works like a\nstandalone conjunctive) is another option, but it's a pompous expression that\nshould be used sparingly.\n\nIn polite speech, you can use もちろん, ご存じでしょうが, ご存じかもしれませんが, 当然と思われるかもしれませんが,\nand so on.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-03T01:22:32.383", "id": "100156", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-03T01:22:32.383", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100150", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I just bought a japanese maple tree - in Oregon, USA - and the variety is\nlisted as 'shiji no hoshi' (English letters, no kanji of course). I know hoshi\nis star; for shiji Google translate gave me Instruction and Direction. At\nfirst I thought direction, i.e. the maple tree will grow in the direction of\nthe stars. But wouldn't that be 'hoshi no shiji'? So I'm still not sure what\nshiji no hoshi is supposed to be.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-03T23:22:25.653", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100161", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-04T05:28:48.260", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-04T05:28:48.260", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "41300", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "meaning", "translation" ], "title": "Meaning of shiji no hoshi", "view_count": 107 }

[ { "body": "Searching in Google\n([1](https://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+maple+%22shiji+no+hoshi%22) ->\n[2](https://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+maple+%22shigi+no+hoshi%22) ->\n[3](https://www.google.com/search?q=japanese+maple+%22shigi+no+hoshi%22+%E6%98%9F)\n-> [4](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E9%B4%AB%E3%81%AE%E6%98%9F%22))\nindicates that \"shiji no hoshi\" is misspelling for \"shigi no hoshi\", in\nJapanese script: 「[鴫](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%B4%AB)の星」.\n\n鴫 means \"[sandpiper](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sandpiper) (any of various\nsmall wading birds of the family Scolopacidae)\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-04T00:44:59.540", "id": "100162", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-04T00:44:59.540", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56758", "parent_id": "100161", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100165", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I was reading about the [formation of 福井 Prefecture](https://www.library-\narchives.pref.fukui.lg.jp/fukui/07/kenshi/T5/T5-0a1-02-04-01-03.htm) recently\nand I was a bit confused about two sections quoting old texts:\n\n> 南越ノ民ト加能越中ノ民トハ、常ニ軋轢シテ氷炭相容レサルノ情況\n\nMy interpretation is that this means: The people of southern 越 and the people\nof 加賀, 能登 and 越中 are in perpetual strife. They are in a state of 氷炭相容レサル.\n\nI'm not sure what the レサル means, but I suppose 氷炭相容レサル is likely the same as\n氷炭相容れず, indicating さる＝ず. I guess really maybe it means ざる?\n\n> 異日或ハ動乱ノ基トナルモ亦知ルヘカラサルナリ\n\nMy interpretation is that this is trying to say: One must be aware that one\nday this might be the basis of upheaval.\n\nFrom context and with the idea that さる＝ず. I guess that へらからさる means べからざる. Is\nthis right and these differences are just due to some typography in older\nJapanese? Or is this a transcription error? (I also saw a number of instances\nof ルヘカラサル on Shounagon so I'm not that certain of the transcription error\nexplanation)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-04T03:29:05.313", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100164", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-04T04:07:27.417", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-04T04:04:02.727", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "10045", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "meaning", "orthography", "obsolete-kana" ], "title": "Does ヘカラサル mean べからざる?", "view_count": 371 }

[ { "body": "Yes, this 相容レサル is 相容れざる in modern orthography, and ざる is a negation\nauxiliary.\n[氷炭相容れず](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E6%B0%B7%E7%82%AD%E7%9B%B8%E5%AE%B9%E3%82%8C%E3%81%9A/)\nis an idiom (although modern speakers use 水と油 much more commonly for this\npurpose). Likewise, 知ルヘカラサルナリ is 知るべからざるなり in modern orthography. The history\nof the voiced consonant mark (゛) is long, but its use was optional until\nrelatively recently.\n\n> #### [濁点](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%BF%81%E7%82%B9)\n>\n>\n> 濁点は現代仮名遣いではほとんどの場合濁音に付されるが、それ以前の仮名遣いでは必ずしも付されない。例えば、法令に濁点が付されるようになったのは1927年（昭和2年）からであり、1945年（昭和20年）の終戦の詔書でも濁点は用いられていない。", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-04T04:07:27.417", "id": "100165", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-04T04:07:27.417", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100164", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I was translating a sentence from a lore book for Saint Seiya. It's describing\nthe parts of the Underworld and I guess the main story beat that occurs there.\nIt definitely uses certain pieces of grammar I know to be \"old sounding,\"\npoetic language, such as using the masu-stem of a verb as the connecting form\nwhere modern language would expect the te form.\n\nThat said, I can't for the life of me figure out why this sentence ends in\nことに. Any insight?\n\n>\n> 一の谷(血の池)、二の谷(森林)、三の谷(熱砂)と３つの全く異なる谷からなる六番目の獄。第二獄でルネの裁きを受け、戦いに明け暮れていた星矢は、この第六獄一の谷血の池地獄に飛ばされることに。\n\nI roughly translate this as:\n\nThe Sixth Prison is comprised of three separate parts: The First Valley (The\nPond of Blood), The Second Valley (The Woods), and The Third Valley (The Fiery\nDesert). After receiving Lune's judgment in The Second Prison, Seiya, who had\nbeen doing nothing but battle, was condemned to the Sixth Prison First\nValley's Pond of Blood.\n\nFor this translation, I basically have paid no the ことに at the end no mind. Is\nthere any nuance it's adding that I'm missing? Is it maybe something like\n\"ended up?\"", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-04T07:17:58.833", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100166", "last_activity_date": "2023-09-01T09:38:36.350", "last_edit_date": "2023-09-01T09:38:36.350", "last_editor_user_id": "10531", "owner_user_id": "56731", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "omission" ], "title": "Ending a sentence in ことに?", "view_count": 148 }

[ { "body": "ことになる is shortened as ことに here, or in other words, the verb なる is omitted. You\ncan think of it as an ellipsis, too. This happens mostly in written language\nand when the space is limited, and I suppose in poems, too, with their own\nconstraints in length and meter.\n\nIn this context, 飛ばされる is not much different from 飛ばされることになる, so you don't\nlose much in skipping ことに instead of adding になる. Strictly speaking, ことになる\nmakes it clear that the event happens in future.\n\nIn general, verbs at the end can be omitted when they are easy to infer. (It\ngives an impression of being shortened for some purpose, though, kind of like\nheadlinese.)\n\n> 彼は新幹線で東京へ行く。 \n> 彼は新幹線で東京へ。 (The verb is omitted but can be plausibly predicted.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-08-26T05:34:01.697", "id": "100796", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-26T05:34:01.697", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "10531", "parent_id": "100166", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100178", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've come across this in the following sentence:\n\n> 油断だらけのこの背中\n\n油断 means \"reckless\" or \"negligence\" and だらけ means \"full of\" or \"riddle with\".\nWhile I can decipher(?) the meaning of the sentence as a whole to mean \"This\nback full of openings\" or something like but I can't fathom the meaning of the\ncombination 油断だらけ.\n\nIs it simply \"Riddled with negligence\"? Can I use だらけ with other words like 穴\nto say that something is riddle with holes or 虫刺されだらけ to say that something is\nriddle with bites from insects?\n\nThanks", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-04T18:52:18.243", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100167", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-05T14:22:03.377", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "41223", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "word-usage", "compounds" ], "title": "Understanding the usage of だらけ", "view_count": 90 }

[ { "body": "As far as the literal translation goes, yes, it is simply \"this back riddled\nwith negligence\". Grammatically, -だらけ is a suffix that forms a no-adjective.\nLike \"riddled with ～\", \"～だらけ\" is used with many undesirable (and usually\ncountable) things, like so:\n\n * 欠点だらけの人\n * 傷だらけの顔\n * この文章は漢字の間違いだらけだ。\n * 穴だらけのセキュリティー\n\nA 背中 doesn't \"have\" 油断, and 油断 is not really countable, so 油断だらけの背中 sounds\nlike a little poetic/literary expression to me.\n\nOn the other hand, these are incorrect:\n\n * ❌水だらけのプール (say 水でいっぱいのプール instead)\n * ❌笑顔だらけの顔 (say 笑顔でいっぱいの顔 instead)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-05T14:16:55.350", "id": "100178", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-05T14:22:03.377", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-05T14:22:03.377", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100167", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> だから、一緒に行動するなら、この気まずさを少しでもほぐしておきたい。 \n> ここは、俺が大人になるとこだよなと思い、歩み寄ったものの。\n\nWhat exactly is the use of ものの。 in this sentence? The character had a fight\nwith his friend and because they need to work together, he says want to clear\nup the awkwardness.\n\n> ここは、俺が大人になるとこだよなと思い、歩み寄ったものの。\n\nIf I got it right the first part is akin \"Here I'll become an adult\" like\n\"I'll act as an adult\"\n\n> 歩み寄ったものの。\n\n\"Although I tried to compromise\"?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-04T18:56:13.343", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100168", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-04T10:08:56.157", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-05T08:32:39.420", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "55492", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "particle-の", "reading-comprehension", "sentence-final-particles" ], "title": "Meaning of ものの。 in this sentence", "view_count": 136 }

[ { "body": "Yes, this ものの is \"although\", and you can find lots of examples\n[here](https://jlptsensei.com/learn-japanese-\ngrammar/%E3%82%82%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AE-monono-meaning/). However, this sentence\nis special in that the corresponding main clause has been intentionally left\nout, effectively leaving the reader dangling. So it's more like this:\n\n> 歩み寄ったものの。 \n> I tried to compromise, however... (end of the sentence)\n\nThe sentence might have been a little easier to understand if there had been\nan ellipsis after ものの. Usually, you can expect the corresponding bad\nconsequence is described in the next sentence.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-05T09:12:45.753", "id": "100177", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-05T09:12:45.753", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100168", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100175", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've come across this sentence:\n\n> 脅かそうとしてたのか？\n\nFirst, I'd like to verify that おどかそう here is the volitional form and not\nsomething like [そう](https://jisho.org/word/%E3%81%9D%E3%81%86).\n\nIf that is indeed the case, then I've been wondering how the sentence would\nchange (if at all) if it used 脅かす instead of 脅かそう.\n\nFor context (Spoilers for それでも歩は寄せてくる chapter 39):\n\n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QNAP5.jpg)\n\nHow does the emphasis or nuances of the sentence change if it was written as:\n\n> 脅かすとしてたのか？", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-04T19:04:39.837", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100169", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-05T01:43:05.717", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "41223", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "volitional-form" ], "title": "The emphasis of using the volitional form", "view_count": 79 }

[ { "body": "脅かそう is indeed the volitional form of 脅かす. If \"to try/attempt to surprise\n(me)\" is the intended meaning, you **must** use a volitional form before とする.\nAlways.\n\n * [JLPT N3 Grammar ようとする (you to suru)](https://jlptsensei.com/learn-japanese-grammar/%E3%82%88%E3%81%86%E3%81%A8%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B-you-to-suru-meaning/)\n\n脅かすとする is totally different. It's an uncommon, colloquial version of 脅かすことにする\nmeaning \"to decide to surprise\". For this usage, see: [What does verb+とする\nmean?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/34137/5010) This pattern is seldom\nused in the past tense, and \"Was this because she had already made a decision\nto surprise me?\" makes no sense in this context, anyway.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-05T01:34:36.990", "id": "100175", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-05T01:43:05.717", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-05T01:43:05.717", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100169", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100173", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I was reading an article about 統語論 which was defined as follows:\n\n> 言語一般において文が構成される仕組みを扱う分野｡\n\nNow when I tried to search for the meaning of \"言語一般\" I could not find any\nthing on it. When I asked a native he give me this example:\n\n>\n> 言語一般でいえば時制の概念が存在すると考えてよいだろう。しかしながら、一口に時制と言っても、その詳細については言語毎に異なる場合がある。例えば過去形においては・・・\n\nI still could not understand it. So, what is the difference?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-04T21:24:48.497", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100170", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-05T07:51:59.057", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-04T21:29:47.353", "last_editor_user_id": "7944", "owner_user_id": "50156", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "meaning", "translation" ], "title": "What is the difference between 言語一般 and 一般言語?", "view_count": 133 }

[ { "body": "言語一般 is like \"languages in general\", i.e., it's not about some specific\nlanguage like Japanese but about all languages. Its antonym is 特定の言語. 言語一般 is\nnot a set phrase; you can also say 政治家一般 (\"politicians in general\"), キリン一般\n(\"giraffes in general\") and so on. 統語論 is not about one specific language but\na cross-language study. 言語一般でいえば is \"Speaking of languages in general, ...\" or\n\"Cross-linguistically, ...\".\n\n一般言語 is essentially a short version of 一般的な言語, and it's like \"generic\nlanguage\", \"ordinary language\" or \"general-purpose language\". It's not a set\nphrase, either, but it may be used as opposed to some specialized, special,\nlocal or [domain-specific](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-\nspecific_language) language. Depending on the context, its antonym would be\nsomething like 特化型言語, 固有言語 or 特殊言語.\n\nBy the way, 一般 **の** 言語 is ambiguous and may refer to anything above.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-05T01:04:26.573", "id": "100173", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-05T07:51:59.057", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-05T07:51:59.057", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100170", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100176", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> まさか入院中に **散髪してもらえる** とは思ってもみなかったよ。\n\nThe character is a patient in a hospital who's having his hair cut by a nurse\nwho was a hairdresser.\n\n散髪する means \"to have one's hair cut\". To me, it looks like the nurse is cutting\nher hair herself and the patient is grateful for that.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-05T01:19:54.980", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100174", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-05T02:11:51.643", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "41400", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "giving-and-receiving" ], "title": "Why is 散髪してもらう correct?", "view_count": 320 }

[ { "body": "Think of 散髪する and 髪を切る simply as \"to cut (someone's or one's own) hair\", but\nthis _also_ includes \"indirectly\" cutting one's own hair at a barber (using a\nbarber is just a means of cutting hair). When an ordinary person says 散髪した, it\nusually means \"I had a haircut (at a barber)\", but it's perfectly fine to say\n自分で散髪した (\"I cut my hair by myself\"). When a hairdresser says 彼の散髪をしました, it\nwould mean \"I cut his hair\". Thus, the sentence in question is perfectly\ncorrect.", "comment_count": 10, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-05T01:52:51.410", "id": "100176", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-05T02:11:51.643", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-05T02:11:51.643", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100174", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "i have a quick question - as far as I know, 叔父さん and 伯父さん both mean uncle -\none younger, one older sibling - but sometimes I come across sentences where\nfirst it's written in romaji and it seems to be implied that a おじさま might\nreally mean \"your dad\" - but then there's also the sligthly negative\nconnotation of a おじさん that makes me wonder, if this is really true? Can おじさま\nmean \"your father/your parent\" in some cases? Thanks so much!", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-05T18:36:49.340", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100180", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-05T18:36:49.340", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "36354", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "meaning", "words" ], "title": "おじさま/おじさん = father of s.o. else?", "view_count": 59 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100183", "answer_count": 1, "body": "So I learned that ながら means doing things are the same time, but is a certain\nactivity specified as a main activity or the first activity? My textbook\nalways puts the second activity first in the translation.\n\nFor example: 「音楽を聞きながら運転するのが好きです。」\n\n**Does this mean:** \"as I listen to music, I liked to exercise?\"\n\n**Or:** \"I like to exercise as I listen to music?\"\n\n**Or:** \"I like to listen to music as I exercise\"\n\n**Or:** \"I like to exercise and listen to music at the same time?\"\n\nThey are different because the first one specifies that you are listen to\nmusic kind of as the main thing and exercisng on the side. While the second\none specifies that you are exercising as the main thing and listening to music\nas you exercise.\n\nDoes the 好き apply to both 音楽 and 運転?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-06T01:36:28.207", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100182", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-06T04:08:39.367", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55638", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "translation" ], "title": "What is supposed to be first or second for ながら", "view_count": 116 }

[ { "body": "Japanese is a nearly completely [head-final\nlanguage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-directionality_parameter#Head-\nfinal_languages). This means a modifier almost always comes first and the main\npart comes last. Also in 音楽を聞きながら運転する, 音楽を聞きながら is a modifier that modifies\nthe main verb, 運転する. So in English, it's \"to drive while listening to music\".\n(Note that 運転 is \"to drive\", not \"to exercise\").\n\n> (私は)音楽1を2聞き3ながら4運転する5のが好き6です。 \n> I like6 driving5 while4 listening3 to2 music1.\n\nEnglish is a strongly head-initial language. See how the word order is almost\ncompletely reversed except for the subject.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-06T03:47:40.090", "id": "100183", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-06T04:08:39.367", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-06T04:08:39.367", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100182", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100186", "answer_count": 1, "body": "From 推しの子:\n\n>\n> 抑えてるに決まってるでしょ！周りの役者は揃いも揃って大根役者ばっかり！！メインキャストの中でマトモに演技出来るの私だけなのよ！！こん中で私がバリバリやってみなさい！他の役者の大根ぶりが浮き彫りになっちゃって\n> **ぶり大根でしょ** ！！\n\nI translated the first part of the last sentence as:\n\n> The other actors' ham acting would be brought to the fore.\n\nWhat is the meaning of this sentence and why is ぶり used as a prefix in\nぶり大根でしょ? Does it have a kanji? What does it mean?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-06T11:27:59.480", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100185", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-06T12:44:44.253", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-06T12:37:16.773", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "56959", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "meaning" ], "title": "ぶり as a prefix in ぶり大根", "view_count": 101 }

[ { "body": "It is just a nonsense pun, vaguely similar to まじ卍{まんじ} (see [this\nquestion](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/94711/45489)).\n\nぶり in the first 大根ぶり is a suffix meaning _the way..._ ([#1\nhere](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/en/%E3%81%B6%E3%82%8A/#je-67058)). 大根\nhere is a shortened 大根役者, meaning _bad/poor actor_. ( _... would make it stand\nout how bad actors they are_.)\n\nThen ぶり大根 is a Japanese dish\n([recipe](https://www.kurashiru.com/recipes/83c5b0cb-3710-49d3-9f5e-635f87dea30c)),\nkind of fish stew where the main ingredients are ぶり and 大根 the vegetable. ぶり\nappears as _yellowtail_ in dictionaries, but I don't think I've ever seen one\nbeing sold in Western supermarkets. Basically it is fish similar to, but\nsmaller than tuna and larger than mackerel.\n\nぶり大根でしょ is said just because it makes a pun, and there is no meaning added to\nthe sentence.", "comment_count": 9, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-06T12:44:44.253", "id": "100186", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-06T12:44:44.253", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "100185", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "I heard this and wasn't sure if it had a negative meaning or not. Does the\nphrase always indicate irritation or not necessarily? I'm a bit confused since\nsome people say it's just an informal tone between friends, and some say it's\nsaid due to frustration? Can anyone clarify please? Thanks!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-06T16:59:49.620", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100188", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T08:54:33.663", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56963", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "colloquial-language", "slang", "japanese-to-english", "informal" ], "title": "does なんだこれは specifically have a bad connotation?", "view_count": 99 }

[ { "body": "The word order conveys some meaning.\n\nNormally you would say: それはなんですか？\n\nBy putting なんだ at the beginning it conveys the idea of surprise (either good\nor bad). Not being polite-speech also comes up as rougher or more direct (like\nsaying something crudely without thinking about how you say it).\n\nI guess it depends on the tone similarly to the english \"what is this?\". But\nsurely you got \"surprise + informal\" for sure.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-06T20:23:19.213", "id": "100190", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-06T20:23:19.213", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100188", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "なんだこれは is not necessarily negative, but it does indicate the speaker is\nsurprised or amazed, like \"What _the heck_ is this?\".\n\nFor one thing, だ is not really a common copula in ordinary informal speech.\nWhen it's used, it would sound masculine, blunt, urgent and/or oppressive. For\nexample, you should use the question \"誰だ?\" only against a highly suspicious\nperson like an intruder.\n\n * [を+[する noun] + だ structrure?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/94953/5010)\n * [What is the difference between 何だと and 何ですと?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/62799/5010)\n * [~たいだとか why is there a だ here?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/60014/5010)\n\nFor another thing, the reversed word order adds a dramatic feel to it, as\npointed by another answer.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T08:49:06.083", "id": "100199", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T08:54:33.663", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-07T08:54:33.663", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100188", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100195", "answer_count": 1, "body": "So のほうがいい means you should or its better to do. So using that context, does\nのほうがよかった exist, to where it would mean you should have or it would have been\nbetter to do something? If that was the case would that be similar to ばよかった,\nwould they be the same?\n\nAlso, does のほう only apply to other people and not yourself, while ばよかった can\nrefer to yourself or other people?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-06T21:23:02.100", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100191", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T02:12:58.513", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55638", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "のほうがよかった vs ばよかった", "view_count": 78 }

[ { "body": "(の)ほうがよかった indicates you were consciously aware of that option but did not\nchoose it in the past. Remember that ほう has a function of comparing two\nthings. Practically, the difference is like this:\n\n 1. 買えばよかった。 \nI/You/They should have bought it.\n\n 2. 買うほうがよかった。 \nI/You/They should have _decided/chosen to_ buy it.\n\nThe implied subject can be anyone depending on the context. And note that の is\nnot necessary when you use ほう with a verb.\n\nばよかった works even if someone actually didn't consider that option at all in the\npast:\n\n * 宝くじ当たったの？ 買えばよかった！ \nYou won a lottery? I should have bought one too!\n\n * パーティーは最高だったよ、来ればよかったのに。 \nThe party was great, you should have come!", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T01:42:58.500", "id": "100195", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T02:12:58.513", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-07T02:12:58.513", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100191", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "In the sentence:\n\n> でも今は問題なく食べることができます \n> Demo ima wa mondai naku taberu koto ga dekimasu\"\n\nwhat is the grammatical nature of \"mondai naku\"? Is it a noun, an adjective or\nan adverb?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-06T22:08:26.013", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100193", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T15:07:43.657", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-06T22:17:15.833", "last_editor_user_id": "7944", "owner_user_id": null, "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "The grammatical nature of \"mondai naku\"", "view_count": 110 }

[ { "body": "It's _adverbial_ , i.e., it modifies a verb. In general, the ku-form of an\nadjective is also known as the adverbial form.\n\n * この車は速 **く** 走る。(adverbial) \nThis car runs _fast_.\n\n * 速 **い** 電車 (adjectival) \na _fast_ car\n\nない is a bit special in that it can take certain nouns and work like a suffix\nmeaning \"-less(ly)\", but the resulting phrase is still grammatically an\nadjective, so its ku-form is adverbial. You can think 問題ない is a [distinct\nadjective](https://jisho.org/word/%E5%95%8F%E9%A1%8C%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84).\n\nSimilar example:\n\n * 変わりない日々 \nuneventful days\n\n * 変わりなく日々を過ごしています。 \nI spend days uneventfully.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T01:23:53.977", "id": "100194", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T01:23:53.977", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100193", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "One note is that I feel that なく in cases like this can simply be a shorter and\nmore formal form of なくて if that helps...\n\nSo your sentence can also be written as \"でも今は問題（が）なくて、食べることができます\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T15:07:43.657", "id": "100202", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T15:07:43.657", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56968", "parent_id": "100193", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100197", "answer_count": 1, "body": "context: ...夜は飲みに行きました。みんなで近況を話して楽しかったです。私 **と** 旦那さん **と** の今の関係について話す **と**\nみんな驚いていました。\n\nDo the first two \"と\" mean the same? If the first two \"と\" mean \"and\",\"I and my\nhusband\", why used two \"と\" here?\n\nAnd what does the third \"と\" mean?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T02:15:06.160", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100196", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T02:26:48.957", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54510", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "meaning", "word-usage", "particle-と" ], "title": "What is the difference among the three \"と\" in \"私と旦那さんとの今の関係について話すとみんな驚いていました\"?", "view_count": 186 }

[ { "body": "The first and second と are listing particles. The second と is optional. As for\nwhy と is sometime used twice, see: [Question about the と particle in\ncomparative constructs](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/83411/5010)\n\nThe third と is a conjunctive meaning \"when\" or \"and (then)\". See: [Differences\namong -たら, なら, -と, -んだったら, -ば,\netc](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/393/5010)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T02:26:48.957", "id": "100197", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T02:26:48.957", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100196", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "In [this](https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20230705/amp/k10014119301000.html)\nnhk article about the recent twitter restrictions, I came across this passage:\n\n> **閲覧できるの投稿** の数は1日あたり、▽認証済みアカウントでは6000件、 ▽認証されていないアカウントは600件、\n> ▽作成されたばかりの認証されていないアカウントは300件までとしました。\n\nI'm not aware of this kind of verbのnoun pattern being grammatical, so I can't\nreally imagine why the choice was made to insert a の here when it didn't seem\nnecessary.\n\nMy best guess is that it's making a nominalised topic out of 閲覧できる, with a\npause implied after it, meaning something like: \"As for what one can browse,\nthe number of posts per day is...\"", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T02:53:04.417", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100198", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T02:53:04.417", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "39086", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "particle-の" ], "title": "Help with 閲覧できるの投稿", "view_count": 55 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100201", "answer_count": 3, "body": "In a recent comment I claimed that ない was a verb which was the negative form\nof ある. I was surprised by the reply that \"ない is an adjective (or adjective-\nlike auxiliary) anyway, not a form of ある\".\n\nObviously I know that ない **behaves like** an adjective, but my confusion lies\nin how Japanese people think about verb negation. Is ある->ない just a special\ncase? For example, does Japanese grammar think of 食べない as a verb which is the\nnegation of 食べる, or does it think of it as an adjective? Maybe I'm just trying\nto apply western principles to Japanese grammar and my question doesn't even\nmake sense. I'm not sure.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T13:54:42.243", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100200", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-09T09:25:28.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "7944", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "grammar", "negation" ], "title": "How does Japanese grammar think about verb negation?", "view_count": 205 }

[ { "body": "That is confusing ない as\n[adjective](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84/#jn-162263)\nand ない as [auxiliary\nverb](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%AA%E3%81%84/#jn-162271).\n\nThe standalone ない is an adjective, but ない in 食べない is an auxiliary verb. This\nis basically similar to negations in other languages in the sense that\nnegation is expressed by a functional word that is not used by itself. (Or\nmaybe Japanese grammarians stipulated so that it looks that way.)", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T14:15:00.003", "id": "100201", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-07T14:15:00.003", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "100200", "post_type": "answer", "score": 4 }, { "body": "> Maybe I'm just trying to apply western principles to Japanese grammar and my\n> question doesn't even make sense. I'm not sure.\n\nLet's explore that possibility. I agree that the grammatical terms used to\ndescribe English (along with most European languages, etc.) don't fit well to\ndescribe Japanese.\n\nThe terms \"noun\" and \"verb\" are fairly universal, but even \"noun\" has\ncomplications (there are many grammatical properties you might conceivably\nexpect a \"noun\" to have, and multiple overlapping classes of words in Japanese\nthat have some but not all of those properties). By the time you get to\n\"adjective\" [there is already no clear\nagreement](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/1008).\n\nWhat we call \"i-adjectives\", i.e. what are natively called\n[形]{けい}[容]{よう}[詞]{し} (literally \"description words\"), _function in most\nrespects the same way_ as verbs ([動]{どう}[詞]{し} \"motion words\", even though\nthis includes completely stative and intransitive verbs). In particular, they\nare both _predicates_ , and they both can _be used attributively_.\n\nHere by \"predicate\" I mean that by combining with just a grammatical subject\n(and we can even omit this contextually in Japanese), we get a grammatically\ncomplete (even if semantically vague) utterance. In English, we cannot say\n\"the cat cute\"; we require a copula in order to turn the adjective \"cute\" into\na proper completion for the sentence. But in Japanese, 猫が可愛い is fine. The\nparticle が is not a copula, but only a case marker. We do not require です; and\nif we add it then it is functioning as a politeness marker, not as a copula,\nwhich is why we [can't substitute\nだ](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/43244). The copular function -\nthe part represented by \"is\" in English (although this has many other uses in\nEnglish) - is already contained within 可愛い.\n\nOn the flip side, English does not allow us to use verbs to describe nouns\ndirectly (attributively): we cannot say \"a walks person\", but instead \"a\nperson who walks\" - the verb needs to get pushed into an explicitly marked\nrelative clause using a relativizing pronoun. But in Japanese, 歩く人 is fine, in\nthe same way that 可愛い猫 is fine.\n\nMainly where these predicates differ is that 動詞 generally accept a full set of\ncase-marked participants in the \"action\" - が-marked grammatical subject,\nを-marked grammatical direct object, as well as に- and で- marked participants\nfor which analogues are not as clear-cut. When used attributively, this\nimplies that something that would be a complex sentence by itself can then be\nused to describe a noun by just dropping the noun after it (meaning something\nlike _\" the (noun) for/in which (complex description of event or premise)\noccurs/is the case\"_). 形容詞 on the other hand, as far as I can recall seeing,\nonly accept a が-marked subject; and when used attributively, such a subject is\ngenerally part of a fixed expression (e.g. 背が高い).\n\n> Is ある->ない just a special case?\n\nThere are many ways to analyze this. My view is: _yes, but_ it's an\nirregularity of the conjugation of ある - not a separate kind of ない. In\nJapanese, the negations of 動詞 simply are 形容詞 that are formed using ない.\n\nWhether the [未]{み}[然]{ぜん}[形]{けい} (\"a-stem\" for godan verbs) to which ない is\nattached counts as a \"word\", let alone a \"separate\" word from the ない itself,\nis a matter of definitions, and not a fruitful debate; but ない by itself does\nnegate ある, and it is the same thing as ない attached to a 動詞 in 未然形 form. It\njust happens that ある is irregular, such that its \"a-stem\" is null when\nattached to ない (although the volitional, ある -> あら+い -> あろう (via ウ音便), seems to\nbe regular). Alternately, we could say that ある is \"defective\", and the verb ない\nis substituted as its negative form, in the same way that できる is substituted\nas the potential of する.\n\nDescribing ない in English as an \"auxiliary verb\" doesn't make sense if we're\ngoing to use the word \"adjective\" at all. Verbs conjugated with ない end with...\nい, i.e., not a う-row kana; and they don't accept a を-marked direct object etc.\n\nThe remaining question is _why_ the conjugation works this way. To my\nunderstanding, the mental model is that only the underlying \"action\" itself is\nbeing negated, not the entire proposition. In English, it's natural to say\nsomething like \"I didn't tell the story\", and \"the story\" is still a direct\nobject. But in the Japanese mindset, if you didn't speak, then the unsaid-\nthing no longer merits the grammatical privilege of being marked with を. So\neither the former direct object has to become a topic, or else the entire\nproposition can be nominalized and its existence (although this doesn't feel\nlike quite the right word in English) then denied.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T16:24:36.963", "id": "100215", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T16:24:36.963", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "627", "parent_id": "100200", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "In addition to what was said in other answers, I will mention that **ある** in\nsome other modern dialects and in Old/Middle/Classical Japanese has negative\nform created in the same ways as other verbs.\n\nIn Kansai dialects (Ōsaka, Kōbe, Kyōto cities etc.), suffix **へん** (or **ひん**\nfor _-i_ -vowel stem verbs) is used after 未然形 (see\n[1](http://www.kansaiben.com/3.BasicGrammar/1a.Verb/2.Grammar/1G.html),\n[2](http://www.kansaiben.com/3.BasicGrammar/1a.Verb/2.Grammar/2G.html)):\n\nAffirmative | Negative \n---|--- \nある | あらへん \n帰る（かえる） | 帰らへん（かえらへん） \n \n(About adjectives in Kansai, see\n[3](http://www.kansaiben.com/3.BasicGrammar/4.Adjectives/2.Grammar/index.html),\n[4](http://www.kansaiben.com/3.BasicGrammar/4.Adjectives/2.Grammar/2G.html).)\n\nIn Middle/Classical Japanese, suffix\n[**ず**](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%9A) / **ぬ** is used after 未然形:\n\nAffirmative Conclusive | Affirmative Attributive | Negative Conclusive |\nNegative Attributive \n---|---|---|--- \nあり / ある | ある | あらず | あらぬ \n歸る（かへる） | 歸る（かへる） | 歸らず（かへらず） | 歸らぬ（かへらぬ）", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-09T09:25:28.070", "id": "100229", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-09T09:25:28.070", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56758", "parent_id": "100200", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "> とりあえずさっきの子にLINEしとくとして…\n>\n> 軽く飯食べって帰ろ…\n\nI take he's saying he'll contact the girl from before with LINE, but what is\nしとくとして?\n\nしておく+ として? How does it work?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T21:35:58.143", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100203", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T21:59:54.347", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-08T21:59:54.347", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "55492", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "particles", "reading-comprehension" ], "title": "Meaning of しとくとして in this sentence", "view_count": 65 }

[ { "body": "I think it is something like this:\n\n> しとくとして -> しておく + として -> しておく + とする (in て form)\n\nSo it means something like: I will make sure to put things in place (in LINE)\nso that (I will contact the girl from before). Maybe by saving the contact in\na particular way or something. Dunno about LINE.\n\nSee [this one](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/34137/what-does-\nverb%E3%81%A8%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B-mean) for the meaning of とする.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T13:17:20.660", "id": "100214", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T15:31:20.223", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-08T15:31:20.223", "last_editor_user_id": "56959", "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100203", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "しとくとして is short for しておくとして.\n\n * -ておく is a subsidiary verb that has several meanings. In this case, it adds a nuance \"to do something and then leave it in the state\" or \"to do it for now (and think later)\". It contracts to -とく (see [this chart](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/18159/5010)). \n * [What is the true meaning of「ておく」?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/84773/5010)\n * -とする is \"to decide to ～\". \n * [What does verb+とする mean?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/34137/5010)\n\n> とりあえずさっきの子にLINEしとくとして、… \n> For now, I'll send a message (via LINE) to her, and ...\n\nThe implication is \"I'll worry about this later\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T21:58:06.237", "id": "100221", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T21:58:06.237", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100203", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TLY5F.png)\n\nWhat function does the もの server in this sentence? Wouldn't it work with just\nなんだろう?\n\nHe should be saying that the people who followed the idol group to the very\nbeginning are even more emotional.\n\nBut what ものなんだろう adds here?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-07T21:49:21.070", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100204", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T22:15:09.110", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55492", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "sentence", "sentence-final-particles", "particle-mono" ], "title": "Meaning of ものなんだろう in this sentence", "view_count": 48 }

[ { "body": "Transcription:\n\n> 古参の方たちはもっと感動ものなんだろうな。\n\nI guess it is shorter from (deduce it from context):\n\n> 古参の方たちはもっと感動 **した** ものなんだろうな。\n\nLiteral translation:\n\n> It is a thing (なんだろうな) that the \"long serving\" people (古参方たち) are the ones\n> (もの) who were moved more (もっと感動した).\n\n感動 is a noun, so I am a little troubled about it being followed by もの.\n\nなんだろうな gives you the idea of a very safe guess.\n\nもの plays a crucial role here. The sentence wouldn't make sense without it. In\nEnglish we can go without it.\n\n> They are the ones who were moved more.\n\n> They were moved more.\n\nBut in this sentence the structure is something like this:\n\nPeople A = People B\n\nもの is needed to make the \"People B\" part.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T16:31:02.517", "id": "100216", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T16:31:02.517", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100204", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "This sentence has 感動物【かんどうもの】, which is a fixed compound noun that refers to a\nwork/event that moves/inspires/impresses people. なんだろう is simply\nexplanatory-(な)のだ followed by だろう.\n\n感動物 is used like this:\n\n * この小説は感動物ですよ。 \nThis novel is moving!\n\n * 感動物の映画 \nheart-touching movie\n\n * 友人の結婚式に行ってきました。感動物でした！ \nI went to the wedding of my friend. I was moved/impressed!\n\n> 古参の方たち(に)はもっと感動ものなんだろうな。 \n> (It) should be even more impressive to old fans.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T22:09:52.510", "id": "100222", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T22:15:09.110", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-08T22:15:09.110", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100204", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100223", "answer_count": 1, "body": "in this paragraph\n「鎌倉に高さ11メートルの大仏がある。大仏が作られたときは建物の中にありましたが、今は建物がありません。どうして建物がなくなったのでしょうか。台風でこわれた、地震で壊れた、つなみで流されたなど、いろいろ言われている。」why\nis the passive form used with tsunami.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T01:25:56.910", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100205", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T22:20:30.853", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "46990", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "passive-form" ], "title": "why is the passive form used here つなみで流された but not with 台風でこわれた、地震で壊れた", "view_count": 93 }

[ { "body": "壊れる is an intransitive verb that means \"to collapse/break\", but 流す is a\ntransitive verb that means \"to wash (something) away\". 建物が津波で流した (\"The\nbuilding washed (something) away using a tsunami\") makes no sense. 建物が津波で流された\n(\"The building was washed away by a tsunami\") is the correct sentence.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T22:20:30.853", "id": "100223", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T22:20:30.853", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100205", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100208", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Context: 精神的 **に** 疲れたので早く寝ます。\n\nIs \"に\" a preposition here?\n\nIf \"精神的\" is a adjective, is it telling that need to use a preposition between\na adjective(精神的) and a verb(疲れた)?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T01:30:14.623", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100206", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T02:36:06.410", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54510", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "meaning", "particle-に", "word-usage" ], "title": "What does \"に\" mean in \"精神的に疲れたので早く寝ます\"?", "view_count": 72 }

[ { "body": "By itself [精神的](https://jisho.org/word/%E7%B2%BE%E7%A5%9E%E7%9A%84) is a な\nadjective. But in your example above it essentially becomes an adverb when\npaired with the に. In English this can be seen as adding on the 'ly' suffix to\na word.\n\nSo we get something like mentally, spiritually, emotionally, or etc depending\non the context for 精神的. Overall giving us something like:\n\n> 精神的に疲れたので早く寝ます\n>\n> Since I'm mentally worn out, I'm going to bed early.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T02:36:06.410", "id": "100208", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T02:36:06.410", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "30339", "parent_id": "100206", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100210", "answer_count": 1, "body": "* **Example #1:** At [5m28s](https://youtu.be/Y-yhT7ScHIg?t=328), it sounds like 出てきました is being pronounced as deTEKIMAshita, even though it \"should be\" pronounced as DEtekiMAshita\n\n * **Example #2:** Similarly, at [2m37s](https://youtu.be/o2ZvYn9emeM?t=157), it sounds like 見て描いたり is being pronounced as miTEKAitari, even though it \"should be\" pronounced as MIteKAitari.\n\n**Questions:**\n\n 1. Am I totally mishearing these examples? Or are downstepped verbs switching to a Heiban pronunciation in these て-forms?\n 2. Assuming I'm not mishearing: are there any general rules as to when downstepped verbs in て-form switch to Heiban like this?\n\nMy best guess is that this happens with 2-mora downstepped verbs (since here\nboth 出る and 見る are 2-mora verbs)?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T02:10:44.263", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100207", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T09:15:14.363", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-10T09:15:14.363", "last_editor_user_id": "10531", "owner_user_id": "51280", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "て-form", "pitch-accent", "compound-verbs" ], "title": "Can downstepped verbs in て-form become Heiban?", "view_count": 131 }

[ { "body": "(Updated based on aguijonazo's comment above)\n\nThe two examples can be explained differently.\n\n見て描いたり - this is two verbs describing two consecutive actions. 語尾上げ is\nhappenning towards the ends of the first and the second. It doesn't have to\nhappen in both places, though. In fact, I would say it's more common to raise\nthe second one only.\n\n出てきました - this is one compound verb describing one action. 語尾上げ doesn't usually\nhappen in the middle of a verb, even if it's compound. With that possibility\neliminated, here the speaker's regional accent might be slightly affecting the\nspeech spoken mostly in the Tokyo accent. It's not a very large deviation, and\nsomething that can go unnoticed easily.\n\nFrom the linked pages:\n\n> a native Japanese speaker living in Fukuoka, Japan", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T08:43:28.177", "id": "100210", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T09:12:43.483", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-10T09:12:43.483", "last_editor_user_id": "10531", "owner_user_id": "10531", "parent_id": "100207", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100224", "answer_count": 2, "body": "My guess is that the phrase is derived from the composition of the following:\n\n 1. 役 (yaku) : service, use\n\n 2. に：particle for destination\n\n 3. 立った：perfective of 立つ (tatsu)\n\nSo it's extended meaning like \"rise to a supporting role\", \"being supported\".\n\nAm I more or less correct?\n\n===\n\nI have read posts:\n\n[Is \"役立つ\" a recent lexicalization of \"役に立つ\"? Is it less\nformal?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/36268)\n\n[Difference Between 手伝う, 力になる, and\n役に立つ](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/87629)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T11:59:49.617", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100211", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T22:46:39.953", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56969", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "words", "syntax", "expressions", "particle-に" ], "title": "How is 役に立った ( helpful ) formed?", "view_count": 92 }

[ { "body": "Your reasoning is correct. But I think that in this context the meaning of 立つ\nis \"to stand still\" rather than \"to rise\".\n\nに doesn't function as a particle of destination but as an adverbializer (look\nthe last entry [here](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%AB). It modifies\nthe verb, it tells us how the verb is performed.\n\nSo in a sentence like:\n\n> それは役に立つ。\n\nそれ is the subject who stands up (立つ) in a way that is helpful (役に).\n\nYou may have other aditional に particles indicating time, location, etc.\n\nHave in mind that the subject is not always what marked by は. For example:\n\n> 俺にしてはとても役に立つ。\n\nMeaning: As for me, (it) is really helpful.\n\nThe subject is always marked by が, but when it is not present you'll have to\ndeduce it from context.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T13:02:11.817", "id": "100212", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T13:02:11.817", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100211", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "役に立つ is a fixed phrase that has to be learned by rote, but if I really have to\nanalyze it...\n\n * **役** : \"service\", \"use\"\n * **に** : Here, it's a role marker rather than a destination marker. In other words, it's more like \"as X\" or \"for X\" rather than \"to X\". See: [Can に have the same function as として?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/82913/5010)\n * **立つ** : This is a [light verb](https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/42912/8629) that has [dozens of possible translations](https://jisho.org/word/%E7%AB%8B%E3%81%A4) including \"to form\", \"to work/serve (as)\", \"to excel (at)\", \"to be viable\", \"to be realized\", \"to be made\" and so on.\n\nSo a super-literal translation of 役に立った would be \"served for (some) use\" or\n\"was viable as service\".\n\nSimilar set phrases where 立つ is used in a similar manner include:\n\n * 予定が立つ\n * 腕が立つ\n * 申し訳が立つ\n * 面目が立つ", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T22:46:39.953", "id": "100224", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T22:46:39.953", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100211", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "> 抑えてるに決まってるでしょ！周りの役者は揃いも揃って大根役者ばっかり！！メインキャストの中でマトモに演技出来るの私だけなのよ！！\n> **こん中で私がバリバリやってみなさい！** 他の役者の大根ぶりが浮き彫りになっちゃってぶり大根でしょ！！\n\nIs this a first-person imperative sentence? What does it mean? Is there\nsomething omitted?\n\nThe English translation is:\n\n> Just imagine if I gave it my all in that situation!\n\nThe idea I have is this:\n\nこん中で: In here\n\n私が: Meaning \"I\" is the subject\n\nバリバリ: Adverb meaning vigorously\n\nやってみなさい: Verb try doing in imperative", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T17:33:15.383", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100218", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-08T22:50:12.213", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56959", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Imperative with the first person using やってみなさい", "view_count": 49 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100226", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I was looking into the verb 憩う, and was surprised that all the examples I\ncould find use …に憩う rather than …で憩う. A quick google (に憩う か で憩う) search\nyielded two types of answers for various forums:\n\n * A lot of answers stated that both usages have the same meaning, but that に has a literary tone to it. jij********さん, on yahoo, helpfully quoted the 明鏡 dictionary:\n\n> ❹〔文語的な言い方で〕動作・作用が行われる場や手段などを表す。…で。…にて。\n>\n> ㋐ 動作・作用が行われる場を表す。 \n> 例「駅前に待つ」\n\n * An isolated answer, from user 酔ってないですさん (!), also on yahoo, seems unconvincing to me, but who knows:\n\n> 「に」は静的な意味を持ちます。\n>\n> ＜例＞ 渡り鳥が水辺に憩う。\n>\n> 「で」は動的な意味を持ちます。 \n> ＜例＞ 渡り鳥が水辺で憩う。\n\nAs a side-question, I'm curious whether the latter, isolated answer has any\nbacking to it. I wonder if they might be on to something.\n\nBut my focus is on the former set of answers : に as a literary で. Is there\nreally no semantical nuance between the literary 駅前に待つ and the usual 駅前で待つ? I\nmean, it could be classified as \"literary\" because it expresses a subtle\ndifference deemed irrelevant in everyday discourse. If not, if it really is\nmerely a stylistic difference, is there a time at which that usage was\njettisoned from usual discourse, making it first \"old school\", then\ninappropriate? But then, at what time of history, and \"why\"?\n\nAlso, 憩う is not flagged as a literary verb anywhere I could check. So I wonder\nif something deeper is going on. Like に憩う being a remnant of former times, a\n\"set expression\".\n\nI realize that this question borders on the frowned-upon \"discussion\". But an\nanswer to it would deepen my understanding of the Japanese language.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T19:09:19.293", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100219", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-11T00:11:52.420", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-09T01:25:13.120", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "27777", "post_type": "question", "score": 5, "tags": [ "particle-に", "particle-で", "history" ], "title": "Is there a deep meaning to the fact that the に particle, in a literary context, can be used in place of で", "view_count": 897 }

[ { "body": "Some history, mostly about Old Japanese:\n\nEtymologically, **で** developed as onbin form of **にて** during Early Middle\nJapanese period. **にて** can still be found in formal, literary or archaic\ncontexts in modern language.\n\nIn Old Japanese and Middle Japanese, voiced plosives and fricatives were\nprenasalized, so _b_ , _d_ , _z_ and _g_ were actually /mb/, /nd/, /nz/ and\n/ŋg/. So phonological development of で was: /nite/ → /nde/ → /de/.\n\n_**nite**_ was originally the _-te_ form of defective verb _**n-**_ \"to be\":\n\nAttributive (called Adnominal by Frellesvig 2010): _**nə**_ (→ modern _**no**_\n)\n\nContinuative (called Infinitive by Frellesvig 2010, called Converb by Vovin\n2020): _**ni**_\n\nGerund (called Subordinative Converb by Vovin 2020): _**nite**_\n\nVovin (2020, pages 474-475) about Subordinative Converb _nite_ :\n\n> 2.4.1.3 Subordinative Converb Form _n-i-te_\n>\n> The subordinative converb form _n-i-te_ is a rare form in Western Old\n> Japanese. It is attested only in the _Man'yōshū_ , where it occurs five\n> times. _N-i-te_ has only two functions: (1) copula in a nominal predicate,\n> (2) marker of a location of an action or a state.\n>\n> ...\n>\n> The subordinative converb _n-i-te_ is attested only in Classical Ryukyuan\n> (in _Ryūka_ ) (Hokama 1995: 508), and does not reveal itself in either Old\n> Ryukyuan or modern dialects. Thus, it is certainly a loan from Classical\n> Japanese. The absence of the _n-i-te_ form in both Eastern Old Japanese and\n> Ryukyuan suggests that this form is a result of an internal development in\n> Central Japanese.\n\nFrellesvig considers that usage of _nə_ and _ni_ as case particles etc.\ndeveloped from forms of aforementioned copula _n-_. However Vovin (2020) did\nnot speculate it.\n\nVovin (2020, pages 145-158) about Dative-Locative Case Marker _-ni_ :\n\n> 1.2.2.4 Dative-Locative Case Marker _-ni_ :\n>\n> The case marker _ni_ has the following functions in the language of\n> Classical Japanese prose: (1) dative case marker, (2) locative case marker,\n> (3) agent marker in passive constructions, (4) directive case marker. It\n> also has a special conjunctional usage connecting two clauses, and indicates\n> either a reason or concession. In this last case, the case marker _-ni_\n> follows the attributive form of a verb.\n>\n> 1.2.2.4.1 Dative Case Marker\n>\n> In this function _-ni_ is used after animate nouns only.\n>\n> ...\n>\n> 1.2.2.4.2 Locative Case Marker\n>\n> As a locative case marker, _-ni_ has both spatial and temporal meanings.\n>\n> ...\n>\n> 1.2.2.4.5 Agent Marker in Passive Constructions\n>\n> In this function, as the following examples show, _-ni_ marks animate nouns\n> as agents in a passive construction. In Classical Japanese, both animate and\n> inanimate nouns could be used as agents in passive construction (Vovin 2003:\n> 326), but in Old Japanese inanimate nouns do not appear in this function\n> yet. This may be due to the scarcity of Old Japanese texts in comparison to\n> Classical Japanese texts, but overall this is unlikely: it appears that the\n> passive construction is relatively new in Old Japanese, as only two examples\n> are attested in the texts.\n>\n> ...\n>\n> There is one example in Old Japanese when the case marker _-ni_ marks an\n> agent in the sentence that includes the verb _sayar-_ ‘be prevented,’ which\n> is not marked by a passive morpheme, but has an inherent passive meaning\n>\n> ...\n>\n> 1.2.2.4.6 Directive Case Marker\n>\n> As a directive case marker, _-ni_ indicates the direction of movement, as in\n> modern Japanese.\n>\n> ...\n>\n> As a subvariety of this function, _ni_ is used after the nominalized form of\n> a verb and before a following verb that expresses the goal of a movement.\n> Most often the verb following _ni_ is a verb of movement, but not always, as\n> the following example from KK 1 shows. In Classical Japanese and later\n> periods the following verb is always the verb of movement.\n>\n> ...\n>\n> 1.2.2.4.7 Special Usage\n>\n> The case marker _-ni_ occurs frequently after the attributive form of verbs.\n> In this function, _-ni_ serves as a conjunction between two clauses, often\n> with the meaning ‘and,’ ‘because,’ ‘since,’ ‘as’ or ‘when,’ and, more\n> rarely, ‘but’ or ‘although.’ It is reasonable to believe that we are dealing\n> here with a case marker _ni_ rather than with the converb form _n-i_ of the\n> defective verb _n-_ ‘be.’ The reason for this belief is mainly typological:\n> in other ‘Altaic’ languages that are similar to Japanese structurally, the\n> dative-locative case marker has exactly the same function when used after\n> attributive forms of verbs.\n>\n> ...\n>\n> There is no reliable external etymology for _-ni_. If Whitman is right in\n> his assumption that all cases of OJ /ni/ are indeed otsu-rui *nï (Whitman\n> 1985: 36–38), it is possible to speculate that OJ _-ni_ < *-nəy, and that it\n> is connected etymologically with Eastern Old Japanese locative _-na_ (see\n> section 1.2.2.6), which was already moribund in the eighth century.\n\nVovin (2020, pages 459-468) about Converb _n-i_ :\n\n> 2.4.1.1 Converb Form _n-i_\n>\n> The converb form _n-i_ ‘being’ is used in a variety of functions. It may\n> occur after both nominals and verbs, the latter normally being in their\n> nominalized or attributive forms.\n>\n> (1) The converb _n-i_ can be used as a copula in a nominal predicate\n>\n> ...\n>\n> (2) The converb _n-i_ is frequently used after nouns and adjectives for\n> adverbializations\n>\n> ...\n>\n> (3) Another usage of _n-i_ is after the quasi-postpositions _tamɛ_ ‘for,’\n> and _yuwe_ ‘because,’ ‘for the sake of’ (lit. ‘reason,’ ‘cause,’ ‘sake’),\n> which are historically bound nouns. Only the construction _yuwe n-i_ is\n> attested with relatively high frequency (50 cases in the _Man'yōshū_ ), and\n> is found in both Early and Late Western Old Japanese. The construction _tamɛ\n> n-i_ is very rare (only 8 cases in the whole _Man'yōshū_ ), and it is\n> attested reliably only in Late Western Old Japanese.\n>\n> ...\n>\n> (4) The converb _n-i_ can be also followed by the verbs _nar-_ ‘to become,’\n> _se-_ ‘to do,’ and the adjective _posi_ ‘be desirable. ...\n>\n> ...\n>\n> The converb form _n-i_ is attested in Eastern Old Japanese in the same\n> functions as in Western Old Japanese with the exception of the constructions\n> _yuwe n-i_ and _tamɛ n-i_.\n>\n> The converb _n-i_ of the defective verb _n-_ ‘to be’ is attested in Old\n> Ryukyuan as well as in modern dialects, including Southern Ryukyuan.\n\nExtended copula forms were in Old Japanese: _ni ar-_ (formed from copula form\n_ni_ and verb _ar-_ \"to exist\"), and contracted _nar-_ (← _ni ar-_ ). Non-\ncontracted forms were used more frequently than contracted forms in Old\nJapanese. (Sources disagree about situation in Middle Japanese, but I can\nguess that usage of non-contracted _ni ar-_ was decreasing in favor of\ncontracted _nar-_.)\n\nFrellesvig (2010, page 235) in chapter about Early Middle Japanese:\n\n> _Ni ar-_ had the variant _nite ar-_ , with _ar-_ following the gerund\n> instead of the infinitive. In the course of EMJ _nite ar-_ became _de ar-_ ,\n> which is the source of the cNJ copula _da_ (cf. 12.2.2, 15.2, 16.2).", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-09T03:39:06.077", "id": "100226", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-11T00:11:52.420", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-11T00:11:52.420", "last_editor_user_id": "56758", "owner_user_id": "56758", "parent_id": "100219", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 }, { "body": "駅前で待つ and 駅前に待つ mean exactly the same thing as far as the meaning goes, but\nthe latter sounds to me like this is a message from 150 years ago or the title\nof a period drama. It's almost classical Japanese, and never appears in\nordinary speech, but it may occasionally appear as an archaistic sentence\n(like [this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/99458/5010) and\n[this](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/52662/5010)). Two other examples\nof this type of に, listed by 明鏡国語辞典, are ベニスに死す and 母校に会す. Note that they use\nrare literary verbs. 憩う is not as literary or stilted as 死す/会す, but it's still\na fancy/pompous word rarely used in informal speech.\n\nAccording to [this presentation\n(PDF)](http://www.kyorin-u.ac.jp/univ/user/foreign/nikodebu/lectures\\(PDF\\)/2-1.pdf)\nand [this entry](https://kobun.weblio.jp/content/%E3%81%A7), the particle で\nwas derived from に(あり)て during the Heian period (794-1185). Saying Xにありて待つ\n(\"to wait while being at X\") was too long, so it contracted to Xにて待つ, and then\nto Xで待つ. This may explain why Xに待つ, Xに憩う, Xに死す and so on sound archaic, but\nnative speakers intuitively sense the antiquity of this type of に knowing\nnothing about its history.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-09T03:43:17.330", "id": "100227", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-09T04:12:17.730", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-09T04:12:17.730", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100219", "post_type": "answer", "score": 7 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 院長の指示通り動くのが我々の **指命** だ\n\nThey are two doctors talking together.\n\n指命 is on Weblio, but not on Jisho. It seems like 指令, what's the difference\nbetween them though?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-08T20:08:06.733", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100220", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-09T01:52:45.160", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "41400", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "word-usage", "synonyms" ], "title": "What does 指命 mean?", "view_count": 82 }

[ { "body": "I see a note from \"naruto\" that says, \"It's a typo for 使命\" (\"mission\").\n\nBased on that, the sentence should translate into \"Our mission is to act\naccording to the director's instructions.\"\n\n(I'm sorry if reiterating this isn't what should be done, as I am new and this\nis my second time answering a question here, and even this is based on a note\nfrom \"naruto\" and is not my original idea. I just thought that it would be\ngood to have this show up in the regular area for answers.)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-09T01:46:18.730", "id": "100225", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-09T01:52:45.160", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-09T01:52:45.160", "last_editor_user_id": "56968", "owner_user_id": "56968", "parent_id": "100220", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "I've learned the expressions:\n\n> (Location) の (position) には ありません/いません。 and \n> (location) に (noun) は ありません/いません。\n\nand I'm kinda wondering whether I could use には with location nouns too? Or\ndoes it only work for position nouns?\n\nCould I use わたしのうちには ペットが いません instead of わたしのうち に ペット は いません to express that\nmy house doesn't have any pets?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-09T18:11:15.460", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100230", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-11T18:19:08.503", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-11T18:19:08.503", "last_editor_user_id": "56982", "owner_user_id": "56982", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "particle-に", "particle-は" ], "title": "Could I use わたしのうちには　ペットが　いません 。instead of わたしのうえ に ペット は いません。", "view_count": 92 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "In\n\n> 私達家族の他 **に** もたくさん家族が来ています\n>\n> Even (も) outside of our family, many other families are coming.\n\n 1. Why is there a に after 私達家族の他?\n 2. Would the sentence still make sense if it were omitted?\n\nMy best guess at (1) is that the sentence might mean \"many other familes are\ncoming _towards_ (に) our family\"?", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-09T18:53:04.373", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100231", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-09T18:53:04.373", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "51280", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "particle-に" ], "title": "Understanding the に in 「私達家族の他にもたくさん家族が来ています」", "view_count": 54 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100240", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I was reading a manga and this sentence pops up (the blank space indicates a\ndifferent speech balloon):\n\n> ここは 客が分かっているの大前提の ツンデレカフェですよ。\n\nFor context: the MC enters in a cafe, and he's astonished by the rudeness of a\nmaid, and another maid said this sentence. I know that the _-te_ form of わかる\nis not used that much, but when I see it, I tend to understand it like \"I\nalready understand it\" or, in an angrier manner, \"I told you that I already\nunderstand it, you don't need to tell me!\" or something along these lines\n(similar to ってば construction, 分かったってば!)\n\nIs my understanding correct?\n\nAlso, why is the verb 分かっている linked to the noun 大前提 with the の particle?\nNormally, doesn't a verb directly modify a noun without the use of particles?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-09T20:58:56.333", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100232", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T18:28:42.890", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-10T18:28:42.890", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "56116", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "て-form", "particle-の", "わかる" ], "title": "分かっている and its usage", "view_count": 112 }

[ { "body": "That の is a nominalizer and が is omitted after it.\n\n> ［［客が分かっているの］（が）大前提］の ツンデレカフェ\n\n分かる is punctual, meaning it refers to an instantaneous change from a state of\nnot understanding to one of understanding. If you are already in the latter\nstate, you should use 分かっている. (Calling this whole thing a て-form is misleading\nbecause the て-form of 分かる is only 分かって.)\n\n客が分かるの（が）大前提 would mean the cafe assumes the customers _will_ understand the\nrudeness of the maids (when they are treated with it). 客が分かっているの（が）大前提 means\nthe cafe assumes the customers already understand they will be treated rudely.\n\nEtymologically speaking, 分かる is the intransitive, and “spontaneous” version of\n分ける (“to divide”). Something blurry in your head _gets divided_ and boundaries\nbecome clear. In modern Japanese, 分かれる makes up an intransitive-transitive\npair with 分ける. This is also punctual (“to divide itself” or “to get divided”),\nnot stative (“to be divided”).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T06:35:48.170", "id": "100240", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T16:47:32.953", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-10T16:47:32.953", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "100232", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Both 上がる and 挙がる are read the exact same way — as あがる — and in the\ndictionaries I looked them up, they appear under the same entry, and seem to\nshow up as alternate spellings of the same word.\n\nIs is the case that either spelling works on all occasions (meaning they're\ncompletely interchangeable), or are the spellings used in different\ncontexts/circumstances?\n\n[This question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/12118/1330) does mention\nsome variations, but since it is a rather broad one, wanted to get some more\nclarity around the specific nuance between the two writings.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-09T21:56:24.390", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100233", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T10:43:29.490", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "1330", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "nuances", "spelling", "homophonic-kanji" ], "title": "What is the difference between 上がる and 挙がる?", "view_count": 119 }

[ { "body": "Different characters are used for different meanings or contexts.\n\nスーパー大辞林 has this note on its (only) entry for あがる\n\n> あがる《上・揚・挙・騰》 \n> 「上がる」は“上の方へ移動する。高くなる”の意。「屋上に上がる」「気温が上がる」「雨が上がる」 \n> 「揚がる」は“揚げ物ができる。かかげられる。高まる”の意。「天ぷらが揚がる」「日の丸が揚がる」「歓声が揚がる」 「意気が揚がる」 \n> 「挙がる」は“示される。犯人がつかまる。上へ動く”の意。「証拠が挙がる」「犯人が挙がる」「手が挙がる」 \n> 「騰がる」は“物価が高くなる”の意。「上がる」とも書くが，仮名書きも多い。「物価が騰がる」\n\n* * *\n\n上げる is the most basic of all and is used for the general sense of raising\nsomething or moving something up. 挙げる has the implication of raising something\nor bringing something up to indicate something or so something is noticed.\n例を挙げる is arguably the most common usage. Even 手を挙げる is understood slightly\ndifferently from 手を上げる. The former seems to suggest you raise your hand for\nsome purpose, for example as a sign that you have something to say, whereas\nthe latter simply refers to the physical motion.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T06:47:39.983", "id": "100241", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T10:43:29.490", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-10T10:43:29.490", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "100233", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100290", "answer_count": 2, "body": "How could I ask \"what kind of job are we going to do\" in a Japanese job\ninterview?\n\nI could just simply use something like:\n\n> Watashitachi wa, donna shigoto wo shimasu ka\n\nBut for me it doesn't seem natural and it looks so elementary.\n\nI'm thinking of how can I make it shorter and natural, like how a Japanese\nnative would ask. So I've come up with another one:\n\n> Donna shigoto wo saremasuka\n\nI'm not so sure if that is correct, I thought of using a passive form so that\nit doesn't come across as too direct to the person that I'm asking about their\njob in particular.\n\nIf I translate this second sentence using Google though, it just says \"What\nkind of work do you do?\", but I don't trust that translation since if I also\ntranslate \"Donna shigoto o shimasuka\", as you can see without the passive\nform, it also just translates to the same \"What kind of work do you do?\".\n\nIs using the passive form correct or is there better way to say this?", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-09T23:36:12.163", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100234", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-15T18:57:07.850", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-15T17:22:15.893", "last_editor_user_id": "32952", "owner_user_id": "56988", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation", "passive-voice" ], "title": "Is \"Watashitachi wa, donna shigoto wo shimasu ka\" the best way to ask \"what kind of job are we going to do?\" in a job interview?", "view_count": 180 }

[ { "body": "Native or more advanced speakers might come up with better ways to address it,\nbut in this situation I would probably ask it differently to the interviewer.\nInstead of asking \"What kind of job are we going to do?\" I would go with \"Can\nyou tell me more about the job, please?\".\n\nI would put it this way:\n\n>\n> しごと{shigoto}について{nitsuite}、もっと{motto}くわしく{kuwashiku}おしえて{oshiete}いただけません{itadakemasen}か{ka}。\n\nしごと{shigoto}について{nitsuite} regarding the job\n\nもっと{motto}くわしく{kuwashiku} in more detail\n\nおしえて{oshiete} tell me\n\nいただけません{itadakemasen}か{ka}。could you please? (polite)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-15T17:18:56.140", "id": "100289", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-15T17:25:04.187", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-15T17:25:04.187", "last_editor_user_id": "32952", "owner_user_id": "32952", "parent_id": "100234", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "> But for me it doesn't seem natural and it looks so elementary.\n\nThis is a business setting, so we can't merely be concerned with idiomatic\nphrasing; we have to worry about appropriate levels of politeness and\nformality. I don't know these in any particular detail, so I can't give an\nauthoritative answer, but I can tell right away that a formula like this isn't\ngoing to work. You don't want to be asking a direct question, and you don't\nwant to be making the sentence about you (after all, the nature of the work\nwon't change to accommodate you, if you don't like the answer, and it isn't\naffected by your status).\n\nAs a rule of thumb I would not consider using a first-person pronoun like\n[私]{watashi} in this setting except if the situation required me to\ndistinguish myself from others, or if I needed to accept personal blame or\nassign personal responsibility.\n\n[私]{watashi}[たち]{tachi} seems to me especially problematic here; assuming you\naren't interviewing together with a friend with the prior understanding that\nyou will be accepted or rejected together, there is no \"we\" to speak of here.\nYou aren't part of a group of coworkers unless and until you're hired, so\nspeaking like that will definitely sound presumptive. (Not to mention, they're\nalready doing the work in question, while you aren't.)\n\nThat said, for the second attempt, I want to address idiom/correctness first\nbefore formality.\n\n> I'm not so sure if that is correct\n\nThe instinct is a step in the right direction. The \"passive\" form in Japanese\nworks a bit differently, and as far as I'm aware doesn't connote indirectness\nin the way that an English speaker thinks of it. (A large part of why it comes\nacross \"indirect\" in English is that it allows you to omit the agent of the\nverb: \"the job was done\" doesn't require saying who did it, while with \"___\ndid the job\", the blank must be filled in. But in Japanese, those omissions\nare possible regardless, so it doesn't make a difference.) Grammatically, the\njob should probably be marked with [は]{wa}. I can't put my finger on why, but\nusing question words like [どんな]{donna} or [どう]{dou}[いう]{iu} as part of a\nsubject or object, without having a topic first, sounds quite brusque to me.\nThey seem to work better with a copula, and anyway _we don't need an action\nverb_ now that we have the strategy of talking about the job - \"what kind of\njob will be done?\" is awkward; we just want \"what kind of job is it?\".\n\nExpressing that directly in Japanese, we might repeat the noun, and use an\nhonorific:\n\n[お]{o}[仕事]{shigoto}[は]{wa}、[どんな]{donna}[仕事]{shigoto}[です]{desu}[か]{ka}？\n\n* * *\n\nHowever, I agree with jarmanso's idea that we still don't want to ask a direct\nquestion. Instead, we phrase it as a request for information. This gives us\nthe necessary business-language opportunities to mark status and formality.\n(Pedantically, the proposed form is a question about whether we may have the\ninformation, so it's that much more indirect.) I don't have any better ideas\nhere (aside from the honorific which I'm not at all sure is called for), so\nI'll just explain how that proposal works.\n\n[に]{ni}[ついて]{tsuite} [at the start of a\nsentence](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/41391) gives a sort of\n\"more explicit\" form of [は]{wa}, while being different grammatically. Whereas\nin English we need to introduce words like \"regarding\" to capture the idea of\na topic in a grammar that doesn't directly support it, [に]{ni}[ついて]{tsuite}\n_actually has_ that meaning.\n\n[詳]{kuwa} [しく]{shiku} is just a vocabulary item so I won't spend time on it.\n\nPresumably you know by now that Japanese rarely uses direct imperatives, and\nwill be familiar with [教]{oshi}[えて]{ete}[ください]{kudasai} as a formal version,\nand plain [教]{oshi}[えて]{ete} as informal version, of a request to\n[教]{oshi}[える]{eru} (usually glossed as \"teach\", but more broadly \"inform\nabout\"; it's used in many contexts where English speakers would say \"tell\"\ninstead).\n\n[いただけません]{itadakemasen}[か]{ka} deserves a bit more explanation. (You might\nrecognize the positive, non-potential, but still polite form,\n[いただきます]{itadakimasu}, as an expression by itself.) The plain, positive form\nis [いただく]{itadaku}, and this verb is the humble-speech replacement for\n[もらう]{morau}. The \"ke\" is because we use potential form as well - we ask\nwhether it's possible to be told, not whether we are being/will be told.\n\nSo really the sense conveyed is more like \"might I not have the benefit of...\n?\" This way shows appropriate humility, as well as the sense that being given\nthis information is a favor done for you.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-15T18:57:07.850", "id": "100290", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-15T18:57:07.850", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "627", "parent_id": "100234", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "When 等 comes after a word, how can I know when to pronounce it as など or とう?\n\nAccording to a colleague of mine, it's usually pronounced とう when read and など\nwhen spoken.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T02:05:12.860", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100235", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T02:57:32.350", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-10T02:57:32.350", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "45343", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "pronunciation" ], "title": "Different pronunciations of 等", "view_count": 103 }

[ { "body": "など reading is\n[kun'yomi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji#Kun%27yomi_\\(native_reading\\))\n(native Japanese in most cases, but there are few exceptions).\n\nとう reading is [on'yomi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanji#On%27yomi_\\(Sino-\nJapanese_reading\\)) (Sino-Japanese; borrowed from Middle Chinese to Old\nJapanese or Middle Japanese).\n\nWhen both kun'yomi and on'yomi readings are possible, on'yomi sounds more\nformal / literary. (Compare how in English, words borrowed from Latin or\nFrench often sound more formal / literary.)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T02:33:54.863", "id": "100237", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T02:33:54.863", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56758", "parent_id": "100235", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 単語は、自分で努力して覚えるしか、習得の方法はない\n\nWhat's the grammatical function of 「自分で努力して覚えるしか」? Is it the 連用修飾語 to modify\n「習得の方法はない」？", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T05:00:45.310", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100238", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T05:45:50.977", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56516", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "What is the grammatical function of this part with しか", "view_count": 72 }

[ { "body": "The 習得の方法は part can be placed before the しか clause, so I think it's a 連用修飾語\nthat modifies ない. You can also say the following without changing the meaning\nof the sentence:\n\n> (単語の)習得の方法は、自分で努力して覚えるしかない。\n\nThe word しか by itself is classified as a 副助詞 (often translated as \"adverbial\nparticle\"). Unlike 格助詞 (\"case particle\"), 副助詞 adds a certain meaning/mood to\nthe word it modifies. Many 副助詞 can modify both a noun and a verb, and it often\nreplaces が and を (が and を are case particles).\n\n副助詞 | Marking subject | Marking object | Marking verb | Marking other 連用修飾語 \n---|---|---|---|--- \n**も** | 彼も来る。 | リンゴも食べる。 | 本を読みもする。 | 家からも見える。 \n**すら** | 彼すら来る。 | リンゴすら食べる。 | 本を読みすらする。 | 家からすら見える。 \n**さえ** | 彼さえ来る。 | リンゴさえ食べる。 | 本を読みさえする。 | 家からさえ見える。 \n**は** | 彼は来る。 | リンゴは食べる。 | 本を読みはする。 | 家からは見える。 \n**しか** | 彼しか来ない。 | リンゴしか食べない。 | 本を読むしかしない。 | 家からしか見えない。 \n \nYou can see しか is very close to other 副助詞, except that it is always used with\na negation ([negative-polarity\nitem](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/16060/5010)) and that it can\ndirectly take a clause without a nominalizer.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T05:31:09.817", "id": "100239", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T05:45:50.977", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-10T05:45:50.977", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100238", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100243", "answer_count": 3, "body": "> 安全な所はここしかない\n\nI think there may be 2 explanations of しか in this sentence: \n\n * しか replaced the case particle が. But if we transform it back and change the negation to the positive form: 安全な所はここだけ **が** ある. \nI added the だけ to imply the meaning of \"only\". But this sentence sounds a\nlittle unnatural, so I don't think it's the correct explanation.\n\n * しかない is transformed form である: 安全な所はここだけである. \nIt sounds natural and has a similar meaning to the original sentence. But to\nuse しか for である, shouldn't it be 安全な所はここ **で** しかない?\n\nThese 2 explanations correspond to ここがある and ここである respectively. But which is\ncorrect? The question maybe equal to this: Is the ない in the original sentence\n非存在を表す形容詞 or 否定の助動詞?", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T09:48:15.120", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100242", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-25T03:19:00.990", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-10T11:29:40.853", "last_editor_user_id": "56516", "owner_user_id": "56516", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "What's the grammar structure of ここしかない in this sentence?", "view_count": 429 }

[ { "body": "First, Xでしかない and Xしかない have different meanings.\n\n### Xでしかない = nothing other than X; nothing more than X; merely X\n\n * それは夢である。That's a dream. \nそれは夢でしかない。That's nothing more than a dream. \nそれは夢しかない。×\n\n * 彼は学生である。He is a student. \n彼は学生でしかない。He is merely a student. \n彼は学生しかない。×\n\n### Xしかない = X is the only option; there is nothing but X; there is only X\n\n * 行くなら候補は日曜日である。If we go, the option is Sunday. \n行くなら候補は日曜日でしかない。If we go, the option is nothing but Sunday. \n行くなら候補は日曜日がある。If we go, there is an option of (going on) Sunday. \n行くなら候補は日曜日しかない。If we go, the only option is Sunday.\n\n * 正しい答えはAである。The correct answer is A. \n正しい答えはAでしかない。(You may be thinking B is correct but) the correct answer can be\nnothing but A. \n正しい答えはAがある。(You may be thinking there is no answer but) there _is_ a correct\nanswer, A. \n正しい答えはAしかない。(You may be thinking there are multiple correct answers but) the\nonly correct answer is A.\n\n * 安全な場所はここである。The safe place is here. \n安全な場所はここでしかない。The safe place is here (and not somewhere else). \n(The focus is \"which place is considered safe?\") \n安全な場所はここがある。As for safe places, we do have this place. \n安全な場所はここしかない。The only safe place is here. \n(The focus is \"how many safe places are there?\")\n\n * 10円玉がある。There are 10-yen coins. \n10円玉しかない。There are only 10-yen coins.\n\nSemantically, the Xしかない pattern denies the existence of other options, so it's\nない for 存在, and that's why で must not be used.\n\nBut that does not mean we commonly say 候補は日曜日がある, 安全な場所はここがある and so on. These\nare natural only when you need to strongly emphasize the existence of X, as\nshown above. Normally, である can be seen as the natural \"opposite\" of those しかない\nsentences.\n\nAlso note that しかない is over 100 times more common than だけがある. There are some\nrare contexts where だけがある could sound natural, but let's not use it as the\nbase of our discussion here.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T12:16:58.387", "id": "100243", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-25T03:19:00.990", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-25T03:19:00.990", "last_editor_user_id": "9831", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100242", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I think about しか as a noun-ish thing meaning \"more than\" or \"other than\".\n(This is wrong, check aguijonazo's answer)\n\nSo,\n\n> 安全な所はここしか(が)ない。\n\nしか would be the subject.\n\nでしか would mean something like \"more than a certain state of being\" (check the\nexamples given by \"naruto\"). Grammatically, で is the て form of the copula as\nin 無事でよかった。\n\nThis is congruent with the other answer but maybe not grammatically accurate.\n\nI don't know why が is omitted. But this also happens when しか is used as a\ndirect object 「肉しか(を)食べてない」 giving me the idea of noun-ish thing I talked\nearlier. (Again check aguijonazo's answer for an explanation that accounts for\nthese problems)\n\nI don't think しか transforms in any of the ways you described. Problems arouse\nwhen you assume that some transformation has to be taking place.\n\nNow if you want to take the sentence:\n\n> 正しい答えはAである。\n\nAnd make use of しか, then you have to consider that this sentence uses the\ncopula である. It is saying literally that \"correct answer is A\". However if you\nsimply replace ある with しかない\n\n> 正しい答えはAで **しかない**\n\n\"Correct answer being **more than** A does not exist\".\n\nIn the first one the verb is \"to be\" (copula である) and in the second is \"to\nexist\" (ない negative of ある, not the copula である as copulas cannot be negated,\nthink about です or だ). From this grammatical distinction, connotations follow\nas \"naruto\" described them.\n\nJust for completion:\n\n> 正しい答えはAがある\n\n\"Speaking of correct answer, A exists\" (remember explicit が puts emphasis in\nthe subject and see that the verb is \"to exist\")\n\n> 正しい答えはAしかない\n\n\"Speaking of correct answer, **other** than A does not exist\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T15:56:39.843", "id": "100244", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T17:49:10.440", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-10T17:49:10.440", "last_editor_user_id": "56959", "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100242", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "This question seems to be based on the assumption that every negative sentence\nhas to have an affirmative counterpart, but I don’t think it’s a valid\nassumption. It could be in a way related to this\n[question](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/100200/43676), or more\nprecisely, what Karl Knechtel said in the last paragraph of their answer. For\nme, the core part of the sentence is 安全な場所はない. It talks about the non-\nexistence of something. I don’t see why it should be assumed to be convertible\nto a sentence that talks about the existence of something. Non-existence is\nnon-existence. The core sentence might as well contain a phrase like ここ以外に,\nand such a phrase would be straightforwardly interpreted as modifying the\npredicate ない.\n\n> 安全な場所はここ以外にない。\n\nThen why can’t we see ここしか as playing a similar adverbial role in\n安全な場所はここしかない?\n\nIt’s also kind of similar to how expressions of quantity work.\n\n> 安全な場所は３つある。\n\nBy converting this into a negative sentence with しか, we get:\n\n> 安全な場所は３つしかない。\n\nThis is different from 安全な所はここしかない only in that ３つ is a quantity and ここ is\nnot. Both are exceptions to the general non-existence. Safe places don’t exist\nbut, exceptionally, there are three places that are safe, or only this place\nis safe. I don’t see why these two require different explanations. I think we\ncould simply accept that a negative sentence with しか allows a non-quantity\nexpression in the same position where other sentences allow a quantity\nexpression, unmarked by a case particle.\n\nIncidentally, 安全な所はここしかない can also be understood as saying the same thing as\n安全な場所はここ **に** しかない, which is the flip side of 安全な場所はここだけ **に** ある. In this\ncase, しか can be seen as appended to a に-phrase that denotes a place where\nsomething exists (or not).\n\nThe flip side of 安全な場所はここだけである would be 安全な場所はここ **で** しかない, but it means a\ndifferent thing. ここ is a predicate in this case. Few people would interpret\n安全な場所はここしかない this way.\n\nIn any case, the subject of the sentence is 安全な場所 and not ここ. It’s wrong to\ncompare it with any sentence where ここ is marked with が.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T16:40:39.750", "id": "100245", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-10T16:40:39.750", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "100242", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100248", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I was reading the definition for 請う{こう}\n\n> (明鏡国語辞典) ある物を与えてくれる（また、ある事をしてくれる）ように相手に願い求める。 \n> (大辞泉) 他人に、物を与えてくれるよう求める。また、何かをしてくれるよう願う。\n\nMy translation of definition from 明鏡国語辞典:\n\n> To ask/request someone to give something (or do something) to/for you.\n\nI think that ように here means along the lines of \"such that…\".\n\nThe definitions are very similar but I noticed that the definition from 大辞泉\nhas よう followed immediately by a verb (願う). The definition from 明鏡国語辞典 use\nstructure ように.\n\nIs there any difference between よう and ように? I.e. would something like\n何かをしてくれるよう願う and 何かをしてくれるように願う mean something different?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-10T22:33:09.277", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100247", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-11T00:56:31.870", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-11T00:56:31.870", "last_editor_user_id": "50132", "owner_user_id": "50132", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Difference between verb + よう and verb + ように", "view_count": 98 }

[ { "body": "> 何かをしてくれるよう願う\n\nI would say that an accurate translation would be: \"To ask so that someone\ndoes something for you\".\n\nThe くれる in してくれる means something like \"to give me the act of (you) doing\nsomething\" -> \"to do something for me\" and not \"to give me something\".\n\nConcerning your main question, I don't understand it either but it's\ndefinitely 様 so maybe に is simply omitted. I have looked for examples of よう願う\nand よう求める and it seems to be a set form used at formal settings meaning \"so\nthat\".", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-11T00:39:52.100", "id": "100248", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-11T00:39:52.100", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100247", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100256", "answer_count": 3, "body": "There is this little article that im using to study japanese and one of its\npassages says:\n\n>\n> 国立感染症研究所によると、約3000の病院で6月25日までの1週間にヘルパンギーナがうつったことがわかった人は、1つの病院に平均で5.79人いました。今までの10年でいちばん多くなりました。\n\nI cant grammatically understand this part:\n\n> ヘルパンギーナがうつったことがわかった人\n\nI understand that all of it is a relative clause modifying 人. I dont\nunderstand the grammatical role of ヘルパンギーナがうつったこと.\n\nIs it actually the subject ? How would you write it in a non-relative-clause\nform?\n\nI'd appreciate it if anyone could give me a grammatical analysis of this\nspecific part.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-11T16:09:34.647", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100249", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T00:25:35.177", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-11T16:27:03.970", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "57008", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation", "relative-clauses" ], "title": "Cant understand this relative clause", "view_count": 85 }

[ { "body": "> I dont understand the grammatical role of ヘルパンギーナがうつったこと. Is it actually the\n> subject?\n\nIt is the subject _of わかった_ , yes.\n\nI infer from context that the うつる verb here is 移る, in the sense of \"to be\ninfected/contagious\".\n\nLet's understand the entire thing piece by piece:\n\nヘルパンギーナ -> [mouth blisters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpangina)\n\nヘルパンギーナがうつった -> mouth blisters infected (someone)\n\nヘルパンギーナがうつったこと -> _the fact of having been_ infected with mouth blisters\n(i.e.: こと is a nominalizer here, which is to say a placeholder noun that is\ndescribed by the relative clause ヘルパンギーナがうつった)\n\nヘルパンギーナがうつったことがわかった -> being infected with mouth blisters was known\n\nヘルパンギーナがうつったことがわかった人 -> person _who knew about_ (personally) being infected\nwith mouth blisters\n\nAn independent sentence equivalent seems straightforward:\n人はヘルパンギーナがうつったことがわかった, \"the person knew about being infected with mouth\nblisters\". (Of course, this still contains its own relative clause. Rather\nthan nominalizing that, I suppose we could use quotative-と or soemthing.)", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-11T20:08:19.930", "id": "100254", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-11T20:08:19.930", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "627", "parent_id": "100249", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "> ヘルパンギーナがうつったことがわかった人\n\nThe form of this sentence is:\n\n[Rel clause] + 人\n\nIn the relative clause: ヘルパンギーナがうつったことがわかった\n\nこと is the subject which is modified by another relative clause.\n\n分かる in this context means \"to be known\".\n\nSo ヘルパンギーナがうつったことがわかった人 means (considering context)\n\nLiterally:\n\n> The people for whom it (the fact they contracted herpangina) is known.\n\nIdiomatically:\n\n> The known people who contracted herpangina\n\nConsider that this clause is the topic of the sentence (marked by は) and as\nsuch it can be interpreted widely depending on what follows. So it could be\nthe number of people, the place where they got infected, an average, etc. In\nyour case,\n\n> ヘルパンギーナがうつったことがわかった人は、1つの病院に平均で5.79人いました\n\n> The average of known people who contracted herpangina per hospital was 5.79.\n\n * The literally translation may have surpassed my knowledge of English grammar. If so, leave me a comment.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-11T20:39:50.177", "id": "100255", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-11T20:48:54.903", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-11T20:48:54.903", "last_editor_user_id": "56959", "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100249", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Before 人 was taken out to be modified by the rest of it, the original sentence\nwould have looked like:\n\n> ヘルパンギーナが **人に** うつったことがわかった。 \n> Herpangina was found to have transmitted (itself) **to people**. \n> ( _lit._ The fact that herpangina transmitted (itself) to people was\n> found.)\n\n(I couldn't find a good intransitive verb that would retain the subject-verb-\ndestination relationship between ヘルパンギーナ, うつる and 人 and still convey the\nmeaning more or less accurately.)\n\nThis became:\n\n> ヘルパンギーナがうつったことがわかった **人** \n> the **people** herpangina was found to have transmitted (itself) **to**\n\nThe particle に got lost in the process.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-11T21:36:47.157", "id": "100256", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T00:25:35.177", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-12T00:25:35.177", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "100249", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100257", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Near the beginning of the game, an NPC says this dialogue, explaining some\ncontrols: \n\nThis seems to defy all conventions of building a complete sentence, which\nseems strange since it's supposed to be dialogue. It seems more like the first\nline is a heading of some sort, while the last two lines are three disjointed\nphrases:\n\n\"[A] while Z-targeting and moving. Left or right, a sideways jump; backwards,\na backflip; forward, an invincible roll attack!\"\n\nIs this supposed to sound like natural speaking in Japanese? How might the\nsentence be parsed, and are there any unspoken phrases that might make it more\nclear ([A] **を押すと** in the top line)?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-11T16:36:02.723", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100250", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T03:07:22.007", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4382", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "translation", "syntax", "video-games" ], "title": "Disjointed dialogue in Zelda: Ocarina of Time?", "view_count": 121 }

[ { "body": "* Does this sound like natural speaking (Do we actually speak like that?) --- Probably not\n * Is this part unnatural or confusing? --- No\n\nThis is where we learn controls within a game, so the players are ready to\naccept the conversation as such. I can agree that it wouldn't be how the guy\nspeaks in real life, but the idea never occurred to me. We sort of _read_ them\nlike instructions, unlike listening to conversations here.\n\n(Speaking about controls and button bindings is already somewhat meta: he's\nspeaking about something outside of the game world. Here it's more like we're\nreading instructions from Nintendo rather than Link listening to the guy. But\nthe Nintendo went ahead and made it look like conversation, so that we could\nbathe in the world.)\n\nI parse them like this:\n\n * Z注目しながら移動中にA (Keeping Z注目, {Press} A button while moving:) \n * 左右で横っ飛び ({moving} left or right: side-jumps )\n * 後ろでバック宙 ({moving} backwards: back jumps)\n * 前で無敵の回転アタック (forwards: ...)\n * だ．\n\nThe first line is the instruction and the latter 2 lines explains what happens\ndepending of the direction the player is moving, and there's no confusion\nhere. I do think there should have been an effort to cut up the length of the\ninstructions for better readability.\n\nTo make it look like a sentence, I'd write something along the line of\n\n * Z注目しながら移動中に A [を押すと]/[で]，左右で横っ飛び，後ろでバック宙，前で無敵の回転アタックになる．\n\nIf I were watching the novice player play and telling him how to move the\ncharacter, I could say\n\n * Z注目しながら移動中に A! ... _Player does so_ ... そうそう，それで左右に動いてたら横っ飛びで… _player does so_...\n\n押すと is certainly omitted here, but it's the same as 「Wで前進」．It's probably much\nless significant than dropping _pressing_ in English, because Japanese is less\nfocused on verbs.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T03:07:22.007", "id": "100257", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T03:07:22.007", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "4223", "parent_id": "100250", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100258", "answer_count": 2, "body": "Can you explain me the difference between these two sentences :\n\n> 誰かが電話した。\n\n> 誰かが電話して来た。", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-11T17:40:07.717", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100251", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T03:57:04.513", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-12T02:02:09.177", "last_editor_user_id": "627", "owner_user_id": "39148", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "て-form" ], "title": "てきた　grammar form", "view_count": 90 }

[ { "body": "In the first sentence you just state that the person did a telephone call. In\nthe second sentence the て来る(て来た is the past tense) is depending on the context\n\"Up to now\" or \"begin to\", \"come about\".\n\nIt could mean: Somebody came to calling the phone. Or \"Somebody begin to phone\ncall\"\n\n㊦ 来る・くる (2) <https://itazuraneko.neocities.org/grammar/dojg/dojgall>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-11T18:47:00.957", "id": "100252", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-11T18:48:47.763", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-11T18:48:47.763", "last_editor_user_id": "57009", "owner_user_id": "57009", "parent_id": "100251", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 }, { "body": "In English, the difference is like this:\n\n * 誰かが電話した = \"Someone made a phone call\".\n * 誰かが電話してきた = \"Someone called me\" or \"Someone called us\".\n\nIn other words, the latter signifies the call was towards me (or us).\n\n(-て)きた is the past form of (-て)くる, which is one of the Japanese subsidiary\nverbs. It expresses the associated action \"comes towards the observer\n(physically or psychologically)\". English speakers prefer personal pronouns\nlike \"I\" or \"me\", but Japanese prefers this type of expressions to express the\n\"direction\" of an action. You have to get used to this.\n\nSee also:\n\n * [What is a subsidiary verb?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/18952/5010)\n * [Difference between -ていく and -てくる](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/676/5010)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T03:57:04.513", "id": "100258", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T03:57:04.513", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100251", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100259", "answer_count": 1, "body": "According to the rules of accent, a \"flat\" verb (平板式) keeps flat in its\nて-form, and a non-\"flat\" (起伏式) verb is accented in the antepenultimate\nposition in the て-form:\n\n> ア↑ビル（浴びる）→ ア↑ビテ \n> タ↑ベ↓ル（食べる）→ タ↓ベテ\n\nAccording to my books[*], ている-form keeps the accent location, so\n\n> ア↑ビテイル、タ↓ベテイル\n\nThe suffix -ます is accented as マ↓ス no matter the main verb is flat or non-flat,\nits naturally to deduce:\n\n> ア↑ビテイマ↓ス\n\nbut \"タ↓ベテイル\" is not a regular accent for simple verb[**], so I am not sure: \n\n> タ↑ベテイマ↓ス ( _treated like a simple verb_ ) \n> タ↓ベテ・イ↑マ↓ス ( _treated separately_ ) \n> タ↓ベテイマス ( _with the accent of -ます neglected_ )\n\nWhich is(/are) correct?\n\n* * *\n\n[*] 三省堂 明解日本語アクセント辞典, and NHK 日本語発音アクセント辞典; neither talks about the case of\n\"て+auxilary verb\"; [**] Regularly verbs are either \"flat\" or accented\npenultimately.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-11T19:40:12.183", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100253", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T04:32:01.780", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56682", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "pitch-accent", "phonology", "phonetics", "linguistics" ], "title": "Accent pattern of ています", "view_count": 109 }

[ { "body": "It is タ↓ベテ・イ↑マ↓ス theoretically. ([The same\nquestion](https://oshiete.goo.ne.jp/qa/7478419.html) on goo)\n\nBut similar to the following question, the rise before マ is not full, so it is\nfelt more like タ↓ベテ・イマ↓ス\n\n * [Do Negative Downstepped i-adj's have accents on な?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/96247/45489)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T04:32:01.780", "id": "100259", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T04:32:01.780", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "100253", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "So I'm learning japanese. I've put the above phrases in google translate and\nthey translate differently.\n\nOne says, \"Nihon to iu monogatari\" which I understand as simply a story called\njapan.\n\nNow the other one is weird. It says, \"Mukashibanashi to iu na no monogatari\"\nwhich I understand to be a story with a name of old story.\n\nCan't I just say, \"Mukashibanashi to iu monogatari\"?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T08:14:53.960", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100260", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T10:06:33.973", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "57016", "post_type": "question", "score": -2, "tags": [ "translation" ], "title": "A story called japan vs a story called old story, their difference in japanese", "view_count": 113 }

[ { "body": "**Yes, you can also say \"Mukashibanashi to iu monogatari\".**\n\nThere are many different ways to try translate something, and computer\ntranslation simply chooses the one that is most likely to be match the source\nlanguage. If you click on the output translation, there are usually a few\nalternative translations suggested, and its worth looking at them even if you\nonly have a basic level of the language.\n\nAlso, even I found your title confusing. Computer translations have\nlimitations and can easily make mistakes when things can be interpreted in\ndifferent ways. Putting things like quotation marks into the sentence should\nmake it easier to translate.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T10:06:33.973", "id": "100263", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T10:06:33.973", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55721", "parent_id": "100260", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "So I've got this sentence:\n日本【にほん】の古【ふる】くから言【い】い伝【つた】われている話【はな】しを昔話【むかしばなし】と言【い】います。\n\nNow 昔話【むかしばなし】 is supposed to be a noun, and を should be followed by a verb,\nbut why is を followed by a noun in this case?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T08:27:23.870", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100261", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T23:21:11.083", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-12T23:21:11.083", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "57016", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "word-choice" ], "title": "Why is wo followed by a noun?", "view_count": 141 }

[ { "body": "It all depends on what arguments the verb takes. The verb in your sentence is\nいう ( _iu_ ) and it can be used in this pattern.\n\n> ＡをＢという ( _A wo B to iu_ ) \n> to call A B\n\nThere aren't many verbs that take this kind of と (not the kind that means\n\"with\") as an argument.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T08:39:47.060", "id": "100262", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T08:39:47.060", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "43676", "parent_id": "100261", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 }, { "body": "> and wo should be followed by a verb\n\nIn general, particles don't _need to_ be followed by anything; they are\npostpositions, so they restrict what _precedes_ them. [を]{wo} should be\n_preceded_ by a noun, and its _purpose_ is to mark the direct object in some\nclause. However, an action could have many \"participants\", so we can't really\nsay that any specific one of them has to come right before the verb in the\ngeneral case. (Of course, certain orders are preferred idiomatically.)\n\nIn your example, [と]{to} is another particle. The verb is\n[言]{i}[い]{i}[ま]{ma}[す]{su}, the formal equivalent of [言]{i}[う]{u}. The core\nmeaning is \"speak\", but it's also used to talk about naming or calling things.\nFor that usage, the と-participant is the name being used, and the\nを-participant is the thing that receives that name. (If present, a\n[が]{ga}-participant would be the person applying that name.)\n\nThis と is different from the one that means \"and\" (as a conjunction). It is\nused for quoting things, either literally (as speech or text) or [more\nabstractly](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/68125). Only a few\nverbs use it.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T18:52:00.683", "id": "100266", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T18:52:00.683", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "627", "parent_id": "100261", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100265", "answer_count": 1, "body": "In the second episode of _Watashi no Shiawase na Kekkon_ , one of the\ncharacters has two daughters: one natural that can see supernatural things,\nand a stepdaughter (which she bullies) that can't; about them, she says this:\n\n> いつまで経っても見鬼のけの字も現れない穀潰しとは大違いね\n\n見鬼 is the ability to see the supernatural, and the sentence means something\nlike \"She is very different from a useless daughter which no matter how much\ntime passes can't see the supernatural\", but I can't understand けの字. I tried\nlooking on Google an on dictionary, but nothing came up.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T18:13:06.707", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100264", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T18:46:22.620", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "35362", "post_type": "question", "score": 6, "tags": [ "words" ], "title": "Meaning of word けの字", "view_count": 1118 }

[ { "body": "This けの字 refers to the letter け from 見鬼（ **け** んき）. `XYZのXの字も(ない)` is a\npattern used to say \"(not) even a trace of XYZ\". Similarly, you can say\n\"挨拶の「あ」の字も知らない\", \"あいつには責任感の「せ」の字もない\", and so on.\n\nHere's a blog article about this construction:\n\n「～の～の字もない」 <http://kokoromi2.cocolog-nifty.com/blog/2019/11/post-3f95ab.html>", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T18:46:22.620", "id": "100265", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-12T18:46:22.620", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100264", "post_type": "answer", "score": 11 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100269", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I was wondering about what each of the following word is referring to:\n\n男の子/女の子 男子/女子 男性/女性 男/女\n\nI know the literal translation of each, but couldn't figure out on whom to use\nit. Thank you", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-12T20:21:06.267", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100267", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T02:38:09.973", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "57023", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "word-choice" ], "title": "What period in life each of those words refer to?", "view_count": 96 }

[ { "body": "The nuances of words will be different to everybody, each speaker has his/her\nown understanding of the shades of words, so it's hard to give an exact age\nnumber for these words. However, here are the general consensus:\n\n**男{おとこ}の子{こ}/女{おんな}の子{こ}** : Used to refer to children and young adults,\ngenerally speaking, anyone below the age of thirty could be referred to as\n男の子/女の子, although for those already married or even have had children, 男の子/女の子\nwill be unlikely.\n\n**男{だん}子{し}/女{じょ}子{し}** : A more formal version than 男の子/女の子. Can be seen on\nmore formal documents, but since the kanji 子 is used it still gives a feeling\nof \"youngness\". Can be used for children and young adults.\n\n**男{おとこ}の人{ひと}/女{おんな}の人{ひと}** : A general term for \"men/women\". No restriction\non age, but you wouldn't wanna refer to someone young as 男の人/女の人 though(you\nstill could), calling those young people 男の子/女の子 would be more suitable,\nespecially children.\n\n**男{だん}性{せい}/女{じょ}性{せい}** : The most formal version of \"male/female\" of them\nall. No restrictions on age at all, and more often than not 男性/女性 refers to\nthe gender rather than the person. Like 男の人/女の人 would refer to \"a male\nperson/a female person\" and 男の子/女の子 is \"a male child/a female child\", but\n男性/女性 is just \"male/female\". Can be the person, but can also be just the\ngender. When you fill out a form where you specify your gender, 男性/女性 are the\noptions you're probably gonna see.\n\n**男{だん・おとこ}/女{じょ・おんな}** : Not really used in speech, and in writing, these can\nbe a shorthand of 男性/女性. For example, there are washroom signs with just 男/女\non them, or when filling a form instead of 男性/女性 they can show you 男/女\ninstead. However, 男/女 **can** be used in speech to address a male/female\nperson, when they're read as 男{おとこ}/女{おんな}, like あの男{おとこ}… あの女{おんな}… This is\n**very disrespectful** way of addressing people, so unless you're really mad\nat someone, you don't wanna call them by this.\n\nP.S. When 男 and 女 comes together to form a word it's read as 男{なん}女{にょ}", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T02:38:09.973", "id": "100269", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T02:38:09.973", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "39855", "parent_id": "100267", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "is there a website that add pitch accent to the text given by the users.I know\nkanshudo,which has a pitch accent dictionary but it can't display the pitch\naccent of the whole passage i paste in.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T02:07:41.077", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100268", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T17:49:28.613", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55538", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "pitch-accent" ], "title": "pitch accents dictionary/extension", "view_count": 69 }

[ { "body": "This is exactly what you want: [Prosody Tutor Suzuki-\nkun](https://www.gavo.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ojad/phrasing)\n\nKeep in mind it's not perfect and by knowing a couple rules you can \"graduate\"\nfrom it pretty easily.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T17:49:28.613", "id": "100277", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T17:49:28.613", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100268", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Please let me know if this sentence is correct as is; still learning.\n金髪さんは私が彼女の友達だと思います\n\n金髪さん could be both the topic or the subject; I'm confused in using both は and\nが in a sentence with two nouns mostly. I used は since its 金髪さん thoughts, and\n私が because this is info i am conveying.\n\nが marks the subject of a verb showing whats performing the action; and 金髪さん is\nthe one performing the action of thinking. The sentence could be written\n金髪さんが, depending on the context you could also be introducing new info, which\nwould also be が. If that's the case what Particle would be used with 私. I'm\nAssuming が cant be used on both. 金髪さんが私_\n\nThanks, Clarifying 彼女 as she.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T03:22:37.687", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100270", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T04:03:43.120", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-13T03:25:25.300", "last_editor_user_id": "57026", "owner_user_id": "57026", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "particles" ], "title": "How to use wa and ga in sentence with two potential subjects, wa and ga help", "view_count": 85 }

[ { "body": "At least, you need to change 思います to 思っています. 金髪さんは思います means \"Blondie-san\n**will** think (in the future)\". See: [思っている/言っている with a third person\nsubject?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/6538/5010)\n\n> 金髪さんは私が彼女の友達だと **思っています** 。\n\nThe content of と can be a complete sentence, so you can also use another は and\nsay:\n\n> 金髪さんは私 **は** 彼女の友達だと思っています。\n\nYou can also use [the AをB(だ)と思う\npattern](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/55169/5010) and say:\n\n> 金髪さんは私 **を** 彼女の友達(だ)と思っています。\n\n(Note that 金髪さん is not really a respectful way of referring to a person. It\nmay be acceptable in a fairy tale, but should be avoided in the modern social\nlife.)", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T04:03:43.120", "id": "100271", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T04:03:43.120", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100270", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100273", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Which option is sound more natural (colloquial):\n\n> 政府が法律をしたい変更に反対して、大きなデモが行われました。1万人以上が参加しました。\n\n> 政府が法律をしたい変更に反対して、大規模なデモが行われました。1万人以上が参加しました。\n\nI have the impression that 大規模 is a bit too much in that context and maybe a\nbit too formal. If there is anything else you would change in the sentence,\nplease tell me (I want to be able to notice my mistakes).\n\nThank you", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T05:51:39.363", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100272", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T06:31:48.140", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-13T05:56:19.467", "last_editor_user_id": "43676", "owner_user_id": "57023", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "word-choice" ], "title": "The usage of 大規模", "view_count": 88 }

[ { "body": "The overall tone of these sentences _does_ look like a formal news article, so\nthis 大規模 doesn't look unnatural or overly formal at all. 大きな is not bad, but\nit sounds a bit too elementary. (But are you actually trying to make casual\nsentences like those spoken among friends? Then you need to change not just\n大規模 but almost everywhere.)\n\nAnd 政府が法律をしたい only means something nonsense like \"the government wants to do\nlaw\". You need to say 政府が行いたい法律の変更 instead.", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T06:31:48.140", "id": "100273", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T06:31:48.140", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100272", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100283", "answer_count": 1, "body": "With u/ru-verbs, one can easily make the humble form as such: “読む” ->\n“お読みいたします” or “ご到着いたします\", but I'm at a loss as to how to make these forms for\nsentences that end on an adjective or noun. How does one turn, say “これが好きだ”\ninto the humble form? The respectful form can easily be achieved with\nsomething like “ご主人様はこれがお好きです”. Surely something such as “眠くおありいたします” would\nnot actually work? as the humble form of “眠い”", "comment_count": 5, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T08:38:46.697", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100274", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-14T03:37:36.990", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-14T03:37:36.990", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "35937", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "keigo" ], "title": "Humble form (謙譲語) of i/na-adjectives and nouns?", "view_count": 149 }

[ { "body": "There is no humble form for adjectives. Honorific and humble forms are\nbasically only for actions.\n\nActually, it is possible to add (～て)いらっしゃる to describe someone's state\nhonorifically:\n\n * 先生は健康でいらっしゃいます。\n * 先生はチェスが(お)好きでいらっしゃいます。\n * 先生はとても美しくていらっしゃいますね。\n\nSo it should be fair to expect a humble equivalent to this, but unfortunately,\nthere is none. If you really need something politer than just saying です, that\nwould be [ございます](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/765/5010):\n\n * 私は健康でございます。\n * 私はチェスが好きでございます。\n * 私は眠うございます。\n\nBut this is technically not a humble form in the first place, and this form\nhas become rare today. While there are still a few elderly people who actively\nuse this form, very few use it in modern business conversations. Practically,\nwhen describing your own state, ～です is enough in nearly all cases. (Still, you\nmay want to pay attention to [i-adjective +\nです](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/68969/5010), which is still sometimes\nseen as unsophisticated. And ～がございます meaning \"there is ～\" is still relatively\ncommon.)", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-14T02:32:48.697", "id": "100283", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-14T02:32:48.697", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100274", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "たとえ分かってもらえなくても\n\n好きだってことを覚えてあげるように\n\nMy interpretation was that ようにする\n\nSo he's saying\n\nたとえ分かってもらえなくても\n\n好きだってことを覚えてあげるように\n\nEven if I'm not understood.\n\n好きだってことを覚えてあげるように\n\nThis should be saying that by doing this, he can make people understand he\n\"likes\" them.\n\nFor context, the main character has problems expressing himself. However, by\ndoing this thing that people don't understand, he feels like he can make them\nunderstand he likes them.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T14:22:08.413", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100275", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-12T18:07:30.890", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55492", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "particle-に", "sentence", "sentence-final-particles" ], "title": "ように at the end of a sentence", "view_count": 108 }

[ { "body": "More context is needed, until that...\n\n> 好きだってことを覚えてあげるように（している）\n\nRemember that ようにする means \"to do so that\" and it implies effort and try.\n\nLiterally:\n\n> I do [it] so that they give me the act of acquiring the fact that I love\n> them.\n\nIdiomatically:\n\n> I try to make them know I love them.\n\n> This should be saying that by doing this, he can make people understand he\n> \"likes\" them.\n\nThis is not correct because ようにする (meaning \"to try to\") doesn't imply success,\nbut only that you do something in a way that you (may) get a certain result.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T17:42:33.320", "id": "100276", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T17:42:33.320", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100275", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100285", "answer_count": 2, "body": "At [2m01s](https://youtu.be/6uITdSIZLI8?t=121), the speaker says\n\n> 14歳 **の時に** 剣術を始めました\n\nI know the usual pitch of 時に is ときに{LHL}; however, here it kind of sounds like\nthe speaker is saying noTOkini のときに{LHLL}. Is there something going on here,\nor am I just mishearing this?\n\nOJAD also seems to make it Atamadaka, by default (though I know OJAD gets\nthings wrong quite a bit):\n\n> [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/yEjjo.png)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T22:34:19.523", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100278", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-14T08:32:04.340", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "51280", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "pitch-accent" ], "title": "Does 時 change in pitch in の時に form?", "view_count": 193 }

[ { "body": "The short answer is yes. I found [the\nfollowing](https://okwave.jp/qa/q8357066.html) though it's secondary (bold\nadded).\n\n> **前に修飾語が来た場合（上がるトキ、感じたコト）にはトキ・コト** （トキについてはやや不確か）に限って **頭高型に（も）発音する人もある**\n> ということを、東京生まれのアクセント研究者だった川上蓁という人が書いた本の中で見た記憶があります\n\n* * *\n\nOther accents of とき\n\n * ときは{LHL}金なり - Here any other accent is odd.\n\nBut ときの{LHH} seems to be listed as heiban in [a\ndictionary](https://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q13171137573)\n(probably new NHK, which I don't have).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T23:55:13.057", "id": "100281", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T23:55:13.057", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "100278", "post_type": "answer", "score": 0 }, { "body": "「とき」 is essentially always said as atamadaka **when used as a grammar**\nelement (that means something like \"when\" in English). [Note that older\nspeakers, or people who are hypercorrecting or religiously following NHK\nrecommendations may still say it odaka.]\n\n> 子供のと＼きに \n> 渡したと＼きに\n\nHowever, **when used as a noun meaning 時間 ( \"time\")**, it is always pronounced\nas odaka (and following normal odaka rules, that means it will lose its accent\nbefore の). This includes when it is modified.\n\n> とき＼と共に \n> 流れていくとき＼を感じる \n> ときの流れ", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-14T08:32:04.340", "id": "100285", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-14T08:32:04.340", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "3097", "parent_id": "100278", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "It is my first time posting anything on a language forum, and i've come to it\nafter searching all over the internet for the past hour to find an answer to\nthis grammar question. So I hope you guys can help me with this.\n\nThe phrase is : そこが可愛いとこでもあるんだけどね\n\nI pretty much easily understand the meaning of the sentence, but there is a\ngrammatical point that I can't find/don't seem to be able to explain.\n\nIt is the use of でも in that phrase\n\nI understand the first part of the phrase そこが可愛いとこ this way :\n\n-そこ = there (place) -が = が -可愛いとこ=可愛いところ= cute \"places\" = cute sides, cute features\n\nSo そこが可愛いとこがある would be = There are cute features in that place = You have\ncute features\n\nBut it gets trickier with the rest of the sentence でもあるんだけどね\n\nI can understand あるんだけどね that is a contraction of あるのですけどね\n\nMy question particularly points on the でも\n\n---> What is it ? is a classic でも (but, something like) or is it a contraction of です + も or some other grammar point I can't comprehend.\n\nIf I would be to rephrase the phrase with my japanese comprehension I would\nsay:\n\nそこが可愛いとこがあるんだけどね\n\nThis one I can understand grammaticaly even though I think the original one,\nif I understand the meaning clearly even though I can't understand the\ngrammar, sounds actually better.\n\nSo if anyone could explain why you would put でも there, and what is its\ngrammatical meaning, that would be awesome.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T23:32:23.290", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100279", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-15T21:35:01.183", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "57030", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "syntax" ], "title": "そこが可愛いとこでもあるんだけどね", "view_count": 197 }

[ { "body": "Practically, you can think でもある is\n'[である](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E3%81%A7%E3%81%82%E3%82%8B/#jn-148999)\n+ も', literally translating to 'is also...' で is a contracted にて according to\nthe linked entry.\n\nAs for そこ, it refers to the particular characteristics of the person being\ntalked about and とこ is like 'features' as you understand.\n\nSo the sentence is 'That characteristics is also the cute features/points (of\nthe person)'. 'Also' here indicates that the characteristics/behavior is not\ntotally positive, which should be understood by the context.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-13T23:45:11.810", "id": "100280", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-13T23:58:34.683", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-13T23:58:34.683", "last_editor_user_id": "45489", "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "100279", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "The grammar explained in the other answer is on point. However, the meaning of\n\"also\" can be better understood by thinking about it \"as well as\", \"as far as\"\nor \"even\". These may seem arbitrary they all mean \"also\" but with added\nconnotations.\n\nI would translate it as (but I may be wrong considering the lack of context)\n\n> そこが可愛いとこでもあるんだけどね\n\nLiterally:\n\n> That exists also as a cute feature.\n\nIdiomatically:\n\n> That is also his cute feature.\n\n * I previously thought that this translated as \"He even got some cute features\". Considering それ is the subject, it should be obvious.\n\n* * *\n\nNow, the most important thing:\n\n> I can understand あるんだけどね that is a contraction of あるのですけどね\n\nあるんだけどね is a contraction of あるのだけどね. You should not think of です/ます forms as\nthe \"original\" forms (As other comments pointed out です may be itself another\ncontraction of で[はありま]す and だ would be である). It is interesting to see how this\nassumption made you guess wrong here:\n\n> ---> What is it ? is a classic でも (but, something like) or is it a\n> contraction of です + も or some other grammar point I can't comprehend.\n\nIt's really common to find で and not knowing what it means. A common checklist\nwould be:\n\n * で as in である\n * で as the て form of だ\n * で as the particle of location/means/etc", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-14T11:52:36.610", "id": "100286", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-15T21:35:01.183", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-15T21:35:01.183", "last_editor_user_id": "56959", "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100279", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100284", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 販売会社が商品等を販売する際、その代金を分割による後払いで受け取ることをいいます。\n\nDoes いいます mean \"is called\" or does it mean \"is\" in the same way that です would?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-14T02:03:39.773", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100282", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-14T03:29:10.120", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-14T02:41:08.253", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "45343", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar" ], "title": "Meaning of をいいます", "view_count": 275 }

[ { "body": "This いう is \"to call (something)\". Note that there is no passive voice like \"to\nbe called\".\n\nThe basic verb usage pattern here is `AをBという`, which is \"to call A B\" or \"to\nrefer to A as B\". It's a member of [this verb\nfamily](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/56541/5010). In your sentence,\n`A` corresponds to \"販売会社が商品等を販売する際、その代金を分割による後払いで受け取ること\". `B` corresponds to\nsomething like 割賦販売, but it's omitted because it can be inferred from the\nprevious context.\n\nSo you can parse this sentence like this (it's simplified a bit):\n\n> (会社が商品を販売する際、その代金を分割によって受け取ること)A **を** (割賦販売)B **と** いいます。\n>\n> [We/People] refer to (receiving payment in installments when a company sells\n> a product)A as (installment sale)B.\n\n> (会社が商品を販売する際、その代金を分割によって受け取ること)A **を** いいます。\n>\n> We say it (=割賦販売) referring to receiving payment in installments when a\n> company sells a product.\n\nYou can also say this:\n\n> (会社が商品を販売する際、その代金を分割によって受け取ること)A **を** (何)B **と** いいますか？\n>\n> How do you call it when a company sells a product and receives its payment\n> in smaller amounts?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-14T02:53:46.710", "id": "100284", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-14T03:29:10.120", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-14T03:29:10.120", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100282", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "I'm reading Genki I and I encountered the sentence 「今何時ですか。」 in page 42. \nMy question is: Why is the は particle not used after 今? Could we use it?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-15T13:06:35.840", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100287", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-15T13:06:35.840", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "57043", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "particles" ], "title": "今 and the は particle", "view_count": 89 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100292", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I found this sentence in an anime.\n\n娘さんたちも悲しみます\n\nThe context is that this lady is dying and a guy says to her that her\ndaughters will be sad.\n\nI understand that he transformed the adjective 悲しい into a noun 悲しみ.\n\nIs the ます a short します ? It would make sense but I didn't know you could do\nthat.\n\nThank you", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-15T21:14:52.613", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100291", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-16T22:19:37.627", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "57030", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "syntax", "politeness", "keigo" ], "title": "Keigo ます after a noun", "view_count": 92 }

[ { "body": "You're right, there is a い adjective called\n[悲しい](https://jisho.org/word/%E6%82%B2%E3%81%97%E3%81%84). But the verb\n[悲しむ](https://jisho.org/word/%E6%82%B2%E3%81%97%E3%82%80) is what really is\nbeing used here, which is in its ます form. This form is called 丁寧語 (ていねいご) or\nwhat I'd call your standard polite language", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-15T21:45:53.590", "id": "100292", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-15T21:45:53.590", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "30339", "parent_id": "100291", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I want to offer more detail because I find the underlying grammatical system\nquite interesting.\n\n> I understand that he transformed the adjective 悲しい into a noun 悲しみ.\n\nThere are in a sense two transformations: adjective->verb->noun. I'll explain\nthem backwards for reasons that will hopefully become clear.\n\n 1. Apparent nouns that come from transformations of verbs, that have an i-vowel ending... are really just the i-stem ([連]{れん}[用]{よう}[形]{けい}) of that verb. They are roughly comparable to gerunds in English (noun-like forms ending in \"ing\"). While forming the i-stem of a verb is used for a few conjugations (in particular attaching ます), in my analysis it is really a kind of nominalization.\n\nThe relationship is clearer considering e.g. [書]{か}く \"to draw/write\" gives 書き\n- this one seems to appear rarely if ever by itself, but appears in tons of\ncompound forms, such as [手]{て}書き \"handwriting\", 書き[取]{と}り\n\"transcription/dictation\" (the same thing happened to the verb 取る here!),\n書き[込]{こ}む \"to fill out a form / populate data\" etc.\n\n(In English, the gerund \"writing\", constructed regularly from the verb \"to\nwrite\", means the act of writing as an abstract concept; but we also use the\nsame word to refer to a thing that was written. The analogous Japanese\ngrammatical forms have similar flexibility. This is not to be confused with\nthe English gerund _ive_ \"writing\", which is adjectival, and describes some\nentity which is in the process of writing. That's more like a Japanese te-\nform.)\n\n 2. The しい class of i-adjectives often have a corresponding verb form where い is replaced by む. This can be seen as a sort of conjugation, transforming the stative, intransitive adjective (typically describing an emotion) into a transitive verb: the act of feeling that emotion _for_ some specific thing or cause (which is even marked with を rather than に).\n\nThis implies, regularly, a gerund form with しむ. You may have seen the\nexpression [楽]{たの}しみにする \"to look forward to something\" (lit.: act towards fun-\nhaving). Indeed, we can see that dictionaries will list 悲しみ \"sadness, grief\"\nas a separate form, because it's used that way in addition to being the i-stem\nof 悲しむ (the predicted meaning could be something like \"[act of] grieving,\nmourning\" as abstract concepts).\n\n> Is the ます a short します ? It would make sense but I didn't know you could do\n> that.\n\nIt doesn't really make sense. It sounds like your mental model is that 悲しみ is\nan ordinary noun that can form a \"suru verb\", and that する->します is then being\nshortened to ます. I'm not aware of any such shortening, and I'm not aware of\nany examples of these forms functioning as suru verbs. After all, what we have\nin these cases already derives from a verb; why would an auxiliary be\nnecessary?\n\nInstead, since 悲しみ is already the 連用形 of 悲しむ, we can directly attach ます just\nas we would in any other case. Such as, for example, する itself: it has a 連用形\nof し. (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the use of し as an emphatic\nconjunctive particle, ultimately derives from this somehow.)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-16T22:19:37.627", "id": "100297", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-16T22:19:37.627", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "627", "parent_id": "100291", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "First off I'm a newbie and I'm only learning the language not the writing\nsystem so please dont edit this into Japanese or respond in Japanese, I won't\nbe able to get it.\n\nSo I have this sentence: Gakko ni ikimasu.\n\nShouldn't ni be a location particle? Shouldn't it be more correct to use e,\nsince e indicates direction?\n\nNi should be used to mean that something is in a particular location as I\nunderstand it. So, like: Gakko ni toshokan ga arimasu.\n\nThanks in advance for the answer.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-16T11:25:06.983", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100293", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-18T11:42:28.807", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "57016", "post_type": "question", "score": -2, "tags": [ "particles" ], "title": "\"Gakko ni ikimasu\", shouldn't it be \"Gakko e ikimasu\"?", "view_count": 241 }

[ { "body": "First, I would like to apologize if there has any mistake in my English\ngrammar.\n\nAs you said, \"e\" means the direction, but the meaning of \"ni\" is not just\nabout \"location of someone or something\". It can also mean \"target or\ndestination\". So, both of \"gakkou e ikimasu\" and \"gakkou ni ikimasu\" are\ncorrect.\n\nBut, the point of \"e\" will be on \"direction\", and the point of \"ni\" will be on\n\"destination\".\n\n\"Gakkou e ikimasu\" means \"go to school\", and \"gakkou ni ikimasu\" means \"the\nplace you go is school\".\n\nHope this answer will help you on your Japanese learning ;)", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-16T12:34:44.970", "id": "100294", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-18T11:42:28.807", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-18T11:42:28.807", "last_editor_user_id": "57051", "owner_user_id": "57051", "parent_id": "100293", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "好きになるってどんな感じ?\n\nどうなったらその人を好きだと判別するの\n\nIt's not どうやったら. In the first sentence he asks \"How does it fell to fall in\nlove\" but what about second one?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-16T20:11:50.037", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100295", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-17T04:27:10.697", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55492", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "sentence", "reading-comprehension" ], "title": "How does どうなったら work here?", "view_count": 74 }

[ { "body": "Broadly speaking, どうやったら and どうなったら are both interrogatives for the\ncause/reason/condition of something. But やる means \"to do\", and なる means \"(for\na situation) to turn out; to end up\". Therefore, どうやったら assumes the cause is\nsomeone's action (\"how can you ～\", \"by doing what\"), whereas どうなったら assumes\nthe cause is a natural phenomenon or an objective condition (\"under what\ncondition ～\").\n\n * どうやったら燃えるんだろう？ \nHow can we get it to burn? \nWhat do I need to do to make it burn?\n\n * どうなったら燃えるんだろう？ \nUnder what conditions will it burn? \nWhat has to happen for it to burn?\n\n> どうなったらその人を好きだと判別するの？ \n> Under what conditions can I determine that I like that person?\n\nどうやったらその人を好きだと判別するの (\"How can I make it judge?\") sounds like there is a\nspecial method just for starting judging, but that's not natural.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-17T03:25:27.363", "id": "100301", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-17T04:27:10.697", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-17T04:27:10.697", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100295", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100300", "answer_count": 1, "body": "> これは **もう** 運命としか…\n\nSomething unusual that has already happened, unexpectedly, happens again.\n\nThe character who says that is a girl who meets somebody who looks like a\nprince at a party and the next day she meets him once again. She is positively\nsurprised.\n\nThe rest of the sentence should be 言いようがない or 思わない/思えない or 言わない/言えない. Because\nof もう, I am not sure what it means.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-16T20:52:33.457", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100296", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-17T03:25:40.517", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-16T21:53:41.563", "last_editor_user_id": "41400", "owner_user_id": "41400", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "nuances", "adverbs", "particle-しか" ], "title": "What meaning does もう add to this sentence?", "view_count": 148 }

[ { "body": "Yes, something like 言いようがない or 思えない is omitted.\n\nThis もう is interchangeable with もはや, and they add a sense like \"at this\npoint\", \"now that it's reached this point\", \"if we've gotten this far\" or\n\"once it's come this far\". It's used referring to some unexpected progression\nof some situation. The conclusion that follows is something extreme, and it\ncan be very positive or very negative.\n\n * これはもう地獄だ。 \nThis is now hell (already).\n\n * もう終わりだ。 \nIt's over (there's no hope anymore)!\n\n * もう最高としか(言えません)！ \n(Once it's come to this, there's no other way to describe it than) This is\njust the best!\n\n * こんなの笑っちゃいますよ、もう。 \nI can't help but laugh at this, really.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-17T02:55:49.183", "id": "100300", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-17T03:25:40.517", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-17T03:25:40.517", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100296", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "The title is pretty catchy on its own, but I'm already familiar with creating\ngood Japanese names. I know about kanji and their meanings, but I'm at a loss.\ndoubts about a few things. first of them: Can Kun'yomi and On'yomi mix? and\nOn'yomi can be \"chosen\" (assuming the kanji name has multiple readings and a\nvery distant one is \"Tai\" could I use Tai anyway?) the second is about naming\nsomething that already exists, for example the word Tsumetai. I would love to\nknow if this could become a name, well these are my doubts (I have terrible\nEnglish and bad writing so I apologize for any spelling mistakes or bad\nexplanations.)", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-16T23:19:58.423", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100298", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-21T17:26:34.390", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-21T17:26:34.390", "last_editor_user_id": "5229", "owner_user_id": "57052", "post_type": "question", "score": -2, "tags": [ "words", "usage", "kanji", "names" ], "title": "I want to learn a lot about Japanese names for my stories", "view_count": 161 }

[ { "body": "> Can Kun'yomi and On'yomi mix?\n\nYes, there are such words.\n\nFor 2-kanji words, there are terms\n[重{じゅう}箱{ばこ}読{よ}み](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E9%87%8D%E7%AE%B1%E8%AA%AD%E3%81%BF)\n(on'yomi + kun'yomi) and\n[湯{ゆ}桶{とう}読み{よみ}](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E6%B9%AF%E6%A1%B6%E8%AA%AD%E3%81%BF)\n(kun'yomi + on'yomi).\n\n[Wiktionary:\nCategory:Japanese_terms_read_with_jūbakoyomi](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Japanese_terms_read_with_j%C5%ABbakoyomi)\n\n[Wiktionary:\nCategory:Japanese_terms_read_with_yutōyomi](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Japanese_terms_read_with_yut%C5%8Dyomi)\n\n> On'yomi can be \"chosen\" (assuming the kanji has multiple readings and a very\n> distant one is \"Tai\" could I use Tai anyway?)\n\nFor newly invented names, yes.\n\nKanji also have [nanori (名{な}乗{の}り)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanori)\nreadings, which are used only in proper names.\n\n> the second is about naming something that already exists, for example the\n> word Tsumetai. I would love to know if this could become a name\n\nI think that names derived from adjectives more likely use Middle/Classical\nJapanese form of Terminal/Conclusive, which had suffix 〜し. E.g. modern 広{ひろ}い\nhad Middle/Classical Japanese Terminal/Conclusive 広{ひろ}し. Kanji used for\nspelling names are often different from kanji used for common noun, from which\nthese names originate.\n\nSome examples:\n\n[よし](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%82%88%E3%81%97) (modern adjective\n良{よ}い/善{よ}い/... and 良{い}い/善{い}い/...)\n\n[あつし](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%82%E3%81%A4%E3%81%97) (modern\nadjective 厚{あつ}い/篤{あつ}い)\n\n[きよし](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%8D%E3%82%88%E3%81%97) (modern\nadjective 清{きよ}い)\n\n[ひろし](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%B2%E3%82%8D%E3%81%97) (modern\nadjective 広{ひろ}い)\n\nSo in your example, I would suggest つめたし for name instead of つめたい.\n\nSome names are derived from verbs, either Terminal/Conclusive or Continuative,\nalso often from Middle/Classical Japanese form (which differed from modern\nform only for some verbs). Examples:\n\n[さとる](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%95%E3%81%A8%E3%82%8B) (verb 悟{さと}る\n\"to perceive, to understand, to come to enlightenment\")\n\n[ひろむ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%B2%E3%82%8D%E3%82%80) (modern verb\n広{ひろ}める/弘{ひろ}める/拡{ひろ}める \"to broaden, to widen\" ← Middle Japanese verb\n広{ひろ}む/弘{ひろ}む/拡{ひろ}む)\n\n[めぐみ](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%82%81%E3%81%90%E3%81%BF) (verb 恵{めぐ}む\n\"to bless\")\n\n[こおり](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%93%E3%81%8A%E3%82%8A) (verb 凍{こお}る\n\"to freeze\")", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-17T01:33:33.970", "id": "100299", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-17T02:08:32.090", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-17T02:08:32.090", "last_editor_user_id": "56758", "owner_user_id": "56758", "parent_id": "100298", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100303", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I have only seen か(個/カ/ヶ) in か月、か年（五か年計画）、か国（六か国会議）、か所、か条.\n\nIs it a productive component which can be used in making other new measure\nwords?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-17T19:37:40.047", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100302", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-18T02:47:10.483", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56682", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "suffixes", "numbers" ], "title": "Is か(個)/ヶ a productive component in measure words (助数詞)?", "view_count": 220 }

[ { "body": "No, it’s not. You cannot coin a new counter like this.\n\n**EDIT:** か月, か国 and か所 work as ordinary counters in contemporary Japanese,\nbut others usually appear in historical terms (e.g.\n[五箇伝](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%94%E7%AE%87%E4%BC%9D)) or fixed\nphrases (e.g.,\n[三が日](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%AD%A3%E6%9C%88%E4%B8%89%E3%81%8C%E6%97%A5)).\nIf you are working on historical fiction or fantasy works, you might use this\npattern to create a new archaic-sounding term for use within the work. For\nexample, something like 三箇龍玉 or 三ヶ龍玉 (Trinity Dragon Orbs) seems reasonable to\nme as a keyword in a fantasy work, even though Google does not know a single\nexample of this. Still, this is a very rare convention, and I doubt this would\nbe considered \"productive\" in the linguistic sense.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-17T21:23:17.480", "id": "100303", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-18T02:47:10.483", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-18T02:47:10.483", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100302", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 }, { "body": "If such a mechanism were to exist, then it would be something like:\n\n３カ国語 -> ３カ(の)国語\n\nWe understand the hypothesis, but it turns out to be false because we can't\ncreate new counters (we can't go the other way around).\n\n三個の青あざ -> 三個青あざ (X)\n\nBecause NUMBER個青あざ should be a noun, but of course it isn't.\n\nSo the questions shifted from \"how to make counters\" to \"how to make compound\nnouns\". They just work conventionally and are spontaneously created as any\nmany other words.\n\nThe NUMBERか[月/年/etc] counter tends to be only used as nouns and not as\nadverbs. So omitting our hypothetical の would mean that we didn't need that\nfunction in the first time.\n\nI mean this:\n\n猫の三匹 (as a noun) ＆ 猫が三匹いる (as an adverb)\n\nWe can't say: 五ヶ[月/年/etc]+VERB\n\nThey are sort of a different breed.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-17T22:24:14.470", "id": "100304", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-17T22:24:14.470", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100302", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "Context:\n\n> 今日は午前中に引っ越し業者がくる予定だったけど、 **前が遅れているとのことで**\n> 午後から荷物を受け取ることになりました。荷物は比較的少なかったので引っ越し自体は30分で終わり、ただ荷解きに2時間かかりました。\n\nI don't quite understand what \"前が遅れているとのことで\" means. May I ask two questions\nabout this phrase?\n\n 1. What does \"前\" refer to? The previous task of the movers or something else?\n\n 2. What exactly does \"とのことで\" mean? I guess it basically means \"because\"? Is \"と\" used to nominalize \"前が遅れている\"?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-18T07:34:18.920", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100305", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-18T14:02:05.743", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "54510", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "meaning" ], "title": "What does 前が遅れているとのことで mean exactly?", "view_count": 97 }

[ { "body": "1. Yes, this 前 refers to the mover's prior moving engagement of the day.\n 2. It's [とのことだ](https://jlptsensei.com/learn-japanese-grammar/%E3%81%A8%E3%81%84%E3%81%86%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A0-to-iu-koto-da-%E3%81%A8%E3%81%AE%E3%81%93%E3%81%A8%E3%81%A0-to-no-koto-da-meaning/), but it's in its [te-form (for reason)](https://www.learn-japanese-adventure.com/te-form-cause-reason.html).\n\n> 前が遅れている **とのことで**...\n>\n> **since they said** their previous job was running late, ...", "comment_count": 6, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-18T13:56:45.923", "id": "100312", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-18T14:02:05.743", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-18T14:02:05.743", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100305", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "In _Spice & Wolf_ [trailer](https://youtu.be/0AjvWnTn50k), as far as I can\nunderstand Holo says わっちは主【ぬし】と旅がしたい; I'm trying to understand why が and not\nを, since one would usually say (I think) 旅をする, and 旅 is the object of したい.\n\nI found some grammar pages (like [this](https://www.tofugu.com/japanese-\ngrammar/tai-form/)) using を, and [this\nquestion](https://ja.hinative.com/questions/1842283) on HiNative where an user\nsays with が is more natural, while another that they are almost the same.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-18T08:18:54.713", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100306", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-18T08:26:59.980", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-18T08:26:59.980", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "35362", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "particles" ], "title": "Meaning of 旅がしたい vs 旅をする", "view_count": 63 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100308", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I found this sentence:\n\n横幅【よこはば】も狭【せま】く、 **壁側** に手【て】すりがついているだけ\n\n_It was narrow and only had a handrail on the wall side._\n\n<https://www.fnn.jp/articles/-/514418>\n\nbut I am unsure of the reading of 壁側.\n\nI found the following readings in these places:\n\n壁側【へきそく】 parietal (wwwjdic)\n\n壁側【かべぎは】 <https://kanji.reader.bz/>\n\n壁側【かべがわ】 j-talk.com, <https://nihongodera.com/tools/convert>", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-18T08:30:22.900", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100307", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-18T09:46:12.197", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "31150", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "readings", "multiple-readings" ], "title": "How is 壁側 pronounced?", "view_count": 90 }

[ { "body": "**かべがわ** is the only correct reading in your context.\n\nへきそく is a rare reading used in medical contexts to translate _[parietal\npleura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_pleurae)_ (壁側胸膜【へきそくきょうまく】),\n[_parietal peritoneum_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peritoneum#Layers)\n(壁側腹膜【へきそくふくまく】) and so on, but laypeople do not know this reading. (BTW,\n_parietal lobe_ of the brain is 頭頂葉【とうちょうよう】.) There are [several similar\nterms](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A7%A3%E5%89%96%E5%AD%A6%E3%81%AB%E3%81%8A%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B%E6%96%B9%E5%90%91%E3%81%AE%E8%A1%A8%E7%8F%BE)\nthat end with そく, all of which are almost never used outside medical contexts:\n\nWord | Ordinary reading | [Medical\nterm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomical_terms_of_location) \n---|---|--- \n頭側 | あたまがわ | とうそく (cranial/superior) \n尾側 | - | びそく (caudal/inferior) \n右側 | みぎがわ | うそく (right) \n左側 | ひだりがわ | さそく (left) \n同側 | - | どうそく (ispilateral) \n対側 | - | たいそく (contralateral) \n片側 | かたがわ | へんそく (unilateral) \n両側 | りょうがわ | りょうそく (bilateral) \n腹側 | はらがわ | ふくそく (ventral/anterior) \n背側 | - | はいそく (dorsal/posterior) \n内側 | うちがわ | ないそく (inner/internal; medial) \n外側 | そとがわ | がいそく (outer/external; lateral) \n口側 | くちがわ | こうそく (oral) \n肛側 | - | こうそく (anal) \n \nI don't know when to read it as かべぎわ. Since the old orthography is used, it\nmay be some obsolete reading. かべぎわ is usually written as\n[壁際](https://jisho.org/word/%E5%A3%81%E9%9A%9B).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-18T08:42:54.460", "id": "100308", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-18T09:46:12.197", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-18T09:46:12.197", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100307", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've looked into this and it seems they are multiple ways with multiple\nnuances of saying \"if (A) would have happened, then (B) would have happened.\n(third conditional ?)\n\nMy question is about:\n\n**誰が持ってても失くしてたんだよ きっと**\n\nTo give context, it is a group of kids who share the responsability/usage of a\nsingle wallet, like their parents entrusted them with it. One kid who was\nholding on to it lost it. Then one of the other kids, says the following in\nwords of comfort :\n\n_**Anyone who would have had it/hold on to it would have lost it. For sure**_\n\nThat would be my english translation.\n\nMy meaning assumption with the nuances I understand : _Even if it would have\nbeen someone else who had it, he would have lost it anyway. For sure._\n\nI'm sure these translation/meaning assumption should be pretty close to it,\nbut i'm very interested in your understanding/translation of this.\n\nNow for the grammar I understand:\n\n誰が= who, someone, anyone (why not ‎誰かが ?)\n\n持ってても --> ていた (て form) + も = reverse condition = \"even if\" in that sentence,\nwhich creates the conditional form\n\n失くしてた --> ていた = ている use for expressing state, or state as a result of actions\nin that case. = _had lost it_ , I assume you get the meaning of \"would\" from\nthe first part of the phrase, (like the も implies condition for both parts ?)\nOr at least that is my understanding from\n[Tofugu](https://www.tofugu.com/japanese-grammar/verb-past-continuous-form-\nteita/) Or is it something else that makes it a \"would have\" conditional verb\n?\n\nんだよ = のですよ = emphasis/explanation\n\nMy question is about 失くしてた : first of all why not 失くした and what different\nmeaning it would imply ? What is the exact grammar point/ meaning for ていた in\nthat case since Tofugu explains it only briefly? And what makes it a\nconditional phrase since this is a transitive verb ?\n\nAlso why 誰が and not 誰かが for saying _anyone/anyone of us_ ?\n\nOverall, is my understanding of the grammar points right ?\n\nHave a great day\n\nEdit : After reading stuff for 4 hours, I came upon [this\npost](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/84286/standard-formula-for-\npast-counterfactual-conditional-what-is-the-role-of-te-ir) which comes close\nto my understanding of this, but unfortunately not very detailed :\n\n_\" However, if such sentence were about someone else and hypothetical meaning\nwas possible, then the use of ている is preferred with both verbs similar to how\nwe use past tense in English to make it counterfactual.\"_\n\nWhat I understood from all my reading is :\n\n * This sentence uses the Third Conditional form which needs ている to be applied on both clauses.\n\n * て form + も in the verb of the first clause indicates conditional\n\n * The third conditional in english always uses counterfactual sentences (see [here](https://teflpedia.com/Third_conditional), I don't know if that is the case in japanese ?\n\nIf anyone had adademic ressources or personal input for japanese third\nconditional (or counterfactual past conditional) that would be great !", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-18T10:46:38.113", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100309", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-19T11:46:12.023", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-19T11:46:12.023", "last_editor_user_id": "57030", "owner_user_id": "57030", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "grammar", "meaning", "nuances", "syntax", "english-to-japanese" ], "title": "Past conditional with ていても/ていた", "view_count": 113 }

[ { "body": "> 誰が持ってても失くしてたんだよ\n\nWe don't say 誰か because it means \"someone\" (a single definite person from a\ngroup) and the idea here is that \"anyone\" would have lost it. However, this 誰\nmeans \"who\" as a subject and not \"someone\", \"anyone\" or \"everyone\".\n\nSimilar to English: \"Who ate the cake?\". \"Who\" is the subject. In this\nsentence, 誰 works in the exact same way, it acquires the meaning of anyone by\nremaining undefined.\n\n持ってても -> 持っていても -> 持って + いる (in て form) + も\n\nて form + も means: \"Even\".\n\nThe \"If\" or conditional nuance comes from the て form. Similarly to English:\n\"Wait and see\" meaning \"If you wait, you will see\". Remember how the て form is\nused to mean \"and\".\n\n失くしてた -> 失くして + いる (in the past)\n\nIn this case 失くしてた is used instead of 失くした because 失くしてた puts emphasis on the\nidea that the loss has already occurred at a given point in the past and now\nwe are experiencing the consequences.\n\n失くした focuses on the particular point in time we lost it. Given the nature of\nthe sentence we can see why 失くしてた is used here. You could also say it is the\nway third conditionals are made. See\n[Here](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/60820/english-2nd-and-3rd-\nconditional-in-japanese) for conditionals.\n\nSo, your translation is indeed correct.", "comment_count": 8, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-19T03:21:57.427", "id": "100315", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-19T03:21:57.427", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100309", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "In the vn rewrite, the protag こたろう is trying to salvage the relationship of\ntwo heroines ルチア and ちはや, together with 2 other heroines, 静流 and 小鳥. The\nprotag thinks the following:\n\n> 今回の作戦を立案したのは俺だ。とにかく、是が非でも仲直りを達成させ、今日を円満に終わらせなければならない。\n> 小鳥や静流も十分、手伝ってくれてる。彼女らに当たるわけには行かない。\n\nThe english translation says that “I can’t rely on them”, but how does that\nmeaning come forth? None of the jp definitions list a similar meaning in the\ndictionary, so I am troubled with remembering this use of 当たる. Could someone\nplease explain it to me?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-18T12:24:29.353", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100310", "last_activity_date": "2023-08-18T00:01:35.170", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "51874", "post_type": "question", "score": 1, "tags": [ "meaning", "words", "nuances" ], "title": "What is the meaning of 当たる here exactly?", "view_count": 162 }

[ { "body": "If I guessed the context correctly, this 当たる is [the 12th definition\nhere](https://jisho.org/word/%E5%BD%93%E3%81%9F%E3%82%8B):\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/QAqVw.png)\n\n～に当たる in this sense refers to showing a cold or aggressive attitude toward\nsomeone (typically due to mental stress). You may have seen\n[八つ当たり](https://jisho.org/word/%E5%85%AB%E3%81%A4%E5%BD%93%E3%81%9F%E3%82%8A)\nbefore. Does this fit the context?\n\nPerhaps the English translator have mistaken it as\n[当てにする](https://jisho.org/word/%E5%BD%93%E3%81%A6%E3%81%AB%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B),\nbut it's a completely different phrase.\n\n**EDIT:** Maybe the protagonist is looking for someone to ask a favor or\nsomeone to work with? Then it's this:\n\n> ####\n> [当たる](https://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/word/%E5%BD%93%E3%82%8B/#:%7E:text=%EF%BC%94%20%E7%89%A9%E4%BA%8B%E3%81%AB%E6%8E%A2%E3%82%8A%E3%82%92%E5%85%A5%E3%82%8C%E3%82%8B%E3%80%82%E3%82%88%E3%81%86%E3%81%99%E3%82%92%E8%A6%8B%E3%82%8B%E3%80%82%E7%A2%BA%E3%81%8B%E3%82%81%E3%81%A6%E3%81%BF%E3%82%8B%E3%80%82%E3%80%8C%E5%8E%9F%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AB%E2%80%95%E3%83%BB%E3%82%8B%E3%80%8D%E3%80%8C%E4%BB%96%E3%81%AE%E5%BA%97%E3%82%92%E2%80%95%E3%83%BB%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%81%BF%E3%82%88%E3%81%86%E3%80%8D)\n>\n> ４ 物事に探りを入れる。ようすを見る。確かめてみる。「原本に―・る」「他の店を―・ってみよう」\n\n> #### [当たる](https://jisho.org/word/%E5%BD%93%E3%81%9F%E3%82%8B)\n>\n> 17. to feel (something) out; to probe into; to check (i.e. by comparison)\n>\n\n> 二［他五］❶不明な点を明らかにしようとして、探りを入れる。また、調べ確かめる。 \n> 「その件は当局に当たってみよう」「問題の箇所を辞書に当たる」「胴回りの寸法を当たる」 \n> (Source: 大修館書店 明鏡国語辞典 第三版)\n\nIf this is the case, since the target is people, a literal translation would\nbe \"Sounding them out (if they can help) is not an option\", but \"I can't rely\non them\" is not bad, either.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-18T13:21:16.510", "id": "100311", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-18T22:59:53.330", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-18T22:59:53.330", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100310", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 2, "body": "Both seem to means \"this.\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-19T01:02:56.637", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100313", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-23T02:52:29.560", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56314", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "meaning" ], "title": "Difference Between この and これ", "view_count": 126 }

[ { "body": "They do mean \"this\" but...\n\nIn English we can use words like \"this\" in two ways.\n\n 1. This is beautiful\n\n 2. This country is beautiful\n\nThe Japanese language uses これ for 1. and この for 2.\n\nこの needs to be followed by a noun to become one and これ is an standalone noun.\n\nこの＋NOUN = This NOUN (as in: この国が美しい, This country is beautiful)\n\nこれ = This (as in: これが美しい, This is beautiful)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-19T01:33:30.793", "id": "100314", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-19T01:33:30.793", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "56959", "parent_id": "100313", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Kore is used to indicate an object that you don't know the name of.\n\nKono is the opposite: it's used to indicate an object that you know the name\nof.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-23T02:52:29.560", "id": "100343", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-23T02:52:29.560", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "57086", "parent_id": "100313", "post_type": "answer", "score": -2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "> 簡単な匙加減で殺せてしまうほど、衰弱し\n\nHow does 簡単な匙加減で exactly work here?\n\n\"With a simple amount?\"", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-19T12:06:22.497", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100318", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-20T07:14:50.453", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-19T16:19:05.457", "last_editor_user_id": "78", "owner_user_id": "55492", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "sentence", "reading-comprehension" ], "title": "Meaning of 匙加減 in this sentence", "view_count": 109 }

[ { "body": "The word 匙加減 basically refers to \"(adjusting) amount (of sugar, salt, etc)\",\nbut by extension, it commonly implies someone's \"(often empirical, casual\nand/or unfair) discretion/decision\".\n\n> 俺なんて社長の匙加減ひとつでクビになる。 \n> A person like me can be fired at the drop of a hat by the boss.\n>\n> そういうのって彼女の匙加減(しだい)ですから。 \n> That's all up to her discretion. / That's how she (casually) handles these\n> things!\n\nSo (Aの)簡単な匙加減で(Bを)殺せてしまう means B's life is at A's mercy, and A doesn't need to\nget serious to kill B at all.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-20T02:50:10.017", "id": "100321", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-20T07:14:50.453", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-20T07:14:50.453", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100318", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 1, "body": "I've been learning how to read older documents and trying to familiarize\nmyself with hentaigana, but as I've started this, I've began to wonder if\nthere is any rhyme or reason to the choices writers make when they select one\nhentaigana over another. Is it just a matter of the current trend? Is it a\nmatter of style, flow, and aesthetics (especially perhaps in documents written\nin kuzushi-ji?), or is there something else going on here. If one used 可 for\n\"ka\" once, would it be odd for the writer to use \"加\" later on? What are the\ncircumstances and rules that dictate these sorts of things?", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-19T12:42:07.360", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100319", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-20T15:46:20.333", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "25254", "post_type": "question", "score": 3, "tags": [ "orthography", "calligraphy", "kana-usage", "manyōgana", "hentaigana" ], "title": "How were specific hentaigana selected for writing?", "view_count": 114 }

[ { "body": "So according to [this\narticle](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/johokanri/58/6/58_438/_html/-char/ja/)\n(which is also cited in [this\nsection](https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%89%E4%BD%93%E4%BB%AE%E5%90%8D#%E4%BD%BF%E3%81%84%E5%88%86%E3%81%91)\nof Wikipedia), there were several factors that affected the choice of\nhentaigana:\n\n 1. Certain words, such as けふ, preferred certain kana.\n 2. Certain kana were predominantly used at the beginning of a word. This can somewhat be compared to the [Arabic alphabet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet) where almost every character has initial, medial and final forms.\n 3. Some kana were preferred when used as a particle. We still distinguish わ/は, を/お, へ/え, so this is understandable.\n 4. When the same sound occurred consecutively, two distinct kana were employed to avoid repetition. Maybe this was aesthetically pleasing to people in the past.\n 5. Sometimes, different hentaigana actually represented different sounds. In the old days when [濁点 was optional](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/100165/5010), the ち and ぢ sounds were sometimes denoted using different hentaigana.\n\nNote that these rules have varied significantly over time. Since Man'yōgana,\nthere seems to have been a trend to prioritize _diversity_ over\n_standardization_ when it came to hiragana. The unification happened only\nafter the Meiji era. Contrastively, for katakana, there seems to have been an\nalmost 1:1 correspondence established relatively early on.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-20T15:46:20.333", "id": "100323", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-20T15:46:20.333", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100319", "post_type": "answer", "score": 1 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100324", "answer_count": 1, "body": "Reading in a book by 落合淳思 I wonder about (what looks like) the compound verb\n益し加える in the sentence 「自は鼻の象形であり、それに声符を益し加えた繁文である。」 (繁文 is used by Ochiai as a\ntechnical term for the modern shape of a sinogram that used to have a\ndifferent shape. Ochiai uses 声符 in the meaning of 音符. The topic is the\ndevelopment of the sinogram 鼻)\n\nI suspect that 益し加える is simply a different way of writing 増し加える, that is\nましくわえる. Even then I’d wonder why not simply use 加える? But as it is, why use 益し?\n\nI’d understand the meaning of the sentence as something like“It [鼻] is a\nhanbun (sinogram with a changed shape) in which 自 is a pictogram of a nose to\nwhich a phonetic is added.” What adds 益し to this and why use the graph 益?", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-20T06:58:55.583", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100322", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-20T16:18:29.517", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-20T07:43:15.863", "last_editor_user_id": "836", "owner_user_id": "836", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "meaning", "translation", "usage", "verbs", "readings" ], "title": "Meaning and reading of 益し加える", "view_count": 93 }

[ { "body": "増し加える/益し加える is not a (compound) verb I recognize as a native speaker of modern\nJapanese. Of course it doesn't hinder my understanding of the sentence's\noverall meaning, but I don't see any notable nuance added by using 益し加える\ninstead of simply saying 加える. So my advice here would be, \"Don't worry, just\nmove on\".", "comment_count": 4, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-20T16:18:29.517", "id": "100324", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-20T16:18:29.517", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100322", "post_type": "answer", "score": 2 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": null, "answer_count": 0, "body": "This is part of a song called マリーゴールド.\n\n> アイラブユーの言葉じゃ \n> 足りないからとキスして \n> 雲がまだ二人の影を残すから \n> いつまでもいつまでもこのまま\n\nI'm quite confused to understand what と is doing in 足りない **からと** キスして.\n\nMaybe it's just an emphasis and the meaning is similar with 足りない **から** キスして.\n\nOr maybe it means 「...足りない **から** 」 **と** （言いながら）キスして.\n\nWhat is the meaning of と in this case?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-20T18:14:36.283", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100325", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-20T18:14:36.283", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "55724", "post_type": "question", "score": 0, "tags": [ "grammar", "particles", "particle-と" ], "title": "What is the meaning of と in 足りないからとキスして?", "view_count": 40 }

[]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100327", "answer_count": 1, "body": "I found a related post: <https://japanese.stackexchange.com/a/73037/50132>.\n\nIt seems like the conclusion was that it added a feeling of \"当たり前\".\n\nAccording to the other post, （よ）うに can express regret, dissatisfaction,\ncriticism, doubt, emotion, etc. What feeling does it add here?\n\n> ねえ お嬢ちゃん何か願い事はあるかしら。（めぐみん）願い事？。遠慮しないで言ってみて。（めぐみん）世界征服！ ごっ ごめんね\n> それは無理だわ。どういうことなのこの子 意外と大物なのかしら。えっと… ほかには何かなあい？（めぐみん）それじゃ 私を巨乳にしてください。ああ…\n> それも無理かなあ。というか お嬢ちゃん 今いくつ？まだ そんな心配する年じゃない **でしょうに** 。（めぐみん）なら… 私を魔王にしてください\n\nAlso audio: <https://vocaroo.com/1oU3ur1dGKHk>.\n\nI wonder if this でしょうに also has a meaning like 当たり前 (something like \"\n_obviously_ that's not an age you worry about having 巨乳, ( _why would you even\nask for it?_ )\"). I assume it doesn't show any irritation about asking in this\nsituation?\n\nOr does this でしょうに maybe have something to do with age? めぐみん in this anime is\na little child and the other woman is an adult.", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-20T19:59:22.543", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100326", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-21T02:12:08.553", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-20T20:17:15.480", "last_editor_user_id": "50132", "owner_user_id": "50132", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "meaning", "particle-に" ], "title": "What does でしょうに mean in this situation", "view_count": 364 }

[ { "body": "でしょうに is でしょう for inference, followed by the conjunctive particle に meaning\n\"but\". This に is the same に used in [のに](https://jlptsensei.com/learn-\njapanese-grammar/%E3%81%AE%E3%81%AB-noni-meaning-even-though/). You can think\nof でしょうに as a variant of のに but with an added nuance of inference. Its plain\n(non-polite) version is だろうに.\n\n * 明日は雨が降るのに、出かけるの？ (informal) \nAlthough (I know) it rains tomorrow, are you going out?\n\n * 明日は雨が降るだろうに、出かけるのか？ (blunt) \nAlthough it's likely to rain tomorrow, are you going out?\n\n * 明日は雨が降るでしょうに、出かけるのですか？ (polite) \nAlthough it's likely to rain tomorrow, are you going out?\n\n> まだ そんな心配する年じゃないでしょうに。 \n> Although I think you're not old enough to worry about that(, why do you say\n> that)? / But I think you're not old enough to worry about that!\n\nThere is no meaning of \"obviously/当たり前\" in your sentence. In the linked\nquestion, such a nuance comes mainly from そりゃあ (=それは). Its literal meaning is\nclose to \"As for that\" or \"When it comes to that\", but by extension, it can\nwork like an interjection that implies the feeling of \"you know\", \"why not\" or\n\"it's only natural\". For example:\n\n * 「明日はサッカーを見るの？」「そりゃ見ますよ！」 \n\"Are you watching soccer tomorrow?\" \"Of course, why not!\"\n\n * 「なぜ嘘をついたの？」「そりゃあ…」 \n\"Why did you lie?\" \"Um...(don't you understand?)\"\n\n * [Meaning of \"そりゃあまぁ\"](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/42318/5010)\n * [かわりもしますよ what is the meaning of this も?](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/q/82516/5010)", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-21T02:01:42.717", "id": "100327", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-21T02:12:08.553", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-21T02:12:08.553", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100326", "post_type": "answer", "score": 5 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100330", "answer_count": 2, "body": "I have recently learned that apparently [non-volitional verbs cannot have\npotential forms](https://www.imabi.net/potential-i-potential-form).\n\n> Non-volitional verbs cannot have potential forms. This includes verbs of\n> natural phenomenon like 降る, 光る, 流れる, and 凍る, those concerning human emotion\n> and physiology (痛む, 痺れる (to be paralyzed), 羨む (to be jealous), any verbs\n> that end in ある (as they have no volition), and any pattern that has no\n> control involved like phrases with つく and いく such as 想像がつく (one can imagine)\n> and 納得がいく (to accept as valid).\n\nSo 光れる and 凍れる for example are not valid conjugations? Is this invalidity\nstrictly a structural limitation or is it semantic?\n\nFor example, I feel like \"able to shine\" or \"able to be frozen\" are reasonable\nconcepts with semantic meaning. What about rephrasing as 光ることができる or 凍ることができる?\nAre these ungrammatical as well? If not, I don't see the problem with the\npotential form.", "comment_count": 1, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-21T08:27:48.310", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100328", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-22T07:35:32.120", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "35041", "post_type": "question", "score": 7, "tags": [ "grammar", "potential-form" ], "title": "Potential form of non-volitional verbs", "view_count": 392 }

[ { "body": "> 光れる and 凍れる for example are not valid conjugations? Is this invalidity\n> strictly a structural limitation or is it semantic?\n\nI think it is more natural to say they are not idiomatic. Structurally, there\nis nothing wrong with them. Everybody will conjugate 光れる as 光れない etc if forced\nto.\n\n> 光ることができる or 凍ることができる?\n\nThese are not idiomatic either. As you understand, the potential forms sound\nlike subjects do the shining or freezing at their will. In reality, there are\nno such things (光れる does not apply to fireflies either). At the same time, it\nis easy enough to imagine that there are anime or game characters that 光れる or\n凍れる. (Note 凍れる is _able to freeze oneself_ rather than _able to be frozen._ )\nEven if these do not sound too natural, they make sense in some contexts (I\nguess 光を出せる or (自分を)凍らせられる may be used for such characters).\n\n* * *\n\nCf.\n\n * 発光する can mean _to glow (in the dark)_.\n * 冷凍できる means _able to be frozen/freezable_ (for food).", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-21T09:41:18.730", "id": "100329", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-21T09:41:18.730", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "45489", "parent_id": "100328", "post_type": "answer", "score": 6 }, { "body": "凍れる is (almost always) invalid not because it's syntactically prohibited as a\nrule but because it's (almost always) nonsense. The use of the れる form is\nlimited to one's ability, potential or right; you cannot use it to describe\nthe possibility of something happening.\n\n * Anything can happen. \nどんなことも起こりうる。 \n(×どんなことも起これる。)\n\n * That can be true. \n本当かもしれない。/ それはありえる。 \n(×本当であれる。)\n\n * This lake can freeze in winter. \nこの湖は冬に凍ることがあります。 \n(×この湖は冬に凍れます。)\n\nできる is also for ability, so you cannot say この湖は冬に凍ることができます, either. As a rule\nof thumb, whenever you want to translate \"can\", think if you can replace it\nwith \"be able to\" or \"be allowed to\". Since \"This lake is able to freeze\" is\nstrange, so is 凍れる.\n\nHowever, you _can_ use 凍れる when you are actually talking about someone's\n\"ability to be frozen\". For example, if a character like\n[Iceman](https://www.marvel.com/characters/iceman) lost his ability to turn\ninto an ice form, he might say もう凍れないんだ or もう凍ることはできないんだ. The same is true\nwith 光れる. In [this song](https://j-lyric.net/artist/a043098/l024ce4.html),\nthere is a metaphorical phrase もう光れない (\"We can't shine any longer\") as if he\nwere a star in the sky.", "comment_count": 3, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-21T10:09:16.333", "id": "100330", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-22T07:35:32.120", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-22T07:35:32.120", "last_editor_user_id": "5010", "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100328", "post_type": "answer", "score": 14 } ]

{ "accepted_answer_id": "100332", "answer_count": 1, "body": "As part of the explanations to the reader in the book 新完全マスターN2, I encountered\nthe word コマ for the first time:\n\n[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/l50yG.png)\n\nAccording to jisho.org (see [entry 3.](https://jisho.org/word/%E9%BD%A3)),\n齣{こま} can mean \"time block\", which makes perfect sense in my context, but it\nlooks too specific, so I would like to know if コマ can be used in other\nsituations.\n\nMoreover, before checking jisho.org I also tried to find information about the\nword コマ in this site and came up with [this Q&A where the meaning of 豚コマ is\ndiscussed](https://japanese.stackexchange.com/questions/89036/what-\ndoes-%E3%82%B3%E3%83%9E-mean-in-this-sentence), where コマ means \"shredded\n(meat)\", and I am wondering if it's related to コマ in my original context in\nthe sense that you might need to divide the lessons in manageable chunks just\nas you would コマ the meat, if you know what I mean. Probably they are not\nrelated because コマ in 豚コマ uses the kanji 細 and not 齣, but I am not sure.\n\nTo sum up my questions:\n\n 1. Can 齣{こま} be used as \"blocks\" or \"segments\" in other situations apart from \"time block\"?\n 2. Are 齣{こま} and 細{こま} related besides sharing the same reading?", "comment_count": 0, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-21T13:36:40.890", "favorite_count": 0, "id": "100331", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-21T21:41:45.140", "last_edit_date": "2023-07-21T21:41:45.140", "last_editor_user_id": "32952", "owner_user_id": "32952", "post_type": "question", "score": 2, "tags": [ "word-usage" ], "title": "Is コマ in the sense of \"block\" or \"segment\" extrapolable to other situations besides \"time block\"?", "view_count": 83 }

[ { "body": "In fact, it's even more specific than you think. コマ as a counter for classes\nis almost exclusively used in university education or above. In high school or\nbelow, most people use 時間 (or sometimes 時限) to count classes. I don't know\nwhy, but it may have something to do with the fact that one class can be much\nlonger than an hour in higher education. I won't be surprised if some (non-\nschool) organizations have a habit of referring to or counting \"sessions\" (of\nany kind) using コマ, but it's not common. People usually prefer 枠, 時間帯, ブロック,\nセッション, etc. By the way, we almost never use the kanji 齣.\n\nコマ肉 such as 豚コマ may be loosely related to 齣 if we trace the etymology\nseriously, but to me they are basically different words.", "comment_count": 2, "content_license": "CC BY-SA 4.0", "creation_date": "2023-07-21T15:52:19.893", "id": "100332", "last_activity_date": "2023-07-21T15:52:19.893", "last_edit_date": null, "last_editor_user_id": null, "owner_user_id": "5010", "parent_id": "100331", "post_type": "answer", "score": 3 } ]